Jump to content
IGNORED

Audio reproduction is a matter of taste?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If people think they can judge accuracy of a playback system, then they should be clearly able to identify every instrument on the album, and I mean specific instrument not just guitar, but the model, the drum set and its make up (size of kick drum), the material on the walls of the studio (absorptive, reflective, etc...) the EQ used in mixing and mastering, and everything else involved. 

 

If you can't identify those aspects perfectly, then you can't judge accuracy because you need to know these in order to judge it. 

Unless you’re exaggerating for effect, ya kinda lost me here, Chris.  Anything and everything in the chain from mic element to the final product can and often does diminish the differentiators among instruments etc. So it’s simply not possible to do that for many, if not most, commercial recordings.  Only if the recording is accurate can reproduction be judged for accuracy.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

If I did not care about the accuracy of my system I would not be discussing all this now. So what you really mean is that I don't care about knowing which instruments (models, brands) are being played.You are right on that point, I am not so interested in that aspect of music. My loss. I do respect the fact that you are; whether you respect "audiophiles" like me who do not share your point of view is another question...

 

Not knowing which guitar model Freddie Green plays, can I still make a difference between a good and a bad recording of Freddie Green? And can I make a difference between a more accurate system (if there is such a thing)? Your answer is no to both of these questions. Thanks for your contribution. 

You’re making many unwarranted, inaccurate assumptions and interpretations.  First, I never said that anyone doesn’t care about accuracy. I said that many audiophiles assume that their systems are accurate because they hear what they expect to hear, whether or not it sounds like the performance (or the master, if they differ).

 

Second, I said that whether or not you know anything about the instruments is totally irrelevant.  No one can judge accuracy without being able to discern the difference in sound between two instruments that truly and objectively sound grossly different but have the same name, eg kick drum, guitar, piano etc.  

 

I don’t give a rat’s rectum if an audiophile knows anything about musical instruments and I don’t base respect for people on such isolated and largely unimportant knowledge.  My point is simple and consistent: I don’t think that anyone can critically judge the accuracy of playback without being able to hear differences of the magnitude of those between a small and a large kick drum, an electric and an acoustic guitar, or a Fender bass and Brian Bromberg’s 300 year old upright acoustic bass in excellent and relatively unprocessed recordings.

 

I introduced the specifics of players and instruments only because most audiophiles I know didn’t have any idea there was so much variation.  Many seem interested and appreciate learning more.  Some take umbrage and assume they’re being belittled in some way.  I never said you couldn’t assess accuracy because you don’t know what kind of guitar Freddie Green played. But you truly can’t assess accuracy if you can’t tell that there’s a difference between the sound of Freddie Green’s guitar and the sound of Grant Green’s guitar. And that’s a task that can be accomplished without even knowing who’s playing each instrument or what they are.  All you need to do is recognize that you’re hearing two different guitar sounds.

 

Whether or not anyone can do this has nothing to do with my level of respect for him or her.

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

I understand your point of view (and appreciate learning more as well, within the limitations I explained before). First of all, you confuse being able to "discern" sound differences, and being able to "name" them or associate them with a specific instrument. I certainly hope that people can hear differences in sound even if they cannot explicitly name the instrument being played.

 

I am trying to find out whether we can actually compare equipment and assess their accuracy even if we were not in the recording booth (which rarely happens, I think we can agree on that). I think it is a valid question as most of us here actually spend quite some time discussing the merits of various equipment.

 

I don't understand what we can conclude from your explanations other than "don't waste your time buying equipment if you don't know the difference between x and y instruments". What are your recommendations ? That we spend time learning about all these different instruments before we go out and purchase an audio system ?

 

You've made your point (you had already made it in your articlese).

Your continued misinterpretations and misrepresentations of what I keep saying tells me that I've failed miserably to make my point...at least, to you.  I absolutely do NOT "confuse being able to 'discern' sound differences, and being able to 'name' them or associate them with a specific instrument".   I said in my preceding post in this thread that "whether or not you know anything about the instruments is totally irrelevant".   In a prior post, I said that "I don’t give a rat’s rectum if an audiophile knows anything about musical instruments and I don’t base respect for people on such isolated and largely unimportant knowledge".  I've said this so many times on AS in so many ways that I'm beginning to wonder how attentively you're reading.

 

My main recommendation is that those with the desire to do so can learn more about the nature of the music and instruments to which they love to listen.  Many find this knowledge to be valuable, in that it enhances their enjoyment of their hobby by opening up new listening experiences for them.  My second recommendation is that people who don't hear differences of the magnitude I'm discussing and don't think they're important should continue to enjoy the hobby however they wish.  They should buy whatever equipment pleases them.   But I wish they would not pontificate about sonic accuracy, because I think they're confusing accuracy with their perception of realism.

 

I respect everyone's opinion and wish them nothing but joy in pursuit of their goals.  I'm simply uninterested in the judgments of audiophiles who can't hear and/or don't care about grossly audible sonic differences that matter to many of us.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, semente said:

 

You need training and adequate testing methodology.

This might be a good place to start:

 

SoundGym - The Gym for your Ears

Get audio ear training online, improve core listening skills like frequency detection or compression, and start sounding like a pro. Anytime, anywhere. Let's start training!

https://www.soundgym.co

 

Wow - that's pretty cool!!  Thanks.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Allan F said:

I agree that, as a starting point, one has to be able to hear differences of this magnitude to judge playback accuracy. OTOH, whereas unamplified acoustic instruments can be used as a standard for "the absolute sound", electric or amplified ones cannot.

Thanks!  With all due respect, I think you’re correct about many but not all.  Trying to differentiate between heavily distorted flying 32nd notes from Hendrix, Guy, and Stevie Ray is most often a fool’s errand.  But in jazz, there are some clearly audible differences, eg the “thunk” of Tal Farlow, the sweet smooth sound of Johnny Smith, the woody sound of Mundell Lowe, and the relatively flatter drier electric sound of Wes Montgomery.  All of them played amplified archtop guitars, and they all have distinct sounds both recorded and live (I’m old enough to have enjoyed them all - I even had a stage side table to hear Wes on my 21st birthday).

 

Hopefully without stirring more flames, I suggest going to YouTube and listening to the four guitarists mentioned above.  For similar differences in basses, listen to Brian Bromberg, Ron Carter, and Richard Davis (all of whom play upright basses).

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, Kimo said:

Perhaps, "accuracy" is a matter of taste.

Perhaps so - but I suspect it's more the fact that "realism" is a matter of taste. So is "sound quality".  GIven that there's no such thing as the best, this is both understandable and reasonable.  If there were truly a "best" anything, most of us would be uniform in our praise and our desire to have it.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, hopkins said:

Everyone else explaining that even if we did have a "zero distortion system" we would not be able to know that because the recording itself introduces its own "distortions" (from microphones, the recording process, mastering, etc...) and we are never getting the true sound of musical instruments (even if we were able to know how each of them sounded) 

But the question of accuracy is usually based on comparison between the master and what you’re hearing from your system.  We all agree that most commercial recordings are “distorted” in that the performance is processed, ostensibly but often unsuccessfully to reproduce a better and more universally playable and enjoyable recording.  We all agree that most fail to present a pristine and perfectly faithful image of the actual performance that was recorded.  So you’re right that it’s a rare commercial recording that captures the true and exact sound of musical instruments.

 

But there are many recordings available to us made from masters that come close enough for critical distinctions to be heard easily.  Skillful engineers choose mics that preserve and favor the sound of the instruments and performances for which they’re used.   The great mastering engineers use only as much processing as they need to make the master playable on their target devices.  The rest squeeze and manipulate so that the master yields salable sounds heard best on mobile devices, auto stereo, boom boxes etc.  We know what the latter sounds like - the dynamic range is narrower than Barbie’s waist and they’re louder than a Pee Wee Herman suit.  
 

But most of us also know how the good ones sound, and we gladly “settle” for that.  The Gillian Welch recording Jud used for his example is one of many very fine recordings that capture the true essence of a performance with extremely little distortion.  The true sounds of the instruments are clearly delineated and preserved sufficiently accurately to emerge intact from the speakers of most systems of more than modest quality.   The sound of that Epiphone guitar in the master is extremely close to the live sound of that actual instrument. The minor distortions introduced by the devices and processes used to capture and master it are both audible and well known to many of us.  They alter the sound in a minor way that does not disguise its character.

 

If you had a true zero distortion system, you could hear the changes introduced by the recording process, and you could also hear how well or poorly the master presents the sound of the performance.  Accuracy and fidelity of a fine master are obvious despite the flaws inherent in the recording process because you’ll hear and recognize the flaws too.  Of course, a bad master would also be evident if you know how the performance should sound.

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Blake said:

I hope I'm not being pedantic, but it seems that distinguishing the term 'distortion' from 'alteration' is important because of the negative implications of the term 'distortion' which can often start online fights.  

 

As a professional in the industry, I'd be curious if you if you have any thoughts on 'distortion' versus 'alterations' when you are engineering or producing and whether you find tubes to be introducing distortion, or alterations of the sound signal?

Any alteration of the signal is a distortion of the signal.  EQ is distortion.  Compression is distortion.  “Tube warmth” is distortion. Etc.  Not all distortion is bad, in that many forms enhance our listening pleasure.  But if the waveform that hits your ears is not the same one generated by the source, it’s distorted. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...