How do you judge your system's neutrality?

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

Tuned to warmth - that is your preference. I don't care for warmth (other than winter clothing here in Chicago).

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.

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.

Vince, I'm sorry - I read it too quick.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

…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.

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.

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.

Great ideas for a Gazlay's sequel.

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.

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. :)

… 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.

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

Interesting. Did you take the blue pill or the red one?

I'm sufficiently out of it that I didn't get Shadorne's clever comment, especially in the light of references earlier in this thread to an unrelated type of blue pill. But a few seconds with Google and this Wikipedia article clarified it for me.

Bryon, thank you for an uncommonly thought-provoking and intellectually stimulating thread, which in my opinion is brought to a neat conclusion in your last post.

Best regards,
-- Al

Bryon, your constructs are interesting, and in conclusion testament that "what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." Heisenberg

Nice concluding post. It does, however, raise the question of the accessibility of the truth. For instance, how do I know what is the musical event and what is my system? So now I have to come up with a way of determining how much, and in what way, my playback system alters the source material. Any thoughts on that? :)

>

Like Bryon, I took the red one. But that blue one can be oh-so-seductive at times, especially with those recordings that are just a bit overproduced.

ultimately, i think most of us do not listen to music in an analytic mode and are more concerned whether the sound reaching the ears is pleasurable. in that sense, musicality may be more important to most audiophiles.

Hi Bryon - just saw your most recent post. Very interesting. My initial thought, after reading it twice and thinking about it, is that I am not so sure that you don't have your points 5a and 5b (and therefore the following 6a and 6b) backwards. If I may give two examples - first of a real event, as I understand your terms. This could be me playing my horn on a concert hall stage. A virtual event could be someone creating an electronic tone on a synthesizer in a recording studio. Now what is interesting to me about these examples is that the first one would be almost impossible to recreate EXACTLY. Sure, I can play the same note twice and it will sound exactly the same to all but the very most discerning listeners. However, chances are that it isn't actually exactly the same. Whereas in my virtual event example, anyone anywhere using the same synthesizer could theoretically EXACTLY reproduce that sound. This is the biggest advantage of electronic instruments. So it seems to me that this reverses what you state - objectivism would be more appropriate to the second, virtual example than the first, real example. Now I realize you are speaking of recordings, not live events, but if the standard for recording is to reproduce the live event as closely as possible, it is clearly much easier to come close to the "truth" of my second example on a recording than my first, as I understand your use of the term. In the first example, it would be almost impossible to determine, as Cbw asks, how much your system is altering the source material (let alone how the recording altered the live event), whereas with my second example, this would be easier to determine. What do you think? Am I misinterpreting your terms?

Learsfool – Interesting thoughts. As I understand you, you are saying:

(1) An acoustical musical performance is not repeatable, i.e., identical over multiple iterations.
(2) An electronic musical performance is repeatable, i.e., identical over multiple iterations.

I agree with this. From (1) and (2), you conclude that:

(3) An electronic musical performance is more likely to be "truthful" to (i.e. qualitatively resemble) an "original" musical event than an acoustical musical performance is to its "original" event.

I agree with this too, but it does not bear on the claims I made in my last post, because I was not talking about the qualitative resemblance of musical PERFORMANCES, but rather the qualitative resemblance of musical RECORDINGS. You acknowledge this when you say:

Now I realize you are speaking of recordings, not live events, but if the standard for recording is to reproduce the live event as closely as possible, it is clearly much easier to come close to the "truth" of [electronic musical events].

In other words, you are concluding, from (3) above, that:

(4) A RECORDING of an electronic musical event is more likely to be “truthful” to (i.e. qualitatively resemble) an original musical event than a RECORDING of an acoustical musical event is to its original event.

I disagree with this. A recording of an electronic musical event is not inherently more truthful than a recording of an acoustical musical event. However, it may be more difficult to judge the truthfulness of a recording of an electronic musical event, for the reason that we do not have a lifetime of experiences with electronic sounds to compare recordings against, the way we do with voices and acoustical instruments. Hence, recordings of electronic musical events may appear more inherently truthful, because our standards for judging the truthfulness of these recordings are much less exact.

In other words, (4) does not follow from (3), and I believe that (4) is false. I think your reasoning incorrectly collapses the distinction between a REPEATED PERFORMANCE and a RECORDING. Although both can be judged as to their qualitative resemblance to an “original” event, they are of course created differently. A repeated performance is created by instruments (in the case of acoustical music) or devices (in the case of electronic music). A recording is created by a playback system. This obvious fact results in another, somewhat less obvious, fact:

The inherent TRUTHFULNESS of types of music RECORDINGS (acoustical vs. electronic) cannot be validly inferred from the inherent REPEATABILITY of types of music PERFORMANCES.

This is the essence of my reply to the your question. As to your question, first raised by Cbw, about how an audiophile might judge how his system “alters the source material”: First, I believe Cbw was teasing me in good fun by asking that question, because I tried to “sign off” during my last post after contributing at great length, and his question essentially starts the whole conversation over from the beginning, which is funny in a Myth-of-Sisyphus kind of way. Second, I proposed a way for the audiophile to judge how his system “alters the source material” in my original post. That’s what we’ve been talking about this whole time! Perhaps you are asking: How is the audiophile to judge how his system differs from the real events it represents? That is a good question. Perhaps someday, when I recover from this thread, I will create a thread entitled, “How do you judge your system’s transparency?” Because that is essentially the question you are asking. My current answer is: I don’t know.

Hi Bryon - good reply. I grant your point that 4) does not necessarily follow from 3) ( truthfulness of types of recordings cannot validly be inferred from the repeatability of types of performances).

However, I completely disagree with you about 4) itself. 4) to me is an obviously true statement (that's why I didn't mention it), and I am a little puzzled as to why you think it is false. Any recording engineer will tell you that electronic instruments are MUCH easier to record than acoustic instruments or voices. Despite the more complex wave forms today's digital systems are capable of creating, these wave forms are still far less complex than those created by acoustic instruments and voices (they still haven't even come close, despite the theoretical potential). The simpler the timbre, the easier it is to reproduce, and the easier it is to tell whether or not the reproduction is "truthful." Electronically produced sounds are also much less affected by room acoustics, at least when we are considering timbre, especially if the room in question is a recording studio. Electronically produced tones can be 100% controlled, regardless of environment, making them much easier to record. You brought up the point that we are less familiar with electronic timbres. This may be true, but I think that this is actually irrelevant, especially since as you said we are speaking of recordings, not the live event. A recording engineer can know EXACTLY how an electronically produced tone is going to sound. This is NEVER true of acoustic instruments or voices, even the same exact player of the same exact instrument in the same exact environment from one day to another. This is a big reason why engineers want to make sure that a recording of any given song or movement of a multi-movement work is finished in one session - it is simply too difficult to reproduce the exact same pitch level on a different session (which is why many engineers/orchestra conductors still forgo patch sessions when making a "live" recording). This is of course no problem for electronic instruments.

Based on the above, then, it follows that one can be much more of an objectivist about electronically produced music. The standard for judging "truthfulness" can be much more, not less exact than with acoustic instruments.

Learsfool – I believe that you and I are talking about two different kinds of electronic music recordings. In my last post, I was talking about:

(1) A recording in which electronic sounds are produced by a device, performed in a real acoustical space, and recorded with a microphone to a recording medium.

I believe that you are talking about:

(2) A recording in which electronic sounds are produced by a device and recorded DIRECTLY TO THE RECORDING MEDIUM.

In (1), the recording is just like a recording of an acoustical musical event, except that the sounds are produced from electronic “instruments,” rather than acoustical ones.

In (2), there is no performance, no real acoustical space, and no microphone. There is just the device that creates the sound and the recording medium.

I agree with you that recordings as described in (2) are more likely to be ACCURATE representations of the original electronic sounds. You may be right that this is partly attributable to the fact that electronic sounds are less complex than vocal or acoustical ones. But it is also attributable to the fact that MORE THAN HALF THE RECORDING PROCESS HAS BEEN ELIMINATED. The performance has been eliminated. The acoustical space has been eliminated. The microphone has been eliminated. And in some cases, the need for a “field” recording format (distinct from the subsequent “storage” recording format) has been eliminated. It is no wonder, then, that the resulting recording is MORE INHERENTLY ACCURATE, as you suggested.

However, the kind of accuracy just described is not the same as the concept of “truthfulness” I used in my post on 1/18, which was rather: TRANSPARENCY TO THE MUSICAL PERFORMANCE. In the case of music recordings as described in (2), there quite literally IS NO PERFORMANCE. Therefore, the question of the recording’s truthfulness, in the sense in which I’ve been using the term, does not apply.

But all of this seems like a peripheral matter, since the real goal of my post on 1/18 was not to highlight the difference between acoustical and electronic recordings, but rather to highlight the difference between recordings of REAL events and recordings of VIRTUAL events. I only brought up electronically produced sounds as one example of what, in my view, contributes to making a recording “virtual.” Among the other things that make a recording virtual: Multiple microphones with different perspectives, music editing, and the liberal use of creative mixing techniques.

Perhaps the simplest illustration of what makes a musical event virtual is music editing, that is, editing together segments from multiple takes to create the illusion of a single, continuous “performance.” This is done all the time in popular music, and when it is, the performance that is on the recording is, at least partially, VIRTUAL, in the sense that IT NEVER EXISTED IN REALITY. To use an analogy…

Consider a painting of a landscape that never existed, but is a composite of various landscapes drawn from the memory of the painter. In other words, it is a virtual landscape, in the sense that it never existed in reality. As such, the painting cannot be evaluated in terms of its truthfulness, i.e. its correspondence to reality, simply because there is no real landscape for the painting to correspond to. So the question of the truthfulness of the painting does not apply. Hence the attitude of Objectivism about the painting is unwarranted.

As I see it, the case is almost exactly the same with music recordings. Consider a “performance” edited together from many segments of multiple takes recorded over different days. In other words, it is a virtual performance, in the sense that it never existed in reality. As such, it is difficult or perhaps impossible to evaluate the recording in terms of its truthfulness, i.e. its correspondence to reality, because there is no real performance for the recording to correspond to. So the question of the truthfulness of the recording does not apply. Or more precisely, it applies less and less as recordings are more and more edited (since I understand the distinction between real and virtual events as being on a continuum). Hence the more virtual the event a recording represents, the less the attitude of Objectivism is warranted.

Hi Bryon - to reply to the first part of your post first, I could certainly quibble with you about that distinction. Especially the "performance" part - one could argue that even a device going straight to a recording medium is still a performance. Frank Zappa certainly thought so, for one. As soon as anyone else listens to it, it does technically become a performance. Also, in your 1) it is still much easier for recording engineers to record an electronic music performance than an acoustic one, for the reasons I have already stated. The difference between 1) and 2) is not as great as you seem to believe, though it is of course there, and I do understand the distinction - certainly the acoustic of the room is eliminated in 2), as is the mike. However, this elimination of variables arguably makes the objectivist perspective even more apropos, not less.

Going back to the real vs. virtual distinction you are making, I must point out that nowadays, and really for quite some time now, just about all recordings made would be virtual by your definition (multiple mikes with different perspectives, music editing, creative mixing techniques). Even a "live" orchestral broadcast on the radio is not usually. The broadcast is very rarely actually live (though that still sometimes does happen) - it is almost always a presentation of the best bits of the weekend. The first movement of the symphony may be from Saturday while the rest is from Sunday, for instance.

In fact, unless a concert is truly being broadcast live over the radio as it is actually being played, there really isn't any such thing as a "real" recording anymore, now that digital recording techniques have completely taken over. There are always many different mikes used, and all kinds of mixing and editing techniques are applied routinely. I know of no orchestra nowadays that releases any commercial recordings without any editing whatsoever, and there is usually a ton of it. Georg Solti was the last conductor I know of who insisted on "one-take" recording (with some funny results sometimes, I might add). It of course goes without saying that all digital recordings have heavy mixing applied to them, which one could argue is a form of editing as well.

And any recording of any pop or jazz singer is done with a digital mike that alters their voice - most of the time this is even done at live performances. The bigger the star, the bigger the mixing board that her/his voice is being put through before it even gets to the speakers. There is far more mixing of rock and pop and country done than with classical or jazz or even folk. There is almost never any such thing as a recording that would not be virtual by your definition anymore, no matter what type of music is involved, and this has been the case for at least two decades now (to use the most conservative estimate, three would probably be more accurate). And as you say, this makes an objectivist viewpoint less and less warranted. This is indeed what I was arguing back when this whole thread first started.

Learsfool - I am aware of the extent to which recording, editing, and mixing techniques are employed in music recording, particularly popular music recording. I am also aware of the fact that many of these techniques are standard practice in classical and jazz recordings. But I do not see that these realities eliminate the possibility of evaluating a recording's truthfulness, i.e., its transparency to a real musical event, so long as transparency is understood as being an APPROXIMATION. The transparency of a recording is an approximation TO THE EXTENT THAT:

(1) The recording is incomplete or imperfect.
(2) The event is not real.

RE: (1). Of course, all recordings are incomplete and imperfect, but they are not all EQUALLY incomplete or imperfect. Some are much more incomplete or imperfect than others. Recordings delivered on low resolution formats like MP3, for example, are much more incomplete than recordings delivered on high resolution formats like SACD. Recordings that inadvertently encode gross distortions (e.g., overmodulation distortion, jitter, phase errors) into the signal during the recording process, for example, are much more imperfect than those that do not.

RE: (2). As you point out, very few (or perhaps no) recordings are FULLY real, since nearly all recordings involve at least some editing and mixing techniques. So nearly all (or possibly all) recordings are, to some extent, virtual. But they are not all EQUALLY virtual. Some are much more virtual than others. Recordings that make liberal use of recording, editing, and mixing techniques are more virtual than recordings that use those techniques sparingly. This is a common difference between popular music and some audiophile classical recordings, for example. I freely admit that even audiophile classical recordings are, to some extent, virtual. But they seem to me to be, on average, considerably less virtual than most popular music.

The point I am making is that, even if we agree that ALL recordings are to some extent virtual, it does not follow, and it is not true, that all recordings are EQUALLY virtual. In other words, some recordings are more real than others, even if no recording is COMPLETELY real. I made this point in a slightly different way in my post on 1/18:

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...At the other end of the continuum is a music recording that represents a musical event that is MAXIMALLY VIRTUAL...In the middle of the continuum is where the vast majority of music lies...

By locating recordings on a CONTINUUM between the (admittedly idealized) extremes of representing fully real and fully virtual musical events, I tried to highlight the fact that important differences exist in the degree to which a recording can be evaluated in terms of its truthfulness, that is, its transparency to a real musical event. And if that is true, I believe, then the attitude of Objectivism is more warranted the more a recording represents a REAL-ISH event, while the attitude of Subjectivism is more warranted the more a recording represents a VIRTUAL-ISH event.

As soon as anyone else listens to it, it does technically become a performance.

Actually, technically, that's a playback of a performance unless the listening is in real time. In that case you have to make the distinction between recording the sound coming out of a speaker (a live event) and recording the data produced by the device (a virtual event). For an electronic device sending a signal directly to the recording medium, the Objectivist viewpoint is impossible because there is nothing to compare the playback to. There was never a "sound" that was recorded. It would be like running a random section of a computer's hard drive through a DAC and asking how it compared to the live event. What live event?

As for the rest of your post, I'll let Bryon respond, but he's talking about a continuum that runs from live and acoustic to virtual and electronic, not about placing every recording into one of two categories. As you move across that continuum the Objectivist approach is either more or less valid, not simply valid or invalid.

Cbw and Bryon - you both seem to be assuming that a "performance" must be a live event. Musicians consider all recordings to be performances. The difference between a live and a recorded performance is that the recorded performance is permanent, and a live performance is not. Even a recording made straight to a recording device would therefore be considered a performance, as I mentioned before, with Zappa as one of the more famous examples.

I also understand perfectly that you are speaking of a continuum. I still maintain that you have it backwards, however, IF you are speaking of truthfulness. Let me try a different take, with a live event as an example this time. The more virtual a recording is, by Bryon's definition, the more control the engineer has over the result. I don't think you are disputing this. What I am saying is that this makes it easier, not more difficult, to hear whether or not the engineer has been truthful to the live event. Therefore, applying an objectivist perspective is more warranted, not less, the more virtual the recording.

This brings me to "truthfulness" vs. "transparency." Bryon, you seem to equate these two things, and this is where the confusion lies. I think your continuum IS correct IF you are speaking of transparency, not truthfulness. In my view, a recording can be very transparent yet not truthful (in fact, this is exactly how many musicians describe digital recording in general). This difference in perspective has come up earlier in this thread, when Kijanki brought up sitars, I believe it was, and asked you how you could tell whether the recording was true to it (I am paraphrasing, I did not go back and search the thread for an exact quote). Your response was basically "because I have heard one." To me, this is a subjective, not an objective judgement. Another example - I know you know what a French horn sounds like. However, you have absolutely no idea what MY horn sounds like. If I mailed you two different recordings made of the exact same live performance of mine, you could judge which one was more transparent, but you could not judge which one was more truthful without being familiar with my specific sound (and the same of course goes for the performance space). Only if one has familiarity with the performers and the venue can one accurately judge the truthfulness of a recording. I have much experience with this distinction, having the good fortune to be a professional performer, and to be familiar with a great many different performers and venues through personal experience, both performing and as an audience member. I also regularly listen to all of the archival recordings made by various engineers of my orchestra's classical subscription concerts (I am in fact on the committee which decides what goes over the radio broadcast). Every engineer's recordings sound different, as they place mikes differently, and mix them differently, and edit differently (in fact, each recording each engineer makes sounds different). I can assure you that the more mikes used, and the more mixing done (in other words the more virtual the recording), the easier it is to hear where the recording falls short of the live event as far as truthfulness is concerned. I am able to apply this objectivist perspective in this way because I am VERY familiar with the hall and my colleagues. If one is not familiar with these things, then all one can do is guess at the truthfulness of the recording - you can only know approximately (as you put it when you were speaking of transparency). Therefore you would really be applying a subjectivist, not an objectivist perspective, because you don't really know what the live event sounded like. You would have to use your own personal reference point for how you think it is supposed to sound. You can, however, judge a recording's transparency in the way you suggest, and this application of an objectivist perspective would work how you described.

I know I do not express myself particularly well with words, but I hope this clears up some confusion.

Musicians consider all recordings to be performances. The difference between a live and a recorded performance is that the recorded performance is permanent, and a live performance is not.

The idea that all recordings should be considered performances is strange to me. It is not merely the fact that some electronic music involves no real instruments. It is the fact that much electronic music is never PLAYED IN REAL TIME. It is ASSEMBLED OVER MANY HOURS OR DAYS in a computer software program. I have personally worked with electronic composers who create recordings this way. To call their work a “performance” seems to stretch the limits of any ordinary use of the term. However, since you are a professional musician and I am not, I will defer to you that musicians consider all recordings to be performances. Having said that, this disagreement is quite tangential to the main issue of my post on 1/18, which is the source of our current disagreement. So, to return to that…

This brings me to "truthfulness" vs. "transparency." Bryon, you seem to equate these two things, and this is where the confusion lies.

This is almost correct. In my post on 1/18, I did not EQUATE transparency and truthfulness, but I did propose that we think of transparency as a KIND of truthfulness. Specifically, I proposed that we think of transparency as...

…how much the information presented at the ear during playback resembles the information that was presented at the microphone during the actual performance.

It does not matter whether we disagree about this conceptualization of transparency. “Transparency” is simply the term I chose, following Almarg’s suggestion, to refer to the CORRESPONDENCE between…

(1) The information presented at the ear during playback, and
(2) The information presented at the microphone during the performance.

I have called the correspondence between (1) and (2) "transparency." But you can call it anything you like. The important thing is not the term, but what I have used the term to mean, namely, the correspondence between (1) and (2). That correspondence is a KIND OF TRUTHFULNESS, which I will now try to show again...

Since (1) refers to a REPRESENTATION of an event and (2) refers to the REAL EVENT that it represents, then “transparency,” as I am using the term, refers to the CORRESPONDENCE of a REPRESENTATION to a REAL EVENT. And the correspondence between a representation and a real event is the MEANING of truthfulness. Hence transparency, in the sense of the correspondence between (1) and (2) above, is a KIND OF truthfulness (but not the only kind, since music recordings are not the only kind of representations).

I think your continuum IS correct IF you are speaking of transparency, not truthfulness. In my view, a recording can be very transparent yet not truthful…

You are either using a different meaning of “transparent” or a different meaning of “truthful” than the meanings I used in my post on 1/18, and in all my posts since, including this one. I suspect that you are using the term “transparent” differently. I do not want to squabble over the use of the term. If you object to my usage, you can substitute whatever word you like whenever I use the term, so long as you understand your substitute as referring to the correspondence between (1) and (2) above.

Only if one has familiarity with the performers and the venue can one accurately judge the truthfulness of a recording…I am able to apply this objectivist perspective in this way because I am VERY familiar with the hall and my colleagues. If one is not familiar with these things, then all one can do is guess at the truthfulness of the recording - you can only know approximately…

I completely agree with this. What you are describing here, however, is not WHAT MAKES a representation/recording truthful, but rather HOW YOU JUDGE whether a representation/recording is truthful. In my post on 1/18, I was proposing ideas about WHAT MAKES a representation/recording truthful, namely, its correspondence to the real event. I was not proposing ideas about HOW YOU JUDGE whether a representation/recording is truthful.

If one is not familiar with these things, then all one can do is guess at the truthfulness of the recording - you can only know approximately…Therefore you would really be applying a subjectivist, not an objectivist perspective, because you don't really know what the live event sounded like. You would have to use your own personal reference point for how you think it is supposed to sound.

I agree with this as well. If you do not know what real performance sounded like, then you are far less well equipped to evaluate a recording of it in terms of its objective correspondence to the real event, simply because you don’t know what the real event sounded like. In that case, you would be left to evaluate the recording in terms of preference, which is most certainly subjective.

But none of this seems to me to be inconsistent with my proposals on 1/18 or my defense of them since. Here are the proposals you objected to:

(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.

(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.

(5a) is intended to describe a NECESSARY condition for judging the truthfulness of a recording, namely the recording must represent a “real-ish” event. (5a) is NOT intended to describe SUFFICIENT conditions for judging the truthfulness of a recording. As you point out, (5a) is not a sufficient condition for judging the truthfulness of a recording, since there is at least one other necessary condition: familiarity with the real event the recording represents.

(5b) is simply the converse of (5a)

(6a) is partly a restatement of (5a), and partly intended to point out that Objectivism – the view that a representation can be evaluated as to its truthfulness – is more warranted when recordings represent real events, simply because the truthfulness of a representation REQUIRES that there be a real event for the representation to correspond to. That is the MEANING of truth. And this is not an idiosyncratic definition of truth. If I defer to you, as a professional musician, about the meaning of “performance” as used by musicians, please believe me, as a professionally trained philosopher, that truth is used by philosophers and scientists alike to mean “correspondence to reality.” And if you will grant me that, then it is a short step to the conclusion that a necessary condition for judging the truthfulness of a representation (whether it is a recording, or any representation) is that there is or was a real event that the representation represents. In light of this, judging the truthfulness of a recording is an act of Objectivism BY DEFINITION, since Objectivism is the view that representations can be evaluated as to their truthfulness.

(6b) is simply the converse of (6a).

I can assure you that the more mikes used, and the more mixing done (in other words the more virtual the recording), the easier it is to hear where the recording falls short of the live event as far as truthfulness is concerned. I am able to apply this objectivist perspective in this way because I am VERY familiar with the hall and my colleagues.

Once again, you are providing ideas (good ones, I think) about HOW TO JUDGE the truthfulness of a recording. I agree with these ideas, but they do not mean I’ve gotten things backwards in (5a) and (5b), or in (6a) and (6b). It only means that the perception of the “virtuality” of a recording make it possible to JUDGE the truthfulness of the recording. In other words, one way to judge the truthfulness of a recording is when it DEVIATES FROM truthfulness. The perception of virtuality in a recording is, in effect, the perception of CONTRAST between the recording and the real event. But for some recordings, there is no real event. When recordings are altered liberally during editing and mixing, they can become so virtual that there is no longer any real event for the recording to correspond to. And if there is no real event for the recording to correspond to, then the recording cannot be judged in terms of its truthfulness, since truthfulness MEANS correspondence to a real event. And if a recording cannot be judged in terms of its truthfulness, then we are left with evaluating it subjectively. Hence the more virtual a recording, the more the attitude of Subjectivism is warranted.

Hi Bryon - first, the performance discussion. All music MUST be performed, otherwise it has no function or purpose (some would even argue that it has no existence without performance, though I am not sure if I would go that far). Even a completely electronic composition of the type you describe (and which I have hands on experience with myself), despite being composed and entered into the computer over a long period of time, IS eventually played back in real time in it's entirety, and this act does constitute a performance of the work. Otherwise, what is the point of creating the work in the first place, if no one is ever going to hear it? The main difference is that there are no human "performers," only a computer. Another big difference is that all performances of the work are exactly the same, unless the composer edits the work. Some composers are very attracted to the idea of having no human error messing up their performance, and the idea of being the sole interpreter of the work as well. There is no third party between them and their audience. But most certainly they are considering an audience listening to a performance when they create the work.

As for the truthfulness/transparency thing, I think we were indeed using the terms differently. I could state a bit more about how I would use some of these terms differently from you, but this is your thread, and it will keep things much simpler to use your terms. After reading your last post a few times, I think I understand what you mean by all of your terms. I think before I was also confused sometimes about whether your real/virtual discussion referred to the recording or to the live event, though I should hasten to add that this confusion was mine, not yours. My remaining confusion still lies in exactly what you mean by truthfulness, as you say that your transparency definition is only a part of it (which, if I have understood correctly, I certainly agree with). Again, if you are speaking only about transparency as the correspondence between your 1) and 2), and not overall truthfulness, then I think your 5a is correct, and we are in agreement there.

My confusion lies in what you mean by truthfulness overall, then, especially with regard to 6a. Are you saying that a Subjectivist cannot evaluate the truthfulness of a recording?? If you mean by this that a Subjectivist believes a recording can never be completely truthful, then I agree. It seems quite clear that there certainly is not now and never will be a recording made that anyone would mistake for a live event, for many different reasons. I would disagree strongly, however, that a Subjectivist would be unable to judge how close a recording comes to the live, real event it is a representation of. In fact, this would also ultimately be a subjective judgement, I believe, despite some objectivist measures being needed. For example, two different sets of microphones in different set-ups recording the same live event. Which one is closer to the truth? Perspective would matter greatly here.