Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site


In the Forum: Audio News
In the Thread: The essence of High-End Audio industry
Post Subject: About mediumXPosted by Romy the Cat on: 1/4/2018
 Newtohorn wrote:
Hi, my question remains, if the sound that Olympian achieves is something your home system is doable?
  
 rowuk wrote:
One thing I would disagree on is about the 78 outperforming todays offerings.

 
I presume that Newtohorn might consider this response appalling but I promise that it is not intended to be. Still I do not want to risk it and do not post it in his thread. In fact, what I feel that the view introduced in this response superbly important, probably the most important then whatever was written about audio before. 
 
Newtohorn feel that sound that Olympian produced moved him, which is perfectly fine. The biggest question he needs to ask himself is following: was he moved in fact by the Sound or by some other medium that was just shaped by Sound? I am not taking about music, that is a separate subject, I am taking about pure machine-human communication protocol. 
 
If we presume that it was not Sound that moved him but other medium, let call it mediumX, then would it be that a loudspeaker that produces “better” or “more” mediumX be more preferable that a loudspeaker that produce better Sound but “less” mediumX? This question is in the very core of my vision of entire audio and this is why I’m posting it in this thread.  The high-end audio is not a discipline about people but a discipline about subjects. Each and single high-end audio gate-kipper acts like an autistic child, preferring a company of subjects instead of company of inspirations, spirituality and human experience. Not that they are bad people, they are just handicaped by the nature of High-End objectives, which are to sell more things that produce more endless iterations of Sounds and less mediumX. Why less mediumX? Because the mediumX is not a tradable commodity. 
 
Anyhow, returning back to the example with Olympian. It produces a wonderful Sound and let pretend that some it does a high amplitude of mediumX. Let presume (juts the numbers off the wall) that it uses 97% of it’s efficiency to Sound and 3% of the efficiency to mediumX. Then we have a phonograph, the 78-record player with a nice pressing of pre-1924 recording. What I claim, is that a phonograph spends let say uses 60% of it’s efficiency to Sound and 40% of the efficiency to produce the mediumX. If my claim is correct, then a phonograph might be considered more capable audio devise then Olympian because it has less output of less irrelevant Sound and more output of more relevant mediumX. 
   
Rowuk, I do not advocate phonographs and I do simplify the things quite a bit. The only reason why I bring this argument is because over year the stupid High-End industry never asked itself a question “why” more then 2-3 levels deep. They invented “sound quality”, they attributed this “sound quality”, 320536 fake properties and they shuffle the deck of the properties in front of pre-lubricated brainless audio consumers. The pure Newtohorn will never get his answers in realm of audio and I assure you that Kevin who designed the Olympian did not use his audio only knowledge to get his Olympian to sound as it presumably is.
 

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site