Dear @fair : " yet there is still a remaining topic of the gear that musicians, recording engineers, mixing engineers, and mastering engineers use. " As an audiophile and MUSIC lover I almost do not care about but anyway all what happens down there at the end comes in the listener tastes in what we like. Well, at least that’s my take.
R. |
I don’t want to open a new window in this thread because it’s useless and even futile and only want to tell that today is STILL TRUE .
Now could be of some interest for some of us to know for example why some one likes more the Firebird than the Berlioz Fantastique played by the London simphonic orchestra but the other way around two days after the first session all those by live measurements that at the end those bullet proof measurements explanation could be useless for the listener.
Anyway, open a new thread with the facts, examples measurements and the like on that specific issue.
R |
What define a good sound depend of a set of basic measures realatively easy to understand ... This does not means that taste does not exist... Taste there is, but taste it is not ... Electrical measures guided by psycho-aqcoustics information about amplifier design or any pieces of gear, any DSP , or any tools matter .. Mechanical measures about vibrations and resonance matter a lot ... Acoustical physical and material measures and inner ears and HTRF measures matter a lot and other psycho-acoustics concepts ... When all this set of measures are used and when a trained set of ears is used to guide all this toward an optimization of the three working dimensions , any system at any price will sound at his OWN optimal level of S.Q. ... This does not means that inferior design will sound better than superior design ... This means that when all is set right we reach and pass the minimal acoustic threshold of satisfaction, this is true for all of us ... Then designer like atmasphere dont claim that they understand everything , they claim if i read him right that they use psycho-acoustics facts about the way human perceive harmonics impact to create a better design in tube amp or S.S. amp of any class ... No designer can do this with only educated taste ...He needs knowledge first and last ... It is the same in acoustics ( do not confuse with mere room acoustic ) The taste of Dr. Choueri for classical music indicate to him what was missing in any stereo system by crosstalk destructive impact of the spatial information for the perceiving brain ...He corrected it with his set of filters , psycho-acoustics revolution ... I dont understand why some stuck with taste, informed taste or uinformed taste to explain S.Q. I used acoustics concepts applied full time for more than one year ... Why? Because before i experimented my "taste" was completely uninformed and i did not know how to be satisfied by sound in my room with my system ... And i could not afford 50,000 bucks system ...I was lucky being in lack of money , i discovered how to do it with any system and be happy ...
|
The fact that musical satisfaction has nothing to do with acoustics knowledge or amplifier design dont invalidate the fact that psycho-acoustics rule audio experience ... Psycho-acoustics dont rule musical interpretation or musical taste ... You are right .. but is it not a common place fact that has nothing to do with sound quality ? By the way when i spoke myself of acoustic controls of the room i spoke about HEAR control not only with tools but with my ears/brain working first and last ... Do you need this thread to say that mere taste rule anything in audio and excluding disturbing common sense voice or experts as atmasphere asking for more psycho-acoustics information and experiments ?
You seems to feel happy in this small world where by ignorance people are divided in objectivists and subjectivists? Do you want censorship of discordant voices ? This audio thread war make no sense in psycho-acoustics science for a good reason ...
|
Dear @mahgister : " informed and uninformed biases. " I understand your point about and by my comon sense tells me that exist diffrent levels/gradation of informed/uninformed biases in all of us and in some ways some psycho-acoustics concepts are inside that taste because I can't explain for my self how that should not be. Again exist gradation levels.
" any system at any price will sound at his OWN optimal level of S.Q. ... This does not means that inferior design will sound better thaqn superior design ... This means that when all is set right we reach and pass the minimal acoustic threshold of satisfaction, "
Agree with. Your " gradation " level is different from mine and mine different for other gentlemans.
R.
|
