For those unconvinced by Mana....

Status
Not open for further replies.
"To hear someone on the phone or 'behind you!' is quite different an experience."

That is precisely the problem... Ideally should be no difference. Although it is more logical that you should hear that person talking in front of you. When you are in a completely dark room and relatively close to someone else you can clearly identify where that person lies... behind you or in front of you, to the right or to the left, close to you or far from you. However if you keep your head stright you cannot identify that person's height.

You have raised another interesting aspect of the earing/vision mecanism... If you try to record a bar conversation with a friend and later on hearing it on an audio system (independently of its accuracy) you'll see that it is almost unlistenable... Why? Because when you are at the bar with your friend because of all that noise from other people you'll always try to look at him when he is talking in order to follow his words... your brain is now relying in your vision to assist your ear mecanism and filter out the noise.
 
Ok anologuekid... extremists is definitly a better word.

Now let me telling you something... when I've started to talk about accuracy I really saw some extremism from the "hearing is everything" believers... so, who are they to throw stones at Mana followers?
 
BD,

given that the person is not actually in the room at the same time as you, some self-delusion is required, something we are all good at having played 'make that you're ...' games and having watched theatre where we know that they are just acting.

'behind you' is a surprise, the better the more realistic, but requiring me still to have some make believe, because I cannot, at that moment, confirm with my eyes that the person really is there. when I'm listening to music/voice in my sitting room (not generally with the lights off - I'm not that sort of guy), I know that my speakers are like that phone, a device. I know that the person in not in front of me, but given the right stimulation I can forget that, suspend my disbelief and make that I'm having a good enough time, as though the person was same time, same place. But not really. although sometimes its sufficient for me to get into the content, the message that the voice wants to convey, the song not the singer, the message not the medium, to be thrilled, saddenned, made to dance.

all this matters to us here.

it will matter also when we have holgraphic tele-presence. it matters when we allow Holywood to beat us about the place in Dolby 5.1 (and rising), so that we have to pinch each other to remind ourselves its not really happening. in contrast there is the Mummer's Play, or amateur/school dramatics, where the message matters more than the visual performance, or the radio play where we paint the pictures ourselves.

all this is to state my view that subjectivity is at the heart of it all, and that objective measurement (to which by profession I adhere) plays a supporting role.

but the trouble with subjectivity is that it is subjective, relative. in absence of perfection, all deprivation is relative. not only is my subjectivity different from another's, it changes according to my mood, making strict A/B difficult. mind you I find that's true with wines after a few.

but the trouble with objectivity is that measurement is incomplete with respect to a complex system and the appreciation we seek is, for all the reasons mentioned, inherently subjective - 'make that K D Laing is singing in my living room ... '
 
"I know that my speakers are like that phone, a device. I know that the person in not in front of me, but given the right stimulation I can forget that, suspend my disbelief and make that I'm having a good enough time, as though the person was same time, same place. But not really. although sometimes its sufficient for me to get into the content, the message that the voice wants to convey, the song not the singer, the message not the medium, to be thrilled, saddenned, made to dance."

Ditton,

I can be made to dance or cry when listening my radio, it depends on my mood... you don't need Hi-fi for that.

The beauty of hi-fi is almost feeling people breath when they sing, feeling more closely the emotion on their words, feeling the stuning dynamics of crescendos, feeling the live beat... Music is motion, is dynamics is energy that you can grab and be carried on. Real hi-fi gives you that almost tangible aspect.

With real Hi-fi you are not worried with the medium, your brain cannot identify it as a medium, it is as natural as air moving around you to produce, real sounds. Progress is made from utopias...

Ear is our most accurate sense:

"The earliest use of hearing was as a survival mechanism to augment vision. The most important aspect of the hearing mechanism was the ability to determine the location of the sound source."

"The time domain response works quickly, primarily aiding the direction-sensing mechanism and is older in evolutionary terms."

"The frequency domain response works more slowly, aiding the determination of pitch and timbre and evolved later, presumably as speech evolved."
 
BD

to get back on topic,hearing is everything you say,and why not,but..............then 'accuracy' becomes a redundant HIFI term,becuase its your brain that hears,not your ears,so one mans accuracy is another mans muddle

accuracy,imo,is a useless term (no offence)

HIFI,the supposed accurate replication of music,nah,not for me,I'm a tune man (but for petes sake I am not a tunedemomaniac tm AK,nor a PRat fascist,I am a tunist)

I am aware I am not really really making a point,merely posting for posting sake,but I just can't relate to anything that refers to accuracy or even musicality.The best HIFI systems I have heard at shows have had nothing to do with these things,they have been simply tuneful,powerful and mind-blowingly emotional,amongst other things ie they touched your sole.Accuracy is a term better left to those who like to listen to equipment.
 
Saab said:
BD

(...) to get back on topic,hearing is everything you say,and why not,but..............then 'accuracy' becomes a redundant HIFI term,becuase its your brain that hears,not your ears,so one mans accuracy is another mans muddle

(...)

The best HIFI systems I have heard at shows have had nothing to do with these things,they have been simply tuneful,powerful and mind-blowingly emotional,amongst other things ie they touched your sole.Accuracy is a term better left to those who like to listen to equipment.
Click to expand...

Saab,

You have raised two very important aspects...

Firstly if you ask me how I feel about my reference system, (almost certainly) the most accurate one I've ever heard I will describe it just like you did.

Now, when you go to an accoustic concert with a friend, you have two brains hearing next to each other. After the concert you'll ask your friend how he liked it. Yours and his opinion may be or may be not the same... but when you ask him you are assuming that his ears, not the brain, have received exactly the same stimulus as your ears, otherwise your question wouldn't make any sense...

Both have physically heard and seen the same performance... but your brains may give to each of you a different perspective...

When talking about Hi-fi, we are talking about different physical stimulus between equipment when listening the same music or performance, and then different from the original. So, not only your brain and your friend's brain will interpret it as an unnatural occurrence, but also you will be discussing with your friend your own interpretations of others interpretations of the music you want to hear.
 
exactly my point,interpretations,unatural occurence,different physical stimulus,opinion,assumptions,all very good words,and they have nothing to do with 'accuracy',or even an interpretation of 'musicality'.Going to a gig is an emotional expereince,and having good HIFI in an effort to replicate the experience of a live gig is utterly pointless,and thinking about it is as pyrrhic as it comes

accuracy,is simply meaningless
 
No Saab... it's your interpretation of accuracy that might be meaningless.

"Going to a gig is an emotional expereince,and having good HIFI in an effort to replicate the experience of a live gig is utterly pointless,and thinking about it is as pyrrhic as it comes"

So keep listening a gramophone, why wouldn't you?
 
BerylliumDust said:
No Saab... it's your interpretation of accuracy that might be meaningless.
Click to expand...

indeed,you might be right,but if you have to interpret HIFI then the musical reproduction can't be accurate,unstoppable ball and immovable post

i think we have moved into philosophy,
:)

accuracy,as you define it BD,has no meaning,above and beyond what criteria you yourself apply to it,this has no relevance to anyone else,just as musicality has no meaning
 
Saab said:
i think we have moved into philosophy,
:)
Click to expand...

Yes Saab... that's why I null tested the Rotel, the Sim and others, and systematically found out that the one that measures better is the one that sounds better... or whatever that means...

But, go on... do like Robbo, wind up your gramophone... you even may found out that Mana under it can give you more dynamics...

More dynamics?!?!?!! What the hell is that... now we've really moved into philosophy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top