Does it actually appear before you such that you need your eyes open to experience it?
SAT Direct Drive Turntable!
- Thread starter lordcloud
- Start date
Does it actually appear before you such that you need your eyes open to experience it?
I would say your comment makes no sense whatsoever to me. I am not talking about what one hears playing back a live recording in a concert hall. There you do want to hear the hall and the air, etc. but that's more easily discernible the quieter are the backgrounds. I am referencing a noise artifact from vinyl playback that better turntables eliminate.
Um, we all do. But what's "natural" is in the ears of the beholder. "Something else" is what all audio systems sound like compared to live music.
Not before a review gets published you can be sure!With both TT's present we don't have to rely on your aural memory, wich one do you personally prefer ?Answer not really expected.
I understand. I’m all in favor of lowering the noise floor and distortion. I think we are using the term “black background” differently. I’m not discussing live recordings. All recordings should exhibit an indication of where the recording was made. I’ve heard systems described as having very black background where this kind of ambient information is missing but other information is enhanced. Many people like that type of sound. It is higher in contrast and exciting.
when I heard the air force one it was so damped that a lot of subtle information was lost to a black background. Or at least what I am describing as a black background. It was silent just like digital. And I can see how that is appealing.
Now it is just semantics - what you are calling black background is not what Michael Fremer is addressing. Sorry, but unless you try to understand him or the TechDas designer on the subject these posts will bring us nowhere. Many reviewers have written on this aspect and how a black background allows you to feel subtle sounds or energy in the air.
IMHO you thing wrongly. Read from Hideaki Nishikawa, his ideals are far beyond CD or digital. And sorry, IMHO if digital reminds you of sameness you need to listen to decent digital.
I think of lowering the noise floor as distinct from “black backgrounds“. If someone wants to use those concepts interchangeably as a reviewer, I think that is what causes confusion. I understand we disagree about this.
An argument to subjectivity does not work here. We're not comparing your ears to my ears. We're comparing what we hear from a stereo to what we hear in the concert hall.
Again, no one claims we can't tell the difference between live and recorded so the ears of the beholders must have something in common. We can agree we're listening to live music or do you think that is also in the ear of the beholder?
Some reproduction sounds more natural, more like live music than others.
We had this discussion in a recent thread concerning pinpoint imaging and people objective of recreating the sound they just listen.
How far we want to push the "transparency" of a system is most of the time a question of preference, not of sound quality. What is best for a particular recording is not for others - stereo is filled with compromises.
People confuse noise floor and audible things in the recording all the time. Most equipment has a noise floor too low to be audible to begin with. Some amps have a little fuzz if you put your head next to speaker but that isn't an indication of how good or bad the sound is in the slightly bit what-so-ever (0% correlation unless it's an obvious excessive noise you hear from listening seat). However noise can abberate the music itself. More often than not it's seen as a positive by audiophiles however. Extra noise may make the illusion of a black background, more 3D fuzz, all sorts of stuff.
You missed the point, so it means you cannot relate to it. You will relate to it when you get that experience
No, you are the one who missed our previous debate on the subject and try to move the discussion into experiences with old recordings. Sorry, a nice subject, but it is not my interest.
No, I didn't miss it there, and I know you didn't relate when we discussed transparency to recordings prior to that as well. The discussions then devolved to see through transparency like electostat, details, everything but transparency to recordings.
Yes. Black backgrounds or sharply outlined images are a product of stereo equipment, an homogenizing effect applied across recordings, while less noise means less difference between input and output - quieter and blacker are not synonymous.
...this is all interesting; somewhat humorous, now back to the OT...
I appreciate that this is not your main point, but I do not see how an argument about subjectivity is inapposite here if we are comparing what we hear from a stereo to what we hear in the concert hall. Since we hear what we hear from a stereo and we hear what we hear in the concert hall through our individual and subjective ears, isn't it impossible to disintermediate, and incorrect to ignore the inherent subjectivity of, our respective ears?
Seems pretty straightforward, Ron. The easy answer is I"m talking neither about what you or I or Fremer hear. nor the fact that we don't have access to that for each other. That has little to do with what we choose to compare to the sounds of stereo equipment.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |