"How can we ever truly know if we are hearing exactly what is on the recording?"

[Carlos269]

I thought Bruce is a mastering engineer and not a recording engineer.

I venture to say that most artists are interested in conveying the essence of their performance/songs rather than enthralled with its reproduction. Those duties ultimately are the responsibility of the mastering engineer.

 

[NorthStar]

It depends of the artists with their producers and recording engineers.

I don't know the official title job Bruce is performing; he knows best. You might be correct.

 

[Ron Resnick]

"How can we ever truly know if we are hearing exactly what is on the recording?"

Perhaps unintentionally, I actually think this opening question on this thread is fiendishly complicated. (Or perhaps it simply asks the wrong question.)

It's complicated because it implicitly embodies the question of what is one's objective of high-end audio.

A group here developed in 2016 four alternative, but not mutually exclusive, objectives of high-end audio:

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

4) create a sound that seems live.

These Objectives are not mutually exclusive, and an audiophile might seek a combination of them.

So, in the opening question, is the "recording" being referred to whatever sound is coming out of the grooves of the record as you spin the vinyl, or is the "recording" the sound of the performance which the recording engineer attempted to capture? Before one may even begin to address the question, one must understand exactly what is the question.

If the former, one is focusing on Objective 2); if the latter, one is focusing on Objective 1).

 

[Carlos269]

It doesn’t matter. With either 1) or 2) you arrive at the same conclusion, and that is that you don’t “definitively” or “absolutely” know.

For 1) you would have needed to have been present at the original event. And even if you where there, if you and I were standing or sitting right next to each other, how do you know that what you and I heard at the event was the same thing?

For 2) this one is even easier to prove: take the same “exact” record from system to system and listen to it. It will sound different in every system. How do you know on which system the reproduction is accurate to what is “in the grooves” of that one and only record?

In either case, you will never definitely, conclusively or “absolutely” know the correct answer.

 

[bonzo75]

You use to 2 to do 1, but unfortunately this thread keeps going in circles with people with not so good recordings and/or lack of exposure to transparent to recording systems not relating

 

[Ron Resnick]

It doesn’t matter. With either 1) or 2) you arrive at the same conclusion, and that is that you don’t “definitively” or “absolutely” know.

For 1) you would have needed to have been present at the original event. And even if you where there, if you and I were standing or sitting right next to each other, how do you know that what you and I heard at the event was the same thing?

For 2) this one is even easier to prove: take the same “exact” record from system to system and listen to it. It will sound different in every system. How do you know on which system the reproduction is accurate to what is “in the grooves” of that one and only record?

In either case, you will never definitely, conclusively or “absolutely” know the correct answer.

I totally agree. At least I think now we are being a bit more intellectually rigorous in the question.

 

[Carlos269]

You use to 2 to do 1, but unfortunately this thread keeps going in circles with people with not so good recordings and/or lack of exposure to transparent to recording systems not relating

You are getting yourself into deep water here. Your lack of comprehension of basic fundamentals, like the fact that everyone hears differently, per ones anatomy, or Head-Related Transfer Function (HRTF) is telling.

As for exposure to transparent systems: this one is amusing considering that I have 19 separate working systems just in my house alone, including two complete mastering systems.

I’m currently on business in Europe, when I get home I will send you some pictures of my references “to exposure to transparent systems”. But in the meantime can you please post a picture of your system for all of us to see your reference. Traveling around listening to everyone else’s system must be fun, but what is “your” actual reference system?

I have been an audiophile for over 35 years and own some of the rarest audio components that you never heard of or know about, including recorders from Sony Classical Music Studio in New York on which many of the recordings that get praised here were recorded, mastered and/or archived on. A couple of sets of the original Meitner DSD ADC and DAC (with the original DSD implementation) used for the original SACD releases. The original and updated Weiss-Harmonia Mundi digital mastering consoles that Daniel Weiss and Ben Bernfeld made masterful recordings and Harmonia-Mundi releases on. A Sadie DSD8 SACD-authoring workstation used for making the best sounding SACD releases. Fairman and Tomo Labs ultra high-end Mastering equipment used to produce some of the music admired by audiophiles and I can go on and on and on. My systems include components from FM Acoustics, Gryphon, Wisdom Audio, Cello Audio, Lamm, Goldmund, MBL, Electron-Luv, Viva, Wilson Audio and so on and so on. So I do have a just little bit of “exposure to transparent systems”

As they say, know your audience.

 

[bonzo75]

When I had a system it wasn't transparent to recordings, so I knew as less as some of the people here and was actively trying to create my own sound to make all recordings sound similarly live with soundstage and stuff, sme thing on every recording till it gets boring and I want to sell off. It is only after meeting people who were successful with creating systems transparent to recordings I knew what that meant. I see that people who go around in circles on this topic keep saying what they stagnated to at home, and seem to not be willing to learn by trying to listen to the reference point of the other. Do you own colored cables as well, expensive ones?

To your other point, it all comes down to preference, let's close the forum and all go home. These forums exist to debate better and best sound reproduction, at various value points, and are not about you be left, I be right, you Dem, I be Republican, let's all have beer and enjoy

 

[Carlos269]

When I had a system it wasn't transparent to recordings, so I knew as less as some of the people here and was actively trying to create my own sound to make all recordings sound similarly live with soundstage and stuff, sme thing on every recording till it gets boring and I want to sell off. It is only after meeting people who were successful with creating systems transparent to recordings I knew what that meant. I see that people who go around in circles on this topic keep saying what they stagnated to at home, and seem to not be willing to learn by trying to listen to the reference point of the other. Do you own colored cables as well, expensive ones?

While I do own some expensive cables, which I have acquired though transactions over time, my advanced degrees and background in Physics and Electrical Engineering does not allow me to buy into the whole cable and tweaks side of the hobby. Some tweaks such as vibration control and cable geometry is grounded on solid science but the majority of it is a leap of faith, to put it nicely. What I look for in cables is good electrical specifications and solid construction. I’m a big fan of Gotham Audio cables from Switzerland. Not only are they affordable but their Ultra Pro line of cables is as good as I need. As you can see, I have spent quiet a bit of my time in the mastering studio side of the world and have come to realize that if you start with a good electrical conductor, that there is equipment available to not only reproduce, but to also scale, the effects of most cables and tweaks in a repeatable/defeatable, tunable and scalable way, instead of these trial and error insert and live with the results tuning devices.

 

[tima]

"How can we ever truly know if we are hearing exactly what is on the recording?"

Perhaps unintentionally, I actually think this opening question on this thread is fiendishly complicated. (Or perhaps it simply asks the wrong question.)

It's complicated because it implicitly embodies the question of what is one's objective of high-end audio.

A group here developed in 2016 four alternative, but not mutually exclusive, objectives of high-end audio:

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

4) create a sound that seems live.

So, in the opening question, is the "recording" being referred to whatever sound is coming out of the grooves of the record as you spin the vinyl, or is the "recording" the sound of the performance which the recording engineer attempted to capture? Before one may even begin to address the question, one must understand exactly what is the question.

If the former, one is focusing on Objective 2); if the latter, one is focusing on Objective 1).

Fiendishly? Complicated? Chuckle. Dear Ron, it's only complicated here because it's not expressed in your terminology. I noted the topic is associated to your/the list. But it was not taken from that list.

But, but mom I meant to be clear - I really did. (pavers and hell story goes here.) So I'm happy to try being clearer.

Re: this question
"How can we ever truly know if we are hearing exactly what is on the recording?"

We also see it associated to a list (Ron's ?) of 4 Types of Audiophiles, one being those who seek reproduction true to what is on the recording, or some such.

"The recording" is not something in an engineer's mind. The recording is a record or some other media. This was made pretty explicit in the OP:

Music is performance art. It exists in time and is transient. A recording must be performed to hear music. It moves from the potential (media) to the actual through time - when the recording is performed, when the record is played.

No mention or suggestion anywhere is made about replicating the actual event. So in your terms the question/topic relates to objective #2. It can only be a "wrong queston" if it doesn't lead to a pre-conceived answer. :-o

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. Honest! Where you and I and the list makers may get into a "real quarrel" is over the notion that Objective #2 makes any sense.

Bonzo - I understand what you're saying about "transparency to recordings" and systems that reveal the greatest difference. I think you like to put stuff in terms of systems - which is fine - but I don't think systems pertain here. In other words "If you listen to this record through this particular system (X) you will truly hear exactly what's on it." is (in my mind at least), not a possible answer. (Though I would like to listen via X.)

Each performance of the recording (each playing of the record) is unique. Each person's hearing a given performance of the recording is unique. Heck, even the record itself is unique from one day to the next, but I don't factor that too much. For those same reasons I don't think Objective #1 makes any sense either - at least in terms of possibly achieving it.

I also understand what you're saying that if it's all just preference, let's close the forum. I think we both agree that some equipment is better than others, that some recordings are better than others. I think we agree not to fall back on the notion that we all hear differently - that each of us is a little solipsist who only knows our own experience. There is lots to agree and disagree over even if we can't agree whether there are definitive answers or true truths. So let's not close the forum.

 

[bonzo75]

Tima, apart from going around in circles threads on this topic also skirt around the main point. It does not matter if audiophiles have different preferences or listen differently. They will all be able to hear differences in the recording when a system allows it, and they will not when a system does not allow it.

If you bought a devore orangutan with a NAF 2a3 or mastersound integrated, you will hear many more differences in the same recordings that you play. Whether you like it more or less than your Wilson system is a topic for another thread.

And if all recordings don't tend to the same sound, you are hearing what's on the recording, else it would have tended to a common sound

 

[andromedaaudio]

Why would one call a speaker devore " orangutan" ?.
Little of topic sorry

 

[andromedaaudio]

This devore looks like a small 2 way system as seen on pics .
Probably a nice papermid membrane
Im sure it can do vocals good or string guitar .
But its not able to give the whole picture .
I have quite a few mastertapes at home , also from piano concerts for example .
Done with a simple stereomike and recorded on the exact same recorder i have at home.
So yes i can compare how my system does the reproduction of a piano.
This as an answer to the topic of the thread

 

[bonzo75]

Why would one call a speaker devore " orangutan" ?.
Little of topic sorry

Because it can make a monkey of some expensive speaker owners

 

[spiritofmusic]

Orangutan ain't no monkey. Neither is a gibbon. Of course there is plenty of monkeying about in this hobby Lol.

 

[PeterA]

When I had a system it wasn't transparent to recordings, so I knew as less as some of the people here and was actively trying to create my own sound to make all recordings sound similarly live with soundstage and stuff, sme thing on every recording till it gets boring and I want to sell off.

Bonzo, surely this is a typo, and you did not mean to write SME (implying to me that all recordings sound the same on their products), but SAME meaning that all recordings sound the same on one's less than transparent system. I am a very sensitive reader.

 

[PeterA]

Tima, apart from going around in circles threads on this topic also skirt around the main point. It does not matter if audiophiles have different preferences or listen differently. They will all be able to hear differences in the recording when a system allows it, and they will not when a system does not allow it.

If you bought a devore orangutan with a NAF 2a3 or mastersound integrated, you will hear many more differences in the same recordings that you play. Whether you like it more or less than your Wilson system is a topic for another thread.

And if all recordings don't tend to the same sound, you are hearing what's on the recording, else it would have tended to a common sound

Of course we all hear what is on the recording. And one could even argue that they tend to a common sound. I mean we know we are hearing Holst's Planets, whether it is on the car radio or in MikeL's system. We are not listening to something other than the recording. However, I think the point is that we can not know what is exactly on the recording because each instance of playback is an interpretation by the listener and a result in part of the gear choices he has made, how he has set up his system, and the room in which it is heard. Given these incredible variables, the argument is that we can not hear exactly what is on the recording. It varies by the choices we have made. It is only a hint through a tinted lens.

Furthermore, forgetting all of that, how would we ever truly "know" it and be able to prove it? We can only seem to be getting closer and closer never really arriving until we hear something better which gets us closer still. But then, we may disagree that it is closer. That seems the essence of the question for those whose goal is to "recreate what is on the recording" because "the recording is all we have". I see this discussion as being about whether or not that goal is ever possible. I would like to hear from those who think it is and why it is, and how they know it.

 

[Gregadd]

"...a hint through a tinted lense..."
Well stated.

 

[DaveC]

There are some ways we can know on a comparative basis how true our system is to the recording... What I look for is:

- Overall level of resolution. A more resolving system is pretty obvious vs a less resolving system.

- Absence of fatiguing artifacts. This can be determined fairly quickly by a trained listener, but it also becomes apparent over time by anyone...

- Absence of excessive warm/smooth artifacts. Too much warmth added by tubes, copper cables, etc. can add a sameness and reduce resolution.

- Soundstaging... If the recording allows, not hearing the speakers or room, and achieving a "you are there" experience is an indication the system is working properly.

- Distinct differences between recordings, or what bonzo is calling Transparency to the Recording, this is an indication that the recording is being presented moreso than room acoustics and the effect of the electronics, cables or AC power on the sound.

- Timbral accuracy, do instruments and vocals sound real? This is often related to the items above, but like soundstage, is another indication of the overall successful setup of the system.


Of course I've already posted a link to Toole's "circle of confusion", which points to the lack of a mastering reference system, and the issues the lack of such a system causes. This is also why I question the desire to go far outside of normal parameters for system setup, such as excessively long decay times and other "tweaks"... it's quite obvious this is diverging from the intent of the recording and the above aspects of sound reproduction will surely suffer as a result.

 

[Bobvin]

And, lets not forget, wrt vinyl, advances in cartridges and stylus only seem to dig more and more out of the grooves, so we can’t even really know what all is there to begin with.