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

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

 

There were.

 

I found 13 answer sheets, and these were the results:

 3/12 correct

 4/12

 5/12

 6/12

 6/12

 6/12

 7/12

 7/12

 8/12

 8/12

 9/12       (violinist)

 9/12       (violinist)

 12/12     (audiophile)

 

I don't pretend that this goes much beyond "anecdotal" but one other part of the experiment was interesting to me. The subjects were actually presented with two differently randomized series of files, the first encoded as 16-bit FLAC and the second as 145 kbps MP3. My "star"—the audiophile who got 12/12 correct with FLAC—got just 7/12 right with the MP3 trial.

 

Maybe you remember, Jud, I'd mentioned the idea of an online version of the trial. Originally, my thought was to do this via the TAS website but as the site is no longer "interactive" (a good thing, IMO, given the frequency of childish and totally OT posts) maybe we could do it here, if Chris was on board. Any interest?

 

Andy

I can embed WAV and MP3 if you want to do that test as well. 

[bluesman]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

Any interest?

You can bet your buns there is, Andy!  I’d love that.  And thanks so much for your input and kind words.  Along with all others in the audiophile community, I’ve learned a lot from your contributions.

 

The real question for me is how to help people find more to enjoy in their music.  I suspect that a lot of this can be learned, just as we can learn to identify and describe the subtle characteristics of wine, tailoring, antiques, and portrait painting.  In 41 years as an academic surgeon teaching on the professorial faculties of the 2 largest & highest ranked academic medical centers in our region, I and my colleagues have helped thousands of bright, educated, and experienced students, residents, fellows, and practicing surgeons achieve a fairly uniform fund of knowledge, keep it current, and master newly developed knowledge, technology, and skills (eg microsurgery).  
 

I approach audiophiles the same way (actually, I approach most things this way - it’s how I expand my own horizons).  I’m quite confident that we could teach many, and probably most, to hear and understand at least some of the phenomena we’re discussing in this series.  And I know it would enhance their joy of listening.  If I were 30 years younger, I’d be developing and hosting an online program to do just that.

[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.

[bluesman]

1 minute ago, CG said:

I'm not certain that this understanding will help everybody get more out of the home audio systems.

That’s probably true for some.  But for me, the focus is on helping everybody get more enjoyment out of listening to music (which seems to me to be the main enjoyment to be gotten out of a home audio system).  The more you hear, the more joy you get - and you don’t have to be know why you’re hearing it to enjoy it.

 

2 minutes ago, CG said:

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.

Here’s another common example of our letting assumptions overshadow deeper truths.  Humans and animals sense and respond to many weather-related changes. The most prominent is barometric pressure, to which we and animals respond in our brains, joints, neural networks, inner ears, skin etc.  We respond to changes in humidity.  We smell weather related changes in the air, and we feel sudden shifts in both the flow of air around us and its temperature.  We often also see the approach of bad weather before we hear it, since light travels 186,000 miles in same second during which sound travels about 5 miles.  So in many ways, we sense the approach of bad weather long before we hear it.  
 

Occam’s razor applies to theories, not to facts.  Human audition is well understood, as is the science behind the creation and perception of sound and music.  One of my main points in this series is that many audiophiles oversimplify their approach to listening and over-complicate their approach to equipment.

[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!  

[Jud]

3 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

There were.

 

I found 13 answer sheets, and these were the results:

 3/12 correct

 4/12

 5/12

 6/12

 6/12

 6/12

 7/12

 7/12

 8/12

 8/12

 9/12       (violinist)

 9/12       (violinist)

 12/12     (audiophile)

 

I don't pretend that this goes much beyond "anecdotal" but one other part of the experiment was interesting to me. The subjects were actually presented with two differently randomized series of files, the first encoded as 16-bit FLAC and the second as 145 kbps MP3. My "star"—the audiophile who got 12/12 correct with FLAC—got just 7/12 right with the MP3 trial.

 

Maybe you remember, Jud, I'd mentioned the idea of an online version of the trial. Originally, my thought was to do this via the TAS website but as the site is no longer "interactive" (a good thing, IMO, given the frequency of childish and totally OT posts) maybe we could do it here, if Chris was on board. Any interest?

 

Andy

 

One other question before deciding whether I'd be up for listening: To the extent possible, are the selections volume matched?

[bluesman]

18 minutes ago, CG said:

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!  

Better yet, leave it all where it is, put on your favorite music, fill a vessel with your favorite beverage, sit in your favorite listening spot with your favorite person, close your eyes, and savor the multisensory input.  There are few greater pleasures for us!

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, bluesman said:

Better yet, leave it all where it is, put on your favorite music, fill a vessel with your favorite beverage, sit in your favorite listening spot with your favorite person, close your eyes, and savor the multisensory input.  There are few greater pleasures for us!

+1000

[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.

[Priaptor]

15 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Amen.

 

I've mentioned before a record collector friend years ago in Miami who would not open the shrink wrap on his albums since they would lose a tremendous amount of value as collectibles.  This being Miami, humidity had penetrated tiny holes in the shrink wrap of nearly all the records and caused the cardboard inside to swell against the plastic, bending the cardboard and severely warping the records inside to the extent that they certainly must have been unplayable.  But they were supposedly worth quite a bit of money as collectible "recordings."  I didn't (still don't) see the point.  My recordings (vinyl and otherwise) exist to be played.

YUP I agree. Never understood the thrill of coveting, polishing, covering and admiring a collectible. Life is too short. I collect first editions of early American History and in particular Lewis and Clark. I have passed on some "great investments" such as Sgt. Gass 1807 Journals, printed on crappy Pittsburgh paper because the book could not be opened or read. Nice to have but of limited appeal to me as a book should be able to be read. 

 

Some of the best things about indulging and learning are the people you meet and learn from along the way and thankfully my hobbies have done just that. 

[Priaptor]

13 hours ago, bluesman said:

Apropos of this theme in music, the market value of original (ie unmodified, unrepaired) vintage musical instruments is highest if they have the original strings, reeds, pads etc. A Fender Nocaster (the original model that became the Telecaster and Broadcaster) is worth the most if, in addition to being all original, it has its verifiably original strings.  It will be unplayable with 70 year old strings, which will probably break if plucked. It will sound terrible even if the strings don’t break and the pickups are functional.  They’ll be so oxidized and the insulation on the windings will be so broken down that there will be no output. Yet a collector will pay top dollar for the instrument, despite the fact that it’s unplayable.

 

Likewise, a vintage Selmer Mk 6 or cigar cutter will have hard pads that leak so badly the horn won’t play a clear note.  The springs will probably break the first time a key is pressed, after sitting for decades under a bed or in a closet.  And entirely original tube electronics from 1950 will bring big prices despite being useless.

 

Vintage wines trade at exorbitant prices but will probably never be drunk.  The buyer of a rare old bottle has no assurance that it’s not salad dressing - yet auction prices keep rising.

 

Sadly, the value proposition for such stuff is severely warped.

LOL. 

 

Same with 1st editions. As an avid collector of early American history, in the early days these books were printed, most people who could afford a book also were wealthy enough to get them bound by the bookbinder replacing the "original boards: the original boards being nothing but a front and back piece of cardboard with a loosely bound spine.  The reason was they could display them was those who could afford to wanted beautifully bound books on their shelves. All of Jefferson's books were beautifully bound and getting a Jefferson original maintains a higher value strictly because he annotated in the margins and because it was Jefferson's BUT the same in original boards, the so called hoi polloi versions always carry the highest price. 

 

200+ years later, those with the most value are those with "original boards", which like your guitar reference, you could never open or use. I was notified of an auction at Sotheby's of a Lewis & Clark Biddle 1st edition in ORIGINAL BOARDs. I asked a person I hired from a NY bookstore to represent me at the auction and my expert felt what I was willing to pay would get it. Well long story short, my top line of what I was willing to bid was topped by 50K with the first bid. How these books came to auction is an amazing story for another time. 

 

Sorry for the diversion from topic but collectibles of any type seem to have common themes. 

[bluesman]

4 hours ago, CG said:

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

I'm not saying that they're solved.  I'm just suggesting that technology is, at most, no more important than the music itself.  I believe that we're far more likely to benefit from critical listening and learning more about our music than we are from tweaking our systems.  I'm pretty confident that almost every AS participant has a system with more than passable SQ.  And I'm equally confident that our AS friends and colleagues will hear many of the things I've written about, once they start listening for them.  

 

Physics and engineering are both great knowledge sets and paths to further improvement.  But you can't engineer a solution until you've defined the problem and validated your measurement system.  The music holds the keys to defining new goals, and science has the tools to buld the paths to them.  I, for one, believe that many audiophiles cling so hard to the physics and engineering of audio that they leave music (the reason they have audio systems) relatively unexplored.  We need both.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, bluesman said:

I'm not saying that they're solved.  I'm just suggesting that technology is, at most, no more important than the music itself.  I believe that we're far more likely to benefit from critical listening and learning more about our music than we are from tweaking our systems.  I'm pretty confident that almost every AS participant has a system with more than passable SQ.  And I'm equally confident that our AS friends and colleagues will hear many of the things I've written about, once they start listening for them.  

 

Physics and engineering are both great knowledge sets and paths to further improvement.  But you can't engineer a solution until you've defined the problem and validated your measurement system.  The music holds the keys to defining new goals, and science has the tools to buld the paths to them.  I, for one, believe that many audiophiles cling so hard to the physics and engineering of audio that they leave music (the reason they have audio systems) relatively unexplored.  We need both.

I’ve increased my level of enjoyment in this wonderful hobby in many ways, including education. I sat with a musician once while playing some of my favorite music. I asked him about what I heard and thought I heard. He educated me each time. It was an experience I’ll never forget and one I’d love to duplicate over and over. 

[Jud]

 

50 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’ve increased my level of enjoyment in this wonderful hobby in many ways, including education. I sat with a musician once while playing some of my favorite music. I asked him about what I heard and thought I heard. He educated me each time. It was an experience I’ll never forget and one I’d love to duplicate over and over. 

 

Thank you kindly for the setup, I've been wanting to do this for ever so long. 🙂

 

Have a listen and see whether you can get Miles' little musical joke in this cookin' blues. (Musicians like @bluesman should get it very quickly, so no fair spoiling it for everyone else!)

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

 

Thank you kindly for the setup, I've been wanting to do this for ever so long. 🙂

 

Have a listen and see whether you can get Miles' little musical joke in this cookin' blues. (Musicians like @bluesman should get it very quickly, so no fair spoiling it for everyone else!)

 

 

I don’t get it :~)

[Jud]

9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I don’t get it :~)

I'll let it go for a bit to see if anyone else comes up with it. If not, I'll happily let the cat out of the bag in a while.

[bluesman]

Just now, Jud said:

I'll let it go for a bit to see if anyone else comes up with it. If not, I'll happily let the cat out of the bag in a while.

So I should go make the pasta dough, huh?

 

Miles threw so many ironic twists into the strange brew in that album (which he called Get Up With It, for those who want to own it) that you need a scorecard to keep track of them.  FWIW, I never liked it enough to buy it.  Oh well - off to the kitchen for a while.  We’re having home made spaghetti and my famous seafood sausage (made this time with salmon and tilapia).  I’ll be back in a while.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

1 hour ago, bluesman said:

  I believe that we're far more likely to benefit from critical listening and learning more about our music than we are from tweaking our systems.  I'm pretty confident that almost every AS participant has a system with more than passable SQ.  And I'm equally confident that our AS friends and colleagues will hear many of the things I've written about, once they start listening for them.  

 

Physics and engineering are both great knowledge sets and paths to further improvement.  But you can't engineer a solution until you've defined the problem and validated your measurement system.  The music holds the keys to defining new goals, and science has the tools to buld the paths to them.  I, for one, believe that many audiophiles cling so hard to the physics and engineering of audio that they leave music (the reason they have audio systems) relatively unexplored.  We need both.

 

I was really confused at some of your previous comments, and I better understand the purpose/motivation now that it  is stated more clearly. 

Thanks. 

 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

51 minutes ago, Jud said:

I'll let it go for a bit to see if anyone else comes up with it. If not, I'll happily let the cat out of the bag in a while.

 

He's using a wah-wah mute. 

He's trying to get his trumpet to make   chinese intonations (hence the title) ? Is that the "humour"? Hope I have not offended anyone by suggesting this... 

 

 

[Jud]

OK, time for the reveal - skip to the second last paragraph if you're impatient, or you can humor me for a bit and follow along.

 

Pretty much every blues ever has 4 beats to the bar.  The lyrics have that iambic "foot" thing going (ba-DUM ba-DUM), which is the rhythm of Shakespeare (he wrote in iambic pentameter - 5 iambic "feet" to a line), so you can put on the blues, break out the Shakespeare, and they work perfectly together.  I remember Leonard Bernstein singing Macbeth to the blues on an old recording.

 

Because blues is the foundation of rock, you'll find the same there.  You can listen to any rock station, classic, alternative, whatever you like, for days or weeks and never hear anything but 4 beats to the bar (excepting the occasional run of triplets, as in Simon and Garfunkel's 59th Street Bridge Song, a/k/a "Feelin' Groovy").

 

There are small variations on this with big effects, like reggae's emphasis on the one and the three instead of the two and the four, or James Brown creating an entire funk industry with "on the one."  And then there is the inverse, big changes that almost pass unnoticed, like Dave Brubeck seemingly just playing along normally until you realize "Take Five" is actually a pun and that song is 5 beats to the bar.

 

If you want to get away from the tyranny of 4 beats to the bar, you can go to jazz, or, perhaps counterintuitively, some hip-hop, which can be incredibly creative rhythmically, different rhythmic lines running around and through each other.  (Though yes, some hip-hop stays strictly with 4 beats also.)

 

Now, Miles - "Red China Blues" is an example of what I was talking about with Brubeck, big changes that can easily pass unnoticed.  How many beats to the bar?  Listen, and you'll notice it's 6.  A blues that is very nearly in waltz time.  (Waltzes are 3 beats to the bar.)  Miles is saying "You think *you're* cool?  I'm playing a blues in g*ddamn *6* and making it *cook*, motherf**ker!"

 

(BTW @bluesman, I agree about the quality of the album.  Not one of his better efforts overall.  I bought it because he was coming back from one of his periodic illness/addiction bouts, and I wanted to hear what he was doing.)

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

was way off track !

[The Computer Audiophile]

24 minutes ago, Jud said:

OK, time for the reveal - skip to the second last paragraph if you're impatient, or you can humor me for a bit and follow along.

 

Pretty much every blues ever has 4 beats to the bar.  The lyrics have that iambic "foot" thing going (ba-DUM ba-DUM), which is the rhythm of Shakespeare (he wrote in iambic pentameter - 5 iambic "feet" to a line), so you can put on the blues, break out the Shakespeare, and they work perfectly together.  I remember Leonard Bernstein singing Macbeth to the blues on an old recording.

 

Because blues is the foundation of rock, you'll find the same there.  You can listen to any rock station, classic, alternative, whatever you like, for days or weeks and never hear anything but 4 beats to the bar (excepting the occasional run of triplets, as in Simon and Garfunkel's 59th Street Bridge Song, a/k/a "Feelin' Groovy").

 

There are small variations on this with big effects, like reggae's emphasis on the one and the three instead of the two and the four, or James Brown creating an entire funk industry with "on the one."  And then there is the inverse, big changes that almost pass unnoticed, like Dave Brubeck seemingly just playing along normally until you realize "Take Five" is actually a pun and that song is 5 beats to the bar.

 

If you want to get away from the tyranny of 4 beats to the bar, you can go to jazz, or, perhaps counterintuitively, some hip-hop, which can be incredibly creative rhythmically, different rhythmic lines running around and through each other.  (Though yes, some hip-hop stays strictly with 4 beats also.)

 

Now, Miles - "Red China Blues" is an example of what I was talking about with Brubeck, big changes that can easily pass unnoticed.  How many beats to the bar?  Listen, and you'll notice it's 6.  A blues that is very nearly in waltz time.  (Waltzes are 3 beats to the bar.)  Miles is saying "You think *you're* cool?  I'm playing a blues in g*ddamn *6* and making it *cook*, motherf**ker!"

 

(BTW @bluesman, I agree about the quality of the album.  Not one of his better efforts overall.  I bought it because he was coming back from one of his periodic illness/addiction bouts, and I wanted to hear what he was doing.)

This made my night. Thanks @Jud.

[fas42]

9 hours ago, bluesman said:

Better yet, leave it all where it is, put on your favorite music, fill a vessel with your favorite beverage, sit in your favorite listening spot with your favorite person, close your eyes, and savor the multisensory input.  There are few greater pleasures for us!

 

Interesting how people listen to systems ... I go with the multi-situation 😛 approach. That is, put on a recording, any recording; and listen to it any way that makes any sort of sense: dead centre, concentrating until beads of sweat drip down your forehead 🙂; outside, doing gardening, with the sound wafting through an open door; wandering around the house doing some chores or whatever else is on the agenda; or momentarily stopping to listen more attentively to a particularly engaging "bit" - every sort of way of listening should always work; the vibe of good music is in the air, and always satisfies.

[bluesman]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

"Red China Blues" is an example of what I was talking about with Brubeck, big changes that can easily pass unnoticed.  How many beats to the bar?  Listen, and you'll notice it's 6.  A blues that is very nearly in waltz time.  (Waltzes are 3 beats to the bar.)  Miles is saying "You think *you're* cool?  I'm playing a blues in g*ddamn *6* and making it *cook*, motherf**ker!"

A blues in 6/8 is the mildest of Miles’ middle fingers in that tune and on that album.  And it’s not really that far out. Blues in 3/4 or 6/8 time broke no new ground. There’s one on Kind of Blue called All Blues.  
 

The first big poke in the eye was his use of an electronic effect on his trumpet.  Miles’ signature sound was from use of a Harmon mute, which is what many call a wah wah mute. But making the wah sound with a Harmon is done by using the fingers of the right hand to cover and uncover the cup at the end of the center tube, as seen in the video Hopkins embedded.  Miles played without the center tube.  He made the wah wah sound with a guitarist’s wah wah pedal. Contrary to popular belief (and Wikipedia), he still played his standard trumpet -  but he mic’ed and amplified it, using guitar effects like the wah pedal.  And, apropos of the article that started this thread, you can and should be able to tell the difference between a Harmon mute and a wah wah pedal on this tune (and all of Miles’ electric albums).  They sound quite different.

 

Finger #3:  Miles played the organ on that album, although not on Red China Blues. For reasons known only to him, he played several keyboards on his electric albums, perhaps trying to tell his many keyboard players over the years that he really did know better.  No, he was not as good on keys as he was on trumpet.  Once he discovered electric keyboards, starting with the Fender Rhodes, he actually forced some of his pianists to use them even though they hated them.  For example, Keith Jarrett and Herbie Hancock were both initially quite resistant to playing the Rhodes for Miles.

 

Finger #4: He used musicians on that album who were not respected in the jazz community, probably again to poke his finger in the eye of a world he believed was against him.  The bass player who stirred the most controversy was Michael Henderson, who was about 18 when Davis hired him away from Stevie Wonder (which was perhaps finger #5).  Henderson was with Miles for at least 5 or 6 years, but he was simply not a jazz musician.  He was a rock solid funk player, and Miles made a huge statement by having him in the band.  Many of his fans were horrified when he went electric, which was apparently one reason he did it.

 

There’s a lot more, but the idea is clear. Miles set out to tell the world what he thought of it by upsetting as many people as he could and rejecting everything that made him what he’d been.  Remember that he didn’t play at all for about 5 years because he hated pretty much everything and everybody.  In another “social statement”, he was badly injured when he tried to exit West River Drive at about 80 and totaled his Lamborghini.  The guy was seriously screwy, antisocial, passive aggressive, and a generally horrible human for much of his life.

 

 

[firedog]

Got to say I wasn't aware of this album and am giving it a listen. I think it's pretty good. Of course, I'm a fan of Miles' electric and also his funky music.

Don't have an issue with him not playing something people or critics call Jazz. And why should I be upset if he uses a wah-wah pedal? Don't get me wrong, I like his straight Jazz, too, but I don't care what category music is thought to be in. (Note: just to be clear, these comments aren't directed at Bluesman.)

 

As far as the topic: from what I've read, this is another album recorded over time (70-74) and then edited and mixed together from various pieces by Miles and his producer to create a finished product. So it's a good example of a studio product that has a created soundstage, etc. and we aren't listening to anything we should assume is real sounding.