After ten weeks or so, this thread has slowed to a halt. In light of that, I would like to thank all those who participated. I, for one, learned a lot from our discussions, and I had a lot of fun too. I have one final set of ideas that I would like to contribute. They are largely ecumenical in spirit, in that they are an attempt to reconcile the major ideological division on this thread, namely Subjectivism and Objectivism. In one way or another, that difference in attitude has affected nearly every argument we have had, whether it was about coloration, neutrality, accuracy, transparency, or whatever. What I would like to suggest is that both Subjectivism and Objectivism are valid points of view, but that sometimes one is more warranted than the other. Which is more warranted depends on (1) the kinds of recordings an audiophile tends to listen to, and (2) the audiophile’s priorities. To make this point, I have to say some preliminary things about representations and truth. To begin with… A FEW WORDS ABOUT REPRESENTATIONS: (1) A representation contains information about some state or event. To elaborate… A “synchronic” representation contains information about a STATE, that is, a MOMENT in time. A “diachronic” representation contains information about an EVENT, that is, a PERIOD of time. Some, but not all, representations are IMAGES of the states/events they represent. That is to say, the relation they bear to the states/events they represent is that of RESEMBLANCE. Most, but not all, representations are INCOMPLETE. That is to say, they do not contain ALL possible information about the state/event they represent. Putting these things together… (2) Music recordings are diachronic, imagistic, incomplete representations that contain information about musical events. Here is where things get important… Some representations contain information about REAL events, that is, events that ACTUALLY OCCURRED. Think: A photograph of a landscape that exists. Some representations contain information about VIRTUAL events, that is, events that DID NOT ACTUALLY OCCUR. Think: A painting of a landscape that is a composite of various landscapes drawn from the painter’s memory. This bears on music recordings, in that… (3) Some music recordings contain information about REAL events, while other recordings contain information about VIRTUAL events. To elaborate… Music recordings can be thought of on a continuum according to how REAL or VIRTUAL the event is that the recording represents. At one end of the continuum is a music recording that represents a musical event that is MAXIMALLY REAL: It was a live performance of acoustic instruments recorded in a real acoustical space (i.e. not a studio) with a single stereo or dual mono microphones, it was not edited, and it was minimally altered during mixing. Some audiophile music recordings approach this standard. At the other end of the continuum is a music recording that represents a musical event that is MAXIMALLY VIRTUAL: It contains no real instruments, it is highly edited, and altered liberally during mixing. Some electronic music approaches this standard. In the middle of the continuum is where the vast majority of music lies: It was recorded with multiple microphones, sometimes in different spaces or different times, often edited together from multiple performances, and mixed with the use of level adjustment, channel placement, equalization, filtering, reverb, and other “effects.” In the case of popular music, many of the sounds were not sourced from real instruments at all. The more these techniques are used, the more we describe an album as “produced." The difference between recordings that represent real events and those that represent virtual events is crucial to whether a recording can be evaluated as to its TRUTHFULNESS. Which brings me to… A FEW WORDS ABOUT TRUTH: (4) The truth of a representation is its objective correspondence to reality. The meaning behind the word “objective” here is that the truth or falsity of a representation depends only upon its correspondence to how things actually are. It does not depend upon OUR BELIEFS about how things actually are. A representation is TRUE when the information it contains about an event CORRESPONDS to how that event actually is (or was). A representation is FALSE when the information it contains about an event FAILS TO CORRESPOND to how the event actually is (or was). But what if a representation contains information about a VIRTUAL event, rather than a REAL event? Then the question of its truthfulness, in the sense above, DOES NOT APPLY. That is to say, while representations about REAL events can be judged as to their truthfulness, representations about VIRTUAL events CANNOT. This brings up back to music recordings… (5a) The more a music recording represents a REAL musical event, the MORE it can be judged as to its truthfulness. (5b) The more a music recording represents a VIRTUAL musical event, the LESS it can be judged as to its truthfulness. “Truthfulness” here refers to TRANSPARENCY TO THE MUSICAL EVENT, that is, how much the information presented at the ear during playback resembles the information that was presented at the microphone during the actual performance. But “truthfulness” could also be thought of as ACCURACY TO THE SOFTWARE, that is, how much the information about the music is preserved as it passes from software to ear. (I am indebted to Almarg for this important distinction.) However, it is transparency to the musical event, not accuracy to the software, that “truthfulness” refers to in (5) above. These observations were a preliminary to my proposal for… RECONCILING OBJECTIVISM AND SUBJECTIVISM: OBJECTIVISM regarding representations is the idea that representations can be evaluated as to their truthfulness. It is a justifiable point of view when representations contain information about REAL events. SUBJECTIVISM regarding representations is the idea that representations cannot be evaluated as to their truthfulness. It is a justifiable point of view when representations contain information about VIRTUAL events. In terms of music recordings… (6a) Music recordings of REAL events can be evaluated as to their truthfulness. And to evaluate a recording’s truthfulness is to adopt the point of view of Objectivism. (6b) Music recordings of VIRTUAL events cannot be evaluated as to their truthfulness, though they can be evaluated in terms of preference. And to evaluate a recording in terms of preference is to adopt the point of view of Subjectivism. In other words, I believe that Objectivism and Subjectivism are both valid, but in different situations. The more REAL the musical event that a recording represents, the more OBJECTIVISM is warranted. The more VIRTUAL the musical event that a recording represents, the more SUBJECTIVISM is warranted. Hence, the appropriateness of one point of view or the other is largely a consequence of what kinds of recordings an audiophile tends to listen to. It is worth pointing out that an audiophile who tends to listen to recordings of real events is still entitled to be a Subjectivist, and hence evaluate recordings solely in terms of preference. My point is not to tell anyone how they should evaluate the playback of recorded music. My point that Objectivism makes less sense as recordings become more virtual, and more sense as they become more real. Whether or not an audiophile who tends to listen to recordings of real events choses to be an Objectivist or a Subjectivist is largely a matter of his priorities, which brings me to a recent TAS web post by Jonathan Valin: There are, IMO, three types of listeners in the high end, although these types tend to overlap. First, those who, first and foremost, want recorded music to sound as much like the real thing as possible--I call them the "absolute sound" type. Second, those who, first and foremost, want their recordings to sound exactly as good or as bad as the engineering and mastering allow them to sound (and want to hear the engineering and mastering, to boot)--I call them the "faithful to mastertapes/mike feed" type. And third those who are, primarily, less concerned with the absolute sound or the sound of mastertapes and more interested in hearing their recordings sound as beautiful and moving as possible--I call them the "as you like it" type. The first kind of audiophile prioritizes TRANSPARENCY to the musical event. The second prioritizes ACCURACY to the software. And the third prioritizes MUSICALITY as he defines it. For those who prioritize transparency or accuracy, Objectivism may seem to be the more valid point of view, but only to the extent that recordings represent real events. For those who prioritize musicality, Subjectivism may seem to be the more valid point of view, regardless of whether recordings represent real or virtual events. The above is my swan song - my final effort to reconcile the validity of Subjectivism with that of Objectivism. No doubt some will feel I have failed. Others may think that I have given Subjectivism a less important role than Objectivism in music playback. That may be true. Since I have been an outspoken advocate of Objectivism, it has no doubt contaminated my effort at reconciliation. But my attempt has been in earnest. In any case, other than reserving the right to clarify or defend, this is me signing off… Bryon |
… evidence for too many audiophiles losing the forest for the trees is all over any audio site. I would estimate that at least one person a week posts in each one about how he drove himself crazy and is not enjoying the hobby or the music anymore, or some such story. Learsfool - I agree with you that audiophiles commonly lose the forest for the trees. What I was challenging was the idea, stated in your post on 12/31, that… too many audiophiles lose the forest for the trees by getting bogged down in trying to eliminate various types of colorations, etc. This makes it sound as though audiophiles are more likely to succumb to this loss of perspective if their efforts focus on the reduction of colorations. It is that belief that I was challenging. As I see it, audiophiles can lose perspective focusing on a vast array of concerns. To me, the loss of perspective says more about the psychology of the audiophile than it does the specifics of their preoccupations. …too many listeners to an audio system have their attention split between the music and the equipment, resulting in impaired functionality. They will completely ignore many recordings, even entire recording labels, because "they don't sound good on my system." This, to me, is a crying shame; the definition of misplaced priorities, the system becoming more important than the music. I completely agree with this. Having said that, the quality of recordings is outside the audiophile’s control. The quality of his playback system is not. Therefore, efforts to improve the playback system are rational, provided that they increase his enjoyment while not resulting in the loss of perspective you mentioned. In contrast, audiophiles who regularly avoid inferior recordings are showing symptoms of audio nervosa, and should seek medical attention. My contention earlier in the thread was that if more audiophiles spent some time learning a little music theory and taking an aural skills class, that this will be much more beneficial to their enjoyment of their music in the short term, and for their ability to hear how better to tweak their systems in the long run as they develop these abilities. Agreed. In my view, learning music theory is a way of increasing listening expertise, which brings me to… …the real issue I have is with the "expert listener" concept. The fact that everyone hears differently has been much discussed already in this thread, I will only point out that this certainly includes "expert listeners." This is the issue of how much variability in perception exists among expert listeners. My view, expressed in a previous post, is that once PREFERENCE is differentiated from PERCEPTION, the amount of variability among expert listeners’ PERCEPTION is lower than has been estimated by the Subjectivists on this thread. But this is a matter of speculation for us both. You go on to raise other objections to the concept of an 'expert listener': Too many audiophiles are ONLY concerned about learning to listen for flaws in their systems, and this is as far as their ear training ever goes. I would never call an audiophile of this variety an "expert listener," no matter how many years experience in the hobby they have. Being an expert or a naïve listener is not a binary state. There are DEGREES of listening expertise, and most likely KINDS of listening expertise. The phrase “expert listener” is really just a shorthand way of saying “a person with some degree/kind of listening expertise.” In light of that, the hypothetical audiophile you mention in the passage above does have a certain KIND of expertise. Your reluctance to refer to him as an “expert listener,” in light of his failure to develop other kinds of listening expertise, seems reasonable to me. It does NOT, however, cast doubt of the validity of the concept of 'listening expertise' more generally. Moving on to your next objection: I have talked with people who cannot identify a major from a minor chord, yet claim to hear very specific "colorations" in a speaker when in fact they are merely biased against it's design based on things they have read/been told. These are pseudo-experts. In any field where there are experts, there are pseudo-experts. In some fields it is easier for pseudo-experts to avoid detection, but genuine experts can often tell the difference. More importantly, the existence of pseudo-expert listeners does not cast doubt on the reality of genuinely expert listeners, any more than the existence of pseudo-expert doctors (we all know them) casts doubt on the reality of genuinely expert doctors. …just because one is an audiophile does not mean that one has better ears than someone who is not. On this forum there is usually a new thread every couple of weeks, it seems, where some guy is posting about how his wife heard something better than he did, even though she knows nothing about the hobby… This phenomenon is real. I have experienced a version of it myself. But it does not impugn the concept of ‘listening expertise,’ because, while your wife knows THAT she heard something new or different, better or worse, she usually cannot tell you WHAT she heard, WHY she heard it, or what you should DO about it. That is to say, your wife, as a naïve listener, may have very acute hearing (particularly because she has not abused it as much), but her acute hearing does not make her an expert listener, since she lacks the knowledge and understanding that listening expertise entails. If you need a demonstration of this, the next time your wife mentions that things sound shrill in your system, ask her whether she thinks it is jitter in the source, resonance in the tweeter, or flutter echo in the room. She will remind you, in no uncertain terms, that she is not an expert listener. Orson Welles' final film, F for Fake, is a hilarious send-up of the idea of "expertise," by the way. I think you would greatly enjoy it, though as an objectivist you may find it very disturbing. I think questioning the whole idea of ‘expertise’ has it place, since there are certainly cases where expertise is unfounded, unquestioned, exaggerated, or fabricated. But this does not motivate the abandonment of the concept. That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Expertise is real, though it is also variable, fallible, and counterfeitable. I suspect that nearly everyone believes in expertise, whether they claim to or not. The Onion had an amusing article recently, satirizing the skeptics of expertise: NEW YORK—Inside the Montessori School of Dentistry, you won't find any old-fashioned cotton swabs, or so-called periodontal charts, or even any amalgam fillings. That's because at this alternative-learning institution, students are being encouraged to break away from medical tradition and discover their very own root canal procedures.
"At Montessori, we believe dentistry is more than just the medical practice of treating tooth and gum disorders," school director Dr. Howard Bundt told reporters Tuesday. "It's about fostering creativity. It's about promoting self-expression and individuality. It's about looking at a decayed and rotten nerve pulp and drawing your own unique conclusions."
"When performing a root canal, there's no such thing as right or wrong," said Montessori educator Vanessa Perrin, who added that she doesn't so much teach her students how to treat an inflamed nerve, as lead them to an open mouth and then stand back. "Sure, we could say to our students, 'The enamel here has completely eroded and needs to be addressed immediately.' But what's more satisfying, what's more dynamic, is to just let them slowly develop an 'impression' of why a patient might be screaming." I would encourage skeptics of the concept of 'expertise' to visit the Montessori School of Dentistry for their next root canal. |
Hi Bryon - I have been out of town again for several days, and have just read your last two posts. To respond to the 12/31 one first: evidence for too many audiophiles losing the forest for the trees is all over any audio site. I would estimate that at least one person a week posts in each one about how he drove himself crazy and is not enjoying the hobby or the music anymore, or some such story. We will have to agree to disagree about the applications of analysis to music performance vs. music playback. As you say, both result in music, and the bottom line is whether the music is enjoyable or not. To use your phrases, too many listeners to an audio system have their attention split between the music and the equipment, resulting in impaired functionality. They will completely ignore many recordings, even entire recording labels, because "they don't sound good on my system." This, to me, is a crying shame; the definition of misplaced priorities, the system becoming more important than the music. Many threads on this forum and others have discussed such issues at length. I agree completely that both the art and the science are important, and both have their subjective and objective aspects - it is a question of prioritizing all of this, which will vary with each individual, and there are a great many audiophiles who complain that they struggle with how to do this. My contention earlier in the thread was that if more audiophiles spent some time learning a little music theory and taking an aural skills class, that this will be much more beneficial to their enjoyment of their music in the short term, and for their ability to hear how better to tweak their systems in the long run as they develop these abilities. The one must be done to truly be able to do the other, as one must decide not just whether or not a coloration is there, but how damaging to the music it actually is - preferences determining priorities (the classic example would be the analog/digital debate).
This brings me to your post of 1/5. Not sure I agree with everything you say about your numbers 1), 2), and 3), but granting them for the moment, the real issue I have is with the "expert listener" concept. The fact that everyone hears differently has been much discussed already in this thread, I will only point out that this certainly includes "expert listeners." Mrtennis has made some other very good points about human hearing in this thread. Too many audiophiles are ONLY concerned about learning to listen for flaws in their systems, and this is as far as their ear training ever goes. I would never call an audiophile of this variety an "expert listener," no matter how many years experience in the hobby they have. I have talked with people who cannot identify a major from a minor chord, yet claim to hear very specific "colorations" in a speaker when in fact they are merely biased against it's design based on things they have read/been told, and probably could not tell one speaker from another if their back was turned and they were only relying on their ears, to use an extreme example. I have often read a review of one of my orchestra's concerts in the paper the next day and wondered if the reviewer was at the same concert I was. Same with the reviewer of a piece of audio equipment. And just because one is an audiophile does not mean that one has better ears than someone who is not. On this forum there is usually a new thread every couple of weeks, it seems, where some guy is posting about how his wife heard something better than he did, even though she knows nothing about the hobby, helping him make up his mind. Orson Welles' final film, F for Fake, is a hilarious send-up of the idea of "expertise," by the way. I think you would greatly enjoy it, though as an objectivist you may find it very disturbing. :) |
When I began this thread, I advocated a strict kind of Objectivism regarding coloration and neutrality. That is to say, I argued that coloration and neutrality are characteristics that are INDPENDENT OF PERSONS. In my second post on 12/12, I relaxed my position somewhat, by defining colorations as “audible inaccuracies.” If colorations are “audible,” I conceded, then their existence is DEPENDENT UPON PERSONS. In that sense, I believe that…
(1) Colorations are SUBJECTIVE characteristics.
To say that colorations are subjective characteristics is to say that their existence is DEPENDENT UPON PERSONS. For example, one person may hear distortion when another person does not, which seems true enough. In cases where two people disagree about the presence of a coloration, a Subjectivist might conclude either…
(a) There is no fact of the matter about whether the coloration in question exists.
…or…
(b) The coloration in question exists for one person but not for the other.
I believe that (b) is correct. In other words, in cases of intersubjective disagreement, a coloration exists for one person but not for another. Put another way, the existence of a coloration is, to some extent, IN THE EAR OF THE BEHOLDER. I say “to some extent” because, to a complementary extent, colorations are also IN THE WORLD, as I will now try to show…
Recall that I defined colorations as “audible inaccuracies.” By defining colorations as “audible,” I have acknowledged that they are SUBJECTIVE. But by defining colorations as “inaccuracies,” I have subsumed colorations under a larger category of characteristics that are OBJECTIVE, namely, inaccuracies. In other words, I believe that…
(2) Inaccuracies are OBJECTIVE characteristics.
In a previous post, I defined inaccuracies as: Alterations to information in the playback system that conceal, corrupt, or eliminate information about the music. To say that inaccuracies are objective is to say that their existence is INDEPENDENT OF PERSONS. For example, jitter may exist in a playback system even if no one can hear it. The existence of jitter is therefore independent of persons, or objective. Likewise for other inaccuracies.
Taking (1) and (2) together, we get:
(1) Colorations are SUBJECTIVE characteristics.
(2) Inaccuracies are OBJECTIVE characteristics.
This raises the following question: What is the relation between colorations, as subjective characteristics, and inaccuracies, as objective characteristics? The answer, I believe, is that…
(3) Colorations CORRELATE with inaccuracies for expert listeners.
In my view, as a person develops expert perception with respect to the playback of recorded music, inaccuracies become more audible. Put another way, as listener expertise increases, the perceptibility of colorations increases. For this reason, the expert listener will hear far more colorations than the naïve listener.
In light of this, colorations are clues that help the audiophile understand his system. By correlating with inaccuracies, colorations enable the audiophile to use his ears to identify how information about the music has been concealed, corrupted, or eliminated by his system. And colorations empower the audiophile to make informed changes to his system when the inaccuracies those colorations reveal are inconsistent with his preferences. |
Great ideas for a Gazlay's sequel. |
I guess my feeling is that too many audiophiles lose the forest for the trees by getting bogged down in trying to eliminate various types of colorations, etc. What is the evidence for this belief? Why is the effort to reduce colorations any more likely to “bog down” the audiophile or make him “lose the forest for the trees” than any other audiophile pursuit? …the search for "neutrality" usually ends up with a very lifeless, unmusical presentation. My experience is exactly the opposite. That is to say, as I have reduced the colorations in my system, its presentation has become more musical. There is nothing musical about intermodulation distortion. There is nothing musical about speaker cabinet resonance. There is nothing musical about room modes. And these are just a few examples of colorations. A better approach, for me, is to keep the concentration on the forest by choosing components that come the closest to how you want the music to sound overall. Analysis of different types of colorations can help this, but too much focus on it is detrimental in the end. The same goes for a performer that gets too bogged down in certain aspects of technique, losing the focus on the phrasing, for example. One of the most famous horn players and teachers in the country likes to say "analysis is paralysis." Some is very necessary, but too much is fatal. The value of analysis for successful music playback cannot be validly inferred from the value of analysis for a successful musical performance. Creating a system is not like creating a performance, except that both result in music. Analysis interferes with a musical performance because the centers of the brain that mediate sensorimotor functioning are distinct from those that mediate conceptual functioning, and simultaneously activating both centers disrupts the functioning of both. It is the problem of split attention, and the impaired functioning that inevitably results from it. This fact has no analogue in creating a playback system. The only context that resembles the mutually antagonistic relationship between analysis and performance is analysis and listening to a playback system. That is to say, successful listening can be frustrated by too much real-time analysis. But listening is not the only source of valuable information when assembling a playback system. There is also learning and reflection. And analysis does not frustrate successful learning and reflection. On the contrary, it promotes them. Which brings me to… …one's system choices IMO should be much more artistic than scientific, the science being used in the service of the music, not indulged in for it's own sake. I think the implied contrast here between art and science, and hence between things subjective and things objective, is a misconception both of art and science. Having spent the better part of a decade devoted to the study of one, and an equal number of years devoted to the study and practice of the other, I can say from personal experience that both art and science require their practitioners to be both subjective and objective. Put another way, the analysis of science would be impossible without a large amount of creativity, and the creativity of art would be impossible without a large amount of analysis. |
Dgarretson, I was speaking more of improvement in listener ability than improvement in technology. It would be the former, not the latter, that would "liberate him to reassess and refine preference," no matter what the context. As I think I may have said some time back in this thread, one should learn something anytime one listens critically, even if it is one more way not to do it. As different audiophiles refine their own preferences in this way, these preferences should become more and more unique to each individual.
As far as technology is concerned, I think a great many audiophiles would argue that there haven't necessarily been any huge advances in basic audio technology in a long time now. Many people on this and other boards lament the trend towards more and more compression, etc. Certainly the "golden age" of orchestral recording was decades ago now. My point is not to start an argument over different types/advances in technology, but merely to point out that a new technology is not necessarily better. Also, as you implied in your last post, no matter what type of technology one prefers for the various system components, building a system with the best possible components is simply out of reach of most of our budgets. We all make choices based on what we can afford, refining these as we go along in this hobby. I have a few different ideas about the directions I would like to go with my system in the future, but they are on hold, probably for some time.
Bryon, I understand how you are differentiating priorities from preferences. However, I think that the latter should always determine the former, not the other way around. As far as "taste" goes, the interpretation my brother and I are using is the set of judgements about what is most valuable when choosing among characteristics, as you put it. Quality would have more to do with how close a component or system comes to matching the ideal playback characteristics in this context, though again this would ultimately be a subjective judgement as well.
I guess my feeling is that too many audiophiles lose the forest for the trees by getting bogged down in trying to eliminate various types of colorations, etc. This is ultimately a negative approach, and as several have pointed out, the search for "neutrality" usually ends up with a very lifeless, unmusical presentation. A better approach, for me, is to keep the concentration on the forest by choosing components that come the closest to how you want the music to sound overall. Analysis of different types of colorations can help this, but too much focus on it is detrimental in the end. The same goes for a performer that gets too bogged down in certain aspects of technique, losing the focus on the phrasing, for example. One of the most famous horn players and teachers in the country likes to say "analysis is paralysis." Some is very necessary, but too much is fatal. He also says that "technique should serve the music, never the other way around." Similarly, the overall sound of the system is most important, not any one particular detail of it. Put another way, one's system choices IMO should be much more artistic than scientific, the science being used in the service of the music, not indulged in for it's own sake.
|
…perception cannot be totally separated from preference, even if one is trying to be as objective as possible. Learsfool – I agree with this. My view is that, although perception and preference are always commingled to some extent, they can nevertheless be distinguished by expert listeners. There may be no such thing as "preference-less" perception, but I believe that it is possible, and often useful, to form judgments about perception that are MINIMALLY INFLUENCED by preference. I know that you are a professional musician. I would imagine that, if you play in an orchestra, you must have had experiences that require you form judgments about perception while ignoring your own preferences, as for example, when you disagree with the preferences of the conductor. The main thing I would disagree with in your argument would be where you state that the more listener expertise increases, the more [variability in] preference will decrease. I would go so far as to state the opposite. The more one's listening skills improve, the more this will help determine and reinforce what one's preferences are. I agree with this, if “preferences” is interpreted as “priorities.” In other words, I believe that, although audiophiles have largely similar PREFERENCES, they have largely different PRIORITIES. This is not merely a semantic difference, as I hope the following will show... Here is a list of playback system characteristics, in no particular order: -Resolution -Realistic dynamics (macro- and micro-) -Tonal balance -Low Noise -Realistic transients (attack, sustain, decay) -Neutrality -Transparency (to the music) -Accuracy (to the software) -Scale -Coherence -Warmth -Realistic instrument timbres -Extension at the frequency extremes (high and low) It seems to me that the vast majority of audiophiles would PREFER to have as many of the characteristics on this list as possible, with one or two possible exceptions, like neutrality. But budgets are limited, and no system at any budget can do everything, so audiophiles are forced to PRIORITZE the value of these characteristics for themselves. And differences in audiophile priorities results in different approaches to system building. It is important to point out that very few of the characteristics on the list above are mutually exclusive, in theory. Perhaps neutrality and warmth are mutually exclusive in theory, but even this is arguable, particularly if we think of warmth the way Dgarretson suggested, namely, as embodiment. The characteristics above are mutually exclusive only in practice, because of limitations of design and budget. But the fact that so few (or possibly none) of the characteristics that audiophiles value are mutually exclusive, in theory, highlights the fact that different approaches to system building among audiophiles is more attributable to different PRIORITIES than to different PREFERENCES. This brings me to the question of “taste.” I think that, if “taste” is interpreted as A SET OF IDEAL PLAYBACK CHARACTERISTICS like the list above, then audiophiles can, and do, often agree. But if “taste” is interpreted as A SET OF JUDGMENTS ABOUT WHAT IS MOST VALUABLE when having to choose among those characteristics, you are quite right that audiophiles will never agree. |
Learsfool, as one progressively raises the bar in the hobby through a process of acquiring or hearing successively improved components, what is the nature of the "reinforcement of preference" that you propose is occuring? Assuming that break-throughs in technology and improvements in price/performance ratio are actually obtainable and that one welcomes this process, is the result of change merely to cement the listener to a prior preference of coloration, or to liberate him to reassess and refine preference in the context of a newly available perceptions? Seems to me that the very notion of progress implies change in the latter sense. |
Wow - I have been unable to read/post here for a while now due to the busy holiday season, and I see that I have missed quite a bit! I would like to comment on a couple of different things here.
Mrtennis - I would like to give you an example of a different sort of analysis that can greatly increase your enjoyment of music, and this would be the study of music theory, particularly the study of different musical forms. Your appreciation and enjoyment of the genius behind say a Bach fugue, or a Mozart symphony will be greatly enhanced by the study of these forms. Or say you prefer jazz - there are several basic forms one can study here that will yield much greater appreciation for the art of Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, Wynton Marsalis, or whoever your favorites are. A great book I like to recommend, which is written in terms a "layman" can understand, is the composer Aaron Copland's book What To Listen For In Music. I do not know of a better introduction to these sorts of topics for the listener than this excellent work. Many audiophiles devote an amazing amount of time studying electronics, etc.; musical forms are a much less complex and easier to understand subject, and this sort of study is much more directly beneficial to your enjoyment of whatever you are listening to.
Bryon, your preference/perception discussion is interesting. I would go a little farther than dgarretson's response and say that perception is always going to be hugely influenced by preference for each individual listener. This is what my brother was driving at in his taste/quality comment. It is all too easy, no matter how experienced the listener is, for taste to influence the judgement of quality - perception cannot be totally separated from preference, even if one is trying to be as objective as possible. The main thing I would disagree with in your argument would be where you state that the more listener expertise increases, the more preference will decrease. I would go so far as to state the opposite. The more one's listening skills improve, the more this will help determine and reinforce what one's preferences are. This has been the case with my own explorations of the different options in high end audio. The more I learn, the clearer and stronger my preferences become. You seem to be arguing that the more experienced listeners will gravitate towards the same idea of "neutrality," whereas I would argue that the opposite would be the case. I think the recent discussion between dgarretson and muralman and kijanki on preferences bears this out. Ultimately, your "neutrality" is a subjective, personal judgement, no matter how well we can objectively identify different types of colorations. |
Dgarretson wrote: …my view is that analytic & sterile err at the opposite extreme of unresolving warmth. Both kinds of extremes are colorations and as such, represent deviations from neutrality. I completely agree with this. And: My personal preference (and also my perception of neutrality) is to have as much warmth & embodiment as can be obtained without compromising transparency, high resolution, and realistic pitch & timbre. I suppose this reveals a romantic bias. However merely reversing the same adjectives in order of importance would tend to indicate an analytic bias. Regardless of one's starting point on a scale of preference, neutrality tends to occur toward the middle. For me "better" is about finding that middle while doing a bit more of everything right at both extremes of the scale. If I were to state my personal preferences for the playback of recorded music, this would be it. |
it seems there exists a dichotomy--enjoment of music and analysis for its own sake. one may satisify the need for achievment (analysis to achieve neutrality) while the other may attain pleasure for a liatener. |
Dgarretson - I also like system a little on the warm side because too warm CDs are not as unbearable as too bright ones.
There is also an issue of cost and compromise. My brother's modest system consisting of Marantz 6000KI, Nad and inexpensive Cabasse speakers is not highly resolving or very dynamic but it has very pleasant balanced sound. I'm sorry for the people who made wrong, in my opinion, compromise selecting very bright and very resolving gear. |
Such descriptions of personal experiences regarding coloration and neutrality as related to specific components, may serve as helpful illustrations of abstractions explored elsewhere in the thread.
My personal preference (and also my perception of neutrality) is to have as much warmth & embodiment as can be obtained without compromising transparency, high resolution, and realistic pitch & timbre. I suppose this reveals a romantic bias. However merely reversing the same adjectives in order of importance would tend to indicate an analytic bias. Regardless of one's starting point on a scale of preference, neutrality tends to occur toward the middle. For me "better" is about finding that middle while doing a bit more of everything right at both extremes of the scale. When this occurs it becomes clear that this is not a zero-sum game. |
Oops - did I say I want neutral sound? I guess we're all searching for natural/balanced sound but it's definition is very personal. |
Dgarretson - You're obviously in a "warm" camp while I'm searching for neutral sound. It just happened that my new Hyperion HPS-938 speakers combine resolution and speed of electrostats with a definition and dynamics of dynamic/cone type of speakers. In addition to incredible low level resolution it has relaxed presentation and makes poorly (bright) recorded CDs to sound OK. I've never heard speakers like that in stores here but my experience is limited. It is not warmth of the sound but rather relaxed presentation (still very snappy and dynamic). |
Kijanki, Warmth that lacks correct pitch definition is yet one more example of an undesirable coloration-- often indicative of weaknesses in rectification, power supply, or coupling caps. IME it is one of the most difficult problems to eliminate in a tube component, but it is not inherent in tubes per se, and once resolved, warmth is preserved with improved "neutrality" as a sense of full & natural embodiment, but without overhang, mid-bass bulge, or congestion.
At the opposing extreme of coloration that some would describe as an overly analytical presentation, the Benchmark is an OK DAC that has been substantially improved by an active community of modifiers. Rather than use a budget DAC to illustrate the point about an opposing coloration in constrast to warmth, it might be more interesting to think about something like a Martin Logan full range electrostatic. In this case at least, we have an absolutely clear window into high resolution, with loss of embodiment and warmth as perhaps a necessary design compromise. But I would submit that within the limitations of what this speaker DOES it is operating in a neutral (i.e uncolored) manner. This assertion follows earlier distinctions made by Bryon concerning errors of commission compared to errors of omission. |
Vince, I'm sorry - I read it too quick. |
You did not read what I wrote. I said I changed that colored DAC to a DAC with equal access to all frequencies. That is what I want. |
there was an iteresting piece in stereophile edited by markus sauer which attempted to show that there was no evidence that sound quality had a high correlation to satisfaction when listening to music.
i agree, from an academic basisis, that analysis is a worthy pursuit. it sharpens the brain cells.
however, except for system malfunction, or disssatisfaction with what one is hearing, that it is a useful endeavor when listening to music.
there are many topics that i have introduced myself for purely philosophical purposes, rather than to enhance the enjoyment of music.
i enjoy a good debate and i think that this subject lends itself to practice one's debating skills.
the question of this thread may be rhetorical, after all, in that it has no definitive answer. |
Tuned to warmth - that is your preference. I don't care for warmth (other than winter clothing here in Chicago). |
Kijanki, let me give you an example. I have a DAC that is tuned to warmth. This is accomplished by the use of signal constricting diodes for the most part. Replacing that diode with a wide open gate diode. I get to hear those twinkly highs, and high pitched piercing sounds. |
Vince, I hope you realize that what sounds neutral to you might sound too warm or too cold to somebody else. I don't question that one might perceive sound as neutral but it is just only personal subjective opinion.
Dgarretson wrote - "There are many instances in which internal mods to electronics improve resolution while also preserving and even enhancing warmth. A move in this direction is an uncompromising step toward neutrality."
This statement makes warmer equal neutral. In addition there are mentioned "undesirable colorations" or "negative colorations" (oppose to desired colorations or positive colorations)
If there is a proof that neutral is subjective this is it. |
Complete neutrality, that is the live performance, cannot be fully attained by the engineers or the playback system. My goal is to bring out the best of what I have on the CD. That is my striving for neutrality.
Color is a fine for others. I know of one major critic of mine that says the more warmth generated into the music the better. He uses the cello as a favorite example. To him, the more voluminous the sound the better. Just load it up with euphonic tubes.
Sterile is another coloration. Real music is never sterile, well, almost never. |
Dgarretson - absolutely agree. The problem is who is the judge? My system sounds very resolving and natural to me whilst I'm not sure it would sound the same to you.
You are already "contaminated" believing that warm resolving sound is a goal. Warm sound (enhanced even harmonics) sounds wonderful on voice or guitar but is pretty bad on instruments with harmonic structure more complex than common overtones - like piano or percussion instruments. Piano, according to Benchmark's technical director John Siau can sound on very warm system "out of tune". |
Kijanki, my view is that analytic & sterile err at the opposite extreme of unresolving warmth. Both kinds of extremes are colorations and as such, represent deviations from neutrality. There are many instances in which internal mods to electronics improve resolution while also preserving and even enhancing warmth. A move in this direction is an uncompromising step toward neutrality. Granted there are no absolutes, but as long as a playback system bothers one even a bit with an undesireable coloration, I do not rationalize away the negative coloration as an inevitable compromise. For me the notion of a step toward neutrality is a useful construct to describe resolution of what in the conventional wisdom of audio may appear on the surface to be unreconciliable characteristics. Resolutions of this type may be heard as the system getting out of the way of the music. |
Muralman1 wrote "Better is the listener's subjective notion of how he likes the music colored."
Vince, you assume listener thinks that his sound is colored. Just ask owner of very warm sounding system (vinyl, tubes, warm speakers) if his system sounds natural (natural sound being effect of neutral system and neutral recording) - I would be very surprised if they'll say that sound is colored.
What is natural sounding to me might be horrible sounding to someone else. Bryon was trying to bring "listening experience" here believing that one can "neutralize" sound he likes by getting more listening experience. I don't think so - just look at my example with critics and class D amps in previous post. |
Dgarretson- you suggest in your question that neutral is a good thing. My Benchmark DAC1 was, in studio test, the most accurate DAC but it was also called sterile, analytic etc. and not picked as a best DAC at the end.
Neutral often means analytic, dry, uninvolving, sterile
Better often means warm, tubey, vinyl etc.
You will find on this forum people who like sound of class D amps including me, Muralman1, Guidocorona and many others but you will also find people who just hate it. Same with critics - many called it horrible but Jeff Rowland switched whole production to class D only.
All opinions expressed on this forum are relative to something. We say "warmer than..." "more resolving than..." etc. because sound is a very subjective matter and absolute terms like "neutral" don't even exist. |
Neutral is the letting the music on the disc to be fully realized.
Better is the listener's subjective notion of how he likes the music colored.
You see this all the time, like when someone starts a thread asking for the, "Smoothest CD player." A lively rock and a lot of jazz discs will not comply - unless smoothed - read dulled. |
"Sounding better and sounding neutral are two completely different things."
Assuming that one accepts common usage in critical vocabulary that "neutral" means "uncolored," can you suggest a better term than neutral to describe the experience of "better"? |
Bryon - Analyzing or not is a personal preference but we disagree about something different - your believe that more neutral system will sound better and more diverse to most of the people.
Sounding better and sounding neutral are two completely different things. |
Bryon, several posts back you raise interesting points by distinguishing between perceptions and preferences, while acknowledging their interrelatedness. You suggest that perception and preference are fungible characteristics that both evolve through educated listening, and that preference follows perception, albeit at a slower rate of change. You maintain that there are fewer differences in perception between educated listeners than is generally remarked. Through educated listening, divergences of preference may ultimately represent shared but differently weighted perceptions.
My sense is that listeners who have moved through the arc of lots of equipment generally experience "progress" in their evolution, and look back on past components with an admission that the process was a journey of perception and taste, rather than a random sensory experience. One would like to believe that perception is on the leading edge of preference. There is enough logical positivism in the process to suggest science, and enough metaphysics to justify continued purchases. |
if you enjoy a stereo system while listening to music, you won't enjoy it any more by analyzing it...any attempt to judge the attributes of a stereo system usually does not enhance the pleasure one gets from listening to music in general. while reviewers assess the merits of stereo sysytems, i question the utility of such an endeavor for serious listeners. Mrtennis - I disagree that the "analysis" of music playback cannot enhance a person's enjoyment of it. But even if that were true, or we agree for the sake of argument that it is true, I would ask: Why can't analysis be valuable even if it is irrelevant to listening enjoyment? For many people, "analysis" as you call it, or what I think of as the exploration of ideas, is an end in itself, not requiring further "utility" to be valuable. For many people, it brings its own kind of enjoyment. And those who don't enjoy the exploration of ideas are not compelled to participate. There are many threads on Audiogon that are irrelevant to my interests, so I simply ignore them. You find the exploration of ideas irrelevant to your interest of listening enjoyment. What I find odd is that you regard it as irrelevant, but do not treat it as irrelevant. Having said that, I disagree that the exploration of ideas cannot enhance listening enjoyment. The most obvious way in which analysis can enhance listening enjoyment is when analyzing your system results in decisions to change components in a way that is more consistent with your preferences, thereby enhancing your enjoyment. It seems to me that this is by far the most common form of "analysis" on Audiogon. You seem to agree with this to some extent, as is reflected in your comment that "obviously if you don't like the sound of your stereo system, it may be useful to determine the reason." But you mention this almost in passing, as though it were a small consideration for audiophiles, rather than one of their central concerns. What makes your dismissive attitude toward analysis all the more puzzling is the number of threads you yourself have initiated on Audiogon, with titles like: -What is good sound? -Hardware or software: Which is more important? -Minimize ambiguity when describing audio components -What is the difference between good and bad sound? -Neutrality and transparency: What’s the difference? All of these seem to fall clearly within the category of "analysis." But to return to the point... There are other ways in which analysis, or the exploration of ideas, can enhance listening enjoyment. In an earlier post, I mentioned that there is an abundance of evidence from the cognitive sciences that the development of concepts enhances the development of expert perception. I would now add that the development of expert perception enhances listening enjoyment. And if that is true, then the development of concepts enhances, if only indirectly, listening enjoyment. In addition, I would like to point out: What enhances enjoyment varies from person to person. For some, the pleasure of listening to Mozart is enhanced by knowing something about Mozart's life. For others, those facts are irrelevant to their enjoyment of his music. To make the point a different way: It enhances my enjoyment to listen to music in complete darkness. For another person this may be irrelevant. The point is that what enhances enjoyment varies from person to person, and to assume otherwise leads to false generalizations. I hope this makes apparent the value of "analysis," namely, that it is the process by which ideas are discovered. And in my view, the discovery of ideas is both an end in itself and a means for further enrichments. |
hi byron:
my point is simple:
if you enjoy a stereo system while listening to music, you won't enjoy it any more by analyzing it.
unless one is a reviewer, the analytical mode is often an academic excercise with little reference to the satisfaction one attains from listening to music.
any attempt to judge the attributes of a stereo system ususually does not enhance the pleasure one gets from listening to music in general.
while reviewers assess the merits of stereo sysytems, i question the utility of such an endeavor for serious listeners.
obviously if you don't like the sound of your stereo system, it may be useful to determine the reason. |
Bryoncunningham - You're a nice guy and I like reading your posts very much. Merry Christmas to you and all Audiogonners. |
Mrtennis and Kijanki - I have said many, many times on this thread that I believe that neutrality is only one virtue AMONG MANY. Perhaps I should begin several new threads, "How do you judge your system's resolution? ...musicality? ...beauty?" Each of those would be interesting topics, and it might help convince you that my statements about the finite value of neutrality are sincere.
Kijanki - I did not intend to offend you by my use of "sic." It is an old habit from years of writing. I apologize.
Mrtennis - You asked: "why is there such an interest in trying to determine a stereo systems neutrality"? I would ask in return: Why is there such an interest in diminishing the value of these discussions? |
Bryoncunningham - we have two problems here:
First - you believe that more neutral sound will be a joy to most of the people - not true. People like particular sound of their system (coloring, attack, decay reverberation etc.) even it it is not exactly real.
Second: music on neutral system will sound more unique and diverse. Not true, IMHO, since certain aspects of music will still keep its proportion no matter how system plays it. Somehow you imply that system looses resolution and therefore ablility to present differences. It is not true since most of the tube amps do some coloring keeping high resolution and proportions at the same time.
As for your comment "What is [sic] suppose" I hope you realize it was a typo (but even if it wasn't it was not a pleasant thing to print - I'm perhaps one of those foreign guys, you mentioned, that cannot appreciate good discussion) |
does anyone posit that in order to enjoy the fruits of listening to music it is necessary or ssufficient to have a method of assessing a systems' neutrality ?
if , as i suspect it is not necessary or sufficient to be concenrened with the coloroations or lack thereof to enjoy music, why is there such an interest in trying to determine a stereo systems neutrality or the lack thereof, regardless of methodology.
there seems to be an implicit sense in the desirability of pursuing some algorithm for "measuring" neutrality which, unfortunately may be uncorrelated to the results of listening to music. |
Mrtennis wrote: regarding neutrality, without a reference it is impossible to judge neutrality, accuracy or transparency.
when a recording is considered a reference for assessing the neutrality of a stereo system, the reference, either a live sound or recording is not knowable. hence it is best to use other terms than the aforementioned when trying to describe the sound of a stereo system. And Kijanki wrote: Let assume this: I go to concert and 2 days later they make CD from this particular concert (they are very very fast), while my poor aural memory is still fresh. I play it at home and discover that piano has different tone and its dynamics are much smaller than what I remember. What is [sic] suppose to think? Is it my system coloring or is it recording engineer plus recording equipment coloring? These comments have an underlying assumption in common, namely, that any valid method for judging coloration/neutrality requires and EXTERNAL STANDARD against which the coloration/neutrality of a system is compared. That external standard could be (a) the "absolute sound" of the recording, if it exists; (b) the musical event that the recording captured, if it exists; or (c) an aural memory of a similar or identical musical event, if it exists. All of these standards involve states or events that are EXTERNAL to the playback system. Hence any method that employed one or more of them would be a kind of METHODOLOGICAL EXTERNALISM. I agree with Mrtennis and Kijanki that Methodological Externalism has problems, perhaps even insuperable ones. But I disagree with their conclusion that it is therefore impossible to judge the coloration/neutrality of a system. That is because there is another approach to judging the coloration/neutrality of a system, namely, METHODOLOGICAL INTERNALISM. That is to say, the coloration/neutrality of a system can be judged by COMPARING IT TO ITSELF. Or more precisely, to a slightly different version of itself. I made this point in my first post on 12/7, where I wrote: Tvad is taking up the contention, made by Learsfool and Kijanki, that in order to judge the coloration/neutrality of a system, you must know what the recording is “supposed to sound like." Learsfool and Kijanki have used that contention as the first premise of the following argument:
(i) If you are to judge the coloration/neutrality of a system, you must know what the recording is supposed to sound like.
(ii) You cannot know what the recording is supposed to sound like.
(iii) Therefore, you cannot judge the coloration/neutrality of a system.
The reasoning of this argument is valid. But, in my view, the argument is unsound, because it contains a FALSE PREMISE, namely, premise (i), that the ONLY way to judge the coloration/neutrality of a system is to know what the recording is "supposed to sound like." That premise is false, I believe, because there is ANOTHER way to judge the coloration/neutrality of a system, namely:
(1) Individual pieces of music sound more unique.
(2) Your music collection sounds more diverse.
In other words, my operationalization of neutralty is a method for judging the coloration/neutrality of a system that DOES NOT REQUIRE YOU TO KNOW WHAT THE RECORDING IS SUPPOSED TO SOUND LIKE. It only requires you to make judgments about changes in CONTRAST or DIFFERENTIATION.
Admittedly, my operationalization is only a way to judge the RELATIVE level of coloration/neutrality of a system, not its ABSOLUTE level of coloration/neutrality. But this is still valuable to the average audiophile, since he must make relative judgments all the time, such as, when changing components. And the fact that my operationalization of neutrality enables the audiophile to make (relative) judgments about coloration/neutrality without knowing what the recording is "supposed to sound like" is what makes the operationalization so actionable. The method for judging coloration/neutrality that I proposed in the OP was an example of Methodological Internalism, in the sense that it does not require a standard external to the playback system to make judgments about coloration/neutrality. As a result, it does not suffer the drawbacks of Methodological Externalism, such as those described by Mrtennis and Kijanki. It is worth pointing out that Dgarretson proposed an alternative method of judging the coloration/neutrality of a system and that his method is also Methodologically Internalist. Moving on... Mrtennis wrote: ...neutrality is such an abstract concept that it may be irrelevant as far as configuring a stereo system. And Kijanki wrote: Lets leave categorizing and testing to academics - scientists, psychologists etc. Here we have more resistance to abstraction, categorization, and testing. My second post on 12/15 expressed my thoughts about this kind of resistance, and repeating myself on this issue would be tedious. Suffice to say that, in my view, resisting abstraction, categorization, and testing is tantamount to resisting thinking, reasoning, and observing. |
Learsfool - Sorry for the late reply. I've been traveling for the holiday.
To share with you the reasons for the questions I asked you in my previous post:
RE: (1) Do you believe that colorations can be either increased or decreased?
This was a way of asking whether you believe in (a) variability in the degree of coloration for components and systems, and (b) variability in their degree of neutrality, defined as the degree of absence of coloration. As I understand your view, you believe in (a) but not (b).
RE: (2) Do you believe that colorations can be evaluated as to their euphony or "dysphony" by individual listeners?
This was a way of asking whether you believe in individual preferences regarding colorations. I agree with you that no one is likely to answer this question in the negative. It was really a preface to my third question...
RE: (3) Do you believe that judgments about euphony/dysphony have any consistency across multiple listeners?
This was a way of asking your view on the existence and extent of agreement about PREFERENCE. As I understand your view, you believe that agreement about preference exists but its extent is limited to small groups of audiophiles with similar tastes.
RE: (4) Do you believe that what I hear as "red," you hear as "blue"?
This was a way of asking your view on the existence and extent of agreement about PERCEPTION. As I understand your view, you believe that perception across individual listeners is similar but not identical.
Learsfool - These four questions are linked by their mutual relevance to a recurring issue on this thread: How much can audiophiles agree in their judgments about coloration/neutrality? I have expressed the optimistic view that audiophiles often can, and do, agree about these judgments. Other posters, including you, have been more skeptical about the extent of actual or possible agreement.
My current point is that a valid estimation of the amount of agreement requires differentiating agreement about PERCEPTION from agreement about PREFERENCE. That is because, in my view, the amount of agreement about perception is GREATER than the amount of agreement about preference. In addition, I think that perception and preference have sometimes been conflated on this thread, with the result that THE AMOUNT OF DISAGREEMENT AMONG AUDIOPHILES HAS BEEN OVERESTIMATED. To elaborate...
I believe the following about LISTENER PERCEPTION:
1. As expertise increases, variability in listener perception decreases.
2. As variability in listener perception decreases, agreement about perception increases.
.....Therefore.....
3. As expertise increases, agreement about perception increases.
In my view, there are many expert listeners* among audiophiles. Because of this, I believe that THE AMOUNT OF ACTUAL AGREEMENT ABOUT PERCEPTION IS FAIRLY HIGH AMONG AUDIOPHILES.
As I stated in a previous post, in my view, listener expertise can be developed. Because of this, I believe that THE AMOUNT OF POSSIBLE AGREEMENT ABOUT PERCEPTION IS EVEN HIGHER.
*An "expert listener" could be contrasted with a "naive listener." This is not really a binary state. Like all expertise, listening expertise is a matter of degree. But, for certain purposes, it is useful to designate some arbitrary level of expertise as a threshold for being an "expert listener."
Regarding LISTENER PREFERENCE, I believe that:
1. As expertise increases, variability in listener preference decreases, but at a much slower and less linear rate than listener perception.
2. As variability in listener preference decreases, agreement about preferences increases.
.....Therefore.....
3. As expertise increases, agreement about preferences increases, but at a much slower and less linear rate than agreement about perception.
In my view, the loose relation between listener expertise and listener preference results in ONLY A MODERATE AMOUNT OF ACTUAL AND POSSIBLE AGREEMENT ABOUT PREFERENCE. I also believe that variability in listener preference can never be reduced to zero, and therefore agreement about preference can never be complete.
As I hope this shows, differentiating listener perception from listener preference is essential for a valid estimation of how much agreement, actual or possible, exists among audiophiles. I believe that, while preferences are often diverse and sometimes incommensurable, perception is usually comparable and sometimes identical, particularly with the development of expertise. |
Observations:
There are some really intelligent people in this forum.
Should this thread really be called or directed toward "acceptable system colorations"?
After slogging through the final page of this thread I realized it was an hour I would never get back that I could have spent listening to my "system colorations."
I will waive all fees associated with use of my user name in describing auditory phenomena. |
Vince - Yes, I can recognize piano when I hear one (I think), but we're talking about subtle differences and perfect aural memory (mine is far from it). When Learsfool, musician by trade, says that remembering exact sound is difficult (if "reference" sound even exists) for me it will be very difficult or impossible (there are reasons I'm not a musician!). I can tell if I like the sound but to tell if it's accurate is beyond me.
Let assume this: I go to concert and 2 days later they make CD from this particular concert (they are very very fast), while my poor aural memory is still fresh. I play it at home and discover that piano has different tone and its dynamics are much smaller than what I remember. What is suppose to think? Is it my system coloring or is it recording engineer plus recording equipment coloring? Well - there is remedy for that. Let listen to many recordings of the piano to take "average" sound and verify how good my recording is. It happens that all recordings have low dynamics and different tone. Hmm - is it my system or recording engineer? He wouldn't be so ruthless to kill dynamics - it has to be my system then or I remember wrong.
That was one possibility. Imagine now that my speakers resonate with the floor at low frequency extending speaker's response. Some love it while others hate bass with poor definition. What is closer to neutral sound? It depends whom you ask.
I like sound of my system and don't really care how true it is to reality especially if there isn't one that can be defined. I also realize that you might hate sound of my system and that's the beauty of audio experience. Lets leave categorizing and testing to academics - scientists, psychologists etc. |
kijanki, The point I am making is, if you know what a grand sounds like and if you know your system can convincingly reproduce the sound of a grand piano you would know it. You don't have to know if the recording you are listening to sounds just the same as what was recorded. You have to make a judgement call on whether your system can recreate the sound of a piano to your satisfaction.
Like yours, all my recorded piano solos sound different. I have a few that were exceptionally recorded. I use those at full throttle to judge my playback. |
there is much subjectivity involved in making statements of a quantitative natture without a reference and relying exclusively upon memory.
when comparing say, 2 stereo systems, i suspect that there will be significant disagreements among serious listeners, unless a piano is available for comparison to a recording, as a basis for judgment. memory is too unreliable. i have some personal experienece as part of a master's program in psychology.
i do not trust aural memory.
there are ways to compare stereo systems which require elaborate designs, which are often impractical.
neutrality is such an abstract concept that it may be irrelevant as far as configuring a stereo system. |
Vince - I have many piano recordings and each of them is different (some very different). Even same modern Steinway can sound very different (not talking about other brands, non cast iron plate pianos or uprights).
At each concert they also sound very different even if it is the same brand and model (instrument, concert hall, seating).
1. Which concert sound I supposed to remember?
2. Which recording to use for testing my system?
3. Everybody else has to agree with me to make it objective
(in good society everybody has exactly same opinions anyway)
If the goal is to tell piano from the hammer, as CB723 suggested, I think it can be possibly done. |
Mr. Tennis, You aren't telling us your short memory prevents you from recognizing a live piano sound from one occasion to another. What would keep you from recognizing a music system that comes darn close, and know how far it varies? |
hi cbw:
aural memory is very short. when judging the diffference between live and recordeded sound it is likely that one will be able to do so.
however, when comparing two recordings as to which is closer to a live sound, there will be disagreements among serious listeneres, as the number of variables governing such a judgment is large.
regarding neutrality, without a reference it is impossible to judge neutrality, accuracy or transparency.
when a recording is considered a reference for assessing the neutrality of a stereo system, the reference, either a live sound or recording is not knowable. hence it is best to use other terms than the aforementioned when trying to describe the sound of a stereo sytem. |
Mrtennis writes: ...better is a subjective term... Yes, it is. But it also isn't the subject of this thread. We're talking about neutrality. ...since there is no known reference in audio as the sound of a recording is completely unknown... If you truly believe that, a few posts ago I proposed a hypothetical system (now referred to as the "Rube Goldberg machine") with which you could replace your current system. Given that the sound of a recording is "completely unknown," I assume you wouldn't notice the difference. You should, in fact, be satisfied with the sound of pounding on your recordings with a hammer because, arguably, that's what they really sound like. thus, two audiophiles will disagree as to which audio system is closer to "neutrality". Ignoring the non sequitur (see my first point), that point would only be valid if judging neutrality required an absolute reference. The OP proposed a means that required only a relative reference. In my experience, most audio reviews and personal judgments are made on the basis of the relative merits of components and systems, and don't require an absolute reference. But also in my experience is a lifetime of hearing things, human voices and musical instruments included, and I can tell live/real from recorded/reproduced, and I can tell a better reproduction from a poorer one. Can't you? |
in the english language , better is a subjective term, unless it is tied to a reference. since there is no known reference in audio as the sound of a recording is completely unknown and the memory of the sound of an instrument heard at a concert is unreliable , better is completely subjective.
thus, two audiophiles will disagree as to which audio system is closer to "neutrality". |
Hi Bryon - interesting questions, and I am sorry I can't take more time to answer them at the moment. The very short answer to the first one would be that that of course would depend on the specific coloration in question. The second question is a little puzzling to me, as I am not sure why anyone would answer that in the negative. Surely we all are always evaluating the euphony of our systems, even including Dgarretson's extreme objectivist?
As for the third question, sure, multiple audiophiles with similar tastes will often agree completely on that sort of judgement. I think there would rarely be complete agreement among a large number however, except perhaps in extreme cases, such as Al's $50,000 system vs. a Wal-mart boom box. Some colorations bother certain people much more/less than others. The digital distortions vs. analog distortions debate is a classic example.
As for the fourth question, I must admit I am completely unfamiliar with the "spectral inversion" thing, so I really can't say. Using your color analogy, perhaps a better example of what I meant than red/blue might be light purple/dark violet? Or perhaps back to my two high-end preamps in the otherwise same exact system example? One person might say that they prefer preamp A's warmer sound, where another will insist that it is too "colored." This would be a subjective judgement, EVEN IF THEY WERE IN AGREEMENT. Another example - one of the oldest types of audio component that has been in continuous production is the horn speaker. Many would say that clearly the longevity alone means that there is something fundamentally correct about the design. But of course there are a HUGE number of audiophiles who can't stand them, and completely write them off as an outdated, hopelessly "colored" design. Both opinions are frequently expressed on audio forums. This is a subjective judgement. I don't know if these brief answers help or not, but there they are. |
