Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

drdna wrote:

This implies that it is up to the stereo equipment to determine the perception and perhaps there can be one ideal stereo system. While it is consistent with what is observed, it means that there is no human variation in listening (unlike what has been demonstrated for all other human senses) and means that many people very interested in audio perversely prefer stereo systems they know sound bad. It is a difficult position to defend.

It is stereo equipment determines perception, it is the force of a given performance, it’s the power of composer’s interpretation of the idea, it is level of importance of the idea for the listener, it is the fluency of listener in the language of musically, and it is many other things. It is the melt of many ingredients and I would not assent one over another. A stereo system is just another brick in the wall of mach larger picture…

drdna wrote:

Have you never been in a mood where a song comes on the car stereo which moves you greatly emotionally? Yet it is despite the very poor quality of the audio reproduction.

That set a need to review what the “quality of the audio reproduction” is. Let me to pitch a very fine moment in this. “Quality” is not what is “good” but what is “not bad”. The purpose of the lower levels is not to saturate the level with goodies but rather do not hurt at current level…

drdna wrote:

This says that the seven levels are linked (i.e., an effect on the the 1st level will impact the 4th, etc.) so that it implies errors on the static level must by definition affect the other levels.

The linkage of the levels is given by the nature and was described in the initial interaction of SLLB’s elements. However, I feel that the most connection the levels have with neighboring levels.

drdna wrote:

It is like saying you can not have a better frequency response but a worse transient response simultaneously. I do not buy it. I would suggest that all types of listening may potentially be mutually exclusive: static, dynamic, emotive, etc.

But the frequency response and transient response are both the subjects of the same first static level. I do not like the idea of mutually exclusive or encapsulated levels. It is opposite, the levels are much and non-exclusive opened but they opened not by intelectual connectively but by the fact that consciousness has ability of instantaneously browse time, space, perception and associations. Pretend this: you have 7 huge books with 2000 pages each and you need to found a single phrase somewhere in them. You might start to “search” from start of the first book or from the end of the last book. That would computers do. However, consciousness is able to enter the search at once in the infinite number of entry points of each book and to “search” in infinite amount of directions, with infinitely small resolution, and infinitely-large speed. Consciousness kind of simultaneously presented at each location of the books but navigation from book to book (from level to level) is not the matter of migration but rather the matter of recognition and acknowledgement.

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site