Stereophile As We See It; High-End Audio & the Invisible Hand

[fas42]

I hate to tell you but few recordings are accurate reproductions of the original work tape or bits put down on the computer.

And with that I resolutely disagree! They may not be accurate to the n'th degree, but all the information is contained within to properly recreate what occurred at the time of the recording. It is now up to the playback equipment to recover that information as best it can and with minimal extra interference, and in my experience that's where the failures occur ...

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

But you still are dodging my initial question: what the hell does accurate mean? Accurate to what?

Not dodging, but it isn't a simple answer. It is pretty simple with electronics, but transducers are much more difficult, as your follow-up questions reveal...

Accurate tonally?...Accurate frequency wise?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume these are the same thing. And they're a good start. Speakers that have even and pretty flat FR on, and reasonably far off axis, almost always sound better when the recordings sound better.

Accurate spatially?

This one doesn't exist; it's the achilles' heel. The speaker/room interface is going to create it's own space. Period. And it if is anything like the performance space, hell, that's just luck. Imagining that you're there, in the concert hall, is just that - imagining. It's fun, though.

Accurate to a real instrument?

No, of course not. The recording almost alway changes the sound of the real instrument, at least subtly, sometimes radically. That begins with the microphone and progresses further from the instrument with each additional step. It would be completely ridiculous to expect a playback system to know more than the recording. That is its entire reality until it hits your room.

The master tape? The digital recording?

Assuming that the disc or file you have is an accurate representation, yes, the master, of course. What else?

I hate to tell you but few recordings are accurate reproductions of the original work tape or bits put down on the computer.

Of course not. There is an entire stage of processing between the work tape and reproduction. The aforementioned master.

And why is it that accurate and musical are mutually exclusive.

They're not mutually exclusive, but they're not directly related, either. One has to do with the emotional content in a performance, the other has to do with the technical fidelity of a reproduction system. Unless you're talking about the conceit that is the common audiophile misuse of the term "musical," which loosely translates into "my personal preference is mysteriously superior to that which I do not prefer, in spite of the fact that it is measurably, verifiably, and objectively less faithful to the recording."

You write as if all manufacturers purposely color their equipment.

No, just some. Though often the ones that are more "musical."

About the only (ex)-reviewers qualified to judge whether a component was accurate were David Wilson or the late JGH who used their own recordings to review with and was there at the original recording session.

I doubt that their aural memories were even close to good enough for that. With electronics, good measurements and A/B listening against a benchmark can get us a really good idea of how transparent a component is. It's really difficult with speakers, no doubt.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

I would love to add something else, but I just don't know what! ...Yet!

 

[MylesBAstor]

And with that I resolutely disagree! They may not be accurate to the n'th degree, but all the information is contained within to properly recreate what occurred at the time of the recording. It is now up to the playback equipment to recover that information as best it can and with minimal extra interference, and in my experience that's where the failures occur ...

Frank

Frank:

You are deluding yourself. If you think what is on the working copy makes it onto the production copy, you are sadly mistaken. What do you think a producer does? A producer alters the production copy so that the music sells, can be cut onto an LP, played on a boom box or car radio or brings it closer in his/her estimation of what the original recording sounded like. Why do you think DGG called their producers Tonemeisters (though given how DGGs sound, I wonder what they were listening thru)? How about all those marvellous jazz recordings that are recorded dry and ambience/echo were added back after the fact? So unless you have the tape or were at the session, how can you know what is accurate?

 

[Alan Sircom]

Well, then brands big and small will start to disappear. I suppose the same thing happened with horse tack and what not when cars replaced horses, or any other industry where demand decreased. A few companies survive and thrive...for those left who need their stuff. Most don't need horse stuff anymore, but you can still get any kind of horse stuff you want, and there is still competition. I hear what you are saying but frankly it does not impact me in the next 20 years of so IMO.

Also, things stuck in your ears or over them ie headphones are producing astonishing sound and accuracy. Digital systems can compensate for the interaural time delays (even some analog systems do this) and allow you to get decent soundstage or even exxagerated if thats what you want...even my image concepts ir2200 can pull this off with a little help from a graphic equalizer. Sort of eliminates the need for big speakers and amps and cabling blah blah...not exactly great for a party but for an individual it is remarkable sound IMO.

Tom

I just don't think I could be that nihilistic about music. I am still deeply passionate about music and the sound it makes and I hope to continue to be so for many years to come. Yes, there are amazing things coming out of IEMs and headphones today, but there needs to be a credible alternative, and not simply one that is only available to billionaires, oligarchs and dictators.

That won't exist if there aren't new people interested in the topic.

I said earlier that there is nothing special about audio. I was wrong. Audio is perhaps the only hobby where the enthusiasts don't care if the hobby dies.

 

[fas42]

So unless you have the tape or were at the session, how can you know what is accurate?

I don't care whether it was accurate to a particular version of the event, to what was picked up by a particular mic, how it comes out on a particular format. What I care about is that the playback "turns me on", gives me a buzz. And I get that when I can "hear" what was happening in the recording environment, fiddled with or otherwise. If I lean out of a car window and hear a live big band down a side street doing its thing, that is beautiful to hear, and that's what I care about, getting that musical fix.

Far too much high end audio that I've heard is downright boring, irritating, irksome. I don't want to fight the equipment to get the musical message, I want it to be as clear as day. And if it doesn't do it straight off the mark, first thing in the morning, then you've lost the battle of getting the next generation aboard. I've given up hope of ever hearing decent sound in a hifi shop for example.

Frank

 

[Gregadd]

I always try to obtain components that are musical. That is as best they can, within their price range and physical capabilities render the sound of musical instruments and the space they were recorded in. The fact of the matter is that I have owned and heard music systems that come hauntingly close in their ability to render the most important aspects of music in a realistic sense. While it is fun to argue the the advantages and disadvantages of various technologies each designer has to make a choice on what brings them (and theIr customer) closest to reality.

You have two choices. you can follow some technology or you can get close to the music. If you got enough money you can do both.
IMO, YMMV

 

[fas42]

You have two choices. you can follow some technology of you can get close to the music.

Though a lot of the time I get the impression that the bulk of energy out there is focused on the first, rather than the second. And that's pretty depressing ...

Frank

 

[NorthStar]

Virtual 3D Sound, in the head, from headphones, small portable ones, with integrated moving pictures, from portable glasses, in the head, in Holographic 3D.

 

[fas42]

Virtual 3D Sound, in the head, from headphones, small portable ones, with integrated moving pictures, from portable glasses, in the head, in Holographic 3D.

You'll never get me into that kick: I need to feel that the experience is out there, as part of a bigger space, that is just doing its own thing that I can tune into less or more strongly from moment to moment. "Immersive" environments don't do it for me, the slightest imperfection will bug me, and I would very rapidly feel trapped, stuck in a cocoon with the damn "experience".

I guess you can pick I'm not into headphones ...

Frank

 

[NorthStar]

Frank, I wasn't talking about us, old Audio dinosaurs, but referring to the future, the children of your children and mine.

I'm totally with ya on what you just said above.

Bob

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Holographic Hatsune Miku, Live in Los Angeles!

 

[c1ferrari]

Alright

If I didn't invoke coping mechanisms or perhaps, rationalizations -- this would be both positively revolting and genuinely terrifying

Currency, anyone

...because the more we know about them the better we can serve them.

Tim

Now, I'm frightened

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5tcgO0Ujqw