Toward a Theory To Increase Mutual Understanding and Predictability

[Jazzhead]

Just mental mastrubation , better off listening to a few tunes !

 

[microstrip]

LOL !

I'll have to try that. Maybe also getting a Vivaldi stack will help!

Then you must pick a DXD version!

 

[morricab]

Yes, but as far as system improves the threshold for this standard moves. Good electronics, much more than the speakers manage to make yourself focus on the musical and performance content, relegating the faults. Please note that I am addressing non amplified music.

i agree with you that the electronics are key in getting realism from non-amplified music.

 

[morricab]

I agree with your first two statements.

Your reference is still not a standard and neither is mine. I'm sure the Steinway in your living room sounds different from the Steinway in mine, or that your voice and my voice sound different in each other's rooms and that your flute and my daughter's Powell will sound different in each other's rooms and that none of these instruments will sound the same in Carnegie Hall, Avery Fisher, now David Geffen Hall (I guess when you donate $100 Million for renovation, they re-name the hall after you) Eastman Hall, Boston Symphony Hall or any other hall.

The key is to to choose what sounds excellent to you, but that doesn't mean there aren't any standards or reference points. Some systems are clearly better than others despite what individuals may have a preference for. After all, you're the one who is going to be paying for and listening to it so the only person that has to be happy is you.

Doesn't matter, you know the sound of a real steinway from the reproduction of one regardless of what room, hall or closet it is stuck into. Same for all other acoustic instruments.

 

[RogerD]

Seems like confusion about any and all continues....as usual.

My only observation is....it is system dependent. One must have experience,knowledge,the ability to recognise the attributes that are required for excellent sound and luck.

 

[morricab]

I think original event should be interpreted as "realistic concert like sound". It might not sound exactly like the violin that was played at the concert on that day, but should not sound like a violin that was never ever played anywhere because it is too plastic or too rolled off.

I would agree with that statement...see we are getting somewhere

 

[bonzo75]

I would agree with that statement...see we are getting somewhere

Yes I think this "you weren't at the original event so you will never know except from the master tape" is a red herring

 

[morricab]

Seems like confusion about any and all continues....as usual.

My only observation is....it is system dependent. One must have experience,knowledge,the ability to recognise the attributes that are required for excellent sound and luck.

Yes, and I think experience and knowledge here are not lacking...ability to recognize the attributes for excellent sound?...well I think this is definitely lacking ...just like wine tasting, only a few can really tell what they taste with any accuracy and then use that knowledge to find superior wines. Of course no one believes them...just like in audio .

Of course the others don't want to think that they can't do it too...but they can't. I think only a few can relate what they hear live to what they are hearing from recordings. Of course most don't want to be "good" at the audio hobby...they just want an enjoyable system. However, most here are rather fanatics (myself included) who think they have something to offer everyone else...

 

[morricab]

Yes I think this "you weren't at the original event so you will never know except from the master tape" is a red herring

Exactly...if you KNOW what the real instrument should sound like...and you have the knowledge of it from different venues...you know the realness of what you are hearing and what is missing from the playback.

 

[Joe Whip]

Yes, and I think experience and knowledge here are not lacking...ability to recognize the attributes for excellent sound?...well I think this is definitely lacking ...just like wine tasting, only a few can really tell what they taste with any accuracy and then use that knowledge to find superior wines. Of course no one believes them...just like in audio .

Of course the others don't want to think that they can't do it too...but they can't. I think only a few can relate what they hear live to what they are hearing from recordings. Of course most don't want to be "good" at the audio hobby...they just want an enjoyable system. However, most here are rather fanatics (myself included) who think they have something to offer everyone else...

Gee, I think I have heard this from someone else, hmmmmmmm.

 

[PeterA]

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.

This summarizes it quite well. A local audio buddy upon hearing my system said that we were both after the same thing, namely, "accuracy". Be both attend live acoustic performances regularly. And yet, our two systems sound completely different from each other, and we don't even really like each other's system very much. But each of us loves his own system and considers it pretty accurate. It is all about our own subjective preference. Like some others, I aspire to Ron's #1 in an absolute sense, I understand that #2 may be more achievable and realistic goal, in a practical sense, but #3 is where I end up.

 

[jkeny]

This summarizes it quite well. A local audio buddy upon hearing my system said that we were both after the same thing, namely, "accuracy". Be both attend live acoustic performances regularly. And yet, our two systems sound completely different from each other, and we don't even really like each other's system very much. But each of us loves his own system and considers it pretty accurate. It is all about our own subjective preference. Like some others, I aspire to Ron's #1 in an absolute sense, I understand that #2 may be more achievable and realistic goal, in a practical sense, but #3 is where I end up.

Can you say what you don't think is accurate about your friend's system & he, yours? What is missing or what is added that you & he don't like in each other's system?

 

[PeterA]

Can you say what you don't think is accurate about your friend's system & he, yours? What is missing or what is added that you & he don't like in each other's system?

I can't speak for him, but I think it has to do with tonal balance, resolution and distortion. We have discussed the topic of goals with each other and agree that we are each after "accuracy" in the sense that we are trying to get a sound which reminds each of us of what we hear at live un amplified music events, ie, the BSO. However, the last time we heard each other's system, he called mine dark sounding, and I thought his system was bright. This was a while ago, and we have not visited each other for a while. Our two systems have also changed a bit since then, so these impressions might be different now. You can search my system page for more information.

 

[amirm]

But each of us loves his own system and considers it pretty accurate. It is all about our own subjective preference.

Since there can't be two versions of truth (accuracy), it would be fascinating for you two to listen to both systems without knowing which is which. I am confident one of them will pull ahead.....

 

[Simon Moon]

I will start: I subscribe to Objective 1. I want my audio system to recreate as believably as possible the sound of an original musical event. I listen mostly to regular rock and pop and solo vocals, a bit of jazz and a little bit of classical.

When listening to "regular rock and pop", how is it possible to know what the original musical event was?


There is so much studio manipulation that goes into "regular rock and pop" recordings, how can one have any idea what the original musical event sounded like?

 

[bonzo75]

Since there can't be two versions of truth (accuracy), it would be fascinating for you two to listen to both systems without knowing which is which. I am confident one of them will pull ahead.....

We can start another thread on What is truth, not related to audio

 

[amirm]

When listening to "regular rock and pop", how is it possible to know what the original musical event was?


There is so much studio manipulation that goes into "regular rock and pop" recordings, how can one have any idea what the original musical event sounded like?

Add to that the different speaker and room used for talent to hear the creation and the equation becomes provably unsolvable!

 

[PeterA]

Since there can't be two versions of truth (accuracy), it would be fascinating for you two to listen to both systems without knowing which is which. I am confident one of them will pull ahead.....

This is not practically possible. I think we will just continue to enjoy our systems. Thanks.

 

[amirm]

This is not practically possible. I think we will just continue to enjoy our systems. Thanks.

It is pretty possible actually. That aside, there are people who listen to MP3 players which may be enjoying it more than us. It is not the topic of the thread whether we enjoy our systems or not. But whether we can rally around certain truths. Yours better be absolutely wrong. The notion that no two audiophiles can agree on what is accurate representation of music is the most damning thing anyone can say about our incompetence in that regard.

Fortunately research proves your position quite wrong. When knowledge of what is being heard is taken away, we are remarkably close in judging accuracy of sounds, thank you very much.

 

[microstrip]

(...) There is so much studio manipulation that goes into "regular rock and pop" recordings, how can one have any idea what the original musical event sounded like?

"Regular rock and pop" usually sounds better to me in vintage JBL systems, like I listened to them it in my youth.
At that time my reference was a Thorens TD125, a Shure cartridge, Quad 44+405 and JBL4311's!