Audiophiles on Audiogon.

@yoyoyaya 

Interesting to compare. Camera performance can be objectively measured and everyone seems to a accept the results. Camera sensors have reached an asymptote in performance with only small gains generation to generation now. In photography everyone wants the best technical performance and then adjusts the final result to taste in software.

The one similarity to hifi audio is that hifi has also reached a technical plateau. The response to that is much different.

This is why I used to have Bose 901's.

The one similarity to hifi audio is that hifi has also reached a technical plateau. The response to that is much different.

It is also because acoustic integrate optic channels in the brain not the reverse...Acoustic channels in the brain are older , more useful in the sea with smell than vision...

And measured performances are more simple to measure and evaluate in human optic perception and production than in sound/music perception...

And learning acoustic is more complex than learning photography ...Photography like painting is more related and more tributary to chemicals and simple tools than to a complex language linked to complex tools and to the body control itself...

And it is true that some imagine erroneously they can assess quality of audio system by specs sheets and in any uncontrolled room... we can effectively evaluate a camera WITHOUT taking photos...But we cannot evaluate a sound system or an instrument without tuning them and listening them...Listening is an art in itself that must be learned ...

Also when we see something we are related to his external appearence, when we hear a resonant object source we enter into his intimate qualities , we are able to detect it at distance and without seeing it...

It is probably the reason why some of the first human population in dense forest for example begin to develop more intensely the use of whistling and singing to keep beast at a distance and keep an ongoing communication between them by voices or talking drums...Language come from music for me...And sound like fire is a powerful weapon...With sound you can organize large hunt of large animals by large synbchronized groups...

Language at his origin is a gesture of ALL THE BODY not only from the throat...Language is related to music and come from it... When language detach more from music he localize itself more around the throat, and became more a linguistic tool than a musical body gesture...

I dont pretend to be right... For sure....But this is a main research trend...

We now have a pot and people to stir it. One guy’s opinion posted by another guy.

Mahgister, by the simple act of posting what you did, which could be wrong, you are, are you not, pretending to be right?

I agree in principle there is a better correlation to what can be readily seen in a photography image and how a person will perceive it, versus what happens with sound hitting our ears. Most of our discussion is not about sound though, it is about electricity. There is far less room for interpretation even if that will become a sound.

I think the bigger difference is in the perception of those participating in each hobby. We have no illusions in photography that a 2 dimensional photograph can ever accurately portray the full 3 dimensional experience of stereoscopic imagery. We not only readily accept deviations from accuracy, we encourage it. We want our reds redder, our blues bluer, we often want the background blurred to highlight the foreground, and we may even reduce the resolution on facial skin to hide blemishes. What’s more, we can readily compare the result side by side. In audio we have deluded ourselves that we are trying to recreate an original performance, when that is both impossible, but probably in most cases undesirable. We want the feel of a live performance, but all the benefits that exist because it was not recorded as a live performance would be experienced.