Texture

Joe we probably all hear what some of us are reffering to as texture, but we may be using diffrent words or phrases to describe it, i feel this is where the confusion lies.

 

... well having now had the benefit of that very interesting exchange between AK & Merlin, illustrating I think the potential value of textual analysis when set against the towering framework of semiotic paradigm [clearly ART is in the eye of the beholder], [edit: glad to see that we are] back on topic.

'revealing' is useful term. Some hifi components seem to add and accentuate rather than reveal. This can sometimes seem a benefit if it accentuates something that we like (pace, timing, detail, etc) and excites. The same could be said of 'texture', I think, and 'realism'.

 

Possibly, but I don't think I use an equivalent word to describe the sound from my system. I might say it has plenty of depth but not much width in the soundstage; lots of 'information' in terms of being able to hear individual instruments or vocal lines; plenty of well-controlled if not exactly 'trouser-flapping' bass; etc etc, but I wouldn't use a 'texture' type word. I suppose I'd just say it produces a reasonable facsimile of the original, to the extent that I had an 'original' in my aural memory to compare it to.

 

maybe we should rename this forum..? I think thinking something in the lines of big brother..?

and we could simply evict all the ****s

 

yes joe, it's like a lot of jargon, once we have a common reference then we can label it, in this case we don't all have the same comon reference, as one mans texture is anothers realism, I think.

 

I've removed all the posts that refer to an argument from a different forum. Can I remind you that ZG will not accept inter-forum wars being carried out on this forum. If people persistantly do it they will be banned. This is the second time in less than 24 hours I've had to moderate due to this.
Thanks

 

Part of the difficulty is in the seperation of the described original/music and the described hifi component/system. This is especially the case if we should look to hifi for what it reveals: we need then to describe the music and so use words descriptive of the music and assign those as descriptive qualities of the hifi.

 

Originally Posted by lordsummit
"... hifi should reveal musical texture, but it doesn't create it, I think we all need to remember that hi-fi is the medium not the message itself"


'revealing' is useful term. Some hifi components seem to add and accentuate rather than reveal. This can sometimes seem a benefit if it accentuates something that we like (pace, timing, detail, etc) and excites. The same could be said of 'texture', I think, and 'realism'.

 

Absolutely. This highlights a classic hifi dilemma; most would agree that hifi should be as 'realistic' as possible, but realistic to what? The original musical score? The original recording, warts 'n all?

 

texture, texturing

A perceptible pattern or structure in reproduced sound, even if random in nature. Texturing gives the impression that the energy continuum of the sound is composed of discrete particles, like the grain of a photograph.

JGH

 

Deep and meaningless, to quote John Otway.

 

As hifi is creating an illusion of reality, then it surely matters little if it's absolutely accurate tonally, as most of us can't compare real vs recorded, particularly so with studio recordings, then as long as the facsimilie convinces us that the sounds are realastic, then it's done it's job.

 

How do we accurately descibe sound in words then? Without applying artistic licence, it strikes me that the English language is sadly lacking in sufficiently specialized descriptive terms.

 

I think that's the aim, even if that does mean that the recording is/was flawed - but then I'll look to re-mastering to mend that.

On reflection, tweaking with graphics equalisers might 'improve' some bad recordings, but that's a slippery slope when generally applied.

... interesting definition offered JGH. I might grow to like it, Is it original, or reproduced? Should that lessen/change our appreciation?

 

This is true of many non-verbal art forms; one is torn between the Devil of using 'jargon' terms that may be meaningless or misleading to others, and the Deep Blue Sea of just saying 'I like it'. I had this problem trying to write film criticism; apart from simply re-stating the plot, and saying 'so-and-so acted well' what else is there to say?

 

pasted this from neighbouring thread.