Re: One for the bottleheads


Wally wrote

>> The "sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of
>> reproduction.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Therefore systems designed only for reproduction will never
>> produce
>> the "sound of real musicians playing".
>>
>> SET systems are not in general designed primarily for
>> reproduction,
>> but rather for the "sound of real musicians playing".
>
> I question your use of the qualifier "designed". It is out with
> the context
> given in...
> ----------
> The "sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of
> reproduction.
> ----------
> The context is *sound*, specifically that of real musicians
> playing,
> and not amplifier design, or design intent.

I was careful to say a SET system, not just the amplifier. Before
*any* performer performs, there must be intent. The problem you
uncover here for me is that musicians have there own intention to
perform, whereas a sound system has its designer's intent. Perhaps
the most obvious problem there is that the design intent is singular
and universal to all performances, whereas the musician's intent
changes with each performance. This is a serious problem for sure.

> Moreover, designing for X doesn't entail
> X.

Not necessarily, but possibly and hopefully and, some experienced
listeners say, apparently! Neither is the opposite true: that X does
not necessarily entail designing for X; but experience of the
production process suggests that it is very often the case. It is
also often generally the case that designing for X *does* entail
X...as long as we don't get hung up on the semantics of "entail".

>> Therefore it is possible that SET systems sound more like the
>> "sound
>> of real musicians playing" than systems designed only for
>> reproduction.

> Your introducton of "more like" suggests that your earlier comment
> that a
> SET "system *is* a live performer" [your emphasis] is no longer
> what you're
> saying, but that it's 'sorta like' a live performer.

I am trying the argument that *all* sysems are by their nature
performers...yes you are right, but good ideas are never one-shot
deals. Some don't sound like the "sound of real musicians playing",
but rather like...well, a poor sound system playing.

> Naturally (ho-ho), one wonders what sort of 'live performer' is it
> like. Is
> it like a guitarist? If you don't mean it's like a real musician
> (a common
> example of a live performer, the sound of which being the focus of
> this very
> discourse), then what sort of live performer is it like? An
> automaton
> operated by means of mains electricity?

Ah, but it *is* the real musician, instrument and all! That's what a
performer is. It is like itself.

It may sound bad doing what it is told, it may sound good playing
something different, or it may sound good performing the original
music. Er...and whatever the missing combination is...it may sound
bad playing something different.

>> Furthermore, some people who have listened say this is true.

> Some people say their burnt toast has Jesus on it. For some
> suitable value
> of true, it is indeed true, but, without knowing what that value
> is, their
> testimony doesn't add anything.

I guess for anyone who thinks their toast has Jesus on it, it must
have. What is more, I would guess that Jesus can be on many slices,
in many places, at the same time. After all, that's why God made
toasters.

>> Whether they actually do or not, I don't know. I'm just examining
>> the logic of the arguments.
>
> Given the premise that the sound of real musicians playing can
> never come
> about by reproduction, it follows that, for an amp to 'sound like
> real
> musicians playing', then said amp must be a part of the real
> musician's
> sound equipment - the source of the music being produced by the
> real
> musician. For example, a guitar amp. Any amplifier which is being
> used
> outwith the context of being part of the musician's equipment is
> functioning
> as a reproducer.

Oi! Now who's leaping, from tree to tree.

But no matter, your point is simply answered, the system *is* the
performer. Your argument is then circular and invalid when viewed
from my frame. Not that I mind, since I hope to argue that it is
*also* a "reproducer".

Just like performers are. And aren't. Simultaneously.

cheers, Ian




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: One for the bottleheads
    ... > Therefore systems designed only for reproduction will never produce ... > the "sound of real musicians playing". ... amplifier design, or design intent. ...
    (uk.rec.audio)
  • Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
    ... proclamations on the electrical design of components, and I certainly never said it did. ... However, one does not need to be an "authority on electronics" to see the silliness we have with certain attributes of high-end, "serious" audio. ... However, many of those amps are much more expensive than necessary to do the job, and I think it is the duty of journalists to point out that fact to potentially gullible readers. ... certainly a concerned audio buff would be wise to take some time to learn a bit about the sound of components. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: potato-potato
    ... But, they do sound sweet. ... he hears the crisp exhaust note of a ... Harley engine--a sound one Honda spokesman characterized as, no kidding, ... their design engineers are asked to create products that are technologically ...
    (rec.motorcycles.harley)
  • Re: tv receivers have puny sound
    ... I used to design marine radios. ... Thin sound means no bass. ... Good speakers require a rather solidly built enclosure. ... In locations where the radio volume was run at full blast to ...
    (sci.electronics.repair)
  • Re: It is my birthday and YOU get the present
    ... Abbeddrose Bierce wrote: ... If you had a clue as to what is necessary to design the most ... When you say "instruments" you mean the MPs, ... to get the sound in his head. ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)