[TheGhostWhoWalks]

 
Quote:

Wait, is that a sly proper use of the verb "effect" (i.e. to cause or to bring about), or just a fortunate misuse of "effected" where "affected" (i.e. influenced by) was actually intended?  Well, I guess I assume the latter based on the improper conjugation of the verb "to mean", unless that too was done on purpose..

You're not a D*****, as I'm (occasionally) a bit of a grammar Nazi myself. I think both "influenced by" and "brought about by" are both applicable in this situation, but I originally meant the latter. The room influences the sound, but also has a huge hand in directly bringing about the sound and soundstaging. It's not technically an incorrect usage because of the passive voice. Perhaps "affects" was probably more semantically accurate in this instance, since the more I think about it, the room is more of an influence than an agent.

 

[Clarkmc2]

 
Quote:

What in the world are you trying to say with your acoustic vs. sound reinforcement bit?  Maybe I should redirect you to my friends, Merriam and Webster, who would inform you that acoustic with reference to musical instruments means "without electronic modification" - the only instrument I know as "electro-acoustic" is an acoustic guitar with transducers for optionally "reinforcing" the sound.  Electric guitars, keyboards/synths, theremins, and all other manner of instruments whose primary method of sound creation is through an amplifier and speaker are decidedly not acoustic instruments by any sense of the word.  So you're making up your own definitions - and you seem to lack a coherent point since you seem to think that jazz, folk, blues and rural country music are the only significant genres and that they are only played in small venues and that they're the only type of music played in those small venues, too...
 
But yes, I agree with you on the "lifelike plus" aspect of studio recordings over many genres of music.  I also agree with you that a well performed, non sound-reinforced gig by a good artist in a good small venue (or properly reinforced in a good large venue) represent the ideal to strive for in most cases.

Correction of definition noted, and thank you. Never mind that you knew darned well what I meant. As for the bolded parts, I did not say or suggest that those were the only possibilities. I was just throwing out some examples of what might be more commonly encountered. As another example, I attend a venue on a college campus that is totally acoustic. Anything that might be played by a university student or faculty member is on hand during concerts and recitals. There is also an "open mike" night at a local cafe. Usually with no mike. I did not see the need to write a book, and I had previously given this information out here in several other threads on these subjects. Sorry to have ruined a bit of your day.
 
I guess I might add that my f-hole Gibson archtop sounds great not plugged in at all, and also sounds great feeding its P90 pickup through my Mesa Boogie. This is not quite cut and dried. Your friends M & W probably never saw an archtop with a pickup. But yes, I know what you mean.
 

 

[Rotaryphone]

Headphone is like looking at HD pictures, page by page. Speakers are like watching HD movie. It just can't be same experience.

 

[Mdraluck23]

I think that Speakers are a much more open system, many more evariables, seeing as they may have many drivers, different locations, room dynamics, etc.
 
Headphones are easiest to get a solid SQ from, for the price and practicality.
 
Speakers have the POTENTIAL to blow even the greatest headphones away.

 

[kboe]

Thank you for saying this well.  I've always felt this way, but never knew how to articulate it.  I agree completely.
 
Quote:

 
It has been suggested in one of the seeming hundreds of previous threads on headphones vs speakers that using a subwoofer with headphones would give the missing chest thump, for those missing it. It probably would.
 
As for soundstage/imaging, I can tell you that from a historical perspective (listening for over fifty years personally and coming from a family that has been in the loop a lot longer), the current mania for "accurate" spatial reproduction is just plain weird. It is not going to be even close to the real thing with any current technology, and how important it is to a pleasurable listening experience is completely subjective. A fad, basically. Remember, musical, indeed all sound reproduction is an illusion and should not be confused with the first hand listening experience. There are fundamental reasons why the current high fidelity revival is two channel based. Anything beyond stereo is not reality either, just a different illusion. The other elements, like tonal and timbre accuracy, microdynamics - detail if you will - are fundamental to the experience. If the basic reproduction is not enough to fool you, you start seeing the speaker as something with sound coming out of it, like a PA, and the illusion is gone. Each of us at any given time has a place where this threshold exists for us. It works exactly like the willing suspension of disbelief with movies. Spatial clues are nice, but not fundamental. Anyone who has heard live music, indeed live sound, has the ability to fill in the blanks with their brain. Unless, of course, they are consciously hung up on spatial imaging and keep thinking about what they are missing. Anyone from the hifi mono days could tell you how it works and how satisfying the experience is. And how complete the headphone experience of modern high end cans can be.
 
If you doubt all of this, go hear a string bass live in a good hall. The sensation of the sound coming from different places and utterly washing over you, the reality, is nothing like what any reproduction of it currently available will yield. Not even in the same ballpark.
 
Put another way, it is all in your head. Unless you tell yourself that it is not, then it won't be! If you were to apply this thinking to seeing, binocular vision and the framed play of motion pictures and television would seem a hopeless and inadequate illusion.
 
If anyone else wants to start another thread on headphones vs speakers, please do a search first and spare us all another go around of the same ideas and input. This amounts paraphrasing. On a related front, when was the last time new thinking appeared re: dynamic vs electrostatic? Hey, we could start another thread on tube vs solid state! There is an original concept! The kind and practical thing to do is to add any new input to the existing discussions. Just bump the thread.

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

 
Quote:

What in the world are you trying to say with your acoustic vs. sound reinforcement bit?  Maybe I should redirect you to my friends, Merriam and Webster, who would inform you that acoustic with reference to musical instruments means "without electronic modification" - the only instrument I know as "electro-acoustic" is an acoustic guitar with transducers for optionally "reinforcing" the sound.  Electric guitars, keyboards/synths, theremins, and all other manner of instruments whose primary method of sound creation is through an amplifier and speaker are decidedly not acoustic instruments by any sense of the word.  So you're making up your own definitions - and you seem to lack a coherent point since you seem to think that jazz, folk, blues and rural country music are the only significant genres and that they are only played in small venues and that they're the only type of music played in those small venues, too...
 
But yes, I agree with you on the "lifelike plus" aspect of studio recordings over many genres of music.  I also agree with you that a well performed, non sound-reinforced gig by a good artist in a good small venue (or properly reinforced in a good large venue) represent the ideal to strive for in most cases.

Correction of definition noted, and thank you. Never mind that you knew darned well what I meant. As for the bolded parts, I did not say or suggest that those were the only possibilities. I was just throwing out some examples of what might be more commonly encountered. As another example, I attend a venue on a college campus that is totally acoustic. Anything that might be played by a university student or faculty member is on hand during concerts and recitals. There is also an "open mike" night at a local cafe. Usually with no mike. I did not see the need to write a book, and I had previously given this information out here in several other threads on these subjects. Sorry to have ruined a bit of your day.
 
I guess I might add that my f-hole Gibson archtop sounds great not plugged in at all, and also sounds great feeding its P90 pickup through my Mesa Boogie. This is not quite cut and dried. Your friends M & W probably never saw an archtop with a pickup. But yes, I know what you mean.
 

Sorry, I like exaggerating and arguing semantics.    No harm intended - or felt, for that matter - and yes, I get what you're saying.