cv wrote:

Allo Romy, Do you not think it is time to discuss your "evaluation criteria"? Have we not approached the entire subject backwards for too long?   I have to say, on the mechanical side at least (and, particularly, on every piece of software), I have found pretty much nothing to disagree with...  might it not be time to frame everything into a coherent whole? Seriously, as far as the mechanics go, I am fatigued, for I feel everything that might be said *has* been said...

Rgs,
The confused caT

cv wrote:

What I was trying to say is that as this is what you use to assess the results of your playback experimentation, this is what you might cover first. Places everything else in context.

Chris, I thought I made it more or less clear in the “Introduction” and “Objectives” paragraphs of “My playback” section:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Playback/MyPlayback.aspx

Still to recap everything very briefly: I know only one method to asses playback objectively – do not evaluate reproduced Sound but rather to observe the inner-myself reaction to the performed music. Knowing the musical background of the performed material, understanding the performing intentions and expressive techniques, having a certain cultural framework within which the a peace could be exposed to own inner you, and being able to honestly recognize and to interpret your own reaction and response it is perfectly possible to asses how an alien body of playback system interferes with your listening experiences. Form here, all that necessary is to milt your own reaction and convert it to the language of carbon resistors and cable elevators.  This all means that a playback installation is an active interpretive tool and any individual tunes this tool to accomplish own expressive goals. Bad sound does not count as bad result. Bad intentions do.

cv wrote:

When I mentioned the mechanicals, I was referring to that side of music repro: equipment, topologies, components, systems etc. When I made my comment, I was actually thinking of the magazines and web forums in general; I feel little new has been said for years, and I'm getting a bit tired of having to trawl through or filter tons of stuff without finding anything truly interesting or novel to justify the effort. I suspect others feel the same.

Perhaps, however all those magazines and web forums are not what it all about. They are also juts the tools for something more rewording, although for many people it substituted the core. “Without finding anything truly interesting or novel to justify the effort?” What would justify the efforts, Chris and who could judge us? I personally love to think about audio, I love to make audio happen, I love “experience” audio and yes: I do like to write on this site. Actually since this site had happens I feel much more “impressed” with Internet audio, no mater how Moronic it sounds. Perhaps for me personally there was many new pleasant changes in audio during the last year and a half?  I do not know….

cv wrote:

-Ah- just found something - it's the "formula for playback assessment" under your personal audio rules section. I see now that my request was premature, but it sounds like something new, which as a plus would frame many of the other discussions on the site.

Well, the idea was that while I was thinking about the listening experiences I was able in more or less eliminative was to algorithm the basic assessment patterns. I mean I detected that ALL of the evaluation criterions have certain relations. Some of them are fairly simple and some are fairly complex. I know how the dynamic of one affect another and how they all related but I do not know hoe to joint them mathematically. Still I kind of not really worry about it as this "formula for playback assessment" is a postfactum and if it complete then it sound be use only for self-serving illustrative duty, nothing else.