Where is Audio Truth ?

[justM]

.......thankfully there's varying recording techniques for the many different tastes of listeners. Clearly there are those that are fans of abstract or modern art while others enjoy impressionist or rennaisance. While I like a nice stout, others might prefer a classic American brew. It's the flavors of life that makes things interesting and for those willing to try new things, exciting. IMO, DSOTM does something that no other recording to date can do as well, and that is transverse the barrier between the physical recording and the emotional experience intended by the listener. Ground breaking in it's form. My wish is that recording engineers keep pushing the boundaries of conventional technique and continue ue to bring us fresh content.....not necessarily that of a live performance. While a great jazz recording that captures the sound of the lounge, there's always the vibe of west village club, clouded with smoke and resonating with the sound of the clanking of martini glasses and the hoots of the crowd......things you just can't get from a recording.....and forget about ever trying to capture the feel, sound, colors and stank of CBGB's on a record........not happening.

 

Amen to that. I personally think an audio system that draws you into the ambience of the recording instead of presenting it to you while you're sitting on the couch is the best one to have. The high end systems seem to be able to do that with a certain grace and easiness that sets them apart from the rest. Like the difference between an experienced artist and one the just got started

[mayhem13]

Thank heavens for that !

The last thing many people want these days is the choking smoke filled, wheezy atmosphere that some have to endure in order to hear a great performance.

 

Coltrane fans would likely disagree with you Alex.....but hey, Syndney is known in some circles as the 2nd jazz Mecca of the world........lol.

[sandyk]

We should be able to enjoy performances from top class artists, and still be able to clearly see the performers on stage WITHOUT risking a bad reaction from clouds of 2nd hand cigarette smoke !

Nobody but a smoker would think they have the god given right to make another human being feel like shit, and have them risk the possibility of a life threatening Asthma attack, in order for them to see a favourite artist perform.

Yes, I feel strongly about this, as when younger I have many times had a smoker sit on the seat next to me at a train station , blowing smoke in my direction without apology, causing me to wheeze and move away.

BTW, my 1st wife was a smoker, and many times I had to go for a drive late at night to find some open store that sold cigarettes. A woman out of cigarettes is one thing, but a woman fresh out of cigarettes during a certain cycle is far worse. (wink)

 

Good on Australia for bringing in some of the stricect cigarette packaging laws in the world !

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

What is the "Taste" of Truth ?

 

I'm not sure we are totally disagreeing but for me at least I want the recording process to be transparent to, and fully capture, the artist's performance. In turn the HiFi needs to be transparent to the recording and therefore faithful all the way through to the performance.

 

In general I don’t want the recording engineers creating anything, just capturing it. If the recording is in a small jaz club, that’s what it should sound like. If the artist is all over an electric guitar pushing his guitar amp into distortion, that’s what the recording should sound like. If someone makes a recording of Sarah Brightman or Jimmy Hendrix, it should sound like Sarah and Jimmy. I'm not sure where "taste" comes into this. You rely on the "taste" of the artist, not change it to suit your taste. If you don't like the artist's taste why would you buy their record?

 

Now I know this sounds all very arbitrary and people can do what ever pleases them so far as manipulating the sound. My only point is its not the truth, as in truth to the artist. So for me there is indeed only one truth. The possible exception here is when the artist and engineer collaborate *together* to change the final product. That is their combined artistic view but I don’t think the engineer should make this decision unilaterally. If its their combined intention is to put a ton of reverb or dial up the bass, or dare I say add compression, so be it. I don’t have to buy the product.

 

Really what I am saying is that if Coltrane was recorded in a jazz club decades ago my greatest desire would be to hear just that, Coltrane playing in the Jazz club, just as it was, no more, no less. Not someone else's flavour in rendering the sound to his or her "taste". All just my personal preference and each to their own, of course.

[justM]

What is the "Taste" of Truth ?

 

I'm not sure we are totally disagreeing but for me at least I want the recording process to be transparent to, and fully capture, the artist's performance. In turn the HiFi needs to be transparent to the recording and therefore faithful all the way through to the performance.

 

In general I don’t want the recording engineers creating anything, just capturing it. If the recording is in a small jaz club, that’s what it should sound like. If the artist is all over an electric guitar pushing his guitar amp into distortion, that’s what the recording should sound like. If someone makes a recording of Sarah Brightman or Jimmy Hendrix, it should sound like Sarah and Jimmy. I'm not sure where "taste" comes into this. You rely on the "taste" of the artist, not change it to suit your taste. If you don't like the artist's taste why would you buy their record?

 

Now I know this sounds all very arbitrary and people can do what ever pleases them so far as manipulating the sound. My only point is its not the truth, as in truth to the artist. So for me there is indeed only one truth. The possible exception here is when the artist and engineer collaborate *together* to change the final product. That is their combined artistic view but I don’t think the engineer should make this decision unilaterally. If its their combined intention is to put a ton of reverb or dial up the bass, or dare I say add compression, so be it. I don’t have to buy the product.

 

Really what I am saying is that if Coltrane was recorded in a jazz club decades ago my greatest desire would be to hear just that, Coltrane playing in the Jazz club, just as it was, no more, no less. Not someone else's flavour in rendering the sound to his or her "taste". All just my personal preference and each to their own, of course.

 

I surely wont disagree with such a statement. What comes in must come out in whatever form this may be. But how do you measure your ears/system to calibrate this to the truth. Not many people are able to record properly and mix properly to play it back on a proper system. Many of us have to rely on reviews and our own ability to judge a system with recordings we don't know how the source truly sound like.

I am just interested in other people's findings in their search for this truth, whatever this may be. But to understand these findings, one must understand the definition of the truth this person is out to find.

[Paul R]

In suspect I am far towards the other end of this- I consider each record a performance and try to enjoy it for what it is. It just happens to be a performance I can enjoy over and over...

 

Seriously, you cut yourself out of enjoying a whole lot of music if your only truth is a recording of an acoustic performance. Not that I do not enjoy those immensely, but- I can also enjoy albums like Rumors, which had every little performance recorded separately and an engineer stitched it together- just the way the artists wanted it to be put together.

 

It's like comparing apples and oranges - both can be good or bad, just in different ways. One goes down better cooked, the other might be appreciated better in its natural state. No?

 

 

I surely wont disagree with such a statement. What comes in must come out in whatever form this may be. But how do you measure your ears/system to calibrate this to the truth. Not many people are able to record properly and mix properly to play it back on a proper system. Many of us have to rely on reviews and our own ability to judge a system with recordings we don't know how the source truly sound like.

I am just interested in other people's findings in their search for this truth, whatever this may be. But to understand these findings, one must understand the definition of the truth this person is out to find.

[bdiament]

Hi Alex,

 

Thank heavens for that !

The last thing many people want these days is the choking smoke filled, wheezy atmosphere that some have to endure in order to hear a great performance.

 

Not to mention the weaponized sound created by the "sound man" and his "interpretation" of how the music should be presented. (At the opposite end, I recall a recent adventure where a beautiful, sensitive ballad from the stage was swamped in reverb, making what should have been intimate into a sound from outer space!)

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[bdiament]

Hi justM,

 

...Non the less I have no experience in audio production or studio work and I would be curious to know if the playback chain of studio A is producing the same result as the playback system of studio B. I don't think I would like it if there is only one truth that always has to sound the same, I prefer to think that there are many answers for the same question.

 

If the playback system is indeed telling the truth, you will hear the sound of the recording. If always the truth, always the sound of the recording, unchanged. This is a separate issue from individual listener taste and how said listener might want to vary the "color" of what they hear. Essentially though, if you've got curly red hair and green eyes, any photo that is truthful will show the same curly red hair and green eyes. Someone might *like* a picture with curly blonde hair and blue eyes (and if that pleases them, it is fine) but it would no longer be the truth.

 

In my experience in different studios, most have monitoring I would think it fair to call abysmal -- essentially car speakers but capable of playing loud enough to harm the listener. Studio A and studio B sound quite different from each other but have many characteristics in common, including what I said above. There are variations in the rooms themselves, of course but there are common trends because many studio designers imitate what they see in other studios.

 

The trend for decades has been a combination of large speakers, attempting to combine the wildly different characteristics of a large, reflex loaded woofer with a horn loaded tweeter, placed in corners(!) where every mode the control room has will be sure to be stimulated. These are accompanied by small, somewhat dynamically constipated, bass deficient speakers placed on the meter bridge of the console, where the reflection from the top surface will guarantee a midrange dip at the engineer's ears. In recent years, the larger speakers have been replaced with some other designs and moved to floor standing positions, directly in front of the control room window. In sum, I have never yet heard a studio monitoring setup that sounded even remotely like what occurs on the other side of the glass, where the players are. Lastly, these are all too often played at a level that is far past causing hearing damage and in the region of damaging internal organs! (Talk about weaponized sound!) There are a (very) few exceptions but unfortunately, that is exactly what they are: exceptions, not the rule.

 

When I'm working in an outside studio, my prime criterion for choosing the place is the monitoring. It always has been. My feeling is, if you can't hear what you're doing, nothing else matters.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[bdiament]

Hi David,

 

...Really what I am saying is that if Coltrane was recorded in a jazz club decades ago my greatest desire would be to hear just that, Coltrane playing in the Jazz club, just as it was, no more, no less. Not someone else's flavour in rendering the sound to his or her "taste". All just my personal preference and each to their own, of course.

 

As one who has a very deep appreciation of John Coltrane's music, oh how I wish there was a recording *somewhere* that sounds convincingly like John Coltrane, as I might have heard him if I was lucky enough to have been present at a performance. What I have instead -- even in the club recordings -- is the sound of a "clogged" ear (with a skewed response), placed virtually in the bell of the horn, where certain aspects of the sound simply will not exist, and dynamically altered to the point where it might as well have been captured over a telephone.

 

The accompanying instruments feature a piano where certain notes are always louder than others, the hammers are exaggerated and the "wood" missing, and the instrument swings forward for solos, as if on a trapeze. There is a bass without an "bottom" and I still can't figure out how Elvin Jones (granted, an extraordinarily strong drummer) made his drums sound overloaded and clipped to the live audience. ;-}

For wanton massacring of the sound of those geniuses, I'd have sent that engineer to Jazz Jail!

 

For me, these are perfect examples of how we all too often have to listen past what the engineer did, to salvage what we can from what remains of the music.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[Robert Hutton]

Hi David,

 

 

 

As one who has a very deep appreciation of John Coltrane's music, oh how I wish there was a recording *somewhere* that sounds convincingly like John Coltrane, as I might have heard him if I was lucky enough to have been present at a performance. What I have instead -- even in the club recordings -- is the sound of a "clogged" ear (with a skewed response), placed virtually in the bell of the horn, where certain aspects of the sound simply will not exist, and dynamically altered to the point where it might as well have been captured over a telephone.

 

The accompanying instruments feature a piano where certain notes are always louder than others, the hammers are exaggerated and the "wood" missing, and the instrument swings forward for solos, as if on a trapeze. There is a bass without an "bottom" and I still can't figure out how Elvin Jones (granted, an extraordinarily strong drummer) made his drums sound overloaded and clipped to the live audience. ;-}

For wanton massacring of the sound of those geniuses, I'd have sent that engineer to Jazz Jail!

 

For me, these are perfect examples of how we all too often have to listen past what the engineer did, to salvage what we can from what remains of the music.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

 

How would anyone know what he sounded like live if they were not there, now over 50 years ago?

 

I would think the closest representation of Coltrane's likely 'sound' is actually on the MOFI Columbia reissues - big, warm, metallic sound rich in overtones, with a cutting edge where even the transients have loads of harmonics on the edges.

[bdiament]

Hi Robert,

 

How would anyone know what he sounded like live if they were not there, now over 50 years ago?

 

I would think the closest representation of Coltrane's likely 'sound' is actually on the MOFI Columbia reissues - big, warm, metallic sound rich in overtones, with a cutting edge where even the transients have loads of harmonics on the edges.

 

What we can know for sure is how he did *not* sound -- or for that matter, how any given instrument with which we have any familiarity, will *not* sound.

(For example, I've never heard drums --or any other instrument-- clipping in real life. I hear a lot of live saxophone and there are characteristics common to all of them that are simply not present on any Coltrane recording I've heard, though some are clearly better than others.)

 

I'm aware of his work with Miles on Columbia but I didn't know Coltrane did any albums for that label. Sounds like there might be some more music for me to discover. Can you name the album(s)?

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[mav52]

Hi Robert,

 

 

 

What we can know for sure is how he did *not* sound -- or for that matter, how any given instrument with which we have any familiarity, will *not* sound.

(For example, I've never heard drums --or any other instrument-- clipping in real life. I hear a lot of live saxophone and there are characteristics common to all of them that are simply not present on any Coltrane recording I've heard, though some are clearly better than others.)

 

I'm aware of his work with Miles on Columbia but I didn't know Coltrane did any albums for that label. Sounds like there might be some more music for me to discover. Can you name the album(s)?

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

 

October 26, 1955 to March 21, but this release was done in 2000 "The Complete Columbia Recordings of Miles Davis with John Coltrane" and the only time Coltrane was recorded by Columbia was when he accompanied Miles Davis.

[bdiament]

Hi mav52,

 

October 26, 1955 to March 21, but this release was done in 2000 "The Complete Columbia Recordings of Miles Davis with John Coltrane" and the only time Coltrane was recorded by Columbia was when he accompanied Miles Davis.

 

Thank you, yes. I'm aware of (and have in my library) Coltrane's work with Miles. That is the only work of his on Columbia of which I'm aware.

I probably have --and love-- all the Miles albums on which Coltrane played.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[Paul R]

Hey - it won't be long before it will computer to brain for our music - no speakers, no headphones, perhaps even no DAC required.

 

Scientist controls colleague's hand in first human brain-to-brain interface | Cutting Edge - CNET News

 

-Paul

[justM]

In suspect I am far towards the other end of this- I consider each record a performance and try to enjoy it for what it is. It just happens to be a performance I can enjoy over and over...

 

Seriously, you cut yourself out of enjoying a whole lot of music if your only truth is a recording of an acoustic performance. Not that I do not enjoy those immensely, but- I can also enjoy albums like Rumors, which had every little performance recorded separately and an engineer stitched it together- just the way the artists wanted it to be put together.

 

It's like comparing apples and oranges - both can be good or bad, just in different ways. One goes down better cooked, the other might be appreciated better in its natural state. No?

 

I think we have a miscommunication here. I meant what goes into a recording must also come out. Even if this artistically has been altered. Hence the phrase, in whatever form this may be.

 

I am with you that the experience you have when listening to music is as true as it can get, even if the playback chain isn't. But this is something that is not measurable and should be treated as a variable in the search for the true answer. Or the answer could be that everyone of us is seeking a different answer they call true.

[justM]

If the playback system is indeed telling the truth, you will hear the sound of the recording. If always the truth, always the sound of the recording, unchanged. This is a separate issue from individual listener taste and how said listener might want to vary the "color" of what they hear. Essentially though, if you've got curly red hair and green eyes, any photo that is truthful will show the same curly red hair and green eyes. Someone might *like* a picture with curly blonde hair and blue eyes (and if that pleases them, it is fine) but it would no longer be the truth.

 

A picture taken with different camera's and printed with different printers will most likely give different results. But the image industry has a color standard system and measuring an calibration tools to eliminate the differences in the production and reproduction chain as much as possible. Is there such a thing in the audio industry as well? System specs make it look like this, but what can you do with such information.

[bdiament]

Hi Paul,

 

In suspect I am far towards the other end of this- I consider each record a performance and try to enjoy it for what it is. It just happens to be a performance I can enjoy over and over...

 

Seriously, you cut yourself out of enjoying a whole lot of music if your only truth is a recording of an acoustic performance. Not that I do not enjoy those immensely, but- I can also enjoy albums like Rumors, which had every little performance recorded separately and an engineer stitched it together- just the way the artists wanted it to be put together.

 

It's like comparing apples and oranges - both can be good or bad, just in different ways. One goes down better cooked, the other might be appreciated better in its natural state. No?

 

Indeed, most of the records we've come to love over the years "had every little performance recorded separately and an engineer stitched it together". "Rumors" is typical, not unique.

 

I agree with the gist of your comments. If we limit ourselves to purist recordings, we'll have to be happy with a dozen albums instead of thousands of them. There is just way too much good music to allow poor recording techniques (or even simply non-real recording techniques) to get in the way. (However, I often wonder why so many of the records I love so much sound so dern bad.)

 

That said, I would emphasize that with proper microphone techniques and some care, it is *absolutely* possible to create a recording where multiple performances are "stitched together" and even synthetic instruments are employed, yet still create a result that allows for suspension of disbelief in a much more effective way than most of what we have come to know.

 

And *that* said, the above only applies if the goal is to allow for suspension of disbelief. Sometimes the goal is something else. Different paths with very different results -- each legitimate in its own way as it brings its own rewards.

 

Lastly, my experience has taught me that sometimes the goal is not even so clear cut. A lot of folks might opt for greater suspension of disbelief but from my perspective, they just don't know how to achieve it because they never learned how. I find the combination of real stereo recording and some of what can be done nowadays with recording technology to be fascinating. (A good friend who owns his own studio has been employing such techniques for the past several years and has created what are to my ears, some pretty good sounding albums. A small, home studio creating results most of the >$300/hr joints haven't yet matched. At CD resolution, reggae fans will find one example here.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[bdiament]

Hi justM,

 

A picture taken with different camera's and printed with different printers will most likely give different results. But the image industry has a color standard system and measuring an calibration tools to eliminate the differences in the production and reproduction chain as much as possible. Is there such a thing in the audio industry as well? System specs make it look like this, but what can you do with such information.

 

I think that is an excellent question! And a superb idea!

Alas, the only thing I know of at this time, which is still to be widely adopted, is the move for standardization in level (where a certain real life sound pressure level, i.e., volume, is represented by a certain reading on the meters).

 

As we know, most of the industry has been competing over the past decade or two, to see who can make records louder than all others. (I am reminded of the words of the poet Paul Haines: "Better a lot, of what's wrong, than a little, of what's right.") Standardization of level practices and (dare we hope?) provision for musical dynamics would mean competition would have to be in terms of Quality instead of quantity. Clearly, it is easier to achieve the latter.

 

Still, the idea of level standards is a beginning. I know of no other standards for other aspects of sound or the gear used to record or play it -- at least none that I would consider meaningful. Distortion and frequency response specs are good at finding flaws but not so good, in my view, for identifying sonic assets. In other words, 0.000001 percent harmonic distortion and dead flat frequency response are no guarantee the results won't still sound bad.

 

Right now, despite the fact that it gets some folks knickers in quite a twist (all of them folks not involved in record making), the sensibilities of the studio designer, the producer and the engineer are all we've got. Seeing Keith Johnson's name on a recording tells me infinitely more about what it contains than any book of specifications or list of gear might.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[Robert Hutton]

Hi Robert,

 

 

 

What we can know for sure is how he did *not* sound -- or for that matter, how any given instrument with which we have any familiarity, will *not* sound.

(For example, I've never heard drums --or any other instrument-- clipping in real life. I hear a lot of live saxophone and there are characteristics common to all of them that are simply not present on any Coltrane recording I've heard, though some are clearly better than others.)

 

I'm aware of his work with Miles on Columbia but I didn't know Coltrane did any albums for that label. Sounds like there might be some more music for me to discover. Can you name the album(s)?

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

 

I was referring to the Miles Davis titles on MOFI - particularly Round About Midnight and Milestones - come very close to what he probably sounded like. But only the MOFIs.

 

Another that comes very close is the live Amsterdam recordings with Miles.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

I am with you that the experience you have when listening to music is as true as it can get, even if the playback chain isn't. But this is something that is not measurable and should be treated as a variable in the search for the true answer. Or the answer could be that everyone of us is seeking a different answer they call true.

 

Hi justM,

Barry has answered this and the later related question of calibration of musical recording instruments and playback systems. The lack of such measurements strikes a 'chord' here for this entire thread. We simply can not accurately measure either the perceptual experience that is music nor any surrogate values of the physical stimulus that can be relied upon to quantitate the musical experience. If we could it would address a few burning issues including the whole so-called "subjectivist vs objectivist" debate which in truth should be the 'my subjectivist vs your subjectivist' debate (as each is subjective in its own way).

 

As a enthusiast photographer I calibrate my monitor, paper and printer and shoot in raw ,use gray cards in the scene (sometimes). So in terms of colour I can get fairly close to 'reality/truth'. There is still are issues with dynamics and ironically the whole "HDR" photographic approach has ,for the most part instead of making more dynamically realistic looking, moved to photos looking far removed from reality, a kind of pretty surrealistic view. There are also issues with differing lens fields of view and distortions compared to the human eye and of course 2D vs 3D representations. Ironically, although we have greater calibration for some of these things, in photography they are far *less* important to me than music. I like my photo art not to be literal but more figurative, a representation of reality and use lens perspectives, light, and post processing to this effect. I might start with true colour but don't have to end with it eg I use a lot of monochrome (B&W).

 

In photography of humans or nature the "artist" is the photographer (leaving aside religious discussions of who the creator was).If you want to see the photographers 'vision' of his art you can calibrate your monitor or printer (or buy a hard copy directly).The photographer can produce a sepia colour cast over the photo if that is his desire and it wouldn't be "truthful" if your screen produced a pink colour cast.

 

So whether in photography or music the "truth" for me is whatever the artist intended. If you can not capture that in a recording or reproduce it on your HIFi it is not the (artist's) truth. For calibration of the musical chain we have to rely on the artists, engineers, and equipment manufacturer's **ears** and in turn, our own ears. All horribly or wonderfully subjective depending on your POV. You calibrate your own ears by listening to live music in real spaces and by *training*, learning to hone your perceptual skills to *recognize* in a true neurological discriminatory sense to discern difference. No, we have no exact idea how Coltrane sounded if you weren't there but we have heard plenty of similar instruments in similar places that at least should form a basis of what it should sound like. As Barry so aptly said (he is making a habit of apt sayings) we know what it *shouldn't* sound like. Most of us I believe should be able to do this even if we dont understand the technical flaws of how it sounds wrong (too much compression, whatever).It just sounds wrong.

 

What I fundamentally have a problem with is "Or the answer could be that everyone of us is seeking a different answer they call true." or because its not "measurable [it] should be treated as a variable in the search for the true answer". In my scheme there is only one musical truth and therefore you can only hope to get closer to it. If your prefer something else it is just that, a preference, go with it. Two points of qualification. Your preference whilst not "the truth" may be respected as "your truth" and indeed your ear may even have a different interpretation of what the actual truth is compared to mine. The only person/s for me who could settle this would be the artist, so invite Coltrane back to the living and into your living room to adjudicate (quite a party night !). Secondly, as you said what ever goes into the recording must come out. If the artist uses synthesisers, reverb, compression, sticks the mic inside the singer's throat etc,…. that *is* the truth. So there are multiple "versions" of the truth, as many as there are artists, to suit everyone's taste but still only one truth ( a paradox perhaps but as someone said, a paradox is just the truth standing on it's head to attract attention to itself) . I want my HiFi to play that truth, warts and all, and that's the truth I want to be able to hear/perceive in my brain. If I don't like it I will change records (CD's,Files) *not* the dials. For what its worth I also tend to modify the room acoustics rather than digitally alter for convolution (if that is the right term). I once /designed built my own listening room (with help)...ahhh, those were the days !

 

Cheers

David

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

PS Hi JustM, having re-read what you said I suspect we are saying much the same thing ?....not that anyone has to agree with my viewpoint but sorry for any confusion.

 

I should also add that I fully get the point, kinda paraphrasing Barry, that sticking a mic down a singers throat may be the truth of the artists vison but is not the truth of how it would sound if you were there,sitting in the room listening live. The latter for me is the goal most times but I accept that the creative process and artistic license can change that. As Barry says it depends on your goal

[Jud]

That said, I would emphasize that with proper microphone techniques and some care, it is *absolutely* possible to create a recording where multiple performances are "stitched together" and even synthetic instruments are employed, yet still create a result that allows for suspension of disbelief in a much more effective way than most of what we have come to know.

 

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

 

Might not be the type of thing you were thinking of, Barry, but something those words bring to mind for me is what George Martin & son did with The Beatles' "Love."

[rennq]

We simply can not accurately measure either the perceptual experience that is music nor any surrogate values of the physical stimulus that can be relied upon to quantitate the musical experience. If we could it would address a few burning issues including the whole so-called "subjectivist vs objectivist" debate which in truth should be the 'my subjectivist vs your subjectivist' debate (as each is subjective in its own way).

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Thanks Rennq, very enjoyable.

 

Regarding colour, earlier in this thread I had an interesting exchange with Snowmonkey. Basically about colour not being an inherent property of most of the things we look at, typically white light either being absorbed, transmitted or reflected in such a way to select and pass on only certain wavelengths (incandescent objects an exception). As this video points out and also previously mentioned in this thread colour, whatever the origin of the light waves, is a creation of the mind, a perception. Same applies to sound and music. Although obviously linked, the physical stimulus is not the same thing as the perception. Some find this disconnect disconcerting especially if trying to connect the dots between measuring an audio signal and assuming a 1:1 musical perceptual experience.

 

The video goes on to point out a kind of epistemological truism, nobody can climb into someone else's consciousness and experience their perceptions. Red or middle C could be wildly differently perceived by different people and so long as we use the same taxonomy and label it the same, we both call the same stimulus red, no-one is the wiser, we all *recognize* the same thing as "red". Then you factor in that we can all bring different components to the 'assembly line' inside the brain from which we create perception and now all bets are off regarding experiencing the same thing. Having said all that I do believe however we share very common perceptions for the most part. We all mostly agree that certain colour combinations 'work' or are pleasing from which one can infer more than just a coincidence of semantic labelling going on. The same applies to musical note combinations and complex sequencing of notes into melodies we all (mostly) seem to respond to in a similar fashion and with similar emotions.

 

So as I see it (pun, grin) when comparing musical experiences between brains we can continue to seek a reliable metric such as a parameter of the physical stimulus or physiological correlate ( eg brain waves). We can also use a standard taxonomy that labels subtle musical qualities defining difference in a particular way. Turn up treble, sounds more "airy", down treble more "shut in." For the purposes of detecting *differences* , like between cables, I think this would work fine *provided* a satisfactory methodology could be arranged (see Audio Elf and Jud's stuff in this thread.).

[justM]

PS Hi JustM, having re-read what you said I suspect we are saying much the same thing ?....not that anyone has to agree with my viewpoint but sorry for any confusion.

 

I should also add that I fully get the point, kinda paraphrasing Barry, that sticking a mic down a singers throat may be the truth of the artists vison but is not the truth of how it would sound if you were there,sitting in the room listening live. The latter for me is the goal most times but I accept that the creative process and artistic license can change that. As Barry says it depends on your goal

 

Hi David,

 

 

I think you are right in having a problem with "Or the answer could be that everyone of us is seeking a different answer they call true." I think it is not wel formulated. I think we do agree on most aspect in finding the truth and how to judge this but that the argument is more about the use of words.

Since I am late in joining this thread I am still trying to figure out what it is all about. If I can rephrase my sentence I would say " That there are many factors in finding the answers for the audio truth" , and in answers I mean work flow like you described in training your ears, picking the right recordings, acoustic treatments in your room etc.

 

My illusion with this thread is that you started it to discuss a workflow in finding this truth going through physical and non physical elements that creates the whole experience towards and answer (I assume) that is already widely accepted as the truth. " a recording should match the performance of the artist's and his/her artistic intentions, and a hifi system should present this recording in a transparent way matching the original performance.

 

 

This is just my thought process for joining this thread and finding the answers for myself. But I could be missing the point here.