Message to golden-eared audiophiles posting at ASR for the first time...

[ralphf]

Nice strawman argument, but I've not seen anyone make the argument that we have perfectly transparent systems or that there cannot be improvement in both recording and playback of music.

You are missing my point. The point is that in 150 years, you will hear PRESENT DAY RECORDINGS in an entirely different light. And fwiw, I am not making an argument, I'm merely making a guess based on the FACT that current recorded/playback music sounds almost dimensionless and nothing like it does live. And let's remember, that all music is live when it is recorded. It's hard to believe that technology is going to stand still within 150 years and not be able to bring these present day lifeless recordings to life.

 

[solderdude]

I really meant multichannel.

Yay.. multichannel or holo-channel MQA...
Call Bob he has some things to patent in the future

 

[ralphf]

Are you sure you’re using the right mains cables?

Lol, if you think we will be using cables in 150 years, god bless you...

 

[solderdude]

There will be so much wireless in the future and efficiency will reach near 100% (because of the planet needing to be saved) that a you can get enough power directly out of the ether in your home.

 

[SimpleTheater]

The point is that in 150 years, you will hear PRESENT DAY RECORDINGS in an entirely different light.

I already do. In fact, I'm about 700 years into the future. I use Tara Labs RSC Master Generation 2 speaker cables, and have been since 1996.

The most important thing is the cable uses a new conductor described as "Consonant Alloy," a proprietary blend of elements which, according to Mr. Bond, surpasses the performance of 99.9999% pure copper. SOURCE

According to Star Trek Voyager, Season 3, Episode 17, Tuvac discovered Consonant Alloy was being used by the Cessarions in the Delta Quadrant.

I could almost hear him repeating the same thing from this review:
"On a subtler level than ringing phones, the Met/Levine recording mentioned earlier takes on added dimension with the Generation 2. The sound stage at Manhattan Center broadens, the sense of hall ambience is heightened, instrumental locations are more precise. In short, there is an increased "you are there" sensation of sharing the space with the orchestra. "

This is what you're missing today, that added dimension. I'll sell you my pair for only $2,500. You'll need to pay the shipping.

 

[ralphf]

There will be so much wireless in the future and efficiency will reach near 100% (because of the planet needing to be saved) that a you can get enough power directly out of the ether.

I already do. In fact, I'm about 700 years into the future. I use Tara Labs RSC Master Generation 2 speaker cables, and have been since 1996..

I don't know which is stronger cool-aid, believing in $2,500 cables or believing that music reproduction technology (not recording) is going to stand still for the 150 years....

 

[BluesDaddy]

You are missing my point. The point is that in 150 years, you will hear PRESENT DAY RECORDINGS in an entirely different light. And fwiw, I am not making an argument, I'm merely making a guess based on the FACT that current recorded/playback music sounds almost dimensionless and nothing like it does live. And let's remember, that all music is live when it is recorded. It's hard to believe that technology is going to stand still within 150 years and not be able to bring these present day lifeless recordings to life.

No, I got your point, but you made an assertion (i.e. "argument") that people on this thread claimed HiFi had reached a pinnacle of transparency, which no one has. The seems to me to imply you're challenging the claims of transparency made regarding cables and some electronics by pointing to the still imperfect experience of musical playback which does not approach absolute realism. That is a strawman argument and no one has claimed musical reproduction cannot be improved upon.

 

[ralphf]

No, I got your point, but you made an assertion (i.e. "argument") that people on this thread claimed HiFi had reached a pinnacle of transparency, which no one has. The seems to me to imply you're challenging the claims of transparency made regarding cables and some electronics by pointing to the still imperfect experience of musical playback which does not approach absolute realism. That is a strawman argument and no one has claimed musical reproduction cannot be improved upon.

The central issue as I see it in this thread is whether or not music can be "distorted" to achieve a sound which sounds more realistic to the average listener. Many here are arguing that transparency alone is not the future or the holy grail and many argue that it is. My point is that in 150 years, I find it highly likely that technology will allow presently recorded music to sound much more realistic (from a live perspective) due to manipulation (distortion) of the recording signal. This process is already underway actually and I would guess that in 150 years, the technology will bring us much close to realistic sounding recordings. Again, not an argument, just a guess.

 

[SIY]

…believing that music reproduction technology (not recording) is going to stand still for the 150 years....

Straw man. Exactly zero people have argued that. Do better.

 

[BluesDaddy]

The central issue as I see it in this thread is whether or not music can be "distorted" to achieve a sound which sounds more realistic to the average listener. Many here are arguing that transparency alone is not the future or the holy grail and many argue that it is. My point is that in 150 years, I find it highly likely that technology will allow presently recorded music to sound much more realistic (from a live perspective) due to manipulation (distortion) of the recording signal. This process is already underway actually and I would guess that in 150 years, the technology will bring us much close to realistic sounding recordings. Again, not an argument, just a guess.

I'd suggest that your "point" is irrelevant to the discussion of this thread and that you have, in fact, missed the thread's point. I would also suggest you have misunderstood what people have argued regarding transparency.

 

[ralphf]

Straw man. Exactly zero people have argued that. Do better.

Do better? If it doesn't work for you, don't buy it.

 

[ralphf]

I'd suggest that your "point" is irrelevant to the discussion of this thread and that you have, in fact, missed the thread's point. I would also suggest you have misunderstood what people have argued regarding transparency.

So you believe that sound manipulation (vs transparency) is the future of music playback? I agree.

 

[BluesDaddy]

So you believe that sound manipulation (vs transparency) is the future of music playback? I agree.

I don't think 150 years in the future is relevant to the discussion. Why is that hard for you?

 

[ralphf]

I don't think 150 years in the future is relevant to the discussion. Why is that hard for you?

It's not hard for me at all. I know its not fashionable to say this these days, but I'm not one of those that needs to shout down others who have different views.

 

[BluesDaddy]

It's not hard for me at all. I know its not fashionable to say this these days, but I'm not one of those that needs to shout down others who have different views.

Because your fantasies about future musical reproduction justifies using obscenely priced current electronics and cables to "manipulate the sound" and make it something other than "high fidelity"? All of which could more simply and easily done with DSP? Gotcha.

 

[ralphf]

Because your fantasies about future musical reproduction justifies using obscenely priced current electronics and cables to "manipulate the sound" and make it something other than "high fidelity"? All of which could more simply and easily done with DSP? Gotcha.

The belief that the next 150 years will produce technology that will render current recordings more realistic sounding "justifies using obscenely priced current electronics and cables" today? Just speaking personally, but that's not the kind of logic that I like to use. Pointless to argue further. Agree to disagree and all that.

 

[tmtomh]

The central issue as I see it in this thread is whether or not music can be "distorted" to achieve a sound which sounds more realistic to the average listener. Many here are arguing that transparency alone is not the future or the holy grail and many argue that it is. My point is that in 150 years, I find it highly likely that technology will allow presently recorded music to sound much more realistic (from a live perspective) due to manipulation (distortion) of the recording signal. This process is already underway actually and I would guess that in 150 years, the technology will bring us much close to realistic sounding recordings. Again, not an argument, just a guess.

What you're talking about is a highly advanced form of DSP, and in particular a highly advanced form of something like upmixing a stereo recording to multi-channel Dolby Atmos with various spatial enhancements to create a more physically and sensorily immersive experience.

That's cool, and I have no doubt you are correct that something like that will be developed in 150 years, probably more advanced - and in some way very different - than any of us can imagine today.

But for such methods to work properly, the equipment that reproduces and processes the recordings in that way will need to be as audibly transparent as possible - it will need to reproduce the sounds, however processed, with as little noise and undesired distortion as possible, adding only changes to the signal that are part of the intentional design of the algorithms of the DSP.

The fact that any change in the original signal can be characterized under the heading of "distortion" does not mean that the kind of intentional, consistent, evidence-backed signal processing you are talking about is actually the same thing as, for example, elevated noise, poor rejection of out-of-band signals, nonlinear frequency response, or high intermodulation distortion. And therefore your claim - or at least strong implication - that the existence of DSP means ASR's dedication to transparency is narrow-minded or misguided, is an illogical and unpersuasive claim.

 

[BluesDaddy]

The belief that the next 150 years will produce technology that will render current recordings more realistic sounding "justifies using obscenely priced current electronics and cables" today? Just speaking personally, but that's not the kind of logic that I like to use. Pointless to argue further. Agree to disagree and all that.

Seems exactly like the type of logic you're using, but okay.

 

[ralphf]

But for such methods to work properly, the equipment that reproduces and processes the recordings in that way will need to be as audibly transparent as possible .

Of course, goes without saying. But my point still stands. In 150 years, technology will allow us to listen to albums from the 70's and we will likely hear those recordings as if they were recorded live in front of us. And that technology will not revolve around presenting the signal transparently to the speakers, it will involve a manipulation of the signal. How many of the posters in this thread would agree to that? I think very few.

 

[Robin L]

The central issue as I see it in this thread is whether or not music can be "distorted" to achieve a sound which sounds more realistic to the average listener. Many here are arguing that transparency alone is not the future or the holy grail and many argue that it is. My point is that in 150 years, I find it highly likely that technology will allow presently recorded music to sound much more realistic (from a live perspective) due to manipulation (distortion) of the recording signal. This process is already underway actually and I would guess that in 150 years, the technology will bring us much close to realistic sounding recordings. Again, not an argument, just a guess.

When I think of transducers, microphones strike me as the problem. Speakers in reverse, smaller diaphragms but basically the same mechanism as regards energy transfer. I'm sure there's a way to measure/record differences in sound pressure without physical diaphragms. That will improve sound across the board if reality is what you seek.
On the other hand, the musicians mostly want to come up with something new and reality is old hat. So there might not be such a big push to change sq upwards as long as it's still growing sideways.