Definition of Sound System "Accuracy"

[Brian A]

Last night I brought home a borrowed Conrad-Johnson PV11 preamplifier to temporarily replace my even older David Hafler DH-110 preamplifier which is out for repair.

 

I was curious if a Conrad-Johnson was a good pre-amp etc, so, through the shaman Google, asked the oracles of the internet. They brought forth a Stereophile review circa 1991:

Conrad-Johnson PV11 preamplifier | Stereophile.com

 

I know posting stuff like this can cause spit fights, but on page two, Robert Deutsch offers a fabulous definition and analysis of "accuracy" and I can't resist posting it. (Redacted) He says that "accuracy" is: "the ultimate objective of an ideal sound system, which everyone claims they want but nobody likes when he has it. ... a component with a very high degree of technical accuracy, but in which the remaining inaccuracy is of the conspicuously "electronic" sort, may be less preferred than a component that is technically not as accurate, but whose inaccuracy is the sort that sounds like it could have been part of the original sound rather than an electronic artifact.

 

"In routine listening, we don't know what the original sound was like, so our judgment of "accuracy" is actually a measure of plausibility: how much does the sound resemble what we immediately recognize as real (produced by musical instruments, including the human voice) rather than reproduction? (footnote 3) ..."

 

"Footnote 3: Roaming the halls of the New York Penta at the 1990 Stereophile show, I heard a faint sound emanating from one of the rooms in the distance. "That's it! Those are the speakers I want!" I thought as I rushed down the corridor. I threw open the door of the room where the sound system of my dreams was apparently playing. It was Igor Kipnis, practicing on the harpsichord.

[wkhanna]

It is well known that some 'distortion' can be pleasing to the ear.

 

Despite the platitude that valves mellow the sound & provide soft clipping, it is this characteristic that SS & digital was supposed to cure.

 

What we got for the most part was music that might be characterized as 'accurate', but often was difficult to bear for more than 30 minutes.

 

Things are better today, & now I believe the amount of 'accuracy' in a system is one of personal taste.

[spdif-usb]

This boils down to what I've been saying on here for about a year or so.

[ul17]

"What we got for the most part was music that might be characterized as 'accurate', but often was difficult to bear for more than 30 minutes."

 

I never understood that argument myself. How accurate can it be if you can't stand it for more than 30 minutes? Maybe its just the music itself and not weather its accurate. I know I wouldn't be too happy if I had to listen to Hip Hop or Country music for 30 minutes.

[mayhem13]

The term 'accurate' is often used by reviewers and marketing when attempting to describe a device of precision, to which is better applied to devices of measure.

 

Sure.....one can use the term accurate, why not?....it's no worse than warm, thick, dark, airy....and all the other mumbo jumbo that's often applied to SQ. Simply read some fine wine reviews to see where this pairing began. How else would you market 750ml of liquid at $50 when there's $15 alternatives?

 

It's all a matter of preference where the senses are concerned. Biologically, our sensory organs tell us when something is bad as it has the potential to physically harm us.....rotten food, loud sounds, extremely bright light. But things that soothe or excite?....that's a far more obscure classification. Scientific studies have shown the effects of color on our psyche, tastes on our palette( some genetics here surprisingly) sounds to our ears and have been able to create some generalizations.....but there's no accounting for taste and modern society is literally driven by increased availability of different products.

[spdif-usb]

How accurate can it be if you can't stand it for more than 30 minutes?

It can be extremely accurate and still simply not be satisfactory. Human hearing is non linear. It even varies from person to person. What we do know is that it's incredibly sensitive to some types of errors in a signal, yet very tolerant of others, and that the perceived value of one type of error can change dramatically in the presence of others.

[Musicophile]

To me it boils down to the fact that I'm listening to music first of all, not to accuracy. I need accuracy in as technical drawing, not in an emotional experience.

 

There was another recent thread on the Chesky recordings. A typical example for something extremely accurate, and I admire the recording quality, but usually get bored after 3 min and change albums.

[Guidof]

The more it sounds like Igor Kipnis, the more accurate it is . . .

 

Guido F.

[elcorso]

"Accuracy" to what? I must be to music, then your gear (from software -> PC-> DAC -> Pre -> Amp -> Speakers) should mimic real life unamplified music execution/listening. In digital music, from software to DAC, there are some that give you more than in real life 'detail', 'low bass', etc., that get you tired very fast. Of course, this could impress some people.

 

Roch

[NOMBEDES]

~ nombes' law~

 

accuracy does not matter

 

 

why?

 

Because as soon as the sound is released into the room, stuff happens.

[Gary.D.Olson]

This is exactly what went through my mind when reading the op.

 

An example of accuracy in the literal sense would mean any record would sound exactly the same in your room as it did in the studio where it was mixed. The only way you're going to know this is if several studios give you access to perform comprehensive analysis of the sound in their control room so you could compare it with yours.

 

First off - never going to happen.

Secondly - the acoustics of your listening space will likely have little to nothing in common with the acoustics in any of the studios, hence...

Thirdly - ... any given recording is going to sound different in your room - even if you use identical gear.

 

IMHO, accuracy is over rated. I just want my stereo to be reliable, have sufficient headroom to "punch" when intended by its creator, and above all - it needs to sound good "to me".

 

Just my $.02

 

 

 

~ nombes' law~

 

accuracy does not matter

 

 

why?

 

Because as soon as the sound is released into the room, stuff happens.

[bluesman]

"In routine listening, we don't know what the original sound was like, so our judgment of "accuracy" is actually a measure of plausibility: how much does the sound resemble what we immediately recognize as real (produced by musical instruments, including the human voice) rather than reproduction? (footnote 3) ..."

 

Ahh - but we often do know. After 25+ years of subscription concerts to a world-class symphony orchestra, I think we have a pretty good idea. After hearing Dave Brubeck or Tower of Power or Tony Bennett live many times over many years, we kinda know what to expect from each. For me, accuracy means rendering the colorations and other characteristics that make instruments, voices and ensembles recognizable, unique and distinct.

 

Sounding "live" is not the sole criterion for accuracy in sound reproduction. If the trumpet with the Harmon mute sounds like it's in your den with you but you can't tell whether it's Miles or Freddie Hubbard, it's not accurate.

 

Suppose you love the sound of a Baldwin grand piano and find a Steinway to sound flat, lifeless and brittle in comparison. Your friend plays a recording of a Beethoven piano sonata in which you hear the glorious sound of a fine old Baldwin concert grand right there in the room, and you love it more every time you hear it. Is it an accurate recording of a Baldwin or an inaccurate recording of a Steinway? Could you know from hearing the reproduction without knowing which instrument was being played?

[mav52]

To me it boils down to the fact that I'm listening to music first of all, not to accuracy. I need accuracy in as technical drawing, not in an emotional experience.

 

bless you, well said... if I want technical, I would not have retired, heck I'd still be working. To me its all about the music and what I heard not a bunch of technical mumbo jumbo of how it got to my ears. Anyway a few glasses of a good whiskey can mess up any technical detail.

[mayhem13]

Ahh - but we often do know. After 25+ years of subscription concerts to a world-class symphony orchestra, I think we have a pretty good idea. After hearing Dave Brubeck or Tower of Power or Tony Bennett live many times over many years, we kinda know what to expect from each. For me, accuracy means rendering the colorations and other characteristics that make instruments, voices and ensembles recognizable, unique and distinct.

 

Sounding "live" is not the sole criterion for accuracy in sound reproduction. If the trumpet with the Harmon mute sounds like it's in your den with you but you can't tell whether it's Miles or Freddie Hubbard, it's not accurate.

 

Suppose you love the sound of a Baldwin grand piano and find a Steinway to sound flat, lifeless and brittle in comparison. Your friend plays a recording of a Beethoven piano sonata in which you hear the glorious sound of a fine old Baldwin concert grand right there in the room, and you love it more every time you hear it. Is it an accurate recording of a Baldwin or an inaccurate recording of a Steinway? Could you know from hearing the reproduction without knowing which instrument was being played?

 

Sorry Blue....I can't see where you're going with this. Each live performance is different from the next even where the same singer, accompanying musicians, etc. Heck, you can't even be sure a guitarist will use the same guitar or amp playing the same song. Accuracy simply doesn't apply to audio. Enjoy the music for what it is instead.

[4est]

Interesting that this discussion comes via a C-J pre amp as they were typically considered/leaned toward warm and tube-y, whereas their competition ARC was considered/leaned toward analytical and cold. Not to knock C-J or start a fight, but I do find this an interesting starting point nonetheless.

[bluesman]

Enjoy the music for what it is

 

I'm with you there! It's all about the music - and those who can't listen through (and despite) whatever equipment they have never truly enjoy it. I even enjoy listening to the music that wakes me through my clock radio.

 

But there are many players in every genre whose tone is recognizable through some combination of breathing / plucking / striking etc plus the instruments themselves. Players with distinctive tones abound, e.g. Paul Desmond, Coleman Hawkins, Jimmy Smith, Isaac Stern, etc. B B King sounds like BB on any guitar through any amp anywhere any time. Albert Collins didn't pick notes - he grabbed each string between thumb and index finger, pulled it away from the fretboard, and let it snap back for a sound that's unmistakable if reproduced reasonably (shudder...) accurately. The fact that his Fender Quad was cranked to 10 didn't seem to reduce the originality of his tone. And Miles remains a great example - the sound of his chops is unique to him, whether through the Martin horns he favored later in life or others he played before.

 

I've heard many highly touted systems through which each musician above was not so clearly who he was. If you listen to Freddie Hubbard's Autumn Leaves on the album Blues for Miles, it should be obvious from the tone that it's FH and not MD. But on many systems, the difference is not so obvious as it should be. I have no idea what's not being reproduced "accurately", but it's a real phenomenon that's more important to me than the barely audible differences that excite so many others.

 

People joked that when Arthur Rubenstein hit middle C on a piano, it sounded better than when others hit the same key.....and maybe it did.

[Brian A]

Interesting that this discussion comes via a C-J pre amp as they were typically considered/leaned toward warm and tube-y, whereas their competition ARC was considered/leaned toward analytical and cold. Not to knock C-J or start a fight, but I do find this an interesting starting point nonetheless.

Interesting. Borrowing the C-J is certainly an opportunity for me to hear "tube-y" pre-amp sound and was offered it for that reason. (Unfortunately, I got it home at 9:00 PM Friday night and left home at 5:00 AM Saturday, so have not yet listened to it. I am currently in New Orleans.)

 

A related curiously question ... Joe Curcio, who currently has my DH-110 (a solid-state pre-amp) and is upgrading it (polypro caps, re-bias, etc), is impressed with the DH-110 topology, saying it is in the league of Nelson Pass' early designs. What was Nelson Pass' sonic signature?

 

Regarding my OP, I think this notion of "plausibility" is an important one. Personally, I realize that all I want is "plausible" sound as Deutsch defines it and expect most other people do too. Deutsch also calls out it's subjective nature, which implies we all have our expectations about what an accurate system "should" sound like and alludes to us all having subjective beliefs about how close to perfect is possible.

[4est]

Brian: I am thinking you may like it as it should be a noticeable step up. Perhaps too tube-y, but it ought to have a palatable liquidity that you may not have had with the DH 110. I believe a good preamp is underrated, especially if you are using the phono section.

[elcorso]

Interesting that this discussion comes via a C-J pre amp as they were typically considered/leaned toward warm and tube-y, whereas their competition ARC was considered/leaned toward analytical and cold. Not to knock C-J or start a fight, but I do find this an interesting starting point nonetheless.

 

'New generation' C-J pre amps (like the ET-5 I own now) is not tube-y, but it preserves the 'wonderful' soundstage.

 

Since I owned one of the first vintage C-J VT-60 amp I know what are you talking about.

 

(This is not a fight at all)

 

Best,

 

Roch

[realhifi]

Interesting thread. CJ has it's own character there is no doubt but to simply put a "tubey" moniker on it would be missing the point of Conrad Johnson and the products that company has produced since the late seventies. The real claim to fame with CJ products was, and continues to be, the wonderful lifelike midrange that their products can impart to recordings. Voices, real live acoustic instruments and the like have an "in the room" presence that some find truly addictive. This "realness", if you will, also shows itself as a remarkably natural tonal character which again makes voices sound human, real and truly "live" which is remarkable once heard.

 

And as Forest has pointed out, the phono stage (if he is going to need one) is an under rated part of a preamplifier and here again, the CJ components shine beautifully.

 

I will be very curious to hear your thoughts and comments on the CJ preamp that your dealer has so generously lent you.

[Mihnea]

Accuracy simply doesn't apply to audio. Enjoy the music for what it is instead.

 

Well if that's so then what differentiates a $1,000 system from a $100,000? Not accuracy I take it from what you're saying.

[4est]

I hope it is understood that I didn't mean to disparage C-J in the least, but meant it to note that in "the earlier days" of their products, they were considered to have a signature.

[elcorso]

I hope it is understood that I didn't mean to disparage C-J in the least, but meant it to note that in "the earlier days" of their products, they were considered to have a signature.

 

Every audio product has a signature.

 

What I found now (as today) is:

 

C-J went for a more definition in the high treble and low bass range, preserving their incredible midrange and soundstage.

 

AR went for more liquid midrange and very good soundstage, preserving their incredible high treble and low bass definition.

 

Both products 'bettered' in some way. Then, they have an identical SQ? No, they still has a 'sonic signature'.

 

What I loved C-J in the 'color' of the earlier days (with the VT-60)? Since it will 'repair' with his sweetness the some times non so sweet 'digital sound'.

 

Why I didn't stay with the VT-60? Don't have the power to drive my speakers. I tried his big brothers (to the 200 watts/channel), but didn't has the "color" (liquidity).

 

Now I'm in VTL-SE 150 amp (in triode mode), that (to my ears) has what I want.

 

Roch

 

PS/ I'm sorry with the OP, but for me "accuracy" means emotion, and I need "emotion" from music to mimic what I feel when I listen to real life music playback.

[bluesman]

for me "accuracy" means emotion, and I need "emotion" from music to mimic what I feel when I listen to real life music playback.

 

Yes yes!! I don't think anyone's identified the metrics that measure this yet. It may be a combination of stuff like phase effect, linearity among inputs and outputs, intermodulation among recorded and reproduced tones, etc. Whatever it is, it affects subtleties like the vibrato in BB's tone, the hook in Nancy Wilson's voice (the cool one, not Heart's - although her voice is great too), the way Isaac Stern's tone soars through space, and the shimmer of a great old ride cymbal.

 

When listening to reproduced music, it's like Mick and Keith said: you can't always get what you want. But Lennon and McCartney gave us the bottom line - love is all you need.

[4est]

Every audio product has a signature.

 

PS/ I'm sorry with the OP, but for me "accuracy" means emotion, and I need "emotion" from music to mimic what I feel when I listen to real life music playback.

 

Agreed that every product has a signature, and spot on about the emotion. The conveyance of emotion seems to be one of the hardest parts to maintain, and yet the most important part to me.