"Does accuracy matter?" Of course it does! "Does accuracy (in audio equipment) exist?" Of course not! Jax2's objections aside, I agree with Mrtennis that accuracy means perfection. What this hobby is about is the reproduction of musical performances. "Reproduction" clearly suggests an attempt to recreate something resembling, as much as possible, the original. An accurate reproduction would be a perfect reproduction. Unfortunately, truly accurate audio reproduction does not, nor ever will, exist.
But that does not mean that to strive for accuracy in one's music REPRODUCTION system is not important; it is most important. Clearly, everyone is free to tune a system any way they want, and to enjoy their music with any flavoring that they wish. But I find that notion (as well as a few others expressed so far) to be a little bizarre. It is bizarre to me that some would advocate ignoring the musicians' original intent. To ignore the production team's original intent is bad enough, but the musicians' ?!?! The reason why it is vital that the musicians' intent be preserved as much as possible (accuracy) is quite simple: while the manipulation of the musicians' intent may yield pleasant sounds to some ears, the end result will never be as musically meaningful as when that intent is preserved. That is the nature of music, and music making. It is artistic expression by a human being; manipulate it, and it is no longer that musician's expression. I pondered why this is not obvious to some, and I think I may have found the answer in a curious comment by Jax2:
***The enjoyment of music an subjective art form***
Huh? I thought that it was the music making that was the art form; not the enjoyment of it. It is often pointed out that how music should sound is subjective, and that we will never know how the original performance sounded, and how a particular recording space sounded, and blah, blah, blah. I say that is nonsense, and a cop-out. There really is a standard by which accuracy can be judged. And that standard is (as much as many would like to think that it doesn't apply) the sound of live, unamplified instruments or voice. I know, I know, live pop/rock concerts often sound like shit. But if the thrill of the sound of an uncompressed drum set is not enough to make someone "put up" with the other problems, then you really have no choice but to seek out better sounding venues to experience, and really familiarize yourself with sound that can truly be used as a reference. Only then can we claim to understand the notion of accuracy. It takes deep familiarization with that sound to understand it. It has to go way beyond issues of a little brightness here, or a little bass bloat there. But it can be done, and the rewards are many. True accuracy does not exist, but some components do a heck of better job of getting closer to that ideal than others. The less garbage that a component adds to the electronic "soup" that is a music playback system, the closer to accurate that it is. Sure, we may not like how some recordings sound as a result, but the truly great ones will never sound as great as they can on a system that does not strive for accuracy. It is the accuracy of the musicians' intent captured in those recordings that makes them great. So it follows that the closer a system gets to accuracy, the better it will reveal the recording's greatness. |
Tubegoover (love the moniker, BTW), I agree with everything you wrote. I don't for a minute think that everyone agrees with my take on the issue of accuracy. Moreover, my goals are actually the same as yours; it really is about balance. My comments about the importance of optimizing a system's accuracy were made in the context of answering the original question: does accuracy matter? As I said, I believe that it does, particularly if the alternative is to abandon the quest for such simply because it can never be achieved completely. In my experience there is a fairly wide window of system tuning possibilities that allows us to enjoy the majority of recordings and still appreciate the great ones for what they are. Your point about listeners who prefer pop music is well taken, and I agree (I listen to a fair amount of pop). But my point is not about judgment of a person's taste in music (I listen to just about everything. Well, not hip-hop; unless my son insists. And in fainess, I must say, there have been a couple of occasions when I have gotten it; sort of)
Rodman99999, and Learsfool, thanks for the kind words. Rodman, you wrote: ***To apply the, "standard" of live music, to one's listening, one MUST be familiar with the same. MULTITUDES are NOT*** How true! But that still does not invalidate the standard nor the use of it by those who care. Part of the problem when this subject comes up in discussion among audiophiles is that we tend to get defensive about our goals in this hobby. We want to be right. I prefer to think that a big part of the reason that this is so is the very personal nature of music. It is a wonderful testimony to the power of it, and it's importance in people's lives. We tend to want to validate our choices in music and it's playback. But anyone who says that the standard does not exist, or has no value, because their choice in music makes the standard irrelevant, or because they just don't care to put their energies in that department has his head in the sand.
Jax2, while reference to a painter/sculptor is valid from the standpoint that it may be equally difficult to determine artist intent, I don't think that how you use that reference deals with what the core issue is re accuracy. The visual equivalent of what we are talking about would be (I think) to suggest that it is equally valid to look at a Cornell painting wearing sunglasses, because it pleases our eyes more that way, instead of the stark reality of whatever he painted; and then try to determine artist intent. I don't think it can be done. I suppose one could try. But then, what would be the point? It would no longer be a what he intended. Is that not obvious?
The idea that the way each of us hears is different, is irrelevant; unless we fall into the typical audiophile trap of needing to be right in the eyes (ears) of others. Think about it for a moment. Yes, it's true that Carnegie Hall may sound different to me than it does to you. But, when you listen to a recording made in Carnegie Hall, you are using the same ears that you had when you sat in the hall. Whatever aberrations were caused by our particular set of ears while in the hall, will be the same aberrations that will be caused when we listen to our stereos. So, it is most definitely valid to use a familiar sound (Carnegie Hall) to judge the accuracy of our audio system. I realize, of course, that it depends on wether the recording process did a good enough job of capturing the sound of the hall. But here is where I think we tend to exaggerate the point about the futility of that kind of exercise. To suggest, for instance, that system tuning could cause a recording of Ella Fitzgerald to no longer sound like Ella, is quite a stretch. I doubt any audiophile on this forum has assembled a sytem that sounds so bad that it would not be possible to tell it is Ella singing; or that makes a tenor sax sound like an alto sax. I suggest that if that is the case the main culprit is lack of familiarity with the sound of her voice, and of the saxophone. Who here thinks that the sound produced by the tiny speaker in our cell phone is capable of producing high-end sound? Now, ask yourself: when was the last time your wife, or parent, or child called you, and you did not immediately know who was calling? It is all about familiarity. |
Jax2, the fatal flaw in your argument is that you seem to be assuming that those who strive for their notion of musical accuracy necessarily do so at the expense of the enjoyment of the art. That assumption could not be further from the truth. Moreover, I would suggest that the approach of not using some sort of standard as a positive tool, limits one's ultimate understanding/enjoyment of the art. But, as always, different strokes for different folks. BTW, it was you who first made an issue of the distortion of the artist's intent. I am confused. Not!
***My rig is for me to enjoy music the way that moves me and involves me and keeps me glued to my seat immersed in the music I love. If that is going on for me, if my system is achieving that most of the time (as it does), I really don't care whether or not the musicians intentions, or the engineers decisions are being carried forth faithfully. It does not matter one wit to me. What matters is my enjoyment of it. If it does actually comply to their intentions, that's fine to, but I still don't care.*** |
***Where's the psychiatrist when you need one?*** -Bifwynne
***Why waste money on psychotherapy when you can listen to the B minor Mass?*** -Michael Torke |
***I worry that the person who thought up Muzak may be thinking up something else*** -Lily Tomlin |
Tubegroover, been there; great story! Thanks for sharing. |
I keep thinking that some of you guys keep missing the point; with all due respect.
The easily identified, inherent, signature sound of Carnegie Hall (or any other hall) swamps any deviation caused by humidity, number of attendees, etc. It really is not important to focus on those as relates to accuracy in a recording; although even those minor can, in fact, be heard on good recordings. The bigger, and important question should be: is the recording faithfull to that inherent quality constant? Is the equipment able to pass that information on (accuracy; or some part thereof)? To dismiss the relevance of a standard on the basis of inevitable subtle variability is silly. |
Ohnwy61, please read my comment again: ***The easily identified, inherent, signature sound of Carnegie Hall (or any other hall) swamps any deviation caused by humidity, number of attendees, etc.***
I know how much some dislike the idea of absolutes, but this is an absolute fact. I never said that the sound is not changed by wether the hall is full or not; of course it does. What I am saying is that the change does not in any way cause the listener to not be able to identify the hall as being Carnegie; and easily. The hall's inherent sound is much more powerful than any change caused by the number of people in the the seats. From that standpoint, yes it's subtle. I have performed on that stage upwards of one hundred times in all my years as a musician. Almost everyone of those occasions involved a dress rehearsal or soundcheck prior to the performance, so I was able to hear the hall empty, and then full, during the span of a few hours at most. I can say unequivocally that not once have I felt that the difference in sound was anywhere near the difference in sound between two different halls. Moreover, if one could quantify this sort of thing, I assure you that the differences we are talking about are less than the differences we, as audiophiles, agonize over when choosing interconnects; in which case we could be talking about significant changes in tonal balance, and amount of detail heard. The difference is there to be sure, and important, but not to the point that the Carnegie sound could not be used as a reference. That was my point. Think of it this way: If your spouse has a slight cold, and she leaves you a message on your voice mail, are you all of sudden unable to tell it was he/she calling? You are intimately familiar with the sound of her voice; it remains a valid reference. |
Onhwy61, you cracked me up, that was really, really good. Nothing like some good natured discussion and banter in my book. I suspect that when all is said and done, there is actually less disagreement than comes across in these posts. Disagreement there will be; obviously. But the sticking point for me continues to be that I consider my posturing to be positive and forward-looking. IOW, I think that the advocacy of using the live music standard is a way of deepening the appreciation and enjoyment of music. I have been tooting that horn (pun intended) on this forum for a long time. I have taken a lot of heat, and gotten a lot of rolled eyeballs for it. But the bottom line for me is that I really don't think a lot of audiophiles really know what musical instruments REALLY sound like. Does it matter? How can it NOT matter? The other posture says that focusing on those minutiae will detract from the enjoyment of the music. Sure it can. Only if you let it, and lose sight of the heart in the music.
If the gear let's me hear what it is that makes Carnegie sound like Carnegie, then it will probably do a better job of letting me hear the even more subtle phrasing, and tonal color changes that a great artist uses to convey the music's message. How can that be a bad thing? Problem is that so muuch of the beautiful, subtle information gets wiped out by the recording process. Many don't realize just how much there was to begin with.
"If a composer could say what he had to say in words, he would not bother trying to say it in music" -Gustav Mahler |
