[upstateguy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFxiLeQmb5k
 
Check it out.

 

[watchnerd]

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFxiLeQmb5k
 
Check it out.

 
Pretty cool, although I can't imagine anyone would find it surprising.

 

[greenpsycho]

I mean, this is a small portion of the discussion right? He is demonstrating absolute accuracy while us humans have continually shown we have little desire for absolute accuracy when it comes to sound and other mediums (think instagtam filters, rise of hyper realistic photography, and other art like paintings)

I think sound as technical (to which this demonstration is relative), music is artistic

 

[watchnerd]

I mean, this is a small portion of the discussion right? He is demonstrating absolute accuracy while us humans have continually shown we have little desire for absolute accuracy when it comes to sound and other mediums (think instagtam filters, rise of hyper realistic photography, and other art like paintings)

I think sound as technical (to which this demonstration is relative), music is artistic

 
Is the audio playback chain supposed to impose its own artistic layer on top of the artistic layer created by the artists?
 
IMHO, no.  The job of reproduction is exactly that: to reproduce what the artists created with as little deviation as possible.

 

[greenpsycho]

Totally valid and legit corner to be in, buy for myself, that's not a road I'm interested to adhering to without compromises. Now I'm not a tube roller or insist on class a amping, I'm more moderate and willing to accept that vinyl is less accurate but I appreciate the sound more on some albums (poor digital remasters and DR have killed a few digital albums for me)

Going back to the visual metaphor, most photography is perfectly accurate and preserves that specific viewpoint accurate technically. But that doesn't mean it's art or even looks good. For me, music had to be a compromise of reproduction quality (the sound) and the heart/soul/whatever you want to call it (the art)

 

[Roly1650]

I mean, this is a small portion of the discussion right? He is demonstrating absolute accuracy while us humans have continually shown we have little desire for absolute accuracy when it comes to sound and other mediums (think instagtam filters, rise of hyper realistic photography, and other art like paintings)

I think sound as technical (to which this demonstration is relative), music is artistic

Except that the reproduction of music is technical, not artistic.
The problem starts when someone wants to conflate the two by implying that because the music is the art then it's reproduction must be to, which is only true if a consicious decision is taken to ignore fidelity, (accuracy). And even then you'd be lucky to escape the technical for very long, the right thing to plug a LOMC into being one simple example.

 

[watchnerd]

Except that the reproduction of music is technical, not artistic.
The problem starts when someone wants to conflate the two by implying that because the music is the art then it's reproduction must be to, which is only true if a consicious decision is taken to ignore fidelity, (accuracy). And even then you'd be lucky to escape the technical for very long, the right thing to plug a LOMC into being one simple example.

 
We're still so far away from having really good fidelity at playback, with so many problems to solve there (room acoustics, distortion, resonances, dispersion, radiation patterns, etc.), that I don't feel the need to take artistic liberties -- I have my hands full just trying to get it to sound like it should.
 
It's particularly noticeable on recordings I've made myself because I was there, so I know how far short it falls.

 

[greenpsycho]

Except that the reproduction of music is technical, not artistic.
The problem starts when someone wants to conflate the two by implying that because the music is the art then it's reproduction must be to, which is only true if a consicious decision is taken to ignore fidelity, (accuracy). And even then you'd be lucky to escape the technical for very long, the right thing to plug a LOMC into being one simple example.

See I just don't agree with that, which is the basis for where we differ. There is art in editing a movie and art in developing film. There is art at evrry stage

Just because the product has been captured doesn't mean the experience is done and 100% complete. Exactly half of the entire process is consumption and how that product is experienced, which I don't believe is an artless procedure

 

[watchnerd]

See I just don't agree with that, which is the basis for where we differ. There is art in editing a movie and art in developing film. There is art at evrry stage

Just because the product has been captured doesn't mean the experience is done and 100% complete. Exactly half of the entire process is consumption and how that product is experienced, which I don't believe is an artless procedure

 
There absolutely is art in editing music, just as there is art in editing a movie.
 
But it's not the job of the reproduction chain to do its own artistic interpretation.
 
In fact, when it comes to cinema reproduction, it's a highly calibrated process that you can even perform at home on your TV to make sure that all the lumens, gamma, etc, are in line with the expected spec so that you see the director / cinematographer / editor's artistry as intended.  
 
We don't have people setting up their TVs with the equivalent of cheese cloth or sepia tone filters to 'soften' the look of movies to suit their personal taste.
 
I don't see why we accept this truth for cinema reproduction, but somehow feel free to override it for audio.

 

[greenpsycho]

Yeah, that's pretty true. Maybe the tools to measure audio vs video just aren't as easily understood for lay people.

That being said almost everyone in my family has a TV that is running in the default mode of super bright and over saturated with 120hz playback and unsynced audio. Heck, probably all TV's sold come this way and only a handful are actually set up properly, so maybe video playback is pretty trashed too

Sigh....this just depresses me to think about lol

 

[watchnerd]

Yeah, that's pretty true. Maybe the tools to measure audio vs video just aren't as easily understood for lay people.

That being said almost everyone in my family has a TV that is running in the default mode of super bright and over saturated with 120hz playback and unsynced audio. Heck, probably all TV's sold come this way and only a handful are actually set up properly, so maybe video playback is pretty trashed too
 

 
They usually come with the 'Bright' setting on by default so that they show well in fluorescent-lit big box stores like Best Buy.  But videophiles will calibrate them once they get them home.
 
As for audio, you can also measure and calibrate, too, and it's much cheaper than it used to be.  You can get a basic DSP/PEQ/DRC system, with microphone, for <$500 now (or even $299 if you don't mind the industrial rack look of pro stuff).   It doesn't solve all problems, but it's definitely will get your system a heck of a lot closer to better fidelity.