|
Computer Audio Asylum Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies. |
|
|
|
Computer Audio Asylum Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies. |
|
In Reply to: RE: Better duck under that desk; posted by Phelonious Ponk on August 6, 2009 at 03:56:22:
I didn't speak of hand-picking subjects so much as noting differences among subjects or of matching the type of subject to what is being tested. If you are studying what people in general and on average hear, that's one thing. If you are testing about what people at the the upper limit can hear, then you should use subjects who are among the best at hearing the type of material you are presenting.Your distinction between square waves thru misaligned speakers and music on a 'real' system producing completely changed outcome is an hypothesis itself which hasn't been tested, and I don't see how it could be generally. First there is a lot of synthesized music that might have elements much like the square waves. That is, the distinction may be quantitative but surely undefinable qualitatively. And if you tested the difference with a square wave, you would not know how that pertained to one with other waveforms, frequencies or whatever versus music, to say nothing of how heterogeneous that latter category is. I can think of no basis for your belief in this 'distinction' other than desire to discount what is discordant to you.
But the most absurd assertion is that audiophile listening isn't or should not be an active process. Coupled with that is the non-credible claim that hearing artifacts and distortions that usually go unnoticed somehow is a different skill from hearing finer detail, subtle differences in timbre, etc, that also usually go unnoticed--especially if you try not to try to hear them which is what you seem to be advocating for audiophiles. I recall as a young music lover taking a similar position about listening to classical music. I believed bringing knowledge of music theory and music history to bear when listening interfered with a preferable direct, less active taking the music in holistically. I am taking it that this is what you are advocating in relation to trained listening with heightened perception of the finer aspects of the musical sound. The fallacy with this position of mine earlier or yours is that listening is ALWAYS AND IRREDUCIBLY AN ACTIVE INTERPRETIVE PROCESS (read Music and Memory by Snyder to find out about this.). The more you are trained and the more you know the better you do at this interpreting.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - riboge 08/6/0907:50:41 08/6/09 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
