| General > General Technical Chat |
| Audiofoolery FAQ |
| << < (3/5) > >> |
| Gyro:
--- Quote from: MrMobodies on March 04, 2023, 05:03:32 pm ---I am curious as to how audiofools perceive things and why? --- End quote --- I don't think I understand the purpose of this thread, other than an attempt to reinforce OP's negative preconceptions (I can't think of any other reason for the title and "how do audiofools percieve" in the first line). It should probably go with the other audiophool threads in the Dodge Technology section. I have a decent sound system myself, not audiophool but decent, mostly self-designed and constructed at a sensible budget. People hear things in reproduced music and sometimes struggle with describing the perceptions that it induces in easily transferable language. Taking the OP's examples: --- Quote ---For example some describe "a blacker background" Does this have anything to do with: (1) Colours they may associate with things they hear? (2) Noise in the background? --- End quote --- Black or dark background could be different from an anechoic chamber recording (very unpleasant). It maybe captures subtle reflections from instruments, it may be a recording from a large and well damped auditorium. Our vocabulary for sound is more limited than for visual - that have we got? Silent, quiet, echoey, dry (oops, that's moisture level - hmm, how does that work with wine?). --- Quote ---Crispy treble: Is that to do with increase in treble? --- End quote --- If you just take it as increase in level, then what about audible distortion artifacts in drivers which will affect the perception of the treble (at the same sound balance). --- Quote ---Organic sound: Now I have no idea what they mean by this. --- End quote --- I would probably put that down as pleasant and clear sounding, lacking in perceptible artifacts. Bottom line, sound reproduction (and live music) creates psycoachoustic impressions for the listener and we lack a vocabulary to accurately describe them without venturing into similies. Does that make it audiophoolery? In my book that is falling for obvious marketing hype, spending several £k on interconnects, not a listening experience that we don't really have a universally understandable vocabulary to describe. |
| MrMobodies:
Thanks for your opinions and I like to hear them. Sorry if I sound negative. --- Quote from: Gyro on March 04, 2023, 09:29:49 pm ---Bottom line, sound reproduction (and live music) creates psycoachoustic impressions for the listener and we lack a vocabulary to accurately describe them without venturing into similies. Does that make it audiophoolery? In my book that is falling for obvious marketing hype, spending several £k on interconnects, not a listening experience that we don't really have a universally understandable vocabulary to describe --- End quote --- Talking of psychoacoustic. I have this really old sound card that I loop my audio feed through which amplifies things that are a little low in the background. It is called an Aztech 2320 and has the above effect SRS3D that can be switched on and off from the driver. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Retrieval_System The driver even though built for Windows NT apparently works under Windows XP without a problem and the effect can be turned on and off for show and tell. http://pcang.com/Aztech_sound.htm It didn't cost much I only paid 50p down a bootsale 23 years ago then I brought others for spares like for £5 or so if that breaks. I know Windows media player had some software effect since 2001 but this sound card does it for everything in the line in. All I think it does is make the background a little louder and things that I can barely hear but that means I hear more noise like with a record and a higher scratchy sound I think from the needles. So I don't think it improves it physically but depends on the condition and quality of the recordings like the muffled low bit rate audio I find sounds more noticeable with it. I was shown this CD recently with Pink Floyd "Wish you were here" that mentioned this "Roland Surround sound system" and it sounded to me virtually the same as that output/effect of the soundcard above. I did look to see if they were using their patents but I couldn't find much about it other than some appliance they made in Japan in 1995 according to this article: https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/roland-rss10 Roland RSS10 Sound Space Processor --- Quote from: M4trix on March 04, 2023, 07:52:43 pm --- --- Quote ---twisted pairs, cryogenic frozen and aligned on atomic level cables --- End quote --- :palm: --- End quote --- I wonder the manufacturing processes for that. |
| themadhippy:
--- Quote from: pcprogrammer on March 04, 2023, 08:18:10 pm --- --- Quote from: DimitriP on March 04, 2023, 07:33:56 pm ---All of the above is better understood if you have tasted purple and red AND can tell them apart. --- End quote --- Only if it is Deep Purple it will have a meaning :-DD --- End quote --- I guess the red needs to be simple ,and when talking about black you most certainly dont want it lacey |
| xrunner:
But ... I still don't understand a fundamental issue with these audiophools. Upon what basis do they make the determination that what they have needs to be improved? Say you buy a brand new audio system. A very very good receiver, turntable, speakers - you spend tens of thousands of dollars on it. You get nice quality made audio hookups and AC power cords. OK. You turn it on, listen, and then you think it needs to be improved? How do you know the sound doesn't match what the artists sound was in the first place? :-// |
| MrMobodies:
What they could do, forget about the rocks and stuff sold in the novelty shops and buy the big adjustable equalizers, then they can play around with the sliders all day and relate to the differences (in the track of course) by frequency instead of a belief. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |