Real or Surreal. Do you throw accuracy out the window for "better" sound?

Thanks for the beautiful Quote snilf ...

Like the pragmatism, but not so sure about Pierce (despite mahgister’s fondness). And I don’t see how we can do away with the ding an sich! The "I’m not a nominalist either" remark was a response to mahgister’s opening line.

The thing- in- itself idea came from the brain-in-itself idea ...

And Kant decided to fix for himself the task to explain how is it possible that we can know something in spite of the thing-in -itself, or with it...He suppose a brain-in-itself facing a thing-in-itself to do the job via active schematizing imagination ......

Peirce was a reeducated and a recuperating Kantian ,because he was also a polymath scientist, a more pragmatic man and then he created pragmatism to face and cure Kantism , because he never bought the thing-in-itself nor the brain-in-itself double ideas ...Peirce is nearer to Goethe IMPLICIT phenomenology and semiotic in his scientific books than to Kant ... Contemporary science had quit pure materialism since 1925 and any Cartesian claims of dualism is void now...

My best philosopher of science right now is an Indian genius , who discovered how the microtubules work on each neuron at another frequencies scale and in a quantum way... All the universe is based on musical synchronization in a way...The synchronization tool clocks are time crystals arranged geometrically by the prime number distribution...

His ideas are so novel creative and complex i can only refer people to his book ; nanobrain... All other A.I. scientist resemble each other mathematically compared to this new innovative and completely different genius on a level of creativity of his own with a new information theory and a new concept of Artificial consciousness ...

But beware he spoke the most horrible english possible, be patient...

Here two short conferences :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNKRbujzSok&list=PLnQJF3Qi_4_ANsyFHeEjTVNyZ-OWWoY9Q&index=3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5YyxHzT6QI&list=PLnQJF3Qi_4_ANsyFHeEjTVNyZ-OWWoY9Q&index=1

His twitter account :

https://twitter.com/anirbanbandyo/status/1696414403531264483

Anirban work with Penrose and Hameroff, on the microtubules physics but his own ideas are independant and totally revolutionary by themselves...

Here Hameroff in a short take on microtubules physics :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDgFFvu-0Z8&list=PLnQJF3Qi_4_ANsyFHeEjTVNyZ-OWWoY9Q&index=2

mijostyn,

You mentioned a "bright" system imaging the cymbals "10 feet in front of the snare." Well, there are more egregious imaging manipulations, especially with drums, that are a deliberate artifact of the original mastering. The drums on Tool’s "Fear Inoculum," for instance. The drum set seems HUGE, spanning the entire width of the (reproduced) soundstage and even indulging in moving back and forth across the breath of the stereo image! It has been remarked on this forum before that, in a jazz ensemble, the drums "should" be in the center rear, as they would actually be on stage, and they should STAY there. But that exaggerated effect with Tool is undeniably exciting—and not at all uncommon in rock, where a simulacrum of a live club performance is not what the engineers were going for. Think of the drums (again, just for instance!) on any Rush album. During the instrumental section of "Tom Sawyer," the drums start on the left and move across the "stage." This is NOT "realistic," but it is kind of thrilling.

All I’m saying is that, although I also go for "realistic" audio reproduction, and consider the "real" sound of acoustic instruments a kind of benchmark (given the many remarks in this thread already about the questionable status of "the real"), heavily produced music is obviously not bound by this principle. And that doesn’t make such music somehow a failure.

None of which is meant to suggest that you’re not right to want to restrain the frequency response of your system so that a not-intended effect of foregrounding certain frequencies is defeated as much as possible.

In my opinion you are right...

All I’m saying is that, although I also go for "realistic" audio reproduction, and consider the "real" sound of acoustic instruments a kind of benchmark

Add to that all the information lost in stereo system by crosstalk , about spatial aspects of sound... A subject very well studied by Edgar Choueiri...

For me "realistic" dont refer to the gear but to acoustic and psycho-acoustic controls about real acoustic instrument in a real acoustic space... Heavily processed music is not the benchmark with which we can judge a system ... We speak about acoustic here not about taste in music or taste in gear ...😊

@snilf 

Funny, I was just listening to UnderTow. Sober is my favorite Tool song. 

Studio recordings are art, anything is permissible. Jimi Hendrix loved panning back and forth. In my experience, systems that can accurately portray a good live recording are more exciting to listen to when it comes to studio recordings.  Take Roxy Music's Avalon or Carina Round's Tigermending, they are sonic paintings. Every little detail is suspended in space. 

My audio system sounds the closest to the original music. That makes my system the most accurate sound system.

All your speakers behave like a left speaker in below. Only my speaker sounds like a right one. Alex/Wavetouch

Killing me softly - Natural vs. Un-natural sound, PA speaker comparison.

mahgister 10-11-2023 at 05:00am

my sound too is now as natural as yours ...I can explain why and how...

What are your explanation ? You never gave one and then you claimed to be the only one with a natural sound in the world ... It is a bit too much claim....Synergy, modifications , and acoustic optimization can be done ... I did them with complete success ...it was not easy to figure it out... Most will not...

=====================

JBL, other big companies, and individuals have invested much money and their life times to figure out the natural sound in 150 years of audio history. If you’ve got it, use it for something good.

I am selling my products to churches, concert halls, and event DJs now. Billions of people are suffering with bad sounds. I probably don’t have the time for the hi-end audio business in my life time. If I have a time after I am satisfied with PA speakers business (in 5 years?), I’ll be in recording equipment business. Making the natural sound mic and recording machine is same thing as making a natural sound audio and speaker. The perfect natural sound recording comes 1st, then the natural sound audio and speakers are next. Alex/Wavetouch