I have changed my mind about this over the years. The absolute sound (closest to real live music) just can't be accomplished even though I have heard some spectacular systems that get close on some music. So years ago I changed my system to give me the sound I wanted. I'm much happier now and all my music collection can be enjoyed for what it is: Recorded music.
... What is even sadder, IMO, is to be locked in a mindset that says that
reactions are the result of bias and to refuse to be open minded about
the possibility that it is not bias at all that is at play. Seems to me,
that the person who is enlightened enough to understand bias should
also be the one most open to the possibility that it is NOT always bias
that is at play...
That's one of the ironies about the measurementalists here. They'll even often refuse to listen to test whether their theories are valid - they have that much faith in their belief system. The other irony: The measurementalists frequently apply ill logic to their claims, so it makes meaningful conversation with them virtually impossible. Many of these measurementalists are here solely to argue, so these apparent inconsistencies suit them just fine.
**** Wasn’t that test about how audience hears it and not how the player feels while playing it? ****
It was both; the article made that clear. Perhaps I was not clear in what I wrote; although I feel I am just repeating myself:
When a player first picks up an instrument (new or old), the feeling created is a major contributor to the resulting sound. If the instrument feels free and non-resistant, easier to play, the resulting sound could very well be a more appealing sound to some listeners as the player feels and sounds more at ease and can, in fact, coax a pleasant tone out of the instrument. However, this is often also a limitation. If the instrument is more resistant and offers the player more “fight”, as is the case with many antique instruments, the ultimately superior sound of the instrument will not manifest itself until the player has had a considerable amount of time with the instrument; much more than is the case in a typical blind test. This is a good thing and a quality sought out by many players.
This concept may be difficult to grasp for a non instrumentalist, but it is reality and is the reason that those old instruments are held in such high esteem. There is more potential in store.
**** What’s sad is how some people either refuse or can’t seem to grasp how biases influence human behavior. ****
It is true that biases exist, but this does not negate what I described. What is even sadder, IMO, is to be locked in a mindset that says that reactions are the result of bias and to refuse to be open minded about the possibility that it is not bias at all that is at play. Seems to me, that the person who is enlightened enough to understand bias should also be the one most open to the possibility that it is NOT always bias that is at play.
There has been a trend in the world of instrument making (all instruments, not just strings) to produce instruments that are brilliant, faster and more incisive sounding; not surprising, considering the similarly changing aesthetic sensibilities of our modern society. Many of the vintage instruments are held in high esteem and sought out by great players for their complexity and richness of tone, and other subtle and elusive qualities. They offer greater potential to a great player.
What's sad is how some people either refuse or can't seem to grasp how biases influence human behavior. The violin test was just an example of how these biases affect each of us no matter how well we think we're immune. At least " Fritz" understood and shrugged, knowing he's human without twisting himself into a logical pretzel.
Wasn't that test about how audience hears it and not how the player feels while playing it? In any case, we can say there is too many variables and avoid going into the abyss of what is right.
Violins are slowly getting extinct and music these days depends on integrated circuits, resistors, and other things in similar direction rather than on a craftsman trying to surpass Guarneri. Same goes for the piano stores. Dwindling and dwindling for a reason. As sad as all of that may be. Once upon a time, harpsichord was a big thing, too.
The logical fallacy of blindtest, in audio or music, when they are used out of their narrow usefulness window function, to reveal the reality or deceptiveness of small change that are not evident at first, is that they suppose that a DEFINITIVE judgement is possible out of the normal context and habit where the judgement is produced usually...Like a violin stradivarius compared to a modern one...Or an audiophile assessing without stress a small change in his system in his room with his files...
The use of blindtest in statistical medical procedure is another story completely... It is there they reveal the most important facet of their power , eliminating the human biases from the medical experiment...But assessing the value of a violin ask to the player the exact opposite, a mastering of the instrument, using his experienced biases or learning personal experience, impossible in most improvised blindtest...The listeners also must be experienced and in his normal circonstances or near them....
Frog, what you said about great instruments, their complexities and unique character is applicable to people as well. I have never heard any of those famous violins live.
Thanks frogman these precisions about blind test improvisation and timbre perception had to come from a professional musician to correct hasty conclusions about the real value and limitations of blind test especially in this case...
There is not doubts that there is luthier genius today and the test has the merit to reveal one, but like you said it is IMPOSSIBLE to assess an instrument value in this kind of test and justifying irrational opinion like stradivarius reputation are ONLY biases....
Apology if anyone is offended that after writing that I would “leave the thread” I should post again. The most recent comments re “Strads vs new” is a little too close to home to ignore; and prompted me to comment and add to mahgister’s excellent comments.
“Reviews” and related commentary such as on the linked blind test proclaiming the supposed superiority of modern instruments are maddening in their lack of depth and, as usual, ignorance of what superiority in an instrument truly means to a musician. Any accomplished musician will tell you that very often for a superior instrument to reveal its superiority the player needs to spend a considerable amount of time with it; not just minutes or even hours. Often, the instrument that is easier to play when first picked up, as is often the case with new instruments, will reveal itself to have limitations in complexity of timbre and will, long term, limit the player’s expressivity. The lack of innate complexity of timbre in many new instruments doesn’t offer the player as much potential to shape a very personalized tone. Conversely, instruments such as a great Strad or Guarneri will often feel far more resistant and constrained when the player first makes the acquaintance and the player (even world class) needs time to learn how that particular instrument likes to be played before it will open up and reveal its superiority in the areas that matter to a great player. Often, it is a matter of, instead of forcing the instrument to respond, of relaxing one’s technique and getting out of the way of the instrument. Initial impressions of tonal qualities of instruments in a blind tests consisting of little playing time with the instruments mean little and it is not surprising that some of the musicians taking part in the blind test would “prefer” the modern instruments.
As an aside, I have had extensive playing experience (I am not a string player) with a major East coast symphony orchestra which through a highly publicized arrangement with some benefactors was able to procure a collection of thirty (!) antique Italian string instruments (not only violins) including several Strads, Guarneri’s, del Gesu and Amatis for use by the players in the orchestra. All the players in the orchestra are first rate players with very fine, mostly modern, personal instruments. The impact on the sound of the string section as a result of the inclusion of the antique instruments was remarkable and transformative.
Yes, some modern luthiers are making fine string instruments today, but there are very real and legitimate reasons why Strads and Guarneri’s fetch the prices that they do. For many accomplished players they remain unsurpassed; and not because of expectation bias.
Can we continue with logical fallacies and slide into Barbara and her boys? I am quite good at them. It may not be for an audio website, but so aren't logical fallacies either.
The problem is not the universal presence of biases, it is when we reject outright any claim based on a personal experience to be ONLY the result of biases, because it suit our own biases...
Placebos and biases are normal daily life events... Hearing a change in an audio system modulo ANY change or addition of a device is something to be experiment first.... If many experiment it positively the probability that this is only a placebo decrease with each new testimony....
After that it is fun to do blind test, but it is in no way a scientific proof for many reasons, one is the fact that assessing audio effects need to be done by someone in his own environment, and parameters, audiophile listening is not a superhuman innate bat ability, it is ONLY an habit , a learned ability to discern in a well known environment...
Blindtest are very difficult to realize....
By the way stradivarius were very well known to all violonists... It is not a bias only, it is a FACT,the strad are good and they were very well known by the educated ears of violonist...Then this fact induced a justified bias in favor of the strads over the vast majoriry of modern violin... But a genius luthier come and....
What was NOT AT ALL well known was the rare modern violin able to surpass them.... It is NOT the great majority of modern violins that surpass Strads... Only a few, not very well known nor often recorded like the strads and these modern master piece were designed by a master luthier NOT by all modern luthier... These rare modern birds were not listen to very often contrary to strads... Then a justified bias existed in favor of strads compared to the majority of modern violins which were inferior and this bias was then effectively justified by experience.... Indeed VERY FEW modern violins were really superior to the strads... The blind test only make this surprizing new fact known....Some modern luthier are also geniuses like the one of the past...
Then if you think about what i just said you must not be surprized.... All violinists are not deluded or guided only by their biases at all, like you suggest erroneously here... their bias in favor of strads was justified and replaced by a new discovery of some new masterpiece... They simply discovered a new modern absolute master piece which was not known much before the spectacular test made it well known... Even if biases are justified they can be proven wrong for sure...That does not means that there never exist a superiority of the strads and that this was ONLY a delusion...
Reality is more complex than your own biases about biases, sorry....
The modern violins were preferred. Here’s the kicker though. When asked if this would affect the values of the Strads the study lead said:
"If you know it’s a Strad, you will hear it differently," Fritz says. "And you can’t turn off that effect."
Here we go again!
Then reality is not composed by deluded audiophiles and violonists in a corner against blind test science truth in the other corner, like you suggest...
Reality is not SIMPLE..... Reality exist not in black and white but in colors on earth for the eyes able to see them....
But NO you fault me about something i clearly not state and it is in my post itself... I precisely state that listening and playing are acoustically very different READ IT again...Anybody here can read it anyway then are you a fool to lie in daylight?
You are right on one point, i explain not myself always very clearly because i am not a scientist, for one, nor an english speaker...I am only one of the audiophiles you despise...
Having no argument against me you attack me and any others here , suffice to read your posts...You cannot prove that all my experiments and devices are bullshit...You cannot know... And in some case it is pure acoustic science like my Helmholtz grid...
I never pretend to know ALL like you... I only pretend to know my "amateurish" fruitful experience to reach hi-fi at peanut cost and i succeeded to my satisfaction... Thats all...I communicated it to my fellow audiophile in an audio thread.... Your mission in life is debunking us?
What are your own pretention? You insult anyone daring to use "tweaks" or speaking of his experiments, or using turntables, or for being a musician, you present yourself like the bringer of "scientific truth" simplifying and reducing all audio experience to your engineered specialized window...
Myself i had proposed here, many no cost experiments and some has confirmed my results... Are we all deluded? They seems to have understood some of my posts in spite of my defects by the way....
Keep your boat i will navigate in mine.... Dont attack anyone and i will stay mute...
How an acoustic instrument sounds to the person playing it is not at all like it sounds in the audience.
Like usual you prove to me you are just an opinionated guy who never read arguments accurately save for the gist of winning an argument...
These are my exact words in my preceding post, you dont even read to understand what i speak about:
Listening and playing being two different things completely acoustically but related tough in the same individual musician...
I precisely state here that playing and listening are 2 completely different things...
How these 2 completely different acoustical experiences which are playing and listening are related? They are related by HABIT, of playing and listening and gauging the differences by the musician himself... It is simple musician journey...
Then, Swing and a miss audio2design. Again. You don’t ever learn.
By the way you are inadvertantly childishly arrogant saying:
hence why we teach them the difference and make them wear headphones at times.
I want to see you how you dare to advise Celibidache, or Miles Davis, or any jazz musicians or a classical one on this "education" of them by you .... 😁😁
The only one musician who is not conscious of this fact is a teen....
Nice guesses trying to understand what makes people tick. Keep at it. There might be a Nobel Prize in it for some lucky all knowing audiophile someday who is able to accurately label all others in regards to what makes them tick. Or even just why they hear what they hear and do what they do. Keep us posted!
You forgot a 4th mahgister, people who don’t know how it should sound but think that however they prefer it must be the right and only way. You never learn it seems...
Have you not learned that a musician for example know how a violin they play must sound when listening to the recorded event?
Certainly not, you called the musician who make this observation about timbre a liar....
But i will remind you why?
It is because of an acoustical phenomenon, no , not a digital recording one, but a pure acoustical (physics of room acoustic +neurophysiology of percetion) phenomenon that is called : remembering the timbre perception event of an instrument we already know... This remembering event is associated with a perceptive habit of playing it and listening it in a correct room... Listening and playing being two different things completely acoustically but related tough in the same individual musician...
Then you are right of talking about the "taste" or preference of a musician about the way his violin or any violin should sound.... But most musicians, even if they have their own preferences, are in general in a consensus about what a right and natural TIMBRE sound like about any instrument and maestros too.... They dont need to consult the recording engineer to know how a trumpet must sound....
You know why they dont need to always consult a recording engineer, like you especially?
It is because they want to refine the recording mix for their ears timbre perception habit in natural acoustic settings, not first and last refining it abstractingly, putting it in the procustean bed of digital processing at any cost....They enjoy a sound for their musician taste....Not a so called " perfect" synthetically recreated engineered sound for the sake of engineering ideals... Timbre is an acoustical physic room phenomena first and a neurophysiological phenomena first not a digital engineering phenomena first...
It is not simple to understand?
Then what you accused other of, is precisely your sin.... Remember the musician you accuse of lying when he was speaking of timbre saying that i was right about timbre?
people who don’t know how it should sound but think that however they prefer it must be the right and only way.
You fit exactly the description you impose on me.... The difference is i am with all the musicians in the world....You are alone with your engineering individual preferences, you take them for the only "objective" one not knowing that objectivity in acoustic is consensus of human EARS....
The only thing we know for sure about audiophiles is they are all neurotic about something. Could be merely bling in some cases. meters, shiny faceplates, snazzy lights.....fuses, wires in a fancy case, capacitors, you name it.
I also discovered from reading the comments here on "Agon" we are divided into two types of audiophiles; there are equipment lovers and there are music lovers. Equipment lovers speak of 0 distortion while music lovers listen for the equipment’s ability to communicate the music.
You missed the essential third group...The group of people that dont oppose sound and music but know how they related to one another...
The music lovers who care for sound but already know that acoustic is the key in audio, not upgrading an already good gear, nor advocating tubes/S.S. or digital/analog... They dont advocate for their taste of gear like people who war against each other in stupid arguing....This third group work had to improve at the lesser cost what they have at hand for listening music...
This third group to which i belong is the much enlightened one because they dont spend money in costly gear but create instead acoustic cheap solutions among also others electrical or mechanical cheap solutions in other audio working dimensions...
I have subscribed to every audio magazine ever printed and when "Hi end emporiums existed" I spent so much time in them that my wife swore I was seeing another woman.
I also discovered from reading the comments here on "Agon" we are divided into two types of audiophiles; there are equipment lovers and there are music lovers. Equipment lovers speak of 0 distortion while music lovers listen for the equipment's ability to communicate the music. Equipment lovers dote on "sounds" while music lovers only listen for the equipment's ability to communicate the music.
Equipment lovers who preach 0 distortion prefer solid state, while this music lover would not get within ten feet of a SS pre-amp no matter how expensive, although I have no objection to SS power amps.
The bottom line is what I call "The essence of the music", and not everyone can hear or detect it; consequently, it's a moot point if you can't hear it.
Absolute Sound versus Pleasing Sound? I agree
with these two comments most of all:
‘psychranger’ “…get
equipment that you know does a great job producing clarity, detail, and
completeness, then just pick out the flavor that pleases you the most…” and
‘lowtubes’ “…in tweaking my systems is a very
transparent sound, with great detail and resolution but with fullness of tone
and musicality. So my setups are super open and super expanded with great
detail, height, depth, and resolution but above all, the systems have been
tweaked to reveal tonality and musical fullness.” (That really says it all
for me.)
As for me, I also feel unamplified acoustical instruments,
bluegrass, orchestra, etc, are the best references for judging timbre. A music
system’s ability to resolve highly complex passages with clarity and accuracy
is desired too, along with other traits of good reproduction. I too have
yielded in extreme dynamics/volume for better tonality and realism.
I want a system accurate and musical. If ‘absolute
sound’ is so analytical that my ears hurt I do not
want it. Music should not hurt (but I’ve had dumb system combos
that did). I can, and do listen for hours at a time and now there is
never fatigue. The more accurate, resolving and involving, the better it is. And
I love hearing the near ‘absolute sound’ that state-of-the-art high end gear can
provide.
Back in 2011 my new speaker purchasing mantra (in addition
to accuracy, resolution, full-range, etc.) was “Only buy a speaker you want to
turn up.” If not, or down, then walk
away. The Dyn Sapphires I had for five years sure did the trick. I don’t listen
that loudly now, and have better speakers, but the thought remains the same.
Doesn't it come down to pleasing sound. The absolute sound is dependent on your ears, the venue, the position where you are seated, how many people in the audience, how the crew set-up the equipment, etc. As Heruaclitus said 2500 years ago, if you step into a river it is no longer the same river. So unless you are in Sullivan and Adler's acoustically perfect Auditorium Theartre where nearly everyseat has the same sound and everything else is equal, absolute is not absolute as defined in the opening of this thread, but is a highly variable sound. Pleasing sound while completely subjective, is a target that is attainable. That said there can be enjoyment in Chasing the Unicorn.
I am absolutist and proud of it. As I mentioned, microphones are unadvanced devices. First, improve them. There is no music recorded well.
I think your post is a blank statement of "absolutism" yes....But nothing else i am afraid...
Your conclusion " there is no music recorded well" is already contained in the premise "microphones are unadvanced devices".... Then your affirmation is only a vicious circle masking the essential hole in your premise: in reality microphones are already advanced tool but only RELATIVELY advanced for sure and then microphones can be improved in their design but also in their use...Conflating all types of microphones with all their specific relatives uses and putting all of them on the same "primitive" level, or faulting the design when in many cases it is the use itself the problem is not rigorous but only a sophism...
Dont forget also that the art of recording is an art of trade-off and nothing could be absolutely perfect erasing completely this necessary trade-off by the nature of acoustic physic itself...
In truth microphones are only tools and like rhetorical tools can be rightly or wrongfully used... Both can be improved....
The chance is that you will improve your logic more speedily than the art of recording....But you can improve the acoustic of your room even faster than these two....
My last word will be simple: there is some relatively well recorded music, and some for sure are better, other less...
Absolutism is more successful in spiritual life....Even in mathematics absolutism is behind after Goedel....
I will also give a practical recommendation: no audio system at any price could do justice to a relatively well recorded files or vinyl or cd, without working in a well controlled environment, especially acoustically...But also in a mechanically and electrically rightfully controlled working dimensions....
Then your experience and problems with recording source is perhaps unbeknonwst to you, an experience with the bad controlled acoustic settings of your audio room....Or some problems also with the mechanical or electrical embeddings...
As pointed out by others, and something that I absolutely agree with, whether one is satisfied with the sound of our audio system is really the bottom line of all this. If the sound pleases us, then who is to argue? There are different approaches to reaching the sound that we want as we all have different priorities when it comes to music and this hobby. However, there is a tendency on the part of all of us to want agreement and to take disagreement as to which approach is best unnecessarily personally. This is the reason that it is always best to not be absolutist about a point of view which may not work for anyone except ourselves. I think that it is fantastic that you have found an approach that works for you. I and others don’t find it at all “impossible” to achieve our ideal sound by pursuing a sound that is “closest to real live music”. It’s not about being right or wrong in our approach; except for ourselves.
So, thanks for an interesting subject of discussion. Threads like this always have the potential to teach us how to better understand the point of view of others and even to become better listeners.
I will leave the thread with this personal viewpoint Re one of your quoted comments and one which may help clarify my point of view:
**** ...the recreation of live unamplified music. I think that is the low hanging fruit, that’s a very simple task, playing complex music is where good systems shine. ****
Simple task? From my point of view it is the most complex of all. In fact, the highest hanging fruit and the reason why it is worth pursuing.
"...Hello Russ69, I’ve been through the same situation as you..." I'm not in a situation, I know what I prefer.
"... I’ve found that thru experience, accurate sounding systems are not what I’ve enjoyed best long term..." You and I are on the same page.
"...So I’m trying to understand what do you mean by an absolute sound..." That was defined by an audio magazine to be the recreation of live unamplified music. I think that is the low hanging fruit, that's a very simple task, playing complex music is where good systems shine.
One factor that no one seems to have considered is that everyone's hearing ability doesn't conform to a template....just like vision can vary from individual to individual, from that of a hawk to the myopic Mr. Magoo, so does the critical sense of hearing. This may help explain why we perceive differences when a group (more than one) are listening to music from any given stereo system. Definitely not the major factor, but shadings can make a big difference. This theory only bolsters the position that you should tailor your system for what sounds good to YOUR ears, not someone else's. As I've aged, I find myself preferring the sound of what many would call mid-fi components or mediums of reproduction (vinyl and RTR tape, for example). As long as we're all still involved in the hobby, that's all that really matters.
IMHO any [audio] system that makes brushwork sound like tape hiss, is not doing its job properly. as a restoration tech and musician [mediocre] for 3+ decades, electronic hiss "lives" in a totally different "neighborhood" than any drummer's brushes. it is something like the difference between rose noise and white noise. that little nitpick aside, the absolute sound can be approached generally at great expense both in $$$$$$ as well as energy [both psychic and physical], having to optimize room acoustics as well as the synergy of equipment working together and the right recordings. there are comparatively few recordings out there that "get it all right" in terms of making a good deep round sound which btw can be heard as such [to a notable if variable extent] even on much cheap equipment. such perfect recordings will of course on the best equipment will virtually transport you to their recorded venue which is the room where the mics were placed and NOT the control room. the majority of recordings out there give you the control room sound at best, IOW highly processed and markedly different from raw feed. all this said, i found some old advents or even old nova 6 speakers gave a surprisingly balanced and mellow yet clear [enough] sound for the vast majority of recordings i pumped through them, though the trebles were not the clearest, imaging was merely suggestive and the depth wasn't there, still they sounded nominally pleasing, somewhat musical [makes one's fingers snap and feet tap] and above all, inoffensive. on the contrary, many old recordings on audiophile equipment sounded borderline harsh [or outright harsh] and flat and, well, offensive to me. i suspect these recordings were tailored to sound "right" on typical consumer equipment of the day, IOW not really revelatory-sounding gear, with some euphonic coloration going on.
It is amazing how good some of the programs have become.
Just this month some scientist use the eyes of an insect connected to an A.I. device and use it with success...
THEN my point is not doubting technological progress...
My point is about MEANING.... In human perception also lie meaning, and using dials to REPLACE human perception is not the essence of human experience, even if dials are useful....
And you are right about that, tomorrow A.I. will work without ANY human help whatsoever....This does not solve the meaning problem.... 😁😊
If I may add to this semantic debate. Acoustic means it is related to sound/hearing. Nothing more elaborate or precise than that.
Having said that, most of us take "acoustic" guitar as the piece of wood (or whatever that material is) with strings over it and a few more necessary parts and without any electricity involved. Of course, some concerts have even that "acoustic" guitar associated with a microphone.
If you check virtually any concert involving guitars, you will see multiple instruments swapped throughout the performance. They were picked for some reason and even two "acoustic" guitars will not sound quite the same. Now, it is on you to figure out which one is the more real one.
Acoustic is but one form of music. It’s not a given pinnacle and there is much variation from instrument to instrument such that calling it a general "reference" is questionable.
Maybe you don’t think as deeply as you feel you do?
Astonishing!
I know now that you dont have a clue...Or do you only want to never admit ignorance?
The word acoustic may be used to describe the sound of non amplified instrument , like in acoustic guitar....In some post of frogman where he give the example of non amplified instrumental timbre in a living event illustrating his own musician experience of timbre.... This is one thing....
But in all my posts i was spoken about the concept of acoustic, like in acoustic physic, room acoustic, or acoustic science in general which encompass physics and for example adress very deep problem not only about TIMBRE concept in music but about also speech recognition etc....
Then your observation about the adjective "acoustic" associated to a non amplified instrument is one thing that hide to you or you hide it to yourself i dont know, the deep concept behind timbre perception and experience...Frogman was using it without your confusion tough....
All my posts spoke about that....They spoke about the impossibility to REPRODUCE the original timbre experience but only to RECREATE it partially, nevermind the source digital or analog, in specific rooms always, always differently but in a possible acceptable way; we will call this possible truthfull recreation, naturalness of the timbre instrument experience or perception, nerver mind if it is an acoustic guitar or an electrical one ...the 2 type haver also a timbre"envelope" relative to the structure of the instrument and dynamically linked to the room for his creation and also for his recreation...Amplified or not....
In acoustic concept ANY insruments amplified or not, own a timbre "envelope" that is recreated differently in different acoustical settings.... All my post to you for the last 4 weeks now were about that experience and concept of acoustic, not the adjective associated with a nbon amplified instrument like in the exemple of frogman...
Then saying that in your words "acoustic is one form of music" clearly refer to non amplified instrument for sure, but it is not the non amplified instrument that are at the pinnacle of the musical and acoustical experience, IT IS THE TIMBRE CONCEPT and PERCEPTION and EXPERIENCE in ACOUSTIC SCIENCE in a specific room, never mind if it is a violin or a theramin amplified instrument...
The variation between instruments amplified or not, did not change the necessary acoustical settings and necessary controls in a room for the recreation of the timbre experience by the human ears...READ THAT 2 TIMES... It is the main point....
Ouffff
"acoustic is one form of music" is a very bad sentence conceptually.... Amplified sounds instruments or not amplified sounds instruments play the same music not each one his own form of music...The musical perception of timbre exist in the 2 cases... In the 2 cases a lived musical event, with unamplified or amplified instruments could never be reproduced without trade off and some lost or transformation by the electronical process of mixing and recording and also all the electrical noise in the reproduction system.... I used my room controls to recreate the best i could some natural timbre perception for amplified or non amplified instrument, the 2 own their own natural "envelope" pertaining also to the room where the microphone recorded them in the first place...I want my room to help me to recreate this the best i could....nevermind if i own a dac or a turntable ....
😁
such that calling it a general "reference" is questionable.
What is the general reference is the timbre " envelope" dynamical texture of ANY instrument.... For sure all the musician experience is usually with acoustic instrument but this dont change the mathematical definition of timbre in physics and in musical or audio room acoustic....This is the timbre perception which me and frogman called the benchmark of audio and music experience...
I will mute myself if you dont add other incoherent observations....
With some people i dont feel to be a deep thinker at all but frankly with you i feel i am very deep....Sorry....
That's too binary. Partly satisfied and partly not, that's closer to reality. Microphones are primitive things compared to ear. They cannot hear everything there is to hear. So what do we do ? Do we try to manipulate the recording in an effort to compensate for what microphones missed or leave it alone ?
That negates electric guitars and synthesizers. Sometimes the amplification is critical to the production.
do you mimic misunderstanding? Or you really dont have a clue?
I cannot truthfully tell myself..... I am a bit naive perhaps....
Frogman speak about acoustic non amplified instrument and voice for being textbook case of Timbre experience, perception and jugdment, the ultimate test, in speech control acoustic and in music, and in audio....
It’s just word games. One is either satisfied or not. “How many times have you heard someone say "If I had his money, I could do things my way" But little they know that it's so hard to find One rich man in ten with a satisfied mind”
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
