KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,275
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 12, 2020 2:19:04 GMT -5
As everyone here knows by now, I happen to not particularly like the sound of tube equipment... but I agree entirely with your basic assertion.
My GOAL is to LISTEN ONLY TO THE MUSIC. I DO NOT want to hear the equipment. And, in order to do that, I need the equipment to simply let me hear what's there, without making any contribution of its own to the sound.
Therefore, I want equipment that sounds like no equipment at all.... and, clearly, any equipment that has a sound of its own fails to fulfill that requirement.
(So there is no such thing as "equipment that sounds good"... it either has no sound of its own or it sounds somehow at least slightly wrong.)
I follow the old aphorism... "The ideal piece of high fidelity equipment should sound like nothing more than 'a straight wire with gain' ". There is actually a rather classic test where you take the output of an amplifier, divide it down using resistors, and null it against the input.
Once you've done so ANY difference between the output and the input is considered to be a flaw.
I believe Hafler was the first company to actually suggest that you try this test with their amps... which came out pretty well on it.
(Tube gear generally doesn't fare especially well on that test.)
So, as far as I'm concerned, if I had equipment that was perfectly uncolored, and it was sealed in a black box, I would have no way of knowing if it was tube or solid state. (At that point I would neither know nor care whether it was tube, solid state, or some new and unknown alien alternative.)
In general, the only reason I pay attention to the sound of a piece of equipment is to note how closely it approaches that objective.
The only contrary argument which I consider valid, although I don't agree with the claim it entails, is this.....
"There are certain flaws or errors common to almost all commercial recordings... and the distortions and colorations caused by tubes cancel them out to some degree." In other words.... there are errors in all or most recordings... and the errors caused by tubes often cancel them out... at least to some degree. (To me this seems unlikely to be the case much of the time.)
Of course, if you're willing to simply abandon any claims of accuracy, and simply assert that "you want to remaster your music to sound the way you like it".... Then all bets are off... and it all becomes simply a matter of personal preference.
I like the sound of tubes, but if you say you're listening to your music now that you're using tubes, you're listening to the equipment. It's just like 'The Argument Clinic' M: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. O: No it isn't! M: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction. O: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position! M: Yes but it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'. O: Yes it is! M: No it isn't! Notice how M says "it isn't just saying 'no it isn't' and then to further his argument actually says 'no it isn't.' |
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Apr 12, 2020 9:47:38 GMT -5
As everyone here knows by now, I happen to not particularly like the sound of tube equipment... but I agree entirely with your basic assertion.
My GOAL is to LISTEN ONLY TO THE MUSIC. I DO NOT want to hear the equipment. And, in order to do that, I need the equipment to simply let me hear what's there, without making any contribution of its own to the sound.
Therefore, I want equipment that sounds like no equipment at all.... and, clearly, any equipment that has a sound of its own fails to fulfill that requirement.
(So there is no such thing as "equipment that sounds good"... it either has no sound of its own or it sounds somehow at least slightly wrong.)
I follow the old aphorism... "The ideal piece of high fidelity equipment should sound like nothing more than 'a straight wire with gain' ". There is actually a rather classic test where you take the output of an amplifier, divide it down using resistors, and null it against the input.
Once you've done so ANY difference between the output and the input is considered to be a flaw.
I believe Hafler was the first company to actually suggest that you try this test with their amps... which came out pretty well on it.
(Tube gear generally doesn't fare especially well on that test.)
So, as far as I'm concerned, if I had equipment that was perfectly uncolored, and it was sealed in a black box, I would have no way of knowing if it was tube or solid state. (At that point I would neither know nor care whether it was tube, solid state, or some new and unknown alien alternative.)
In general, the only reason I pay attention to the sound of a piece of equipment is to note how closely it approaches that objective.
The only contrary argument which I consider valid, although I don't agree with the claim it entails, is this.....
"There are certain flaws or errors common to almost all commercial recordings... and the distortions and colorations caused by tubes cancel them out to some degree." In other words.... there are errors in all or most recordings... and the errors caused by tubes often cancel them out... at least to some degree. (To me this seems unlikely to be the case much of the time.)
Of course, if you're willing to simply abandon any claims of accuracy, and simply assert that "you want to remaster your music to sound the way you like it".... Then all bets are off... and it all becomes simply a matter of personal preference.
I like the sound of tubes, but if you say you're listening to your music now that you're using tubes, you're listening to the equipment. It's just like 'The Argument Clinic' M: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. O: No it isn't! M: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction. O: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position! M: Yes but it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'. O: Yes it is! M: No it isn't! Notice how M says "it isn't just saying 'no it isn't' and then to further his argument actually says 'no it isn't.' My first solid state amplification came from the AR Integrated. The immediate sense of “nothing but music” relatively speaking, hit me immediately. (That was 1971, as my “warm” tube sound was quickly dispensed with.) The notion of reverting back to tubes never hit me again, only the concept of more solid state juice! Bill |
|
|
|
Post by sahmen on Apr 12, 2020 13:58:02 GMT -5
My GOAL is to LISTEN ONLY TO THE MUSIC. I DO NOT want to hear the equipment. And, in order to do that, I need the equipment to simply let me hear what's there, without making any contribution of its own to the sound. Therefore, I want equipment that sounds like no equipment at all.... and, clearly, any equipment that has a sound of its own fails to fulfill that requirement. I follow the old aphorism... " The ideal piece of high fidelity equipment should sound like nothing more than 'a straight wire with gain' ". In general, the only reason I pay attention to the sound of a piece of equipment is to note how closely it approaches that objective.No disrespect KeithL , but isn't there an admission in your statement itself that the goal, ideal, or objective, you have so elaborately defined is in itself impossible, and unattainable in practice? Isn't it, at best, a self-made illusion or chimera that one might pretend, but only pretend, to chase, but not necessarily hope to reach, as in actual fact the point of arrival does not really exist in practice? For in actual scientific fact, if there were any such thing as a piece of music that can exist independently of the equipment that produces it, then how might it come into being, in the first place? 1. I mean, even before one considers recordings, the original performance cannot exist without the mediation of equipment, namely, the instruments (including voice) thanks to which musicians bring the music into being. Now since scientifically speaking, no two pianos, violins, guitars, saxophones, or, in short, no two instruments can sound exactly the same, it should follow that each piece of music that is generated is inextricably bound to the equipment that produced it in a particular context, and that one cannot hear the piece of music without also hearing the equipment that produced it in all the uniqueness of its footprint, as a piece of equipment. 2. I would apply this same logic, point for point, to the world of audio equipment too, The fact that no two audio rigs can sound exactly the same (in any scientifically rigorous sense) should imply that whenever one is hearing a piece of musical performance, one is necessarily listening to the equipment that brought it into being, even if one is able create for oneself the illusion that the "equipment" is "out of the way." I am not just saying this to state the obvious... I also want to point to the lack of any obvious objective consensus as to how the music should ideally sound, when "all the equipment is out of the way". I am betting that even if you found 10 audiophiles who agree in principle that music sounds best when the "equipment is out of the way," not all of them will agree upon what that ideal actually sounds like in practice, so when given the opportunity to choose a set of equipment that sound most like "a straight wire with gain," I wouldn't be surprised if they wind up choosing entirely different sets of equipment, which will only wind up proving that their preferences are inextricably tied to the very pieces of equipment they pretended to want out of the way in the first place... So 3 hypothetical conclusions: All musical rigs necessarily have a distinct sound signature that is responsible for creating whatever one hears, and they never actually get out of the way, even if they can sometimes create something that approaches that illusion for some particular listeners. If you set up an experiment offering 10 of these listeners to choose, from 10 different rigs, the one that best approaches the ideal of "getting out of the way of the music," they'll most likely wind up choosing different rigs as their preferred ideal, and thereby prove that ultimately, what they liked best about the music was the equipment that was supposed to get out of the way in the first place... If you give one audiophile, the opportunity to listen to 10 different rigs that best produce the illusion of getting out of the way, do not be surprised if they wind up settling on more than one, or even getting confused about what the ideal should be... In both cases, they will inevitably be made to admit their inevitable preference for pieces of equipment they were pretending to want "out of the way..." With all that said, I have a more simple question: Is the idea of a piece of equipment that does not sound first and foremost like itself, scientifically credible, when all is said and done, or even desirable? I am not also claiming that there is anything wrong with preferring equipment that perform as if they were not there at all... I am just saying that the illusion is, however gratifying it is, not only impossible, but will always wind up betraying its reliance on this or that particular piece or set of equipment (s), showing that its pursuit is forever bound to, and grounded in the field of subjective personal preferences, from which it never departs. As for the logical paradox underlying this impossible ideal, i.e. that of considering to be most desirable the absence of the very means that makes the most desirable sound of music possible, I'll just leave it among the countless other mysteries of the audiophile universe, those that can be explained only by the most astute oracles and shamans among us  |
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Apr 12, 2020 15:11:29 GMT -5
"For in actual scientific fact, if there were any such thing as a piece of music that can exist independently of the equipment that produces it, then how might it come into being, in the first place?" Great philosophy class...…. but EVERYONE here knows exactly what's being talked about....and that's hearing the RECORDED MUSIC with the least amount of additional noise generated from tubes or anything else. Bill |
|
|
|
Post by sahmen on Apr 12, 2020 15:16:32 GMT -5
"For in actual scientific fact, if there were any such thing as a piece of music that can exist independently of the equipment that produces it, then how might it come into being, in the first place?" Great philosophy class...…. but EVERYONE here knows exactly what's being talked about....and that's hearing the RECORDED MUSIC with the least amount of additional noise generated from tubes or anything else. Bill Congrats for being so knowing. I am tempted to respond with a matching clever wise crack but I'll pass. Have a good day. |
|
|
|
Post by routlaw on Apr 12, 2020 15:34:55 GMT -5
Well one thing is for sure musicians do not talk or write like this. The analogy for an artist would be to have their oil or acrylic paints dissected and submitted to inspection by labs before they could ever trust if it was a a ‘true” cadmium red or not. All this discussion about how accurate or not electronic black boxes are, be they tubes or SS totally comes apart when the signal hits the speakers no matter what speaker or what type their coloration and distortions are several orders of magnitudes higher so much so that to my way of thinking makes all this banter worthless and meaningless.
|
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Apr 12, 2020 17:17:35 GMT -5
One huge problem with @keithl 's thesis regarding "accuracy" is that every listening room imparts its own, and different sonic signature on whatever is coming out of whatever speakers one is using.
And, even with "room correction" software, yes like the much touted Dirac, the result of a flat in-room measured response has, in many evaluations not been satisfactory to many listeners. I'm talking about perceived thin bass and elevated treble.
This, from Dirac themselves:
"A flat frequency response does not necessarily sound neutral. It has to do with the ratio between direct and reverberant sound and the frequency-variable propagation loss. The late reflections cannot be removed by Dirac Live, because they change too much between different positions. Therefore, a slight roll-off is often appropriate if you are listening at a distance. The Dirac Live algorithm suggests a target response appropriate for your listening environment and speakers. Of course, you can still adjust it to your taste using our simple graphical interface". (emphasis mine)
So, a "house curve", usually based on listener preferences, is imposed on this "accurate, flat" measured response to make the music even close to appealing. I'm talking at least a 6db lift in the bass and a 6db drop in the treble in the often cited Harman curve, and others are similar.
So, isn't the "house curve" just another fancy tone control in the end, adjusted to a listener's preferences?
I think it's much easier and much cheaper to make a component that measures well these days than one that sounds great. Ideally, a component does both well.
KeithL's arguments fall apart unless one presumes that measurements are all that are needed. To quote KeithL, "In general, the only reason I pay attention to the sound of a piece of equipment is to note how closely it approaches that objective. " How very sad.
I, for one, tend to trust my ears more than my eyes on a graph or a spec sheet when it comes to music. Kind of like hearing a symphony vs. inspecting the score....
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Apr 12, 2020 18:06:58 GMT -5
Ok so know you are going to fool yourself into thinking that this hobby is not about personal preference? Give me a break...  |
|
ttocs
Global Moderator
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,170
|
Post by ttocs on Apr 12, 2020 19:24:55 GMT -5
Around 1964 when I was a young child, my father owned Swank Roller Rink in Chicago. In the Dance Room with the Juke Box I heard music and loved it.
I can remember that in 1965 when I would "camp out" in my oldest brother's bedroom for a night we would listen to music on the AM radio, WLS Top 40 Countdown, I heard music and loved it. At 10:13pm I also heard the series Peter Fugitive and was scared. But then the Top 3 would play and I loved it.
A couple years later I would use a 3-1/2" reel to reel tape recorder to record the music I wanted to save by using a mic held near the AM radio speaker. I heard music and loved it, many, many times.
In 1969 I bought a small transistor radio that cost "a lot of money" for a kid with a paper route. I still have that Magnavox radio and it works perfectly! I heard music and loved it.
1971 was the introduction of stereo in our family, and it had FM. This was a game changer! I listened to the ladies on WSDM FM who played jazz, soul, funk, etc. I heard music and loved it even more! One of my favorite memories of this era was listening on those crappy headphones to WSDM playing Donny Hathaway. I loved it.
I built my own speakers in 1973 and connected them to a Benjamin 35 watt receiver so I could listen to the music I loved hearing. I did.
Saturday, June 8, 1974 I attended my first concert which was at my high school. Muddy Waters! I heard great music from a legend and I loved it! The most recent concert I attended was Billy Cobham at City Winery a few months ago. Loved it.
In 1979 I bought my first really good stereo system. JBL L-110 speakers, Sansui AU717 and TU717, and a Philips turntable. I used the amp and speakers for 32 years. I heard music and loved it. Since then it's been Denon, Denon, Pioneer, Martin Logan, Carver, Krell, Marantz, Emotiva, Emotiva, Emotiva, Martin Logan, Bob Latino, Emotiva, spam spam eggs bacon and spam - that's not got much spam in it.
I have fun tinkering with equipment so I can listen to music.
I hear music and I love it.
|
|
|
|
Post by indyscammer on Apr 12, 2020 20:03:59 GMT -5
Great philosophy class...…. but EVERYONE here knows exactly what's being talked about....and that's hearing the RECORDED MUSIC with the least amount of additional noise generated from tubes or anything else. Bill Congrats for being so knowing. I am tempted to respond with a matching clever wise crack but I'll pass. Have a good day. If I could only remix most of the popular music of my life so that it actually sounds good on good equipment.....   |
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Apr 13, 2020 7:35:58 GMT -5
Congrats for being so knowing. I am tempted to respond with a matching clever wise crack but I'll pass. Have a good day. If I could only remix most of the popular music of my life so that it actually sounds good on good equipment..... Of course, one of the perks of great equipment is that it can reach out and lend a much needed helping hand to those recordings that suck. I’ve got quite a few of those where the recording is way under par, but the performance itself is SO important to me that I just ignore the shortcomings of it and just tweak as best as possible and forget it. If you are in awe of a talented performer, it’s easy to put the crappie recording aside. Bill |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,275
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 13, 2020 7:55:29 GMT -5
I agree with you entirely... but...
For a moment let's use an analogy with seeing rather than hearing...
I enjoy a beautiful sunset... And I also enjoy looking at some other beautiful things... And, when I look at a beautiful sunset, or a beautiful building, or a beautiful woman, with nothing between me and themI actually see them. (Although, yes, a lot of things, including the light around us, the clarity of the air, and even my mood, may affect what I see.)
However, if I look at any of those things with my sunglasses on, or through a window, there is now a piece of glass between me and them.
And, with a few rare exceptions, that piece of glass will alter what I'm seeing. It may add a tiny bit of coloration to my view... or even a lot... It may have scratches, or dirt, or bugs, on it which may distract from the view... It may be wavy and bend the image in odd and interesting ways... It may be perfectly clear, but still occasionally add some reflections, which catch my eye at odd times, and distract me...
But, and I think you will all agree with me, there is a very specific way in which we can compare these alterations to not having alterations. Even though, after looking through that windows for a while, I may start to not notice those alterations... I can easily move the glass, look straight at the view, and be able to tell that the glass is NOT offering me an exact rendition of reality. (And the fact that my yellow tinted Ray Bans may make everything look prettier, or happier, or less drab, does not change the fact that they are less accurate than nothing at all.)
If you want a spooky experience then go to a good picture frame shop and ask to look at a piece of "museum glass".
This is special super clear glass that includes an anti-reflective coating, like you find on camera filters, so it is really invisible. You truly cannot see a piece of clean museum glass... It would actually be dangerous to put it in windows... because you would try to walk or reach right through it...
(We all say "glass is clear" but the reality is that the glass we commonly encounter in windows and doors is not at all clear.... because we can see that it's there.)
To me, good high fidelity equipment should be like that museum glass....
Lets not get into semantics here. If there was no music what would be the point of having audio equipment? Because there are differences between tube amplication and SS amplication it's the LISTENER who makes the judgement as to how the MUSIC translates an emotional feeling to what their EARS hear. As for Alan Parsons comment (whose music I grew up with) that is one mans view on a subjective topic. I do not consider myself or label myself as an audiophile but instead I classified myself as a student of music that gives me unlimitless boundaries to explore. There is nothing wrong with identifying yourself as an Audiophile...is nothing more than a person especially interested in music...I just do not like labels when it comes to this subject because there are many roads not yet travel and the ones that have been are at times re-paved. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,275
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 13, 2020 8:00:44 GMT -5
There's only one catch to your statement about "real live music".... And that is simply that, with a lot of modern music, there simply is no "real live original performance". While some classical recordings, and some "chamber recordings", are actually recordings of real live events...
With a lot of modern recordings the music doesn't exist as an entity until it comes out of the mixing panel.
Before that, it is often a bunch of separate tracks, quite possibly recorded in different places, and at different times... And, even beyond that, many of them will be altered significantly before being placed in the complex collage that is the final album... Arguably, if an original exists at all, it only exists in the mind of the mixing engineer... or perhaps the mind of the main artist... and those two may not even be the same.
Therefore, sometimes, we're stuck with "play it as it sits, alter it as little as possible, and what you have will be as close as possible to what it was intended to be".
this is a real third-rail arguement in some circles. I think it is important to have a good grounding in what Real and LIVE music sounds like. That's a good idea. Second, many persons get caught up in 'reviews' and 'best'. Utter nuttiness. Reviewers ALWAYS find good stuff to say, even if they don't like something. Ever read a Really Awful review? Few and far between. System synergy is Far more important. Stuff works together for a common goal or it doesn't. I also firmly believe in Long-Term system stability. My speakers, for example? From the early-1970s forward, I've owned Lafayette (junk), Fischer (just bad) RSL (Rogers Sound Labs. Perfect JBL L100 copies) and than Magnepan. My Maggies lasted 20+ years and thru a rebuild in White Bear Lake. I 'traded' up in the line and have 1.6s now. Similar arc of Electronics ownership to present day. I"ve owned Kenwood integrated, Lafayette receiver!, Carver Cube, Rotel (briefly) PSAudio and now Parasound. Nothing 'exotic'. This is over a period exceeding 40 years. Have I made mistakes? Yep. Rotel power amp couldn't cut it. I wish I had bought the Original Advent Loudspeaker. (large Advent) Music was always the first priority Sound Wise, even though I integrated my system with the TV sound back in the 80s. Nobody Knows what half of those movie effects are Supposed to sound like, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by ÈlTwo on Apr 13, 2020 8:37:09 GMT -5
I would also add the following.
To those of you who say "but it was recorded using tube amps," I would ask this:
Wouldn't you want to reproduce that as accurately as you can, instead of additionally coloring the sound with more tubes?
Obviously the answer is not always yes, again personal preference.
Tubes once were the height of technology for amplification, polarity inversion and mixing, and for a long time the best technology.
Even now there is a question as to whether they are better at handling clipping, but that depends on the entire set up, and the specific music being recorded.
Even Alan Parsons said that electric guitars "invariably sound better with a couple of those glass tubes behind them."
That makes sense, if you think about it, since one starts with a square wave form there, unlike acoustic instruments.
I want to reproduce, as accurately as I, in my situation, can, the music the way it was recorded/intended by the artist and producer; you may not want to, and that is your choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by mfeust on Apr 13, 2020 8:38:54 GMT -5
I listen to my music though my equipment. I don't care if there is any coloration or not I only care if I like the sound of the music. I love to listen to music because of how it makes me feel. I too use tube amps for my tweeter and mid drivers and PA-1 for my woofers. I bought the PA-1 to use during the summer because of the heat from the tube amps but quickly found I could not stand the sound from my tweeter and mid drivers driven by the PA-1. So I don't care how hot my room gets in the summer I only care how the music makes me feel.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Apr 13, 2020 9:51:26 GMT -5
Schiit people, you fell into the trap Keith included. If all you talk about is music and going to live venues especially after either Covid-19 is done or some other calamity occurs and the experience you have with the music exclusively,otherwise then you listen to gear. Plain and simple! Everything else is bullschiit!
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Apr 13, 2020 10:39:05 GMT -5
Everything made by man is unnatural by definition. You want natural? Go outside naked away from all man made structure or alterations of landscape and just listen. Boredom will rapidly set in.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Apr 13, 2020 15:53:55 GMT -5
Nevertheless, there is only one way you can experience and truly appreciate a Solar Eclipse which is through a Filter...Go figure...🤷♂️🤔 Having something between you and the target isn't always a bad thing. I agree with you entirely... but...
For a moment let's use an analogy with seeing rather than hearing...
I enjoy a beautiful sunset... And I also enjoy looking at some other beautiful things... And, when I look at a beautiful sunset, or a beautiful building, or a beautiful woman, with nothing between me and themI actually see them. (Although, yes, a lot of things, including the light around us, the clarity of the air, and even my mood, may affect what I see.) However, if I look at any of those things with my sunglasses on, or through a window, there is now a piece of glass between me and them.
And, with a few rare exceptions, that piece of glass will alter what I'm seeing. It may add a tiny bit of coloration to my view... or even a lot... It may have scratches, or dirt, or bugs, on it which may distract from the view... It may be wavy and bend the image in odd and interesting ways... It may be perfectly clear, but still occasionally add some reflections, which catch my eye at odd times, and distract me...
But, and I think you will all agree with me, there is a very specific way in which we can compare these alterations to not having alterations. Even though, after looking through that windows for a while, I may start to not notice those alterations... I can easily move the glass, look straight at the view, and be able to tell that the glass is NOT offering me an exact rendition of reality. (And the fact that my yellow tinted Ray Bans may make everything look prettier, or happier, or less drab, does not change the fact that they are less accurate than nothing at all.) If you want a spooky experience then go to a good picture frame shop and ask to look at a piece of "museum glass".
This is special super clear glass that includes an anti-reflective coating, like you find on camera filters, so it is really invisible. You truly cannot see a piece of clean museum glass... It would actually be dangerous to put it in windows... because you would try to walk or reach right through it...
(We all say "glass is clear" but the reality is that the glass we commonly encounter in windows and doors is not at all clear.... because we can see that it's there.)
To me, good high fidelity equipment should be like that museum glass....
Lets not get into semantics here. If there was no music what would be the point of having audio equipment? Because there are differences between tube amplication and SS amplication it's the LISTENER who makes the judgement as to how the MUSIC translates an emotional feeling to what their EARS hear. As for Alan Parsons comment (whose music I grew up with) that is one mans view on a subjective topic. I do not consider myself or label myself as an audiophile but instead I classified myself as a student of music that gives me unlimitless boundaries to explore. There is nothing wrong with identifying yourself as an Audiophile...is nothing more than a person especially interested in music...I just do not like labels when it comes to this subject because there are many roads not yet travel and the ones that have been are at times re-paved. |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,494
|
Post by DYohn on Apr 13, 2020 16:20:47 GMT -5
Everytime I put my ear on equipment I can't hear anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Apr 13, 2020 17:01:39 GMT -5
Nevertheless, there is only one way you can experience and truly appreciate a Solar Eclipse which is through a Filter...Go figure...🤷♂️🤔 Having something between you and the target isn't always a bad thing. I agree with you entirely... but...
For a moment let's use an analogy with seeing rather than hearing...
I enjoy a beautiful sunset... And I also enjoy looking at some other beautiful things... And, when I look at a beautiful sunset, or a beautiful building, or a beautiful woman, with nothing between me and themI actually see them. (Although, yes, a lot of things, including the light around us, the clarity of the air, and even my mood, may affect what I see.) However, if I look at any of those things with my sunglasses on, or through a window, there is now a piece of glass between me and them.
And, with a few rare exceptions, that piece of glass will alter what I'm seeing. It may add a tiny bit of coloration to my view... or even a lot... It may have scratches, or dirt, or bugs, on it which may distract from the view... It may be wavy and bend the image in odd and interesting ways... It may be perfectly clear, but still occasionally add some reflections, which catch my eye at odd times, and distract me...
But, and I think you will all agree with me, there is a very specific way in which we can compare these alterations to not having alterations. Even though, after looking through that windows for a while, I may start to not notice those alterations... I can easily move the glass, look straight at the view, and be able to tell that the glass is NOT offering me an exact rendition of reality. (And the fact that my yellow tinted Ray Bans may make everything look prettier, or happier, or less drab, does not change the fact that they are less accurate than nothing at all.) If you want a spooky experience then go to a good picture frame shop and ask to look at a piece of "museum glass".
This is special super clear glass that includes an anti-reflective coating, like you find on camera filters, so it is really invisible. You truly cannot see a piece of clean museum glass... It would actually be dangerous to put it in windows... because you would try to walk or reach right through it...
(We all say "glass is clear" but the reality is that the glass we commonly encounter in windows and doors is not at all clear.... because we can see that it's there.)
To me, good high fidelity equipment should be like that museum glass....
That would be analogous to wearing ear muffs if the music is too loud.  |
|
