How do you judge your system's neutrality?
Learsfool, I don't think I can be as accommodating as Bryon on your definition of "performance" to include playback. A performance is an event, unique in time and space, and as such, can never be repeated. The performance can be recorded and played back, but that is (to use Bryon's terminology) a representation of the performance, not the performance itself. (Unless you are considering your audio system's speakers, for example, as participating in the performance, in which case I think you are conflating the terms "performance" and "playback," and our disagreement is more semantic than philosophical.) If, as you suggest, musicians consider playback to be performance, then I submit that that belief is idiosyncratic to that group, and not consistent with the ordinary understanding and usage of the term "performance." Are you saying that a Subjectivist cannot evaluate the truthfulness of a recording?? A Subjectivist can evaluate the truthfulness of a recording, but he is acting as an Objectivist when he does so. |
Cbw, the example I gave in my last post was of computer music being played back to a live audience, not someone listening to it on their own on their own system. I thought this was clear from the context, I apologize. However, I think most people would agree that any recording of music meant to be listened to, whatever the context, is a performance; it is just not a live performance. In fact, this thread is the first time I have ever seen that concept disputed. Let me rephrase my statement as a question: if music is not performed, what is it? |
Learsfool – Regarding the issue of what counts as a performance, my thoughts are similar to Cbw’s. But I must reiterate that this issue is tangential, at best, to the issue of Objectivism vs. Subjectivism. Because of that, this is one of the few times I will say that I have no dog in this fight. So, moving on... 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… Almost. I didn’t say that transparency is a PART of truthfulness, but I did say that transparency is a KIND of truthfulness. I know that probably sounds like I am splitting hairs, but there is a genuine difference. To say that transparency is a PART of truthfulness would be to say that there is ANOTHER PART to truthfulness, in which case I would need to say what that other part is. To say that transparency is a KIND of truthfulness is to say that there are OTHER KINDS of truthfulness, which there most certainly are. Other kinds of truthfulness exist because other kinds of representations exist, things like: verbal statements, photographs, and scientific theories, to name just a few. These are different kinds of representations. For example, a photograph is an IMAGISTIC representation, in that it RESEMBLES the thing it represents. But a verbal statement is not an imagistic representation, since it does not RESEMBLE the thing it represents. Because there are different kinds of representations, there are different kinds of truthfulness, but what they all have in common is “correspondence to reality.” In addition to other kinds of truthfulness relating to other kinds of representations, there is also, I think, another kind of truthfulness that relates to music recordings, namely, ACCURACY, i.e. how much information about the music is preserved as it passes from the software to the ear. I mentioned this in my post on 1/18 only in passing, because my focus was truthfulness understood as transparency, not as accuracy. 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? I think Cbw’s answer to this is correct. That is, a Subjectivist can evaluate the truthfulness of a recording, but when he does, he is ACTING AS an Objectivist. Indeed, judging the truthfulness of a representation is WHAT IT MEANS TO BE an Objectivist. 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.Again, a Subjectivist who sets out to judge the truthfulness of a recording is ACTING AS AN OBJECTIVIST WHEN HE DOES SO. It was this observation that motivated the ecumenical ideas in my post on 1/18, where I tried to show that there are times when the attitude of Subjectivism is more warranted, and times when the attitude of Objectivism is more warranted. As far as your comment that judging the truthfulness of a music recording is “ultimately a subjective judgment,” this is most certainly true, but does not have the consequence you seem to think. Judgments about the truthfulness of a music recording are subjective simply because ALL JUDGMENTS ARE BY DEFINITION SUBJECTIVE, since they are made by persons. Even scientific judgments are subjective, since they are made by persons. But it does not follow from the inherently subjective nature of judgments that TRUTH is subjective. Truth is not objective, which is why, in my post on 1/18, I wrote: (4) The truth of a representation is its objective correspondence to reality. Another way of understanding these comments is to say: (i) Truth is objective. (ii) Judgments about truth are subjective. This is the case whether we are talking about music recordings, scientific theories, or any representations whatsoever. Truth is always objective, and judgments about truth are always subjective. If you find that strange, you are not alone. The inherent objectivity of truth and the inherent subjectivity of human judgments is an irony of the universe. But the inherent subjectivity of human judgments does not mean we must abandon the idea of objective truth. It only means we must abandon the idea of CERTAINTY. Certainty is what is lost, and fallibility is what is acknowledged, when you understand (i) and (ii). If we had the mind of God, things would be different. Bringing this back to music recordings: When we set out to judge the truthfulness of a recording, we are de facto Objectivists, because the belief in truthfulness of a recording is the belief in the OBJECTIVE correspondence of the recording to a real musical event. But since we are relying our own human minds in this activity, our judgments are invariably subjective. A consequence of these realities is that we must give up any ambition to be CERTAIN about our judgments about the truthfulness of music recordings. But that’s not all that bad. Having said that, it is NOT a consequence of these realities that we are left with nothing to differentiate good judgments from bad ones. The acknowledgement that all judgments are subjective does not mean that all judgments are created equal. Some judgments are much more reliable than others. In other words, I do not advocate a Radical Subjectivism about human judgments, i.e., the idea that all judgments are equally valid. In my view, that is the height of postmodern absurdity. What rescues us from Radical Subjectivism is the concept of 'expertise.' In your recent posts, you cited several times your own expertise as a musician as relevant to your judgments about the truthfulness of a recording, and I quite agree with you. It is precisely your expertise that makes your judgments more reliable than those of a naive listener, which is a point I made at length in a previous post. So, in judging the truthfulness of music recordings, we are left with judgments that are always uncertain, always fallible, and always subjective, but sometimes expert. This isn't so bad. The situation is precisely the same for scientists, and look how much they have accomplished. |
Very informative post, Bryon! I am still unclear on my original question, though. I follow your discussion about truth being objective and human judgement subjective, and I do not find that strange. But WHY do you say that a Subjectivist is unable to judge the truthfulness of a recording without acting as an Objectivist, especially in light of the fact that human judgement is ultimately subjective? Is this because a Subjectivist would not believe that the recording could be truthful, or is there some other reason? It seems to me that even if he does not believe a recording could be truthful, that he could still judge how close it comes to it, especially since this judgement is subjective. |
But WHY do you say that a Subjectivist is unable to judge the truthfulness of a recording without acting as an Objectivist, especially in light of the fact that human judgement is ultimately subjective? Is this because a Subjectivist would not believe that the recording could be truthful…? In a word, Yes. A Subjectivist does not believe in objective truth. That is what it means to be a Subjectivist. It is important not to be misled by the ordinary definitions of 'subjective' and 'objective.' My desktop dictionary defines them as follows: (1) subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (2) objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. These are good description of the ordinary concepts of ‘subjective’ and ‘objective,’ but NOT of the philosophical concepts of ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ that are the basis of Subjectivism and Objectivism. Being a Subjectivist about X does NOT mean that you are “subjective” about X, in the sense of (1) above. Being a Subjectivist about X means that you do not believe in objective truths about X. Being an Objectivist about X does NOT mean that you are “objective” about X, in the sense of (2) above. Being an Objectivist about X means that you believe in objective truths about X. So… (1) An Objectivist about X believes in objective truths about X. (2) A Subjectivist about X does not believe in objective truths about X. This was precisely the nature of the disagreement throughout this thread regarding neutrality… (1) An Objectivist about neutrality believes in objective truths about neutrality. (2) A Subjectivist about neutrality does not believe in objective truths about neutrality. And regarding colorations… (1) An Objectivist about colorations believes in objective truths about colorations. (2) A Subjectivist about colorations does not believe in objective truths about colorations. I am an Objectivist about both neutrality and colorations. That is to say, I believe in objective truths about both neutrality and colorations. This has been my view all along. In my post on 11/07, I wrote: I wasn't suggesting that audiophiles should be "objective." An Objectivist is not someone who is objective. An Objectivist is someone who believes that there is such a thing as truth. An Objectivist, with respect to sonic neutrality, therefore, is a person who believes that components and systems can be evaluated as to their "truthfulness." Sometimes you hear that expressed in terms of "what is on the recording." [i.e. accuracy] Other times you hear that expressed in terms of the real-world event that the recording captured. [i.e. transparency]…To put another one of my cards on the table: I am an Objectivist, in the sense above, with respect to sonic neutrality. That is to say, I believe that some components and systems reproduce recordings more truthfully than others. I wrote this just two days after I began this thread. I mention this to point out that my views on Objectivism and Subjectivism have been constant from the beginning. In my more recent posts, I have gone to great lengths to try to acknowledge the role and value of subjective characteristics in audio playback and music recording. In my post on 12/12, I wrote: Acknowledging Learsfool’s objections, we make the definition of ‘coloration’ more subjective: This is an acknowledgement that colorations are subjective in the sense that they DEPEND UPON PERSONS to be perceived. But this is still a form of Objectivism, as I pointed out in the same post: The second advantage of these new proposals is that they bring the conflicting views of the Objectivist and the Subjectivist one step closer together. It is only a step, though, since the new definition of ‘coloration’ I am proposing is only subjective in the sense that it includes facts about the subject, facts that, I believe, are themselves largely OBJECTIVE. So this is not a retreat from Objectivism, so much as it is an acknowledgement that understanding coloration and neutrality is partly a matter of understanding HOW INACCURACIES ARE PERCEIVED. In other words, acknowledging subjective characteristics in audio playback and music recording is fully compatible with Objectivism, since it is perfectly consistent to be AN OBJECTIVIST ABOUT SUBJECTIVE CHARACTERISTICS. Psychologists, for example, are objectivists about subjective characteristics. That is to say, the characteristics they study – attention, perception, memory, learning, conceptualization, etc. – are subjective characteristics, because they all depend upon persons to exist. But the attitude psychologists adopt toward those characteristics is that of Objectivism, because they believe in objective truths about those same characteristics. This is precisely my stance toward colorations. They are subjective characteristics, and yet I believe in objective truths about them. But to say that I believe in objective truths about colorations (or neutrality) is not to say that our KNOWLEGE of them is objective. Truth is always objective, but knowledge is always subjective. I made this point in my last post, where I suggested that: (i) Truth is objective. (ii) Judgments about truth are subjective. The acknowledgement, in (i), that truth is objective, means that truth is independent of persons and their characteristics. It does NOT mean that truth can be KNOWN independently of persons and their characteristics, since all knowing involves persons. The acknowledgement, in (ii), that all judgments are subjective means that all judgments are dependent upon persons and their characteristics. It does NOT mean that all judgments are EQUALLY subjective. Some judgments are less subjective than others. Adding this to (i) and (ii) above, we get: (i) Truth is objective. (ii) Judgments about truth are subjective. (iii) Some judgments about truth are less subjective than others. The reasoning here is similar to my reasoning earlier in this thread when I argued that… (ii) All water is contaminated. (iii) Some water is less contaminated than others. And… (ii) All playback systems are colored. (iii) Some playback systems are less colored than others. With this same reasoning, I am now claiming that: (ii) All judgments about truth are subjective. (iii) Some judgments about truth are less subjective than others. The acknowledgment, in (iii), that some judgments about truth are less subjective than others, means that some judgments are more reliable than others. In my last post, I said that the judgment of an expert listener is more reliable than that of a naive listener. The relation between expertise and the reliability of judgments about truthfulness is a point I first introduced in my post on 12/15: …as a person develops expert perception with respect to the playback of recorded music, I believe that COLORATIONS become more audible. In fact, I would view this a one of the standards for judging the expertise of the listener. This comment about colorations could just as easily have been about truthfulness. In other words, I could have said, “As a person develops expert perception with respect to the playback of recorded music, I believe that DEVIATIONS FROM TRUTHFULNESS become more audible.” In other words, the perception of colorations, or deviations from truthfulness, is easier for experts. That is why experts' judgments about truthfulness (or coloration, or neutrality, or accuracy, or transparency) are more reliable than those of naive listeners. And we must say that, or we become Radical Subjectivists, which in my view, is a reductio ad absurdum of Subjectivism. Finally, the concept of ‘expertise’ brings us back to the ordinary concepts of ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ stated at the beginning of this post, where I said that being an Objectivist about X does NOT mean that you are “objective” about X, in the sense of “not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.” However, there is someone for whom being “objective,” in this ordinary sense, is an important quality. That person is an expert! In other words, it is an important feature of expertise that a person tries not to be influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. That is, of course, nothing more than a “regulatory ideal.” Even experts cannot be perfectly objective. But they can do their best, and sometimes their best is good enough. |
Very interesting, Bryon, thanks very much for that very informative post. I have not yet really studied philosophy, though I intend to, and was not aware that there was such a big difference between the normal/philosophical definitions of those terms. This does make what you have said lately make much more sense to me now. I have really enjoyed this whole thread, and have learned a great deal from you. I also greatly envy your ability to express yourself so clearly with words. You are definitely a great asset to this community, sir! |
Learsfool - Thanks for those kind words. I'm glad we understand each other's point of view better, and perhaps we are even a step or two closer to agreement. But even if we still disagree, it has been an interesting and rewarding discussion. You have been an excellent adversary. I very much doubt that I would have had the impulse to explore these ideas so thoroughly had it not been for your thoughtful opposition. BTW, if you are interested in a very concise and accessible introduction to philosophy, try Thomas Nagel's WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?, available on Amazon. |
Thanks for the recommendation, Bryon. My uncle, who taught philosophy, has given me a couple of books as well, I just haven't gotten around to it yet. I think I am going to tackle mythology first, actually. I have read a few logic books, and I took a logic course in college, but that is the extent of the philosophy background I have. |
Tholt, I agree that for many, the fundamental goal of stereo reproduction is the illusion of the real thing. Not so for photographers. Maybe they are saving themelves a whole bunch of grief not trying to chase down the impossible. Let's start at the beginning. Are there any recordings that truly sound real? Maybe the best one can hope for is perfect reproduction of what is on the original recording. Because even those are an artistic interpretation by the recording studio, just like a photograph. For example, mic placement can hugely alter how an event is sounds. So where did this goal come from? Stereophile and the other mag's propagate this so people spend more money trying to achieve what is, dare I say, unachievable. Was this always the goal of hi-end audio? Even back in the 60's when it was considered a main stream, legitimate endeavor by society. Fact is, when you insert even one wire into the chain, you have irreversibly altered the signal so it is not real anymore. So when you have the illusion of the real thing in your living room is the stereo creating the illusion or is the listener deceiving himself? Sometimes on first listen and for short periods of time, reproduced audio can be mistaken for the real thing. The classic case is the audio reviewer whose wife calls in from the other room and says it sounds real. Sure, brief non-critical listening. It can happen. The longer I listen, the more the pieces of phoniness start to make themselves known. In any system. Maybe that's why people keep changing their stereo over and over. The more you listen, the more you hear the defects and thinks by change, they will go away. They do until the new shortcoming pop up. Yes, you can upgrade and the problems are less, but they are never going to go away completely. So where do you stop the madness? I talked to this one guy who started with Epos and made the rounds for 5 years with many different speakers. I asked him how he compared what he had now to the Epos - balancing out pros an cons - in HIS particular situation. He paused, thought about it, and admitted he really had just been going in circles and had really accomplished nothing. It's all about the journey, I guess. I see folks getting so into the trees they don't see the forest. For example, John Marks in October 2010 Stereophile who upgrades to Cardas wire and notices the sound is clearer with more bass. But what about the overall perspective that, say, their system with a passive x-over is fundamentally flawed and they are only "polishing a turd"? |
Has there ever been the assumption that a photo or painting could be mistaken for the real thing? Does that make it any less beautiful? Why should audio be any different?... Cdc - You raise interesting and provocative questions, but I'm not sure exactly what point of view you are expressing. It sounds like you are saying that, since recordings are themselves "interpretations" of musical events, accuracy in playback is not especially important, particularly for those who value beauty above other things. My own view is that accuracy and beauty are related in the following way: As system accuracy increases, the beauty you hear is the beauty of the RECORDING, rather than the beauty of the SYSTEM. It may seem inconsequential whether the beauty you hear comes from the recording or the system. But I believe it's important, for the following reason: The beauty of a system is largely CONSTANT, whereas the beauty of recordings is infinitely VARIABLE. To illustrate with your analogy... As you point out, a photograph is an "interpretation" of an event, in the sense that the characteristics of the photograph - color, contrast ratio, depth of field, etc. - are not identical to the characteristics of the event that the photograph represents. It may be tempting to conclude from this that the presentation of that photograph – i.e. its display for viewing – might as well be an "interpretation" that maximizes the beauty of the photographs. So you decide, for example, to display a group of photographs under a pleasing golden light. By doing do, you may increase the CONSISTENCY of the beauty in the photographs (to those who find golden light beautiful), but you decrease the VARIETY of beauty among the photographs (assuming the photos are color). By giving the photographs a uniform yellow tint, you have reduced their visual diversity, and therefore reduced the variety of beauty in their presentation. A more ACCURATE presentation – i.e. uniform white light, white walls, etc. – would provide greater visual diversity, and therefore greater opportunity for variety in the beauty of the photographs. This highlights the value of accuracy even for those who value beauty above all else: Increasing the accuracy of the presentation increases the VARIETY of the beauty presented. In my view, the situation with musical playback is precisely the same. As you point out, a recording is an “interpretation” of a musical event, in the sense that the characteristics of the recording – dynamic range, frequency response, transient response, etc. – are not identical to the characteristics of the event that the recording represents. It may be tempting to conclude from this that the presentation of the recording – i.e. its playback – might as well be an "interpretation" that maximizes the beauty of the recordings. So you decide, for example, to use an amp that provides pleasing harmonic distortion. By doing so, you may increase the CONSISTENCY of the beauty in the recordings played back in the system, but you decrease the VARIETY of beauty among the recordings. By giving the recordings a uniform harmonic signature, you have reduced their sonic diversity, and therefore reduced the variety of beauty in their presentation. A more ACCURATE presentation – i.e. lower in colorations – would provide greater sonic diversity, and therefore greater opportunity for variety in the beauty of the recordings. This highlights the value of accuracy, even for those who value beauty above all else: Increasing the accuracy of the presentation increases the VARIETY of the beauty presented. For this reason, I don’t believe that the fact that a recording is an “interpretation” of a musical event supports the conclusion that accuracy is irrelevant for those who value beauty above other things. Even for people who value beauty above all else, accuracy is an important consideration, because it provides the opportunity to experience a greater variety of beauty. |
I agree with you. Just because a recording is not perfectly accurate does not mean you should throw the whole accuracy thing away. Just giving a different perspective that the best you can hope for is a perfect reproduction of the recording, not to reproduce the live event. The way most recordings I listen to sound, no need for me to go much beyond what I have now. So some of my points are: 1) If we all want perfect accuracy, then if one stereo had perfect accuracy in all regards, we'd all own the same stereo. 2) I think a lot of hi-end audio is about making a mountain out of a molehill to justify hanging a huge price tag on it. 3) People get so hung up on comparing component A to B, trying to hear the smallest of nuances, that they lose site of the big picture of how close is ANY of it to reality. How about big picture reasoning that, for example, you could spend $10,000 for wire, etc. on a passive system when you'd be better off spending the $10,000 to go active. Or going with a dipole speaker like Linkwitz Orions vs. a monkey coffin? The photography analogy is relevant because they are going for the same thing as audiophiles except it is visual and so less abstract. It's a different perspective of the same concept. If we could see sound, it would be like the photography people. Maybe a whole lot less disagreements too. Are photography chat sites as debated as audio? Probably not as it's easier to understand and you can decide for yourself. But with audio, being so abstract, we need each other's help to figure the whole mess out. Makes for good socializing though. Can Albert Porter explain the photography thing for us? I'm sure a lot of people spend big money on cameras too in the name of accuracy stuff like depth of field, sharp focus, correct colors. But why then is that okay, while an expensive stereo is crazy? |
Can Albert Porter explain the photography thing for us? I'm sure a lot of people spend big money on cameras too in the name of accuracy stuff like depth of field, sharp focus, correct colors. But why then is that okay, while an expensive stereo is crazy? Thanks for the email heads up on this thread, I've been totally slammed with both stereo buzz and photo work. I'm happy to have Boy Scouts of America job on Monday, which should be a blast. As for expensive cameras versus expensive stereo, they do different things (obviously). A photographer is the creator of the image and gets to own the original (highest quality) version of the image captured regardless if it's film or digital. With stereo we audiophiles are typically last in line, we take what the artists and recording companies offer and hope to recreate that as close to possible to what we hope is an accurate version of the event. It gets difficult with music since many artists alter the music with effects and then the recording chain alters it again, sometimes even deliberately limiting frequencies, compressing or otherwise making the music "more suitable" for the masses. With both photography and music there is a hope to capture beauty, emotion and accuracy as best we can. The big limitation with photography is the camera has only one "eye" where we see with two. At lest in modern recordings we have stereo (or multichannel) which at least attempts to recreate the space and multiple sounds that we experience in real life. With either it's a very difficult task. We should be grateful to have all the technology we have today. Stereo has never been better and regardless if you prefer Ansel Adams Black and White approach or ultra high resolution digital we at least have a choice. |
"A camera has only one eye" It hasn't always been so, but beyond the novelty of stereo cameras and viewers, it passed and mono prevailed. Interesting that the depth it provided was seen for what it was, yet in audio some folks still think more can be accomplished to enhance our experience of listening to music when it is in stereo. Like photographers getting all caught up in equipment and its performance, audiophiles get all caught up in equipment and its sound, neither of which have much to do with the creativity of either art form. IMHO. |
Not all better tools belong to fools!!! Nuance at some point becomes the goal, finer and finer detail be it musical instrument, brushes, paints, cameras, race boats, race cars etc.... justifiable advancements in the pursuit of one's personal quest of beauty. Necessary? Maybe not but it's enjoyable to use/design fine equipment/pieces etc.... |
Hi guys - Cdc, Bryon, and Albert, you made some very interesting points, which I agree with as well. Cdc, on the photography issues, yes photographers also have heated debates over the merits of the latest digital technology vs. the older equipment. I have a cousin who is a professional photographer, and he likes to say that most serious photographers only use the digital cameras for going to a location and taking a great many pictures at once. Then they go back, look carefully over them, choose the exact shot they want, and go back to the location and set up their "real" camera, as he calls it. Of course, there are many professionals who have switched over to the all digital stuff and who would vehemently disagree. For myself, I would say that digital photography is FAR ahead of digital audio. |
To pick up on something Albert mentions in his post... The analogy between photography and audio playback, although useful and interesting, has an significant limitation: The analogue to the photographer is NOT the audiophile, but rather the recording engineer. The recording engineer controls how the musical event is represented in the recording, just as the photographer controls how the visual event is represented in the photograph. The audiophile only controls how the RECORDING is represented by his system. That makes the audiophile the analogue of the gallery owner. Yikes! The serious point is that the audiophile has some role in controlling the representation of the musical event, but a far lesser role, it seems to me, than the photographer has in controlling the representation of a visual event. |
Interesting comments by Learsfool and Bryoncunningham. For myself, I would say that digital photography is FAR ahead of digital audio.Agreed, and again because the music distribution companies limit what the public has access to whereas camera manufacturers MUST do their best for creators (photographers) who will move to better systems to please their clients and justify their fees. The serious point is that the audiophile has some role in controlling the representation of the musical event, but a far lesser role, it seems to me, than the photographer has in controlling the representation of a visual event. Well said by Bryon, and again the photographer has tools to create an ORIGINAL work, pretty much limited only by what he and the client are willing to spend. If the new Nikon and Canon 24 Million chip is not enough, there are large cameras with associated computer in tether that can create files so large that almost anything can be done with them (resolution wise). The digital image business is driven by advertising and commercial and somewhat by portrait and wedding. When Apple makes billions offering MP3, then Sony, Phillips and others that have the power to offer ultimate digital music to us feel it would be pearls before swine. That's a shame because I suspect the original high resolution digital file (in the studio) would stun us into silence in our complaints about the shortcoming of digital audio. Sadly it seems we will not be offered that quality level and for that reason I purchase as many analog master tapes as possible. That's as good as it gets for us music lovers until something better is offered. 15 IPS half track probably compares in the analog photo world to the beautiful 8X10 Kodak and Fuji chromes from my Swiss made Sinar view camera. Most people have no concept how much resolution a piece of film this size contains. Area is greater than an entire roll (36 exposures) of 35MM film, simply stunning. |
I kept believing that digital didn't have it because folks like above said so, and their accumulative wisdom should be right. Then, I seriously started mining the information stored in the 16 bit CD. The deeper I dug, the more digital gave forth. Encouraged, I kept at it. Now, in just the last few days, I took my system into it's most revelatory status yet. I know my system is surely better than any vinyl system I have heard. It is my opinion CDs are not the problem. It is the CD player that is at fault, with cabling stirring more sediment up. The digital player industry has been pushing one digital devil fix on us on another. Oversampling, upsampling, jitter, dithering, and filtering have battered the music signal beyond recognition as is attested to by previous posters compalints. My source sets the picture for the system's playback. My speaker is able to express the whole of the picture. So, the source is where it is at. I use a transport that measures it's circuit in millimeters. It certainly does nothing to, "Improve," the signal on it's way out. The receiving DAC is just as hands off, though not quite as simple. I will challenge anyone to detect any defect in this playback, one that has only been clocked, read, and played. The depth of material inserted into the 16 bit CD is simply phenomenal. |
Muralman - I know nothing about your system, and so I cannot comment on your claims, though I assume you recognize how provocative they are. I myself am a digital only person, so I would like to believe the things you are saying about digital playback. However, having listened to a number of high quality analog systems, I have to confess that they have typically sounded wonderful, in all the ways that analog is famous for. My own view is that it is possible to make digital sound almost like analog, but it is a difficult thing to achieve. Having said that, the relative merits of digital and analog playback is a topic that is very far afield from the substance of this thread, and so I will now return to my system and try to contain my analog envy. :-) |
Byroncunningham, I was reacting to comments made by posters above concerning digital vs. analog. Sorry about Neutrality to me defines a system that provides a sound bereft of self noise, or the large part of it. Frankly, I think that is very tall order. I have discovered a way to approach that ideal. Every circuit detracts from the very notion of neutrality. That is why I profess ridding the circuit of the worst offenders, and keeping cables simple. |
Muralman - I agree that noise, like distortion, diminishes the neutrality of a component or system. As far as neutrality being a "very tall order," it is worth keeping in mind that neutrality is a matter of degree. It is not a binary state. As colorations are decreased in a component/system, neutrality is increased. Hence a component/system may APPROXIMATE neutrality, to a greater or lesser degree. This was discussed at great length in this thread, though I'm not recommending that you go back and read the whole thread, unless you are prepared to sacrifice half a day of your life. :-) Concerning your view that "every circuit detracts from the very notion of neutrality," you mentioned something similar in your post on this thread from 12/02/09, where you wrote: It has been my experience less is more. My wires can't be more simple. The DAC lacks a filter chip. The preamp is spartan. Every little change proclaims itself loudly, training me to go simple. I think this is a valid point of view, though I have not approached system building the same way, as I wrote in reply to you on the same day: I don’t have a problem with this idea, in theory. In practice, it has not always been my experience. I can give two examples from assembling my system.My own view, FWIW, is that simplicity can be a great asset with analog signals, but it is somewhat less essential with digital signals. Here is my reasoning... You may be right that digital signal processing is always a deviation from neutrality AT THE LEVEL OF THE COMPONENT. But it does not follow, and I believe it is not true, that digital signal processing is always a deviation from neutrality AT THE LEVEL OF THE SYSTEM. That is because digital signal processing can compensate for deviations from neutrality ELSEWHERE IN THE SYSTEM. For example, a reclocker compensates for deviations from neutrality in the transport; room correction compensates for deviations from neutrality in the listening room. Hence, I believe that the added complexity of digital signal processing, if used judiciously, can result in greater neutrality AT THE LISTENING POSITION, which is where it counts. Having said that, I have heard digital systems with the kind of circuit simplicity you are advocating, and I agree with you that they can sound excellent. So I am not suggesting that one approach is better than the other. I think there are several paths to a rewarding musical experience. |
Bryoncunningham- You name two instances where I deem no conflict. Although I rather like the punctuality of the timing in my system, I could see testing that against what you advocate. As far as I know, clocking is a separate entity, and will not flub up the signal. I also believe that using room correction actually does congeal the bass nicely. I have heard that here. The problem with my dibole/bipole, the poor device saw two different points of origin, and really muffed up the midrange and highs. |
Muralman - I agree that the success of room correction depends heavily on the particulars of the system. IME, it also depends heavily on the particulars of implementation. Without naming names, I have heard room correction hardware that ruins the entire signal, just by the addition of the circuit. In other words, even with all room correction values set to unity (i.e. zero), some room correction circuits dramatically degrade sound quality, the way that bad crossovers do. One of the things I like about the Meridian processor I am using is that I cannot hear any degradation in sound quality with the addition of the room correction circuit. Having said that, in an ideal world, I would not use room correction. I would solve bass problems by treating the room. But my current room is not dedicated, so large bass traps are not feasible for me. Similarly, in an ideal world, I would not use a reclocker. But my transport, Sonos, which I chose primarily for the user interface, is high in jitter. Without the reclocker, it audibly degrades the sound quality of the system. The point is that much of the digital processing in my system is a compromise, brought about by the limitations of my room and the limitations of my transport. But I do dream of a day when I have a dedicated room and a more purist system. I certainly see the appeal in that. Returning to the subject of neutrality, the point I was trying to make in my last post is that sometimes deviations from neutrality at the component level can result in greater neutrality at the system level, and that neutrality at the system level is more important, since that is what we hear at the listening position. I recognize, however, that this approach must be used judiciously, or the system's neutrality will be largely an illusion created by counterbalancing colorations, which diminishes resolution and makes the system a house of cards. |
Albert: I'll never, ever forget those incredible analog photos of yours, featuring various Benz cartridges for Garth of Musical Surroundings. That was way back when I'd first met you. You had these cartridges blown up to somewhere around 20 or 24 inches, with perfect clarity. The resolution was/is just insane. And to have such perfection when the blown ups were room display sized. Does Garth still use these? He should. How would the best modern day digital photography do by comparison? If you were to do a similar project today, would you go analog or digital? My apologies if I've taken this thread on a slight tangent. |
Bryoncunningham - I do know what you mean. I am rather embarrassed to admit my DAC has tubes. The reason for that is tubes are notorious for going off neutrality. I have done a lot of tube rolling through the years to know they all leave their signature. I have also found there are tubes that err less than others, and those are the ones that attract me. For miniature tubes, I loved the 5751 Sylvania Black Plate. It worked miracles with the Llano amp, and a Jolida 100 I was using way back then. My DAC has tubes. That is a fact I have to live with for now. I am hoping for a non sampling DAC that has no tubes that I like. The 47 Labs Progression has no tubes, but it has a rather soft delivery. So, the quest will continue for complete neutrality. |
Albert: I'll never, ever forget those incredible analog photos of yours, featuring various Benz cartridges for Garth of Musical Surroundings. That was way back when I'd first met you. You had these cartridges blown up to somewhere around 20 or 24 inches, with perfect clarity. The resolution was/is just insane. And to have such perfection when the blown ups were room display sized. Does Garth still use these? He should. Believe it or not those were from 4X5 film, the 8X10 camera produced even greater resolution. I used 8X10 for Interstate Battery, Bank of America and other clients that wanted perfection. The cost was very high, from the camera and lens to the 8X10 Polaroid proofs, film and process. What you saw at CES were real (Kodak paper) color prints. Digital photography has pretty much taken over, for better or worse. Much like the music business. It's just too easy for clients to make copies, send in email, prep for four color printing and manipulating the image for alternate purposes. If I were doing the job today and wanted equal resolution I would have to rent something. The ultra high resolution digital systems for photography are super expensive (about $80K). So unless you have clients with deep pockets there is no way to justify the expenditure. Like digital in music, easy to get cheap copies (think MP3 and photo from iPhone :^). The big Nikon and Canon 24 million pixel cameras are unbelievably good but not yet up with the ultimate film could deliver. When I do jobs today I never quote film. Film is difficult to impossible to get and all the labs in Dallas that processed pro film have pretty much shut down their lines. |
Is 8x10 suitable for any task? Can you use it for late afternoon sports pictures? AFAIK depth of field is very low requiring high F stops. I remember that A. Adams was running "F/64 Club". Such apertures require long exposures making it more suitable for landscape or portrait photography. Cost of the lens with low aberration at such apertures has to be very high not to mention size of the gear and processing. Pictures also cannot be "Photoshopped" without high resolution scanner for 8x10 negatives. Price and practicality are important to me. There might be analog TVs that are way better than best HDTV but in what is available to me (Best Buy) is the other way around. |
Kijanki, The question began as a query as to how I achieved the large images shown at CES some years ago. I answered the question truthfully. I'm a professional photographer and I justified my rates by overcoming very difficult technical obstacles. I'm sure you're not the only one who appreciates the speed and ease that digital provides but that was not the question. As for lenses that operate at F 64, my camera had all bench matched lenses from Sinar, Switzerland. They also manufacture electronic lighting which was employed for for nearly 100% of the images I produced. A single pop at 1/60 of a second could easily expose 8X10 film at F 90. As always there are tools for whatever level of quality is required. |
What about large size digital sensors - how do the compare to same size film quality? None of my customers so far are willing to pay enough for me to move above the 24 million pixel Nikon-Canon category. I suspect the Nikon (their best is slightly better than the Canon) would easily compare with Hasselblad 2.25" square and maybe approaching 4X5 depending on which film and lens were used on the 4X5. Phase One has a back that does 60 million pixel captures. Approx. 180 MB files with a 12 stop dynamic range at 8 bit. Basic kit starts about $45,000.00. That would defeat 4X5 (in my opinion) but have not tested it. Technology is available to displace even the best 8X10 and 11X14 inch film cameras, but at super high price. Here's a superb example that none of us could afford but I'm certain is current state of the art (smile). Ultimate digital camera |
I bought recently Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1 (a decent amateur camera) knowing that colors produced by the sensor are a little off (shifted toward green). To my surprise it is only in JPEG while RAW is pretty accurate. In-camera processing somehow makes colors unnatural. The same might be true for digital audio. I read Stereophile review of Meridian CDP that uses different filtering scheme (non-apodizing filter) that better reproduces transients. It is not as simple as just turning off oversampling and getting rid of digital filter calling it NOS - otherwise everybody would do that, including Meridian. Once we have to reproduce sinewave at 10kHz (harmonics) in 4 points (44.1kHz) it will be ugly no matter what scheme we prefer. |
I used to say "flat frequency response". While that it important, there is such a wide variations in FR of the recordings I listen to, I couldn't get a flat FR unless I eq'd each recording. There are some others like: 1) Consistent sound between drivers. I had a speaker with poly mid/woofer and metal tweeter. The drivers did not blend together at all and sound like two different speakers. 2) Dimensionality. As one reviewer wrote, when a system reproduced things spatially, you know it is working very well. Or words to that effect. 3) Transient response. For one thing, when you limit a driver in the frequency domain, you limit it in the time domain as well. I'm guessing that's one reason why speakers put a bump at 100 hz. It's to try to add the bass that gets lost from dampened transient response. It's why SET amps are so popular. Again, IMHO. |
ok, no one is contradicting my assertions. here is another issue. if a recording distorts the sound of the instruments being recorded, how do you assess the accuracy/inaccuracy of the stereo system ? if you were present at a recording studio, you would audition the recording through the equipment at the studio. such an audition would not reveal the sound of the recording, because of the inherent flaws of the stereo system at the studio. |
...if a recording distorts the sound of the instruments being recorded, how do you assess the accuracy/inaccuracy of the stereo system? ...if an optical lens distorts the characteristics of the light transmitted through it, how do you assess the accuracy/inaccuracy of the telescope? (1) Measure the accuracy of the individual optics. (2) Compare the telescope to other telescopes. (3) Perform a Star Test. RE: Audio systems... (1) Measure the accuracy of individual components. (2) Compare the system to other systems. (3) Perform the Neutrality Test that I described in the OP. Bryon |
ok bryon, i see your point. however, measuring the accuracy of individual components is probably near impossible, because accuracy is a multi-dimensional concept. how can you be sure you have measured every relevant variable. also, if each component in a stereo system were accurate, does that imply that the stereo system is accurate ? |
...measuring the accuracy of individual components is probably near impossible, because accuracy is a multi-dimensional concept. how can you be sure you have measured every relevant variable. Mrtennis - I agree with you that accuracy is a "multi-dimensional concept," in the sense that it refers to a number of variables, rather than a single variable. But I do not conclude from this that accuracy is impossible to assess. Consider the analogy with telescopes again... A telescope's optics can suffer from various kinds of distortion, including spherical distortion, astigmatic distortion, and chromatic distortion. Hence the accuracy of a telescope is multi-dimensional, just like the accuracy of an audio component. The multi-dimensional nature of a telescope's accuracy makes it more difficult to assess, but not impossible. Similarly, the multi-dimensional nature of an audio component's accuracy makes it somewhat difficult to assess, but not impossible. Having said that, I agree with you that the common measurements of an audio component's accuracy, like those that routinely appear in Stereophile, are unlikely to be exhaustive. In other words, there are probably some unknown variables that are relevant to the assessment of a component's accuracy. But even the likely presence of unknown variables doesn't vitiate the concept of accuracy in audio. It merely makes judgments about accuracy FALLIBLE. But that shouldn't be news to anyone. also, if each component in a stereo system were accurate, does that imply that the stereo system is accurate? IMO, yes. Assuming that you include the listening room as part of the assessment of a system's accuracy, and acknowledging that what inaccuracies do exist in the various components may interact in non-linear or unpredictable ways. Bryon |
i admit that you can measure frequency response of a stereo system, which while an incomplete measurement of accuracy, may be sufficient for most purposes. if each component in a stereo system were accurate, there could still be impedance mismatches, and the affects of long cables upon frequency response as well as other unintended consequences. |
i admit that you can measure frequency response of a stereo system, which while an incomplete measurement of accuracy, may be sufficient for most purposes. As you no doubt know, there are many other measurements relevant to accuracy besides frequency response, such as: Impulse response, harmonic distortion, intermodulation distortion, transient intermodulation distortion, signal to noise, crosstalk, jitter...the list goes on. Each of these is a measurement of how a component's output differs from its input, which is, by definition, inaccuracy. Hence there are many measurements relevant to an assessment of a component's accuracy. if each component in a stereo system were accurate, there could still be impedance mismatches, and the affects of long cables upon frequency response as well as other unintended consequences. Agreed. A collection of accurate components does not guarantee an accurate system, since interactions among components can diminish the system's accuracy. Having said that, I believe that a collection of accurate components is more likely to result in an accurate system than a collection of components chosen for their "counterbalancing" colorations. Of course, many audiophiles value musicality or some other characteristic more than accuracy, as this thread has illustrated. Bryon |
05-10-11: Roysen Roysen – If you look at the posts on this thread, especially those by Newbee and Learsfool, you will see that some audiophiles do not value neutrality, or at least they do not prioritize it above other considerations. Personally, I do value neutrality. But I do not regard it as the “ultimate” goal, as you do. Our definitions of "neutrality" are similar, though not identical. You define neutrality as accuracy (relative to the recording). On this thread, I defined neutrality as the degree of absence of colorations, and I defined "colorations" as audible inaccuracies (relative to the recording). If we choose your definition of neutrality, then greater neutrality is synonymous with being more truthful to the recording. If we choose my definition of neutrality, then greater neutrality is *nearly* synonymous with being more truthful to the recording. I say “nearly synonymous” because, since I define neutrality in terms of *audible* inaccuracies, I must acknowledge that, while more audible inaccuracies always amounts to less neutrality, less neutrality does not always amount to more audible inaccuracies, for the simple reason that some inaccuracies are inaudible. If you can understand that sentence on first reading, you are a smarter man than I am. Nevertheless, it is a true statement, I believe. But it is irrelevant to the point I am trying to arrive at, which is... I do not believe that greater neutrality *always* results in sound that is, as you put it, “closer to the real thing.” I believe that, sometimes, small movements away from accuracy to the recording (i.e. away from neutrality) results in sound that is "closer to the real thing." The reason is this: Many, perhaps all, recordings REMOVE information that was present at the real event. Hence, a system that tries to ADD the missing information back may actually sound closer to the live event than the system that is strictly accurate to the recording (i.e. neutral). Of course, the EXACT information from the live event is lost forever, if it does not make it to the recording. But I believe that an APPROXIMATION of the lost information can sometimes be added back, and that by doing so, the system may be "closer to the real thing." I do not mean to overstate this. I do believe that efforts to make a system more accurate to the recording, and hence more neutral, will *generally* result in sound that is more truthful to the live event. But I do not think that is *always* the case. 05-10-11: Tbg As I mentioned on the Tidal thread, there are two issues at stake… 1. IS component x neutral? 2. HOW DO WE KNOW if component x is neutral? My impression is that Roysen is arguing that there are objective truths about (1) and you are arguing that there are not objective truths about (2). But the absence of objective truths about (2) does not prevent the existence of objective truths about (1). That was the point I was trying to make on the Tidal thread. Put another way, the fact that audiophiles cannot agree about the neutrality of a component does not mean that there is no fact of the matter about the neutrality of a component. Intersubjective agreement is not a necessary condition of objective truths. That is the whole point of saying a truth is “objective.” The force of the term “objective” with respect to truth is to express the idea that truth is INDEPENDENT OF PERSONS. And if truth is independent of persons, then agreement or disagreement is irrelevant to whether or not a component is, in fact, neutral. On the other hand, agreement and disagreement are not irrelevant to the QUESTION of whether a component is neutral or not. This may appear to be a play on words -- I admit that I'm in a bit of a Lewis Carroll mood today. But I can assure you that my comments are in earnest. Lastly, all of this has nothing to do with preference. People should choose components according to their own preferences, not someone else’s. Bryon |
Bryoncunningham, when you are assessing whether component x is neutral in any objective sense, you have to use measures that others will agree or valid. If you use multiple measures, you have to further argue how they interface or what weight should be given to each. I have no certainty that we could ever reach any agreement on valid measures. I have no idea whether one speaker would stand apart once we had done all of this. So I totally reject any notion that there is truth independent of persons. I think the entire discussion is largely irrelevant as people will buy what they like and can afford. |
A contribution to the topic of neutrality was posted on the Tidal thread by Jorn Janczak, founder of Tidal Audio: 05-12-11: Tidal FWIW. bc |
