It is the proverbial carrot-on-a-stick of audio. I agree, it can never be achieved. Yes, it is absolutely relative to the listener, and thus there are no absolutes. The goal of the audio industry is to perpetuate itself through pleasing their customers and or creating a demand for their products. You can market the stuff with all kinds of angles and theoretical goals. Ultimately it comes down to what pleases you...how do you want the stuff coming off that spinning disk to sound in your home. You may want it to sound just like a live performance, but if you attend many live performances, and that is your goal, I think you'll always be reaching for that carrot that is just beyond your reach. Sit back and enjoy the music, wherever you are listening. Like most things in life, as soon as you attach expectations to it, that takes you far away from the experience.
Marco |
Lakefrontroad - I'm sorry, my Anger Manager is on vacation in Mexico. If you'd like, I can let you speak with my Anger Supervisor. She gets in at 9 tomorrow morning. I can have her get back to you if you like. Actually, the truth is, I don't own any audio equipment. When I'm not too busy retouching boobies for a living, I turn my Photoshop skills towards fabricating make believe virtual systems. Dean - You had me fooled with those sytem pics you cleverly fabricated/retouched. I always wondered why I got a woody looking at'em. I kept stairing at the knobs on that Blue Circle thinking, "man, those things can't be real?!" |
I think this thread is constipated, as are all such ideas of some idyllic, better-than-the-other, absolutism perpetuated to glorify this or that other of Man's wonderous, precious things he's brought to show'n'tell. And if it ever makes its way to the bowl, it'll be an explosion of rancid, worthless, rehashed, toxic waste that holds little value to anyone unless you plan to use it for fertilizer. I sincerely doubt anything would grow in it though.
If it's important to you, throw some money and time at it and get it to bring some of that wonderful music into your home. Find the stuff that sounds good to you and consider yourself fortunate that it's all there for you, and that others share your enthusiasm. Otherwise pop in a suppository and make sure to flush when you leave. Oh, and light a friggen match for god's sake.
Marco |
LOL Cdc...touche! Charlie 101 - I've no doubt produced greater wisdom out
of the crack of my derriere than your witty retort has demonstrated you to be
in posession of.
Seriously...I do regret my acerbic post went a bit overboard, nonetheless the
core sentiments are heart felt (or is that fart felt?), though personal insults
were not intended in that post, believe it or not.
I think it's a natural expectation to want to try to attain the experience of live
reproduction. After all, it is truly miraculous that these groups of boxes and
circuits and wires can do what they do and bring so many aspects of
reproducting space and time through sound to an entirely different space and
time. Whether it's possible or not to reproduce, verbatim, given the current
state of technology should not even be an issue to anyone who's been around
the hobby very long. Like many such debates, this one seems to draw out
two distinct camps: The scientists who, come from the head/mind, and
demand white papers, bars and graphs and numbers, statistics...something
tangible to justify their existence, and in this case, their investment. Then
there are the artists, who come from the heart and tend to trust in their
feelings, experience, perceptions, sun, moon, stars and tofu ice cream. For
me...well, I guess I can see both sides as being full of it, though I'd count
myself among the artists. Both are trying to justify their existence here (aren't
we all), whether it be through audio gear, music, or some earth shattering
invention or profound artistic statement. It's all quite wonderful, it's all a load
of crap, and in the end, none of it matters, and it's all entirely relative to our
own personal experience here. We all leave as we came, with nothing. The
question brought to bear makes as much sense to me, and the answers as
meaningless as if asking, "What's the ultimate goal of vanilla ice
cream" or "What's the pinnacle of beauty in a human being"
or "What's the best car (beer, wine, bicycle, watch...or fill in the blank
with any such thing we like to banter about, obsess over, and get passionate
about). It's all relative, there is no "right" answer, and none of it
means anything, except what we each make it mean. I make no apologies
that this does not seem to be a popular view to those who wish to put their
"passions" on a pedastal. There is no Santa Claus kids, and there
is no "Absolute Sound" (unless you are talking about a bi-monthly
magazine). It's just my crotchity, existentialist point of view these days. I'd
heap it in among those I addressed in my previous post, and laugh at how
ridiculous I am (I'm sure many of you have got the jump on me there). BTW,
though you wouldn't know it from what I'm saying here perhaps, I am quite
passionate about music and the audio gear I use to enjoy it...I think it's all
pretty wonderous and amazing. It just strikes me as so wrong (ain't this
ironic) when folks start talking in absolute terms...right/wrong...bad/
good...black/white...the ultimate. So when I see it, I feel compelled to say
something. Perhaps it's a knee-jerk reaction. But there it is.
Even if the question were met with a rousing and unanimous "
YES", and even if actual verbatim live reproduction were indeed possible
via the technology available, I can guarantee you that there would be many
among us who would still prefer some form of "colored" version,
or some control over how "reality" sounded in their own space.
But then you folks in agreement could take great comfort in the company of
one and other's assurances that yours is the "right" way, and there
is only just one "right" way. Sound familiar? Hitler used it to his
advantage. It is the 'glue' of fundmentalist religious propoganda (Muslim,
Christian, ....etc.), Jim Jones sold his grape Kool Aide solution to a good
number of unfortunate people that way.
Marco |
Let's ask the question 'Is the goal of home cinema the goal of presenting the authentic or real version of visual events'? The answer to that can serve as the answer to the audio version of that question. . I think it was Godard who said: "Cinema is truth at 24 frames per second". Even in the realms of the documentary film we can take a look at a film like "David Holtzman's Diary" or even any of Michael Moore's "documentary" films, and realize that that particular question is far more complex and multilayered than the one asked here. I might draw the paralell to looking at the more simple single frame of photography. Again, you can go to a chat group on this subject and find the "scientist-types" telling us that large format film cameras cannot be matched for their rendition of "reality" because of their fine grain, sharp lenses, superior resolution and their ability to record tremendously subtle tonal gradation. Yet the film they used is limited to that which is not capable of taking in nearly as much as the human eye. And do any of these qualities a great photograph make? To answer that question just give an average hobbyist shooter an 8X10 camera with thorough instructions as to precisely how to use it and get the most from it. In turn compare the work he/she might produce with that tool, to the work Cartier Bresson or Eugene Smith did with a 35mm camera and tell me which is the more engaging photograph. It is not the tools that necessarily determine the success or failure of the translation of "reality", but the people behind them. Add to that the advent of digital manipulation and give a master at that a crack at "reality" and then where to you draw your boundries? Is that manipulaiton any different from the audio engineer at the sound board who determines how to shape and define that sound that is recorded? Also, just look at the poor quality of many of the older recordings, such as those of bluesman Robert Johnson, yet the magic of his musicianship continues to be an inspiration to so many of his contemporaries, and comes through in spite of the lack of technologies wonders. Many musicians I've known just don't give a rat's ass about the quality of their system, even when presented with a system that is astoundingly good at reproducing a musical event. They care more about the music itself, and many are just as happy listening to music through a boom box as they would be a more advanced system. Who's right, who's wrong? The question I pose is why do you need to ascribe that of any of us, and why is there some need to determine some universal, ultimate goal of audio gear? It's all pretty amazing to me...I tend to go with the stuff I enjoy listening to the most myself. I find that it is not always appreciated as much by others, but I sure do like it. Marco |
Just like you did? Ah, but you see I have the whole ensemble; the lips, the round rubber nose, clown shoes....I've got the whole Bozo thing going on! As Tvad indicated, I'm sure folks would appreciate if you had something more to contribute aside from your snide comments. What have you got to say about the subject at hand, besides the fact that you are not a member of the jax2 fan club? Marco |
The reason I brought up musicians, Bill, was solely to illustrate the point that
the "goal of audio" can have different meanings to different
people. Obtaining a "life-like" presentation may be one that is
quite exciting to many of us, but not necessarily to everyone. Folks get
enjoyment from this stuff at all different levels, and to elevate one above all
the rest seems a bit silly to me. I do like a life-like presentation as well. I've
heard it done on different levels, but have not had the experience you've
described where the whole thing comes together in all ways to yield a "
live" music experience. The conflicting factions I've experienced seem
to be that either the music has tremendous impact, dynamics, and detail, yet
lacks the delicacy, dimension and airiness that I somehow associate with
'presence'...or, it has the latter in spades, as in the case of the SET/horn
systems I've enjoyed the most, yet lacks the chest-pounding impact of more
powerful systems. That's perhaps a simplistic observation on my part, but it
may help to understand where I'm coming from. Yes, in both cases, I can
close my eyes and Louis would seem to be there in front of me, but in neither
case is the illusion complete. Ultimately, the more powerful solutions have
always occured to me as an amplified version (I am more conscious of the
intervening technology), while the solutions I prefer are more convincing to
me, yet still do not convey the 'impact' of live music somehow, yet render the
parts of the equation I am most fond of.
Marco |
Hey lookee there, Charlie made a funny! Your gold star and wax clown lips are on the way in the mail to you now! Congratulations.
C5150 - "100% Truth" is entirely relative. Put 100 people in a room. Play some music on a stage in front. Ask the 100 people to recount what happened, or what it sounded like, or what the people on stage looked like, or what the room was like....you'll likely not get any 100% truth from your queries. So which "truth" should 'audio' be looking to duplicate...whose truth...whose ears? Stand a different spot in the room, sit in a different chair in the orchestra, and the performance sounds different. Peoples hearing is different. What different people pay attention to and recall is different. The "truth on the master tapes? Played through what? In what room, to whose ears? What if you don't like "The Truth"? What if you can't handle "The Truth"?!!! The concept of objective truth is boring and sterile and has nothing to do with music or art. To illustrate that you chould use the film analogy again and look at Andy Warhols documentary of, I think it was the Empire State Building. He put a camera on a tripod and filmed the building from the same vantage point for many hours without moving the camera or tripod. That's the entire film. That's the truth. That's Andy's truth. I doubt many of us would be interested to watch it for very long. What's your truth? What's wrong with a "wild discussion"...it actually makes you think a bit...stretch your imagination...step out of the box.
I agree with you, BTW...seeking 100% truth in audio reproduction is chasing a carrot on a stick attached to your head. An imaginary carrot at that! Seek out what you enjoy the most, and stick with it. If you can manage it, enjoy what you have..that's a real gift! Not too difficult actually.
Marco |
Perception is not reality, and reality cannot be subjective. People too often confuse opinion for fact. Perhaps not, but 'perception' is all any of us have. It is how we experience 'reality'. Absolutely agreed, people frequently confuse their own opinions, but I'm not sure about "fact"...I think they confuse their opinions with opinions that they think everyone should have, or would have given the same experience. Just because 20 people in a room describe an event differently does not change the event. No, as above, it shows how strongly we rely on our perception, and how each individuals percetion of an event is entirely subjective. The audio industry is producing this stuff because human beings buy it to reproduce music in their homes...not in order to recreate perfect sine waves. Human beings are the target market, not computers and machines. As far as there being some objective "Truth" or "Reality", Rene Descartes makes a pretty formidable argument that the concept is not so cut and dry. Since I can only view the world through my own experience, I cannot fathom why I should try to force myself into accepting some other "truth" to be my own, or worse yet, become a machine (impossible anyway, of course - where would the wax clown lips go?) that had no such subjective perceptions as I do as a human. It simply points out the amount of error taking place in peoples minds, and their inability to explain their perceptions. Most of the people in that room will be wrong when they relate their experience. That does not take anything away from the event, it simply proves human fallability. And again, my entire point. NONE of those people are WRONG, they presumably relayed the event exactly (or as closely as possible) as they perceived it. It does not even have to be about "fallabilty" or mistakes. From one vantage point in a room even an objective recording machine will record the event differently (it may sound different and appear different) than another machine positioned somewhere else in the room. Mike the event at the source, mike it a few feet out, mike it at the back, or the side of the room, and you have many different sounding recordings. Same thing if a person stands in those places. Ditto they will see the event differently from a different angle. C5150 - Thank you, I enjoyed your posts as well. My point is there is no 100% truth and 100% lie - it is all entirely relative to the one perceiving it. If there is some "objective truth", I'm not sure why it matters as each of us will have our own version of it anyway...we cannot help it, we are human. How can you say one or the other of us is "wrong" in conveying their experience of something...that's how they perceived it! Then in turn you are saying it is "wrong" to experience the world as a human being, and that we should be more like machines. I do not find that an admirable quality. Good to hear you're out - stay out of the box my friend! Marco |
Furthermore; in the case of music it is the vibrations that we are responding
to. It is precisely because we are human that we have any response to this
stuff at all. We ascribe some meaning to those responses...good, bad, warm,
cold, green, blue, mother-in-law, pumpkin. We are reacting to the vibrations
of the music and making meaning from that reaction. Each of us responds
entirely uniquely to the same set of vibrations/sounds. A machine may react
to the music by recording data, or performing some other programed
response, but it cannot and will not experience any feelings, or ascribe any
meaning to the experience of the music. It will have no desire for more bass.
It will not prefer Bach over Greenday. Are audio manufacturers designing for
machines or for people? I think the latter as their the ones with the wallets.
It's like asking a computer to taste test some wine...I'm sure some geek is
working on that angle as well if it hasn't been done already, but really, what
real use is it? Perhaps that it may help sell more bottles of some wines
because some zombies need to have someone else tell them what they
should enjoy, and what they should not.
Marco |
The problem with humans are they don't intrepret thier perceptions right. A computor is said to be smart. Well if i look at it I'm convinced that if I give it a problem that it will give me the right answer. If I ask a human he will probably error. There is a WORLD of difference between the answer to a mathematic equation and the feelings a human being experiences when listening to music. In terms of interpreting one's perceptions I say there is no right or wrong. I do not ask another to tell me what I should be feeling or what I should enjoy. It is not the simple solution to an equation. It is infinitely more complex, and layered, and dependent upon variables, both tangible (the space, the intruments, the temperature, etc.) and intangable (the baggage we each come with..the filters through which we perceive the world). It is a sad concept to want to break down those complexities into numbers and some concept of right and wrong. Re: your example of cooking. Try to get a machine to prepare a gourmet meal. Again, probably someone already working on it, but I doubt it will be as effective as a master chef. Even if it were, and again, I go back to perception, how a group of individuals enjoy the final product (the food in this case) is entirely subjective and individual. There is no right or wrong there either, regardless of technique. Some folks like it, others may not. Marco |
I don't know that I agree with your last statement C5150. I'm not sure what your point is there either. I'm not sure that all we need to do is agree on the fucntion. I may prefer a different rendition from a specific album than you prefer...perhaps I like the warmth of tubes and you like the detail and muscle of SS. I don't see either as having anything to do with an objective "truth", either yours or mine. It is simply what either of us prefer in the moment. It may change as well...maybe a year from now I tire of tubes and am swayed by SS. What does that indicate about the "goal of audio" as the original post asks? The "function" of this stuff is to bring music into our homes, and to provide enjoyment for us in doing so. Beyond that, every person has a different set of preferences which may or may not be suited by a given manufacturers answers, no matter how good the manufacturer is. Not everyone strives for the experience of "live music" in their home, while others may think "live" to sound a different way than you or me might. Tubes/SS, Med-Rare/Well Done, crank bass/no tone controls, vanilla/chocolate, Lamm/Pioneer, Dinner at 21 Club /Dinner at McDonalds. No decision is right or wrong or objectively "better" than the other. If there were one singular goal of any of these things, there would be far fewer alternatives and variations available. It is the fact that the world, and the people in it, are so diverse, and so in flux, that creates markets with such a tremendous variety to choose from.
Marco |
Snatch the pebble from the crack of my ass young Grasshopper, and it will be time for you to wash your hands!
Marco |
Ol' Chuck 101 has clearly been doing some searching for it himself since he's obviously got his head buried deep up his own dark cavity, and has yet to contribute anything here beyond what he's found up there!
Marco |
I always wonder how I got this brown nose.... Yeah, I had to get out my hip-waders a while ago. What's all this crap about par-boiled steaks and race car mechanics. Y'er loosing me C5150. Practicioners of the high-art of the kingdom of audiophiledom?! Do I get a gold, jewel-encrusted ring with the seal of the brotherhood emblazoned atop? I tell you, the more I've gotten that far obsessed in this hobby, the more I pity those who actually stay there - at least for me, it takes me so far away from the actual music itself which was the whole reason I got into it in the first place. I suppose there is enjoyment to be had at the level of the gear and tweaking, but for me that pales in comparison to the music. Perhaps for others it is of equal or greater enjoyment. I'd just like to get it out of the way and get on with the music. Still, I have a very low tolerance for mediocrity. I guess I try to keep the former in balance, but every once in a while I notice myself getting obsessed with the minutia and not enjoying the music and I have to go take a cold shower and flog myself with a barbed wire whip, then roll around in rock-salt. Works for me. Perhaps I should follow that all up by getting aged fillet mignon and boiling it till it's grey. Marco |
I guess if you own a stereo you qualify ,but why dump on bose then? Touche! I dump on Bose because I know that for the same amount of money you can have a much more rewarding investment. But that's just my opinion, as is everything I'm putting out here. I am not under the illusion that my opinion should be applicable to everyone. Fact is there's nothing really wrong with Bose that a sledgehammer and a dumpster wouldn't fix. Oh damn, there I go again. I didn't learn the lesson you were teaching. Back in the early 80's when I popped my audiophile cherry I had a good friend with a pair of Bose 901's hanging in his Brooklyn loft. Powered, no doubt, by some mass-market SS system. It sure filled the loft with sound, but had no redeaming qualities I can recall other than being capable of playing loudly. Around the same time I was introduced to some modest systems that were probably less expensive than the Bose rig, yet were very memorable. Some I recall to this day with great fondness. I'd like to send them cards and flowers every year, but I've lost their addresses. On the other hand, my neighbor was showing off an airplane to me that he's building in his workshop . While I was there he had a little boombox thing playing some music. For a garage boombox it didn't sound too bad. Beter than you average boombox. It was a Bose Wave radio. Go figure. Marco |
Definitely go for the industry standard green dumpster. 9 out of 10 professional sanitation engineers can't be wrong! You can tenderize your steak before you boil it using the sledge hammer. When it's done, throw it all in there with the Bose speakers and we'll have us a little piece of heaven in a dumpster served-up Audiophile style! 5-star chefs will turn their backs, while Ferarri mechanics try to figure out where the engine is, but we'll all be happy cause we've got everything we need in that green dumpster.
I don't need anyone to tell me what I should like C5150. Specialists, critics, 5-star pros, Oprah, nor the Pope have no clue as to what makes me tick, or what I enjoy...shit, Oprah doesn't even know me, and the last time the Pope was over he fell asleep on the couch and snored all night. If I go out and buy the latest list of Records to Die For from the recent Stereophile I could almost guarandamntee you I'll dislike more than half of them. If I go out and watch all the movies that Siskel and Roper give a thumbs up to...well that'd probably be just about everything they review...there would certainly be quite a few I'd dislike. You may have some magical technique to cook steak, but it ain't necessarily gonna' make everyone happy. Critics may agree....top professionals in the field even...unimpeachable authorities may make declarations to end all declarations...none of it will matter cause you or me or anyone on this list will experience it in a unique way, whatever it may be. Shoot, just take a look at any of the hundreds of threads that ask the question "What is the best __________" and take a gander at the wide variety in the list of answers. I want to start a thread asking simply, "What is the best answer?!"
Agree with Stevecham about the MP3/iPod combo...you can keep it, and better pick up a bottle of Advil if you plan on listening to it for any length of time. The op-amp in iPod leaves much to be desired. Line-out is not nearly as bad - if you go into a good headphone amp, use WAV or Apple Lossless and some good cans, you've got something quite listenable. Still, I'd trade the combo for a nice solid boat anchor with a good DAC and speakers any day. Ahoy matey! Blast yer' scuppers! Haul in the mizzenmast! Weigh anchor, we're off to sea!
Marco |
I 'm not telling you what you should like guys. I'm telling you should have fun and enjoy your systems . Just don't call it audiophile. It has a definite definition that's all I am saying. You have what is called lifestyle systems. Your living rooms plus a hi-fi set up. Not to be confused with audiophile. It is living room plus cool. Your two statements here contradict one another IMO. Paul Klipsch had a little button he liked to refer people too upon hearing them espouse blather like this. It said simply, in elegant old english lettering, against a bright yellow background; "Bullshit". As far as sticking folks into pidgeon holes, and giving them titles, some of which are solely to elevate or lower their status in one arena or another, well, that'd be my response to you. You can look at my system on my system page and you can make up any old name you like for me like ol' Chuckles101 might. Either one means the same to me: absolutely nothing. Thinking like that is about as tightly packed "in the box" as a person can get. Labels and pidgeon holes are the roots of prejudice, and in the way your are applying them only serve to separate one of us from the other. No fun in that at all. Marco |
So, we have the real definition of an audiophile; No, actually the definition you proposed doesn't even come close. But if you did look up the actual definition you may find a more cut and dry answer to your question. The definition in Meriam-Webster doesn't say anyting about iPods, posting pictures, the price paid for any systems, or whether or not there is a predisposition to disrespect Bose or any other manufacturer. Their definition doesn't even require the individual own an audio system... Main Entry: au·dio·phile
Pronunciation: 'o-dE-O-"fIl
Function: noun
: a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction Investigate that a little bit further and check out the definition of High-Fidelity: Main Entry: high fidelity
Function: noun
: the reproduction of an effect (as sound or an image) that is very faithful to the original So, there you have it. By definition the answer to your question is yes. In actual practice it once again comes down to more relative terms, determined by who's judging what qualifies as "faithful to the original", and we've already been there so I won't digress any further. Marco |
Cdc - I enjoyed reading your System description and evolution! A great illustration of how the actual range of what can provide enjoyment in this hobby is vast, and that the magic is in the enjoyment itself, and not in how well it fits within someone's objective definitions and parameters.
Marco |
