The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[March Audio]

Just now, Summit said:

 

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

Really Sorry but I don't understand the relevance of that statement.

[DRB100]

5 minutes ago, March Audio said:

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

There are recording studios and mastering studios that use high end cables that cater to the audiophile base..  Wouldn’t they be able to hear the difference in a cables?

[Summit]

14 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Really Sorry but I don't understand the relevance of that statement.

 

OMG. You don't understand that no musicians are actually playing in your living room and High fidelity is all about creating an as good illusion as possible of that. 

[March Audio]

7 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

OMG. You don't understand that no musicians are actually playing in your living room and High fidelity is all about creation an as good illusion as possible of 

Where did you get all this from?

 

The point I made was clear; that different people find different sound convincing.

[March Audio]

11 minutes ago, DRB100 said:

There are recording studios and mastering studios that use high end cables that cater to the audiophile base..  Wouldn’t they be able to hear the difference in a cables?

No idea 😀.  When you say "cater for audiophiles" it does come across as something done for marketing purposes 😉

[Summit]

11 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Where did you get all this from?

 

The point I made was that different people find different sound convincing.

 

I repeat its not only personal preference, many people (audiophiles) actually prefer the same SQ aspects, at least in the grand scheme of things.  

 

We use words to describe how we hear things. If you really think that we have no common grund, not much point in trying to describe or leave sonic impression.   

[March Audio]

Just now, Summit said:

 

I repeat its not only personal preference, many people (audiophiles) actually prefer the same SQ aspects, at least in the grand schema of things.  

 

We use words to describe how we hear things. If you really think that we have no common grund well not much point in trying to describe or leave sonic impression.   

As I said, this is disproved by the massive variation and sound of equipment owned.  The massive variation of opinion found on forums such as this.

 

Regardless, that's not actually what the conversation has been about.  It's been about "knowing accuracy".

[Iving]

3 hours ago, March Audio said:

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

 

Another tack?

“I will post a link to 2 versions of a recording and let you tell me which is most accurate.” implies that one is more accurate than the other. Saying or implying post hoc that they are equally distorted wouldn’t stand up in court!

Leaving that aside ...

What you did there was manipulate the signal at source.

What we have here are a bunch of different variables:

- Venue and instrument vagaries etc.

- How well or even just differently engineers capture a rendition.

- What a mastering person does (that is “correct” to her or his ears).

- Loudness aberrations and other commercial perversions.

- Media format (PC, Streamer, CD, LP etc)

- System differences - I heard it through my ripping / desktop system. Maybe I’d have said something else if I’d done the task on my listening system.

- Listener preferences etc.

If I read correctly you’re saying through all this fog that “accuracy” is too evasive to the audiophile?

I get that.

I must say tho’. At one point I had the impression that happenstance for your own enjoyment you were someone who prefers an *accurate* system to a *pleasing* one (given that we may distinguish for argument’s sake).

Is this true? Was I reading between the lines?

Are you completely open-minded about what your customers find “pleasing”? Do you ever advise them (encouragingly) on matters of “accuracy”?

[Summit]

8 minutes ago, March Audio said:

As I said, this is disproved by the massive variation and sound of equipment owned.  The massive variation of opinion found on forums such as this.

 

Regardless, that's not actually what the conversation has been about.  It's been about "knowing accuracy".

 

It is about words to describe sonic impressions and you can not for your life understand that some people use words like accurate, lifelike or similar to describe *it*. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

This is getting weirder by the minute. 
 

I don’t understand why it’s so hard to grasp that judging accuracy of a recording on a home audio system isn’t possible. 

[Summit]

30 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This is getting weirder by the minute. 
 

I don’t understand why it’s so hard to grasp that judging accuracy of a recording on a home audio system isn’t possible. 

 

"Subjective audio is the evaluation of reproduced sound quality by ear. It is based on the novel idea that, since audio equipment is made to be listened to, what it sounds like is more important than how it measures......"

 

"accuracy The degree to which the output signal from a component or system is perceived as replicating the sonic qualities of its input signal. An accurate device reproduces what is on the recording, which may or may not be an accurate representation of the original sound."

 

"Accurate - The music is unaltered by the recording or playback equipment. Ideally, to sound identical to the original music."

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary

 

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/describing-sound-a-glossary.220770/

[PYP]

Since we are getting weird and disturbing skunks and have left cables behind about 300 pages ago, I have to ask:

 

Anyone here have a preference for video performances (say, YouTube)?  That is, does having the visual cues increase or decrease your listening enjoyment?  

[MarkusBarkus]

3 minutes ago, PYP said:

That is, does having the visual cues increase or decrease your listening enjoyment?  

We're suppose to enjoy it too? That's a lot of pressure.
 

For me, if I can watch it, I don't need it to sound as good. Never considered that before now, but I think that's true for me. Good question! 

[DRB100]

3 hours ago, March Audio said:

No idea 😀.  When you say "cater for audiophiles" it does come across as something done for marketing purposes 😉

There are record labels that record music that is marketed and sold towards audiophiles.  Look at Blue Coast Records, Chesky, 2L, B&W had their own music label, and then there are symphonic recordings.   The average classical listener isn’t listening to music on a cheap stereo.   I don’t see your verge teenager or young person in their 20’s listening to this music on cheap stereos.

 

Most music is created and marketed towards specific demographics.  

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 hours ago, Summit said:

 

"Subjective audio is the evaluation of reproduced sound quality by ear. It is based on the novel idea that, since audio equipment is made to be listened to, what it sounds like is more important than how it measures......"

 

"accuracy The degree to which the output signal from a component or system is perceived as replicating the sonic qualities of its input signal. An accurate device reproduces what is on the recording, which may or may not be an accurate representation of the original sound."

 

"Accurate - The music is unaltered by the recording or playback equipment. Ideally, to sound identical to the original music."

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary

 

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/describing-sound-a-glossary.220770/

Can you explain why you posted some definitions?

[fas42]

11 hours ago, Summit said:

 

I would never buy a very expensive car, but if I did and it develop an irritating rattle behind the dash I would not stack newspapers to fix it 😉.

 

Neither would I 🙂. But if the manufacturer of that vehicle refused to accept that poor design was causing that issue, nor would fix it, under warranty - and I wanted to keep using the car for other reasons - then I would work out a method for nailing the problem ... welcome to the world of high end audio, 😛.

[fas42]

9 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

I don't have a car anymore, sold the last one because lack of use. Nevertheless, if I would still own the car and realized there is a repetitive noise, I would go to the service, there is no reason to leave it unattended and to be irritated at all. It is enough to know you remain the same before, during, and after such or any other experience.

 

Right. Whether you get someone else to fix it, or work out a solution in a DIY manner, the point is to eliminate the irritation. Well, for me, when I listen to nearly all audio rigs, I hear a cacophony of rattles, along with the music...

[fas42]

9 hours 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.”

 

How it works, is that when it is truly accurate, that it is also convincing ... luckily, it just works out that way - human hearing is a remarkable mechanism, 😉. The big problem is, that most systems are not accurate enough, in spite of what the measurements say, or the prestige and cost of the equipment.

[fas42]

8 hours 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.

 

What the recording is like is totally irrelevant. It is an artistic creation - and can be as twisted as the producers of it want ... the only thing, I repeat, the only thing that matters is whether the reproduction of that "artistic creation" is completely accurate.

 

Picasso painted women - do I condemn him for not being 'accurate' - or the printer of a reproduction of one of his works for slightly blurring the detail, and getting the colour balance wrong?

[fas42]

6 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This is getting weirder by the minute. 
 

I don’t understand why it’s so hard to grasp that judging accuracy of a recording on a home audio system isn’t possible. 

 

You will never, ever be able to assess the accuracy of a recording to what actually happened in front of the microphones - go back in time, to the recording space, and move the microphones a few feet in some direction; and shift the position they're pointing to - before the recording starts ... you now have a very different recording, of the exact same event. Now, which recording is "more accurate"?

 

[March Audio]

7 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This is getting weirder by the minute. 
 

I don’t understand why it’s so hard to grasp that judging accuracy of a recording on a home audio system isn’t possible. 

Well not by just listening a bunch of random recordings in isolation as FAS42 was originally suggesting.

[March Audio]

7 hours ago, Iving said:

 

Another tack?

“I will post a link to 2 versions of a recording and let you tell me which is most accurate.” implies that one is more accurate than the other. Saying or implying post hoc that they are equally distorted wouldn’t stand up in court!

Leaving that aside ...

What you did there was manipulate the signal at source.

What we have here are a bunch of different variables:

- Venue and instrument vagaries etc.

- How well or even just differently engineers capture a rendition.

- What a mastering person does (that is “correct” to her or his ears).

- Loudness aberrations and other commercial perversions.

- Media format (PC, Streamer, CD, LP etc)

- System differences - I heard it through my ripping / desktop system. Maybe I’d have said something else if I’d done the task on my listening system.

- Listener preferences etc.

If I read correctly you’re saying through all this fog that “accuracy” is too evasive to the audiophile?

I get that.

I must say tho’. At one point I had the impression that happenstance for your own enjoyment you were someone who prefers an *accurate* system to a *pleasing* one (given that we may distinguish for argument’s sake).

Is this true? Was I reading between the lines?

Are you completely open-minded about what your customers find “pleasing”? Do you ever advise them (encouragingly) on matters of “accuracy”?

Actually I am very honest with my customers.  I get asked these sorts of questions everyday.  I will explain the technical differences in performance and how that relates to the sound.  I don't use terms such as "accurate" in reference to sound, although it can be objectively assessed in terms of signal transparency.

 

With the Audio tracks I linked above I was simply demonstrating just how much recordings are changed and messed with, how they are constructs of the recording engineer, producer and artist.  So Frank's assertions that he can tell how accurate his system is by listening in isolation are incorrect.  He actually chose the least accurate of the tracks.

[March Audio]

7 hours ago, Summit said:

 

"Subjective audio is the evaluation of reproduced sound quality by ear. It is based on the novel idea that, since audio equipment is made to be listened to, what it sounds like is more important than how it measures......"

 

"accuracy The degree to which the output signal from a component or system is perceived as replicating the sonic qualities of its input signal. An accurate device reproduces what is on the recording, which may or may not be an accurate representation of the original sound."

 

"Accurate - The music is unaltered by the recording or playback equipment. Ideally, to sound identical to the original music."

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary

 

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/describing-sound-a-glossary.220770/

You need to stop conflating this discussion to be about measurement.  It's been entirely about subjective opinions and conclusions.

[fas42]

51 minutes ago, March Audio said:

 

With the Audio tracks I linked above I was simply demonstrating just how much recordings are changed and messed with, how they are constructs of the recording engineer, producer and artist.  So Frank's assertions that he can tell how accurate his system is by listening in isolation are incorrect.  He actually chose the least accurate of the tracks.

 

Nothing like rewriting history, eh ... 🤪 ? At the time, I realised that I must have got the 2 downloads confused, by pulling down the second one first; after reading someone else's impressions - and queried this,

 

 

Of course, I got no response to confirm 🙄 - and things moved on ...

 

Yes, the Mix Test Original does indeed sound like the actual, in the room, sound - the vocalist has little presence, and the brass instruments punch through, with genuine intensity. But of course that's not how the producer wants it to sound 🙂 - backing instruments are supposed to be, er, "backing" ...

[March Audio]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Nothing like rewriting history, eh ... 🤪 ? At the time, I realised that I must have got the 2 downloads confused, by pulling down the second one first; after reading someone else's impressions - and queried this,

 

 

Of course, I got no response to confirm 🙄 - and things moved on ...

 

Yes, the Mix Test Original does indeed sound like the actual, in the room, sound - the vocalist has little presence, and the brass instruments punch through, with genuine intensity. But of course that's not how the producer wants it to sound 🙂 - backing instruments are supposed to be, er, "backing" ...

Of course you did Frank. 

 

You reacted as most people do with those tracks, you preferred the one that was actually more processed.......until you found out it wasn't the more accurate.