vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:

. . .

For technical explanations, others will have to help you, but why not
just set it where it sounds best on a variety of recordings?

So, Jennifer, you think that High Fidelity is point "...where
it sounds best on a variety of recordings ..." ?

No, I think that the enjoyment of listening to music in my home is
where it sounds best on a variety of recordings.


I bet, you are inviting noticeable amounts of distortion doing
it thisa way. Of course if it is pleasing to your ears, it must be
hi-fi :-)

Why would I listen to something that is less than how it sounds best to
my ears?

The definition of high fidelity system in my book is to be as close to
the original sound as possible. It seems to me that your definition is
to have pleasing sound in your home, even if it means noticeable
distortion of the sound.

Am I right about this?

My goal is to hear, as closely as is possible, the sound of actual
acoustic instruments and voices performing in an actual space. If the
best presentation of that is on the medium, whether that be a CD, a LP,
or whatever, that's great. If it means introducing distortion to get
closer to that, that's fine with me.

Eventually you did admit that fidelity of the sound does not matter to
you.

Thx

Yes, in one brief paragraph, I explained my views, which are quite easy
to understand.

"Fidelity of the sound" is VITAL to me; that is, "fidelity to the
sound" of music. If something else is more important to you, that's
fine. Different strokes and all.

Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:

. . .

For technical explanations, others will have to help you, but why not
just set it where it sounds best on a variety of recordings?

So, Jennifer, you think that High Fidelity is point "...where
it sounds best on a variety of recordings ..." ?

No, I think that the enjoyment of listening to music in my home is
where it sounds best on a variety of recordings.


I bet, you are inviting noticeable amounts of distortion doing
it thisa way. Of course if it is pleasing to your ears, it must be
hi-fi :-)

Why would I listen to something that is less than how it sounds best to
my ears?

The definition of high fidelity system in my book is to be as close to
the original sound as possible. It seems to me that your definition is
to have pleasing sound in your home, even if it means noticeable
distortion of the sound.

Am I right about this?

My goal is to hear, as closely as is possible, the sound of actual
acoustic instruments and voices performing in an actual space. If the
best presentation of that is on the medium, whether that be a CD, a LP,
or whatever, that's great. If it means introducing distortion to get
closer to that, that's fine with me.

Eventually you did admit that fidelity of the sound does not matter to
you.

Thx

Yes, in one brief paragraph, I explained my views, which are quite easy
to understand.

"Fidelity of the sound" is VITAL to me; that is, "fidelity to the
sound" of music. If something else is more important to you, that's
fine. Different strokes and all.


So, you are not concerned with the original sound being recorded? If I
understand you correctly, you are concerned with your liking of the
sound more then with accuracy (in technical terms) of the recording.

I will give you an example. Let's assume that because of hall's
acoustic clarinets sounded like cardboard boxes (your expression). Do
you expect them to sound on LP as cardboard boxes or you are willing to
tolerate gross distortion of their sound to make it more pleasing for
you?

vova

"vlad" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:

. . .

For technical explanations, others will have to help you, but
why not
just set it where it sounds best on a variety of recordings?

So, Jennifer, you think that High Fidelity is point
"...where
it sounds best on a variety of recordings ..." ?

No, I think that the enjoyment of listening to music in my home
is
where it sounds best on a variety of recordings.


I bet, you are inviting noticeable amounts of
distortion doing
it thisa way. Of course if it is pleasing to your ears, it must
be
hi-fi :-)

Why would I listen to something that is less than how it sounds
best to
my ears?

The definition of high fidelity system in my book is to be as close
to
the original sound as possible. It seems to me that your definition
is
to have pleasing sound in your home, even if it means noticeable
distortion of the sound.

Am I right about this?

My goal is to hear, as closely as is possible, the sound of actual
acoustic instruments and voices performing in an actual space. If
the
best presentation of that is on the medium, whether that be a CD, a
LP,
or whatever, that's great. If it means introducing distortion to get
closer to that, that's fine with me.

Eventually you did admit that fidelity of the sound does not matter to
you.

Thx

Yes, in one brief paragraph, I explained my views, which are quite easy
to understand.

"Fidelity of the sound" is VITAL to me; that is, "fidelity to the
sound" of music. If something else is more important to you, that's
fine. Different strokes and all.


So, you are not concerned with the original sound being recorded? If I
understand you correctly, you are concerned with your liking of the
sound more then with accuracy (in technical terms) of the recording.


We don't know what it originally sounded like.


I will give you an example. Let's assume that because of hall's
acoustic clarinets sounded like cardboard boxes (your expression). Do
you expect them to sound on LP as cardboard boxes or you are willing to
tolerate gross distortion of their sound to make it more pleasing for
you?


I expect pleasing cardboard boxes vs harsh cardboard boxes.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:

. . .

For technical explanations, others will have to help you, but
why not
just set it where it sounds best on a variety of recordings?

So, Jennifer, you think that High Fidelity is point
"...where
it sounds best on a variety of recordings ..." ?

No, I think that the enjoyment of listening to music in my home is
where it sounds best on a variety of recordings.


I bet, you are inviting noticeable amounts of distortion
doing
it thisa way. Of course if it is pleasing to your ears, it must
be
hi-fi :-)

Why would I listen to something that is less than how it sounds
best to
my ears?

The definition of high fidelity system in my book is to be as close
to
the original sound as possible. It seems to me that your definition
is
to have pleasing sound in your home, even if it means noticeable
distortion of the sound.

Am I right about this?

My goal is to hear, as closely as is possible, the sound of actual
acoustic instruments and voices performing in an actual space. If the
best presentation of that is on the medium, whether that be a CD, a LP,
or whatever, that's great. If it means introducing distortion to get
closer to that, that's fine with me.

Eventually you did admit that fidelity of the sound does not matter to
you.

Thx

Yes, in one brief paragraph, I explained my views, which are quite easy
to understand.

"Fidelity of the sound" is VITAL to me; that is, "fidelity to the
sound" of music. If something else is more important to you, that's
fine. Different strokes and all.


So, you are not concerned with the original sound being recorded? If I
understand you correctly, you are concerned with your liking of the
sound more then with accuracy (in technical terms) of the recording.

Correct.


I will give you an example. Let's assume that because of hall's
acoustic clarinets sounded like cardboard boxes (your expression).

Well, I believe that I said cardboard, not boxes, but a minor detail...

Do
you expect them to sound on LP

or CD

as cardboard boxes or you are willing to
tolerate gross distortion of their sound to make it more pleasing for
you?

vova

Yes, that's about it, if by "pleasing" you mean "sound like real
clarinets." I don't mean to be picky about that language, but not all
music is "pleasing" sounding, even if it sounds real. But yes, you
pretty much understand my POV. Perhaps a question for you will clarify:
Why on earth would I chose to listen to clarinets that sound like
cardboard if I can listen to them sounding more like actual clarinets,
if the music is the most important thing for me?

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:

. . .

For technical explanations, others will have to help you, but
why not
just set it where it sounds best on a variety of recordings?

So, Jennifer, you think that High Fidelity is point
"...where
it sounds best on a variety of recordings ..." ?

No, I think that the enjoyment of listening to music in my home is
where it sounds best on a variety of recordings.


I bet, you are inviting noticeable amounts of distortion
doing
it thisa way. Of course if it is pleasing to your ears, it must
be
hi-fi :-)

Why would I listen to something that is less than how it sounds
best to
my ears?

The definition of high fidelity system in my book is to be as close
to
the original sound as possible. It seems to me that your definition
is
to have pleasing sound in your home, even if it means noticeable
distortion of the sound.

Am I right about this?

My goal is to hear, as closely as is possible, the sound of actual
acoustic instruments and voices performing in an actual space. If the
best presentation of that is on the medium, whether that be a CD, a LP,
or whatever, that's great. If it means introducing distortion to get
closer to that, that's fine with me.

Eventually you did admit that fidelity of the sound does not matter to
you.

Thx

Yes, in one brief paragraph, I explained my views, which are quite easy
to understand.

"Fidelity of the sound" is VITAL to me; that is, "fidelity to the
sound" of music. If something else is more important to you, that's
fine. Different strokes and all.


So, you are not concerned with the original sound being recorded? If I
understand you correctly, you are concerned with your liking of the
sound more then with accuracy (in technical terms) of the recording.

Correct.


I will give you an example. Let's assume that because of hall's
acoustic clarinets sounded like cardboard boxes (your expression).

Well, I believe that I said cardboard, not boxes, but a minor detail...

Do
you expect them to sound on LP

or CD

as cardboard boxes or you are willing to
tolerate gross distortion of their sound to make it more pleasing for
you?

vova

Yes, that's about it, if by "pleasing" you mean "sound like real
clarinets." I don't mean to be picky about that language, but not all
music is "pleasing" sounding, even if it sounds real. But yes, you
pretty much understand my POV. Perhaps a question for you will clarify:
Why on earth would I chose to listen to clarinets that sound like
cardboard if I can listen to them sounding more like actual clarinets,
if the music is the most important thing for me?

Jennifer,

I cannot answer this question. I am not in a position to tell you what
your preference are or should be.

Still I do not understand your POV. If at the moment of the recording
clarinets sounded like cardboards, do you expect them at the point of
reproduction sound like cardboards or like "real" (in your
definition) clarinets. If the answer is 'yes' then it seems to me
that you not only willing to tolerate gross distortion in a
reproduction chain, but you actually expect it from your system. So, is
it yes or no?

vova

In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:

. . .

For technical explanations, others will have to help you,
but
why not
just set it where it sounds best on a variety of
recordings?

So, Jennifer, you think that High Fidelity is point
"...where
it sounds best on a variety of recordings ..." ?

No, I think that the enjoyment of listening to music in my home
is
where it sounds best on a variety of recordings.


I bet, you are inviting noticeable amounts of
distortion
doing
it thisa way. Of course if it is pleasing to your ears, it
must
be
hi-fi :-)

Why would I listen to something that is less than how it sounds
best to
my ears?

The definition of high fidelity system in my book is to be as
close
to
the original sound as possible. It seems to me that your
definition
is
to have pleasing sound in your home, even if it means noticeable
distortion of the sound.

Am I right about this?

My goal is to hear, as closely as is possible, the sound of actual
acoustic instruments and voices performing in an actual space. If
the
best presentation of that is on the medium, whether that be a CD, a
LP,
or whatever, that's great. If it means introducing distortion to
get
closer to that, that's fine with me.

Eventually you did admit that fidelity of the sound does not matter
to
you.

Thx

Yes, in one brief paragraph, I explained my views, which are quite easy
to understand.

"Fidelity of the sound" is VITAL to me; that is, "fidelity to the
sound" of music. If something else is more important to you, that's
fine. Different strokes and all.


So, you are not concerned with the original sound being recorded? If I
understand you correctly, you are concerned with your liking of the
sound more then with accuracy (in technical terms) of the recording.

Correct.


I will give you an example. Let's assume that because of hall's
acoustic clarinets sounded like cardboard boxes (your expression).

Well, I believe that I said cardboard, not boxes, but a minor detail...

Do
you expect them to sound on LP

or CD

as cardboard boxes or you are willing to
tolerate gross distortion of their sound to make it more pleasing for
you?

vova

Yes, that's about it, if by "pleasing" you mean "sound like real
clarinets." I don't mean to be picky about that language, but not all
music is "pleasing" sounding, even if it sounds real. But yes, you
pretty much understand my POV. Perhaps a question for you will clarify:
Why on earth would I chose to listen to clarinets that sound like
cardboard if I can listen to them sounding more like actual clarinets,
if the music is the most important thing for me?

Jennifer,

I cannot answer this question. I am not in a position to tell you what
your preference are or should be.

I think that there is only one answer possible, given the stated
parameters. If the sound of music is the most important thing, why
would anyone prefer to listen to the sound of cardboard sounding
clarinets if they can hear something resembling clarinets instead?

Still I do not understand your POV. If at the moment of the recording
clarinets sounded like cardboards, do you expect them at the point of
reproduction sound like cardboards or like "real" (in your
definition) clarinets. If the answer is 'yes' then it seems to me
that you not only willing to tolerate gross distortion in a
reproduction chain, but you actually expect it from your system. So, is
it yes or no?

vova

If it's possible to make those clarinets sound more like clarinets in my
system, then the answer is yes. Again, if the goal is the sound of
actual instruments, nothing else makes sense.

Consider the alternative: A person's goal for audio in the home is to
experience as closely as is possible, the actual experience of real
instruments/voices. He can chose to have a system where the sounds on a
given recording sound like something other than any actual instrument,
or he can have a system where the same recording sounds like something
that actually resembles that instrument. The person choses the first
system. Has he served his stated goals?

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:

. . .

For technical explanations, others will have to help you,
but
why not
just set it where it sounds best on a variety of
recordings?

So, Jennifer, you think that High Fidelity is point
"...where
it sounds best on a variety of recordings ..." ?

No, I think that the enjoyment of listening to music in my home
is
where it sounds best on a variety of recordings.


I bet, you are inviting noticeable amounts of
distortion
doing
it thisa way. Of course if it is pleasing to your ears, it
must
be
hi-fi :-)

Why would I listen to something that is less than how it sounds
best to
my ears?

The definition of high fidelity system in my book is to be as
close
to
the original sound as possible. It seems to me that your
definition
is
to have pleasing sound in your home, even if it means noticeable
distortion of the sound.

Am I right about this?

My goal is to hear, as closely as is possible, the sound of actual
acoustic instruments and voices performing in an actual space. If
the
best presentation of that is on the medium, whether that be a CD, a
LP,
or whatever, that's great. If it means introducing distortion to
get
closer to that, that's fine with me.

Eventually you did admit that fidelity of the sound does not matter
to
you.

Thx

Yes, in one brief paragraph, I explained my views, which are quite easy
to understand.

"Fidelity of the sound" is VITAL to me; that is, "fidelity to the
sound" of music. If something else is more important to you, that's
fine. Different strokes and all.


So, you are not concerned with the original sound being recorded? If I
understand you correctly, you are concerned with your liking of the
sound more then with accuracy (in technical terms) of the recording.

Correct.


I will give you an example. Let's assume that because of hall's
acoustic clarinets sounded like cardboard boxes (your expression).

Well, I believe that I said cardboard, not boxes, but a minor detail...

Do
you expect them to sound on LP

or CD

as cardboard boxes or you are willing to
tolerate gross distortion of their sound to make it more pleasing for
you?

vova

Yes, that's about it, if by "pleasing" you mean "sound like real
clarinets." I don't mean to be picky about that language, but not all
music is "pleasing" sounding, even if it sounds real. But yes, you
pretty much understand my POV. Perhaps a question for you will clarify:
Why on earth would I chose to listen to clarinets that sound like
cardboard if I can listen to them sounding more like actual clarinets,
if the music is the most important thing for me?

Jennifer,

I cannot answer this question. I am not in a position to tell you what
your preference are or should be.

I think that there is only one answer possible, given the stated
parameters. If the sound of music is the most important thing, why
would anyone prefer to listen to the sound of cardboard sounding
clarinets if they can hear something resembling clarinets instead?

Still I do not understand your POV. If at the moment of the recording
clarinets sounded like cardboards, do you expect them at the point of
reproduction sound like cardboards or like "real" (in your
definition) clarinets. If the answer is 'yes' then it seems to me
that you not only willing to tolerate gross distortion in a
reproduction chain, but you actually expect it from your system. So, is
it yes or no?

vova

If it's possible to make those clarinets sound more like clarinets in my
system, then the answer is yes. Again, if the goal is the sound of
actual instruments, nothing else makes sense.

So, Jennifer, am I right concluding that you prefer system with
colorations (oups! distortions) of the sound if these coloration are to
your liking?

Simple yes or no, please.





Consider the alternative: A person's goal for audio in the home is to
experience as closely as is possible, the actual experience of real
instruments/voices. He can chose to have a system where the sounds on a
given recording sound like something other than any actual instrument,
or he can have a system where the same recording sounds like something
that actually resembles that instrument. The person choses the first
system. Has he served his stated goals?


You are distorting my question as usual. Again let's assume that
clarinets did sound like cardboards in a real event. I would expect
that on my SOTA system they sound close to the real event, therefore
like cardboards. In you case you will look for ways to improve the
sound by adding gross distortions.

My goal is to reproduce real event.

Your goal seems to me is to have "sweet" sound, does not matter
what it was in reality.

Did I explain myself clear?

vova

vladborg said:

My goal is to reproduce real event.

Attaining that goal is completely hopeless, you deluded little metron.



--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:

. . .

For technical explanations, others will have to help
you,
but
why not
just set it where it sounds best on a variety of
recordings?

So, Jennifer, you think that High Fidelity is
point
"...where
it sounds best on a variety of recordings ..." ?

No, I think that the enjoyment of listening to music in my
home
is
where it sounds best on a variety of recordings.


I bet, you are inviting noticeable amounts of
distortion
doing
it thisa way. Of course if it is pleasing to your ears,
it
must
be
hi-fi :-)

Why would I listen to something that is less than how it
sounds
best to
my ears?

The definition of high fidelity system in my book is to be as
close
to
the original sound as possible. It seems to me that your
definition
is
to have pleasing sound in your home, even if it means
noticeable
distortion of the sound.

Am I right about this?

My goal is to hear, as closely as is possible, the sound of
actual
acoustic instruments and voices performing in an actual space.
If
the
best presentation of that is on the medium, whether that be a
CD, a
LP,
or whatever, that's great. If it means introducing distortion
to
get
closer to that, that's fine with me.

Eventually you did admit that fidelity of the sound does not
matter
to
you.

Thx

Yes, in one brief paragraph, I explained my views, which are quite
easy
to understand.

"Fidelity of the sound" is VITAL to me; that is, "fidelity to the
sound" of music. If something else is more important to you,
that's
fine. Different strokes and all.


So, you are not concerned with the original sound being recorded? If
I
understand you correctly, you are concerned with your liking of the
sound more then with accuracy (in technical terms) of the recording.

Correct.


I will give you an example. Let's assume that because of hall's
acoustic clarinets sounded like cardboard boxes (your expression).

Well, I believe that I said cardboard, not boxes, but a minor detail...

Do
you expect them to sound on LP

or CD

as cardboard boxes or you are willing to
tolerate gross distortion of their sound to make it more pleasing for
you?

vova

Yes, that's about it, if by "pleasing" you mean "sound like real
clarinets." I don't mean to be picky about that language, but not all
music is "pleasing" sounding, even if it sounds real. But yes, you
pretty much understand my POV. Perhaps a question for you will
clarify:
Why on earth would I chose to listen to clarinets that sound like
cardboard if I can listen to them sounding more like actual clarinets,
if the music is the most important thing for me?

Jennifer,

I cannot answer this question. I am not in a position to tell you what
your preference are or should be.

I think that there is only one answer possible, given the stated
parameters. If the sound of music is the most important thing, why
would anyone prefer to listen to the sound of cardboard sounding
clarinets if they can hear something resembling clarinets instead?

Still I do not understand your POV. If at the moment of the recording
clarinets sounded like cardboards, do you expect them at the point of
reproduction sound like cardboards or like "real" (in your
definition) clarinets. If the answer is 'yes' then it seems to me
that you not only willing to tolerate gross distortion in a
reproduction chain, but you actually expect it from your system. So, is
it yes or no?

vova

If it's possible to make those clarinets sound more like clarinets in my
system, then the answer is yes. Again, if the goal is the sound of
actual instruments, nothing else makes sense.

So, Jennifer, am I right concluding that you prefer system with
colorations (oups! distortions) of the sound if these coloration are to
your liking?

Simple yes or no, please.

Yes, of course. I'm the one who listens to my system. If the
colorations sound more like live music, why shouldn't I?






Consider the alternative: A person's goal for audio in the home is to
experience as closely as is possible, the actual experience of real
instruments/voices. He can chose to have a system where the sounds on a
given recording sound like something other than any actual instrument,
or he can have a system where the same recording sounds like something
that actually resembles that instrument. The person choses the first
system. Has he served his stated goals?


You are distorting my question as usual.

No, I'm not.

Again let's assume that
clarinets did sound like cardboards in a real event. I would expect
that on my SOTA system they sound close to the real event, therefore
like cardboards. In you case you will look for ways to improve the
sound by adding gross distortions.

Sure, since I prefer not to listen to cardboard-like clarinets.


My goal is to reproduce real event.

Your goal seems to me is to have "sweet" sound, does not matter
what it was in reality.

Not really. "Sweet" sound has a distinct connotation. A real clarinet
can sound "sweet" or harsh, or dry, or "wet", but it sounds like a real
clarinet. If it takes coloration to make an unreal sound sound like a
real one, fine. My only goal is realistic sounding music.


Did I explain myself clear?

Yes, you "explained yourself clear", as did I.

vova