advertisement


Busker

Steven Toy said:
Team Two will be the silent pfm majority. You can just imagine how they will spend the money...
Click to expand...

In all sorts of different ways. Some would buy bigger/better speakers, some would buy lots of fancy cables and supports, some would upgrade amplification, others source components. I expect some would even splash out on room treatment.
 
Steven Toy said:
No. It is based on subjective experience and observation. You are playing the barrack room lawyer dictating where the burden of proof lies.

Before you start, the claims are neither wild nor extraordinary but they come from a lack of need on my part for absolute proof.

You still have not provided any evidence of any Mana Effect btw and yet have spent thousands on the stuff so there is more than a whiff of hypocrisy here.
Click to expand...

All I am doing Steven is asking you where you got the idea. I see that you just made it up, as expected. Thanks.
 
Steven, I think it's time for another poll.


In the meantime, we can try and help you understand why the plastic splash-back pee deflectors are met with derision. Here's a hint: they are ridiculous.
 
Joe Hutch said:
In all sorts of different ways. Some would buy bigger/better speakers, some would buy lots of fancy cables and supports, some would upgrade amplification, others source components. I expect some would even splash out on room treatment.
Click to expand...

If they were intending on cladding a tunnel they would be in the first group. Remember that the busker did not need tunnel treatment to play his clarinet so why should the system need it to reproduce the recording of the busker in the same venue?

Note that the recording itself would be made in an anechoic chamber. The playback would be in the same tunnel as he was playing live.
 
Perhaps covering you listening room walls in brick (concrete?), and removing all the furniture will give you the sound you crave.
 
Perhaps the clarinent player was just very good and captured the "soul" of the piece he was playing. Saying that he could have been in any acoustic enviroment and still sound "soulfull"
Buskers, because they can catch you by surprise, sometimes have that affect.
Errol.
 
There is a very easy way to eradicate allthis room/speaker interaction, a decent pair of headphones. I know they have there limitations in terms of scale and depth, but the detail, and even the soundstage. Not to mention the money still in your account. Just a suggestion.
 
Errol said:
Perhaps the clarinent player was just very good and captured the "soul" of the piece he was playing. Saying that he could have been in any acoustic enviroment and still sound "soulfull"
Buskers, because they can catch you by surprise, sometimes have that affect.
Errol.
Click to expand...

Now where getting somewhere. The acoustic environment really doesn't matter!

We just need a hi-fi that can faithfully capture that soulful playing. Note I said p l a y - i n g not s o u n d.
 
Steven Toy said:
Now where getting somewhere. The acoustic environment really doesn't matter!

We just need a hi-fi that can faithfully capture that soulful playing. Note I said p l a y - i n g not s o u n d.
Click to expand...

The play - ing is made up of sound surely? Unless you just admire the fingering.
 
Weiss-Man said:
There is a very easy way to eradicate allthis room/speaker interaction, a decent pair of headphones. I know they have there limitations in terms of scale and depth, but the detail, and even the soundstage. Not to mention the money still in your account. Just a suggestion.
Click to expand...

But there is no need to eliminate the room/speaker interaction...
 
Joe Hutch said:
The play - ing is made up of sound surely? Unless you just admire the fingering.
Click to expand...

Quite. Unfortunately many here are distracted by the sound interacting with the room and cannot focus on the sounds made by the clarinet player. I seek a system that excels in the reproduction of the latter. I couldn't give a toss about the former.
 
Steven you seem to be arguing from 2 opposing viewpoints in this thread and others. 1) Non-tweakery: no room treatments, no mains filters, etc. 2) Tweakery: the various persplex bits. Reminds me of Whitman: "Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)"

I mean all this in a lighthearted fashion (disclaimer due to some misunderstand by others in a parallel thread.)
 
chainrule said:
Steven you seem to be arguing from 2 opposing viewpoints in this thread and others. 1) Non-tweakery: no room treatments, no mains filters, etc. 2) Tweakery: the various persplex bits. Reminds me of Whitman: "Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)"

I mean all this in a lighthearted fashion (disclaimer due to some misunderstand by others in a parallel thread.)
Click to expand...

No. You simply have not grasped the concept.
 
"Quite. Unfortunately many here are distracted by the sound interacting with the room and cannot focus on the sounds made by the clarinet player. I seek a system that excels in the reproduction of the latter. I couldn't give a toss about the former. "

And yet the two are not mutually exclusive. The sound you hear is a combination of your kit and the room. So as i have said to you many times, the room is stopping you hearing what is on the recording.. So why bother with any of your tweaking as they are such small beer in terms of improving what you hear than reducing the resonant modes in your room.

Your arguments as to why you want to obsess over cables and valves whilst ignoring the biggest effect on what you hear makes no sense whatsoever.

You are completely missing the wood for the trees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top