🙄
P. S.: Anyway, thanks for your polite and appreciated way of posting. 👍
If you've been to concert halls or studios etc, you would have seen the various types of room correction equipment used to take account of peculiarities in that volumes sound. This I would say clearly infers (hopefully objectively) that spaces have a particular sound signature and that it might need adjustment in relation to some comparitor or standard. It would also mean that this effect is discernible. That means that the only point at issue then left is whether or not those sound differences can be recorded in such a way as to be repeatable when replayed via a system of some type in another space. Having been able to record, quantify and adjust sounds in the process of this to me at least points to it being noticeable when replayed.
Last edited:
When talking mathematically, just try to find and concentrate on the overlapping areas and the show can go on.
Hans
Finally, something useful from this thread. 😀
TIDAL has first two tracks available and quick listening confirms that this comparison between, by sound engineer intended instrument and artists positions and perceived by listening is very informative.
Okay.
Then, if possible, I'd like to know your thoughts on the following without beating around the bush if possible (given my respect for you):
Then you have just created a dead-end condition with no way out.
So why to continue?
P. S.: However, it seems that not many people have fun playing in the "show" you mentioned.
Last edited:
I took one of my big commercial amps down to a dealer in Surrey about 3 or 4 yrs ago. They hooked it up to a very expensive pair of American speakers. It sounded absolutely awful. They guy apologised and said hf hadn’t run the speakers in yet. I was gutted, but I knew the amp sounded good because it had been played on B&W, KEF’s and an assortment of Graham models.
When I went back to collect it a week or two later, he said, ‘very nice amp, but have you got something more expensive?’
At the time it was a 6 grand amp.
When I went back to collect it a week or two later, he said, ‘very nice amp, but have you got something more expensive?’
At the time it was a 6 grand amp.
Last edited by a moderator:
At the end of the day all living beings have their issues on Earth and all ones are programmed in some way.
The difference between animals and humans is that the latter can somehow change their own program. 🙂
Last edited:
Maybe you should have returned after painting it gold and asked him for £10K
Ulogon wrote,
“The difference between animals and humans is that the latter can somehow change their own program.”
Interesting.
“The difference between animals and humans is that the latter can somehow change their own program.”
Interesting.
There seems to be some flaws in the latest CDs.
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the-best-audiophile-tracks-to-test-equipment.108584/post-14025972
Quite the opposite. I recall a member's comments in a thread about about 2-channel stereo's ability to create height. He adamantly insisted it is 'impossible in principle because humans are incapable of hearing height at all'. To his credit he retracted after asking his daughter to make overhead noises but reaching adulthood without conscious overhead localisation still boggles. It also indicated to me the extent to which localisation can be as much a honed skill as innate. Hearing changes in orchestral layout is no cause for apology.
AES NY 2023 will have numerous presentations on localisation, for example: Spatial resolution of human hearing with different azimuth, elevation and bandwidth of source signals.
In what when it was done (how long ago) is of importance? I mean when something is true, it's true whenever it was discovered years ago or this morning.
It hurts subjectivism beliefs when they read he designed loudspeakers without listening to them. Of course it is some kind of provocation: if you read again the interview and read between lines you'll see it's not totally true ( and it was confirmed by other speach Dunlavy did): do you really think when working with classical musicians ( Boston Symphonic Orchestra) he leave the room? 😉
Mixing technical's requirements with artistic's one is a false 'short circuit' for reproduction chain.
Both are differents fields with differents requirements. I track it to the 'provocation': one need to get a reference to something he think can explain what hurts his feeling/beliefs and deaf compositors comes to mind. But in no way the capability to picture music in one mind ( and arrangement and interactions between instruments family) and being able to transcribe it ( write it) have anything to do with accuracy in reproducing, which wass Dunlavy's goal.
This is where you make assumption and in my view didn't get what Dunlavy explained: -for his own design goal- he defined through measurement AND by listening test ( Why he worked with an acoustic orchestra...)- a SET OF CLEARLY DEFINED MEASUREMENTS RESULTS* which was constantly ranked BY LISTENING TEST as SUBJECTIVELY ACCURATE by him and musicians.
In my view you can't be more into sensual perception than with musicians as listeners as they seek for the sound of their instruments to be reproduced without alteration.
* it's the part in the interview where he explain his goal with step response, the study he made of anechoic chamber loudspeaker and instrument analysis.
In what it is a treat? Senses and how our brain react to them can somewhat be interleaved ( why synesthesya can be experimented so often when taking hallucinogen, or Trance induced behaviour through repetitive beats,...). In what it should be anything related to your point regarding subjectivism, i don't get it.
My turn: do you know you 'hear' very high frequency ( above 20khz) through the vibrations your eyes experiences? Do you know you experiment very low end more trough your bones (skeleton but internal organs too) than your ears?
I don't see a dichotomiy between what i feel and the explanation of the mechanism involved to explain what i felt.
Just don't be fooled into thinking that if it sounds good, it can't be or it's wrong because it's not good to look at;-)
Some People prefer to hear s h i t because it's nice to look at;-)
Some People prefer to hear s h i t because it's nice to look at;-)
Bill
It may have skipped your attention, there is a link at the bottom of my post.
Navigate through it 😉
George
We can certainly feel some sound. This is not surprising considering the physical nature of sound.
Beethoven was deaf, yet he wrote and played music that endures to this day. He could "hear" the piano by holding a wooden stick in his mouth and pressing it against the piano. This suggests that he could have benefited from hearing aids or implants like what's available today.
I had clicked the link at the bottom but was just horrified at the triffids surrounding those poor innocent musicians. I think that website would drive me mad, but a great resource.
Last edited by a moderator:
When talking math, HiFi very much fits into the chaotic problems (95% or so) in math.
But, we mostly measure in the 5%.
dave
Last edited:
I commented on this earlier. Medical research has been putting quantitative research together on helping people reprogram their brains. Currently MDMA and Psilocybin with theripists to tease out the programming that causes PTSD and depression. As more is learned what people “treat” will expend.
People have been informally doing this since time memorial, but for many here the explosion in brain reprogramming was really first seen during the cultural revolution of the ‘60s, as mainstream glommed onto very powerful mind altering substances (alo tof LSD). Many of us have personal experience.
dave
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.