Sherod, I didn't miss the point of your story, but what is most of audiophilia if it isn't picking nits. BTW, I did spell Royal correctly the second time!
You and your friend were not really discussing which system was more realistic (both of your systems are quite good), but discussing taste. Goes with the bourbon, er, whiskey.
Salut, Bob P. |
Whiskey,bourbon. I don't drink anymore so who cares? Besides, it's spelled Royal, not Royale. And who said I can't tell what's reality ? As they said in the Old West, Bob, " Here's lookin' at ya "...I'm sorry you missed the point of my story,you little nit-picker,you... |
Crown Royale Bourbon!? I thought that Crown Royal was whiskey. No wonder you can't agree on "realism", you don't even know the "real" whiskey!
Salut, Bob P. |
Most everyone in one way or another have touched on my feelings about "neutrality" and "realism" so I won't expound, but I'll tell a quick story. About 26 years ago(give or take) I was just getting into my first "high-end" system ( Musical Concepts modified Hafler DH200amp and DH 101 preamp,Linn Sondek LP-12w/Monster Alpha MC,cassette deck(CD wasn't around yet)and the new DCM Time Windows. This wasn't state-of-the-art but it was musical for me and since I was still trying to complete college and money was tight, I thought it was acceptable. A friend of mine had another system that he was proud of( I can't remember the amplification, but the speakers were some floor-standing Janzen electrostats) so it came down to a competition of who had the best-sounding system. After listening to each other's sytem for many hours on several weekend visits, we each felt our own system was the better set-up. One night, while we were embibing heavily on some Crown Royal bourbon ( we were at my friend's house), my friend looked at me and asked," How can you say your system is better when it is obvious my system sounds better. I told him," Look,your system sounds nice, but mine sounds more life-like and realistic." He then smiled and said,"Well, maybe, but mine sounds better than real." I guess the moral to this story is "realism" is in the ear of the beholder.We all hear differently and what sounds more real to me may not to you.That's why we'll always have the s.s. vs. tube debates,etc., and why a website like Audiogon will never die out as long as there are audiophiles. There are many camps in musicdom and we all need to respect each other's opinion of what sounds best to us. |
|
|
Yes, yes, can we take a break now? |
Twl,
Ying and Yang is dualism. The "truth" is non-dual... The "supreme truth" cannot be contradicted to each other! Ying/Yang can only bring you to the door, but not into "the house". This is where "great men" are different from men... |
Onhwy, I bought a used GRACE 2ch Lunatec mic pre for $800, rather than two glitzy 101s. Glad I did: the small Lunatec velco's under the piano out of sight, its detented knobs are finger-friendly in the dark, and its TOTALLY silent.
Get one used NOW as it's been replaced by the Lunatec V3 with a DAC in it for $300 more. The Alesis has a fine DAC, so it'd be redundant. Readers should note that I made 40 foot cheap-but-great Canare XLRs from mic thru pre thru Masterlink to Aleph P! $0.44/ft! A pro favorite, and now I know why. Yet when it came time to connect the Masterlink to the beloved Aleph P pre, my left/right brain balancing act between Asa's subjectivity (Nordost?) and pro engineers' (TWO of 'em watching me intently, laughing all the way) objectivity (more Canare) resulted in a crisis of audiophilia nervosa...so I made the Canares AND bought a 1/2m Blue Heaven XLR (at least I didn't get SPM, eh?).
My new/old piano teacher insists that I perfect getting my lower back energy projecting into my Brahms' chords, instead of sweating the wire. Man '0 man is she right? No wonder we marry these other-chromosomed types, eh? Cheers. |
I've occasionally had esteemed, graying jazz musicians play live alongside my Steinway, between my Parsifal Encores.
Mostly standup, acoustic guitar, voice, and violin.
I'm impressed by the fact that I can REPRODUCE my piano by careful mic placement such that its bottom end sounds BETTER than live! Ha! There's no mystery, here, afterall, as the left Earthworks mic sits so close to the soundboard and lower strings that I can "make" my beloved "B" sound bigger and better through my Encores than the set of wavefronts that hit me when I'm playing the thing. It's all about wave propagation and summation at the listening (playing) position. Sure the top octaves are more complex live, with that truly wonderful "B magic octave", etc.
So the more-neutral (huh?) reproduced position sounds BETTER (thanks to purely-objective, science-proven stuff about physics, mic placement, Earthworks' transient response, a fully-Class A amp chain, etc.) than my oh-so-"REAL" 800 lb, 7' friggin acoustic transducer IN THE ROOM!
So the above discussion's "it's so nice that them poles should meet" near-waltz resolution and male-bonding now has to address THIS redefining of the turf! Would ya?...could ya? (And PLEASE keep Jung, Mazwell (my collegiate days fave) and Kant (especially, you engineers!) outta this.
And Asa's only allowed 20% of the thread-inches (sorry, I love ya too, buddy, but my eyes grow tired at these early AMs).....
So I'm a pig cryin' in shit: I'll be able to make recordings of MYSELF IN MY ROOM that sound as good as the near-best commercial ones (except for room ambience, of course), so I can't complain...'ceprt I can't figure out how to use this Alesis Masterlink....
A grateful and happy Thanksgiving to all! |
There are some wonderful comments here and I want to posit a few thoughts.There is a simple way to check "real" in your room in your home.I assume some of us own and play acoustic instruments or can go to acoustic house concerts in there cities and or invite musicians to your home to play and get some free grub(they love that).Sit in your sweet spot,listen, make notes,how does the attack,decay and timbral qualities sound to you with a real instrument in your room.My wife plays her taylor guitar in the living room where the system is so I can make comparisons.Is this the perfect solution?,no but it is one way to reference sans opinion and hyperbole.I like to find solutions to questions like these and not run down my battery on conjecture.Between the hundreds of us here we can find a referencing tool for checking the realism of our systems and a guitar,violin,horn,singers,drummers and others in your listening room does it for me. |
Cdc, an argument like that could be used to justify engineers using EQ, harmonic enhancers and other creative outboard devices. |
Since mics, etc. will always take away something from the original sound, it would seem components would have to add some of that back. Meaning the must put out more than they get in.
Not the best example but: say SET's are quicker than reality. Since some speed is lost in the recording process, SET's just put it back at the realistic amount of the original event. |
Realism. Always. Because Neutrality implies measured flat system response from 5 hz (or whatever that low is ) to 20K hz (or whatevr that high is) at certain intervals say 16 hz , 20 hz, 32 hz and so forth. What happens in between is what the Realistic well nuanced musical system sounds.
Realistic well nuanced musical system reproduces realistic tonal balance not only fundamentals but also lower and upper harmonics of an instrument. Analytical Neutral systems don't necessarily does that hence could be uninvolving.
Other way to look at this is: A piano notes from 25hz lowest to 8 K hz highest. Analytical system can measure flat even say (but may not) 25 hz, 26 hz, 27 hz and to 7999hz , 8000 hz of piano notes. But what happens at undertones, overtones, overall tonal balance. There is no way to measure the' flatness' of these wide band at each freq cut-off.
Therefore a realistic, Well nuanced musical system, if there is way to measure, will come close to live sound of the same very well recording.
GOD IS IN THE NUANCE (realistic). An audiophile slogan. |
Ying/yang is the function of cognition directed at the "what is", which, presto!, even science points to as infinite in its physical reflection to this structuring perception (remember, "infinity" is an abstraction for an experience beyond terms, beyong dualistic encompassment; if all is infinite, then there can be no non-infinite separate from it; words and science point to it so we can talk, but the infinite is expereinced in a trans-dual space of the mind).
Ying and Yang, twl, you say perhaps never meeting but never apart? The symmetry of your observance determines whether you only see one (Ying/Yang as manifestation of your dualistic cognition, seeking to manipulate things) or view the world dualistically AND a perception beyond those limitations that integrates both IN THE SAME MOMENT OF SIGHT (integrating Ying/Yang seen manifesting through the cognitive's mind construction of "what is" and, also, at once, through the trans-cognitive sight integrating opposition). This "see-ing" both ways at once has to do with the causal ground of Ying/Yang, and seeing this arisement as it arises as your own mind's constructed cognitive processing. You have to observe your own processing until you know that "you" are not only those constructs; you settle by "letting go" of your attachment to all thought as defining your ground nature. This open space of the mind, stably reached, reveals both sights at once.
Every road is a road towards this integration. "Data" may point in that direction, or our words here for that matter, but only YOU can go there with your OWN MIND; the "what is" is suseptible to measurement of others to give you pointing koans, and pointing mathematics on subset and/or chaos and/or quantum uncertainty theories, but you can not look to the others' "measurements" to go there; you must have the courage/faith to go there yourself, beyond the ideas of yourself. Until then, you will live in a world where you believe in the paradox, a dualism of separablity your thoughts inherently impose, rather than seeing its integral resolution in each moment of experience, thinking or not, "you" or "other".
It is not only a knowledge for Kings, or for Kings of knowledge...
PS Wonderful words twl.
Have a nice wkend all. |
Perhaps it would be instructional for us to look at Buckminster Fuller's theories and constructs which stem from his foundational principals of the inherent "duality" of nature. He has derived an entire "science" which revolves around the basic assumptions of his philosophies.
As it seems, we have arrived at a premise here, which requires "inclusivity" of two superficially opposing points-of-view, which inherently must both be included together in some way, if a "universal truth" is to be derived from this study/discussion. Since both ends use empirical data, albeit with different methodologies, a link may be available.
The superficial "duality"is a dilemma, and the obvious "goal" would be to find an underlying "tie", which would link both approaches with a "unified theory" of sorts.
We must find a way to swim through the ether, that appears to separate these ideas, but ultimately binds them together in an shadowy interconnected-ness, that is not easily seen by superficial inspection.
A question would then arise, do we start from one end and work toward the other, or do we start from an intermediate point and pull both ends toward each other at the same time?
Or it is even possible to bring them together? Would there be a "quantum break", in which closing in on one observation would cause it's counterpart to be less observable, such as is the case with sub-atomic particle speeds and locations? Are we dealing with a Von Schroedinger dilemma, where all probabilities exist simultaneously on a wave-function until observation occurs? Can we quantify the probability curves of these occurences, to make some useful data?
Or do we simply accept this duality as "yin & yang", with both being equally required for equilibrium, never meeting but never apart? With a philosophical satisfaction that the twain shall never meet, and that they are just roads to journey on the way toward enlightenment?
Just a few thoughts to ponder on this subject. |
What a nice man.
Actually, Asa, I am usually of two minds about just about everything, so on any given day, we might not have any differences at all.
As far as science goes, (this is a gross oversimplification of the systems approach) some try to analyze a leaf by cutting it up and looking at it under a microscope. I look at the tree.
I have a couple of email acquaintances who are always at odds with each other. One a pure subjectivist with no scientific or engineering training who really does not know how sound is recorded, stored and transmitted. The other a well-known math professor who really does know a lot about the science and engineering of audio reproduction. Both of them arrived at the same speakers (Harbeth Monitor 40's - I have smaller Harbeths) as The Truth. Most of the time, I agree with the professor that everything we can hear can be explained by things we already know. |
You see, this how a thread can be reasonable and mature between two groups who just see things from different angles. Because you rely upon science and its accuracies in the first instance, but default ultimately to the product of your accuracies, the result of your science (namely, listening), does not make you an over-bearing materialist; similarly, if you believe scientific measurements are an important tool, but not determitive to the end result of the experiement and that an over-reliance on their veracity can itself be a limitation towards improvement, does not mean you are a regressive New Age romantic idealist. This dialogue, absent egos which identify with ideas as who they are, can occur.
Paulp, interestingly we come down slightly on different sides of the line in ideas on how to get there - not very far apart I would think if we could talk face to face - but still seem inseparable on what "musicality" we are searching for, and which is, I would submit, the dermining factor in why we are here; our love of the beauty of Music transcends our views on how to achieve it.
The difference between us in not in listening, but, again, in the varibles used to get there, our main difference being, again, the assumptions we make, or do not make. Science operates by comparative reductionism; that is the empiricism within its method. In other words, an assumption has developed in science that if you divide something far enough you will disclose all its truth, even though science has not, as yet, conducted this experiment (which is then, by definition of science's own rules, an unscientific assumption). When you say that all sound can be described by scientific terms of further reductionism, even though this has not ocuured with sound (much less music), you commit this fallacy. Perhaps one day science will reach that Grail, or sufficiently so to sufficiently catalyze the mind, but that day has not arrived; scientific measurements can not describe spatio-temporal nuance to a sufficient degree to enable adjustment of the component in that regard strictly based upon those measurements. Even ignoring a Zeno paradox-like problem inherent in such a position (you can divide 1 infinitely, ergo, you can divide sound-pieces infinitely, so you never approach the definitive Truth through that reduction because there is always a remainder), there is no rational basis to conclude that such a reduction will reveal the essense of Truth/Beauty/Music.
My position is that you will always have to listen to hear that beauty in its deepest symmetries (and the experiment of science over the last three hundred years confirms this continual regressing truth into the infinite, i.e. Popper's observation of method that science always disproves the truth which they just "proved" was the Truth). I don't think the "what is" that is suseptible to the imposition of measurement wants you to only use your measurements - or believe that they will eventually be sufficient in and of themselves - to hear the deepest beauty.
As I said, however, the true paradox is that regardless of assumptions in our thinking - and, because we don't need to impose our ideas on each other but share them regardless of their differing content and orientation - we still meet in the middle on what we are here for: to find the beauty in Music.
At its finest, science and its measurements are an integral part of that/the Search.
People who are attached to either pole, namely, of romanticism (denial or reduction of science as a means towards that search), or of materialism (denial of Truth beyond material manipulation) are really the same; in their denials of the truth that each holds forth like a weapon towards the other, their claim of false exclusivity to the Truth, they deny themselves, and ensure their stagnation. They are not searchers, but egos with ideas that they seek to use against others. Regardless of our differing ideas, we are both Searchers, and in that, we transcend our differences - which turn out not to be SUFFICIENT differences at all. This is how we go forwards, together.
I look for Searchers. |
I honestly don't know why the mic placement issue works the way it does, I only know it usually doesn't sound right if you try it otherwise. BTW, what preamp are you using with the Earthworks? Have you heard their speaker? |
61, isn't that a compromise between recording the performance somewhat "as heard" by the audience, but as well with a higher s/n ratio than would be possible if the mics were lower? Also, in MANY halls the first balcony yields a better natural "mix" than the orchestra.
Also the mics CANNOT deal with the Haas Effect (re primary vs secondary arrivals. Even in a small room (mine) I had to get my Earthworks omnis right on my Steinway's strings in order to remove the room sufficiently to actually BETTER the sound than what is heard from my playing position. Sure, the piano is too wide, but spectrally and dynamically its HYPER-real! (There's one for ya, Asa.) |
Agreed, Onhwy61. Also getting back to Rives' room acoustic post.
Once a stereo has reached "perfection" it's the recording which will make or break the reality. Until recordings are perfect, a perfect stereo will show off the recording's faults. Maybe a more musical stereo is better on bad recordings.
Also the perfect stereo needs the correct room to recreate the acoustics of the original event.
The most realistic playback is when a song is new to me and the ear is fooled - at first, for a little while.
Although once got the volume, reverb, and room acoustics just right and felt like Jimmy Hendrix was right in the room. Never could duplicate that again. |
Recording music is a highly skilled craft. A skilled recording engineer will take into account the performer, the instruments, the hall, the recording equipment and make assumptions about the playback equipment in order to make what she considers an accurate representation of the musical performance.
For instance, let's say an unaccompanied vocalist has trouble controlling his dynamics and is prone to a slight sibilance. The engineer might pick a microphone with a recessed upper midrange to combat the sibilance and "ride the fader" during the recordings to keep the dynamic range within the optimum area of the storage medium. Alternatively, the engineer could use a compressor/limiter (essentially an automated volume control) and dump the recording into a computer based editor (think of it as a word processing software for music) and repair individual instances where sibilance is an issue. Neither approach is inherently superior and either method can result in a natural sounding recording. The determining element is not the equipment, but the skill of the engineer.
As audiophiles improve their playback systems they may start to reach a point where their systems are capable of readily revealing the artifacts (edits, aggresive EQ, mismatched reverbs, sibilance, low frequency garbage, tape hiss, instrument bleed-thru, air conditioner noise, etc.) of the recording process. These artifacts are not part of the musical performance and as such can only distract from it. I suspect that a large element of how people react to specific pieces of high end equipment revolves around how the equipment deals with these artifacts. I'm over generalizing, but for unknown reasons some equipment heightens and draws attention to these artifacts, while others expose them, but at the same time don't seem to emphasize them. There's so much that we don't know about reproducing music.
BTW, have you ever noticed how in recording orchestras or other large ensembles that the microphones are never positioned where a listner would normally sit? |
If I may weigh-in here, I have the notion, that a good part of the reason for the measurement aspect of stereo gear is the fact that all components are designed to be interchangeable. Mix and match, if you will. Since the other gear that may be used with any one component is not known my the mfr., an attempt is made to have a "benchmark". This "benchmark" has resulted in a relatively arbitrary, but well meaning, set of measured standards that are meant to assure the user of conformity and usefulness with other units measured by the same standards. So, standards of measurement were adopted for various aspects of performance such as frequency response, total harmonic distortion, power output, etc.
The problem with this is that these processes assume a given idea that flat frequency response or low THD will allow accurate pass-thru to the next component with flat frequency response or low THD. While this may superficially seem to be the case, it is not. Little or no regard is given to the additive or interactive effects of the other components in the chain because the designer is unaware of what the other components will be. So this leads to the designing of equipment in a "vacuum", so to speak. Only the most basic "standards" like output level and impedance levels under static conditions are even considered. All of the other issues are left to the consumer to determine, regarding which items may work well together. And the consumer is ill-equipped to make these decisions, because there is little, if any, data provided for this, and most consumers would not know how to use such data anyway.
This is what leads to the mysterious "synergy" discussions, and the apparent "disconnect" between measurements and sound quality. It is not that the measurements are bad, it is the basic idea of what should be measured, and how to measure it,and provide useful data, that is at the root of the problem.
If a consumer knew that his amp exhibited a THD profile of primarily even-ordered harmonic distortion with a major part at the 2nd harmonic, he could choose a speaker that also had a major part of its THD in the 2nd harmonic,and wire them 180 degrees out of phase, thereby cancelling a significant portion of the distortions of the amp/speaker combination. But, nobody seems to be aware of this type of "system integration design" and none of the measurements really are geared to help anyone do this. Everybody just wants flat response and low distortion, but all components have some dips or rises, and all have some components of distortion. Failure to correctly match these, and other, characteristics will result in additive distortions or frequency anomalies. The consumer is frequently unaware that he is even making this mistake. Also, there is a big difference in having two-tenths of a percent of distortion at the 2nd harmonic, and having one-tenth of a percent at every harmonic point up the scale. In the first case there is a relatively small amount of distortion at one point on the curve. In the second case, there is a smaller maximum distortion rating, but the distortion is all over the place.
So, to sum up, I do believe, as Paulwp seems to, that things that are heard can be measured. But the things measured, and the ways they are measured, and the applications of those measurements leave much to be desired. Now, add that to the things that we haven't learned how to measure, or even realize that they need to be measured, and we end up with a reliance on a faulty set of measurements, and misunderstanding of same, that cannot accurately be used to select our equipment. Thus, many of us rely on our ears to measure what we do know, the sound.
Ultimately the ear is the judge. But I do not discount that certain measurements can lead one to an informed platform from which to begin auditioning, if one can adequately interpret the data that can be found, and apply it in a meaningful way, resulting in a happy combination of components(synergy). And although I personally am a proponent of listening as the final arbiter, I do use design data and measurement data when I can find ways to apply it.
Regarding the brain's interpretation of the sounds generated by the system, I am not in an informed position to comment on that. But I do find it interesting. |
Paulwp hits a long one again. Although I do not rely on technical statistics, I must admit I peruse them with some amusement. I mainly trust my ears as I hone in on my dream system. I share in the premise there are wave interractions out there that remain unmeasurable. I do not rely on specs for that reason. I would never buy a component based on it's distortion figures. I doubt there is any experienced audiophile that does.
I understand there are live performances and there are live performances. One that I attended this week consisted of electronically reengineered violin music played through an array of outdoor speakers. It was fun, especially the visuals. Never could I recapture that event. Last night I listened to a group playing piano, cello, and violin doing some really thought provoking Chinese scores. I had a good seat, with no early reverberation arrival problems. It was a good live event to judge by.
I remain pleased with how close my evolving system approaches recreating the live experience. Each incremental step takes my enjoyment closer to the heart of musician. |
Ernie (Subaruguru) and Muralman, thnak you, but you should give credit to Asa for the catalyzation idea as well as the notion of sufficency.
Ernie, you've really opened a can of worms with the first arrival/second arrival problem. From a designer acquaintance (a scientific objectivist, Asa): "we don't have complete accuracy available as of yet. We may have accuracy on one dimension, such as axial frequency response, but not have accuracy in another dimension, such as sound field arrival vector/intensity accuracy." Moreover, "angle of arrival has much to do with perceived tonal balance. While the data can be gathered there is no established perceptual index for percentage of program intensity per program angle of arrival, even though it plays a very significant role in perceived accuracy. This of course includes boundary effects, timing/phase cues as well as angle of incidence. The perceived summation is quite complex." (These are not my ideas, so don't give me credit for them.)
So, Asa, I think that frequency response is all important in accurately reproducing the recorded event. The caveats are that (1) a perfectly accurate on-axis frequency response may not result in accuracy at your ears in your listening room, and (2) you may find a dollop of sweetness or a rounded edge or a little tweaking with presence for soundstaging effects more pleasing to your ears. (I might too.)
There are lots of other things to measure besides on-axis response; dispersion, off-axis response of speakers, cabinet resonance in speakers, jitter in cdps, amplifier performance into real loads, etc. I think everything that can be heard can be measured. The trick is using the measurements to predict what the listener will experience in his chair in his room.
Asa, the important issues you bring up deserve more thought and discussion, especially considering the secondary (and tertiary, etc.) arrival problems Ernie raises. Is it possible that there is a level of sufficiency that is preferable to complete accuracy in the real world, in order to minimize some of the problems with secondary arrivals? Is it possible that too much auditory information may be a detriment?
Of course, I think I have said, or at least implied, that I really do prefer a little built in loudness compensation on the bottom for warmth and a little (not much, just a tad) of roll-off at the top. My favorite speakers also employ a BBC or Grundee dip centered around 3khz to move centered vocalists back just a bit in the soundstage. I think these deviations from a flat frequency response yield greater realism, that is they conform to what I hear in real life. But, those are just my preferences.
Paul |
Interesting point, Subaru.
Even live music can be un-musical, as in, keep you from falling into the musical meaning deeper.
So, even if frequency is OK, that is not the determintive variable in the dynamic of "musicality", or catalyzing the thinking mind to let go. Of course, your point addresses performance, not how a stereo performs. Fun issue though.
Maybe Paulp can integrate it into a response...? |
I don't think that systems that perform suffieciently close to reality are ever boring, its just that - and Paulwp please take note here - the variables used to describe or define what is sufficiently close are many times not reducable (at least not yet) to measurable responses. The accuracy school I'm referring to looks to measurable variables like frequency (by your last paragraph, Paulpw, I don't think you fall completely in this school, no one ever does by this decade, but I do notice the mention of frequency as you main defining quality, one that measures relative quantity across of spectrum of observation). The result is a bias that seems to imply that such factors are determintive towards this sufficiency, and the default towards that "accuracy" bias leads invariably to its contra-implication, namely, that that which may not be measurable is less important.
We seldom see dogmatic acolytes of scientism anymore, but the bias, as an operational force in the argument, still remains.
So, are there sufficient qualities of stereo rendition that are also not measurable?
Question: When listening to a stereo, as the mind "let's go" of its tendancy to think (deepening musical perception DEFINED by its cognitive fading)does the mind percieve qualities of music that frequency et al can not define?
My point is that at deep levels of stereo perception we experience existential spatial/temporal cues that, as yet, are not measurable, and YET, are VERY important for sufficiently catalyzing the mind to these deeeper levels.
Its not only that our mind is filling in "frequency" in places where it is insufficient, but that at a deeper level - beyond present empiric abilities of quantitative analysis - the stereo component that is highly "musical" is "filling in" spatio-temporal cues so that our mind perceives that existential perception as congruent with "real" space/time.
At the more surface levels of listening - when the thinking mind is "looking" for sound - the measurable variables are critical; a stereo that has insufficient frequency performance draws the thinking mind's attention to that incongruency so you would never go deeper. But a stereo (or the mind of its assembler) that looks PREDOMINANTLY towards measurables such as frequency et al, and whose creation in sound reflects that bias, will not go AS DEEP.
Its not as simple as saying that bias towrds hyper-detail is the issue...also bias towards (attachment of) the measuring ruler of science and its Galilean perspective.
I will stop there; enough to digest.
Paulw, the foregoing is a foil/catalyst for your response, if any, not personally directed. |
Paul, great post!
Muralman, whereas I fundamentally agree with your premise, but even in a live situation (actually, quite often for me, in some of the cheaper seats!), the INaccuracy of the first-arrival/secondary arrivals mix DOES get in the way of that mind/music (or better: ear/brain) catalyzation.
Just recently I heard the glorious Andre Previn conductiong the BSO and Thobodeau in the Ravel Left Hand Concerto, and the orchestra sounded SPLENDID from 6th row center. After the overture the 9' Steinway's way OFF-axis sound was anemic, lacking body and normal spectral protrayal! As a pianist it took me quite a few minutes to get past this, and I was reminded again that one doesn't listen to pianos too close at Symphony Hall!..................
Likewise a week before I heard my friend Marty Pearlman leading his marvelous Boston Baroque in his orchestration of a Monteverdi opera in my favorite Jordan Hall. But instead of my usual center balcony perfect seat (!), I had to sit front left orchestra, which provided more detail of the period strings, especially (orchestra was on the left, soloists on the right), but too many times the acoustic ping-ponging of a vocalist as he/she turned while holding a note, resulting in a sidewall reflection overwhelming a first arrival, threw me off the "total music appreciation" cart. Such a bouncing acoustic image would NEVER be tolerated in the recording of the piece (which should be available next spring. So unless one sits in line with the mics, for example, live music in even the best halls can be a dicey affair to us who are trained BOTH by such AND our audiophilia. Live sound is perfect? By no means, unless you're sitting in the right place (seat)in the right place (hall) in the right place (frame of mind/receptivity)!
Yet there's of course something still so magical about a live performance well done despite acoustic impurities, thank god! |
Hear hear, Paulwp. Well said, and without hyperbole. When I hear a fine live performance, as I do several times a week, it would be a silly argument indeed, for one to tell me the accuracy of the sound precludes mind/music catylization. It should be without saying, when it comes to home music systems, the last thing I want is a component malady detracting me from enjoying music. If one thinks a system that performs sufficiently close to reality is boring, then, oh well... |
Asa, actually most of the people I know who aim for an accurate frequency response do not do so in the interest of excessive detail. Rather, they find audiophiles perverse because audiophiles tolerate frequency response aberrations in the midrange and tend to like an elevated high end with lots of detail, e.g., the early famously popular moving coil cartridges. Pros who strive for accuracy tend to use the live concert hall as a model. In electronics, they want complete accuracy. In speakers, they aim for a flat frequency response from bass through upper midrange, and a somewhat downward sloping upper end to approximate what happens in real life. That sort of accuracy is generally musical. Speakers that are ruler flat in the treble off axis as well as on can be sort of relentless in real world rooms.
The members of the accuracy school with whom I am familiar regard excessive detail as unnatural and an inaccurate representation of live music. It's in the midrange that accuracy is paramount.
There are people who like amps that are demonstrably inaccurate in the bass and midrange. Maybe because their speakers are inaccurate in some complementary way, or maybe they just like a mellow sound. I dont know.
It's an old-fashioned idea, one that has been ridiculed in Stereophile, but I want my electronic components to do nothing to the signal but pass it along. Any deviation from a flat frequency response, and distortion, and character like grain or hardness (which I think can be explained by some small deviations from a perfect frequency reponse), I don't like - unless it's in a portion of the frequency spectrum where it doesnt really hurt, e.g., a little added warmth, a little less presence giving more of a sense of depth or outside of my hearing range. I think accuracy is important, because accurate components allow designers and users to focus on what needs to be improved. This idea that everything sounds different and needs to be matched with their components synergistically is a saleman's boon, and a bore. A perfectly accurate system still needs help with room interaction.
Yet, we fill in the blanks, and tolerate, as you suggest, a variety of inaccuracies, mostly subtractive deficiencies rather than additive. (It's hard to ignore an excess of energy in any part of the frequency range, except maybe the mid bass. It's hard to ignore noise and distortion components.) We are especially adept at filling-in, completing patterns, finishing sentences, and I think that the part of our brain that processes sounds does the same thing.
Now to your really interesting McLuhan-esque idea, an experience or replication of the absolute sound through the listener's interaction with his system. We know that stereo can't recreate the live event, it can only make a suggestion (Like Michelangelo's last works in marble, which some might think unfinished). Yet, some of us sit there and feel very much like we are in the presence of our favorite performers.
That's my objective.
I think I agree with you that musical components, good components, are those that "sufficiently catalyze the mind" to complete the pattern. And I would add that do not give false cues that might lead to an unrealistic picture.
Regards,
Paul |
Paulup, I think you've said something quite important - that our minds seem able to fill in the blanks.
How can we get deeply into the music in a stereo if, admittedly, it doesn't as yet sound much like "real" sound sounds, or how "real" music sounds for that matter (my stereo certainly doesn't, yet still produces in me a musical experience)?
That must mean that a stereo need not convey a complete simulcrum of how sound is, and how music was when we heard it live, for the mind to go into the music. Which means that we are not trying to merely create a soundfield "out there" that is just like "reality" (read: the absolute sound), but rather, trying to create a stereo that creates a SUFFICIENT catalyst to our minds for them to sink deeper.
We have trouble seeping into the music when it doesn't sound sufficiently "real". When we first sit down, our analyzing mind wants accuracy and detail, but then as we go deeper, our deeper listening mind wants more existential nuance that has to do with continuity. At each level, if that stimulus is not sufficient, then we don't go deeper. And, contra, if there is too much accuracy we don't go deeper (a system that is overly detailed can be seen as being "hyper-real", or rather, the person who constructs it only wants sound at that level, or only knows that level exists until he hears a component that has SUFFICIENT detail yet also something deeper).
In this view, musicality is not simply found in a component, but in the component's relation to the mind that is listening; "musical" components are ones that SUFFICIENTLY catalyze the mind to go to the next deeper level.
And this means that "the absolute sound" is not some-thing out there that we need to find, as if it is an object we can get ahold of if we can make our components "real" absolutely, but rather, the "absolute sound" is found in a component/mind dynamic - one that does not, in a stereo context, necessarily need the rendition to be infinitely accurate in order to catalyze a musical experience.
Which, in turn, explains why we can have components that are not overwhelming detailed (what the accuracy school defines as how you get more "real")yet are very musical - just like live music is.
With that said, live music is better. Definetly an important reltionship - comparing live sound traits to stereo sound traits (and this of course makes sense because we evolved hearing "live" sounds, not recreated ones) - but perhaps not wholly determinant towards catalyzing a "musical" experience, the dynamic, in the listening mind.
Just some thoughts. Would be interested in you thoughts too. |
Just to add to Onhw & Paulwp points -- there are a few cases when some engineering trickstering just MAY trickle out through the speakers; on Barbirolli's Mahler 5 (EMI), the sound level goes down perceptibly just before a crescendo in the first part -- to accommodate the dynamics & intensity of the full orch. entering, of course. But, I agree these cases are very few, and we usually can'r tell what even the classical engineer has been up to. |
The lack of a live reference is a problem, sort of. I just picked up and played the new Alison Krauss and Union Station Live cd - really enjoyed it (I'm a fan not a critic). Here's the thing: it's a live recording that you listen to through your speakers in your home. The music goes into the mics, into the mixers and electronic equipment, onto the cd, back through your cdp and amp and then through your speakers. Sounds better to me than listening to the singer and band in a typical large venue through those big p-a speakers, whatever they are.
I do have a live reference for Alison and band, though it's from quite a few years back and I am losing brain cells day by day. I heard her at a small venue in LA, real close up (like less than 10 ft). She did an acapella unamplified second encore of "I Will" that was one of the most beautiful things I've ever heard. We talked afterwards too. I've heard other bluegrass and folk groups unamplified, some other types of performers too. So there can be a live reference for some kinds of pop music.
But you're right that, in general, nearly all pop/rock recordings are sort of arbitrary constructs. Yet, within each recording there are components, voices and instruments that do have live referents. If we've ever heard them, and if we can only remember them.
Lots of problems, but our minds just seem to fill in a lot of blanks. |
I totally agree that there is no live reference point for nearly all pop/rock recordings. However, I would take it even further for the case with even audiophile/purist recordings is not so clear cut. An experienced recording engineer can effectively control the sound of a recording by his/her choice of microphones and mic placement. Without using any EQ or other outboard processors the sound can be made upfront and forward, louder/softer, bright, warm or spacious. Regardless of the resolving power or musicality of their system, how can an audiophile know what particular sonic flavor the engineer was trying to acheive? |
Onh, I agree with your rendition of "comfort food". But, yes, a poorly recorded violin still sounds like a violin -- because it's acoustic & you know, in conjunction with the other instruments, what it is: you have the live experience of the violin vs the cello, etc... But when I get to eletronic instruments, & heavy mastering, I can't really tell what the engineers have done. I don't have a live, sonic "benchmark" to refer to. There, the production qualities (or mastering "tricks"?) are part of the end product: heighten the 3-kHz region, give some boost to bass... how can I tell if my system is reproducing "correctly" what the producer(s) intenteded? Cheers |
Gregm, I'm not sure I understand your comment. Are you saying a poorly recorded violin still sounds like a violin? Or it doesn't sound like a violin? To clarify my early post, "to make your music sound good", by that I mean should your system alter the music signal in such a way as to make even widely different quality recordings conform to the listener's preconceived notion of what a given instrument should sound like. In my mind this would make your system the equivalent of comfort food. It's emotionally satisfying and filling, but it's also non-challenging and eventually boring. |
Indeed, Onhw -- but if you listne to a lot of acoustic music as I do, then a violin is or isn't. Badly or well rendered onto the support (vinyl, or digital). However, when you have electronic musical equip & sound effects, it's a different matter! |
I read the original post as a restatement of the old question: "Do you want your system to make your music sound good (musical), or do you want your system to accurately portray what's in the grooves (neutrality). Tok2000 makes an excellent point about the quality of our music software being a major determinate of musicality/neutrality. Is a system really a high end system if it makes a shrill recording sound warm and pleasant? The accurate reproduction of an input signal should be the goal of all high end equipment (EQ devices excepted). Any sonic deviation from this definition of neutrality should be considered distortion. The problem with this line of reasoning is that we don't have a comprehensive set of tests and measurements that can accurately describe the human music listening experience. Some interpret this predicament to mean that we should ignore measurements and rely entirely upon our own individual hearing. Instead I think it merely means we, as both listeners and equipment designers, still have much to research and learn about music reproduction. |
I've only been a real 2-channel "nut" for about three years now, and up until a few months ago I thought I had a good handle on these audio terms we use for reference.
Now I'm not sure.
I always hear these arguments between neutral and musical. Doesn't neutral imply that it's somewhere in the middle? If so, what's on the other side? UNmusical? Therefore, wouldn't we always want musical?
How does one determine neutral? Is there a standard?
Why is neutral referred to as being "real"? I've been to some live performances that are very musical.
Are "live and "real" the same? When you attend a "live" concert or performance where multiple mikes, amps, electriconic instruments and mixing equipment is employed, is that really..."real"?
Therefore, is it only performances utilizing acoustic instruments considered real? can the venue or hall impose such characteristics as warm or neutral?
I really started to rethink these terms recently when I was trying different tubes and cables in my system.
Overly detailed voices seemed to fool me more into thinking the person was in the same room with me breathing into a mike. But that's just it. A mike. When you talk to a person, even close up they never sound like these high-rez recordings. So is that real? Voices that are fuller and a little less detailed on top sound to me more "organic" [oh no, that term], but sometimes do less of a job of sounding like they're in the same room.
Terms like warm, cold, bright, dark, detailed, dull or veiled, airy, holographic make some sense to me.
But NEUTRAL, LIVE and REAL are much harder to pin down.
So, I've come to this REALization. There is no standard or paradigm, just what sounds good to the listener. And we shouldn't argue about these terms because they are all so vague and relative to each person's tastes and perceptions.
I'm not saying they're completely useless, because they do offer a good reference. But too much is placed on their importance. They're not, they're just descriptions.
Sorry for sounding like Andy Rooney. |
The only direction towards reality that could yield appreciable results is multi-channel sound. With HT having set the table for audio multi-channel, the results insofar as multi-channel audio go, are seriously compromised. All those who believe in some inherent rightness of two channel reproduction will, invariably, point out to failed attempts in the past. A very progressive way of thinking. The record producers will use the capability with varying degrees of "realism" and will, no doubt, be unable to refrain from exaggeration. On that last point, do you know of anyone or anything in audio that is not the embodiment of "exaggeration"? Good day. |
Oh Mike, I dont disagree with you at all. I get a lot of enjoyment out of my stereo system too. And I even think I get a sense of that palpable 3 dimensional presence stuff. But really, all you have is left and right, and from that you can derive depth. But, the sense that the sound is coming from 3 dimensional performers spread around a soundstage is an illusion or an artifice. Of course, if you close your eyes in a real live performance, can you tell how fat the soloist is?
A friend said this: "when you listen to a stereo you are listening to two channels creating a virtual image at a listening position in the room. It is radiating quite differently from a live stage of instruments and it is attempting to achieve a very limited result: a facsimile at your head. The representation of a stage of instruments at the virtual stage in front of you is very inaccurate. In stereo there are two speakers emitting one instrument as opposed to a live event where each instrument has one source region. Having it sound live will only happen rarely by coincidental alignment of factors and even then it won't be fidelity to the original event, it will only have a sense of generic aliveness."
That illusion of generic aliveness is what I think you and I are enjoying from our stereo systems. Especially when we are listening to a favorite vocalist.
Regards,
Paul |
Paul, only 2 dimensions? i experience 3 dimensions with most recordings and regularly have that "this is really happening here and now" sensation. there is resolution in the software to recreate the 3 dimensional illusion if you can reach it and then present it unrestricted.
as my system has developed these "happening here and now" occasions are more and more frequent.....in fact, normal with my vinyl set-up now.
is it real life? of course not.....but it does get close enough to take me to another place that i like and is truth. the tiny little things that my system does now are the major reason for the increase in the moments of suspended reality. these tiny things are what happens when you approach the technical limits of your equipment or room and the musical message might normally break down....as you refine your system you control the musical message at these critical moments and the picture becomes complete and real. |
"Realism" is unattainable. The recording microphone is in no way as sophisticated as the human ear; something is always lost when a microphone picks up sound. And since our rigs are at the mercy of the source media, the best we can hope for is the most minimal of sound degradation through OUR audio chain. Even if you had the "theoretically realistic" system, you are still going to be subjected to the recording anamolies that will tell you it's a reproduction and not the real thing.
So it now boils down to what our individual tastes prefer - because no two people will hear the same thing. We all have an inherently personal response to live sound: different experiences, physiology and tastes. So if there was no equipment coloration, we would then respond to the recording losses and may or may not like what we hear. That's what neutrality will do.
But if we like what we hear, and even if it's attributed to even-order harmonic distortion, cross-over distortion, cable losses, whatever, then we spends our money and makes our choices. We will never attain the realism we hope for - but oh the fun in trying. |
Ok, this thread has not been as interesting or funny as I expected. The essential problem is that stereo doesnt do real life. It's a 2 dimensional medium. So, you can either strive for neutrality, each component adding to or subtracting from the signal as little as possible, and listen to what the recording engineers intended. Or you can play with frequency response to try to make things three dimensional and flesh things out and sound realistic.
I read a review of a preamp a year or two ago that I thought was strange. The reviewer said it sounded different from his reference, but couldnt say which was right. Then he said it sounded different from no preamp, cdp straight into the amp, which would seem to suggest it was not neutral. The he said it sounded more like the real life performance he had just attended than either his reference or no preamp at all.
Some time ago, Carver Corporation marketed a preamp with a "sonic holography" circuit. What was that? Just an equalization from flat, or deviation from neutral, in order to sound more like real life.
A famous guy who quit hi-fi (and who I won't name) said: "Audiophiles don't give a damn about whether their systems sound like real music as long as it pleases them. It was inevitable, though, when the vast majority of music-lovers never hear live, unamplified music to compare their playback with." I think that's the answer to the original query above.
Althouh I dont really care if my system measures flat, so long as it sounds to me like the real life voices of my favorite performers (or the real life sounds of specific instruments), I think I like all of my equipment because it is neutral. I think it sounds like real life because each component is as neutral as it can be and either the recording engineers did a really good job or I seem to somehow fill in the blanks.
That's the only way we can make any progress, if every one has the same goal of neutrality. All of the high-end stuff that doesnt aim for neutrality leads us astray. |
I would like to add my 2 cents to this question....
"to reproduce recorded music as neutral as possible or to give the highest possible level of realism?"...
I remember (many yeras ago) visiting Lyric Hi-Fi in NYC. The great Mike Kay demoed the Mark Levinson ML-1 per amp against Audio Research SP 3a-2. The Levinson, to me was more neutral, clean as spit and polish and astonishingly fast!! The ARC, however, sounded (to me) more like the concert I went to two weeks earlier! For me...it was as simple as that!!
Rick |
What ever you think sounds best. Sometimes when I listen to a great system, I forget where I am and get drawn into the musical moment. This illusion usually occurs when the system does not add any distracting sonic effects. I prefer tubes but good solid state also can do it. Musicality it first but you need to be somwhat neutral but not to the point of being clinical. |
Sean what a great post!!!!!!!!! Awesome. I was so impressed by your post I'm going to print it and share it with other audiophiles. You hit so many facts right on the mark. I hear what I like, I feel what is right for me, and others look for something completely different. We must each find what we are looking for, to hear the things we like, and you are totally correct, each person is looking for "their sound". While we are all trying to achieve the same goal, we all take different roads to get there. Thanks for a great post Sean. |
I think that we are all looking for the same things i.e. a system that can deliver all of the subtle and delicate details of a recording :
A) without loosing any warmth in the mid-bass, liquidity of mids or definition of low frequencies
B) without introducing any artifacts of the systems own doing
C) present it with slam, impact, delicacy, shrillness, etc... as necessary
D) do it with excellent spatial characteristics
E) maintain an even, natural tonal balance
F) reproduce all of the subtle, yet mandatory, harmonic overtones in the proper structure that one hears in nature
G) have limitless dynamic range at any listening level.
The main variables as to how we end up in different places in terms of systems has to do with the fact that we all have different listening skills, hearing abilities and personal preferences.
We do not all know how to "listen" nor do we all hear or like the same things. The first part ( listening skills ) can be learned. Their are actual courses that one can take in their own home that can teach you how to become a better, more skilled listener. Personally, i think that this can be both beneficial and a drawback. Critical listening has both ups and downs.
The second part ( hearing ) has to do with the shape of our inner ear and how our brain and nerves process that info. We might hear identical notes, yet due to the size and shape of our ear passages, that identical note could be processed by our individual brains with slightly different frequency responses, amplitudes, etc... Obviously, this is a variable that we as a group could never overcome due to physical attributes.
As to the third variable in the equation, personal preference is just that. I can not tell you how something sounds, tastes, feels and know for a fact that you are experiencing the same joys, displeasure or lack of concern that i did about the subject. You might be able to better understand how i feel about the subject though communications, and you might even agree to a large extent, but that does not mean that you will go through the same exact experience / emotions if put into the same situations.
With that in mind, it would be difficult to find two people that would build identical systems even if they had identical rooms. Now throw in the fact that both could listen to the same system yet hear / listen for different things. They would obviously take note of the specific attributes of the system ( or food, clothing, etc.. for that matter ) and process the things about that system that they PERSONALLY found most important. After all, we all rank the various aspects of system performance with different levels of importance. While some might consider accurate tonal and timbral balance most important, others might think that imaging and soundstage are more important. Then you'll have some that feel that dynamic range, spl and bass extension should carry more weight in the rankings, etc... We all like different things and rank different system attributes in importance as individuals. While doing all of this "ranking" and "critical listening", our levels of enjoyment and personal involvement during that situation might vary wildly. Some would rank "musicality" or "personal involvement" with the music higher than any of the above, regardless of how well other aspects of performance measure up.
To me, it is about ALL of the various aspects that make up a music reproduction system. While i might rank my personal values about system attributes different than you, we all strive for something that WE as individuals can enjoy. As such, audio reproduction becomes a very personal quest and we should all buy what we prefer as individuals. Nobody can tell me what i like or how something sounds. I have to experience it for myself, fully digest the situation and then form my own opinions as to likes, dislikes, etc... That is why we have different brands, makes, models, flavours, colours, textures, shapes, sizes, etc... Every manufacturer has their own ideas as to how to fill your needs but only you know EXACTLY what your needs are as an individual.
There IS something out there for everyone, it is just a matter of finding it. Hopefully, we can share our experiences in a manner that helps others locate what they are seeking out in a system. Sean
> |
Thsalmon -
I think your concluding sentence summed it well!! I've long since wearied of these endless wars about neutrality, tubes, SS and whose product(s) most closely approximate reality. You pick your poison and live with it. If a Marantz receiver gives you a satisfying illusion, stick with it. (Wish that would work for me. I'd have a lot more money in my pocket.)
Cheerio |
Whether you call it "realism" or "musicality" or (probably the most correct term) "euphony," it is definitely not the same thing as neutrality. An analog rig is not neutral--the kinds of distortion inherent in that medium are well-known. But it sounds more "real" or "musical" or "good" to many people. And there's evidence that it's those very distortions that make it sound so appealing. No one who sought neutrality would touch a vinyl disk. But many people (me included) love them.
My general advice would be to pursue what sounds good to you, and don't waste your time putting a label on it.
(On the other hand, Floyd Toole's crew at Harman has done some interesting work suggesting that most people actually prefer more neutral speakers. So consider the possibility that "neutral" really is what you like.) |
