The first sentence you quote is not from Martin Colloms - the author - , it is an introductory comment from the magazine editor. BTW, the comment addresses the "recording's musical meaning" not the musical meaning of music as you seem to suggest.
The audiophile vernacular
- Thread starter DaveyF
- Start date
The first sentence you quote is not from Martin Colloms - the author - , it is an introductory comment from the magazine editor. BTW, the comment addresses the "recording's musical meaning" not the musical meaning of music as you seem to suggest.
Here it is:
"Does the equipment dilute the recording's musical meaning?" Let me answer that question with a question: You go to the museum and take a photograph of a Rembrandt, then go home and develop the photo. Does the photo paper dilute the camera's artistic meaning?
Now let me give you the nuanced, gearhead answer: Only the finest paper can capture a reproduction detailed enough to reveal the subtle texture of the brush strokes required to bring the image to life, blah, blah, blah. What's missing from that analysis? The maid, her hair loosely tied back in a white scarf, bending over the washing bowl as she pours the water. The angle of her shoulders, the tilt of her neck. The gentle evening light breaking low through the window. The quiet, the calm, the sense of melancholy....That is the meaning. That is what is totally overlooked by wondering if photo paper can dilute the "meaning" of the camera's capture of the painting.
Well, that and Rembrandt. He's missing in Collums' editor's comment too. Completely pointless and completely missing the point.
Tim
The term that cracks me up is "grainy." It cracks me up because you can basically use this term to cause doubt about any component in a sound system -- and in my experience, that's usually how it has been used. In my opinion, music is "grainy." So, you say that about any component, play some music, and the listener will certainly hear "graininess."
What's the difference between grainy and gritty?
With gritty the grain is glued on.
The most common analogies used to describe sound are invariably visual. When it comes to resolution some compare it with pixels on displays or grain in film. Now what happens when the sound is smooth? Is it because there are more "pixels" or because the edges are soft? How about both?
Seriously though, how can one expect to describe a sensory experience fully in words? We're talking infinite degrees of multiple parameters, some independent and most coincident. An expanded lexicon would help but along with it must come an education on the new language. Do we all have to be able to talk in math to understand each other? I don't think so. The question that begs to be asked is what exactly we expect from a review or from a post by someone you've never sat in the same room with. When I call relatives abroad and ask about the weather, I don't expect to get temperature, wind speed and humidity levels, nor do I expect to get the exact amount of sunlight that's getting through the cloud layers. A simple it's cool, sunny and breezy or it's raining cat's and dogs is fine. It doesn't really matter how many cats and dogs it takes to make an inch of rainfall. I will know however that I ought to have a rain coat and an umbrella if I decide to go out.
What cracks me up are people that even expect to get the whole picture from a few paragraphs of text and a few graphs. It just doesn't work that way and it never will. Take what you can from it incomplete as it is. Take a chance now and then even. If you end up buying something a bunch of reviewers raved about but you hated, ultimately, whose fault was it anyway?
With gritty the grain is glued on.
The most common analogies used to describe sound are invariably visual. When it comes to resolution some compare it with pixels on displays or grain in film. Now what happens when the sound is smooth? Is it because there are more "pixels" or because the edges are soft? How about both?
Seriously though, how can one expect to describe a sensory experience fully in words? We're talking infinite degrees of multiple parameters, some independent and most coincident. An expanded lexicon would help but along with it must come an education on the new language. Do we all have to be able to talk in math to understand each other? I don't think so. The question that begs to be asked is what exactly we expect from a review or from a post by someone you've never sat in the same room with. When I call relatives abroad and ask about the weather, I don't expect to get temperature, wind speed and humidity levels, nor do I expect to get the exact amount of sunlight that's getting through the cloud layers. A simple it's cool, sunny and breezy or it's raining cat's and dogs is fine. It doesn't really matter how many cats and dogs it takes to make an inch of rainfall. I will know however that I ought to have a rain coat and an umbrella if I decide to go out.
What cracks me up are people that even expect to get the whole picture from a few paragraphs of text and a few graphs. It just doesn't work that way and it never will. Take what you can from it incomplete as it is. Take a chance now and then even. If you end up buying something a bunch of reviewers raved about but you hated, ultimately, whose fault was it anyway?
I'm fine with "it's cool, sunny and breezy." That's perfect. What we get from so many audiophiles and their press is, "pay no attention to the fact that our temperature here is significantly higher than it is there, the humidity is pretty high too, and the air is hardly moving at all, it is much more comfortable here. Comfort really can't be quantified, after all. No, no, it's not merely subjective, the weather here is better. More natural. It may look hot, humid and stagnant. but it feels much more coolical than it does there."
I auditioned Wilson Sophias a couple of months ago. Here's my review: They had a tight, well-controlled and deep bass, and great imaging for big speakers from a living-room scale listening distance (about 12 feet maybe?). The mids were clear, seemingly neutral and a bit recessed. They didn't strike me as remarkable either negatively or positively, which is, in my view, a good thing. The dynamics were not great, but they were good. My only criticism is the trebles seemed a bit sharp. Other than that, a very good-sounding speaker that is, in my opinion, significantly over-priced for its performance.
No numbers or charts necessary, though the charts on Wilson tweeters posted here in the last week or so explain my response to the trebles. More information is almost always a good thing.
Tim
Funny Tim. You say over priced in your opinion but to qualify that you'd have to compare it with something. That would put you squarely in comparisons about which was more "coolical". Ah the irony.
Although analogies between visual and sound reproduction are usually misleading and most of the time a poor resource to explain audio, I can give a straight answer to the question - YES.
Anyone is free to consider the sentence "Does the equipment dilute the recording's musical meaning?" is meaningless. But for those who find a meaning in it, the subject is discussed in F. Toole book "Sound Reproduction". If they become curious after reading section 2.5 "Measuring the ability to reproduce the art" they will have to read the next chapters. BTW, Toole does not refer to PRAT and his views are distinct from Colloms ones.
Of course that's why I say "in my opinion." Do you want me to compare it to something? I could come up with numerous examples of speakers I thing out-perform the Sophias for significantly less, but it would still be my opinion, unless you want to accept measurements of proof of superiority.
Nah, I could only get into coolical territory if I were making up terms to give my preferences the air of something more than preference.
Tim
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one because, in my view, if the camera's job is to make a record of the painting, the camera has no artistic meaning.
Tim
Not me Tim, but readers would. Especially owners of the brand in question. Letters sections are filled with such demands for qualifications the rare times something even approaches a negative review. All reviews are opinion pieces. IMO's don't get reviewers any free passes. Besides like the coolical, the cats and the dogs superiority and comfort don't always go hand in hand.
Your adherence to your philosophy is a form of preference as well.
Out of curiosity, how would you rate a piece of gear without knowing the measurements and the price tag? We can call it the Numbers Blind Test.
I just read the latest issue of Abbo Sound and in particular the review by HP of the new Maggie 3.7's. What struck me after reading the article was the change in how HP described some of the "supposed" many positive attributes of this speaker. Over the years, HP has coined ( for want of a better term
What struck me this time was how very difficult it is to describe the various incarnations and differences in sound that a speaker and/or system can produce.
The usual terms...imaging, stage width, depth, etc are beginning to be a little ill defined and in some ways insufficient IMO. Perhaps we need a more specific definition of the areas of sound reproduction that we are trying to describe, along with perhaps a scale of discrepancy in order to really comprehend the more and more minute differences in sound that accrue as we go up the audiophile ladder.
HP's rant on the Maggies has made me believe, that he for one, is perhaps in need of a more definite descriptive vernacular; so that when the next speaker that is far superior to these Maggies arrives , he won't look like he has egg on his face
Question is, where do we begin and what suggestions for the descriptive terms
Ah....I remember HP well......
"While it would probably be indiscreet and maybe even wrong to call the VACs the best amplifier in the world, it's not an exaggeration to say they are, overall, the very best I've heard in my professional audio life, and they are that because they put the music back into high fidelity sound, where it has been, for so very long, so sorely lacking." Harry Pearson, The Absolute Sound, Issue 98
The feeling of exhileration when hearing what one beleives to be ground breaking reproduction in this hobby as the best come and go, but HP has the last part of his remark,a dead on bulls eye. It shouldn't really be that complicated,did I really say that?
Your adherence to your philosophy is a form of preference as well.
Absolutely. I have no problem owning up to that and offer no resistance to anyone's disagreement, as long as we all agree it's just preference. Like I said above, it's only when people start dressing their preferences up in pseudo-objective superiority that I object. Then I will tend to bring out the only true objective metrics we do have; measurements. Good measurements often seem to sync with my preferences, but I think you've got the order of importance reversed...
By listening to it, of course. Like all of us, price tags effect what I own, but I've never bought a piece of gear based on measurements. But I will say that good, thorough measurements will pique my interest a lot faster than a subjective review.
Tim
"By listening to it, of course. Like all of us, price tags effect what I own, but I've never bought a piece of gear based on measurements. But I will say that good, thorough measurements will pique my interest a lot faster than a subjective review."
Tim
Tim, This is where we would differ. I would be far more interested in a piece that has a good subjective review than a review of the same piece that highlights great measurements at the cost of a subjective opinion.
To me, measurements are fairly meaningless unless, a) I have heard the particular piece under review for myself and b) I can correlate what the measurements are telling me versus my experiences. ( which usually isn't the case )
Tim
Tim, This is where we would differ. I would be far more interested in a piece that has a good subjective review than a review of the same piece that highlights great measurements at the cost of a subjective opinion.
To me, measurements are fairly meaningless unless, a) I have heard the particular piece under review for myself and b) I can correlate what the measurements are telling me versus my experiences. ( which usually isn't the case
)Similar threads
