RSA **Predator** A review in stages ** With some "NEW" images on 1st and page 64 . . .

[boomana]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamato8 /img/forum/go_quote.gif That is my interpretation of what I am hearing.

i understand that, but I genuinely want to know what you mean by "more dynamic than the SR-71" so I can understand your interpretation. There are a lot of phrases people say that I don't understand in terms of either my experience or weighted against what I've read before, so I ask for clarification. For example, lately I've seen the description "musical" in so many different contexts in reviews or impressions posts, it has lost all meaning to me other than giving me the feeling that someone likes something. I'm not trying to be contentious, I really would like to know.

 

[vvs_75]

Quote:

Originally Posted by n_maher /img/forum/go_quote.gif I look forward to your long term impressions.

We all do! Just don’t forget to tell us at what point you start likening it better than the Xin reference.

 

[jamato8]

To me musical is what I hear in live music be it Rock, Heavy metal, acoustical orchestral, acoustical guitar and so on. Taken within the context of what I hear in notes, macro and micro changes within notes and the influence of that upon what "I" interpret as natural within a genera of music.

Dynamics as that fluctuation of sound with a clean leading edge that has impact, has attack that does not bleed onto other notes or areas where it should not.

 

[jamato8]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vvs_75 /img/forum/go_quote.gif We all do! Just don’t forget to tell us at what point you start likening it better than the Xin reference.

I don't know that I will like it better or worse. It may be just another way to subtly or not so subtly to interpret the digital and audio signal.

 

[thrice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamato8 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Dynamics as that fluctuation of sound with a clean leading edge that has impact, has attack that does not bleed onto other notes or areas where it should not.

To me that sounds like separate and impact and not necessarily dynamics. Stereophile defines dynamics and dynamic range as:

Stereophile: Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary

dynamic Giving an impression of wide dynamic range; punchy. This is related to system speed as well as to volume contrast.


dynamic range 1) Pertaining to a signal: the ratio between the loudest and the quietest passages. 2) Pertaining to a component: the ratio between its no-signal noise and the loudest peak it will pass without distortion.


Now, I'm not saying that Stereophile is the end-all be-all for defining how we use words to describe music, but on the other hand there is something to be said for a standard language that is used to refer to things consistently so we can all infer the same thing from a subjective statement.

As a classically trained musician I was taught that dynamics deal with the variety in volume indicated by markings such as p(iano), f(orte), mf(mezzo forte=medium loud)... etc.

Naxos defines it as the level of sound (loud or soft) via their dictionary:
Musical Terms | Music Glossary: Terminology | Dictionary - D-F

I can check the Harvard Dictionary of musical terms when I get home as it tends to be more thorough.

Perhaps that is what boomana is getting at as far as asking for qualifications. It can be difficult to interpret a review or impressions when you have to try to determine what the writer means by "dynamic, musical, bright,... etc.

just my 2 bits.

 

[jamato8]

Great, thank you. Sounds good to me. I used to play the sax so I can understand the whole dynamic scenario. I am glad there are dictionaries we can all refer to.


Quote:

Originally Posted by thrice /img/forum/go_quote.gif To me that sounds like separate and impact and not necessarily dynamics. Stereophile defines dynamics and dynamic range as: Stereophile: Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary dynamic Giving an impression of wide dynamic range; punchy. This is related to system speed as well as to volume contrast. dynamic range 1) Pertaining to a signal: the ratio between the loudest and the quietest passages. 2) Pertaining to a component: the ratio between its no-signal noise and the loudest peak it will pass without distortion. Now, I'm not saying that Stereophile is the end-all be-all for defining how we use words to describe music, but on the other hand there is something to be said for a standard language that is used to refer to things consistently so we can all infer the same thing from a subjective statement. As a classically trained musician I was taught that dynamics deal with the variety in volume indicated by markings such as p(iano), f(orte), mf(mezzo forte=medium loud)... etc. Naxos defines it as the level of sound (loud or soft) via their dictionary: Musical Terms | Music Glossary: Terminology | Dictionary - D-F I can check the Harvard Dictionary of musical terms when I get home as it tends to be more thorough. Perhaps that is what boomana is getting at as far as asking for qualifications. It can be difficult to interpret a review or impressions when you have to try to determine what the writer means by "dynamic, musical, bright,... etc. just my 2 bits.

 

[grawk]

When people use words in a way that's different from what they actually mean, no one understands what they mean. So it helps to know that when jamato8 says "dynamics" he really means something completely different. It's always good to know what words mean, and how to use them.

 

[Asr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shopper /img/forum/go_quote.gif Doesn't all this pedagogical attitude fight against the creative use of language a little? I think it harms immediacy of expression. Let's not be too formal... We aren't a recognized audio magazine yet, after all. P.S. Words like "musical" could never be defined. Musical is what does good to your favorite music and to your individual pair of ears; therefore, it'll be as subjective to others as it is objective to you. No delirating standardizations please!

Except a word like "dynamic" has a very specific definition to musicians. Anyone can throw around the use of the word "dynamic," and indeed most people probably aren't familiar with its actual definition which can lead to uninformed people mis-using it. Not saying that jamato's mis-used it, just saying that those who lack musical training or knowledge aren't going to use the word properly and hence a reviewer who lacks musical training/knowledge is going to pass off bad information. I don't think I'm being too technical on this either, as this is music we're all listening to and regardless of genre, all music is built on certain principles, dynamics being one of them. The definition that thrice provided is right on the mark.

And for the record, I'm a trained violinist (20 years now) and formerly played piano (5 years).

 

[tomjtx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk /img/forum/go_quote.gif When people use words in a way that's different from what they actually mean, no one understands what they mean. So it helps to know that when jamato8 says "dynamics" he really means something completely different. It's always good to know what words mean, and how to use them.

X10 !!!!!

If one doesn't use language correctly, if one assigns incorrect meaning to words, communication is all but impossible and discussion is meaningless.

Words have a precise meaning and understanding their proper meaning fosters communication and the creative exchange of ideas.

It is the imprecise understanding of language that hampers creativity and creative thought.

 

[thrice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shopper /img/forum/go_quote.gif Agreed regarding "dynamic", it is indeed something transversal to music genres and personal tastes. Where it becomes a personal thing again, is when comparisons come into play, i.e. when different references are concerned. One will be for the forceful dynamics (supposedly the classical music lover), the other for the subtle and delicate (like the acoustic music lover), therefore opinions will be diverse...

See know you've provided a great example showing how improper use and lack of clarity leads to confusion and miscommunication. Let's take you last statement:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shopper /img/forum/go_quote.gif Where it becomes a personal thing again, is when comparisons come into play, i.e. when different references are concerned. One will be for the forceful dynamics (supposedly the classical music lover), the other for the subtle and delicate (like the acoustic music lover), therefore opinions will be diverse...

You clearly do not understand what dynamics refers to, despite having read the aforementioned definition. Dynamics refers to the contrast and use of louder and softer volumes in music. Forceful dynamics are not unique to any one type or genre of music. You can have subtle and delicate dynamics in classical, jazz, folk, rock...etc. just as you can have forceful dynamics as well.

Where dynamics comes into play regarding audio gear is that particular piece of gear's ability to convey those dynamics accurately. If a piece of gear glosses over the dynamics and doe snot allow the finer nuances of the dynamic changes to come through then that piece might be described as having poor dynamic performance. The degree of the quality of dynamic performance in a piece of gear is what is up to the consumer to decide...how important is dynamics to you?

 

[jamato8]

At this point I find that the Predator is handling volume quite well. No sign of clipping with bass heavy music and as the volume is increased the sound field closes in slightly but no more than what I would normally expect. Right now I like the medium gain as it sounds the most neutral to my ear (the low gain is a little warmer and the high gain a little brighter).

I am using the Ultrasone 750's most of the time but other headphones that I use can be seen in my signature.

 

[vcoheda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by thrice /img/forum/go_quote.gif To me that sounds like separate and impact ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shopper /img/forum/go_quote.gif Doesn't all this pedagogical attitude ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk /img/forum/go_quote.gif When people use words in a way that's different ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asr /img/forum/go_quote.gif Except a word like "dynamic" ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomjtx /img/forum/go_quote.gif X10 !!!!! If one doesn't use language correctly, ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shopper /img/forum/go_quote.gif Agreed regarding "dynamic" ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by thrice /img/forum/go_quote.gif See know you've provided a great example showing how improper use ...

maybe you guys could stop derailing this thread and stay on topic.

 

[immtbiker]

Zounds

.

Scrypt has molted and spread out over the universe

 

[jamato8]

This isn't getting to be much fun. I just enjoy sharing what I am hearing but having that lost in a debate that makes it difficult to read about the Predator is like a train that just went over a cliff. Maybe I will start this over.

 

[immtbiker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamato8 /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...a debate that makes it difficult to read about the Predator is like a train that just went over a cliff. Maybe I will start this over.

I've never seen a train go off a cliff. Cars maybe, but never a train.

However, trains do get derailed (I kid).

"I was astonished as to how viscerally real, see-through, dimensional and ultra delicate the (insert name of any component) had become."