|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Feb 14, 2016 18:37:53 GMT -5
Except that except for horns every musical instrument is loaded with harmonics, it's what makes them sound different to a large extent. Agree, but I don't want gear harmonics added to the instrument harmonics. I'd prefer to hear the original instrument's harmonics on their own. Similarly, making a non harmonic instrument "sound" like a harmonic instrument doesn't appeal to me. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Feb 14, 2016 19:52:25 GMT -5
An analogy just occured to me.
When I moved to my current residence, all the light fixtures were loaded with CFL fluorescent lamps.
Low energy draw, last forever, reliable, environmentally correct, so pc.
But yet.....
Something seemed wrong.
As I replaced them all with good old incandescent bulbs, and relaxed into my great room with a fireplace, candles, tubes and incandescent bulbs, I said aaaaaah.
I guess some of us prefer the cold, shadowless "accuracy" of cafeteria or grocery store lighting and some the warm inviting glow I experience.
To each his own, suppose.......but I know where I stand or sit.
|
|
|
|
Post by lionear on Feb 14, 2016 22:27:24 GMT -5
A very simple question - how do you know which speaker is the most "accurate" in your listening room - how do you know what the original performance sounded like and whether that's what your speaker/room are doing? We can all agree that no two speakers sound alike, so who can say which is more "accurate"? And please don't point to frequency response graphs, as they are only one part of the story as you well know. And if you can't be sure about that, the whole "accuracy" argument falls apart. Trust your ears, or spin components based on measurements seeking nirvana, IMO. It's a logical fallacy that "no one knows /can prove what is perfectly accurate, therefore we shouldn't strive for accuracy at all". There is no solid line where on one side we have perfect accuracy and then everything on the other side of the line is hugely inaccurate. i.e.; chose your poison. The fact is there are levels of accuracy and they can be measured relatively accurately. It's not a simplistic black (inaccurate) versus white (accurate) scenario, there are a lot of shades of grey. I have tested a lot off gear, both pro and home and like Keith I can say with total confidence that "not a single one of them ever managed to somehow sound different that its measurements". For sure I like to listen to any gear before I buy it, preferably in my own environment. But that is not always possible, so I have to rely on something to start the selection process off. That's either my testing or testing by someone I trust, who has consistent, proven results. Or at the very least results that have previously coincided with mine. If gear tests in the blacker shades of grey then I'm most unlikely to like its sound, while if it tests in the lighter shades of grey than there's a far better chance that I will like it. For example, I know from past experiences that any audible harmonics (odd or even) will annoy me, so I can quickly pass over any gear that tests with that feature. Cheers Gary Could you let us know which gear you tested, what tests you did, and how that connected up to what you heard? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2016 1:10:18 GMT -5
Except that except for horns every musical instrument is loaded with harmonics, it's what makes them sound different to a large extent. I'm not a musician so your post about horn instruments sort of interests and also confuses me. Are you saying horns have little or no harmonics (not loaded with)? I thought harmonics were what make a trombone, trumpet, french horn, sax, etc. different from each other when playing the same note. Maybe you are saying their harmonics are different too a lesser audible degree than non-horn instruments? Please explain and educate me. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Feb 15, 2016 2:27:44 GMT -5
Could you let us know which gear you tested, what tests you did, and how that connected up to what you heard? Seriously, you want 40 years of test results?  I had a calibrated Tektronix oscilloscope for about 10 years coupled with a Tektronix frequency generator. Plus for a couple of decades I had ready access to numerous others, all NATA certified. When I was working roady/sound/lights my crew had all of the necessary testing and calibration equipment for live performance. I make no claim to being an expert, far from it, I know just enough to get by. At the same time I had access to a lot of hifi gear, the company I worked for at the time was the Australian Distributor for Tannoy, Nakamichi, Clarion, Mitsubishi, Thorn, Wharfedale, etc. They were also Australia's largest manufacturer and distributor of tubes. both audio and radio . It didn't take me very long to correlate what I was hearing to what the scope was showing, what I liked and what I did't like and what I didn't like looked like on the scope. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Feb 15, 2016 5:36:10 GMT -5
Except that except for horns every musical instrument is loaded with harmonics, it's what makes them sound different to a large extent. I'm not a musician so your post about horn instruments sort of interests and also confuses me. Are you saying horns have little or no harmonics (not loaded with)? I thought harmonics were what make a trombone, trumpet, french horn, sax, etc. different from each other when playing the same note. Maybe you are saying their harmonics are different too a lesser audible degree than non-horn instruments? Please explain and educate me. Thanks! I meant that horn instruments have a greater proportion of their sound from fundamental frequencies compared to woodwinds or strings. And yes, the relative harmonic structure (timbre) is different for each instrument. As an aside, a saxophine is a woodwind instrument although brass. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2016 5:47:29 GMT -5
I'm not a musician so your post about horn instruments sort of interests and also confuses me. Are you saying horns have little or no harmonics (not loaded with)? I thought harmonics were what make a trombone, trumpet, french horn, sax, etc. different from each other when playing the same note. Maybe you are saying their harmonics are different too a lesser audible degree than non-horn instruments? Please explain and educate me. Thanks! I meant that horn instruments have a greater proportion of their sound from fundamental frequencies compared to woodwinds or strings. And yes, the relative harmonic structure (timbre) is different for each instrument. As an aside, a saxophine is a woodwind instrument although brass. Thanks much Bill, that clears it up for me. I'm guessing sometimes the term horn in relation to musical instruments is stretched quite a bit because I've heard the term horn (or brass) section including saxes and clarinets, etc. but obviously then that is not technically correct and maybe more used by non-musicians. My uncle was a sax/clarinet player plus he had his own big band/swing orchestra back in the late 20's-50's in a small region of the West.  |
|
|
|
Post by lionear on Feb 15, 2016 11:34:59 GMT -5
Could you let us know which gear you tested, what tests you did, and how that connected up to what you heard? Seriously, you want 40 years of test results? I had a calibrated Tektronix oscilloscope for about 10 years coupled with a Tektronix frequency generator. Plus for a couple of decades I had ready access to numerous others, all NATA certified. When I was working roady/sound/lights my crew had all of the necessary testing and calibration equipment for live performance. I make no claim to being an expert, far from it, I know just enough to get by. At the same time I had access to a lot of hifi gear, the company I worked for at the time was the Australian Distributor for Tannoy, Nakamichi, Clarion, Mitsubishi, Thorn, Wharfedale, etc. They were also Australia's largest manufacturer and distributor of tubes. both audio and radio . It didn't take me very long to correlate what I was hearing to what the scope was showing, what I liked and what I did't like and what I didn't like looked like on the scope. Cheers Gary No I don't want the test results. Could you pick one component, one test procedure that you conducted on that component, and then describe what you heard about that component that correlated with the test? |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Feb 15, 2016 16:11:59 GMT -5
No I don't want the test results. Could you pick one component, one test procedure that you conducted on that component, and then describe what you heard about that component that correlated with the test? I make no claim to being a perfect scientific test agent, I sure as hell didn't follow a strict regimen of testing procedures, it just organically occurred, not at all pre planned. Sometimes I listened first, sometimes I tested first, sometimes I listened to one piece of gear, sometimes multiples, one after the other, sometimes in my set up, sometimes in the acoustic sound room were I worked, sometimes in retail outlets etc. An example perhaps; In the mid 80's a good friend of mine was looking for a new power amplifier, so we went along to our local hifi outlet which is long since closed. They had a pretty good sound room which had the same pair of speakers that he owned (he bought them from there), so whilst not a perfect test it wasn't too bad. Between us we had a pretty good vinyl collection but one of the best quality wise that we used for comparison was the All-Time Greatest Hits compilation album by Roy Orbison. The original analog master tapes that the album was cut from are considered some of the best around, they were later used for a number of CD releases. We listened to about 5 different power amplifiers, Pioneer, Marantz, Kenwood and Yamaha (an A2000, Class A if I remember correctly). When we listened to Running Scared, which opens with just guitar and voice, Bolero style, in both channels, we both noticed that the Yamaha amp wasn't quite as quiet as the Pioneer (which BTW he eventually bought) whilst both utilised the same sources. It builds to a violin driven climax in the right channel which also showed up some cross talk, bleed into the left channel. I talked the proprietor into loaning us the 2 amplifiers with the view that we would return one and keep the other. We had no intention of keeping the Yamaha, but I really wanted to see whether what we heard translated to what I could see on the cro at work. I don't remember the exact number but it did demonstrate measurable cross talk and I recall that its signal to noise ratio was in the 70's. This is an example of listen and compare first and test later, plenty of times I have tested first and listened later. For sure not a perfect test, not double blind, had expectation bias etc etc, but that's what I did. Still do to some extent, although it's not as easy as there are no local audio retailers, the closest one is a 2 hour drive each way. As a result I rely more on specs to narrow the field down these days, but the final go ahead is always in the listening. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by lionear on Feb 15, 2016 18:02:44 GMT -5
Gary Cook Thanks. My view is that if you hear it, you don't need to measure it. If you don't hear it, then it's not a problem and you don't have to measure it. (It might be different if you're the design engineer and you need to make improvements, etc.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Feb 15, 2016 18:24:43 GMT -5
Gary Cook Thanks. My view is that if you hear it, you don't need to measure it. If you don't hear it, then it's not a problem and you don't have to measure it. (It might be different if you're the design engineer and you need to make improvements, etc.) I understand, but these days audio gear is pretty damn good, it's rare to find something that has an obvious, in your face, issue. Price has proven to be far from a good, reliable measure of whether or not I will like something. Obviously I have a test selection of tracks that I utilise but if it's subtle I can still miss it. Returning gear after a month because it has some obscure trait that I don't like is very rarely possible and/or practical. Plus there is so much available that I need something to narrow the field, I can't possibly listen to everything. Measurements help with both those issues. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by Porscheguy on Feb 15, 2016 19:30:41 GMT -5
Hasn't Bose created a leviathan of a company creating products that sound good (to many) rather than be accurate?
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,099
Member is Online
|
Post by klinemj on Feb 15, 2016 21:34:24 GMT -5
Hasn't Bose created a leviathan of a company creating products that sound good (to many) rather than be accurate? To perhaps more accurately put it (notice that pun...?), their MARKETING sounds good to many... Mark |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 16, 2016 1:17:43 GMT -5
Not at all.... and, in fact, quite the opposite. My assumption is that anything whatsoever COULD be described in its entirety IF I had a complete set of measurements. Therefore, the more measurements I have, and the better I am able to correlate those measurements with what I hear, the better able I will be to find equipment that I like. And, if I hear something that SEEMS not to correlate with the measurements I have, then that means that I DON'T have all the measurements I need, or I'm not interpreting them correctly. I agree with you that we often don't have all the measurements (and, yes, the audio industry, as well as many audiophiles, is often guilty of measuring the things that are easy to measure rather than those that actually provide the information we seek). However, that doesn't change the fact that measurements are the only way we have of screening the vast majority of audio equipment in the world - even if your goal is simply in narrowing the field to the ones wyou actually want to listen to. There are literally thousands of pieces of audio equipment in the world, and I'm only ever going to have an opportunity to hear a small percentage of them. And, even worse, of all the equipment I DO get to hear, a lot of it is under conditions where I can't hear it well enough to make a reasonable judgment about it. (And, whether you like to admit it or not, hearing, for example, three different amplifiers, each at a different house, and with different speakers, or in dissimilar hotel rooms at a show, often tells you little about how they compare to each other, or how they'll sound in YOUR house, with YOUR speakers. Therefore, it's a losing battle to try and audition pieces of equipment, one at a time, in the hopes of finding the best ones for you.) I would equate selecting audio equipment to looking for gold. It may be fun to wander around in parks, picking up rocks, and looking at each to see if it looks like gold. (And, if that's what you do for fun - then good for you.) However, if you really want to find gold during your lifetime, then you need survey maps, and assay equipment, and all sorts of measurements and information to tell you where to look... and you also need to understand how all that equipment works... or you're more likely to wander around for a very long time, and pick up a lot of pyrite.... (otherwise known as "fool's gold"). Now, to be totally honest with you, I have a lot of years of experience designing and building audio and other electronic equipment, and I've also studied and run a lot of measurements, so I have a VERY good idea about how most measurements do or don't correlate with the way equipment sounds. In other words, I am probably better than most "amateurs" at telling how something will sound from the measurements. And, to put it bluntly, while I can't always tell that I'm going to like the way a piece of equipment sounds from the measurements, I can usually get a pretty good general idea of how it will sound, and I have a very good track record of being able to tell that I won't like a certain piece of equipment because it measures especially badly in some specific area that I know is important. However, I believe that even people who don't necessarily know all about every measurement, and perhaps have no desire to, can still benefit from knowing at least a little bit about them. Imagine you're going to the track to bet on horses - for fun. You may not want to spend hours reading performance statistics, and you quite probably aren't interested enough to take a class in statistics, followed by one in veterinary medicine... however, even so, you would probably benefit by reading the stats for the last few races each horse has run... rather than "just picking a horse with a nice name" or throwing a dart at the handicapping sheet. Your big assumption, Keith, is that you've got a complete set of measurements . With all due respect. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 16, 2016 1:34:24 GMT -5
Actually no - but it's a great example. What you EXPERIENCE is different, because your point of observation is different. However, both how gravity acts in general, and how its action in a given locale is affected by the parameters specific to that locale, are known. Even though the amount of gravity on the surface of the Earth is far different from the gravity on the moon, and the gravity on the space station in orbit is different yet, since we know the specifics of each, if you tell me the weight or mass of an object on any one of them, I can predict what it will be on the others with excellent accuracy. Likewise, the current measurements seem to confirm our predictions; and, if they didn't, we would be busily adjusting our predictions, or the theories on which those predictions were based, or trying to determine where the errors were in our measurements. (However, nowhere in there do I hear anyone suggesting that there's something involved we can't measure, or that there's any reason to imagine that we won't be able to figure out what's going on from the measurements.) For example, if what you hear when you listen to a speaker APPEARS to disagree with the measurements, then perhaps your measurements are incorrect, or perhaps you simply don't know how to interpret them... or perhaps, in order to understand the difference, you'll need to take a class in room acoustics... |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 16, 2016 1:58:21 GMT -5
I'm also rather into photography and digital image editing. Sometimes I like to make accurate images; other times I'm "feeling artistic". I have a huge collection of plugins and applications for altering images in interesting ways. However, when I take my pictures, I still do my best to take them in focus, and under reasonable lighting, and to color correct them before beginning. I also calibrate my monitor, and I've even been known to take calibration patches with my camera. My point is that, regardless of my goal in the end, I would much prefer that all of the alterations be UNDER MY CONTROL; therefore, I want to start with an image that is in focus, color accurate, and otherwise standard. And, when it comes to audio reproduction, I tend to look at it the same way. I want my main audio system to be accurate - and to let me hear EXACTLY what's there. I assume that, if I'm listening to an album I like, I want to hear it as the artist and production engineer intended. And if, for whatever reason, I choose to alter that, I want that to be under my control as well. I don't want my system to do it for me - and especially not in random and unpredictable ways. I don't want my system to sound "cold", or "warm" or "lively" or "dull" - I want it to sound exactly like whatever I play through it (and, yes, in a particular case, that may be any of the aforementioned). I like Soraia, and I don't like Elvis; however, if I play Elvis, I want him to sound like Elvis, and NOT like Soraia. I've often wondered why people who make recordings don't record a few sweeps, and perhaps one or two impulses, so as to have a calibration standard for the venue in which the recording takes place. Therefore, it's pretty obvious that MY preference is ACCURACY (but even that means different things to different people). But, as you say, I do agree that everyone should choose a system that sounds good to THEM, and meets THEIR goals. (But I also still say that understanding how all the measurements work is the fastest way to get there with the fewest wrong turns.) In my photography, I strive for sharpness and accurate color rendition, most of the time. Sometimes, the most evocative photo is blurred or a little out of focus or tilted or, you get the idea. It makes sense to me that accuracy would indeed be pleasing to the ear. I get to hear a lot of amplified and unamplified instruments and voices, and that usually sounds pleasing to me. But God bless us all and help us admit that we are crazy and should not get upset at a brother's different brand of crazy. That would be rude and hypocritical of any of us. |
|
|
|
Post by laserpaddy on Feb 16, 2016 6:13:03 GMT -5
For me music recalls a memory at, sometimes that exact point in time whereby the song created the emotional image, that hearing that song envelopes me- almost time travel....For instance Boston- More than A feeling- I can see her hair blowing around from the wind coming through the windows as we speed down the interstate in our new mustang...newly married, newly out of military technical training headed to parts unknown--our future together...
Now for me- I can hear this song and nothing happens- but when the right dynamics match the sound memory that the moment created- I can actually smell the ocean while being 1500 miles from it...
Is it only when I hear it on a 10K set of speakers? or a little mark audio diy chr-70 gen 3 full range system with my lm3886 diy chipamp? Doesn't matter at least for me, because I am searching for the right combination of parts that creates this experience every time- which is impossible. SO the accuracy of recreating the sound event to trigger an emotionally stored memory must be coupled with the sound dynamics- that creates in my mind the smell of the ocean from the middle of nowhere- via my ears
Yes I ramble...
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Feb 16, 2016 9:32:22 GMT -5
Actually no - but it's a great example. What you EXPERIENCE is different, because your point of observation is different. However, both how gravity acts in general, and how its action in a given locale is affected by the parameters specific to that locale, are known. Even though the amount of gravity on the surface of the Earth is far different from the gravity on the moon, and the gravity on the space station in orbit is different yet, since we know the specifics of each, if you tell me the weight or mass of an object on any one of them, I can predict what it will be on the others with excellent accuracy. Likewise, the current measurements seem to confirm our predictions; and, if they didn't, we would be busily adjusting our predictions, or the theories on which those predictions were based, or trying to determine where the errors were in our measurements. (However, nowhere in there do I hear anyone suggesting that there's something involved we can't measure, or that there's any reason to imagine that we won't be able to figure out what's going on from the measurements.) For example, if what you hear when you listen to a speaker APPEARS to disagree with the measurements, then perhaps your measurements are incorrect, or perhaps you simply don't know how to interpret them... or perhaps, in order to understand the difference, you'll need to take a class in room acoustics... Actually yes, the Earth's gravitational field does get altered by gravitational waves, just like Einstein predicted. They're going to win the Nobel prize for having proven his theory. As for the correlation between audio measurements and what we hear, first off, our brain not only *processes* the signal that is coming from our auditory nerve. Rather, our brain constantly *adapts* itself to the signal so the processing that goes on in our brain is constantly changing over time, and, on top of that, our brain actually even *controls* physical *movement* of outer hair cells in our cochlea: Secondly, how accurate a signal needs to be for a certain type of distortion to be inaudible / how inaccurate it needs to be for it to be audible is not as straightforward as many think: The bottom line is, you can't tell whether something is "accurate" without being able to tell how accurate it needs to be for the given purpose. LIGO didn't detect gravitational waves until the measurement system itself was accurate enough to detect them. Same thing can, and does happen in various areas of the audio industry. When talking about accuracy of an audio signal, like Keith O. Johnson said in the video I linked, our auditory perception is the deal. The "thing" about accuracy is mainly a mixed bag of (1) snake-oil, and (2) your average self defined objectivist / ABXer believing a difference is inaudible until proven audible. The alternative choice is to adhere to a much more scientific approach outlined in e.g. section 6 on page 8 of the document linked below, which is something the self defined objectivists / ABXers never do. https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-3-201502-I!!PDF-E.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Feb 16, 2016 10:39:04 GMT -5
Keith, a LOT of my photographs start out that way too. Most even. I am a darkroom nerd with Dektol stained fingers, well, they used to be! But since digital came around, I have slowly become more free in the way I take photos. Still most of the time I am wanting to start with a well exposed and composed digital negative. But sometimes I just put the damn thing on auto and push the button. I take a lot of photos with the camera hanging at my side so it is below my waist. I have gotten better at holding it relatively straight while not looking through the lens and I let the depth of field and focus take care of themselves or I roughly pre-set the focus. I throw away a LOT of these images! But some of them are valid and good and moving and very different from anything I would normally take using my left brain. Deep inside, these are still a little risky and odd to me, but I have to say that some of the images are wonderful and not like the images I have been making over the last 40 years. Sadly, I don't have a good example here at work, but I will post one tonight when I get home if I remember. Approaching SOME of my photographs this way has been exciting and productive. But to get back to the original post, I cannot imagine approaching sound reproduction that way! Funny difference, but photography is self expression while audiophilery is about reproduction. Trey I'm also rather into photography and digital image editing. Sometimes I like to make accurate images; other times I'm "feeling artistic". I have a huge collection of plugins and applications for altering images in interesting ways. However, when I take my pictures, I still do my best to take them in focus, and under reasonable lighting, and to color correct them before beginning. I also calibrate my monitor, and I've even been known to take calibration patches with my camera. My point is that, regardless of my goal in the end, I would much prefer that all of the alterations be UNDER MY CONTROL; therefore, I want to start with an image that is in focus, color accurate, and otherwise standard. And, when it comes to audio reproduction, I tend to look at it the same way. I want my main audio system to be accurate - and to let me hear EXACTLY what's there. I assume that, if I'm listening to an album I like, I want to hear it as the artist and production engineer intended. And if, for whatever reason, I choose to alter that, I want that to be under my control as well. I don't want my system to do it for me - and especially not in random and unpredictable ways. I don't want my system to sound "cold", or "warm" or "lively" or "dull" - I want it to sound exactly like whatever I play through it (and, yes, in a particular case, that may be any of the aforementioned). I like Soraia, and I don't like Elvis; however, if I play Elvis, I want him to sound like Elvis, and NOT like Soraia. I've often wondered why people who make recordings don't record a few sweeps, and perhaps one or two impulses, so as to have a calibration standard for the venue in which the recording takes place. Therefore, it's pretty obvious that MY preference is ACCURACY (but even that means different things to different people). But, as you say, I do agree that everyone should choose a system that sounds good to THEM, and meets THEIR goals. (But I also still say that understanding how all the measurements work is the fastest way to get there with the fewest wrong turns.) In my photography, I strive for sharpness and accurate color rendition, most of the time. Sometimes, the most evocative photo is blurred or a little out of focus or tilted or, you get the idea. It makes sense to me that accuracy would indeed be pleasing to the ear. I get to hear a lot of amplified and unamplified instruments and voices, and that usually sounds pleasing to me. But God bless us all and help us admit that we are crazy and should not get upset at a brother's different brand of crazy. That would be rude and hypocritical of any of us. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 16, 2016 11:16:18 GMT -5
Trey, I think you've hit upon a major point - which I agree with wholeheartedly - but many audiophiles do not. What we're talking about here is (at least ostensibly) audio REPRODUCTION... and I find myself unable to think about it as anything else. If your system is accurate, and you don't like the way an album sounds, then perhaps you just plain don't like the way the artist sounds... or the way the mastering engineer thinks. Many audiophiles seem to consider that their playback system is part of the production process - and I just don't think that way at all. And, to use the camera analogy, if I really thought that a certain picture was too blue, I wouldn't feel badly about correcting it in Photoshop - but I wouldn't want a camera that tints everything a little on the yellow side. Back to photography; I was never involved much beyond the occasional snapshot back in the days of developers and chemicals.... but I just LOVE being able to shoot hundreds of pictures to get one good one (and not having to pay for the film; and not having to wait to see what I've got.) It used to drive me nuts to shoot a roll of film, and get that one great shot, only to find that it was a little out of focus - and now it was much too late to shoot it again. Being able to actually see your shots right after you take them is, at least to me, a quantum jump forward in the technology... and I can;t imagine going back.  Keith, a LOT of my photographs start out that way too. Most even. I am a darkroom nerd with Dektol stained fingers, well, they used to be! But since digital came around, I have slowly become more free in the way I take photos. Still most of the time I am wanting to start with a well exposed and composed digital negative. But sometimes I just put the damn thing on auto and push the button. I take a lot of photos with the camera hanging at my side so it is below my waist. I have gotten better at holding it relatively straight while not looking through the lens and I let the depth of field and focus take care of themselves or I roughly pre-set the focus. I throw away a LOT of these images! But some of them are valid and good and moving and very different from anything I would normally take using my left brain. Deep inside, these are still a little risky and odd to me, but I have to say that some of the images are wonderful and not like the images I have been making over the last 40 years. Sadly, I don't have a good example here at work, but I will post one tonight when I get home if I remember. Approaching SOME of my photographs this way has been exciting and productive. But to get back to the original post, I cannot imagine approaching sound reproduction that way! Funny difference, but photography is self expression while audiophilery is about reproduction. Trey I'm also rather into photography and digital image editing. Sometimes I like to make accurate images; other times I'm "feeling artistic". I have a huge collection of plugins and applications for altering images in interesting ways. However, when I take my pictures, I still do my best to take them in focus, and under reasonable lighting, and to color correct them before beginning. I also calibrate my monitor, and I've even been known to take calibration patches with my camera. My point is that, regardless of my goal in the end, I would much prefer that all of the alterations be UNDER MY CONTROL; therefore, I want to start with an image that is in focus, color accurate, and otherwise standard. And, when it comes to audio reproduction, I tend to look at it the same way. I want my main audio system to be accurate - and to let me hear EXACTLY what's there. I assume that, if I'm listening to an album I like, I want to hear it as the artist and production engineer intended. And if, for whatever reason, I choose to alter that, I want that to be under my control as well. I don't want my system to do it for me - and especially not in random and unpredictable ways. I don't want my system to sound "cold", or "warm" or "lively" or "dull" - I want it to sound exactly like whatever I play through it (and, yes, in a particular case, that may be any of the aforementioned). I like Soraia, and I don't like Elvis; however, if I play Elvis, I want him to sound like Elvis, and NOT like Soraia. I've often wondered why people who make recordings don't record a few sweeps, and perhaps one or two impulses, so as to have a calibration standard for the venue in which the recording takes place. Therefore, it's pretty obvious that MY preference is ACCURACY (but even that means different things to different people). But, as you say, I do agree that everyone should choose a system that sounds good to THEM, and meets THEIR goals. (But I also still say that understanding how all the measurements work is the fastest way to get there with the fewest wrong turns.) |
|
