| Author |
Thread: Archive through December 17, 2004 |
    
Silver Member Username: Two_cents
Post Number: 369
Registered: Feb-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 07:42 pm: |
|
JV: "it's quite obvious that neither #1 nor #2 provide the quality you ascribe to them. And even if they did that would not describe or inform us any more about the nature and intent of the original. What you are describing in chiaroscuro and color pallete are just the tools and methods of art, not art itself."
chiaroscuro, colors, texture, etc., are not tools and methods of art; they are elements of the artwork that make up the whole. if you alter one element you alter the whole. reproductions aways involve altering elements that constitute the artwork. the point i'm trying to get across is that our preference in which reproduction we prefer depends on the artistic elements we value the most and quality the reproduction has in conveying those elements.
JV: "But if I buy a full size poster print reproduction of a painting I can get the 99% of what is on the surface of the original. It is not 100%; but, should I want to get that 99%? Not 78.05%."
posters are limited by the format. a full-scale poster cannot capture 99% of a de kooning, because it can't reproduce the texture of the paint that is so vital to his paintings. but say you had the choice between a full-scale photograph of a de kooning painting that is flat but reproduced the colors accurately or a copy painted by a student that showed the paint textures but had the colors a little off. how do you objectively assign a percentage designating how much of the original the copies reproduce? your preference will depend on whether you think better texture or better color is more important. is this point getting repetitive?
JV: "What then, in your estimation, would account for the differences that are found between different companies' products when they all use more or less the same parts?"
design and manufacturing quality. choices designers make to create a certain character in the sound, for example, your beloved mcintosh sound.
JV: "When I attend the symphony the music I hear is a real product of the musician's efforts. Sound waves are excited and they reach my ear drum. That is a reality."
what happens to the music as it's processed between the ears. is that reality also? or is it something else?
JV: "Almost everyone has some form of art that they find lacking in profundity. That doesn't make it "not art". What am I missing here?"
do you mean what makes something a work of art? i don't know. who says de kooning is Art and kincaid isn't? who decides? which would you feel stronger: your own belief about the profundity of shostakovitch's quartets or a consensus of musicologists who believe that bartok's quartets are profound? (this isn't an either/or question, but a question of which you would feel stronger or have more conviction about.) |
|
Relevant Product Info
|
|
Silver Member Username: Two_cents
Post Number: 370
Registered: Feb-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 07:59 pm: |
|
Jan,
Thanks for the explanation of the sliding scale of neutrality. I have a clearer understanding of what you mean. Again, this is a question of semantics. What you consider a sliding scale of reality in the different films, I consider characteristics of the film that alter the reproduced thing. Each film is different for one another and each is different from the thing reproduced.
With respect to a Bosendorf piano and a Yamaha piano, they're both pianos, but each has distinct characteristics that will make the same notes sound different. You seem to call this a sliding scale of neutrality or reality, whereas I call it the characteristics of the instrument. Here's another question for you to consider: how does one choose among an amati, guarani, or stradivarius violin? does it come to personal preference in the sound? or is there an objective measure to which is more real? which maker came closest to capturing the violinness of the violin? |
Gold Member Username: Myrantz
Post Number: 1190
Registered: Aug-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 08:06 pm: |
|
"If your full glass can accept one more drop then it was not full. If it sits for ten minutes and evaporation occurs it will not be full. You are stating a perception. Haven't we agreed perception is in the eye of the beholder?
"
Jan, sorry to be splitting hairs but better than splitting atoms :-)
IMHO there is no perception in full, it is a constant - it either is or it is not. What you stated as above is 100% correct about the fact. Full means not able to take one more drop. After evaporation, no, the glass would no longer be full.
Because I'm in a nitpickin' mood I'll take another stab at your reply to 2c about the sliding scale of neutrality: IMHO again, the sound from the speaker will either be neutral or not when other influences are applied. We could say almost neutral, close to neutral, but as soon as the sound varies from the point of neutrality, it is no longer neutral. On a 30cm ruler, 15 cm is half - there is no sliding scale of half. Hence 15.1 centimeters is not half but it is close. Okay, for perception sake, a slight change may not be noticable from person to person or it might. But it doesn't alter the fact.
I agree that perception is in the eye of the beholder (or ear). But the above holds true even for the deaf, dumb and blind - does it not?
Also, if I were to take away that single pine needle the forest would no longer be the same.
But, yes the perception would not be altered.
Now how about we discuss the gowns in John's photos. I simply love the one with the puffed shoulders . . .
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_b
New York
USA
Post Number: 717
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 08:16 pm: |
|
2c,
I did not audition the Spendors prior to purchase. I knew I wanted a monitor instead of a floorstander to pair up with the McIntosh. I purchased my S3/5's based on a review by Herbert Reichert. If you do a Google search on the Spendor S3/5, you will find his review from enjoythemusic.com. I think his review is dead on.
I have owned a lot of speakers over the years,some 6X the price of the S3/5's. I have not heard a more accurate speaker in terms of timber.
I am planning on going to a tube amp and don't want to give up the Spendors in spite of their inefficiency. |
Silver Member Username: Two_cents
Post Number: 371
Registered: Feb-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 08:29 pm: |
|
Rick,
Thanks for chiming in. What is the power rating of the amp you're using to drive the Spendors. I have a 40wpc amp and I have some concern about whether this is enough power for the Spendors.
Rantz,
I look at that picture and I just imagine that's John A. on the left and Jan on the right. I prefer Jan's outfit. I'm not into puffy sleeves and fur. |
Gold Member Username: Myrantz
Post Number: 1191
Registered: Aug-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 08:39 pm: |
|
2C,
Okay, but I bet you'd look swish in those stockings. And I think I'd assign those pictures the same :-)
Rick,
"I have not heard a more accurate speaker in terms of timber."
Wanna play spot the boo boo!
|
Silver Member Username: Two_cents
Post Number: 372
Registered: Feb-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 08:50 pm: |
|
M.R.
Swish??? If I remember that could mean a few things. |
Gold Member Username: Myrantz
Post Number: 1193
Registered: Aug-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 09:13 pm: |
|
2C - here it means foxy, smart or cool. Or Swiss with a lisp :-) |
J. Vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 11:10 pm: |
|
2c - We seem to be dancing on the same dime and being thrown off by semantics and more split hairs. Tools, methods and elements should be generic enough to understand that they, of themself, are not art. Nothing to argue over there.
The 99% is an arbitrary number that merely represents something that is not whole. Whether the 1% is the texture, the color or a chunk out of the corner, the point is a reproduction isn't the whole of what it represents.
"Design" is again generic enough to mean what has been chosen as a difference. What I was going to was what made the designer choose that singular path.
You seem to be asking me to define what is perception, or more to the point, what process goes on between the ears, to be called perception. That is a long and winding road that was started on another thread. Discussing what is the act of perception still gets us back to when a tree falls and doesn't further our discussion. It can only obscure the path we should take. That doesn't change the fact that, for me, the music is a reality. It may not be your reality. When I sold a stereo system to a deaf person, she was not perceiving the same "music" that I was hearing. That didn't change the fact that, for both of us, the music was real. It seems arguing that point further is beating a dead horse.
"JV: "Almost everyone has some form of art that they find lacking in profundity. That doesn't make it "not art". What am I missing here?"
do you mean what makes something a work of art? i don't know. who says de kooning is Art and kincaid isn't? who decides?"
No, what I meant was why label a work of art, or an entire movement, as banal just because you don't care for the product. As I said, it is insulting for no reason other than you can. Who decides? That's a good question, isn't it? When ancient relics are unearthed, what separates the products into categories of craft and not art? Or the other way around? Intent? That seems to be a convenient label. But labels are poorly placed quite often. Many of those relics are more "artistic" than a piece of photorealism. I'm afraid the line is too blurred for me to make a call.
" ... which would you feel stronger: your own belief about the profundity of shostakovitch's quartets or a consensus of musicologists who believe that bartok's quartets are profound? (this isn't an either/or question, but a question of which you would feel stronger or have more conviction about.)"
I don't see the reason for making the distinction. I base my feeling about the Shostakovich from my personal experience and knowledge, if that is what you mean. In your example I am left to base my feeling on the faith I have in any given group of musicologists which is likely to be based on my experience and knowledge of those musicologists. Your example doesn't seem to present a mutually exclusive situation. I can hold both positions at the same time without contradicting myself. So you're correct, it is not an either/or question. What am I missing here?
************************************
"Here's another question for you to consider: how does one choose among an amati, guarani, or stradivarius violin? does it come to personal preference in the sound? or is there an objective measure to which is more real? which maker came closest to capturing the violinness of the violin?"
Wow, I've been knocked off the dime by too many questions that are spinning me in too many directions. How does one performer choose the instrument they wish to use? Since I have never had the opportunity to select any of your choices I can't speak to the fact of the matter. I know how I choose a chef's knife, a paint brush and a shovel. They all involve a combination of what is technically to task and what is my preference. I would prefer not to use a 12" chef's knife to peel an apple. When I use a 12" chef's knife, it is one that I prefer.
I don't know any more than that. I do know technology seems to be unable to determine what makes one violin superior to another when you ask about several of your examples.
Who made the violin that displayed the most violiness? That seems another impossible answer. Every one of the examples you put forth is an example of a violin. (Asuming of course we are both making the leap of faith that you're not tossing me a ringer and meaning cellos not violins, just because you can.) Therefore each displays violiness. There is no quanitfication there. They display violiness simply because they do not display elephantness. Or rockness. Or DVD-ness. They are violins. As such they all display an equal amount of violiness. To be a violin means they all display an equal amount of what it is that makes a violin not an elephant. In this example, that would seem to be all that is important.
****************************
"IMHO there is no perception in full, it is a constant - it either is or it is not."
Sorry, you're wrong. In this example, full is no different than asking where is the center of the piece of string. There is always another division to be made. It is only your perception that limits your ability to reach that point. You would have to split that atom, several times!
*********************
"Because I'm in a nitpickin' mood I'll take another stab at your reply to 2c about the sliding scale of neutrality: IMHO again, the sound from the speaker will either be neutral or not when other influences are applied. We could say almost neutral, close to neutral, but as soon as the sound varies from the point of neutrality, it is no longer neutral. On a 30cm ruler, 15 cm is half - there is no sliding scale of half. Hence 15.1 centimeters is not half but it is close. Okay, for perception sake, a slight change may not be noticable from person to person or it might. But it doesn't alter the fact.
I agree that perception is in the eye of the beholder (or ear). But the above holds true even for the deaf, dumb and blind - does it not?"
Technically there is a point that represents your 15.000 cm. (See above.) But if you could describe to that blind man what 30.000 cm amounted to and then ask him if it mattered to him, I would be much more comfortable with your example. It can only be the perception of 30.000 cm and 15.000 cm that matters to someone who has never, and can never, experience either.
*************************
"Also, if I were to take away that single pine needle the forest would no longer be the same.
But, yes the perception would not be altered."
You're correct. If you remove that one solitary needle, the forest will no longer be full. But I thought you said there was no perception in "full".
I'm really not sure what the point is that we are dancing around. That perception will alter what you choose as the most neutral? We agreed on that somewhere around July, I thought. That there is no accuracy in audio? I also said that a long time ago. That doesn't alter the fact that there is something real to which we can compare the representation. And it certainly doesn't alter the fact that we should, if we are to call this endeavour high fidelity (as John pointed out), try to agree on what we are holding fidelity to. As to who gets to decide, I would refer you to the link John referenced above from the "Transcending ..." thread and then to the later post made at 3:20 AM the same day.
http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/1/110404.html
I appreciate the concept you gents have of me in the photo. Unfortunately, as with Lary's wife, you are somewhat mistaken. I can't grow a beard.
|
|
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_b
New York
USA
Post Number: 718
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 11:25 pm: |
|
Rantz,
Timber????? Sorry, shouldn't try to post after a 14 hour work day.
2C,
The McIntosh is a solid state integrated with 70 wpc. The Jolida is 20 wpc.
Must sleep now, night night all.................... |
Gold Member Username: Myrantz
Post Number: 1194
Registered: Aug-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 11:59 pm: |
|
Jan,
Just when I thought splitting hairs was preferable to splitting atoms . . . oh man.
Okay, while we are being pedantic - just a couple of things:
Who said the forest was full prior to the removal of the pine needle? Besides a forest can never be full, it has to allow for bear shitage.
In a "real" world how can we make a full glass of water any more full by adding atoms without creating spillage? Is this some ritual you undertake to get the most from your Chivas? If so, please share the secret.
"I can't grow a beard. "
So it's a fake - again, it's all about perception :-)
And please, please don't send me back to that "Transcending . . ." thread. Anything but that!
|
Gold Member Username: Myrantz
Post Number: 1195
Registered: Aug-04
|
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 12:16 am: |
|
Jan,
This may bring back some happy memories
Clapton's Crossroads Festival 2 disc DVD
http://store.acousticsounds.com/browse_detail.cfm?Title_ID=14890
|
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 2618
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 01:49 am: |
|
The Ambassadors
MR, Sorry, my fault; I saw your post, but it was a case of "I've started, so I'll finish".
"I've no interest in looking at a couple of ponces who have been decomposing for several centuries". Yes, love it!
Man, how wrong can one be? On all counts. You were imposing your own preconceptions (I probably have the same ones, btw).
But we can step outside those with "High Fidelity". With "low fidelity" we can all keep our opinions, however wrong: there is nothing substantial to challenge them; it is then all a matter of personal preference etc.
Do please take a look at the above link and the commentaries. America (discovered 41 years before) is on the terrestrial globe. The music in the book can be read and played, and means something in the context of what Holbein was saying about those guys. Etc. etc. The Lute has a broken string. And, for Old Dogs, the skull... (see it?).
Two Cents,
Let's say Picture #1 provides the best rendering of chiaroscuro; Picture #2 provides the best color rendition; Picture #3 provides the greatest sharpness; and so on. How would you choose the best reproduction given multiple variables?
No, there are objective standards: how much can be resolvved from the three reproductions?
No. 3 is a crap reproduction; No 2 is worse; No 1 the total pits. It DOES NOT matter what the style/genre is; do it with Picasso or Lucien Freud, or with swirls of paint from writhing ladies, and anyone who can see will place the reproductions on the same order.
It does not matter which aspect of the painting one is interested in, either, or whether one is interested in it at all; and it would not matter if we chose another painting, even an abstract (Good point though, Kegger).
There are things to see in No. 3 that no-one can see in No. 1.
Are the differences just a matter of opinion and personal preference?
Common sense view: NO!
If the photos were produced by different HiFi systems, which system would you choose? |
Gold Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 2024
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 02:16 am: |
|
john:
"If the photos were produced by different HiFi systems, which system
would you choose?"
Interesting question and depends on how you want to adhire them too.
same say they like lp's and they've gotten use to or enjoy the hiss
or background noise on them while others say they prefer cd's because thay
don't have that and are for the most part clearer.
so having said that maybe you could associate pic 3 with cd, clearer
and pic 1or2 with lp a little fuzzy!
So in that case my audio, I would pick 3 but someone else would like 1 or 2!
"Just a thought"
|
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 2619
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 02:17 am: |
|
PS the Original. Everyone should see it. For one thing, it is sodding huge. End of profound art criticism. Let us put "The Ambassadors" in the Old Dogs workshop. WHEN we can all see the real thing, or the closest we can all get, THEN everyone is equally entitled to whatever point of view. That is the road to a free society, imho.
Yes, we can have better reproduction of art or of music, whatever floats the boat - but it CAN be objectively better, whatever the content. It is just common sense, |
Gold Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 2025
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 02:23 am: |
|
Or if pic one was the original and pic 3 was after the original went through
an enhacer "on your syatem" that cleaned it up but it was different than the
original, which one would you pick?
I know which one I would! Because to me the altered one is better!
But if others prefer the original because it was the artists intent that
is fine with me but I still prefer the cleaner/altered one! |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 2620
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 02:35 am: |
|
Thanks, Kegger. Look, there is just more to see in pic 3. It is there, in the picture. It is not a matter of opinion. See my point? Whether we like it, or are interested in the first place, is a completely different question. And there, I agree, we decide that for ourselves. |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 2621
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 02:43 am: |
|
Or if pic one was the original and pic 3 was after the original went through
an enhacer "on your syatem" that cleaned it up but it was different than the
original, which one would you pick?
It could never be that way around - no "enhancer" could do that. If pic 1 was the original, you could only get worse from there. You could never get to pic 3. Pic 3 would have to be a new original. You could never get to the real original, which, btw, is f...... awesome. IMHO! |
Gold Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 2026
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 03:00 am: |
|
john:
"If
pic 1 was the original, you could only get worse from there"
That is ones opinion.
If pic 1 was the original and the artists intent.
someone could alter the picture to look like pic
3 but it would not be the artists original intent or print maybe even!
yu know got out new paint and filled in the spots, made it nice and glossy.
but the artist originally wanted it to look blurry.
some may or may not like the fact it was altered to look the way
it does now if they had seen the original and appreciated it.
But others may find they like it better.
Meaning that just because an artists intent was one way but it was changed
does not neccasaryly mean it should be enjoyed less or found inferior.
Maybe the alterations even if not approved by the artist could be an improvement. |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 2622
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 08:04 am: |
|
Kegger,
I see your point. It is a good one. Let me reply bit by bit.
"If
pic 1 was the original, you could only get worse from there"
That is ones opinion.
Yes, it is, if "worse" means "how we like the result". What I meant by "worse" when I wrote that (in a hurry - it was not a good choice) was "lower in quality of reproduction". You lose information. There are things in the original, and in a hi-res reproduction, that cannot be seen in a low-res reproduction; not by anyone. They cannot be seen because they are no longer there. The reproduction has lost something. Nothing can bring it back. The effect on the picture quality is one-way.
If pic 1 was the original and the artists intent.
someone could alter the picture to look like pic
3 but it would not be the artists original intent or print maybe even!
It is impossible for it to be the artist's original intent.
yu know got out new paint and filled in the spots, made it nice and glossy.
Yes, I see (slightly off topic -like "upsampling"...?)
but the artist originally wanted it to look blurry.
some may or may not like the fact it was altered to look the way
it does now if they had seen the original and appreciated it.
But others may find they like it better.
Yes, and that is their choice, and their right.
Meaning that just because an artists intent was one way but it was changed
does not neccasaryly mean it should be enjoyed less or found inferior.
Agreed, but it does mean we can less easily know what the artist's intent was.
Maybe the alterations even if not approved the artist could be an improvement.
Yes, OK, but that is subjective. The change from the original might be considered an improvement, and I am not against it provided the alterer declares himself, and does not try to hide from us where he got the idea, and what it was that he altered by making the alteration. Also, this is crucial, that he does not claim he better understands what Holbein intended, and is doing the alterations to save us saps the trouble of deciding for ourselves, since we know less than he does. He might also claim that what he did with the alterations was just "technical" - which is a way of pretending he made no decisions: it was in some objective way a better version; he was not being an "artist" in making those changes; etc. This would not be just arrogance, it would be arrogance plus dishonesty.
BTW going back to "common sense": we lose information by decreasing the resolution. This is "worse reproduction", not "better reproduction", meaning simply what these words are taken to mean.
It is back to Mona Lisa with a moustache. As long as we know that is the work of somone who is not Leonardo da Vinci (in this case, My Rantz) then I have no problem with people preferring it. The lower the resolution, the less easy it will be to tell the moustache is there, and to distinguish between the original and My Ranz's altered version.
So fidelity of reproduction is not a subjective issue. It is objective. It is out there, like the size of the canvas or print, its weight, what paints/inks it uses, what their chemical composition is, what colours they contain, etc.
This is my point to you, and to 2c.
Even without an original picture or performanc, we can still get a better or worse impression of what the original must have been like. If we have the original, we can be absolutely sure when we judge how faithful different reproductions of it. In neither case do we need a "perfect reproduction". The "Holy grail" of sound reproduction is not relevant. Even if such a thing existed, we could never know that is what it was. |
Gold Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 2027
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 10:22 am: |
|
John: got everything you said except this:
Mine:
If pic 1 was the original and the artists intent.
someone could alter the picture to look like pic
3 but it would not be the artists original intent or print maybe even!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
yours:
It is impossible for it to be the artist's original intent.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Are you saying that pic1 could not be the artist intent?
Because my meaning behind that statemeant was that some artists like
to use a colored lense or washed out picture/someway to alter the
reality of the shot, but for some viewers that is anoying and they
would of preferred the shot to be as clear as it could have been.
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 11:11 am: |
|
"bear shitage"
Checked with a friend who has a forestry degree. He claims "bear shitage" is not an official term. It can be applied to rabbits but not bears. Something about the same as flock and gaggle. It was late, I wasn't paying attention. Thought you'd want to know.
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 11:22 am: |
|
http://www.keppel.k12.ca.us/KEPPEL/Almondale/pointillism.html
http://www.kinderart.com/arthistory/dottodot.shtml
http://www.jlhs.nhusd.k12.ca.us/Student_Galleries/Virtual_Art_Gallery/pointillis m/point_defined.html
POINTILLISM
is
a metaphor
for life.
We need
to step back,
sometimes,
to
get
its
POINT.
http://www.jlhs.nhusd.k12.ca.us/Student_Galleries/Virtual_Art_Gallery/pointillis m/jennifer.jpg
Filling in the blanks is not the point!!!
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 11:43 am: |
|
http://www.addgr.com/comp/ekdotiki/grart1.htm
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 12:30 pm: |
|
" ... some say they like lp's and they've gotten use to or enjoy the hiss ... "
I think you've misunderstood the statement that has been made about groove noise. No one "enjoys" noise. The point of the remark would be LP noise is benign, when a disc is played on a properly set up table, the noise is insignificant and can be filtered out by the processing of our brains. This is the basis for M-PEG and MP3 formatting. Certain sounds are masked by others.
What the remark is really stating is the preference for LP due to the sterility of CD. It goes to a coldness that afflicts many CD's. The warmth of the LP is preferrable. Not the noise.
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 12:40 pm: |
|
2c - Small point here. Is this what you meant to say?
"There are solid state equipment that have better measurements than tube equipment which lead one to think that the ss equipment will reproduce music more accurately than the tube equipment. (I don't think that even tube fans will argue that on a measurable level tube equipment is superior to ss.)"
Seems as though you've reversed the subject and object in the parenthetical statement. I tend to agree as it is written, but wonder if that was your intent.
|
Gold Member Username: Myrantz
Post Number: 1197
Registered: Aug-04
|
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 01:04 pm: |
|
"Checked with a friend who has a forestry degree. He claims "bear shitage" is not an official term. It can be applied to rabbits but not bears. Something about the same as flock and gaggle. It was late, I wasn't paying attention. Thought you'd want to know."
Apologies, please let me rephrase: Besides a forest can never be full, it has to allow for bunny poopage.
I forgot bear shitage is only found in the woods.
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 01:30 pm: |
|
Thanks for the restatement. I would check for appropriateness of "bunny poopage", but my friend with the forestry degree is at work. He has put his degree to good use by being the guy that trims trees for Illinois Power and Electric. Spends his time in a bucket sawing away when someone else says, "cut that one". Oh well, we all do what we do with our extended, expensive education. Some of us sell hifi.
Anyway, "bunny poopage" it is. I'll just try my best to not wander into a field of the stuff.
|
Silver Member Username: Two_cents
Post Number: 375
Registered: Feb-04
|
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 01:41 pm: |
|
John A.
I acknowledge your point. There are some reproductions that are clearly better than others. And I think we agree that there are no perfect reproductions. The topic that I've been addressing is the "bandwith" where reproductions are not clearly better than one another.
In terms of speakers, there are people who think B&W speakers sound better than Thiels and then there are people who think the opposite. At this level, I'm not sure if we can apply an objective criteria to determine which is better. It's a matter of personal preferences, i.e., what one is seeking in the sound.
To throw in another analogy, I think we can agree that Glenmorangie 18 year whisky is better than Billy Bob's Midnight Special Whisky. That is clear. But can we say with confidence, claiming objectivity, that Glenmorangie 18 is better than Macallan 18 or Glenlivet 18? This is the area that interests me. Not the difference between Billy Bob's whisky and Glenmorangie, not the difference between a Proac speaker and a Walmart speaker, and not the difference between Holbein reproductions at significantly different resolutions.
Would you say that your KEF speakers do a better job reproducing music than all other speakers you've listened to for ALL PEOPLE? If, say, Jan prefered the sound of Quads over your KEFs, then is his perception of high-fidelity somehow deficient or lacking? There seem to be many good speakers out there, using similar parts, that achieve high fidelity to music, but they all have their own character, as Jan has pointed out. How do you choose? At a certain level of quality, I think it boils down to personal preference. If you insist that one can choose based on objective criteria, that one person who chooses a KEF 104 speaker over a Proac Response 3.5 (just to give an arbitrary example of two well-regarded speakers) is a better judge than someone who prefers the opposite, then that is where we disagree.
I apologize if I do not express my thoughts clearly in the rush of typing. Jan corrected one of my, I'm sure, many slips above.
I feel I've exhausted my thoughts on the topic.
Peace and happy listening!
|
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 2624
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 01:50 pm: |
|
Kegger,
Thanks, again. When I wrote
"It is impossible for it to be the artist's original intent."
I meant to say
"It is impossible for Pic No 3 to be truer to the artist's original intent."
That is, if Pic no 1 was the original.
You can't unscramble an egg, or get a silk purse out of a sow's ear, or whtever the phrase is. I think it is also described as "garbage in; garbage out".
You can put good stuff in and get garbage out, but never the other way round. As I understand it, it has something to do with thermodynamics (off topic...?).
One of the Keggerisms I remember from way back is there is nothing that cannot be improved in some way, and I agree with that. I think that applies to quality of reproduction. So there is no "Holy Grail". But... to improve the quality you have to go back to a higher quality version (or the original) and see if you can do a better job than before. No-one can reconstruct sense from nonsense.
Coloured lenses is a very good analogy, and I was using it in the file I wrote months ago, in reply to you, but never posted. Now could be the time. But it is long, and I detect patience wearing thin, here! Maybe I'll start another thread. The problem is, it seems to me to be right on nail as far as Jan's original questions are concerned.
[MR, JV, Great, but what do we do about thread crappage, and how can we recognise it? Let he who is without thread crappage, etc. , as the good book might have put it.
Re swans, the collective noun is "flight" (in the air), "fleet" (on water) or "flock" (on land). I do not know why I remember these things. I think it is the same for geese except "gaggle" is synonymous with "flock". If we want a pedantry competition, we have some formidable opponents here, it seems to me.]
Jan,
I agree about LPs. A good illustration is to take a digital sound file, makes copies with smaller sampling rates and bit sizes, and listen.
The best hi-fi system in the world will not give you back the "warmth" and resolution you have lost by making, say, an 8-bit aiff file at 11 kHz sampling frequency. You can take that and up-sample all you like, making DVD-A-sized files, if you want, it still sounds like trash. You won't hear the words, or tell which instruments are playing. The information was lost, never to return.
The question is: how much of the original is lost in 16-bit 44.1 kHz CD?
Remembering the original was analogue. Sound itself is analogue.
See this point, Kegger? - it is the same thing as I was trying to say. You could call the alteration to a degraded sound file "art" if you wanted, but I doubt if that is what most people mean by that word. And that is not what people buy hifi systems for.
What we want is fidelity.
Surely? |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 2625
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 02:07 pm: |
|
2c,
I am getting a bit exhausted too. But, now, the same thing applies to qualities of Scotch.
To throw in another analogy, I think we can agree that Glenmorangie 18 year whisky is better than Billy Bob's Midnight Special Whisky. That is clear.
I think we might agree, but it is still a subjective judgement; there is no "right" or "wrong"
But can we say with confidence, claiming objectivity, that Glenmorangie 18 is better than Macallan 18 or Glenlivet 18?
No, we cannot, but we could not do that in the first place, either. All we could predict is that we would have more people agree with us. That is not the issue. And, who's to say Billy Bob (is that hypothetical or a real brand...?) did not make a better whisky? Is the view that no-one could ever improve on one of those named single malts a little, er, conservative (putting it mildly)?
I submit a modified analogy. Try all those whiskies with a clothes-peg over your nose, or a bad cold, or, say, chopping onions or burning rubber. That is low-fidelity. We need high fidelity in order to be able distinguish the things upon which we make the subjective judgements. That, itself, is not a subjective judgement; it is an observable fact.
It would be a pleasure to share drink or two with folks here. |
Gold Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 2028
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 02:13 pm: |
|
John:
I know it's off topic but that's what caught my eye.
"You can put good stuff in and get garbage out, but never the other way
round. As I understand it, it has something to do with thermodynamics
(off topic...?).
I know it's sujective but I disagree that you can't take something bad and make it good.
That's what filters are for or touch up software for printing or image software
for say taking pictures and making them look better.
That is all altering the original to attempt to take an imperfection and
clearing it up.
Just like when they say a picture of a beautiful women is air brushed.
They are modifing the picture to make it look better for us even though
the original was flawed!
|
Silver Member Username: Two_cents
Post Number: 377
Registered: Feb-04
|
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 02:16 pm: |
|
-------YEP-------- |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 2626
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 02:37 pm: |
|
Yeah, but Kegger, we've changed places.
Who's to say the original was "flawed"? Isn't that up to us to decide?
I think most guys would like to know how the original "beautiful woman" really looks, before deciding what to do next. We don't want to marry/ go to bed with/ whatever the work of airbrusher.
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" true - it is subjective. But we want the full picture, don't we? Otherwise, who knows what we'll wake up with. (See "A midsummer night's dream" for example.) And whether we have access to the full picture is not subjective, it is objective. |
Silver Member Username: Rick_b
New York
USA
Post Number: 719
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 02:37 pm: |
|
Bunny poopage???????
I don't mean to sound smug, but ALL educated people know when it comes to the waste of the hare, it is Pellets.
Glad I could clear that up. LOL! |
J. Vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 02:56 pm: |
|
First point.
" ... there is nothing that cannot be improved in some way"
Might I suggest the one thing that cannot be improved upon.
Faith.
To improve it with knowledge would be to risk destroying it all together. Here comes Santa Claus ... To say it is imperfect denies the strength of the original and suggests it is something other than faith alone. You must have faith you have faith.
Second point.
"At this level, I'm not sure if we can apply an objective criteria to determine which is better."
Not sure what "this level" refers to. I am reminded every year at this time of the present I gave to Russell. Russell is a good guy who would do most anything for a friend. To thank him for doing some work for me over the year, I gave him a bottle of decent wine for X-mas one year. Nothing fancy just better than the two gallon jug wine he usually drinks. Later in the week I asked Russell if he'd tasted the wine yet. "Yeah, it was good, but it didn't go very far", was the reply. He had finished the bottle during The Jerry Springer Show and washed it down with his jug of Piassano red.
In light of that story, or not, could you explain, "at this level"?
Third point.
"That's what filters are for ... "
OK, I was going to refer you to the dictionary defintion, but, I think we all know what that will say about "filter".
Fourth point.
"Just like when they say a picture of a beautiful women is air brushed.
They are modifing the picture to make it look better for us even though
the original was flawed!"
Ghia, PLEASE! Send this guy a copy of Cosmopolitan. Or better yet, a gift membership in N.O.W. (National Organization of Women).
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 02:59 pm: |
|
Oh, and somebody take away Kegger's copy of "Coyote Ugly".
|
Gold Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 2029
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 02:59 pm: |
|
ghia my appologies before "hand"
john:
It depends on what you are doing with that air brushed picture!
If your taking it in the bathroom with you, then you probably don't want to know
what the real thing looks like! You might not be able to "handle" it! |
J. Vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 03:01 pm: |
|
Thanks, Rick, you've made it as clear as bunny poopage can be.
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 03:03 pm: |
|
Thanks, Rick, you've made it as clear as bunny poopage can be.
|
Gold Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 2030
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 03:03 pm: |
|
sorry peopole! had to do it!
since jan was allready headed in that direction I guess it doesn't matter! lol |
|
< | |
