it should say they're enthusiastic about their IDEA of high-fidelity sound reproduction. The worst systems I heard were definitely audiophile systems and they had nothing to do with high quality
Exactly…and I will ask - anyone who measures something they are not interested in please raise your hand.
Weren't circuits that did that called expanders?
Yep. I get that. Thanks.HAHA!- pls don't take it personally, it's just speculation and comments. Remember, this is the internet... If you say something people will push back no matter what, and even if what you are saying is 100% true, assume everyone takes everything with a grain of salt. Which is a way of saying that more often than not, people won't believe you and push back. It's the nature of the thing.
Unless you find beefs entertaining. Then, by all means, fight it out.
I am glad that hopefully at 75 you have bat-like hearing... I am below that ( but not that much) and hope I can keep whatever I have.
What prompted this pedantry?
True, you could also sing a continuous glide through the whole range with no particular 'notes' singled out, encompassing every frequency in the range. Most music I hear, though uses just 8 basic notes in each frequency doubling, low do to high do (of do re mi fame). I'm not trying to be a pedant at all; just expressing what I know about it. I am not a musician.
Yeah, I guessed that.
Flats and sharps, I suppose. Not among the 8.
And then there's Harry Partch.
Nah, no matter how simple the genre you are listening to*, there are 12 basic fundamentals at work per octave, the harmonics and reflections make the actual frequency presence a lot more complicated (see below), and string and wind players often bend the fundamental in between those pitches.
