Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Stereo help with stereo choice

Really? You were being facetious? Boy, for a second I thought you had finally seen the light!

I was being sarcastic, 2x6. And as far as meeting the challenge, perhaps if your argument was more specific than simply ranting vaguely about "bloom" we could all get somewhere.

What exactly is bloom? It often has a negative connotation (exaggeration, oversaturation - ie color bloom). What may be your bloom might be someone else's bloat. So what is it? Is it midrange presence or warmth? If so that can be measured. But if you can't be bothered to define it beyond "it sounds more real" then what's the point?

Well Adam, you're free to insult me if you like. See, the problem is that your beloved "more sensitive than the human ear" test equipment is utterly incapable of discerning essential qualities of music, including timbre. You understand that "timbre", is a quality which is psychoacoustic in nature - it is a function of the processor at the receiving end, the human brain - its associated auditory neural network ... all your fancy test equipment can measure is disturbances in the air. Not only that, but the test results relied on by you savants are ususally single tones.

So, KC, Adam, PMB, tell me that (1) timbre does not exist, that (2) it is not a significant component of our perception of music or that (3) you can measure it. The answers are (1) No, timbre exists; (2) Yes, and (3) No, you cannot measure it.

So, what does all your test equipment tell you? It can provide you with a fairly course 'picture' of the qualities of audio components, sort of a broad normal range ... but tells you nothing about the more subtle attributes of audio reproduction systems.

So, fellas, enjoy your test tones.

Are you actually trying to say that timbre cannot be measured and only exists in your head? If I understand you correctly, you're implying that a microphone and spectrum analyzer cannot discern between a trumpet playing middle C and an oboe playing the same note. This is a completely ridiculous assertion. If that is not what you meant by timbre, can you please explain?

Timbre is psycho-acoustic in nature? Are you high?

Timbre is a function of the instrument producing it, not the receiver. It is not some mysterious force that can't be captured through scientific means. As Peter noted, if timbre were a product solely of the receiver, then a microphone would not be able to differentiate between a piano playing middle C and a saxophone playing middle C. What about digital instruments? Are they infused with psycho-acoustic voodoo in order to simulate the timbre of a piano, since obviously microphones can't capture it??

And timbre can be very easily read on a spectrum analyzer. The same way that you can differentiate two people's voices through the use of a spectrum analyzer, you can differentiate two different instruments' timbres through it.

OK, so I'm "ranting," and "high," and your spectrum analyzer can measure timbre. Very good, Adam! Funny, I've never seen an audio review which used a 'frequency analyzer' to compare two components for their ability to accurately reproduce timbre, although I have read many where the human reviewer did make such comparisons. Why bother with a messy 'wet' and imprecise piece of equipment like a human hear/brain thing when you can use a 'frequency analyzer' to obtain an objective, verifiable and precise measurement of an audio component's ability to accurately reproduce timbre?

Peter, whatever "bloom" is, it's apparently both elusive(can't be measured by any instruments known to man)and highly fragile(although it's said to be clearly heard in open listening, once the labels and price tags disappear and levels are matched to within 0.1dB in a blind test it evaporates and is gone with the wind).

OK, so timbre can be measured with a frequency analyzer, "bloom," doesn't exist (presumably therefore, can't be measured), "soundstage," "imaging," these either can be measured by a frequency analyzer or don't exist as well?

2x6, could you tell me what you mean by "bloom?"

Not really ... it's kind of like defining pornography ... you know it when you see it ... bloom, you like it when you hear it. I guess if you've listened to live viola or cello music you'd know what bloom is, it is a sweet fullness of sound - of musical sound ... I'm sure it does not register on your meter, or if it did, you would not be able to distinguish the cello's bloom from everything else that's going on.

How about sense of space? Do you think your meter can capture that? Have you ever noticed it when listening to a good recording ... a sense of the acoustical 'space' of the venue of the recorded performance as opposed to your listening room?

So, timbre, bloom, imaging, soundstage, sense of acoustic space ... how do you discern these audio qualities from looking at meter or graph or osillyscope? Or, do you just think that because these qualities cannot be objectively demonstrated by your test equipment, they don't exist?

There is a certain nihilism, an arrogant positivism, an oversimple reductionist quality to the argument that if you can't demonstrate an audio effect on your scope it doesn't exist. Perhaps, Adam, your simple test equipment is not adequate to the complexity of the phenomena ... but, they're just sound waves, right? You've got 2 ears and a brain between them to analyze those sound waves ... and respectfully, I think more of my 'test equipment' than your frequency analyzer.

It's really very simple folks. Just because 2 pieces of equipment test the same does not mean they sound the same.

Ah, actually if you're referring to a cello or violin, then most likely what you refer to as bloom is a more present midrange. Which can be measured. And can be added via a simple eq'ing

And to further confuse things re: this sense of space you speak of. If you're set on the fact that microphones can't pick up details that our ears can, then how could ANY recording capture a sense of space, since it's recorded using these dreaded microphones?