The Fallacy of Accuracy
- Thread starter Al M.
- Start date
Hard to disagree. "I didn't poll every designer, but if the majority of high-end designers all strove for accuracy, their speakers would sound more and more alike, and the most accurate would all eventually sound exactly the same."
Before we get too far, we still have to build consensus on this inescapable truth from Andrew Jones:
"Accuracy in terms of closest approach to the original performance is not practical nor even possible. There is no way to capture an original performance for replay over two channels that can represent the "truth" of that performance. All we can get is a facsimile that is the producer's attempt to capture what he wants to convey to you. As for a studio recording, it is a total construct and has no "original." Therefore, as a speaker designer, my goal is to try and keep the speaker neutral so it is agnostic to the type of music and, to a degree, the replay level. "
Once there, then we can look at 30+ years of research into what most of us prefer, should we take everything other than the sound that the speaker produces.
Right now, a lot of people don't want to go down either one of the above two paths. Instead we like to cling to "everyone likes a different sound so let chaos reign."
"Accuracy in terms of closest approach to the original performance is not practical nor even possible. There is no way to capture an original performance for replay over two channels that can represent the "truth" of that performance. All we can get is a facsimile that is the producer's attempt to capture what he wants to convey to you. As for a studio recording, it is a total construct and has no "original." Therefore, as a speaker designer, my goal is to try and keep the speaker neutral so it is agnostic to the type of music and, to a degree, the replay level. "
Once there, then we can look at 30+ years of research into what most of us prefer, should we take everything other than the sound that the speaker produces.
Right now, a lot of people don't want to go down either one of the above two paths. Instead we like to cling to "everyone likes a different sound so let chaos reign."
and this whole speaker accuracy issue led me to start "the most important component" thread, in which I said for me it's the speaker - basically, because of this chaos wrt speaker design, and by extension, what we as consumers/audiophiles perceive as accurate.
not sure why you think the lack of an absolute sound (as all designers in that piece basically said) is chaos.
Right, what I took home from that article is that (no surprise) each designer has different priorities about how to "correct" a recording's inherent inaccuracies. Andrew Jones' philosophy is one approach, and no doubt his designs sound "good", but they aren't the only ones that do.
If you subscribe (incorrectly) to the notion that every person likes a different sound, it creates a totally random situation for speaker designers. Every company then chases a different goal and you as a consumer is left to sift through to total confusion. All because of the false premise that the chances of someone liking ice cream is 50-50. Once there, you would need to have a million flavor to please everyone....
It does not result in any chaos at all - it results in many types of speakers, availability and success is then determined by economics (including marketing) and people preferences.
Even designers that create speakers aiming at being essentially "neutral" such as Laurence Dickie - I think no one has doubts about his vews on speaker design - admit that there is a place for alternatives. (quoted from a Soundstage interview http://www.soundstageultra.com/index.php/features-menu/general-interest-interviews-menu/242-searching-for-the-extreme-laurence-dickie-of-vivid-audio-part-one)
I also appreciate that, in the world of reproduced sound, there is plenty of room for adding character. There will be styles of music, listener preferences, and combinations of equipment that are not necessarily neutral, but that go together. Some people like rock music with a bit of an edge. And that’s fine. I appreciate it, and in fact I sometimes like that edge as well. I’m not blind to it. Sometimes it’s nice to just stand in front of a stack of paper cones that add a bit of color, some horns that add a bit of shout, a little bit of beaming. It’s an involving experience and it’s fun. But with Vivid Audio, we seek to provide something that disappears as much as possible. But I do completely appreciate the point of a loudspeaker that is part of the performance instead of a clear window. I also work for a professional sound company in the UK that makes horn loudspeakers, which I would not deny have a healthy bit of character. They are great fun. You go and enjoy a club night or a loud band, and it is part of the experience -- not neutral, but great fun.
But I love the idea that my Souldlab's are part of the chaos ... Every flap of their diaphragms is changing the weather in Central Park ...
Hi
It is to me quite normal that different designs sound differently. Given the same goals in any endeavor, different designers or engineer will always take a different approach. A matter of personality, of taste, knowledge and philosophy. Take a computer program for example. different programmers will come up with different ways to approach the same problem and obtain similar results. Same with music and particularly with speakers which are the least accurate, yes, accurate component in the reproduction chain. There are to use a cliche several ways to skin a cat thus those different approaches and with the result of different sound.
It is to me quite normal that different designs sound differently. Given the same goals in any endeavor, different designers or engineer will always take a different approach. A matter of personality, of taste, knowledge and philosophy. Take a computer program for example. different programmers will come up with different ways to approach the same problem and obtain similar results. Same with music and particularly with speakers which are the least accurate, yes, accurate component in the reproduction chain. There are to use a cliche several ways to skin a cat thus those different approaches and with the result of different sound.
There are probably 3 levels of "accuracy" that a system may have at any one time: accurate enough so that one always "hears" the speaker, that is, the characteristics of the speaker keep striking you, that is the thing one is most aware of; then, good enough so that the overall system "sound" is subjectively what seems most prominent, e.g. it has a "tube sound", or a "ss sound"; and finally, precise enough that only the characteristics of the recording always dominate, changing albums means that a whole different atmosphere and sense of the sound occurs.
Personally, the last one is the one to go after - I don't want the "sound of a speaker", say, to keep intruding, it just means that the experience becomes boring, all I'm doing is listening to the same 'vibe', over and over again.
Personally, the last one is the one to go after - I don't want the "sound of a speaker", say, to keep intruding, it just means that the experience becomes boring, all I'm doing is listening to the same 'vibe', over and over again.
As long as you remain fully aware that all of these opinions are presented with zero data to back them, you are good. Just because someone is a speaker designer, it doesn't mean they have mastered or know what the population perceives good sound. It takes research and analysis is which is not seen anywhere in these statements.
So wallow in them if you like. But don't present them as anything that has weight.
"Accuracy" is just another word in the audiophile vocabulary. It seems to have a very specific and exact meaning in the dictionary, but it is actually just a metaphor for something else in the incredibly complex systems of hearing, audio recording and reproduction. In audio, the word is inexact and imprecise in what it really means, which might differ between you and me, say. That's always the problem with trying to describe the very nonverbal process of hearing music or sounds in any language.
But, JA at Stereophile has a long history of trying to be provocative and stir controversy, even when there is none there. I have this on good authority that he enjoys that immensely. It might help sell magazines. And, there is nothing more provocative than when you get into the contradictions between the sensory listening experience and the semantics of words, which only inexactly convey what our senses perceive. Couple that with the really weak opinions of Steve Guttenberg, who loves provocation himself, and you have the perfect formula for yet another really deep "thought piece", duh! I wish JA would finally see the light and put that lightweight permanently out to pasture.
But, JA at Stereophile has a long history of trying to be provocative and stir controversy, even when there is none there. I have this on good authority that he enjoys that immensely. It might help sell magazines. And, there is nothing more provocative than when you get into the contradictions between the sensory listening experience and the semantics of words, which only inexactly convey what our senses perceive. Couple that with the really weak opinions of Steve Guttenberg, who loves provocation himself, and you have the perfect formula for yet another really deep "thought piece", duh! I wish JA would finally see the light and put that lightweight permanently out to pasture.
Accuracy simply means lack of audible distortion being added by the playback chain - nothing more, nothing less. If two systems are accurate, using completely different styles of components, then they will sound identical, subjectively, on all recordings; yes, even using the infamous DBT!! And, that's exactly what I keep chasing ...
I am aware that the person who presents these opinions designed the Nautilus loudspeaker, that I have listened playing great in a four amplifier active system that is still one of my audiophile references. I am aware that he has a long CV creating speakers I have listened and can listen anytime. I am aware of tens of opinions of others in the forum, magazines and real life about his speakers. I am aware that this is just an example and that I have read from many high-end designers sharing similar thoughts. I am aware that other members are not fools and can interpret facts and opinions without the need of constant proof or your blessing .
Concerning your last sentence, I am also aware that IMHO your arrogant and impolite style is not suited to a proper debate in audio. Do not expect me to go in your usual insult fights.
There is no choice. We have preferences at live performances. I have played bad sounding violins, good sounding violins and great sounding violins. I've used bad sounding bows, good sounding bows and great sounding bows. I've played in bad sounding auditoriums, good sounding halls and a brilliant sounding concert hall. And all of that is before there is any sound preproduction going on. It's live music!
And there's nothing 'magic' about live music, per se! Went to a solo cello recital many months ago, in a nice vaulted setting - and was grinding my teeth for much of the time; the tone of the instrument, the way he was playing, his choice of material - I was wondering when it was going to be over, for some relief!
It's true that all stereo's would eventually sound the same if accuracy was in mind. But that's assuming we were remotely capable of approaching perfect. We're not anywhere near close. Unless we acquire some radically new technology soon, our lifetimes are not likely to see us getting too close to that. Distortion is so low it shouldn't be consider distinguishable especially given we can't seem to detect it will above the decimal place into many percents, and yet all of our devices still somehow sound different...
I personally like a system that reveals everything about the information recorded. Sometimes you realize the studio they were in sucked. You can notice the difference between decisions made in mixing and mastering, even microphone/mic-pre capability. No it's not like a 100% life experience but I still find it's closer that removing those elements. The sound is more engaging the more accurate it is, to me. It sounds easy to do if everything is low distortion but it's just not true... Not at all. And I believe a LOT of companies are trying to give a totally different experience. That's fine, many people want something that isn't about accuracy, but rather the experience. It's different from person to person, but I personally find the experience is always better with accuracy than attempts otherwise, it's just exponentially harder to achieve so it's not a surprise we see totally different approaches to exploit parts of the experience.
Here's an excerpt from my mini Axpona review:
"The dichotomy of sound: Macro Expensive & Not:
Something became very clear listening to basically all of the big to mega buck systems. They basically have no interest in authenticity to the recording. That's right, you can't hear anything that indicates a recording process really at all. It doesn't matter what is being played. There's no reason to call them refined at all. My first thought is man... they're terrible. But clearly some people like them. They offer something very different. In general they make about everything you play on them sound somewhat like a live performance instead of a recording. Clearly that's what a lot of people like, or at least the sensation is alluring enough to captivate a lot of people. It's my new term, macro, to describe things that have this intention.
And for these macro setups anything that isn't largely a somewhat hot recording won't sound too good. Classical does ok. But for example in one that will remain nameless I had a file uploaded from my USB drive and people literally left the room and would come in and leave immediately. It sounded awful. It's a pretty good recording that I'm use to sounding beautiful. Guess what it was? Sufjan Stevens - Chicago, from the Illinois album. It's not a friendly song for stereos, that's a reason I use it. But it's delicate and gorgeous on a good stereo. Right about now you should be thinking, what's a good stereo if hundreds of thousands of dollars won't do it justice? Good question... That's why I'm using this macro definition that's more of an insult to what I consider good.
Now I want to make it clear that it's possible that in a different setting I may not have come to this conclusion of the dichotomy because it would be hard to conclude not because I think it would be untrue. "
I personally like a system that reveals everything about the information recorded. Sometimes you realize the studio they were in sucked. You can notice the difference between decisions made in mixing and mastering, even microphone/mic-pre capability. No it's not like a 100% life experience but I still find it's closer that removing those elements. The sound is more engaging the more accurate it is, to me. It sounds easy to do if everything is low distortion but it's just not true... Not at all. And I believe a LOT of companies are trying to give a totally different experience. That's fine, many people want something that isn't about accuracy, but rather the experience. It's different from person to person, but I personally find the experience is always better with accuracy than attempts otherwise, it's just exponentially harder to achieve so it's not a surprise we see totally different approaches to exploit parts of the experience.
Here's an excerpt from my mini Axpona review:
"The dichotomy of sound: Macro Expensive & Not:
Something became very clear listening to basically all of the big to mega buck systems. They basically have no interest in authenticity to the recording. That's right, you can't hear anything that indicates a recording process really at all. It doesn't matter what is being played. There's no reason to call them refined at all. My first thought is man... they're terrible. But clearly some people like them. They offer something very different. In general they make about everything you play on them sound somewhat like a live performance instead of a recording. Clearly that's what a lot of people like, or at least the sensation is alluring enough to captivate a lot of people. It's my new term, macro, to describe things that have this intention.
And for these macro setups anything that isn't largely a somewhat hot recording won't sound too good. Classical does ok. But for example in one that will remain nameless I had a file uploaded from my USB drive and people literally left the room and would come in and leave immediately. It sounded awful. It's a pretty good recording that I'm use to sounding beautiful. Guess what it was? Sufjan Stevens - Chicago, from the Illinois album. It's not a friendly song for stereos, that's a reason I use it. But it's delicate and gorgeous on a good stereo. Right about now you should be thinking, what's a good stereo if hundreds of thousands of dollars won't do it justice? Good question... That's why I'm using this macro definition that's more of an insult to what I consider good.
Now I want to make it clear that it's possible that in a different setting I may not have come to this conclusion of the dichotomy because it would be hard to conclude not because I think it would be untrue. "
I'm afraid that makes no sense - if distortion is so low that it's not distinguishable, then why do systems sound different? No audible distortion means exactly that, if the systems sound different then at least one of them is distorting.
What the crazy audio world has steered so many people into thinking, is that if one does a few technical measurements on things that then you have a handle on things! Miles from it, I'm afraid - with a little experience it becomes trivially easy to detect the audible distortion practically all rigs produce, quite often at high levels. Eliminate that unwanted addition, and then the sound starts to approach what's on the recording ...
We measure in THD. If we measured HD for every 20k frequencies the graphs would vary despite the same total amount. That's one way. Also amplifiers handle different loads in various ways. We can't measure every amp with every speaker... THD also isn't a measurement of current response either. THD+N is better, but then again the N frequency determines the audibility.
It's sort of never ending... There's so many choices when designing equipment. The consumer would love an easy measurement or two to go on... But there's only one, your ear.
Again maybe some day the technology (quantum or something?) will surpass these limitations but we sure are not there yet. All we can have is goals we try to accomplish with equipment design. And my conclusion is some want accuracy, some are just set on experience.
It's sort of never ending... There's so many choices when designing equipment. The consumer would love an easy measurement or two to go on... But there's only one, your ear.
Again maybe some day the technology (quantum or something?) will surpass these limitations but we sure are not there yet. All we can have is goals we try to accomplish with equipment design. And my conclusion is some want accuracy, some are just set on experience.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |