I think I'm suggesting there is a distortion pallete that we develop that is subliminal in the sense that we can't point to it yet we are in touch with it because it triggers pleasure, which causes us to be dialed in and constantly seeking that pleasurable sensation (underlying sonic signature/ distortion palette).
If that makes sense, think about the use of sound in music therapy in terms of neurological, psychological, and/or physical affect.
Perhaps it is when we are able to consistently achieve such distortion palette (underlying sonic signature) via our audio system, we get back to enjoying the music...which (underlying sonic signature), ultimately, may not have much to do with technical specs or the so called high end level of one's equipment. However, it still makes sense that better equipment plus a consistent underlying sonic signature fosters the best experience (I guess that our perception of the quality of audio equipment is based substantially upon our perception of how individual and arranged sounds should sound relative to our musical experience).
In other words, audiophiles are different, in part, because of being obsessed with a particular underlying sonic signature.
On the other hand, the so called purists of audiophilism are obsessed with inner detail, and a certain exactness to the reproduction of music (whether it be timbre, soundstage, slam, etc).
Without being in the head of the writers, musicians, and sound engineers, and the venues that we experience music in, aren't our equipment preferences shaped by our musical diversity or lack thereof (neither less or more diversity is necessarily better or worse: i.e. - one could have a diversity of bad musical experiences or have a few really great experiences that shape the development of a sonic preference, etc.).
It may be that audiophilism is better served because there is so much that is understood, misunderstood, and unknown.
Having said, a more insightful common path to finding what is most pleasurable (based upon individual taste) is a worthy goal.
|
In the context of one developing a palette for wine or bourbon, is audiophilism largely about the development of a distortion palette relative to the actual arrangement and tonal quality of the instrumental and vocal sounds? Close but re arrange the whole thing. That the individual ear distorts... and we learn how to hear though our own individual distortion pattern. Our individual pattern and signal recognition and recording sytem. So to speak. Where measurements are simply an agreed upon standard that we can hopefully use to have a functional baseline in comparisons. where enough of the parameters in measurement can erupt into a useful, transferable, repeatable testing system. We can’t quite call it distortions as we don’t (generally, in the public or even the pro/science level) know the true relation of the hearing system -- to the so called measured numbers. Some might be closer to that equation being solved than others... but until then, it will remain as a situation where the ’relative truth’ will stand in similar value to all the wrong directions or incorrect ones. Thus all the colors of the audio language have evolved in a real and normal manner as to tasting or color definition in it’’s most minute detectibility, - Which is the limits of capacity for recognition and expression of nuance. Where everyone is different in that given skill set. And that detectibility and/or language, in the general, continues to grow and evolve... and as that happens, as a system in flow or change.. we can begin to narrow in on a more agreed upon common path. |
In the context of one developing a palette for wine or bourbon, is audiophilism largely about the development of a distortion palette relative to the actual arrangement and tonal quality of the instrumental and vocal sounds?
|
It’s annoying how this kid presents this like he’s just discovered the holy grail. I want to strangle him. LOL, and the title is misleading. They saw blue as evidenced by art they just never used a single word to describe the color. |
If you are a visual artist of some kind, or if you’ve studied linguistics, or, especially if you have done both, nothing new here.
It’s (relatively) common knowledge that ‘eskimos’ allegedly have as many as 300 words for snow. Studies show, however, that Eskimo-Aleut have the same number of root words for snow as English speaking peoples do, the difference being that the structure of the Eskimo-Aleut language allow for far more variability in this area.
Our world shapes perception. Perception shapes our world. The Incas claimed that our belly buttons are the center of the universe. Context is everything.
It’s annoying how this kid presents this like he’s just discovered the holy grail. I want to strangle him. |
@mahgister,
An audiophile is someone who can transform TOTALLY his room with 1/4 inches straw lenghth.... I guess i am one.... 😉
A consumer is someone who will spend many thousand of dollars to do the same thing.... 😎
Only superstitious conditioned mind or professional sellers think that audiophile experience is money invested directly related....I listen to a bad system whose value was 300,000 bucks....You know why? They lack a straw at the right spot....
This microdynamic expressing gesture of playing between 2 instruments locked one with the other by their "rythmical resonance" is after timbre experience the most important criteria about an audio system for me...
It is the only reason why i would upgrade, if i could afford it, my 500 bucks system to a 15,000 bucks one...( yes i calculate the price even if i could never afford it)
----------
This is THE major problem with this hobby.
Gaining that last bit of improvement (especially when it comes to timbral accuracy) might well mean you have to spend 30 times more! I will never upgrade my 500 bucks system... Everybody listening to it knowing my S.Q. /price ratio is flabbergasted... If i upgrade to 15,000 bucks for an improvement , no one will be so impressed, they will say it is a good system... Now they cannot believe what i have for the price... There is a ceiling in S.Q. quality, after it you improve but with an exponential increase in price... Elementary mechanics of vibration control, electrical noise floor basic facts, acoustical treatment and controls MAY cost nothing at all... Then..... Even if i could have the money i will not upgrade because i am too proud of my actual peanuts cost system S.Q. Thanks God i did not have the money 7 years back to buy plug and play and dreaming to upgrade the month after.... Be creative and forget money.... Embed everything rightfully instead of upgrading and before it....Perhaps you will no more need to upgrade after that... This is my point.... «Black is the color of joy because any pinpoint of arising light or sound consume everything»-Anonymus Smith |
@mahgister,
An audiophile is someone who can transform TOTALLY his room with 1/4 inches straw lenghth.... I guess i am one.... 😉
A consumer is someone who will spend many thousand of dollars to do the same thing.... 😎
Only superstitious conditioned mind or professional sellers think that audiophile experience is money invested directly related....I listen to a bad system whose value was 300,000 bucks....You know why? They lack a straw at the right spot....
This microdynamic expressing gesture of playing between 2 instruments locked one with the other by their "rythmical resonance" is after timbre experience the most important criteria about an audio system for me...
It is the only reason why i would upgrade, if i could afford it, my 500 bucks system to a 15,000 bucks one...( yes i calculate the price even if i could never afford it)
----------
This is THE major problem with this hobby.
Gaining that last bit of improvement (especially when it comes to timbral accuracy) might well mean you have to spend 30 times more! |
Any attempt in enlightenment which attains group consensus... is inherently incorrect.
And if I happen to disagree, does that confirm the statement is true? :-) I do think it depends a great deal on a qualified sample group. @teo_audio - interesting concepts shared here. I do see enough agreement on appraisals of devices and technologies, means of getting better performance etc. Sufficiently enough agreement to glimpse patterns of helpful and knowledgeable audiophiles, even some disputes where passionate people will take the time to actually compile well thought out cases for their thoughts. These people, willing to discuss their opinions, with reasons for an opinion, these I respect the more. Not that they agree or not, but that they are willing to relate why their opinion aught to be weighed up. Thank you for this thread, and these last half a dozen posts, I have read and see merit in each discourse. |
Many things exist on a continuous spectrum.
Language often attempts to chop that spectrum up into discrete units. Take watery precipitation: drizzle, rain, downpour, etc.
For the same spectrum, different languages may chop at different points along the spectrum, and they may create a greater or lesser number of discrete units along the spectrum.
Within a given language, as Saussure demonstrated, meaning depends on members of that language group having broad agreement as to what a particular word refers to, as, with the exception of onomatopoeia, the relationship between word (and the sound of the word) and thing is purely a matter of convention. |
Any attempt in enlightenment which attains group consensus... is inherently incorrect.
|
We need words to communicate but words help us to engage in a pointed direction , like a maestro with his words and gestures conducting an orchestra.... But they are not the experience nor the music...
The Vocabulary of audio is useful to describe the electronic performance of the gear....thats all...
The performance of a system cannot be judged by amplified music or electrical music...
Why?
Because we are designed for a long time now to hear timbre voices in speech recognition....This is an evolutive fact...
All our music come from human voice not from electronic moog synthetiser....
I trust my ears listening subtle piano cues or voices in a choir to decide if my audio system is optimal not his way to give a great rock concert with electrical guitars in decibels and bass ....
Recognizing sounds frequencies is one thing, recognizing timbre is completely another thing and the two are not superimposable with one another or dont overlay completely with one another....
This is psychoacoustic scientific fact....
Music is not sound but through sound , and music is not also only signals in a sea of noise....Music is from another time than the physical clock, and from another space than the usual geometry of the physical world...And music speak about other colors than the one we know of in the physical world , like the precise color of the mother voice in Mahler kindertotenlieder....Listen in your heart and memory to the colored voice of your own mother adressing you when hurted to have an idea about music....Speaking of sound with acousti vocabulary after that is ridiculous...
Colors are not color they are world in itself....like a musical tone....And they are together a new body....
The great composers create new cosmos.... The great musician recreate our body.....It is what i look for....
|
Take the Max Luscher Color Test - a classic in psychology. |
There is truth in some of what has been written in recent posts about the subjective nature of perception and the difficulty in describing those perceptions to others in a meaningful way. Not impossible to do so TO SOME DEGREE, especially if a well chosen (as much as possible) descriptive vocabulary is developed based on agreed upon perceptions. Example: at its most basic, it would not be difficult for there to be agreement when there is an increase in overall volume, or bass, for instance. Obviously things get much more subtle and complicated that. Still, it would be a good start to build on. I have done precisely this with inexperienced listeners with success.
However, all this points to something that I feel audiophiles have unfortunately gotten away from and which used to be one of the foundational ideas of this hobby: the use of the live unamplified (acoustic) music reference. First, and to point out the obvious, this is not an argument against the idea of wanting a type of sound from our systems that pleases us without regard to a live music, or any other reference. Anyone is obviously free to enjoy their music with whatever type of sound that he wants. Moreover, if a listener has no interest in music genres that are acoustic/unamplified in nature then this is probably all moot. This is, however, an argument against the idea that it is NOT possible nor valid, to use the live acoustic music reference. It most certainly is. The detractors should remember that for some listeners THAT IS the most pleasing sound and that this is not just an exercise in some sort of “academic” pursuit.
There seems to be a knee jerk reaction to dismiss this idea by citing the subjective nature of perception. The problem with that argument is that one’s subjectivity carries over to whatever the source of the sound is at any moment. In other words, if for example, a certain spectral balance, or aspect thereof, is heard a certain way when attending a live performance of unamplified music due to any idiosyncrasies in our personal physiological hearing “mechanism”, it will be perceived the same way when listening to a recording. A valid comparison can thus be made. Clearly, there are many variables present when listening to live unamplified music; different halls, seating position, different reproduction equipment, etc. However, there is so much more information, particularly in the areas of timbral and rhythmic nuance in the sound of live unamplified instruments/music that enough of it survives the recording process and our imperfect reproduction equipment to still be able to make a valid comparison between what is heard live and what is heard from our sound system. Substantial familiarity with the sound of live is of course necessary; something which may be impossible or unappealing for some to pursue. Add electronic amplification to the mix (😉) and it makes it much more difficult, if not impossible.
Harry Pearson was right. |
.....’We live together, we act on, and react to, one another; but always and in all circumstances we are by ourselves. The martyrs go hand in hand into the arena; they are crucified alone. Embraced, the lovers desperately try to fuse their insulated ecstasies into a single self-transcendence; in vain. By its very nature every embodied spirit is doomed to suffer and enjoy in solitude. Sensations, feelings, insights, fancies - all these are private and, except through symbols and at second hand, incommunicable. We can pool information about experiences, but never the experiences themselves. From family to nation, every human group is a society of island universes. Most island universes are sufficiently like one another to Permit of inferential understanding or even of mutual empathy or "feeling into." Thus, remembering our own bereavements and humiliations, we can condole with others in analogous circumstances, can put ourselves (always, of course, in a slightly Pickwickian sense) in their places. But in certain cases communication between universes is incomplete or even nonexistent. The mind is its own place, and the Places inhabited by the insane and the exceptionally gifted are so different from the places where ordinary men and women live, that there is little or no common ground of memory to serve as a basis for understanding or fellow feeling. Words are uttered, but fail to enlighten. The things and events to which the symbols refer belong to mutually exclusive realms of experience. To see ourselves as others see us is a most salutary gift. Hardly less important is the capacity to see others as they see themselves.’.....A.H.
Learning about the music and the way how it is created or about its internal structure (from musicians point of view) I find fascinating. Putting objective on describing reproduced sounds and even calling it 'discipline' is slightly pretentious, to say at least...of course, imho...... |
What I find fascinating about this discussion is there is mention of a book about audio, Robert something or other and how after reading it a new world of sound appreciation opens up. What’s most fascinating about that is, we don’t learn that way. Especially when talking about nuance. For instance, for anyone reading this who isn’t color blind go look at Pantone’s color of the year 2012 “Tangerine Tango” (DD4124). You have now likely seen a color that you haven’t seen before. I challenge you to describe it to a friend or family member who hasn’t seen it and have them use an RGB color palate on the computer to dial in the color you’re describing. What you’re seeing is someone’s seeing (or in the case of audio listening) translated into words that are then filtered through someone else language filter to be reconstructed into what you have seen or heard. The truth is you can’t translate nuance into words like that. When your friend or family member sees tangerine tango for the first time they will finally know what it is. This is the same for auditory learning, you can’t read about it in a book. Someone has to distinctly point out the sound that you’re listening to and add a reference vocabulary to it. Otherwise what you might think of as tangerine tango, someone else might think is reddish orange. So while there are terms that are descriptive of audio nuance, they simply can’t be reasonably exchanged through words in a book or on a forum. Sadly even if you were to encapsulate them on some audio medium to share, the tool that reproduced that sound would alter what it is. Here’s a good example of trying to share pink that can’t actually be shared without being there in person. https://youtu.be/_NzVmtbPOrM |
Agree with millercarbon with a twist that explains human behavior and characteristics - You can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink the water. You can take a horse to water but it may decide instead to take a whiz in the water trough. Finally, you can take an ass to water and if it drinks the water it surely doesn’t become a horse; it is still an ass. |
Do not want to spoil the party... Nah, don’t worry, you haven’t spoilt anything mate. Interesting opinion you have formulated, your circle of audiophile friends are very much unlike mine, who regularly go listen to live music as well as listen on their systems, often with a glass of vino. I for one used to listen to live music at least once or twice a week for many many years, when I went Latin dancing. I’ve even taught my wife how to dance, and we also enjoy listening to music that takes us back in the day so to speak. Roxy Music last week, was flavor of the weekend. Bryan Ferry, you should chill to him sometime..Take the edge off mate. Opinions vary, I suppose. Fear not, our party is doing great thanks. |
All people here a too different from one another to be rounded up on a square and bagged up in the same bag....
Calling this bag "audiophiles" will not always help....
It is not because people are interested by improving their sound in many different way fron one another that they loose their individual character to suddenly transform in some mythical beasts named "audiophiles"
In the same way human perceive colors the best if they name it first, it is for example scientifically proven that distinguishing a shade of color by name help and speed up tremendously any objects classifying task...
In audio it is the same, we must learn many words pertaining to sound...
But you are right, music is not sound and many people here, not necessarily ONLY "audiophiles" must learn to listen to music passing over their habits and taste....
Sound is not necessarily music, and music manifest through sound but is not sound....
My best to you.... |
Do not want to spoil the party, but based on my experience with 'audiophiles' (that I know or have met) I would not suggest that they appreciate music more than others. Than again, I would not say that dissecting the reproduced sounds of hi fi systems ad nauseum have necessarily any conection with love for music at all or that hi fi has any meaning if majority of your music collection is not unamlified music... |
|
The greek could see "blue" but associated it with other external and internal phenomena....
And seing a color is not only seeing something external but translating it physiologically and interpretating it.....
Then our "blue" is not their "blue".....The lack of the word"blue" is a sign they associate this color with other impactful phenomena then they did mever feel the need to detach it from these phenomena and name the "blue" abstractly with a specific word refering only to colors like they did for others colors... Probably the physical color blue impact then very much , so much, that it was not only a "color" but a more powerful phenomenon ....
By the way you can interpret turquoise like a green shade not a blue shade....
This is my explanation...
But i am not a specialist for sure.... |
|
@syntax , get off the 'puter and head to your listening rooms, you'll shake it real fast I bet. I spent 30 minutes in there (system page) and even I feel better now.
|
|
G'day will you blokes relax with the Y'all jokes and such?
Cripes, by now you fellas should have worked out it's me, I'm the chap who's really from the south.
No bloke from north of the equator has any right to be claiming they're from the south.
Hope you all have a ripper Memorial weekend, don't sink too much grog,
enjoy your choice tunes. And if you can't be good, be good at it!
I'm from Downunder! Yes, the only country in the world that eats it's national emblem animals. And before you state anything about Aussie animals, consider that I'd rather be attacked by a Koala bear than any species of North American bear you have.
@avsjerry - you had to mention PMS didn't you? hehehehe
removing the heart with a rusty teaspoon more likes.
|
@djones51 Maybe someone can explain the jump from the information in the video to how high end audio came into existence for someone who is "non evolved" like me. If you’re not evolved, does that make you a creationist? Or just not siding with Darwinian theory? (written tongue in cheek) Well, actually there really has been an evolution, and it required the ability to recognise and as I mentioned earlier, practiced statistical analysis. Even the ability to enunciate different sounds in languages around the world, is learned in our infancy, expressly using statistics. I know I’m entirely discussing psychology here, but it’s actually an evolution of technology based upon recognition that drives high end audio. As a warm up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sound_recording |
I threatened a 'pop' quiz last night.....
*pop* |
Lets' talk about 'sound'....
...if you Dare. |
Re: Color
Have any of you been exposed to the Pantone Matching System?
(aka, PMS #xxxx)
It will make you beyond merely crazy.
The desecrator that asks: "Can you give me something between PMS4752 and PMS4753?"
Simple violent death seems too.....inappropo....
Skinning verrrrry sloowwwllllyyy with a stone knife of salt comes to mind... |
(...a sullen silence descends...."OMG, he's Here....WTF, there's nowhere to escape...")
Put the coffee down....no, I don't care what you put into it to make mornings' more 'tolerable'....and, Yes, I've had my cardio meds...I'm not likely to 'expire', and allow for escape....;) |
Yes, I do 'exist' beyond 'the dark period' we've agreed to call...
night. |
....as this dissection of strangled Thinglish descends into the maw of contraction distractions...."y'all" for "All of you", "ya" for "Yes"....
Color didn't exist until 'umans started arguing about what the *!* 'that' appeared to look like to each other...which required some semblance of language to make that attempt.
The 'Era of Confusion', whereas an Enormous amount of time and whacking each other on the head brought some semblance of acceptance that a particular grunt meant 'that'.
Later, what a 'sound' meant to each other.....
It's only gotten worse.
Next concept.
Happy Fryday. |
I'll assume that's a ditto. |
|
So, you have no idea either. |
“If you have to ask what Jazz is, you’ll never know” - Louis Armstrong |
A very interesting video on color and color perception. How it comes into being The video only touched on how humans began using color for survival it never mentioned how "color or color perception " came into being. It did talk about the reasons why blue wasn’t mentioned in old texts or in art except for the Egyptians. I’ll go out on a limb and assume color came into being long before humans. In the act of doing so, it illustrates how the complexity of the high end audio world comes into existence Maybe someone can explain the jump from the information in the video to how high end audio came into existence for someone who is "non evolved" like me. |
Your upbringing is forcing you to incessantly write 'ya' instead of properly writing 'you'? |
Hi oldhvymec, it's 'You Can Leave Your Hat On'. Joe Cocker, amongst many others sang it, but it was written by Randy Newman, a master of understated irony. |
Y'all started this topic just to insult a group of people, and y'all jumped right onto that. Now you want to put your fingers in your ears and ignore the person standing up to the bullies. This ain't high school. It just feels like it. Hate to break it to ya, but those people you insult are every bit as much audiophiles as you, probably more so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMesx-CWbGk All the best, Nonoise |
Good night my friend.....
|
I'm not kidding....it'll F all y'all up....
The only worse thing that surpasses the All Y'all Alliteration Activity is a pointless argument over how ones' hearing is mo' betta' than someone else's.....when all y'all are in a online forum with absolutely no means of proving eithers' superiority other than typing sheer blather at each other in defense/offense over it....
@mahgister...liked the duo; even with hearing aids I hear (and get) your point.
There...argue amongst selves whether or not, because of my use of aids, that my listening 'skills' aren't valid, or 'phile'....or listening to equipment through another level of 'equipment' invalidates what I hear is 'correct' or 'true to source'....
I'm going to bed...pop quiz tomorrow.
Sharpen your similes.....you may need it. |
'K....
Y'all stop using 'y'all' so much, 'cuz y'all don't have a clue as to what y'all are exposing y'alls' selves to with the overindulgence of using 'y'all' in such a trivial fashion.....I mean, y'all are courting a serious form of damage to y'alls' psychic senselessness....
...and y'all ought to know better....;) |
+1 for using "Y'all" again. |
|
Y'all started this topic just to insult a group of people, and y'all jumped right onto that. Now you want to put your fingers in your ears and ignore the person standing up to the bullies. This ain't high school. It just feels like it. Hate to break it to ya, but those people you insult are every bit as much audiophiles as you, probably more so.
|
Speakermaster,
I agree with everything you wrote except this:
"but at the same time, we have no right to talk down to them, but i believe that they just can not discern the differences we hear at all."
Although that is a nice way to look at it, I disagree. It’s beyond me why we have so many "new" posters here lately that simply despise audiophiles. This is an audiophile forum... It certainly doesn’t seem like they have any interest in advancing high end audio reproduction, but have another agenda
BTW, Nonoise nailed it again. This guy is about as southern as Lou Reed was.
|
....hmmm....
"Y'all are talking (well, Typing) 'food for thought', but up to now lacks carbs."
Example of the correct usage of *y'all*; y'all are welcome. ;)
Back to more elitist dribble, don't let me soil, I mean, Spoil the fun... |
People usually always put down what they do not understand or get into but just because they can not appreciate music the way an audiophile does, does not give them the right to talk down to us like they do, but at the same time, we have no right to talk down to them, but i believe that they just can not discern the differences we hear at all.
You are more wise than i am... You are right..... My deepest regards |
People usually always put down what they do not understand or get into but just because they can not appreciate music the way an audiophile does, does not give them the right to talk down to us like they do, but at the same time, we have no right to talk down to them, but i believe that they just can not discern the differences we hear at all.
|
