I was on the audiophile merry go round of never being satisfied with my system, compulsively tweaking and changing equipment, searching for perfection for quite a number of years. But despite all the conflict I have come out of the ordeal with a system that, I can honestly say, portrays the music accurately. So in many ways, it wasn’t a waste of time and money.
The trick is, once you have found a system that satisfies you, stop agonizing over the sound. You’ve reached Nirvana, where all you have to do is sit back and enjoy your music in glorious sound. If there are sound defects, SO WHAT! The fault is NOT in your system. You’ve reached your system’s benchmark sound and anything that strays from that is the fault of the medium. Even ENJOY the faulty track for the great music that lies within. I’m sure you’ll even find some niceties of sound that exist.
I'm not saying that I’ll never buy another “upgrade.” But, as of now, I don’t see the need.
For those who listen only for SQ, enjoy the quest.
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?
The worst a’phile trap is that a’philes believe with money, effort, and some luck, their systems will sound close to a perfect original sound. I promise it won’t happen. Has anyone in history achieved a close to the perfect reproduction sound? No.
Why not? All recordings sound distorted, bright and dirty because all microphones in the world sound distorted, noisy, and bright. There is no way even a perfect audio system will sound great with bad original recordings.
Though any one who can build a perfect audio system, he could build a perfect sound microphone since speaker and microphone have same technology. Think why all best mics are from 1940’s and 50’s.
So, if you have a musical system and want to upgrade, be prepared to come back to the current system in case a new one doesn’t sound as musical.
Yes, I totally agree that experimenting with different sounds is fun, and part of the hobby. So long as it doesn’t turn into a quest for perfection. It’s a totally different thing
@mihorn- Personally, I'd never care about 'perfect original sound'; not being in the studio with the producer, I would have no idea what that was, and it might not sound good in my listening room. I just want something that sounds good to me with details and a bit of excitement thrown in..
@mihorn - Personally, I'd never care about 'perfect original sound'; not being in the studio with the producer, I would have no idea what that was, and it might not sound good in my listening room. I just want something that sounds good to me with details and a bit of excitement thrown in..
I started hi-end audio like you.
I always have a pretty big audio system from late 70's. I was happy with those sounds 1st 20 years. However, when I have money and time, I wanted have a serious sound system and I wasted money and effort like many people. If I knew that there is a limit in sound (all recordings are flawed), I could save lots of time and money.
Maybe a measure of satisfaction is when average quality recordings sound “good,” and lousy recordings sound “tolerable.” The great recordings are icing on the cake.
Good discussion. I find this hobby is a journey not a destination and I like tweaking my system and adding different systems. My main system is the best it’s ever been and so I’m happy listening to my music. There’s always new equipment coming out and that’s part of the fun for me. As long as it’s not FOMO but enjoying the journey I’m good. As Hans says, enjoy the music.
"Guiding your visions to heaven, and heaven is in your mind....."
And will likely have to remain there, for there will always be a new bauble that beckons perfection if only in copy or a moment in a demo...
The universe is flawed, and sub-atomic particles can be broken like dreams.
I couldn’t agree more either. I am focused more on finding music now. Listening to an album you have never heard or not for 30 years is a great thing. And to listen on a system you have assembled you really like. It’s doesn’t get much better.
Some of the best times I have ever had listening to music was in a car… Driving on a freeway… enjoying the scenery, music cranked and highly distorted… It was awesome!
I didn't assemble or voice my system with only audiophile recordings since the vast, vast majority of recordings and what I listen to are mediocre. My system is easily resolving enough to expose the warts in recording while still providing an immersive listening experience.
My intended destination has always been to enjoy the vast majority of recordings from all eras and genres, the music lover in me, and to admire the sound quality of that music played through a high end system, the audiophile in me. The music lover and audiophile can coexist within all of us, have to find that sweet spot.
I'm continually amazed at the number of "audiophiles" who spend enormous amounts of money on equipment without having any idea of what they really want their systems to sound like. Forty years ago I heard a pair of ProAc Response 2's and a little Cary 300B amp, and I thought, that's what I want. A while later a friend sold me his ProAcs for a song, and I started experimenting with building my own tube amplifiers, and that's where I've pretty much been ever since. The system has improved as my building and tuning skills have improved, but even if I couldn't "do-it-myself," I'd be very happy with any number of vintage tube outfits. I've even heard some solid-state equipment I could live with. ;-)
Another sound I'll never forget was performing as a spoken-word artist in the midst of a symphony orchestra. The warmth, ease and relaxed power of that sound is something I always think back to when judging an audio system. It would be practically impossible to actually recreate in a home environment, but as a guide to what music really sounds like, it's been a touchstone for me.
@hilde45- if I may, your analogy of food is not quite correct, because regardless of what you prefer there, you’re still eating the real thing - you’d need a simulacrum of the experience of taste and smell to make a more relevant analogy with sound reproduction in hifi audio. I could well say I prefer soft furry things to sharp edges in relation to what my fingers touch, but I cannot deny the realism of either, regardless of preference.
Regardless of whether it’s sight, sound, taste, smell or touch, the only basis any of us have of gauging the quality of what has been reproduced has to be founded on the criteria of how close that reproduction is to our closest understanding of the original, and not some random criteria of preference, of all things.
And to say we all hear differently, is another unsupported argument audiophiles persistently make - sure we all hear differently, but the basis, the source of reality of what we each hear is the same, and it evens out as a collective understanding - meaning, your sense of what constitutes reality cannot be different from mine, simply because the perceived source is the same. We may receive it differently, but we can each point to the source itself as its definition. 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. And that simulacrum of your preferred beef would have to be itself gauged together with the particular reality source (sauce haha) it was prepared with. You may not like your beef rare, or with mustard, but your only gauge of how good, or ‘accurate’ that simulacrum of rare beef with or without mustard, could only possibly come from your having actually tasted the real thing.
Accuracy in music reproduction does exist, even if it’s more convenient to say our preferences matter more.
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.
In the last fifty plus years I have changed everything in my system more times than I can count. And as of right now, I’m close to my happy place. Improving my DAC is coming, but I am not in a huge rush to do so. I’m currently able to listen to music at comfortable levels for hours without any fatigue and for me, that’s what it’s all about.
@hilde - thank you for your kind response ; ) - just to clarify, I am certainly not saying there is one kind of reality, only that at any one venue that live music is being played, no one is going to point at the plucked string of a guitar and say that doesn’t sound like their sort of preferred reality. It is ‘real’ for everyone at the venue, for how they each hear reality. It is the same string, the same guitar and the same resonant air.
One may well ‘prefer’ the taste of us grade prime beef over that of New Zealand stock, but if high fidelity is indeed what one cares for, one certainly cannot prefer the recorded sound of a plucked guitar string over that plucked at a live performance. This sort of comparative evaluation is our only gauge of how well resolving a system is, not a random personal preference of taste regarding sound reproduction.
If you disagree, I would certainly like to understand how you critically evaluate the performance of your system ; )
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.
- thanks for your response, there was a lot in there to parse out, and i hope you won’t mind me thinking aloud.
To start with, my apologies for not writing with greater clarity earlier - when I stated ‘one certainly cannot prefer the recorded sound of a plucked guitar string over that plucked at a live performance’, I did not mean any number of varieties of live performances, but specifically an intimate live performance, of perhaps one, or two guitarists in a duet. Nothing else to get in the way in order venue imperfections get in the way. Better yet, if we can even let go of the word ‘performance’, and just focus on the sound of a plucked string - for those accustomed to listening to the true timbre and tone of each instrument unblemished by space or venue, location in the space, room reflections and the like, there is a deeper understanding gained of how that ‘true’ sound changes with all those variables you mentioned thrown in, such that even with everything going on, there will be good sense of what sounds right, or if someone has messed around too much with the sound engineering.
This was the unexplained context for my statement which, phrased better, should have read ‘one certainly cannot have a preference for any kind of recorded sound of a plucked guitar string over that of a live plucked string.’ The sound of that live plucked string, together with the sounds of live struck pianos, timpani or bass drums, blown piccolos saxophones and clarinets, forms the the basis of how we each calibrate our systems. None of it is preferential, however deeply involving, complex, or long the process takes.
I hope I’m making sense, so far.
And if you accept my reasoning, then many things follow that help explanation on the issues of listening and the common refrain that we are all different and selective listeners. Thing is, the fact that most of us are selective in what we listen for is far less of a virtue regarding our wonderful diversity than it is an indictment of our incompleteness as listeners. It is often stated we build our systems for each our own ears and no one else’s, as a banner to our individuality no one else need appreciate and yet, the common ground we all share far exceeds the individualism we espouse. Part of the problem is due to the fact many audiophiles believe our hobby to be about putting together a nuanced, resolving and dynamic system, particular to our individual tastes and selectiveness. At its most foundational level, however, I believe the joy of being an audiophile is simply about learning how to listen and to hear as many aspects of music and its recorded outcomes as is possible - to be a balanced listener rather than a perfect one. And, this joy comes not from whatever one might already know and prefer, but over every other aspect of listening we are not familiar with or aware of.
And that is what I have found my journey of music reproduction to be - less one which is selective, but rather as encompassing as it could possibly be : ) - there is one other issue regarding your search for recording and mixing processes aligned with your sensibilities which, however much I appreciate, I also find limiting, primarily because of the huge wealth of everything else I haven’t yet learned how to listen for: I’ve mentioned it before that ‘good’ recordings are quite easily identified, whereas truly bad recordings are very very difficult to pick out - in part due to the ability of a particular system to tease out all the nuance of resonant air found in any recording studio, but also over our abilities to detect those less unfamiliar aspects of the entire sound spectrum. That said, Adele does have some of the worst sound engineered recordings I have ever heard 😂 - in any case, I hope you too find yourself challenged by this absolutely magical hobby we share : )
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.
I agree with you. There is no one objective way to perceive a recording. Of course there are many flavors of sound that may be acceptable. I’m not speaking of one objective sound reality. A recording is an artifact unique unto itself. It has its unique sound stamp. When I say “portrays the music accurately” I’m not saying it portrays the original sound accurately. I’m saying it delivers the musical message in a realistic way without distortion of original signal,
OP you are simply bending your words and staying on the merry go round, instead of discovering that hilde45 is offering a most graceful exit. Hence, you ARE the merry go round, in that you are continuing to demonstrate that you are a prisoner of your own way of thinking. Suggestion: set your own viewpoints aside, and seek a sincere understanding, as you reread his last post (a few times).
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.
My point is a very simple one. I didn’t mean for it to cause a hullabaloo!
When I say accurate, I mean that my system now sounds like the music I hear at a concert hall. I’m not probing the meaning of the word accurate. I’m using it in a very general sense. Maybe I should have used the word resembled.
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.
I had alot of audio equipment and can change my set up .So that's what I do...if I can get stuff down from my attic....but I'm 73 and NOT buying new equipment....I spent my money on lps and cds ,especially the cds you can get stuff so cheap now...ever vinyl if you luck out at the thrift,savers,local library...got 7 albums this week cost me $44 bucks....and if I bought them at ebay they would of cost an average of $7.00 more for shipping ...so I saved big time..
Sounds almost like a self fulfilling prophecy at work...or psychological training at this point, lol
You’ve reached Nirvana, where all you have to do is sit back and enjoy your music in glorious sound. If there are sound defects, SO WHAT! The fault is NOT in your system. You’ve reached your system’s benchmark sound and anything that strays from that is the fault of the medium.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
