Principles

sorry I thought by dichotomy you meant a very common acceptance of the word to mean the distinction between mind and soul, body and intellect... I thought this as you were discussing how one piece of equipment can sound good intellectually but not emotionally.

 

Sorry linked to wrong post. This is the one.

Richard

 

Richard, first lets start with the premise that we can get along without the attitude, shall we?

I use my hi-fi for listening to music.

I think I am missing the point you wish to discuss. What is it exactly?

 

Something that is obviously pointless to you!

Richard

 

Yawn!! so at what point does hot become cold?

Pointless semantics designed to drag the thread into conflict. This is *your* way, and pretty perverted from my point of view.

Anyone with constructive contribution?

Richard

 

Yes starting with the premis - meaning starting from and with that premis, without which action any argument is pointless. As tenson said you seem to be displaying a rather rude and judgemental attitude. The only ego displayed here so far is yours sadly. You seemed to get it up you when people didnt agree with your assumptions. Hardly the basis of an amicable thread. Tenson is the last person ever guilty of what you are saying.

 

According to the nerve firing thresholds of each. It isnt semantics it is describing the basic problem with subjectivist arguments.

This isnt a conflict as far as I am concerned except that you seem to be determined to make it into one. My way is just for dispassionate open minded discussion thanks.

 

I am out of here this is ridiculous.

 

That is exactly what I am discussing - the things that are needed for a system that makes 'music'. Audio is an objective science with a subjective outcome (science and art combined). Hence if you wish to discuss what gives a certain subjective outcome you need to discuss objective matters as well as factors influencing the individual (internal ones too) who is observing the outcome.

 

Semantic claptrap, you have already shown what you want.

Richard

 

I'm sorry but I fail to understand what you want to discuss in that case. Yes I have shown what I want. That is because I know what I want and how to achieve it.

If you can't describe what you want to discuss then you can hardly expect people to stick to the subject!

And its not claptrap, science and art must be combined to achieve a good audio system.

 

all i said was that 2 people listening at the same time could express a different preference. discussing it is good for keepingwarm during the winter but not much else it won;t change your preference unless you are either weak willed or something else changes either psycologically or phisiologically with you and then it's doubtful a result of my persuasion - it's when people try to force their own preferences on others or deride others when their preferences do not match that things can get nasty.

the problem with quantifying and discussing these differences is that there is no commonly understood vocabulary to describe audio phenomena or at least not one that i'm aware of and therein lies the crux of the problem. for me and most others here it boils down to like and dislike and that's enough - that's why it's good to go to bakeoffs and demo days if this stuff entertains you enough.
the drawback of this is that sometimes someones remortgaged their house in order to afford some mega buck system that you think sounds like arse - you then have to be polite, nod and agree that it's the best thing since sliced badgers...

it would be nice to know that when i say my system has the funk that everyone knew exactly how it sounds however it's a bit like saying my t-shirt is red - what shade?, does it have printing?, v-neck or crew?, tailored or baggy? all the little nuances are exremely important and that's where language and discussion falls down in this case.

objectivity has it's place in the design phase to get things working however most kit that's said to be 'good' has some sort of 'by ear' voicing by one guru or another - even if it's just the marketing dept going for cheaper resistors.

as i've said before 90% of the population listen to dixon specials, the gains you can get from a system bought from richers puts us lot with our 3k+ systems firmly in the last 5% or so - if the quality of hi-fi can be expressed as a bell curve (it's certainly not an exponential upward curve) then we are arguing over infinitesimal differences and would probably be wrapped up in canvas coats with very long sleeves in any sort of civilised society.

 

OK I try again, does anyone want to play this thread for real and you never know something new might emerge.

"Why don't we have a thread where individuals names and product names are banned, then perhaps there is the chance of a thread without nah nah!! and raspberry blowing. I presume there must be people here beyond the level of the Kindergarten.

Lets start with the premis (dangerous) that hi-fi is for listening to music, and not just feeding your ego or for intellectual rattling and masturbation.

Given this what are the principles involved in creating a system to reproduce music, and is it the same root for those pursuing fidelity in sound to those pursuing fidelity to the music / composer / orchestra / band / singer etc. Are they the same?"

Richard

PS remember no names!!

 

No thanks, the Diamonique hour is about to start on QVC.

 

I'm afraid I don't really follow what you're driving at, except insofar as it looks rather like one of the standard anthropomorphisms (specifically, the notion that the term "technically good" means something similar when applied to amplifiers to what it means when applied to pianists).

I don't know if you're a member over at Pink Fish, but there's a hardcore "music vs sound" circle over there and you might like to try talking to them.

 

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo................ :cry:

 

I have only got time for one forum, you lot drew the short straw

Your first paragraph is not applicable IMV. A human being being technically good at his / her chosen skill is not the same thing. You cannot measure them, you have to make that judgement subjectively. Though I am sure some score shufflers and readers will dissagree. Though I suppose similar criteria can be applied to the subjectivism of it. Exampled by Callas, her voice could make you wince but her delivery and power enthrawled. I don't think we can draw any other analogy than that.

Richard

 

I don't intend any disrespect here, and please don't take this the wrong way, but I'm guessing you may not be a musician .

For a musician, the technical skill of 'playing the right notes' is related to and an important part of but not the same as the skill of communicating with an audience. This is stereotypically a problem with intensively-trained young players who can play anything you like as fast as you like note-perfect but who lack the experience and the understanding to make it say anything interesting; conversely, the stereotypical player on the brink of retirement with a lifetime of experience may not be as sure-handed as (s)he once was, yet has the ability to bring a piece of music to life through a thorough understanding of its nuances, despite wrong notes creeping in from time to time. What we loosely call 'musicianship' depends on subtle and - importantly - context-sensitive variations in tempo, dynamic level, tone-colour, pitch and myriad other factors. These variations will themselves change constantly throughout the performance as the context changes.

This whole "sound vs music" argument arises because of the following (erroneous) anthropomorphic train of thought: (1) musicians play music; (2) some musicians have excellent technique and poor musicianship, or vice versa; (3) hifis also play music; (4) hifis are thus a bit like musicians; (5) therefore probably some hifis also have excellent technique and poor musicianship, or vice versa. Musicianship depends on subtle, context-sensitive changes, whereas the performance of hifis is to all intents and purposes deterministic: for a given stimulus, you always get the same response. Thus for example, while I've said that variations in tone colour are one important aspect of musicianship, and incorrect tonality is certainly one thing that can go wrong with a hifi, it'll be wrong in basically the same way throughout the performance, or at least if it varies for whatever reason it'll be in a grossly simpler way than the subtle changes being made moment-to-moment by the artist in the recording so you'll still hear the changes.

The fact remains, of course, that some people maintain that they can hear "musical differences" between two physically identical sounds - good luck to them.

 

Nice post Pete

 

perhaps they can - i submit that 2 people with different hearing characteristics (i.e. one is sensitive to mid range sound and the other with a dip in the same range - whether due to hearing damage, a perforated ear drum or wax build up) can genuinely express a different opinion of the same system.

i say the only way to build a system you will be satisfied with is to actually listen to the kit in surroundings as close to those at home as possible. if you are lucky enough to have 20/20 hearing (or whatever the phrase is) then you could probably do it by looking at numbers and graphs - if you can then good luck to you but don;t p1ss on others chips just because they can't or want to sample the alternatives.