What's the audiophile word for this...? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 159 Old 05-27-2012, 10:29 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
cschang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manhattan Beach, CA
Posts: 14,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

Btw, if they ever decide on a spatial specification, let me know where they decide to place the sampling machine for hip hop and whether sound originates from the electric guitar itself, or the stack of Marshalls, for rock. The music that seems to make up the majority of todays produced recordings.

That is partially the reason why I think people's perception of soundstage and imaging is interesting.

-curtis

Owner of Wave Crest Audio
Volunteer Mod at the Ascend Acoustics Forum
Like all things on the Internet, do your research, as forums have a good amount of misinformation.
Help beat breast cancer!

cschang is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 159 Old 05-27-2012, 10:33 PM
 
AJinFLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Take a guess
Posts: 1,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
...and why I chuckle about "accuracy"....
AJinFLA is offline  
post #93 of 159 Old 05-28-2012, 05:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
psgcdn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Prov. of Quebec, Canada
Posts: 4,429
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

Spatial "accuracy" is a fools errand/chasing shadows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

The only spatial "accuracy" of your speakers is in your imagination. You have no clue what it's supposed to be and you have no method of verification.

Ok, you have a valid point that the listener doesn't know what the image is supposed to be like. It's not like the CD liner has a drawing of where the instruments are for each track.

But you also make it sound like persuing an image is not worthwhile. Between listening to speakers that broadcast a wall of sound with no sources (or everything coming from the two speakers), and listening to speakers that image point sources away from the speakers, I will pick the second even if I have no way of validating that the point source locations are accurate.

psgcdn is offline  
post #94 of 159 Old 05-28-2012, 06:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jon Lane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,176
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nethawk View Post

I stand by the statement "transparent imaging", the sound was in the room but did not come from the speakers themselves - pellucid, diaphanous, magical.

I've checked this thread a few times since it began and just want to add my support of this elusive goal. Those who have heard it know what it is, and those who know how to make a speaker do it also know what it is.

In a market full of formula product, it's good to know the goal of real musicality - the "magical" element of coaxing genuine involvement out of two wooden boxes - is to my thinking the only reason to be in audio. Bravo.

Jon Lane
The Audio Insider
Jon Lane is offline  
post #95 of 159 Old 05-28-2012, 06:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jon Lane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,176
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

Between listening to speakers that broadcast a wall of sound with no sources (or everything coming from the two speakers), and listening to speakers that image point sources away from the speakers, I will pick the second even if I have no way of validating that the point source locations are accurate.

That. The end result is its own proof. You either grasp the original acoustical event and venue by experiencing a believable facsimile of them or you do not.

Jon Lane
The Audio Insider
Jon Lane is offline  
post #96 of 159 Old 05-28-2012, 06:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jon Lane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,176
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

That is partially the reason why I think people's perception of soundstage and imaging is interesting.

Me too. In 30 years I've found the response to a genuinely musical, authentic, engaging acoustical facsimile to be virtually universal. The instinctive suspension of disbelief is a wonderful thing.

Jon Lane
The Audio Insider
Jon Lane is offline  
post #97 of 159 Old 05-28-2012, 06:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jon Lane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,176
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelkingdom View Post

I have some speakers that do this and some that don't. Interestingly, price does not seem to be the catalyst. While all my speakers do something well, not all of them have dancing notes.

Such a great set of sentiments, but yes, price is not the determinant. "Dancing notes" are fundamental to design and tuning and can occur from $200 of parts and pieces. Rare, but not impossible.

Jon Lane
The Audio Insider
Jon Lane is offline  
post #98 of 159 Old 05-28-2012, 07:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
chikoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,067
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by chikoo View Post

Is looking at the sunlight via a prism and appreciating the color spectrum an accurate method or looking at the direct sunlight as your eyes see them an accurate method?

Did this post get lost in the fight over semantics?
chikoo is offline  
post #99 of 159 Old 05-28-2012, 07:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Nethawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,513
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 114
No, it just made no sense.

Nethawk is offline  
post #100 of 159 Old 05-28-2012, 08:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Saturn94's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by chikoo View Post

Did this post get lost in the fight over semantics?

I believe semantics is what started this whole fight. If Nethawk had used the term "realistic" rather than "accurate", I believe this whole battle between him and AJ would have never happened.

Nethawk, correct me if I'm wrong, but what I gather from your posts is that you're looking for a soundstage that sounds realistic/believable, not "accurate" to the recording engineer's intent.

I believe AJ's point is that when you say "accurate", it suggests being true to what the recording engineer produced, which is an unknown to us who weren't there.

Perhaps AJ may not come across as tactful as Jim Salk or others mentioned here, but I've heard his monitors and they are definitely the real deal in terms of imaging, flat frequency response, dynamics, and just plain great to listen to. If I were in the market, they would definitely be on the short list.

Now perhaps I'm way off base here, if so, just ignore me and carry on.

Saturn94 is offline  
post #101 of 159 Old 05-28-2012, 09:07 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 18,818
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 551 Post(s)
Liked: 633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane View Post

You either grasp the original acoustical event and venue by experiencing a believable facsimile of them or you do not.

How would one find out what the "original acoustical event and venue" sounded like? Without knowing that, there's no way to know whether you're "experiencing a believable facsimile" or not.

The concept of "accuracy" requires a reference: what are you being accurate to? Some feel it is what was heard at the studio. You mention the original acoustical event. Yet others point to the signal on the disc. Good arguments can be made for each of those three.

And that's the problem. When a claim of accurate reproduction is made, it isn't unreasonable to ask what is being accurately reproduced. Getting three different answers in reply makes it clear that there is no one definition of accuracy. Which makes the concept more arbitrary than agreed upon.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #102 of 159 Old 05-28-2012, 10:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
chikoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,067
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nethawk View Post

No, it just made no sense.

Then let me try to make sense.

Direct sunlight is "white" light.
When it hits a prism, it separates into the constituent colors.
From your perspective, what is accurate? The direct sunlight as intended by the Sun or the light broken up into its constituents showing accurately what it is made of.

Speakers are very much the same. A full range speaker is like direct sunlight. A speaker with multiple drivers is like a prism.

Which one is more accurate?
chikoo is offline  
post #103 of 159 Old 05-28-2012, 11:31 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
michaelkingdom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
In asking my question originally, I was looking to find out if there was any common name for the phenomenon I notice. Stereo, imaging, soundstage and other names have been given. I appreciate all the insight.

I understand that 2-channel listening creates an image by tricking the brain into thinking it is perceiving 3D information. What I don't get is why some speakers seem to create a perfectly flat 2D image while others have a deep sound field that really feels 3D.
michaelkingdom is offline  
post #104 of 159 Old 05-28-2012, 11:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tesseract67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 2,507
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelkingdom View Post

In asking my question originally, I was looking to find out if there was any common name for the phenomenon I notice. Stereo, imaging, soundstage and other names have been given. I appreciate all the insight.

Also, as Rutgar stated, "air" or a sense of space around and between the instruments and vocalists, both left to right as well as front to back.

Soundstage describes how wide and deep the the stereo illusion is.

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea." -Robert A. Heinlein

Volunteer Moderator for the Chase Home Theater forum

tesseract67 is offline  
post #105 of 159 Old 05-28-2012, 11:57 AM
Senior Member
 
donutfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelkingdom View Post

I understand that 2-channel listening creates an image by tricking the brain into thinking it is perceiving 3D information. What I don't get is why some speakers seem to create a perfectly flat 2D image while others have a deep sound field that really feels 3D.

Without getting into all the particulars, careful design is what allows a pair of speakers to do that and IMO they do not need to cost an arm & a leg.

My Baby Advents - $140 per pair back in 1984 - have good left-to-right imaging and fairly decent front-to-back imaging. And a pair of Dynaudio Contours I listened to a few years ago had pinpoint left/right imaging and much better depth capabilities (at $6,000 per pair they'd better sound better than my Advents! ).
donutfan is offline  
post #106 of 159 Old 05-28-2012, 12:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jon Lane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,176
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

How would one find out what the "original acoustical event and venue" sounded like? Without knowing that, there's no way to know whether you're "experiencing a believable facsimile" or not.

At some point we have to allow scientific bench racing and actual listening room experience to diverge. Given the lack of having an "objective" yardstick calibrated to the nth degree and directly tied to the sound of real (in real world componentry), I suggest going with the ears God gave us and refining and refining until we're convinced the illusion is as real as we can possibly make it.

Or to put it another way, the finest systems I've ever heard didn't subscribe the accepted wisdom of the day. In fact, they almost couldn't be more unalike, yet the net result were various degrees of stupefyingly natural sound, which they had in common. How to qualify that phenomenon escapes me...and apparently the industry too, not withstanding advances made to legitimize a standardized theory by way of empirical testing in popular markets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

The concept of "accuracy" requires a reference: what are you being accurate to? Some feel it is what was heard at the studio. You mention the original acoustical event. Yet others point to the signal on the disc. Good arguments can be made for each of those three.

It's because the concept of "accuracy" requires something it cannot directly have that many say the ear must be the ultimate arbitor. This does not negate objective tools, but objective tools have yet to close the book on either "accuracy" or that conviction that what's being replayed largely resembles the best subjective analysis we can make of what's happening. After all we listen for pleasure, not an academic viewpoint of what's proper, namely, "accurate".

Put another way, plenty of accurate systems sound musical but not all musical systems are accurate. We seek accuracy but we must find authentic musicality. Anybody can make "accurate".

Quote:


And that's the problem. When a claim of accurate reproduction is made, it isn't unreasonable to ask what is being accurately reproduced. Getting three different answers in reply makes it clear that there is no one definition of accuracy. Which makes the concept more arbitrary than agreed upon.

It's not unreasonable to ask the question but it is unreasonable to eliminate important descriptors of important phenomenon that grant certain listeners that next step in the sound of, if you will, accuracy.

Jon Lane
The Audio Insider
Jon Lane is offline  
post #107 of 159 Old 05-28-2012, 01:25 PM
Senior Member
 
donutfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Anyone that's interested in cars knows that while two different models may share basically the same numbers - cornering speed/g-force, 0-60 times, etc etc - that does not mean they feel the same i.e. they "drive" differently.* So one model may inspire confidence while negotiating a twisting, bumpy road while the other car causes a knotted stomach and the strong urge to slow down to a less upsetting rate of travel.


* for example: McPherson struts up front + a solid rear axle w/Watkins link system act differently than a double-wishbone front suspension + five-link independent rear suspension ----> soft-dome tweeter + woofer w/cellulose cone vs. aluminum tweeter + kevlar woofer cone
donutfan is offline  
post #108 of 159 Old 05-28-2012, 03:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nethawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,513
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saturn94 View Post


I believe semantics is what started this whole fight. If Nethawk had used the term "realistic" rather than "accurate", I believe this whole battle between him and AJ would have never happened.

Nethawk, correct me if I'm wrong, but what I gather from your posts is that you're looking for a soundstage that sounds realistic/believable, not "accurate" to the recording engineer's intent.

I believe AJ's point is that when you say "accurate", it suggests being true to what the recording engineer produced, which is an unknown to us who weren't there.

Perhaps AJ may not come across as tactful as Jim Salk or others mentioned here, but I've heard his monitors and they are definitely the real deal in terms of imaging, flat frequency response, dynamics, and just plain great to listen to. If I were in the market, they would definitely be on the short list.

Now perhaps I'm way off base here, if so, just ignore me and carry on.

Hey Saturn. If you go back and read my posts, not once did I mention accuracy and soundstage or imaging together. AJ made that part up entirely on his own.

You might also read that I'm not looking for anything, I've already found it. My experience with my little monitors has me smitten, and for this reason I got on the Philharmonic bend for their specific characteristic to throw a wide and pleasing soundstage.

Where I did mention accuracy was in response to chikoo's post, which was totally out of context with the conversation. Others may have their own methodologies for speakers shopping, my baseline is accuracy, a flat frequency response.

Now, I would have no reason to believe a flat response would have inaccurate imaging, but I'm not about to fall into Mr. Grumpy's trap to argue the point.

I'm happy for his talent, but I've lost the respect, I don't particularly care. I'll soon bow a the RAAL altar, that's good enough for me.

Nethawk is offline  
post #109 of 159 Old 05-28-2012, 04:57 PM
 
AJinFLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Take a guess
Posts: 1,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

Ok, you have a valid point that the listener doesn't know what the image is supposed to be like. It's not like the CD liner has a drawing of where the instruments are for each track.

Right. Not just limited to imaging of the original event(s) either. But that point is lost on some.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

But you also make it sound like persuing an image is not worthwhile.

Sorry, but that is a contrivance of your imagination, not my position at all - which can be quoted with the forum quote function (which of course you cannot do).

cheers,

AJ
AJinFLA is offline  
post #110 of 159 Old 05-28-2012, 05:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
psgcdn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Prov. of Quebec, Canada
Posts: 4,429
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

Quote:


But you also make it sound like persuing an image is not worthwhile.

Sorry, but that is a contrivance of your imagination, not my position at all - which can be quoted with the forum quote function (which of course you cannot do).

So I am imagining your resistance to imaging as a goal... and you have stated your position multiple times. Your first answer was simply that what we call imaging is just called stereo:

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

Stereo.

cheers,

AJ


That's your position?

Let's try the quote thing that you say I cannot do:

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

Amplitude on every axis, yes, That I strive for. That is a achievable, realistic goal.
Spatial accuracy? To what? Please tell me how I get there, I'll do my best to engineer it into my product.

In this post, you basically said that you couldn't engineer imaging because you couldn't quantify it. Strange, I thought you said it was just stereo...

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

You know, a "ok, I really have no way to verify spatial accuracy" would have sufficed. Why the angst? I'm not calling you out personally Nethawk, it's your position/statement that is being questioned (or attacked, in your view). Calm yourself, think it through. Spatial "accuracy" is a fools errand/chasing shadows.

Here you say that it's a fools errand/chasing shadows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

Accuracy to what?
How do you know your speakers are spatially accurate/provide "transparent imaging". Transparent compared to what?

Not getting better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

Yep - Stereo. Pity so many have no clue what it is. It's not magic, it's science. But I understand how these things can appear so to some...

So imaging is just stereo. That's your entire position on imaging and why some speakers are good at it and others are not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

No, I've made my position clear on spatial reproduction in multiple posts in this thread alone.


psgcdn is offline  
post #111 of 159 Old 05-28-2012, 05:41 PM
 
AJinFLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Take a guess
Posts: 1,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

So I am imagining your resistance to imaging as a goal... and you have stated your position multiple times.

Correct. My "resistance to imaging" is a contrivance of your mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

Your first answer was simply that what we call imaging is just called stereo

My answer to Mike, the OP, all his imaging from 2 speakers is called "stereo".

Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

Let's try the quote thing that you say I cannot do:
Quote:


Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post
Amplitude on every axis, yes, That I strive for. That is a achievable, realistic goal.
Spatial accuracy? To what? Please tell me how I get there, I'll do my best to engineer it into my product.

In this post, you basically said that you couldn't engineer imaging because you couldn't quantify it. Strange, I thought you said it was just stereo...

Your reading comprehension is failing you. Sorry, can't help you there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

Quote:


Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post
You know, a "ok, I really have no way to verify spatial accuracy" would have sufficed. Why the angst? I'm not calling you out personally Nethawk, it's your position/statement that is being questioned (or attacked, in your view). Calm yourself, think it through. Spatial "accuracy" is a fools errand/chasing shadows.

Here you say that it's a fools errand/chasing shadows.

Fail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

So imaging is just stereo.

With 2 speakers, yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

That's your entire position on imaging and why some speakers are "good" at it and others are not?

Nope.
What is your definition of "good" imaging and what makes you the definer of it?
AJinFLA is offline  
post #112 of 159 Old 05-28-2012, 06:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
psgcdn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Prov. of Quebec, Canada
Posts: 4,429
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 190
So, apart from demonstrating your arrogance, you still haven't said much of anything.

You stated that your position on imaging is that it's... stereo. Wow. That doesn't explains why some speakers are so much better at it that others.

psgcdn is offline  
post #113 of 159 Old 05-28-2012, 06:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
astrallite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Acid trip.
astrallite is offline  
post #114 of 159 Old 05-28-2012, 06:39 PM
 
AJinFLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Take a guess
Posts: 1,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

So, apart from demonstrating your arrogance, you still haven't said much of anything.
You stated that your position on imaging is that it's... stereo.

Given your reading skills, that seems like an apt summary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

That doesn't explains why some speakers are so much better at it that others.

If "psgcdn" sayeth 'some speakers are "so much better" at it' on the AVS internets, then it must be so.
And this "better" imaging was verified when/how?
AJinFLA is offline  
post #115 of 159 Old 05-28-2012, 06:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
psgcdn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Prov. of Quebec, Canada
Posts: 4,429
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 190
Wow, just when you think someone can't get any worse... You sell many speakers this way? I hope a client never asks if your speakers image well; you'll go into a rant about how that can't be objectively verified.

I have stated my position on the matter earlier in the thread; it's your turn to find it.

psgcdn is offline  
post #116 of 159 Old 05-28-2012, 06:56 PM
 
AJinFLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Take a guess
Posts: 1,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

Wow, just when you think someone can't get any worse... You sell many speakers this way?

As quickly as I can make them...and even that isn't enough. Maybe it's their imaging, who knows?

Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

I hope a client never asks if your speakers image well; you'll go into a rant about how that can't be objectively verified.

I will answer them in a calm, logical, rational and informed way, leave the illogical rants to your ilk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

I have stated my position on the matter earlier in the thread; it's your turn to find it.

No need to search, when I quote exactly what was uttered. Sometimes even highlighted and bolded.

cheers,

AJ
AJinFLA is offline  
post #117 of 159 Old 05-28-2012, 07:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
psgcdn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Prov. of Quebec, Canada
Posts: 4,429
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 190
You are the one ranting, and can't even see it. Sad really.

psgcdn is offline  
post #118 of 159 Old 05-28-2012, 09:32 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 18,818
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 551 Post(s)
Liked: 633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane View Post

Given the lack of having an "objective" yardstick calibrated to the nth degree and directly tied to the sound of real (in real world componentry), I suggest going with the ears God gave us and refining and refining until we're convinced the illusion is as real as we can possibly make it.

But then that's personal preference, based on your god-given ears and tastes, not accuracy (since we lack an objective yardstick). And that's fine, as long as we don't conflate the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane View Post

It's because the concept of "accuracy" requires something it cannot directly have that many say the ear must be the ultimate arbitor.

Again, that's personal preference, based on your hearing, not accuracy (since the concept would require a reference it cannot directly have).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane View Post

Put another way, plenty of accurate systems sound musical but not all musical systems are accurate.

How do you know those systems were accurate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane View Post

Anybody can make "accurate".

"Accurate" to what?

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #119 of 159 Old 05-29-2012, 04:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
chikoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,067
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane View Post


At some point we have to allow scientific bench racing and actual listening room experience to diverge. Given the lack of having an "objective" yardstick calibrated to the nth degree and directly tied to the sound of real (in real world componentry), I suggest going with the ears God gave us and refining and refining until we're convinced the illusion is as real as we can possibly make it.

Or to put it another way, the finest systems I've ever heard didn't subscribe the accepted wisdom of the day. In fact, they almost couldn't be more unalike, yet the net result were various degrees of stupefyingly natural sound, which they had in common. How to qualify that phenomenon escapes me...and apparently the industry too, not withstanding advances made to legitimize a standardized theory by way of empirical testing in popular markets.

It's because the concept of "accuracy" requires something it cannot directly have that many say the ear must be the ultimate arbitor. This does not negate objective tools, but objective tools have yet to close the book on either "accuracy" or that conviction that what's being replayed largely resembles the best subjective analysis we can make of what's happening. After all we listen for pleasure, not an academic viewpoint of what's proper, namely, "accurate".

Put another way, plenty of accurate systems sound musical but not all musical systems are accurate. We seek accuracy but we must find authentic musicality. Anybody can make "accurate".

It's not unreasonable to ask the question but it is unreasonable to eliminate important descriptors of important phenomenon that grant certain listeners that next step in the sound of, if you will, accuracy.

illusion by its very definition is pleasurable when it is un-real and provides one with pleasure that reality does not.
chikoo is offline  
post #120 of 159 Old 05-29-2012, 05:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
psgcdn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Prov. of Quebec, Canada
Posts: 4,429
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 190
So I guess imaging is like pornography in that it's hard to define but easily recognized.

psgcdn is offline  
Reply Speakers

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off