[gregorio]

I mentioned HF roll off is to "sounds dull", as incorrect phase shiff is to sounds "less musical" as a way of defining it, to give context. … [blah, blah, blah]

HF roll-off “sounds dull” whatever sound you apply it to. Incorrect phase shift makes speech less intelligible and affects all sound, is that “less musical” too? You have repeatedly claimed unmeasurable distortions that are specifically musical which therefore cause a lack of specifically “musical” transparency.

However, the examples you’ve provided are neither unmeasurable nor specifically musical and you’ve provided no reliable, relevant evidence otherwise. All you’ve done since your false claim is attempted insults, various other forms of deflection and lied about what you’ve stated, presumably because you know there is no reliable, relevant evidence. If that’s not trolling, I don’t know what is.

G

 

[old tech]

I'm going to list some rock albums from the 80s I think are great. Lots of these artists had other great albums in the 80s too. I could spend more time thinking about it, but this is good for now.

The Pretenders
Dire Straits: Brothers In Arms
Tom Waits: Rain Dogs
Talking Heads: Remain In Light
Prince: Purple Rain
Bruce Springsteen: Born In The USA
Peter Gabriel: Melt
The Cars: Heartbeat City
Ambrosia: One Eighty
Devo: Freedom Of Choice
Clash: London Calling
Roy Orbison: In Dreams
REM: Murmur
Brian Eno & David Byrne: My Life In The Bush Of Ghosts
Police: Zenyatta Mondatta
Frank Zappa: You Are What You Is
David Bowie: Let's Dance
Cyndi Lauper: She's So Unusual
Travelling Wilburys
Roxy Music: Avalon
Elvis Costello: Get Happy
XTC: Black Sea
Tears For Fears: Songs From The Big Chair
Pixies: Doolittle
Malcolm McLaren: Duck Rock

Most of these albums also sound great, particularly if you source the earlier "target" CDs.

Others of note:

Grace Jones - Grace Jones
Split Enz - Time and Tide
ELO - Time
Joe Jackson - Night and Day
OMD - Best of OMD
Midnight Oil - 10, 9, 8, 7...
Alan Parsons - Eye in the Sky

To name just a few.

 

[The Jester]

Most of these albums also sound great, particularly if you source the earlier "target" CDs.

Others of note:

Grace Jones - Grace Jones
Split Enz - Tide and Time
ELO - Time
Joe Jackson - Night and Day
OMD - Best of OMD
Midnight Oil - 10, 9, 8, 7...
Alan Parsons - Eye in the Sky

To name just a few.

The more you think about it, the more there is ..

 

[jagwap]

HF roll-off “sounds dull” whatever sound you apply it to. Incorrect phase shift makes speech less intelligible and affects all sound, is that “less musical” too? You have repeatedly claimed unmeasurable distortions that are specifically musical which therefore cause a lack of specifically “musical” transparency.

No I haven't. Stop changing what I say. I have claimed unmeasurable distortions effect the sound like the chassis material, and separately, phase, and other aspects, can affect the "musical transparency", many of which are measurable, but rarely examined in the design process.

However, the examples you’ve provided are neither unmeasurable nor specifically musical and you’ve provided no reliable, relevant evidence otherwise. All you’ve done since your false claim is attempted insults, various other forms of deflection and lied about what you’ve stated, presumably because you know there is no reliable, relevant evidence. If that’s not trolling, I don’t know what is.

G

I have not lied once. Calling me a liar is an obvious insult. Please behave yourself, and be more coherent.

 

[jagwap]

Most of these albums also sound great, particularly if you source the earlier "target" CDs.

Others of note:

Grace Jones - Grace Jones
Split Enz - Time and Tide
ELO - Time
Joe Jackson - Night and Day
OMD - Best of OMD
Midnight Oil - 10, 9, 8, 7...
Alan Parsons - Eye in the Sky

To name just a few.

All good sounding again.

There is a trend that the best sounding are from famous producers, unsurprisingly. Trevor Horn pops up a lot, and ELO: Jeff Lynne went on to produce so many great acts. Alan Parsons: well of course!

 

[gregorio]

Stop changing what I say. I have claimed unmeasurable distortions effect the sound like the chassis material and separately, phase, and other aspects, can affect the "musical transparency", many of which are measurable,

I stated “You have repeatedly claimed unmeasurable distortions that are specifically musical which therefore cause a lack of specifically “musical” transparency.” - What have I changed? Seems pretty much the same to me, except you separated chassis distortion from phase and other distortions, some of which are supposedly unmeasurable.

but rarely examined in the design process.

This is new though, in the past you’ve just stated these distortions are not examined or “rarely examined”, rather than “rarely examined in the design process”. That’s a big difference because science and/or some pro-audio fields other than equipment designers HAVE examined those distortions, sometimes very extensively (phase for example). Seems to me if anyone has changed what you said, it’s you.

I have not lied once.

You stated “All I said was that the '80s music will sound better and less fatiguing on the right gear.” - Which is blatantly untrue because our entire discourse has been about your claims of audible but unmeasurable and/or “musical” distortions, or the lack of them, “musical transparency”. And that’s just one example, there are others, such as claiming to have presented the reliable, relevant evidence requested.

Calling me a liar is an obvious insult.

If you have in fact lied, then calling you a lair is obviously just an accurate statement of fact. How else should I describe the phenomena of someone lying? In this day and age where politicians won’t call other lying politicians “liars”, either because they’re scared of being tarred with the same brush or they’re not allowed to, maybe you would have preferred the term “post-truthist”? Of course though, this whole semantic issue could easily be avoided in the first place!

G

 

[jagwap]

I stated “You have repeatedly claimed unmeasurable distortions that are specifically musical which therefore cause a lack of specifically “musical” transparency.” - What have I changed? Seems pretty much the same to me, except you separated chassis distortion from phase and other distortions, some of which are supposedly unmeasurable.

For someone who likes to dissect every word it should be clear:

1: I have claimed unmeasurable distortions effect the sound like the chassis material.

2: I have claimed phase, and other aspects, can affect the "musical transparency", many of which are measurable

Two sepaerrate points, as i stated it before.

Perhaps your first language is not English.

Perhaps you have a compulsion to reply and argue.

This is new though, in the past you’ve just stated these distortions are not examined or “rarely examined”, rather than “rarely examined in the design process”. That’s a big difference because science and/or some pro-audio fields other than equipment designers HAVE examined those distortions, sometimes very extensively (phase for example). Seems to me if anyone has changed what you said, it’s you.

Not a big difference to me, and I'm close to past caring what your interpretation of my words are. However, we both talk in context of where we work. I design audio, you record it. So when i said it is not measurable I meant by test gear i use in the lab. You said it is, because you can measure it by recording it.

If you refuse to see my side, maybe I should be just as narrow minded.

You stated “All I said was that the '80s music will sound better and less fatiguing on the right gear.” - Which is blatantly untrue because our entire discourse has been about your claims of audible but unmeasurable and/or “musical” distortions, or the lack of them, “musical transparency”. And that’s just one example, there are others, such as claiming to have presented the reliable, relevant evidence requested.

Why is it blatently untrue? The right gear, which obviously I mean more musically transparent, will make it sound better. So again you are taking the opposite of what I say in order to disagree. Pointless waist of bandwidth.

If you have in fact lied, then calling you a lair is obviously just an accurate statement of fact. How else should I describe the phenomena of someone lying? In this day and age where politicians won’t call other lying politicians “liars”, either because they’re scared of being tarred with the same brush or they’re not allowed to, maybe you would have preferred the term “post-truthist”? Of course though, this whole semantic issue could easily be avoided in the first place!

G

I have not lied to the best of my knowledge.

Let's not escalate the insults from troll and liar, to politician. That would be too insulting.

 

[gregorio]

Well, there are levels of mainstream. Not all mainstream artists sell millions of copies,

Hmmm, not sure about that. Sure there are different levels of mainstream but to be considered a mainstream artist/band, you have to appeal to quite a broad demographic and you have to sell a lot of copies.

but are still in the mainstream and widely known by the public, often thanks to favourable media coverage.

Not sure about that either. Sometimes it’s due to highly unfavourable media coverage, the Sex Pistols being a famous example, Frankie Goes to Hollywood’s “Relax” is arguably an even more famous example and there are numerous other examples. And, while favourable or unfavourable media coverage often increases sales, sometimes dramatically so, and often makes the personalities within the band widely known, it doesn’t necessarily make their music mainstream.

Yep, and that fact contributes to the genres becoming less about creativity/innovation and more about money-making.

The commercial popular music industry has always been “more about money-making” and that creates a framework which does put loose limits on creativity/innovation but nevertheless does allow quite a wide range of creativity/innovation (within those limits).

When people learn to like trance for example, it is financially beneficial to keep playing the trance people like.

It can be, but that’s not entirely how the industry works. It can be financially disastrous “to keep playing the trance [or other sub-genre] people like”. Firstly, the big money tends to be made either by the pioneers of a new style/genre/sub-genre or those who epitomise it fairly shortly afterwards. Once a style/genre/subgenre is established and popular, many others will jump on the bandwagon. So there’s a big financial risk in being one of many trying to get a slice of the pie. Secondly, you never know when a band/artist is going to come-up with some popular innovation to the style, which can render your past and current work obsolete, almost overnight in some cases. What the industry is most earnestly looking for, is therefore artists that don’t just keep playing the sub-genre people like but have some innovation/twist on it. Although with the pop industry this is sometimes more of a twist with marketing, fashion or presentation than the music itself.

Masses are not generally quick to adopt new genres and styles.

Again, not sure that’s always true. They sometimes can quite quickly adopt new genres and styles.

Yes, although electronic dance music seems to connect people from all cultures magically and this kind of music seems to interest liberally thinking people.

Western cultures maybe, I don’t know how well it’s penetrated other cultures.

The Acid House explosion in 1988 is even called "the second summer of love."

That’s a good example of what I mentioned. As far as I’m aware, the 1988 2nd Summer of Love was extremely regionalised. Not only was it local to the UK but to a specific region of the UK, although it subsequently influenced other regions/countries. Also, we can’t really call it mainstream; it was a relatively small demographic (mainly late teens/early 20’s) and only appealed to a limited portion of that demographic, because the events/raves were illegal (ask me how I know!). The general public became aware of this scene/sub-genre because the mainstream press published a lot of negative publicity, although that was more about the associated “designer drug” culture than the music and with the odd exception, the music itself did not really become mainstream.

I totally agree that the stylistic elements can be messy, but what I have learned is this can be a positive thing and increase musical interest.

Potentially, although potentially it can also have the opposite effect. In my music, I typically like to mix things up and use stylistic elements which cross the boundaries of genres/sub-genres, even on occasion mixing up stylistic elements of the most disparate genres I can think of. There are others like me of course but some don’t want to step outside their genre/sub-genre because they’re not confident with other genres and/or don’t want to alienate their existing fan base.

G

 

[71 dB]

That’s a good example of what I mentioned. As far as I’m aware, the 1988 2nd Summer of Love was extremely regionalised. Not only was it local to the UK but to a specific region of the UK, although it subsequently influenced other regions/countries. Also, we can’t really call it mainstream; it was a relatively small demographic (mainly late teens/early 20’s) and only appealed to a limited portion of that demographic, because the events/raves were illegal (ask me how I know!). The general public became aware of this scene/sub-genre because the mainstream press published a lot of negative publicity, although that was more about the associated “designer drug” culture than the music and with the odd exception, the music itself did not really become mainstream.

We don't really disagree about anything. This is semantics and how we see things. I come from a somewhat isolated culture (Finland) and for me it is natural to think mainstream can be very localised. There's tons of "mainstream" Finnish artists that are known by "everyone" here, but hardly by anyone in other countries, for example because they sing in Finnish! You may have never heard of Paula Koivuniemi for example, but in Finland she is as mainstream as it gets.

 

[gregorio]

1: I have claimed unmeasurable distortions effect the sound like the chassis material.

2: I have claimed phase, and other aspects, can affect the "musical transparency", many of which are measurable

Two sepaerrate points, as i stated it before.

Two separate points which I’ve addressed.
1. I’m not sure what you mean by distortions caused by chassis material. But again, I’ve never seen, read about or even heard of an audible distortion that was unmeasurable. Please provide some reliable, relevant evidence of this phenomena.
2. But again, you’ve provided no reliable, relevant evidence of that claim. The examples you’ve given affect audio transparency in general, not specifically “musical transparency”. And, “many of which are measurable” indicates that some are not measurable but again you’ve provided no reliable, relevant evidence to support your claim and the examples you’ve provided are in fact measurable.

… maybe I should be just as narrow minded.

Clearly you should be as narrow minded as me, instead of the far more narrow minded you’re being! For example:

I design audio, you record it.

No, I design audio, I record audio, I edit audio, mix and master audio and in so doing I identify all audible distortions and address them, whatever their cause.

So when i said it is not measurable I meant by test gear i use in the lab.

“Not measurable” means “unmeasurable” and you’ve used/claimed both of these terms. Now you’re saying that’s not what you meant, they are not necessarily unmeasurable, they’re just unmeasurable by you personally with your test gear, which is exceptionally narrow minded!

You said it is, because you can measure it by recording it.

I said it is because I can record a difference file from a null test (and analyse the measurement of amplitude and frequency it contains), use some other test equipment and a whole range of meters. Never have I encountered or heard of some type of audible distortion that I can’t somehow be detected by means other than just my ears and therefore I wouldn’t be able to address.

Why is it blatently untrue?

Because that is blatantly NOT “All you said …”, blatantly you have also said, repeatedly, there are unmeasurable distortions, musical distortions/musical transparency.

The right gear, which obviously I mean more musically transparent, will make it sound better.

If gear is audibly transparent, which most is, how does being “more musically transparent” make it sound better? If gear is not audibly transparent, then it has some form of audible distortion that will affect any type of sound, not specifically music. “Musical”transparency is therefore a meaningless term, exactly like all the other audiophile equipment marketing use of the term!

G

 

[gregorio]

This is semantics and how we see things. I come from a somewhat isolated culture (Finland) and for me it is natural to think mainstream can be very localised.

Yes, I can understand that. In the UK, we’ve had regional musical variations/scenes, for example London, Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham and “mainstream” doesn’t necessarily even mean music that crosses all these UK regional boundaries but crosses international boundaries. This is presumably because many of the biggest mainstream UK artists/bands have historically also had mainstream success in other countries and sometimes even globally.

G

 

[jagwap]

Two separate points which I’ve addressed.
1. I’m not sure what you mean by distortions caused by chassis material. But again, I’ve never seen, read about or even heard of an audible distortion that was unmeasurable. Please provide some reliable, relevant evidence of this phenomena.
2. But again, you’ve provided no reliable, relevant evidence of that claim. The examples you’ve given affect audio transparency in general, not specifically “musical transparency”. And, “many of which are measurable” indicates that some are not measurable but again you’ve provided no reliable, relevant evidence to support your claim and the examples you’ve provided are in fact measurable.

You didn't. You grouped them together and mixed them up. If you want a coherent debate, be coherent.

Clearly you should be as narrow minded as me, instead of the far more narrow minded you’re being! For example:

No, I design audio, I record audio, I edit audio, mix and master audio and in so doing I identify all audible distortions and address them, whatever their cause.

Design audio mean design audio equipment in my context. Design audio in any other context is odd. Like a hairdresser saying they design hair. Really? You do not seem to have a grasp of that end. Just how to plug it together a twiddle the knobs. A different set of skills.

“Not measurable” means “unmeasurable” and you’ve used/claimed both of these terms. Now you’re saying that’s not what you meant, they are not necessarily unmeasurable, they’re just unmeasurable by you personally with your test gear, which is exceptionally narrow minded!

I am just demonstrating our individual bias, so that you can understand why you cannot debate this well from an unbiased point of view.

I said it is because I can record a difference file from a null test (and analyse the measurement of amplitude and frequency it contains), use some other test equipment and a whole range of meters. Never have I encountered or heard of some type of audible distortion that I can’t somehow be detected by means other than just my ears and therefore I wouldn’t be able to address.

We've had a far more detailed discussion this on another thread where we discussed it's limitations. Don't leave that behind and pretend it is perfect again.

Because that is blatantly NOT “All you said …”, blatantly you have also said, repeatedly, there are unmeasurable distortions, musical distortions/musical transparency.

"All I said..." is an expression in English to explain that what started the discussion, in this case a simple statement that better replay is more enjoyable, with specifics regarding musical reproduction. Sorry if you don't have the English comprehension for this.

If gear is audibly transparent, which most is,

No, most is not. I depends on your quality standards I guess.

how does being “more musically transparent” make it sound better?

Idiotic question. Answered many times. Ignored by you so you can keep arguing.

If gear is not audibly transparent, then it has some form of audible distortion that will affect any type of sound, not specifically music. “Musical”transparency is therefore a meaningless term, exactly like all the other audiophile equipment marketing use of the term!

No, it regards a specific type of non-transparency.

G

I have been transparent.

Now you must answer. Of course if you cannot find an error, you will invent one.

 

[jagwap]

We don't really disagree about anything. This is semantics and how we see things. I come from a somewhat isolated culture (Finland) and for me it is natural to think mainstream can be very localised. There's tons of "mainstream" Finnish artists that are known by "everyone" here, but hardly by anyone in other countries, for example because they sing in Finnish! You may have never heard of Paula Koivuniemi for example, but in Finland she is as mainstream as it gets.

Moi!

Finland is a wonderful place, with wonderful people. I miss it. One of my best friends married a Finnish lady and moved there. What a wedding! (bit drunken, apparently traditional. Only sauna can fix that the next day). After that I visited twice a year for about six years until I left Europe. Finish music is a much undiscovered trove, until the Eurovision Song Contest was turned upside down and conquered!

 

[71 dB]

Moi!

Finland is a wonderful place, with wonderful people. I miss it. One of my best friends married a Finnish lady and moved there. What a wedding! (bit drunken, apparently traditional. Only sauna can fix that the next day). After that I visited twice a year for about six years until I left Europe. Finish music is a much undiscovered trove, until the Eurovision Song Contest was turned upside down and conquered!

Oh! Cool the hear you have such experiences being in Finland! Before Lordi won the Eurovision Song Contest Finns kept joking that hell will freeze before Finland wins. Maybe hell did freeze?

 

[71 dB]

Yes, I can understand that. In the UK, we’ve had regional musical variations/scenes, for example London, Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham and “mainstream” doesn’t necessarily even mean music that crosses all these UK regional boundaries but crosses international boundaries. This is presumably because many of the biggest mainstream UK artists/bands have historically also had mainstream success in other countries and sometimes even globally.

G

It takes almost miracles for a Finnish artist to become globally successful. The best known Finnish bands tend to be metal bands such as Nightwish. There was Darude's Sandstorm that was an international hit two decades ago. Bomfunk MC's might have been somewhat successful in Europe too around that time. Sara Forsberg tried to conquer the USA, but pretty much all that came from that was that she was asked to create an alien language for Star Wars Episode VII, because she is really talented in mimicking speaking in various languages.