|
Post by garbulky on May 31, 2016 16:29:13 GMT -5
Where the hell do you listen to live music, in the orchestra pit? No. But I do listen to people performing at closer quarters. And there is a height dimension. We just normally don't think of hearing in that term. Well implemented stereo almost makes you forget about that entire dimension we are missing because it's so realistic. But it's there. Right now I think we use speakers that are larger in size to get a big center image. Gives you the illusion of height. But it's not real height though. It can't do what those things I described are. I already have it. It is called Magnepan! ☺ I've heard Maggies. They have an amazing holographic type reproduction.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on May 31, 2016 16:30:01 GMT -5
My browser says the link is currently being hacked.
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,261
|
Post by stiehl11 on May 31, 2016 18:59:09 GMT -5
Where the hell do you listen to live music, in the orchestra pit? No. But I do listen to people performing at closer quarters. And there is a height dimension. We just normally don't think of hearing in that term. Well implemented stereo almost makes you forget about that entire dimension we are missing because it's so realistic. But it's there. So, in your example of a person singing and playing a guitar, for the voice to be coming from a normal 8 foot ceiling and the guitar from your fronts at about 3~4 feet you would have to have your nose in her belly button (or listening to Robert Wadlow singing/playing a guitar). You're right, that's some pretty close quarters for sure! The only reasons for having height channels, other than envisioning that fantastic belly button smeg smell, is if the sound/music was coming from the flies above the stage. There are operas and musicals/show tunes that would make use of that effect. However, most people that I know who listen to that genre don't have the set up that I have, and none of them have a room dedicated to an immersive 7.2.4 sound field. It's not because they're poor/unable to afford it. They just listen to music differently than the people who are audiophiles. The "height" dimension you speak of is reflective in nature. While this adds to the ambiance of the recording, to me (in my opinion), it's rather gimmicky (sorta like selecting "Arena" or "Stadium" while viewing your game on TV). But, to each their own. This hobby is not a one size fits all sort of thing.
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on May 31, 2016 19:46:31 GMT -5
Well, those with a system capable of playing Object based material is still pretty limited so there probably isn't much of a market there for music right now. Coupled with the fact that music in current surround formats only accounts for a small percentage of sales makes me think there isn't much revenue to be made right now. You'd think though we'd see some 'demo' type recordings in the coming year. I hope so too. I don't care that the music isn't in surround. I just want stereo and height information. I doubt if music was produced with height channels, that 2.2.2 would be a supported configuration. I think for 'realistic' music mixes like you describe, the height channels would further enhance the ambience queues that some surround mixes are currently recorded with. On the other hand surround recordings that use 'effect' type mixes (DSOTM, Beatles/Love) might further be enhanced with height speakers. I'll wait and see, but probably not on the edge of my seat.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on May 31, 2016 20:19:29 GMT -5
No. But I do listen to people performing at closer quarters. And there is a height dimension. We just normally don't think of hearing in that term. Well implemented stereo almost makes you forget about that entire dimension we are missing because it's so realistic. But it's there. So, in your example of a person singing and playing a guitar, for the voice to be coming from a normal 8 foot ceiling and the guitar from your fronts at about 3~4 feet you would have to have your nose in her belly button (or listening to Robert Wadlow singing/playing a guitar). You're right, that's some pretty close quarters for sure! The only reasons for having height channels, other than envisioning that fantastic belly button smeg smell, is if the sound/music was coming from the flies above the stage. There are operas and musicals/show tunes that would make use of that effect. However, most people that I know who listen to that genre don't have the set up that I have, and none of them have a room dedicated to an immersive 7.2.4 sound field. It's not because they're poor/unable to afford it. They just listen to music differently than the people who are audiophiles. The "height" dimension you speak of is reflective in nature. While this adds to the ambiance of the recording, to me (in my opinion), it's rather gimmicky (sorta like selecting "Arena" or "Stadium" while viewing your game on TV). But, to each their own. This hobby is not a one size fits all sort of thing. No not belly button in distance. I know you've heard live performers play in something that's not where you are sitting 25 feet away from them. You can hear the height differences. I mean you've heard your friend play an acoustic guitar and sing right? It's subtle as it should be and we don't think about it (oh look at the height on the voice) but to think we can't or it's not going to benefit a properly recorded performance is i think a fallacy. Now I grant you the effects are where the most OBVIOUS is the gimmicky stuff but that's just one application of it imo.
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,261
|
Post by stiehl11 on May 31, 2016 20:57:30 GMT -5
So, in your example of a person singing and playing a guitar, for the voice to be coming from a normal 8 foot ceiling and the guitar from your fronts at about 3~4 feet you would have to have your nose in her belly button (or listening to Robert Wadlow singing/playing a guitar). You're right, that's some pretty close quarters for sure! The only reasons for having height channels, other than envisioning that fantastic belly button smeg smell, is if the sound/music was coming from the flies above the stage. There are operas and musicals/show tunes that would make use of that effect. However, most people that I know who listen to that genre don't have the set up that I have, and none of them have a room dedicated to an immersive 7.2.4 sound field. It's not because they're poor/unable to afford it. They just listen to music differently than the people who are audiophiles. The "height" dimension you speak of is reflective in nature. While this adds to the ambiance of the recording, to me (in my opinion), it's rather gimmicky (sorta like selecting "Arena" or "Stadium" while viewing your game on TV). But, to each their own. This hobby is not a one size fits all sort of thing. No not belly button in distance. I know you've heard live performers play in something that's not where you are sitting 25 feet away from them. You can hear the height differences. I mean you've heard your friend play an acoustic guitar and sing right? It's subtle as it should be and we don't think about it (oh look at the height on the voice) but to think we can't or it's not going to benefit a properly recorded performance is i think a fallacy. Now I grant you the effects are where the most OBVIOUS is the gimmicky stuff but that's just one application of it imo. My first degree was music performance and I was a professional musician for a time; one friend regularly performs at the Metropolitan Opera House (The Met), and few others are composers and performers of note. So, yeah, I've heard a few performances in my time. Yes, you can hear height differences. No, not like what you're describing in your original post... unless we're talking about Robert Wadlow, they're singing through a paper towel tube, or being in someone's personal space (and I've never heard someone's voice 4+ feet above the instrument they're playing). Generally speaking and still using your example we're only talking about a couple of feet or less between the performer's mouth and the sound hole and neck of a guitar when listening to a solo performer playing and singing acoustically. If you're sitting next to them, like right next to them, like close enough to lean in and kiss them, then you'll hear their voice in-line with your ears and the guitar lower than you. If you get down to give them the groupie special while they're playing you'll hear the guitar in-line with your ears and the voice above you. But, if you're a reasonable distance from them (a couple of feet) and they've adjusted the volume of their strumming with the volume of their voice (basic musicianship), you'll hear a nice blend not dissimilar to what you would get listening to good speakers reproducing a recording of the performance. This is just how sound works. Just as, in another one of your examples; a choir on risers, you move closer you start hearing individual voices instead of the blend that happens when you step further away. If you get close enough to one performer you'll hear them cleanly and the others in the "background". You'll even be able to tell who's singing above the person at ear level. But who other than a real-life Forest Gump listens to a choir like that?
|
|
|
Post by TempTag on May 31, 2016 23:52:27 GMT -5
Many late 2015/2016 AVRs/PrePros already have a DTS:X firmware update and I imagine in the future most equipment will support both formats with people choosing a happy medium on speaker placement. DTS:X versus Atmos will become about as relevant as Dolby versus DTS.
What seems a bigger risk to adoption of either format is the recent shift where it appears new disc based and streaming releases are limiting the new formats to UHD copies. This won't prevent adoption but will slow it down greatly as there is less incentive to upgrade when everything must be upgraded.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jun 1, 2016 0:03:31 GMT -5
No not belly button in distance. I know you've heard live performers play in something that's not where you are sitting 25 feet away from them. You can hear the height differences. I mean you've heard your friend play an acoustic guitar and sing right? It's subtle as it should be and we don't think about it (oh look at the height on the voice) but to think we can't or it's not going to benefit a properly recorded performance is i think a fallacy. Now I grant you the effects are where the most OBVIOUS is the gimmicky stuff but that's just one application of it imo. My first degree was music performance and I was a professional musician for a time; one friend regularly performs at the Metropolitan Opera House (The Met), and few others are composers and performers of note. So, yeah, I've heard a few performances in my time. Yes, you can hear height differences. No, not like what you're describing in your original post... unless we're talking about Robert Wadlow, they're singing through a paper towel tube, or being in someone's personal space (and I've never heard someone's voice 4+ feet above the instrument they're playing). Generally speaking and still using your example we're only talking about a couple of feet or less between the performer's mouth and the sound hole and neck of a guitar when listening to a solo performer playing and singing acoustically. If you're sitting next to them, like right next to them, like close enough to lean in and kiss them, then you'll hear their voice in-line with your ears and the guitar lower than you. If you get down to give them the groupie special while they're playing you'll hear the guitar in-line with your ears and the voice above you. But, if you're a reasonable distance from them (a couple of feet) and they've adjusted the volume of their strumming with the volume of their voice (basic musicianship), you'll hear a nice blend not dissimilar to what you would get listening to good speakers reproducing a recording of the performance. This is just how sound works. Just as, in another one of your examples; a choir on risers, you move closer you start hearing individual voices instead of the blend that happens when you step further away. If you get close enough to one performer you'll hear them cleanly and the others in the "background". You'll even be able to tell who's singing above the person at ear level. But who other than a real-life Forest Gump listens to a choir like that? Four feet - my mistake. Obviously not four feet. But you get the idea. Okay so you've got your choir. The sound of the entire choir takes up a size in the soundstage. You've got length, and depth. But what gives it the height? Imo the height is "artificial". When we listen we don't feel like there is no height. It's there right? Otherwise the sound is as flat as a pancake across a thin horizontal line. But what we perceive is not like that. It has body and height. It must be having it in stereo. But that is not a true height representation. It is an artifical representation of the sound "body" of that choir. I'm not sure what exactly causes this representation but I guess it's a combination of stereo sound, the size of the speakers or the sweet spot it throws and likely room interactions. A good example is the smaller airmotivs. Compared to my larger towers, the airmotivs height dispersion isn't quite as large. Less true to life. There is a slight squashing in height. With real height information you not only get the real impression of the choir with REAL height. But you can have the ambience of say a very tall chapel they are singing in. We already agree on the ambience possibility. Why not go to more subtle variations like the choir represented with real height? You could ask who would bother to listen to that. The answer right now appears to be nobody. But people said that with mono too. "Why would any nutcase care if the singer or the guitar was slightly to the left or the right?" The closer we can get to reality the better we capture the performance. Now the impressive thing is that stereo can indeed give you illusions of height. It does it a lot with treble information. Treble information automatically feels like it's coming from a bit above than the other stuff. But unlike that innacurate representation of height, with atmos, the height option could be more controlled, more precise and more realistic. A lot of what I've said is I've heard a few good sound systems. But not a single time did I hear it like I did where I could be fooled that there were real people standing and singing in front of me. They take up a space. A real space with height. That was the bit missing. It wasn't the speaker's fault imo. It was lack of height.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,962
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 1, 2016 8:44:36 GMT -5
The "height question". First, you need to consider that, since you only have two ears (each of which is basically a 1/4 round hole in the side of your head), ALL "height information" is an "illusion". Any information that contributes to your being able to tell the height of a sound source is "encoded" by the shape of your ears and head. (And a significant portion of it is "double encoded" by the way the sound field shifts when you move your head.) In other words, if you're willing to sit without moving your head, a pair of headphones can reproduce EVERYTHING your two ears can hear. (And, conversely, if someone were to play that "height information" out of ear-level speakers, but adjust it to compensate for how it would have sounded if it were coming from above due to the shape of your ears, and do a perfect job of it, then you would be totally unable to tell what direction it was really coming from.) However, while a good quality binaural recording can seem to do this pretty well, nobody's figured out how to do it perfectly with speakers. (With headphones, you have absolute control over what reaches each ear; with speakers, sound intended for each ear always reaches the other ear - in a largely uncontrollable way.) Part of the problem is that everybody's ears are a slightly different shape, so, in order to make "perfect binaural sound" for me, the recording would have to be made with a model with ears the same shape as mine, and your perfect recording would have to be made using a model that matched your ears. This has actually been experimented with. A recording can be made using a "generic binaural" setup, then adjusted using information derived from the specific HRTF (head-related transfer function) of each individual. (Think of it like Dirac, only it's for your ears instead of your room.) Back to the discussion.... I haven't personally tried any of the "fancy" binaural synthesizers. I have, however, listened to several binaural recordings.... and some of them are quite "compellingly realistic" - including height information. Which, perhaps, begs the question of why the format hasn't been more successful. (A reasonably good binaural recording is more compelling that a multi-channel recording with ANY number of channels - and requires a lot less playback equipment.) Perhaps "the market" really simply doesn't consider it terribly important. (I personally simply prefer listening to speakers most of the time.) My first degree was music performance and I was a professional musician for a time; one friend regularly performs at the Metropolitan Opera House (The Met), and few others are composers and performers of note. So, yeah, I've heard a few performances in my time. Yes, you can hear height differences. No, not like what you're describing in your original post... unless we're talking about Robert Wadlow, they're singing through a paper towel tube, or being in someone's personal space (and I've never heard someone's voice 4+ feet above the instrument they're playing). Generally speaking and still using your example we're only talking about a couple of feet or less between the performer's mouth and the sound hole and neck of a guitar when listening to a solo performer playing and singing acoustically. If you're sitting next to them, like right next to them, like close enough to lean in and kiss them, then you'll hear their voice in-line with your ears and the guitar lower than you. If you get down to give them the groupie special while they're playing you'll hear the guitar in-line with your ears and the voice above you. But, if you're a reasonable distance from them (a couple of feet) and they've adjusted the volume of their strumming with the volume of their voice (basic musicianship), you'll hear a nice blend not dissimilar to what you would get listening to good speakers reproducing a recording of the performance. This is just how sound works. Just as, in another one of your examples; a choir on risers, you move closer you start hearing individual voices instead of the blend that happens when you step further away. If you get close enough to one performer you'll hear them cleanly and the others in the "background". You'll even be able to tell who's singing above the person at ear level. But who other than a real-life Forest Gump listens to a choir like that? Four feet - my mistake. Obviously not four feet. But you get the idea. Okay so you've got your choir. The sound of the entire choir takes up a size in the soundstage. You've got length, and depth. But what gives it the height? Imo the height is "artificial". When we listen we don't feel like there is no height. It's there right? Otherwise the sound is as flat as a pancake across a thin horizontal line. But what we perceive is not like that. It has body and height. It must be having it in stereo. But that is not a true height representation. It is an artifical representation of the sound "body" of that choir. I'm not sure what exactly causes this representation but I guess it's a combination of stereo sound, the size of the speakers or the sweet spot it throws and likely room interactions. A good example is the smaller airmotivs. Compared to my larger towers, the airmotivs height dispersion isn't quite as large. Less true to life. There is a slight squashing in height. With real height information you not only get the real impression of the choir with REAL height. But you can have the ambience of say a very tall chapel they are singing in. We already agree on the ambience possibility. Why not go to more subtle variations like the choir represented with real height? You could ask who would bother to listen to that. The answer right now appears to be nobody. But people said that with mono too. "Why would any nutcase care if the singer or the guitar was slightly to the left or the right?" The closer we can get to reality the better we capture the performance. Now the impressive thing is that stereo can indeed give you illusions of height. It does it a lot with treble information. Treble information automatically feels like it's coming from a bit above than the other stuff. But unlike that innacurate representation of height, with atmos, the height option could be more controlled, more precise and more realistic. A lot of what I've said is I've heard a few good sound systems. But not a single time did I hear it like I did where I could be fooled that there were real people standing and singing in front of me. They take up a space. A real space with height. That was the bit missing. It wasn't the speaker's fault imo. It was lack of height.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,962
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 1, 2016 9:04:44 GMT -5
I mentioned this in another post - but here's something to think about. BINAURAL recordings offer absolutely THE most accurate surround sound experience - with near-perfect surround and height information. In fact, about the only down-side to using binaural is that it only works well with headphones. However, even among headphone listeners, binaural recordings have NOT proven to be an overwhelming commercial success. Should we conclude that "the kind of people who like listening to headphones don't care about surround sound", or should we conclude that most people really don't care about accurate surround sound reproduction, and that it's just a fad? And, for the person who mentioned "mono and stereo"....... First there was one channel (mono). Then stereo came along. Then surround sound (in the 1970's; remember SQ4 and CD4). Then surround sound was abandoned (due to technical limitations and lack of interest). Then there was stereo again. Then there was binaural - but nobody much bought it. Then surround sound came back (when Dolby Digital and DTS made it easier to do). And now we have height information in formats like Atmos and DTS-X. I seriously wonder if, when we look back in 20 years or so, we'll remember 3D TV as "a fad - only popular with a few people willing to buy those glasses", and, right alongside it, and in the same tone of voice, we'll be mentioning "those people who were actually willing to install speakers in their ceiling". The short answer there is that there isn't much music recorded in surround sound, and virtually all of that is 5.1 (and not 7.1). (And, other than by synthesizing it, in order to do height channels, you'd have to hang microphones from the ceiling; my guess is that none of the existing content was recorded that way.) And, to be blunt, while raindrops, and killer drones, and bullet ricochets, may normally be heard from above - there aren't too many musical instruments that fly - and "room height ambience" doesn't seem to be a priority. Note that Atmos does in fact have a synthesis mode.... The only immersive format being actively used for music is Auro-3D. It has its roots in music recording and its upmixer Auromatic has its focus on creating room reflections instead of steering sound sources. There is a limited number of Blu-ray music only recordings: www.auro-3d.com/consumer/bluraythese are lesser known artists and it reminds me of the old direct to disk sheffield records in terms of selection. They are releasing much more music than movies on Blu-ray (much to the dismay of those videophiles who bought it to enjoy movies in native 3D). The Dolby and DTS 3D upmixers have not been favorably received for music as they tend to periodically place instruments or voices in odd locations. Auromatic keeps the front sound stage intact. Atmos and DTS:X maybe good if the music is recorded in that format but it does not seem that they were developed for that use.
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jun 1, 2016 10:17:26 GMT -5
What do "audiophiles" really want? Probably the standard answer is that they want their listening room experience to as closely replicate a live performance as possible. They want to feel like they are actually at the performance itself.
Now if you sit down and think about what that really means, there are so many variables involved in terms of trying to reproduce such a thing, that it is pretty much impossible to achieve. The variables exist with the venue itself that you are trying to recreate - how it is set up and where you sit. It depends on the equipment used by the artist and how the sound engineers choose to present it.
Then you have all the variables associated with transforming the live performance to the recording that is released. What we eventually hear is based on how the engineers decide to handle the original sound files.
After that comes the variables introduced by your own listening room and the equipment you use.
If you're talking about "height" with music... does that mean if at the venue you sat below the stage you want to hear everything coming from above you in your own listening room? Or if you sat up in the balcony, you want to hear everything coming from below you? If it was an amplified concert, you wouldn't even be hearing the music coming from the musician or vocalist, you'd be hearing the sound coming from the massive monitors used at the concert.
Now if you were in an intimate setting like a coffee house, and you were sitting right up front and the artist was purely acoustic (no amplification), then you could probably discern height information from the vocals versus guitar, or vocals from the keyboard, etc. But if you were sitting further back or the artist was amplified, then height information would be of no use. Then you also have to consider whether or not the artist himself or herself considers height information to be of any importance. Is there anything "artistic" about the listener being able to determine that a voice is physically higher than the guitar? Or would they want you to instead focus on the integration of the voices and instruments used in the performance into a cohesive whole?
I believe you have to weigh the costs of presenting more and more finite details of a recording/performance versus the utility of that. How much detail do we really want, and does it matter that such "detail" is often just an illusion created by the engineers?
In the end, let's just hope it sounds good to our ears.
|
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,921
|
Post by hemster on Jun 1, 2016 12:26:21 GMT -5
... In the end, let's just hope it sounds good to our ears. How good is good enough? As long as the music is enjoyable to our own ears, that should do it. I was in a piano bar over the weekend with live performances. Acoustics in the bar were terrible but I certainly enjoyed the performance very much without worrying about where the sound emanated from.
|
|
novisnick
EmoPhile
CEO Secret Monoblock Society
Posts: 27,230
|
Post by novisnick on Jun 1, 2016 13:27:26 GMT -5
... In the end, let's just hope it sounds good to our ears. How good is good enough? As long as the music is enjoyable to our own ears, that should do it. I was in a piano bar over the weekend with live performances. Acoustics in the bar were terrible but I certainly enjoyed the performance very much without worrying about where the sound emanated from. Not exactly a piano bar, but this is where I heard the music this weekend.
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jun 1, 2016 14:24:51 GMT -5
... In the end, let's just hope it sounds good to our ears. How good is good enough? As long as the music is enjoyable to our own ears, that should do it. I was in a piano bar over the weekend with live performances. Acoustics in the bar were terrible but I certainly enjoyed the performance very much without worrying about where the sound emanated from. Well the test of being a true audiophile is: 1. It NEVER sounds good enough. 2. You would rather listen to something technically well recorded, rather than something that is emotionally stirring but not so well recorded. And also (this one courtesy of Nick), Your wife thinks your system cost 10% of what it really cost.
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Jun 1, 2016 15:03:08 GMT -5
Thanks for all this information but all I want to do right now is turn on my rig and listen to some tunes...I thought the bass last night was a little boomy but I still get goosebumps...☺
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jun 1, 2016 16:34:16 GMT -5
What do "audiophiles" really want? Probably the standard answer is that they want their listening room experience to as closely replicate a live performance as possible. They want to feel like they are actually at the performance itself. Now if you sit down and think about what that really means, there are so many variables involved in terms of trying to reproduce such a thing, that it is pretty much impossible to achieve. The variables exist with the venue itself that you are trying to recreate - how it is set up and where you sit. It depends on the equipment used by the artist and how the sound engineers choose to present it. Then you have all the variables associated with transforming the live performance to the recording that is released. What we eventually hear is based on how the engineers decide to handle the original sound files. After that comes the variables introduced by your own listening room and the equipment you use. If you're talking about "height" with music... does that mean if at the venue you sat below the stage you want to hear everything coming from above you in your own listening room? Or if you sat up in the balcony, you want to hear everything coming from below you? If it was an amplified concert, you wouldn't even be hearing the music coming from the musician or vocalist, you'd be hearing the sound coming from the massive monitors used at the concert. Now if you were in an intimate setting like a coffee house, and you were sitting right up front and the artist was purely acoustic (no amplification), then you could probably discern height information from the vocals versus guitar, or vocals from the keyboard, etc. But if you were sitting further back or the artist was amplified, then height information would be of no use. Then you also have to consider whether or not the artist himself or herself considers height information to be of any importance. Is there anything "artistic" about the listener being able to determine that a voice is physically higher than the guitar? Or would they want you to instead focus on the integration of the voices and instruments used in the performance into a cohesive whole? I believe you have to weigh the costs of presenting more and more finite details of a recording/performance versus the utility of that. How much detail do we really want, and does it matter that such "detail" is often just an illusion created by the engineers? In the end, let's just hope it sounds good to our ears. Yes ideally we would want to hear what it sounded like over there. And you're right there's all kinds of things in the way of that. For me I want it to sound realistic. Make me believe it's real. Though this is possible, I am not interested in say listening like the music is above me on a stage and I am the audience. I simply want the height dimensions of the instruments and stuff represented accurately. So when I hear the body of an instrument it is in correct proportion including height and also in correct relative proportion to other instruments. Subtle but realistic. So I guess this applies more to unamplified music recorded in one take. I find that kind of thing fascinating. Not instruments and singers in a studio booth doing separate takes layered together on a track. Or listening to a rock concert.
|
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,921
|
Post by hemster on Jun 1, 2016 22:14:22 GMT -5
How good is good enough? As long as the music is enjoyable to our own ears, that should do it. I was in a piano bar over the weekend with live performances. Acoustics in the bar were terrible but I certainly enjoyed the performance very much without worrying about where the sound emanated from. Well the test of being a true audiophile is: 1. It NEVER sounds good enough. 2. You would rather listen to something technically well recorded, rather than something that is emotionally stirring but not so well recorded. And also (this one courtesy of Nick), Your wife thinks your system cost 10% of what it really cost. Well thanks... but I agree with a whole 0% of all that!
|
|
novisnick
EmoPhile
CEO Secret Monoblock Society
Posts: 27,230
|
Post by novisnick on Jun 1, 2016 22:19:27 GMT -5
Well the test of being a true audiophile is: 1. It NEVER sounds good enough. 2. You would rather listen to something technically well recorded, rather than something that is emotionally stirring but not so well recorded. And also (this one courtesy of Nick), Your wife thinks your system cost 10% of what it really cost. Well thanks... but I agree with a whole 0% of all that! I liked the part about the cost of my system being 15% 10% of its actual cost!
|
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,921
|
Post by hemster on Jun 1, 2016 22:23:00 GMT -5
Well thanks... but I agree with a whole 0% of all that! I liked the part about the cost of my system being 15% 10% of its actual cost! Delusions of grandeur!
|
|
novisnick
EmoPhile
CEO Secret Monoblock Society
Posts: 27,230
|
Post by novisnick on Jun 1, 2016 22:27:52 GMT -5
I liked the part about the cost of my system being 15% 10% of its actual cost! Delusions of grandeur! I DO put a lot of hours in enjoying my gear! One vise!,,,,,,,,,,our cave! Don't drink,,,,,Don't smoke,,,,,,,,,hey, we could write a song about that!!!!,,,,,,,,,
|
|