Audio reproduction is a matter of taste?

[fas42]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

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. 

 

If one has ever experienced playback that produces a strong illusion, to the degree where it is impossible to detect that you're being fooled, just using your ears - then you know what's possible.

 

There is however a hurdle that one has to get over; a feat which is very difficult to achieve - leading to the thinking of "we are falling short, and always will" ... especially these days, that hurdle is mainly about noise, and interference, disturbing the quality of the low level information - this is why there is a constant stream of new, and revisited ideas, being trotted out, especially in the area of how DACs are put together, and refined - this is a key area where critical losses of SQ occur; leading to the ongoing battle of trying to get the integrity here more under control. The best thought out, and hence usually the most expensive units, are largely on top of it now - otherwise, DIY refining is the best alternative.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I think it’s all like court case. Look hard enough and you’ll find a precedent and an expert supporting your opinion. To me, it’s all a matter of taste, even though it would be much easier if it wasn’t. 

 

As a recently retired attorney, I can tell you there were times I wished there were a supporting precedent, but no luck. 🙂

[Jud]

Delete duplicate.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

I don't expect home audio to perfectly reproduce live

 

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"?

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

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.

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

[semente]

8 hours ago, firedog said:

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.

 

And like some audiophiles enjoy playback which sounds like "reproduced or hi-fi sound", there's people who prefer recordings made with close-mic'ed instruments and vocals and/or a very well-defined soundstage instead of a more natural or realistic presentation.

 

Toole/Olive/Harman did try to push their agenda that the majority prefered the same sound presentation, that the majority prefered wide-directivity, that the majority prefered accuracy. Even with help from a new powerful publicity platform like ASR they are failing to standardise taste... Thankfully. (though I can see the appeal from a marketing perspective)

[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. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 hours ago, semente said:

they are failing to standardise taste... Thankfully

Love it. +1

[Allan F]

FWIW, I just happened upon this opinion piece by Steve Guttenberg from the May, 2016 issue of Stereophile:

The Fallacy of Accuracy

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

FWIW, I just happened upon this opinion piece by Steve Guttenberg from the May, 2016 issue of Stereophile:

The Fallacy of Accuracy

 

LOL. Guttenberg cherry picking comments from manufacturers to justify his ridiculous reviews, that's a really convincing argument! 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

Review of the Denafrips Terminator after being blown away by the entry level Denafrips Ares, much more resolution and analogue-ness than his reference Schitt DAC:

 

 

Later... 

 

Terminator Plus - "If you crave ultimate resolution from your digital music..." 

 

And now... 

 

"The Tambaqi is telling you what's really in the recording..." 

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

31 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

LOL. Guttenberg cherry picking comments from manufacturers to justify his ridiculous reviews, that's a really convincing argument! 

I don’t think his comments are ridiculous. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, hopkins said:

Review of the Denafrips Terminator after being blown away by the entry level Denafrips Ares, much more resolution and analogue-ness than his reference Schitt DAC:

 

 

Later... 

 

Terminator Plus - "If you crave ultimate resolution from your digital music..." 

 

And now... 

 

"The Tambaqi is telling you what's really in the recording..." 

 

 

 

Is it possible to hear something better at a later date? Of course it is. 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

8 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Is it possible to hear something better at a later date? Of course it is. 

 

For starters, if you are going to rave about how analog a DAC sounds you should probably spend some time comparing it to analog, especially if a year later you are going to explain that the next DAC is much better because it sounds analogue. Not to mention the fact that an analog sound does not mean anything anyway. 

 

Then if you write an article to explain that speakers are not accurate perhaps you should think twice before telling your viewers  that each DAC you review is so accurate (and so much more than the previous one). 

 

This guy is a joke. 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

For starters, if you are going to rave about how analog a DAC sounds you should probably spend some time comparing it to analog, especially if a year later you are going to explain that the next DAC is much better because it sounds analogue. Not to mention the fact that an analog sound does not mean anything anyway. 

 

Then if you write an article to explain that speakers are not accurate perhaps you should think twice before telling your viewers  that each DAC you review is so accurate (and so much more than the previous one). 

 

This guy is a joke. 

 

 

I wasn’t aware he claimed each DAC is so much more accurate than the previous DACs. That I’ll disagree with, but I don’t mind someone hearing a better DAC at a later date. That’s bound to happen. 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

25 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I wasn’t aware he claimed each DAC is so much more accurate than the previous DACs. That I’ll disagree with, but I don’t mind someone hearing a better DAC at a later date. That’s bound to happen. 

 

Watch the videos. 

 

You have spend your time in this thread explaining page after page (there are now 17) that it's all subjective because we are not in the recording booth; you "like" Guttenburg's article claiming that accuracy is a pipe dream; yet it does not bother you when he concludes his last DAC review with "The Tambaqi is telling you what's really in the recording"? 

 

 

[Jud]

HP started Absolute Sound as a rebellion against the audio mags of the day that essentially acted as sales brochures for the equipment they reviewed. It took no advertising and specialized in acid comments that were tremendously entertaining (at least to me, certainly not the manufacturers). Now pretty much every print and online mag is back to what HP rebelled against. I don't consider them helpful in deciding what to audition or buy.

 

@hopkins, I'm not sure you could have a clearer demonstration that rankings of components are virtually never objective. It's going to be up to the individual's taste (with perhaps some assistance from any measurements that may be relevant).

[Allan F]

14 minutes ago, Jud said:

It's going to be up to the individual's taste (with perhaps some assistance from any measurements that may be relevant).

 

Not all reviewers are shills for manufacturers, although each probably has his/her subjective biases. However, when you are familiar with the latter and they coincide somewhat with your own, their reviews can be helpful in deciding what you many want to audition.

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, hopkins said:

Not to mention the fact that an analog sound does not mean anything anyway. 

 

It means something to anyone old enough to be familiar with both vinyl and the history and characteristics of digital sound from the time of the introduction of the compact disc in 1982.

[Jud]

19 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Not all reviewers are shills for manufacturers, although each probably has his/her subjective biases. However, when you are familiar with the latter and they coincide somewhat with your own, their reviews can be helpful in deciding what you many want to audition.

 

Then you'll be able to provide me a very negative review of an expensive component?

[fas42]

Taste, in the sense expressed here, and accuracy can't co-exist - if the playback is truly accurate, then what you hear is what's on the recording; there is no physical way for it to be otherwise ... now, it's fine to want to mold, or spice up the sound to suit preferences; but don't ever confuse that with accuracy.

 

Digital has always had problems with distortions of the replay chain being part of what you heard - only the very latest units coming out now get it pretty right, straight from the box; and then you have the silliness of calling these components "analogue in tone"  ... ummm, any reproduction chain which gets the irritating misbehaviour artifacts under control will sound, "analogue" - if people don't understand what's going on then the industry will continue blundering in the dark, more times than not getting it wrong, rather than right ...

[Allan F]

30 minutes ago, Jud said:

Then you'll be able to provide me a very negative review of an expensive component?

 

"Very negative" is a relative term. But, two negative reviews from the files of Stereophile:

 

EAR Acute Classic CD Player, review by Art Dudley

Bryston 7B SST2 monoblock power amplifier, review by Michael Fremer

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

Watch the videos. 

 

You have spend your time in this thread explaining page after page (there are now 17) that it's all subjective because we are not in the recording booth; you "like" Guttenburg's article claiming that accuracy is a pipe dream; yet it does not bother you when he concludes his last DAC review with "The Tambaqi is telling you what's really in the recording"? 

 

 

I already said I have a problem with accuracy statements. 
 

I haven’t watched the videos, which is why I was surprised to read what he said. 
 

Your horse is pretty high tonight. 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

6 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

It means something to anyone old enough to be familiar with both vinyl and the history and characteristics of digital sound from the time of the introduction of the compact disc in 1982.

 

Analog sounding can be understood in different ways - read any topic on this site dealing with analog VS digital if you are not convinced. 

 

I could understand Guttenberg's qualification of a DAC sounding analog as "distorted, inaccurate, but pleasing".