The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[Summit]

55 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Can you help me understand this a bit? I’ve never thought the terms convincing and accurate were equivalent. Convincing is subjective while accurate is objective. There can be many forms of “convincing” but only one “accurate.”

 

Accurate as in providing a faithful representation of someone or something.

 

[March Audio]

1 hour ago, Iving said:

 

Oh go on then.

 

To me it sounds like someone's fiddled with the first one. Almost a loudness kind of thing.

 

But I am listening on my ripping PC with Yamaha desktop speakers.

 

Think I prefer #2 anyway.

Neither are accurate. They are both an artificial construct.  They are mixed, panned, equalised, compressed with reverb added.  

 

Most people prefer 1.  BTW fas42 previously thought 1 was better and more accurate.

 

What came off the mics

 

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgRQYSaaSdlUdeHS3

 

Which again is quite different to what was heard directly in the venue.

[Iving]

3 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Neither are accurate. They are both an artificial construct.  They are mixed, panned, equalised, compressed with reverb added.  

 

Most people prefer 1.  BTW fas previously thought 1 was better and more accurate.

 

What came off the mics

 

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgRQYSaaSdlUdeHS3

 

Which again is quite different to what was heard directly in the venue.

 

I knew it wasn't a trick question.

[Summit]

1 hour ago, Iving said:

 

It's true that "convincing" and "accurate" aren't synonymous. Unless you're someone who tends to prefer authenticity and wants to make a point about it. I've always maintained that less "accurate" women with permed hair (or blue rinses, whatever) look less convincing. But other people may hold quite the opposite view. All of us can be right in that respect. But yes - there is only one "accurate". Au naturel!

 

(I'm going to get egg on my face when March tells me I picked the "wrong" sample.)

 

Edit: Thinking about what I wrote within editing time, isn't it true that you can have a preference through grainy photographs - or off of CCTV stills - for women who look like they haven't fiddled with their hair? I mean you're probably going to be "right" a lot of the time. And then you can repeat with another image - and another - triangulating your outcomes. In other words, you don't have an absolute reference - but you can hunt accuracy (through an iterative process). A bit like signal detection theory maybe. I think I've seen a formal version of this somewhere. If it comes back to me I'll post.

 

Accurate to what? A recording played by a playback system is a reproduktion and can never be 100% accurate. Sounds accurate means it sounds real/lifelike whatever word you want to use to express/describe it.   

[Iving]

1 minute ago, Summit said:

 

Accurate to what? A recording played by a playback system is a reproduktion and can never be 100% accurate. Sounds accurate means it sounds real/lifelike whatever word you want to use to express it.   

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/profile/24138-iving/?tab=field_core_pfield_1

[Iving]

9 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Neither are accurate. They are both an artificial construct.  They are mixed, panned, equalised, compressed with reverb added.  

 

Most people prefer 1.  BTW fas42 previously thought 1 was better and more accurate.

 

What came off the mics

 

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgRQYSaaSdlUdeHS3

 

Which again is quite different to what was heard directly in the venue.

 

Is it possible - objectively - to say which of the two was more accurate / less distorted?

[March Audio]

1 minute ago, Iving said:

 

Is it possible - objectively - to say which of the two was more accurate / less distorted?

No, but that's my point.

 

We have fas42 claiming that he can identify what's accurate when he wasn't at the recording so has no idea what it sounded like, and when most recordings are an artificial construct.  The sound has been created by the engineer/producer/artist.

[Iving]

Just now, March Audio said:

No, but that's my point.

 

We have fas42 claiming that he can identify what's accurate when he wasn't at the recording so has no idea what it sounded like, and when most recordings are an artificial construct.  The sound has been created by the engineer/producer/artist.

 

Shame. I was hoping to feel at least a little vindicated.

[Summit]

1 hour ago, March Audio said:

I will post a link to 2 versions of a recording and let you tell me which is most accurate.

 

Yes you and the fellow that call him self an audiophile have got an hung up on this. If you want to use measurements and believe that they will give you a more accurate information on how audio gear/systems and recordings sounds like, please don't let me stop you. 

[Summit]

11 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/profile/24138-iving/?tab=field_core_pfield_1

 

?

[March Audio]

Just now, Summit said:

 

Yes you and the fellow that call him self an audiophile have got an hung up on this. If you want to use measurements and believe that they will give you a more accurate information on how audio gear/systems and recordings sounds like, please don't let me stop 

Nothing I have said here has anything to do with measurements.

 

It's entirely  about subjective interpretation.

[Summit]

4 minutes ago, March Audio said:

No, but that's my point.

 

We have fas42 claiming that he can identify what's accurate when he wasn't at the recording so has no idea what it sounded like, and when most recordings are an artificial construct.  The sound has been created by the engineer/producer/artist.

 

It is you that don't understand that music is meant to be heard and whats counts is perceived sound quality. This mean good illusion. 

[March Audio]

6 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

It is you that don't understand that music is meant to be heard and whats counts is perceived sound quality. This mean good illusion. 

Good illusion to whome?

 

Your perception is different to mine and different to fas42.

 

Fas thought 1 was better more accurate, Iving thought 2. Both are actually entirely artificial and unlike what was heard in the venue, or what actually came off the microphones.

 

The conversation was about the fact that fas42 thought he could definitively define what was most accurate or lifelike by just listening to the recording.

[MarkusBarkus]

13 minutes ago, March Audio said:

...most recordings are an artificial construct.  The sound has been created by the engineer/producer/artist.

...and it's even trickier on the reproduction side, isn't it? Which piano? Which cello, guitar, etc. The instruments don't even have a singular sound, let alone the room/venue...and the production/post-production decisions.  

[Iving]

2 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Fas thought 1 was better more accurate, Iving thought 2. Both are entirely artificial and unlike what was heard in the venue or what actually came off the microphone.

 

er - well I did say I preferred 2. Aren't you going to let me off the hook even a little? Not even for choosing the opposite of Frank?

[Summit]

5 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Nothing I have said here has anything to do with measurements.

 

It's entirely  about subjective interpretation.

 

Yes Its about subjective interpretation and how we audiophiles describe how it sounds. Sounds real, lifelike or accurate is words that nor Frank or I have invented. It is common ways of describing the kind of SQ may of us are aiming for. 

 

Yes it is not easy to put word on what we hear and many things has to be read in its context. 

[March Audio]

3 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

Yes Its about subjective interpretation and how we audiophiles describe how it sounds. Sounds real, lifelike or accurate is words that nor Frank or I have invented. It is common ways of describing the kind of SQ may of us are aiming for. 

 

Yes it is not easy to put word on what we hear and many things has to be read in its context. 

And where is that getting you if there is no commonality, reference or concensus?

 

It's just personal preference, which is fine, but let's not conflate that with accuracy.

[Summit]

5 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Good illusion to whome?

 

Everyone. 

[March Audio]

3 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

Everyone. 

But we have just demonstrated people have different opinions about this.  You can't say everyone.  There is no consensus. Different people like the sound of different equipment.

[Summit]

2 minutes ago, March Audio said:

And where is that getting you if there is no commonality, reference or concensus?

 

It's just personal preference, which is fine, but let's not conflate that with accuracy.

 

Its not only personal preference many people actually prefer the same SQ aspects, at least in the grand schema of things.  

[AnotherSpin]

4 minutes ago, March Audio said:

And where is that getting you if there is no commonality or reference?

 

It's just personal preference, which is fine, but let's not conflate that with accuracy.

 

Accuracy is just a word devoid of practical meaning here. We cannot accurately reproduce, either in action or in memory, what we did five minutes ago. What to say about the whole complex process of recording and playing back music. You can get close to accuracy if you get the musician to play the same piece in exactly the same way and in the same room and with the same recording and playback equipment. Is this possible? But, more important, what may be the reason to strive for it?

[March Audio]

6 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

Its not only personal preference many people actually prefer the same SQ aspects, at least in the grand schema of things.  

You only need to look at the disparate range and sound of products people own to know that's not true.

[Summit]

2 minutes ago, March Audio said:

But we have just demonstrated people have different opinions about this.  You can't say everyone.  There is no consensus. 

 

You asked good illusion to whome? And the answer is that the recording is meant for everyone. 

[March Audio]

27 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

Accuracy is just a word devoid of practical meaning here. We cannot accurately reproduce, either in action or in memory, what we did five minutes ago. What to say about the whole complex process of recording and playing back music. You can get close to accuracy if you get the musician to play the same piece in exactly the same way and in the same room and with the same recording and playback equipment. Is this possible? But, more important, what may be the reason to strive for it?

I agree.  Its what I have been trying to demonstrate.

 

It wasn't me making claims about knowing what is accurate.

[MarkusBarkus]

I think you guys are poking at the same skunk. There are so many variables that folks might not agree re: what is convincing, or definitive, but perhaps you are in accord with the concept? I think I agree with both of you, actually, if that's OK.