hi redkiwi:
suppose someone likes what you call bad sound, either a) because someone else's brain can hear thru the dense wall of sound or b) likes the sound that you describe as bad sound.
in that case we are back to square one, which is one man's bad sound is another's good sound.
now back to the toyota. if a toyota is not a bad car, how can there be a bad toyota. doi you mean a toyota that needs repair frequently , or something else ?? |
plato, you are confusing me. on what basis does a component
posess both good and bad qualities, if the listener doesn't like the affect of the component upon the stereo system and therefore asserts "it's a bad component" . your view is still subjective. its either "A", or "B", or part "A&B".
you certainly are entitled to your philosophical perspective. it is one of many.
i say the beauty is in the beholder and therefore if someone doesn't like the sound it's bad.
the fact that we disagree supports my thesis that there are no absolute standards of quality but only standards with which one can disagree. |
gentlemen:
lets use logic. if i play a good recording and a bad recording on a stereo system and don't like the sound in either case it is a bad stereo system.
a stereo system is only as strong as its weakest link. if a stereo system sounds bad with a bad recording it is a bad stereo system. if it sounds good with a bad recording it is a good stereo system. the issue is what does the stereo system sound like with a recording. it's still subjective.
we can agree to disagree, but until absolute standards are established.
a system can sound bad with a bad recording or a good recording. it is irrelevant with the recording sounds like. one can not know what a recording sounds like anyway, just as one cannot not know the sound of an individual component.
knowledge cannot come from experience. only opinion comers from experience.
it's all just opinion. |
plato, i missed the obvious flaw in your first sentence.
you posit the existence of a bad recording and that of an excellent stereo system.
you can't make that ssumption because the term excellent and bad is the result of experience, not knowledge. you are assuming the existence of an excellent stereo system, but that determination would be made subjectively, after listening to many recordings--in theory both good and bad.
if the system were excellent it would not sound bad with a bad recording.
with regard to a recording on what basis is the detrmination of its sound quality. there is no way to know this.
you are caught in a logical dilemma, assuming what you are trying to prove.
if everything is a matter of opinion, the evaluation of a stereo system would be subject to disagreement. a stereo system could be judged excellent and poor by two serious listeners. thus the stereo system is neither excellent or poor, just judged to be and its inherent sonic quality would be unobtainable with objective absolute criteria. unfortunately they do not exist |
hi newbee once i have defined the terms good and bad sound, the difference will be apparent to me.
you are asking me to answer my own question.
its obvious that such a question is philosophical and has no answer.
however, there are 3 answers to this question.
1) pure subjectivity as previously stated--an attiude toward the sound of a stereo system. if favorable, the sound is good, if unfavorable, bad sound.
this does not indicate what good/bad sound is because there would be disagreements as to the evaluation of a stereo system, and the same listener may alter his/her attitude toward the same stereo system over time
2) good and bad sound relate to intrinsic qualities of the sound a stereo system produces. the problem here is to specify what criteria conote good/bad sound ?
has anybody so far specified criteria for good sound ?
standards could be presented, but there may be more than one set of valid standards, so which prevails ?
here lies the essential problem, namely that inherently good sound is not an absolute state.
3) the affect of the sound of the stereo system upon the listener. thus the actual sound of the stereo system is not a factor but rather how a person reacts to it. surely we all have some awareness of what "good" is , so applying the concept of good, certain behaviors, physiological states and physiological states would determine whether a stereo system has good sound or bad sound. of course, how does one distinguish the affect of the music from the affect of the stereo ?
one would have to select sources which would be neutral as to content with respect to lyrics.
the probelm with this concept is the possibility that the same stereo system could produce inconsistent behavior bewteen listeners and among listeners over time.
thus one comes to the conclusion that there is no definitive answer to your question but rather the subjective state of personal judgment and opinion. |
hi jlambrick:
when you decribe certain phenomena as bad, isn't that an arbitrary standard. suppose someone like bright sound, or likes the effect of jitter. maybe you and i don't but you can't have it both ways.
if its all subjective--jitter, harmonic distortion, frequency response imbalances, sound is only bad when someone doesn't like it.
if there are standards, they are not absolute. the fact that many agree with them merely denotes popularity which is subjective.
until you are in a quantitative mode, such athletics, where faster can be construed to be better than slower, universal acceptance, as you say neither conotes good or baad.
again logic dictates deduction and if you have a postulate from which you draw a conclusion, i can posit another postulate.
the concept of good and bad as applied to any endeavor of life is philosophical. there is not definitive answer. it is just an exchange of ideas.
i happen to agree with you regarding harmonic ditortion, but i have heard evidence of jitter which has sounded pleasant to me. |
years ago i became a member of the bmg music club.
i compared cds issued to the club to commercially available cds on the dgg label. these were classical cds. i noticed a difference between the sound of the cds.
in a nutshell, i would describe the diffference as a loss of detail or veiling for the cds from the club as compared to those commercially available.
these facts were reported to bob katz, a recording engineer at chesky records.
he did some research and concluded that the club cds had more jitter than the commercially available cds.
i found the losss of detail on the club cds a benefit, making the sound more pleasant than that of the commercially available cds. |
observations are not meaningless. our experience is basically all that we have. there is very little knowledge. most of us know very little.
there is sound. it is neither intrinsically good or bad.
the terms are used to express a subjective reaction to listening. there are disagreements between serious listeners as to what is good and bad.
the point of this and other similar philosophical posts is to get people thinking about different perspectives, and rid themselves of rigidity and dogmatism in their thinking.
of course debates are stimulating and keep our brains sharp. remember use it or lose it.
one could do worse than engage in philosophical discussions. |
ok 9rw you win. my next post will not be silly, academic or philosophical.
i don't think ideas are crazy, but perhaps of interest in an academic environemnt, hence not so practical. still, it is interesting to discuss the abstract once in a while. |
i have thought about this and there is no definitive answer.
there are basically three different judgment criteria:
the subjective
fidelity to the recording
realism of timbre |
i think you can make a case that as the sound of your stereo system gets closer to the natural timbre of instruments, sound quality improves.
who would not want to turn on a stereo, close your eyes and have the illusion that you are present at a live event ? |
