I just want my system to sound a closley to what the artist's intent was on the recording. I know I can't get the sound as it was being played in the live arena or studio. I just would like the music to sound as close as possible to the music that's on the actual CD, LP or whatever medium it's on. |
Who's got enough money to pay for a system that reproduces perfect sound? |
"So what do we audiophiles really use as the standard by which recorded music can be judged?"
There is no standard nor need there be.
No two people like exactly the same thing.
That's like asking what's the standard for determining the taste of ice cream.
I like Chocolate. You may like strawberry. It's OK to have different individual goals and like different things (unless we are Borg of course).
Why is it that so many audiophiles have so much trouble accepting this in practice, even if they do in theory? |
As I mentioned previously on another thread, a system must be able to convey Rhythm, beat and tempo. This is the ability to follow each and every musician, solo and as a whole(Thank you Ivor). System tonality, spatial perspective, dynamics, noise floor,etc. are all important. But we are listening to recordings. |
A little silver shiny disc. |
I disagree that unamplified music is the standard that should be used. I do agree that if listening to a system and music, one should know what the music is suppose to sound like before passing judgement. However, the only one that would know what the particular recorded music sounded like at the moment of recording. Therefore, unless you participated in the recording session, you have no idea what the music sounded like then. So, you use your best judgement as to what you like, taking into account system interaction and the room. However, my point is there are good recordings and bad recordings. I have several albums and cds that are basically great music but terrible recordings. So, they just sound bad. It isn't the system, it is the recording. Classical music is the worst violator. There are multitudes of recordings of the same piece, and they all sound different. Different venues, sound recording equipment, musicians, etc. How was it supposed to sound? only the people in the room during the recording would know.
So, my feeling is that the simple statement that unamplified music is the standard is not entirely true (to me). The standard is what the particular recording sounded like at the time it was being recording should be the standard. yes, it is very important to know what a violin, real symbol, flute, etc. really sounds like, but which flute, which violin? they all sound different and different musicians also play and sound entirely different.
So, go to a concert that is being recorded. Sit is a good venue with great acoustics, in good seats and listen to a performance, it doesn't matter if it is amplified or unamplified. The purchase that particular recording. There is your standard. You were there! You know what you heard then (or I hope you remembered), then play that recorded music back on a system. Does it sound like you remembered? Yes? then you are there. No? then there is work to do.
I know, virtually impossible to do this. So, do the best you can.
enjoy
enjoy |
I just compared two systems with the same speakers, that had different tone and timbre. Out of all the many aspects of high end audio; you had better be rich if you are in pursuit of precise tone and timbre. |
2 track master tape is the gold standard. |
I enjoy reading this post from time to time. It reminds me of a saying in a song "Houses are just made of wood" It's the love of the people inside that makes it a home. An audio system is the same way. A person who loves and has a passion for music will have a different system from a person looking for near perfect sound reproduction in his sound system. One has that magic, the other is impressive. Combine both,and now your home is a palace for sure. |
Well, if you really want to hear humorous lyrical rewrites about Santa Claus (all songs must be holiday-themed) set to covers of tunes by The Pretty Things and The Chocolate Watch Band and raucously banged-out by a bunch of never-were's on a spree, email me and I'll be glad to send you one of the dubbed copies I so thoughtfully made up for friends and family... :-) |
It would still be fun to hear it! Are the CDs all gone? If not where could a person obtain one?
I've been thought of as seedy by several people in my life. |
Nate: Actually, there were just two songs from those sessions, which were issued on two of the annual compilation disks that get released for the Xmas holidays by a local charity against hunger to raise funds. All the tracks are donated by the bands, some of whom play a live benefit as well (which we did). The stuff wasn't audiophile-type material though - we played seedy garage rock... |
Zaikesman when can I buy the disc, or will it be out on Vinyl? : ) |
I know that neither amp, nor my system generally, could exactly capture the sound I worked to achieve in the recording and mixing of the sessions. For one thing, the control room at the studio we used was purpose-built with angled walls and ceiling plus extensive acoustic treatments, and floated an image better than any home stereo I've ever heard. Hearing the mastertape during playback was so often startling in its physical embodiment of our performance that it could be downright spooky. However, I'm not depending on my memory of those sessions for my verdict on how close my system can come - I routinely took home rough and completed mixes throughout the recording process at the time, and knew then that I couldn't completely recreate what I heard in the studio when I got home.
At this late date, all I'm doing is listening to final product over the two amps and comparing for which rendition gives me more of that feeling of recognition for my own guitar and the band I practiced with every week for three years. Also, I have an innate sense of the recorded sound I was stiving for in my production, and listening over the tube amps, I am satisfied I had come fairly close to what I wanted ; heard through the SS amp, I don't feel the result was as consistent with what I was attempting to capture - it sounds more like the work of a stranger. But this still a very subjective judgement and open to question, because I've heard this disk played back on my regular system many times since it was recorded, so I'm accustomed to this particular presentation.
And I still think the McCormack is a very nice piece, particularly for it's low cost, showing amazingly little of the negative qualities I was prepared to find in an amp of its type. Having it here definitely helped me get a better grip on what's going on, and what needs to go on, with my reference amps ; I've done several other gear upgrades or substitutions over the past 18 or so months, but it had been too long a time since I heard any of it through an amp other than my VTL's. (It's no accident that it took a SS amp to show me I was having some tube-wear issues.) I can only imagine the hilarity that will ensue whenever I get around to upgrading my speakers...
Oh BTW, I was playing a Micro-Frets though a Super Reverb :-) |
Zaikesman I offer my condolences on your tube. I'm glad it wasn't anything more than that!
Interesting test you ran with your new amp,and the CD-R. You are right, you know what your guitar sounds like and you know the voice of the singer. I would be interested in hearing how both of you sound with the VTL's in place. Does your Fender sound the same as it does when you listen through your vintage Marshall amps?
I think many 'audiophile's' find it easier to enjoy car audio because their expectations are low. No one thinks their car is going to sound like a concert hall, so they just enjoy the compressed lifeless music of their choice. BUT at home we demand more. Which begs the question again, what do we want our music to resemble? |
What a priceless 24 hours. This afernoon, I did some critical comparisons of the DNA-125 vs. my VTL's after leaving the SS amp playing all night to get it really warmed up. Then, taking a cue from Nrchy, I played a CD-R of some stuff that I recorded with a band I was in a couple of years ago. My familiarity with the sound of my own guitar and the singer who's been a friend of 20 years made for enlightening auditioning, and I have to admit that the results took the bloom off the rose somewhat as far as the SS amp is concerned. Such is the danger of first-day judgements. There are still things I think it points up that my tube amps don't do as well as could be wished for, but most of their flaws I was already well aware of. More significantly, I think I've decided upon further listening that the deviations of the SS amp are more detrimental to my musical involvement than are the deviations of the tube amps. I guess I'm back where I started, thinking even more about modding my tube amps, but an educational reaffirmation is exactly what I hoped for from this experience, so I'm not at all disappointed.
The funniest thing is though, last night I emailed the guy I bought the SS amp from, saying I may just wind up keeping it as a spare for emergencies, adding, "You never know with tube amps!" Well, no sooner had I completed this latest round of auditioning and decided I was on the right path with tubes, lo and behold one 6550 lets go with a light show! I think I caught it very quickly, so I'm anticipating nothing more serious than replacing the tube. But I was laughing ruefully...
P.S. - Update: No problems after replacing the tube. In fact, this turned out to be a blessing in disguise. When I got in there and started changing tubes and rebiasing, I began to notice some chassis reverberations making themselves heard through the speakers. Come to find that the NOS 60's Sylvania gold-pin 12AT7's input tubes I had upgraded to when I first got the amps, which I had liked for their treble extension and bass firmness, had become microphonic. Switching back to the previous GE's tidied-up the soundstage, toned-down some lower-treble brightness, and kept HF images from splashing forward - some of the areas the amp comparo had pointed up as wanting. The fun just never ends... |
I often think that one of the reasons I find it so easy to enjoy the music on my crappy, stock car radio is precisely *because* it eschews literal fidelity, and I know that it does, so it frees me up not to worry about such concerns and just groove. But then again, there are often times and recordings where it fails somewhat by not being able to clearly transmit content important to the musical message, this mostly being dependent on the type and complexity or subtlety (sonically speaking) of the music in question. |
Bingo, Zaikesman; the feeling "can easily transcend fidelity for some mysterious and wonderful reason". Brilliantly stated. My only qualification would be concerning the use of the word "fidelity". I would instead say: "...fidelity in the usual sense..." In other words, fidelity as usually defined by audiophiles; not necessarily the most relevant concern.
This is precisely the point. This feeling is the most important part of music making and likewise, the most important part of music reproduction. Can a component reproduce the feeling of the performance? This is in part what I mean when I refer to the "generic" sounds of live music. Although we tend to not think of the "feeling" in terms of "sound", the feeling has much to do with issues of microdynamics. The next obvious question will be: How do we know if that "feeling" was actually there at the original event, and not some sort of distortion caused by the record/playback process? Because just as with more usual concerns such as timbral accuracy and soundstage recreation, with enough exposure to the real thing, we can learn to recognize what is truth and what is a distortion.
The feeling of a good performance is a pretty powerful thing; the reason that it can transcend the LACK of fidelity of a table radio. It's not that the table radio somehow manages to reproduce the feeling because of some subtle electronic attribute, it's simply that the feeling of a good performance is difficult to destroy completely; it is that powerful. And this is what hangs up a lot of audiophiles IMO. We tend to focus on subtle differences in timbre and soundstaging, and overlook the magic. And where can we experience the most magic? At a live event. |
Of course. It's like asking to be able to depend on some sort of standard for how good food tastes, or which people are the most physically attractive. The only difference is that in audio, we are presumably trying to *recreate something* (more so in the case of live acoustic music), which by definition implies an original creation, a standard if you will. But since we can never be certain what that original was - only that we won't be able to perfectly capture and recreate it - things become, as we see in the high end, to a large degree simply a matter of taste. Still, the concept of standards does apply, for if we stray too far from a seemingly plausible attempt at faithful recreation in the pursuit of imposing idiosyncratic qualities, the majority of us will recognize this as no longer being high in fidelity - which gets us back to the question of fidelity to what? That's where the cognitive dissonance lies - the relatively peaceful acceptance of which is something essential to achieving, if not really the suspension of disbelief, at least the blissful ignoring of it. Which is to say, Don't sweat the whole concept so much that you can't hear around it, just enjoy as best you can! Some of my favorite 'lo-fi' recordings capture primarily a feeling, not the literal sound of a performance, and maybe not even the exact feeling I would have gotten had I been there in the room with the performers. Nevertheless, I have received the artistic feeling of that document listening over a high end system and over a table radio or a car radio. The most important part of the music can easily transcend fidelity for some mysterious and wonderful reason. |
Zaikesman, consensus does have value, as do the opinions of everyone who reviews a piece of gear, as long as it is done with integrity. If you tell me the Mc Cormack amp sounds good I believe it does. Based on your comments I would tell someone else that the DNA amp you mentioned is considered to be a good amp. The issue is what have I really learned. I consider you to be a credible source for information, but ultimately what has your comment done for me?
This is certainly not to say your comments are worthless, but it does call into question the value of your comments. I’m not trying to be rude, I’m just looking at the way we think about our systems. Is your determination of ‘good enough’ going to agree with mine, or anyone else’s?
Each instrument has a specific sound. That instrument will have a specific, but different sound when it arrives at the soundboard. It will have a slightly altered sound again as it is put onto a CD or LP. Which version of that sound are we willing to accept as being good enough, or as a standard which any or all of us can accept for judging the quality of our system? Or is it even worth it to try to have a standard?
The whole issue from the outset is my own wondering whether there was a standard that everyone can use to judge quality of gear. Other than anyone’s opinion it doesn’t seem that there is a standard. I believe everyone (almost) who’s posts and ideas I am familiar with on AudiogoN when they say something sounds good. I’m sure they think it sounds good, so in their mind it does sound good. Some people are less likely to have enough credibility to have their statements accepted by me as being reliable. But none of these comments are based on an absolute standard. |
It seems to me that the recording itself sets the absolute limit by which we can evaluate the reproduction capability of our equipment. As has been said before, our equipment cannot transcend the recording itself, reaching beyond to a "more true" or "real" version of the actual musical perfomance recorded by the engineer and the processed into CD, Vinyl, etc.
I'm not sure why the "Objectivist" approach to evalauting equipment would not be the prefered approach to judging a piece of equipment's ability as a reproducer of a muscial signal. The less damage (distortion?) between source and "reproduction" (electronically and acoustically) the "better".
Now it may be that there are some aspects of music reproduction that we are not able to objectively measure, and some aspects that we do not know we should measure that are relevant to sound quality (psychoacoustically). I suspect that there many measurables that relate to the accuaracy of reproduction and that are psychoacoustically relevant.
If true, all we can ask a designer to do is to engineer equipment that "measures right" (reproduces the source with minimal damage). If they do that, we can say the equipment is good to the extent is accuratly reproduces the source and passes that information to the next string on the audio chain.
With equipment that can accomplish that, our critique of the "sound" coming from our stereo might be better directed towards the recording engineers that produce sound that is accurate to the orginal perfomance.
Whether this "accurate" sound is pleasant or unpleasant is up to the listener. It would not suprise me if many people prefer sound that in some way is a distortion from the original or add artifacts that were not part of the sound of original performance in real space. |
The last thing that I thought I would ever do is feel like I have to come to the defense of audio reviewers. The truth of the matter is that although audio reviewers are oftentimes easy targets for criticism/ridicule, wether we want to admit it or not, there are in fact a few truly talented ones. Have you guys read the work of people like Jon Nork, Harry Pearson and others, over the years? I don't know about you guys, but I have found their commentary extremely useful. They helped develop a language to describe what they hear that has changed the way that we all talk about the hobby. I frankly don't find it all that difficult to get a sense of what the best reviewers are trying to say about certain components, eventhough their systems are in constant state of flux, since they (the best ones) usually make reference to the sound of the real thing in a way that to me, makes sense. The same way that we need to attend a lot of live music performances to really be able to build a good personal reference, by familiarizing ourselves with the language and yes, biases of these guys, we can get some really useful info about components. I find the across-the-board cynicism directed at reviewers unjustified and counterproductive. Are there a lot of hacks out there? You bet! So what? Ignore them.
I disagree that all reviewers use other equipment as a reference. Yes, a comparison, even if not stated in the review, to other equipment is probably inevitable. So what? As long as the focus is on how it measures up to the sound of the real thing.
I'll say it again: There are many "generic" qualities in the sound of the real thing, that makes concentrating on issues such as the effect of the sound of different venues, mics, mixing boards etc., while certainly not irrelevant, almost pointless. We just need to familiarize ourselves with these sonic qualities enough. Perhaps spend less time and energy on feeding the neurosis of the hobby, and more time attending live events. Not an essential pursuit in order to enjoy music and the hobby, but certainly essential if we want to bother with comparisons using any kind of meaningful standard. |
To partially answer both Nrchy's and Onhwy61's questions (How long has your system been the same? What valid conclusions can we draw from the observations of others?) as they regard myself, here's some news FWIW:
Yesterday I bought an amplifier from a local Agonner, paid cash and picked it up. I did this not because I necessarily wanted a new amplifier, but because I've been planning on doing some modifications to my current amps (capacitor upgrade) and wanted a spare. However, I do confess to having another, additional motivation. My regular amps are VTL MB-185 tubed monoblocks, but for a while I have been somewhat curious to see how I would react to a modestly-priced solid-state stereo amp - like the ones I used have a few years back before I got my previous C-J tubed stereo amp, only more up-to-date. Call it a reality-check.
The amp I got is a McCormack DNA-125. My reference amps cost about $5K new, the DNA-125 about $1.7K new. Truthfully, I am still only warming this thing up, as I literally inserted it into the system less than 12 hours ago. But already I can tell there are some things it does at least as well, if not better (or merely as well but differently) as my reference. Based on my past experiences, I was in no way expecting to be seriously tempted by this amp, and probably planned to sell it once my mods were done. However, I admit that part of the reason I'm auditioning something else now, before I do the mods to the VTL's, is to confirm in my own mind whether my reference should be a 'keeper' that I sink more money into, and also to double-check my overall commitment to tubed power by bringing in something solid-state. That the comparison could be called 'unfair' from a price standpoint (the output power isn't very different between the two into 4 ohms) I'll just have to let slide, since I wasn't going to drop much more than I did for a presumed temporary experiment.
But this little McCormack is obviously a very fine performer, maybe even 'good enough' - if we can ever admit to such a thing in this hobby - and I am going to enjoy listening to it for a while. Anyway, to get to the question touched upon by this thread, I just returned from rereading Jim Merod's review of this amp, and then going to audioreview.com, where there are 35 user reviews, who gave it an average of a perfect 5 out of 5 rating. And let me tell you, both Merod's piece and almost all of the user reviews are, I think at this early stage, dead-on acccurate in their assessment of this amp.
Now, this may not mean much in isolation, especially since it kind of surprises me, as I routinely find myself disagreeing with reviews both professional and amatuer. And, of course, I have a ways to go with this amp before coming to any final conclusions - there are still things I suspect my reference does better, although in terms of value for the money I likely have some thinking to do. But clearly, this McCormack is doing many things seemingly 'right', and everyone I've read about it so far thinks so too (next stop, Agon archives). That's got to mean something I believe ; that kind of consensus, jibing as it does with my own tentative experience, cannot be easily dissmissed as devoid of significance, at least not by me... |
Nrchy, I think I agree with your point about the pitfalls in using reference
systems as a point of comparison. But if you follow this line of thinking
to its logical conclusion, then it means virtually all of the advice given
within these forums regarding the sound of components is worthless.
You haven't heard my system in my room and I haven't heard yours.
What valid conclusions about sound quality can we really draw from the
words others have typed into their PCs? |
Zaikesman you are absoluely right about reviewers, both here are in publications using other gear as the standard. I don't think anyone's reference system is a valid comparison by which to measure new equipment.
No one else knows what your, my, or John Atkinson's system sounds like in the appropriate listening room. If I tell you that my new Klyne pre-amp sounds much more like live music than my old Krell pre-amp what good does that do anyone? I could be completely right and still not be making a statement that does anyone else a bit of good. For other gear to be a valid reference point everyone has to be familiar with the gear being used as a standard. Then they need to be familiar with the cabling and room in which the equipment is heard. No two rooms sound alike.
Live music is not a static target, but neither is anyone's refernce system. Zaikesman, how long has your system been the same? We neurotic audiophiles are in a constant state of flux. My system went unchanged for about a year, in the last month I bought a new pre-amp, and I'm in the process of buying new speaker cable. Nothing that changes so much can be helpful to others who do not hear that system. In the case of reviewers their system changes from week to week. How can any of them be used as a refernce. They don't even know what their systems sound like. They just know the latest interation of that system.
Zaikesman, I don't know that we really disagree in the essence of things. We both want our systems to be as good as reasonably possible, it's just that we have trouble locating a standard. I'm sure your mastertapes don't sound the same at home as they do at the mixing board or as the event in the studio. If you could actually use mastertapes you would definately have a leg up on the rest of us, but where do we stand in relation to the cello, flute or piano I hear at home? |
Pubul57, despite the rhetoric about the standard being unamplified live acoustic music - a standard that (within limits) is still useful and admirable, and which I understand aspiring to - I think that in actuality, most gear is essentially reviewed in relation to other gear the reviewer has experience with. Which makes perfect sense to me, since the different sounds of components will all be more similar to one another than they will be to real live music (a large part of the reason for which has to do with the recording process of the source material fed them, BTW). |
This is a fascinating thread. It makes me wonder how equipment reviewers are able to describe the sound of any particular piece of euipment and what good, better, best means in the reviewing context. |
Nrchy: The way to know the difference between the mastertape and the original event would be to listen at the mic position during the original event - except that you can never know exactly what was captured on the mastertape without putting it through some kind of playback system that will distort it. And that includes the original studio's monitoring system, which may be no better than a good home system at representing the mastertape signal fed into it...
You would, however, gain insight into what the mastertape engineers and producers heard to work with. |
Onhwy61, what you propose is a very interesting test. I think this would go a long way in judging the difference between the master tape and our choice of playback medium.
The question remains though, how much difference is there between the the original event and the master tape? I am asking, since I have no way of knowing what it is, I have never been in the position to experience this.
Does a flute sound like the flute played in a concert hall, does the cello not only sound like a bow dragged across strings or is all of the resonance there too? There is soo (That spelling is intentional, similar to the use of the word 'too' in conversation) much information available to the ears when an instrument is played that is never reproduced on an LP or CD. I'm not sure where the fault lies, but that is not the issue for this question.
I still want to know if it is possible to have an ultimate standard with which to judge the quality of playback of my, or any other stereo system! Right now, I don't think we do although your test Onhwy61 is a better standard than has been offered before. |
You're right, not all studios are created equal and some studios are without question better than others. But I'm referring to mastering studios and the reality is that the majority of commercial releases are mastered at a small number of studios (Gateway, Georgetown, Capitol, Sterling, etc.). These studios feature professionally designed rooms with top flight equipment. Any number of Audiogon regulars have equipment that equals or exceeds that found at these studios, but how many have custom designed, tuned and built acoustic environments? All I'm suggesting is that listening in the mastering studios will provide a known point of references for judging the performance of your home system. It would be a tough test, but one that some audiophile systems here on Audiogon would pass.
BTW, I actually haven't tried what I'm suggesting, but based upon my experiences I know I like my sound a little less "in your face", more spacious and with slightly hyped low bass than compared to what's actually on the disc. |
Oh, I agree Onhwy61, and there have been times that I've recorded or produced in the studio where what I heard when I got home made me sick by comparison. Unfortunately though, unless you're able to afford an unquestionably top-flight studio and engineering, this may not mean as much as you imply. Reason being, if the studio has deficiencies or anomolies that will always skew the final product - and probably the majority of modest-cost studios do - then the deck is stacked mo matter how good your home reference system might be, and you can't use your suggested method to make judgements about its fidelity. Your position assumes that the engineer will have a system at his diposal which enables him to make 'correct' judgements (another subjective area), and this just isn't often the case for most amateur musicians. The result (that the master sounds different, and better, in the studio than it does at home) is not necessarily an indictment of the home system in such cases, and is usually to its credit. |
Zaikesman, I'm not sure how anyone would ascertain which system is superior, but I have laid out a workable method for determining whether your system accurately reproduces what is on any disc. Namely, go listen to the music in the studio where it was mastered. Regardless of what the live performance was, it was only at the final mastering phase where the engineers and the artists determined what they actually wanted the disc to sound like. Compare that playback to what your system/room sounds like and you will have a fair standard for performance accuracy. |
Nrchy, Do you really want a standard? You love live music, a field in which there are "standard performance practices", i.e. the manner in which the composer originally intended", which are routinely ignored by performers, even when they composed and orchestrated the music. Some of the most boring music results from endless productions conforming to the standard performance practice. And the converse is true, some of my most favorite music is a long way from what originally was put on paper.
A little anarchy, or independence of expression if you please, is not only a good thing, without it life would be a hugely boring time on earth. :-) |
Zaikesman is right. Only my opinion matters, so Bomarc your system sucks, because it isn't the same as mine. Unless of course there is an objective standard.
I want there to be an objective standard so I have something real with which to measure my progress! But if it isn't real live music, what can the standard be???
It is interesting how many people say "this company is great, while the other company sucks" without having a standard by which to measure the quality of any piece of equipment. Personal preference is not a standard. |
"No two people will share the same illusion" - Bomarc
"Use your illusion" - Axel Rose
(Offhand, I can think of no more illusion allusions...)
Newbee, I share your outrage at my suggestion that anyone here could prefer something other than the Real Thing, and to make up for it I am buying everyone a round of Coca-Cola's on me. |
How so? If "it all comes down to what I think is right," to quote your previous post, then my system is the best on earth!
But seriously, why do we need an ultimate standard? Why isn't the "ultimate" standard whatever each individual consumer wants from his system? Some will want a sound that evokes the sensation of listening to live music (and note that I've worded this very carefully). But since you appear to have agreed already that recreating the actual sound of live music is impossible, that means we're talking about an illusion of live music, and I think it's fair to say that no two people will share the same illusion. And I'm still having trouble understanding why that is such a problem for you. |
bomarc, then your system sucks! |
So what if there's no ultimate standard for musical playback? |
Newbee that's kind of what I was getting at from the outset. The average listener does not have enough information to determine if the music they are hearing sounds anything like the event recorded so they have to opt for a subjectively pleasing listen event.
If it all comes down to what I think sounds right then there is no ultimate standard for musical playback! Anything goes and musical anarchy pervades! |
Zaikesman, What a loaded question! If one were to respond "subjectively pleasing" you could infer that they didn't care for the sound of the real thing. What person who wants to be respected as a lover of music would ever want to admit that (even if it be true)? Personally I want it to sound as "subjectively" close to the real thing as possible. :-) |
Yes Onhwy61, but when we compare systems, should we judge which is superior based on which one most closely approaches 'the real thing', or by which one we find the most subjectively pleasing?... ;^) |
Microphones don't hear sound the same way the human ear/brain does. Once the music enters the mic something, and a large something at that, is lost. It doesn't matter whether it's a purist, unprocessed recording or a 128 channel ProTools mega-extravaganza. Live music is live and it's very different from recorded or electronically assisted music. Music reproduction systems should be compared to other reproduction systems. There's no comparison to the real thing. |
Nrchy, very nice and interesting post.
Where is your TT fit into the scheme of things (Relativism and subjectivism)?
"When I play a recording of a Cello, which one of those memories is the right one with which to judge the recording?"
- Assume the environments are the same, the Cello (sound) you hear today are not the same as the Cello (sound) tomorrow or yesterday. So, are you telling us there are no "standard"? Thus "subjective"? Is there a thing called "subjective accuracy" ? To whom?
Warning: If you keep thinking like that, you might end up selling all your "Hi-end", quit the merry-go-round, buy Bose, and be content ... :-) |
It's interesting Nrchy, when I started in this hobby, I began with, and still hold, the assumption that my stereo system will never be able to sound like the real thing. You on the other hand, started with the idea that your stereo should sound like the real thing. This seems to be causing a certain frustration that is quite understandable. Please don't misinterpret my comments, I mean to be respectful; in fact I admire the fact that you care so much about this issue.
I think it would be helpful to forget about the unknown variables and focus instead on the known variables. In your situation, you have resources available that most listeners don't; you are very fortunate. You play the flute and your son plays the cello. Why not make recordings of your son playing the cello in your living room and in a concert hall? You would then have the best possible reference (standard) to use in judging a system's accuracy, since you are obviously very familiar with these sounds.
I am sure that you will arrive at a conclusion to this problem. I admire the fact that your household experiences so much live music making; that is what it is all about.
Best |
Nrchy: Anything having to do with human perception is 'subjective'. You can of course measure some aspects of the performance of your gear, to establish some answers as to how faithfully it transmits its input to its output under certain conditions of possibly varying relevence. You can perform some other measurements on the whole system, including the room, that will show a rather marked deviation from the software-encoded input signal. But characterizing the sound quality of different systems will always have to be confirmed, and maybe correlated if you're lucky, by the way they play music to subjectively listening human beings, and all the psychological baggage that goes along with that. But don't misunderestimate :-) what experience and an educated ear can evaluate, or how much your brain can extrapolate to complete the sensual, emotional goal of it all. As an audiophile, your judgements about what constitutes quality sound reproduction will be light-years ahead of most people you could pull in off the street, simply due to practice, interest in the pursuit of accuracy, some knowledge about exactly what that consists of, and having learned a language to describe your impressions. That also applies to technical professionals in the recording industry. We can make subjective judgements that do have some basis in reality, because we have learned and acquired some tools to do it. We're not entirely flailing around in the dark here you know. |
I wouldn't use the term "subjective accuracy" at all, or, rather, I wouldn't use the word accuracy to describe the subjective sense that reproduced music sounds more or less like "the real thing." Accuracy is a technical term, and it's measurable, and I'd prefer to leave that word to the engineers.
Which brings us back to your concerns about relativism. What, if I may ask, is so wrong with relativism, in a hobby whose true purpose is providing sensory pleasure? And what's wrong with a little anarchy? Why can't I like something and you like something else, and therefore I prefer System A and you prefer System B? Most of us would agree that there isn't one best system. This is why.
I said earlier that I thought the only true standard is, "Do I like it?" I'd amend that to say that for many audiophiles, part of what they like is an illusion of liveness, but we're each going to have a different sense of what that is. It's subjective, it's relative, its anarchic, and that's part of what makes it interesting. |
So it comes to this. I posted the question because I have thought for along time that what is reproduced by a good stereo should sound like instruments playing, not a record playing (or CD, SACD, cassette, or 8-track). Through the years my system has gotten better, but I still find that goal of (to paraphrase (I think) what uppermidfi said) live music in my own room is just as illusive.
So I began to examine my own standards and motivation. I realized that what I want to hear isn't possible, so the question with which I was left was: What standard am I using to judge the quality of my own, or any other system? I' not sure if I've come to a conclusion because I don't think saying "it sounds good enough to me" is a real answer. It would lead to relativism and (can I say it?) anarchy?!?
Frogman, I understand what you are saying, and in a perfect world I would agree with you, but I think it's only wishful thinking to conclude that yours/mine/or any other system sounds like good unamplified music. There are too many unknown variables. When my son plays his Cello in the living room it sounds a lot different than when he plays it in a concert hall. When I play a recording of a Cello, which one of those memories is the right one with which to judge the recording? I know we've been through this before, but there must be an answer. A person can't say that the gerneral sound of a Cello is good enough. If one uses that response, then tonal accuracy is not a desired factor in musical reproduction.
Bomarc, you made a good reply to what I thought was an accurate comment by uppermidfi, until I saw your response. In the long run the recording is probably more important than the reproduction of it. No system, nomatter how good will add back what was not recorded in the first place. But unless the listener was at the recording session accurate reproduction is purely subjective. Is that all this hobby amounts to; subjective accuracy? |
Nrchy, if you tell me your "standard", I will tell you mine. LOL |
"High fidelity" does NOT mean "close to the original event." It means "close to what's on the recording." On a technical level, an audio playback system cannot do better than that.
It can do worse than that however, and still sound good. It's even possible that, by diverging from (i.e., distorting) what's on the recording, we can get a sound that we like better, or even get a sound that gives us a better illusion of a live musical event. But don't confuse "an illusion of a live musical event" with "a reproduction of a live musical event." The latter is impossible. The former is possible, but it might not be high fidelity! |
As I suspect Newbee correctly infers, I'm not sure that Uppermidfi's (great username) interpretation of my take is exactly what I had in mind. Nrchy and Newbee are essentially on target to point out that in almost any instance of listening to recorded music at home, an audiophile is going to be making subjective, impressionistic, and to a large degree fundamentally uninformed judgements about the verisimilitude of what they hear.
I'm not trying to argue for a 'standard' as such - there *is* one in some senses, but we can't really know it for ourselves - rather, I'm just trying to point out why some recording techniques are going to yield source material where the degree of fidelity of our systems, especially in certain areas, is more critically brought into play than with other types of material. What it boils down to is that if we are listening to material which contains relatively less information that has a correlation to reality, then it matters less that our playback system be able to convey such information. This is why dance music will sound better played back in a disco than classical music will.
But of course Uppermidfi is correct (and speaks for many of us) when he posits that in the universe of playback systems, there *are* those which are literally 'higher fidelity' than others (and vice-versa), and I think we all take it for granted that, at least in a gross sense if not precisely in every detail, we will for the most part be able to tell - whether or not we are intimately familiar with the source material, as long as it is of high sonic quality - pretty easily just by auditioning where a system falls on this scale, depsite having no 'absolute' reference to work from. Which, when you think about it, is a fairly complete description of why there is even a high end to begin with. And a fairly good defense as to why, no matter what arguments you might be able to come up with in theory about why it should not be so, the degree of fidelity to *some kind* of real acoustic event captured in the source material must be significant for audition purposes, regardless of our not having been present at the original performance. You can hear it, so it must be the case - even though both the recording and the playback system are never going to reproduce reality, in order to even stand a chance of getting any idea how close you might be coming, both aspects of the chain have to first attempt the feat. |
