Am i crazy or just deaf

[semente]

1 hour ago, trappy said:

Surely dynamics is about differences in amplitude, not frequency?

 

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

which is why i said what i am hearing is a combination of dynamics and tonal balance...example, I will get more amplitude of lower frequencies with inclusion of the T2s.  There is probably better terminology to explain....

 

 

The problem is that an uneven frequency response may sound more "exciting", giving a subjective impression of "freer" dynamics or of a "faster", "tighter" bass.

In fact many subjective qualities are due to anomalies in the frequency response.

[fas42]

11 hours ago, semente said:

Our opinion regarding sound quality depends on many different factors such as our sonic and music culture, our live and reproduced music references, our evaluation methodology, our expectations, the genres we listen to...

This is why I defend that unless people use an observationist approach to sound assessment, with adequate methodology and the right references, discussing audio is meaningless.

 

OK, this is where listening with "different ears" makes all the difference ... .

 

One of the telling experiences with a classic audiophile, who visited one of my setups a decade or more ago, was that he was incredibly twitchy for the first hour or so - my system was not pushing the usual audiophile buttons, and he just didn't "get it"! ... it was too easy to listen to!! Finally, the penny dropped - and he relaxed, and just "enjoyed the music", .

 

His wife came along, the next time he visited, and she instantly understood - "I love it!!", or words to that effect ...

 

Another keen listener, not strongly audiophile, but lover of classical music was getting on edge, because the big climax was coming, in the orchestral piece she knew well - "Aren't you going to turn it down?" ... "Nooo ..." - and the grand finale arrived, and effortlessly rolled over the top of us, not a skerrick of nastiness to be heard ... playback working well hits a huge number of "good buttons", and it doesn't have to be shouting at you all the time, "Look at how impressive I sound!"

You can call those reactions subjective, I tend to see them as objective - because they "measure" what is being got right that matters.

[fas42]

9 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

So i did a little research to try to better understand what i was hearing, and from what i read and the differences i hear, is a combination of both dynamics and tonal balance, and of course this is "to me".... but i also believe if the response could be plotted, it would show what i am hearing, which would closely resemble a combination of the two different frequency response curves.

 

 

I tend to use the word "intensity" - live, acoustic music has the ability to "bowl you over" ... one moment it's lulling you to sleep; the next, it's got you by the short and curlies, completely drowning out everything else you can hear - and, it does this, effortlessly ...

 

Competent playback does exactly the same - subjectively, the swings are "staggering" - if a rig can't do this, then it's showing obvious shortcomings.

[semente]

19 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

OK, this is where listening with "different ears" makes all the difference ... .

 

One of the telling experiences with a classic audiophile, who visited one of my setups a decade or more ago, was that he was incredibly twitchy for the first hour or so - my system was not pushing the usual audiophile buttons, and he just didn't "get it"! ... it was too easy to listen to!! Finally, the penny dropped - and he relaxed, and just "enjoyed the music", .

 

His wife came along, the next time he visited, and she instantly understood - "I love it!!", or words to that effect ...

 

Another keen listener, not strongly audiophile, but lover of classical music was getting on edge, because the big climax was coming, in the orchestral piece she knew well - "Aren't you going to turn it down?" ... "Nooo ..." - and the grand finale arrived, and effortlessly rolled over the top of us, not a skerrick of nastiness to be heard ... playback working well hits a huge number of "good buttons", and it doesn't have to be shouting at you all the time, "Look at how impressive I sound!"

You can call those reactions subjective, I tend to see them as objective - because they "measure" what is being got right that matters.

 

Reactions are important but they don't characterize performance. That in my view requires identifying the different aspects and analysing them, by comparing what we hear with our references. That way you'll will be able to identify the qualities and the shortcomings and act accordingly. And you can share your impressions in a more meaningful way.

[fas42]

7 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Reactions are important but they don't characterize performance. That in my view requires identifying the different aspects and analysing them, by comparing what we hear with our references. That way you'll will be able to identify the qualities and the shortcomings and act accordingly. And you can share your impressions in a more meaningful way.

 

If what matters was easy to measure, using readily available equipment and approaches, then all these conversations would not be necessary - I've been keeping an eye out for such for 30 years, and have not come across anything significant, to date.

 

What I do is identify failings, flaws in the actual sound - like hearing a rattle in the car while driving. It is clearly something that is incorrect, which would be measurable if I put some effort into that; but it is far, far more productive to identify the "rattle", work out what the cause is, and resolve the issue.

[semente]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

If what matters was easy to measure, using readily available equipment and approaches, then all these conversations would not be necessary - I've been keeping an eye out for such for 30 years, and have not come across anything significant, to date.

 

What I do is identify failings, flaws in the actual sound - like hearing a rattle in car while driving. It is clearly something that is incorrect, which would be measurable if I put some effort into that; but it is far, far more productive to identify the "rattle", work out what the cause is, and resolve the issue.

 

I use listening (supported by available measurements) in the same manner. It's the only way to take control over one's system building. Effective upgrading using a taste-driven assessment approach is purely accidental.

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I use listening (supported by available measurements) in the same manner. It's the only way to take control over one's system building. Effective upgrading using a taste-driven assessment approach will be accidental.

 

What I find occurs is that if all the faults that are clearly audible are eliminated, then the SQ falls into place, automatically. I've used this process over and over again, on quite a variety of components - and it always delivers the goods. So ... "special sound" == all objectionable artifacts or behaviours no longer audible.