Article: Realism vs Accuracy For Audiophiles | Part 2: The Real Sounds Of Live Music

[CG]

Unbelievably great!

 

Some of this I sorta intuited along the way, as my wife (the music school grad) kept insisting that most audiophile dogma was from one particular observation point only.  It's simply stupendous to see this all explained so eloquently and in one place.

 

Side story number 1:  Said wife and I were once at a high priced audio store listening to some gear and loudspeakers that we quickly found were not to our, ahhh, "taste."  But, the store owner kept insisting that with this loudspeaker, these cables, this amplifier, and so on, you could tell that the piano was a Blatzenfraster 1050 from the year 1965.  Or, whatever.  My wife finally had enough and let him have it.  She said that there was no way to tell that, unless it was written in the album liner notes.  She must've referred to the droppings from a male cow a half dozen times, then walked out.  She expected me to follow.  We never returned to that store. 

 

Side story number 2:  It occurred to me today that a lot of people may just be attracted to the exaggerated.  Whether it's detail or dynamics.  (You know - "feeling the kick drum".)  Anyway, I got thinking about video.  I wonder what the percentage is of people who have the color and contrast controls on their TV sets turned to 11 so that everything is more everything than it could possibly be?  I bet it's very, very high.  This is with video, where our memories are better and you can actually do real time side-by-side comparisons, too.  Audio just has to be worse.

 

BTW, is this a 13 or 26 episode season?  I hope Chris is a paying you a LOT...

[CG]

Yeah.  Between that and the wretched, easily predictable plots, I don't even bother to watch.  Too bad, too.

 

It's funny...  With HD video at home, it's stunning how great older black and white movies look.  (Much as how great black and white photography often is.)  I wonder why that is.  The mono sound also is more real, even though the frequency response is sub-optimal and the distortion and noise are certainly obvious.

 

I'm finding that more and more, I prefer to watch older stuff from before I was born and to listen to music from then, too.  Listening to Alan Lomax recordings can be very engrossing.  It's not just the material or the quaintness of it, either.  Listening to Vince Giordano and the Nighthawks gives me the same response.

 

Probably just a failing brain.

[CG]

46 minutes ago, bluesman said:

This is especially true for those who stop tweaking and changing components every time they read or her about something "better".  I strongly recommend having at least one system that you do not change at all for a year at a time, for a consistent perspective on your listening.

 

This is a real challenge.

 

I pretty much build all my own electronics - DAC excepted - so I can take a more incremental approach to system evolution.  Hobbyists who rely on buying gear really are pretty much thrown into a chaotic adventure with random results.  It used to be that having a knowledgeable dealer could really help with that problem, but that's not so accessible for most folks today.

 

In addition, I know a lot of guys who just want something radically different from what they were listening to last week or last month.  That's a whole separate thing.  But, it's a hobby!

[CG]

3 minutes ago, bluesman said:

If I did that, I couldn't watch TV 🤪

 

I was specifically referring to movies, but I feel your pain...

[CG]

"If the phase relationships of the fundamental and harmonics are altered, everything from perceived pitch to timbre can change.  This is true whether the changes stem from construction of the instrument or from distortion in recording and/or playback. "

 

Hmmm...  This suggests then that only loudspeakers with first order crossover networks have a chance to get it right.  (There may be other way more sophisticated solutions, too...)

 

And, associated with that, the associated loudspeaker drivers must also be operated in the frequency range where they don't break up much and affect the relative time coherence of the signals across that range.

 

Tall order!

 

Based on the relative small percentage of loudspeakers available on the market that approach that, it may be that many people either aren't sensitive to this, or just don't care.  They may have other sonic priorities.  

[CG]

13 minutes ago, bluesman said:

And the costly perpetual search for better SQ is ample evidence to me that people do care.

 

Well, I think that a lot of audiophiles just like different.  So, they change their systems to get different.  A friend of mine told me yesterday that he'd swapped his loudspeakers in a big way recently, from time coherent models to horns with giant woofers and compression drivers.  He was clear that he wanted "radically different."  He got it!  This wasn't a $67 proposition, either.  To some degree, it's a lot like buying and trading expensive watches.  Most are pretty close to getting the time right, so the desire for more or different comes from someplace else.

 

That's caring, but maybe not in the way you suggest.  Converging on an optimum solution, however you care to define that, may not be for everybody.  But, as long as a hobbyist is having fun and not violating the law or basic rules for maintaining a relationship, that should be fine.

 

I think the big point that I've taken away from your articles so far is that the entire recording notion is far, far from perfect and is rarely even intended to reflect a musical performance by actual humans playing instruments together in the same room.  Whatever recording is made is usually highly modified by somebody who calls herself or himself the producer or engineer.  You end up with whatever that person thinks is the best rendition, usually based on what that person thinks the market will be interested in.  So, expecting anything remotely close to perfection is an insane proposition, since it doesn't even exist and never was the idea in the first place.  (A stereo microphone to a Walkman Pro is closer to the real thing!)  Better to accept that and do what you find pleasing and to your taste.

[CG]

2 hours ago, bluesman said:

their alleged investment value 

 

Dunno about that one.  My wife bought me what she considered a very nice expensive watch 35 years ago.  (It is very. nice and was very expensive foe the day.)

 

Today the same watch is worth roughly 30 times what she paid.  I know - had it appraised somewhat recently when the stupidly expensive maintenance came up.  The resale value has gone up far more than it should have in a sane world based on reality.

 

 

2 hours ago, bluesman said:

I'm assuming that the audio system's raison d'être is reproducing music well.  Most AS participants have systems that do a fairly good job of this, and no two of them agree on the "best" system or component.  So following your logic (with which I agree), audiophiles who can't live with the same system for very long are probably seeking something other than better SQ.  As you suggest, "different" is probably a common goal.  But it's an elusive one that brings only temporary satiation.  And audiophiles who seek change for change's sake may not be the best sources of critical analysis of recordings and equipment.

 

I agree with this.  And, to be sure, there are audio companies out there who cater to the jewelry perspective of audio gear.  No names from me, but although I find their gear visually attractive, it's not for me.  

[CG]

2 hours ago, bluesman said:

When we retired and downsized, we gave our kids their choices from our watch collections

 

I have a funny story with regard to that kind of thing.

 

Maybe two years ago, my wife gave our daughter the fancy watch that she bought years ago, but stopped wearing about years minus three ago.  (She now wears one of the aforementioned Apple watches.)  The kid had it redone at the authorized dealer a couple blocks from where she works.  She's quite happy with it.

 

But, here's the thing.

 

Although my kid's about to turn 30, has a fancy academic pedigree that entitles her to be put a fancy title on a business card after or before her name (which she doesn't), and is an associate at a fancy firm in a city with fancy firms, she also looks like she might still be in high school.  She gets carded at every restaurant she goes, for example.

 

When she'd go into a nice store or car dealership, most of the sales people pretty much ignored her.  ("Go away kid - you bother me...")  The stores that treated her well, like that jewelry store, always got her business.  The others not so much.

 

Anyway, she noticed that when she started wearing the redone fancy watch instead of an Apple or Shinola watch, all of a sudden the salespeople treated her much better.  She got instant attention.

 

That doesn't really reflect well on the sales people, but I guess they're trained to be a certain way.

 

Once upon a time, when audio stores actually dwelled in most cities, it was the same thing.  If you showed up looking like a normal person might on a Saturday, you often got the bum's rush.  If you got past the first inspection, you'd then get quizzed about your existing system.  If you passed that test, you might be allowed to actually listen and be considered as a possible customer.

 

Although I miss having brick and mortar stores, I don't miss the rest.  

 

Note:  The above was pretty much off topic.  I apologize and will behave better if I post again.

[CG]

I figure the routine service is just the rental you need to pay...

 

There's no question that these are paper gains and can be completely illusionary.  But, it's still better than somebody saying that you need to give them $100 to take whatever it is away.

[CG]

One of the challenges to all this is that people hear and subsequently interpret sounds and music differently.  That should be obvious, simply based on how there's a wide range of tastes in different musical genres.

 

As my wife has reminded me, over and over, most musicians don't give a fig about home audio systems.  That's often because they listen for something entirely different than other people do.  Many even derive pleasure and an emotional response just from looking at the sheet music or the charts - no actual sound is required.

 

There's been a lot of research over the years about how and why people respond to music and other sounds.  (Perhaps not nearly as much as would be helpful...)  Some aspects are plainly genetically common to the species - both people and other animals respond to loud noises and the sound of bad weather approaching.  Some aspects are apparently more locally genetic, that is, something you inherited from your parents or your great aunt Trudy.  Some aspects are learned along the way and are part of your aural system training early on.  Guys like Gregory Berns have authored some books on the subject that are fairly accessible, even to boobs like me.

 

So, while an appreciation and understanding of why different instruments sound different based on who is playing may be very helpful for some - maybe all - people, I'm not certain that this understanding will help everybody get more out of the home audio systems.  I'm not saying it's not worth trying or that it's not interesting, but I suspect that a lot of people look for different cues in sound in their quest for accuracy and realism that are beyond the details behind the musical performance.  That part's a whole 'nuther story.

[CG]

Well, then!  I guess I'd better pack up all my physics and engineering textbooks, test gear, soldering iron, computer simulation tools, and so forth and put it on sale while I still can!  

[CG]

I suppose that if these are all solved problems, then there really is no point of pursuing any of it.  You've convinced me.

 

This is my last post here.  Not going away mad, but I don't believe I have anything further to contribute.