The Environmental thread + Conventional (HI-FI) wisdom is almost always invariably wrong

[semente]

I've just come across this very interesting piece:

 

Conventional (HI-FI) wisdom is almost always invariably wrong

 

As I've nearly 30 years experience within the high end industry, I felt that it may be about time that I shared a few considerations, with any discerning person who may be interested, as no one else seems to be similarly inclined.

We should, after all, know where our beliefs come from, and if we think we have reasons for what we believe, that is often a mistake.

"FI" is the abbreviated form of the word "FIDELITY", ie. "HIFI" would indicate a steadfast devotion to music, or musical event in this case. A singular integrity, if you will.

"STEREO" has nothing at all to do with the number "2". "STEREO" actually means solid, or three dimensional, ie. a 3D soundstage in this context.

 

by Peter Djordjevic / Audio Freaks

 

http://www.audiophile.no/en/articles-tests-reviews/item/1396-conventional-hi-fi-wisdom-is-almost-always-invaryably-wrong

 

 

Here's a small taster:

 

Many like what they like because of certain "perceived" qualities, which they focus upon, without which they cannot do.

These perceived qualities, sadly, are most often different forms of DISTORTION; these thoughtless creations of habit are systematic human mistakes which are known as “cognitive biases”, which play havoc with our perceptions and abilities to accurately judge and observe.

A fifty foot tall vocalist, five metre wide violin, right in front of the listener's nose, and every single recording infused with a golden warmth, for example, cannot reasonably be regarded as realistic, nor laudable, even though the presentation may be very immediate and impressive.

When visitors listen to my demonstrations of low distortion, high energy systems at shows, a lot of the music played, does include a proper, realistic and low noise soundstage presented BEHIND the loudspeakers, and I am in no doubt that this is a foreign experience for most listeners

A more immediate and close presentation will SEEM to be clearer and detailed, and many will swear that it is, but, in fact,this is illusory.

Most people who listen to my demonstrations are so profoundly riddled with cognitive biases, that they are effectively unable to make any worthwhile observation nor judgement concerning what they’ve listened to.

It is very often something like showing a card trick to a dog.

The reaction is about the same.

[daverich4]

10 minutes ago, semente said:

Most people who listen to my demonstrations are so profoundly riddled with cognitive biases, that they are effectively unable to make any worthwhile observation nor judgement concerning what they’ve listened to.

 

 

In other words:

Most people who listen to my demonstrations are ignorant and so profoundly riddled with cognitive biases, that they are totally unable to recognize the awesome sound of the system I put together. 

[semente]

1 minute ago, daverich4 said:

 

In other words:

Most people who listen to my demonstrations are ignorant and so profoundly riddled with cognitive biases, that they are totally unable to recognize the awesome sound of the system I put together. 

 

Have you read the whole piece?

[daverich4]

7 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Have you read the whole piece?

 

No. Did he say something besides “People who don’t listen for the same things I do are wrong?”

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, daverich4 said:

 

No. Did he say something besides “People who don’t listen for the same things I do are wrong?”

 

I liked a few of his statements:

"Conventional people are roused to fury by departure from convention, largely because they regard such departure as a criticism of themselves."
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd."

"The truth is the truth, even in a minority of one."

[Melvin]

Thanks for sharing the article @semente .. very interesting indeed. I bet there are many residing in the lower echelon of hifi who would largely agree with his sentiments.

 

Quote

In this manner, ’manufacturers’ of a very mediocre quality product, achieve a very high visibility, reputation, and are often looked upon as a ‘reference’ to aspire to.ie. a cognitive, AND expectation bias are created. This means that when people experience these lauded products at hi-fi shows and dealers showrooms, the listener already EXPECTS the sound to be excellent, and how the product is resultantly perceived, has very little to do with how it actually performs. On the other hand, a wonderfully realistic sounding system comprised of generally unknown products, will most often be summarily dismissed without another cogent thought. This ‘conventional wisdom’ that is created in this profoundly execrable manner, results in a situation where ordinary, honourable people dare not even think of challenging this ‘status quo’, because it often ends up like David v Goliath. 

 

[Rt66indierock]

A serious critique of this is pointless since my friend Andy Quint won’t be reading it.

 

A good place to start is where are the amplifiers? 

[daverich4]

6 hours ago, semente said:

 

Have you read the whole piece?

 

I went ahead and took the time to read the article. To me it’s basically a rehash of Joanathan Valin’s sneering at what he calls the “As You Like It” audiophile. Oh, he gives them his permission to be like that as long as they realize their taste in audio reproduction is inferior to his. To each his own. 

[esldude]

When a system can present an orchestral recording in a faithful manner, it will no doubt also do a good job with all other kinds of music. However, if a recording is simply bad, this has to be audible too. Having bad recordings cosmetically tailored to sound palatable, is not the way forwards.

 

Actually, if you have music you enjoy and it is recorded badly, then a little tailoring is progress.  I agree this tailoring to taste should not be confused with superior fidelity, but adjustment for enjoyment is eminently reasonable.  Being overly hair-shirted in the purity of your musical pursuits can become an impediment for enjoyment in the end. 

 

 

There is an absolute, and that is the sound of real instruments playing in a real space, UNAMPLIFIED. 'The absolute sound', as it was coined long ago. This is being ignored by most so called experts, (hi-fi scribes for the most part) , who are effectively in the vanguard of a regression, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves. A symphony orchestra in a concert hall must be the most apt reference to use. One KNOWS how the instruments are placed with relation to one another, the distances, sizes etc, and it is fully possible to properly familiarise oneself with this experience by actually going to concerts.

 

So he shows us photos of a recording session which I think is from 2L.  Which do offer very high quality high fidelity recordings.  But mostly record as shown ringed around microphones in churches or cathedrals.  So do they sound like orchestra's in the concert hall or what they are over the author's superior fidelity system? Morton Lindberg has said in his MCH recordings he prefers to put the listener in the thick of the music.  Almost among it rather than at the end of a long hall at a distance.  To provide the listener a more immediate experience.  Sounds like the kind of thinking the author of the article doesn't like.  He also chooses orchestral recordings in smaller venues like churches so that you get a bit more immediate direct experience for his two channel recordings. 

 

I've not been to audio hifi shows.  I don't know if the sound he describes is the norm or not.  Mostly I've heard poor systems sound bright and flat without depth forward or backward.  It is also true a smiley faced FR curve can help 'enhance' that depth behind the speaker.  All this stuff is an illusion.  I most wholeheartedly agree with starting from a base of high fidelity, but from there whatever sounds good is fine.  Just don't confuse the two. 

 

 

 

 

[Kimo]

However, if a recording is simply bad, this has to be audible too. Having bad recordings cosmetically tailored to sound palatable, is not the way forwards.

 

So, if I put together a system that makes bad recordings sound a little better, it will not make good recordings sound better?

[bluesman]

10 minutes ago, Kimo said:

However, if a recording is simply bad, this has to be audible too. Having bad recordings cosmetically tailored to sound palatable, is not the way forwards.

 

It's the way forward if you're the one trying to sell it and have more concern for cash flow than reputation or doing the right thing.  Many mediocre (or worse) recordings have been brought to market for contractual, financial, or other business reasons after extensive sonic camouflage.  The most discerning and conscionable artists / studios / producers / vendors will simply refuse to issue bad recordings - but the rest will do their best to make things acceptable and let 'em go.

[semente]

1 hour ago, Kimo said:

However, if a recording is simply bad, this has to be audible too. Having bad recordings cosmetically tailored to sound palatable, is not the way forwards.

 

So, if I put together a system that makes bad recordings sound a little better, it will not make good recordings sound better?

 

Er, nope. 😉

[semente]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

I've not been to audio hifi shows.  I don't know if the sound he describes is the norm or not.

 

It was in those I've been to, which is why I stopped going.

[fas42]

Have not yet read a word of the posted article ... but are quite certain he's on the same wavelength as myself. Most audio people "don't get it" - the whole business went off the tracks badly ages ago, and that's one reason we have this current disaster of a recording industry - if you have no idea what good sound is, why should you bother recording to suit such?

[fas42]

3 hours ago, Kimo said:

However, if a recording is simply bad, this has to be audible too. Having bad recordings cosmetically tailored to sound palatable, is not the way forwards.

 

 

But I disagree here - it is remarkable how a superbly tuned setup can deliver the musical content in a satisfying manner from the most unlikely recordings - perserverence in doing it "the right way" does pay off ...

[gmgraves]

15 hours ago, semente said:

I've just come across this very interesting piece:

 

Conventional (HI-FI) wisdom is almost always invariably wrong

 

As I've nearly 30 years experience within the high end industry, I felt that it may be about time that I shared a few considerations, with any discerning person who may be interested, as no one else seems to be similarly inclined.

We should, after all, know where our beliefs come from, and if we think we have reasons for what we believe, that is often a mistake.

"FI" is the abbreviated form of the word "FIDELITY", ie. "HIFI" would indicate a steadfast devotion to music, or musical event in this case. A singular integrity, if you will.

"STEREO" has nothing at all to do with the number "2". "STEREO" actually means solid, or three dimensional, ie. a 3D soundstage in this context.

 

by Peter Djordjevic / Audio Freaks

 

http://www.audiophile.no/en/articles-tests-reviews/item/1396-conventional-hi-fi-wisdom-is-almost-always-invaryably-wrong

 

 

Here's a small taster:

 

Many like what they like because of certain "perceived" qualities, which they focus upon, without which they cannot do.

These perceived qualities, sadly, are most often different forms of DISTORTION; these thoughtless creations of habit are systematic human mistakes which are known as “cognitive biases”, which play havoc with our perceptions and abilities to accurately judge and observe.

A fifty foot tall vocalist, five metre wide violin, right in front of the listener's nose, and every single recording infused with a golden warmth, for example, cannot reasonably be regarded as realistic, nor laudable, even though the presentation may be very immediate and impressive.

When visitors listen to my demonstrations of low distortion, high energy systems at shows, a lot of the music played, does include a proper, realistic and low noise soundstage presented BEHIND the loudspeakers, and I am in no doubt that this is a foreign experience for most listeners

A more immediate and close presentation will SEEM to be clearer and detailed, and many will swear that it is, but, in fact,this is illusory.

Most people who listen to my demonstrations are so profoundly riddled with cognitive biases, that they are effectively unable to make any worthwhile observation nor judgement concerning what they’ve listened to.

It is very often something like showing a card trick to a dog.

The reaction is about the same.

The bottom line here is that there is only one audio “truth” in the world. A playback system (that includes the recording) either sounds like music playing in a real space (as opposed to playing inside of a recording console and its ancillary equipment) or it doesn’t. No system or the recordings played on it meets that criteria - no matter how expensive or how “state-of-the-art” that system might be!

[fas42]

To me the "audio truth" is what's on the recording - no matter what the mastering engineer had in his head at the time; and if the result shows cringingly bad choices - I'm thinking Amy Winehouse tracks here - what the source data says, is what you should hear.

 

If then one chooses to play with the data, via fancy DSP, etc - to change the presentation - that's now an entirely different scenario.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

To me the "audio truth" is what's on the recording - no matter what the mastering engineer had in his head at the time; and if the result shows cringingly bad choices - I'm thinking Amy Winehouse tracks here - what the source data says, is what you should hear.

Then, sir, you are wrong. The “truth” is real music played in a real space. Anything else is mere artifice. Real sounding recordings are very rare and extremely far between. The fact that you, or anybody else might like the artifice more than the real thing is neither here nor there. If one does not understand that High Fidelity means a high degree of faithfulness (or accuracy) to real music. Then the term is meaningless. 

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

If then one chooses to play with the data, via fancy DSP, etc - to change the presentation - that's now an entirely different scenario.

That depends on whether or not “changing the presentation” results in the perceived sound being more “accurate” to the original performance.

[Blackmorec]

In my experience soundstage and presentation characteristics are defined entirely by the recording. If a system presents all music in a certain way, as described in the article, I would not describe that system as being transparent, accurate or realistic.

 

 

[STC]

Soundstage in stereo depends on speakers placements. The width is subjective and arbitrary depending on the speakers spread. 

[semente]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

But I disagree here - it is remarkable how a superbly tuned setup can deliver the musical content in a satisfying manner from the most unlikely recordings - perserverence in doing it "the right way" does pay off ...

 

A higher-fi system will extract more information from a bad recording (sound wise) and this in itself may make it musically more satisfying to listen to but a bad recording is a bad recording no matter how you look at it (when compared to a good recording).

 

This image, taken from the web, compares the corner sharpness of 4 Canon lenses.

How can a "superbly tuned setup" improve on a bad recording such as what you get from the 17-40?

It just can't.

 

[PeterSt]

13 minutes ago, semente said:

How can a "superbly tuned setup" improve on a bad recording such as what you get from the 17-40?

It just can't.

 

It is infinitely more complicated than that;

If the sharpness is rendered, say, too slow, you will be bothered by distortion and all you don't want to hear. The 17-40 can not present this sharpness in the first place, so you can't be bothered by the "side effects" of that, which happens downstream (say a too slow speaker).

 

This is how audio does NOT perform to its weakest link in the chain; A weakest link can be a pleasant filter (yes, also a stuffed ears filter - again good in now way).

 

Of course it will be theoretically best if all links are at 100%, but the day that this will happen will never occur (in my view).

 

With this line of thinking, I work explicitly on these "links" for over 10 years by now. Solve the lens and meet the sensor. Solve the sensor and meet the noise reduction. Solve the noise reduction and meet the AA filter. Solve the AA filter and meet moiré (which you knew in advance). A process of 10 years and now we're stuck at the moiré thing.

... Which accidentally is total rubbish because in real practice I personally don't run into it at all. Maybe I know what to avoid inherently (could be the BS story of BS).

 

Yes, I was talking about audio, although the process counts for the DCS Pro 14 whatever and today evolves to the A7R III. I assume you know what I am talking about ...

 

I did not read the article. 

[accwai]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

It is infinitely more complicated than that;

If the sharpness is rendered, say, too slow, you will be bothered by distortion and all you don't want to hear. The 17-40 can not present this sharpness in the first place, so you can't be bothered by the "side effects" of that, which happens downstream

 

Oh yes, looks like there are a lot of unspoken subtitles behind the quoted lens comparison:

• There are 3 generations of 16-35/2.8L. Which generation is in the comparison is unspecified.
• The 17-40 photo says 16mm. I would assume it's 17?
• The 17-40 costs like 1/4 of the more expensive lenses. Who in their right mind would shoot it wide open at its widest focal length for real? Side question: Is this item good value or not?
• In fact, who in their right mind would shoot any of these lenses wide open in a real use case. The TS-E perhaps, but probably the longer ones.
• The 17-40 photo is different from the other three. Why? Is it a different framing or a different crop?
• The 17 TS-E photo is the same as the other remaining. This lens has much bigger image circle than everything else in the comparison. So the photo probably doesn't really show its corner performance as it isn't the real corner. What is the point?

Given the photos above, I personally don't understand the point of trying to fix them up with "superbly tuned" processing chain. They have far bigger problems then just being blurry. Seriously. In any case, these are taken from the web:

 

16-35/2.8L II:

 

 

17/4 TS-E:

 

 

45/2.8 TS-E @ f/3.2:

 

 

To my admittedly amateur eyes, all the above seem serviceable despite being pumped through multiple resizing stages "downstream" to fit on the sharing site. Expert opinions to the contrary would be greatly appreciated of course.

[PeterSt]

Of course people know what this is (apart from being a 100% crop, taken in candle light by hand, at 1.4 / ISO 320) ...

 

[semente]

30 minutes ago, accwai said:

 

Oh yes, looks like there are a lot of unspoken subtitles behind the quoted lens comparison:

• There are 3 generations of 16-35/2.8L. Which generation is in the comparison is unspecified.
• The 17-40 photo says 16mm. I would assume it's 17?
• The 17-40 costs like 1/4 of the more expensive lenses. Who in their right mind would shoot it wide open at its widest focal length for real? Side question: Is this item good value or not?
• In fact, who in their right mind would shoot any of these lenses wide open in a real use case. The TS-E perhaps, but probably the longer ones.
• The 17-40 photo is different from the other three. Why? Is it a different framing or a different crop?
• The 17 TS-E photo is the same as the other remaining. This lens has much bigger image circle than everything else in the comparison. So the photo probably doesn't really show its corner performance as it isn't the real corner. What is the point?

Given the photos above, I personally don't understand the point of trying to fix them up with "superbly tuned" processing chain. They have far bigger problems then just being blurry. Seriously. In any case, these are taken from the web:

 

16-35/2.8L II:

 

 

17/4 TS-E:

 

 

45/2.8 TS-E @ f/3.2:

 

 

To my admittedly amateur eyes, all the above seem serviceable despite being pumped through multiple resizing stages "downstream" to fit on the sharing site. Expert opinions to the contrary would be greatly appreciated of course.

 

I think that you are missing the point.

How much have you invested in your system and why?

Surely if you're content with "serviceable" then any Bose Wave system would do.

 

By the way, I tried to find a Holga vs. Canon/Nikon/etc comparision which would have been more fit for purpose but couldn't find one.

Can you imagine how much better/more enjoyable it would be to experience the singing of Billie Holiday or the playing of Rachmaninoff if they'd been recorded in stereo with the current equipment?