Jump to content

semente

Members
  • Content Count

    5422
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About semente

Personal Information

  • Location
    Land of the Angles

Recent Profile Visitors

8019 profile views
  1. Multi-channel stereo is still stereo. But if real stereo is rare, multi-channel real stereo is even rarer. Real stereo is a lot better at conveying the illusion of the original soundscape that a stereo mix yet few people/labels are doing it.
  2. Note to prospective buyers eClassical Christmas deals are not limited to the day they're issued. This album is still available for $5.07
  3. Quite successfully is subjective. Most people here don't like the results or use DSP for "immersion" purposes. To me it's the sonic equivalent of watching a 3D film with a pair of paper 3D-galsses with one eye red and the other bluse; I won't deny that the instruments become more detached and perceptively more three-dimensional but it ruins other musically related aspects which for me are far more important that the visual aspect of a musical performance. Stereo is limited. But currently there's nothing better.
  4. What does highly held mean? Rather subjective term in my view...
  5. We can't address crosstalk between speakers. And we can't reproduce the original soundfield with speakers. So we're stuck with a more or less credible illusion. In high-fidelity you are measuring the accuracy with which a particular element of the chain handles the signal - garbage in. garbage out.
  6. Is there a point to your post?
  7. A bump for subjectivism. 😁
  8. A cardiologist uses sight, hearing and measurements. He can antecipate performance by looking at overweight middle-aged smoker (just as we know what to expect from a tiny 2-way), he will use his hearing with a stethoscope to identify heart murmurs and other problems (just as we hear the effects of a cone breakup resonance or of an underdamped reflex), then resort to say an echo- or a electro-cardiogram for further assessment... Why should audiophiles not do the same? But I can't hear a murmur, I have not been trained to do so.
  9. I agree that there isn't one such set. For me measurements are useful for shortlisting and to identify possible causes of problems I spotted when listening. @Miskas measurements of my DAC helped me decide the best settings, not because those settings sound good but because they produce lower distortion. Experience has taught me that lower distortion sounds better.
  10. This would be ruling out that one cannot identify problems through listening but that is what happened when people were complaining about the sound of high negative-feedback low-distortion amplifiers. Scientists use observation all the time. It's not the same as tasting. Different tasks, different goals. What I do is not tasting. I am focusing on sound, not music. It may happen that I spot something wrong when I'm listening for pleasure but when I am assessing sound I am not enjoying the music.
  11. I agree that ears are not measuring instruments but they can still be used to identify problems in performance, so long as you know how to listen and what to listen for and complement listening with measurements. And because neither I (nor 98.375% of audiophiles) have any measuring equipment (well I do have a USB mic) we have to rely on our ears and whatever measurements are available when they are available. In other words it's the methodology I have at my disposal and it's more effective than just putting a system togheter without listening, just based on measurements. Do/would you put toghether a system based on measurements alone? Have you never felt that something in one of pieces of equipment didn't sound right in spite of the measurements? Did you dismiss it because whatever it was measurements showed it was below the threshold of audibility? I understand your unconcealed hatred for the disonesty on one side and gullibility on the other surrounding this hobby, for like you I have been conned in the past, but I think that you are making a mistake in dismissing the complementary role of listening by focusing exclusively on measurements. I only replace equipment when I've pinpointed its shortcomings. Every new replacement is selected from a shortlist made up of equipment which performs well in the lab complemented by prior listening experience of brands and topologies and the little technical knowledge I've acquired. Once in the system it is assessed over a long period to determine audible shortcomings which if possible I then try to correlate with the measurements in order to identify possible causes and select prospective replacements. I don't read reviews or follow the hype. I also don't care about the price or looks. It's actually been very economic (it has to because my budget is probably a small fraction of the average here at CA, and I always buy used so I never lose more than 20-30% of something that cost me 60-70% of RRP) and it's been generating progressively better results. I've spent 1% of my budget on the cables and 50% on the speakers.
  12. Happy High Sierra user here, I wonder if the new Music works in an identical fashion to iTunes. If you haven't already backed up your music files to an external drive (which you should have) now's the time to do it!!! https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210230 Hold down the Option key, then open the Music app. In the window that appears, click Choose Library. Select a library (your old iTunes library), then click Choose. If/when your iTunes library folder opens check which files are missing and import them to your library. Quit Music. Restart the computer. Run Music. If everything is working and all files are present it is probably safe to delete the other (Music) libraries. Alternatively you can delete all your music from the computer and all the libraries (back up first!!!). When you run Music it should create a new library then you can import all the music from the external drive (you'll lose playlists and ratings).
×
×
  • Create New...