@dougeyjones,
'My response was always the same, to take the focus wheel on the projector and back it off perfect focus just enough to blur the lines between each pixel, but not enough to make the picture look fuzzy overall. Customers were always satisfied, and with good reason, 35mm film in theaters doesn’t look like modern 4k video production. It stands to reason that poorly recorded or produced music may be more enjoyable on systems with less resolving power.'
Yes, it's very similar to the same approach to soft filtering as used by film makers and photographers for decades now.
Most of us do not want to see high resolution images of less than perfect looking actors and models in harsh light without make-up?
Instead most people tend to prefer to see only perfect looking, highly made up, well lit images in the highest resolution.
In audio we want our music recorded in the best way possible, but when it's not (99.9% of the time) a little soft filtering may help a little. That was Steve's point.
Some manufacturers like Harbeth have even openly said they don't want their domestic products to be as ruthlessly revealing as the ones they make for professional use.
Those so-called monitors tend to be the unforgiving 'warts and all' types. In fact it's their very ruthlessness that's often cited as the main reason to not to use pro audio products in a domestic setting, isn't it?
Too much resolution.
For audio playback to move forwards it's very hard to avoid the conclusion that we need better recordings.
Recordings are the unfortunate bottleneck after a certain performance point, not the equipment, and climbing the sonic ladder further will only serve to make that more obvious.
'My response was always the same, to take the focus wheel on the projector and back it off perfect focus just enough to blur the lines between each pixel, but not enough to make the picture look fuzzy overall. Customers were always satisfied, and with good reason, 35mm film in theaters doesn’t look like modern 4k video production. It stands to reason that poorly recorded or produced music may be more enjoyable on systems with less resolving power.'
Yes, it's very similar to the same approach to soft filtering as used by film makers and photographers for decades now.
Most of us do not want to see high resolution images of less than perfect looking actors and models in harsh light without make-up?
Instead most people tend to prefer to see only perfect looking, highly made up, well lit images in the highest resolution.
In audio we want our music recorded in the best way possible, but when it's not (99.9% of the time) a little soft filtering may help a little. That was Steve's point.
Some manufacturers like Harbeth have even openly said they don't want their domestic products to be as ruthlessly revealing as the ones they make for professional use.
Those so-called monitors tend to be the unforgiving 'warts and all' types. In fact it's their very ruthlessness that's often cited as the main reason to not to use pro audio products in a domestic setting, isn't it?
Too much resolution.
For audio playback to move forwards it's very hard to avoid the conclusion that we need better recordings.
Recordings are the unfortunate bottleneck after a certain performance point, not the equipment, and climbing the sonic ladder further will only serve to make that more obvious.