Although this would be theoretically possible, IMHO it is not the objective of sound reproduction. Sound reproduction must take in consideration that it wants to reproduce a real experience where you were not blindfolded and where you have used your sight, emotional experience and brains to create the whole scene. Only much later on you put the blindfold and try to recreate an enjoyable experience.
Sure, an convincing holographic moving visual image of the performers would certainly add to the illusion of a live musical performance. However, we have enough technical challenge in obtaining a convincing auditory illusion, let alone a convincing visual one. An live musical performance can be convincing wholly on the auditory experience, with no visual content, while the reverse is not true. So, I suppose I'm failing to see the basis for the suggestion that the objective of sound reproduction is not an auditory experience convincingly like the live original performance event. If not the only desirable aspect of a live musical performance I'd argue that it is the only indispensable aspect. The only essential aspect.
Sure, an convincing holographic moving visual image of the performers would certainly add to the illusion of a live musical performance. However, we have enough technical challenge in obtaining a convincing auditory illusion, let alone a convincing visual one. An live musical performance can be convincing wholly on the auditory experience, with no visual content, while the reverse is not true. So, I suppose I'm failing to see the basis for the suggestion that the objective of sound reproduction is not an auditory experience convincingly like the live original performance event. If not the only desirable aspect of a live musical performance I'd argue that it is the only indispensable aspect. The only essential aspect.
If a system is coherent,can move a sufficient amount of air,have plenty of headroom,and be ground engineered well enough to move the EMI away from each component....not hard at all.
My "future" is all product development! It doesn't happen too fast. But I'll probably be buying new speakers at some point, that I'm looking forward to (and then some day I'll be making my own, I've got several slated).
Still I think it's wise to have a variety of speakers when making things.
The one thing I'm a real sucker for is vintage tuners. I can see many of those in my future.
I'm afraid that we disagree on that, as music is meant for hearing. Seeing the performers, while interesting, is not necessary for total enjoyment of the music. Some entertainers put on an interesting visual performance, but the visual is not the music. The auditory appreciation of music exits apart from the visual of those making it.
If a system is coherent,can move a sufficient amount of air,have plenty of headroom,and be ground engineered well enough to move the EMI away from each component....not hard at all.
Simply put, I don't think we could disagree more on this. Music is meant for hearing. Seeing the performers, while interesting, is not necessary for total enjoyment of the music. Some entertainers put on an interesting visual performance, but the visual is not the music. The auditory appreciation of music exits apart from the visual of those making it.
I agree with you on this in many ways. For many years I have mixed large scale concerts. Often times music will be playing in almost complete darkness and it is an emotional feeling. The visual performance also can add more emotions to the experience. The lighting also can add even more of an emotional experience. I guess I'm getting emotional in my old age lol. When I was listening to Jimmy's system with the lights dim, my brain was actually imagining the orchestra and the positioning of every instrument as well as giving me a location to where I was sitting. This was completely involuntary. I've never experienced this level of realism.
Leif, as it turns out, I have a particular technical curiosity around the execution of musical sounding digital front ends. Do you happen to recall the digital components that were utilized in Jimmy's system? I can't discern them in the photo. Thanks.
Simply put, I don't think we could disagree more on this. Music is meant for hearing. Seeing the performers, while interesting, is not necessary for total enjoyment of the music. Some entertainers put on an interesting visual performance, but the visual is not the music. The auditory appreciation of music exits apart from the visual of those making it.
I can easily accept that the visual aspect is not needed for your particular total enjoyment of the music, but IMHO it is needed for most music listeners in life performances - I hope other members can give us their own opinions. And I am not addressing "entertainers", just the regular musicians and artists. I find that the way they play is part of the performance and of my enjoyment. BTW it is know that in classical music the recording producers work with the conductors and performers to overcome the loss of visual - I have read interviews in Gramophone stressing this aspect.
(...) When I was listening to Jimmy's system with the lights dim, my brain was actually imagining the orchestra and the positioning of every instrument as well as giving me a location to where I was sitting. This was completely involuntary. I've never experienced this level of realism.
We are debating the visual in life performances not listening experiences in stereo. Your brain was being able to do the reconstruction involuntarily because there were cues enough and the conditions created by a great system. I consider that the audio designers and system builders also take part in the performance, as well as the recording engineers.
Listening in the dark or sighted are different experiences - a nice subject for another thread.
I'm at a happy place with my equipment...it's all about the music now. Getting down and dirty with original Mercury and rca classical recordings. A most enjoyable venture.
as far as my audio/music system I'm pretty happy with things overall.......2016 was a year for finally getting all the pieces to line up and work how I like. I could make changes for change sake but that's about it. I'm not dreaming of any system wide changes. preamp. check. amp. check. speakers. check. tt, arm, cartridge. check. RTR deck and output electronics. check. room, acoustics, power grid. check.
for 2017 my dream is to find the right long term digital solution so I can turn the page and just listen. I'm in the middle of that process and I'm not sure if I'm closer to the end or the beginning.
tubes or solid state?
discs or server only?
USB server or Ethernet NAS? SGM server or my CAPSv4 Lampi version?
up-sample dsd to dxd, or up-sample PCM to dsd? try to do both natively?
HQ Player or ??????
and depending on what my digital choice is there is the resonance control issue.....another Herzan? maybe different racks depending on what digital solution I end up with.
I'm trying to sort my way through all these questions.
as I go forward I'm listening a larger and larger percentage of the time to digital.....so it's a bigger and bigger deal to me.
my only other half-way dream (guilty pleasure) is another Tripoint Troy or higher box for the amplifiers, or the tape decks. I know they would push things further but you gotta stop someplace? right? it seems the digital thing is more the legit missing piece.
If you have a large number of CD and SACD ( which I presume) then go for a really good transport and dac. I bought the CH Precision C1, D1 with the CH X1 power supply in 2016 and my red book CD's has never sounded this good. Ordinary CD now sounds exellent and far better than I could imagine. I use the CH link between the C1 and D1. The same CD sounds better when using the transport than when played from the Aurender. This might be explained because the CH link between the D1 and C1 is better than the USB solution I have between the Aurender and C1. But anyway....
I have the Aurender streamer as well, but nowadays I play far more CD than from the harddrive. SACD sounds even better ( no surprise there) but it is really enjoyable to listen to the silver discs again. So my advice is buy a transport and a dac and find a good server. This is not to say that CH is the best option but I chose them and have no regrets. And you do not need DSD files in order to enjoy music on a very high level .
So whats's next for me: Ethernet board for my CH C1 dac and I might look into some grounding devices. But all in all I am very happy at the moment.
If you have a large number of CD and SACD ( which I presume) then go for a really good transport and dac. I bought the CH Precision C1, D1 with the CH X1 power supply in 2016 and my red book CD's has never sounded this good. Ordinary CD now sounds exellent and far better than I could imagine. I use the CH link between the C1 and D1.
I have the Aurender streamer as well, but nowadays I play far more CD than from the harddrive. SACD sounds even better ( no surprise there) but it is really enjoyable to listen to the silver discs again. So my advice is buy a transport and a dac and find a good server. This is not to say that CH is the best option but I chose them and have no regrets. And you do not need DSD files in order to enjoy music on a very high level .
So whats's next for me: Ethernet board for my CH C1 dac and I might look into some grounding devices. But all in all I am very happy at the moment.
JP, thank you for the advice. even though I've not bought discs for years now, I still have a large collection of them. and I see that much new music is most accessible with silver discs. so it is a consideration to me. the CH approach is attractive (and very spendy), although it's 'everything converted to PCM' is an issue I'm investigating related to several products. and....from what I've read if your are going to buy into CH Precision digital you need to do Ethernet so you can input up to Quad dsd seamlessly.
My pleasure and I will not go into the DSD/PCM debate . I still buy a lot of CD/SACD because I like to "own" my music physically. Well sort of, I still have 2-3 TB of music on file as well .
It was 1/2" Tape that ruled the day though.
