Jump to content
IGNORED

Audio reproduction is a matter of taste?


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Ive never owned a Beatles record. 

 

 

Have a streaming service? Heck, you can probably get it as a free trial from Apple, Amazon, Qobuz, Tidal....

 

And one more: On the Beach Boys' "God Only Knows," what's the other percussion instrument playing with the sleigh bells beginning 18-20 seconds in?

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Have a streaming service? Heck, you can probably get it as a free trial from Apple, Amazon, Qobuz, Tidal....

 

And one more: On the Beach Boys' "God Only Knows, what's the other percussion instrument playing with the sleigh bells beginning 18-20 seconds in?

Dont like them either, suffice to say im sure fans with decent systems can provide you with the correct answers. 

Link to comment
18 minutes 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"?

 

14 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Ive never owned a Beatles record. 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Have a streaming service? Heck, you can probably get it as a free trial from Apple, Amazon, Qobuz, Tidal....

 

And one more: On the Beach Boys' "God Only Knows," what's the other percussion instrument playing with the sleigh bells beginning 18-20 seconds in?

 

3 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Dont like them either, suffice to say im sure fans with decent systems can provide you with the correct answers. 

 

OK, anyone who has what they consider a decent system who either owns these tracks or can stream them - and doesn't already know the answers - have at it! Give me your best guesses after listening!

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, Jud said:

OK, anyone who has what they consider a decent system who either owns these tracks or can stream them - and doesn't already know the answers - have at it! Give me your best guesses after listening!

 

Hi Jud - I promise this is honest.

 

I'm on my ripping PC. Lo-res Yamaha desktop speakers. V early morning. Quiet house but very low volume. Very little resolving power.

 

I guessed hand clap / knee slap / more echoey-mechanical don't know - coconut shells maybe.

 

I think I'm right from a cursory look-up on the 2 Beatles. I still don't know the Beach Boys.

 

My point is - I didn't need any system resolving power to do this. Surely if we're talking about "accuracy" as you contextualise it, we'd need a good system to do this stuff. We don't. It's something else. Something very human.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

The value in these reviewers grows for the reader over time as he begins to understand the reviewers biases, preferences, and has experienced/replicated the reviewer's findings in his own auditions of the equipment.

 

Would you say that it would make sense to apply this to manufacturers as well ? Meaning, you would purchase equipment from manufacturers that have the same "preferences" as you ?

Link to comment
9 hours ago, fas42 said:

There's a very simple definition of reproduction accuracy - it's where you are never aware of any distortion being contributed by the playback chain; as soon as you hear a 'tell' of something in the SQ that is contributed by the components of the rigs, then you have lost accuracy - a really special setup has absolutely zero personality; it never, never, never "makes it sound better!" - what it's doing is getting completely out of the way; something which turns out to be pretty difficult ... which is why many people just completely give up on such a goal ... 😉.

 

This is more or less what Salvatore explains as well: http://www.high-endaudio.com/philos.html#Ign

The perfect system would be "indescribable"....

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Iving said:

 

Hi Jud - I promise this is honest.

 

I'm on my ripping PC. Lo-res Yamaha desktop speakers. V early morning. Quiet house but very low volume. Very little resolving power.

 

I guessed hand clap / knee slap / more echoey-mechanical don't know - coconut shells maybe.

 

I think I'm right from a cursory look-up on the 2 Beatles. I still don't know the Beach Boys.

 

My point is - I didn't need any system resolving power to do this. Surely if we're talking about "accuracy" as you contextualise it, we'd need a good system to do this stuff. We don't. It's something else. Something very human.

 

I agree you don't need system resolving power for "echoey-mechanical." 🙂

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
49 minutes ago, Jud said:

I agree you don't need system resolving power for "echoey-mechanical." 🙂

 

crucially also ...

 

... or to discern a hand clap - with no prior knowledge ...

 

... and then to discern a knee slap with zero advice ...

 

.... not just correctly ...

 

... but distinguishing one from the other.

 

Accordingly - such fine distinctions have little to do with the supposed "accuracy" of a system.

 

Probably same re guitars and all the other stuff we have been discussing.

 

Our brains just don't need resolution or Hi-Fi to do this ...

 

Either system "accuracy" is to do with other things - presumably as already understood by some (such as bluesman) - the technical concordance between master and what we're hearing from our speakers - however you might ever get access to all the info you need to gauge that ...

 

or

 

Accuracy is more usefully understood as the mapping relationship of system output to brain memory. Weak or strong. Relative accuracy.

 

We shouldn't underestimate what's in our brains.

 

A lifetime of inter-related data - and I'm just using an early 21st century analogy for something that's taken billions of years to evolve - in other words our appreciation of the human brain will be paradigm-different next century and the century after that - if we ever get there - but I digress. Our brains are humongous as info resources - and we are very quick-witted. We don't realise how amazing we are (and probably never can).

 

Accuracy is the appreciation our brain helps us contrive of sensory input which we recognise as more or less real (or more or less convincing or distorted or lifelike or even enjoyable or meaningful etc).

 

Feels right. Feels wrong. Maybe sleeping on it helps.

 

Music is a language. There is a medium for it aside from wires and thin air.

 

This appreciation is both a subjective and objective process/phenomenon. I explained how it is objective (common or shared understandings) on the Album of the Year thread just recently.

Link to comment
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.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, firedog said:

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.

 

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.

Link to comment
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. 

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, firedog said:

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. 

 

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.

Link to comment
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. 

 

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, firedog said:

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.

It's not connected to lo-fi or hi-fi. Hi-fi doesn't really help here. 

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.

 

Spoil my day why don't you

 

image.gif.32b2985d3d6c6216ac575255003ebca6.gif

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Iving said:

 

Spoil my day why don't you

 

image.gif.32b2985d3d6c6216ac575255003ebca6.gif

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

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
7 hours ago, hopkins said:
17 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

The value in these reviewers grows for the reader over time as he begins to understand the reviewers biases, preferences, and has experienced/replicated the reviewer's findings in his own auditions of the equipment.

 

Would you say that it would make sense to apply this to manufacturers as well ? Meaning, you would purchase equipment from manufacturers that have the same "preferences" as you ?

 

To clarify, when I said "preferences," it was in the context of people who are striving for high fidelity, but knowing the imperfect nature of reproduction tend to value and seek certain areas of realism as more important to them (soundstage, timbral accuracy, etc.).  This further informs the reader's interpretation of the review.

 

And yes, it is probably reasonable to assume that manufacturers have similar biases and this comes out in their equipment.  Hence, certain listeners will gravitate to certain manufacturers as preferred.

 

This doesn't preclude the pursuit of realism as I describe it, it just shows that we aren't there yet (and likely never will be).  You could think that if a manufacturer achieved realism that all others would go out of business.  Wouldn't be the case, though, as so many listeners aren't pursuing it.

 

Bill

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, firedog said:

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.

 

6 hours ago, firedog said:

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. 

 

4 hours ago, firedog said:

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

 

I agree with everything you've said except the last, because your first couple of quotes got exactly what I was aiming at.

 

We've discussed here both how varied even acoustic instruments can be, and also how the recording process itself can alter sounds. The Gillian Welch track was an example of the first; this is an example of the second. My assumption is that if we were standing in the studio with our eyes closed, the majority of us would be able to say definitively whether Ringo was slapping his hands on his knees or the side of a packing crate. (Try it if you like, the sounds are very different.) I'd also suppose those of us of a certain age back when matchboxes were more common wouldn't have trouble live in studio recognizing the sound of a box of matches being tapped.

 

No one guessed at God Only Knows; the answer is Jim Gordon using sticks to tap on plastic juice bottles cut to different lengths. The next time you've finished a plastic jug of milk, tap on the empty jug with your fingernails. That's a very distinctive sound. I'd bet if you were in the studio that day blindfolded, you wouldn't have had trouble recognizing the sound of something hollow and plastic being hit.

 

Yet discerning these things in recordings of two of the most famous and popular groups working at the time, with audio systems costing thousands, is utterly beyond us. So tell me how we can assess in any objective fashion whether our systems are giving us the best approximation of "the real thing" the recording will allow, or whether it really becomes a matter of whether the system sounds somehow real to us, despite the fact we don't know quite what the real thing sounded like - in other words, meeting our subjective criteria or taste.

 

(N.B. I've met Chris, and he's right. His recorded voice through the mic - one speaking voice, just about the easiest, purest recording situation there is - sounds different than it does when you're sitting around talking to him.)

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, hopkins said:

So here's a fun test. Please tell me what type of guitars (acoustic, electric, whatever... ) are played on this track:

 

https://storage.googleapis.com/cloudplayer/samples/Test Guitars.flac

 

You should be able to play it directly from your browser or download it.

 

Listened once through my main system. The higher frequency instrument sounds like a kora (acoustic African stringed instrument) to me. It sounds like it has nylon rather than metal wound strings. The lower frequency instrument sounds like an acoustic bass guitar - could be nylon or metal wound.

 

Nice find. 🙂 Now I'll see if Shazam can identify this. (I won't tell, though.)

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

 

 

I agree with everything you've said except the last, because your first couple of quotes got exactly what I was aiming at.

 

We've discussed here both how varied even acoustic instruments can be, and also how the recording process itself can alter sounds. The Gillian Welch track was an example of the first; this is an example of the second. My assumption is that if we were standing in the studio with our eyes closed, the majority of us would be able to say definitively whether Ringo was slapping his hands on his knees or the side of a packing crate. (Try it if you like, the sounds are very different.) I'd also suppose those of us of a certain age back when matchboxes were more common wouldn't have trouble live in studio recognizing the sound of a box of matches being tapped.

 

No one guessed at God Only Knows; the answer is Jim Gordon using sticks to tap on plastic juice bottles cut to different lengths. The next time you've finished a plastic jug of milk, tap on the empty jug with your fingernails. That's a very distinctive sound. I'd bet if you were in the studio that day blindfolded, you wouldn't have had trouble recognizing the sound of something hollow and plastic being hit.

 

Yet discerning these things in recordings of two of the most famous and popular groups working at the time, with audio systems costing thousands, is utterly beyond us. So tell me how we can assess in any objective fashion whether our systems are giving us the best approximation of "the real thing" the recording will allow, or whether it really becomes a matter of whether the system sounds somehow real to us, despite the fact we don't know quite what the real thing sounded like - in other words, meeting our subjective criteria or taste.

 

(N.B. I've met Chris, and he's right. His recorded voice through the mic - one speaking voice, just about the easiest, purest recording situation there is - sounds different than it does when you're sitting around talking to him.)

 

All this is true, and we can blame both the recording process and the playback system for degrading the sound. But let's put aside this idea that we would want to recreate the original musical event in our living rooms. Is it not possible to agree on the relative quality of various equipment and systems? Let's forget about "sounding real" and focus on what qualities we seek in systems. Resolution, noise floor, dynamics...these are not characteristics that we can compare and evaluate? 

 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Listened once through my main system. The higher frequency instrument sounds like a kora (acoustic African stringed instrument) to me. It sounds like it has nylon rather than metal wound strings. The lower frequency instrument sounds like an acoustic bass guitar - could be nylon or metal wound.

 

Nice find. 🙂 Now I'll see if Shazam can identify this. (I won't tell, though.)

Edited... Will save the answer for later

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...