Great post which express my own opinion too...
I haven’t noticed any participant on this thread rejecting scientific data, who’s doing that? I would acknowledge that there are posters (including myself) who believe reliance on measurement is no substitution for listening. Ralph has eloquently pointed out that relevant measurements are rarely utilized and presented even though they’re available.
Speaking of scientific data rejection, why are some so seemingly narrow minded and dismissive of the research and information regarding the fascinating study of ear-brain processing of interpreting sound? Too complex to bother with? Science demands curiosity, humbleness and an open mind. Probably a lot simpler and reassuring to just cite data from a sheet of paper.
The effort to delve into the science of human hearing may just be too daunting for some, so it’s easily ignored.
Charles
|
Evaluation of the quality of a design is important....
But there is many design quatitative product, and yet a great varieties of acoustic implementation...
Recreating with the original acoustic digitalized or analog information conveyed by the gear system a relatively truthful representation or translation of this information in a room acoustic is the real problem...
Buying relatively good gear nowadays is easier than in the past...
|
I think what most designers mean when they say accuracy is that the wave form doesn’t change from input to output.
This is electronical accuracy...
This is not acoustic and psych-acoustic "accuracy" which is a word anyway not used in acoustic to describe the naturalness of a timbre tonal playing chord (colors) in some room, at some location, with some violon or with some other violin with this player or this other one... There is not so much accuracy as such here, but the TRANSLATION of this recorded acoustic event which imply a gear designed "accuracy" to convey the acoustic information and a room mechanically controlled "accuracy" or the most optimal objective acoustic room dispostion for this optimal experience of perception ...
|
In acoustic and psycho-acoustic no scientist use the term "color" in the same pejorative way, like some subjective EXTERNAL quality added to a sound which must be eliminated because the sound must be only "accurate"...This is completely wrong...
Like just said atmasphere: instruments before the recording own their own timbre or colors...A good audio system must be able to CONVEY that and our room acoustic must TRANSLATE that for our ears pleasures...
"accurate" in electronic design is not "accurate" in acoustic , but yes they are related through the human ears evaluation with psycho-acoustic science and listening experiments taking into account what we know about hearing ...
This way to speak about colors in a dismissive way by some, has NO MEANING in acoustic... Why?
Because what is color in acoustic is described as a complex acoustic phenomena which is "timbre" tonal playing perception...
Colors could be unbalanced and perceived like a an indesirable artefact but it is not this way that this UNBALANCED color effect must be characterize not like something EXTERNAL to be eliminated but like something pointing to a design flaw in the gear or to an acoustic room problem, then pointing an INTERNAL problem, then colors are the symptom not the disease itself... ...
"Accurate" here in acoustic if we speak of timbre accuracy implicate at least 5 characteristics:
«
- Range between tonal and noiselike character
- Spectral envelope
- Time envelope in terms of rise, duration, and decay (ADSR, which stands for "attack, decay, sustain, release")
- Changes both of spectral envelope (formant-glide) and fundamental frequency (micro-intonation)
- Prefix, or onset of a sound, quite dissimilar to the ensuing lasting vibration »
Observe that these characteristics to be relatively "accurately" perceived , because there is no absolute in timbre perception , it is a relative acoustic phenomenon, implied also ANOTHER dimensions than only and mainly electronical measures of components and their potential to relay information or/ and affect it at the same time....This perception of colored tone playing timbre is also essentially a speakers/room acoustic and psycho-acoustic phenomenon...
Then dismissing colors as an added deceiving illusion or an indesirable artefact
is thowing the baby with the muddy waters...
Audio electronics AT THE END and TO BEGIN WITH is explained by acoustic not the reverse...Why? because we dont understand right now all there is in the ears/brain relation...
|
Artificial Intelligence is NOT intelligence...This is another matter out of this subject thread for sure...
Because "meanings" in human experience emerge through the deeply rooted biological body in all evolutive history beginning with the first cell...And this rooting is INTEGRATED at all scales and worked all the times not as a passed over abandonned tools but like an actual tools, our body host trillions of cells...... Life never let anything die without reason..Life explore and play but is not blind sorry...Randomness is not understood in biology...It is understood only in mathematics anyway...( the most important fact in mathematics is nor order or randomness but some kind of "music", this is demonstrated by non commutative geometry works of the fields medallist Alain Connes)
And in some very important theoretical approach in neuro research we must distinguish INTELLIGENCE and CONSCIOUSNESS completely... They are no more synonymus...
Consciousness is biologically and symbolically rooted , intelligence is only symbolically rooted, one is more fundamental...Consciousness encompass intelligence, not the opposite... There exist in the universe an "artificial intelligence" completely closed on themselves with no root in this universe at all... But i cannot enter this here...
Read Giulio Tononi... among others...or Penrose-Hameroff works etc...About the difference between consciousness and intelligence...
An intelligence rooted in an embodied consciousness work non algorithmically and work CONJUGATED AND IN CORRELATION with all others embodied intelligence through a hierarchical set of Markov blankets......To understand that read Karl Friston works among others...
The prime numbers distribution that Goedel used to created the first part of his famous theorem is essential...And primes numbers distribution is non algorithmically reducible ....
An A. I. do not and never will do...
Transhumanist science is technology gone mad...Not science...Yuval Noah Harari is an exemple of perfect intelligence without any ethical consciousness, he promote the right for some to hack the human body and negate the freedon of humans...
Intelligence has nothing to do with being "wise"....
«Do you claim that poetry rule over mathematics?»-Groucho Marx 🤓
I’m all in favour of upholding the sovereignty of the human mind and perceptual system, but isn’t this just wishful thinking as we enter the age of AI?
|
"...Then his ability to resolve information exceed many hundredth of times any passive system..."
Now this is contentious.
«The technical specifications of the human ear are remarkable. We can hear sounds that evoke mechanical vibrations of magnitudes comparable to those produced by thermal noise (de Vries 1948; Sivian and White 1933). Hearing is so sharply tuned to specific frequencies that trained musicians can distinguish tones differing in frequency by only 0.1% (Spiegel and Watson 1984). Finally, our ears can process sounds over a range of amplitudes encompassing six orders of magnitude, which corresponds to a trillionfold range in stimulus power (Knudsen 1923).
These striking characteristics of our hearing emerge because the ear is not a passive sensory receptor, but possesses an active process that augments audition in three ways (reviewed in Hudspeth 2008; Manley 2000, 2001). First, amplification renders hearing several hundred times as sensitive as would be expected for a passive system. The active process next exhibits tuning that sharpens our frequency discrimination. Finally, a compressive nonlinearity ensures that inputs spanning an enormous range of sound-pressure levels are systematically encoded by a modest range of mechanical vibrations and in turn of receptor potentials and nerve-fiber firing rates. The active process additionally exhibits the striking epiphenomenon of spontaneous otoacoustic emission, the production of sound by an ear in the absence of external stimulation. Although considerable attention has been devoted to these properties in mammalian and especially human hearing, the four defining features of the active process are equally characteristic of nonmammalian tetrapods (reviewed in Manley 2001).»
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2944685/
|
The goal of signal recreation is linearity. Testing for non-linearity is the purpose of THD measurement. It is an inherent feature of performing Fourier analysis. Our hearing having non-linear processing elements has nothing to do with analog to digital and digital to analog conversion and Shannon-Nyquist theorems. The two are totally unrelated.
You miss my point....I dont contest the value of this Shannon theorem... 😁😊
The goal in circuit design is linearity for sure... It is electronical design goal...Noise has a meaning here which is not the same than for the hearing process itself...
You dont seems conscious that all electrical measures has an interpretative meaning ONLY in a theoretical framework refering to our actual understanding about hearing...
Some use the concept "accurate" and "noise" in a confused way...They conflated the two possible meanings of the word "accurate" for a non linear detection system like the ears or for a linear tool detection system and they confused the two ways the ratio signals/noise can work for a linear detection system and for a non linear detection system...
The method by which scientist can study the way introduction of noise can help non linear detection system is called: stochastic resonance method...
The way the cochlea is non linearly structured make it able to use an Hopf bifurcation tool analysis inherent in the small fibers cells of the internal ears...
The ears are not a PASSIVE detector system but an ACTIVE non linear one able to amplify ...Then his ability to resolve information exceed many hundredth of times any passive system...
It is the reason why electrical partial set of measures ALONE cannot determine out of listening experiments what will be the sound quality of gear...Like some few deluded ASR disciples falsely claim...
The two groups are deluded not only audiophiles... Sorry....But one at least know that learning how to listen and hearing are FUNDAMENTAL....
|
Noise addition in some case can help, not impede the audio experience why?
Then measuring noise/signals ratio to the n’th order is not enough if we dont understand human hearing .....
Answer: because ears/brain being non linear they USED some noise to ENHANCE the perception instead of impeding the perception...
Hearing dont obey Helmholtz old paradigm nor Fourier transform tech...
|
I posted all reference to experiments that proved that Fourier transform cannot explain the hearing process which is non linear...
Many dac technology are based on this flawed assumptions ...
But deludedaudiophile never answered...
This is not magic nor am I trying to insist my reference for sound quality is an objective reference. I am very mindful of my own unique sensory perception, biases, preferences, and I allow others those same considerations. I simply don’t understand why some have need to assign some reference sound quality based on present rather primitive measurement regime. Again, this is symptom of inherent authoritarian mindset.
|
Great post!
I will only add that we cannot know how to measure and how to interpret these measures correctly if we dont have a correct model of human hearing at the end......
That was the subject of my last 3 posts here.... With some interesting scientific articles about hearing ....
@deludedaudiophile
I came up with the 95% missing using historic precedents for scientific discoveries. (Throughout history the narrow minds all firmly believed that everything that could be invented was already invented, and now even a 6 year old kid knows it better.) The practices for audio gear measurements are relatively new (just a few decades old). In even 50 years, our practices will be proven as massively inaccurate, and in general quite useless as it probably covers about 5% of what our children’s children will count as measurements that point towards sound quality perception. Although that will be in the future, yet it does not detract from the reality that our current practices are in their infancy. To think we know everything, and we have discovered all the secrets to sound and audio gear is the only sure bet to loose. Doing a google search will do no good now, but will help in 50 years. Also, if google search would answer deep questions on audio measurements, we would not have this discussion, and everyone would be at perfect agreement.
(BTW the 95% is just a symbolic value, please do not start a thread on whether it is 92% or 96.786734% exactly, or it’s truly 57.4%... only time will tell, and although our view will change decade from decade, but the reality will be still the same: today we have a very limited concept of how to measure audio parameters to reflect on sound quality.)
So, a few examples on issues with current standard measurement practices that I know of, I will take only amplifiers for now:
*all parameters tested on non-inductive perfectly passive extremely simplistic loads, while the loudspeakers are highly complex live loads affected by the room.
*Only additive distortion is measured, subtractive distortion is not.
*Change of THD in function of output level and frequency are no paid attention to, while these are strong determiners in relation whether the sound is perceived as natural VS manufactured.
*Amplifier behavior is tested with constantly repetitive primitive signals, while the music output is a highly variable extremely complex waveform.
*It is not examined how an amplifier deals with small signals following a large pulse at the frequency extremes.
I mentioned the names of known and proven audio authorities in my initial post, because they have the answers you want from me, but I have no credibility in your eyes, so it’s a waste from me to yap around. Do not believe me, as you do not know who I am, and that’s fine.
I just humbly point out to you (again), to listen to interviews with the fathers of audio measurements and high end industry and hear what they have to say. Thank you for the chat. I hope I have answered your concerns. What I wrote might be completely irrelevant to your quest, and it’s quite likely that you have specific experiences that point you in the direction you want to go, where you will find fulfillment and purpose.
However, ignoring the experts on audio measurements will quite likely lead to a more protracted learning curve than what you are looking for. I wish you success and luck!
|
Would the issue be that you don’t want accuracy? You want artifacts? I think that is the conclusion that can be drawn. I don’t think Mahgister is remotely accurate in this regard, not regarding electrical signals. Those we can measure with extreme confidence fortunately, or my job would be impossible. If you do not want accurate, I doubt there is 100% correlation from human to human, so the only way to know what artifacts you like is for you to listen.
I can run pure 2-channel, or through the AV processor. Depending on my mood, I will listen using the AV processor and ambience surround settings. It is not accurate, but often is a more pleasant listening experience. It is more alive, with all those buzz words that audiophiles like; wide sound-stage, presence and sounds more like a live performance. It is obviously artificial though.
FIRST:
What is accuracy?
What is an acoustical artefacts ?
There is accuracy in the engineering sense of : input----->output measured linearly correlated electrical signals factors and noise ratio...
There is accuracy in acoustic and psycho-acoustic sense of the world, where timbre perception for example cannot be reduced to linearly analysed spectrum...The cochlea/brain analysis tool are highly non linear...
You confuse the two meaning of the word accurate the physical one and the acoustic one .... Then it is easy to accuse audiophiles to be deluded after this confusion ...You are not right or wrong here...You dont even see the problem if i read yourt posts...
Read the two articles i posted above...And debunk them... 😁😊
SECOND: you said.
«with all those buzz words that audiophiles like; wide sound-stage, presence and sounds more like a live performance. It is obviously artificial though.»
Here you really are wrong, calling acoustical cues and factors that are ALL OF THEM under objective controls in any audio laboratory studying acoustic perception, calling them "articicial" like in deceiving illusion compared to accurate electrical signals...Acoustic factors are OBJECTIVE, even if they are subjectively interpreted, like electrical signals are and are subject to controls method like electrical signals are...
Read the two articles above if you want a clue about why you are completely wrong by calling acoustic factors like LEV/ASW ratio for example, artificial in the sense of illusory, and suggesting that they are fancy illusions in the head of "deluded audiophile".... Sorry but acoustic is a science like electrical engineering not a fancy...
In my room by the way i learned to control these "illusions" at will with mechanical Helmholtz method among other things...
In the two articles above which i can resume by this sentence is the explanation why the ears/brain cannot be studied by linear Fourier method ONLY :
«The Fourier transform cannot, therefore, fully explain the machinations of the human brain. "The actual algorithm employed by our brains is still shrouded in mystery," says Magnasco.»
|
This article is about this discovery i spoke about above about Oppenheim and Magnasco and our model of hearing and dac design ...
i think that this clarify andjustify atmasphere opinion but from another perspective which is not amplifier design, but more hearing abilities in itself, but i am not a specialist... 😊
|
I assume the measurements are using an extended bandwidth beyond human hearing.
The problem if i may give my grain of salt, is that we dont exactly know what are human hearing abilities...
Human hearing limit in decibel scale and in the frequency scale yes we know but what about the way the brain/ears used the information and decipher it with the non linear tool kit of the cochlea/brain ?
In the words of these mathematical physicists turned acoustician:
Jacob N. Oppenheim and Marcelo Magnasco of the Laboratory of Mathematical Physics at Rockefeller University have conducted experiments indicating that the human brain does not use the Fourier transform when resolving a cacophony of noise into individual sounds and voices.
While the Gabor limit associated with the Fourier transform stipulates that you can't simultaneously determine a sound's frequency and duration, the 12 musicians subjected to Oppenheim and Magnasco's battery of tests beat the limit by as much as a factor of 13.
The Fourier transform cannot, therefore, fully explain the machinations of the human brain. "The actual algorithm employed by our brains is still shrouded in mystery," says Magnasco.
«You see, physicists tend to think hearing is spectrum. But spectrum is time-independent, and hearing is about rapid transients. We were just told, by the data, that our brains care a great deal about timing.»
«For the first time, physicists have found that humans can discriminate a sound’s frequency (related to a note’s pitch) and timing (whether a note comes before or after another note) more than 10 times better than the limit imposed by the Fourier uncertainty principle.»
«
The results have implications for how we understand the way that the brain processes sound, a question that has interested scientists for a long time. In the early 1970s, scientists found hints that human hearing could violate the uncertainty principle, but the scientific understanding and technical capabilities were not advanced enough to enable a thorough investigation. As a result, most of today’s sound analysis models are based on old theories that may now be revisited in order to capture the precision of human hearing.»
This article is particularly illuminating if someone take the time to read it and his imnplication to understand hearing and why our measurements are not the good one...
|
Amir is a good resource as an alternative viewpoint. His ‘truth’ is a series of measurements, that can tell a lot about how some components will perform. But he does miss some of the picture no doubt. A couple of his component reviews are way off the mark. Maybe a faulty product? Or his measuring system at fault? Who knows? Take Audio Science Review for entertainment value, and some worthwhile information.
The problem was not Amir himself but few of his zealots disciples...
Because the notion of a measured distortion in engineering design is not the same than in acoustic...
Why ? Because acoustician test a subjective response from a musician for example in a timbre experiment perception test...harmonics here means something very different than " harmonics" in engineering standard measures...
And the engineer read a dial and his "distortion" THD is a way more simplistic concept of what a distortion do to the subjective impressions and why....It is an engineering % about a relation between input and ouput...Not the way sound affect humans ears...
Electronic Engineering is SUBORDINATED to psycho-acoustic research or a tool for it not the reverse ... Save when the psycho-acoustic research is done and applied....
Timbre perception is not reducible to a simplistic concept of the spectrum for example....but the engineer most of the times work with this simplistic concept which is well enough for his design trade-off practice anway ... There is exception but they are exceptional designer not a crowd of them ...All audio products are not ultra high end... 😁😊
Atmasphere has numerous posts about amplifier harmonic distortion and listener perception. Simply stated, vanishingly low harmonic distortion is not necessary. The harmonic spectrum and linearity of the distortion are more important. So whether THD is .001% or a hundred times greater is pretty irrelevant. Clearly measurements matter, it’s just that the most commonly cited amplifier measurements aren’t the most important regarding sound quality.
Exactly....Some designer like atmasphere know....
|
You are right if you speak about the differences in gear....
But sound subjective evaluation is not only pure relative taste, it is also a LEARNED HEARING experimental journey with acoustic and psycho-acoustic experience and principles...
Difference in gear design and specs are also SUBJECTIVE and are judged by our own needs and expectations...
Difference in room acoustic are no more only subjective, you can objectively CONTROL a system/room at will and you can learn from this OBJECTIVE experiments installation the more you explore it...
That is my point...
Differences between relatively basic good gear at any price will not replace the HUGE impact of small room acoustic and psycho-acoustic control done right...
We learn to listen... Our tastes are secondary like our gear pieces are secondary if they are well chosen gear to begin with and in accordance with our wallet...acoustic is primary for our understanding of sound...
Saying the opposite is pushing people in the marketing trap of obsessive upgrading and entertain a universal ignorance about how good sound experience emerge in a specific room for our particular ears...
Also keep in mind that there exist a minimal threshold for what may be experienced as a good sound experience related to the S.Q./price ratio for the gear you own...One this treshold is reached and master upgrade are way less attractive...An improvement is ALWAYSpossible for sure but here the ratio S.Q./ price plays for most of us...
Acoustic cues and factors that may be and must be controlled : timbre, bass, dynamics, imaging, soundstage, LEV/ASW ratio, etc all these acoustical cues and factors will give us an OBJECTIVE number of "tags" and indexes all along the subjective road...
Controlled Correlation between our subjectivity and objective installation is the heart of acoustic and psycho-acoustic learning experience and experiments...
Superior sound is subjective. What you like someone else may hate. Many roads to the same place.
|
Now let’s play devil’s advocate. When it suits you you will claim -80db is not audible but if a cable was tested and it showed nothing at greater than -90db and Amir said that’s totally inaudible then a 100 audiophiles on this site would be losing their minds. You can selectively accept the measurements you want especially when they are measuring the same thing.
How do you measure in DB the addition of a piece of shungite+copper+graphene on my main comnputer router? It is my homemade "golden plate"...Or on the wall socket?
😁😊
These debates are ridiculous not because "measuring tools fetichists" are wrong, they are not even wrong... Like the "gear tasting fetichists" who at least use their ears...
The only meaningful measures in audio are CORRELATED with a listening impressions, it is called psycho-acoutic science...
The rest is only a debate beween Amir and the designer of a Dac for example about a RESTRICTED set of measures and ABOUT THE DESIGN CONCEPTION not about his quality sound ...
Because a Dac could have a sound PERFORMANCE only in a specific room with specific ears and specific system...
And only acoustic and psycho-acoustic can USE the dac design in real time listening...
|
How good feeling it is to read a wise articulated post!
hilde45 thanks from us all...
|
It is a public thread discussion... And you accuse him of mob mentality...
You cannot accuse me of that mob mentality no?
I presented arguments... You dont want articulated arguments ?... You prefer mob mentality discussion with deluded audiophiles?
i apologize in this case...
In a discussion logic is a large two-way road that MANY people can take at the same time if it is not a mob mentality discussion for sure... i take the road...I apologize to you also for that anyway and to realworldaudio too ...But i am sure you like logic and he surely like logic too... We all hate mob mentality...
I am certain I asked the question of @realworldaudio . Would it not be appropriate to let him/her answer?
|
@realworldaudio , I feel most of what you wrote is made up. I don’t think you will be able to clearly articulate what is missing from the measurements and certainly not 95% of the things that are missing. Perhaps this is the issue. This sounds more like outrage mob mentality that reasonsed criticism. I am welcome to be proven wrong.
What is missing from the meassurements is the way the gear will interact with the other piece of gear in a specific room for specific ears...Listening is mandatory here...And what is missing are the unknown or/and the non selected possible measures too...No one selected ALL POSSIBLE measures...Which one set matter is not absolute certainty in all case...
The "Selected" by Amir isolated measures from a single piece of gear means not much for the final listening test...Save for the designer itself going on with his engineering designing standards confronting them to Amir own results.....
By the way you cannot be proven wrong because you COULD not be even wrong ever in this case : if from Amir measures you deduced " an hypothetical sound quality level" which will never be proven to exist IN ITSELF without linking this piece of gear to some other interacting system parts in some controlled or uncontrolled room and to some specific ears in a LISTENING EXPERIMENTS ...
Room are also like headphones, ultimately they can be fit for one pair of specific ears ...Studio acoustic is not Hall acoustic and neither of them is small room acoustic...Why? geometry, size, topology, acoustic content and in the case of a small room ONE listener with specific hearing history and taste not many recording engineers or a crowd...
|
|
Electrical measurements are important for the DESIGNER of the product...Less so for the listener who cannot interpret anyway most electrical measures...
Acoustical measurement are way more important for the LISTENER in his room...Alas! way less important sometimes for many designers...But some designer know acoustic for sure, the best one...
Confusing the two situations with the same word: " measurement" then means nothing...
One man’s treasure is sometimes trash for everyone else ...
Measurements are certainly important, but I don’t think they tell the entire story.
One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.
But if you’re looking for accuracy in terms of audio fidelity, I think measurements are very important.
|
Bingo! I would take it a step further. I don’t think we will ever be able to “fully align our perceptions with measured performance”. And, you know what? I like it that way. Notice how there is always one very important word missing from these discussions, particularly on the part of the objectivists: MUSIC.
How does one quantify the reason that one drummer can lay down a fantastic groove; while another sounds accurate, but like a machine? Or, the sense that he and the bass player are in total musical sync, as opposed to in their own musical universes? Or, the subtle, but crucial feeling of tension, like a coiled spring, that an orchestra’s string section brings to the performance of a musical passage when they make a beautiful and seamless crescendo from ppp to fff ? What measurements exist that explain the perception of these very real things? And, aren’t these things what ultimately make the listening experience enjoyable? As in music, those are the things of the ART of audio electronic design; some designers have it and way too many don’t.
Great post indeed that reflect also my experience...
Thanks
|
Acoustic sound experience is subjectively registered FIRST and studied with objective measured implementation only after that...
Musical interpretation CANNOT be tought to an artificial Intelligence why?
Because it take a body rooted in the earth soil to make music meaningful experience...
Without a living heart sound cannot be an emotion... An emotion dont live in time but GENERATE his own time into the body metabolism by the way...
In acoustic and psycho-acoustic we not only try to replicate human hearing up to a point, but we study what make human hearing IRREPRODUCIBLE in the phenomenon called musical interpretation and perception...
Measuring gear and thinking that it is valuable to pick a piece of gear without listening to it is pathetical move...Ignorance to the third power...
😁😊
Physics is born with music and Pythagorean school in Greek time...There is no objective descritption and explanation of tonal playing perception even now...
And the geometer Fields medallist Alain Connes just connected music, primes numbers distributions and the deepest mysteries of quantum physics together...
And someone think that we can reduce sound experience to few measured tools? and what about music experience which even transcend sound itself ? why?
Because say Alain Connes "music" reflect the non commutative geometry behind TIME experience itself...What is this source of diversities and variations behind time? it is a moving consciousness out of time...Emotion generate his OWN time out of time...
The musical tone scale is non commutative...
Musical time and tempo cannot be measured by a clock BY DEFINITION...
It is the reason by Valery Gergiev say that no one succeeded to imitate Furtwangler tempi...They emerge from music they are not put over the notes externally by a mechanical clock.....These tempi cannot be measured they only can be feeled in a body resonance effect... Call it ectasy or emotions...
Then Amir disciples are deluded crowd to the extreme... They are separed from reality by three qualitative gap: sound experience....music experience.... spiritual experience...When we listen we reunite these three gaps in one body/emotion
Anybody can hear but we must learn to listen....
|
