Popular Post bluesman Posted September 13, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted September 13, 2021 8 hours ago, John Dyson said: Trying to find 'perfection' seems to be futile and a waste of time for me. I just want to enjoy the music without serious distractions. And that's the bottom line. Truth be told, we have no idea what we're hearing by the time most recorded material hits our speakers unless the liner notes tell us. For pure listening pleasure, most of us want to hear what we like to hear. That may be specific instruments (e.g. a Fazioli, a Guarneri, or a DeAngelico New Yorker), genres played on "correct" instruments, etc. It may be a specific sonic palette or a combination of other personal preferences. But if it sounds good, it is good whether or not the reproduction is true to the recorded performance or the concept sought by the production staff. Despite the early assertion in this thread that "...everyone knows what a guitar sounds like, kick drum etc", few have any idea how many different kinds of guitars, kick drums etc there are and how different they sound from each other. Freddie Green played an 18" archtop acoustic guitar behind Count Basie. Wes Montgomery played a 16" Gibson 175 archtop electric with a laminated maple top (aka plywood) for the first part of his career and a 17" Gibson L-5 with a carved solid spruce top for the rest of it. And Ed Bickert played the same kind of music made by Green and Montgomery on a solid body Fender Telecaster, a guitar created and most often used for country music and blues. These guitars are as different as night and day from each other - but most listeners probably have no idea which is which. They probably don't care, and there's no reason they should unless they're concerned about "accuracy". Here's the current kick drum size chart for DW (one of the top professional drum makers): My son has a 16x18 kick in his set. It sounds like a floor tom next to a 24" kick. No one with serviceable hearing could fail to hear the difference when played in isolation side by side. But that difference is a lot harder for the uninitiated to discern clearly among the other instruments when a band is playing. So everyone knows what a conceptual kick drum sounds like, but few know what the kick drum in a particular performance sounds like. Perfection is an elusive goal, and few efforts of any kind come close to achieving it. Those who convince themselves that their systems are highly accurate with no knowledge at all of the performances to which they're listening or the procesess through which they were captured and turned into recordings are often deluding themselves. It doesn't really matter, as long as the listener is happy with what he or she hears. It enhances my listening enjoyment to be a bit more knowledgeable and realistic about the issue of accuracy - but, just like everyone else, I enjoy a lot of recorded music that's far removed from the original performance. After all, we do this for fun. The Computer Audiophile, PeterG, John Dyson and 5 others 5 2 1 Link to comment
bluesman Posted September 13, 2021 Share Posted September 13, 2021 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. Bill Brown 1 Link to comment
Popular Post bluesman Posted September 14, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted September 14, 2021 6 hours ago, bluesman said: It doesn't really matter, as long as the listener is happy with what he or she hears. 5 hours ago, hopkins said: With this type of thinking you may as well listen to music on your phone with ear buds... The problem is not a question of accuracy of the recording, over which we have no control, other than choosing what we listen to. I personally don't let the quality of the recording guide my choice of material, but will always pick the better mastering when I have the choice... Now why would I want this if I'm not able to recognize what brand of saxophone Stan Getz is playing when I listen to one of his albums? Well, if you think I'm an idiot I respect your opinions but then there is not much you can contribute to on this thread... Your lectures are interesting but off topic here. You might want to reread what I said before cementing the above in your mind, because you seem to have missed and/or misread much of it. All that matters is what you like. If that’s listening to music on your phone with ear buds, it’s fine with me. I have never condemned anyone for personal preference. I just can’t agree that anyone can judge the pure and simple accuracy of audio reproduction without knowing far more about the source material than most audiophiles do. The focus is on accuracy and nothing more. As for your separating recording quality from mastering, I said that anything or everything in the entire chain from mic element to final file could and often does obscure differences among instruments, acoustic environment etc. And if you read even further in my last post in this thread, you should be able to figure out that I don’t give a d@mn if you can tell Stan Getz’s tenor from elephant flatulence. I said only that you can’t determine the accuracy of a reproduction system without knowing what the master (not the performance) sounded like. I said that we all enjoy many recordings of varying quality (which includes choice of mic and technique, front end electronics, recording medium, post processing, mastering etc) despite their being inaccurate representations of the performance. Lecture? Now you’re getting nasty. We’re all expressing our opinions here. I’d hoped to contribute something that would help people understand more about accuracy in audio. I’ve done my best and I’m truly sorry if you find it useless, meaningless, or worse. I, like you and everybody else, listen to music I enjoy on systems that make it sound good to me. The only difference between you and me seems to be that I know and care how inaccurate my systems are. John Dyson and The Computer Audiophile 1 1 Link to comment
bluesman Posted September 14, 2021 Share Posted September 14, 2021 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
bluesman Posted September 14, 2021 Share Posted September 14, 2021 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. Jud 1 Link to comment
bluesman Posted September 14, 2021 Share Posted September 14, 2021 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. semente 1 Link to comment
bluesman Posted September 14, 2021 Share Posted September 14, 2021 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
bluesman Posted September 14, 2021 Share Posted September 14, 2021 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
Popular Post bluesman Posted September 14, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted September 14, 2021 55 minutes ago, Allan F said: With respect, recognizing differences of this nature does not equate to accuracy. While the ability to discern these differences may be a prerequisite to judging playback accuracy, it does not and, IMO, cannot in itself assure a correct judgment of the accuracy of each instrument's playback when the instruments are amplified. That's absolutely true. Once again, my point is simply that a true inability to hear differences of this nature disqualifies anyone from opining on true accuracy, in my opinion. So does a dogged insistence that they're unimportant - they're as important as being able to hear the difference between the sound of a violin and the sound of a cello. The lowest A on a violin is 110 Hz, which is also the pitch of the highest open string on a cello. They sound quite different even when playing the same note. You don't have to know who made the violin and the cello, and you don't have to know who's playing them. But you should be able to hear that there's a difference between them. I think that audiophiles who listen to classical music should also know whther they're hearing a violin or a cello. It's a simple as that. Because so many audiophiles do not know about the kinds of differences I've been describing, they simply don't listen for them. That doesn't mean that they can't hear them - most discover them once made aware of their presence. And I've been told by many that this discovery has enhenced their listening pleasure while making them feel more confident in their own ears. Why is this concept so hard for so many to grasp? The Computer Audiophile and Allan F 2 Link to comment
Popular Post bluesman Posted September 14, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted September 14, 2021 18 minutes ago, Iving said: if you asked me to identify Modern Jazz artists I'd not have even a starting point. This is getting silly. I simply used different artists and instruments as examples of the fact that there are audible differences among instruments of the same type. I have never suggested that you need to know who's playing what instrument or anything at all about the instruments. I do think it's nice for audiophiles to be able to recognize what general types of instruments they're hearing, e.g. trumpet vs trombone, violin vs cello, etc. But even that's not very important. What is important is simply that they can hear differences among those instruments. Whether it's the difference between a Martin D-28 and a Martin 016NY or the difference between a Fender Rhodes electric piano (used on You Are The Sunshine of my Life) and a Hohner Clavinet (used on Superstition), there's a clear and audible difference to be heard. Listen to Stevie Wonder's output over the years for the sound of many different keyboards. No one who thinks they all sound the same has any business evaluating the accuracy of audio equipment. This has nothing to do with their enjoyment of music, their preference for given equipment, etc. You don't need a good recording to enjoy music. You don't need a good system to enjoy music. But you do need to be able to hear gross differences among various instruments when trying to judge the true acuracy of recordings and systems. Jud, Allan F and kumakuma 2 1 Link to comment
Popular Post bluesman Posted September 15, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted September 15, 2021 1 hour ago, hopkins said: I have no idea whether it is an acoustic guitar or an electric (but if so, certainly with effects) ! As Jud points out, it's a vintage archtop acoustic. I've never heard Dave Rawlings use any effects of any kind, so you've actually demonstrated exactly what I've been talking about. It certainly doesn't affect your enjoyment of the music. But it sure makes me less confident in your assessments of sonic accuracy and your ability to correctly identify distortion of any kind. This is not in any way an indictment of you or your knowledge / skill / experience. It's simply a fact-based observation that you confirmed yourself. Your disclaimer "to my ears" makes your statement that "In summary: the 'character' of the guitar, which ever model/type it may be, is enhanced when the resolution/accuracy is improved (to my ears)" incorrect because what you describe is highly inaccurate - and why you hear what you hear is unexplained. A 1935 Epiphone archtop produces one of the purest, sweetest, undistorted acoustic guitar sounds you'll ever hear. To the best of my knowledge, Dave Rawlings has never used any effect at all or any other processing based on harmonic distortion. There are probably some post production processing effects like compression in the recording, but his guitar sounds pretty accurate to me on it. I've owned and played multiple archtop acoustic guitars of that size, vintage, and construction - and Rawlings' is a real jewel. In truth, the majority of audiophiles would not be able to answer Jud's question about Dave Rawlings' guitar accurately. There's no reason to expect that anyone but an experienced guitarist could do so. You clearly heard differences when listening with your headphones and with your speakers, which is s a great start. I'm fine with letting it stop there, if you're content to do so. As long as you enjoy what you hear, nothing else really matters. Some might want to go further and learn more about what may have caused the differences you hear, since it is obviously not lower distortion of any type with which I'm familiar. But this is not necessary to love and enjoy music, your systems, or any other audiophilic event / factor / experience. My sole point is that judging accuracy of reproduction requires the ability to hear sonic differences. The knowledge and experience to ascribe causation to them is not at all necessary to love and enjoy your music. It's not needed to make suibjective assessments of realism as you hear it. But it's essential to judge the true accuracy of reproduction. For those who won't complain that I'm lecturing them, here's a great video of Rawlings' demonstrating and explaining about his guitars: And here's a great article / interview about Rawlings' playing and instruments from Acoustic Guitar Magazine. The Computer Audiophile and Jud 1 1 Link to comment
Popular Post bluesman Posted September 15, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted September 15, 2021 4 hours ago, hopkins said: to hear differences you need to compare. I was not asked to "compare"!! I didn't ask you to compare anything, and neither did Jud. You chose to compare the sound you heard from your speakers to that from your headphones, concluding that the guitar in question sounded different from the two sources and that you thought the headphone system made it sound "more distinct [and] resonant". I may have misinterpreted the bolded and italicized words in your statement that you "...have no idea whether it is an acoustic guitar or an electric (but if so, certainly with effects)". I took this to mean that you thought the sound was processed with effects in some audible way and was not the natural, unaltered voice of the guitar. What you hear on that recording is the pure and sweet sound of one of the most wonderful archtop acoustic guitars in history. If it sounds at all distorted through any system, that distortion originates somewhere other than in the recording. This isn't a contest. There's nothing at stake here - you hear what you hear and you should freely interpret it as you wish. I don't think I'm misinterpreting your comments at all - but if I am, please clarify where I went wrong and what I should have gotten from your words. To a musician, a recording engineer, a producer etc, effects are either devices or software that intentionally and controllably alters (i.e. distorts in some way) the sound of the instrment or voice in question. Musicians use effects pedals that add EQ, distortion, reverb, delay, shifting of phase or pitch, etc. If you meant something else, it did not occur to me. I apologize and would love to know what you thought you were hearing if not this type of effect. For the last time (I hope), I absolutely do not expect most audiophiles to be able to identify even the type of instrument they're hearing, let alone a detailed description of it. I do not think that such skill is at all relative to one's ability to find and enjoy audio equipment and program material that's fun to listen to and of good quality. To be honest, I think Jud's challenge is a bit unfair to most, in that it requires a level of knowledge and experience that most audiophiles simply don't have. But I do think that it makes a point relevant to whether "accuracy" in audio reproduction is judged and described by taste or by facts. Most audiophiles describe accuracy in terms of their taste, and few consider how close what they're hearing comes to the original program or master. And, to me, the latter is accuracy but the former is not. Accuracy doesn't always result in a more enjoyable listening experience, as a lot of processing makes a lot of musical performances sound better. But it is simply not the same as accuracy. Blake and The Computer Audiophile 1 1 Link to comment
bluesman Posted September 15, 2021 Share Posted September 15, 2021 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. Bill Brown 1 Link to comment
bluesman Posted September 15, 2021 Share Posted September 15, 2021 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. John Dyson 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts