Romy the Cat wrote:

our perception has kind of reversed logarithmic scale for tone resolution, so what. those definitions not bind to our perception

Romy the Cat wrote:

but if to look deeper then it is not. Pay attention that we can distinguish 1Hz of frequency shift at 300hz… but ONLY in context of relevancy of those 300Hz to a something else. We cannot differentiate 1Hz as an absolute value. Can we differentiate “A” between 440Hz and 441Hz? Yes we can but can we identify a tone as 441Hz without hearing it referenced to 440Hz? Absolutely not!  A Hertz as an abstract mathematical measurement has no fundamental presence in our perception. What we operate by Hertz scale we operate by just a conventional description of reality.

twogoodears wrote:

Interesting would be better learning about the difference, audio-wise, of "transparency" and "resolution". Being "resolution" a multi-faceted, multi-meaning term, I found this sort-of "dark side of resolution" intriguing and worth reporting, to be added to the SUPERB conversation of the above posts, for which I'm grateful.

rgs .

Paul S wrote:

The discussion of the abstract nature of the elusive "Hertz" reminds me that individuals and orchestras have long tuned to different "Abstract A", in the "first place".  Besides, once you broaden a "tone" into an instrumental "note", all bets are off, anyway. Not to mention the havoc wrecked by the recording process... Hell, "playback" itself starts to seem pretty Abstract... Paul S

twogoodears wrote:

Also: a tuning fork, the basic, humble tool which makes a full orchestra to play "in tune" is - as applied math and acoustic, a sort-of interpretation of Nature and its Laws - giving 440 cycles (hertz) flat to the trained musician ear, who filters the pure tone as "the officially accepted" tuning pitch, by convention... The diapason (tuning fork) is not something abstract, but a vibrating steel bent bar, producing an A=a note... now at 440 hz, centuries ago at 415 hz, tomorrow... who know?

el`Ol wrote:

What they all can´t do: Give an instrument/vocalist exactly the same size, focus and "substance", no matter where in the stereo panorama it/he/she is located. I do not even speak about total realism of these aspects, just about their independence from position.

Herman, good post, but I think you are knocking into a wrong door. Let take it step by step.

noviygera wrote:

The answer is dynamic balance.  It's objectively easy to prove too. Let's say you are in a room behind a closed door. In the other room is a musician playing an instrument. Even an easier example -- a person talking in the other room. You know that it's for real.

This is a classic “the second floor piano example”: you walk down a street and hear a piano playing on the second floor with a window opened. You do recognize immediately that the piano is real or a recording.  The question is how do you know? You suggest that it is by dynamic balance. I am not sure.

noviygera wrote:

Let's see: behind a closed door, a live instrument, a live sound, a live voice. Let's not SEE, let's HEAR We hear definition, attack and decay, we hear timbre, and most importantly we hear a CONTINUOUS EVENNESS in definition, attack and decay, and timbre over the entire freq. range of the sound. Of the voice, of the instrument and music.  That's what makes it real. An EVEN definition from top to bottom. But to state it bluntly I called it dynamic balance.

Here is where I am not sure that I agree. I would agree that “definition, attack and decay, and timbre” is in live music and in the recordings is different over the entire frequency range but I am not sure that if shall be CONTINUOUS EVENNESS and identical for all frequencies and for all dynamic ranges. I have written about it many times including the AMI article

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=12186

I do feel that there is a pattern how harmonics need to be changed with respect to frequency range and volume but I would more attribute to amplification not to the acoustic systems. BTW, the AMI conception is trying to deal with it inclusively….

noviygera wrote:

Today’s high-end audio loudspeakers, yesterdays loudspeakers have had this inferiority to REAL sound. The "sharpness", the attack and decay, the "dynamics" are varying with respect to frequency. "Mids are smooth, highs are transparent" what a bunch of BS. It's the evenness of each attack and decay with respect to the attack and decay of every other frequency that the speaker system can reproduce. Another way to put it "transient response" cannot vary with respect to frequency.

Herman, how methodologically, subjectively of objectively, you recognize that it is necessary the evenness? I think it would be a good idea to know HOW it shall be. Live sound is not a constant and it’s “definition, attack and decay, and timbre” wary upon many different conditions, so I am not sure that it need to be CONTINUOUS EVENNESS, I think there is more to it than just the “continuous evenness”.

Anyhow, what you describe is probably a single worst thing in playback generally but it is not specifically relates to acoustic systems.