|
|
|
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
(S888Wheel) wrote:
I said
Watching a performance profoundly affects how we hear it. Music was
never
an
audio only phenomenon before recording and playback. Like I said that
fact
is
not relevant to the issue of "audible" differences in components.
OK, I guess I'll have to explain something I thought was implicit in
this discussion, that the discussion at hand is about audio
reproduction devices, and also add that Elmir, for one, feels that
that music reproduction is the only important factor in the
discussion. But I agree totally with you, music per se has no
relevance to the discussion of the
audible differences in audio
amplifiers, only sound.
Agreed. I wonder why why the amp sound zealots cry "Its all about the Music"
when it's really about the "sound" no matter what the program when evaluating
sound quality and realism of reproduction.
I said
Even if you want to limit it to music reproduction one can find numerous
DVDs
with video to go with the audio. Seeing the performance will affect our
perception of music.
It also can positively influences the sense of performance-space acoustics.
Seeing the walls often adds greatly to the realism of reproduced performance.
But a large screen is always better.
That's also on eplace where the film guys have a leg up on us. They don't even
try to capture live sound on-set. They produce the soundtrack not with the idea
of taking you back to the space but only making you believe you've been taken
back. It doesn't have to BE real; it only has to make you think it is. The
picture helps here as well.
Many people including myself prefer to listen in the
dark
so as to not be distracted by the lack of performers in our sight. While
isolating the influences of other senses
for the purpose of testing perception
of one sense may seem like an ideal, one cannot ignore the fact that we
live
most of our lives using our senses in tandom and such isolation may have
unexpected effects.
Please stay on subject, we haven't been discussing video or visual
aspects, only audio. And I haven't been the one wanting to limit the
discussion to just music, that's Elmir again. I think any sound is
fair game for evaluating the performance of audio equipment and in
fact can often illuminate the differences between them much better
than music, one of the points that seems to
vex Elmir in his highly
repeated posting of the now famous "1.76 dB test".
This question was asked. "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge is
whether
sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of music. Is it or
isn't
it?" I answered it. If my answer was off topic than the question was off
topic.
Watching performers perform is a powerful mechanism for the delivery of music
IMO. Whether it is live or playback. Seeing someone play music gives us
insight
into the music that can not be readily accessed via sound only.
It can also be evaluated from a score.
And please explain if you prefer to listen in the dark how a blind
test would affect one in a different manner.
I doubt my ability to discern differences in an ABX DBT would be adversly
affected by literal darkness. I don't know since I haven't done it but I see
no
reason to think it would.
Agreed.
|