Merry go round

I agree on some points but differ on others.

Music and Sound: I don’t listen only for sound quality but I enjoy changing the qualities of the sound, just as I enjoy changing pictures on the wall occasionally or eating different kinds of food. Some tweakers have a disease, but it’s a mistake to think that all do. Not everyone who has a couple of drinks is an alcoholic.

Benchmark sound: I agree that there is a "best" for a particular system (and room). You’re right to advise people not to push beyond the physical/acoustic boundaries. I would add that there are ways of having alternate gear to swap in to change the modality of the sound a bit. (E.g., swap in a tube amp for a while, change the sound for variety’s sake.)

Musical accuracy: I prefer "sound that pleases me." To a degree, this means "realism," that is, the illusion there is, say, a guitar with nylon strings in front of me. But so much about the fabrication that is audio is about the experience of music, and not "accuracy." No one bats an eye when TV, movies, etc. portray actions and scenes from angles we cannot possibly inhabit. Why is it that we demand "lifelike" or "realism" from music? Again, my best analogy is food: very few people eat rare steak or steak tartare. They broil it, fry it, and put it in stir fry. No one complains that beef stir fry isn’t "real" enough. While no one wants to miss the flavor of the beef, it’s all part of a larger "food experience." Why not think of music reproduction the same way?

@kevn

Thanks for your friendly post.

A meal has ingredients, such as beef, which comes from a cow. The cow is processed and the material is configured in various ways that leads to the experienced taste perceptions.

A reproduced song has ingredients, such as sound, which comes from a plucked guitar (say). The sound is processed and the material is configured in various ways that leads to the experienced audible perceptions.

Everything at every step of the way is real. But all that means that everything at every step of the way exists. That’s a truism which we barely need to add.

The idea that there is some single "reality" or "original" which everything goes back to is, I think, the fiction. There is an event, an existence, at the start of the chain of causes. But it doesn’t have a meaning until someone interprets it -- selects certain details and omits others, emphasizes certain qualities over others and then takes all of those intial emphases and combines them (fries the beef, equalizes the audio, etc.). In other words, there is no "source" in a meaningful sense; there is a cause but not a reason which we could all agree on.

How close is the beef in the meal to the original? Or the audio sound to the plucked guitar? Depends who you ask, because people differ on which criteria are most important. 

So, when you say, "While we may each taste real beef differently, we all recognise the taste of real beef as real beef, regardless of how it’s prepared" -- all I can say is the word "real" is not doing any work here. In the same way people will disagree about whether something said was a "witty remark" or a "subtle put down," people will disagree about what beef "really" tastes like or what a plucked guitar really sounds like. We can each "point to the source," as you say, but that doesn’t solve anything. There is nothing automatically meaningful to converge on.

This is how I see it. I agree that accuracy in music reproduction exists, but it exists in the same way that "pawns can move one or two squares on the first move" exists. In other words, accuracy is a word we use in a certain style of talk, about audio. It means something different in archery. That’s all we have to go on, but it’s enough.

Great reply, @kevn
I appreciate you pushing me on this. It helps me become clearer about my convictions and intuitions, perhaps even realizing that some are wrong. ;-)

At the venue, when you say something "is ‘real’ for everyone" I agree. But "real" is probably something which involves the immediacy of the experience but only partially (and very imperfectly) the various elements of sound we are discussing in relation to audio, here.

Why is that? Well, what counts as the single "real" listening episode? Now the questions come about the people at the show: Where are they sitting? Near or far? Right or left? Is the background quiet or is there (as at my jazz club) there a fan in the background? Are we talking about the 20 year old’s ears or the 60 year old’s? All those variations affect what is "heard as really happening" by those at the show. These include tonality, soundstage, texture, and more.

Now I think a sensible reply (perhaps yours) might be: "Right, right -- all those things are variables. But I’m thinking about what is real-within-a-range, a reality that most could agree with." After all, no one looks at a sunset and says, "What a beautiful moon." We are way more similarly equipped to agree with what is "basically real." And I agree with that. But outside of those basics, there will be a vast amount of disagreement about what is actually heard. And, of course, some listeners are paying more attention to the voice and not the plucked strings, or the cymbal not the bass, etc. What a person listens FOR influences what they perceive.

If the above is correct, then the reply should probably be: "Ok, but what is real is what the ideal listener would hear. With great hearing, and with no particular attention to this or that, etc. They don't care more for the voice than the bass, etc. They are ecumenical." Problem is, there is no such listener. We listen because we're interested and we're always interested in some way or another. (Only God is indifferently interested, I suppose. Which makes it weird to think that God cares. But I digress.) Differences in interest explain why people always differ about particulars. So, when someone mics the show and then engineers it, they have to decide which particulars are aesthetically best to convey -- this is why they call it the "recording arts" rather than "science."

As for your statement, "one certainly cannot prefer the recorded sound of a plucked guitar string over that plucked at a live performance" -- I have to disagree. Most concerts I go to are plagued with sonic imperfections -- where I’m sitting, the mediocre PA’s the use, background noise, etc. If you mic the performance and then use technologies to "clean it up" it can sound much better. That is not a random personal preference at all -- I’m am looking for a recording and mixing process that makes me happy, aligned with my aesthetic values.

Cheers!

Thanks for the clarification.

We will have to agree to disagree. If I’m understanding, you believe in the idea of a "true" sound of live instruments, particularly in an intimate setting as a universal baseline for audio appreciation. You suggest that preferences for recorded sound over this "true" live sound are misguided and that balanced listening, encompassing all aspects of sound, is the ideal.

I still have the same objections as before. Why?

First, your idea of the "true" sound is a construct. You posit a singular "true" sound of a live instrument. However, even in intimate settings, the sound is influenced by numerous factors: the specific instrument, the player’s technique, the acoustics of the small space, the listener’s position, and even their individual physiology and hearing acuity. There is never one objective "true" sound, but always, rather, a range of sonic possibilities. "Oh, but we need to strip that stuff away," you argue. Ok, but if we do that what we wind up with is an imagined ideal, your interpretation of a particular sonic event. But this is an interpretation you claim is true -- it is not truth itself.

Second, experience always shapes perception. Our individual listening histories play a crucial role. Someone who primarily listens to rock music might have a different "baseline" than someone who primarily listens to classical or electronic music. Their brains, we might say, get wired differently based on their sonic experiences. (Try eating a food you detest as analogy. Another person’s testimony that you need to taste it "as it truly is" cannot change your perception.) Therefore, a "balanced" listener, as you describe it, is still balanced *relative to their own experiences*. There’s no universal balance that applies to everyone. When you state you desire that your listening be "as encompassing as it could possibly be," you state an admirable goal, but one nonetheless that starts from a particular experienced standpoint. Your standpoint. No avoiding that.

Third, I suggest that preference is not necessarily misguided. You critique the notion that we are "all different and selective listeners." I assume that this would extend to the person who prefers recorded sound over live sound, too. This merely highlights another limitation to using "live" sound as a "true" standard. That idea, which I believe is a fiction for the reasons above, *also* ignores the artistic choices made in recording and mixing. Producers and engineers are also artists, shaping the sound in ways intended to convey a particular kind of musical experience. Even with live recordings, a mic is chosen, a mixing board is employed, and tastes are anticipated. A preference for a particular recording’s sonic landscape isn’t necessarily a rejection of live sound, but an appreciation for the various additional artistic choices added to the initial sonic events. A lot of people like David Chesky’s recordings or Steven Wilson’s remixes for just this reason.

As for the differences between "good" and "bad" recordings, all I can say is that while you and I might agree on which those are, it is still all subjective. What one person considers a "bad" recording might be another person’s favorite due to its unique sonic characteristics. ("Mono vs. Stereo" debate, anyone?) Some think that tube amps which obscure detail and roll off certain frequencies (speaking crudely) deliver the "true" sound and spirit of the musical performance. Others see these as rose-colored lenses. The tube people will reply that an "everything equal" approach to reproduced music leads to analytical, passionless sound; better to have technology which emphasizes what’s important in the music. The other side replies, "It’s all important. You are just addicted to tubey-ness." And on and on it goes. Then the measurement people will get involved, and insist that there are objective criteria for determining the quality of a recording -- the technical measurements. The subjectivists will argue that the measurements often don’t correlate with perceived quality and so it is the measurements which are incomplete. "Subjective bias!" comes the retort! "Number worshiper!" comes the reply. And on and on it goes.

This is I think where "the spade turns" as Wittgenstein said. In other words, you have justified your way of seeing things and I have justified mine. As he put it, if "this is not a question about causes, then it is about the justification for my following the rule in the way I do. If I have exhausted the justification I have reached bedrock and my spade is turned. Then I am inclined to say: ‘This is simply what I do’." (Philosophical Investigations, 1953: §217)

The difference which remains between us is, I think, that you believe that people (like me) chasing various preferences is somehow not doing the biggest, most generous search possible in audio. I’m too entranced by my own blinders, my preferences and likes. I would be liberated to make more discoveries if I understood how there is a "true" sound and using that as a standard for my audio journey would open it up to make it "as encompassing as it could possibly be."

My reply to that is I am already searching for the greatest variety of experiences, but I believe that blinders really come from believing in a fiction, e.g., a universal "true" sound which would someday dismiss all of the "biased" individual preferences. Such a view, as I see it, overlooks the fundamental and subjective joy of auditory experience. But here’s we reach what’s pivotal for me: if everything is subjective, then nothing is. There is no such thing as objectivity. The question for each of us it to figure out how to find enjoyment. For some, that will be looking for as much expansion of experience as possible. For others, that will mean sticking with what works. Objectivity has nothing to do with it.

@kevn Thanks, you too!

rvpiano:

Honestly, I didn't quite understand your point. Your view of "portrays the music accurately”  is that it "delivers the musical message in a realistic way without distortion of original signal."

My point was that there is all audio systems add their own character -- "coloration" or "distortion," that is, "character" -- and so the word "realistic" is useless.

Think of an audio system like a painting rather than a window. 

When we are in a museum, we do not ask, "Which painter portrays Jesus (say) accurately?"
We say, "I like Dali's portrait of Jesus" or "I like Raphael's portrait of Jesus," etc.

We like the painters who somehow speak to our emotions, our sensibilities, our sense of taste, our understanding of what the subject matter means to them.

Some people who are not religious might prefer a certain religious portrait because it conveys their "take" on religion -- there's a dark hint of criticism to it, which jibes for them.

Others who are deeply pietistic might prefer portraits which amplify the transcendental greatness of the subject matter.

Audio is really no different. It's all an interpretation of the original event. The question is, do you know yourself well enough to know which interpretation fits?

If you're ambivalent about sound, you're likely ambivalent about yourself.

@rvpiano Got it. 

Sometimes my concert hall doesn't sound very good. I will come home from a performance and put on a CD or stream the same song and think, "Ah, now that's better." It is -- it's truly better.