Toward a Theory To Increase Mutual Understanding and Predictability

[Jazzhead]

Our only link back to the original event is the master tape or a watered down dreivative there of . So how can we differentiate points 1 from 2 ?. At best we can hope to faithfully reproduce the master , how possibly can it be overridden to achieve point 1. Am I missing something here

 

[bonzo75]

Controversial perhaps, but I think that everyone who uses their ears (rather than an oscilloscope) and isn't a recording engineer is by definition a 3. I think we like to pretend we're looking for something more noble, more pure, and it's nice to think that we're chasing lofty ambitions like 1 and 2, but in reality I think that all goes out the window when we listen. Of course "subjectively pleasing" covers a multitude, and it's possible for everyone to have a different idea of what that might be -- "subjectively closer to the experience of live performance", or "subjectively more accurate-sounding" (whatever that might mean) easily fall within the expression -- but I think we're kidding ourselves trying to claim anything else. We're all 3s, and that's why the arguments happen.

Probably not so helpful from me, Ron, sorry about that! The thing is, I ultimately know what you're getting at, but I think the divisions are sufficiently artificial that very few people will feel they're fully in any one camp. Surely in the best case scenario we're all impossibly striving to attain all 3 goals, so the question remaining is which inevitable compromises we're each personally willing to accept. Some can't cope without full range reproduction, some can't live without explosive dynamics, some can't do without pinpoint imaging. All of these are points of departure for any of the 3 goals listed, and they all suggest equipment decisions and styles, and that's where I think a certain degree of self awareness would be well served. I don't think people in general are good at recognising their own blind spots, their own sonic ideals. We all want accuracy at the end of the day, but I don't think it's to a live performance, or to the master tape. I think the accuracy we want is to our own personal view of what "accurate" means to us.

Edit: For what it's worth, I'm a 1...!!

We might do 3 anyway, but depends what the background of the person is. Let's reword the OP...If you wanted to eat genuine Indian or Thai or such food, while you might end up eating what's more palatable to you, it helps to know what your background is...if you are a British/Irish, no way am I taking your recommendation for the best Indian restaurant...similarly, if a guy is more into classical, listens to concerts or plays, I would rather trust his ears than someone who has never been to said land...now, I do agree different Japanese people might have student opinions on which the best sushi place is, but now I have a more narrowed down shortlist and can then settle for 3 among that shortlist

 

[Joe Whip]

Other than for tea and scones, I would never ask a Brit for food recommendations! I can't wait to get back though in April.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I own a master tape from a piano , recorded on a B 62 and played on one ( and very simply mastered by an amateur recording engineer ) .
For such simple recordings of for example one instrument i prefer the mastertape , because it can sound pretty convincing imo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Swb632kjhxQ the recorded playback



Stereophile had a recording of a yukelele which they played via systems on CES and compared to a livepreformance , those simple one instrument recordings can sound pretty convincing to many ears

 

[bonzo75]

Other than for tea and scones, I would never ask a Brit for food recommendations! I can't wait to get back though in April.

+1

 

[Joe Whip]

Hope to meet you this time Bonzo!

 

[bonzo75]

Hope to meet you this time Bonzo!

Sure

 

[amirm]

This post gets the gold medal for me.

I'm a four. I try to use one and two to get to three. I want a hand in creating the experience.

I have been in recording spaces and behind the glass during monitoring and recording. I've chosen and laid down the mics, set the groupings, recorded and mixed the sucker then to the final multitrack bounce onto 1/4 tape and CDR simultaneously. This is not a binary experience. The changes on both sides of the glass are so large you're not even thinking about the dichotomy. You are working in the recording space in order to get particular sound in the monitoring space and on to the tape or disc. It isn't the other way around. Your not trying to capture the studio performance as is, you're trying to make it a translation of it. One that is better. Trust me. Being in a recording studio with the band at full tilt can literally be a painful experience. Even Acoustic sets just don't sound right because the acoustics are not the kind you would find in public. So, the line continues on to mastering and finally mass distribution. It is a creative process and the medium we hold in our hand is the product. We take the ball from there. Do you try for 1? Maybe 2? Like it or not as Diasapon so perfectly put it, we will end up giving in to our human desires and do 3 anyway. Only the most masochistic would convince himself that fun be deferred to such an extent. Who wants to spend more time roaming around and tweaking or going around with a mic more than just kicking back without having to have any lingering sonic insecurities? LOL. All roads lead to 3.

Your own post is golden too Jack.

 

[still-one]

Ron

I lean towards your stated position in the OP that you "want my audio system to recreate as believably as possible the sound of an original musical event." Just to clarify, I like my music to sound like I am hearing it in a live venue not a recording studio. In addition when I am considering replacing components or cables when A/B 'ing the two "units" I select the one most pleasing to my ears and not worrying if it more accurate or whatever. I

 

[DaveC]

Lots of good posts. For me as well, I've seen so much variance I'm not sure that the original premise of 1, 2 or 3 works well enough that people can really be slotted into any particular group, it's a combination of them all.

Also, people are apt to change their views in light of hearing something they enjoy more. So many people come to me asking for a cable with nice tone but almost invariably when they try a cable that is neutral they prefer it. Why? Because they heard a better alternative and changed their mind. So in effect they shift from 3 to 2 a bit, realizing that reproducing what's on the recording with better fidelity results in greater listening pleasure vs having this warm tone they thought they wanted.

What I have noticed that people want is an IMMERSIVE listening experience that is devoid of issues that cause listening fatigue. All the other crap that Harman/Toole believes and has tested for is secondary to this goal, at least that's the conclusion I've come to after a lot of testing. However, I do believe that a lot of the things Harman believes most important really are important, but not for their own sake, but so the IMMERSIVE experience can be created. What we haven't really defined is exactly what causes an immersive listening experience that people are so happy with when they hear it. I believe that the key characteristic is the listener's ability to hear fine detail in the recording without interference from the room's acoustics, and with a low-level of sound characteristics that stimulate the nervous system's "alert!" buttons, which allows the listener to relax into the experience, the brain isn't working as hard interpolating, and overall it's less "work" to listen. I think we've all heard systems that seem like work to sit in front of, this is because of distortions that stimulate the nervous system, these are poison and need to be eliminated or reduced to a level where they aren't causing problems. In most modern HiFi systems this isn't the case, unfortunately. These distortions also mask fine detail so it's doubly bad. It would be just as helpful to make a list of what to avoid that kills the immersive experience as well as what creates it.

So, my theory isn't that people are trying to achieve 1, 2 or 3... they mostly use experience as a guide to form their beliefs wrt what they like, then attempt to explain it with logic like 1, 2 or 3. Whenever they hear something that has the character of an immersive listening experience then this is what they prefer. So far in my testing this has been fairly universal, while people are more or less sensitive to other specific issues like bass impact, etc. they are all very sensitive to the details that make or break an immersive listening experience. Also, all of this seems far beyond current convention and stuff like interconnect quality is absolutely key to achieving it, so it may seem foo-foo or whatever but the truth is I've found it to be more important in overall listening satisfaction that many things that are easily measured and defined. Modern high end has a lot of shortcomings by not recognizing these issues and factors, and it's evident in design priorities and the inability of a many cost-no-object HiFi systems to provide an immersive listening experience.

 

[RogerD]

If the audio signal is transferred through the user's system unchanged in the purest form then option 1 and 2 are combined and option 3 becomes moot. Many things can color or corrupt the audio signal,some are obvious and some are not and some are by choice.

 

[bonzo75]

Other than for tea and scones, I would never ask a Brit for food recommendations! I can't wait to get back though in April.

Fron Brunch:
1. Wolseley at Green Park station - French toast with bacon, haggis, and they have a sauteed lamb liver dish. If you go after 11, for dessert order their rhum baba and chocolate roasted sandwich
2. Beany Green at Paddington - Banana bread and French toast (quite different)
3. Nopi - Shakshuka
4. Providores and Tapa Room - Turkish Eggs

Lunch/dinner - Yashin off High St. Kensington is the best for carpaccio and sushi
Hoppers at Frith Street is the best Indian (actually, it's Sri Lankan). 2 hour queue there but you can give your number and go off, and they will call you
There are some tapas like small-platter Israeli fusion places called Palomar (soho) and Barbary (Seven Dials) which are good.

 

[Joe Whip]

I have been to the Wolseley numerous times. We have breakfast there every time we are in London. One can see Daniel Craig there on occasion. I am glad you didn't mention Roast at Borough Market! My wife likes sushi so I will let her know. I never touch the stuff. You can take us to your fav Indian restaurant!

 

[bonzo75]

I have been to the Wolseley numerous times. We have breakfast there every time we are in London. One can see Daniel Craig there on occasion. I am glad you didn't mention Roast at Borough Market! My wife likes sushi so I will let her know. I never touch the stuff. You can take us to your fav Indian restaurant!

Dude that wasn't Daniel Craig that was me. Bond. Bondzo

 

[bonzo75]

You can take us to your fav Indian restaurant!

There is only one in the center which has a 2 hour wait!

I will take you to one of my favorites though.

 

[Diapason]

Diapason,
Excellent post, I can easily agree with most of what you say, but are you an oscilloscope user or a sound engineer?
BTW, which model are your Graaf's? I had really great sound with the GM20's.

Thanks Micro. My degree was in Theoretical Physics so I was a very reluctant oscilloscope user. Of course, my recording prowess ended with dual cassette decks and high speed dubbing. Where does that leave me? Internet blowhard I guess!

The GRAAFs were the slightly uprated version of the GM20, the Modena, in mono form. Great amps, but not suited to the impedance curve of my Elipsas. I sold them on, but I'm still intrigued by what OTL can do, and I suspect I'll explore that again some day. Too much gear, too little time.

 

[jkeny]

Lots of good posts. For me as well, I've seen so much variance I'm not sure that the original premise of 1, 2 or 3 works well enough that people can really be slotted into any particular group, it's a combination of them all.

Also, people are apt to change their views in light of hearing something they enjoy more. So many people come to me asking for a cable with nice tone but almost invariably when they try a cable that is neutral they prefer it. Why? Because they heard a better alternative and changed their mind. So in effect they shift from 3 to 2 a bit, realizing that reproducing what's on the recording with better fidelity results in greater listening pleasure vs having this warm tone they thought they wanted.

What I have noticed that people want is an IMMERSIVE listening experience that is devoid of issues that cause listening fatigue. All the other crap that Harman/Toole believes and has tested for is secondary to this goal, at least that's the conclusion I've come to after a lot of testing. However, I do believe that a lot of the things Harman believes most important really are important, but not for their own sake, but so the IMMERSIVE experience can be created. What we haven't really defined is exactly what causes an immersive listening experience that people are so happy with when they hear it. I believe that the key characteristic is the listener's ability to hear fine detail in the recording without interference from the room's acoustics, and with a low-level of sound characteristics that stimulate the nervous system's "alert!" buttons, which allows the listener to relax into the experience, the brain isn't working as hard interpolating, and overall it's less "work" to listen. I think we've all heard systems that seem like work to sit in front of, this is because of distortions that stimulate the nervous system, these are poison and need to be eliminated or reduced to a level where they aren't causing problems. In most modern HiFi systems this isn't the case, unfortunately. These distortions also mask fine detail so it's doubly bad. It would be just as helpful to make a list of what to avoid that kills the immersive experience as well as what creates it.

So, my theory isn't that people are trying to achieve 1, 2 or 3... they mostly use experience as a guide to form their beliefs wrt what they like, then attempt to explain it with logic like 1, 2 or 3. Whenever they hear something that has the character of an immersive listening experience then this is what they prefer. So far in my testing this has been fairly universal, while people are more or less sensitive to other specific issues like bass impact, etc. they are all very sensitive to the details that make or break an immersive listening experience. Also, all of this seems far beyond current convention and stuff like interconnect quality is absolutely key to achieving it, so it may seem foo-foo or whatever but the truth is I've found it to be more important in overall listening satisfaction that many things that are easily measured and defined. Modern high end has a lot of shortcomings by not recognizing these issues and factors, and it's evident in design priorities and the inability of a many cost-no-object HiFi systems to provide an immersive listening experience.

Yes, I agree Dave, the immersive listening experience is my goal too & it seems that as other aspects are improved, immersive sound emerges - aspects like low level linearity seem to be at the heart of this, IMO
I believe that we can all hold our concepts of what we want from a playback system but when exposed to systems that begin to provide this immersive experience, we recognise this as more believable an illusion.

On the other hand I believe that there are people who don't hear soundstage (which is the precursor to immersive experience) or maybe they just don't target soundstage as one of their goals & hence don't follow the path towards immersive experience?

Of course, as JackD & Diapson so eloguently said, not all recordings are capable of providing this - we are listening to a work of art, in the way JackD spelled out

 

[Folsom]

Ron

I lean towards your stated position in the OP that you "want my audio system to recreate as believably as possible the sound of an original musical event." Just to clarify, I like my music to sound like I am hearing it in a live venue not a recording studio. In addition when I am considering replacing components or cables when A/B 'ing the two "units" I select the one most pleasing to my ears and not worrying if it more accurate or whatever. I

Thank you for being honest. I think whatever people prefer is perfectly respectable.

I don't see why it's hard to understand when you're getting closer to 2. You don't need to be in the studio to know it. The closer to 2 you are, the more you hear recording attributes. You hear more detail, you hear the character of the microphone, you hear the room they're in. It goes all the way to hearing something on the wall in the recording space. Distortion measurements will tell you if you're closer as well; and people do those all the time.

If the audio signal is transferred through the user's system unchanged in the purest form then option 1 and 2 are combined and option 3 becomes moot. Many things can color or corrupt the audio signal,some are obvious and some are not and some are by choice.

I don't think so. Option 1 doesn't want the sound of the studio that comes with it.

But overall people are often approaching 3 and 1, when they think they're after 2.

 

[DaveC]

Yes, I agree Dave, the immersive listening experience is my goal too & it seems that as other aspects are improved, immersive sound emerges - aspects like low level linearity seem to be at the heart of this, IMO
I believe that we can all hold our concepts of what we want from a playback system but when exposed to systems that begin to provide this immersive experience, we recognise this as more believable an illusion.

On the other hand I believe that there are people who don't hear soundstage (which is the precursor to immersive experience) or maybe they just don't target soundstage as one of their goals & hence don't follow the path towards immersive experience?

Of course, as JackD & Diapson so eloguently said, not all recordings are capable of providing this - we are listening to a work of art, in the way JackD spelled out

I agree. In testing people state what they like and comment on it, but the one universal thing I've found that all seem to agree on is the level of immersiveness (new word? ) Even people with little audio experience who don't know what a soundstage is wrt stereo reproduction describe it to me and tell me this is the main reason for their preferences. It's very entertaining at times watching people struggle to describe it...

In the context of what was available for the Harman testing it's possible that the preferences they found are a result of those things creating a greater sense of immersiveness, I just don't think they realize it, and they don't have a system whose main goal is achieving immersiveness. For me, I've identified it and made it a goal to get a sense of immersiveness in a most any common living room using my gear. I will admit this is a disadvantage for my reference dynamic speakers, they do not have a room specially constructed for stereo reproduction to allow them to perform at their best, but considering my speakers are designed to work in average ordinary rooms it's sort of fair... not everyone is going to dedicate a room for an audio system.

Recordings can vary for sure! I've found any sort of well-made recording will present this sense of 3-dimensional space, live music from the naturally occurring spatial cues that get captured, and electronic music that is well engineered can be spectacular as well. But yeah, you can't expect all recordings to perform equally well, some are amazing, some ok, some just bad.

I've heard people that say they don't care about soundstage but I'm not familiar enough with the context of their experience, and would tend to see them as outliers and not worry too much about what they like.

 

[Folsom]

Going for #1 often means getting rid of a lot of cues for depth, pinpoint, etc... because the sound of the studio is interfering a lot. You may still get a panned image that can be somewhat 3d feeling. The MBL experience I had was very strongly #1, with a pretty well disregard for, ironically, the "master tape sound" since it was on a R2R for playback. I actually call them "macro" systems because they're only interested in the macro qualities of the music that can be blown up as much as possible to overshadow everything.

Dave, I think immersion is very good. That's why I greatly prefer swarm style subs to anything else. Yes, other sub configurations are good and add some, but none have paralleled a swarm configuration for me yet.