Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

Well, surely everything might be explained, or more precisely to say justified, by the presumptions that all listeners practicing audio may seeking subjective experiences that reflect variable neurophysiology of various individual brains.  I would not agree with it. I argue that absolutely dominating majorly of listeners practicing audio deal with accidental results that do not reflect their I individuals intentions and this audio do not reflect the specifies of the neurophysiologic demands. Audio people in masses are just a pack of sheeps that were given a generic herbivorous mass and taught a stupid cult of fraternities.  Observing and cataloging differences and identifying what one like or not is very much not the same then establishing specific and defined demand and perusing them…

Anyhow it is not the subject of the thread. In the subject I would like to point out that my initial post was a second layer. We spend a lot of efforts in audio the shape the “expressed sound” – something that represents the “auditable” but we not spend a whole a lot of efforts to  deal with something that I call the “Shadow Audio”, or with something that  the human response. The industry is under presumption that only music itself is something that is responsible for human response but I disagree. The industry claim it they are ignorant, uninformed, limited and because their objectives and interests do not go further then saleable commodities. In realty human response and moderation of listing perception shell be the only thing that distincts regular hi-fi audio from high-end audio aims.

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site