My response to "Boycott the sub-forum"

[Albrecht]

36 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

If you want to focus on how a particular combo of components distorts the sound as compared to another lot, then indeed it is HARD. If however you focus on how close you are getting to the sound of recording then everything becomes a lot, lot easier ... so, how do you know what the "sound of the recording" is? Well, think of all the times you've heard it, and pick out the one which was "stunning", bowled you over - the "Gosh, I didn't know that was on the recording!" moment which made your day, and perhaps is a special memory ... THAT's the sound of the recording ... 😉.

Or if I'm listening to one that I actually made/produced/mixed myself   😀

Even the "best" recordings, (whatever that means), pale compared to a live event. Or, as you say, most of us don't know the intention. Plus, there can be as many as 4 to 5 variations & generations in what makes it to CD, or Digital file(s) to download etc.

Not sure where I'm going exactly with my reply, - I guess that I respectfully disagree & would say that the best system brings out the best in the recording (on average consistently), - to me. (and of course, I can't afford the best). I wouldn't buy Kharma Exquisites even if I could afford to, - when there's comparably priced real estate in the Cinque Terra.  🤣 

(And that might take me back to what I wrote before about endeavoring to be a "learning person" who learns about how things are supposed to sound by hearing them (instruments)  over and over, and/or hearing them live.

[StephenJK]

39 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Or if I'm listening to one that I actually made/produced/mixed myself   😀

Even the "best" recordings, (whatever that means), pale compared to a live event. Or, as you say, most of us don't know the intention. Plus, there can be as many as 4 to 5 variations & generations in what makes it to CD, or Digital file(s) to download etc.

Not sure where I'm going exactly with my reply, - I guess that I respectfully disagree & would say that the best system brings out the best in the recording (on average consistently), - to me. (and of course, I can't afford the best). I wouldn't buy Kharma Exquisites even if I could afford to, - when there's comparably priced real estate in the Cinque Terra.  🤣 

(And that might take me back to what I wrote before about endeavoring to be a "learning person" who learns about how things are supposed to sound by hearing them (instruments)  over and over, and/or hearing them live.

“Even the best recordings pale compared to a live event”.

 

I’m presuming that’s hyperbole, and meant for dramatic effect. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, SJK said:

“Even the best recordings pale compared to a live event”.

 

I’m presuming that’s hyperbole, and meant for dramatic effect. 

I’d say even the best recordings are a cartoon of the real event. I remember recording engineer Bill Schnee saying the same thing. 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Albrecht said:

Or if I'm listening to one that I actually made/produced/mixed myself   😀

Even the "best" recordings, (whatever that means), pale compared to a live event. Or, as you say, most of us don't know the intention. Plus, there can be as many as 4 to 5 variations & generations in what makes it to CD, or Digital file(s) to download etc.

Not sure where I'm going exactly with my reply, - I guess that I respectfully disagree & would say that the best system brings out the best in the recording (on average consistently), - to me. (and of course, I can't afford the best). I wouldn't buy Kharma Exquisites even if I could afford to, - when there's comparably priced real estate in the Cinque Terra.  🤣 

(And that might take me back to what I wrote before about endeavoring to be a "learning person" who learns about how things are supposed to sound by hearing them (instruments)  over and over, and/or hearing them live.

 

IME, you don't need to know what the intention was - what counts, for me, is that there is nothing in what I hear that makes me feel that I don't understand or connect with everything that is happening aurally, in the listening space. No matter how complex or dense the mix becomes, everything is still fully 'transparent' - which translates to, if the track is a single acoustic instrument being the only thing happening, then that comes across with as much impact as the the fullest sound mix - there is no "better", at either end of the 'complexity' spectrum.

 

A very early experience, decades ago on this journey, was going to a performance space, and hearing raw acoustic sound - and thinking, this is "not quite good enough"; I get greater emotional impact from some of the recordings at home, of similar music. Of course, this sense of things is highly dependent on where one is seated, the acoustics, all sorts of factors come into play - but the takeaway is that there is absolutely nothing stopping replay being as 'saturated' as the "real thing".

[STC]

If we want to move on then we should not be confined to statements made by recording engineers 30 or 40 years ago.  Recording of music is not science but more of an art. Taking the words as gospel truth doesn’t help to expand and explore. 
 

Sound is sound irrespective whether they are real ( whatever that means) or reproduced. They  behave the same way when reaching the ears. If you want the recording to sound like the real event then ensure the same cues are fed to the ears in reproduction. 
 

There are various research and experiments done by universities and top manufacturers where they transport you to the real event. I just they use VR glasses and conduct through blind tests and see if they listeners could differentiate the real and reproduced sound. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

23 minutes ago, STC said:

If we want to move on then we should not be confined to statements made by recording engineers 30 or 40 years ago.  Recording of music is not science but more of an art. Taking the words as gospel truth doesn’t help to expand and explore. 
 

Sound is sound irrespective whether they are real ( whatever that means) or reproduced. They  behave the same way when reaching the ears. If you want the recording to sound like the real event then ensure the same cues are fed to the ears in reproduction. 
 

There are various research and experiments done by universities and top manufacturers where they transport you to the real event. I just they use VR glasses and conduct through blind tests and see if they listeners could differentiate the real and reproduced sound. 

Bill still records the best in the business in Nashville. He told me this recently. 

[STC]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Bill still records the best in the business in Nashville. He told me this recently. 

In one of the 3D forum, Grammy winner recording engineer also said the same thing to me. End of the day, they have not explore beyond the two channel production and most ( with respect to Bill ) never experimented with different format.  I don’t think many here would have used the same speakers and amplifiers ( although unnecessary) for 5.1 and compared them with 2.0 using dedicated recording for each format like the samples from 2L. 
 

Real event is a multi directional sound event. Reality is when the sound reaches your ears is similar to the real event. It is physically impossible to expect live like performance from two or small number of the speakers phantom image and equating them to real event. A phantom image is a phantom image and the brain knows it unless you further trick the brain to believe it is real event. 

[STC]

And another person claiming to be a recording engineer having mastered over 4000 titles was claiming that stereo can extend beyond speakers and walls when done correctly. When I asked him to give one sample. He gave me two and both were made with effects to especially enlarge the sound stage. One of them was Take Out. Take out was not a real stereo recording. The other one was Firesign studio albums which is know for the soundfield effects in their recordings. 

[fas42]

5 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Real event is a multi directional sound event. Reality is when the sound reaches your ears is similar to the real event. It is physically impossible to expect live like performance from two or small number of the speakers phantom image and equating them to real event. A phantom image is a phantom image and the brain knows it unless you further trick the brain to believe it is real event. 

 

What's left out of the equation, here, is that the brain, at least for a percentage of individuals, can compensate for the "missing information" to that extent that it, the brain, refuses to let go of the illusion, no matter what you do "to shake it off" ... this is where the conjuring occurs - and it's magical for those who can make it happen ...

[Rexp]

2 hours ago, Albrecht said:

Or if I'm listening to one that I actually made/produced/mixed myself   😀

Even the "best" recordings, (whatever that means), pale compared to a live event. Or, as you say, most of us don't know the intention. Plus, there can be as many as 4 to 5 variations & generations in what makes it to CD, or Digital file(s) to download etc.

Not sure where I'm going exactly with my reply, - I guess that I respectfully disagree & would say that the best system brings out the best in the recording (on average consistently), - to me. (and of course, I can't afford the best). I wouldn't buy Kharma Exquisites even if I could afford to, - when there's comparably priced real estate in the Cinque Terra.  🤣 

(And that might take me back to what I wrote before about endeavoring to be a "learning person" who learns about how things are supposed to sound by hearing them (instruments)  over and over, and/or hearing them live.

Can you take this to the Frank-Fi sub forum. 

[sandyk]

20 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Can you take this to the Frank-Fi sub forum.

 

 It appears to be very little different, except that it is no longer in the General area of the forum. The same type of non Objective posts  as what supposedly caused the original problems , and not just from Frank.

[AudioDoctor]

All this talk about, recreating the live event has me chuckling...  Some of you set your speakers up with a laser measuring tape and you sit in the ideal spot, etc...  Has that ever happened at a live event?

 

Here is an example from my own experience. One of my favorite live events was seeing Kat Edmonson at The Dakota here in Minneapolis. It's a pretty small space and they get as many people in there as they can. I was sitting in the seat circled in red below. How should I recreate that live event when I play one of her albums? Does it need to be that specific album? Do I need to switch it up to play another album? Recreating the live event could get time consuming and really cut down on how much music I listen to...

 

edit: in this example, she was facing up.

 

 

[Rexp]

6 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

All this talk about, recreating the live event has me chuckling...  Some of you set your speakers up with a laser measuring tape and you sit in the ideal spot, etc...  Has that ever happened at a live event?

 

Here is an example from my own experience. One of my favorite live events was seeing Kat Edmonson at The Dakota here in Minneapolis. It's a pretty small space and they get as many people in there as they can. I was sitting in the seat circled in red below. How should I recreate that live event when I play one of her albums? Does it need to be that specific album? Do I need to switch it up to play another album? Recreating the live event could get time consuming and really cut down on how much music I listen to...

 

 

Hi-fidelity is about fidelity to the original recording. Of course you would have had to be in the mastering studio to know whether your reproduced version was close to the original. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

14 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 It appears to be very little different, except that it is no longer in the General area of the forum. The same type of non Objective posts  as what supposedly caused the original problems , and not just from Frank.

Huh?

[Rexp]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

Huh?

Maybe my joke doesnt translate

[AudioDoctor]

3 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Hi-fidelity is about fidelity to the original recording. Of course you would have had to be in the mastering studio to know whether your reproduced version was close to the original. 

 

Do I need to go to The Church Of The Holy Trinity in Toronto to listen to The Trinity Sessions album?

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Maybe my joke doesnt translate

I missed it, but I’m sure others got it 🙂

[AudioDoctor]

And heck, what's the proper method to listen to this recording?

 

 

[tmtomh]

7 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Great questions.

 

Addressing that in bold above: A belief in measurements is absolutely the simplest thing possible. If 1+1=2, my work is done here. I can't make a mistake, I don't have to evaluate anything with my own brain, someone else has decide for me, I can't be judged because I'm only going by the scientific facts, etc...

 

Using one's belief that measurements aren't everything (I don't want to sat they are meaningless), requires one to use their own judgement, opens themselves up to making a "mistake," and requires one live in a gray zone where the decisions come from within. 

 

Take the purchasing of a DAC for example. If one is only interested in the measured DAC specifications, the decision is downright simple. Get a Topping, or whatever the measurement of the month says is the "best." Done and done. Anyone comments on it, and the own can just point to 1+1=2, fold his arms, and give a self-satisfied sniff. If one wants to listen to all kinds of DACs, consider the system in which they'll be placed and consider his own tastes, then he is open to the wide world of anything goes. 

 

Again, I'm not making any assertions to be used at the next AES convention. I'm just going from a feeling I get from reading people's comments and understanding a little bit about human behavior. 

 

 

 

Would love to bring it to the Objective-Fi area and discuss it at length. Would be interesting.

 

Thanks for your reply, Chris. 

 

A belief in measurements is "absolutely the simplest thing possible" only if one agrees with your caricature of that belief as "1+1=2, my work is done here." It's the same thing you did in response to @Archimago's comment above - ignore and dismiss every bit of nuance in what he wrote, and instead say that his comment "reminds you of" people who like everything to be black and white - the most simplistic version of an objectivist that you can conjure.

 

This is straw-manning. No one gets to buy or audition infinite brands or models of equipment. Everyone uses heuristics to winnow down choices and make their decisions. So someone who believes in measurements might, for example, rule out certain pieces of equipment if they measure poorly. That still leaves a lot of other pieces of equipment that measure well. That person still would need to consider the build quality, features, aesthetics, price, and other factors - and that person still would need to listen to the equipment and decide if it was to their liking. The notion that an objectivist doesn't factor listening into their decision-making and pre- or post-purchase evaluation is fanciful. 

 

What a belief in measurements and technical aspects does help with, however, is precisely an understanding of what one might be hearing when one's components interact and one hears something that sounds off, or when one is looking to improve the sound of one's system and is trying to make a decision about what to swap out or upgrade. If the high end sounds grainy at times, is that because of the speaker tweeters, the digital source component, the DAC, the amplification, the interconnects, the power cord, the ethernet cable, or the room acoustics? The world of "anything goes" is not about being open to things. It's about willfully closing oneself off to some portion of the existing knowledge we have about how this stuff works.

 

Using technical knowledge and measurements does not enable us to come to an instant certainty about what's going on, but it does enable us to reasonably discern what factors are extremely unlikely to be relevant, and what factors are possible or highly likely to be relevant.

 

To be clear, I don't expect everyone else to agree with that - and I certainly don't expect others to use measurements to guide their journey if that's not what works for them. But I do object to the claim that those who do use measurements are not engaged in the journey and are not open and do not listen.

 

Virtually every objectivist here will readily volunteer that measurements cannot describe or predict 100% of what we hear - and you and every other subjectivist regularly uses measurements and technical knowledge to help shape your perceptions and guide your thinking. Many things go, yes - but as a matter of fact not everything goes.

 

Finally, objectivists do not have the franchise on the self-satisfied sniff. For every objectivist who tells someone that any DAC with xyz measurements will sound essentially the same, there is a subjectivist - or two, or three - who will tell someone that if they don't hear a difference between two bit-identical digital files, it's because their system isn't resolving enough or they haven't upgraded their power cords, or they're too close-minded to really, truly listen to the soundstage differences between different ethernet cables. These subjectivist responses are just as pat, tautological, and intellectually lazy as the objectivist positions that you are calling out.

 

There are simplistic, lazy thinkers on both sides, and nuanced thinkers on both sides.

 

 

[Rexp]

7 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

Do I need to go to The Church Of The Holy Trinity in Toronto to listen to The Trinity Sessions album?

All we can do is set up our systems to sound as close to real instruments/voices/bands as possible. 

[AudioDoctor]

Or do what I do and just enjoy listening to good music...

[The Computer Audiophile]

18 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

Thanks for your reply, Chris. 

 

A belief in measurements is "absolutely the simplest thing possible" only if one agrees with your caricature of that belief as "1+1=2, my work is done here." It's the same thing you did in response to @Archimago's comment above - ignore and dismiss every bit of nuance in what he wrote, and instead say that his comment "reminds you of" people who like everything to be black and white - the most simplistic version of an objectivist that you can conjure.

 

This is straw-manning. No one gets to buy or audition infinite brands or models of equipment. Everyone uses heuristics to winnow down choices and make their decisions. So someone who believes in measurements might, for example, rule out certain pieces of equipment if they measure poorly. That still leaves a lot of other pieces of equipment that measure well. That person still would need to consider the build quality, features, aesthetics, price, and other factors - and that person still would need to listen to the equipment and decide if it was to their liking. The notion that an objectivist doesn't factor listening into their decision-making and pre- or post-purchase evaluation is fanciful. 

 

What a belief in measurements and technical aspects does help with, however, is precisely an understanding of what one might be hearing when one's components interact and one hears something that sounds off, or when one is looking to improve the sound of one's system and is trying to make a decision about what to swap out or upgrade. If the high end sounds grainy at times, is that because of the speaker tweeters, the digital source component, the DAC, the amplification, the interconnects, the power cord, the ethernet cable, or the room acoustics? The world of "anything goes" is not about being open to things. It's about willfully closing oneself off to some portion of the existing knowledge we have about how this stuff works.

 

Using technical knowledge and measurements does not enable us to come to an instant certainty about what's going on, but it does enable us to reasonably discern what factors are extremely unlikely to be relevant, and what factors are possible or highly likely to be relevant.

 

To be clear, I don't expect everyone else to agree with that - and I certainly don't expect others to use measurements to guide their journey if that's not what works for them. But I do object to the claim that those who do use measurements are not engaged in the journey and are not open and do not listen.

 

Virtually every objectivist here will readily volunteer that measurements cannot describe or predict 100% of what we hear - and you and every other subjectivist regularly uses measurements and technical knowledge to help shape your perceptions and guide your thinking. Many things go, yes - but as a matter of fact not everything goes.

 

Finally, objectivists do not have the franchise on the self-satisfied sniff. For every objectivist who tells someone that any DAC with xyz measurements will sound essentially the same, there is a subjectivist - or two, or three - who will tell someone that if they don't hear a difference between two bit-identical digital files, it's because their system isn't resolving enough or they haven't upgraded their power cords, or they're too close-minded to really, truly listen to the soundstage differences between different ethernet cables. These subjectivist responses are just as pat, tautological, and intellectually lazy as the objectivist positions that you are calling out.

 

There are simplistic, lazy thinkers on both sides, and nuanced thinkers on both sides.

 

 

Love your last sentence. +100

[fas42]

37 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

All this talk about, recreating the live event has me chuckling...  Some of you set your speakers up with a laser measuring tape and you sit in the ideal spot, etc...  Has that ever happened at a live event?

 

Here is an example from my own experience. One of my favorite live events was seeing Kat Edmonson at The Dakota here in Minneapolis. It's a pretty small space and they get as many people in there as they can. I was sitting in the seat circled in red below. How should I recreate that live event when I play one of her albums? Does it need to be that specific album? Do I need to switch it up to play another album? Recreating the live event could get time consuming and really cut down on how much music I listen to...

 

 

 

And pointless. As we say downunder, "It's the vibe ..." 😁

 

Live sound creates an energy in the space ... and that's what you're after. You'll know when you've got it, with audio replay - because you couldn't care less where you are, within listening distance of the sound making. Which is the really good bit, because you can wander around your home, and it always sounds like the band's going for it, "just in the other room" ... you know, just the real thing, 😉.

[STC]

19 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

And heck, what's the proper method to listen to this recording?

 

 

Exactly! Whatever stage, depth, highs and lows created were one man’s (or a team) preference. What should the recording translate in your system is a performance that sounds like real instruments and venue that would make the recording to sound most realistic. 

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, STC said:

Exactly! Whatever stage, depth, highs and lows created were one man’s (or a team) preference. What should the recording translate in your system is a performance that sounds like real instruments and venue that would make the recording to sound most realistic. 

The best recordings are the simplest with nothing 'created' like the Trinity Session mentioned above, details:

https://www.soundonsound.com/people/cowboy-junkies-sweet-jane