I get your theory, but from all that I've read of your posts so far, it seems to be a only a theory. What's the proof?
Yes, it is a theory, but it is backed up with the question,
how did you get your music in the first place?
But my theory doesn't go as far as you are suggesting. All I am saying is that
If it is asserted that the sound from component combination "A" is different to component combination "B," then, if it true, a recording made of those two sounds will show a difference. It
must do. You could probably, to take an extreme example, tell the difference between a pair of tichy cheap "media" speakers and a big pair of horns with something as basic as a portable cassette recorder. Now replace the test items with two more-equal, but different-sounding, hifi speakers, and the cassette recorder with a sensitive, quality, stereo mic.
Many such examples would sound
so different that it would be silly to test that they are different. As in the Matrix testing above, if everyone agrees,
this is different, they don't bother to go to the blind-test stage.
For example, how do you actually use a microphone to figure out soundstage height and depth and width in playback? Do you put a microphone where the listener normally would sit, attach it to an instrument and get some sort of reading? That's the question and only 'microphone' unfortunately is just not an answer.
It was a good enough answer when it came to
recording the music
.
A sound engineer's mixing desk has a
pan control for each channel. There is no up/down or back/front in two-channel audio. Equalisation and relative volume of instruments etc probably help us to build an illusion that we are listening to something 3-dimentional, but we are not. The imagination has a valid and vital part to play in music listening.
How do you measure warmth? ... ... ... What is this scientific equivalent for how warm sounding or cold sounding a system is? ... ... ... So how do you actually measure it with a microphone? That's what the question is
In music, by looking at a spectral display. Probably easy to those who are used to doing such things. The "warmth" will be in the frequency response. (around 130-250Hz, according to
this!
Because there's a bunch of us who believe that there exist no current tests to measure these things yet we hear them while your argument is that if we hear it we can measure it. So do explain how exactly one measures these things.
Have you looked at wave forms? spectral displays? This is just the beginning, and I am less-than-a-beginner at it, but what you say is like saying you don't believe there is a way to measure heart beats, even though the ECG machine is right there in the room!
You seem to only have a belief that 'if its recorded it can be measured' which is a theory,
To a point, it is a fact, because it
was recorded, therefore it
was measured.
and I can understand that position, and appreciate your thinking, but you don't put forth any real explanation of exactly how that measurement is done, which is the whole crux of the argument of the opposing camp, ie no measurements currently exist for a few things we hear
It would be very much harder to measure what we
feel. It would be very much harder to measure the extent to which our imaginations contribute to the listening experience. My feeling is that that is something not to be denied, but to be rejoiced at! Imagine reading a novel as a string of utterances and events, without your imagination.
Where technology meets imagination is ... perhaps, when the system is so good that it "disappears" and we are aware only of the music. Then it is easy to forget about
two speakers and get on with the more important stuff.
If you say to me, "Whoa, listen to that harp coming in behind the violins, there, " and I say "Wow! Spine shivering stuff!" I
really don't want anyone telling us, "come off it, guys: it's a 2-d stereo image: you must be sharing some sort of hysteria!" Because, if that is hysteria, put me down for more.
hyeah:
