Nowhk
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2017
- Messages
- 99
- Likes
- 15
- Thread Starter
- #61
I think I wouldn't consider "speech" as "musical element". I mean, speech enclose a "message". I don't have any need to listen it on pro gears to be understood. Any kind of realistic and decent speakers will bring to me a sounds that can be easily decoded and interpreted, using native language, getting the desidered message.What if we consider plain speech? I would say it's highly likely that we would all understand what was being said through some pretty horrendous distortion. Not only that, we would probably be able to recognise the person speaking if they were already familiar to us. This is because speech is not dependent on static accuracy of frequency response, but is all about the dynamic changes of 'timbre'.
We could easily laugh at humour or be inspired by speech over a pretty distorted channel. But there would come a point where we would probably not be able to understand what was being said or who was saying it.
If you consider "timbre", well... timbre itself is the message. Not somethings that its decoded by analysing soundwave. So, soundwave become the message.
Or, once again, if its so, even here I don't need any necessity to select gears to get it: whatever system I'll use will transfer the "message" encoded across different soundwave (i.e. different timbre) shaped by natural distortion.
Same question, afterall: will different soundwave (shaped by natural distortion) converge to the same perception/message or each of them will broadcast somethings different due to its imposed presentation?
Most of you seems to be on first paradigm, others on seconds. I feel to be on the second road; but the ones on the first group need to explain why they use the setup they are using instead of (at parity of money) another one. Because if you sustain that, any similar setups won't impact what you are hearing, in the end.