Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Source signal vs reproduced signal
Hi RATs!
OK, so, somewhere between the composer's earliest fantasies and our own wretched memories of some performance or performances we have to draw some lines to allow fair and honest comparisons. It does make sense to compare women to women. Tall chickens are an acquired taste ... Where shall we start? Happy Ears! Al |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Source signal vs reproduced signal
Hi RATs!
Let us start at the end. Some of us think the world is a known quantity in a well ordered Universe. Some of us are not quite so optimistic ... The only thing the Universe can reliably supply is change. All the little notes we write down about the rules are simply gossip. Nothing but vanity exploding from the tiny minds of tiny people. Some stuff seems to work, at the moment. This is not the same as having insight into the true nature of Everything. We are just trying to reproduce, not set God straight. Our little theater roles and token trading games are innocent diversions. Nothing is happening. We are all pretending to be interesting, well, almost interesting, at times, well maybe next time .... So, I play with my toy audioboxes. They are delightful playthings. I am too sick to do much more than buy groceries and shower occasionally. Listening to Music I can do lying down. I do. Graham is sure that if the system is well designed, it will always sound the same until it fails. Well, that is his story, and he should stick to it. I think my systems, well or poorly designed, have moods and respond to the power grid and the weather and my mood as well. I don't mind lacking a stable place to lie and measure the Universe. I just enjoy what bits I can, as they happen. When I notice something happen, say lightening or a really nasty fart, I sometimes comment , but, often just let it pass. Graham says he thinks I notice things that can't possibly happen. Perhaps. Perhaps he can talk but not think. Not that unusual among us humans. I assume he is human, not a Turing machine Having once long been in service as a hired code droid, I can testify that management much prefers engineers that just turn the crank and don't waste anyone's time with their stupid ideas ... Unless the engineer thinks that management is always on the right track .... I feel we need to touch each part of our music systems, ourselves, and pick whatever gives us the most pleasure. I think making Graham do all the work and living with the results, after the bean counters adjust his fuzzy logic, is unfair to him and to us. I like playing audio geek. I am as good at is as I can be, which is exactly right for my systems.I like when real engineers come over and listen and make suggestions. I get bored when they read my little diary notes and accuse me of blasphemy. Nothing any of us says is going to change anything. But, perhaps we can let each other learn to be a bit less miserable. I hope so. Graham probably does, too. He just thinks I am out to lunch. I am, but, that is not actually an important observation Happy Ears! Al |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Source signal vs reproduced signal
" wrote: Hi RATs! OK, so, somewhere between the composer's earliest fantasies and our own wretched memories of some performance or performances we have to draw some lines to allow fair and honest comparisons. Wretched ? I've just come back in from a live performance. Nothing can compete with that. Recordings are very much a 2nd best. Graham |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Source signal vs reproduced signal
Al wrote
OK, so, somewhere between the composer's earliest fantasies and our own wretched memories of some performance or performances we have to draw some lines to allow fair and honest comparisons. It does make sense to compare women to women. Tall chickens are an acquired taste ... Where shall we start? With the history of music, of course! I have just finished Ian's Theory of Everything, you may be pleased to know, but I still have to figure out how to explain it. One interesting thing about the journey has been how many times I have been able to place a lot of brand names in some kind of theoretical context. "Musical Fidelity" for example seems appropriate here. "Audio Note" is pretty much the opposite, but then opposites can so often turn out to be equal. I am sure "reproduction" is a red herring, and the whole concept of stereo reproduction lasted for only long enough to discover it doesn't work. Delay is immaterial to the argument, everything is live. It's the means of distributing a performance that counts. I prefer to see not lines but revolutions. In between there are epochs. In society, in music, in musical instruments. A story of increasing sophistication and power of distribution. There is no reason not to consider your hi-fi system as a musical instrument. You hope it is faithful to the music. Music is a social phenomenon with a life of its own. The divisions of labour within have seen many revolutions throughout history, and each one has added its own estrangement. The orchestra doesn't reproduce the thoughts of the composer, but nevertheless hopes for fidelity. Likewise, my hi-fi system is not intended to reproduce some past event, but I hope to achieve fidelity all the same. Loads of ppl play my system: composers, orchestras, musicians, sound engineers...and I don't want to let the team down. Small engineers have always been rubbish at designing musical instruments. Real engineers know their limitations, and admit that only history can design a proper violin. The best we can do is try to explain what our ears discover. The violin took centuries to get right. Hi-fi has some way to go. Mine has, anyway. The term I used to use for the lines, BTW, or at least the process that creates the divisions, was "diremption", but no-one seems to know what it means any more, sigh. Incidentally, years ago you inspired me as the archetypal exponent of creationism. Perhaps I was wrong, as I now suspect you see both sides, and know both could be true, if only they both knew it. cheers, Ian |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Source signal vs reproduced signal
Hi Graham,
I have attended many performances which brought, or at least threatened, tears to my optical input units. Being there is really Great My memories of those emotions are still vivid. My aural memory, allowing me to relive those moments, is awfully dim. OK, I can quite easily recall a Respighi finale that blew my mind, but, try as I may, I can't recreate any of Oscar Pedersen's magic, even while I listen to his recordings. Some stuff just doesn't make it through the process. Sigh. Yup, audio is fun, but, without musicians, it would be pretty dull. Well, not as dull as you seem to think it is anyway, but, still, pretty dull Happy Ears! Al Eeyore wrote: " wrote: Hi RATs! OK, so, somewhere between the composer's earliest fantasies and our own wretched memories of some performance or performances we have to draw some lines to allow fair and honest comparisons. Wretched ? I've just come back in from a live performance. Nothing can compete with that. Recordings are very much a 2nd best. Graham |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Source signal vs reproduced signal
Hi Ian,
Yes, I would like to visit Vonnegut's Chronosynclastic Infindibulum one day BTW, on a visit to California, I discovered Kilgore is a brand of toilet. Life has its moments ... Happy Ears! Al Ian Iveson wrote: With the history of music, of course! I have just finished Ian's Theory of Everything, you may be pleased to know, but I still have to figure out how to explain it. One interesting thing about the journey has been how many times I have been able to place a lot of brand names in some kind of theoretical context. "Musical Fidelity" for example seems appropriate here. "Audio Note" is pretty much the opposite, but then opposites can so often turn out to be equal. I am sure "reproduction" is a red herring, and the whole concept of stereo reproduction lasted for only long enough to discover it doesn't work. Delay is immaterial to the argument, everything is live. It's the means of distributing a performance that counts. I prefer to see not lines but revolutions. In between there are epochs. In society, in music, in musical instruments. A story of increasing sophistication and power of distribution. There is no reason not to consider your hi-fi system as a musical instrument. You hope it is faithful to the music. Music is a social phenomenon with a life of its own. The divisions of labour within have seen many revolutions throughout history, and each one has added its own estrangement. The orchestra doesn't reproduce the thoughts of the composer, but nevertheless hopes for fidelity. Likewise, my hi-fi system is not intended to reproduce some past event, but I hope to achieve fidelity all the same. Loads of ppl play my system: composers, orchestras, musicians, sound engineers...and I don't want to let the team down. Small engineers have always been rubbish at designing musical instruments. Real engineers know their limitations, and admit that only history can design a proper violin. The best we can do is try to explain what our ears discover. The violin took centuries to get right. Hi-fi has some way to go. Mine has, anyway. The term I used to use for the lines, BTW, or at least the process that creates the divisions, was "diremption", but no-one seems to know what it means any more, sigh. Incidentally, years ago you inspired me as the archetypal exponent of creationism. Perhaps I was wrong, as I now suspect you see both sides, and know both could be true, if only they both knew it. cheers, Ian |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Source signal vs reproduced signal
Al wrote
Yes, I would like to visit Vonnegut's Chronosynclastic Infindibulum one day I'd like a trip to the Baltic, to fish the mouth of the Vistula. BTW, on a visit to California, I discovered Kilgore is a brand of toilet. Give them half a chance and those bloody Californians will crap in anything. Life has its moments ... Lots. I'm sure they must be connected somehow. cheers, Ian |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Source signal vs reproduced signal
Eeyore wrote in
: I've just come back in from a live performance. Nothing can compete with that. Recordings are very much a 2nd best. I have to agree with that. I think regarding the purely aural part of the experience, the biggest drawback of playing back a recording is that, save for the very rare case where you're listening with in-ear-canal phones a recording that was done with a dummy head that matches your head-related transfer function fairly well, the typical recording and playback geometry simply cannot recreate the proper directionality. There are some examples with digital signal processing to do crosstalk cancellation (minimizing the effect of having signal from the left speaker get into the opposite ear) and so on, incluging the availability of HRTFs for download so you can put them in a convolver plugin for your music player, but in practice I've not seen examples that were at the same time effective and practical. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Source signal vs reproduced signal
wrote in message oups.com... Hi RATs! OK, so, somewhere between the composer's earliest fantasies and our own wretched memories of some performance or performances we have to draw some lines to allow fair and honest comparisons. How many recordings do you have from the exact live performance that you attended? If you are like most audiophiles, precious few. I have 100's of them. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
on topic: we need a rec.audio.pro.ot newsgroup! | Pro Audio | |||
It's amazing what you can find when you look. | Audio Opinions | |||
Topic Police | Pro Audio | |||
DNC Schedule of Events | Pro Audio |