Watched the video. First thing that came to mind: with recording industry professionals like that, is it any wonder why so many recordings sound the way they do? And the choice of music for the “examples”? Good Lord! He lost me early on with the claim that when we listen for the bass (or treble, or whatever…) that is the only thing that we will hear or be able to judge. Speak for yourself, dude!
Some of what he says about the power of suggestion can be true. So what? In no way does that mean that what astute and discerning listeners hear cannot be real nor repeatable.
Great post by a master musician mr.frogman...Thanks...
He lost me also after 5 minutes... 😁😊
I will listen to it completely though....Thanks the op for the video...
The second speaker in the beginning use some good psychological science : if you concentrate on bass you will not perceive high in the same way that if you concentrate on highs ...True, but no musician and no lover of music concentrate on limited set of frequencies at the expanse of others, we listen music timbre microdynamic playing notes ...We dont do psychological experiment in our audio room listening music...
Instead of concentrating on some specific limited bandwith like a microphone in a sound test , why not listening the specific timbre microdynamic playing?
I use that timbre perception to create my acoustic room setting...Am i deluded? Some here will say yes probably, erasing the fact that we cannot explain human hearing ability by only placebo, uneducated biases, and wrong brain working....
For sure suggestion is powerfully true in his effect on ANYBODY mind ... So what?
A maestro or an acoustician or a lover of music could also be deluded on DETAILS but could also overpower them by TRAINING in concentrating on the WHOLE not on details....
Alternatives exist between 2 details at different levels, but there is one way to judge a trumpet timbre playing a note, this a single phenomenon at one level...There exist a "relative" musical consensus about that....
Timbre is a WHOLENESS unexplained by addition of frequencies on a screen or by someone listening wrongfully alternate details ...Fourier transform dont explain timbre...Timbre is not a spectrum....Save for uneducated people...
An acoustician could use timbre with his ears to set a room in relation to a specific speakers set, is it a deluded dude when he claim that he could do it IN SPITE of the way the brain and/or the room could play tricks?
Audiophiles attentive to UNRELATED details like bass spectrum or high spectrum at different volumes are not a maestro listening the WHOLE orchestra and picking some defect in a single trumpet player.... Is the maestro deluded by some placebo or effect of his brain wrong working? Is a measuring device the only way to touch sound and musical reality ?
And ANYWAY hearing something which is not there acoustically is precisely the definition of what music is...Read this sentence 2 times i will not repeat it....
If you want to know why this is so, buy a psycho-acoustic science book....
The truth is audiophiles, subjctivist or objectivist one, are completely conditioned by marketing of the audio ENGINEERING field "frequencies" analysis vocabulary...Music lover and musician dont buy the hype and dont mind placebo or biases listening a musical chord...They judge their audio system by listening the only supremum meter in psycho-acoustic : human voice timbre recognition speech and singing ...Singular or choral....
«Each timbre playing microdynamic tonality is an integrated cosmos, like a human figure, perceived by the listener or the musician, not a bunch of frequencies or details which can be separated or assembled by a machine or an untrained or unfocused brain»-Anonymus Musician
