RTC has taken this in an interesting but different direction, sort of reversing cause and effect. I was thinking in terms of the listener’s prior brain-state (from mood, stress, fatigue, chemicals, etc) effecting their perception of audio quality as explanation for bad-sound-days. RTC flipped this around to propose that a successful playback system is one that can provoke neurotransmitters that affect brain-state in a way resulting in the listener perceiving the audio as high quality.
@@SteveWille Steve, the most interesting is this subject, in my view, not exactly perceiving audio to be a high quality but rather what happens after we have a good reaction to listening experience. Does pleasurable experience from listening is enough to create listening engagement or we need something else? Let's presume that theory is correct and we have a playback which does not produce any negative feelings in us and a psychological state of a listener is not compromised. Is it a setting when a good recording, being heard, has the best potential to be germinated and blossom? I have very strong feeling that it is not enough. I feel that a playback has its own impactful mechanisms, different prom live music. For instance, the presence of DPoLS itself might act as the evidence to support my view.
@ I agree, playback impact can exceed the live experience. I had previously ascribed this to the ability of a quality playback and recording to provide time travel, to take the listener back in time to the moment of the recording. This effect can be quite exhilarating. I see now that there are other reasons why playback can be greater than live. For someone like you, with many “knobs” to adjust in your playback, controlling things such as which frequencies generate harmonics, etc, there are many ways in which reality can be improved upon. I’m happy to find others to stand with defending music playback against the bigots that a priori presume live is always better.
The best sound for my playback is after a long hot shower. My most difficult listening is after coming home after tense work day.
RTC has taken this in an interesting but different direction, sort of reversing cause and effect. I was thinking in terms of the listener’s prior brain-state (from mood, stress, fatigue, chemicals, etc) effecting their perception of audio quality as explanation for bad-sound-days. RTC flipped this around to propose that a successful playback system is one that can provoke neurotransmitters that affect brain-state in a way resulting in the listener perceiving the audio as high quality.
@@SteveWille Steve, the most interesting is this subject, in my view, not exactly perceiving audio to be a high quality but rather what happens after we have a good reaction to listening experience. Does pleasurable experience from listening is enough to create listening engagement or we need something else? Let's presume that theory is correct and we have a playback which does not produce any negative feelings in us and a psychological state of a listener is not compromised. Is it a setting when a good recording, being heard, has the best potential to be germinated and blossom? I have very strong feeling that it is not enough. I feel that a playback has its own impactful mechanisms, different prom live music. For instance, the presence of DPoLS itself might act as the evidence to support my view.
@ I agree, playback impact can exceed the live experience. I had previously ascribed this to the ability of a quality playback and recording to provide time travel, to take the listener back in time to the moment of the recording. This effect can be quite exhilarating. I see now that there are other reasons why playback can be greater than live. For someone like you, with many “knobs” to adjust in your playback, controlling things such as which frequencies generate harmonics, etc, there are many ways in which reality can be improved upon. I’m happy to find others to stand with defending music playback against the bigots that a priori presume live is always better.