Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site


In the Forum: Playback Listening
In the Thread: My Audio Philosophy
Post Subject: InstrumentPosted by Amir on: 10/21/2019
rouwk  
our discuss was about my audio judgment and my music background and my audio philosophy, you told musicians know the sound better than audiophiles and they listen to sound in musical level and you told audiophiles care about artifact sound. i think we should first close this discussion and next we could go for next discussion.please read romy post about audio vs music , i believe audio is separate subject . he can help

 Romy the Cat wrote:
 rowuk wrote:
I maintain that audiophoolery tries to convince us that there are hardware solutions for sound quality. I disagree. Hardware solutions only feed our egos.
 This is very complicated question, rowuk, at least in my estimation. I do not argue that solutions feed our egos, there is plenty of it but it does not exhaust the whole picture. I have been in hear a strong supporter of a view that music and audio have distinctly different objectives and means, probably it is better to say not “means” but inner-mechanism for declaring itself. It is not that music and audio do not have arrays of inner-penetration, for sure they do. Still, they are different animals. It is would be similar to design treadmills and health, they for sure are connected and one can be used to evaluate other but essentially they are very different sectors of humans endeavor. 
 
Now the complex thing: the relationship between are hardware solutions for sound quality. I very much insist that quality of hardware solutions are very directly impact sound quality and very directly impact music consequences of that sound quality. I know that you expressed skepticism but I think you incorrect.  The problem is not in the supposition that I am expressing but with the definition sound quality that might be interrupted very wide. The “audiophoolery tries to convince us that there are hardware solutions [do something] for sound quality”, and they are absolutely correct. The key is their definition of “sound quality”. The sound quality that industry is patronizing for many year is a direct consequence of hardware solutions, some of them positive, some of them negative. Did you ask yourself why for over 100 year of audio industry, in one form or another, the industry never formulated more or less standard methodology for sound quality evaluation and assessment? My point is that when “sound quality” has a proper formulation in the ears (and the most important in the minds) of sound consumers then the relationship between hardware solutions for sound quality is very direct and very unambiguous. Unfortunately, the definition of “sound quality” as it been sponsored by audio industry is not the sound that has any relation to musicality or to any other human benefits … besides the “feeding our egos”. 
 
So, are the hardware solutions and sound quality related, yes they do. Does “sound quality” is a known ingredient or even to say commodity in the industry he produced the hardware solutions? Absolutely not and therefore in most of the cased the hardware solutions indeed are just to feed our egos. It might not ned to be this way…

i have told in this topic the audio is not nessesary to enjoy music and audio has his rules and it could affect us .audio to me is like buying better instrument (trumpet) to you . i ask you , do you like to have a better trumpet? most professional musicians like to have good instrument and we know they do not need better instrument because they play in their mind but sometimes they pay for better instrument.please do not say musicians do not like audio systems because they are communicate only in musical level , it is 100% wrong and i believe going for better audio is not related to being musician or not being musician. both musicians and regular listeners are equal about going to or not going to audio.
audio has his own world and it is open to you , me and others and i do not believe all musicians should be better than all professional audiophiles because musicians are every day in live stage and their mind is better than audiophiles in reacting to sound. i think this is not true and we should consider audio from a right perspective. audio is not about artifact sound and it is about reflecting beauty and power of music in our mind.the only thing we should discuss is about how a professional listener react to sound and what is the right sound. i write about it more ...

 rowuk wrote:
Amir,
an audio event can be anything that our ears hear. It can be live music, a baby crying, a recording, playback in the car.
Playback is much different than live music - especially if we are familiar with the recording. First of all, stereo does not have enough information to „recreate“ a live event. It can create only a plausible proxy. This proxy does not need audiophile artifacts to work.
If we are familiar with a recording, we already know what is going to happen musically. That anticipation changes the way that we listen. No surprises.
The geometry of live music is mostly not present in playback. This is because early reflections are far more prominent in domestic spaces. It is especially distorted in audiophile setups that brag about „imaging“ as a thing and not a result.
In live music, we have intermodulation. Two trumpets or a trumpet and oboe playing together create sum and difference tones that change depending on pitch interval for instance. For music in major keys, this intermodulation is additive - for music in minor keys, it is destructive. Bruckner used this to great advantage for instance. This effect is never as present in playback as in live music. This is because the intermodulation requires LF response to 1 Hz as well as integration of the highest frequencies.
Low frequency response is hugely different between audio events in a „smaller“ fixed space and „larger“ spaces. In a typical living room with the doors or inside an automobile, we have a pressure chamber. Our bodies react differently to this LF - a pressure chamber is impossible to musically integrate!
Tone: live music has „Tone“. The various octaves have a sense of pitch and softness and articulation all at the same time. Audio playback very seldom can unite these factors.
There are hundreds of further differences. You seem to want to argue, but never provide details.
I will not talk about synthesized tone from electronic or heavily DSPed music. Here there is no „reference“ tone (well except compared to the live PA sound...) and more (LF/HF/transients) is simply only more - not better or worse.

please read my first posts in this topic. i told reproduced sound is a new sound and we should not compare it to original event. all you say about stereo can not create live event is not important to me .
i do not care about mono or stereo or any other format, i do not play stereo in regular speaker position and i spend time to find a good place for my loudspeakers to hear sound from my room not my speakers.in a good speaker placement the speakers hide in room and you hear the sound from room.i will continue my response in next post.

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site