Audio reproduction is a matter of taste?

[Iving]

Reading these posts reminds me of a not-long-since conversation about "accuracy". I post only because I am with @hopkins on this - specifically regards "knowing" what instruments etc are supposed to sound like. Our brains our much more than capable of averaging over past experiences with sounds - voices, instruments, music of any kind - and cognitively-emotionally "hunting" something that sounds convincingly like that same "averaged over" reference when listening to our systems.

 

We do not need absolute references to do this! There are parallel processes in statistics - best fitting line in Regression; components in Factor Analysis etc etc.

 

Music sounds are very special to us. We all know the biographic significance of music and, in many cases, physical media. [OK vinyl records if you grew up in the window 1955 - 1985.] Our brains are very hungry for such "data points". Our brains love to assemble them in ways that deepen and feed our "reward pathways". Music signals memories, people, loves, security, peace, joy, intellectual stretch. Who wouldn't want more of those things.

 

I do think it would be rich, to say the least, for a non-musician to attest that a musician couldn't discern a plausible sound for instruments. Someone on this Forum has a great reputation for this. As @Jud reminded us not an eon ago, @bluesman was able to discern the size of a Grand Piano from a recording. Something like that. I bet he didn't need an absolute reference to do it. Just lots and lots of experience playing in bands/with others.

 

For my own part ... When I contemplate the building of my digital system over the last several years - the challenge of taming digital aggression has been so great that that has been much more my focus than tuning it for "convincingness". I don't say accuracy. I know, understand and have no issue with what @The Computer Audiophile is saying about "accuracy". But Convincingness seems a pretty good word for what I am driving at.

 

About the matter of taste and the first post. I get it. I think we have different ambitions and expectations. We do have different processors between our ears as @JoeWhip says. Our brains are so indescribably sophisticated wrt potential - and we have different personal histories. Our expectations vary. There is cognitive dissonance in play too. [Up to a point we all have to tell ourselves that we are happy with what we've got - not what we haven't.]

 

I doubt that even the best of the systems owned by members on AS - and I bet some of these are pretty f*cking astonishing to hear - are as "transparent" as the faultless window allegory recently posted by @fas42. My "About Me" refers - My forum moniker "Iving" has a fluvial root too. In ancient Norse mythology it is the thrashing, unbridgeable river between the giants and the gods - perhaps a metaphor for the noisy shortfall audio equipment will never close between it and in-person music.

[Iving]

40 minutes ago, mfsoa said:

Glasses. Do we listen with glasses on or off. Makes a big difference.

 

Which is accurate?

 

Folks say they can hear better when they put their glasses on.

 

I'd rather listen to my good system with my glasses on - if I want to dig in.

 

I'm not sure that it's an "accuracy" issue.

 

Nor "convincingness".

 

Nor "taste".

 

I have just have a more diluted sense of what's going on the auditory realm if I don't have the benefit of my glasses.

 

Probably got to do with the inter-relatedness of brain functions.

 

Not really a surprise looked at (sic) that way.

[Iving]

19 minutes ago, MarkusBarkus said:

...interesting. I 100% remove my glasses to listen. That said, I only use them for reading and have only had them for a few years.
 

Perhaps they feel more of an annoyance

 

Sure. To the brain infrequent or recent reading glasses much more an accessory compared with someone with lifelong experience of significant myopia.

 

Some say that if you lose a sense you become more acute in another. But that would another kind of challenge to the brain - a problem of real-world vigilance.

 

Another one - I wondered what listeners with good sight might say about the effect on the soundstage when they shut their eyes. For both well-sighted and poorly-sighted listeners, I would imagine that the soundstage would blur or collapse with deprivation of vision ... a subtle effect you wouldn't notice until you observed it - but then your attention would focus and spoil the effect. Some won't like the idea, moreover, and would just deny it - saying "ooh no - when I shut my eyes I am right there in the same room" etc. Guess we don't need tinder for another argument here on AS ;-)

[Iving]

13 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

And yet, in another informal little blind test here at AS, when presented with three musical excerpts that had different levels of simulated jitter and asked to pick the best, he, as did I, picked the one with the highest simulated jitter.

 

The recording on which @bluesman  identified the size of the grand piano was absolutely excellent sonically, done very carefully to present the performance as it happened, and he is a practicing professional musician with many decades' experience (as well as a medical doctor).  I'm a great one for humility: We shouldn't be so quick to transpose that sort of feat, the result of thousands of hours of experience, to situations with which we are not so familiar (as witness @bluesman's failure to identify the "sound" of jitter; I - obviously, since I made the same mistake - don't know what it sounds like either, but I bet people like @Miska, @PeterSt and @damien78 who have thousands of hours of practice can do so).

 

Thank you for all the extra context Jud. I'm struggling with the link between his Grand Piano feat and the medical doctor credential! No matter whether one "dimensionalises" the case for discerning instruments, the point is that we acquire experiential references for our judgements over our lifetimes, and that we don't need an absolute or exact reference to make a good judgement on a particular listening occasion.

 

Isn't the jitter case a different one. The way you describe it - highly relevant to the Original Post. Didn't ancient discussions here relate this "taste" for jitter to the "taste" for valve amps etc. Some people like distortion. Some of those in turn may mistake it for "accuracy". Whatever that is!

[Iving]

[Iving]

Nice! Lawyers can answer any question well!

 

[Iving]

27 minutes ago, hopkins said:

Yet after all this is said, we spend thousands of dollars to set up systems like this (sorry for always providing the same "extreme" example..).

I guess no one sees the irony here, and the contradictions. You guys crack me up...

 

?

 

Spending many $ a problem?

Long and intensive investment of personal time and money researching components and system architecture to achieve a satisfying ("convincing") listening experience?

Individual differences in same - I'm not a headphone user - I like somatic music - so what?

I don't see the irony immediately. What is it please.

Nor contradictions.

What's with the "you guys"? All of us?

[Iving]

18 minutes ago, hopkins said:

From what I understand... 

 

We cannot judge accuracy because we were not in the recording studio, or some other version of that same idea. 

 

So we just put together systems that sound pleasing to us, or "convincing". 

 

So far so good?

 

Sure - but not breaking news

 

18 minutes ago, hopkins said:

But we spend big bucks on low noise power supplies, low noise music servers and high-end DACs and speakers/headphones For what if not "accuracy"? Accuracy to the source material which is what we have to work with.

 

Well I think you edited the post at the end. Your first instinct was to ask why do we spend all these $ - for what? And I was going to suggest what we seem to have already discovered - satisfaction - "convincingness" - whatever. And there are individual differences in "taste" probably too.

 

I don't follow the relevance of low noise power supplies etc. They certainly make a difference in my system. A PH SR7 powering my PC sounds very different and much better compared with standard PC PSU. Takes off digital edge for starters. That's a big, big thing for me.

 

Are the "you guys" spending big bucks claiming they are chasing "accuracy". If so we are bent on the accuracy issue and a quote or two might help.

 

Otherwise it's difficult to see where are we going with this.

 

Isn't your OP about idiosyncrasies in taste vs. ... well what? Refusing to admit to "flaws" you say ... Even if we confessed readily to system shortcomings - don't we have the remnant of taste?

 

Edit: I posted before another edit of yours. Difficult to keep up. I don't see the problem or discussion point here.

[Iving]

3 minutes ago, hopkins said:

My OP was to understand whether people really believed that its all a matter of taste, and that an accurate system is not a worthwhile pursuit. 

 

From the answers given:

- many think accuracy is not possible to evaluate because we don't know how the recording sounded like 

- consequently we set up systems that sound pleasing or convincing, and it's all a matter of taste. 

 

End of story. 

 

Agreed. I think that was achieved pretty quickly and this should be a short thread (although it looks ripe to Frank I imagine).

 

I still don't see why you posted Rajiv's system with "I guess no one sees the irony here, and the contradictions. You guys crack me up... "

 

Seems like time to move on.

[Iving]

19 minutes ago, hopkins said:

The contradiction I find when I read reviews on this site of audio equipment. Here is Chris' review of the Denafrips Terminator 2, in which he states the following:

 

"I'm not joking when I say that I could completely picture Jordan striking the steel drum, ranging between medium speed to somewhat fast strikes with mallets in both hands. I'd never heard this level of detail previously. It gave me a whole new take on the track because it was just more real. A corollary to this is when people are used to one note bass, then they hear a great HiFi system and hear all the notes of the bass, with texture, and air. It's a different experience that brings one closer to the music and artist. This was the case listening to Jack Johnson's Flake. Something as simple as the percussionist playing the steel drum. I like the song even more now. "

 

"Another difference I heard right away between the Terminator and Terminator II was a sense of saturation or richness compared to a flatter presentation in the original Terminator. By flatter I don't mean in relation to frequency response measurements, I mean less lively or less three dimensional. The Terminator II has a better sense of real life. Perhaps it's just letting more real life through to the amplifiers, speakers, and one's ears as opposed to creating a richer sound by editorializing the music."

 

There are many more examples. But I guess whenever we use the term "real" it just means "convincing" :) I must have misunderstood.

 

I can see some ironies now (prev. page refers). Not for me to answer!

[Iving]

Flogging a lame pony.

 

If "real" is read as "convincing", there's no case to answer.

 

You have to catch reviewers talking about "accuracy" to trip them over. But we've flogged that nag too.

 

I admit Chris's references to "real" in reviews don't stand well against his challenges on p.1 - the way I read all the respective meanings anyway.

 

Are we done with "accuracy" and "taste"? I don't see any significant dissent.

[Iving]

37 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I don’t follow. 

 

In comment 1157781 hopkins (replying to mfsoa) said,
"I've been to a good number of classical music concerts in my lifetime (and also played piano for a number of years) to know what violins, for example, sound like in a good concert hall."

 

In your comment 1157785 you quoted this, saying,
"Rhetorical question: You know what all violins sound like in all concert halls?"
which looked pretty much like a challenge.

 

In comment 1157788 hopkins said,
"I am talking about sound "characteristics" not the actual sound of a given violin on a given day, on a given concert hall. There are obviously differences, but there are also similarities."

 

You challenged agin in comment 1157790 saying,
"What do you mean by characteristics?".

 

In comment 1157792 hopkins replied saying,
"All these different violins played on different occasions, places, by different people, recorded with different microphones, etc.., share some similarities. I think our brain is able to tell us, when we listen to a variety of recordings whether two different systems are better at reproducing sound based on these types of attributes,"

to which your only response was,

"I'm out." (comment 1157793)

 

As you know, I am vested in the psychological aspect - vis we certainly can recognise the extent to which what we hear maps to our aggregate experience in any matter (as distinct from absolute or specific references). I don't see the need to question or dispute this to ourselves, much less judge the assertions of others (especially if their experience outranks our own). I commented accordingly (1157798).

 

Since then, hopkins introduced a series of sample reviews (after I had challenged him to produce quotes actually - 1157963), some of which illustrate your use of the word "real" to describe what you are hearing - in particular 1157969,

"I'm not joking when I say that I could completely picture Jordan striking the steel drum ... it was just more real ..."

 

I think I've correctly imagined - and said in this thread - that when you say "real" you may mean "convincing", and that requires no justification.

 

Happy to be corrected re intent. I did read this things but I didn't write them.

[Iving]

4 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

So the upshot is, Chris, and I assume other reviewers, can't use "real" as a descriptor? What a bunch of nonsense. 

 

Absolutely missed the point and the target. If anything, I have been defending its use. Not that anybody needs me to-the-rescue. Where did you get your loaded gun.

[Iving]

[Iving]

23 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

 

We do well to realise that insulting an argument is no argument at all.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone.

 

Besides which - condoning this kind of alpha behaviour will hardly promote the culture of the site.

[Iving]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That link didn’t seem to address what I and @firedogwere saying. 

 

Happy to explain.

 

Declaring "Nonsense!" or "Junk!" is not addressing the substantial points of what someone is saying.

 

It is a social deflection. An attempt to depict a person's pov as inferior without saying why.

 

It doesn't travel in courtrooms or universities or anywhere that people do actually "win" arguments.

 

In those places it would be seen "lose it and you lose". Also disruptive as it obfuscates the superordinate function.

 

You set the rules not I. My pov is that the more people insult arguments instead of "explain why they think what they think" (= ultra good) the more the site will look socially anarchic and less inclusive.

 

The link is good. Very good. Absolutely relevant.

[Iving]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

We aren’t saying that. We are saying address the argument not the person. 
 

Tough to get through in this manner of forum communication :~)

 

No. You said insulting the argument is "all good".

[Iving]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I hate when people declare nonsense without an explanation. Nobody can learn then. 

 

Absolutely.

[Iving]

deleted

[Iving]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

I didn’t edit anything. I mistyped the word “are” and changed it to “aren’t” in one post, is that what you’re talking about?

 

No. Mea culpa on that one. I'm on my phone and it was difficult to follow. I retract this post.

[Iving]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

At some point people have to attempt to understand each other rather than find flaws like it’s a debate contest. 

 

I'm often seen arguing against artificially polarised povs. Undiscovered common ground is often where "truth" lurks latent.

I agree.

[Iving]

47 minutes ago, Rexp said:

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

 

For my own education, how do we judge objectively imaging and soundstaging?

 

I don't know much about this sort of thing.

 

Are you talking about mic measurements / freq. responses / room locations etc

 

Or about subjective reports.

 

The two could match or diverge.

 

In the case of divergence, we are back to our old Subj-Obj tension and the argument re "taste" is augmented?

[Iving]

P.S. When I say "subjective reports" I don't mean to say that these are necessarily contra-objective or can't be quantified. cf. psychometric testing. You could ask 100 people whether Speakers A image better than Speakers B. Those would constitute empirical data (for what they're worth - but that is a matter of argument.)

[Iving]

6 minutes ago, firedog said:

We also do well to realize that I  answered his argument more  than once.

 

OK

 

6 minutes ago, firedog said:

Calling my posts alpha behavior is hyperbole, and  "will hardly promote the culture of the site".

 

I didn't. I was responding to Chris. If you review, I wasn't addressing you or what you said directly. I was arguing against Chris's "insult argument = good".

 

If you infer that I meant you - well - maybe - a bit - but it wasn't my conversation - and I'm not party to it. So no.

 

If you review the whole thread, you will see that I was the "victim" of a completely - I say completely - unjustified "Nonsense!" interjection from audiobomber who must have suffered an accidental discharge. That's me as a stakeholder in this matter.

 

I think my pov about culture of the site is fair comment. It's a pov. I gave an argument. Nobody has to agree with it. I didn't insult anyone.

[Iving]

9 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

As I read it, you were supporting Hopkins' argument, e.g. "I admit Chris's references to "real" in reviews don't stand well against his challenges on p.1 - the way I read all the respective meanings anyway."

 

?

No.

 

Please read the early thread. I was supporting hopkins in the matter whether we know what instruments sound like. Not much otherwise. In fact challenging more than agreeing.

 

In the post to which you reacted - I was supporting Chris in the use of the word "real". And I supported its use generically earlier too. Very transparently. That's why your post was 180 illogical (and of course mildly offensive).

 

33 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

If that was not your intent, I guess I got lost in the verbosity of your posts. 

 

My language may be too sophisticated for you - but it is for the very largest part correct. I am anxious to be clear about things, and I am. If you choose to react badly to a post written for someone else - without bothering to garner the thread's context - that's your responsibility.

 

You haven't bothered to review before writing this either.

 

Thank you for the additional insult. At least I know where we stand.