The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[March Audio]

38 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

If 10 different systems have 10 different sounds, then the chances are that none of them are particularly accurate.

 

What is best is the one that conveys the sense of what occurred at the recording site most convincingly..

I'm afraid that doesn't follow.  Some could be quite accurate, some less so.

 

But this is the whole point. You don't know which is best because you weren't at the recording site.  You don't know what it sounded like, so you have no idea which system comes closest.

[March Audio]

20 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The reference is one's experiences with sound in the natural world - the easiest to work with is vocals; which we are all intimately familiar with. You hear the sound of a voice from another room - 99 times out of 100 anyone will be able to instantly pick whether that is an actual person, or the reproduction of a person's voice ... when a system is in a good zone, it will drop back to 50 out of 100 - it becomes a guess ...

As both myself and Chris explained the sound of an instrument varies dramatically depending on many factors.

 

Add on to this the sound of the recording varies dramatically depending on the choices of the recording engineer, such as microphone choice, configuration and placement.

 

As an example, how do know if the variation from "reality" is due to the microphone or your speaker?  You could change your speaker when it was the microphone at fault.

[fas42]

Just now, March Audio said:

I'm afraid that doesn't follow.  Some could be quite accurate, some less so.

 

But this is the whole point. You don't know which is best because you weren't at the recording site.  You don't know what it sounded like, so you have no idea which system comes closest.

 

The accuracy will depend upon how the listener judges what he hears - it would always be a subjective evaluation.

 

What I'm interested in is whether the replay sends the messages to my brain, completely unconsciously, that what I'm hearing has all the characteristics of what live music delivers - it's not an analytical process, it's purely whether the emotional triggers are happening. IME, when a system has been sufficiently 'debugged', then those triggers fire all the time, no matter what recording is on. This is accompanied by all the beloved audiophile phrases of good things heard in the SQ - it's an "all win, no lose" experience 🙂.

[March Audio]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The accuracy will depend upon how the listener judges what he hears - it would always be a subjective evaluation.

 

What I'm interested in is whether the replay sends the messages to my brain, completely unconsciously, that what I'm hearing has all the characteristics of what live music delivers - it's not an analytical process, it's purely whether the emotional triggers are happening. IME, when a system has been sufficiently 'debugged', then those triggers fire all the time, no matter what recording is on. This is accompanied by all the beloved audiophile phrases of good things heard in the SQ - it's an "all win, no lose" experience 🙂.

That's not accuracy, that just what the listener thinks is accurate.  It's simply what they like.  It may have no relation to genuine accuracy.

 

Your emotional triggers are your own, no one else's.  They will vary dependant on a myriad of reasons and don't convey or indicate accuracy in the replayed sound.

 

I can get emotionally involved by music being replayed on a cheap Bluetooth speaker.

 

In the car I will go all "Bill and Ted" when the heavy bit of Bohemian Rhapsody comes on the radio.  The radio sound  is anything but accurate.

[fas42]

1 minute ago, March Audio said:

As both myself and Chris explained the sound of an instrument varies dramatically depending on many factors.

 

Let's keep with the voice, since everyone knows when this is 'fake' or not, 😉.

 

1 minute ago, March Audio said:

 

Add on to this the sound of the recording varies dramatically depending on the choices of the recording engineer, such as microphone choice, configuration and placement.

 

Yes, recordings change with all those choices - this is why every recording, and track- , has a signature ... we played a 31 track compilation of Elvis a couple of days ago - it was a bewildering ride of acoustics, and styles of sound - but in each one of them the main vocalist, 🙂, was still that person, singing ...

 

1 minute ago, March Audio said:

 

As an example, how do know if the variation from "reality" is due to the microphone or your speaker?  You could change your speaker when it was the microphone at fault.

 

See above the comment about Elvis - his voice 'changed' on every track; what counted was the sense of hearing The Man - if I was irritated at all by the quality of the voice on one of them, then I know that I have an issue with my replay quality; and that's what I would look to fix ...

[March Audio]

15 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Let's keep with the voice, since everyone knows when this is 'fake' or not, 😉.

 

 

Yes, recordings change with all those choices - this is why every recording, and track- , has a signature ... we played a 31 track compilation of Elvis a couple of days ago - it was a bewildering ride of acoustics, and styles of sound - but in each one of them the main vocalist, 🙂, was still that person, singing ...

 

 

See above the comment about Elvis - his voice 'changed' on every track; what counted was the sense of hearing The Man - if I was irritated at all by the quality of the voice on one of them, then I know that I have an issue with my replay quality; and that's what I would look to fix ...

It makes no difference. The voice is still affected by environment and recording set up.

 

From Sure microphones, one of their vocal mics:

 

 

So you would change the sound of your system to suit this microphone?  What happens when a different mic is used with a different response?  Your changes are suddenly all wrong!

 

https://www.shure.com/en-US/performance-production/louder/mic-basics-frequency-response#:~:text=A shaped response microphone is,some frequency ranges than others.&text=A shaped response microphone also,%2C" of voices and instruments.

 

They have a recording sample of different mics there.

 

Also mic position affects the sound.  A cardiod mic placed close to a sound source will exhibit a bass boost due to proximity effect.

 

All these variables, and many others, you have absolutely no idea about when you are listening in isolation at home.

[fas42]

6 minutes ago, March Audio said:

That's not accuracy, that just what the listener thinks is accurate.  It's simply what they like.  It may have no relation to genuine accuracy.

 

So, how does one define, "genuine accuracy"?

 

6 minutes ago, March Audio said:

 

Your emotional triggers are your own, no one else's.  They will vary dependant on a myriad of reasons and don't convey or indicate accuracy in the replayed sound.

 

If you go around to all the rooms at a HiFi show - in some you will think, "Yuck!", and walk out immediately; with others, you will think, "Hey, not bad ... !!" and stick around for a bit ... what do you think is going on?

 

6 minutes ago, March Audio said:

 

I can get emotionally involved by music being replayed on a cheap Bluetooth speaker.

 

In the car I will go all "Bill and Ted" when the heavy bit of Bohemian Rhapsody comes on the radio.  The radio sound  is anything but accurate.

 

Yes, if you have a strong memory of that music, the triggers will happen ... now, put on that same system some music style that usually leaves you cold, of a track that you have never heard before ... will "the power of music" perform its magic, this time, 🙂?

[March Audio]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

So, how does one define, "genuine accuracy"?

 

 

If you go around to all the rooms at a HiFi show - in some you will think, "Yuck!", and walk out immediately; with others, you will think, "Hey, not bad ... !!" and stick around for a bit ... what do you think is going on?

 

 

Yes, if you have a strong memory of that music, the triggers will happen ... now, put on that same system some music style that usually leaves you cold, of a track that you have never heard before ... will "the power of music" perform its magic, this time, 🙂?

Good question.  It's certainly not defined by just listening in isolation to replay, you have to have a known reference.

 

In the hifi show it's just the stuff you personally like.  Other people will like other things.  None of this indicates accuracy.

 

You are just reinforcing my point.  Your emotional responses are your own, no one else's.  Your emotional response does not indicate replay accuracy.

[The Computer Audiophile]

For my podcast I use a Neumann TLM103. It changes my voice quite a bit depending on where I place my mouth (close, medium, far…). 
 

If someone was very familiar with my voice and they listened to my podcast to demo an audio system, they would have to know the exact distance I was from the microphone, in order to judge accuracy. 

[fas42]

11 minutes ago, March Audio said:

It makes no difference. The voice is still affected by environment and recording set up.

 

From Sure microphones, one of their vocal mics:

 

 

So you would change the sound of your system to suit this microphone?  What happens when a different mic is used with a different response?  Your changes are suddenly all wrong!

 

This is about linear changes, to FR - something that human hearing effortlessly deals with, every day. Whether we are aware of it or not, we constantly process what we hear, "so that it sounds right" - except, with reproduced sound there are so many issues much of the time, the brain gives up - hence, it needs a crutch; fiddle with the FR so at least that is roughly in the right territory, 🙂.

 

 

[fas42]

11 minutes ago, March Audio said:

 

You are just reinforcing my point.  Your emotional responses are your own, no one else's.  Your emotional response does not indicate replay accuracy.

 

OK, let's turn that around - you by some method have decided that the replay is 'accurate" - and you put on a recording ... and it sounds awful; you can't bear listening to it - you either have to walk out of the room, or switch off the playback ... where are we now?

[fas42]

Along the lines mentioned earlier I just switched on my setup this morning, about quarter of an hour ago, and played this very CD,

 

 

Nice! Everything in place; full, deep, rich sound, organ sounding suitably majestic - questions of accuracy become meaningless, when material like this just works ... to listen to.

[The Computer Audiophile]

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

questions of accuracy become meaningless, when material like this just works ... to listen to.

That’s a fantastic way to look at it. 

[March Audio]

49 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

OK, let's turn that around - you by some method have decided that the replay is 'accurate" - and you put on a recording ... and it sounds awful; you can't bear listening to it - you either have to walk out of the room, or switch off the playback ... where are we now?

What if the sun doesn't come up tomorrow?

 

You are just inventing scenarios.  There is no reason to assume an accurate recording will sound bad.  By definition that means you are saying that the sound of the original instrument sounds bad 

[March Audio]

29 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That’s a fantastic way to look at it. 

If you like it, you like it. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. 😀 However let's not conflate a personal preference with good or accurate sound

[fas42]

29 minutes ago, March Audio said:

What if the sun doesn't come up tomorrow?

 

You are just inventing scenarios.  There is no reason to assume an accurate recording will sound bad.  By definition that means you are saying that the sound of the original instrument sounds bad 

 

We are not talking about the recording being accurate, to what was occurring in front of the microphones - rather, whether the replay is accurate to what's on the recording.

 

IME, a well sorted and largely accurate reproduction chain conveys the sound of the original instruments - irrespective of the recording chain. I have always found that if it sounds "bad", that it ends up being because of an issue with my system - resolve the latter, and the "badness" evaporates.

 

35 minutes ago, March Audio said:

However let's not conflate a personal preference with good or accurate sound

 

The Good News is, that accurate sound produces an experience which is extremely likeable - which means, as a very powerful tool for use in refining a setup, that if you don't like the sound, then you can evolve the rig to a point where it is both 'accurate', and likeable ... 😉.

[PYP]

22 minutes ago, fas42 said:

ME, a well sorted and largely accurate reproduction chain conveys the sound of the original instruments - irrespective of the recording chain. I have always found that if it sounds "bad", that it ends up being because of an issue with my system - resolve the latter, and the "badness" evaporates.

I'm assuming many have had the experience of listening to music that they enjoy, but it is evident that the sound is harsh.  In some of those cases, either a higher resolution version, or remastered version, or both, are available that fixes the problem (here, I'm thinking of records from late 60s early 70s recordings that were meant for radio, now played digitally).    In such cases, it is evident that the system is not the variable.

 

Other examples include early 90s classical recordings.  Compared to today's technology, many of the earlier CD recordings lack dynamic range.  The recordings can still be enjoyable, and not harsh, but the limited bandwidth is easily heard.   Again, the system isn't the variable and short of finding a remastered version, the limited bandwidth cannot be fixed.  

[March Audio]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

This is about linear changes, to FR - something that human hearing effortlessly deals with, every day. Whether we are aware of it or not, we constantly process what we hear, "so that it sounds right" - except, with reproduced sound there are so many issues much of the time, the brain gives up - hence, it needs a crutch; fiddle with the FR so at least that is roughly in the right territory, 🙂.

 

 

Nope, they hear the changes.  That response is specifically designed to give vocals more "punch".  In other words to audibly distort the sound from accurate.

 

Recording engineers/artists often choose specific microphones precisely because they have certain sound characteristics.

[March Audio]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

We are not talking about the recording being accurate, to what was occurring in front of the microphones - rather, whether the replay is accurate to what's on the recording.

 

IME, a well sorted and largely accurate reproduction chain conveys the sound of the original instruments - irrespective of the recording chain. I have always found that if it sounds "bad", that it ends up being because of an issue with my system - resolve the latter, and the "badness" evaporates.

 

 

The Good News is, that accurate sound produces an experience which is extremely likeable - which means, as a very powerful tool for use in refining a setup, that if you don't like the sound, then you can evolve the rig to a point where it is both 'accurate', and likeable ... 😉.

Are the goal posts moving?

 

So again, how do you know whats an accurate rendering of the recording?  What is your reference?

[March Audio]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

IME, a well sorted and largely accurate reproduction chain conveys the sound of the original instruments - irrespective of the recording chain. I have always found that if it sounds "bad", that it ends up being because of an issue with my system - resolve the latter, and the "badness" evaporates.

 

Playback cant convey what isnt there. Equally it cant remedy errors that are unknown.

 

If the recording is messed up then so is the playback.

[March Audio]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

The Good News is, that accurate sound produces an experience which is extremely likeable - which means, as a very powerful tool for use in refining a setup, that if you don't like the sound, then you can evolve the rig to a point where it is both 'accurate', and likeable ... 😉.

 

Yes, but I also know people who are total bass heads.  They like what is IMO (and measureably demonstrable), excessive bass.  Its not accurate but they like it 😀

[fas42]

29 minutes ago, PYP said:

I'm assuming many have had the experience of listening to music that they enjoy, but it is evident that the sound is harsh.  In some of those cases, either a higher resolution version, or remastered version, or both, are available that fixes the problem (here, I'm thinking of records from late 60s early 70s recordings that were meant for radio, now played digitally).    In such cases, it is evident that the system is not the variable.

 

 

In the early days of exploring the new world of CDs, mid 1980's, I had the same experiences - but "harsh" sound is a symptom of less than stellar replay, I ended up understanding; the mastering, and signatures of the original sound add up to making for unpleasant listening, if the reproduction chain is not up to scratch - as examples, I used Tapestry and the original Doors album as signposts for flaws in the playback.

 

Turns out, the system is always the variable - which is why I regularly use CDs bought from those days to check progress; I'm not happy until I can tick albums like this off, as giving me good SQ.

[fas42]

11 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Nope, they hear the changes.  That response is specifically designed to give vocals more "punch".  In other words to audibly distort the sound from accurate.

 

If you play one mastering versus another, back and forth, you will hear the difference - but whatever they end up doing becomes part of the signature of the recording - you 'learn' it, and it becomes part of the identity of the listening experience, for that album.

 

13 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Are the goal posts moving?

 

So again, how do you know whats an accurate rendering of the recording?  What is your reference?

 

Because it starts to sound like the very best that you've heard it 🙂 ... take a recording of yours, play it on the very finest audio system you can muster, or get access to. Sounds fantastic! ... Why? Has that "brilliant" rig distorted it to make it so good ... or are you actually much closer to the intrinsic qualities of what was captured?

 

Another marker is that the speaker drivers become invisible - this is what happened the first time a setup slipped into the good zone, for me - it becomes impossible to locate the drivers working, using one's ears. That very same setup can lose its quality edge, during playing - and this illusion, because that's what it is, evaporates - it disappears, just like a mirage.

 

20 minutes ago, March Audio said:

 

Playback cant convey what isnt there. Equally it cant remedy errors that are unknown.

 

If the recording is messed up then so is the playback.

 

Technically poor recordings are a challenge - what you have to do is make the playback even more accurate, so that the finest details are clearly audible ... the trick is that you have to present enough information, with zero added from elsewhere, off the recording, so that the listening brain can separate what belongs to the music event, from that which is recording distortion - this will seem like magic, for those who aren't used to it happening; 30 years of hearing this behaviour confirms it's not a one shot ...

 

19 minutes ago, March Audio said:

 

I know people who are total bass heads.  They like what is IMO (and measureably demonstrable), excessive bass.  Its not accurate but they like it 😀

 

Not me. I hate obtrusive bass, can't abide any home theatre nonsense - so, what a good system does is to delineate the bass line; it's very easy to follow what the instruments which generate this part of the music are doing.

[March Audio]

Yes, so this is just your personal guess, or just your personal interpretation, or simply just what you personally prefer.

 

I may prefer something different.  The bass heads certainly do 😜

 

Its got nothing to do with accuracy.

[PYP]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

In the early days of exploring the new world of CDs, mid 1980's, I had the same experiences - but "harsh" sound is a symptom of less than stellar replay, I ended up understanding; the mastering, and signatures of the original sound add up to making for unpleasant listening, if the reproduction chain is not up to scratch - as examples, I used Tapestry and the original Doors album as signposts for flaws in the playback.

 

Turns out, the system is always the variable - which is why I regularly use CDs bought from those days to check progress; I'm not happy until I can tick albums like this off, as giving me good SQ.

Well, I guess we will never agree on this.   I have heard systems that do indeed sound very good with just about everything.  To my taste, they are pleasant, but homogenized.  They aren't true to the recording, but that isn't the objective for those system, which is fine.   That kind of system doesn't fit my own current preferences (it was my goal when reproduction of digital was not very good), because the closer the reproduction is to live, the more I enjoy the musicians and their interaction.  

 

To me it is self-evident that there are poor recordings and that if the system is true to the recording, what you hear isn't a good recording (not all remastering is done just to market the material one more time).   I know you don't agree and that this issue will never be settled no matter how much folks explain their differences.  The commonality is the desire to enjoy music.  So whatever floats your boat has to be respected by everyone with a similar desire, even if they don't agree with how you get there.