I know......unfortunately
Visit more concerts! Simple as that. If you don't like the way recordings "preserve" reality and all you're interested in is "photorealism" like in "bring back memories" then you're probably out of luck, although binaural recordings would be a viable option.
Some like to collect things, stamps, butterflies, vinyl, audiophilia - I don't. I like to listen and feel and explore and get overwhelmed by music. Doesn't matter if live or recorded. I like the way recorded music exceeds reality by enabling a whole new artistic universe.
Sound reproduction (and recording) gear is just means to an end. It's just electronics. Conceived by the scientific human mind. No magic there.
Last edited:
I don't know why you snipped off the examples in that post of mine, but it certainly had nothing to do with equipment. I just provided some examples where some people cannot hear things that some people can.
It's true that certain things cannot be heard if the system has some characteristics that mask it, much masking effect research had been done by B&K and other conpanies in the noise control sector very long time ago. If you are interested, I'm sure you can find information on it.
Since anyone coming in later may not want to go through the whole thread, so I wonder whether fixing this broken record is possible or not. One thing that I do think anyone conducting listeninbg tests should clearly take note of the following:
1. Understand what kind of masking might occur through full understanding of system performance.
2. Understand the how critical of sound the listening audience is composed of.
3. If there is a specific way that the listeners must answer questions, beware that when the liseners see the questions will also effect how they listen, and thus may have some effect on the results.
True. It never is b/w.
Pure, unwarranted, reckless speculation. You're the adventurous type
No, therefore i wrote about the statistical reasons.
If you are testing on SL=0.05, you do accept 5% alpha error risk, that means false positive results.
Due to the discrete steps and the normally quite low trial numbers involved, the actual error risk is lower. That´s why these tests are called conservative, because they normally favor the null hypothesis due to statistics.
So, for the often used 16-trial ABX, the actual probability for 12 (or more) correct guesses is 0.038, so you would expect to get 3-4 false positive results per 100 dbts done.
The statement about the higher reliability of a double blind test is quite insecure.
It is as easy to get "false" results in a double blind test as it is in other tests, wrt to the conclusions.
Of course, if you don´t calculate the wrong numbers a dbt gives only (correct) results in that you are able to state that the null hypothesis could be rejected or could not be rejected.
The problems begin if you want to conclude about the reasons.
If you have not shown that the test is reliable, objective and valid you can´t say anything about the reasons for any possible result.
That is the reason why the scientific requirements have to be fullfilled.
Wishes
You belong in the selected group of those all are expecting to help things go forward,not be relying on what it is till now available,but also with new ideas,even equipment.To keep subjectivists success or failure as proof is not at all encouraging.Suppose a possible success from Tom is in fact considered and accepted as proof.Won't this force you, the engineering group to try to make things(knowledge) move forward using new ideas etc.....?
I have picked up a bit, actually worth the waist high boots required for the Stupidly Hilarious Insipid Tripe spread everywhere, but particularly here.
I am "visiting" as many live concers as I can.
As for recordings,no,I'm not satisfied by the way many of them "preserve reality".Are you? If not,how on earth are you enjoying,and get overwhelmed by them?
I'm not sure what you are trying to say, honestly.
I think I did say that succes for Tom would make me look at it differently.
jd
Last edited:
What makes you think you are alone to this?
Why do you think is wrong to criticize badly recorded music?You comment as if we are obliged to "enjoy and get overwhelmed" by whatever recorded "quality" we are offered.
I have only a few classic live recordings. The majority is music by recording artists. I'm really sorry that you don't see the beauty in recorded music. The artistic quality in Picasso's drawings is not the level of realism.
You do not have life experiences tied back to the music? There are certain songs that make me remember incredible moments ( Rocking out in Dubin with U2, Eagles and Greatful Dead concerts completely stoned out of my mind, U2 in Vegas, First hockey tournament, twins in college, so many things and songs tweak great memories) . Regardless of the quality the emotions about the events is what makes us real.
I feel for anyone that gets distracted by the quality and doesnt make any real connection back to an important event.
Last edited:
I do not mean anything "suspect"
don't worry.I just find it funny for the "objectivists" to seek proof from "subjectivists" on matters like this.I don't know how you or others from both sides will see a success or failure for Tom,but I don't think that any one will get rid of his cables and buy more or less expensive ones
In case Tom succeeds it is you-as engineering side- who will try to find out why and how,not the subjectivists.
Its only becuase "subjectivists" post opinion telling us all its fact. They refuse to acknowledge how much bias exists. They downplay the idea of controlling any external bias.
I find it funny people can support this sort of subjectivity but turn around and be analytical people in other discussions.
Of course I have.And they are always coming back every time I listen to those songs etc......They are parts of our lives and I hope you can at least accept that subjectivists like me and others are human too
Still,I don't see why I can't criticize badly recorded music.
Why is it funny?It would be funny if you,were expecting scientific proof from me.
Of course I have.And they are always coming back every time I listen to those songs etc......They are parts of our lives and I hope you can at least accept that subjectivists like me and others are human too
Still,I don't see why I can't criticize badly recorded music.
Its great that you can enjoy music without worrying about quality sometimes.
You can criticize all you want also but what is the point to do that in an open forum? When others my enjoy what you are criticizing.
This is totally off the cable topic though.
You can do that any time but how cables improve those recordings is still a mystery to me.
I only expect real proof when you post extremely subjective opinion online using it as fact to try and prove brand A is better then Brand B.
I will always ask for proof anytime someone makes that conclusion.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.