"Don't get fooled again"?
Surround sound for music is a dumb idea
- Thread starter rugene
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
- Status
won't
This one:
And by the way , while we are whining about music videos , another thing that pisses me off is when you see the camera man with his big stupid video camera on his shoulder , getting too close to the famous musician and ocassionally visibly annoying him as much as he has already annoyed me. Camera men , like sound men should have their work seen and heard but not them, unless afterwards someone wants them to come out and take a bow which may be well deserved.
This one:
And by the way , while we are whining about music videos , another thing that pisses me off is when you see the camera man with his big stupid video camera on his shoulder , getting too close to the famous musician and ocassionally visibly annoying him as much as he has already annoyed me. Camera men , like sound men should have their work seen and heard but not them, unless afterwards someone wants them to come out and take a bow which may be well deserved.
Last edited:
Yeah it's kinda cheesey. Still one of my favorite Who songs though.
salsdali
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
that's gotta be photoshopped. No way a human can vert off the ground straight up that much.
Michael Jordan, eat your heart out!
Seeing the comment about ASR.... those people don't listen... all they do is measure. Sort of like Julian Hirsch.
There is a middle ground, you see? We do not know everything there is to know about psychoacoustics so our measurements are only as complete as our understanding and our models. To postulate that measuring is sufficient, and listening is not required, is to ignore reality and to ignore Western Empiricism ( a return to Classical Greek Science! ).
Besides, everybody knows that silver is not good, I'm so done with cables myself. I use troughs of pure Peruvian liquid mercury to drive my speakers and interconnects. Sure, the little mercury "falls" I use to 'raise' and 'drop' the signal introduce some intermodulation distortion and a slight metallic shimmering to the sound but hey, my full body bunny suit sort of filters that.
It is. There’s the real version out there where Pete is only a half-stack high.that's gotta be photoshopped. No way a human can vert off the ground straight up that much.
Michael Jordan, eat your heart out!
i can’t seem to be able to share the photo itself, but here’s a link.
https://images.app.goo.gl/8E5yJoMwgKbwt7Ns7
Audio Science Review is a great forum but there are getting to be too many members.
Last edited:
What a band...What an f'n band! Pete, Roger and Moon are so animated while The Ox just stays cool in his corner doing his best pumping out complex bass lines.
Back on topic:
I was listening last night in straight stereo: Right out of the Oppo 205 via balanced internconnects, flat through the preamp with balanced interconnects into a 400 wpc RMS power amp and finally into giant floor standing speakers. There is something to be said about this stereo combo with it's tremendous power, frequency range, detail and imaging. But stereo systems are soooooooooo very boring 'dahling'...No fun at all compared to quad, 5.1, 7.1 and then Atmos.
I really don't care what the ASR guy measures. I only follow @marpow 's mantra when judging sound in that I want "Sounds fucking great."
I thought the same thing.that's gotta be photoshopped. No way a human can vert off the ground straight up that much.
Michael Jordan, eat your heart out!
This is true regarding how ASR deals with electronics. But testing electronics does help sort out the true garbage, the false manufacturer claims, and the snake oil. If you are the type that believes you can hear distinct differences in say, amplifiers for instance, the measurements can help explain what you do/don't hear. There is no sin in wanting something that measures and sounds good, and more often than not, the two attributes go together. To compare amplifiers beyond their measured performance would require considerable time and A/B testing just to determine extremely subtle differences which one would likely never even perceive without A/B testing. And then you need to determine which of these tiny differences is truly more faithful to the source. The latter is the hardest part IMHO. ASR is not an outlet for unsubstantiated audiophile hyperbole that you can easily find elsewhere.
Also, ASR (Amir) does listen to speakers after he tests them. What he doesn't do is use descriptions and terms that are so common (and meaningless) in the typical golden-eared audiophile lexicon.
They even gave Pete a third stack of HIWATT’s!
Cyber 1
701 Club - QQ All-Star
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2011
- Messages
- 732
Last edited:
That is a pity, speakers are the most subjectively different sounding component of any audio system, followed by phono cartridges. Describing how they actually sound makes perfect sense. You can't describe how something actually sounds using numbers or specifications! I will continue to describe what I hear using descriptive language as that is the best way to communicate the differences in sound that we actually hear. While some/many audiophile claims/descriptions may be silly many more are fully valid!
Oh he describes what he hears. If there is deficient/emphasized bass, if there is brightness/dullness, if he notices distortion, or imaging problems, how well the dispersion is, etc. He even cites what tracks he listened to. He just doesn't use the ambiguous, BS, non technical terms that are far too common in speaker review.
The question as posted is a little hard to address. Does it relate only to Paul or Steve's comments? They only echo mainstream trends. Is it another way to ask if 2-channel stereo is better than Dolby surround for music?
jimfisheye
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,033
And speaker placement/alignment and then the room itself eclipse that!
- Status
Similar threads
