Busker

[Steven Toy]

I already know that perception can be tricked. Stereo itself is an illusion. A hi-fi system replicating a live musical performance is an illusion.

We can work with how our brains perceive sound or work against it.

Too many people here in the post-Beltist era are latching onto the ears (or brain)-can-be-fooled mantra and are then making a quantum leap of logic that it is therefore pointless trying to improve the quality of reproduction without being able to quantify it.

It works thus:

The ears can be fooled therefore they are fooled, always, without evidence to the contrary.

 

[Steven Toy]

People pay damn good money for reverb units that can sound like a tunnel.

PS is the opposite of 'the pfm Politburo' 'the pfm Mystical Research Department'? I feel this entity should be named so the vast majority of us who live in the sensible middle-ground between the two know the correct terminology to use in polite company.

There is no opposite. Team two includes all the middle-grounders.

 

[Steven Toy]

soul is in the listener 'dude'

one mans soul is another mans poison....

A predictable cop-out.

 

[Purité Audio]

£9750 for active speakers, ( inbuilt A/D , D/A room correction) and say IPad as source, would give an arguably better sound than you have now, if you moved the sofa of course.
Keith.

 

[Steven Toy]

£9750 for active speakers, ( inbuilt A/D , D/A room correction) and say IPad as source, would give an arguably better sound than you have now, if you moved the sofa of course.
Keith.

Keith, stick to the hypothesis please.

What you propose would make my room sound better. It would not reveal more of the music.

Remember, I heard that Trinnov. It was an abomination.

 

[arthur]

The brain can compensate better for the effects of a room than errors at source.

Why do you keep making these unverified statements as if they are the mountain solid one and only truth?

 

[arthur]

There is no opposite. Team two includes all the middle-grounders.

YOU are the opposite. In a team of one.

 

[Steven Toy]

Why do you keep making these unverified statements as if they are the mountain solid one and only truth?

Why do you ask stupid rhetorical questions? (IMHO)

 

[Purité Audio]

Keith, stick to the hypothesis please.

What you propose would make my room sound better. It would not reveal more of the music.

Remember, I heard that Trinnov. It was an abomination.

Stephen active monitors reveal all the music, not a scrap is left hidden ,honestly.
Keith.

 

[Steven Toy]

YOU are the opposite. In a team of one.

You would like it to be so and if you make enough braying noises it may become true.

Remember the silent majority as shown by a couple of polls. They are silent because of the noise made by the likes of you.

 

[Steven Toy]

Stephen active monitors reveal all the music, not a scrap is left hidden ,honestly.
Keith.

They only reveal everything coming from the DAC and pre.

 

[darrylfunk]

I already know that perception can be tricked. Stereo itself is an illusion. A hi-fi system replicating a live musical performance is an illusion.

We can work with how our brains perceive sound or work against it.

Too many people here in the post-Beltist era are latching onto the ears (or brain)-can-be-fooled mantra and are then making a quantum leap of logic that it is therefore pointless trying to improve the quality of reproduction without being able to quantify it.

It works thus:

The ears can be fooled therefore they are fooled, always, without evidence to the contrary.

you have lost your own argument steven - because you don't understand the science of music reproduction or the science of musicology.

whether you say it or not acoustics are important.

also the soul of a performance is very much in the listener otherwise we would not all like different music.

the very fact that the ear is easily fooled even when we know we are being fooled doesn't stop the science working.

 

[arthur]

They are silent because of the noise made by the likes of you.

Or perhaps because you make so much random noise it's not possible to craft a reply. There is nothing of substance in your various viewpoints Stephen.

I've never, in any field, known one man to be so simply and entirely self deluded.

And of course ever so tetchy because his nonsense is not treated as gospel.

 

[Steven Toy]

Or perhaps because you make so much random noise it's not possible to craft a reply. There is nothing of substance in your various viewpoints Stephen.

I've never, in any field, known one man to be so simply and entirely self deluded.

And of course ever so tetchy because his nonsense is not treated as gospel.

The misspelling of my first name is either poor observation (not a good trait if you want to be able to evaluate perceived changes) or is deliberate to be annoying, i.e. part of the noise.

Which is it Arthur?

 

[darrylfunk]

Or perhaps because you make so much random noise it's not possible to craft a reply. There is nothing of substance in your various viewpoints Stephen.

I've never, in any field, known one man to be so simply and entirely self deluded.

And of course ever so tetchy because his nonsense is not treated as gospel.

unfortunately this is pretty much 100% accurate.

unlike the massive distortion of a valve amp ( )

getting back to the op question....what songs was the busker playing? - who had written the piece?

what did you think of the josh piece?

 

[darrylfunk]

The misspelling of my first name is either poor observation (not a good trait if you want to be able to evaluate perceived changes) or is deliberate to be annoying, i.e. part of the noise.

Which is it Arthur?

steven why do you get so upset?....you spelt my name 3 different ways but i don't get upset!?

best thing is to let it go.

 

[Steven Toy]

steven why do you get so upset?....you spelt my name 3 different ways but i don't get upset!?

best thing is to let it go.

I am less consistent than Arthur which suggests a typographical error, i.e. clumsy fingers.

You are quite right though.

 

[IanW]

Steven,

You liking what you heard from that busker in that tunnel at that point in time was your brain reacting emotionally to it. There is no guarantee that if you created the same conditions you would like it all.

Why do record labels etc record music in studios or concert halls?

If they could record a better sound in your lounge or in a tunnel do you not think they might try to do so or try to recreate those acoustic conditions?

How is your brain able to separate out all the resonant modes that are disrupting the sound in your room? Mine has been unable to do this in any room that I have been in. And I have never heard of anyone else who claims to have this ability.

Why don't you actually try what I have proposed, then you coldl talk with a bit more authority on the subject?

Having heard room tuning to reduce the effect of the main resonant modes work well in 5out of 5 very different rooms, I am confident that it would work in yours. Let alone the fact that this approach has been used in numerous studios and concert halls to great effect. Would they go these lengths to make the sound better if it didn't work?

Ian

 

[Steven Toy]

I am not averse to room tuning. I can't do any harm, not passive tuning anyway.

I am just saying that the absence of it will not be masking the benefit of system upgrades (unless the room is truly awul of course.)

 

[Purité Audio]

Steven the room and the system are one, can you see that?
Keith.