"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. |
Frogman, you have once again contributed a fantastic post. The thing I find ironic here is that quite often those audiophiles that claim to be searching for "accuracy" are often the very same ones that get completely caught up in specs and measurements and end up with systems that may measure well but sound nothing like live, unamplified, acoustic music, which as you say is the real yet unachievable standard for accuracy. Someone asked the question "have we really completely lost our way?" Well, yes you have, if you consider how a component measures more important than what it actually sounds like. I really don't give a hoot how accurately a system measures if it doesn't make Ella's voice or Marylin Horne's voice or Perlman's violin or Marsalis' trumpet or my horn sound as accurate as possible (not to mention the sound of Carnegie Hall or the Met or the Musikverein or wherever). |
"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 personally agree with you Frogman. It is what first got me into this end of the hobby being a music enthusiast prior to. It is certainly my goal, orchestral and large choral to be exact. It seems the rest sounds better if this sounds right. One thing for certain with my room limitations nothing I do will ever make it sound real. I suppose this is true for many of us.
I'm not too sure everyone would agree with you though. People have different experiences and taste in music and may have different criteria when judging. What if the preferences are pop/grunge/heavy metal/eurotechno, in other words electronic with absolutely no interest in how live unamplified instruments or voice sound? They don't know because they primarily listen to amplified music. I'm quite certain that by using your criteria they could realize better sound of their music. Your comment also seems to take the "accuracy" via listening approach. It seems there was a debate about this several decades ago between John Atkinson and JG Holt. Atkinson not agreeing with Holt that live unamplified instruments should be the sole factor in evaluating a system or component. I always tended to trust Holt's judgements more when I was in that period of discovery.
Personally I want to enjoy the crappy recordings as well as the great ones and would compromise in favor of balance over maximizing the potential of the great ones. Your goals seem different and good for you but don't for a minute think that everyone should or does think like you. That being said I really enjoyed reading your perspective on this issue, nice post. |
Frogman - I look at a work by an artist that really moves me...Joseph Cornell for instance...Seeing his work moves and inspires me. It stirs thoughts and emotions and takes my mind to places I hadn't known existed before seeing it. Yet I am not at all privy to the artists original intent in creating the piece. I have no idea whether the way I am interpreting it, or the way it moves me, was what Cornell had in mind when he created the piece. My own interpretation could be far from what his intent was and the meanings I may take from it may have never crossed his mind. Does it matter in any way whatsoever that I have "accurately" interpreted the artists original intent? Or is it more important that the work moved me and stirred up emotions and thought that are lasting and quite real and important to me, and in my case very enjoyable as I do enjoy the visual arts as well. This is more to the point of what I was trying to say when I stated that whether the artists original intent is "accurately" served is less important to me, the observer/listener, as is the level of my own enjoyment of the work. If I actually happen to be completely tuned in to what the artists intent was, that's great too. But if the works moves me and inspires me yet is not faithful to that intent, or I am moved in some other interpretation of it that was not necessarily part of the artists intent, that is every bit as wonderful. |
Frogman- VERY WELL stated! Not long ago, I purchased a firearm that was touted as being, "accurate" to within one Minute of Angle, at 500 yards. Tuning the ammo(hand-loading higher ballistic coefficient bullets/very precise powder measurements/precise cartridge length/primer choice/etc), floating the barrel, and feeding one round into the chamber, rather than five into the magazine at a time, resulted in consistant, "accuracy" within 1/4 Minute of Angle, at the same range. I'm not one to tell someone else how to enjoy their firearms, cars or audio gear, but will squeeze every ounce of performance out of whatever I own, through research, experimentation(modding/tweaking) and dedication. Music(it's creation and recreation in the home) has been a major passion of mine for over five decades. I refuse to personally accept the mediocrity for which the masses settle, but- who am I to tell them what level of, "accuracy"(faithfulness to the source) is acceptable in their listening environment? BTW: To apply the, "standard" of live music, to one's listening, one MUST be familiar with the same. MULTITUDES are NOT. Enjoy your music! |
Charles1dad, it's not just that he has nice equipment, but his room is carefully arranged not to significantly color the speaker output. He even has measurements to back that up. A very high quality studio monitor in a well designed/setup room will give you an relatively accurate sound. And by accurate I simple mean reasonably low distortion, a smooth wide range frequency response curve, wide range dynamics and low resonances. It's a relative description, not an absolute term. Systems that meet these goals tend to be accurate to their source material (to the extent that that even can be judged). I would suspect that your system qualifies as accurate too. |
Learsfool,
Well said indeed, my only point with the accuracy via measurements position is that over reliance on measurements rather than one`s ears is folly. Measurements certainly have a contribution, but pale in comparision to what one can hear(the obvious end result). There are no measurements I`m aware of that when met will reliably ensure good sound. At this point in time our ears are superior to a lab or test bench. |
When I was a child, I liked to mix butter and syrup until it became an indistinguishable mess. I called it "butter syrup". (I was a very clever child) I think I'll title this conglomeration of post's, "An exercise in Subobjective observation".
How can one "accurately" measure music. How long is a song? How much does it weigh? How much does Zimbabwe? can New York stay "new" forever? These are similar questions that have never been answered.
|
Charles1dad, While our ears are the final arbiter of what we determine to be good sound, they are arbitrary, inconsistent and fickle, not only to others, but even to themsleves. While specs have yet to be able to reliably ensure good sound, they are quite capable of determining what is not good sound. Without getting into the semantics of accuracy vs. precision, for those that think measurements and accuracy are unimportant, they better hope someone else is, or they won't be able to replace their systems. Accuracy and specs give us a baseline for making progress. |
i think accuracy , or perfection or exactness, is a goal many audiophiles try to achieve.
it is not achievable. no audio system is perfect.
so the question, "does accuracy exist", yes the term exists, but there are no accurate audio systems.
such a state does not prevent one from reducing inaccuracy.
in audio accuracy is a multi dimensional variable, there is phase, frequency response, etc. .
in addition how does one know what a recording sounds like ? |
Is that Ella's voice in 1952 singing into an RCA ribbon mic or Ella in 1964 using a Neumann condenser? Is that the sound of Carnegie Hall from the the first level under the balcony or from the second mezzanine? Are all the seats filled? Is it winter or summer? All of these scenarios will sound different when recorded. If you tune you system/room so sharply that only one situation sounds like Ella or Carnegie, then you have strayed and lost your way. |
Without getting into the semantics of accuracy vs. precision, for those that think measurements and accuracy are unimportant, they better hope someone else is, or they won't be able to replace their systems. Accuracy and specs give us a baseline for making progress. The semantic issue was accuracy vs "perfection" not "precision" Accuracy should certainly matter to the artist themselves, to the engineer and producer. I'd agree it has a place there. To the end user it is entirely relative. What does Carnegie Hall sound like to you? Might not be what I happen to enjoy about the sound of it, and or we may perceive it entirely differently. Then again, I might like to enjoy a bit more warmth on top of what it actually sounds like. You might not. What's the point - we're both enjoying our respective versions of reproduction by assembling gear that accomplishes what we are after. The thing I find ironic here is that quite often those audiophiles that claim to be searching for "accuracy" are often the very same ones that get completely caught up in specs and measurements and end up with systems that may measure well but sound nothing like live, unamplified, acoustic music, which as you say is the real yet unachievable standard for accuracy. Someone asked the question "have we really completely lost our way?" Well, yes you have, if you consider how a component measures more important than what it actually sounds like. I also found it interesting that the system Onhwy61 points out as an example of "accurate" has strong bloodlines in the most critical components (front end and speakers) in pro-audio, including ATC monitors, Benchmark DAC as well as a Behringer Equalizer. It's a beautiful, well-designed installation for sure. I don't know that it might suit everyone's preferences, which is just my point. Pro-audio purposes are a specific use where I believe accuracy is very important, where professionals working in that world actually depend upon it. I just don't think that extends to the end user necessarily. Certainly if it floats your boat that's the way you should go. My own limited experiences with pro-audio gear suggest to me that it does not float my boat at all. This is not meant as a criticism of Shardone's system - heck I might find it sounds magnificent. Just some general thoughts and observations. |
Jax2, I refer you to Knownothing's post. |
Jax2, I refer you to Knownothing's post. Ah, thanks for that clarification. My bad - I missed that. |
Theoretically, yes.
Practically, accuracy is a hard beast to determine. |
Jax2, No problem, perfectly understandable. |
Looking at visual arts may be a useful comparison as music can be considered an auditory art. I don't believe there are competitions for who can paint the most accurate painting. Super accurate paintings aren't necessarily worth more than design realism nor do many people prefer it. Other than a mic'd recording of a live event, the studio engineer can be considered the artist who assembles a pleasing sonic rendition of the musician. Okay, okay even the former can be considered an artistically created event for you superfussy nitpickers out there. Lately I have been leaning towards Bill Low's (of Audioquest) concept of "damage control": Audio components don't do things right. They only do things wrong. Designing good components means "causing less harm". So the best components is "no" component, and not hype about "fixing damages" caused elsewhere. But that's just me. YMMV!!!!! |
Looking at visual arts may be a useful comparison as music can be considered an auditory art. I don't believe there are competitions for who can paint the most accurate painting. Super accurate paintings aren't necessarily worth more than design realism nor do many people prefer it.
Other than a mic'd recording of a live event, the studio engineer can be considered the artist who assembles a pleasing sonic rendition of the musician. Okay, okay even the former can be considered an artistically created event for you superfussy nitpickers out there. cdc - your reference to my metaphor is way off base. It is not at all the connection I was trying to make anyway. The artists are the performers, and their counterparts would be the actual artists creating the visual works of art. Super accurate realism, the likes of the works of Richard Estes for instance, has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The music and the art is the means of expression, whether classical symphonic music, acid jazz, hip hop, etc. Whether surrealism, abstract expressionism, photographic realism, etc. The art was created by the artists with the intention of expressing something to others, to move others and share something that may open their minds...make them think and feel. You are confusing the metaphor placing recording engineers in the place of artists where they do not belong. Their job is use their skills to reproduce the work of the artists onto a semi-permanent media to share with the masses. If you wanted to create a verbatim metaphor you could compare recording engineers to a skilled photographer + printer/separator who takes images of the artwork and applies their skills to create reproductions of the artwork to share with the masses in the form of a book or print, for instance. These are not the artists, they are technicians, craftsmen, or artisans if you will. To carry the metaphor through to the discussion; Certainly "accuracy" is a very significant concern to the photographer/printer/separator, as it is to the recording engineer. Likewise "accuracy" is likely important to the artists themselves who would most likely prefer that their work is reproduced in a way that accurately conveys their intentions. That is where the importance of "accuracy" remains in my mind. As far as the end-user, any one of the masses who might appreciate the reproduced work, the capacity of them to enjoy and be deeply moved by any of this work is most certainly NOT dependent upon the ultimate accuracy of the reproduction of that work. Let me back up a bit; Neither the reproduction of visual arts in the highest form of photographic reproduction and printing (say stochastic printing at 600 dpi on the finest stock), nor the best recording of any performance by the most skilled engineer....neither of those efforts at reproduction are ultimately going to equal the experience of actually being directly present to the work itself or the performance. If you have that goal in mind then you might as well take up self-flagellation while you're at it. Also, in the high-end of either of those examples, and at the levels of colorations we are likely discussing here (we are not talking about extreme distortions where the actual music/art is not recognizable after all, or shifts coloration/tonality so grossly it is not even representative of the original), there is every bit the potential of the original art/music that's being reproduced to deeply move others. Whether or not it is "accurate" is entirely irrelevant to the observer unless it becomes an obstacle in their own mind to actually being moved by the work (in other words, unless they make it so in their own priorities - it's an issue if you choose to make it an issue). I like your quote on "damage control". Obviously in the metaphor, the reproduction of the visual arts is far more limited going from 3-d to 2-d, and likely also reducing/changing scale. The illusion in the reproduction of music is far more satisfying IMO. |
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. |
Hi Jax, I always enjoy your insightful posts. I thought the OP was referring to "accuracy" in terms of the chain of events - including the stereo itself- in the reproduction of the music, not the actual event itself. I can see you point about a musician getting you to "see" things from their perspective, just like a good artist does.
I was comparing the ultimate reality of the real world (which the artist then interprets) to the ultimate reality of what the musician plays (and the recording engineer, stereo system etc then interprets).
Go 3D art!!!!!!!!!!!! |
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? Your eyes adapt wearing sunglasses - our senses are amazingly adaptable and sensitive. I think I get what you are trying to get at though, but I don't agree. We are not at all talking about distortions of the level I think you are suggesting. The idea of gross distortion, such as wearing rose colored glasses (which we also adapt to), is just simply not what is being discussed at this level of performance of musical reproduction, as you pointed out in the end of your post (I doubt the capacity to be moved by a visual work of art would be grossly handicapped by wearing sunglasses - the issue of the artists intent is entirely apart from that, as I have posited before, it doesn't matter nearly as much what they specifically were trying to express, except perhaps to them...as artwork the point is more that the viewer/listener is moved to think and feel. Even if we view a writer as the artist, and the words they use are verbatim to their expression of intent - the end result will be filtered through the reader and may transport their minds and hearts to all kinds of places that didn't even exist in the writer's mind or heart. Back to music - Not only do most folks here have systems that are most certainly not going to obscure the voice of Ella so it is not recognizable, I'd venture to take that further and say that most who are taking the time to read and discuss in these forums, probably have systems that do a damn fine job at reproducing Ella's voice and performance. Ella on their system would without any doubt be enough that, were Ella to sing in the next room anyone could make the connection. The level of "accuracy" we are talking about simply does not obscure or loose the artists intent (or their identity), IMO, and doesn't remotely begin to resemble some sort of deeply obscured view of artwork through dark colored glasses, or playing the music through iPhone speakers. Instead I'd suggest that the level of "accuracy" being suggested here is nitpicking and not even on the radar of most folks who enjoy music (most of whom are not part of these forums as most off the population of the world would fit that description). It is probably one of the aspects of this hobby I least enjoy and when I find myself in discussions with others who focus on this sort of hogwash that is so far from the point of enjoying music, it makes me wish I could be transported elsewhere. Fortunately it doesn't happen much, and when it does I manage to find a polite exit strategy. Not that it's not an interesting subject, but it certainly doesn't interest me if that's the only thing you focus on. I do find the discussion here stimulating as it makes me reflect on my own preferences and attitudes, and reasons I like what I like, and it takes various points of view into the picture. I don't think I'd last long in this discussion if it became entirely polarized towards the idea of "perfection" as that's a sad and sorry standard to try to uphold. FYI Cornell was not a painter. |
BTY Jax2, I did not see your post of 5-15-11 so wasn't even relating what I wrote to that but thanks for the explanation anyhow. |
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.*** |
Cdc - thanks for your kind words.
I was thinking more about the writer as artist metaphor. There is a case where we have 100% accuracy in reproducing the artist's expression. Word for word the original text in the original language is verbatim and without error (assuming as much in the reproduction of the text). To the writer, the artist in this case, and to the publisher, this level of "accuracy" is of paramount importance. To the reader, however, those words, which are 100% accurate, may take on different meanings, and transport them to different places, and inspire them in different ways than was in the heart and mind of the artist/writer who penned them. Is then 100% accuracy critical to the reader? I don't think so. Even if we are talking about a translation into another language, where then 100% accuracy could easily be argued - say translations into three different languages, or perhaps by three different translators into the same different language...is 100% accuracy important, or even possible given the ambiguities of semantics and translation? Is the "accurate" meaning of Gibran's, The Prophet, lost in being translated into so many languages? Again, I don't think so. Certainly the core intents will remain in tact, and certainly the capacity to move and inspire others will not be lost because the translation cannot be held to the microscope of "100% accuracy". This is the level of nitpicking that I feel is being discussed here - we are not talking about the kind of gross distortions in someone else entirely retelling the story of The Prophet, or being grossly visually impaired, or perhaps color blind. That's just not the differences being discussed here. If it is, then I'd probably have more in common in saying that far more is available to anyone of experiencing Ella, then is available through a pair of iPhone speakers. Not to say one can't enjoy Ella that way, but there's certainly more to be enjoyed than what you are hearing. But really, this is not the kinds of differences being discussed here. In the case of communication through art forms I do not think "accuracy", at least at the levels it is realistically being discussed here in the differences in various high-end systems that folks here may have assembled, has any major influence at all in enjoying and being moved by the music. That is unless the individual has chosen to make it so, where certainly any self-imposed head-trip like that has tremendous potential for removing one from enjoying anything.
Frogman - I'm not sure I follow your recent response. Yes, I made the original metaphor and have built on it...so what? My "standard" would be how the music moves me, how much I enjoy and am immersed in the experience of listening, not how close it comes to some abstract or even some objective standard of "accuracy" much less "perfection. I actually know a few people who do concern themselves greatly over such issues, yet also profoundly enjoy music and can share on either level. I do not assume that having such concerns necessarily means that you cannot enjoy music. I have met others who seem to only obsess about such issues. I find I have nothing much in common with those people as far as the enjoyment of music at home is concerned as they usually are more interested in talking about their obsessions, which I find to be a trivial pursuit. I was suggesting that if that is what you focus on, it would be nearly impossible, at least in my experience, to actually enjoy the music at the same time. This is what bugs me about some notion of perfection - I'd prefer to simply focus on what I enjoy and drop any such notions that there is some objective goal to be achieved, some quest for nirvana. I think what most people who are on such a quest might be missing is that what they are looking for is right there under their noses if they were only open to enjoying it.
PS I am under no illusions that what I'm sharing is anything at all but my personal point of view and opinions, not some recipe that I think anyone and everyone should live by. I hope I'm not coming off that way. I just find this particular discussion stirs up some things in me I feel inclined to share, and happen to have time on my hands right now to write. |
Hey 57s4me: I was just about to make a comment about Angels on Pinheads. But then I caught your post from Friday: "I'll continue to read and enjoy the comments about and reviews of more and more 'accurate' equipment till I expire - after all, we really are only debating the precise number of Angels dancing on the head of a pin. No one is disputing their existence!"
Well, as regards anyone disputing the existence of angels, I just caught a Yahoo News article today which reported that Steven Hawkings doesn't believe in the existence of a Diety -- just the laws of science, that's his G-d. Therefore, I can only assume he doesn't believe in angels either, least of all how many can fit on a pinhead, or anyone's head for that matter.
My goodness, if we can't agree on the existence of a Diety, angels, or even angels on pinheads, how can we possibly expect to agree on a definition of what constitutes an accurate stereo system??? Where's the psychiatrist when you need one? |
Jax2- If what you have asserted were true, about those that are committed to a standard of accuracy or perfection, we that create and/or record music, could not enjoy what we do. Had you any experience, in the music biz, in any capacity; you would understand. Personally, I enjoy music most when functioning as a Sound Tech(as opposed to playing guitar or recording). Setting up a venue for the best possible sound, then listening into the mix and being certain every voice(instrumental or vocal) is being heard, as naturally and proportionately as possible(given the venue's acoustic, available equipment, etc), is both challenging and rewarding. I can't even conceive of a listener in the audience, that enjoys or gets into the music more than I. If those of us, that truly care about the sound of music, gave up(what you consider) our, "trivial pursuits"; the quality of whatever you use as source material, would certainly be down the crapper. I NEVER presume to tell another HOW to enjoy what they enjoy, but do find myself often helping others enjoy their pursuits more fully(also very gratifying). Often they are not aware of ALL that they are missing. It's usually right under their nose, and if it were only open to smelling it.... |
Rodman - you evidently did not read all of my posts, or not very carefully. I stated repeatedly that the only ones that it would occur to me that "accuracy" necessarily mattered to were the recording engineers and the sound professionals responsible for delivering the artists performance (as well as the artists themselves). The "trivial pursuit" comment was not referring to those efforts and you've taken it entirely out of context. FWIW, I do have exposure to the music biz as I work with musicians, and am quite aware of their own concerns, as well as the concerns of recording engineers that they work with. I also have musicians in my family - my mother in-law and sister in-law play first viola and cello in a symphony orchestra, and my wife's degree is in performance violin. So no disrespect was intended to you or your profession (if that's what you do). Actually, no disrespect is intended to anyone - I'm just voicing my opinion and my own point of view. Ultimately whatever floats your boat and to each their own. |
To Bifwynne,
I'm on the floor laughing at your post!
I should have thought thrice before penning so glibly...
A shrink? Can't afford one - but I thank The Great Cat in the Sky (Stephen, are you reading this?) for alcohol!
Nick |
Jax2- My Apologies. You are correct, in that I did skip the majority of the posts in this thread. Too busy with my music, to do so much reading. Too be sure; if we all had the same tastes(regardless of the subject matter); what a boring World this would be! Happy listening. |
***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 |
Onhwy61 wrote: "Is that Ella's voice in 1952 singing into an RCA ribbon mic or Ella in 1964 using a Neumann condenser? Is that the sound of Carnegie Hall from the the first level under the balcony or from the second mezzanine? Are all the seats filled? Is it winter or summer? All of these scenarios will sound different when recorded. If you tune you system/room so sharply that only one situation sounds like Ella or Carnegie, then you have strayed and lost your way."
I assume that this was in response to my earlier post, and I have the impression that you are posting this as some sort of rebuttal? I mean no offense, but I sincerely fail to understand the point of this post - of course all of these scenarios will sound different when recorded, this goes without saying to a professional musician. I will also add that 10 different engineers will record those scenarios in 10 different ways, resulting in 10 different sounding recordings. And I said nothing about tuning rooms or systems sharply. Not sure what you are in disagreement with here, but Frogman's first post of 5-16 again (with its example of Carnegie Hall as a reference) addresses the point I was making very well, if that helps to clarify what I was saying - it seems to be something about that that you are disagreeing with? |
***Why waste money on psychotherapy when you can listen to the B minor Mass?*** -Michael Torke
Its funny you mention THAT piece Frogman in THAT context. Many years back my wife and I took a friend and his wife to a performance of the B minor Mass at the annual Bach Festival at Rollins College. He wanted to attend a "classical" concert with us and unfortunately, this is the one I choose. We had to leave before intermission because "the kids" got the "giggles" and wouldn't shut up which in turn got my wife going. I felt like I needed to have my head examined after that embarrassment, walking out with my head bowed with the "kids" in tow. |
|
My point is that there is no single Carnegie Hall or Ella Fitzgerald sound. Depending on how and the conditions of the recording sessions any number of Carnegie Halls could result. When you play a recording made there, how do you know which version of Carnegie is on the recording? I don't think you can say. That was my earlier point about having to be at the mastering session to be able to gauge what a recording is supposed to sound like.
I find the standard of live music as a reference to be useful, but as commonly applied by audiophiles it virtually ignores the recording process which is at least as important as anything on the reproduction side. |
Jax2, that Richard Estes and Cornell stuff is realy thought provoking! Do you have any other favorites? Anyone else that can compare to Evind Earl? Just like getting into audio, I thought art was okay until I saw Evind Earl. That was something that has put it in a whole new perspective. |
Onhwy61 - agreed, it's difficult to put a finger on exactly what one is being "accurate" to. If some notion of "accuracy" is what you enjoy, then have at it. Ultimately it's the enjoyment of music that is much more to the point of why I do this.
Cdc - Estes is not really a personal favorite; I just mentioned him because of the reference to (photo) realism. Cornell most certainly is one of my favorites. Others I enjoy? Hmmm too many and far off topic, but I'll give you a few...Edward Kienholz, Jean Michel Basquiat, Edvard Munch, Man Ray, Magritte, most of the surrealists..kind of all over the board. Yes, you're so right, the visual arts, all of the arts, can inspire and move us in similar ways to the music we enjoy if we are open to it. Like you experience with Eyvind Earl (think you are misspelling his first name), it can take you places you might not have though existed. I can still remember my Dad bringing home a copy of Sgt. Pepper when I was 7, and two years later a music teacher bringing in a copy of Tommy by The Who to play for the class - it was not so much that material itself, but that there was a world of an art form out there that I had no idea about - it really opened me up to that and I was hooked from then on. I still can enjoy both of those recordings, but they are definitely not representative of current tastes in music. It's a wonderful thing to become aware of possibility, just like Rodman999 points out in his sharing what is possible with music with others. |
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. |
The main hall at Carnegie seats 2,800 people. Am I to believe that you think whether the hall is empty or full of concert goers has only a subtle impact on the sound within the hall? If you do believe such, then I respectfully disagree. The presence of concert-goers will effect hall volume levels and the tonality of reflected sound. It's not a subtle effect.
I am not dismissing the relevance of a standard, instead I'm pointing out a severe limitation of that standard as commonly used. |
This is very interesting; is the ideal of 'accuracy' at one and the same time quite attainable, but actually impossible (to all intents) to verify?
If so, we are left in a position of 'having the faith'.
Absolute proof of accuracy seems dependent on a multitude of variables (too many to consider simultaneously), even, as Onhwy61 points out, the number of seats filled in the venue. The case seems made.
I for one find this to be perfectly acceptable: to not have faith in what we hear would seem to be no more nor less than destructive: if the choice is to fret or not, I for one will choose not.
On the other hand I am exceedingly grateful to those who do...... |
Hi Onwhy61 - thanks for explaining! While the variables you speak of are not insignificant, I must agree with Frogman - all halls have an "easily identified, inherent, signature sound" which will still be there despite these variables - and the same goes for the specific timbral qualities of every human voice and every acoustic instrument. Far too many recording engineers do not make recordings that are very accurate in Frogman's sense nowadays, and this is to me and most of my fellow musicians a much bigger issue than whether or not the playback equipment can then pass that info on. It certainly can't if it isn't there on the recording in the first place. I personally think that too many audiophiles blame the equipment when in fact they are listening to a bad recording job. But that's getting off topic. |
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. |
Listening to music this afternoon this song, a recent favorite came up in random shuffle. Listening to the lyrics I said to myself, this is at the core of what moves me about music. It is why when I consider the question, "Does accuracy matter?" (regarding the reproduction and enjoyment of music), I have to say that it's just not the point...it matters if you make it matter, and if it happens to be important to you, but it is not a requirement to profoundly enjoy music, and focusing on such minutia in listening takes one further and further away from enjoyment, in my experience. This is especially so at the level of most indulging in this hobby where some seem to need to find any number of rulers to measure and compare their pride and joy with everyone else's (I really restrained myself there in that metaphor).
This is from Martha Tilston's 2006 release, "Of Milkmaids and Architects", in case anyone's into the contemporary Brit-folk scene. Those with 3 copies of Dire Straits BIA and 4 versions of Pink Floyd DSOM on their frequent rotation might find this a bit boring. It kind of goes back to what I was talking about those early introductions in ones life where it really sinks in and moves you, that you never forget:
_______________
we were the wild wild child of the street
we rollarskated everywhere
Jason and the Argonauts, with festival hair
we were taught to catch our dreams if you can
and put the babies wellies on and help them in the back of the van
oh and I remember
Sophie dancing round the room
singing 'here it comes,
here it comes,
this is the best bit of the tune'
she waves her fingers in the air
says 'doesn't it make you fizz?'
and I understand that Sophie knows
what magic is
I understand that Sophie knows
what magic is
sometimes I go back in my dreams to Bristol
you can hear Jamaican music and taste the Asian sweets
then to the adventure playground
running through the streets
we were both slow readers
we could make a bow and arrow
from the wood and flint with twine
and we cut the lawn with scissors
made sense at the time
oh and I remember
Sophie dancing round the room
singing 'here it comes,
here it comes,
this is the best bit of the tune'
she waves her fingers in the air
says 'doesn't it make you fizz?;
and I understand that Sophie knows what magic is
I understand that Sophie knows what magic is
so now she pours me a glass of pink wine
she takes the babies wellies off
and whispers to him 'bed time'
when he's sleeping she hunts through the CD pile
she says 'you've gotta hear this one, gotta hear this one'
she starts to smile
so now I'm watching Sophie dancing round the room
singing here it comes here it comes this is the best bit of the tune
she waves her fingers in the air
'doesn't it make you fizz?'
understand that Sophie knows what magic is
now I am reminded
what music is
so I get up with her,
dancing round the room
here it comes
here it comes
this is the best bit of the tune
we wave our fingers in the air
'doesn't it make you fizz'
I understand that Sophie know what magic is
you must understand that Sophie knows what magic is
though I am taller in many ways I'm smaller
then my big sis |
The ref has stopped the fight, the Hwyman is barely on his feet clinging to the ropes and clearly can no longer defend himself. The Amphibianman's team has run into the ring and hoisted him upon their shoulders in a victory stance. #61 is being helped out of the ring his face a bloody pulp and his legs wobbly, but it appears he's trying to shout something at the winner. "You never knocked me down, Frog. Never knocked me down!" |
"I personally think that too many audiophiles blame the equipment when in fact they are listening to a bad recording job."
I actually think this is precisely on-topic; a point well made!
My original question revolved around the inability to judge equipment effectively when so much of the recording process is an unknown.
Many listening sessions, using the largest selection of recordings, might well begin to clarify the problem of judging for 'accuracy', but the unknowns still prevail. |
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 |
Frogman, I couldn't agree more. One of my favorite Mahler quotes, too! |
All this talk about venue has me thinking about some recent concerts/live events I have attended recently. At the symphony mid-way back on the floor I found myself saying "huh, this sounds ok but I had trouble relating the instruments notes with their spatial arrangement on the stage. At a bar with a small acoustic group playing and singing through a PA system I thought "the music is great but the sound quality is just so, so". Listening at home to an LP I bought from the artists through my decidedly modest system I thought "wow, this is really 'musical,". At a performance artist presentation with a live string quartet plus an electric bass playing off to the right of the stage in an abandoned grocery store, the sound and the music accompanying the dance was "transformational" in composition, performance and sound quality.
Symphony Hall - OK, abandoned grocery store - fantastic? What is going on here? What role does "accuracy" play in this overall evaluation of live versus recorded listening experiences? Was I experiencing the original intent of the acoustic artist in the hotel bar or on her carefully self produced album in my living room?
I have to take away from this discussion and my personal experience that "accuracy" in music performance and reproduction is something to pursue, but dependent in practice on a lot of things that end up being circumstantial, and that it is still more important to know what you like to hear all along the chain from composition to your ear. In that context "accuracy" as a relevant concept in audio is at best a guide, and at worst a fools errand that can lead to faithful reproduction of crap, and who has time or extra aural nerves for that? |
A little off topic but anyone care to guess what Celestial Sunrise goes for? This is not even an original but the black and white is printed on paper and Peter colors in the rest with colored pencils |
