measurements II [message #17533] |
Sat, 05 February 2005 10:11 |
Manualblock
Messages: 4973 Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (13th Degree) |
|
|
You know whats funny, I see some exceptionally good empirical science expressed here, and one unifying theme seems to be to shun any hint of subjective analysis; and rightfully so. However the concept of no fundamental archetype for understanding subjective impressions has always puzzled me and this is why. As a muscician for many years I will state that when I express a musical concept to another muscician they appear to understand exactly what I mean, and the subsequent discussion also appears to indicate that in fact, they do. Whole musical desicions regarding recording/orchestral arranging/hall construction/ensemble playing; are made based upon these subjective conclusions that appear to be universally understood. How can that be?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: measurements II [message #17538 is a reply to message #17536] |
Sun, 06 February 2005 13:41 |
hurdy_gurdyman
Messages: 416 Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (1st Degree) |
|
|
I'm sure I could have a better and more meaningful conversation about how a given speaker sounds with a musician then an engineer. Ya know, it may be just me, but I think I'd get greater joy listening to a speaker that a musician with no engineering background has "tweeked" to perfection then listening to a speaker that an engineer with no musical talant or experience has "tweeked" to his version of perfection. Of course, someone who is both musician and engineer may come up with the best one of all. Dave
|
|
|
|
Re: measurements II [message #17543 is a reply to message #17533] |
Mon, 07 February 2005 11:39 |
akhilesh
Messages: 1275 Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (3rd Degree) |
|
|
HI everyone, I don;t think any of us are disagreeing at all here, just saying the same thing in different ways, so i'll add my bit as well.If we want the music system to offer high fidelity, then we mean it should reproduce the signal the way the recorded media sends. Notice that RECORDING the signal (in ther words encoding the live event) is also done by an engineer, who may equalize certain aspects of the performance to produce effects. Nevertheless, the goal of the sound system is to REPRODUCE this signal, not to reproduce the LIVE event. A system at home that can reproduce the signal as it was recorded MUSt reproduce all frequencies flat, and offer neglibile distortion. Otherwise it is adding its OWN signature. Now comes the subjectivity: some systems are not perfect (surprise!) and do add their own signature. In some cases that signature will enhance the recording (for example the second order distortion and non flat freq curve of a SET amp may make a female singer's voice a little more life like) so it appears more lifeliek to us, even more lifelike than perhaps the recording engineer intended. By the same token, the same amp may distort another recording to the point where it sounds pretty bad. (try playing ZZ top with a SET and single driver set up!) Overall, if we are concerned about fidelity, then we need to be concerned about simple measurements. If we are concened about just how recrodings sound, then there are a lot of variables involved (liek what is the recording, what effects were used ,etc) and systems with poor fidelity will often enhance some recrodings and worsen others. It's really all a matter of taste, finally. I am at present trying to pursue fidelity, but in my midrange (dfrom 60 hz to about 3500 HZ) i do have a set powering a high impedance driver! However, i am using a cheap sub for the below 60 hz a,d a cheap tweeter fr the treble, all powered by SS! The overall reposnse is far flatter than just using a SET with a full range driver, and to my ears more pleasing (much more pleasing actually). In other words I can now listen to both PAtricia BArber AND ZZ top on the same system ,and actually really enjoy both! Not to mention complex orchestral arrangements! -akhilesh
|
|
|
|
|
|