Audio reproduction is a matter of taste?

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Thanks for the post. I value historical perspectives whether or not I agree with the authors of those perspectives. 

 

Thanks Bill. 

 

Which would appear to suggest that you value those historical perspectives with which you agree more than those with which you don't. 🙂

[Allan F]

9 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Which would appear to suggest that you value those historical perspectives with which you agree more than those with which you don't. 🙂

 

4 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Don't we all? 👺

 

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Huh?

 

I really like history and the views of those who think differently than I do. The only way to learn and even strengthen one’s perspective is to understand that of others. 

 

Being exposed to historical perspectives different from our own of which we were unaware may have the opposite effect of challenging or even changing our previously held perspective.

[Allan F]

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Of course. It depends on the person and the perspective.

 

And, of even greater importance IMO, is keeping an open mind.

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

I assume this means that you're going to remove Frank from your ignore list... 

 

I said an open mind, not a hole in the head.

[Allan F]

3 hours ago, bluesman said:

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 agree that, as a starting point, one has to be able to hear differences of this magnitude in order to judge playback accuracy. OTOH, whereas well recorded unamplified acoustic instruments can be used as a standard for "the absolute sound" as defined by Harry Pearson, electric or amplified ones cannot. Moreover, the judgment is not based on a single recording but rather a series of different recordings of the acoustic instruments with which one is familiar.

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, bluesman said:

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).

 

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.

[Allan F]

28 minutes ago, Jud said:

Well, but here's the thing: It's a fact that in many of the components of our systems, making one aspect of the sound less distorted will make another aspect of the sound more distorted.  To my mind, this turns "accurately reproduces what's on the recording" into "reproduces what's on the recording with the forms of distortion that are less obnoxious to me."  And that's the way we go from absolute accuracy to taste.

 

Not if the aspect of the sound that is made more distorted more accurately portrays what is actually on the recording. Then the result would be sound most likely to be perceived as more obnoxious, as is often the case with higher fidelity playback of poor recordings.

[Allan F]

6 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Let's move from the theoretical to the specific:

 

- Does better imaging or slightly flatter frequency response throughout the audio band sound more realistic to you in a speaker?

 

- Does a faster (higher slew rate) amplifier or one with more limited bandwidth and thus lower IMD sound more realistic to you?

 

- Does a DAC with lower IMD or one with less group delay sound more realistic to you?

 

Of course appended to each of these questions are two sub-questions: (1) If you know, and (2) How much of these sorts of distortion are we talking about?

 

Jud, my post was not intended to debate the subject with you. Rather, it was intended to point out another possible scenario that is not merely theoretical. As I understand it, In your scenario the replacement of a component with one of lower distortion has the effect of increasing the distortion elsewhere in the system. In mine, the replacement of a component with one of lower distortion increases the transparency of the system, which may reveal a higher level of distortion present in the recording. Of course, my scenario is limited in scope to those recordings, whereas yours is presumably of general application. 

 

Apart from specifications, I don't know anyone who is aware of the actual level of distortion of their system that of its components.

[Allan F]

35 minutes ago, Allan F said:

...level of distortion of their system that of its components.

 

Oops. That should read, "level of distortion of their system or that of its components".

[Allan F]

FWIW, I just happened upon this opinion piece by Steve Guttenberg from the May, 2016 issue of Stereophile:

The Fallacy of Accuracy

[Allan F]

14 minutes ago, Jud said:

It's going to be up to the individual's taste (with perhaps some assistance from any measurements that may be relevant).

 

Not all reviewers are shills for manufacturers, although each probably has his/her subjective biases. However, when you are familiar with the latter and they coincide somewhat with your own, their reviews can be helpful in deciding what you many want to audition.

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, hopkins said:

Not to mention the fact that an analog sound does not mean anything anyway. 

 

It means something to anyone old enough to be familiar with both vinyl and the history and characteristics of digital sound from the time of the introduction of the compact disc in 1982.

[Allan F]

30 minutes ago, Jud said:

Then you'll be able to provide me a very negative review of an expensive component?

 

"Very negative" is a relative term. But, two negative reviews from the files of Stereophile:

 

EAR Acute Classic CD Player, review by Art Dudley

Bryston 7B SST2 monoblock power amplifier, review by Michael Fremer

 

 

[Allan F]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

Yep, negative. Seven years apart, I noticed.

 

Picky, picky picky...🙂

 

I didn't do a search for negative reviews. I referred to two that I immediately remembered reading because I was interested in the EAR Acute, and I had a Bryston 14B ST amp at the time of Fremer's review. In fact, I had an interesting exchange of email correspondence with Fremer regarding his review.

[Allan F]

8 hours ago, hopkins said:

Analog sounding can be understood in different ways

- read any topic on this site dealing with analog VS digital if you are not convinced. 

 

I could understand Guttenberg's qualification of a DAC sounding analog as "distorted, inaccurate, but pleasing". 

 

Not to most people or authors in the context of the sound of DACs.  In fact, the goal of a number of DAC designers has been to sound more like analog, meaning more like vinyl. You might want to do yourself a favour and take Chris' hint regarding your high horse.

[Allan F]

29 minutes ago, Allan F said:

You might want to take Chris' hint regarding your high horse.

 

12 minutes ago, hopkins said:

Don't blame me for Guttenberg's amateurish reviews. I am sure he is a nice guy, but so are many other people who don't spend their time publishing BS on youtube

 

Thanks. Q.E.D. 🙂