Home » Audio » General » An observation from GPAF
An observation from GPAF [message #1631] Thu, 05 May 2005 09:09 Go to next message
Barry Solof is currently offline  Barry Solof
Messages: 18
Registered: May 2009
Chancellor
There were a lot of different rooms and a lot of different components at the GPAF. Without mentioning vendors or specific gear, some of the components sounded pretty mellow and some of them were pretty aggressive.

Yet everytime I asked someone what component (or system) they really liked I got a new answer. Components that just didn't do it for me for one reason or another were somebody elses favorite. Then somebody else would have a completely opposite reaction to the same system.

This happened more often than I would have ever expected. Any ideas as to why we all have such different preferences when it comes to audio reproduction? Is this something we have "learned" through extended listening to reproduced music or is there just a lot of variation in everyones hearing?



Re: An observation from GPAF [message #1637 is a reply to message #1631] Thu, 05 May 2005 13:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bill Wassilak is currently offline  Bill Wassilak
Messages: 402
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (1st Degree)
It's called psycho-acoustics everybody hear's things different from one person to the next. Just like one speaker system to the next.

Preferences are just opionions in my book, some people like more of a layed back kind of sound, some like it sharp and edgey. And as the old saying goes opinions are like assholes everybody has one.

Bill W.

Re: An observation from GPAF [message #1638 is a reply to message #1637] Thu, 05 May 2005 13:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Norris Wilson is currently offline  Norris Wilson
Messages: 361
Registered: May 2009
Grand Master
Yep, that pretty much covers the dark abyss of the subject.
Thanks for putting it in such a simple and direct language, to the point.
Norris

Re: Paragraph one, true, paragraph two........ [message #1640 is a reply to message #1637] Thu, 05 May 2005 15:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
BillEpstein is currently offline  BillEpstein
Messages: 886
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (2nd Degree)
...........I insist it's not opinion if it's objective reality and in the realm of the Five Senses, everyones individual reality is objective reality.
We all have 4 taste buds. Mine is more sensitive to salt. This meatball is salty. Yours isn't.
The shape of my ears (waddya call the part you can see?) is more, much more important than the shape of the horn I'm listening to in establishing my reality.And the way MY brain processes sound is even more important.
But there is a FINITE set of reality just as their is a FINITE number of audio manufacturer's, Redundancies are cleaned away by the Marketplace.
We are all, however extremely subject to peer pressure which is another determinant of individual objective reality.
Of course, you ask, if this were true, are there any Subjectivities?

Re: An observation from GPAF [message #1641 is a reply to message #1631] Thu, 05 May 2005 15:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Manualblock is currently offline  Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (13th Degree)
Your post is a little confusing. Who was it that you consulted that offered these contradictory observations?
I ask in order to establish a benchmark for a coherent reply.
I offer some short observations from a distance since I did not attend the show.
The designers have extensive experience with each piece so naturally their hearing is prepped to that sound.
Observers would need at the least to be sure they experienced the equipment in a similar fashion; placement/music/crowds etc.
What did you find to be the most glaring or obvious difference of opinion?
What were your expectations upon attending the show?
Are you discussing opinions that reflect incremental differences or is there a huge gap between what you heard and that of your sources for these discrepencies?
These questions attack the root of perception in a show setting and should be addressed before any assumptions of quality are made.
While these designs are unique to the designer they are known to be of good and repeatable competence. Speaking to the loudspeakers on display the Iconic's/Dr. Gedde's offering/The Pi's etc. are all based on good engineering and known by reasonable audiophiles to reproduce music very well. While you may prefer one over another they all exhibit excellent sound.
So what would you need to hear that would satisfy your personal requirements that you didn't hear?
I am not challenging your opinion; this subject interest's me.

Sharon says "what"????? [message #1642 is a reply to message #1640] Thu, 05 May 2005 15:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
spkrman57
Messages: 522
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (1st Degree)
Just what the hell did all that mean?

Ron and Sharon and Snowball

Re: An observation from GPAF [message #1646 is a reply to message #1631] Thu, 05 May 2005 19:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bill Martinelli is currently offline  Bill Martinelli
Messages: 677
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (1st Degree)

Cool to go to the shows and see all the different things and notice how the opinions and perceptions come about isn’t it? It's really quite remarkable. As Mr. Geddes has also mentioned, the speaker is the one part of a system that makes more change than all the other components combined, in my perception. I've been at a show where one group is throwing rose petals at your feet while the group before them is still muttering under their breath how awful things were!

It's pretty cool. All,in the eyes (or ears) of the beholder

Bill


Would "live" ever lose in a DBT? [message #1649 is a reply to message #1631] Thu, 05 May 2005 20:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dean Kukral is currently offline  Dean Kukral
Messages: 177
Registered: May 2009
Master
If we could give all the people who attended the GPAF a chance to do a DBT of a live concert versus some of the best equipment there, would the live concert ever lose? "I thought A(fine equipment produced by some of our best minds) sounded better than B(the live one)." "The highs sounded better and the lows had real punch. The separation was superior and I could pick individual instruments out without difficulty." "B sounded muddy, with no transparency."

Re: An observation from GPAF [message #1650 is a reply to message #1631] Thu, 05 May 2005 21:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Manualblock is currently offline  Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (13th Degree)
It seems we lost him.

Convincing Illusion [message #1651 is a reply to message #1649] Thu, 05 May 2005 21:50 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Wayne Parham is currently offline  Wayne Parham
Messages: 18678
Registered: January 2001
Illuminati (33rd Degree)

I have always been of the view that accuracy was paramount, and I still strive for perfection. But one can get too zealous, I suppose, and start debating the number of angels that dance on a pin. I like Siegfried Linkwitz's comments to the effect that the goal is to create a convincing auditory illusion of accuracy. That allows me to maintain my goal of perfection, without becoming self-deceived in the process.


Previous Topic: Might be amusing
Next Topic: Lone Star Bottleheads - June 11
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sat Apr 27 15:31:35 CDT 2024

Sponsoring Organizations

DIY Audio Projects
DIY Audio Projects
OddWatt Audio
OddWatt Audio
Pi Speakers
Pi Speakers
Prosound Shootout
Prosound Shootout
Smith & Larson Audio
Smith & Larson Audio
Tubes For Amps
TubesForAmps.com

Lone Star Audiofest