Sorry? You've lost me. It was a question about the meaning of "emotion" in the context of sound reproduction. It was a question mainly for Jakob because he said it was being researchedSkeptical and lazy.....what?
It’s all important.....whether or not it’ll be implemented usefully I suppose would be the better question.
OTOH, you don't strike me as an expert in anything regarding science/engineering. If you are though, you are very successful in hiding your true expertise.
This being said, ego vs. ignorance is by no means a new type of conflict in the Internet age
.You mean to ask Jakob "how is fMRi progressing our understanding of auditory perception? "
fMRi is not involved with testing emotion in the field of auditory research, AFAIK
What I believe is behind this "emotional contact" with music that some systems supply & others do not is down to the reproduction system providing more of the sonic cues that auditory perception uses in it's internal model of how real world objects behave sonically i.e.it sounds more realistic, captures our interest more because of the presentation of these cues & in a lot of instances gives us a better view into the interplay between performers (all of this assuming that these factors are on the recording).
Simply put, better reproduction provides better illusions - illusions which are more believable & interesting
Did I say I was? And you?
I have enough intelligence (but just about enough) to know when I'm being BSed even when people try to pretend they are experts by using engineering terms which they have accumulated by participating in audio forums - terms they know little about.
I know that real experts know the limitations of their field & measurements & methods used in that field & are not afraid to discuss these matters. Those who pretend they are experts usually attack any person discussing topics which might show up their pretence
Which are you?
Phase seems to play into it more than some think....at least for me anyway.
There are those who believe phase correction doesn’t matter.....so it ends there for them.
We all have our ideas/concepts of where the fault lies - phase accuracy, low level detail accuracy, timing accuracy, noise floor modulation, etc. And it may be some or all of these factors are correct - we just don't have the evidence yet.
We are all guessing at the cause but the underlying factor is that some DACs/amplifiers sound more real, more interesting, allow more insight into the musical lines & interplay & hence more emotional connection to the performance/music, despite the fact that we are often told this is not possible based on measurements. We are expected to accept that these often simplistic measurements should be interpreted to represent the behavior of the devices when processing dynamic signals. It's the difference between all the notes being replayed in the right place Vs all the auditory cues on the recording being correctly reproduced. The difference between looking at a Van Gogh painting in the flesh Vs a picture of a Van Gogh - the brush strokes & the emotional impact behind them don't come across in the picture
Unfortunately, the tack taken by many is to attack the guesses & those who suggest such guesses.
Last edited:
I do believe those who concentrate in this area are going to be the ones who bring it to the next level, the only thing I know what to do about it is make noise..... squeaky wheel lookin for grease
Surely even engineers must have a vocabulary they use amongst each other to describe things?
Every trade I’ve been involved in has a particular verbiage that seems accepted/understandable.
I do believe those who concentrate in this area are going to be the ones who bring it to the next level, the only thing I know what to do about it is make noise..... squeaky wheel lookin for grease
Sure but I doubt there will ever be enough noise to make it commercially viable to spend the money needed to investigate what many consider the esoteric stuff of audio production - most just use music reproduction as a soundtrack in their lives not as a an art source in itself
So far as I'm aware emotion isn't one of them, anyway, we'll see, or not, as the case may be........
There's probably more to it than that, the painting is the original event, the picture is a reproduction.
No problem with not being a STEM expert, that is not a requirement to have an opinion, but then what do you know about "scientific thinking"? Once again, you don't strike me as having any insights about, beyond Popular Electronics or, to stay on topic, Stereophile.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that the modulator is a completely digital / discrete time concept for a DAC, just not an ADC. The feedback is done before conversion and the output is just another bitstream.
For example:
http://acoustics.ippt.pan.pl/index.php/aa/article/viewFile/635/554
https://www.analog.com/media/en/tec...es/292524291525717245054923680458171AN283.pdf
http://www.ti.com/lit/an/slyt076/slyt076.pdf
Attachments
The point is that reproduction is very difficul to capture the nuances that convey the emotion behind the brush strokes we see immediately when we stand in front of the original.
Just trying to give you a handle on this emotion thing you seem to be struggling with
And there you go again displaying zero ability in a technical discussion - your practised in trying to demean others but pitifully failing here
- Status
- Not open for further replies.