Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › How does fidelity relate to musical enjoyment?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How does fidelity relate to musical enjoyment? - Page 5

post #61 of 68

We are in complete agreement then 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by khaos974 View Post

I see what you mean, but I would add that my preferred was for sound reproduction would be a "wire with gain" from the DAC input to the transducer output, as neutral and uncolored as possible, before that however I don't mind a different EQ for different sound level (to match equal loudness contours), HRTF correction for headphones, room correction for speaker...
 

post #62 of 68

, and reading your quote of my own post, I feel like an uncultured lout because my post was typed in a hurry and I didn't bother to spell check (and I'm not a native speaker).
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krav View Post

We are in complete agreement then 

post #63 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Erik View Post

 

 

The better fidelity or more neutral gear tends not to get boring in time.  It just conveys the music as it was intended.  It doesn't grab the ear the way that euphonic equipment does, but neither do you burn out.



Amen, brotha'.  An hour at a "hi-fi studio", and I'm ready to walk out.  The Spanish language has a wonderful verb, empalagar, which is the feeling that you get when your tastes buds are oversaturated with sweet.  Empalagar, a sensation from the taste budsis the best word that I can use to describe the aural sensation of "hi-fi" sound.  I don't do "hi-fi" for the same reason that I don't eat baclava.  They both saturate the sweet sensory channel.

 

Nevertheless, I realize that it probably has to do with brain chemistry and exposure.  Just like some people can tolerate dessert after dessert, I can imagine that for many people their brain chemistry and their exposure to "hi-fi" and phat bass has desensitized them.  Finally, it is ironic, if not paradoxical, that those who most frequently claim for themselves the role of deciding what sounds good and what doesn't traditionally come from the "hi-fi" side of things.  It's like a sweet tooth telling you that the cheese cake needs more sugar!


Edited by Mauricio - 3/24/12 at 8:57pm
post #64 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mauricio View Post



Amen, brotha'.  An hour at a "hi-fi studio", and I'm ready to walk out.  The Spanish language has a wonderful verb, empalagar, which is the feeling that you get when your tastes buds are oversaturated with sweet.  Empalagar, a sensation from the taste budsis the best word that I can use to describe the aural sensation of "hi-fi" sound.  I don't do "hi-fi" for the same reason that I don't eat baclava.  They both saturate the sweet sensory channel.

 

Nevertheless, I realize that it probably has to do with brain chemistry and exposure.  Just like some people can tolerate dessert after dessert, I can imagine that for many people their brain chemistry and their exposure to "hi-fi" and phat bass has desensitized them.  Finally, it is ironic, if not paradoxical, that those who most frequently claim for themselves the role of deciding what sounds good and what doesn't traditionally come from the "hi-fi" side of things.  It's like a sweet tooth telling you that the cheese cake needs more sugar!

 

Indeed. Ciertos sonidos si son empalagasos.

 

I think the best word for that in English are the words "over saturated" and it still doesn't convey the same meaning but I totally agree with your point. It's one of the major reasons why I love a neutral/natural sound so much!

 


 

 

post #65 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFF View Post

It's one of the major reasons why I love a neutral/natural sound so much!

 

 

You can say that because you fix all the crap they mess up in the studio.  Even then we can only 'fix' so much if information is lost in the process prior.  If source material = natural then neutral = natural.  Otherwise when the source is not = natural it is colored and  the rest of us willing to chase the dragon to fix it do so w/ all the compromises and complexities in tow finding the best balance possible.  I can appreciate an objective standard to accuracy in fidelity, but I can also accept coloration as a subjective means to fixing a recording that has poor fidelity to the live performance to begin with.  That's what audio engineers do.  They don't hit record and sit there reading a newspaper.  In fact,  it's (hopefully) trained subjective coloration (listening and mastering) being used to fix what some seem to refer to as neutral/accurate.  By that very fact alone we know it isn't always done right and with care due to the inherent subjectivity.  

 

Fidelity to the recording process is a completely different argument to make compared to fidelity to how we perceive the world around us through our own ears everyday.  In the rare cases those two worlds converge everyone can be happy.  Until then we get to select from a narrow genre bandwidth of niche hi-rez mastering formats or pray LFF can sufficiently fix the rest of our musical world that just doesn't give a crap about objective neutrality being 'natural'.  Until then I think some folks who put the recording before their ears put the cart before the horse and find satisfaction in perceiving some sense of knowledge with which to elevate the significance of their own positions.  I often find it odd that the same voices that proclaim the transducer matters above all else distrust their ears the most.  Can your ears be fooled?  Sure, so what?  Hearing is dynamic and changes with the enviroment, what time of day would you say it's neutral?  Why shackle a dynamic biological system to a static mythology rather than learning to adapt and compensate?  It is certainly easier to believe in a simpler world where everything is under our control, and framing simplicity as absolute truth is even simpler still.  Except when it's not the truth but a fantasy and a fallacy.

 

The world's complicated, boohoo.  Solution?  Enjoy your music how you see fit.  Now start listening!

  

post #66 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post

 

 

You can say that because you fix all the crap they mess up in the studio..<snip>...Until then we get to select from a narrow genre bandwidth of niche hi-rez mastering formats or pray LFF can sufficiently fix the rest of our musical world that just doesn't give a crap about objective neutrality being 'natural'. 

  


LOL!

 

Thanks....I guess. tongue_smile.gif

 

 

1242032359_haters-gonna-hate.gif

post #67 of 68
Really depends on what I'm listening to I suppose.

I can listen to the older Disney soundtracks (e.g. Bambi) even with their recording limitations of the day. However, I cannot stand older, tinny jazz recordings from the same period. If its a bad jazz recording, I hate it. So I need the remakes like Glenn Miller's "In the Digital Mood" versus the original because of the recording quality. Same issue with classical music. I think my brain just interprets it as wrong, and that's why I can't get "into them".

If we're talking fidelity of lossless and lossy (which it seems some have taken this thread to), I cannot tell the difference with modern encoders. If that's the case, then higher fidelity even during more critical listening times is of little importance to me.
post #68 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by haloxt View Post

Something that I've wanted to find out since I got into this hobby is the question of how much I'd have to upgrade before I was satisfied. So my enjoyment of this hobby was twofold, first to meet my personal requirement in audio gear of bringing liveliness and vividness to my albums, and secondly to upgrade beyond that point to make sure I am not missing anything. I was not interested in the sort of benefits you get from $500+ audio gear, like black background, nice soundstage, or good detail, I was just hoping maybe some of the benefits of higher fidelity gear correlated to greater musical enjoyment at least to my ears. Even after having experienced different tiers of gear I do not consider my mind and ears to require the qualities of $500+ gear to enjoy reproduced music to a very high degree. That is not to say I do not appreciate the benefits of higher end gear, it's just I think they aren't "essential" for me the way I usually listen to music.

 

So now I have new questions.

 

What is it audiophiles really want out of audio gear (different for everyone)? How should they go about achieving it? In what ways do higher fidelity, detail, and/or resolution correlate to greater musical enjoyment?

 

Some may think this doesn't belong in sound science, but I am interested in psychoacoustics explanations here. For example, I think the way low fidelity gear do pianos can be quite pleasing, and some people may not actually like a very high fidelity reproduction of certain piano music.



For 25 years I have always surrounded myself with good gear..  (hefty hi quality amp, big speakers)  Hi-fidelity is important to me as you can hear more detail...I love a good hard-driving bass that you can feel, and along with higher volume, can make for a more immersive experience.  Unfortunately sometimes, the bass drowns out and obliterates some of the detail.

For background music  (while doing something else), less detail is acceptable to me.  In a large room, at higher volumes, you MUST have good gear, otherwise it's just annoying to me.

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › How does fidelity relate to musical enjoyment?