TheDecameron
Unicorns fart glitter.
I like to feel my sternum flapping, you know- like some form of unsolicited CPR.
Starting points of different journeys.
A debate about hi-fi assumes that transparency is the aim, that assumption is a starting point and how to further the aim is the journey, because we really aren't there yet.
If the system isn't giving me goose bumps, then something is missing, ergo, lack of transparency. But the pursuit of the numbers mightn't achieve it all by itself. If I get the goose bumps from a unit with marginally worse numbers, but the better-measuring one leaves me cold, that suggests to me that somebody is measuring the wrong numbers.
It's that psychoacoustic thing, again. Nobody knows for sure what numbers are relevant, in creating and sustaining the illusion of live music in the human brain. So we pursue transparency as the best guess. As you say, we really aren't there yet, despite achieving what, some would say, are pretty ideal sets of measurements.
I agree with the first part, but I don't see what the second part has to do with it. The reasons a hifi system doesn't sound like the "real thing" are mostly related to the limitations of two loudspeakers and your room acoustics, and have nothing to do with " 20-20,000 Hz with minimal distortion".
So, do we want to achieve maximum transparency, or maximum emotional impact? The problem with the latter is that there is no universal "gold standard" - it varies from person to person (and day to day).
I would imagine that a solo instrument ... close-miked should be reproducable by a single monophonic speaker?
Discuss
You mean my "I assume you have invested in an equalizer and a reverb unit?" question? It was actually a real question, taking what I thought you were saying to a logical conclusion. My apologies if I have offended you, but I think we also do have to allow for the fact that not everyone here is using their first language (it is my third out of five), and different cultures have different ways to communicate - I currently live in a culture where calling a spade a spade and speaking your mind very directly is the norm. That might seem rude to someone coming from a different culture - especially anglo-saxon culture tends to be very conflict-averse.
It's not irrelevant since if that succeeds then we have the building blocks of a successful reproduction of a live event.
I would imagine that a solo instrument of reasonably small size (say a voice, a flute or a guitar) successfully close-miked should be reproducable by a single monophonic speaker?
The example earlier of Gregson and Collister in a pub - this would make a terrible record or CD because the acoustics of the pub and the noise of the audience would be a distraction.
I wish my use of my 1st language was as good as your use of your 3rd.
I congratulate you on your impeccable spelling and grammar. I am also amazed that your turn of phrase is so like an anglo-saxon's.
I would be very interested to know where you are from and which languages you speak.
And the problem with the former is that, regarded over the broad range of recording techniques, actual recordings, systems, loudspeakers, and actual domestic listening rooms, "maximum transparancy" fundamentally is bloody non-transparent as long as we are confined to two channels, and impossible to quantify.
So we have on one side an unattainable goal, without suitable metrics, and on the other side the desire to maximise subjective pleasure.
Two rabbit holes. Pick your choice.
Thanks Julf. Respect!
My wife is a French teacher, my daughters are both quite good at French. I am thoroughly mediocre at French and German, I just cannot seem to retain any new vocab.
Yes and no - the hard parts are the ones where we actually move to real sound waves in the air, so loudspeakers and listening rooms
Yes, this is turning into the classic "objective vs subjective" debate that we know will never end. But still...
but let's not be mislead into thinking our subjective preference necessarily translates into "good" or "right". To determine real transparency, we have ABX tests...
And the other side: halls, studios, and microphone techniques. These are just as flawed as the replay side, although for entirely different reasons.
Quite the contrary, I tried to show that the quest for (undefined) 'transparency' is ultimately a wild sheep chase (due to the uncontrolled and fundamentally flawed first and final steps, and due to the lack of appropriate standards).
Of course not. Where 'transparency' is defined it can be tested and graded. This is to be done by those for whom the result is directly relevant. E.g. manufacturers seeking to build blameless amplifiers or recording/reproduction equipment, or users who want to confine the inherent flaws to certains parts of the signal chain only. But again, outside of pro- or mainstream audio manufacturers these are personal and subjective strategies.