- 13,824 Posts. Joined 11/2004
- Location: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Select All Posts By This User
Dilemma: Should I not believe any reviewers who talk about cables or just ignore that section of... - Page 92
Head-Fi's Best Sellers
- 2,572 Posts. Joined 9/2009
- Location: Sydney, Australia
- Select All Posts By This User
Interesting point but I don't have a background in music production/recording, only music playback so to me the ability to fix bass balance in an audio mix by boosting a particular frequency is mostly irrelevant. If there is a problem with the bass response it is either due to the digital side of my system or the analog side, I am running orthodynamic headphones so impedance matching is not important, only the capabilities of my amplifier to drive a low impedance, low efficiency headphone. I can EQ in a lot of bass but that wont fix a hypothetical problem with my gear.
Well, I'm talking about how one comes to know things about audio, and I think that the knowledge one gains is most useful by experiencing the whole chain; being present for the recording and listening on a monitor system, then listening on one's own system. I got a chance to do this once. I'm saying that's probably the most useful and secure way of learning what you are doing and what patterns to listen for. Everything else is a guess, although this guessing must be done (usually) when putting one's playback system together.
mike - Just in case you're not aware of it, you're delivering a "Turn on, tune in, drop out" message in what is supposed to be a science forum. Nothing wrong with you experiencing things with whatever approach you find the most enjoyable, be it "holistic" or whatever -- but if you want to discuss it here, you should be willing to try to apply a bit of reductionism to what you are talking about.
Good question. I don't know the answer.
This isn't actually a science forum. It seems more a forum about sound science.
The other non-science forums have a ban on DBT discussions, so it would seem appropriate to think discussions here in the science forum should at least make some effort to apply a bit of reductionism to their subject.
I do think mike's "new paradigm" should be a separate thread, and folks could discuss what it may, or may not, have to do with with science.
I don't know about hypothetical problems, but if your gear is producing weak bass, a correction to the EQ curve will totally fix it. Equalization is the second most important setting on your stereo, right after the volume control. If you don't EQ, it's very likely that you aren't getting the most out of your equipment. This is more true for speakers than headphones, but even headphones can benefit from EQ.
I kinda thought that we were being given the opportunity to answer the question posed in the thread title for ourselves.
How many posts here have strictly been about the question posed in the thread title? And if they're not based on science ... why bother calling this a science forum?
By the way - I consider this an interesting -- if rambling -- thread, and I appreciate your posts and informed pragmatic approach.
I do think that sometimes thread drift can bring out interesting ideas, and while I don't necessarily agree with Mike's vision I do think that there is something about the music/sound and the subjective/objective divisions worth exploring- maybe this thread isn't the place. As far as the censoring of DBT as a model to follow for this sub-forum, I disagree. Limiting modes of argumentation and subject matter can make an echo chamber. If that's the expected group norm I'll follow, but I think it unnecessarily weakens the scope of discussions.
I would hope that even the most illogical magical thinking would be fair game to post here. It can only lead to more folks changing the way they think for the better. In a classical music forum I participate in, a fella posted and just about everything he had to say.was audiophool nonsense. After about five exchanged posts and some links, he did a complete turnaround and started offering things he had learned in the research the discussion had inspired him to make.
Yikes! I'm certainly not promoting censorship as a model to follow.
Just whatever ideas might be brought up here should be considered in the light of how do they fit in with current scientific understanding -- or if they clash with that, how could they be examined in a way that might possibly add to current scientific understanding. I think that would have to involve reductionism.