Audio reproduction is a matter of taste?

[Rexp]

10 hours ago, hopkins said:

In my experience observing "audiophiles" they tend to switch camps depending on what suits them, sometimes affirming that an equipment is "objectively" better, but then saying at other times that it's all a matter of taste. Makes me wonder whether sharing opinions about audio equipment is not a huge waste of time. 

I agree with you, realistic (not accurate - can of worms) audio reproduction is not a matter of taste. The illusion of live music in our living rooms is our goal, different systems will deliver different shades but all good systems will deliver the illusion. 

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, mfsoa said:

I love it! Perfectly captures what we want out of our systems.

 

To those who are trying to accurately replay the sound on the disc -The disc has no sound. You are trying to replay what you think is the sound on the disc. Very different...

 

Since no two people think that a disc should sound the same way, it then comes down to personal preference and boom - it's all subjective ultimately.

So all speakers, for example, are equally good at imaging? There is no better, its all subjective? 

[Rexp]

12 hours ago, mfsoa said:

Not really sure what this has to do with what I said but if I had to guess, I'd answer that minimonitors present the soundstage in one way. Planar speakers present the image in another. Please tell me which is better so I can make sure I don't make the wrong choice as subjective preference for a one or the other is apparently the wrong way to go about this. 

 

 

Let me simplify it for you, does a speaker from ATC for example image better than a speaker from Edifier? 

[Rexp]

11 hours ago, firedog said:

Nonsense. A distinction without a difference here. Play the two masterings back on the same system and they sound different. Which version of the same recording is more real or more accurate?

That's why your argument is junk, no matter how much you try to dress it up.

Wow, your behaviour continues to decline.

[Rexp]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Absolutely perfect. Insult arguments not people and it’s all good. 

Your point of view sucks! 

[Rexp]

3 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

 

Note the irony: In his previous response, Rexp criticized (insulted) me personally and not my argument....

Just a heads up... 

[Rexp]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’m totally cool with that. I also enjoy many people’s company, with whom I disagree very much. I love learning and often learn when people explain why they think what they do, rather than just what they think. 

It was a joke.. 

[Rexp]

11 minutes ago, hopkins said:

At least we have moved from the silly arguments that "we are not in the recording booth so we cannot judge equipment accuracy" to more technical debates about what accuracy is and whether or is posdible in audio. I'm going to take a little time to research some of the statements made here. 

I do think its better to concentrate on those aspects of audio reproduction that can be judged objectively, such as imaging and soundstaging. 

[Rexp]

48 minutes ago, MarkusBarkus said:

...my impression is this is a genuine, good-faith effort to get things onto a more productive path, so I'll chip in and plant a seed:

 

A couple of months ago, I replaced a pair of Revel Studio2s with Magico A5s. 
 

It has been said and written that the Revels are "good" speakers, image well, etc. That was my experience over the 1.5 years I had them in my room. OK by me if you disagree with that statement, but this is what I offer.
 

My room has many acoustic treatments, commercial and DIY from plans. Pressure and velocity based pieces.

 

When the A5s arrived...then we hear what imaging is. Holy Mackerel. 

Greg Porter: God Bless the Child. A Cappella. Voice is dead-center, round and full. 
 

Roger Waters: Amused to Death. The sound effects, dog barking and narration is all over the room. My puppy goes mental, looking at the sofa. Me too.

 

These are only two of many examples. So, for those in the know:

 

How would we test/measure this to objectively confirm (or dispel) Speaker A images better than Speaker B?
 

You can hear the illusion plain-as-day. Would a mic pick it up? Could it be mapped to cross-over engineering, box design, etc.? 
 

I "know" with "metaphysical certitude," as John McLoughlin used to say, that the Magicos image waaay better than the Revels.
 

How can I prove it to you without having you to my place? Not that you're not all welcome, BTW...

 

 

Yes i used to demonstrate good imaging to non audiophiles and even they could see palpable images of musicians playing in an almost 3d soundscape on a good recording. It is not subjective and not many speakers/systems are capable of delivering it. 

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, NOMBEDES said:

As I stated.  It is all taste driven. If you like it...it is good.  If you don't like it....it is not to your taste.  You can spend a lot of money, but taste wins every time.

Strong augument you have there, 😂 

[Rexp]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

Someone wrote over at ASR about the speakers I own:

 

"I don't have Vandersteen 3A sigs, but I am very familiar with them, my brother owns a pair. They can sound quite wonderful or be blah and disappointing. It all depends where you sit. They have a narrow sweet spot, and if you move slightly to the left or right of that spot, they loose that wonderfulness.

"They have 1st order crossovers (measured acoustically). Those 6 dB/octave crossover slopes mean that drivers on each side of a crossover frequency will both contribute to the sound you hear for more than an octave above and below the crossover. That can cause some additions and cancellations that change with your seating position. Both vertical and horizontal changes (in stereo) in position make a difference."

 

There are multiple pages in the owner's manual devoted to positioning of the speakers. I can tell you that both horizontal and vertical relationships between speakers and listener are important.

 

There are many, many people who justifiably feel such fussing with how one sits isn't at all what they want in a speaker (or what a high end speaker should be). On the other hand, for those willing to put up with it, magic can happen, enough so that the Vandersteen 2 series is the best selling high end speaker ever (when I last bothered to look several years ago, over 60,000 pairs IIRC).

Which produces the more realistic soundstage, the well set up 3A's or poorly set up? 

[Rexp]

7 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I can't speak for @bluesman, but my thinking was a little less around discrimination and more about familiarity - the folks who say "Of course I know what a guitar sounds like (doesn't everyone?)!" I think this sort of memory becomes less useful to evaluate accuracy once we begin to realize just how many sorts of guitars (or any other instrument) there are.

 

People will say we should use unamplified acoustic instruments. So I did, in order to illustrate with an actual demonstration how divergent the sounds of "just" acoustic instruments can be. How reliable then is this unamplified acoustic instrument as a reference when judging accuracy? Not very, unless we're familiar with the sound of this specific guitar. And this of course leaves all the rest of the infinite numbers of variables we've mentioned.

Its bleeding obvious its an acoustic guitar! 

[Rexp]

47 minutes ago, Jud said:

More listening fun in search of accuracy:

 

Artist: Brian Bromberg

Album: Wood

Track 1, "The Saga of Harrison Crabfeathers" (thanks to @Superdad for first turning me on)

 

There are photos below of the 300 year old acoustic bass Bromberg is playing.  Knowing that, if you don't fear at least a little for the physical integrity of the instrument when you hear the track, I suggest your system isn't presenting the music with full fidelity.  (Without the photos, I wonder how many people would think it was a 300 year old acoustic bass that was being played so energetically?)

 

@hopkins, our host for this very interesting thread, mentioned detail as one of the things he listens for, and someone else said more amplitude in the presence region can easily be confused with detail retrieval.  That's why I like to listen to low strings (double bass, cello) in pizzicato for detail, because they're in the wrong frequency range to be impacted by an elevated presence region.

 

 

Are you saying a system that reveals the physical integrity of the istrument is objectively more resolving than one that doesnt?

[Rexp]

7 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

Chris - honestly - you're not reading my posts before diverting to something tangential to what I'm saying.

 

I'll answer your question in good faith - even though what I mean is already clear enough in what I've said already.

 

What we hear maps to what's in our brains - with varying degrees of "success". This is a matter of psychology. Yes - my specialty. I post some ideas for conversation's sake. I don't expect the thread to attend to me. At the same time I don't see the need to flog a dead horse if nobody wants to go there.

 

As a secondary observation - I note that "accuracy" can also be understood thus:

 

 

How many of us can compare the master with what we're hearing?

 

Put another way:

 

 

Now I'm not arguing zealously with this. I'm just saying that it's easier to reference what we're hearing with what's in our brains than with the master ...

 

... and that the extent to which what we're hearing maps to what's in our brains is just as relevant a way of appreciating "accuracy" as any other. What's in our brains is arguably a greater "reality" than "the master".  None of us get to hear the "master" anyway (played back where and how?) - and as you keep suggesting (as I read you) you can't anchor the master to absolute accuracy - if for no other reason than people will hear different things depending on their location in the same room - i.e. they all have different brain representations of the same "reality".

 

I don't think this leaves with "taste" alone. Our brains are pretty good registers. Some of us have amazing brains.

 

A system has to be resolving enough for our brains to prosecute these amazing gymnastics. I find it doesn't need to be very resolving - for the most part.

 

Carry on!

I thought we dropped the 'accuracy' thing a while back... Whether you can judge an audio systems playback objectively or not is the question. 

[Rexp]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

 

I'm saying a system that lets you hear how energetically someone is playing a centuries-old acoustic bass is more revealing than one that doesn't.

So its objective and not a matter of taste. Case closed. 

[Rexp]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Here are a couple of mysteries for you then, and no fair peeking if you don't already know.  They're both Beatles tracks.

 

- On the old US stereo version of "I'm Looking Through You," with the voices hard-panned to the right channel, what is the background percussion instrument in that right channel?

 

- What is the percussion instrument on "I'll Follow The Sun"?

Ive never owned a Beatles record. 

 

[Rexp]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

What about a Beatles CD 🤣

Dad had an eight track, sounded great! 

[Rexp]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Have a streaming service? Heck, you can probably get it as a free trial from Apple, Amazon, Qobuz, Tidal....

 

And one more: On the Beach Boys' "God Only Knows, what's the other percussion instrument playing with the sleigh bells beginning 18-20 seconds in?

Dont like them either, suffice to say im sure fans with decent systems can provide you with the correct answers. 

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

Thought of something else. There's a community building where I live - doesn't have the greatest acoustics. 

I've heard chamber music performed there live. It's obvious to me that there's something off about the sound. But the live sound, all the detail I CAN hear (in spite of the problems with the acoustics), and the presence of the performers - makes it a great experience. Looking at the fingers of a cello player and hearing the exact effect that produces is a different experience.

 

If an engineer close miked those intruments and mixed the result, it would probably be technically better sound played back than what I experienced live. But it wouldn't sound like the live performance I heard in the room itself.

Kinda off-topic, we're discussing reproduction of the recording not the live performance.