Transcending Hi-Fi -(The 'Other Side')
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 63 Registered: Sep-04 | Posted by John A. on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 11:40 am: Thanks, Varney. I appreciate that response. I am fully aware of solipsism and it's implications, as well as the nature of empirical scientific 'knowledge'. The former is what I base my own belief-system on. Now this will sound rude, but it is not intended as such. Is a serious question: why, then, are you wasting time comparing your experiences and viewpoint with those of others, such as on this forum? If we each based our belief systems as you claim to, then there would be nothing to learn, or communicate. And, I repeat, all we could do to resolve differences is go to war or try to suppress other opinions, knowing them to be just as arbitrary as our own. To find truth, or enlightenment, one must first acknowledge there is no truth other than what you percieve No, I disagree. All one can say is that "truth" must not be inconsistent with what one perceives. One cannot perceive atoms, or genes, or propagating waves of air pressure. What one can perceive are apparant transformations of matter, heredity, and sound. This does not deny that there is an underlying reality, hidden from direct perception, but open to description and testing. These are "explanations". It is a really good thing we have them. Otherwise it would be a meaningless and terrifying world. and that everything is really nothing and vice versa. I do not understand that. It seems like a statement, to me, rather than "nothing". Thus disproving itself. Of course, I could be mistaken. The rest, I agree with. I think. BTW From previous experience, I think this exchange will get "flamed" as "off topic". So; give me a pair of BBC LS3/5as or Quad ESLs with a robust sense of reality, and a mission to reproduce it accurately, even if they fall short of the ideal. I leave many other speakers to solipsists who enjoy recreational hallucinogens, while defending their right to make this choice. There is thread "Teaching an old dog new tricks" where the central question is whether surround sound ever adds anything to the experience of listening to real music. J. Vigne (above) says "no"; I say "yes". It turns on this same question, I think, but we are both in a minority, with the majority view being, roughly, "who cares as long as it sounds good, to me?" |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 65 Registered: Sep-04 | Now, John.... This isn't meant to sound rude, either.... but: You exhibit the typical reaction of those who have not sat down in a quiet place and really thought about the concept more deeply. <john>"....why, then, are you wasting time comparing your experiences and viewpoint with those of others, such as on this forum?" Since when has comparing different people's viewpoints ever been a waste of time? <john>"If we each based our belief systems as you claim to, then there would be nothing to learn, or communicate. And, I repeat, all we could do to resolve differences is go to war or try to suppress other opinions, knowing them to be just as arbitrary as our own." Does history not tell us this is how many attempts to resolve human differences have been handled? The point is that most people do not see their own viewpoint as arbitrary. If they did, then there would be no impetus to quash that of another. Why do you feel that this philosophy automatically makes anyone's viewpoint arbitrary, anyway? You make the assumption that humans are logical so much as to act like computers, when faced with an inconsistency in data encoding, across two platforms. Go to war? Stop communicating? Shut down entirely? I see your error message. This may be born out of a misunderstanding of human nature and it's 'organic' thinking patterns. In order to survive, a species must interact with others of it's kind, or there would be no purpose to the (alleged) illusion of seperateness. Whether we react to each other with hostility and supression or not, depends on many things - culturally and mentally. You also take the concept far too literally, too. When I tacked onto your description of 'Solipsism', it was really a handy way of relating what I personally believe to one you have encountered. I have never called myself a 'Solipsist' before, although your description of it tried to sum up how I personally see the universe. One dictionary I have consulted offers: 1.) The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified. 2.) The theory or view that the self is the only reality. I have for some time been into Budhism - not as a 'Budhist' outright, but I take on the concept and it works for me. In order to understand where I'm coming from, you'd have to have some experience of it. Budhism, Solipsism, call it what you will - allows for the application of science as well as religion in one's life. It is not mandatory for a Budhist to even believe in god, or any related afterlife. It is, therefore both a religion and a philosophy, while at the same time, to some, it is neither. (I'm sorry to leave it there, but the 'neither' option would best be served in another post). Mention the film: "The Matrix" and everyone jumps to accuse you of being influenced by science fiction films. The author who originally came up with the concept (who'll remain nameless for now) used in this story was in fact reciting a much older one of some 3,000+ years, but using modern concepts in computer technology to explain and illustrate his. I know this, because I have recently painted the picture for the front cover of the new edition of the novel. He hasn't, to my knowledge ever challenged the writers of the Matrix for plagiarism - probably because it is too easy to pin the source of it's underlying concept onto the Budhist philosophy. He's not the only writer to have toyed with the concept so, if not the first, then certainly a good candidate to be, in our century at least. The term 'Matrix' does actually imply that there is a 'connectedness' of real entities, between the film's characters and the rest of the world - it's just that their perception of 'reality' is not quite what it seems. Quite how it works is open to speculation. It is after all, only a story. Back to the point. <john>" One cannot perceive atoms, or genes, or propagating waves of air pressure. What one can perceive are apparant transformations of matter, heredity, and sound." One cannot percieve them with the naked eye and this is exactly the point of the entire concept, which, paradoxically, you seem to have missed - while at the same time making it, so eloquently, all at once. And, while experiencing the world, one can also only percieve the apparent transformation of matter, (heredity?) and sound, light etc in the brain. Albeit still quite debatably, the only components of this world which reach your consciousness are in fact sound (vibration) light (waves) and chemical reactions (olfactory). These have to be processed before they become actual data (memories). Therefore a rather complex set of routines have taken place, during the conversion from sense to experience.... Would you not agree? As with all scientific equipment, only one who has been trained in the reading and understanding of it's output will be able to make sense of it enough to apply to a scientific model and back again. The rest of us simply see numbers on charts, symbols and bacteria floating around on a microscope slide and think "that's pretty". The difference is, that each and every one of us posesses (or should have) the inbuilt programming necessary to read that data - as experience. Quite how it is collated and reacted to, may differ from person to person, with certain common rules applied. I think it was believed in some primitive cultures (?) that the eye 'sees', the ear 'hears' and the heart feels emotional pain; joy etc. It was not until later on that the brain was identified as the central processing unit of the entire body. An eye cannot 'see', for instance, it can only let in light. <john>"This does not deny that there is an underlying reality, hidden from direct perception, but open to description and testing....." 'Solipsism' as I see it, does not have to deny any interconnected state, whose net result resembles the empirical one. Nether does it deny that changes to the personal reality may come about by changes to the memory ie: learning. Think of a time before the empircal model was made. Perhaps your time in the womb may qualify? That was your reality at the time. It's difficult to deny it has changed since then. It is not so much a question of whether Solipsism is the true state, but of what can we learn about ourselves by using it's philosophy. <john>"....These are "explanations". It is a really good thing we have them. Otherwise it would be a meaningless and terrifying world." The world does not, to my knowledge ever have appeared to be "meaningless" in any age or to any culture which preceeded our own, notwithstanding an apparent lack of understanding of many unexplained phenomena. Though it would appear that the world was explained alegorically in times past, before the emergence of modern science, even the gaps in comprehension have never been wholly meaningless. Terryifying at times, maybe. It might be suggested here, that 'meaning' is a product of the human imagination and nothing more. <v>"....and that everything is really nothing and vice versa." <john>"I do not understand that. It seems like a statement, to me, rather than "nothing". Thus disproving itself. Of course, I could be mistaken." Of course, I could be mistaken, but it seems you are trying to turn the paradox back on me, in the spirit of fun? Failing that, I do not understand the sentence. If you re-phrase the question, perhaps I'll be able to answer it. <john>"The rest, I agree with. I think." Sorry - you agreed with something I said? What was that then? Oh.... my take on science? It's a widely held one among scientists, I believe.... Or would hope it is! <john>" I leave many other speakers to solipsists who enjoy recreational hallucinogens, while defending their right to make this choice." A scathing remark indeed, which I think is both unfair and unnecessary. You should know from my previous posts that I too, appreciate quality hi-fi, which may even sometimes fall short of the ideal. What you may not be aware of, is the fact I do not need recreational drugs to enjoy them. I might add I do not need you to defend that choice, in order to make it. As kind as regards can be in view of the above, V |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 66 Registered: Sep-04 | Damn! That's long! I rate good English not by quantity of words, but by a streamlined and meaningful use of words. Disgusted with you, Varney, V :P Well, I was tired. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2502 Registered: Dec-03 | Thank you, Varney. Let me first refer any reader to our original posts on That British Sound?, where the syntax of the text you quoted is clearer. On Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 11:40 am, I most certainly did not write "I am fully aware of solipsism and it's implications, as well as the nature of empirical scientific 'knowledge'. The former is what I base my own belief-system on"; I was quoting you, and commenting on that stated position. Will be back. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2503 Registered: Dec-03 | This will take some time. One quick response <john>" I leave many other speakers to solipsists who enjoy recreational hallucinogens, while defending their right to make this choice." A scathing remark indeed, which I think is both unfair and unnecessary. It was not intended to be scathing, unfair, or unnecessary. There are such people. They enjoy the illusion without bothering themselves with the question of whether or not it corresponds with reality, and, if it does, to what extent. That was not intended as a personal remark. It was simply intended to illustrate what some people look for when they use their hifi to play recorded music. I am looking for something else, personally. That was my point. |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 67 Registered: Sep-04 | Sorry I managed to lose your italics when pasting there, John. Didn't mean to mis-represent you there. Hope you'll forgive me for that - I normally use " " you see. V |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 68 Registered: Sep-04 | I predict this may also at some time weave itself into the surround sound for/against debate. I look forward to it.  |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1868 Registered: Dec-03 | Wow Varney and John! I commend you both for thinking "outside the place or point from which something else originates." Very good indead! I will just sit back as an Oracle to interpret your reality--which is really a dream, And listen as the rest enlighten me! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2504 Registered: Dec-03 | It is OK, Varney, I knew it was lost formatting, not misrepresentation. There was something about your responses which suggested, to me, defence and counter-attack. Nothing in what I wrote was intended as personal criticism. Honestly. I will not forget your post, and will return tonight, or at the weekend. The "Old Dogs" thread is under "Home Audio"/"DVD-A & SACD". It will be forbiddingly long if you have not already followed it. It returns to the original question, now archived, quite often. The most recent archive, or the one before, has a post from a valued contributor who I think also declares himself sympathetic to Buddhism. Not for the first time, I suggest that this format for an internet discussion forum is not suited to getting at underlying issues. There is no links out of archived threads, which is a pity; people often repeat questions without knowledge of comprehensive dicussions not long before. Let us do our best! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2505 Registered: Dec-03 | Glad you showed up, Kegger! Sorry I missed your post, above. I know this always seems rude. You will probably know the feeling. Again, this format is not ideal. A few months ago I wrote long piece in response to one of you posts on "Old Dogs" but it was too much, and too long. This issue "what are we trying to achieve with hifi, anyway?" will not go away; I will try to bring it back. I think we each have different expectations of hifi, which is why I find I agree with both you and Jan, on the other thread. If "the closest approach to the original sound" is what we want, then I think Jan is correct in saying there are things to do, and not to do, from microphones all the way through the chain to speakers and where to sit. Whether he, or anyone, is right about what these things are is a different question. I can see why that whole approach appears to you and My Rantz, for example as "arrogant " and so on, but it is not, really, in my opinion. If, instead, we just want a "Wow" entertainment effect (nothing wrong with that) then "anything goes", and no-one can tell you what you like and what you don't, that's for sure. I am 100% with you, on that. |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 69 Registered: Sep-04 | Hi John, Thankyou for taking the time to discuss. In your own time, is the best time, if your response is as enjoyably engaging as your many other posts. <john>"There was something about your responses which suggested, to me, defence and counter-attack. Nothing in what I wrote was intended as personal criticism. Honestly." Defence and counter attack may have been the case, although in retrospect I can see you meant nothing personal from what you've said since. I was, after all merely defending the position, rather than the personal, as I refuse to take onboard anything that seems so, from anyone whom I do not know personally - especially down a wire. Unless of course, I'm out of order in my own remarks. Nobody's perfect. In the meantime, I'll check out the "Old Dogs" thread. Thanks. I'm also glad I'm not the only one who writes long posts, BTW. Without going too far down the road on this one (and hogging the talking stick) I'll briefly say that yes - I think Hi-Fi is a link to music and therefore a perfect candidate for opening a wider debate on reality; the universe as a whole etc. This, for the simple reason that the mind is so often operating on an enhanced level when music is either present, or one is playing an intrument. As a visual artist / illustrator I'm constantly trying to visualize scenes, characters and moods. The music often opens up the mental vista for me somewhat when I stop to listen. Don't feel guilty about sending a Hi-Fi thread down an offshoot track. All these things are relative, I think. Finally - obviously, the 'Wow' factor in music is different things to different people. If the music sounds natural, then it inspires a "wow" from me, certainly. In a system that does not sound natural, I know that all I'm hearing is distortion of the original. With electric and electronic forms, all I want to hear is the applied distortion, intended by the artist. After all, we've paid to listen to their sounds by buying their album. Why waste good money on top, just to hear the sound of your own equipment competing for attention? Regards, V |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2514 Registered: Dec-03 | Varney, I think we need to go back a few steps, because your first post quoted my response to an earlier one from you, and the context of my comments is therefore lost, along with the syntax. Let us leave "the typical reaction of those who have not sat down in a quiet place and really thought about the concept more deeply". My first point was about the paradox of solipsism; if it is correct, then there is no point in discussing it, it seems to me. Hoever, I am not a solipsist, so I can see a purpose in discussing. It ran like this: J: Underlying many posts on this thread is the assumption of "solipsism" - that the world, in this case the sounds we hear, are just inventions of our imaginations, and each person's is therefore no better and no worse than anyone else's... V: I am fully aware of solipsism and it's implications, as well as the nature of empirical scientific 'knowledge'. The former is what I base my own belief-system on. To find truth, or enlightenment, one must first acknowledge there is no truth other than what you percieve... J: ... why, then, are you wasting time comparing your experiences and viewpoint with those of others, such as on this forum? If we each based our belief systems as you claim to, then there would be nothing to learn, or communicate. V: Since when has comparing different people's viewpoints ever been a waste of time? My answer, here and now: IF the world for each of us is nothing more than we imagine, THEN there is no external reference over which we may agree or disagree. Comparing views becomes futile. I do not hold the position, myself, but seems to be a consequence of solipsism. Taking all you questions in the following two paragraphs. <john>"If we each based our belief systems as you claim to, then there would be nothing to learn, or communicate. And, I repeat, all we could do to resolve differences is go to war or try to suppress other opinions, knowing them to be just as arbitrary as our own." Does history not tell us this is how many attempts to resolve human differences have been handled? Yes, it does. The point is that most people do not see their own viewpoint as arbitrary. I agree, most people don't. It may still be so, of course; he/she may be mistaken. If they did, then there would be no impetus to quash that of another. No, I think that the alternative to quashing holders of other viewpoints is to try to find out which ones are and are not arbitrary. If everything is arbitrary, then quashing is all anyone can do. Why do you feel that this philosophy automatically makes anyone's viewpoint arbitrary, anyway? Which philosophy? Solipsism? If so, because its teaches that the world is an illusion. We each have different illusions. You make the assumption that humans are logical so much as to act like computers, when faced with an inconsistency in data encoding, across two platforms. I don't think I make that assumption. Go to war? Stop communicating? Shut down entirely? I see your error message. This may be born out of a misunderstanding of human nature and it's 'organic' thinking patterns. Yes, it may be. Please, what is an "organic" thinking pattern? In order to survive, a species must interact with others of it's kind, Yes. For reproduction. Then there is social interaction in some species. or there would be no purpose to the (alleged) illusion of seperateness. Sorry, I do not understand that. Whether we react to each other with hostility and supression or not, depends on many things - culturally and mentally Yes; agreed. But, again, if there is no real world, what alternative way is there for propagating one's beliefs? What value can they have over anyone else's? Excuse me if I take a break and try to come back to the other points, later. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2523 Registered: Dec-03 | Varney, Perhaps I am taking a few relatively casual remarks more seriously than you intended them to be. But I promised to write again. I would be interested to know the name of the author, and of the book. I personally found "The Matrix" infuriating, and the follow-ups got worse. I felt the writer and director were being wilfully obscure. It could be there is a key to understanding it, but they took great care to conceal the key, in the film. I thought perhaps they were hoping to start a cult. If you say there already was one, that helps a little to understanding why it was so awful. Just my opinion. Why waste good money on top, just to hear the sound of your own equipment competing for attention? That puts it very well. I am not sure about hifi opening a debate about reality. I do think it is a form of representation of something, but not everyone agrees, many people think of it as an end in itself. So whether a hifi is any good or not leads immediately to the question "Good for what?" which means we have to try to be clear what it is we wish it to do. In my opinion different people have different answers to that question. I think it is particularly important that recording producers and engineers have the same objective as the listener. |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 71 Registered: Sep-04 | John, Before I answer your previous post, and my response to the above is still fresh in my mind.... The Matrix was intended, in my opinion, to be just another Kung Fu movie. That was certainly it's apeal to many. Only this time, it's crossing genres with SF, in order to do something new and fresh, story-wise. Looking at the technical documentaries, it's clear the producer's main intentions were to introduce and exploit new, digital techniques in acton photography ('Bullet Time' etc). Like all Kung-Fu movies, it needed a central odysey around which to base the action - the development of a 'fool' or boy, learning to use his new powers which is always, if not loosely, based upon the 'knowing of thyself' (often through budhism) thing. It may also, at a stretch, be slightly reminiscent of the Greek Myths. Notice he needs to know that the spoon is not there in order to know he could bend it - take it up several gears and he's jumping off buildings. It's all about self belief and the humbling factor. While the 'Bullet Time' feature offers some very cool dissection of action scenes, to me, it's also an artistic way of presenting the idea we, the audience are omnipotent; able to slow down the action and view it from all sides.... More importantly, it seems to say that events can be viewed from many perspectives. We often take the bullet itself for granted. We don't have to see anything, but hear the gunshot to know our hero is in trouble. Here, we see the bullet itself, complete with it's reflection of the world around it on it's shiny surface, moving towards it's destiny. For someone who gets bored easily during action movies, I'd say it's a top piece of work.... If it kept me interested, it must have been pretty good. As to the sequels - well, after the second, I knew not to even bother with the third! El-Floppo Yawno, in my opinion. I didn't at any point find the writing to be wilfully obscure. Not in the way, say perhaps David Lynch might be viewed by many. I personally thought it was 'Budhism for simpletons". But as a package, it worked. Perhaps the difference was that my own philosophy was helping me predict the story? Or could this have been due to the fact it was a formulaic one? Start a cult? No, I don't think so. There's already one we can call the SF market. Just that this crossed over nicely with the martial arts one. Yes, it gained a cult status in ways that most sagas do. Sales of long leather coats went up all across the country when it hit. Perhaps the director was really in league with the leather shops? Oh and some idiot's always going to jump off a building when someone does it in a movie, just as a kid tried to fly after he saw Superman. Sad, but true. As to the author of the story which (allegedly) preceeded it, I'll just say now that I didn't come in here to advertise my clients or my own work. I'm here for discussion as leisure. If you'd care to leave your email, I don't mind telling you who it is privately. Regards, V |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 72 Registered: Sep-04 | Perhaps though, if you base your entire reality around what you actually hear and see; on what your senses present; then it's possible that fantasy films and the exacerbation of tonal ranges and spatial effects in music, may not be to your liking. I tend to base my reality on what I see, hear and imagine. It all forms part of the net memory. That's why I take the time to add a personal film critique to the Ecoustics forum. But with music, I too like to imagine I'm listening to the performance - and try to suspend the knowledge I'm really listening to an electronic reproduction of it. Success in the above rises accordingly with the quality of the gear. V My Kitchen doors have arrived. Don't know when the next post will be, but certainly be popping in for a read. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2531 Registered: Dec-03 | Just to say thanks for both of those posts, Varney. I too have to just promise to return some time. Floor's open, anyone. Success in the above rises accordingly with the quality of the gear. That is how I view it, too, and you put it very well. But if you look around this forum, for example, it does seem many people are looking for something quite different from their audio set-ups. So they have a different criterion of "quality", I suppose. |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 73 Registered: Sep-04 | Just a quick one. "<john> if you look around this forum, for example, it does seem many people are looking for something quite different from their audio set-ups." Ah you mean da bass-boom X-bass; reverb; graphic equalizer do ya man? I hear the sound coming out of cars often. Usually the cheap saloons with rear blinds, dark windows; bristling with fog lamps. Then there are those who view the vehicle as a speaker cabinet in itself. Opening the tailgate to issue forth a sound which is not music - but a noise to measured and apraised on it's volume and ear splitting intensity. Never understood that. Might as well sit in a circle and compare willy-sizes, in my opinion. V |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2534 Registered: Dec-03 | Varney, Precisely. There are other things, too. I've got a little list. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing." The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams I have not read this entire article, I seem to have plenty on my "will get to" list presently; and, I came across this while doing more reading on microphone and studio techniques that were in reference to the Old Dogs thread. Unfortunately, being an old dog, and with the ability of my computer to confuse me with too many open folders, I must stay on less than three tracks of thinking at one time. (It used to take some of John's recreational facilities to get me to that point, how old I feel.) This looked interesting enough to add to this discussion. http://www.csicop.org/si/9505/belief.html "Experience is often a poor guide to reality. Skepticism helps us to question our experience and to avoid being too readily led to believe what is not so. We should try to remember the words of the late P. J. Bailey (in Festus: A Country Town): "Where doubt, there truth is -- 'tis her shadow." |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 662 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, It seems we now live in the time where if you want to know what the truth is, we have to take a POLL. |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 74 Registered: Sep-04 | John, I think.... <john>"....we need to go back a few steps, because your first post quoted my response to an earlier one from you" and.... <john>"Let us leave "the typical reaction of those who have not sat down in a quiet place and really thought about the concept more deeply". ....Are both good ideas. On with the show.... <john>"My first point was about the paradox of solipsism; if it is correct, then there is no point in discussing it, it seems to me. Hoever, I am not a solipsist, so I can see a purpose in discussing." Since we have no hard evidence either way, then the subject will always be up for discussion. The exception being where a person has made up their mind and then closed it off to further speculation. <john>"Please, what is an "organic" thinking pattern?" A pattern of thought which runs through a human brain, for instance. As opposed to a set of digital instructions which are presumably programmed to deal with as many eventualities as possible. I used the term 'organic' to differentiate. Our computers do not think.... yet. (<v>"....or there would be no purpose to the (alleged) illusion of seperateness." <john>Sorry, I do not understand that.) Zen teaches that the aparent seperateness of all parts of the Universe (including our own individuality) is an illusion, created in human and animal minds. Without this illusion, there would be no individual mind. So if one is to accept for a moment that all things are part of one whole, then the explanation: that all interconnection and all inter-disconnection is decided in the mind only, follows logically. Since we are often able to confirm that the illlusion is the same for all of us, except from some difference in perspective, it also follows therefore, that no point of view gained from experience of the illusion can be arbitrary. By virtue of those perspectives differing slightly across the board of human consciousness, we should be viewing each and every one of them as useful in their own right. <john>"J: Underlying many posts on this thread is the assumption of "solipsism" - that the world, in this case the sounds we hear, are just inventions of our imaginations, and each person's is therefore no better and no worse than anyone else's..." Or the inventions of other people's imaginations, eventually reproduced in that of the listener. For this, you have to understand that nothing can be imagined that has not already in some way been experienced. Be careful not to overate the the ability of the imagination to create. It can only convert, in accordance with the general rule: data in / data out; energy=matter. Perhaps a better way to put this would be: Spatial distance, proportion, sound, light, the idea of up/down; left/right are to us what the music is to the listener. To the speakers, it is a set of instructional impulses to force a movement, to the amp it is a set waves to be processed and sent out. To the wire, it is the only purpose. The 'key' to understanding the reality here, is to understand you are listening to a memory, imprinted on a plastic disc. The stereo picture should be regarded by all good audiophiles as an electronic illusion. If music be the result of a symbiosis between minds, instruments and listeners, then there is in a stereo system no music present. What happens in your mind, after the signal has reached it could however, be regarded as music. Sing on, sing on! Zen does not necessarily teach that we are not really here at all, but programs floating around in a computer matrix; our real bodies being stored in tanks, fed on sugary water, while surreptitiously sleep-learning Kung-Fu in order to break free*. It simply encourages us to think outside the box and consider the very nature of reality. In the abscence of it's ability to assume the role of a science, we can only allow it to attain the status of a philosophy and optionally, a religion. Science has, however, in recent years allowed us to look at the finer parts of the Universe to finally confirm that matter=energy. If this is true, then relativity must be considered a codec by which we make our assumptions. (* That was an adventure story which was analogous to what we are trying to do). The illusion of seperateness incurs overheads in expenditure of mental energy in maintaining your relationship with it; the result is 'wear and tear' and is known as our 'suffering'. The point of Zen is to alleviate suffering. The student is therefore encouraged to consider his/her condition and try to shake off the illusion, while maintaining an understanding it is the interface by which he/she experiences the world. That is the point of meditation. I hope the above little discourse is of some interest to you. I'm not trying to push my philosphy (or religion) upon you, or trying to justify extreme forms of solipsism. It's just one way of seeing things. Regards, V |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 75 Registered: Sep-04 | J. Vigne - thankyou for that link. An excellent article which adds to the conversation. V |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 212 Registered: Sep-04 | In my view, there are two issues to take into account here: 1. Home Theatre 2. Music reproduction 1. Home Theatre The object behind Home Theatre is to provide a facsimile of what the director intended when shooting a film. The object of surround sound in home theatre is to provide a sense of realism in an entirely fictitous scenario. For example, bullets flying about when they use blanks on set. 2. Music Reproduction. Music Reproduction is quite different to Home Theatre's goals. In my view music reproduction is there to provide the essence of a musical performance. If the performance is that of a rock band, then you're looking to get the emotion and frisson of the live performance. If the performance is an orchestra at the Royal Albert, then you want a sense of that acoustic but more importantly you want the musical message of the composer which should remain the same provided the interpretation is the same. It does not matter whether the recording is mono, stereo or surround sound, the ultimate goal should remain to convey the musical message in the performance, and this is why - in my view - the demands on surround music are very different to the demands of home theatre. This is why I find surround music formats (e.g DVD-A) fall to pieces generally. They're very impressive in terms of resolution and spatial cues, but the musical message is lost on me in every case (even the surround track of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon). That's my view - I hope it makes sense. Regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2544 Registered: Dec-03 | Frank, I think that is a crucial distinction, and a very helpful observation. I can cite a few DVD-A discs where I think the "musical message" is conveyed much better in multichannel. I know of one (in 4.0) where the composer's original intention (in 1579 I think) seems to have been performance by eight choirs of five voices "in the round"; stereo just cannot do that. It is sobering to think it has never been heard that way except in live performance, until very recently. For more mainstream, orchestral music, there is still an effect of the reflections of the room or hall that stereo can only approximate. No-one has a listening room like the RAH, for example. So you need surround sound if you wish for the sound of "Being there". This has been the subject of a long-running discussion between J. Vigne, myself and others, on another thread. Varney, Many thanks. I had a text book (Cell Biology, of all things) decades ago, as a student, which had a quote that I have never forgotten. It seems to me to be close to what you are saying. The harmonious co-operation of all beings arose Not from the orders of a superior authority, external to themselves, But from the fact that they were all parts in a hierarchy of wholes; And what they obeyed were the internal dictates of their own natures. |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1884 Registered: Dec-03 | Frank I don't mean this as a challenge to you. But mearly your thoughts. Many believe as I think you do. Surround belongs in movies and 2channel for music reproduction. I believe there is a third for those who do not think music needs to follow a rule for it to be music. meaning that if they like what they hear be it surround or 2 channel but their is no so called proper imaging but what is played back is enjoyed then is that not still music. The reason I say this is because many knock surround as a music format, but so many others enjoy what it has to offer and even like the feeling of being surrounded as it were. So I guess my question is should there be a standard as to what is constituted as proper music reproduction? In the end shouldn't the real thing be weather you enjoy listening to your music regardless of format or musical taste. Or should there be certain principles that need to be adhered to regardless of personal choice? Just wondering your thoughts on this. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Rick - "It seems we now live in the time where if you want to know what the truth is, we have to take a POLL." But that only gives you the answer to the question you asked. As we in America found out during the last election what and how the question is posed is as important to what results (reality) you will achieve. It would seem to make sense only when you ask what you have already decided upon. I hope no one takes offense but I find this (Monday, Nov. 29) an example of the reality of what you want to know. (I believe the second pannel is the key to all we know in the universe.) Frank - "The object behind Home Theatre is to provide a facsimile of what the director intended when shooting a film." Once again you must be selling to a different breed of client than I found. 90% of the HT I sold had nothing to do with the director's intent and everything to do with what the client thought was impressive. A higher number even than my purely audio customers. "In my view music reproduction is there to provide the essence of a musical performance." That is the question, isn't it? But what essence? The discussion on Old Dogs has been on this for quite a while and has hit an impasse. Those of us espousing a sense of reality have been termed "arrogant" by some. Those who feel reality is what they want it to be and they need no more are feeling talked down to. And one of the question posed by some information on recording a performance asks the you there/them here question. Which, to me, presupposes a sense of some reality. Varney - "Zen does not necessarily teach that we are not really here at all, but programs floating around in a computer matrix; our real bodies being stored in tanks, fed on sugary water ... " I take it Zen teaches we are programs in a computer. Not to get too far afield, but, where were we before computers? In what reality did Zen place us in 1500 A.D.? |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | This needs to go at the end of my response to Rick: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=index2&cid=1060&/?u I must get back on those meds before reality is just a memory. |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1885 Registered: Dec-03 | In response to mr vigne's! "Those of us espousing a sense of reality have been termed "arrogant" by some. Those who feel reality is what they want it to be and they need no more are feeling talked down to." Who's reality yours or mine? In my oppinion reality is reality, not what soemone wants it to be! And because you "believe" reality is a certain way does not mean that it is! Again it is the reality you percieve! ecspecialy if you believe you know all there is to know or enough as to form your own conclusion of reality! THERE IS ALLWAYS MORE THAN YOU KNOW! |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 76 Registered: Sep-04 | Frank, John, Kegger.... I think I would have to hear a surround system in order to make the judgement - and then a good qaulity one. Last year, I helped my friend unpack and bolt together his new surround-sound DVD player. You know the kind of thing: player with integral amp, centre speaker and a whole bunch of satelites hanging on bellwire. Later that week, myself and my wife were invited over to watch Lord Of The Rings (Return Of The King) on the new system. Great effect in the battle scenes. Lots of noise coming from places you felt it should. Not a bad player, but I remember thinking I'd rather see more substantial speakers instead of the little choc-boxes positioned on the walls. I didn't like having to strain to hear the quiet bits only to have the loud moments too intense by contrast. Listening to a CD was truly awful though. Even worse than one of those useless boxes of fairy lights that say 'Hello' to you when you turn them on. It sounded like someone had switched on the graphic and used the preset marked 'crap'. Absolutely no dynamic properties whatsoever, apart from some muddy slop issuing from the centre box, which was trying to sound like the lower end of the bass frequency to give it some kind of 'reverb'. Okay, so probably not the best example - but in all of this, I felt the music would have benefitted far more from a fixed position, rather than all around my head. As for the 5.1 music format or whatever the latest thing is - like I say - I can't really judge it. I don't feel any need to buy one, since I rather like what I've got already. Films simply sound great through the Hi-Fi. I do get a sense of space when listening to films. It's enough to enjoy it, certainly. V |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1886 Registered: Dec-03 | varney I agree with you playing a cd in surround that is not encoded in it is not a very pleasent thing for me either. Nor are the tiny surround satalite speakers. An sacd/dvd-a recorded and played back in 5.1 with some real speakers including a nice center channel is quite a bit different though! Not saying that you'll like it but at least with a nice setup you may have a chance. |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 77 Registered: Sep-04 | <j.vigne> "I take it Zen teaches we are programs in a computer." Why do you? <j.vigne>"Not to get too far afield, but, where were we before computers? In what reality did Zen place us in 1500 A.D.?" Err.... Here - and without computers.... (?!) ....And in the same reality it does to this day, I suppose. To recycle my own text: (* That was an adventure story which was analogous.... ) V |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 1153 Registered: Aug-04 | Jan Vigne said: "Those of us espousing a sense of reality have been termed "arrogant" by some. Those who feel reality is what they want it to be and they need no more are feeling talked down to." Jan - stop lying! You know darn well the "arrogant" tag was awarded to you not because of WHAT you say, but HOW you say it! For a person who is all knowing, one would think you could comprehend something put in the most simple of terms. So to continue with such false statements only offers considerable more proof of your "arrogance" sir! In fact I think "arrogance" is a badge you (and maybe a couple of others) wear proudly and while some may be content to bow to your majesty, quite frankly, such character leaves me cold. As I have stated previously, you have a wealth of knowledge - it's a shame you feel the need to force-feed it rather than share it. I have spent the greater part of my working life as a salesperson also Mr Vigne, and perhaps the most important rule I learnt was to listen. I knew many peers who thought the rule was "listen to what I say!" I have my suspicion as to which rule you had adhered. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2545 Registered: Dec-03 | I salute you, Kegger. Who's reality yours or mine? Neither. There is only one. In my oppinion reality is reality, not what soemone wants it to be! And because you "believe" reality is a certain way does not mean that it is! I wish more people understood that. THERE IS ALLWAYS MORE THAN YOU KNOW! Absolutely. ...More than any of us knows. In audio, there is, or was, a real performance. We can compare that with what the hifi gives to us. Then we can tell if the hifi is any good at imitating reality. If we say there is no reality, or everyone has a different one, ("solipsism") then we are all wasting our time; there is no way of telling if the high-quality system is better or worse than a transistor radio, because, then, everything is just a question of what anyone happens to like. That's my view on that. It is what I have been trying to say from time to time on "Old Dogs", too. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2546 Registered: Dec-03 | ....and voting has got nothing to do with it. MR, If only I understood the reason for the strength of your response.... "Those of us espousing a sense of reality have been termed "arrogant" by some" Jan spoke for me, too. I thought he had summarised the whole problem very well. It is as Kegger says: ...reality is reality, not what soemone wants it to be! So we can comment on how well things seem resemble reality, to us, and compare notes with others, on the assumption that they can see and hear as well as us, and we might, eventually, agree, since we are all talking about the same thing. In contrast, it seems to me to be totally arrogant to say "well that's what I like" as if that's the end of any subject. And even more so to say "well that's what a lot of people like" as if the path to truth is majority opinion, and one does not need to defend a position that is widely held. So, for my money, Jan's a modest guy. "For a person who is all knowing" - surely you are being ironical?! When did Jan either say or imply that, or claim special knowledge? Isn't Jan about the first on Old Dogs to explain, clearly and patiently, and at length, why he thinks what he thinks? And to explain where he has doubts about his own judgement, and try to see what they might be? And about the last to say "because I say so, and I am special/have special knowledge"? Why this attack on an informed and civilized contributor, who knows so much, shares it so generously, and is at the same time so honest about what biases he thinks he might have, wishing people to know what they are, so they can freely make up their own minds? Varney, You will be puzzled. Your thread has attracted some guys who have been arguing around your central question for months. Perhaps we have to step out of that thread to make progress on the issue in question. Frank makes a key distinction which I wish we'd got to earlier. |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1889 Registered: Dec-03 | Thank you john , but it was spurred on by like rantz said mr vignes comment. Just like you comented on, that you've been trying to say that on the old dogs. What is the best point about where audio is right or wrong And who is the one to point us in that direction. If you want to suggest or ask questions to debate a topic that is one thing but to put your thoughts down as the way it should be and not expect others to react, is saying that the others have no thought process of there own. And who's perception of reality should we go by? your's , mine , varney, jan, rantz? Well I would think you should go by your own and try to form educated oppinions of others. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 1154 Registered: Aug-04 | John A, As usual, you miss the point! My comment was nothing to do with the subject matter! The "all knowing" was not entirely ironic, but closer to fact. I defer to Jan's knowledge of things audio - always have - and to his committment in assisting others here. My comments were to his quote as I had italicized - the fact that he claims still, that the arrogance tag is because of what he said and not how he said it. It refers to the original post on 'Old Dogs" - you and he can put any spin you wish on my remarks, I could not care less. My only desire is for honest representation. It seems you also, cannot grasp a very simple sentence: "You know darn well the "arrogant" tag was awarded to you not because of WHAT you say, but HOW you say it! " |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | I think any response I make to Rantz and Kegger's comments toward my arrogance will only drag this thread well off base. There are some concepts which might prove valuable being discussed here and there is no point in making what I feel is a personal issue the central theme of this thread. Gentleman, I suggest we step outside. We can carry this on at the Old Dogs thread where it began or, if you would prefer, you can begin a new thread that asks, "Is J. Vigne an arrogant a s s ?" That way anyone who wishes can make any comment they would like to toss my way. As I stated on Old Dogs, I've been called arrogant before. I probably do wear it as a badge of pride. It's taken me quite a few years to learn enough to even be considered "all knowing". It's a difficult job, one I wouldn't wish on anyone. I've spent the last thirty five years of my life either in the theater or in sales. My hide is pretty tough at this point. But maybe you're both correct, maybe I need to get taken down a peg. I don't doubt there are others who would care to have a whack at me. I'll let you decide where this continues. Please carry on with the discussion. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2548 Registered: Dec-03 | Let me just say I was not trying to put spin on anything, MR. I am simply mystified. Also, I strongly agree with Kegger. We all have our points of view, and are entitled to state them, and to read and consider other people's, deciding whether to change our own. I have been through many changes of opinion as a result of reading views expressed here, and I am grateful to all posters. Jan, in particular, has dropped a few casual suggestions, simple things I hadn't considered, that have just improved my hi-fi. Simple as that. The interesting question, which I think is at the heart of Varney's points, is whether there is anything else to be said, apart from "this is how it seems to me". I think there is - it is the reference point of the original performance. Without that, I, personally, am lost. Now we can add Frank's point about the intentions of the movie director and producer; yes, Home Theater/Cinema is a different game. Probably DSOTM and so on should be approached more in the way of an audio "movie production". It occurs to me, too, that a lot of the classic films/movies I have particularly enjoyed (and only brought to me by the DVD) are not so far removed from stage plays. I am thinking of "Casablanca" for example, which my wife and I had been avoiding for years because of our allergy to film critics, but it is truly brilliant. Same for musicals. We all now have greater and easier access to great films, musicals, musical performances. Some of "legendary" musical performances and performers turn out to be pretty good, too. I had been avoiding Kathleen Ferrier, for example, for much the same reason I had been avoiding Casablanca; I do not react well to being told what I should like, and what is good for me, for example by pompous peoiple in e.g. "Gramophone", who often seem to be on some sort of nostalgia trip. That was a mistake, in that case, too. We are better placed, today, to make up our own minds, and can compare past and present, different interpretations of things, different approaches. This is an unqualified good thing. Surely? |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 1155 Registered: Aug-04 | My apologies to Varney for introducing "a frayed knot" into this thread. It won't happen again. M.R. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2549 Registered: Dec-03 | Just to try to be clear - I think it is the actors, directors, musicians, who are taking responsibility for creating the original illusion of reality, and for what it is they are trying to say, and to communicate. I personally want my hifi, home theatre, etc., to give me that, with the greatest fidelity and accuracy. When it has, is should get out of the way. I am not interested in the musical or artistic tastes guiding people's hands at mixing consoles, etc. Their job is purely technical. If they want to be musicians they should go and do that somewhere else. A loudspeaker is a loudspeaker, not a musical instrument; a device for musical expression. The better the audio gear, the less you will be able to tell who made it, or where - it will give you the programme material with less and less of its own contribution to the experience. Possibly Frank has said that, too. |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1891 Registered: Dec-03 | I can't argue with what you have said john. And don't take this as bashing what you just said even though it may come out that way. Can an engineer at a mixing console mess with someones music and give us something possably more entertaining then what the musician had in mind? If a speaker has a particular colorization to it and you like what it does can that be a good thing for some? Same can be said for tube audio gear. The "golden midrange" some may love that while others want truth in the reproduction. If someone wants this golden midrange but you don't, does it matter? See the point I'm trying to get at? I believe the main point to audio is personal taste! That is my opinion, my ultimate belief! If you want real to the performance, fine have that and enjoy what you hear. But if I want something different and enjoy it just as much as you then that is just as much correct also. Imo I think What your trying to say is that the music should allways come out the way it was intended by the musician. And I ask if I alter it but like what I hear better after altering it, Is it still not music and I may enjoy it just as much as the next person? |
|
Silver Member Username: Larry_rNaples, FL Post Number: 230 Registered: Oct-04 | John A. - may I disagree with you on one point here? While the job of the control room staff is, indeed, technical, every recording studio I've ever been in wants - and usually gets - people who "pull the knobs" to have experience in both music and electronics. To truly balance a recording takes sensitivity, not just ability to read a VU meter or to check sound levels on the board. That's why many, if not all music groups - especially classical - gather 'round the speakers to hear what they've done, and to do final mixes with the tech staff. Having a "knob-turner" who knows and appreciates music takes away a potentially detrimental aspect in the process - a person who personally cares vs. a person who only wants to get levels and balance correct. Nuance. Is that oboe just right? Is the cello solo clear? In this case, a loudspeaker IS an instrument - played by people who add and take away elements of the recording. No piano-keys or embouchure to worry about, but a misstep with those volume controls has an equally bad "performance" to deal with. And finally, I personally know some musicians who are also electronics gurus - and who choose to be control room chaps (while perhaps doing gigs at night "on the side?") because it gives them a sense of accomplishment and pride in a finished recording which, while they are mixing, is under their creative control. Pretty satisfying, really! I've done it - I know the feeling of those sliders under my fingers, and the sense of awe that comes when "hozho" (balance in Native American language) occurs. So perhaps a second thought on whether musical tastes should guide those hands? At least it is worth considering - in my opinion only. More anon. . . |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2550 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks again, Kegger. I see it like this: IF we want the "original sound" THEN there are things we can say about how to get it, because we can compare the recording with the original. I have a whole load of opinions in that direction, as you know - mostly "don't!"; like don't use colouration, compression and so on. I could be wrong about those, but we can at least talk about it. But, on the other hand, IF someone prefers it a bit warmer or a bit quieter (compressed) or whatever, THEN that's OK, too. It is a question of taste. We have every right to listen how we like. It's a free world. We hope. BUT .... we still have to be able to answer the question "warmer than what?": Making things warmer etc should be the listener's choice and decision, not having to accept something that someone else thinks he should be hearing - and without knowing that's what he's getting. So, to be able to make up our own minds about what we like, we still need some sort of reference out there. So, put it like this: If someone wants this golden midrange but you don't, does it matter? No. But I think he ought to know that's what he's getting. If he wants to, of course. Just as I want to be able to know what I'm getting. In the end we have to have something with which to compare. Otherwise none of us knows what's going on. Does that matter? YEP! That's my view, Kegger. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Kegger - Your question seems to always be, "if I like it, isn't that good enough?" Or, to take the last proposal you stated; "I ask if I alter it but like what I hear better after altering it, ... Is it still not music and I may enjoy it just as much as the next person?" I would think the best answer I can give to your question is this: Let's say I enjoy the Mona Lisa for the beauty of the art it represents. I admire the proportions of the work and the sense of proportion it represents to the art world, something that didn't exist as such until the Rennaisance. I find looking at the painting to be inspiring in its detail and sensitvity, the brush strokes fascinate me with their texture and depth. In short, the Mona Lisa is a work of art that is very pleasant to me (as it is to many people in the world). That it exists as it does is a reality that few would argue with. That it represents a pinnacle of perfection in art would also be considered a given fact by most people who cared about such things. If you, Kegger, see the Mona Lisa and think it would look better with a pair of sun glasses (the Elvis kind with the holes in the temples) and a moustache and large happy face smile stuck in the upper right hand corner; would you be right to add these items to the painting? From the arguments you have presented, I would say you would think you should be allowed because it would please you. What would that leave me and the other people who have, for centuries, found the Mona Lisa to be the perfect expression of Leonardo's art? Should we celebrate because Kegger has created a new work of art while destroying what we valued? If you alter the Mona Lisa and you like it better after the alterations, is it still art? And, may you enjoy it as much as the next person? My answer to both questions would be no; it is no longer art (certainly not as Leonardo envisioned it) and you would more than likely be the only person who found your alteration to be an improvement. So if a representation of a performance of music is altered by the engineer or the listener, is that still a valid representation of that piece of music? Not in the sense of the artist's original intent. And if it is altered to be something that the artist did not intend (let's say your alteration emphasizes the saxophones over all other instruments because you like saxophones), then logically, it cannot be considered music created by the artist. It then becomes music created by Kegger. And like the altered Mona Lisa, you may be the only person who would consider that music. Is Kegger then allowed to enjoy what he has created with his alterations? I think most people would agree that, yes, you may enjoy what you have created assuming you have not permanently deprived the rest of us of what we enjoy. As long as what you have created breaks no judicial or moral codes you are free, in a free society, to enjoy what you have created. I am also free to despise what you have created and prefer what I consider is my reality. I don't think I have ever stated anything different from that opinion in all the posts I've made on this forum. If you feel I have, please point it out to me. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2551 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks also, Larry. You put the case well. it is the case for the Deutsche Grammophon "Tonmeister" with his "technical knowledge...always supported by a thorough training and education in music". I forget the precise words they use, but it is to that effect. Personally, I'm against it. I think it is confusing two entirely different jobs and responsibilities. Also there is an element of pandering to snobbery about lesser and greater tasks, in my opinion. I'll come back on this if you like. Nuance. Is that oboe just right? Is the cello solo clear? That is the musicians' job. The engineer's job is to get the recording to tell it like it is. That is not a lesser job; it also requires skill, ingenuity, and the rest, but with quite different objectives to those of the musician. They are doing different jobs. It is a bit like a printer and an author. You expect the printer would take some interest in reading the books he prints, and maybe try and write something himself. You would expect the author to want to see his book looking good, and conveying the work, as he intends, to the reader. But they are totally different tasks, requiring different sorts of skills, and there really should be no input from one side that affects what is done on the other. Each depends on the other to supply what he knows he cannot really do so well himself. If you like, he trusts the other guy to do the best job for him, and does not interfere - "knows his place" perhaps. Is that a fair analogy? |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1892 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan that was a very interesting way of putting how one could interpert what I was trying to convey. Some I can agree with but I do believe it's a little out of context. For one the mona lisa is a piece of art that is worth more than you and I can imagine that no one would alter and could never be replaced. But what I am saying is 2 different things. One: If I alter only my setup, speakers and or amp. I have not changed anything for anyone else except myself. Two: I did not mean that when the engineer decides to alter the mix that it was someones product and they had no sayso. But at the time of recording if he decided to add his own flair to the mix,showed it to the band, could he not have created something the band did not intend but ultimatly was better? Meaning the engineer earning his money because he made an enhancement to the recording instead of a hinderence. It just seems so many times that john thinks all the engineer can do is mess it up. What I'm asking is could the engineer be talented enough to be a benefit? I'm sure there are some very talented engineers out there that get paid big money for what they have to offer. Many artists employ the services of alan parsons and trust his judgement on how to make their sessions better than if they did not have him including many out of the ordinary techniques even advancements in surround. |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1893 Registered: Dec-03 | John: "Thanks again, Kegger. I see it like this: IF we want the "original sound" THEN there are things we can say about how to get it, because we can compare the recording with the original. I have a whole load of opinions in that direction, as you know - mostly "don't!"; like don't use colouration, compression and so on. I could be wrong about those, but we can at least talk about it. But, on the other hand, IF someone prefers it a bit warmer or a bit quieter (compressed) or whatever, THEN that's OK, too. It is a question of taste. We have every right to listen how we like. It's a free world. We hope. BUT .... we still have to be able to answer the question "warmer than what?": Making things warmer etc should be the listener's choice and decision, not having to accept something that someone else thinks he should be hearing - and without knowing that's what he's getting. So, to be able to make up our own minds about what we like, we still need some sort of reference out there. " I agree on all points! I think we are having a bit of misscomunication! I'm not saying alter the original. "When I say as long as I like it" meaning a recording. When I'm talking about a recording I mean as long as i like what the engineer/group/whole ensamble has presented me weather it be surround or 2 channel. If someone else does not like the mix but I do To me that is all that matters. That's what I've been trying to say. If someone does something out of the ordinary in the recording studio but it works out and is agreed upon before I get it then I don't care how they did it as long as I like it. I agree we need a reference point to compare things that are different. But what I'm saying is I don't believe everything needs to made to the reference standard to be appreciated! As we could basically say 2 channel stereo is the reference for the music we listen to today. But If someone makes a surround mix that I like, that is cool to and may even like it better than the 2 channel version! |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Kegger - Now to address your other question to me: "Who's reality yours or mine? In my oppinion reality is reality, not what soemone wants it to be! And because you "believe" reality is a certain way does not mean that it is! Again it is the reality you percieve! ecspecialy if you believe you know all there is to know or enough as to form your own conclusion of reality!" Let me address your questions from the first line to, "it is the reality you percieve!". The rest of the post seems, to me, to once again reflect on what I apparently know and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Kegger you seem to argue against youself. On the one hand you protest that reality is reality and what someone belives is reality does not make reality. But yet you seem to want whatever you percieve as "reality" to be accepted as an alternative reality. This thread has danced around the concept of what is real more than Old Dogs has and the question, I think, that is pertinent would be; how do we decide what is reality? My recollection from Philosophy class is this; we live in an ordered world that has rules set up for our universal survival. How those rules are established is a function of a "majority rules" democracy. If I remember there are arguments to be made about cave walls and shadows dancing among people who never saw "the light". But I was doing three shows at the time that particular passage was covered and I don't know if I could get it all correct right now, so let me use some concepts of my own. When I say majority rules I mean when the majority of the people can agree that what they percieve coincides with what they experience, then there can be an asumption of reality unless another experience supercedes the first. An example of this is a group of people walking down a busy street as they come to a crosswalk. If the group continues to walk across the street and traffic swerves to avoid them until they have reached the other side with no injuries, the percieved conclusion from that experience might be there is no need to take traffic into account when crossing the street. As the group continues to walk down the street, at the next intersection they blithely walk into the street convinced traffic will avoid them. This time however, a bus plows ahead and kills three of the group members while the others successfully make the crossing unhurt. What are the group menbers to make of their experience now? The surviving members still managed to cross the streeet with no concern to traffic but obviously the group, as a whole, did not fare as well. At the next intersection another five members are picked off by several vehicles. This progresses until at almost every intersection members are killed. Out of fifteen intersections, only two allowed the group members to all cross unhurt. Should the surviving members conclude that at those two intersections cars will continue to avoid them? Or should they conclude from their total experience that it is best to look both ways before crossing the street? Though there may be a few who, for reasons of personal perception, continue to holdfast to crossing when and where they like, the majority should conclude that all intersections are dangerous and prudence suggests caution at all intersections because they are dangerous. If we try to take this into our world of musical reality it might go like this: A group of people walk into a symphony hall. It is empty and it is quiet. As they progress down the street, they enter another auditorium where they see an orchestra seated and hear the instruments which they can see the performers using. Along the way to the next performance hall the group encounters a sidewalk artist who is playing an instrument similar to one the orchestra was using. Suprisingly the street performer is playing the same piece of music the group heard the symphony orchestra playing. But the street performer is not playing in the same movement as the symphony was playing. There is a time disconnect between the street player and the symphony. Should the group decide the street performer is part of the symhony and belongs to that experience even though they are not related in any direct manner? The group next enters a hall with a jazz combo on stage and, once again, they hear the sounds that seem to come from the performers playing the instruments. They notice the sound of the piano is coming from the direction of where the piano sits on stage. The same with all the other instruments, location correlates to sound source. They also notice that the sound of the hall is related to the performers on stage. In the next five halls they enter they observe this phenomenon and they begin to think there is a cause and effect. The last hall they enter has a rock band on stage and the performers, though spread out across the stage just as the other performers were, have no correlation to where the group percieves where the sounds are being projected. Confused by this new input to their experience the group asks a musician about what they see and hear. The musician answers by showing the group the cable between his guitar and the amplifer/speaker. Now when the group sees the guitarist play a note they can see the cable that connects the guitar to the amp/speaker and hear the sound come from the speaker. What should the group decide about where sound comes from when they see musicians playing on stage? I think it is fair to assume the group would decide when they see performers on stage playing an instrument they can reasonably expect to hear the sound of the instrument. In most cases where there is no cable/amp/speaker connection they can expect to hear sound come from the area which the musicians occupy. (Experience would further inform them what type of music is likely to have cables/amp/speaker, and, therefore, sounds that don't occupy the space with the musicians.) This would lead them to expect when they first hear the sound, they can then also expect to know where the musicians are in space. (As would the previous group assume that when they hear the sounds of traffic they can expect to see traffic.) They can also decide there are exceptions to that general rule, but, those exceptions don't negate the first rule. Further they can decide that just playing the same music as another performer (as with the street performer and the symphony) doesn't mean you are playing with that performer. Now let's take that a step further and say when I hear a recording of a musician playing music which I know didn't use cables/amp/speaker, I can assume I will hear a relation to the sound and where I expect the performer occurred in space. (If my further experience informs me I will hear almost all rock music coming from speakers that do not occupy the same space as the performer I can assume this will be true for most rock music I hear in the future.) And if I consistently, as verified by the group, hear a relation between a symphony player and where the music seems to originate, I can assume most symphonic music will fall along those same guide lines. Therefore, if my experience has proven I will see/hear the violins in front and to the left I can assume that most symphonic recordings will represent that same position. Through similar experience I conclude the French Horns will likely be stationed on the opposite side of the violins. If my experience conforms with what the group experienced often enough, the majority rules allow that I can reasonably expect this to be true most of the time. This would then become the reality of what I can expect. Any alteration of that pattern would not readily fit into what has been accepted by myself, and the group, to be reality even though room has been allowed for those exceptions. I think it fair to say that as long as my reality coincides with the group reality we can all call that - Reality. It is not out of line for me to suggest that the group reality is what everyone can reasonably expect to find as reality. If, at this point, Kegger says that even though the accepted reality is fine for everyone else, he doesn't like it and therefore it doesn't, or at least shouldn't, exist; what should the group (represented by myself or many) think of his version of reality? Can we agree that what Kegger accepts as reality is not what the rest of us accept as reality? Can we further accept that our group reality is still the norm? And we can expect that reality to exist until proven otherwise? So even though Kegger may like his reality more than he likes ours, it is not his reality we will come to expect. That would be particularly true if Kegger could offer no valid proof to indicate his reality should supercede our own. My point here is there are accepted norms that have been established as "reality". To argue that you like something better than what is accepted as reality does not make it reality. Kegger is allowed to like what Kegger likes but that does not change reality. It is therefore not the reality Kegger likes which exists, but, instead, the reality that exists is what continues to exist. To argue whether that reality truly exists, or is a construction of our conscious mind, is another matter all together. To argue whether the group exists is still another matter. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Kegger - On your posts of 2:07 & 2:28; we are going in circles here. We all agree that if Kegger alters the sound of Kegger's system and expects no one else to like it that is Kegger's deicision and Kegger is the only person Kegger has to please. There has been widespread agreement on that for months. If the engineer makes a change that affects the intent of the artist but the artist is in agreement then the engineer is no longer just the engineer, but now becomes a performer also. That has been agreed upon. When a performance is altered to subvert the artists intent the alteration is not desirable. That has been agreed upon. If you like what you own it is no one else's business. That has been agreed upon. Whether what you own, or listen to, is what anyone else would care to own or listen to is not the argument. To John and me there is a question of whether there should be a check against reality when there is a known reality to use as a comparison. If there is no reality to base DSOTM upon, then it doesn't matter what DSOTM sounds like to anyone. Not in the context of this discussion. It really has nothing to do with what Kegger likes(Steely Dan in multi channel) or what John likes (English Madrigals on DVD-A) or what Jan likes (three channel Mercury recordings). It has to do with having a reference to check against when one is available. What you and Rantz seem to be so upset about is the suggestion that a reference point is a good place to start for comparisons. What else is there to discuss? |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1894 Registered: Dec-03 | But whos to say that you have the proper reality. If you have more people in your reality does that make it the correct reality? What if I have more people in my reality? What if I believe there is only one reality and we are free to choose as we see fit? what if michael angelo had an assistant to tell him how to paint instead of thinking on his own? would he still have been famous and his works of art still be very much sought after? Could he have possably made more money from his paintings? If the mona lisa was painted with different color hair to begin with would it still be a great work of art? even if the artists intent was comprimised? |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1895 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan did you read my post? "I agree we need a reference point to compare things that are different. But what I'm saying is I don't believe everything needs to be made to the reference standard to be appreciated!" yes we need a reference point to be able to tell when something is different. Deciding what that reference point is! that is the question! And if we deviate from the reference that is fine too! (but like john said we need to be made aware that it has taken place) |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1896 Registered: Dec-03 | jan: "When a performance is altered to subvert the artists intent the alteration is not desirable." Not necasarily! I'm not saying it should be changed but if it was their is a chance that it "could" be an improvement. Even if after the change was made maybe the artist heard it and said humm I never would of done it that way but I like it. (even without his concent) Or if the artist did not like it but it was agreed upon by others it was a change that improved it. That means it was not an improvemnent as far as the artist was concerned but "may" be an improvement for everyone else. That's what I mean by absolutes. They are hard to come by! |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1897 Registered: Dec-03 | The point that mr. rantz and I argue is, who decides what the reference point should be? And if we deviate from it whos to say it's good or bad? |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 78 Registered: Sep-04 | I have not had time to go through the many posts which arrived here since yesterday, having speed-read most of them to get the general gist. I apologise if anyone has already made this point, but.... We hear a lot of talk about the 'performance', as the reality one should be aiming for in a 'true sound'. How much has been taken into account, I wonder, on the very 'reality' of a recorded album's sound? The players being segregated, playing at different times in a booth..... One by one, they are recorded and the final mix being made with the musicians most often present for their input - but perhaps not always. So in light of this, I'd be interested to know how the 'Empirical Ones' veiw this distortion of reality where, although a performance has taken place, it's intrumental segregation and acousticly isolated setting brings about an artificiality which forms the reality of recorded music. The question is: Should we be disapointed when our hi-fi does not deliver the illusion of performance on these records, or should we be delighted by the fact that new and interesting things can be achieved, but which may not always work so well in a live setting? I think that the two are worlds apart, but I do want to hear how it was originally intended by the artists and engineers to sound. Quite how and if my equipment is capable of this would be anyone's guess, had they not been present to hear the original tape, played back through the equipment originally used to monitor it. Thus, for those of us who buy and enjoy mainly recorded music, we can only buy into the best make for the money, as reccomended by reviewers and our Hi-Fi salesmen - then take a seat in the listening room to make our final choice. So I'd be interested to know how the former salesmen view the reason for the audition room - To prove their recomendation is right to the customer, or to allow the customer to make his/her own choice? Regards all, V |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Kegger - It now sounds like a circuitous loop of what if's. I've tried to give you my concept of how we, as a group, arrive at what we call "the reality". I honestly don't know what to say or what you expect me to say that will resolve this to your satisfaction. Can you help me. Maybe just put it out there as a statement that I can sign on to. Sorta like buying a car. I'll read the big print and see if I can sign off on it. I don't know where else to go with this, Kegger. Varney - "So I'd be interested to know how the former salesmen view the reason for the audition room - To prove their recomendation is right to the customer, or to allow the customer to make his/her own choice?" To an extent, both are true. I would liken it to dating before marriage. Just who are you trying to convince, yourself or your prospective mate? The sales process is one of relationships if it involves more than a quick in and out the door. When a salesperson begins the process an early step is Qualifying the client. This means asking questions to find what the client thinks they want. A client doesn't always know what they want. I was taught the next step in a sale was to go in the stock room amd find what I had that suited the client's needs or desires. It comes across as anything for a sale but in reality is what a salesperson needs to do. If the desire or need can't be met with what I sell then I will tell the client. But most stores carry enough that most reasonable needs can be met with what is carried either in stock or on order. Then the product is demonstrated. If the salesperson hasn't done the previous steps well they are unlikely to make a sale. So the demonstration is restating what the client has told you they want or need and showing the client how this unit fits their needs. Equivocation here is not a salesperson's best device. State the case and let the client decide. If the unit is purchased and satisfies the need or want then you have made the first step towards making another sale. Return customers are far more likely to trust the salesperson the second and subsequent times they come into the store. By showing the customer you listen and can solve the problem, you will begin to establish a long time customer who doesn't need as much work from either party because you both have developed a trust in the other. |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 79 Registered: Sep-04 | Kegger and all, "The point that mr. rantz and I argue is, who decides what the reference point should be? And if we deviate from it whos to say it's good or bad?" You pays your money, you makes your choice. All any of us can do is to spend the most amount of money possible on the components which matter the most to the final sound and make the final choice based on whether we like the sound or not. I'm sure our former salemen and fount of all knowledge will have to agree they have their own preferences. It's just that the preference here is based on whether they think it sounds like the real thing or not. But in order to make the proper judgement of absolute reality one would have to buy only records of concerts one had attended, or become omnipresent in time and space to visit every single one. Since this is not possible, there will always be people who constantly torture themselves so. You presumably bought the best Hi-Fi you can afford, buying into a makers build-philosophy which matched your own as closely as possible and set the thing up properly in your listen room. What else can you do? I must end this though, by asking: Anyone ever been to a bad concert? What would you do if you later bought a recording of it and it sounded better through your Hi-Fi? Then - you'd be in some soap 'n' bubble wouldn't you? Regards all, V |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Varney _ I would say you are incorrect with this statement: "But in order to make the proper judgement of absolute reality one would have to buy only records of concerts one had attended, or become omnipresent in time and space to visit every single one." I don't need to be present when a photograph of my grandmother is taken to recognize her as my grandmother. I can even recognize her in a photo taken when she was younger than I had ever seen her. I don't see why the need for being present at a concert to know how "correct" the presentation may be. You said one of my post was meant to get a rise out of you. I would say the same about this post of yours. It is a classic argument meant to embarrass the other person who claims some desire for correctness. It is as ridiculous as asking how I can tell what is coffee if I haven't tasted all the coffees in the world. Or, how can a person know they have found their one true love if they haven't met each and every person on the planet. Please, rethink your position and restate your case. |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 80 Registered: Sep-04 | J. Vigne, After rethinking my position, at your suggestion, I believe I am ready to restate - whilst taking your's too, into account. You do not need to be present when your grandmother was photographed to know it is of her - but I do not believe the debate is centred around the content of the music we are hearing; rather it is the quality of the reproducton which is in question. Since I can tell which song I am listening to on a transistor radio as well as I can on a bespoke Hi-Fi; it might also be possible to recognise also, the work of an artist in his/her early years on a 'Guess Who' style game show presented on either of the equipment. The statment I make, to which you take offence is not directed at you, or at anyone in particular, J. It was simply my way of illustrating the difficulty presented in the task of finding the best equipment to do what it is you seem to require of it. It was not intended to cause embarassment to anyone, but rather to encourage some rational thought. Even so, it still has to be said that since love is a subjective and relative thing, I could find the love of my life far more easily than I could the best lover or the best cook. I guess I just got lucky then Which also reinforces my point, made earlier, that all we can do is settle for the best thing available to us. And with all due respect, I do still think my original statement holds true. Regards, V And I hope no one minds me begining a sentence with 'And'! |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 81 Registered: Sep-04 | To answer as precisely as possible: "I don't see why the need for being present at a concert to know how "correct" the presentation may be." Oh but I do see the need, you see. May I ask why you don't? V |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1899 Registered: Dec-03 | Allright I'm going to back off and let you guy's continue on without me. I just want to set my position before I leave. I listen to mainly 2 channel and really have no preferences from the norm except maybe I like my system very very very slightly on the bright side. I enjoy multichannel also. I believe we need a reference point but don't know what it should be. I think If someone wants to alter their sound system to their likes That they by all means should do that. __________________________________________ When I ask the questions of what if it is not meant as what if "I" prefer to do it this way but more along the lines if anyone wanted something out of the norm who are we to discourage them. ___________________________________________ I believe engineers "can" make a positive difference. __________________________________________ The only thing I think were we seem to butt heads at times Is that I think Nothing should be set in stone and that everything has an alternative that "may" work. And all I'm trying to do when I ask these questions is bring up the other side for discussion "they are not my thoughts" I don't believe in all the questions I ask but mearly ask them so that all/both/more sides get talked about. My feeling is that by looking at it from different angles may give us more insight into which we seek. Even if it's an angle we don't agree with! |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Kegger - "I believe we need a reference point but don't know what it should be." For the purposes of this discussion the refernce point has to be what is considered "the reality" of the group experience. I've laid out my ideas on how that reality is arrived at and what it entails in this discussion. We cannot have a reference point that is based on each individual's reality unless it is: A) understood and agreed upon by the concensus, or B)we arbitrarilly accept an unconventional reality as one superceding the agreed upon reality and argue each (new) reference on its own merits. "B" has to much involved for this discussion as each of us could present a "reality" and claim its worth against every other reality other that the accepted group reality. Best for this discussion to stick with what is generally accepted as reality by the group before we ever arrived here. Am I deciding the reference? No, that is how the accepted rules were established long before this discussion began. (See the end of this paragraph for more on this subject.) A Shostakovich String Quartet has a reference based in the accepted group relity. If each one of us has percieved this reality we can use it as a reference point from which discussion can take place. If one has not availed oneself of this reality then it behooves the individual who wishes to discuss, within the group, to obtain the agreed upon reference. (This is my point, Kegger, there can be no discussion of what is the reality we base our discussion on unless everyone in the discussion has experienced that group reference.) Wendy Carlo's version of a synthesized Shostakovich String Quartet has no reference in reality since there is only her individual performance of the piece. Once it is performed it becomes the reality reference for a synthesized performance of a given piece but that is a reference which can only apply to one performance and has little value in our discussion. It becomes "B" in the discussion. Yes, you may like it and even prefer it to the accepted reality; but, that does not alter the accepted reality as the agreed upon reference. There has to be a starting point and it is established by the democratic Majority Rules. That you weren't consulted has no bearing on the matter. ************************ "I think If someone wants to alter their sound system to their likes That they by all means should do that." I don't think anyone has denied you that. *********************** "When I ask the questions of what if it is not meant as what if "I" prefer to do it this way but more along the lines if anyone wanted something out of the norm who are we to discourage them." Are we discussing HiFi or G-a-y Marriage? ********************* "I believe engineers "can" make a positive difference." As a one time engineer I couldn't agree more and could give many stories of ham fisted engineers who mucked everything up to no good end. ********************* "The only thing I think were we seem to butt heads at times Is that I think Nothing should be set in stone and that everything has an alternative that "may" work." and: "I believe we need a reference point" These seem, to me, to be mutually exclusive, Kegger. Either there is a fixed reference point or there isn't. You can't go into the woods and expect to find your way out using a compass unless a reference point is established before you start your journey. Where is North? That's a reference point. Were you ever a Scout? You cannot set up a sundial correctly unless a reference point is established before you decide how to orient the dial. Where is South, it makes no difference what time of day you choose to set up the dial. Yes, alternatives work but not as an accurate reflection of the reference. When I was awake during the class, I seem to remember this being the crux of Plato's discourse. ****************** "My feeling is that by looking at it from different angles may give us more insight into which we seek. Even if it's an angle we don't agree with!" Any Italian can argue one point until they get a concession from the other party and then turn around and argue the opposite side of the coin. A good excercise, but frustrating in this discussion. *************** |
|
Silver Member Username: Larry_rNaples, FL Post Number: 236 Registered: Oct-04 | Jan, Kegger, et al. I've given up trying to make heads or tails of this discussion, so will just way I hope you're having a good time with, uh, whatever. . . Jan - in reading your post - did you study WITH Plato, or study Plato's works? either way, I'm impressed! (double grin) |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Varney - Firstly, I didn't find your statement to be offensive, merely a classic dodge that is meant to send the discussion off into left field with the defense man slamming into the outfield fence trying to pursue an obviously foul ball. " ... but I do not believe the debate is centred around the content of the music we are hearing; rather it is the quality of the reproducton which is in question." Of course the debate is centered around the content of the music we hear. How else do we even begin to establish that reference of cable/amp/speaker to place the music in the context of our experience? I can be fooled, as with Ms. Carlo's version of Shostakovich, but that does not alter the reference any more than Kegger's examples. But, more to the point, it is the quality of the content we are concerned with. That is the case because this is only a reproduction. A thought which deserves more than passing attention. Is a photograph of my grandmother in front of me the same as having my grandmother in front of me? No, I'm afraid not. But wouldn't it be wonderful if all reproductions were the same as ... that should be the goal no matter what the cost. Not everyone has to be the early adapter to this concept. ******************** " ... since love is a subjective and relative thing ... " As is the HiFi you choose, the comparison is more apt that most would care to admit. *************** " ... that all we can do is settle for the best thing available to us ... " This is the sort of thing you can admit to your HiFi dealer. I would not suggest mentioning it to your spouse. *********** ""I don't see why the need for being present at a concert to know how "correct" the presentation may be." Oh but I do see the need, you see. May I ask why you don't?" and " ... or become omnipresent in time and space to visit every single one." Being present at "a" concert versus being present at "every single one" is presenting two different arguments. I cannot argue two sides of the coin at the exact same time. I'm quite suprised you have asked that of me. Being present at a concert is a function I whole heartedly promote as you can see by my post to Kegger. Being present at every concert you can attend is a lofty goal but one that falls short of attending every concert in all time and space. So I believe you have presented my own argument against me in yet another attempt at sending me crashing into the outfield wall. Care to rethink and restate? |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | "Jan - in reading your post - did you study WITH Plato, or study Plato's works?" I'm an OLD DOG, Larry. Which do you think? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2554 Registered: Dec-03 | Repeating my post on Old Dogs: I have to get on a plane tomorrow, and I sure hope the pilot thinks there is a real sky out there, also runways, other traffic &c. I do not want him to be looking at shadows on the wall of the cave. Thanks for all contributions. Will be back. I hope. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | John - I think the shadows are part of the pilot's liscencing test. Or maybe that's just for the military. Have a good trip. |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 82 Registered: Sep-04 | J. Vigne, I did not really intend my statment to be: <j.vigne>"a classic dodge that is meant to send the discussion off...." Neither did I intend it to be seen as: <j.vigne>"....a foul ball." ....On this field of play. But I do readily admit that some concerts are easier to get to than others. Merely keeping 'an ear in' to concerts in general, I'm sure must be sufficient.... I was sure you would wholeheartedly encourage attendance in order to compare, which is why I was somewhat puzzled at the denial that you needed to be present to know how "correct" it (your system) may be. I'm sorry, J - I probably sent the discussion off the rails with my suggestion we need to hear every concert we have stored in our record collections. Even more so, with every one ever recorded. I know we agree the reference point should be the live event, in any case. I think we should however, be careful about every case. So the best you can offer your customers by way of recommendation of a system is: "When comparing concert x, which I personally attended, whilst noting the specific nature of the sound, I found this system played the recording of it so well, I could have been back there. Therefore, with concert y, it should perform just as well and recorded music will sound fine, too." Now please, don't for one moment think I am trying to tell you how to do the job that I'm sure you did perfectly well (and some) for how ever many years.... I'm just offering that this, in my opinion would be the test of a unit, before any rash claims be made of it. I wonder this is probably the way they are tested? I don't know - I am no expert. And since your goals be the same as my own, would it were that I could afford such equipment, I'm sure I could trust your judgement to point me towards the right set of boxes. So in conclusion, we can only say that any Hi-Fi can only aproximate the sound of the live event "badly", "almost" or "very well", etc. Please forgive any understatements. Which, as some others here might agree, is not just a sign of quality, but of both quality and ability*. It may hold that some qaulity gear might not possess the same ability. Probably a different debate. (*Quality in build and design / ability to reproduce.) I would hope this restates my case more palatably. And I was (mentally) emphasising the word 'best' when sugesting what I settle for.... (Honest!) One has to be careful, indeed, lest they make the comparison themselves! Regards, V "You love that damn Hi-Fi more than you love me!" "No I don't, I merely like the fact it has a potentiometer." "A what?" "A sweetness control, dear." |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 83 Registered: Sep-04 | I'm afraid the season is upon me to work like a dog for a while until I am on top of the pile. I won't have much time to use the forum for a while - (which may be to the relief of some.) So I'll take this opportunity to wish you all a merry one.... and hope that Santa treats you soundly. Regards, V |
|
Silver Member Username: Larry_rNaples, FL Post Number: 245 Registered: Oct-04 | Ahem - am I the only one here who hasn't the foggiest idea what everybody's talking about? (grin) (or not) Hmmm. . . |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | My experience at concerts that have later shown up on disc has been much the same as viewing photos of myself when I was very young with relatives I later came to know. They tell me the image on the film is me and I trust them to be telling the truth. I recognize the people around me in the image as people I knew, though they are not exactly as I remember them. The faith I have in them and the photographic process is sufficient to convince me I am viewing an image of myself and relatives. Enough clues are included to satisfy my needs to create this ink. But after all, I am viewing a two dimensional image that appears to be people in a space. I am not viewing the actual people or space. The recording is merely a reproduction of the event and microphones are not ears. But, given enough clues I can reconstruct enough information from memory to satisfy my needs. I have found more interest in how little can be spent to achieve this rather than how much. |
|
Bronze Member Username: VarneyBirminghamEngland, UK Post Number: 84 Registered: Sep-04 | Considering I recently bought an amp for £20 (about 15 bucks I suppose?) which does the job very well, I too am constantly amazed at how small a spend can buy a big sound etc. But really, to get into the likes of the Krell even a 2nd hand one might cost me thousands. Then again, if they are THAT good - begs the question WHY would anyone want to get rid of one? There are others, somewhere in the £3-400 mark which would do me well I'm sure. Couldn't resist another quick one. V |
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