Like

Archive through December 15, 2004

 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

http://www.hitchams.suffolk.sch.uk/ictmusic/drums/drum_kit_parts.htm

and

http://www.hitchams.suffolk.sch.uk/ictmusic/drums/rhythm_styles.htm

 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

Click on items in the left column for moer information:

http://www.music123.com/Percussion-Parts-d160.music

 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1997_articles/dec97/drumiking1.html

I added that one since the very last line of the text is likely to get a rise out of John.

 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1997_articles/dec97/drumiking1.html

I added that one since the very last line of the text is likely to get a rise out of John.

 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 264
Registered: Oct-04
Don: Thanks for the Paradigm info. Only problem I have with the Studio 20s is that they have vinyl, not wood, cabinets. Mer hates that, soo. . . .
Appreciate your efforts - and may try to audition some Studio 20s next week. Everybody I've talked to says they have a very "British" sound - which I like, especially for classical.

So - here I sit, sweating after sanding down more furniture (does this ever stop??) and wondering why I just cannot even begin to think about Christmas. Too hot - too "palmy." Well, U know...
Then, friends in our "old" town of Sedona, AZ, send us the following - and make me at least think about putting up some lights. Maybe. . .

Upload

Sigh. Yep. Dat's what we left for Florid-Duh! More anon. . .
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2561
Registered: Dec-03
Jan,

John - I've read "Nimbus DVD Music Introduction". Now what?

For me, one interesting thing was that they seem to know what they are doing, and why. For example, see their comments on number and position of microphones. They also have a reason for leaving out the centre channel; we argued over this, and came to no conclusion. Also, they say there is no point, only problems, with an active subwoofer, since no music involves sounds that cannot be reproduced by full-range speakers. So their approach seems to be to make 4.0 their standard. It took me, at least, a very long time to reach the conclusion that 4.0 was probably best, for music, and it still seems to be a minority view. Their position on number channels and number of speakers, where to put them, is entirely new to me, except for having read something similar before, here. Wouldn't it be great to have something similar from, say, DG, to get some idea of what they are trying to achieve?

Concerning the advice on recording drums; what is the engineer trying to acheive? I have no idea; it would be interesting to know he though he was trying to do. Certainly he is giving advice on how to influence the musical performance. For example Noise gates are automatic on/off boxes for signals where you can set how long it takes to turn on and turn off with the attack and decay dial...Gates can be good on cymbals as you can set them to close after a period of time so they don't go on and on and on and on and on in a mix. See my comment about tweaking the Mona Lisa with Photoshop filters. That smile; would it not be better to have a few pearly-white teeth showing...? Skin hues improved a bit?

At the end of Payne realisation of Elgar 3, the last sound is a gong. It seems likely to me that the composer's intention was that it should fade into silence. A gong is supposed to go on and on and on. The player can damp it, just like a bell or a cymbal, if he chooses. On the Naxos DVD-A/V, the gong fades, the recording is switched off before it has finished, there is half a second of no signal, and then it is switched on again, by which time the gong is no longer sounding. What was the engineer thinking of? Saving disc space? Had he lost interest by that time? Did he assume the listener would no longer be listening? Was he using a "noise gate" and changed his mind "on the fly"?

What are recording engineers trying to do? What are we trying to do?

Enough for one post. Back later. Will follow links.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2562
Registered: Dec-03
Jan,

Do you mean by "last line of the text" "If you don't have a suitable live room, drums can be recorded just as effectively in a living room, with ambience added using a digital reverb."?
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

That's the one, John. A truly natural way to get the sound of a drum. Sorta.

The instructional pieces are relayed to this forum with minimal editing by me. I thought they might be of interest to at least one or two individuals who are unfamiliar with how sound gets from the musician to the disc we play at home. Hopefully the end result will be a little more knowledge about what we are hearing from a disc. The writer of this column is defintiely not in the Mercury, "three mics will do it, thank you", school of studio work. But what he presents is a fair asessment of what is likely to happen to the sound of an instrument before it gets onto the disc you will pay $15 to have on your system.
As much of what he presents is meant to give the ability to set up and get sound in an efficient manner, what he does with mics is not too unlikely to occur on any type of music any of us listens to. To paraphrase the American Express commercials, "Do you know what's on your disc?"


 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

The articles on studio work would also, I hope, show just how divergent audiophiles and engineers are when it comes to what constitutes good sound. If anyone reads the magazines on studio technique (skip the article on "I recorded Ozzy on a three day banger", it's old stuff) you will more than likely come to the conclusion that the approach of "if it sounds good, put it on tape" rules the commercial markets.


 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1973
Registered: Dec-03
Nothing!
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

Nothing meaning something?

 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1975
Registered: Dec-03
...................Y E P ....................
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


Kegger - You haven't said anything about your Mercury disc yet.


 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1976
Registered: Dec-03
I'm still trying to figure it out.

Need to listen some more and see if I can!
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1977
Registered: Dec-03
HEY JAN ISN'T YOUR MATH OFF ON THIS!

"Kegger - Triode math -

1 = 104
2 = 107
3 = 110
4 = 113
5 = 116
6 = 119
7 = 122
8 = 125
9 = 128 "

If it's a 104db speaker shouldn't it be?

starting at 1w = 104db

1 = 104
2 = 107
3 =
4 = 110
5 =
6 =
7 =
8 = 113
9 =
10=
12=
13=
14=
15=
16= 116


 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

Old Dog make mistake, offers most humble apologies.




Though 116 is still awful loud.


 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1978
Registered: Dec-03
"Though 116 is still awful loud".


agreed and sorry about the caps, the button was allready on and I
didn't feel like retyping!
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 267
Registered: Oct-04
Jan - please check your e-mail.

thanks. . .
 

Bronze Member
Username: Asimo

Post Number: 33
Registered: Apr-04
John A
Nimbus is a very qualified recording company. I had always some respect to their vinyl records years ago but they were expensive and hard to get.
I totally agree with their approach to the CD -- multi channels issue. The four speakers system is more logic then the 5.1 or 7. 1 still I do not know where exactly the rear speakers can be mounted. In some listening rooms you may find a rear speaker 80 cm from your ear.
I also think subwoofer is not really necessary for the classical music or opera listener. In most cases it just creates abnormal intensified bass. I still search the optimal listening room with the multi channels facilities where all the experiments and compares can be handled.

Larry R

We continue to run our opera club. It is rapidly growing and now we have some 50 members in the club.
Before each opera session we have a lecture about the presented opera. Some of our members are really experts in the opera world, others can supplement with the history of the opera's period.
Some of the operas we had last months on DVD's:

Cunning Little Vixen by Janachec Mackerras 1995
A rare and unique opera of Janachec, we saw also a charming cartoon version of the opera.

Lucrezia Borgia by Donizetti Boyynge 1980
Not the best of Donizetti

Parsifal by Wagner Levine 1993
A very long and complex Wagner opera

The Flying Dutchman by Wagner L. Segerstam's 1988
Very interesting performance at the 500-year-old Olavinlinna Castle

I also had a wonderful experience in a smaller group with orchestral recording DVD -Video of Mahler and Beethoven symphonies Claudio Abaddo conducting Berlin Philharmonic and Lucern orchestra. New recordings from year 2000 and on.
I warmly recommend these DVD's as an Audio-Video exhilarating experience. The cameras men and the stage manager have done excellent work with timing of shooting the many orchestral instruments on the relevant moments.


J. Vigne

I read carefully your last massages about various ways of using microphones, very interesting.
I have some CD's that were recorded at the sixties or even the fifties and I think that some of them were recorded with two or three microphones only.
I refer to the recordings of Kleperer Joocum or even early Karayan conducting Brahms and Beethoven symphonies.
These recordings may miss some details but they sound musical, integrated, flowing and coherent.
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 272
Registered: Oct-04
Asimo: thanks for the posting. Could you be more specific on which Mahler and Beethoven DVDs you watched? Always interested.
Your opera group sounds even better than when you first described it on "OperaNutz" thread. Congrats - and I'm jealous!

Jan V. - Glop is in the mail. . .
 

Bronze Member
Username: Asimo

Post Number: 34
Registered: Apr-04
Larry R

Abbado Beethoven
http://www.amazon.com/s/?url=search-alias%3Dpopular&field-keywords=abaddo+beethoven

Abbado Mahler
http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/dvd.php?keytype=1&keyword=Mahler

I did not watch all DVD's but a friend of me who has all of them said they are all same standard of recording and performance, it is up to you which symphony you like more. The choral symphonies, Mahler No 2 and Beethoven No 9 are more impressive.
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 275
Registered: Oct-04
Asimo: Well, thank you, sir for the links! I'll look into the DVDs - and will let all know if I decide to spend even more of my hardly-earned money! Sigh.
Just got word today that we've got two "bad" tires on the car - so must get new ones in the near future. So much for "extra cash" lying around the house! (grin)
One ting after anudder. . .

More anon. . .
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2575
Registered: Dec-03
Just to say thanks to Asimo.

Nimbus have two Beethoven symphonies, I think 5 and 6, in 4.0, on one disc, in their new "surrounded" catalogue. I have the 5 on LP; it is excellent.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 692
Registered: Dec-03
Woof.........Sniff..........Scratch...........

I see that several of the pack have wandered off and not been heard from in a few days. Time to wander back, get in out of the cold, and let us know all is well.............................
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1987
Registered: Dec-03
...............Y E P ...............
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1164
Registered: Aug-04
Woof.........Sniff..........Scratch...........

Pfffftt.........Sniff..........Cough.........

Pfffftt.........Pfffftt..........Sniff.........

Pfffftt.........Pfffftt..........Pfffftt.........

Pfffftt.........Pffffloop..........Uh Oh!

Sniff..........Cough.........Dig.........





 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 695
Registered: Dec-03
Rantz,

Welcome back you 'ol dog. Are you a bit under the weather? Better lie down in front of the fire, relax and take a little snooze.......................................................................... .............................................stretch......yawn.......snore.
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1165
Registered: Aug-04
"Better lie down in front of the fire"

What - you trying to kill me Rick?

This ain't Noo Yark you know!


Rough! (LOL!)

 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 696
Registered: Dec-03
I forgot it's summer "Down Under" LOL!

Good to hear from you my friend.
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1166
Registered: Aug-04
Likewise Rick.

I just dropped by to see what's happening. Not too much it seems except to find that you are now seeking 'audio exellence' in the 'toob' format - what happened to that wonderful Mac and Spendour marriage - not getting along as expected?


 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 697
Registered: Dec-03
Rantz,

The Mac/Spendor combo is still the best I have had to date. I'm going to keep both. I'm going to check out tubes in '05, and hopefully find that last level of audio bliss.
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 279
Registered: Oct-04
Jan V. et al - remind me never to install speakers in high ceilings! Just finished wiring in a friend's stereo system - and although he spent a bundle with his builder, it sounds, well, "shallow!" Yep - the builder charged him $4,000 (Remember, this is Naples, FL) to install two fronts, a center, two surround and two pool-side speakers - (all in the ceiling) - and then run all the wires into one liddle box on the living room wall.
Problem for me was to figger out what each wire went to - and whether plus or minus. Well, the installer-mope finally came out and we put a signal generator on all wires - and labelled each. Then I had to cut, strip and install all of them in two wall-plates. Yah oughta see the wire-mess in the wall! Whew! Oh, the installer-mope would have done all the wire-finishing - for (gulp) $89 an hour. That's why my friend suckered me into doing it! GRIN
Anyway, got all done and then had to cut and put banana plugs on all wires from amp to those plates. Twenty-four plugs in all - and it took most of the day.
Turned it all on to check - and - it all worked! (fingers crossed big-time)
Well, my friend thanked me profusely (but didn't offer to pay anything, of course!) and as I was getting ready to leave, his wife called across the room "Well, it sounds OK, but your stereo sounds much better!" OOPS - the guy got quite angry - and I left before they "got into it."
The house is huge and quite "live" because of tile floors and big windows without drapes. So the sound - for me - was very unsatisfying.
For his $4,000 the guy got 6 1/2-inch dual-cone speakers in the ceiling and LONG runs of cable. I figure the surround speaker wires run about 40 feet each. And the installer used good old 16-gauge wire! Sigh. With that much of a run I'd never use anything less than 14-AWG wire - but that's only my opinion.
Anyway - the job is done - and the Scotch bottle is quite low. Hmmm. . . things to do today.

More anon. . .
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1990
Registered: Dec-03
Sounds like a lot of work LAR for little return on investment.

ceiling speakers? 6 1/2 dual cones? 16 gauge wire?

your oppinion of the system is more than likely correct and would
bet your's sounds a lot better!
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

Now, as I understand the situation, Larry, your doctor friend and his wife got into a fight while you were there and this friend and his wife started squabbling in your presence.

Sounds to me like you're a carrier.


 

Silver Member
Username: Ojophile

ON

Post Number: 179
Registered: Jun-04
All you married couples who are contemplating upgrading your audio system, installing or deciding on getting one, stay away from Larry!

Seriously, Larry... the mope used fireproof in-wall wires, I presume? He did, didn't he?

 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 282
Registered: Oct-04
JV - more than a carrier - an instigator! (grin)

Don: Nope - just regular yellow-jacketed 16-AWG wire, no Teflon or anything like that. REal cheap stuff. Four-wires in the jacket - and if I remember right it's REAL cheap stuff from Home Depot.
Also - they put in the ceiling speakers, then plastered all around them so there's no way you can get them down without tearing huge, jagged holes in the ceiling! Real brilliant!

Hope I don't have to do anything like that again. Jan is right - I breed contempt!!!!

Away to even more house-guests. Sigh. Will the parade ever stop? Nope - not until the last ones are scheduled to leave - on January 16th.
Man, this Holiday stuff really s----s - no wonder people get gnarly this time of year!

More anon. . .
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


http://www.responseaudio.com/real%20stereo.htm


 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

New York USA

Post Number: 379
Registered: Mar-04
Jan,
Funny you should reference this site. I saw them advertising over in Augiogon just last week. Believe it or not, this place is about a mile from where I live and I never even knew it was there. I may have to pay them a visit :-)
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2583
Registered: Dec-03
Jan,

I fully support the aims and objectives of the Campaign for Real Stereo, but, as posted on Rick's nice thread "Tube Talk"....

Stereo is wonderful, I agree. But it arranges the sound sources along a line; which is not what you hear at a performance, usually.

If you have 4.0, you have the possibility of stereo on each of four sides. Which actually corresponds to what you hear at a real performance. Mostly.


Yes, MR is correct, we are going round in circles.

But the point remains. At a real event, we hear sound from all sides. We can get phase effects from stereo that make it seem as if sound is coming from behind us, but it is unfocussed. We can also receive reflections from our listening rooms, but they are almost always completely different from the ones we would have received had we been at the original performance.

If that is what we want, and I thought you and I agreed on this goal, then stereo has limitations.

That's all. No criticism for repetition, please. The above is a summary for new readers, or those who have, for whatever reason, lost the plot.

Teaching an old dog new tricks...

Put it this way. I like stereo so much, I wish for four stereo systems, one on each side. To reproduce the sound of the original performance.

Is that a less contentious way of putting it?
 

Silver Member
Username: Ghiacabriolet

NC

Post Number: 534
Registered: Apr-04
JohnA wrote:

Put it this way. I like stereo so much, I wish for four stereo systems, one on each side. To reproduce the sound of the original performance.

Most of the performances I've been to have the speakers at the front of the room. Any sound coming from other sides is ambience and reflections. So why would 2 channel not be the best configuration in a home environment since you would have the music aligned the way it would be in a hall but would have the room acoustics substituted for the hall?

How would you use a 4ch system? Would you use the front channels to mike the performance and the rear channels to mike the ambience? As this discussion continues, I find myself more aligned with 2ch. :-)

LR,

Did you audition the B&W's this week? How did that go?
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 285
Registered: Oct-04
Ghia et al: Sigh - nope, did not audition either the B & Ws or the Paradigms. Called the "house of horrors,er,high fidelity" and they said that, contrary to what I was earlier told, they did not have in stock any of the Paradibms. But they would surely get some soon. Welllll - I decided to wait until I could hear both the B&Ws and Paradigms at the same sitting. Whenever. . .

Finally - FINALLY - got my friend's in-house stereo wiring done. Whadda chore! In return, he bought me an inexpensive bottle of blended Scotch, not even single-malt! Oh, well. . .

After hooking it all up and listening, I decided that I have REALLY GOOD sound! (grin)
His sounds, well, "shallow and tinny." Where have I heard/used those words before? (snicker)
He opined that perhaps he needed a subwoofer. OK, I thought, that might help - but - he's got 6-inch dual-cone speakers in the ceiling - 5 of them - and some slightly-better speakers out by the pool. All driven by the lowest-power Onkyo receiber - maybe 50 watts per channel when two channels are driven?? Natch - the sound is less than wonderful.
The amazing thing is how many people in his subdivision have opted for the same built-in speaker system - at BIG-BUCK costs! Sigh - if these people only knew. . .

As to my doc-friend - who, BTW, lives only a mile or so from these other folk - well, he's going to pop for another Sunfire receiver. Said he was "used to" the other one. I know the Macs are very expensive - and worth it - but to me, spending $4,200 on a receiver is overkill???
I LOVE the "Carver sound" - had one of their preamps and stereo amps until 1998 - but obviously can't afford one anymore. If you have ever heard Carvers, you'll know that the sound, like that of the Macs, is unique. And good. Very good! IN MY HUMBLE OPINION (thought I'd better throw that in before John A. or Jan or Rick threw stones at me - grin)

Celebrating 23 years of marriage today - since neither of us really like going out for dinner, we're fixing salmon, asparagus, couscous, salad, pink champagne, and a home-BAKED cherry pie (with ice cream, natch!) for dinner. Note: I no longer hand-make my pies - Mrs. Smith's does it better, and so I "cheat" and bake up her stuff. Hint - Mer says Mrs. Smith's is better, anyway! Hmmm - dat gal shore do no howtah hurta guy! (grin)

More anon. . .
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2587
Registered: Dec-03
Ghia,

Yes, two-channel is simpler, and may be greatly preferable to badly recorded four-channel.

However, our room acoustics are most unlikely to substitute accurately for those of the hall. It depends, of course, on our rooms, and on the hall.

To obtain the sound of "being there" at the performance, it seems to me that four channels, recorded by engineers who have this goal in mind, and know what they are doing, can go far beyond what a single pair of channels can ever achieve. And reaching the goal is aided by cutting down listening room reflections as far as possible.

On the other hand, if we wish for the sound of the performers in our room, stereo will probably be better, in most cases, especially where the virtual performers are in front of the listening position.

How would I use a 4 channel system? Well, I would leave this to the engineers. The Nimbus link I posted above on Dec 05 suggests to me that their engineers, at least, have always had the goal of giving us the sound of "being there" at the performance. Critics often complained that their LPs tended to sound as if the recordings had been made in a swimming pool. Certainly you get a lot of reflections even in two-channel, but they are all from the front. I am looking forward to trying their DVD-A discs. They have been recording for 4-channel "Ambisonics" since 1974, but only now has realising the original intention become a practical possibility.

In all this, we should not forget that there really is quote a lot of "real" music which was written with the intention of being performed all around the listeners. Stereo can never reproduce that. One could write quite a long list. I gave an example on this thread, now archived (see link in my last post). The post is dated Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 08:48 am. The recording is 4.0, and the possibly the best recording I have ever heard, of anything. I hestitate to put it on "Rate your hi-res discs" only because of the content, which is, frankly, a bit esoteric. Unfortunately... I have a disc image of the DVD-A and DVD-V if you are interested. There is also a SACD of the same recording. It would be interesting to know how the two formats compare. If I had an SACD player, I would buy the disc in that format, too, just to compare.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 702
Registered: Dec-03
Happy Anniversary Larry & Mer!

Enjoy your 23rd with best wishes for many many more.

Cheers from all the "Dogs", I'm sure.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1998
Registered: Dec-03
"Happy Anniversary Larry & Mer!

Enjoy your 23rd with best wishes for many many more.

Cheers from all the "Dogs", I'm sure."

.................Y E P ..................
 

Silver Member
Username: Ojophile

ON

Post Number: 182
Registered: Jun-04
Happy Anniversary, Larry and Mer.

Cheers!

 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1170
Registered: Aug-04
"I hestitate to put it on "Rate your hi-res discs" only because of the content, which is, frankly, a bit esoteric."

John A

Go for it! Others have used the thread contrary to the original format, so if it is a review and rating - along with any 'esoteric content' - it's okay by me. I thought a plain and simple rating directory would have been helpful but these threads always seem to go out of control.

Larry,

23 years of marriage is indicative of someone doing something right.

Or is that 'someone' right? :-)

Anyway congratulations and may many more wonderful years of wedded bliss befront you both.


Back to the gist of the "Old Dogs" thread:

We have the "stereo rules" crowd, we have a staunch supporter for 4 channel surround (no center or sub) and we have the surround sound enthusiasts who can appreciate any number of channels providing the engineers did a respectable job with the recording and/or mixing.

Some of the two channel stereo supporters contend that the hi-rez surround formats are only a "wow factor" medium offering no realism into recordings or that they do not represent the listener's perception of 'the live performance' and so on. They are entitled to their views however misguided I think they may be.

The four channel supporter is more on the money as far as I am concerned, but in my opinion, four channel surround is suited to only those with full range speakers and a smaller listening room. The full range speakers would be able to deliver a more realistic bass response and a smaller listening room would suit the 'phantom' center (if a central prominent sound is intended) compared to a larger area where a center speaker keeps the prominent sound where it belongs: in the center.

With multi channel sound, the set-up and the equipment to handle the available formats must be "right" - meaning: quality speakers that can handle extended frequencies, speaker levels, delay setiings, speaker placement - and a good quality source. After reading quite a few articles, it is apparent there are some 'universal players' out there there just don't cut it when delivering either the DVD-A or SACD formats or both. Some only deliver resolution barely superior to that of the standard CD and some fail miserably on bass management options. Then there are those who simply don't set up their equipment correctly and go on to assume that the hi-rez surround formats are not what they expected and the result is disappointment and negative opinions.

After almost seven months of experiencing the two and multi-channel hi-res recordings as well as many, many years of being restricted to stereo cd's ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous, as far as resolution and recording quality goes, I have come to the conclusion that full multi channel hi-rez surround is by far my most preferable format providing the engineering/mixing has been expertly handled.

The die-hard stereophiles can say what they like and show all the supporting evidence that stereo does it all and so forth. Well, supporting evidence can be acquired for almost anything. I agree that when first listening to hi-rez multi channel that there is that "wow" factor. But that sensation also applies to the surround sound of some action movies - the fact is one soon gets over that 'sensation' to concentrate on the movie itself and enjoy the realism of the soundtrack. The same applies to the hi-rez surround music formats.

There may be some debate about 'realism' with multi channel sound. My experience says surround handles both the real and the surreal. It is what the producer wants to deliver and what the listener wishes to hear. We have choice. To me there is too much discussion about 'staying true to the original performance' or about 'being there' or them (the performers) 'being here.'

If the whole question really comes down to the fact that "It's all about the music" then none of that really matters if one is enjoying whatever sound to what one is listening. My wife and I are enjoy our music immensely - stereo, hi-rez two, three, four or the often sublime 5.1 multi-channel. We don't let strange thoughts like "Now, would the actual performance sound like this?" or did the bass guitarist change his position?" interfere with our enjoyment and frankly, I find it hard to believe that some here do and I wonder how the music can be enjoyed with such strange goings on in one's head.

The only thing I think we can all agree upon in this no-win, neverending debate is that hi resolution is a definite advantage in "enjoying the music!" and I don't believe there is any more I can add or take from it.

 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1999
Registered: Dec-03
THOSE ARE MY SENTMENTS PRETTY MUCH EXCACTLY!

I enjoy all the music formats as far as channels go.
Most of the time I listen in 2 channel, but I feel that is because I have
more 2 channel than I do surround, plus I have to turn on all my amps! lol

But I find surround just as much an enjoyment.
So I think we can live with whatever channels our bands give us.
Then just choose the ones we like, and everyone is happy!
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 704
Registered: Dec-03
I'll raise my glass in a toast to the music.

Cheers!
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 286
Registered: Oct-04
To all the Olde Dawgs: thanks so much for your good wishes! Much appreciated - by both of us!

As to format for listening - for us, simple: we listen to "regular" CDs in 2-channel, and the new SACDs in full-surround mode, the way they were processed.
Mer and I both agree, however, that as a GENERAL rule - we listen to music in 2-channel and watch/listen to movies in full surround.

Once I get my speakers all situated, etc., we'll see what the surround really has to offer. At the momemt, my surround speakers are Radio Shack with 4-inch woofer and tweeter. Pretty good sound, but nowhere as good as even the Polks.
So - IF we get new speakers, we'll use the Polks as surround and the (fill in the blank) speakers as mains.

The 2-channel-surround debate will never be solved, as we all know. But I hope that this thread doesn't break down into a "flaming" contest the way so many others do! (hope)

Sending a special "friendship" toast to y'all from our house to yours on this Special Day for us. We've just finished pink champagne and hot "or dervs" on the lanai - the cherry pie is just coming out of the oven - the salmon and asparagus await. Sigh. Life CAN be pretty good, despite budget limitations!

More anon. . .
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2590
Registered: Dec-03
My Rantz,

Let me just say agree with your post "Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 06:02 pm" and you put the point clearly and elegantly, in my opinion.

I have come to the conclusion that full multi channel hi-rez surround is by far my most preferable format providing the engineering/mixing has been expertly handled.

Yes, yes! It is a big "providing"; that is all I would wish to add. And there is, perhaps, greater scope with surround sound for the the engineering/mixing to blur the distinction, which you make, between the "real" and the "surreal".

One perspective which I think Jan and I share is that we are "realists", and like to know "how it is". From that point of view, the question then comes back, as always; "is it worth the money?"

Jan, I think, would rather spend a certain sum on quality two-channel, believing that surround sound is a "can of worms" and probably not worth the extra trouble and expense. I agree with him, in many cases. But there are also some where stereo simply can't do what mult-channel can. Even in the worst cases, if you have 5.1, you can always switch off the offending channels. If you have 2.0, nothing will bring them back. For example, I find some recordings are improved, for me, by redirecting the centre channel to Left an Right main speakers, while some seem better and more convincing with the centre left on.

What would be really good is if manufacturers and record companies would tell us what it is they are trying to do. Whether one likes the "Nimbus" philosophy or not, at least one can be clear about what it is.

Yes, congratulations, Larry.
 

SACDude
Unregistered guest
Good morning to you from sunny, if cold, Sarasota, Florida. I hope that you on this forum remember me - the retiree who got burglarized up in Chicago?
Well, things looked very black initially, but now several positive things have happened. My ladyfriend who came down here to "escape" has decided that we two are meant to stay together, and she will join me out in a Denver suburb the end of December.
Also, my insurance company settled for nearly all of the claims. The only disappointment was that they could not agree on the cost of the silk rugs displayed on my walls. I had to take a beating on those.
As you younger folks would say, "the bottom line is" that I have a new condo just west of Denver, and an old and dear friend to share it with.
Sometimes there are relatively happy endings, after all! I'm writing this on a borrowed computer, so please excuse any spelling disorders. May all of you enjoy a Truly Blessed Holiday Season!
Franklin Kaplan, aka "SACDude."
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2591
Registered: Dec-03
Welcome back, SACDude!
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 706
Registered: Dec-03
Ditto, Franklin. I am glad to hear all is well.
Happy Holidays!
 

Bronze Member
Username: Asimo

Post Number: 35
Registered: Apr-04
I was surprised to read last massages of some members.
For a long time this forum tried to supported the new multi channels SACD DVD-A DTS and Dolby Digitals over the old stereo.
I did not object the surround systems because of being old fashioned or fearing from innovations, I just had some bad experience when exposed to the classical music or operas on surround systems.
Before having our home music hall we used to perform the opera club sessions in the members houses. I was exposed to some horrible or foolish surround systems in many members apartments.
Rear speakers were sometimes located in a wrong place 80 cm from the listener That speaker overtook the music and for some listeners the opera was just ambient effects from walls.
Subwoofers were not properly adjusted. Sometimes they took over the sound by producing thunders and rumbles that had nothing to do with the opera singings.
Most of the members did not know to calibrate their surround system. They did not know the difference between DTS Dolby digitals PCM stereo or how to divide the sound between all the speakers in the room. In one case I had to force the owner to take off the connection to the rear speakers while playing opera in PCM stereo mode.
This situation was very similar to the effect of five 6" dual cone ceil speakers at Larry R friend house.
These friends of the opera club are not stupid or do not have technical abilities.
The surround systems with the various formats and possibilities are a little complicated to handle for the audiophiles that want the perfect sound.
Each one of you knows how much time efforts and experiments needed to properly assemble a stereo system and to find the correct room acoustic.
Ghia investment in multi channels equipment moving from stereo to surround was an interesting test case. I was wondering if she as a musical lover (classical and not classical) will find the surround superior to the stereo. The answer is known.
Incidents and frustrating experience with surround systems drove me back to the old and reliable stereo systems.
I still look for a surround system properly installed that will clearly show the superiority of multi channel over the old and reliable stereo, in the mean time we at the opera club are very happy with the stereo-video and trying to improve our front projector for a bigger screen.




 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1172
Registered: Aug-04
John A

One perspective which I think Jan and I share is that we are "realists", and like to know "how it is". From that point of view, the question then comes back, as always; "is it worth the money?"

When purchasing recordings I almost always had a "prelisten" in the music store - to get an idea of "how it is." Unfortunately this option is neither available nor practical for hi-rez surround. So yes, there will be a few "bad choices" here and there. So far I have been fortunate in suffering only a couple of such recordings from an internet source where a refund or exchange is not possible.

On the positive side, most hi-res surround recordings have the option of two channel stereo to make it "worth the money" if the surround mix is not up to the standard.

The same applies if you are a realist and you find the surround recording is a bit too "Dali" for your taste.

Asimo,

Yes, apart from quality equipment, correct settings are a must for surround as is a small audience because the optimum listening position is crucial to gain the maximum benefit of the multi channel mix. Stereo would be much simpler and more practical for your opera club hall.

 

Silver Member
Username: Ghiacabriolet

NC

Post Number: 538
Registered: Apr-04
Asimo,

Nice to see you posting! I have little to no experience with opera but would imagine that it would not benefit from surround mixes. As you know, I decided to go back to stereo on my main system and I have no regrets. I still have the NAD T763 and the Monitor Audio front and center speakers but they have been sitting in storage. I will probably try to sell them in the near future. At some point, I may decide to install multichannel again - but, only if I can afford to power it with McIntosh. Lately, I've been listening to jazz mostly and not much classical. The last classical I listened to was the Rattle/Mahler Sym No 5 which is outstanding in PCM stereo. I don't know if you saw my convoluted posts a few months ago where I spent a whole week setting up different listening tests with different hardware configurations. But, one test was to compare Steely Dan's "Gaucho" SACD vs DVD-A. In that test, I clearly preferred the SACD sound over the DVD-A. At this point, my preference is stereo SACD and that's what my focus on future purchases will be.

LR,

Congrats on the anniversary! I'm sorry you didn't get a chance to audition the B&W's. Good luck with that!
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

Rantz - I can't speak to what John meant when he posted the terms "realists" and "how it is"; but, for me the meaning of the terms are not what I assume you took it to be. Declining to two channel output from m.c. will not help the unfortunate fate of a recording made with 63 + 1 microphones. And a listen on the headphones supplied in the few record shops that allow previews doesn't help very often in sorting out the mix that I will hear through my speakers.

I have been told that Barnes and Noble Booksellers has instituted a new policy in their audio section. Apparently the listening stations have been programmed to allow a client to listen to any recording in the B&N stock. If you scan the UPC code at the listening station the selected disc will be made available. This should help make selections a bit more desirable.

As an aside for anyone interested; the first hifi shop I worked at when I moved to Dallas was originally a card and record store. When the shop opened in the late '40's the custom was to allow auditions of any record in the shop. The store became a hifi shop when the local McIntosh rep brought in a Mac amplifier and offered it for demo use. The simple deal was made that when the shop was asked about where the customer could buy such an amplifier, the store would order one from the rep and the shop would get the profit. Within a year the cards had been replaced by audio equipment.


 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 292
Registered: Oct-04
Jan V. - great story about the cards-to-stereo shop! Is the shop still in operation?

As to the B & N auditioning - well, I've been there and tried to do that. But when you pick up a pair of 'phones and some jerk has left snot-globs and grease all over them, it sorta takes away the "ambiance," so I tend to eschew those.
Here in Swampville, the Borders book store also has such equipment, but a much more limited selection process. PS - their phones tend to be cleaner, for some reason - maybe it's because the store doesn't do very much business??? Hmmm. . .

More anon . . .
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1182
Registered: Aug-04
Jan,

"Rantz - I can't speak to what John meant when he posted the terms "realists" and "how it is"; but, for me the meaning of the terms are not what I assume you took it to be."

I was wondering when John would come back on that one - maybe he is still thinking of a suitable (and tactful) response. My comments, while making a point of sorts, was mostly a friendly 'dig' (as usual). Being a less philosophical type I often like to get a rise from the more profound of scribes from time to time - as I think some of you may be beginning to realise.

I hope :-)

My mind is more simple. I enjoy music for the end result more so than what constitutes the music. Unlike in the many years past, I have not attended live performances lately so I neither have the reference, the auric recall nor even the desire to compare my music to an event. I'll either enjoy listening to a recording and register it on a scale from okay to excellent or I won't. I think the same applies to the delivery whether it be in two or multi-channel, and in whatever resolution.

Getting back to previews, I agree with what you stated but they at least give one an idea of whether the titles on the recording represent value, other qualities not withstanding. Some idea is better than none, especially when refunds or exchanges are difficult.

I know the 'realist" and 'how it is' differs greatly from the two of you to myself. Though without the wisdom and the philosophism these threads would not make for such interesting reading.

So, for me that's being real, and how it is :-)


 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 357
Registered: Feb-04
Okeedoke Larry I'll stop blowing my nose into the headphones. But gosh darn it those headphones just sound so bad. They need to be tweaked and I read in the New England Journal of Audio Scatology that mucus can enhance the sound. You heard of taking the green pen to cds? Well, I like to take the green mucus to headphones. It results in a more liquid sound so says the experts. Oh by the way grease in the headphones will tighten up and extend the bass. I also think it neutralizes overly bright headphones, but the measurements don't bear this out. I will be glad to send you articles on the topic from The Sound and the Fury magazine and the Audio Idiot Savant Monthly
 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 358
Registered: Feb-04
Rantz,

I'm with you buddy. I've been reading about high-end speakers. Apparently really expensive speakers have their own character. A Wilson clearly sounds different from a Revel sounds different from a Quad and so on. This seems totally counterintuitive. If the ultimate goal of audio equipment is to approach live sound, then you would think that there would a convergence of sound quality with cost-no-object speakers. Wrong! A Wilson speaker is as different from a Revel speaker as a Bentley is as different as a Ferarri. WTF! It's all subjective, man. The difference is how much you're willing to spend big bucks to suit your tastes. Anyone purporting to achieve some ideal, universal sound is deluded.
 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 359
Registered: Feb-04
Sorry 'bout the bad grammar and 'riting. I'm rushing to a meeting right now.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2013
Registered: Dec-03
Two Cents:

..............Y E P ..............

I'VE BEEN SAYING THAT FROM THE START!
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 296
Registered: Oct-04
Two Cents: Okayyyyy!!! I'll stop jabbering on about the slippery-sloped e-phones, already! Heck, maybe they DO sound warmer, more smooth-vibration-oriented, whatever! Never thought of it that way - just thought: "Whadda bunch of slobs!"
Sigh - not a good way to deal with my "fellow man," right? (Nuke 'em!!!) Ahem. . . as I was saying. I'll try earnestly to be more open-minded where my head-meets-gunk is concerned.
I guess Mer and I are getting too clean-oriented. We no longer go to movie theatres. (Didja see what I got on my shoe?!? And look at your blouse, the back of it has the imprint of a used rubber! Gross! (triple grin)
Cleaning, cleaning - that's us!

And Kegger: just what IS it that you've been saying from the start? I forget! Hmmm. . .
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1184
Registered: Aug-04
Two Cents,

Stop rushing - life is too short for such stress :-)

Kegger,

A double YEP!


Back to music listening posts:

The Good Old Days

A true story.

As the sixties were fading to an end and the 'revolution' was in full swing, I was beginning my working life in the CBD of Brisbane about 35 miles from where I was still residing with my parents. I was seventeen, had a '56 V8 Ford Customline and life was beginning to look up.

I would commute to work with friends on the train each day and, being seventeen and full of that stuff and myself, would often check out the boarding talent at the stops along the way. Eventually my eyes met with 2 pair of those belonging to the opposite gender and amorous looks, giggles and smiles etc soon followed.

When the train reached the terminal near the city center, a walk across the bridge spanning the Brisbane River was also a daily ritual. On one such walk I heard a wolf whistle behind me and turned to meet those two pair of eyes with whom I had been ogling in the train. Fortunately, the rest of the girls were attached.

Introductions were made and the two stunningly gorgeous art student/sisters agreed to meet me at lunch in the city's favourite music store where, instead of headphones, there were listening booths with 6 inch speakers on opposing walls and a turntable on a ledge. To my delight, the booth would accomodate 3 people at a pinch.

Lunchtime and the gorgeous sisters arrived as promised and we took our drinks and food into a booth with a handfull of 45's and amorous intentions. The plan, as I was soon find out, was a kissing menage` et trois to ascertain which sister like me the most. I was to be a prize! Naturally, I had my preference also, but I knew I would have to settle for only one and had made my choice from the outset.

Smacking lips were the prominent sounds from our booth and the hiati were only to keep an eye out for the store manger. These "listening" sessions continued for about a fortnight until the choice was finally made. My preference had won me and we soon became an item and also continued our "listening trysts" at lunch, but from then on as a couple which turned out alright by me - really.

Until I found out she was a two-timer, a heart wrenching event which almost made me turn to Country & Western music. Thank goodness common sense prevailed.

So sometimes the old ways were indeed much better or at least beheld a certain romantacism that seems lacking in some areas today. Hope you enjoyed the story - I enjoyed recalling it. And I am pleased to say I'm glad that gal was a two-timer as I soon met a much nicer young lady. We are still an item and do our listening in a much larger and much more comfortable booth.

 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 360
Registered: Feb-04
KEGGER,

OK THEN I'M ON YOUR SIDE. SO WHO ARE WE UP AGAINST? SHOW YOURSELVES, SCOUNDRELS, AND FACE THE INEXTINGUISHABLE WRATH OF KEGGER AND TWO CENTS!
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2014
Registered: Dec-03
2C U GOTTA GRAB RANTZ TO! LOL

Rantz great story! good stuf indead.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2015
Registered: Dec-03
larry: This part about 2c's post.

"If the ultimate goal of audio equipment is to approach live sound, then you would think that there would a convergence of sound quality with cost-no-object speakers. Wrong! A Wilson speaker is as different from a Revel speaker as a Bentley is as different as a Ferarri. WTF! It's all subjective, man. The difference is how much you're willing to spend big bucks to suit your tastes. Anyone purporting to achieve some ideal, universal sound is deluded."

Meaning that even if the highend folks can't agree on what the propper
sound is suppose to be, then who are we to say we strive for it or approach it.
It's all relative to ones taste.
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 298
Registered: Oct-04
My Rantz: Reeaaallllyyyy! Ahem. "Two-timer?" Thar's a phrase right out of "The Maltese Falcon" or such epics, sir! Luv it! Haven't heard it in decades.
Good for you that you've now got a better booth, better gal, better sound, better life. Well, guess that makes it a "sure thing," another phrase that's lost a lot of meanin' deez daze.
Very fine story - very fine telling. Made my evening complete, thank you very much.

Now - on to musical greatness - whatever that may be. . .

 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 299
Registered: Oct-04
Kegger: Right you are, sir. There are so many variables in "HiFi" that it makes my head spin. For Mer and me, good sound is sound that is free from annoying tarnishes and blemishes - sound that sonically mirrors the many live concerts we have attended in our lives together.
"Perfect" sound is, as you suggest, impossible. For one thing, "perfect" to me may well NOT be "perfect" to you! And on and on it goes. . .
Judging by the many posts of yours that I've read, I'd say that when you say "man, that sounds great!" you mean the sound is acceptable to you, though if I were to hear that particular CD or whatever, I might say something like: "well, it has great definition, but it sounds a bit shallow."
At that point - after I picked myself up off your floor and tried to stop the flow of blood from my bashed-in head - I might have to apologize! (grin) Or something. . .
The one thing I want desperately to avoid is saying "that speaker sounds great." Nope - I should NOT be hearing "that speaker," but simply music coming out of it. That's the problem I'm having with the Polks: I HEAR THE SPEAKERS! Aha! Revelation! Send in the clowns. . . (nope, wrong opera). You get the pitcher.
My take on this discussion only - ev-body has their say, and opinion.
Thanks for making it to the end of this ramble.

More anon. . .
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2016
Registered: Dec-03
larry:

""Perfect" sound is, as you suggest, impossible. For one thing, "perfect" to me may well NOT be "perfect" to you! And on and on it goes. . .
Judging by the many posts of yours that I've read, I'd say that when you say "man, that sounds great!" you mean the sound is acceptable to you,"

yes



" though if I were to hear that particular CD or whatever, I might say something like: "well, it has great definition, but it sounds a bit shallow."

I would hope that if anyone of us thought what we had was something really
nice that anyone of us if we heard that would be able to appreciate what the other hears.

Meaning that if I heard jans johns or mr rantz or you'rs or ghias or anyone
of us on this thread and they truly thought they had their system dialed in
to the point where they found it very good!
I could enjoy that even if it wasn't designed the way I may do it.

But I do find that I may look at things differenrtly because I build
speakers or amps or whatnot, That I have to listen to the individual
components to see what I've done.

So I have a hard time seperating the components from the music.
Many times I find myself listening to a component to see if I've got it where I want.
"Then I can sitback and enjoy the music"

Not saying that anyone else should do this but I feel if you build something
you need to evaluate it and taylor to your likes.
"unless your building something for someone else"

 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2606
Registered: Dec-03
Great story, MR.

Surprised at Larry's reponse to "two-timer"; assimilated US slang, I always thought. Isn't there a song about a " you ain't nuttin but a two-time gal"? I was touched by "but I knew I would have to settle for only one". In today's moral climate, you could finish the story in all sorts of ways, and not be allowed to specify the gender of any of the indeterminate number of listeners who end up together. Or even species, in extreme cases, and I resist the obvious reference to life in the outback, which Brisbane obviously is not. And "kissing"... What was that, exactly? How old I feel. (Watched "Twisted" the other night, with Ashley Judd; her character in the film was more into rough trade, I think it is called. You'd have to bolt down the listening booth).

The innocence of youth. If we're into autobiography, I could tell similar tales, but not as well as you, to the background music of "Strange Brew", "Albatross", and "If you're going to San Francisco", which I suppose dates me fairly precisely.

The early Beatles lived in exactly that sort of world you describe, MR, too, unless I am completely mistaken. A good time to be alive, I always think.

Look, sorry to be whatever it is that annoys you guys. But....

2c,

SO WHO ARE WE UP AGAINST? SHOW YOURSELVES, SCOUNDRELS, AND FACE THE INEXTINGUISHABLE WRATH OF KEGGER AND TWO CENTS!

Reporting for duty, Sir!

MR, again,

I was wondering when John would come back on that one - maybe he is still thinking of a suitable (and tactful) response. My comments, while making a point of sorts, was mostly a friendly 'dig' (as usual).

Actually, it went right over my head. What was it I missed? Or that missed me?

I see 2c holds a smoking gun. He must have been shooting at something.

You still here, Jan?

Jan?

MR, I thought your distinction you made (if I understood correctly) between wanting the real or the surreal was right on target, and we could proceed from there. Now, I am not so sure.

Look. Put it this way. Stop me if you disagree.

HiFi is a way of representing something.

So there has to be something for it to represent.

Even the word, contraction of "high fidelity" - fidelity to what?

And "high" - are we not allowed to ask "how high"?

Is it, for example, politically incorrect?

I am not sure these questions count as "philosophy".

They seem like only common sense, to me.

And, if we do not ask them, what is left?

PS "perfection" has nothing to do with it, imho. That's like saying you cannot compare heights (of fidelity) until you know what is the highest possible, for reference. As if all mountains were the same height until Everest had been discovered, and then, for the first time, we could compare them. Who was it said "arrogance"...? Argh!

Yours, in all humility, and with the simplest of minds,

JA (self-styled realist)
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1185
Registered: Aug-04
Ah John we are getting a bit lost again - or maybe I am. Jan said correctly I think that my response to your "real" and "How it is" was not in line with the gist of your comment. And my reply was a tongue in cheek answer to suggest that you had lost me when in fact I think I knew to what you were referring.

The whole point was that my mind works differently to yours when it come to listening to music. No angst, no arrogance and no disrespect intended. Yes you were born free to be any style realist you wish :-)

I don't know why that "listening post' story entered my head, it is not something I have given any thought to since the event really. Maybe I am getting a little sentimental as I become mental. And yes, it is quite possible those 45's we "listened" to while involved in more pressing matters were "Strange Brew, Albatros, and If you're going to SF".

Those were the days my friend, we thought they'd never end. How wrong were we?

And I did not stop you . . .


 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 302
Registered: Oct-04
John A. - yes, "assimilated slang" the phrase "two-timer" is - but what I was trying to point out is that it is now old-fashioned - you don't really hear/read it anymore.

Kegger - ah, yes, good points you make. Way back when I was building the likes of Heathkits, I, too, "listened for the parts." Know what you mean, but no longer do any of that.
The other facet to the listening-discussion is music-type. Kegger likes his Rock, Lar likes his opera - and on and on. Both valid. Just different. And I have found that speakers respond quite differently to music-type. My Polks, for example, do rather well on jazz, but leave me in a fuzz on classical - especially large orchestra.
And just for the funnuvit - I guess I'm a "realist," also - in that I hope to hear recorded music with as "real" a sound as I can get. Real in the sense that an oboe sounds like an oboe, and a piano sounds like a piano. Does that qualify me as a "realist?" If not - OK, I'll go on to something more substantive. . .

More anon. . .
 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

New York USA

Post Number: 381
Registered: Mar-04
My Rantz,

quote:

Until I found out she was a two-timer, a heart wrenching event which almost made me turn to Country & Western music. Thank goodness common sense prevailed.


Superb tale!! The above quote really made me laugh. Much like what John A. says, "I could tell similar tales.." I think we all could.

Not much time to spend here lately. The pressures of the end of year work commitments are taking up far too much of my time. Hope all are well.

Belated happy anniversary wishes to Larry and Mer!! You're catching up to Mrs. Sem and I.

Must run.....


 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2607
Registered: Dec-03
Larry,

"Two-timer". Yes, thanks, I see. Hot ziggedy! But surely "two-timer" is quite appropriate when referring to a tasty Sheila?

My Rantz,

Thanks also. Jan said correctly I think that my response to your "real" and "How it is" was not in line with the gist of your comment. And my reply was a tongue in cheek answer to suggest that you had lost me when in fact I think I knew to what you were referring. Er... Well, Brian... If you mean Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 06:19 pm then I took it all at face value, and agree! Sorry! We realists can be humourless lot....

You know, I think our minds actually work in similar ways...

2c,

"If the ultimate goal of audio equipment is to approach live sound, then you would think that there would a convergence of sound quality with cost-no-object speakers. Wrong! A Wilson speaker is as different from a Revel speaker as a Bentley is as different as a Ferarri."

Exactly. Good point. And neither of those cars is exactly a value-for-money means of transport, either. They are really "for" something else. Like those speakers, I expect, which are not "ultimately" for reproducing real sounds accurately. There is another objective creeping in, there, for many of the folks who can afford stuff like that. But I have not ridden in either of those cars, or heard those speakers, so I can't say, for sure. I have only the second-hand views of the obscenely rich, which I am inclined to interpret in ways which leave me with some residual self-esteem. I think I am aware of that, and can make allowances for it. That's something.

WTF! Iti½s all subjective, man.

--- Nope ---

[See "solipsism" on the thread. Transcending Hi-Fi -(The 'Other Side'). ]
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2608
Registered: Dec-03
2c,

You seem to concur with the 60s aphorism:

DO NOT ADJUST YOUR MIND: REALITY IS AT FAULT
 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 361
Registered: Feb-04
John A.,

Do you mean "Reality is for people who can't handle drugs"?

AHA, SO YOU HAVE SHOWN YOURSELF!

Here is the conclusion I'm coming to: Music is more than reproduction; it is an art. Art is subjective. It involves one's interpretation of reality. Reality isn't just the material world, but also one's relation to the material world through mind and spirit. That is the subjective aspect to all art. One cannot remove the human aspect from the equation. To use an analogy, you can argue that Photorealists are the best painters in the world because their paintings look most "real." But on intellectual and spiritual levels, they are banal. That's why there are people who prefer, say, Impressionists to Photorealists. Now if you indulge me and extend the analogy to audio equipment. There are solid state equipment that have better measurements than tube equipment which lead one to think that the ss equipment will reproduce music more accurately than the tube equipment. (I don't think that even tube fans will argue that on a measurable level tube equipment is superior to ss.) But you will have people who prefer the sound of tube equipment. Is it that different than a person having a preference for impressionist paintings because she finds them more beautiful than photorealistic paintings. Just as there are different schools of paintings, there are different schools of audio equipment. As mentioned on another thread, there seems to a "British sound" that many seem to like. This sound emphasizes certain characteristics, a slight warmth in the mid-range and a laid-back quality, which many (including me) find quite attractive. American equipment may emphasize different qualities such as dynamics. Japanese manufacturers are often criticized for being caught up with measurements and neglecting the art of sound reproduction. These are of course gross generalizations, but they illustrate that there are different objectives to designing audio equipment. After getting certain basic reproduction qualities right, audio designers seem to go in different directions instead of heading to the same destination.

We will never find the holy grail of sound reproduction because we'll never agree on what it looks like.
 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 362
Registered: Feb-04
John A.

There is something heroic about your idealism.

Care to share what's on your playlist these days?

After attending Audium, a surround sound performance in San Francisco involving 136 speakers inside a domed space, my views on multi-channel music have changed. More on that later.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2019
Registered: Dec-03
"We will never find the holy grail of sound reproduction because we'll never agree on what it looks like. "

AMEN JOHN!
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest
Just a few thoughts here.

When comparing expensive, high quality speakers, I think some of you may be getting the impression that the extreme top of the market is a hodge podge of abilities and qualities that make the selection at Best Buy seem quite narrow. I don't believe that to be the case and would suggest everyone take a trip to your local high end shop for a listen. Take a few of your discs with you.

I think you'll find discernable differences between the broad categories of panel speakers, with even finer distinctions to be made between the electrostatics and the planar magnetics or the open baffle designs, against the enclosed dynamic driver designs of Wilson, Theil, Duntech and other similar speakers again with some obvious bias toward different sounds.

One designer will favor speed and agility while another will design with tonal accuracy and spatial qualities in mind. But it is a matter of degrees; and, how much those degrees matter.

I've used the term neutral with a personality to give the idea that every designer has a different set of values just as we have agreed that those on this thread all have different qualities that are important to us in our systems. It seems odd to expect a designer to not have the same prejudices as the rest of the world.

If you just take the high end speakers at face value I would guess you would find far more that is similar between competing models that you would find as a glaring difference. You would find a sliding scale of neutrality. The job of the buyer, should anyone of you be so fortunate to be in that position, is to choose what personality fits your own. This goes to the synergy that is being discussed on another thread. When the personalities of all the pieces you have assembled fit together like the individual parts of a jigsaw puzzle of a field of one solid color, you have assembled a system that will get the very most for your money. If, on the other hand, you have taken five different puzzles and tossed them into the air and then randomly choose parts and pieces to try to assemble a homogeneous whole you will get the inevitable and predictable chaos.

When you read the reviews of these high end speakers and you see the descriptions that read, "switching to the very different Zuma Zuma be Loudly speaker ... ", you are reading the degrees that separate the systems. The implication is the reviewer is looking for that synergy that makes a whole out of the separate portions. By reading the reviews of the various personalities you should be getting a good idea of whose systems and qualities of listening agree the most with your own. But you should never lose sight of the synergy that the reviewer is seeking. And what one person views as synergy may be excrutiating to another listener. Not because of any one part but due to the overall qualities that one listener may have vs. another.

The SET market discussed on another thread is a good example of the degree to which audio systems can vary while still maintaining the essence of what music is about. If you are not familiar with what the Single Ended Triode users are all about I suggest you spend some time on the "Tube Talk" thread under "amps". (https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/111344.html) or "That British Sound" under the same category. The discussion is more about, at this point, a matter of degree than vast expanse between components.

My experience has suggested that as price deceases the personalities become far more disparate and the need for matching becomes even more important. Hence the admonition to always listen to new equipment at home with your own system and to only change one item at a time.


 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2020
Registered: Dec-03
The only thing I might question is:

"It involves one's interpretation of reality"

Weather It's art be a painting or music or whatever.

I don't believe it has to be about reality!
abstract paintings!
Or there are some paintings that are created out of just throwing paint
at a canvas, I see no "creating for reality in that"

Or a band member that just decides to rip a solo!
I don't see that as having to be based on anything, just a feeling one may get!

seems many people have to label things or compare things or put them
in a catagory for them to excist.

Why?

Can't something be created that doesn't have to be accosiated with something?

Do we have to put a label on everything and/or conform to the norm?
Isn't that what creativity is all about? being different?

It seems that many believe that because something is done differently that it's
wrong or impropper or not right or inferior or just shouldn't be!

I say we can do whatever we feel may work!
And if it works for more people then even better!
 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 363
Registered: Feb-04
Kegger,

Point well taken. Just as audio equipment will never exactly reproduce live music, language will never capture what's real. Labels are just a convenience and sometimes used lazily.

Jan,

Thanks for that lucid explanation. The one statement that puzzles me is the "sliding scale of neutrality" line. Isn't a thing either neutral or not? Are there degrees of neutrality?

Rick,

Wondering if you listened to the Spendor "e" line of speakers before you bought yours. I plan on auditioning speakers in the next month or so and have the Spendors on my list.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2611
Registered: Dec-03
Two Cents,

Many thanks. We touched on this with "the Mona Lisa".

See this thread, MyRantz, Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 01:29 am; Me, Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 01:27 pm.

Also, do take a look at J. Vigne, Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 01:13 am, on "Transcending Hi-Fi -(The 'Other Side')" - linked above. It is so good.

I agree with you completely about art, music and representation.

But: the HiFi is not the music. Even if we do not care to distinguish the two (and I do), the distinction is still there.

From my post of Dec 05:


We could think of hi-fi as having the task of a book containing pictures that are reproductions of works of art.

There is a reference: the original.

There is the question of how much the photographer should place his own interpretation into the reproduction: as little as possible; ideally, not at all.


That is still my view.

If people like the photographer's input, that's fine, of course. But I am fairly sure they would still like to know what it was, and therefore to be able to compare the end result with the artist's original intention and vision. So, we still need a point of reference.

Even to characterise "British", "American", "Japanese" sounds, (whether or not we are correct) then we still need to have something outside themselves to be able to describe them, it seems to me.

I think this is just a common-sense position, really.

Jan puts is extremely well in the "Mona Lisa" post (Nov 30):

So if a representation of a performance of music is altered by the engineer or the listener, is that still a valid representation of that piece of music? Not in the sense of the artist's original intent. And if it is altered to be something that the artist did not intend (let's say your alteration emphasizes the saxophones over all other instruments because you like saxophones), then logically, it cannot be considered music created by the artist. It then becomes music created by Kegger......

That was why I described Jan as a "realist". He may disagree.

Where I think I go further than Jan is in respect of:

As long as what you have created breaks no judicial or moral codes you are free, in a free society, to enjoy what you have created. I am also free to despise what you have created and prefer what I consider is my reality.

For my money, this is being too nice - a bit of a "cop out".

In my view, we are free to "prefer what we consider to be our realities" but huge problems arise (wars etc.) when people want make other people to choose among these equal "realities", rather than letting them decide for themselves, on the evidence of their own experience, and trusting in their own judgement.

Again, the common sense view is not only correct, it is the path to peace, respect, and understanding, in my opinion: it is this.

There is only one real world; it exists independently of us; we each perceive it in a different way; our perceptions are influenced by our expectations; we can learn from each other how to recognise the influence of our different expectations, and should be free to choose to do that, and change them, if we so wish. I think that is the whole point of "the free society". It is not based on the premise that anything is as good as anything else. That is the first step to tyranny!

So that is all the despots in history out the window, in my opinion. Plus (possibly) Wagner and Mahler and other high romantics (I am prepared to revise this view; and I think you would exempt Mahler). But welcome Shostakovich, Beethoven, Bach, (I could go on) whose "vision" was powerful enough to be judged just for what it was: it spoke for itself, and they gave it freely, for performers and listeners to take it or leave it.

We have a difference in Weltenschaug (?), 2c!

But warm thanks for comments, and flak. Sorry if this response seems pompous/arrogant/whatever. I am absolutely not claiming superior knowledge etc. In fact, the point is, we are all in this together, and no-one can claim that position.

Yes, please report back on 136-channel surround.

As I said before, I heard of an art gallery "performance" (meaning recording playback) of Tallis's "Spem in Alium" on forty channels, one per voice, in the round (as the composer probably intended). I will look out for it again. it must have been a reasonable-sized gallery. I could not get that many speakers in my room, and, this being the case, I think 4.0 will probably do fine, at home, for the time being. One always has to compromise...

We will never find the holy grail of sound reproduction because we'll never agree on what it looks like.

No, we will never find it, because there isn't one.

What we can agree on is what it DOESN'T look like. I really think that makes all the difference.

Sorry this is long. There is some passion in the above. I see that. Will try hard to lighten up.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2612
Registered: Dec-03
Kegger,

"We will never find the holy grail of sound reproduction because we'll never agree on what it looks like. "

AMEN JOHN!


I really do agree with that position: please accept that. I just add another reason for not wasting time looking for the Holy Grail. It seem to me to be more important. See above.

Must go. Have missed out J's latest. How can that guy write so much....? (smiley or similar). Will be back.
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

2c - "Here is the conclusion I'm coming to: Music is more than reproduction; it is an art. Art is subjective. It involves one's interpretation of reality. Reality isn't just the material world, but also one's relation to the material world through mind and spirit. That is the subjective aspect to all art. One cannot remove the human aspect from the equation."

Well, I believe you've started off on the wrong foot. Music is reality and therefore is the standard by which we judge any representation. Music may be used to represent a concept; such as, Shostakovich's use of instrumental choice, rhythm, attack and so on to represent the movement of troops and simultaneously the horror of battle. (A moment of sublime art where syntax meets symbolism and the result is a duality of context.) But the music itself remains the reality and it is the interpretation of that reality which is dependent upon our experience to then understand the music. Music is not about re-production; but, instead, it is about production. A performer would be insulted, I think, by the suggestion that they are merely reproducing a work of art. Every performer, criminal art frauds excepted, strives to make the work their own. Unless the attempt is to recreate a historic event, the artist brings to the table a fresh palate that is loaded with new ideas. Even in the context of recreating the famous performances of Hamlet, a contemporary actor cannot help but bring their own personality into the performance. In Kegger's example of a lackey instructing Leonardo how to paint the Mona Lisa, it is still Leonardo's hand that made the brush stroke.

Now, in the context of your statement, audio is about re-production and that introduces a new element of subjective interpretation. But an interpretation of what? Reality, of course. At the moment I can't think of any work of art or art movement as a whole that doesn't have as it's goal the interpretation of reality. I would be open to suggestions of any that you feel are removed entirely from reality.

As an example of how I view the concept, I would suggest that any work of art that I experience can only be considered in terms of the reality I have experienced. My field of blue can only be interpreted through my experience in a world that contains color and, in reality, the color blue. More to the point, Shostakovich's representation of battle would likely be experienced quite differently by myself, who has not experienced warfare up close, and Rick, who probably has a more intimate concept of approaching battle.

I would think Larry's wife could add immeasurably to this discussion.

One aspect I think you have ignored is the ability of art to be a representational or presentational performance. Those two qualities of art are very different from one another, though various movements and theses on art have attempted to blur the lines between presentation and representation. The Dadaists and Absurdists are 20th c/ examples of this effort.

Your suggestion that photorealism is "banal" is rather insulting, both to the the artist and to those who view the art. Whether you enjoy the product is not the point here. Rather the point is whether one type of art is any less "artful" than another. The "I know what I like and that's all I need to know" school is a one dimensional approach to understanding art and will, most typically, lead to many misinterpretations of what it is one should "like". Is Thomas Kincaid any less an artist than Leonardo? Mr Kincaid has progressed to the point where he (in the broadest sense) doesn't paint his art anymore. He sketches the outlines and another "lackey" comes in to "stay within the lines" of the product. Stores promote events where Mr. Kincaid no longer attends the event, but, a "lackey" of a certain stature will be in attendance to personally apply "highlights" to a product that Mr. Kincaid has outlined and another will have constructed.
Other than very rich, where does that place Mr. Kincaid on the pantheon of "artist"? And where does that place the consumer of Mr. Kincaid's product? Do they view it as a "Kincaid"? Or do they see a product that is little more than the actual can of tomato soup which Wharhol represented? One product turned out to be as similar to the next and last as possible. And, I might add, to an Italian, defined by the differences between the tomatoes not by the label itself.

That, I would say, is a matter of degree and the ability for self deception. Or, to put it differently, how much those degrees matter.


Finally, let me say that you are misplacing your emphasis with this statement:

"We will never find the holy grail of sound reproduction because we'll never agree on what it looks like."

It is most likely a matter of semantics, but, we can never see the product of sound reproduction. We can only see the products which allow sound reproduction to take place. As I said a matter of semantics but it is similar to mistaking the artist's brush for the artist or the portrait for the act of creating the portrait. And ultimately, the concept of is it art before it is experienced by another person. In the whole of discussiing art those are all very different items indeed.


Make what you will of that in the context of this thread.



 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

"The one statement that puzzles me is the "sliding scale of neutrality" line. Isn't a thing either neutral or not? Are there degrees of neutrality?"

To answer your question on neutrality I would take you in the opposite direction which would be conflict. If I were to say, " There should be no death penalty" or "There is no good and evil", I can envision many points of conflict along the line of coming to a logical conclusion (assumimg one could be reached) that would make those statements true. In the same vein, the points of neutrality are numerous to the same "principled" concept of audio design.


****************


John - "For my money, this is being too nice - a bit of a 'cop out'."


Understand the moment in which that remark was posted, John. Cop out or merely assent to the moment?

For my money, "there are people being shot for poetry" sums it up nicely. I have despaired over the loss of the reason people rioted after the premiere of a new work of art. Give me Paris in the 1920's! Berlin in the 1930's! Professional wrestling in the 1970's!!! Why can't we be passionate about art? Without it we are apes that make money.

*************************


"Have missed out J's latest. How can that guy write so much....?"

Bring's to mind the scene in "Batman" where the Joker muses, "Where does he get such marvelous toys?" Does that make me the Dark Knight of the forum?






See, that was short!




 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 364
Registered: Feb-04
John A and Jan,

This is getting heavy and for the lack of time I wish to address only a few of your comments.

I agree there is a difference between the art (music) and the art and science of reproduction (audio equipment), a distinction that was not clearly stated in my previous post. It seems there is no argument that a live performance is more "real" than a recording of the performance. Now, returning to John's analogy of the picture book containing photographs of paintings. The photographer isn't necessarily trying to instill his interpretation of the art, but he is nonetheless altering the reader's view of the original, as is the bookmaker, by the choices that are made. They are, first, restricted by the limits of technology and the physical limitations of the book. For example, as printing technology has improved the reproductions have gone from black-and-white, to color to a finer clarity of detail. These aren't necessarily conscious interpretations of art, but they affect how the reader perceives the original through the interpretation. Also, the bookmaker chooses the size of the book. Whether the book is 8.5" by 11" or 24" by 36" will affect how the reader views the art. If the larger reproductions lose clarity in the details of the painting because of the size, that is a decision that the bookmaker has to make. It doesn't take that much imagination to extend this analogy to audio equipment. Certain equipment are very good at creating a wide and deep soundstage (size of book) and others might be better at bringing out the details of the performance and still fewer may do both well. But no set of home audio equipment will reproduce the soundstage of Carnegie Hall. There are always limitations to mechanical reproduction which inevitably lead to choices that must be made by the reproducer that will alter the viewer/listener's perception of the original. In my mind, this explains why even the most expensive equipment or the best designed equipment are not free from having its own character.

This brings me to Jan's complaint about my judgment that Photorealistic art is banal. Yes, it is to me based on what I seek in paintings. It isn't a matter of whether I enjoy it as you seem to believe, but I just don't see any profundity in it. As in paintings, listening to music involves the values and the inclinations of the listener. (I assume we are not talking about the guy who's content listening to Wal-Mart brand stereo or the lover of Kincaid paintings, because I agree there is a qualitative difference in art/the reproduction of art.) One's reality is always some combination of the perceived thing and the perceiver. To say music is reality is an idealistic statement that doesn't take into account that it doesn't mean anything until it is listened to. It may exist as an idea or a thing, but I think what we are all talking about here is the experience of listening to music. As such I'm sure I'm listening for different things than you, as well as imposing different different valuses.

And just as these words will certainly be interpreted differently from the way I intended, music will be perceived differently from the way the composer intended.

KEGGER, I NEED A YEP HERE!
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2021
Registered: Dec-03
...............Y E P ...............
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2613
Registered: Dec-03
Upload

Jean de Dinteville and Georges de Selve. Hans Holbein the younger, 1533. 4-bit JPEG
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2614
Registered: Dec-03
Upload

Jean de Dinteville and Georges de Selve. Hans Holbein the younger, 1533. 16-bit JPEG, Sharpened 150 % with "GraphicConverter"
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1186
Registered: Aug-04
What is this?









Find the ball?










Aahhh - find the reality!
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2615
Registered: Dec-03
Upload

Jean de Dinteville and Georges de Selve. Hans Holbein the younger, 1533. 32-bit JPEG
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2616
Registered: Dec-03
Q. 1. Are all three equally good at reproducing Holbein's portrait?

Q. 2. If "Yes" to Q. 1: are the three equal, because each viewer may prefer a different take on Holbein, or because we are all entitled to our opinion, and no-one knows what Holbein intended?

Q. 3. If "No" to Q. 1: must we have seen the original in order to form an opinion?

Q. 4. Which version, if any, makes you most inclined to want to see the original?
 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 366
Registered: Feb-04
John A.,

Interesting exercise and your point is clear when isolating one aspect of a reproduction, i.e., its sharpness. We can all agree that the last version is superior.

But what if we throw in some other aspects? Let's say Picture #1 provides the best rendering of chiaroscuro; Picture #2 provides the best color rendition; Picture #3 provides the greatest sharpness; and so on. How would you choose the best reproduction given multiple variables?

And how can you go against Kegger's Yep?

Respectfully,
2C
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1187
Registered: Aug-04
Getting back to music. If your 'reality' means a faithful reproduction of the original then there is no reality - even if the original musicians played their original score as best they could there would be still be differences - minute as they may be. Once a score has been composed, arranged and played - than that performance is the original. Those musicians may play that score a thousand times over yet never performing the same way twice or matching the original performance. Close yes - exactly no. Maybe a chance in a million of nailing it note for note, perfect timing, same timbre, same sonics and so on.

Therefore the 'reality' becomes someone's choice of performance depending on which performance they heard and to which performance they think their recording closely matches.

If person (A) hears The X group play live in London and person (B) hears X group play live in Alice Springs then A's version of reality will differ from B's version. How can there two different realities.

Back to 2 c's stance on neutrality - a glass is either full or it is not - there are no variations. I can't see how there can be variations in neutrality. It's neutral or it not. It's open or it's closed. That's reality!

That's where music is a different beast IMHO. Relevence to original paintings and photos reproducing reality etc are meaningless as they are material objects that cannot be altered unless by some physical action.
 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 367
Registered: Feb-04
Rantz,

I'm not sure if I have a stance on neutrality with respect to audio equipment. Basically, it doesn't mean anything if there's no such thing as a completely faithful reproduction. The point is all mechanical reproductions alter what is being reproduced; they add a certain character. I was just asking Jan what he meant by a "sliding scale of neutrality." I still don't know since his answer lacked his usual clarity.
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

But it's quite obvious that neither #1 nor #2 provide the quality you ascribe to them. And even if they did that would not describe or inform us any more about the nature and intent of the original. What you are describing in chiaroscuro and color pallete are just the tools and methods of art, not art itself.

****************

"The photographer isn't necessarily trying to instill his interpretation of the art ... "

Assuming that it is not the photographer's intent to add his personal interpretation, you can replace "isn't" with "shouldn't" and you will have what John and I have been suggesting.

**************

"These aren't necessarily conscious interpretations of art, but they affect how the reader perceives the original through the interpretation."

Am I wrong; or, haven't you contradicted your own statement? It is either an interpretation or it is not. What you may have wanted in the latter is "representation"?

***************

"If the larger reproductions lose clarity in the details of the painting because of the size, that is a decision that the bookmaker has to make."

But if I buy a full size poster print reproduction of a painting I can get the 99% of what is on the surface of the original. It is not 100%; but, should I want to get that 99%? Not 78.05%. That's picture #1.

**************

"There are always limitations to mechanical reproduction which inevitably lead to choices that must be made by the reproducer that will alter the viewer/listener's perception of the original. In my mind, this explains why even the most expensive equipment or the best designed equipment are not free from having its own character."

The limitations you concieve are there but I don't think you've carried it far enough. What you have left out is the same components that represent those physical limitations are available to all designer's. When you read the parts description of most contemporary high end products you see similar parts listed; Holco, Solen, MultiCap, etc. What then, in your estimation, would account for the differences that are found between different companies' products when they all use more or less the same parts?

*********

"To say music is reality is an idealistic statement that doesn't take into account that it doesn't mean anything until it is listened to."

You've lost me here, I didn't think we were discussing the tree falling in the forest. I stand by music is a reality. When I attend the symphony the music I hear is a real product of the musician's efforts. Sound waves are excited and they reach my ear drum. That is a reality. That these waves are arranged in a fashion that, to my Western ear and sensiblity, represents music is a distinction that can be made. That doesn't alter the reality of the event. I wasn't speaking of the notes as black dots on a piece of paper. That asks another question of art.

*************

"As such I'm sure I'm listening for different things than you, as well as imposing different different valuses."

I think we've all agreed on that.


***********

" ... music will be perceived differently from the way the composer intended."

I rather hope not. That type of interpretation leads to an aged Prospero without a stitch of clothing. But that sort of interpretation is left to the director/conductor to lead the way for any performance.

****************

I guess I still don't get your point about the Photorealism. OK, you don't like it. That can be said about many types of art by many people. Almost everyone has some form of art that they find lacking in profundity. That doesn't make it "not art". What am I missing here?


 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1188
Registered: Aug-04
Sorry 2C - I should have stated " Getting back to 2c's question on neutrality."

John A

In answer to Q4 - none actually. I've no interest in looking at a couple of ponces who have been decomposing for several centuries :-)

I apologise for mucking the sequence of your jpegs - I didn't realise more were being uploaded.
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

Rantz - I think your description of the varying performances is splitting hairs. You are looking at a single pine needle and missing the forest.



" .. a glass is either full or it is not - there are no variations ... "

If your full glass can accept one more drop then it was not full. If it sits for ten minuts and evaporation occurs it will not be full. You are stating a perception. Haven't we agreed perception is in the eye of the beholder?


********************************************

2c - Sorry, I thought I'd made the sliding scale evident in previous posts. Take a speaker you believe to be the most accurate speaker in the world based on it's performance in a free field radiation pattern. Obviously that speaker will be affected by placing it within a room. It will also be affected by its placement within that room; long wall, short wall, corner, you know, 1/2 pi, 1/4 pi and so on. Does that make the speaker any less accurate? I would answer no. It is the room which makes up part of our impression at that point. But the sound of the speaker is now on a sliding scale of neutrality. It hasn't changed but the sound we hear has changed. The difference that exists between a Bosendorfer and a Yamaha doesn't make either less of a piano. But there is a sliding scale of "pianoness" or neutrality, if you will.


I would suggest you consider another area where a certain amount of subjective evaluation enters into the selection process. If you look at five photographs, taken with the same camera, of the same subject, under the same lighting conditions; but, using five different 35mm films, you will see five different representations of reality. One may be truer in the reds, another in the blues, another in the detail, yet another in the black and white scale and one that balances all these characteristics but excels in none. Each can create a reasonable representation of reality (reduced to a two dimensional object) but none is completely true to the original subject. And so a photographer will use a sliding scale of reality to choose which film will give the results that are desired for a particular shot.

Does that clear things up?


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Facebook

Shop Related Deals

Directory

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us