Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Cafe Sceptico: The Objectivist Cafe
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cafe Sceptico: The Objectivist Cafe - Page 18  

post #256 of 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by LizardKing1 View Post

Re-read it, and it still makes sense. He mentioned a series of variables that would make the headphones sound different from person to person and I said exactly because of those variables we need objectivity. Then I went on a rant about lack of testing gear, because I'm still mad that I'm not going to enjoy any of Amazon's Black Friday because they almost always don't ship to my country.

 

It just seemed to me that he never said that there was a lack of need for objective data, so there was also no need to respond and reinforce that there is. I simply read his post as pointing out that people have different preferences/experiences which don't necessarily correlate with good measurements (in terms of high fidelity). Perhaps I'm just misinterpreting the entire thing, or perhaps you simply meant to bring up another topic which was brought to mind. Interpreting others' posts online is very tricky business indeed.

 

In any case, contrary to some stereotypes people who enjoy lower fidelity or colored gear also benefit from objectivity, for the reasons you were explaining and perhaps a few others as well. (This is not a response to anything, just something that came to mind :))

post #257 of 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by manveru View Post

In any case, contrary to some stereotypes people who enjoy lower fidelity or colored gear also benefit from objectivity, for the reasons you were explaining and perhaps a few others as well. (This is not a response to anything, just something that came to mind :))

Since we're talking about Guttenberg, this is one of his misconceptions about objectivity: the idea that objectivists strive for flat lines in everything. You can be an objectivist and still enjoy colored gear, I think someone can agree that a tube amp sounds very good in most cases yet won't deny that it distorts music and gives emphasis to certain frequencies. Even if you have a neutral player, DAC and amp, it still makes sense to use the last link in the chain to sound just how you want it.

post #258 of 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by LizardKing1 View Post

Since we're talking about Guttenberg, this is one of his misconceptions about objectivity: the idea that objectivists strive for flat lines in everything. You can be an objectivist and still enjoy colored gear, I think someone can agree that a tube amp sounds very good in most cases yet won't deny that it distorts music and gives emphasis to certain frequencies. Even if you have a neutral player, DAC and amp, it still makes sense to use the last link in the chain to sound just how you want it.

So much this.
post #259 of 498
Thread Starter 
The only times I've found coloration to be a benefit is when the recording is colored in the opposite direction. That's why we have tone controls.
post #260 of 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

The only times I've found coloration to be a benefit is when the recording is colored in the opposite direction. That's why we have tone controls.

Very true. A lot of recordings are mastered oddly or badly though. frown.gif
post #261 of 498

Did I read somewhere that Steve has a background in being an audio salesperson? That'll explain a lot I guess.

post #262 of 498

Apparently the so called slight digital glare of FLAC is more offending than Denon's 7100 to Steve's ears lol. 

post #263 of 498
Thread Starter 
The EQ thread that popped up is by far the most unhelpful thread I've seen around ere in a long time. I doubt if anyone in there has ever used an equalizer on their system. It's all "general knowledge" (read: wrong)
post #264 of 498
Thread Starter 

Interesting experiment... I got the Toscanini box set in the recent black friday sale at Amazon. I've had a few of RCA's Toscanini LPs and CDs in the past, but they were recorded in a studio at NBC, not a concert hall, so the sound has almost no reverberation. On top of that, the early digital releases were pretty harsh sounding- overdriven peaks and an EQ that favored the upper mids to the point of pain. The new box is MUCH better, with more balanced sound and no clipping in the peaks at all. The boxiness of the small studio is still there though.

 

Today, as an experiment, I tried playing one of the most constrained sounding recordings- Berlioz's Romeo and Juliet. They packed an orchestra, a chorus and vocal soloists into Studio 8H. The sound is good, but it comes out and then just stops dead. No ring out at all. So I figured I'd try one of the DSP settings on my Yamaha receiver. First I listened to a bit with the 7 channel stereo setting. That opened it up considerably. Great separation of instruments. Then I tried the two concert hall simulations- Berlin and Vienna. A revelation! It wasn't true stereo because the violins were in the middle, but the transparency and most of all hall reverberation were outstanding. I've never used this setting before, because a synthesized concert hall over the top of another concert hall in the recording just gets too thick. But for this application, it's perfect.

 

I wish it was as simple to record 5:1 sound as it is stereo. I'd run the whole box through the DSP filter and burn it onto a blu-ray disk.

post #265 of 498

I thought someone here might like this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/brain-flapping/2012/nov/29/pseudoscience-science-argument

post #266 of 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by JadeEast View Post

I thought someone here might like this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/brain-flapping/2012/nov/29/pseudoscience-science-argument

 

Great read, I was expecting the Illuminati to show up at a certain point. It really applied to a lot of arguments, most intelligent people will be in a discussion something like this at least once in their lives.

post #267 of 498

Played around with Accudio recently, it's definition of 'flat' as perceived by the measuring head for 2 of my headphones(TF10 and SRH840) wasn't exactly flat to me but more mid centric which made the 2 headphones unnatural sounding to me. I have equalised 2 pairs of speakers to flat which serves as my reference. I think that Accudio was a good attempt at making EQ easy though, the simulations they gave sounded rather pleasing though comparing it with the real thing is quite a task for me since I don't have any of the other headphones that they have up for simulation.


Edited by firev1 - 12/3/12 at 4:50am
post #268 of 498

Does anyone know how much dynamic range is lost when using mp3's vs lossless?  

post #269 of 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnarlsagan View Post

Does anyone know how much dynamic range is lost when using mp3's vs lossless?  


I think you don't loose dynamic range (at least not significantly so). You may introduce some small error when using lossy compression (mp3), vs no change at all when going lossless (flac, wav...)

 

Dynamic range compression is not the same thing as data compression.


Edited by ultrabike - 12/4/12 at 5:51pm
post #270 of 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultrabike View Post


I don't know for certain, but I think you don't loose dynamic range. You may introduce some small error when using lossy compression (mp3), vs no change at all when going lossless (flac, wav...)

 

Thanks, might I ask your reasoning behind that? I've read different answers about it, but I forget where. There was a great ars technica (?) piece about it, but maybe it was over my head since I came away without a definite conclusion. I'm pretty sure someone who frequents this cafe knows for sure. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Cafe Sceptico: The Objectivist Cafe