Went to the Adele Perth concert at Domain Stadium last night. The performing stage is amazing, and we got good seats. That is a 360 degrees video wall and the eyes open up when the show begins!
Alas the sound system is just not up to scratch for a wannabe audiophile like me. Compression is an issue - like all the released albums.
Still there is no stopping this charismatic, jovial and quick witted performer. She has the ability to light up the room, any room. And she definitely lit up the 100 year old stadium with about 65000 singing, dancing fans!
It was an enjoyable night, and bonus points for the awesome weather! Given a crowd of 65,000 headless choooks1, I expected the worse. We took public transport to and from the venue, and kudos to Transperth’s organisation as the experience is extremely smooth and pleasant back and forth.
I’m sure people will complain on Twitter about how they are delayed by this and that, but for us we are back home real quick. There are clear signs indicating where the pick up/drop off points are, and all in all it was a pleasant experience. Well done Transperth!
More grainy pictures after the link. Great event to mark the first anniversary of the Snakeoil OS yesterday.
Footnotes: 1: For everybody else outside Australia - Chooks is Aussie slang for Chickens. As for what headless chooks means, honestly I have no idea!
Some audiophiles prefer to defer to machines and equipment to override humans cognitive senses. This never made sense to me. 121 months and a small redundancy paycheck later. I hope I am a bit qualified to say something about measuring equipment.
The more sensitive the measuring gear, the more noise it is susceptible to. Trying to identify what is noise, and what is data is part of the quality analysis, and that itself is part of something bigger called quality control. Reason for this is noise is subjective - there can be background noise, and also things like you are measuring some effect from something else (i.e. you are measuring something else you’re not expecting). These quality checks are part and parcel of splitting up what is data and what is noise!
The more important thing, as mentioned previously, measurements are doing physical measurements. Humans when we listen are doing this via cognition. The two systems are not even close to being the same. Saying measuring gear is more sensitive than humans is akin to asking a measuring machine how good tasting a dinner from the best restaurant is. There are some things in the world where you simply have to experience yourself - and remember nobody will ever share the same experiences from the same event. At best, machines can only tell us what is common, at worse data from measurements are completely useless.
You’d often see these phrases pop up now and again when audiophiles are “discussing important topics":
If something is audible, then it is measurable
If something is measurable, then it is audible
Are there any truths to these statements? Personally I do not think so. These statements appear to be legitimate on the surface. Poke a little bit deeper however and they become utter and complete nonsense.
In my opinion (of which there are certainly lots of grounds to disagree with me here), the above statements are complete bullshit.
And here is why, to suggest something is audible is measurable (or vice versa) implies a direct causation relationship. That cannot be true because the two are completely different concepts:
Audible is about the interpretations of sound
Measurable is about the physical characteristics of sound
Not understanding the limits of Science is a dangerous thing, misunderstanding can turn this discipline into a cult. Hopefully this is not not something Ia m about to do next!