|
|
|
|
On 1 Sep 2005 15:13:08 GMT, wrote:
I recall from a few weeks ago Stewart saying that he was just as moved
by a performance of the Elgar cello concerto on a car radio as on his
big system (I'm explaining from memory of reading it).
No, I said it moved me greatly - I did not say the emotional
experience was the same as when listening at home.
Also, in a
recent post Bob said he didn't think the sound qualities of a system
(within normal ranges) influenced the experience of music. In the
thread "analog vs. digital--not" Stewart and "bear" said something to
the effect that a table radio can convey a musical performance as well
as anything else ("bear" was writing about what a conductor is
interested in).
It can convey the musical elements, but much subtlety is of course
lost.
Since I don't have the exact posts to follow up,
please take these comments of mine as provisional until Stewart, Bob,
and "bear" confirm them. I just want to respond to the model implied
by this perspective (I'm sure SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE holds this
perspective).
Judging by the kit they mostly seem to own, many musicians would
probably qualify! :-)
My experience is quite different, of course. In my experience, the
details of sound matter to the experience of music, to the experience
of a performance and what emotions it evokes, and so on. I thought I
might capture this disagreement in a revised model:
The model I believe Bob and Stewart and "bear" are using (and they may
confirm this or explain otherwise, of course):
We are not in sufficient disagreement for any such modelling to be
valid, IMO.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
|