|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
03-15-2011
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d This is my old worst-keep secret. I did mention it somewhere but recently I reached with my playback a new level of this effect, so I will point it out in a dedicated thread.
A playback reproduces some kind of sounds. Better playback are capable for better “Absolute Tone” ™ and the sound that they do are more dignified. No one would argue with it I guess.
However, there is twist in it. Sometimes playback plays bad sounds. I mean some kind of synthesed electronic sounds or those horrible pop/rock singers. I very much not argue the music taste I am just taking about a selection of different sounds. So, my thesis is that the more advance playback shall make bad sounds to sound worst, I mean not only worst but revoltingly horrible, or in fact how it is in reality.
My observations indicate something that I compile into of my rule of “Tonal Intelligence”. The Tonal Intelligence law states: the beautification of good sounds and degeneration of bad sounds is the very SAME characteristics of playback.
Rgs, Romy the Cat
|
|
|
|
Posted by Amir on
03-17-2011
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d here you wrote : "more advance playback shall make bad sounds to sound worst"
at http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Playback/MyPlayback.aspx you wrote :
"Basically it boils down to the fact that a playback system should filter out "bad" music, poor interpretations, weak thinking and present them with a negative sonic radicalism using all possible means of human-machine interaction to make a listener turn away from listening to what s/he should not listen."
It seems there is alittle Incoherence between these two description from good playback.
please explain it.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
03-17-2011
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d There is no incoherency of any kind; instead the said was absolutely the same thing. Making “bad sounds to sound worst” is the very identical to “using all means to make a listener turn away”. It is a bit irony that you find some kind of “inconsistency”. It is also ironic that you, perhaps not realizing it, are looking for inconsistency in the direction which is very much a foundation of my audio interest.
The Cat
|
|
|
|
Posted by steverino on
04-01-2011
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Amir,
You are just not reading and thinking about it carefully enough. The only point of Romy's that I might have some slight question is that a great system can make a beautifully recorded second rate (not bad) performance sound satisfactory enough to listen to rather than repulse you whereas on a lesser system the performance may be less compelling. But I agree that an outright poor performance will be even more glaringly revealed by a great system and that the difference between the first rate and second rate performance will be easier to describe.
|
|
|
|
Posted by rowuk on
11-20-2020
|
Yes, the warts of bad music or badly recorded music will be more obvious and perhaps at the beginning very disruptive. I contend however that the human state is VERY adaptable and that we can develop techniques to accept the lesser attempts for what they are and get some meaning. If we compare music to food, we have our haut cuisine, we have our "well cooked" standards where enjoyment is part of the package. But we also have other times where we can be greatful for even very simple fare. I think about my time in the american army when we had field exercizes and were happy to get the boiled dirt that they called "coffee" with an undescribable mush that they called stew.
Musically this could be an ABBA CD/LP or even a reel to reel recording of the high school band that I played in the early 70s. Even with no "Tone", going back in time is also an important function of my playback that transcends "quality considerations".
|
|