Understanding words

:confused: At risk of sounding the wet blanket,

Is the suggestion of agreeing what words describe the sounds we hear, not a little futile?

As an example, how would you describe colours to a blind person? All the references are pretty much worthless. I sussed this when I noted that my son was red/green colour blind, and began to wonder if anything I see, and call red', is the same as you might call red.

And no this isn't meant to wind up the sensitive, merely to suggest that fewer rather than more descriptions would be useful. And that what happens in your brain when you hear a sound, is unlikely to be exactly the same as that which happens in anyone elses brain.
 
Originally posted by wadia-miester
Humm, I wonder if Paul messenger feels the same way about Naim cdp's lately ;) :D
Click to expand...
Question is, do you think he's actually going to commit his recent findings and musings to paper and get them published in one of his columns in the monthly rags? Somehow I doubt it, I mean just think of the repurcusions and the fallout - loyalty to the hand that feeds or has been feeding you I would guess is the bottomline. ;)
 
Fortunately, perhaps, my arms aren't long enough to reach Swindon, otherwise I'd take you up on you offer - operation of my choosing [not that I am actually a surgeon, but we all have to start somewhere].

So, come on now don't be coy, what's PM's favourite CDP?

Liquid treble indeed! <snorts derisively>
 
Originally posted by rewster
:confused: At risk of sounding the wet blanket,

Is the suggestion of agreeing what words describe the sounds we hear, not a little futile?

As an example, how would you describe colours to a blind person? All the references are pretty much worthless. I sussed this when I noted that my son was red/green colour blind, and began to wonder if anything I see, and call red', is the same as you might call red.

And no this isn't meant to wind up the sensitive, merely to suggest that fewer rather than more descriptions would be useful. And that what happens in your brain when you hear a sound, is unlikely to be exactly the same as that which happens in anyone elses brain.
Click to expand...


Fortunately for a lot of us rewster, there's still hope:) Hi-fi, just like other field of interests does have standardized terminologies. And this is the product of a longtime experience by professional people in the industry who established these terms. Overtime, maybe they'll try to refine some few definitions, but point is, these are accepted as close descriptions of the characteristics of the sound we hear from our system.

regards
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I lost faith in this thread until thankfully Merlin chimed in with 'Microdynamics'

To make this matter worse, he seemed to actually mean it.

I believe once someone has got to the stage of believeing they are hearing subtle microdynamics, they really couldn't give a toss about music.

Merlin, how much music do you own, whats the cost relationship to your HIFI? Do you just tinker, common, you can be honest.

Microdynamics, give me a break :rolleyes:
 
Gary,

thanks for the comments. The term microdynamics is used to describe a certain quality. In musical terms Gary, it relates to subtle inflections in vocals and accurate vibrato with string sections. It's the kind of thing that brings most music to life, although I do understand you not being familiar with the term given your mullet system.

FWIW, I have around 600 CD's, varying from classical works through to Electric Six and Def Leppard. I probably listen to music six hours a day, on various setups. If you arn't interested in hifi Gary, why don't you choose another forum to trawl through. Something that interests you perhaps, like interior design or cooking.
 
:mad: Nope,

Still not happy with the wordy bit, and even less so if the root of the concept lies with 'reviewers' and 'experts'. There are no experts in what I hear, other than me.

A little confidence in this direction, would do a lot of people, a lot of good, and shave several hundred pounds off the price of hi end gear, and reviewers incomes.

If two people in the same room can't agree on what they hear, and they often can't, then how can we be expected to agree a name for what they heard?
 
Re: Bub

Originally posted by mick parry
As one plutocrat (he rips off the NHS) to another, you can easily afford the CDS3. If you can actually get to hear it teamed up with a 552 in a domestic environment, you will be astounded. Your jaw will drop etc.
Mick
Click to expand...

Mick, surely you're having the laugh now :D
 
Mick, I'm dsappointed, for a moment I felt you would have realised how 'ordinary' it is, never mind, once a sheep always a sheep (although an important sheep with flock HQ I believe ;) )
 
Rewster(!), if we could agree what the words meant we could perhaps agree how equipment sounded, and that might imply concurrence on 'goodness', and that would never do.

The problem is that 95% of hifi is crap, and 99% of 'hifi' enthusiasts don't notice, so it's best if the words used are somewhat ambiguous.

It's quite simple, IMO, is your taste in music expanding or contracting? Expanding, you're on the right track, contracting, you've lost your way.

Paul
 
Originally posted by Paul Ranson
It's quite simple, IMO, is your taste in music expanding or contracting? Expanding, you're on the right track, contracting, you've lost your way.

Paul
Click to expand...

Well credit where it's due. That is very well put, although I could argue............;) :D
 
Originally posted by wadia-miester
Mick, this may surprise but yes, and this may also surprise you, we have a CDS3/552 at the 'office' as well :rolleyes: so I can say for definately yes it's ordinary. Tone
Click to expand...
Depends how you set it up.

Mick, I KNOW where the limitations of CD replay are and the CDS2 is not far from them. The CDS3 CANNOT be very much better, if it is better at all. The thing to do is a side-by side demo of the two players - have you done that?
 
Originally posted by The Devil
Depends how you set it up.

Mick, I KNOW where the limitations of CD replay are and the CDS2 is not far from them. The CDS3 CANNOT be very much better, if it is better at all. The thing to do is a side-by side demo of the two players - have you done that?
Click to expand...

James fair question sir, :)
We can and we have :) (CDS2/52 as well)
I personaly don't own them, they are 'at the office' for reasearch purposes only)
Set up on both units, yes ok, We use the exact same cables and speakers and amp, for each pair, while the other isn't being used, it's still plugged in on standy by if you like.
As I'm not going going to get involved in a which is better match (I have no vested ownership grief here :) )
Simple, If you don't want the traditional Naim sound, buy a CDS3, it is more open/hifi/airy, the drive is more in the cds2 (my view), If you are a new prospective sheep, then the CDS3 is for you, if you have had naim all you life, you may find it harder to 'aclimitise to it'
The CDS3 isn't bad, it's above average, they are better player for less money no doubt, but mags and sheep aside, use your ears.
One thing that puzzles me is the lack of SMT in either the CDS3/552, still harking back to the dark ages.
Any way, Expand your musical horizons, it's the one tue way Wm
Man BB king is rockin' this afternoon :)
 

Latest posts

Back
Top