Audio reproduction is a matter of taste?

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

Discussing Schitt audio's new DAC options I realized that a number of you  believe that audio reproduction is a matter of taste:

 

 

I see this same type of thinking all the time, and it worries me! 

 

I believe this idea results from comparing equipment that are flawed and not being able to admit to those flaws (for whatever reasons). The idea is often used in bad faith by reviewers who will try to find qualities to all products. 

 

Arthur Salvatore explained that "MUSIC IS ART - AUDIO IS SCIENCE" (http://www.high-endaudio.com/philos.html#Mus). That is very different, by the way, from thinking that audio is all about measurements. Read the link if you don't understand the difference. 

 

 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

32 minutes ago, Norton said:

People can gain pleasure from listening with a DAC that sounds good to them  but measures badly.  I can’t see many persevering with the opposite.

 

Hold on, I specifically stated this has nothing to do with measurements. I don't care about measurements. 

 

I am in no way suggesting that we replace our ears with measurement tools! 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

13 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

The simple answer is yes. We all have different processors between our ears and therefore process data differently. Why should audio be different than all other personal experiences?

 

So if we listen to the same music with  different systems there is no way we can agree on which system is reproducing the recording more accurately because it's a matter of taste?  Welcome to the matrix where everything is one big illusion and nothing is "real".

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

47 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

I have been involved in numerous listening sessions with the same system playing all kinds of music where there was no universal agreement on whether the system was transparent or faithful to the fidelity of the recording. Unless you were in the room when a recording was made, you don’t know if what you are hearing   Is faithful to the original sound. Playback in the control room can be very colored too. I have experienced this myself. I sat at a Steinway ticking the ivories during one of my son’s recording session. Going back to the control room and listening to the live mic feed on a set of big JBL’s, I was struck at the difference in tone. Maybe the tone would have been perfect on a different set of speakers? Who knows? I do know that the final recording sounds great on my system but I can’t say it sounds just like what I experienced live. So yes, it is all a matter of taste. There are no absolutes in audio. Hey Chris loves Wilson’s. Me, not so much. I am good with that. The matrix has nothing to do with it.

 

My experience is different. When comparing systems I fee I can tell which one is more accurate, or at least I can tell how far they are from sounding accurate ! It may not be possible to evaluate this on a single track (ex: as on your son's recording session), but with a variety of tracks you can come pretty quickly to a conclusion.

 

I think we all know how instruments sound like, what "specificities" they have and whether those specificities are accurately reproduced. Naturally, there are subtelties, as pointed out by @bluesman in his articles (on accurate sound). Not all saxophones sound the same, not all pianos sound the same, and obviously the recording process is not fully transparent as you already pointed out. Fine - but  this does not mean, IMO, that we are relegated to being completely blind as to the accuracy of the system (hence the matrix).

 

Comparing systems side by side is the best way to evaluate all this. It is not always easy to do so, especially with speakers, for practical reasons.

 

 

 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

51 minutes ago, DuckToller said:

I like the link you provide as hors d'oeuvre for reflecting on the subject ...
and the "personal sound floor" is a point that is often excluded from discussions because for enthusiasts that would factor in aspects they can't control and compare. On the other hands it makes comparisons quite difficult, I'd reckon. That is, why objective data may prove valid date points for orientation.

However, lLet's think that the hearing capabilities of a group of people isnt' equal from one to the other
- The formal audio experience of enthusiast may differ
- Their form of imagination might not be the same
- Their mood, deriving from actual external circumstances may not be equal
- their psycho-acoustic traing might not be the same
- they have different lifes (& experiences within) that may impact their presence
- the acquired knowledge about Art, Science, Biology and Psychology may be differnet
- their personal bias (the single one as expected, or all of them) may differ
...

for short " procesessing may be different" for different folks.

As a result there may be a broad vision on how to please humanity with audiophile products as opposite to a single solution. Broad in a sense of not defined, flexible and indefinite approaches to market equipment to indifferent customers, who are willing to spend money for their hobby: 
- some buying what the peer groupm advises,
- some buying what they find interesting by information and listening tests,
- some buying what's laudated & accomplished by the press or the web.

It is not great science to be critical with reviewers and their methods, and if someone's loving reading reviews I would advice to get an idea, if the reviewer's personal tuning corresponds to the one of him/herself.

Famously, that environment creates a whole industry which provides
- friendly, controverse and very ugly discussions,
- joy & frustration,
- wonderful experiences with likeminded fellows and
- selected people, who think so fondly about their personal capacities, that they only need other human beings as reflection points and discussions as arenas for their personal bliss.

Plus , there are people who want to compare things, because having a choice may be good in principal, but offers "too much" food for thought and demands "too much" time to find conclusions by themselves ... sometimes


 

 

 

The group of people reading you and reading this forum is probably fairly "homogeneous". 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

42 minutes ago, mfsoa said:

Accurate to what?  The sound on the recording medium?  Sorry, it has no sound, it is grooves or bits. No sound there. You have no way to know what those pits are "supposed" to sound like.

Accurate to what was heard by the recording or mastering engineer?  Unless you have the same speakers and room (not to mention ear/brain) etc. that's out the window.

Accurate to what the musicians heard in playback? In the studio? In their head? Which musician? The drummer? The bass player?  No source of accuracy there either.

Accurate to what the real instruments sound like in real space?  After sitting behind drum sets for 50 years believe me the last thing you want is to reproduce the sound of a real drum set in your living room. You would be running for the treble knob and volume too. What people think of as a "well recorded drum set" bears only a passing relationship to what the instrument sounds like in real space, if that. The thought of an accurate drum sound - you don't want it - you would run for cover. To see people discussing the accuracy of a recorded drum set when the recorded sound is sooo different from the true sound of the instrument, well I just don't get.

 

I don't know about drum sets, but 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. I don't expect to ever get a system that will reproduce the sound of a concert hall in my living  room. But there are some things I don't want to hear - for example:

- I don't want the sound to be muffled. Violins should sound "crisp" 

- I don't want the sound to be harsh. Violins should not make you cringe. 

 

Those characteristics are found when the system does not introduce distortions and when the system is able to reproduce micro-details. 

 

Those are the type of attributes (or their absence) which make for a good reproduction. There are probably others. These attributes can also easily be compared from one system to another. 

 

If you compare systems and one is better than the other on these characteristics, chances are it is more accurate 😉

 

 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

16 minutes ago, GregWormald said:

While in general I like to hear—as close as possible—what is on the recording, I've got more than a few recordings that are bad enough I want to change them.

 

Same here, but that is not really relevant to the discussion...

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Rhetorical question: You know what all violins sound like in all concert halls?

 

I think you're reading far too much into what people are saying about taste and you also believe there is a way to judge accuracy when listening to music through a component. 

 

You're fooling yourself if you think that your memory of a concert, or several concerts, will allow you to discern if a violin on a recording sounds accurate through an audio system. If all violins sound the same, all concert halls are the same, there are zero production decisions to be made when recording, mixing, and mastering the music, all concert goers sat in the same seat the same distance from the violin, and all musicians pull the exact same sounds from all violins, then you'd be on the right path. 

 

However, people have been fooled for decades into believing it's possible to judge absolute accuracy through a HiFi system. 

 

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. Take a good recording, and compare it in several systems and you'll start to understand what I am talking about :) 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

What do you mean by characteristics? 

 

 

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 (low level detail, distortion, possibly others).

 

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Totally.

 

Plus, not even a person who owns and black beauty knows how it was processed at the recording session and in post production. 

 

But who cares ? We don't evaluate a system only based on 1920s recordings. Do you ?

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

24 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

OK, I'm out. 

 

Don't give up. I'll try to make things simpler for you...or perhaps someone can help me out !

 

What I understand from the answers given by those who think that it's all a matter of taste is this: we don't know what the actual recording sounds like, because we were not there, or even if we were, the recording process introduces its own "filter". 

 

Well, I was not present during the filming of every scene of every movie I have ever watched, but I am still able to tell whether the director is filming things with "accuracy" or whether he is introducing effects. I can also tell whether the scene is filmed in a studio or in a real outdoors setting. I am also able to tell the difference between a low and high resolution image. Why ? Because the brain is able to establish patterns and similarities. Its the same with musical instruments. I don't know how to explain it better - it seems so obvious to me, and it seems really ludicrous to think that because we were not present at the moment of the recording then we cannot judge how systems reproduce sound (...though in fact, that's what this hobby is all about and what everyone does all the time)

 

 

 

 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

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. 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

20 hours ago, mfsoa said:

Just thinking out loud - not directed at anyone-

 

Ooooh I hate the term "Accurately" or "Accuracy" in these discussions.

 

Accurate to what?  The sound on the recording medium?  Sorry, it has no sound, it is grooves or bits. No sound there. You have no way to know what those pits are "supposed" to sound like.

Accurate to what was heard by the recording or mastering engineer?  Unless you have the same speakers and room (not to mention ear/brain) etc. that's out the window.

Accurate to what the musicians heard in playback? In the studio? In their head? Which musician? The drummer? The bass player?  No source of accuracy there either.

Accurate to what the real instruments sound like in real space?  After sitting behind drum sets for 50 years believe me the last thing you want is to reproduce the sound of a real drum set in your living room. You would be running for the treble knob and volume too. What people think of as a "well recorded drum set" bears only a passing relationship to what the instrument sounds like in real space, if that. The thought of an accurate drum sound - you don't want it - you would run for cover. To see people discussing the accuracy of a recorded drum set when the recorded sound is sooo different from the true sound of the instrument, well I just don't get.

 

 

Years ago The Absolute Sound held an event for all the industry big-wigs and they had a solo violinist walking around. They couldn't believe the amount of HF energy coming out of the violin and said that if they made their systems to reproduce it exactly they'd be out of business - No one would ever want a system that sounded like that.

 

The accuracy chain is broken the instant sound hits the recording microphone far more than it is in your playback system.

 

Where does this leave me?  IMO we search to reduce persistent coloration - "Everything sounds wet-blankety" "there is sibilance everywhere" and that is what is really meant by accuracy - Lack of persistent coloration.

 

And then we have the physical differences in the listener to account for, and their individual preferences, none of which can be based on a search for Accuracy because there is no such thing unless defined in very specific terms ("I want to hear exactly what the control room sounded like"  "I want to hear it from the drummer's chair"  "I want to hear it from the trumpet section which puts the level of the sax section way low in the mix"

 

Sure, at some level, there needs to some accuracy. My brick and mortar-owning brother goes to a site survey and the guy's home theater is made up of all different speakers, many wired out of phase, and the guy doesn't realize he is not using Dolby Digital but instead is using some fake surround mode. But the guy is convinced that this is the best system he has ever heard. OK this guys needs some learnin' about accuracy.

 

Blah Blah word salad for breakfast...

 

 

 

 

 

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... 

 

 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

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? 

 

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. 

 

And yet when we compare equipment it all becomes a matter of taste. I give up! 

 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

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. 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

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.

 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

Here is what Joe Whip has to say about a power cord:

 

 

 

"What really shocked me was the sound of the piano. With the strip in place, piano recordings sounded even more like the real thing, especially the upper registers which had a purer smoother sound. To me, listening to a system fully powered by these Essential Sound Products, you are more fully able to hear what your individual components and system are capable of producing. You get a clearer, smoother yet more detailed and dynamic sound, much more like the real thing, at least as far as I could imagine from my system and room." 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

 

 

In his review of a power supply entitled "Reality quest" Ray-dude concludes:

 

"Right out of the gate, it was obvious that DC4 was taking all the goodness of the DC3 and kicking up several notches: faster and more controlled dynamics (to put it mildly), breathtaking resolution and clarity and control, a true physicality and presence in the bass, and (most importantly for me) a remarkable holographic sense of space that spreads from behind the speakers to next to me on my sofa, and even above me. If DC3 makes instruments real and physically present, DC4 brings the performance into the room and up next to you, creating a hologram of the space of the performance that must be experienced to believe.

 

I typically listen to small ensemble works, looking for that jazz club or coffee house live music experience. With the DC4, complex orchestral works are now a completely different experience. The sense of being in the hall (or at the conductor's podium, depending on the recording) is absolutely intoxicating. The resolution and dynamics almost allow you to pick out individual performers (like you can in a live performance)...so close but even this small taste gives a sense of intimacy and participation in the performance that is incredibly moving and intoxicating."

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

 

 

In this review, Chris noted:

 

"Through the Boulder 866 / SR1a combination the electric guitar sounds appropriately dirty, grungy and full of fantastic distortion. As both Tom petty and Mike Campbell start and stop / re-enter the track, the little noises before hitting the strings are all audible and bring the listen that much closer to being in the studio. For a recording that I never considered HiFI, I sure enjoyed all that's captured on it and reproduced through this Boulder amp. In fact, Petty's voice at the very start of the track, "All right here we go ..." Sounds so real it's like my headphones are plugged into the soundboard of the recording studio rather than the outputs of the Boulder 866 Integrated. This is what high end audio is all about to me. Bringing me one step, or two steps closer to the real thing. "

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

 

 

In this review of the Pontus gmgraves claims "This is the Best DAC that this reviewer has ever heard! I was able to A/B the Pontus against some formidable competition, but I have also listened at great length to such DACs as the MSB Diamond 4 with outboard clock, the dCS Vivaldi, and the Pontus blows the all out of the water."

 

What's interesting is that his review is based on his own recordings:

 

" As most readers here know, I have a rather large collection of my own master recordings. I made these recordings using my own equipment and they are comprised of a surprisingly eclectic range of musical genres. I have recordings of major symphony orchestras, string ensembles, jazz and swing bands, small jazz ensembles recorded in a variety of venues from symphony halls to intimate nightclubs to winery tasting rooms to private homes."

 

Based on his experience of the recorded music, he can evaluate the performance (accuracy?) of the DAC, for example the soundstage:

 

" All DACs do a credible job (mostly due to the inherent extreme channel separation of the digital recording process) of this. But there is sound-staging and there is sound-staging, and the Pontus just does it better than the others in this test. Having been there, I have a vivid mental picture of how the musicians were deployed, and I can close my eyes and pinpoint every instrument, not just to their relative area within the sound-field, but specifically to the exact spot occupied by each musician! "

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

 

In this review Chris states:

 

"Listening to my beloved Three Blind Mice Supreme Collection 1500 from 44.1 to DSD512 through the ARIES G2.1 was fabulous. I have no doubt the G2.1 is a reference level component on par with the best digital source components available. For example, playing the Isao Suzuki Trio's album Blow Up through the ARIES G2.1 and the Terminator revealed everything from the micro details at the heist frequencies to delivering the heft and texture of the lowest cello frequencies. BY the time I passed one minute into the first track, I didn't need to listen any longer to render my unequivocal opinion about the ARIES G2.1, but why mess up a good thing. I listened to the entire album uninterrupted, transported to Aoi Studio in Tokyo, Japan in 1977. It's hard to believe how much information is on old recordings. After using the ARIES G2.1 for several weeks, it's not hard to believe that this information is there for the taking, or should I say listening. As long as one's components are in the same class as the G2.1, it's all possible."

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

 

 

In this review, I wonder if gmgraves was actually in the recording studio to substantiate this claim 😂

 

"One of the most natural, and realistic recordings that I have is our own Mario Martinez’ recording on his PlayClassics label “Angel Cabrera Plays Debussy”. This album is a perfectly recorded solo grand piano. I’ve always thought that this recording sounded more like an actual grand piano playing in my living room than any other that I have ever heard. But the new Yggy breaks through that wall of recording artificiality and actually, uncannily, brings already great sounding piano right into the room. All sense of listening to a recording is gone. It’s quite incredible!"

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I think there is a language barrier here and a cultural barrier. None of your examples make any sense to me. 

 

OK. I'm out! 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

14 minutes ago, firedog said:

Even 2 different masterings of the same recording can sound different. Which one is more accurate and real?

 

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

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

OK, so Chris, let's go completely off topic and discuss which recording techniques are better. That's going to be really helpful. 

 

It can turn into a "free for all" when the administrator of this site does not agree with the OP! WTF ! 

 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

12 minutes 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.

 

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.