![]() With the nonmusical dancer, you can see the effort put in. They seem unable to transmit the emotion or attitude to the songs while they are dancing.Ī strong but nonmusical dancer is like a painting on a canvas without any colors. They might seem stiff or disconnected-often, they’re a little bit hard to watch. The nonmusical dancer is the dancers without a connection to the music. This is how it should work given that a more accurate and precise signal should be at the same time be a less noisy sIgnal (more detailed) and a less distorted signal (more natural).If you put a musical dancer and a nonmusical dancer side by side and you’ll see why it’s so important to grasp the concepts of rhythm, melody, and mood of a song when you are dancing or performing. ![]() With the above system, an improvement will bring both an increase in detail and an increase in naturalness, always both. On the basis of “better in - better out” I get compounding improvements (In a 6 stage network, an improvement to stage one say is uplifted in the next 5 stages as long as the = to or better than hierarchy is maintained) In order to get the maximum from the system I ensure that every stage of the network is equal to or better than the previous stage. Power supply stability, noise, ripple and impedanceĬable performance e.g screening, conductors, I have spent the last 3 years improving the specifications of my network streaming supply in several ways I would just like to add a couple of observations:ġ. It the recording is well made, and the system is up to it, it should sound natural to the listener, unless he or she is after something else. If the system is highly resolving, it should present what is on the recording without enhancement. We hear music with our ears, and we can sit closer or further from the violin for a different perspective, but what we hear from a recording is based on the mic position relative to the instrument and space and the choices made by the engineer. I would argue that the analogy of what one could see with the aid of a powerful microscope is still natural, but not useful when it comes to what we can hear from the concert seat or from our listening seat simply using our ears. People often think of the resolving power of a good microscope and make an analogy. For that, we just go by the recording and what we hear.) (It is more difficult to know what electronic instruments with weird studio effects really sounds like. Here we rely on memory of the real thing. If it no longer sounds real or convincing, then it is not resolving, assuming the recording is good and of natural instruments. To me, what you describe "when the tonality drifts into the analytical" is no longer resolution. The OP probably could have used that thread inasmuch as he posted the pentultimate comment there (quoted above) identical to his opening post here, posing the same question in two places.ĭasguteOhr, I agree that more resolution is better, but sometimes, enough is enough. Let's start with some thread curation: What do we mean by "Resolution"? is a 13 page thread on the topic. The notion that there is some trade-off, much less mutual exclusivity, between musicality and resolution is a false dichotomy that makes no sense. Do you agree with that or do you think "musical" is simpler, meaning pleasant, enjoyable, I like it? The first sentence suggests that to a listener, subjectively, musical sound is natural sound. Musical sound is both accurate and euphonic." Musicality: "A purely personal judgement as to the degree to which reproduced sound resembles live unamplified music. When asked about 'resolution', he says see 'definition'.ĭefinition: "That quality of sound reproduction which enables the listener to distinguish between and to follow, the melodic lines of the individual voices or instruments comprising a large performing group." If you want Gordon Holt's take from his 'The Audio Glossary': He does not define or use the term 'musicality' but does mention 'musical aptitude' which I assume is the ability to sound musical - whatever that means. In the above cited article about a Jadis digital processor, 'resolution' to the author means 'detail'. Don't tell me it is musical, tell me why. It is a fall-back term, seen when its user lacks the vocabulary or the will to spell out more precisely what he intends by it. It is certainly a common term among audiophiles - we see it a lot - it means many different things to many different users, so much so that it is basically useless as a description. I stay away from the adjective 'musicality'. The other is "What do you mean by musicality?" Peter rightly points to one of two pertinent questions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |