Audio reproduction is a matter of taste?

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 minutes ago, hopkins said:

At least one person (Salvatore) seems to support the same ideas - and he is certainly experienced.

 

I just read the page to which you linked earlier. I didn't find anything suggesting we could listen to components and judge accuracy. Perhaps I missed that?

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, hopkins said:

you will see that the attributes he looks for (low level detail, absence of "distortion") are really synonym to accuracy, which is basically = extracting all the information from the source, nothing more, nothing less. 

 

That's not what I glean from his statements at all. If accuracy was an attribute he looked for, he could've easily just said that. Low level detail has nothing to do with accuracy in and of itself. I can use tons of EQ and still get low level details. The absence of something, in this case distortion, doesn't automatically mean the presence of another tangentially related thing, in this case accuracy. 

 

I'm certainly not holding that everything is subjective all the time. I'm saying that once we get to a certain level of performance, it really comes down to taste. The new Schiit Yggdrasil DACs all measure terrifically. There really isn't anything else objective that's indicative of each model's performance differences. It comes down to which one people like. 

 

I don't think it's possible to listen to the new Yggdrasil LiM and MiL and identify which one is more accurate. I like LiM much better and believe it sounds more accurate but that's not an objective statement. It's my taste. 

 

For example, through MiL, an orchestral piece sounded jumbled. Perhaps the recording sounds that way and the LiM just un-jumbles it. I find that hard to believe though. Other people heard just the opposite from me. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, bluesman said:

Unless you’re exaggerating for effect, ya kinda lost me here, Chris.  Anything and everything in the chain from mic element to the final product can and often does diminish the differentiators among instruments etc. So it’s simply not possible to do that for many, if not most, commercial recordings.  Only if the recording is accurate can reproduction be judged for accuracy.

 

I was just illustrating my point. 

 

If people claim they can judge accuracy in a recording, then that's impossible without understanding what is supposed to be represented in that recording. Let's take a very simple recording of a solo violinist. It isn't possible to say one's home playback is accurate unless one knows the exact violin, the recording space, the mic position, the exact microphone(s) used, etc... Each of those change the recording.

 

Violin > Neumann U 67 > a bunch of stuff > DAC > amp > speakers > ears

 

vs

 

Violin > Avantone CV-12 > a bunch of stuff > DAC > amp > speakers > ears

 

 

How can you say which one is accurate at home if you don't know which mic was used in the recording? 

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

This is an age-old topic (well, since the beginning of the high fidelity golden era in the 50s) and has been written about extensively for decades.  It therefore can be instructive to look back, even though lots of it is from what has been described as the "old guard" on this site.  Some of them were very, very astute listeners.

 

JGH at Stereophile and Harry Pearson at TAS really ushered in the era of subjective assessment that is the foundation of subjective assessment of gear used on this site.  They were both dissatisfied when their listening impressions didn't correlate with fully objective (measurements) of the day and started their magazines based on this idea.  "The idea was of reality being the only valid metric when evaluating sound or systems that produce sound. Specifically, the point of your hi-fi was to recreate, as faithfully as possible, the sound of “the live event." The best hi-fi systems would freely cross the uncanny valley; playback would be indistinguishable from the original. Real instruments, played by real people, in real spaces — that was ever the barometer, the reference, and the aim. That was “the absolute sound.”  HP coined the phrase and JGH shared the goal.

 

https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2020/04/08/what-is-the-absolute-sound/

 

The other approaches, historically, have been "faithfulness/reproduction of what is on the recording" and "sound that I like" (the last a trend that increased over the last 20 years or so and that JGH decried, especially when it got into stereophile, Art Dudley being the main proponent, and apparently the majority belief here).

 

Pursuit of the "absolute sound" was also primarily focused on real instruments and real spaces (hi-fi listeners way back were primarily interested in the reproduction of classical music).  Many were also recordists who had the opportunity to compare what they heard at home to the halls.  JGH in particular.  Or gmgraves, who reviews on this site.  Many times these days non-classical music never really exists as sound in a space so can't be judged in the same way. 

 

There was a thread here on the topic when HP died.  There are some nice thoughts from @gmgraves:

 

"Since HP coined the term, he certainly would have known what it meant. Gordon used it too, and his definition was the same as HP's. At the risk of being seen as repetitive, I don't see how it can be defined in any other way."

 

 

I'll stick with the absolute sound approach for me as my goal, especially with classical music and other music recorded with "real instruments in a real space."  If the other approaches make one happy I am fine with that (and their musical tastes might preclude any consideration of "accuracy"), but there are those who will pursue (though never reach) "accuracy," and I think it is a valid approach.

 

For those interested in the history of our hobby and how this road has been trod before:

 

It's the Real Thing!

https://www.stereophile.com/content/its-real-thing

 

The Absolute Sound of What?

https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/363/index.html

 

The Acoustical Standard (with follow-up)

https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/111

 

The Last Word on Fidelity

https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/589awsi/index.html

 

Bill

 

Thanks for the post. I value historical perspectives whether or not I agree with the authors of those perspectives. 

 

Thanks Bill. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Which would appear to suggest that you value those historical perspectives with which you agree more than those with which you don't. 🙂

Huh?

 

I really like history and the views of those who think differently than I do. The only way to learn and even strengthen one’s perspective is to understand that of others. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Allan F said:

Being exposed to historical perspectives different from our own of which we were unaware may have the opposite effect of challenging or even changing our previously held perspective.

Of course. It depends on the person and the perspective. I like to understand where people are coming from. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

21 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

I listened to the track on my headphones and my speakers. I have no idea whether it is an acoustic guitar or an electric (but if so, certainly with effects) ! All I can say is that it sounds much better on my headphones than on my speakers (even listening "near field" to the left speaker). On my Etymotic headphones plugged in to my DAC there is noticeably less "distortion", in my humble opinion, than on my speakers - the sound is "crisp", the notes on the guitar (especially at the beginnning, later on the music is a little crowded) are more distinct, resonant, etc... Based on this track, and not knowing exactly which instruments are being played I can see the benefit of not going through interconnects, an amplifier, crossovers, etc and having a more "direct" sound. Of course, my speakers are not "high end", but I have conducted the same experiment at friends' with different speakers (obviously different tracks).

 

In summary: the "character" of the guitar, which ever model/type it may be, is enhanced when the resolution/accuracy is improved (to my ears).

That’s a terrific endorsement for this all being a matter of taste. Without knowing what the instrument even is, you think the sound is much better through one system than another. Better is of course a matter of taste. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

Absolutely, and I am not ashamed to say so. I am obviously having a very hard time explaining why, but I have tried not to simply say "better". Perhaps you could tell me how "distortion" sounds to you ?

 

I think this is what we all do every day. We listen and decide which one sounds better. It's part of the fun of this hobby. 

 

We should first define distortion before discussing it further though. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Every recording engineer I've ever talked to, including those who've won Grammys for best engineered album, chose microphones for their sound. If the listener doesn't know the sound of the microphone being used, he can't tell if the playback is accurate because he doesn't know what sound the microphone has on the recording. 

 

If a microphone adds warmth to a vocal, but the playback system doesn't sound warm, the listener may say it's more accurate without the warmth. However, that isn't what's on the record because the microphone added warmth that was selected by those involved in the recording. 

 

Thus, people may know instruments all day long, but without knowing the sonic signatures of microphones, they are still guessing what's accurate. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

We already know and agree that there are an infinite # of variables that converge when a "real life" situation is concentrated into some "transcription" of it - aka a recording. In analogue we may have the audacity to assume that "everything" gets encoded to some degree no matter how small. I don't know enough relevant maths to argue the matter in relation to digital. The point is - you can argue all day long and get nowhere if you take this approach. You'll never get to the bottom of things. OK. Point made.

 

Relative accuracy - the successful mapping of playback to our brain representations - well that's a discussion worth having. It seems to be most of our focus so far. I'm just trying a distillation which I hope is facilitative – for everybody if we’re in luck. If not – no tears need to be shed.

 

Ah, so it is a matter of taste and the discussion has moved on to relative accuracy. Relative accuracy reminds me of alternative facts. Either something is accurate or it isn't. Relatively accurate isn't accurate. 

 

Carry on. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Are there degrees of relative accuracy such as Bose, Klipsch, Revel, etc...?

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Iving said:

I've another one for you. I know how much you like to listen and learn ;-)

 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Avoiding-the-Issue

 

Please educate me on alternative facts, I mean relative accuracy. 

 

The term relative accuracy make zero sense. Saying 5 is a relatively accurate depiction of 2+2 seems to be what you're talking about. I just don't get it and haven't seen anyone explain why it's a thing. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, bluesman said:

Most audiophiles describe accuracy in terms of their taste, and few consider how close what they're hearing comes to the original program or master.  And, to me, the latter is accuracy but the former is not.  Accuracy doesn't always result in a more enjoyable listening experience, as a lot of processing makes a lot of musical performances sound better.  But it is simply not the same as accuracy.

+100

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

Whatever you're talking about is not what I'm talking about. I can confirm that much.

What is relative accuracy then?

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes 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.

Totally with you on this. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, GregWormald said:

👍

I watched a video of my favourite singer choosing a new microphone for her tours and recordings. She would sing a phrase or two and choose. 

I could barely hear (OK maybe not at all) the differences. 

But boy, do I love music in my living room.

Hearing my own voice through my Neumann, before A to D or anything, is really enlightening. My voice completely changes based on how close/far I am from the mic as well. I’m talking 1/4 inch increments, not across the room. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

Chris - honestly - you're not reading my posts before diverting to something tangential to what I'm saying.

 

I'll answer your question in good faith - even though what I mean is already clear enough in what I've said already.

 

What we hear maps to what's in our brains - with varying degrees of "success". This is a matter of psychology. Yes - my specialty. I post some ideas for conversation's sake. I don't expect the thread to attend to me. At the same time I don't see the need to flog a dead horse if nobody wants to go there.

 

As a secondary observation - I note that "accuracy" can also be understood thus:

 

 

How many of us can compare the master with what we're hearing?

 

Put another way:

 

 

Now I'm not arguing zealously with this. I'm just saying that it's easier to reference what we're hearing with what's in our brains than with the master ...

 

... and that the extent to which what we're hearing maps to what's in our brains is just as relevant a way of appreciating "accuracy" as any other. What's in our brains is arguably a greater "reality" than "the master".  None of us get to hear the "master" anyway (played back where and how?) - and as you keep suggesting (as I read you) you can't anchor the master to absolute accuracy - if for no other reason than people will hear different things depending on their location in the same room - i.e. they all have different brain representations of the same "reality".

 

I don't think this leaves us with "taste" alone. Our brains are pretty good registers. Some of us have amazing brains.

 

A system has to be resolving enough for our brains to prosecute these amazing gymnastics. I find it doesn't need to be very resolving - for the most part.

 

Carry on!

Awesome. This really registered with me, in terms of understanding where you’re coming from. Thank you. 
 

When I talk about accuracy, I speak solely about what’s on the CD/album/file we play back in our homes. I assume what made it to the final released version is what we as consumers are supposed to hear because that’s what was delivered to us. Could be better or worse I know, but it’s what we’re given. 
 

I say that judging accuracy is impossible because we have no clue what the release is supposed to sound like. That’s where I’m coming from. 
 

We are clearly looking through different lenses. I view the way you look at it as perception = reality, but please don’t take that in the wrong way. It’s just how I look at your point of view. I’m also guessing you think my point of view is somewhat primitive, but it’s all good. 
 

Again, thanks for the layman’s explanation. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Iving said:

 

This was a central theme in the early thread. Yes. We haven't travelled very far.

Far, as in distance around the circle :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Ive never owned a Beatles record. 

 

What about a Beatles CD 🤣

[The Computer Audiophile]

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. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 hours ago, semente said:

they are failing to standardise taste... Thankfully

Love it. +1

[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. 

[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. 

[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.