magiccarpetride;619641 Wrote: > Excellent explanation. I can easily understand the signal-to-noise > ratio, and that when you lower the noise you can more easily perceive > the signal. Still, it's the very signal itself that needs some tender > loving care. Even in the absence of noise, the signal can be more or > less faithful, as well as appear more or less relaxed. > > Judging from your explanation, I'd say that the blacker blacks may > refer to the experience when the music pouring out of speakers is > relaxed, non-straining, with impressive absence of grain and glare, and > thus appearing smooth, silky, authoritative, carrying the tune with > ample torque. > > Or would you say that I'm full of shit at this point?
Full of it? No. Misguided? Yes. Much, if not all, of what you and Mervin describe can just as easily be described in easy to understand technical terms instead of the completely worn out audiophile mumbo-jumbo. For example: Instead of "like there's less happening in quieter passages, allowing you to hear decaying acoustics and other low level detail better" try "lower noise floor and increased signal to noise ratio". Instead of "blacker blacks" try "lower noise floor and less background electronic noise such as hiss". The issue isn't that there are no differences between various pieces of audio equipment but rather that these differences can and SHOULD be explained with simple technical terms instead of nonsense like "blacker blacks" and "lifted veils". Well designed and built audio equipment should be capable of reproducing an audio signal as close as possible to the original event with as few compromises as possible. The problem with the high end audio press is instead of seeking a common ground with regards to technical terms they chose to muddy things up with pseudo-science and silly, meaningless descriptions. The term a "wide soundstage" can be replaced with "very good channel separation and accurate frequency response". There is nothing mystical or magical going on in ANY audio system, no matter how expensive, just better handling of the science and engineering required for accurate audio reproduction. Maybe the audio press and the manufacturers should try explaining things with useful terms and giving the consumers the real reasons why better sounding audio equipment costs more (better build quality, costlier parts, more careful assembly, etc.) than more people might actually become audiophiles rather than just laughing at audiophiles. -- ralphpnj Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels -> Snatch -> The Transporter -> Transporter 2 (oops) -> Touch 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86399 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
