PX4 vs 2A3

If they glow, this is the place to be
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15705
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#76

Post by Nick »

Romy The Cat wrote:
Nick wrote:No, but if such a perfect string instrument did exist (it cant as you say, but you asked the hypothetical question) then the composer would prefer it every time. if it was perfect then it would by definition have the range and expressive ability of the individual instruments you mention.
A composer would prefer it because he could then with three players write material that produced (for example) three part harmony that covered the musical range, as it is not, he will need many more players to do the same thing.
Oh, God, Nick you have no idea how wrong you are. Your thinking about music like thinking of an audio person who never hear any sound besides buzzing of oscilloscope. Composing of making music is not beans counting and not pushing of dynamic range across multiple octaves...
And again Romy you have no idea about me or my interests, but I think you are either:

1. Thinking like a consumer of music not a producer. Every musician I know (myself included) if offered another octave of range on their instrument without any downside (or even with only additional practical problems) would (and does) jump at the idea.

2. Trying to bluster your way out of a mistake in your original post where you made a comparison that actually went against your point not for you.

A large aspect of composing music to be played by actual musicians is exactly bean counting. Do I have enough instruments of that range with that timbre to play that part. Having more range for each would make it so much simpler.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
Romy The Cat
User
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:23 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

#77

Post by Romy The Cat »


Romy The Cat
User
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:23 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

#78

Post by Romy The Cat »

Nick wrote:1. Thinking like a consumer of music not a producer. Every musician I know (myself included) if offered another octave of range on their instrument without any downside (or even with only additional practical problems) would (and does) jump at the idea.
That is irony. No doubts that any musician would love to have another let say octave of range on their instrument but at that same time no would like to combine groups of instruments into one of fewer instruments. Think why it is and if you would not find answer then talk to your friends musician.
Nick wrote:. Trying to bluster your way out of a mistake in your original post where you made a comparison that actually went against your point not for you.

I do not know what mistake you mean. If you do not like my DSET and musical instrument association then you do have a point but anyone understand that it was just for illustration purpose only as any person who actually do experiment with narrow bandwidth SET amplification would not have any problem with what I am trying to explain.
Nick wrote:A large aspect of composing music to be played by actual musicians is exactly bean counting. Do I have enough instruments of that range with that timbre to play that part. Having more range for each would make it so much simpler.
OK, Nick, I will leave it without comment. It comments on itself.
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15705
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#79

Post by Nick »

Romy The Cat wrote:
Nick wrote:1. Thinking like a consumer of music not a producer. Every musician I know (myself included) if offered another octave of range on their instrument without any downside (or even with only additional practical problems) would (and does) jump at the idea.
That is irony. No doubts that any musician would love to have another let say octave of range on their instrument but at that same time no would like to combine groups of instruments into one of fewer instruments. Think why it is and if you would not find answer then talk to your friends musician.
Show me the soprano piano then you may have some substance to your point.

You have tried to change the point, I was never suggesting that you would want to convert a four piece string section into one single full range instrument, but that you would want to convert it into four full range instruments if you could.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
Romy The Cat
User
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:23 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

#80

Post by Romy The Cat »


User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15705
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#81

Post by Nick »

In case of SET amplification there are very objective reasons why narrowing of range gives benefits.
Yes, I agree, likewise in practice, with stringed instruments.

However, in the process of trying to make that point, you created a hypothetical argument, that was intended (I assume) to prove your point. But in the context of that hypothetical argument, you were incorrect in your assumed outcome of the question.
Pretend that you have one perfect string instilment with perfect sound that covers the whole range. Now pretend that you have this perfect string instilment divided by violins, violas, cellos and contrabasses. What configuration would you chose if you were a composer of conductor?
Any real composer would choose the "perfect string instilment with perfect sound that covers the whole range"
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
Romy The Cat
User
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:23 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

#82

Post by Romy The Cat »


User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15705
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#83

Post by Nick »

I wondered just how far you would go to try and prove an incorrect statement that had no real meaning with respect to the actual point you were trying to make.

I guess, it just shows that you are one of the type of person one finds on the internet who is incapable of admitting even the smallest most trivial error. Shame.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
Romy The Cat
User
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:23 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

#84

Post by Romy The Cat »

Nick wrote:I wondered just how far you would go to try and prove an incorrect statement that had no real meaning with respect to the actual point you were trying to make.

I guess, it just shows that you are one of the type of person one finds on the internet who is incapable of admitting even the smallest most trivial error. Shame.
Nick, this is ironic as I am in fact very much know to anybody who knows me as a person who very much willing to admit mistakes, even if I was not wrong. I frequently feel a sadistic pleasure of doing it. Interesting how attribution of own experience make internet people to attribute own fear to others. I would like to leave you with an idea that perhaps this there is not about me and my alleged psychiatric disorders but about use or not to use DSET configuration and how DSET application debases the assessment of better DHT tubes. I thought that you guys want to hear from a person who did try most of the better tubes out there in full range application AND DSET application and for some absurd and irrational reason I advocate DSET. This is not even debate for me and for anyone out there why in fact did try it. If I were you I instead trying to diagnose me and picking upon some assumed inconsistencies on my allegories (sorry you do not know music to do it) would just listen of what was said and then when I would make your own experiment I would try to test what was proposed. That is how and why people debate subjects, of course if a subject is in a focus of interest....
User avatar
rowuk
Old Hand
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2014 2:50 pm
Location: Germany

#85 A musicians view?

Post by rowuk »

Nick wrote:
Romy The Cat wrote:
Nick wrote:1. Thinking like a consumer of music not a producer. Every musician I know (myself included) if offered another octave of range on their instrument without any downside (or even with only additional practical problems) would (and does) jump at the idea.
That is irony. No doubts that any musician would love to have another let say octave of range on their instrument but at that same time no would like to combine groups of instruments into one of fewer instruments. Think why it is and if you would not find answer then talk to your friends musician.
Show me the soprano piano then you may have some substance to your point.

You have tried to change the point, I was never suggesting that you would want to convert a four piece string section into one single full range instrument, but that you would want to convert it into four full range instruments if you could.
I am new here but am familiar with Alexs accomplishments as well as Romy rather extensive website.

For the question about the the composer desiring one instrument with all possibilities, as a professional musician (trumpet), I would say no - not necessarily. There are compositions where unity of style is paramount and impossible to achieve with multiple musicians. Yet again, the majority of symphonic literature cries out for a different "attitude" from the brass compared to the strings. A conductor can manipulate aggressive brass attacks above the cloud like sonic fabric of the string section for instance.

When the audio system goes beyond "simple" reproduction, whatever that means and advances to an artistic tool, then I think none of us would argue that creative methods are required for that. Artistic tool, yes, as even the recordings are not "perfect" in terms of color and geometry

I think the assumption that a speaker, with speaker level crossovers can approach "perfection" is a plain mistake. We all know that distortion, phase anomalies, frequency response and the audibility of the crossover parts covers entire forums. If we consider the power distribution of typical performances, we see the hopelessness of speaker systems with "small" woofers - but we also see that there is a range that requires enormous amounts of power, and other ranges that have ample headroom with only a couple of watts. If we can bring the interface of amp/speaker to a higher level, then we in fact perhaps we can - like a conductor, MANAGE the aggressivity of a given driver or offer other types of solutions when we are talking about true subsonic performance. I myself have heard the difference when we change the operating points of a given amp topology and embrace that as an opportunity.

I think that this thread has had trouble in having our eyes on different "balls".

Romy has a very interesting site and his considerations for various DSET "channels" is well documented. DHT valves were part of a VERY interesting selection process.
Post Reply