W A R N I N G !

W A R N I N G !

This page is full of non-facts and bullsh!t, (just like the internet and especially forums and other blogs), please do not believe entirely without exercising your intellect. Any resemblance to real things in reality is purely coincidental. You are free to interpret/misinterpret the content however you like, most likely for entertainment, but in no case is the text written on this blog the absolute truth. The blog owner and Blogger are not responsible for any misunderstanding of ASCII characters as facts. *cough* As I was saying, you are free to interpret however you like. *cough*

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Random thought of the day (And it's actually audio-related):

There's a fine line between detail and harshness. And the terms analytical and clinical are on that thin line.

I mean, harsh sounds sound louder. As do irritating sounds. Like the baby beside you on the bus or the snoring of your bunkmate in army.

And since harshness occurs in the high frequencies where details also lie, more harshness = more details because you hear more things? Or is it because it has too much detail that the recording and playback devices cannot them properly that they turn into harshness? Which, in turn, becomes part of the detail in the sound?

Or, if I use EQ to illustrate to those that play with it, does increasing anything above 4kHz make the sound more analytical? Or more detailed? Ok, probably not detailed, because the system already sucks, and EQ-ing doesn't make it better. But more harsh? Definitely. More analytical? Hmm...

I'm confused. And I believe there are others out there too. Will some master tell me what the heck is analytical sound? Does it means accurate or something else?

Of course, harshness will never be detail, though detail can be harsh. Percussions especially. But if we were to say that an analytical sound means can hear more detail, I dun see how adding an extra violin or two into an orchestra can be bad. Unless it makes the violin section louder for example, in which case it's doing something negative to the sound, which is self-contradictory to the detailed part.

On the same note, stereo widening/soundstage widening does not increase the amount of detail either. You just happen to hear more of the sounds that you like, and trust me, it doesn't sound anymore detailed than the original if you listened to that one carefully or louder. It does bring out the flaws in the sound however, since they also become louder with the sounds that weren't intended to be louder, and I find it much easier to ABX. I understand, for I'm a user of SRS WOW myself, until the day I get enough table space to properly position my speakers. It's natural human instinct to like the feeling of space, hence people are crazy for karaoke and Bose.

And of course, like all enhancements, you lose out something else in exchange. Did someone mention bass? Yea coz bass is non-directional. And the highs, they are highly-directional (hence also suffering from off-axis response), you may get one type of sound louder and another type softer, depending on base or average frequency, how broadband it is, and how it's spread out between the two channels. Did someone mention bass?

And of course, like all enhancements, there's a limit to how much the sound should be altered and can be altered. While I know reverb is nice it's stupid to only hear the reverb of the song. Also, pumping +12dB to 125Hz will not actually give you +12dB to 125Hz, so stop torturing your Travagans and get some real bookshelves of a change. (okay that was random)

No comments: