I never annoy people deliberately anyway (it's just a gift that happens naturally without me needing to try ).
This is why you have potential.
...and I know you were kidding.......I should have put one of these in
"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again." André Gide
It's the media which provides you with the emotional experience. The TV or hifi equipment is just a means with which to reproduce it (some do this job better than others though). These are two very seperate things and should not be mixed up.
Yes, I appreciate that emotion in a movie is a culmination of the scriptwriter, actors, director etc, but the way in which a film is shot, the look it is given, and any post processing that takes place can create a certain feel/vibe. How many times do you see "film fanatics" (the ones who spend more time arguing over them than actually watching them) complaining about hues, grain, DNR etc? Not everyone likes what they see (even if it is what is intended), and it is the same with music. Some like what they hear from an accurate sounding system, some won't, and the same goes for a system that is "coloured" in one way or another.
How many people have a (more accurate looking) calibrated screen? Very few. Why? Either because they don't want to pay someone £400+ for the privilege, calibrating a screen isn't on their list of priorities or a regular/normal thing to do, or because they are quite happy with the settings they set themselves. Seem prefer quite a colourful looking picture, some like a lot of contrast, some little, some like a DNR'd picture because it looks quite smooth and easy to look at, whereas someone else will prefer grain and all because of the detail it can create.
I've constantly been distracted while writing this post, so apologies if it makes less sense than I'd like it to. Maybe if it doesn't make my point properly, maybe it will present a few things to think about.
Oh, and amplifiers can make a difference
David @Frank Harvey Hi-Fi, Coventry
There are things that we know we know,
There are things we know we do not know,
And there are things we don't know that we do not know, and most of these are found in hi-fi systems.
I think that this sums up most people on HiFi forums (myself included).
PC > AVI Neutron Five 2.1
Sony NWZ-A847 64GB Walkman > Westone UM3x
Everything that we can hear can be measured. But not everything that can be measured can be heard.
I really think you made good points but here you could also look at the opposite of your claim: we do hear things that cannot be measured. I saw a wolf in a shadow, I heard a melody in the repeating sound of an engine... Music is not measured, sound is measured! Music is a lot about anticipation. I have posted about that in this thread but it got ignored. I have also claimed that lo-fi accentuate "musical imagination" and linked that to the ever going debate on warm vs clinical sound. It does also explain a lot of the fuss with ABX. I dont want to throw to much details in, just direct your attentiion on it. I would be curious to hear people expand on that.
If I had a 200W amp. I would not play it at 200W I would probably play at around 1w to 10W!
Then why the hell buy a 200w amp in the first place?
Well as you used car example why buy a car that goes 200mph if you can only drive it at 70mph?
I don't think you realise how loud 1w is, in my living room 1w will produce about 75dbs of loudness which I understand is a fairly average listening level, 10w will produce about 86dbs which is quite loud, 100w will produce 96dbs.
More watts is about control, less distortion and having plenty in reserve for those dynamic peaks you get in some music. For me 200W is probably a bit OTT at the moment but when I move the living maybe larger than my current 5m x3.5m room size, so no need to upgrade.
Correct. Its not just about volume per se. Peak programme levels can far exceed average power level. To produce them undistorted it is handy to have the dynamic headroom available.
All amplifiers are not created equally though. Many have high levels of current to cope with different loads of speakers whereas others swing volts but are not so able to deal with difficult to drive speakers.
Its a juggling and matching exercise.
Pretty ... and pretty proud of it
That's a very interesting point that you make here. I hadn't considered it like that before.
I suppose what I ment to say is that any sound that our ears can hear can be measured. However the emotional message contained within those sounds is something separate altogether. It's possible to measure any frequency or amplitude much more accurately than our ears can hear. But is it possible to measure something like the happiness or sadness in a singers voice? Hmmm maybe, but I'm not sure. Even if these things could be measured I doubt that the measured emotions could be decoded as effectively as our ears and brain can do. Like pyrrhon I'd also be interested to hear what other people think about this.
I think that this comes back to the point that I made earlier about it being the content of the music which contains all the emotion and the HiFi system used to reproduce the sound is just an objective and emotionless piece of electrical equipment.
I suppose what I ment to say is that any sound that our ears can hear can be measured. However the emotional message contained within those sounds is something separate altogether. It's possible to measure any frequency or amplitude much more accurately than our ears can hear. But is it possible to measure something like the happiness or sadness in a singers voice? Hmmm possibly, but I'm not sure. Even if these things could be measured I doubt that the measured emotions could be decoded as effectively as our ears and brain can do. Like pyrrhon I'd also be interested to hear what other people think about this.
Interesting but largely pointless in hi-fi term.
Enthusiast will simply say that a system that is more capable of portraying the emotion contained in a piece of music is a better system because it gets you closer to the performance. Real, measured accuracy or transparancy has nothing to do with it.
Strangely such a system rarely seems to produce less emotion from a poor performance.
We do so many shows in a row,
And these towns all look the same,
We just pass the time in our hotel room
And wander 'round backstage,
Till the lights come up, and we hear that crowd,
And we remember why we came.
Why do so many argue about such trivialities or dull geekery such as ABX testing, measurements about this hobby, do such ones spend more time discussing it than actually listening?
I for one spend much more time enjoying listening to music than discussing it. In fact the only reason I'm even bothering to post on here right now is because it's something interesting to do to pass the time while it's quiet at work.
I'm a new guy so can someone please help me, why do the engineers go to such great lengths of listening to components over and over again and then chose the component that sound best? Surely they just need to copy someone else work, or just chose those that measure best?
This means that scientific measurements are by far the most reliable and accurate method to use when designing HiFi electronics. As a general rule the better something measures in terms of lowering the distortion the better it will sound.
EDIT - Welcome to the forum BTW.
Thanks man, I guess with over 2000 post work much be pretty boring huh
What though have measurements got to do with how it sounds to you as an individual, how do you measure pleasure, emotional response, happiness, we all react differently to sound and what we hear, where is the human factor in all these scientific measurements?, I believe they miss a key element.
Maybe we should add the ears to the "equipment"-part of it. So not [music --> hifi --> person], but [music --> hifi+ears --> brain]. After all the emotional aspect, the satisfaction, the pleasure of listening to music... it all happens in the brain. Strictly speaking, the ears are not paramount (nor the equipment), as trained musicians can 'hear' the music in their head, while reading a score. It also explains the weak correlation between the quality of your gear and the pleasure you find in listening to music.
An interesting thought has just struck me as I sit here perusing this forum listening to Jason Boland, 'Live and loud at Billy Bobs Texas'.
I spent the bulk of my working life in and around live music of all kinds and find that, as with the album above, I have a profound preference for live recordings, be it classical, jazz and rock.
I have alwayd known that I like live recordings but I have never really thought about why, maybe I just hear it better by filling in, from my own experience, whatever is lacking in the recording?
I think there is something in your last sentence, thats probably why many pro musicians don't bother with expensive hifi.
Why are so few women interested in hifi?
They're the strong sex! They don't need it!
Mrs DDC is a case in point, though as ever somewhat contradictory.
She rarely listens to music on the hi-fi, even back in our real home when we had the good system set up. On the other hand she does, on occasion, go to bed with the iPad and her pair of Sennheissers.
She also has music radio on in the car, something I simply can not do, if anything good comes on I get distracted and drive into things.
On the other hand if I arrange for us to go and see something live, anything from opera to a Deep Purple tribute act in a local pub, she is always up for it and invariably has a great time.
Because they grow up?
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds - the pessimist fears this is true."
James Branch Cabell
MAIN: Apple TV2, Mac Mini & iTunes Match, CA Azur 751BD or Panasonic P42V20B into audiolab M-DAC, feeding a Primare A34.2 via XLRs, 2x 5m of Atlas Ascent 2 firing up Totem Arros.
ON THE HOOF: iPhone 5S/Sennheiser MM450.
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing