| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Playback Listening » About Omnivorenes of Playback (3 posts, 1 page)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 1 of 1 (3 items) Select Pages: 
09-03-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat

Boston, MA
Posts 9,642
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 1
Post ID: 14389
Reply to: 14389
About Omnivorenes of Playback

Here and there I hear comments the one playback plays some kind or music preferably. It looks like people even judge playback or its elements by the elements’ predisposition to play rock or baroque better. This all thinking is very much alien to me and if anything, it indicated to me the Moronity of playback owner not the capacity of playback.

In my mind a playback is not a collection of devises that abstractedly mimics sound of live even but an expressive tool of playback owner. The sound of playback has absolutely nothing to do with sound of live music and has ONLY deal with system owner playback intention and objectives. So, playback does not reproduce a carbon copy of or live music but the reflections of system owner perception of live musicality. Reading this some of you might complain that elsewhere in my site that I insisted that live music and reproduced music are the same and can see a conflict between my comment before and now. If you do then it is too premature for you to read my site, go to read about audio to somewhere else.

So, what is the purpose to have omnivore playback?  It is the same as to have a universal, good for everything car, gun or meal.  A best playback must play properly only what you intend to be played properly. Furthermore a playback must play what you intend to play with higher possible precision of your intention. Only this type of playback must be recognized as “good” playback, there is absolutely no alternatives of you perceive audio more that “something is sitting in my living room.

Do not be afraid of one record syndrome.  The Morons threaten each other with a fear that a person with one million dolor playback and one record to play. The fear is not without merit as - in really there are plenty of idiots like this. Still the presence of one single hypothetic record does not say anything about neither evolvement of person’s listening experiences and the level of his/her demands to this record. I can name you many “single records” and the specifics how I would like them to be played and it might take a half-life of someone to get the things right. So, referring above to the people with single records as “idiots” I did not imply to the fact of few record but to the unfortunately-frequent fact of inferior or overly-simplistic demands to this proverbial single record reproduction.

So, the playback shall not exhibit any universal capacity to play all music equally well. It shall play the music that you want in a way how you want. Everything else is strictly contingent upon who are you, how evolved your demands and what you are looking in musical experiences. Again, a Playback-Omnivore is a nonsense that was invented by idiotic industry audio-writers. It is not that Playback-Omnivore imposable – the whole concept is absolutely pointless in context of more or less noble audio objectives.

Rgs, Romy the Cat

"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-03-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Boston, MA.
Posts 42
Joined on 12-13-2007

Post #: 2
Post ID: 14390
Reply to: 14389
I like this concept very much.
"A best playback must play properly only what you intend to be played properly. Furthermore a playback must play what you intend to play with higher possible precision of your intention."

I like the concept of manipulating the playback with whatever means are at my disposal to make my "single record" or any record for that matter sound the way I think it should sound.  Much like cooking and using spices to get the desired result.  The taste must satisfy my intentions.


"It's like an act of murder; you play with the intent to commit something"--Duke Ellington
10-22-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Posts 51
Joined on 09-21-2009

Post #: 3
Post ID: 14767
Reply to: 14390
So the playback system is an extension of 'You'?
Interesting subject. I don't believe that there are amps (or systems)  which are good at reproducing baroque and bad at reproducing Stockhausen. For starters, how would the amp know that it is Purcell I am sedning him via electric current? If it does know that the machine is wiser then its master (me. I sometimes don't know who composed the piece I am reproducing). So I always dismissed 'the speakers are good for rock only' statements as simplistic and wrong. If the system plays music with meaningful content in such a way that I can relate to this content then the system is good. By logical inductance I sort extended this to general terms that if a system is good at presenting the content of a good performance in classical music piece then it'd be good for any other genre of music. Just thought of a visual analogy (which may be wrong, I don't know). Imagine you are in a museum. If the lighting and wall colour and other staff around a painting is good to show the content of this painting it should be good for any other painting. The painting in question and the painting to succeed it could be classical, modern, abstract. Does it matter?
Romy is trying to offer a further inductance that since the owner of the sytem defines what is to be reproduced the system should be as omnivorent as its master is. In effect it means that 'Omnivorence' does not exist as a meaningful characteristic of a system. More: omnivorence is probably a bad thing for a system cause it indicates a certain sameness, lack of individuality. Like a generic cheese versus some highly opinionated cheese (sorry, just finished reading Jorge's post about Audio boiling point).

Page 1 of 1 (3 items) Select Pages: 
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts