Hey, Caesar. Really appreciate your candor and I don't blame you one bit. If only others could be so honest. Thanks for the note.
Toward a Theory To Increase Mutual Understanding and Predictability
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Hey, Caesar. Really appreciate your candor and I don't blame you one bit. If only others could be so honest. Thanks for the note.
Ron, as others have addressed the creation chain very well, and have shown that these categories are a marketing segmentation approach, and most participating in the thread have coalesced on this.
Yet let me bring a psychological perspective of subjective experiences to the discussion to help address the title of your post - a way to increase mutual understanding. The ideas below expressed are a high level summary based on actual, well-accepted research, so it's not and not just some BS...
It has been said that writing about music is like dancing about architecture. This is also true when it comes to putting words around subjective experiences of audio... Objective stimuli in the world create subjective stimuli in the mind. We hear a system and we use words to describe them. Using these "audiophile" words, we think that our fellow audiophile is having the same subjective experience inside their skull. But it's not really true, as one can tell from the arguments and virtually different systems and rooms) that everyone has...
A word like “real” "natural", "slam", "presence" are abstract words filled with ambiguity. They really are nothing more or less than words that anyone can use to indicate anything we please. The problem is that people seem pleased to use this or that word to indicate a host of different things, which has created a tremendous terminological mess…
A lot of the mess stems from one's prior experiences with a system/ product – or a lack thereof. As an example, if someone lacks the machinery for a sexual orgasm, then our experience of orgasm is one that this person will never know - no matter how much we talk about it, or dance about it.
Experiences of fine tequilas, string quartets in world class venues, caring deeds, ice cream, and high end audio are rich, complex, multidimensional, and impalpable. Because “Real” or "natural" is also an experience, it can only be approximately defined by its antecedents and by its relation to other experiences. "Spicy" means something different to a person used to eating South Indian cuisine every day than to a mom buying potato chips labeled as "spicy" in the supermarket for the super bowl party. That’s why I can’t stand reviewers like “worthless to the fan” Robert Harley who never compare, but just proclaim something as “BEST!” because some new detail he heard tickled his analytical preference. (Note: I am not attacking him as a person, but criticizing him for the value of his work to the audiophile community. I am not saying he's a worthless human being, just that his work is completely useless to the fan... I'm sure he's a great guy in real life with great family and friends and an upstanding member of his community.)
I'm also sure Harley's manufacturer friends and advertisers love to get a headline that they got the very "BEST" product on the market, but the "BEST" claim is pathetic and useless to the stressed-out audio fan traveling around to hear things on different continents in order to find a great piece of gear.
Without knowledge of the how an experience of piece of gear compares to another one he may be familiar with and narrowing things down, that an audio fan has to travel and spend precious time and hard-earned money to find some piece of gear that he hoped will put him in a state of flow where he connects with the music and all problems melt away.
Of course, the reality is that piece of gear proclaimed as "best" is only in Harley's imagination. Something like magico q7 and Berkeley Reference SAC "disappears" only in his mind and a handful of people who share his preferences. But to many fans, this gear sticks out and disrupts the musical experience as a colonoscopy done by a jittery intern who forgot to call the anesthesia... of course, that painful experience could have been avoided if Harley did a good job comparing the experiences and let the fans decide if that experience is worth pursuing ...every time he writes about something as "BEST", his work screams "self-serving hyperbole" and "marketese" to fans.
Coming back to some theory, once we have an experience - hear a component that does something very new or very different – like speed and inner detail of a horn, or an electrostatic midrange amplified by tubes, we cannot simply set it aside and see the world as we would have seen it had the experience never happened. Our experiences instantly become the lens through which we view (or the filter we hear through, if you would) all past, present, and future. And like and lens or filter, they color our perspective as well.
Additionally, we are only human , so distorted views of reality are made possible by the fact that experiences are ambiguous -that is, they can be credibly viewed in many ways, some of which are more positive than others. Different moods, auditioning circumstances, people we like or don’t like, preconceived notions, prior good meals , great "intimate relations", or rude taxi drivers,etc… all can play part in impacting what we perceive when we listen.
Furthermore, to complicate things even further, our remembrance of things past is imperfect, thus comparing our new understanding of “real” with our memory of our old "real" is a risky way to determine whether two subjective experiences are really different...
But just because there are challenges posed to us by human nature, doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Instead, we should work even harder to overcome them...
If several audiophiles share the same experiences, such as attending shows or presentations, their taste may not always agree 100 percent, but they will be more effective in communicating in what the others mean if they get together, analyze experiences, and specify the language to help extract the most important features of the experiences so we can analyze them and communicate them later... Practically, except for small groups of people, this will never happen. So arguments will go on...
But , fortunately, there is a solution to find that common ground you bring up in the post title...
It's interesting to note that studies show that in general, women aren't as good negotiators as men. Delving into the reasons, women ask less questions to understand the situation to drive the ultimate outcome. Likewise in our little audiophile world, instead of relying on categories or stereotypes, I believe that by respectfully asking questions to probe into others' experience to get a clear understanding of what others want or believe helps increase mutual understanding.
I jumped late on this train and as I got tired from climbing from one wagon on to the next, I finally found myself comfortable with what I found here and I want to thank you for taking the time to put your thoughts down. They strike close to home. Also this quote from your last post: "I am using my mind to analyze and synthesize 17 hours a day, so when I sit down, I just prefer to listen to music that triggers my imagination of my personal version of realism", has hit home completely. It has reminded me of my working years when music at my evenings helped me to find the necessary peace to start the next working day, yes, analyzing and synthesizing.
Listening with " trained ears " to my mind at least, has little to do with the enjoyment of music, which is always a holistic event,completely independent of the medium. A table radio will do. To me, a "trained ear" will mostly hear sounds, not music, hunt for distortions and is less interested in the 'message". Nothing wrong with that, as long as such a critic, because that is what he is, sticks to describing gear and their sound. The more I read and browse the pages of this forum, I come to realize, that for many here, the gear and their sounds is what occupies their minds, which quite clearly separates them from others, to whom the gear is nothing but a means to the end toward the enjoyment of music. How else would it be possible, that someone who tells, that he just loves his music, is commended for his honesty. Strange no?
Well, I find it no different from car lover's who love the machines as much or more than the actual experience of driving the car. Most people are not really driving lovers...most like to look at and talk about their machines! I have a nice sports car, a Lotus Europa S, but it is not a high horsepower superfast machine...but driving it is really great and twisty roads are dispatched with ease and that makes for a thrilling drive.
For hifi I love both the music and the gear and evaluating gear (I guess that is why I like reviewing). I listen for pleasure though frequently, although I still note where weaknesses in recordings and my gear lie. I am an analytical person by nature (also the nature of my profession).
I think you will find this most hobbies that involve machines of some kind (fishing, hunting, cycling etc.). I have a buddy that is an avid (and very good) cyclist who happen to be into vintage bikes...he talks a lot more about the bikes and restoring them than he does about the rides he goes on (probably painful memories anyway
). I don't think you can say because a lot of the people here are gear heads that they don't also love music...some may not and only care about comparing, comparing, comparing but I doubt that is most of us.
I listen to Sonos on cheap B&W (tiny) speakers in my garage that sounds really poor but I thoroughly enjoy music that I love on it. Likewise my Amazon Echo plays delightful music on demand and I too enjoy that. Good music that you enjoy is so powerful that it takes you to a nicer place or it would not be such a fundamental of aspect of every human.
And as long as you are an audiophile, you too are in the pile you mention. If you play some badly recorded music, don't you immediately object to it? How did you do that if you are immune to analyzing sounds?
I am a trained in certain areas of sound reproduction. But I have no training in hearing speaker wires, USB cables, suspension of wires, DACs, racks, etc. So in that regard I don't spend a millisecond worrying about any of that degrading my sound. Vast majority of people here constantly talk about such things so I imagine they are guilty of focusing on gear far more than my "trained" ears do.
That said, yes distortion of transport media is a big deal for me and if there are audible distortions I tend to hear them first and they do bother me. I can't listen to turntables for that reason. The distortions much like what you hear in bad recordings jump out and grab me. It takes a pop and click to pull me out of music. The fix is simple: I moved to digital years ago and problem is solved. The system is transparent and does not impart its own readily audible distortions like turntable does.
Once we get to speakers and rooms, training works differently in that we are talking about preference and training only makes you a harsher judge, not different. I have taken blind tests of speakers and my vote for best sound matched 90% of people taking the same test which includes audiophiles, magazine reviewers, etc. My training here allows me to identify the source of problem better and more reliably. It doesn't impart a taste for something different.
Net, net, I highly disagree with the notion that there are music and only music lovers here. That is not at all true. You would not be an audiophile if that is the case. To be an audiophile you need certain obsession with gear and the need and desire to analyze your system and that of others. Now, leave this forum, only listen to a clock radio and enjoy that and then you are what you say.
I listen to Sonos on cheap B&W (tiny) speakers in my garage that sounds really poor but I thoroughly enjoy music that I love on it. Likewise my Amazon Echo plays delightful music on demand and I too enjoy that. Good music that you enjoy is so powerful that it takes you to a nicer place or it would not be such a fundamental of aspect of every human.
And as long as you are an audiophile, you too are in the pile you mention. If you play some badly recorded music, don't you immediately object to it? How did you do that if you are immune to analyzing sounds?
I am a trained in certain areas of sound reproduction. But I have no training in hearing speaker wires, USB cables, suspension of wires, DACs, racks, etc. So in that regard I don't spend a millisecond worrying about any of that degrading my sound. Vast majority of people here constantly talk about such things so I imagine they are guilty of focusing on gear far more than my "trained" ears do.
That said, yes distortion of transport media is a big deal for me and if there are audible distortions I tend to hear them first and they do bother me. I can't listen to turntables for that reason. The distortions much like what you hear in bad recordings jump out and grab me. It takes a pop and click to pull me out of music. The fix is simple: I moved to digital years ago and problem is solved. The system is transparent and does not impart its own readily audible distortions like turntable does.
Once we get to speakers and rooms, training works differently in that we are talking about preference and training only makes you a harsher judge, not different. I have taken blind tests of speakers and my vote for best sound matched 90% of people taking the same test which includes audiophiles, magazine reviewers, etc. My training here allows me to identify the source of problem better and more reliably. It doesn't impart a taste for something different.
Net, net, I highly disagree with the notion that there are music and only music lovers here. That is not at all true. You would not be an audiophile if that is the case. To be an audiophile you need certain obsession with gear and the need and desire to analyze your system and that of others. Now, leave this forum, only listen to a clock radio and enjoy that and then you are what you say.
Oops, here we go. do I hear hornets buzzing? Nobody said, that you, Amir would not appreciate music. In fact, the little that I know about you, tells me that in fact you do. Nobody said, that there are only music lovers here. We could then get into each others hair about performances not the sound of gear. But you are right about one thing: I am certainly not an audiophile. I am not obsessed with gear, I have hardly any desire to analyse my system, least of all that of others. What I am obsessed about, is highly irrational, even autistic and certainly hedonistic in the sense, that I have ideas in my head, God only knows what put them there, perhaps from being immersed in live music from an only age, perhaps they are "archetypal", how I want my music to sound, so that I can forget about the gear. Hearing a clock radio is a much more innocent enjoyment in serving the muse of music, Amir, than listening to gear, where "critical listening", or yes, fascination with gear will again and again get between me and the music. I absolutely hate that. I don't in fact care two hoots, about the distortions in turntables, while admitting that you are probably right about them, neither does the endless discussions about the merits of digital versus analogue really interest me.What bothers me though in your post above, is your mention of the clicks and pops, spoiling your enjoyment of of your music. You say, you love music. Have you never been gripped by some music so much, that those disturbances become irrelevant, that in fact, you do not even hear them? (Exception being of course when the needle gets stuck in a groove. That is worse than a coitus interruptus, but so is a hiccup in bad digital.)
Wished I knew what I wrote, that got you to do your chest chumping, because I respect you and what you stand for. I certainly never intended to imply that there were nothing but music lovers here, though I wished there were more of those around. You are absolutely right about one thing though. I am not an audiophile and more often than not, were it not for a few dear friends, I am tempted to follow your suggestion, except for the clock radio of course. Peace.
Last edited:
Well, I find it no different from car lover's who love the machines as much or more than the actual experience of driving the car. Most people are not really driving lovers...most like to look at and talk about their machines! I have a nice sports car, a Lotus Europa S, but it is not a high horsepower superfast machine...but driving it is really great and twisty roads are dispatched with ease and that makes for a thrilling drive.
For hifi I love both the music and the gear and evaluating gear (I guess that is why I like reviewing). I listen for pleasure though frequently, although I still note where weaknesses in recordings and my gear lie. I am an analytical person by nature (also the nature of my profession).
I think you will find this most hobbies that involve machines of some kind (fishing, hunting, cycling etc.). I have a buddy that is an avid (and very good) cyclist who happen to be into vintage bikes...he talks a lot more about the bikes and restoring them than he does about the rides he goes on (probably painful memories anyway
I don't think you can say because a lot of the people here are gear heads that they don't also love music...some may not and only care about comparing, comparing, comparing but I doubt that is most of us.
Morri, i loved your post and your mentioning your Lotus Europa S warmed my heart, reminding me of my younger, wilder days. But then, let me use just your image, to clarify my point a little further, that I want my gear out of my way and out of my mind when listening to music:
I would contend, that when driving on the limit, you hardly think of the machine you are sitting in, more often than not you are in a state of flow, in a kind of trance, without thinking, you handle your machine, your behind telling you about the state of car, road and G and at the end you are both elated and exhausted. Sometimes, I do not say always, you can have a similar experience with your gear. There is just music, not machines and that is what I had in mind and what i have been striving for all my life. Gear does not really interest me, it has to serve my needs to be forgotten about.
Last edited:
Upon browsing Caesar's post in your post , I rescind my earlier commendation to caesar as I wasn't thinking very clearly at that time. To be frank, I find it difficult to believe that somebody just wanting to listen to music would spend so much time thinking/analyzing and then author such a diatribe as the one you quote Caesar in your post.
My first response to Caesar's post was, "Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems obvious to me the level of others' listening skills mean little or nothing to you."
The only thing I would add to that is when Caesar said, "... writing about music is like dancing to architecture." To that I say, forums are filled with writing about music. All the more reason that what is said about music (or gear used to reproduce music) the authors' listening skills / abilities should be the first thing a discerning reader should consider. Without that consideration and perspective, the writing is pretty much worthless.
I would contend, Stehno, that as Audiophiles we tend to think that we write about music. But basically we don't, we write about sounds. So, changing my audiophile hat for that of a music lover, who by the way has had some of his most cherished experiences in his life through music, I still think that Caesar touches upon a point, important to me. When you are gripped by music, the sound does not matter, it is the message that counts, not the messenger.
I think, in this and my two posts above, I have made my position sufficiently clear. for me that's it. Apologies Ron, for being so off topic.
Last edited:
I would contend, Detlof, that if your and caesar's philosophy here had any validity, then using the driving experience analogy, it stands to reason that anybody writing / talking about the driving experience would have the same value to you. Whether it be the cherished experiences of a 5 year old on a trike, a 90 year old in a wheel chair, or Sebastian Vittle driving his F1.
Maybe that strategy works for you guys. But for me such a strategy is too broad-scoped, non-informative, and time-consuming and hence, of little use. That's why I most always ignore Amir's (and those who share his perspective) thousands of posts as I perceive them as completely useless from a quality of reproduced music perspective.
Then again, I really couldn't give a rat's behind about (reproduced) music in general as it's everywhere. I care only about highest levels of musicality attainable from (the quality of) reproduced music. That's very narrow-scoped, informative, and far less time-consuming for me.
In post #6 of "What's old is new again....or is it??? Tone Above All???" Ken Newton wrote:
. . .
Listening ends:
1. A sound that seems live. Verisimilitude, is another word. I'm not primarily concerned with whether the sound is faithful to what was heard at the original acoustic event, something I can't know anyhow. I'm much more concerned with whether the sound is convincingly live or real sounding.
2. A sound that consistently communicates to me on an emotional level.
If I obtain those two ends together, I've arrived. I don't understand the view that prefers accurate (whatever that is supposed to mean) reproduction even if it is neither live sounding, nor communicates emotion. For, what hath a man profit to gain the whole world (signal accuracy) and lose his (the music's) soul?
In the opening post of this thread I wrote:
I believe there are three primary alternative objectives of high-end audio:
1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,
2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape, and
3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile.
Is Ken's "create a sound that seems live" another separate, alternative objective -- a fourth objective -- or is it a species of 3) "create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile"?
. . .
Listening ends:
1. A sound that seems live. Verisimilitude, is another word. I'm not primarily concerned with whether the sound is faithful to what was heard at the original acoustic event, something I can't know anyhow. I'm much more concerned with whether the sound is convincingly live or real sounding.
2. A sound that consistently communicates to me on an emotional level.
If I obtain those two ends together, I've arrived. I don't understand the view that prefers accurate (whatever that is supposed to mean) reproduction even if it is neither live sounding, nor communicates emotion. For, what hath a man profit to gain the whole world (signal accuracy) and lose his (the music's) soul?
In the opening post of this thread I wrote:
I believe there are three primary alternative objectives of high-end audio:
1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,
2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape, and
3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile.
Is Ken's "create a sound that seems live" another separate, alternative objective -- a fourth objective -- or is it a species of 3) "create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile"?
I continue to think that articulating objectives has value and can help us to understand and organize subjective explanations of sonic differences we describe.
I copied much of your post here because I agree very strongly with the points you make here about how subjective are our impressions of experiences, and yet how common experiences enable us to better understand each others' subjective descriptions.
Ron, I'd have thought 1) and 3) are both subjective given that 1) can only be evaluated subjectively anyway.
2) has the potential to be purely objective.
Ken's 4) that the system sounds like a live event is one of my favourite benchmarks and one of the reasons I tend to love live recordings.
Ultimately I have no issues seeing 1) 3) and 4) all as essentially a case of what is subjectively pleasing in that what floats most boats is what we are indeed lastingly pleased with. Having pleasing measurements only satisfies for so long.
If tonality, presence and dynamics and a sense of rightness and even moments of realness are the ultimate subjectively pleasing standards then there is hope for this journey after all.
If case 3) is intended to mean aiming for something that is clearly synthetic or artificial and a constructed effect disparate from musically real moments then maybe that is not my idea of subjectively pleasing at all.
Ron, a buddy was over last night to listen to my system again after I had made a recent change. We listened to three or four LPs and after playing a particular song on the last record, "Love Came on Stealthy Fingers" by Carla White on her LP "Mood Swings", I told him that I wanted to slightly change the VTA setting. I had just realigned my cartridge, so I raised the VTA another .5mm and viola, he declared that that was THE RIGHT setting for that particular cartridge and LP. It simply sounded more "real" and "live" to him, and it communicated more to him on an emotional level. He has no idea about whether or not it "recreated the sound of the original musical event."
I have heard Carla White perform that particular song live many times. She also sang at my wedding. Subjectively, that cartridge setting enabled the system to sound closer to how I remember her sounding than the lower, previous VTA height. Because the act of listening and judging the "realness" of a system is so subjective, I think Ken Newton's description is excellent and could very well be considered a fourth objective. There may be some slight overlap with #1, and #3, but it is more knowable, at least in the mind of the subject, than is #1, and it is more specific than #3, which could mean anything relative to how others hear something, so, sure, Ken's objective could be added as a #4.
I would put myself in that category as it best describes the goal of my listening experience with my system. I like it, thanks.
Ron, you are absolutely correct about audiophile discussions being more convoluted and argumentative than they need to be. I appreciate your acknowledging this dilemma and I respect your desire to improve our ability to communicate, if indeed that is your goal. But at the risk of sounding argumentative, I suspect you’ve neglected perhaps the most significant fundamental contributing to the current state of high-end audio and subsequently to forums such as this one.
For example, regardless of primary objectives or music preferences, IMO, the real question is whether or not one possesses well-trained ears. This to me is by far the greatest divider of all. And the most often overlooked fundamental.
Fine art may be an excellent example. Here some-to-many who can see with their eyes think they can see what everybody else sees without any training or focus. Same goes for hearing. Some even have boasted how they’ve had their hearing checked and since their hearing test results indicate they’ve got the hearing abilities of a teenager, they’re good to go. However, IMO, that’s just more evidence they know not what they speaketh.
More importantly, a long list of dogmas result from overlooking this most basic fundament i.e. one's ability / inability to hear and interpret what one hears. For example:
- Some-to-many think most of us hear and interpret what we hear is very much like most.
- Some-to-many think because they cannot hear differences between components, cables, etc, that nobody else can or should hear differences either.
- Some-to-many think because they’ve been in this hobby for 40+ years, that longevity alone makes them an expert thus implying that hacks, bush-leaguers, and also-rans only exist in other industries.
- Some-to-many think performance comes from a price tag.
- Some-to-many have abandoned their “untrustworthy” ears for their “trustworthy” eyes (in an audio-only industry) and are convinced measurements are the new holy grail.
- Some-to-many who think they are high-end because of their alleged knowledge.
- Some-to-many think it common to have a given playback system sound remarkably close to the “live performace.”
- Some-to-many who think they just need to purchase high-end gear and plug'n play and they're in like Flint.
- Some-to-many who’ve never heard any improvements when swapping cables or components are often times the first to condemn those who have.
- Some-to-many think because they play an instrument, that somehow translates automatically to having well-trained ears.
- Some-to-many think high-end audio is mature from a performance perspective.
- Some-to-many who’ve never heard any improvements after trying a new technology are often times the first to condemn those who have and shout snake oil.
I could go on. And that doesn't even begin to address the objectives and music preferences you mention above which, like most anything, has its own potential can of worms and rabbit holes. But with so much dogma floating around comes the in-fighting, bickering, divisions, etc, such that it is not unlike a group of people wandering in the desert for 40 years without direction, without benchmarks, and without targets.
Also note that the targeted some-to-many phrase is indiscriminate as it applies equally and alike to the enthusiast, recording engineer, manufacturer, reviewer, distributor, etc.
But my point being, and to be frank, not one of those items I listed above have a bloomin' thing to do with actual performance nor what one actually hears. Which is what high-end audio is supposed to be all about.
IOW, if your real objective for opening this thread is intended to make dialogue more constructive and/or edifying, I don’t think there’s a chance in hell your attempt will succeed. At least not until some-to-many acknowledge and attempt to address the real fundamentals of this supposed high-end audio industry. Short of that, I suspect you’d have better success if you just asked us to behave more gentlemanly when dialoguing.
BTW, I do not subscribe to any one of your 3 primary objectives. My primary objective is striving to retrieve 100% of the information embedded in a given recording medium (which I suspect is already being achieved with digital mediums) and keep that information signal pure enough as its processed from source to speakers to remain audible above my playback system’s noise floor. Especially since, IME, it is a system's noise floor level that that has pert near everything to do with determining its level of musicality.
For me, that is the only reasonable objective I can envision striving for and potentially within my scope. Assuming the recording engineers occasionally perform their jobs well enough and I’ve done my job well enough, the level of musicality and its presentation should easily be sufficient and pleasing enough to some-to-many. And then some.
Stehno, why didn't I see this your input before, which I find quite excellent. I must say, that I share your pessimism regarding Ron's none the less laudable venture. I've been wracking my brain what my primary references would be since our last exchange, because I also was unhappy with Ron's 3 primary objectives, last not least, because my sitting on the high horse of " music lover " would be nothing more than evading the issue at hand.
I still think that Caesar's post is valid, I am still convinced that "writing about music is like dancing to architecture", just as writing, or teaching about a great poem can help to analyze, but hardly to recreate the fusion of images, allusions and often enough conflicting emotions, cast into language. That is why I feel we should be, strictly speaking more conscious about the fact, that when we as audiophiles talk music, we are actually talking sound. Perhaps we should all strive for a common definition of the term " musicality ". I suggested this 2 or 3 decades ago on another forum, but of course it lead to nowhere.
But to get back to your post, Stehno, when pondering my personal objectives, put to discussion here on this thread, it did indeed circle around removing of artifacts and keeping my sytems noise floor down. So I think, that here we both stand on common ground. But behind all that I always had another objective, of which of course the above is an essental part. I wanted recorded music to grip me emotionally, or soothe my troubled spirits as music would in a concert hall. Oddly enough, when that was achieved, my primary objective became less important. But that being said, I am only really at peace, when I can forget about the system and there is just the music. It happens, but the critical ear is always ready to jump. That is, why I maintain, that listening to music through something like a table radio has something of the primary innocence about it, when I stared out on this voyage more than 80 years ago sitting next to one of those grammophones which had to be cranked up by a handle by some kind and patient spirit, because I could not get enough of it.
Last edited:
Okay, Peter!
I now believe there are four primary, but not mutually exclusive, alternative objectives of high-end audio:
1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,
2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape,
3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and
4) create a sound that seems live.
Thank you, Ken!
IMHO 4) is only possible for some types of music under very specific conditions - can we know what kind of music you listen?
Peter listens more frequently to live music than I do, so I will defer to Peter for his reply to your question.
Ron, I can't speak to the type of music that Tao listens to, nor do I want to presume to know exactly what Ken meant by his #4. But I will add this to clarify my view of #4: By "live", I do not mean that the recording necessarily needs to be a live recording. My point is that the reproduced sound reminds me of what a live instrument or voice actually sounds like, and that is distinct from a reproduced sound, which for example is what a less real reproduction from say a car radio sounds like. Whether the recording is of a performer in a studio or live on stage, the sound is as much "like" that which one would hear in those conditions. Not the same of course, but a sound which does not include distracting artifacts which make one think of the system and its flaws rather than the music it is reproducing.
#4, to me, is the same as saying, "It sounds real", ie. like a live, acoustic instrument, within a likely range depending on the exact make of the instrument, the acoustic environment in which it is being played, etc. This goal is distinct from #1, and more valid to me, because it does not depend on knowing what the original acoustic event actually sounded like. Regarding microstip's comment about types of music, that I think is a function of the type of system one is using and how successful/convincing it is. My limited range speakers and small room, for instance, preclude it from successfully reproducing a large orchestral recording and some instruments which have lower frequency extension. There are limits after all, but we are defining goals, not describing achievements. I hope that helps to clarify my view.
Thanks for the note, Detlof.
And yes, the end-game is to provide a musical presentation of such quality with a sense of believability that nothing else in the room matters but the music.
Also, I wasn't very clear about my own primary objective attempting to get there. It's not that I'm trying to keep the music info above the raised floor. That's the effect of the cause. My real primary objective is to greatly reduce distortions (the cause) and thereby lower my system's noise floor level (an effect) and thereby more of the music info remains audible and with greater fidelity (another effect).
Lowering the noise floor is key to any of these stated objectives,it is the only way to achieve any of the four.
Similar threads
