@mahgister +1 Fascinating. I'll check it out.
- ...
- 302 posts total
I used to read here on Audiogon about all of the descriptive high-sounding adjectives to describe the sounds coming from a system....’soundstage’, ’layering’, ’decay’, ’imaging’, ’slam’, ’attack’, ’front-to-back’, ’height and width’, ’PRAT’, ’air’, ’deeper bass’, ’sweet spot’, etc. .............and in the beginning, I thought it was a bunch of hogwash. But, as I moved up the hifi food chain, all of those adjectives made themselves known and very apparent to me one by one without anyone having to explain it to me. I knew what each one was immediately the first time I heard them. Some of the adjectives upon hearing them the first time was almost like a religious experience....and I kept throwing money at the hobby as faithfully as a religious person pays tithes. In other words, you’ll know it when you hear it...and you’ll miss it when or if it leaves your system. After all that, I am still unable to explain those adjectives to a nonaudiophile. ....you’ll immediatley know what it is when you hear it.
What he said! |
That helps. Thank you for trying again to help get your point across. Let me schematize it. You are saying: (a) physical qualities --causes--> (b) physiological responses --influences--> amplifier design --causes the reaction--> deemed "musical" The outcome -- what is deemed "musical" -- is influenced in part by distortion, and that human reactions (to distortion) follow universal laws of human perception. That's why an amp maker who pays attention to these laws (physical and perceptual) is guided in making an amp that sounds pleasing. Or, more cautiously, knows what to avoid in their design which would make the amp sound not-pleasing. (All this sounds simple yet we have many amplifier makers. I suppose most have gotten the "bad" distortion out of their designs, though.) I hope I have understood you correctly. Wittgenstein is well know for his "duck-rabbit" example. (It's meant to point out that objects do not simply appear to our senses, but are "seen as" something. All seeing is seeing-as.) If I understood how "deemed musical" in your explanation differed from "deemed rabbit (or duck)" I would be more comfortable seeing the philosophical problem go away. At the moment, I see a correlation between distortion and musicality but I don't see that it is necessitated. All manufacturers really need to do is some people some of the time, so they don't need more than a correlation to design amps and make a good living. I appreciate your reply, though I believe we are going in circles. However, I'll think about your answer some more. Thank you.
|
You're right. I had a knee jerk reaction. I have actually read some thoughtful responses on this thread, as well as other threads that were repeats of earlier threads, like the recent one started by @calvinj about speakers you have owned. seen. Thanks for the nudge buddy, and Happy Thanksgiving to you as well. |
- 302 posts total