First, I always appreciate a good classic cartoon, so thanks, and I mean that sincerely.
When you were growing up and your parents told you how to act courteously in social settings, was it because they hated you, or because they wanted you to do your best?
We all recognize that you often make valuable, helpful contributions here. What isn’t helpful is insisting your advice is the best alternative, especially when you haven’t tried others that are technically sound. (Or even when they may not be. Many of us, including you, have tried things that are technically dubious. Pointing it out once or even poking a little fun in a friendly manner is fine; repeated insistence is just irritating.)
You don’t have a “cadre of haters;” you have a group of people who share a social setting with you who would like to see you at your best as frequently as possible.
Wow… This statement above proves my point about the presumptive biases that some folks bring with them to this forum, and regarding my insights, etc…
For me, it is always about the appreciation of artistry and the emotional energy imbued in the performance…
When every elemental nuance of a performance and the production decisions are articulated and every nuance is clearly focused, another level of intellectual and emotional appreciation is achieved for me… like hearing the "ting’ of the tines of the music box in my Teddy Bear as they are ‘plucked’ by the striking pins on the cylinder that evoke the beautiful music of Strauss encoded there… It is part of the experience… The qualities of ‘live’ versus ‘recorded’ are not equal… It appears your interpretation of sound-quality divides textural harmonic, dynamic and spatial information in that juxtaposition… What you are perceiving in the ‘live’ interpretation are those qualitative attributes of resolution and spectral , dynamic and spatial density… The digitization of a music production is inherently bound by the density of spectral, dynamic and spatial information captured and retained in the initial encoding process and mastering processes… Liken it to a 1080p video display versus a 4k video display.
If you can discern the difference of your dog barking in your playback environment versus a recording of a dog barking in your playback environment, it is all about the density of auditory information. More likely-than-not, you can discern this audible difference. So, you cannot tell me that you unconsciously switch-off that fundamental aspect of perceptual hearing neurology when auditioning any given piece of music on your amalgamation of playback components and transducers in your acoustic space.
The fundamental goal is to reveal as much of the recording as possible without skewing that encoded signal further in the transmission of that energy… The only true digital bits are those encoded on or into the storage media before being lifted and interpolated from that media for transmission as electrical impulses.
To the active listener, revealing the seminal energies imbued in the recording is intrinsic to the emotional and intellectual appreciation of the production. To the passive listener or passive listening scenario, these things are subjugated by the inattentiveness of the subject and the subjectiveness of the passive playback scenario in the interpretation. The value of these cognitive states of audition is purely subjective.
This is a fundamental cognitive error found in the concept of Näive Realism (psychology)… I insist on nothing…ever.… this is a projection by you and others that agree with your biased interpretation(s).
I don’t need you or anybody outside of the moderators, to censor my opinions or assertions… Most of the time, you parse my statements out of context, to fit your narrative(s). Much like others do.
I feel a level of resentment from you and others when you are challenged by me and my background that I draw from, which precipitates these forms of ad hominem pontifications regarding the interpretations of my responses and insights.
I don’t challenge your knowledge and insights regarding coding or that of others displaying knowledge and insights out of my scope of knowledge or insight… everything else, is fair-game and subject to question or corroborative support.
Before you make this intellectual narrative, which for me most of the time means absolutely nothing, you need to ask a simple question:
What is your quality or level of hearing?
Excellent… I am an active listener… For others, I presume they will say the same, unless hearing impaired as some here on the forum have admitted… @OffRode is one…
My question is simple: as we age, in most cases we experience hearing loss.
I regularly have hearing tests with an ENT doctor.
As incredible as it may seem, at 72 years old, I still have perfect hearing. I can prove this if anyone wants to by showing them my test results.
To say that you are an active or passive listener, you first need to show that you still have perfect hearing.
Somebody that may be hearing impaired can be an active listener… It is a cognitive state that influences perception and qualitative analysis of the experience, at all levels of appreciation… Read the links I provided.
Yes this is true… however this is a different level of interpretation and has nothing to do with the cognitive state of active listening… Both states of listening are intrinsically tied to hearing acuity… But this is only relevant in qualitative assessment in juxtaposition to another assessment of hearing neurology and the value placed on the relevance of contextual details imbued in the recording.
In my opinion, we can discuss technical details of how things work in a forum.
When it comes to musical preferences or qualities, it will depend solely and exclusively on each person.
Simply because I have no way of evaluating what each person is listening to.
You have good points, but you need to understand other people’s points of view.
I will conclude with what @Jud wrote: You don’t have a “cadre of haters;” you have a group of people who share a social setting with you who would like to see you at your best as frequently as possible.
