Hearing loss buy Naim!

Hi, Wadia Monster

I read ethology - what are the perceptual and behavioural instructions animals have to react adaptively to their environment - and cultural anthropology - the same really, but the instructions stem from culture rather than genes. This becomes a most involved affair, but I rather like it.

I also teach them about the fundamental nastiness of our species (wars, racism, group formation).

Nice of you to be interested.

I know you are into tweeking posh cars. Yes, I always craved for a Morgan, but the waiting list is too long and, anyway, I spend a lot of money in books, records and musical instruments (I currently have an eye on a £7500 harpsichord; the snag is that it is blue and my room is green based...) So you see the kind of boring chap I am.

If I could have all I want, I'd collect oil paintings, old books, harpsichords and racing cars... and (now that Mrs RdS is not listening, er... hum..., girls . I see now that my nasty unconscious took over for a minute; so consider it censored (but apparent; Freud). And I would also like to breed dogs.

Warmest wishesRaT:

 

Perhaps I'm not getting what you are driving at. I don't quite know what studio sound is. If it is electronic in the first place there is no reference for quality of hifi. I always thought so: you can only appraise hifi with acoustic music.

It is true that most members of this forum don't particularly like acoustic music (mainly classical) and so, the thread is of no interest to them in the first place.

But for me a system must translate the musical experience one has with live instruments. That is my benchmark.

It seems to me what you are saying is that there are no benchmarks ?

Now hifi means high fidelity , one suspects, fidelity to the original sound. Sound being a product of mechanical or electric instruments, but sound nevertheless, with which you can compare a system.

Isn't it therefore strange that only a few people paid attention to that thread?

I often remark that journalists never mention the 'original sound'. They speak of prat, toes a'flapping and such nonsense. In my choices I always have the original acoustic sound in mind. and I can't very well conceive it to be otherwise...

Perhaps I'm being rather naive, but it seems to me I'm just remarking that the king has no clothes on him...:JOEL:

 

RDS, Must be fun reading the forum's then, wouldn't surprise me if you used One or two of us in your lectures as examples, of interspeciecs dillusional behavioural tendenices
I always supected you a cultured fellow ,Nothing wrong with art (although this newish wave of expressionisum is total 'Horseplopps' :knight: to me, My good ladies parents are 'Cultured souls' and tis a pleasure to 'have a shoofty' at the wall adornments.(although most of them are Equinue related)
Moragns, I live about 20 miles from the factory, 'Proper old english sports car', nicely built too, I love Austin Healy 3000's not the best but a classic, oh and 'D' types, for some reason
Cheers the Slop Monster user

 

tone,
moragns, some sort of scottish mercedes perhaps? sorry had to be done.

cheers


julian

 

Hiya RDS

Yup, thats exactly what Im saying.

The only acoustic instruments I play are nylon and steel strung guitars. I can say unequivocally that they sound different in every room of the house, and furthermore sound different at different positions within each room, just as a hifi speaker does.

Studios all sound different, miking positions all vary, the favoured balance of the recording engineer varies, the amplification of the instrument will vary. In amplifying an acoustic guitar, the player may use a piezo style pickup, a microphone, on board or off board eq, reverb and other effects etc etc etc....

soooooo many variables.

I truly say, there is no benchmark, even on this one instrument for what it 'should' sound like... so there is no ideal for a system to live up to... just a presentation that we like, broadly speaking.


All just my view, of course.

Cheers
Chris

 

Hi Chris

I understand what you say - yes, there are too many factors. But I do not pretend that hifi has to capture THE true sound as there is no such thing; as you say, it varies a lot (because of dampness, heat, room position and, of course, the player). But I think that in order to deserve the 'fi' bit, hifi has to make a credible sound, that is, that sounds real in certain ways.

For instance, most solid state amplifiers (regardless of price) are dirty: that is, the transient phase of the sound has a kind of built in white noise.

That should not happen: you do take away a lot of the liveliness of the sound just by being dirty. Instead of sparkling sounds you get clangy noise.

On the other hand, most valve amplifiers are too smooth; they are nice and confortable, but very different from the true sound; that being because, as everybody knows, they tend to favour the middle frequencies.

If you are used to live music and get a dose of Valium-like tubes or greasy hair like solid state, listening to a recording may be plain painful.

Whats the criterium, you may ask: that the sound be credible. It will, of course, be different, and usually downscaled. But harmonically - timbrically - it must be correct.

So, although I don't really think we differ, we are really saying different things. You favour presentation; I favour tonal acuracy.

Well. The world is made of different things, so why should we not be different?