Members slight-return Posted May 17, 2007 Members Share Posted May 17, 2007 I was thinking more about chi, vibe, emotional energy. then again, in a way so was syn (sound is a perceptual phenomenon after all) ...not really quantifiable, let alone measurable. kinda kills the ole But, does it relay energy more accurately? question there and puts some funk on the "fidelity v convenience" question!! We might want to start with the basics like...was it really a question you were asking?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted May 18, 2007 Author Members Share Posted May 18, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Synonym Music Posted May 18, 2007 Members Share Posted May 18, 2007 That it may. But, does it relay energy more accurately? Yes. :mad: :p I'll concede on drums and the occasional vocal. Otherwise it's the musician that loses the magic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Beck Posted May 23, 2007 Members Share Posted May 23, 2007 Fidelity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted May 23, 2007 Author Members Share Posted May 23, 2007 He ain't got no name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John Sayers Posted May 23, 2007 Members Share Posted May 23, 2007 I've always thought that a great song is a great song. It sounds good if it's a great song. It's not an issue of being able to hear it well enough to transcribe the music - - I started doing that at age 10 using an AM transistor radio with a 1 inch speaker. (Back in the olden days, when WLS played music). Billie Holiday stills sounds great. So does Leadbelly, Robert Johnson, Memphis Minnie and thousands of other artists to whom 'fidelity' was simply an unknown word, at least as regards sound. Perhaps I'll get flamed for this; pardon my saying so, but if the music you hear doesn't sound good, maybe you're just listening to bad music. Maybe not, I can't say. Elephino.... I do critical listening during mixing and mastering... For everything else, I listen to what is there and connect the dots where the sound system has holes. well said Philbo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted May 23, 2007 Author Members Share Posted May 23, 2007 True, but it avoids the point of fidelity being sacrificed for convenience. It becomes systemic. (I grew up on a clock radio. Sit around waiting for hours to record my favorite tune with a GE recorder.) All I know is that I can hear audio data compression and it annoys me. Sue me. I'm listening to Prestige soul/jazz from '69...James Brown...B-3 grooves from various artists...the music is fine...as long as I don't run it through that meat-grinder otherwise known as data compression. The best way I can describe it is it adds a 'plasticity' to the high end. You can actually hear the 'simplification'. It just doesn't sound 'right'. I've also noticed that some details don't even make it past the process. The music will be too much and you get the glitch/smear thing. I actually think what is happening here is not actually the data compression, but audio compression and ultra hot signals. Softer tracks with more headroom and dynamic range seem to convert better, to my ears. Loud material ends up so 'present' that the high end is more subject to the artifacts of data compression, me thinks. I've seen the opposite stated numerous times, in regard to ripping/converting audio. Go figure. I'll leave with this quote from a Metal Maniacs writer reviewing/commenting on a couple of Trouble (Psalm 9, The Skull) remasters: "This is not to mention a remastered sound that takes what was already monstrous and makes it louder, fuller, sharper and all the more menacing. Play it on your surround sound system and prepare for a world class pummeling!" I think I'll pass. I love these albums. I'm scared to hear what they sound like. I'll probably pick them up, though. Gotta get those DVDs and expanded liner notes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members slight-return Posted May 23, 2007 Members Share Posted May 23, 2007 True, but it avoids the point of fidelity being sacrificed for convenience. hmm, it depends - It can be addressing the part you were talking about with I was thinking more about chi, vibe, emotional energy. he could be saying that the "chakti" of the song is transmitted effectively It becomes systemic. (I grew up on a clock radio. Sit around waiting for hours to record my favorite tune with a GE recorder.) Those are good examplesas we are looking at two mechanisms(broadcast and recording) of convenience (being remote in space and time, respectively, from the original event) with less-than-perfect fidelity All I know is that I can hear audio data compression and it annoys me. compression artificats are certainly one type of loss of fidelity, there are bunches though which is another way why we may need better definitions! I guess that's why I gave ya the little nudge about "Is that really a question?" I think we all realize it's not , but it does bring to light the definitions problem. It seems like you have a very specific point you want to make, but, when phrased as an oblique question there is a lot of room for interpretation and a lot of folks may not be using the same definitions and axioms (great word axiom) you are that's where we get that All I know is type thing, b/c other folks are exploring other parts of the question that might not really be where you want to go I suppose that's why the ? is curvy and the ! is linear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.