Real or Surreal. Do you throw accuracy out the window for "better" sound?
I visited a friend recently who has an estimated $150,000 system. At first listen it sounded wonderful, airy, hyper detailed, with an excellent well delineated image, an audiophile's dream. Then we put on a jazz quartet album I am extremely familiar with, an excellent recording from the analog days. There was something wrong. On closing my eyes it stood out immediately. The cymbals were way out in front of everything. The drummer would have needed at least 10 foot arms to get to them. I had him put on a female vocalist I know and sure enough there was sibilance with her voice, same with violins. These are all signs that the systems frequency response is sloped upwards as the frequency rises resulting in more air and detail. This is a system that sounds right at low volumes except my friend listens with gusto. This is like someone who watches TV with the color controls all the way up.
I have always tried to recreate the live performance. Admittedly, this might not result in the most attractive sound. Most systems are seriously compromised in terms of bass power and output. Maybe this is a way of compensating.
There is no right or wrong. This is purely a matter of preference accuracy be damn. What would you rather, real or surreal?
Wow, @mahgisterwho the heck said room control only addresses the frequency domain.
I said my tuning adress LARGE band frequencies range... LARGE not specific precise frequencies... When we tune a room for a nuance of timbre we adjust a LARGE band of frequencies; this means that with our EARS when we listen a human voice we tune our resonators grid for the encompassing large band of an instrument or a human voice ... Read me right before putting words in my mouth...And anybody know that Fourier analysis adress sound in his LINEAR MAPS and use a specific abstract time domain which is not the time domain on the concrete human ears/brain... As muuch as the map is not the territory because the ears/brain dont work in a linear way at all but in a non linear TIME DOMAIN ...
Only a digital system can affect time by delaying groups that are ahead. Phase can also be corrected.
For sure DSP advanced as the Choueiri filters BACCH do it very well it is an acoustic revolution... But even Choueiri Filters DSP cannot replace small room acoustic...No DSP replace physicaL acoustics or work as Helmholtz resonators...I plan to upgrade my system by this DSP of Choueiri an acoustic genious..
The time domain for the human ears perceiving act must not be confused with the Fourier mapping of linear frequencies analysis of abstracted factors as phase , frequency and period etc ...The ears/brain work non linearly , in the opposite the Fourier analysis work with abstract concepts which are linearly related .. This is why we had not understood all hearing mysteries to date and why there exist competiting complementory theories of hearing... Go and read about ECOLOGICAL theory of perception for example and try to understand why these theories exist in the first place...
There is no such thing as a tuned acoustic room. The best you can do is Boston Symphony Hall and I doubt you are going to stick one of those in your house.
In APPLIED acoustics, there is a great difference in using the same laws and principles when you work in THE ARCHITECTURE of great Hall Acoustic and very small room acoustic ... You dont use time measured parameters in the same way for example...You dont use the pressure zones distribution the same way either...
When i spoke about TUNING a small room , i was speaking not ONLY about material passive classical balanced treatment in absorption/reflection/diffusion, i was thinking of working with a distributed grid of 100 mechanically tunable Helmholtz resonators... Do you catch ?
My brother is a MIT Ph.D. acoustician and he never uses his ears for anything!
My mother is a very good cook , i am not at all a good one... 😊
The problem is not the ear or ears. It is the brain connected to them.
What are you talking about ?
The brain of a musician and of an Applied room acoustician who work for customers wanting to design small acoustic room for themselves is TRAINED by ears , they dont used only DSP and tools...They listen... Ask Floyd Toole ...or any acoustician working in APPLIED acoustics...
Acoustician teaching in university taught mathemathical formulas and basic experiments and work in refined scientific projects... Their job is not designing small room with tools and ears...
Ears/brain is the basic object of study in psycho-acoustic...The brain is no more a problem than the ears they are coupled and tested in experiments about the way human perceive LARGE band frequencies bundles called human speech or singing not in the abstract Fourier time linearly MAPPING domain but in the real concrete time domain... The map is not the territory... Do you catch ?
Then recommending to people that they must forgot about their allegedly deceptive brain/ears and trust ONLY tools , saying that audiophiles must not train their listening of sounds through simple experiments and through listening classical music , (non amplified) or jazz etc but must use ONLY DSP is preposterous ignorance...
Electronics EQ is useful but do not replace ears nor small room acoustic... Eq and Ears do not work the same way ...Simple... They are complementary tools in acoustic room design ... it is so evident i cannot say more...
Mathematics is not reducible to any logic nor to any algorythmic thinking... It is at the end a creative intuitive ART.... Explaining why will ask for too much space here...
Music perception is not reducible to any acoustic theory and certainly not to the Fourier analysis , it is the reverse, it is acousticians who try to understand musical perception and musical phenomena with their tools ...
It is more true to describe mathemathics as music than the classical Pythagorean reverse claim that music is mathematical said the French mathematician genius Alain Connes... listen his many deep but hard to grasp , sorry, youtube courses begin with the "the music of shapes" ..
And i recommend to anyone with a strong basis in maths and A.I. to read this Indian scientist, for whom all the cosmos is hierarchies of orchestrated musical time crystals based on the prime numbers distribution matrix ... Read Connes and link him and his work with Anirban vision...Anirban is no joke, he work with Penrose-Hameroff , developed his own ideas and the first proved that microtubules are quantum computers... He designed the first artificial brain...
His twitter with his book title which is revolutionary ( beware he spoke a worse english than me ) 😊 :
I never met a music lover who didn’t like good sound too. This of course doesn’t mean that they all became audiophiles, most didn’t. When I asked them why not they didn’t know what to say except for usual nonsense like time, money, space etc.
No, that mathematical part doesn’t in fact explain anything when it comes to emotional impact.
Anyway, I’ll remain confused and will keep enjoying what I enjoy no matter what it is.
People could easily see me as "inherently dissatisfied." As you suggest this may be true for some, but I look at it as a challenge, making a system sound the way I want, then doing it reliably. The only time I look at it negatively is when something fucks up or blows up.
How "they" see your satisfaction/dissatisfaction is immaterial. If you're having fun, who cares what "they" think? Sounds to me like you're doing what's right for you.
Every form of art has boundaries be they mathematical or otherwise, they are art nonetheless. It is even more challenging working within boundaries, but still find originality. How many people could dream up a Beethoven or Brahms symphony? Music and Audiophilia are two separate issues. One is art the other is technical with the exception of speaker enclosures and faceplates. Any artistic intent is purely visual.
The performance of an audio system is really not a matter of taste, being so could be seen as a cop out. I went to an Arctic Monkeys concert. I want my system to sound like that. I went to a John Scofield concert. I want my system to sound like that. I went to a Richard Thompson solo concert. I want my system to sound like that. I went to a Boston Symphony Orchestra concert. I want my system to sound like that. People will say this is impossible. Bullocks, another cop out. With enough clean power and the right speakers it is now possible to make a system sound like anything.
You are right for sure ....But at the root of creativity in the internal "physiology" of the creator, the boundaries melt in one complex creative gesture...
This is how opera was invented coupling theater and singing...Or this is how poetry as an oral artform and much later as a written art form is born from speech and music or this is how speech is born, before poetry itself was born as a separate art, speech begun as a complex rythmical and melodical gestures set BEFORE music as a separate art form ...
The boundaries between arts and sciences resemble more to the skin of a creature under metamorphosis than to static boundaries through history and through creativity ...Some people perceive synesthetically... Etc... With Artificial consciousness science in his birth cradle we must understood how was orchestrated the cosmos to manifest consciousness... Here we must read the book " nanobrain " by this Indian genius who identified the microtubules as quantum computer few years ago and created the first artificial brain :
Goethe created the physiology of colors science by going on in spite of these "boundaries" separating optics as a physical science and the color qualities, and he created then their relation to the perceptive physiology and a new science ...This is why Edwin Land admired him so much and many others ...
Goethe created the morphogenetic and dynamic description of mammals or plants trespassing the boundaries separating the static objects and the static perceiver ... All his method is described by the physicist Henri Bortoft very clearly in three books ...
Music and Audiophilia are two separate issues. One is art the other is technical with the exception of speaker enclosures and faceplates. Any artistic intent is purely visual.
This is not even wrong then you are right in a way ...But without acoustics which is also a craft not only mathematical equations and a controlled subjective experience and set of experiments not only a science; without acoustics and without musical knowledge, audiophiles are lost in marketing and lost in an audio vocabulary which has lost his roots from the acoustics vocabulary as well as from musical concepts ...
Distinguishing between audiophiles and musicians and music lovers is certainly legitimate but separating these three activities may make them more and more meaningless ...
I mentioned acoustic without (s) for years here...I forgot that in english the noun need an (s)... Written in the singular it is more an adjective and refer in most case to the mere "room acoustic" for example...
Witten with an (s) it refer to the science "acoustics"... It what was i meaned to say all these years... But many read me as if i was speaking merely on room acoustic...
Acoustics , the science INCLUDE psycho-acoustic and neuro-acoustic and not only material acoustic and great Hall acoustic architecture and small room acoustic control and design ...
The reason why audiophiles MUST STUDY acoustics concepts in general not only room acoustic is EVIDENT but rarely explained : No sound experience is understandable and describeable without these concepts... Most audio vocabulary refer to the gear system, for exemple "warm" and "cold" are associated to the gear alleged sound properties as with tubes or S.S. or dac and turntables, ( which is preposterous because all pieces of gear differ especially coupled in different conditions or modified ) instead of refering to the "timbre" experience" which cannot be understood anyway at all without understanding the 5 conditions defining timbre in acoustics and their control in a space....
Then most audiophiles as i am, begun to be open completely victim of marketing methods instead of being put on the road to understanding ... Gear had no sound in itself only specific potential characteristics manifested more or less , positively or negatively when coupled with other components and specific acoustic conditions ...
Tthe system /room had a sound quality and a synergy making it able to give some TIMBRE impressions ... The same is true for all spatial characteristic of sound and of immersiveness which is the relation between the sound source width and the listener envelopment... No gear possess these characteristics as claim marketing conditioning , only the specific system/room/ears as a whole , working in a specific room for specific ears/brain,...
I am a photographer and this is the same debate that occurs in photography circles. And just like in photographs, I tend to notice excesses and be disturbed by them. The best sort of photograph for me is one in which I don’t question anything. Just enjoy looking at it. The same for music. This is however not set in stone. I do like black and white and I can go over the top in my processing. With music, I can enjoy room rattling bass at times. Elevated treble not so much. But will always return to what I feel is a natural sound for general listening.
Exactly....Thanks for the post and welcome here...
I am a photographer and this is the same debate that occurs in photography circles.
True photographer are painters in their own way they dont collect the photographic gear and they dont focus on the gear collection as their main activities ,they choose it and they use it, and they dont despise painters either as some "audiophiles" can live well it seems without learning how to understand music language and genres......But it is not at all the general case at least i hope...
True audiophiles are first and last music lovers, musicians in someway even with no musical abilities as me and acoustician in the egg not gear collectors and price tag collectors ...They studied acoustics as photographers studied painting and drawings as much as colors theories and hues ....
My dad was a photographer. One year I was at the county fair looking at the photographs and saw one that looked like something my dad would do. Sure enough, it was his picture and it got some kind of award. The thing I mostly noticed was how he didn’t push any colors. He took the shot with film, but he liked more subtle films. It was a nature shot with mountains and lots of pine trees. Nothing vivid about it, but very pleasing to the eye and natural.
I argued a little with him abut this approach. I always liked his photographic look and style, but I didn’t feel that it necessarily portrayed the scene in a highly realistic way, although I wasn’t sure why. I knew he was correct about the color saturation, but the real scenes seem to have more impact. I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s mostly brightness. The pictures are often viewed in-doors under relatively dim light compared to the brilliance of daylight. Also, print media does not have much dynamic range. We can correct for that somewhat mentally, but I think some amount of delicately pushing the saturation and curves can help in a way similar to a loudness curve on a stereo for low level listening.
I’ve recently updated my system to more efficient and bigger drivers, which can play a lot louder without strain because they are both more efficient and can easily handle more power. The result is that I end up turning it up more without really noticing. It doesn’t sound loud because I don’t hear the telltale signs of strain. Another thing this new setup does is use an open baffle configuration for the 200 to 2000 Hz range, which does something different to the how the room responds, so the room also seems to stay under control better. The resulting impression is a much more vivid and lifelike sound, with apparently much better dynamic punch. It sounds more lifelike and more pleasing at lifelike levels. Bass and treble comes through a lot better without having to be boosted. The clarity is amazing, but this only really reveals itself when the volume is up at a level where the old bookshelf speakers weren’t holding together too well. Those little things had some elevated treble, as some reviewers complained about, but they are also volume limited, so they work pretty well at the levels I ended up listening to them.
Back to photographs, if you haven’t tried it, it’s interesting to see your raw photos properly displayed on a newer HDR TV. I haven’t found an easy way to do it, having to import my raw photos into a film editing program where I would color grade them for 1000 nit HDR and export the resulting movie in a format my TV would properly recognize as 10 bit color encoded. It’s still not as bright and dynamic as daylight, but it really does add some impressive pop to colors just by giving them some extra dynamic range. The key is brightness, and the TV has to be able to do sustained brightness over a large area of the screen for outdoor daylight photographs, so OLED won’t cut it. If you shoot scenes that are darker with bright highlights, OLED should look amazing.
It is true if we define sound as a purely material physical phenomenon...But sound is not a purely material physical phenomenon but a qualified phenomenon for a specific consciousness...
In daily life , natural perceived sounds and speech and music are not only physical pressure waves uninterpreted by the ears/brain they are interpreted by a hearing consciousness to be perceived as meaningful in a concrete time domain where the qualitative experienced acoustic factors are always related in a non linear way; in the opposite a physical pressure wave is defined in an abstract parameters space where these abstract factors as frequencies, phase and amplitude are linearly related in a MAP describing often IN AN UNCOMPLETED WAY the conscious/subconscious perceived TERRITORY.... There exist many competing theories of hearing and different mapping theory for the same territory...
The fact that a fruit tapped by a finger indicating his ripeness or his lack of ripeness constitute an interpreted sound qualities whose meaning is not sensible ....
In the same way a flute is a material object with holes of some size in such distribution to make it able to produce qualified sound , with some tonal timbre qualities; these sounds exist for a consciousness as meaningful conveyor of an information that transcend physical time because the tonal scale develop a musical time domain of his own called a rythmed melody , which is not reducible to the abstract factors linearly related in the Fourier map...The same goes for speech "musical time" in speech recognition studies ....
The human ears/brain is trained to live in this concrete non commutative time domain ( the speech and the musical domain ) because it is a non linearly qualified domain; it is why the ears/brain if trained well can beat the Fourier uncertainty principle thirteen times...
This is the reason why audiophiles must study music and acoustic and not only listening their gear if they want to understand sound...And they must forget about marketing and price tag focussing on acoustics and music learning...
Accuracy in a Fourier abstract map does not always linearly translate automatically as accuracy in the concrete perceived territory...
Real in a Fourier abstract map may become surreal in the perceived concrete territory....
Time domain in the map NEVER coincide with time domain in the territory ...
Acoustics science without perceiving ears/brain will not exist is it necessary to mention this common place fact ? ....😁
The mere physical waves would not be qualified for an absent consciousness, hence without conscious/subconscious ears there could not be a "sound" as a quality and a meaningful " symbolic forms" living in his own transcendant time and space ...
«Sound is a mystery that makes too much noise anyway »-- Groucho Marx 🤓
It is because of dipole effect. They radiate in a 3D figure 8 pattern minimizing sound to the sides, up or down. Thus, there is less room interaction. I might suggest deadening the wall directly behind the speakers. It will improve your imaging. If I read you correctly you like your system because it sounds more "real" to you and that is what it is all about.
The attraction to dipoles is very significant in residential settings dealing with smaller spaces. Once people try a dipole system (with the exception of subwoofers) they are generally loth to go back.
I think I’m becoming a believer in dipoles. My setup isn’t even close to ideal yet and it’s already making me really happy. I’ve moved the crossover all the way up to 3500 Hz and it sounds amazing even though the mid is pretty beamy up there. The effect is to move the soundstage back. It sounds very natural, smooth and atmospheric, even at low volume. I stayed up too late last night because I could turn it down low enough not to bother anyone and it was sounding so sweet.
As you suggest, I do plan on getting some absorption behind the drivers once I get the baffle standing on it’s own so I can get rid of the old TV cabinet it’s leaning on. I’ve also ordered a ceiling TV bracket so the TV won’t have to be held up. It’s generally recommended to get open baffles 3 feet away from the back wall but I don’t have the space. I’m going to be pushing up against the wall as close I can get away with while maintaining the beautiful sound, so absorption will be critical. Fortunately I work at ASC so we have all kinds of absorbers on tap. BTW, ASC got started specifically on request to build an absorber to go behind a Magnepan that had to be close to the back wall.
I had an idea to use the TV as an extension of the baffle. I might experiment with that, but I have a feeling it won’t be good to make the baffle that much bigger. I fear that will just delay the dipole side cancellation, taking the edge of the baffle too close to the ceiling so it won’t kill the ceiling bounce as effectively. I left the bottom of the baffle open too to help kill some immediate floor bounce.
I suspect that a lot of music lovers who aren’t audiophiles are exceptionally good at re-constructing what’s missing or distorted in the playback. They don’t even know they’re doing it, so they don’t get what all the audiophile fuss is about.
This is something about myself as I live with an audiophile who is not enjoying music if the production, I mean recording, could be better, in his view, done! Even the perfect execution of the piece of music, in his view, is not worth listening to if there’s something wrong with the recording. I agree and disagree at the same time.
I agree that the recording is horrible and unpleasant to listen to.
I’m afraid I have to disagree with my audiophilistic half when there are small bits and imperfections in sound because I know how much work must be done before even the musical piece is executed in front of anyone. Not to mention how much work is needed to put it on the record.
My piano teacher and even the choir conductor always said to look for the perfect and true music in the live performance rather than in the recorded music. Yes, on the record, the music is there. Still, the emotions and the message drawn within the music performance are possible to transmit and receive only in the concert hall or in live events.
Scrolling different audiophiles’ channels you can discover the single pieces of gear have their own personalities, sounds, ecc. Like the amplifiers which tend to have even some sound signature.
Sometimes, it seems too much to be bothered, making me forget about the pleasures of listening to music at work or during the house activities. I do really, sometimes, prefer to listen to some piece from my laptop, and I’m not ashamed of that. Yes, the audiophile fuss sometimes can break the heart of a simple music lover.
This is something about myself as I live with an audiophile who is not enjoying music if the production, I mean recording, could be better, in his view, done! Even the perfect execution of the piece of music, in his view, is not worth listening to if there’s something wrong with the recording. I agree and disagree at the same time.
Most music lovers dont need to be audiophiles and dont really want to be one at all cost...Music is all for them...
A serious audiophile in my opinion must learn musical concepts and styles , and also acoustic concepts, to be serious...A superficial audiophile with obsessive disorder and compulsive disorder to some degree will refuse to listen to classical music badly recorded for example because he always FOCUS his attention on sound quality recording to TEST his system level and not on musical interpretation or not onto his room acoustic properties and ways of translating optimally the bad as well as the good recording ...And he will do anything to improve the fidelity of the recorded translation BUT with the focus on the gear component with costly cables for example way more than with the real acoustic controls of his room ...
This is more gear fetischism than learning experiments in acoustic and learnings experiments with other embeddings controls for his system ...Price tag will mean something ultimate , and he can be a measured fanatic audiophile or a subjective hearing audiophiles that does not matter ...None of them experiment in mechanical,electrical and acoustical embeddings... Objectivist and subjectivist audiophile tend to be gear fetichist or tool fetichist and are enemy brothers on the same ground : the gear measures or the gear "taste" and price tags first and last ...
The superficial audiophiles , being objectivist or subjectivist, put acoustics science to be secondary to the electronic gear system , and they reduce complex acoustics concepts to simple recipe of room acoustic ( buying panels) and they are more occupied with sound than with music genre and style learnings ...
I consider myself fortunate to be able to appreciate and enjoy high quality audio and visual reproduction even though I don’t require it to enjoy content (although some content can be pretty rough on the ears if it isn't reproduced really well, or sometimes if it's reproduced too well.) I have magic moments listening to classical music on the cheap FM radio in the car, sometimes when it’s not coming in very well. I’ve been emotionally moved by pictures printed on cheap media, or movies watched on 20" CRT televisions. I think most audiophiles and videophiles are the same way. Maybe we need a term like mediaphile for people who are excited about all kinds of high quality audio/visual and perhaps even 3D printed reproduction, castings, fine scale modeling, etc.
I made a set of two way open baffle speakers for a friend with subwoofers below. I hung the speakers from the ceiling with decorative chains. The baffles were made of a sandwich of Corian and MDF. They were very heavy for their size. Worked out very well. Just a thought.
Curious that you would use the word impact. Your father may not have been going for impact. Impact sounds like the image has an aggressive quality where the it 'pushes' at the viewer so that the viewer is impressed. The artist adds saturation, brightness, and sharpness so that the image stands out and attracts the viewer's attention. I can see this as being superficial with the appeal quickly fading and the viewer hungering for something with even more pop. Your father may have wished, on the other hand, for the viewer to be drawn into his photograph rather than impressed by it. I find naturalness tends to achieve that. All of this is analogous to music playback. An obviously enhanced blue sky will take me out of a photograph just as a metallic edge to a cymbal hit will take me out of a song.
brev How can a "metallic edge' to a cymbal hit take you out of a song? I have yet to hear an audio system that ever comes close to the true metallic edge of live cymbals! I know.... I own over 20 cymbals. There's simply no way a 1" tweeter can generate the energy of a 20" piece of brass being hit with a stick. I think it's why many musicians don't obsess over audio systems... they are not even close to what the actual instrument sounds like live, when you are playing it.
I also play the drums, just not very well. You are right. It is impossible for most systems to produce the sound and volume of a crash cymbal, at a distance of one meter. Some horn systems can do it. However, at a concert you are not one meter away from the cymbals. It is very possible for a system to reproduce the volume of a cymbal at 10 meters. As a matter of fact, it is not even the treble that is the most difficult to get right, it is the bass. If you want to hear cymbals that make one squint, listen to any early ECM record. In the era we did not use any tone controls or EQ some of these records were not listenable. Violins and female voices can do the same thing, it is called sibilance. It is so common in systems that many people think it is normal! Many PA systems are also sibilant. Humans do not play instruments that hurt to listen to. They would toss them in the bin. Female voices are attractive for a reason. Sibilance is not normal and if you hear it in a system there is a problem. My definition of system includes the room. With EQ you can get rid of it buy programming in a Gundry Dip. When I evaluate systems I always play a string quartet that I know really well. If there is a problem it will find it.
It is not that a system should be perfectly accurate, this is impossible. But, a system, given the right recording, should, and can make you feel, with eyes closed, that you are listening to a real event. I have heard exactly three systems that could do just that, bass included. I have also heard a few that could do it with certain genres of music, acoustic stuff. Some of us prefer systems that are so colored any semblance of reality is nonexistent. It is not my cup of tea, but everyone is entitled to their own flavor.
When I play Waiting for Columbus for audiophile friends they are almost universally taken aback by the power of Richie Hayward's drums. The last one commented," gee, I am not used to this!
Perhaps metallic was not the right word to use to express my sense of the falseness of the sound. Metallic edge in the same sense I would use to describe the taste of a diet soda. But it does sound appropriate when literally describing a cymbal hit! Harshness might be better and it might have been better to use the term to describe the overall treble presentation. "Cymbals that make you squint" is even better! This was the case when I demoed a pair of B&W 702 s2s. Curiously enough, the B&W 705 OG version, doesn't give me that impression.
For me cymbals attack and decay, piano and vibraphones are important index qualities of the timbre soundfield...
Cymbals are the hardest thing to get right in my experience even more than violin ...😁
Their attack , rise, and decay ratio reveal how our system is able to restitute timbre in the time domain for the ears ...We can recognize piano timbre as acceptably good at some time in our optimizing process but if the cymbals are not right , the system is not optimal yet ...
Die Valkure over the weekend clarified things for me. The tenor's crescendos were painful to unprotected ears. Ditto for the orchestra. At preferred settings, my ESL system doesn't do that - and I don't want it too, either.
Maybe that’s not the best word. I just noticed that the effect of my father’s photos was indeed pleasing to the eye, but not the end-all in realism. The real scene seemed more colorful, but it wasn’t actually. It was, however more dynamic and bright, which is something that has to be dealt with through artful use of curves based on perceptual standards and taste. My dad’s approach was to use a particular established standard and a good one, but not the only good one. It was natural in a certain ways at the expense of seeming less natural in others. He appreciated more vibrant, punchy work done by other photographers but that wasn't what he preferred to create.
I once had the sun shining onto a calendar in my office in such a way that it just happened to be lighting up the sky in the picture and the higher mountains that had sunlight on them when the picture was taken. The lower hills in the foreground that were not in direct sunlight were not getting lit by sunlight in the office. The effect was excellent. It got me thinking about aligning projected light with print photos.
We all wish for something better...Relax ,have a refreshing drink and enjoy the music.....my system sounds great to me .Learn to relax and enjoy the system you have, I'm sure it's fantastic....
There is no corresponding "objective reality." That’s right. Everything that "is" must be somehow taken by us. No raw given, no way to check. Even the "real, objective" cello on the stage, playing live, is heard by me -- my sitting position, my ears, my distracted mind -- and, most important -- my interpretative taking of that acoustical experience.
Do the variations coming from your specific experience and seated position fundamentally change the sound from a cello or other, even compared to that perceived by another individual sharing the same event, and the variations at play here? I know, no way to check on the latter part of the question posed, but it doesn’t matter - to me that applies more to intersubjectivity than subjectivity per se; while you wouldn’t have the very same sonic experience as the other person sitting at a distance from you (or yourself in another position), you’d nonetheless - both of you - take part in the same event and share its overall characteristics.
If, in my home, I want to experience what I did in the concert hall -- ok, then I try to figure out how to do that. (And, as @mahgister points out: there are a hundred interpretive acts which are between me and that moment: engineers, mastering, etc.) But in this enterprise, let me not fall into the trap that I’m "really" getting back to something "more real." That’s folly and, worse, obfuscation. But it makes for some great chest-beating online.
From my chair, in the context of audio reproduction, it’s a fallacy thinking something not achieved as an exact replica of an original event can’t represent, in variations or approximations of realness in a progressive manner, said event as an objective "something." Too many seem to believe that what can’t be emulated in every aspect in audio reproduction is in essence a venture suffused in subjectivity. I disagree. Let’s not confuse the philosophical distinction of "das ding an sich/für uns" (thing-in-itself/to-us) as anything applicable to audio; both the original event and final reproduction is an experience "für uns" anyway, so I’d leave whatever is "an sich" to mere speculation about the world’s supposed murky-mysterious, inherent true state.
So, Is it that your father's images were unrealistically dark or is it that the indoor lighting did not create that perception? You said initially that your father's images appeared natural. And now you say they are unrealistic. So are naturalness and realism two different things? Kind of like musical and analytical gear? I personally think they are the same thing but if they are different I'll go with natural. A lot of photos are not taken in daylight so there's that. Images taken on cloudy days tend to be less saturated than images shot in daylight. Many photographers will do their best to avoid daylight photography.
One thing I have noticed is that some folks painting outside considerably oversaturate and enhance their work. There is clearly a huge market for unrealistic takes on reality. Folks who represent reality less vividly are rare. So I would probably appreciate your father's images. Even if he goes the other way somewhat. Better to want more than to overdose.
A sound can seem realistic even if it's not accurately being reproduced. It might have been intended to sound like it's being heard in a different listening context than it's coming across, but it's coming across in a way that sounds very realistic in a false context. For instance, the soundstage is the wrong size and the sense of acoustic space and ambience is wrong, but still plausibly realistic if you don't know that what you're perceiving isn't what was intended or what was originally recorded.
Do the variations coming from your specific experience and seated position fundamentally change the sound from a cello or other, even compared to that perceived by another individual sharing the same event, and the variations at play here? I know, no way to check on the latter part of the question posed, but it doesn’t matter - to me that applies more to intersubjectivity than subjectivity per se; while you wouldn’t have the very same sonic experience as the other person sitting at a distance from you (or yourself in another position), you’d nonetheless - both of you - take part in the same event and share its overall characteristics.
We spoke about an acoustic experience here....I will repeat in my answer to you one of my post above:
«sound is a pressure wave which is
created by a vibrating object»
Is this definition truthful to the phenomenon? Not at all.... It is not even wrong ...
It is true if we define sound as a purely material physical phenomenon...But sound is not a purely material physical phenomenon but a qualified phenomenon for a specific consciousness...
In daily life , natural perceived sounds and speech and music are not only physical pressure waves uninterpreted by the ears/brain they are interpreted by a hearing consciousness to be perceived as meaningful in a concrete time domain where the qualitative experienced acoustic factors are always related in a non linear way; in the opposite a physical pressure wave is defined in an abstract parameters space where these abstract factors as frequencies, phase and amplitude are linearly related in a MAP describing often IN AN UNCOMPLETED WAY the conscious/subconscious perceived TERRITORY.... There exist many competing theories of hearing and different mapping theory for the same territory...
The fact that a fruit tapped by a finger indicating his ripeness or his lack of ripeness constitute an interpreted sound qualities whose meaning is not sensible ....
In the same way a flute is a material object with holes of some size in such distribution to make it able to produce qualified sound , with some tonal timbre qualities; these sounds exist for a consciousness as meaningful conveyor of an information that transcend physical time because the tonal scale develop a musical time domain of his own called a rythmed melody , which is not reducible to the abstract factors linearly related in the Fourier map...The same goes for speech "musical time" in speech recognition studies ....
The human ears/brain is trained to live in this concrete non commutative time domain ( the speech and the musical domain ) because it is a non linearly qualified domain; it is why the ears/brain if trained well can beat the Fourier uncertainty principle thirteen times...
This is the reason why audiophiles must study music and acoustic and not only listening their gear if they want to understand sound...And they must forget about marketing and price tag focussing on acoustics and music learning...
Accuracy in a Fourier abstract map does not always linearly translate automatically as accuracy in the concrete perceived territory...
Real in a Fourier abstract map may become surreal in the perceived concrete territory....
Time domain in the map NEVER coincide perfectly with time domain in the territory ...
Acoustics science without perceiving ears/brain will not exist is it necessary to mention this common place fact ? ....😁
The mere physical waves would not be qualified for an absent consciousness, hence without conscious/subconscious ears there could not be a "sound" as a quality and a meaningful " symbolic forms" living in his own transcendant time and space ...
Now sound studies being not only material physics subject but as recognized sound also psycho-acoustic studies; we can safely say that sound experience as experience is NOT OBJECTIVE NOR SUBJECTIVE , but this experience integrated these two aspects to make it possible experience...
Now no one listening music in a live event will hear the same exact TIMBRE experience , by the acoustic difference in time and timing of the waves and the specific location ... Even the violonist will hear his tonal playing timbre in a specific location no more truthfull or erroneous, no more objective nor subjective than any other position ...
But you are right, there is some truth about the sound timbre of a cello describeable in acoustic parameters... But a specific experience of a tonal playing timbre of the cello will be differentiated in as much perspective as the multiplicities of ears/brains locations... And we speak here about a live event... With a recording playback, the trade off set of choices of the recording engineers will be translated differently as much that there is different ears/brains with different systems in different room ... Which cello timbre experience is the objective truth among all this ? NONE... But for sure there exist some objective acoustic common parameters between the live event, the recording one, and his translation in your room ...But the timbre experience is different in all these for all listeners...
From my chair, in the context of audio reproduction, it’s a fallacy thinking something not achieved as an exact replica of an original event can’t represent, in variations or approximations of realness in a progressive manner, said event as an objective "something." Too many seem to believe that what can’t be emulated in every aspect in audio reproduction is in essence a venture suffused in subjectivity.
Then if you understand what i said above , we must distinguish the acoustic objective SPECIFIC perspective in location of any listener in the original live event and his subjective interpretation and the OBJECTIVE trade off choices of the recording engineer which will be transformed in an OBJECT ( music album ) and our own specific location and acoustic situation in our listening room ... Then there is no absolutely objective truthfulness in audio reproduction as you claimed , there is only a correlated set of links in a CHAIN of trade-off choices INTERPRETATION ...
But thanks to mathemathical acoustics laws we can translate a recording, more or less acoustically truthfully for sure, for a specific room specific system and specific ears.. ...Dr Choueiri even discovered a way to gave us an information lost with this crosstalk obstruction of stereo speakers and then translate for our ears/brain more accurately this lost recording of spatial information by the stereo crosstalk... Then there is an absolute objective "reality" or an objective symbolic form : mathematics is...
And to conclude with a philosophical remark, what is missing in Kant because of a residual Cartesianism and a residual nominalism so to speak, what is missing which is already in Charles Sanders Peirce vision is the necessary participation of consciousness in the definition of any reality which cannot exist in itself anyway and is always to use the concept of one of the greatest interpreter of Kant , a "symbolic form" said Cassirer ... Consciousness is ONE...
I've ran sound for hundreds of thousands of people live, recorded albums, and won Oscars for sound and in every project or concert there were always a lot of concessions and compromises to what I would have liked to do. That golden no compromises project in any field doesn't really exist. I've recorded horrible sound and not fought the producers when I should have to keep my job even on huge projects.
Get a system that sounds most accurate. I just bought a new Boulder preamp and it changed everything I realized it is wrong to listen to extra chocolaty chocolate just because you like how that chocolate tastes. We all know the difference between sounding buttery and sounding accurate if you listen long enough. Accuracy is most important and it is what audiophiles should demand not subjective flavored sound.
There are many reasons why engineers record projects that aren't like live acoustic performances, there is ALWAYS the annoying tendency to -add energy -to sell more music and sound different than the next studio down the hall.
@mapman
I agree with your points in many ways but I think music isn't subjective. The recorded music that comes through your system should be the same signal that comes out of everyone's system and has been molded into a very particular product. Perhaps you like or dislike aspects of that product but if you were in the room with the mastering engineer and producer when they finished the recording you would know exactly what the product was. There is no interpretation or subjective data that your consciousness defines, the info in the signal doesn't change your perception of it does. This is why accuracy is the most important part of music it doesn't matter if you enjoy it that is not the point often in art you want to make the end user uncomfortable. Movies are emotional and they are enjoyed differently by the end user mostly depending on their understanding. If the original music or movie is played back inaccurately all the craftsmanship is lost to subjective unknowns.
So all the craftsmanship of Fleetwood Mac has been lost to the millions of people who have bought their albums, CDs, and streamed their music playing it back on less than stellar equipment? Is that what the surviving members of Fleetwood Mac think?
No brev, the craftsmanship of Fleetwood Mac is not lost at all (at least until Peter Green left). It is the craftsmanship of the recording engineers that is lost and the vast majority of people do not care about that at all, only people like me and donavabdear care about it.
Don't you think that at some level what the engineers do is affected by the system they are listening to? If their systems are not accurate how can the work be accurate?
@mijostyn
Do I think the equipment that recording engineers use affects the recordings? That is a surprising subject and I think the answer is not really, I've listened to what great actors sound like with my system so I instantly know how they should sound, but someone may say how do you actually know, well the answer to that is if you have lunch with that actor and really hear what their voice sounds like in real life you really know what they sound like. Also if you are used to the system that you use to record with then you hear it on movies, TV, or streaming you know if your system is preforming properly. The equipment mixers use is fairly standard in movies and varies a little more in music but generally the mixer uses the same equipment for years.
If you record Anthony Hopkins or Tom Cruse or a famous singer that everyone is acquainted with you better believe that the producer who paid 20M$ for this talent better sound great and more importantly sound as they expected. This is another reason why accuracy is so much more important than surreal.
Also engineers aren't robots they can mix in different sounding studios or stadiums to make an artist sound more like they are expected to, this happens if they are using equipment they are familiar with.
Thanks for the elaborations. Your posts are interesting and informative, but in the context of my previous reply I don't see a significant take-away from your writings to alter my basic position.
Now no one listening music in a live event will hear the same exact TIMBRE experience , by the acoustic difference in time and timing of the waves and the specific location ... Even the violonist will hear his tonal playing timbre in a specific location no more truthfull or erroneous, no more objective nor subjective than any other position ...
My point is: the exact same timbre experience isn't necessitated for one to still go by a reference that can be construed as objective. The differences in perception in different positions to an instrument (or orchestra as a whole) has us as a variable revolving around and at the same constituting a fixed it, but the variables in experience here isn't about perceiving different, isolated natures of experience, but rather subtle variations of the same. And of course, the violinist him- or herself will be treated to quite a different sonic experience, but that's not the intended point of reference in a recording (or live performance) that seeks to capture (or have us experience live) the presentation and totality of an entire orchestra.
Then if you understand what i said above , we must distinguish the acoustic objective SPECIFIC perspective in location of any listener in the original live event and his subjective interpretation and the OBJECTIVE trade off choices of the recording engineer which will be transformed in an OBJECT ( music album ) and our own specific location and acoustic situation in our listening room ... Then there is no absolutely objective truthfulness in audio reproduction as you claimed , there is only a correlated set of links in a CHAIN of trade-off choices INTERPRETATION ...
Placing that much importance in the subjective experience and final interpretation as something that hinders a certain degree of "objective truthfulness," to me, is both misplaced and exaggerated. Remember, I'm not claiming we can have access to a perfect facsimile of a live event in its reproduced form at home, across the board among all of us, but it's still meaningful to pursue aspects of "realness" in reproduction that can actually be talked about as objective parameters. Sure, whether we sit closer to or further away to the back of the orchestra, left or right will have an impact, I'm not debating that. Indeed, everything you say about the interpretative nature and variations in coming about an experience as different individuals has merit as "observables," I just don't agree on the implications.
Thanks for the elaborations. Your posts are interesting and informative, but in the context of my previous reply I don’t see a significant take-away from your writings to alter my basic position.
Thanks for your appreciation...
My post was not there to dismiss your point but to point toward his limit...
We all agree that physical acoustics , not only room acoustic, but psycho-acoustic RULE... Even if a system is designed to be the best OBJECTIVE design , it will be embedded acoustically, well or not, in a specific room for an objectively different Ears/brain...
My point is electronical design accuracy of components does not reduce to acoustical and psycho-acoustical accuracy...And what the BEST gear design does is not the only guarentee for an audiophile experience...It can be necessary to some level but is NEVER sufficient... We need a dedicated room for specific ears/brain if it is a SMALL room dedicated for one listener owner and not a great Hall...
It is not the same CONCEPT of measures accuracy in electronic design, acoustic design and psycho-acoustic measures ...
It is so true that Dr. Choueiri revolutionized acoustic experience of stereo system in a room with his BACCH filters which are based on psycho-acoustics research...The foundation ground of audiophile experience is psycho-acoustic science not electronic design of amplifier or speakers or even of dac and not even the powerful room acoustic ....
In this thread most people use the word accuracy in one way and one meaning , but there is three distinct ways or meanings which can be optimally convergent in an experience or be divergent or not optimal for an audiophile experience ... The electronic design accuracy and the physical acoustic accuracy in a room and the psycho-acoustical measured accuracy...
The OP thread speaking of real versus surreal confuse these three meanings and three accuracy concepts...But what is "accurate" for my ears inner filters and sound perception personal history and training can be inaccurate for other ears...
That was my point...
The only OBJECTIVE common basis for the word accuracy in these three conceptual case is mathematics not the necessary listening subjective experience...But listening music or speech is neither subjective nor objective experience...It is a symbolic form, an interpreted phenomenon...
I do not know how true it is to what the artist, the producer, the mixer, and the mastering engineers laid down, as I was not there for any recording sessions so cannot make a comparison.
I'm in this general camp. Also the "smoothness" camp. Who says the bite of a trumpet or electrical guitar can't be a smoother bite and not a harsh brittle edge?
Particularly the comment about engineer, mixer, masterer - all artists in their own right creating a soundscape. AND, ask any one of them and they will tell you: change the playback equipment and it will change (more or less) the soundscape they created on the equipment they used on any recording.
No, I speak the most horrible english ever, but far better than I write.
I am not a philosopher, I am a pragmatist. As others have mentioned, there is no such thing as accurate in regards to reproducing the actual event. With most studio recordings there is no actual event, there are multiple small events pieced together in the mind of the mastering engineer.
It is not so much that an audio system is accurate, it is with the proper recording that a system can convince you you are at the actual event. This in itself is a moving target because it depends on how the individual hears things. There is no way to absolve ourselves from the fact that this is a personal experience.
What I have noticed, in spite of what I said above, is that everytime I am in the presence of a remarkable system everyone else seems to come to the same conclusion. There is a shared concept of accurate reproduction even if it is hard to quantify. It is one of those, "you'll know when you get there," events.
Your english mastery exceeded mine ...I am a philosopher but in audio i am pragmatic ...
Doing the best possible with a low cost system/room was pragmatic , as reading about basic acoustics instead of possible upgrading gear reviews ... Tuning my room was pragmatic ...
😁
There is an "accuracy" of the measures set of electrical parameters in audio material design ...
There is another concept of "accuracy" derived from acoustics basic science parameters and derived from informed musical experience , this is why there is always a consensual agreement when a playback system /room sound optimally ...
I imagine that when you speak of accuracy you refer to the second acception of the word ...
My best to you sincerely in spite of our sometimes disagrements...😉
No, I speak the most horrible english ever, but far better than I write.
I am not a philosopher, I am a pragmatist. As others have mentioned, there is no such thing as accurate in regards to reproducing the actual event. With most studio recordings there is no actual event, there are multiple small events pieced together in the mind of the mastering engineer.
It is not so much that an audio system is accurate, it is with the proper recording that a system can convince you you are at the actual event. This in itself is a moving target because it depends on how the individual hears things. There is no way to absolve ourselves from the fact that this is a personal experience.
What I have noticed, in spite of what I said above, is that everytime I am in the presence of a remarkable system everyone else seems to come to the same conclusion. There is a shared concept of accurate reproduction even if it is hard to quantify. It is one of those, "you’ll know when you get there," events.
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.
