Audio reproduction is a matter of taste?

[Kimo]

1 hour ago, hopkins said:

How can we evaluate accuracy independantly of the recording? The most obvious characteristic of a system that we can evaluate is the ability to reproduce details.

 

When I listen to a song on my phones with my awesome Koss Porta Pro headphones (just joking, though I do like them a lot) I don't hear as much detail as when I listen to the same song on my speakers. I also hear more detail when I listen to the same song on my DAC with my Etymotic Er4sr headphones than on my speakers. 

 

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. 

 

Now some people may not like "détail". They'll say "this system is too analytical". For them détail is not accuracy? Or are they referring to something else? 

 

More to follow... 

 

They may be referring to a certain presentation that exaggerates or illuminates the presence region.  A bump at 8K should make you feel all detailed and airy, but it won't be accurate.    

 

Pretty much covers at least half the equipment ever produced.  

 

If you want to evaluate SNR by ear, reverb is a good place to start.

[Kimo]

I am listening to two different amps today.  One has ultra low distortion and an SNR of 126, fully balanced, ultra clean.  The other is a modern version of a traditional push/pull tube amp with respectable specs for its ilk.  The former was designed for optimal measurements using lateral mosfets.  The latter was designed to sound like real instruments.

 

Well, they don't sound exactly the same, but I expect if anyone were to be fooled into thinking that actual musicians were playing in the room, they would be fooled by the tube amp.

 

So, which is more accurate?  Perhaps, "accuracy" is a matter of taste.

[Kimo]

1 hour ago, semente said:

 

Do you really believe that such a thing is at all possible?

 

You can get closer than not, but I don't know if a low THD is going to get you there.

[Kimo]

1 hour ago, bluesman said:

Perhaps so - but I suspect it's more the fact that "realism" is a matter of taste. So is "sound quality".  GIven that there's no such thing as the best, this is both understandable and reasonable.  If there were truly a "best" anything, most of us would be uniform in our praise and our desire to have it.

 

Well, I can tell you that the solid state piece is "better" based on the typical Stereophile criteria, but I also suspect that most non audiophiles would pick the tube amp, likely along with the VPI spinning a slab of vinyl.  

 

As far as "best," I thought that it has been generally accepted that would be Bose.

[Kimo]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

 

The tube amp ... when the "ultra low distortion" unit is part of the replay chain, the latter either directly or indirectly allows the listener to be more aware of anomalies in the sound, which degrade the sense of realism. Directly, because in spite of those measurements the amp does in fact distort in audibly significant  ways, or, its presence in the chain impacts the other components, interferes in some manner, for example, by the current waveform on the mains ... indirectly, by the absence of noise which in the case of the tube amp with higher values of random noise helps to mask the disturbing anomalies, which are always present from the other components in operation - here, think of the value of dither in masking noticeable artifacts, 🙂.

 

If the presentation is subjectively more realistic, then it is more "accurate" - a beautiful girl can have lighting on her face which enhances her appeal; or, be set up to accentuate every imperfection of her complexion - now, which is the "more accurate" lighting 😉?

 

Or I could indulge in further masking behavior like scotch or bourbon...

 

I did see a white paper on tube amp noise and its beneficial effect on the PS Audio board.  The author noted that the key was in the voltage drive of the tube.