>>loudness in live music is a mysterious thing. e.g. The loudest a solo violin can play is about .02 acoustic watts. A bass drum could pump out 20. That is roughly 1000 time louder, yet ,subjectively both can compete because subjective loudness involves other things.<<
Well, no foolin'. Sure perception in sound is different from emprirical performance. But loudness doesn't come free. If all other things are equal or consistent and one pre-amplification stage change is made, and it results in more dynamics or gain yet there is no change in amplifier output, something is amiss in the credit chain of this equation.
Most concert recordings are woefully short of the live listening experience, but occasionally, enough is captured and re-presented well enough to be a credible facsimile. When that happens I'm happy to hear it. But exaggeration isn't welcome..
Sure, the customer who spends $4K on interconnects will find the QOL's expense also incidental. I have two systems for which their cost dwarfs the expense of the Qol, but still, even if I'm in the mythical 1 or 2%, that doesn't mean I think it's a good thing for the industry at large to pin its business on more of me. Selling a metal box as a mystery rather than forthrightly outlining its operation benefits very few. In software, we have an axiom that patents and stealth are worth next to nothing. Your job in a technical innovation is to put it out there and then run faster in terms of technical iteration, than everyone coming after you. So you may as well explain yourself, clearly. Either you're serious about innovation as a treadmill mandate or you're not. When a company obfuscates its working methods as opaquely as QOL, I have to take the default assumption they are not serious about genuine innovation until I see otherwise.
But that's the minor point. For anyone who owns it, I want to know whether it gets them closer to a perception of musical realism or not. A huge soundstage characterization tells me nothing about the QOL's contribution to fidelity if the soundstage is huge whether that's the right presentation or not.
Phil
Well, no foolin'. Sure perception in sound is different from emprirical performance. But loudness doesn't come free. If all other things are equal or consistent and one pre-amplification stage change is made, and it results in more dynamics or gain yet there is no change in amplifier output, something is amiss in the credit chain of this equation.
Most concert recordings are woefully short of the live listening experience, but occasionally, enough is captured and re-presented well enough to be a credible facsimile. When that happens I'm happy to hear it. But exaggeration isn't welcome..
Sure, the customer who spends $4K on interconnects will find the QOL's expense also incidental. I have two systems for which their cost dwarfs the expense of the Qol, but still, even if I'm in the mythical 1 or 2%, that doesn't mean I think it's a good thing for the industry at large to pin its business on more of me. Selling a metal box as a mystery rather than forthrightly outlining its operation benefits very few. In software, we have an axiom that patents and stealth are worth next to nothing. Your job in a technical innovation is to put it out there and then run faster in terms of technical iteration, than everyone coming after you. So you may as well explain yourself, clearly. Either you're serious about innovation as a treadmill mandate or you're not. When a company obfuscates its working methods as opaquely as QOL, I have to take the default assumption they are not serious about genuine innovation until I see otherwise.
But that's the minor point. For anyone who owns it, I want to know whether it gets them closer to a perception of musical realism or not. A huge soundstage characterization tells me nothing about the QOL's contribution to fidelity if the soundstage is huge whether that's the right presentation or not.
Phil