Audio reproduction is a matter of taste?

[firedog]

6 hours 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... 

 

 

Austinpop is a very careful listener and comparer.

I would never setup a system like that, but he has spent countless hours evaluating different setups, and at the time of that graph, I assume it's what he found sounded best. 

None of us can say he's wrong with any degree of authority. We'd just be imposing our assumptions on his reality.

 

I don't get this whole discussion. It's obvious no 2 playback systems sound the same, and if both are fairly good, people are going to disagree about which one they want to listen to. None of us really knows which one is more accurate or real. We all have subconscious assumptions about how things should sound, and we base our evaluation on that. We don't all have the same assumptions, so we don't agree on evaluations of audio equipment. 

In that sense it is all taste. There is no absolute sound. Even 2 different masterings of the same recording can sound different. Which one is more accurate and real?

 

edit: by the way, I agree with using the term "convincing". My setup is the most "convincing" one I could find that fit my budget and not large listening room; and would sound "convincing" in that space. One of the things that "convinced" me to buy it was playing back large scale orchestral music like Mahler.

It clearly sounds nothing like a real orchestral performance of Mahler in a concert hall. But it sounds pretty "convincing" in my playback space. Much more than any other setup I've had or could reasonably presume to have in that space. 

I'm sure there are some that wouldn't like the sound of it or find it convincing. They have other systems. I probably wouldn't like the sound of their system in my space. 

[firedog]

22 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

The topic concerns audio reproduction. If you want to discuss audio recording/mastering then open another topic? 

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.

[firedog]

18 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

You are confusing things between accuracy of the recording/mastering and accuracy of the playback (to the recording/mastering). They are two different things. They obviously both contribute to the end result, but we are not talking about the recording here. We are talking about the equipment.

 

In fact, it could be argued that accuracy of the recording/mastering is irrelevant to evaluate the equipment. Why? Simply because you can compare the playback of a same recording on different equipment and evaluate the accuracy of the equipment on a set of criteria. 

 

It's all common sense. 

Your sense isn't very common. And for good reason.

I'm not confused. You've set up a fake definition that doesn't exist.

My example shows why there isn't such a thing as you claim. It's all preference and taste in the end. 

You can setup your criteria and 2 listeners will disagree about how real it sounds  when listening to the same equipment playing back the same recording. How do you think there is then some sort of standard that can be evaluated  on different equipment according to your criteria?

[firedog]

16 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

It must be a cultural difference or language issue after all because I have no idea what these sentences mean. 

I'll say it another way. No matter what criteria you setup, people won't all agree about the sound of different systems.

Even when hearing the same soundwaves in playback, our brains make different conclusions about it. And even more so when comparing playback on 2 different systems. That's individual taste and preference. There's no objectively correct standard.

[firedog]

16 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

My previous post springs somewhat from all the (very) old recordings I show to auditioners, be that The Buoys or The Beatles and so many more from that era. Without exception I am told that I show them cover bands.

Not so.

This obviously indicates that so many can change to the sound that all our references are trashed, but also that we don't know what reality is (I never talked to John personally, you ?). Still, because all gray cymbals from back then have turned to the most realistic cymbals as if recorded day before yesterday (but without the compression), you(r brain) will know that the voice is the voice you were looking for too. At least this is how I more explicitly deal with it.

The Beatles are a good example. After the first couple of albums, they made no attempt to sound "real" on record.

Pretty much every intsrument had limiting applied to it's track in different amounts. Lots of echo and reverb added. Voices were altered, instruments and voices recorded thru Leslie speakers, etc. Tracks speeded up, slowed down, or even given speed variations. 

George Martin explicitly said he was trying to create a sound picture that couldn't exist except on the record.

No one can listen to that and say conclusively what's accurate and real. 

[firedog]

53 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

I don't know about amplification. Not all digital solutions implement filtering so I don't see how that example is relevant

1 hour ago, hopkins said:

. 

. You make it sound like all components offer highly distorted reproduction. The panel of possibilities is wide, and there are significant differences between poor and higher quality components which are pretty easy to recognize. 

For you to hear digital reproduction, filtering is involved. No digital to analog conversion takes place without it. So the example is very relevant. Every digital system that outputs analog audio makes a filter choice thats a compromise of some type. 

Different filters are all accurate - but in different ways, with different emphases on frequency and time accuracy. 

Which ones you prefer are a matter of taste, not objective reality of one being "less distorted".

 

"and there are significant differences between poor and higher quality components which are pretty easy to recognize"

So what? The issue is when one is comparing higher quality components. Then determining which one is better isn't "easy to recognize" and depends on personal preference and taste.

 

[firedog]

2 hours ago, Rexp said:

Wow, your behaviour continues to decline.

Wow, no one appointed you forum Nanny.

Read carefully, I insulted his argument, not him. 

Perfectly okay to do that within the rules of the forum. And it's been done many times. Read what's written about MQA, for example.

I respectfully request you examine your own behavior  instead of mine. 

[firedog]

16 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

 

 

2 hours ago, Rexp said:

Wow, your behaviour continues to decline.

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

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Iving said:

 

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.

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

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

[firedog]

11 hours ago, Jud said:

  Humility is in order.

Maybe so, but in some cases it will never happen.

[firedog]

7 minutes ago, hopkins said:

The ability to hear "micro details" is not a given with high-end equipment, far from it, but that is for everyone to find out on their own. 

Or, the lack of ability to reproduce details, is, by definition, a sign that the equipment isn't "high-end". Which is correct? Sounds like a preference or matter of taste to me.

[firedog]

8 hours 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"?

I'll follow the sun: Matter of debate. McCartney is quoted as saying it's Ringo hitting his knees in one quote, and playing a packing crate in another.

 

I'm Looking through you: Don't know, pretty much anything.  Some sources say it is Ringo hitting a box of matches.

 

I have 7 or 8 different  versions of each of the above (digital, mono, vinyl, stereo, needle drops, etc) and the percussion  sounds pretty different in some of the versions. I don't think in either song can you definitively tell what the percussion is, especially since it's apparently something unconventional that you haven't heard on record before.

If you've read what it supposedly is somewhere, then that's what it's going to sound like to you.

[firedog]

4 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

Sure. If you have read nothing per Jud's instructions, and you make a guess that matches what McCartney says - with nothing at all to guide you except your own brain, you're making a pretty tight judgement against all the possible judgements you might have made. Repeated with another track. Fine distinctions even if only near to the facts made on a lo-fi system. It's the lo-fi aspect that counts. There is no expectation bias in this case.

What I was trying to say is that if you really have no preconceptions and you listen to the tracks, you won't guess the right answer. One, because the "instrumentation" isn't something you'd ever guess or expect; and two, because the recording and mixing of that part isn't that great and certainly isn't designed to reveal the sound of the percussion in some definitive way.  I don't think there's any reasonable way to judge accuracy here.

We don't know for sure what's on the source, and it isn't presented to us in a way that we can easily judge. 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Iving said:

 

I don't understand this. Jud proposed a task. I did it with no preparation. I didn't cheat. I didn't expect anything except what was primed by Jud's instructions. My guesses were either correct or very near depending on how you believe or dispute the historic facts.

The only point I make is about the lo-fi aspect. Making fine distinctions in lo-fi.

The lo-fi aspect supports a view of "accuracy" I am proposing - a psychological one.

My proposal is compelling in itself or it isn't. Independent of this task/result. It's just conversation. I have nothing to prove.

My view is not antagonistic to any other view of accuracy - including e.g. a master>what-we-hear alternative.

It's not a contest, but you actually didn't get it right. Acc'd to sources, it's not hand-clapping, and "echoey-mechanical" isn't actually a guess and isn't right either. Hand claps and knee slaps don't sound the same. 

It's not connected to lo-fi or hi-fi. Hi-fi doesn't really help here. Yes you can pick out hand claps on lo fi. Distinguishing hand claps as distinct from knee slaps doesn't mean much on it's own.

Again, it's not a good recording and not a familiar enough or expected enough sounds (matchbox or packing box being hit) that people are likely to guess it. Same for the knee slap if that's what it is (and does it sound like a knee slap or a packing crate - they don't sound the same, do they?) In my opinion, it doesn't really sound accurate to any of them.

If George Martin returned from the dead and said they were both hand clapping, but just not presented well, we'd believe that too. 

 

[firedog]

1 minute ago, Iving said:

 

Spoil my day why don't you

 

I'm sorry. I'm not really aiming this at you. I don't think the specific exercise is a good one.

[firedog]

3 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

just offering a personal experience with "resolving systems":

 

The Styx album Grand Illusion contains the track "Man In The Wilderness".  While I'm felling mildly sheepish to admit it now, I listened to Grand Illusion a LOT when it was released in 1977.

 

A few years ago, I was listening to an Audio Fidelity remaster of "Man In The Wilderness" through an OG Yggdrasil , a Violectric V281, and HD650 headphones.  I was shocked when I heard (presumably) Tommy Shaw clear his throat at the beginning of the song. It's subtle, but it's there.  So I probably went for something like 40 years not ever knowing that was there.

 

Am I better for having heard it?  Probably not.  But it does speak well to the potential benefits of high resolution playback.  If I'm hearing that, I'm hearing other subtle things as well.

My question is, now that you've heard that stuff, can you now also hear it when you listern to less high resolution playback? Or can you unhear it?

[firedog]

One thing I have noticed: in a system that's truly low noise and high resolution, you can understand lyrics that you couldn't on lesser systems - including some condsidered very good. The words just come thru clearer. Turns out that the singer was enunciating the words, but the system either couldn't reproduce the detail clearly or had just enough background noise to  make the words hard to hear.

[firedog]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I hate to be That Guy in response to your very good point, but consider this: What if you're hearing the vocals better because the speakers have a presence hump in the vocal range?

 

@PeterSt said something once that has stayed with me, which is that if you hear an audio system performing impressively, something is wrong.  Think about it: Someone sits in front of you in a small room playing an acoustic guitar and singing - do you throw up your hands and say "My god, how resolving! What detail!"?  Then why should a system which faithfully reproduces a good recording of that scene cause you to do so?  With live acoustic music, it is the music itself you are involved with.  Consider (though I am certainly ready to listen to counter-arguments) that perhaps a really fine music reproduction system will do the same rather than calling attention to itself.

No.

First, I didn't say the system called attention to itself. You made that conclusion. I simply noticed that I could understand lyrics I never could before, on recordings I've heard hundreds of times. 

 

Second, the system doesn't have a presence hump. It's also setup with DRC to give perfectly flat response. 

 

Third, live acostic music is something else. It's a different experience and we react to it differently. I've been in plenty of live venues where the sound isn't good. I notice that, but I don't react to that bad sound the same way I would if the sound at home was bad. Same for good sound live. It's a different experience - it's not just the music, it's watching the performer, reacting to other people in the audience, etc. And per your example, if someone sits in front of me with a guitar, I expect to hear all the detail and do, so there's no reason to react the way you described. I know that an audio system isn't the real thing, so I'm impressed when it comes close. 

 

I've also heard people playing live in front of me and thought - this isn't good sonically, or the acoustics here have an echo, etc. But I'm trying to pay attention and enjoy the performance, so I don't think about that a lot. 

 

Different seats in a symphony hall sound very different. I'm aware of that, and possibly even aware that my seat isn't the best sound. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy the performance and the exprience of the live symphony. 

[firedog]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

 

Sorry I didn't make clear I wasn't referring to your system in particular. I was just talking about the possibility there might be other explanations than lack of noise for any given system where one notices the ability to understand lyrics.

 

Live acoustic music is indeed a different experience. But should it be? Many people say it's the goal to reproduce that experience, and if so we're falling short (audio-wise).

Okay, but I think my point still stands.

And of course we are falling short, and always will. I don't expect home audio to perfectly reproduce live, I expect it to give me a convincing illusion of one, but not so much that I'm unaware that it's an illusion. I edited my response above, and gave a few more reasons I don't really agree with what Peter said. 

[firedog]

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.

[firedog]

6 hours ago, Rexp said:

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

I think I was discussing the sound of a recording of a live performance and the difference from hearing live music. So you're "kinda" off the mark.

[firedog]

7 hours ago, Jud said:

 

And yet I've read stuff here where people say we've got it as audibly perfect as can be for all practical purposes.

 

I'm guessing you might not agree. Do you think we're even close enough for there to be an objective "best"?

Not sure I understand what you're asking.

I think really good home systems are really good. I think that listening at home in a not large room and getting a reasonable illusion of a symphony orchestra or a jazz quartet is pretty damn good. When I was young I never heard that. It all sounded like a stereo playing (best case scenario).

Can home systems get better than today's better stuff? Yes. A lot better? Probably not.

 

That's talking about 2 channel.

 

I don't have 5 or 7 channel or super multi channel ATMOS and I've never heard it. 

I can imagine that there could be such setups that would be hyper realistic, even for orchestral music. We may also develop better models of how we hear and use the resulting psychoacoustics to do a much better job of fooling us into thinking we are hearing the real thing. 

[firedog]

I don't believe there's such a thing as "analog" sound. It's just a crutch we use because it makes it easy for us to get an idea across. I'm also not sure there's agreement on what "analog sound" means. 

What some people call "analog" I might call in some cases flabby or grainy or even distorted. Some tube setups sound this way. That isn't "analog" - it's just an exagerrated tube sound based on distortion that some people consider euphonic. 

Good analog doesn't sound that way. It isn't always warm with lots of bloom.

Good digital doesn't sound harsh. It sounds precise. It can sound warm, just not overly so. 

I've also heard analog that sounds harsh.

It comes down to the recording and the equipment, not the format.