Archive through July 23, 2005
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1217 Registered: Feb-05 | Jan, I now know what kind of conversation you are having. I personally don't enjoy this kind of facilitated conversation. It doesn't feel democratic to me and that's ok. It's ok for you and others to enjoy it, I don't. An in depth conversation about audio, minus the facilitated aspect, is something I enjoy in person. Not in this format. I have stated many times that I respect your audio knowledge and your willingness to help folks here at this forum. However I know folks who are perhaps even more knowledgeable that I can sit down with and have a fun, equal conversation with. I enjoy that much more than this kind of set up. So enjoy folks. See ya "old dogs" at the "dog house". |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 1240 Registered: Dec-03 | Seamless.....a liquid flow to the sound with the proper timbre, scale, pace, dynamics, and rhythm. That's where we can begin, sir.................. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4528 Registered: May-04 | Rick - OK, you start. |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 1241 Registered: Dec-03 | I believe in building a system with the source first. Do you agree? |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 250 Registered: May-05 | I don't think Jan's going to agree that you start with the source. My guess is that he will let you start whereever you would like and then you can go from there. If you want to start with speakers, he'll start there, too. What he's really going to want to know is whether you'd like some ketchup and mustard with "a liquid flow to the sound with the proper timbre, scale, pace, dynamics, and rhythm." That's mostly because I suspect that we could argue about whether you're describing the music or the system. I've reread your post and I'm not sure which it is. BUT, Jan, don't let me speak on your behalf, please express yourself. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4529 Registered: May-04 | "I believe in building a system with the source first. Do you agree?" If you mean; are the source component and the source disc the most important pieces in determining the final quality of sound you hear, yes, I agree with that statement. Can you put your question in the context of live music? As I tried to explain to Art, I'm not too interested in the system components in this thread. If you would like to discuss how to put together a system, that might be the start of a new thread. But, I don't think that's what you mean. Is it, Rick? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3439 Registered: Dec-03 | I am getting more and more worried about liquid flow ("from "flowports"?), seamless, and palpable. Also having the source first. I think we are getting confused by words. Well, I am. I have tried to raise the stakes a little on "Old Dogs". "Start with the source" - is this not like starting to clap with you left hand....? No hard feelings, Rick! I thought we had about done with yin and yang..... Each requires the other, and stands or falls by what the other can do. 1: source. 2; interconnects. 3; amp. 4. speaker cables. 5; speakers.....; 6;....Vivid..?.. 7;....Room acoustics.... 8.?... etc. "Place the above in order of priority". Really! ".....9; synergism...."....?.....! I believe in building a system with the music first. And last. The question is, what do we have to do, in between, in order to get "music in; music out"? |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2161 Registered: Aug-04 | My head can hardly cope with this discussion at present so I will defer any input to Jan's question - providing I'll be able to come up with anything worth contributing that is. But John, I have to agree with Rick. If the source is not very good nothing else will help. But if we are talking strictly music in relation to how something can sound musical even played through an old car Clarion then we are from different planets. Sure a tune from an old 'trannie' can get our toes tapping, but that is an emotional response imho, and nothing else. People here are using their own words to describe how they feel about what they want from music or how their system sounds. Are your words or phrases any better John that they should not receive the criticism you dish out. It goes to something you stated a while ago - its interpretation - our language is not exact, but you seem to want every word to convey the literal meaning and not be used to assimilate. I understand 'seamless and palpable' and I can relate both to listening to music. I'd be surprised if Rick didn't have hard feelings. Sorry mate, but I feel you are too hard on this issue. And maybe Jan is as well though I understand his criticism has more to do with keeping all cars on his road and forget the detours. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 252 Registered: May-05 | Speaking of car analogies, "Are we there, yet?" |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 1242 Registered: Dec-03 | I have nothing else to contribute. See you all when I get to Florida. Cheers! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4530 Registered: May-04 | Rantz - Glad you see why I'm trying to keep from heading down too many dark alleys. The problem is we may have run out of road ahead of us. David - No, we're not there yet. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3440 Registered: Dec-03 | My Rantz, Rick - sorry; I was short of time and lacking in courtesy. Of course everything can depend on the source. Everything can also depend on the speakers. There may be even be a few people for whom the limiting factor in their system is interconnects. I am now convinced, thanks to many here, for example to Rick on "Tube Talk", that amps make a difference, too. My point is there is no "First", as I understand it - the performance of each within the whole system depends on its interaction with the other components. If by "first" we mean "most important" then my view is that there is no first. One could turn your example round and play the best ever source through McIntosh amps and then throw is all away with bad speakers. If by "first" we mean in time, then I also disagree, and would stay we start with the component we are most satisfied with in our current set-ups. I can get some poetry and understand and enjoy jokes. But these things depend on ambiguity. And this is fatal if we wish to be clear. If we are willfully unclear, we create misunderstanding. I know I am in a mode that annoys people on occasion, but let me go for broke and denounce "seamless". I port the following over from "Old Dogs". MR this, stay with me - it may be worse than the pain, and so take you mind off it a moment. __________ "Seamless". Seems to me it means "without seams". There is still some serious stuff on "Do you listen" but it is in danger of descending into psychotherapy. Words have no essential, inner meaning; they mean what we intend them to. Provided the receiver uses them in the same way; and, so, understands our intention. If I go into a hif shop and say "what I want from a pair of speakers is the tangible and palpable presence of a star soprano, the glint in her eye, the sense of the fullness of her,,, and a whiff of her ..." then I am talking rubbish. - And about myself. They should phone for help, and get me thrown out. The lady sings. The job of our hifi is to deliver the sound of her voice. The rest comes from our imaginations. You can't expect loudspeakers to supply that. __________ When griping grief the heart doth wound, And doleful dumps the mind oppress, Then music with her silver sound With speedy help doth lend redress. We are not the first to get misled by words, pick up on puns, and fall out, arguing over different understandings of what is intended by a colourful metaphor. From http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/romeo_and_juliet/24/ [Two very popular songs of the time; "Hearts ease" and "When doleful dumps"] Enter PETER PETER Musicians, O, musicians, 'Heart's ease, Heart's ease:' O, an you will have me live, play 'Heart's ease.' First Musician Why 'Heart's ease?' PETER O, musicians, because my heart itself plays 'My heart is full of woe:' O, play me some merry dump, to comfort me. First Musician Not a dump we; 'tis no time to play now. PETER You will not, then? First Musician No. PETER I will then give it you soundly. First Musician What will you give us? PETER No money, on my faith, but the gleek; I will give you the minstrel. First Musician Then I will give you the serving-creature. PETER Then will I lay the serving-creature's dagger on your pate. I will carry no crotchets: I'll re you, I'll fa you; do you note me? First Musician An you re us and fa us, you note us. Second Musician Pray you, put up your dagger, and put out your wit. PETER Then have at you with my wit! I will dry-beat you with an iron wit, and put up my iron dagger. Answer me like men: 'When griping grief the heart doth wound, And doleful dumps the mind oppress, Then music with her silver sound'-- why 'silver sound'? why 'music with her silver sound'? What say you, Simon Catling? Musician Marry, sir, because silver hath a sweet sound. PETER Pretty! What say you, Hugh Rebeck? Second Musician I say 'silver sound,' because musicians sound for silver. PETER Pretty too! What say you, James Soundpost? Third Musician Faith, I know not what to say. PETER O, I cry you mercy; you are the singer: I will say for you. It is 'music with her silver sound,' because musicians have no gold for sounding: 'Then music with her silver sound With speedy help doth lend redress.' Exit First Musician What a pestilent knave is this same! Second Musician Hang him, Jack! Come, we'll in here; tarry for the mourners, and stay dinner. Exeunt We may be at a freeway diner/motorway service station, but lets "stay dinner".... or, right here, "stay breakfast". All the best! |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2163 Registered: Aug-04 | Oh God - that was life changing. Now I need stronger medication John. Jan, did you notice a road sign for that? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4533 Registered: May-04 | Yep! It was one of those billboards where they've started taking off the old sign and the guy on the other end is already putting up the new sign and the effect is ... well, the effect is what John just posted. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3442 Registered: Dec-03 | Sorry about that. The point is the musicians themselves are teasing the guy about phrases such as "music with her silver sound" and wondering how sound can be silver etc. Substitute "seamless" or "palpable" and we are playing the same sort of game here. That's my point. I cannot find the precise phrase, but, if I recall, Jan asked what words we might use to describe the sort of sound we wish for. I suggest "true to life". Furthemore, anything else is either about the music or about ourselves. What say you, Jan Vacuum Tube? What say you, Rick Spendor? What say you, My Rantz? See? It is the same game we are all playing, with words, and we've been doing it on Old Dogs, too, for over a year. Once again WS got there first! Is there anything new in the world...?! Cheers, really. Must get on with some things. Give me 10 hrs or so and I'll be back to walk into the flames. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4534 Registered: May-04 | Here I go being nit picky again. ***** "why 'silver sound'? why 'music with her silver sound'? What say you, Simon Catling? Musician Marry, sir, because silver hath a sweet sound. PETER Pretty! What say you, Hugh Rebeck? Second Musician I say 'silver sound,' because musicians sound for silver." ***** The music is "silver" because they're asking to be paid. They are not asking for much money, musicians live a paltry life, "It is 'music with her silver sound,'because musicians have no gold for sounding". And they eventually decide the best thing to do is to slide into the group of mourners for the dead Juliet, play a bit of music and stay for some food, "Second Musician: Hang him, Jack! Come, we'll in here; tarry for the mourners, and stay dinner." None the less, the passage is another example of Bill's talent and wit. The scene is comic relief used for several reasons, the most important to the audience is to keep the story of the upper class meaningful to the lower classes who are attending the play. It also covers the scene change. In this case, John, I think your entendre has tarnished the silver. Can "seamless" and "palpable" be substituted in "Doleful Dumps"? I think not. This thread has been a struggle from the beginning. I seem to have a problem communicating what I'm thinking into words which make any sense to the readers. And so, I think it is time to assess where we are heading with this thread. John says, "Jan asked what words we might use to describe the sort of sound we wish for." Well, yes, I did. But! I thought I asked that the words be taken from what we experience in live music. I am trying to turn the focus of the language away from the sound of the audio system and toward the music which is why we say we have a system. The music is the source, obviously without the music the system wouldn't exist. As I said early in the thread, "The terms detail, imaging, soundstage are thrown around this forum and I wonder how you decide what those terms mean if you are only comparing one speaker to another speaker. ... How do you know if the music is, for want of a better word, "musical"? There are many other qualities of live music beyond imaging, soundstaging and good bass that I never see discussed here. I sometimes think everyone is just using words they have read in reviews without any idea what those words actually refer to in live performances." I have no problem with "seamless" or "palpable" as words. My problem is they are words that have become "hifi" words. "I want a system with a 'palpable presence' to the musicians." "A system should be seamless." Those are words which are used to refer to the system, not the music. I'm not trying to veto words because I don't like the words. I only ask that the word be brought around to meaning something about live music. To use a word such as palpable and not be able to extend its meaning to the sound of live music would appear to me to reinforce my theory that we use words which indicate we've read the reviews. We may know what "palpable" means in the context of a review in an audio journal; but how do we take that word and apply it to music? How do we make it mean something real? I see music both as the source of what we want and as the only universal we can all relate to. The idea that a particular system made Art rethink audio is a good thing. However, as he said in an early post, the system which did this for him cost $150,000. Cost is not really the issue though. The issue is no one else has heard that system. How can we understand what Art heard unless he uses words which describe the hifi? That is exactly what I am trying to avoid in this thread. As the thread has progressed, there have been descriptions of the sound of systems and the sound of music. I can't speak for the rest of you; but when the topic turned to audio systems, I can only envision two speakers and some electronics. The language of detail, imaging and soundstaging don't let me develop an idea of the musicians or the music. When the subject turned to music, I could see the performance space and the performers and I could imagine the sound of the recorder in the fly loft. I could see the country side around Margie's house and hear the bagpipes in the distance. I could even smell the morning air that carried the bagpipes to Margie. I can make up what I think is the space and sound of diablo's violin player at the local pub. I can do that because I've had similar experiences. The words used to describe the music paint pictures. My problem is I could only envision a dark room with two looming speakers at one end when I read Art's description of listening to the Wilson speakers. Here's the question the way I think I framed it. What qualities do we hear in live music that we would like to have our audio systems possess? What can we say about the experience of hearing live music that we want to bring into our home systems to make them more "lifelike"? Make the words as unambiguous as possible. John, that makes "true to life" the goal, not what gets us there. As best as I can figure we've got words such as "effortless", "engaging and involving", "having a black background of silence", "allows us to envision what is (not) there", "relaxed", "allows us to relive emotions or find new suprising moments" and, of course, "sounds like the real instruments". My question at this point is: do these words that come from the music help you understand what you're hearing in a system? Which is a better decsription of what you want to ask for in a system; "it allows me to envision or 'see' what is (not) there" or "it needs a better soundstage"? Which is better; "the system constantly has the ability to suprise me" or "I can't hear the guitars"? Since we've lost a few participants recently, I think before we progress we should take a head count. There are several folks we haven't heard from in awhile. How about everyone who is still riding along weighs in to let us know you're still with us. And tell us what you think of where we've been and where we should be heading. We'll try to make this as democrtic as possible. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1221 Registered: Feb-05 | "We'll try to make this as democrtic as possible." Does that even sound right. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4537 Registered: May-04 | It was effortless! |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 689 Registered: Mar-05 | I'm here but I think we are flogging the same old horse. I am not sure if you are looking for a certain answer with your questions. It seems that when people answer the questions with their own ideas or opinions, they are not what you were looking for and we get another barrage of questions, simular but different, to go with. Maybe Jan there are no clear answers for the questions: What qualities do we hear in live music that we would like to have our audio systems possess? What can we say about the experience of hearing live music that we want to bring into our home systems to make them more "lifelike"? Maybe it is completely different for each individual. Maybe I am out on a limb here. I listened to a wicked system comprising of tube amps and pre amps that I know nothing about but priced at 20-30,000 paired with a 20,000 record player on a pair of jmlab focal Utopia Grande's and was floored, but I tell you when I get home and play "my" music on "my" system, it's wonderous.(is that a word?) Mine only cost $1800, but brings me everything I have ever dreamed about hearing in music. This same system would probably have some of you scoffing and turning away, maybe not. I know one thing, music is in my heart, and when I only had a little boombox with BRMB radio in Birmingham playing 80's songs, I get almost the same "feeling" I get today playing the music I have matured into enjoying. So, is it more of a chase for "the ultimate" when talking about having the perfect reproductive music system? Rather than really getting to what is important, enjoying the music. Don't get me wrong, I love high end stuff, but if we were so engaged in having "lifelike" sound we would go to live music events instead of typing online in a forum while we listen to the music in the background, right??? I dunno, I'm still young what the heck do I know. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1224 Registered: Feb-05 | Well said Joseph. Awful lot of wisdom for a youngster! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4538 Registered: May-04 | Art - It sounds like you have something you want to say. Why not go ahead and say what you feel? |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1227 Registered: Feb-05 | Jan, I said what I wanted to say earlier and also with my last post to Joseph. Don't make more of it than it is. Also don't read into what I say more than what I actually say. Again I'm not upset, just commenting. |
|
Unregistered guest | Gez Jan Of course this thread "has been a struggle from the begining". We are trying to communicate. Our subject matter is subjective. If we were comparing a list of facts (specs of the equipment for example) the scope of the discussion would have been drastically reduced. We have a group of people from all over the world, a wide age range ( I think ), and both male and female ( I'm the token female ). That is a short list of our diversity! Our task has been to find the common denominators within that huge spectrum of experience, vocabulary, personal taste etc. Struggle...wasn't that to be expected? We've been trying to find discriptions that we all could agree were representative of an experience or goal that are different for each individual yet common to the music and how we want to experience it. That sounds monumental to me. I think we've done well. Many side trips... well yes and no. Thats communication. I've never driven across Australia, never been to the UK but when these gentlemen ( and everyone else ) discribe an experience I can find with in it what is common to my own. Then I understand what they are trying to communicate. Untill this point it's apples and fish. Now we can start to agree or not. Has it gotten tedious? Sometimes. It has at other time just popped. Both are just parts of the process. Have people been offended, have some of us gotten b'tchy? Yes and I am truly sorry. I have tried to follow what each person has been expressing, to understand. A few posters have, in my opinion, tried to disrupt this thread (anon). Sometimes references have been made to other threads. Most of these have been done well with enough explaination to maintain continuity. But not always. Once a conflict arose on another thread and to inflict as much damage as possable someone came to this one and spewed obscenities. The posts have since been remove and the poster apologized. All of these things combined and I, being the new kid on the block, didn't understand and lost my composure. I wrongly snapped at Kegger, an innocent victim. I'm sorry Kegger, I do value your input, very much. I don't know if my input has been of any value to you gentlemen but all of you have been valuable to me. You have all treated me with respect and gentleness and I thank you. That's where we've been Where are we going? It was inevitable from the beginning that the process would become more difficult as we progress. We agree on the easest first leaving the more and more difficult. As long as there is a game I'm willing to play. Democratic....Oh Please! There is enough testosterone in this group to supply a small town. At different points along the way most of you have taken charge. Each after his own fashion but taken charge none the less. Has anyone been bullied into agreement? If so, say so. Tell us what we've missed. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 257 Registered: May-05 | YOU GO, GIRL!!! Thanks Margie, couldn't have said it better myself. And, for the record, I've not been around long BUT I've never seen Art avoid a good discussion if one existed and I've never seen him too demure to talk if he had an opinion. So, I wouldn't read more into his comments than he's frustrated and feels like the boat's left the dock but nobody is at the helm or there's too many captains at the helm, not sure which is right and I'm not very nautical either, so there! |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerWarren, MICHIGAN Post Number: 2526 Registered: Dec-03 | Margie I'm cool! Were good, no problem here. I kinda feel like ART, that this thread and some of it's discussions are not to my liking but that is fine not everything has to be good for me, as long as others enjoy it that is all that matters. If something comes up I feel like commenting on I will. Until then you peoples continue on your journey wherever it may take you. God Bless! |
|
Anonymous | Hi there. I own a Bose Acoustimass 15 Series II system. I also happen to play guitar as a hobby and "semi-professionally". I tell you this, the recordings I hear of myself through my Bose speakers sound incredibly lifelike. If I didn't know any better, I would think someone else was in the room playing guitar for me. What is my point you ask? That if you seek lifelike sound, then you seek Bose. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4539 Registered: May-04 | "Struggle...wasn't that to be expected?" Yes. "That sounds monumental to me. I think we've done well." Yes, and yes. "Has it gotten tedious? Sometimes. It has at other time just popped. Both are just parts of the process. Have people been offended, have some of us gotten b'tchy? Yes and I am truly sorry." I don't think there's anything you should feel sorry for. I didn't expect smooth sailing when this all began. As I said, I was just heading down the road until it stopped raining not really knowing what I would find along the way. "Where are we going? It was inevitable from the beginning that the process would become more difficult as we progress. We agree on the easest first leaving the more and more difficult. As long as there is a game I'm willing to play." Gentlemen, that is the current question. Is there still a game? From my post above: "My question at this point is: do these words that come from the music help you understand what you're hearing in a system? Which is a better decsription of what you want to ask for in a system; "it allows me to envision or 'see' what is (not) there" or "it needs a better soundstage"? Which is better; "the system constantly has the ability to suprise me" or "I can't hear the guitars"?" If after 500+ posts, there has been nothing that has made you think of what you hear in a different fashion, then I doubt the next 500 will change that fact. Either we are headed down the road, and it will be uphill at times, or we might as well get out now. To be honest I was floored when I read John's post, "I cannot find the precise phrase, but, if I recall, Jan asked what words we might use to describe the sort of sound we wish for." This after my post to Art on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 01:43 pm: where I felt I laid out exactly how I thought the thread has to work. The focus has to be on the experience of live music. I gave an example of what I thought was a good way to approach the issue when I discussed "relaxed". And then Rick asked if I thought the system should begin with the source. Margie's last paragraph speaks for itself. Gentlemen, from my point of view this thread has done quite well. But I am driving down a road I am as unfamiliar with as any of you are. I am perfectly willing to let anyone take the momentum and lead the way as long as the course stays mostly along the same road. The nature of these threads on this forum is to be taken down a dirt road by twelve posts on "disbelief". I have tried to keep the thread headed in one direction mostly because this has been assigned to me as "Jan's thread". I think Rantz stated my reasons for aiming this thread in one direction better than I could. He has been here long enough to realize that the 5800+ posts on Old Dogs aren't all about surround sound systems. I really don't know were this is going or whether there will be anything to see when we get there. I'm willing to take the journey but the car has to stay on the road and to do that there has to be one driver at a time. It doesn't have to be me, but only one person can steer at any one time. j.c. says I only give more questions when someone gives an opinion. Yes, I do that. And most of those questions never get answered. I'm not foolish enough to think everything that comes out of my head is brilliant; but I try to move the discussion along a certain path. When j.c. remarks on the idea of "palpable presence", I suggest Rick might want to give a response. Unfortunately no response was attempted. And so it goes. I will say again I believe what we're after has to do with live music first and the system second. To get to the destination we desire - if we desire to arrive at a destination - we have to place the focus on the music and not the system. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1228 Registered: Feb-05 | Is the most pleasant drive in the country one with a destination or one without? IMO it depends on the person and the country. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2164 Registered: Aug-04 | I'm here - though thinking is still difficult. I feel for Art and his suffering and I wonder how he manages to post at all at present. One reason I keep following this thread is because, apart from one or two insignificent distractors, the contributors here are a rather decent bunch of guys and gals who don't resort to gutter talk when disagreement arises. I too have been guilty of taking the wrong road a few times along this journey, as directions became a little unclear. But again, here's Jan's questions: 'What qualities do we hear in live music that we would like to have our audio systems possess? What can we say about the experience of hearing live music that we want to bring into our home systems to make them more "lifelike"?' Well, I've had the answers for some time now and have kept them to myself just to see where this thread leads and to read all the interesting and intelligent comments. So are you ready for enlightenment? If I reveal the answers will this thread then come to a sad end? Will we all go our seperate ways and simply pop up in various threads just to let each other know we are still alive and kicking? My God, I don't know if I can do this - whatever will we do with ourselves without this thread? Okay, without further ado, here are the answers - but wait! Think back back to Margie's bagpipes and to Diablo's violin player, to the bands in the pubs, to the concerts in the park, to the orchestra's in the halls auditoriums, to your friend who sits in front of you and plays you a few tunes on his acoustic guitar. What is it that is synonymous with live music that we would like to bring into our home systems to make them more "lifelike" - do you really want to know, or do you think knowing will take some of the magic away? Well, I'm kidding of course! I don't really know the answers, but I'm going to have a go. It may not be the right answer, it may only be a partial answer or I might have simply missed the destination completely. All the words like timbre, space, location, soundstage, black background of silence, relaxed, engaging and so forth all add up to something: vibrant dimensions! I think it is the vibrant three dimensional qualities of a live performance is what I would like to bring into my home system. I think when we listen to live music the biggest effect is that it has vibrant dimensions - sound with depth, width, and even height. It is not only what we hear, but it's what we see and it all how it comes together that makes it what we feel. That's the closet I can come at this point. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4540 Registered: May-04 | j.c. - This isn't about getting the ultimate system. This is about getting the best music system you can for your money. No matter what your budget allows. My experience with people who chase the hifi jargon around the block is they have plenty of systems and they are always looking for the next hifi high with "soundstage" or "palable presence". My experience with people who are trying to find the music first is they can have far less than the ultimate system and still be very satisfied listening to music instead of their hifi. If the word "effortless" hits home with you, you can use that to build the best system you can afford with as much "effortless" quality as possible. It is no different in that respect than using "soundstage" as your goal except you are using the music as a guide and not the system. Yes, each of us will have different things we listen for in live music. That's why I asked for this to be a forum instead of just posting everything I thought was important. We all get to contribute our ideas and we all get to pick which is important to us. Possibly you will change your mind about the importance of one or more qualities when you see them described by someone else. |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 694 Registered: Mar-05 | I hope that my remarks earlier were not taken negatively, that was not my intent. Rather I was just expressing my frustration with the repetitiveness of some of the questions. As you know I respect your knowledge in this area, but I will always question. It is how I learn, I would question God too if we could chat. I too am disappointed about no response to my "papable presence' comments. There again I might be experiencing the frustration you may be having not getting valid points answered. I am still on board, keep them coming. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4541 Registered: May-04 | OK, I need to know whether this is making any difference in how you think about what you're hearing. Is everyone still thinking in terms of soundstage and detail or have you started to think about what you hear using some of the terms from this thread? Or even thinking about what you're hearing in terms of other qualities of music. That question is for everyone. (I haven't forgotten "vibrant three dimensional qualities", Rantz.) |
|
Unregistered guest | Yes, this has already made a big difference in how I think about what I"m hearing. Yes, I am useing these terms. Yes, other qualities too. I also like "vibrant, three dimensional"...pondering it. But my back hurts, I'm going to take a pill I'll be back later |
|
Silver Member Username: DiabloFylde Coast, England Post Number: 169 Registered: Dec-04 | I hope that MR has procured his stronger medication by now, 'coz here's another bit of that old bard - Enter PORTIA and NERISSA PORTIA That light we see is burning in my hall. How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. NERISSA When the moon shone, we did not see the candle. PORTIA So doth the greater glory dim the less: A substitute shines brightly as a king Unto the king be by, and then his state Empties itself, as doth an inland brook Into the main of waters. Music! hark! NERISSA It is your music, madam, of the house. PORTIA Nothing is good, I see, without respect: Methinks it sounds much sweeter than by day. NERISSA Silence bestows that virtue on it, madam. Shakespeare often has the answers and I think that makes it all clear. No hi-fi system is ever going to replicate music exactly, but the essence of the music can be conveyed by even a simple car radio. It is better to have a sound system which has no real, annoying defect, so we ask a (good) hi-fi dealer to remove that defect. Once that is done, then the only hi-fi annoyance in in the mind of the listener - that the system could always be a little better. To fix this, we need to stop reading threads like these, relocate all audio magazines to the garbage. Then just buy some good music. I have it all sussed now, without having to use any 'terms'. Maybe?  Exeunt |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 695 Registered: Mar-05 | Transparency sticks with me. Palpable presence does not. Depth of field is something I learned doing photography, but in its own way I think it applies to music too. Along the lines of transparency again. The problem with this thread for me is it's got me analizing music while I listen instead of enjoying! lol That's ok. It's that thinking that has gotten me to aquire this wonderful setup instead of getting something crappy that has an army of marketing behind it. "Lifelike" is still up for debate for me. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2169 Registered: Aug-04 | Ah Diablo - you devil you! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4544 Registered: May-04 | diablo - "Well, art is art isn't it? Still on the other hand water is water, east is east, and west is west, and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does." ... Groucho Marx |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4545 Registered: May-04 | j.c. - Audio is frequently compared with photography as some of our examples on this thread have shown. When thinking of live, unamplified music and comparing that to a camera lens, you would be looking for at least a f16; a lens which gives you a depth of field from the front edge of the lens out to infinity. Enough to cover the entire auditorium if need be. Many systems can't match that d.o.f. and will project something more similar to a f11 where the back edges of the "picture" are not in focus. Depending on the quality of the performance space, the real thing might have some of the same blurring at the rear. The analogy is not perfect since the lens blurs what exists in front and beyond its focal point. If you consider what you buy in a lens, the analogy to music/audio is somewhat the same. A more expensive lens system will get you a lens which is free of distortions and true in color differentiation from its center out to its very edges. Accurate color rendering of the instruments is important to a performance hall and to a system. Distortion is something we want to eliminate from our system and shouldn't exist in the live performance. However, the type and amount of distortion we allow in a system can vary and possibly can add to the musicality of the system. The speed of the lens is a consideration. I'm not certain how that relates to live music. While speed in a system can give the effect of "effortless" reproduction, speed can be misleading and is often the culprit when a system fails to engage you musically. As to the size of the lens we want something wide enough to capture the panoramas we listen to and long enough to zoom in on the solo performer. You're going to have to work out how that fits with music to make this analogy work. We're not looking for a zoom lens on our system as far as I'm concerned and the effect isn't what I would call a quality of live music. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3447 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, To be honest I was floored when I read John's post, "I cannot find the precise phrase, but, if I recall, Jan asked what words we might use to describe the sort of sound we wish for." Sorry! I was paraphrasing from memory - had not time to scroll back. MR has the precise quote - yes? So I should perhaps have written "what words we might use to describe the sort of qualities in the music we wish the system to deliver". That was my understanding. It is a very tough question. I heard Carl Sagan once, on "Desert Island Discs" extolling some piece of music (I vaguely recall a Rachmaninov piano concerto - these things have never moved me at all...). He said something like "I cannot describe what this music does for me. If the effect of the music could be described in words, it would not have been necessary for Rachmaninov to write it". I thought that was a "clever" remark - in both senses. Sorry I can't keep up. Any rudeness is entirely unintentional. In the last batch I found myself nodding with agreement and smiling at posts from Margie and diablo, in particular ("The devil" - oh, MR, too!). Lots of musical compositions have words on the subject of music. I have quoted some Purcell before, likening his "Birthday Ode to Queen Mary" to "Now you has jazz" by Cole Porter. That is fairly pretentious. But it is a "technical" view as described by T8 - both these are about the instruments themselves, the sound they make, and the effect this has. Purcell had some fantastic stuff on this in his "St Cecilia" Odes, setting out a sort of vision of a universal harmony that would move and thereby unite all people. There is something I respond to, personally, in music, wherever it comes from, whatever genre. But, again, this is about me, and how I react to music: it is personal, and you can like it or lump it. I would not go to a hifi dealer and ask for a demonstration of a system the reproduced the true voice of bright Cecilia, great patroness of us, and celestial harmony. They'd phone the cops. But I submit a good system will deliver anyone's musical "buzz" just as well as anyone else's. When we read "good for genre x" on this forum we are mostly looking at tribal loyalties, I think. The electrons flowing through the speaker coils have no interest in Debussy, Chuck Berry, or Diana Krall. diablo, Thank for quoting WS, too. The Bard on the importance of a good signal-to-noise ratio! There is another passage, which Vaughan Williams set in "Ode to Music". I'll look it up. That is a threat, and a promise. I always find on threads such as this that I have to stop, aware that I have ignored fine and interesting points. Wish we had another format for this discussion. PS Music about music includes "Its gotta be rock and roll music" and "Roll over Beethoven" plus many blues songs. I suppose art has to be self-conscious sometimes. Though not Art. Lord this must sound pretentious. I'll go and break a few windows. Exeat. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3448 Registered: Dec-03 | OK, I am going for the record bullshit score. What is there to lose? ---- How sweet the moonlight sleeps upon this bank! Here will we sit and let the sounds of music Creep in our ears; soft stillness and the night Become the touches of sweet harmony. Sit, Jessica. Look how the floor of heaven Is thick inlaid with patens of bright gold. There's not the smallest orb which thou behold'st But in his motion like an angel sings, Still quiring to the young-eyed cherubins; Such harmony is in immortal souls, But whilst this muddy vesture of decay Doth grossly close it in, we cannot hear it. William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice (Lorenzo at V, i) ---- Isn't that what we are all after...? And why we fail.....?! I lifted that from: http://www.giga-usa.com/quotes/topics/music_t007.htm which some more good quotes. I now intend to break some more windows and get a few ASBOs for playing my stereo too loud and annoying people. Also, the RVW piece is called "Serenade to Music", not "Ode.." |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3449 Registered: Dec-03 | Context:- Merchant of Venice: Act 5. SCENE I. Belmont. Avenue to PORTIA'S house. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2172 Registered: Aug-04 | Let's just ignore the the thread and quote Shakespeare. I thought the "Old Dogs" was for our own 'whatever goes' shite. You right John, it's all about you. That about does it for me here folks. Cheers |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1234 Registered: Feb-05 | Excellent Diablo. Many cheers to you! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3450 Registered: Dec-03 | I thought it was directly relevant to Jan's question. "You right John, it's all about you" ... illustrating the distinction I was hoping we would keep in mind. But we didn't. If I point this out in other people's posts, people get angry. If I illustrate with my own "take" and point out it is about me, not the music or the system, people get angry. Your post says "p_ss off" MR. OK. I'll leave, too. No hard feelings. Jan is at the wheel. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4546 Registered: May-04 | "Jan is at the wheel." Great, I feel as if I'm in a black and white comedy where Curly has just yanked the steering wheel off its column and handed it over to Moe in the passenger seat. The scene now cuts to the picture of the sawhorses at the end of the winding one lane road and the sign that reads, "Danger - Road out" just in front of the plunge over the cliff. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4547 Registered: May-04 | "Margie's last paragraph speaks for itself." |
|
Unregistered guest | Roses are Red-ish, Violets are Blue-ish, If I had a better system, I'd "hear" them more...True-ish! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4548 Registered: May-04 | If we are to proceed, we'll just have to proceed. It's time to stop quoting Shakespeare and time to stop letting others say what you want to have said. As Maggie said, "Now we can start to agree or not." If we agree, we should agree on a word/quality to add to the list and move on with all this. If you need to review what we've done so far, you can get the terms at my post on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 12:26 pm. Can we do this or not? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4549 Registered: May-04 | Sorry, Margie, didn't mean to mistype your name. I just had a call from Maggie and she was on my mind for the moment. |
|
Unregistered guest | OK... I've reviewed our progress. I'm a little foggy here and there but I think that may clear if we move on. Several people have discribed something I'd like some help with. (three dimensional maybe) You are listening to multiple instruments of the same kind. You hear the blend, they break apart and you hear the individuals. This can go on and on, blending and separating. Strings do this well as do horns... Have we put this in a catagory yet? |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2173 Registered: Aug-04 | "Your post says "p_ss off" MR." No it doesn't John. If you are considering a future in hermaneutics, don't give up your day job. I apologise for creating this little pothole in the road it obviously damaged your suspension a little. Sorry about that! I don't know about you but I have been enjoying this trip and am interested in everyone's response to Jan's question - the one he has tried so hard to get through to us. But the directions keep being obfuscated by what's playing on the BBC or english literature and I think even the Bard would agree his works have fairly obscure relevence to the questions asked. When clicking on to Ecoustics and hoping to see fellow posters putting forth their ideas on the subject I have to scroll through all your radio recommendations that should be on another thread and the Shake's works that you and others deem so pertinent to this thread - if silver bells and cockle shells turn you on musically, that's great, but please empathise. I realise I was overly harsh and I should have just made a request to you but it seems you like to pour oil on this road here and there to prevent us arriving at the destination. Anyway, I didn't mean to be mean. Come on back John. If you do, I will follow. Until then. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3451 Registered: Dec-03 | "If you need to review what we've done so far, you can get the terms at my post on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 12:26 pm." A long post, but it included:- ......"What qualities do we hear in live music that we would like to have our audio systems possess?" NONE. Repeat; NONE. They are totally different. An audio system is not music - it is neither live music nor the music it reproduces. It is an audio system. Any comparison between music and audio system is just playing with words. Please see my post of Monday, July 18, 2005 - 04:24 am: "-We MUST distinguish between the music and the system, and be clear about which we are describing... " To which Jan replied:- "John, I think the clarity you want will come if we can discuss the qualities of music and avoid discussing the qualities of the system as much as possible. We want to find qualities which we hear in music and then put them into words which can be taken to an audio shop. .... " I have tried to find qualities which we hear in music. I quote WS because he said it first, and better. I pointed out that this may not wash in an audio shop. That is a good thing. The guys in the audio shop should know something about qualities in an audio system - a completely different question. What can anyone say about music, in an audio shop, and be understood? Who cares? It is not their department. Toe-tapping - it is THE MUSIC that does that to you; NOT THE SYSTEM. It is so simple. Why is this not understood? Do we think the TV has little people in it.......?! When we learn something on the TV news, do we think the TV knows what happened, and told us....?! ..."Make the words as unambiguous as possible. " Well, I tried. "Shite" it may be, but it was genuinely an attempt to answer the question. Perhaps your question, Jan, as written, is not the one you intended to ask....? I actually do object to gratuitous insults, especially from old friends: what really is the point? What on earth was there to take offence at? Explain it to me off-line, someone, if there is a chance that further posts here will fan the flames. Drive on, Jan. |
|
Unregistered guest | Jan.. sorry to have been so abrupt last night, I have a back injury that I'm trying to recover from .... sometimes it just gets to me. John You are a very interesting man. You are playfull and smart. I want to read what you think and feel. Your quotes are good and I realize that you express yourself through them and I enjoy that. But for me to understand your points in this context of trying to find firmament within the fog I need you to be more direct. You have been, I hope you will be again . |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3452 Registered: Dec-03 | Posts crossed, My Rantz. Let me calm down a bit before responding to you last one, please. Seems like we're both back. Thanks, too, Margie. You, too, posted as I was typing. I'll do what I can. Maybe that last one was more direct, as you rightly request. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4552 Registered: May-04 | John - I send an email. |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 696 Registered: Mar-05 | Feel like I'm at an AA meeting. Hi I'm Joe and I'm an audioholic. I've been on a binge ever since I have come to this forum and feel like there is no end. Every time I thinl I can just enjoy some tunes, I end up changing records and cd's to hear more and more until it's way past my bedtime and I get no sleep for the next day. I wake up and do it all over again. John and MR, please put it aside and move on. There is no need for this, we have something in common and although we may not say things that match peoples expectations, we all seem to be mature and intelligent here (except for Jan, he's just a punk). I really enjoy this thread and do not want to see it become John and My Rantz's thread, flogged to death. Back to palpable presence, does anyone here disagree with my comments about that? |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 262 Registered: May-05 | John and diablo, hope all is well in your world and in the UK and our prayers are with you and your country. It seems that work keeps getting in the way of catching up, thinking and pondering and trying to come up with something brilliant, amusing or even stupid to say. So, here's a few words to add that are a bit of twist on several already used. The music must "envelop", which according to my trusty Thesaurus, also means "enclose", "surround", "encase, "encircle","swathe", "shroud", "clothe", "wrap" and "cover". These words each have a three dimensional quality to them and maybe help get us nearer that "palpable presence." After being enveloped in the music, I want the music to engage me, the Thesaurus says "engage" is also "connect", "slot in" and "fit into place". In this sense, the music has to make sense, in a very real psychological way but it also must engage me enough to result in something, "toe tapping", finger snapping, getting up and dancing. Some days or evenings it's accomplished with jazz, classical, country (OOOHHHHH, I used the "hick" word), or rock or anything else that fits the mood, psyche or lifts me up or gets me level at the time. (Sometimes, it's like Paul's HT - loud and noisy to escape the day.) Finally, the music must be integrated, the Thesaurus says, "put together", "mix", "join together", "incorporate", "add" or "combine". I guess the synonyms "join together" or "put together" really hit home for me. It has to sound right, real, and well put together BUT it also must "join together" and "add" to me in a real way, add to my experience, add to my mood, add to my "surprise" about the music and how it affects me. Integrate also suggests that what works for me this week or year may evolve with my experiences so that it can be peeled away and different layers discovered in the future. Diana wants me to "peel a grape", nobody eats peeled grapes, do they. BUT OH, what an incredible song and emotion if the words are pondered upon as the music is integrated. WOW, is everybody still here? Geez, it's not Shakespeare but it's the best I could do in a short time. LOL |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4553 Registered: May-04 | j.c. - Eh, your mudda wears Army boots! |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 263 Registered: May-05 | Jan, our age is showing. With the number of women now serving in the Armed Forces, this may no longer be considered a put down, even a tongue in cheek one. (I'm afraid some of these kid's mom's may actually wear army boots. LOL |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4554 Registered: May-04 | I asked for words; I got words! Margie - We've mentioned it briefly. As the instruments combine to play together, the action is, if I remember correctly, called "doubling". (Anyone have any help here?) Similar instruments, such as the cello and the bass, will play the same note but be separated by the registry sound of a cello or a bass. The combined sound exists as not a cello and a bass but as another sound altogether. When the instruments move apart in the notes they play, they are once again heard as individual instruments. If I am understanding you correctly, Margie, I've described the action which occurs. That alone, however, is just an action; it is a way of playing music. It is not a description of the quality of the music we hear when this action is performed. Take the action and turn it into a quality. What are the composer and the performer doing in terms of the quality of music we hear when instruments double each other? What changes when this occurs? Does the space the instruments occupy change? Does the tonality change? The effortlessness? The engagement of the music or the suprise of the music? Or is it just an action that we hear that has no specific quality? j.c. - I think your point is well made. What are we hearing in live music? What are we listening for? The instruments are in front of us so what does "palpable presence" mean in terms of live music? Unfortunately, Rick had to leave before he could give us the answer to that question. "Back to palpable presence, does anyone here disagree with my comments about that?" j.c.'s comments can be found posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 10:46 pm. Rantz, you said you understood the idea of palpable. Can you, or anyone else, argue Rick's point for him? Do they fit into your ideas of "vibrant three dimensional qualities" in live music? David, you mention palpable presence; can you extend the idea of "envelop" and argue how we can have both or neither against j.c.'s comments? j.c., what quality would you say you are hearing when you you listen past the instruments and into them? David, I think we've got "engage" covered already unless there's something more you think we need to say about that quality. As to "integrated"; can you give an example of how live music is integrated? Is that a quality or an action of live music? If it is an action; what quality goes with the action? Is it more engaging? More effortless? More relaxed or allow us to relive an emotion? Is it just a part of one of the qualities we've already identified? Remember, everyone, you are trying to find a quality that exists in live music, not a quality that is exclusive to an audio system such as the term "imaging" would be. The term you identify in live music should be as plain in its language as possible. "Soundstaging" doesn't mean anything except in the context of an audio system. We want a word or a phrase which most people can understand on its face value. The qualities we've identified; "effortless", "relaxed", "suprising", etc., come close to being universal I think in their meaning. So ideas such as the music's ability to "fill the space", "play with the space", "create the space", to "change the space" ,"draw me into the space" or "reach into the space" are phrases you might consider. Then pose the question; how easily can this be understood? Would asking the salesperson to show you a system that has the abilty to "change the space the music is played in" get you understood by anyone but yourself? Does that mean anything more or less than "envision what is (not) there"? Could you ask the salesperson for a more "seamless" system and have them understand what you've asked for? Make your words and phrases as concrete as possible. Does everyone think they know what direction to head in? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4555 Registered: May-04 | Here's something David posted on another thread: "Hey, I don't know if it's scientifically correct but it's the only explanation that makes sense and explains why my wife is constantly saying "can you turn that down." David, could it be there is no "scientifically correct" term for what you're hearing. Could it be the system needs to be more "effortless" or more "relaxed"? Could we be describing qualities of the new Denon player which account in part for the difference in levels you heard against the cheaper JVC? "Sounds coming from a black silence" perhaps? |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 265 Registered: May-05 | Different word but probably the same context. Jan, as you described "doubling" to Margie, which I believe is the correct audiophile term but not sure if it's the correct musical term; that is similar to what I was trying to describe with the word "integrated". Music is not separate notes written with no particular point, although we could argue with T. Monk and Charlie Parker about that in some forms of jazz. Music is written so the notes integrate. Why? The composer expects the integration of the notes, the integration of the instruments playing those notes and the integration of the listener to cause a reaction, possibly emotional, possibly physical -think really big bass - 1812 Overture maybe, spiritual - many Mozart and Wagner pieces for me. Without the integration, the music doesn't work and it doesn't move us. It just is. The whole "palpable" concept makes some sense when I consider the three dimensional concept of music BUT it makes more sense to me in the form of verbs I threw out, the music is not just there, it's not its presence that does it for me, it's that the music envelopes and engages me, it makes me part of the process. So, that's about as well as I can do for My R-Man's comment, come back and fend for yourself, MR. Finally Jan, I'm certain the new Denon was responsible for many things I experienced after hooking it up. BUT, those things are mostly system oriented, e.g., broader and higher sound stage. As for the musical presentation, I think I used the work "fuller", the addition of 2/3s of the choir and integration of an orchestra that was barely present on the old JVC. Geez, how often are you going to hear this from a lawyer, "I'm running out of words, folks." |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 700 Registered: Mar-05 | j.c., what quality would you say you are hearing when you you listen past the instruments and into them? Thats where the love for music for most people throughout the ages comes from isn't it? A "C" note on a violin can be played probably a hundred different ways, why? Because that instrument is being played by someone. It's that personality given to music that lets us feel whats being played. This is what I mean by going past the instruments and into the heart of the sounds they make. I have played around with quite a few instruments in my life and know how hard it is to "play" something. You can play a perfect at a piano concerto and it may be considered very technical, but you can play that same one with heartfelt emotion and it's all of a sudden magical. Is that because the notes were different that time? No , it's because each note was understood by the musician and how the composer wanted it to be played. Or maybe even someone puts their own spin on a piece of music, that's the beauty of it, freedom. I do not agree with the "integrated" part of D's three words but I do agree with the others. Integrated to me would mean that notes are somewhat conjoined and indivisible. When I listen to some classical pieces(mostly Baroque), the different instruments clearly separate themselves from each other. On my old system, this was done much less efficiently. That maybe another reason to have "the best we can afford". Integrated, not really, prevalent and discernible is more like it for me. To each is own though and I don't want anyone taking my words personally, they are associated with my own experience and opinion. By the way Jan, my mother used to wear army boots so heh. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4556 Registered: May-04 | BUT, the idea of this thread is to begin substituting words which have meaning in the quality of music we hear and start to discard the words that only address the audio system. So instead of "the new Denon was responsible for ... broader and higher sound stage", can words we use here be substituted? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4557 Registered: May-04 | j.c. - " ... but you can play that same one with heartfelt emotion and it's all of a sudden magical. Is that because the notes were different that time? No , it's because each note was understood by the musician and how the composer wanted it to be played." Then is "magical" a quality we want to add to our list or are we still describing something like "engaging" and just reframing the concept? Or, do we need a new word here? Is this part of "suprise"? |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 266 Registered: May-05 | Jan, I thought I said that, "BUT, those things are mostly system oriented, e.g., broader and higher sound stage. As for the musical presentation, I think I used the work (should have been "word") "fuller", the addition of 2/3s of the choir and integration of an orchestra that was barely present on the old JVC." The word "fuller" was intended to address the music I heard as opposed to what the system was doing. As my dad used to say, he could play the guitar with only three strings, but, it just didn't sound the same. Geez, J.C. I'm not going to play anymore because you don't like my word. I love "integrate", one of the big problems in the world is that we don't have integrated individuals. Music's the same. Integrate means that you "mix" and "add" to the instruments and notes to create an integrated whole, better than the sum of its parts. THAT'S WHAT GOOD MUSIC IS, that's what an integrated person should be. But, if J.C. likes "palpable presence" better, that's OK with me becuz I'm fairly well integrated. LOL |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 702 Registered: Mar-05 | My "integrated" amp is "magical"!!! |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 267 Registered: May-05 | To quote Jan, "Does everyone think they know what direction to head in?" I'm not sure that I can describe the qualities of music or the sound of music, "can anyone catch a moonbeam in a jar?", to quote the Mother Superior, trying to describe Maria. J.C., I don't have an integrated amp, I have to get along with a dysfunctional receiver. LOL |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2176 Registered: Aug-04 | I see nothing at wrong with Rick's term 'palpable presence' like his other term 'seamless' the words are usually used analogously and not literally imo. Seamless is often used to describe timbre matching for a surround speaker setup and I see nothing inconsistant with using the term to describe live music - providing it's GOOD live music where the musicians have their timing down pat. It's what makes the music seamless; as my good friend John states - without seams. Okay, there are no visual seams where one piece of material is joined to another, but isn't that how music is put together? A 'palpable presence' is okay with me also, it is a term I could quite easily use to describe some of the music I hear at home - for example it's as if the pianist and the piano are in the same room as I and I could reach out and touch them. It's not whether they are there (live) or not - it's closing your eyes and feeling that the 'music' is there like a current flowing around you. Back to your question, Jan - for the time being I'll stick with 'the vibrant three dimensional qualities of live music' especially since no one has taken it apart as yet. I think we can all understand 'vibrant' in terms of acoustics and we can all allude to the three dimensions. John's 'looking through the window' analogy comes to mind, but forget the window and replace it with the old "Viewmaster" - the old stereo (3d) picture viewing device. Remember the difference with one eye open vs two eyes open? If an audio system could let you feel you were hearing the music with 'two eyes open' then it has to come very close to emulating that lifelike, dimensional vibrancy in my opinion. I hope that makes some sense. A rare commodity for me according to some perhaps |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 710 Registered: Mar-05 | Jan and anyone else, are you into fine watches also?? |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 711 Registered: Mar-05 | If an audio system could let you feel you were hearing the music with 'two eyes open' then it has to come very close to emulating that lifelike, dimensional vibrancy in my opinion. well said |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2177 Registered: Aug-04 | Me: "I would like to audition audio components that can, as close as possible, emulate the dimensional vibrancy one hears when listening to a live performance." Audio salesperson: " Certainly Sir. And which venue would that be?" Me: "Oh no! You're a Yamaha dealer!" |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2178 Registered: Aug-04 | J.C. Thanks, but fine watches? Hey, I don't mind fine watching. LOL! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4559 Registered: May-04 | j.c. - I know a litle about watches as I had a few clients who sold new and antique watches. I stopped wearing a watch several years ago, so that indicates how important watches are to me. I understand, of course, telling time is not the reason someone usually buys a fine watch. "The time it takes to make one is nothing compared to the time it takes to earn one." What a commercial! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4560 Registered: May-04 | David - Let's try some thing with your recent experiment comparing T8's speakers to your current speakers and adding the Denon into the mix. Let's say you've just walked into a country where they don't speak "hifi". They speak "music". They know what hifi nouns such as speakers and amplifiers are; but they have no idea what "sound stage", "image", "warm", "open", "detailed" or any other hifi adjectives mean. They only understand what you mean when you use words to describe the music you hear. They know what "effortless", "relaxed", "engaging" and so forth mean. Using the words we've developed on this thread and whatever you feel you need to get your point across about the music and that doesn't talk about the hifi, can you describe the difference in the components you compared? Remember, "neutral", "bright" and "warm" along with any other "Stereophile Glossary Words" mean nothing to these people. Tell us what you'd say to these people. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4561 Registered: May-04 | Geezobeezo, it's gotten quiet around here. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4562 Registered: May-04 | Rantz - Tell me what happens to the music's "vibrant three dimensionality" if you're listening to a mono recording. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3455 Registered: Dec-03 | I liked Dakulis's point about "integrated" and suggest we might consider whether we want a sound that has "integrity". "Integrity" carries with it the qualities of truthfulness, fidelity, etc. But then, we would be describing properties of the system, again, partly. We could speak of live music having "integrity", but it would mean something else, in that context. And, again, the better the system, the more accurately will it reproduce the "musical integrity" - or lack of it - in the original performance. So, I am still stuck with this problem of looking for a word to describe the music to an audio expert. It seems to me that any word that represents a quality that can be heard in the original performance can also be applied to that quality in the reproduced performance - provided the reproduction is faithful to the original. This seems like tautology, and is not really saying anything. When we look for a word that describes a quality of the music that might, or might not, be transmitted through an audio system, we are still interested in comparing real music with reproduced music. When there is no difference, we can find a word to describe the system - but that is not what Jan wants. I am still unable to understand what is required here: apologies. Let me give you a useless word currently in vogue in HiFi News - "euphonious". It means "good sound". What else can it mean...? So, when they say such-and-such an amp is "euphonious" they mean "sounds good to me". That's OK. But why not just say that..? Magazine reviewers often seem to ascribe musical properties to hi-fi components - "rhythmic bass" and so on. This seems, to me, to be just a simple confusion about what hi-fi equipment is doing. The "rhythmic bass" is in the music, not the system. The system should not add any "rhythmic bass", nor take any away. Further problem - it would be very interesting for each of us to discuss particular examples. I think I enjoy similar things, in music, to Dakulis and Joseph. I could cite recordings etc. where these qualities seem to shine. But we should not talk specifics - because, then, we get into whether we like the music or not, and what it is we like or do not like. I think My Rantz introduced the nice thread "Rate your Hi-Res discs here", but it grew to be entirely about what sorts of music different people enjoy. Yes, music is the whole point of audio for many people (me included). But there are other people who like to record, say, birdsong, or steam engines. And we all spend a lot of time listening to speech, I imagine. That is the major part of most movies. I am still of the view that accuracy in sound reproduction is a general property of a system, and does not depend on the sort of sound, still less on the sort of music, except in very extreme cases. Does anyone agree that it might be helpful to stop talking about "music", which is a hugely distracting subject, and talk, instead about "sound"...? The question would then become something like "What are the qualities in sound that you would look for ....?" etc. We still have to distinguish the original from the reproduction, and be careful not to confuse the medium with the message. I am not trying to change the topic of the thread - just trying to point out that music is a very provocative subject, and difficult to deal with. Yes, I listen to live music, and take that as my point of reference. But different people like different sorts of music, and get annoyed if other people like something else. This is a bit of an obstacle to understanding, it seems to me. Jan....? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3456 Registered: Dec-03 | "Geezobeezo, it's gotten quiet around here." No, it hasn't. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2179 Registered: Aug-04 | "Rantz - Tell me what happens to the music's "vibrant three dimensionality" if you're listening to a mono recording." What happened? Your GPS run amok? Here we are back at the Stephen King bridge and we are crossing into THE NIGHT OF THE MONO RECORDING. Dios Mio! Okay, well the chances of me listening to a mono recording are about the same as my wife giving me permission to take Elle McPherson up on her offer to join her for a week on her island getaway. Obviously I didn't bother asking. But, if were to take a stab I'd say vibrancy could be maintained given a good system but it would lack the dimensional qualities of both stereo and surround though a degree of depth could be evident. But I'm guessing because my memory of such a beast won't take me back further than the age of three. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3462 Registered: Dec-03 | "Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 07:43 am: ... You right John, it's all about you. ..." So this is your thread, MR: it's all OK if the subject is you....? Someone please help me out with what the topic is. I have lost it completely. "Do you listen" is all I can remember. Seems to me WS had more to say on that than Stephen King. I thought "Old Dogs" was about whether music almost always sounds better in stereo. Not "anything goes" - which is where this thread is heading. Look, I won't let this go: if THE MUSIC possesses "vibrant three dimensionality" (whatever that is) then we can tell the audio people we want to hear the "vtd" in THE MUSIC when it is played back by THE SYSTEM. If THE MUSIC has "dead one dimensionality" ditto. The ideal SYSTEM should not introduce any quality, or take any away. THE SYSTEM IS NOT THE MUSIC and THE MUSIC IS NOT THE SYSTEM. For some music, mono may be enough. I don't know the answer to that, but it seems to me to be the question, not how old anybody was - and that applies whatever "vtd", or "silver sound", or anything else represents, as a metaphor. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2180 Registered: Aug-04 | Oh John! You know very well "old dogs" degenerated into anything goes well over a year ago. You are now just acting plain silly. ""vibrant three dimensionality" (whatever that is)" Talk about insults - well I never!!!! Jan asked a question of me of which I have no present experience so I gave a tongue-in-cheek answer - not one off track - but it was a try, at least, albeit on the light side. If you had read earlier posts you would have understood the S King reference. I cannot see why Jan's question - 'What qualities do we hear in live music that we would like to have our audio systems possess? What can we say about the experience of hearing live music that we want to bring into our home systems to make them more "lifelike" - is so difficult for such an erudite to comprehend. Take care everyone - I really do believe I've had my time here. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4565 Registered: May-04 | John - What do you say to the salestaff when you go to an audio shop to consider new equipment? What do you talk about? Do you listen to music in the shop? If the first piece of equipment is not to your liking, how do you explain where you'd like the sound to be improved? |
|
Joel Sexton Unregistered guest | Guys, with all due respect ...get a life ! this is too extreme ! go home, sit on your favorite chair,listen to one of your favorite recordings and enjoy it to the max whatever system you may have....nothing else counts ! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4566 Registered: May-04 | "Yes, I listen to live music, and take that as my point of reference. But different people like different sorts of music, and get annoyed if other people like something else. This is a bit of an obstacle to understanding, it seems to me." John - If the point is to put together a system that favors no particular type of music, why would people liking various sorts of music be an obstacle? If the system favors no one type of music, couldn't we say the system favors all music because the emphasis has been put on the music. We can forget the system; it is only there as a device to bring music into our home. Music is we want in our home. If we possess a music system the emphasis has been placed on having music affect us in our home, not in listening to the hifi. Therefore the system gets out of the way, exactly what you desire! Your point here is correct in the meaning of this thread: "The 'rhythmic bass' is in the music, not the system. The system should not add any 'rhythmic bass', nor take any away." Reviewers and audiophiles prefer to assign personalities and values to their equipment which a device cannot possess. If the "rhythmic bass" is a quality of the music, we should use words such as the system "allows the rhthymic bass of the music to be heard and felt". Those are the words and phrases we are trying to get to in this thread. If the space the around the performers is important to us, the idea the system has good soundstaging is nonsense. In this thread we've decided the phrase "it allows us to envision what is (not) there" tells us more about the original performance. That phrase goes beyond imaging, soundstaging and even "palpable presence" and begins to get into what was going on in the original performance. Or at least we've decided it does for the purposes of this thread. If we can envision what is (not) there we can dispense with a multitude of "hifi words" that are required because "hifi words" (words that ascribe a quality to the system) don't address musical qualities (effortless) or how the music affects us (engages us). We stop talking about the hifi because we've stopped listening to the hifi. So out with the words which only talk about the hifi and in with the words which tell us how the music affects us. Possibly if you've never heard a system or component which you thought didn't allow the rhythmic bass of the music to be heard and felt, you might not grasp where we want to head with this idea. But, when you say the music is the music and the music is not the system, you are placing far too much emphasis on that word "is". Think around the corner of the parallelogram, John. Does the idea "the music is relaxed" make sense to you? Does the idea "the system is relaxed" make sense to you? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4567 Registered: May-04 | Thank you, Joel. But I see you're posting on a forum also. |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 718 Registered: Mar-05 | I listened to a record the other night that puts the MONO thing to bed. It was a billie Holiday record (very old) and I did not switch the amp to mono before listening. As I sat down to listen I got about half way through the first song and realized the imaging was off. I then remembered that this was a mono recording and got up and switched it(It's an older non-remote amp, which I like becuase I don't turn into an entire vegetable). When I sat back down again, the sound was obviously less engaging than a stereo recording, but the music was still there. Transparency, albeit lesser quality because of the age of the recording, was there and still had me paying attention to musical details that we all love. So for me , it is the music and not the effects given by two or even multi-channel recordings. Don't get me wrong I do love the way an orchestra has depth and width during a stereo recording, but that point source is what has me most of the time. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4573 Registered: May-04 | j.c. - I see you're using hifi words to describe the experience. Can "musical details that we all love" and "the way an orchestra has depth and width during a stereo recording" be replaced with words that really explain the affect of the music? If you use hifi words, I don't understand why the following should happen: "the sound was obviously less engaging than a stereo recording". Did the mono recording lack "effortless", "relaxed", or "engaging" music? Was it a matter of degrees or were those qualities just not present? Was the ability to "see what is (not) there" diminished in some way? If it was not diminished, then shouldn't the "vibrant" quality of the music still exist when listening to Billie Holiday? Shouldn't mono still have the effect that a three dimensional performer existed in the recording studio? Or that she existed in a three dimensional space while performing? Does the process of recording in mono reduce the original performance to a one dimensional cut out? |
|
Unregistered guest | Balanced...Proportion Yesterday my son and daughter-in-law dropped by on there way back from a wedding in Lake Taho. They picked up a souvenir. A pair of old Rectilinear speakers. Played a McIntosh Demo Reference Disc (classical selections ) a little Horowitz, some Chants and voices. The sound placed me in the first few rows center stage. The sounds were in proportion to each other. The music varied of course, one instrument emphasized, then another but always a perspective of three dimension or proportion or balance. The Chant recording was done within the acoustics of a monastery. Again...proportion...balance...3D. And voices...Ray Charles last recording is a collection of duets. I'm very fond of it anyway but the sound was different...(un-cluttered?) as were all of the voices we listened to. I'm not trying to discribe equipment here. I heard or listened differently. I do beleave these speakers have "the East coast sound" but the "live" quality just jumped out. All of our words about space and palpable presence, 3D... I wonder if a balanced, accurate (flat) proportion, uncluttered by an artificial emphasis...would allow the music to present itself as it is. Then the music could be magical or not, could engage us or not but we would be hearing the music ...not the system. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4575 Registered: May-04 | I think that's very good place to start. Do you think a "a balanced, accurate (flat) proportion, uncluttered by an artificial emphasis" approach to a system would be deferential to any particular genre of music? If you asked an audio salesperson for that, what do you think their response would be? |
|
Unregistered guest | Deferential.. I think music that is more electric, hard rock, grunge maybe ( I have a hard time with categories, I just like what I like ) music that is more "fooled around with", would not be as benefited as music that is more based on clear instrument and voice sound ( less fooled around with ). By the " nature" of a more created sound , as opposed to sounds that naturally occur when a string/drum vibrate or wind passes through something wind instrument or horn, the created sound is dependent on manipulation to start with. That genre (s) would then be sort of naked, exposed to stand alone...good or bad. You know maybe that's the point all the music would be naked, exposed as what it is. I don't think that answered your question. Salesman.. They would try to sell me way over prised, inferior products. So I would have to slap them around a little, after all isn't that what salespeople are for to take out your lifes aggression on? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4579 Registered: May-04 | NO! That's what factory sales reps are for. There is a pecking order. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4580 Registered: May-04 | After you stopped the bleeding, what would you say (please, no other action verbs needed) to the salesperson if you were shown what he or she considered "balanced, accurate (flat) proportion, uncluttered by an artificial emphasis" and you considered tilted in the highs, bloated and nasal? Margie, I want you to take a dose of Zoloft and Premarin before asnwering. |
|
Unregistered guest | I'll be back.. (Hey..He's my Govenator. I have the right!) |
|
Unregistered guest | Hours have gone by and no one has made a comment of any kind....scary! Interesting familiarity with pharmaceuticals, Jan. "tilted in the highs, bloated and nasal" sounds just about opposite of what I'm looking for. Tilted high ( the linear curve is not horizonal and increases/decreases with frequency....?) Doesn't sound crisp and clean and true. Bloated..the bass should be tight and full and rich. Nasal..so the mid peaks and dips? No no no! I'm probably looking for a better quality product but certainly a different design. The equipment shouldn't sound like it's struggling to get the sound out..effortless. |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 722 Registered: Mar-05 | I had a little outpatient yesterday and I'm still on the pain stuff so I will not be commenting on anything that requires some actual brain work. May come out strange. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4583 Registered: May-04 | This thread has dwindled down to just a handful of participants. That could mean several things since there were never that many who took an interest in the topic to begin with. The possibility that what I am asking you to do, think in new word/terms, is just not going to get you where you want to be with your systems is very likely. Or, it could just indicate we've hit the really hard portion of the journey and this will require some deliberative thinking and decision making. I'll leave it up to all of you individuals to decide whether we proceed or not. If we go forward, here is a proposition to consider. Take a review of a product in a typical audio magazine. The words warm, soundstage, open and so on will be used in the reviews you find in these links: http://www.stereophile.com/ http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/audioreviews.html http://www.audioweb.com/Review/ReviewSearch.asp?companyid=402 http://www.enjoythemusic.com/superioraudio/ There are many more available but you should find a few pieces of equipment you are interesting in reading about in the links I provided. John made the comment somewhere in all this that he often wondered just what the reviewers were describing and found very little actual information being put in the typical review. I agree for the most part. You have to understand the lingo of the audiophile before the reviews begin to make any sense. This is not like a photography magazine using a somewhat technical term like "depth of field". These are words that have been made up to express a quality the equipment has which you may not find in another piece of equipment. You can decide how well these reviews communicate the idea of the music the reviewer heard when using a given piece of equipment. Or whether discussing the music is even important. If you get stuck on something, here are a few links to some glossaries to help you along: http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/index.html http://harada-sound.com/sound/handbook/defa-d.html http://www.tubecad.com/glossary/index.html http://sound.westhost.com/glossary.htm Read a few reviews and then consider how you could use the words and phrases we've developed on this thread to rewrite the review to make sense with our new terms. If you find you can make more sense of the article as it was written, then we do not need to go any further with this thread. If you find there are better ways to express what the music is doing, then we can return and do more discussion. As you listen to music consider on occasion what you're hearing in the music and not just the hifi. Consider why someone thought the word "soundstage" or "open" needed to be invented to describe what the equipment is doing. Don't let the process distract you from the music, but stop and consider every now and then. If we go no further, then we go no further. Whether you decide this thread was a waste of time or you decide you can now think with at least another perspective on what you hear an how it affects you, I thank you for riding along. It's been an interesting trip. I don't think we made it to Graceland; but we had some interesting side trips along the way. I learned a few things. The next post will be from one of you remaining. |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 723 Registered: Mar-05 | I was being serious about the pain medicine. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4586 Registered: May-04 | I didn't doubt you, j.c. I just thought we once again had reached a point of reconciliation and trying to clarify the goal once again. This thread has struggled along through circumstances that would have collapsed most other threads. That it still exists and has established higher posting numbers than any other in the "speakers" category says a great deal. With only a few exceptions it has remained respectful of the participants which, in itself, is quite an accomplishment on this forum. I still think we've achieved something worthwhile and hope the thread continues. I appreciate all the efforts each of you have put into the thread. However, I do understand if this all seems too frivilous to matter. With just a handful on the thread it has become more focussed on what we've been after. But, with just a handful on the thread, each of you assumes more responsibility for moving the thread forward. I have an idea. As I said, I don't know if it will lead us anywhere. I seriously believe there is a better way to talk about the music we bring into our homes. Whether what I'm trying to do is worth the effort is still up for debate I guess. The more I read reviews of products the less I care to read reviews of products. I just finished a review which mentioned the product under review was "audiophile grade". Honestly, I don't know what that means and I been toying with the idea of calling myself an "audiophile" for the past thirty years. At a few points along the way, I've considered ending this thread with the post, "And now back to our regularly scheduled programming." We could all go back to using the words from the magazines and not consider anything better. We'll see if I use those words or not. Please, don't let me interrupt your thoughts but I would encourage everyone to go hear some live music this weekend. We really can't discuss what a chicken looks like if we are only getting ours from The Colonel. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4588 Registered: May-04 | "Writing about musical techniques is as frustrating as attempting to describe what makes a painting beautiful, or any other form of visual art, sculpture, for instance. You have to see the work of art. To experience it. Analogously, you have to hear musical sounds." http://midistudio.com/Faculty/Enh_Epilogue.htm The article doesn't have a thing to do with our thread, but I liked the quote. |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics