Home Classical Court

From Perotin to Prokofiev (and beyond), performed by Caruso to Khatia, it's all here.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Classical Court ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

Finally - back to the important stuff: accuracy or euphony?

Yes, you knew it was coming: a chance to rehash our best arguments in favor of one side or the other! So to get the discussion started, I'm going to quote Analog Scott's post from a couple of weeks ago, interspersed with my own comments:

I don't argue against accuracy. I argue for what sounds good. But I think the whole idea of accuracy is two huge cans of bullshit when it comes to audiophilia. There is the objectivst can and the subjectivist can.

The subjectivist can is the one you mention "an absolute standard, such as live music" or the idea that is the name of a magazine "the absolute sound" which is the sound live acoustic instruments. The idea that any audiophile can use this as reference to judge their own home audio playback gear is ridiculous. As if that could ever be a ***point*** of reference. THAT in and of itself is the first deal breaker. There is no such thing as *the* sound of live music. There are millions of different flavors of live music. Live acoustic music can sound anywhere from amazing to utter crap. It has as wide a range of sounds as audio playback gear. How can you use something so varied as a ***point*** of reference? An old untuned stand up piano in someone's garage played by a lousy pianist is just as much live acoustic music as a great pianist playing a well tuned and tweaked Steinway grand at it's peak in a world class concert hall. Which is more "live music?" Neither. But they sure as hell ain't equal in quality. then there is the problem of aural memory and the issue that live music is essentially a totally different experience that is fleeting in nature and supported massively by visual cues not to mention the effect it has on our mindset just being at an event like a live concert.


By the same token, I don't argue against what sounds good. I argue FOR accuracy - which MUST be the starting point in a home audio system. Scott says that for an audiophile to use the absolute sound as a reference is ridiculous. He then goes on to sidestep the issue by arguing that live music can't be a POINT (singular) of reference, then elaborates on the different types of live music (and acoustics) which would seem to undermine any arguments in favor of a single reference or standard. And in fact, I don't argue in favor of a single absolute sound myself! But the fact remains, that there is an absolute sound for an untuned piano in someone's garage, an absolute sound for a Fazioli in a world class concert hall, an absolute sound for a particular type of banjo in a particular pizza parlor, and an absolute sound for a symphony orchestra in a halls as different as Albert Hall or the Barbican in London. I don't even disagree about the fleeting nature of aural memory or the possibility of aural perception being fooled by visual cues. But the fact is that, over time, one builds up a "mental library" of what had been fleeting perceptions - and many of these perceptions have been reinforced (by repetition) for years, even decades (if you're old enough!). Over time, one builds an ACCURATE notion of what various instruments (or singers) sound like in various acoustic environments. What's interesting (and even paradoxical!) about this is that the microphones which do the actual recording are in positions where we could never be when we attend a concert. Nevertheless, if we have enough experience, we will know if the microphones have picked up an accurate reproduction of the particular instruments (and/or singers) in particular locations. We know this internally, even though we may over the same period of time have also developed preferences for what "sounds good" to us as individuals. The two perceptions (accuracy and personal preference) are NOT incompatible IMHO.

In addition, I like to try to correlate my notions of what the absolute sound of various music sounds like against the actual measured performance of audio equipment as reported in various sources (i.e., the John Atkinson part of the Stereophile reviews - LOL!). Not everyone cares about this, but I do, and I'm sure that some others do too.

Having started with an accuracy, I can then AS A SECOND STEP start modifying what I hear to my own liking, in terms of frequency balance and channel balance (lots of options for the latter with a MCh system!), speaker placement. . . whatever. As I say, the two concepts are not incompatible with each other.

To quote Scott further:

Now the objectivist bullshit idea of "accuracy" which is transparency of an electrical audio signal from the output of the master tape to the signal ending at the speaker terminals. A lot of objectivsts are obsessed with adherence to the philosophy that maintaining audible transparency of this electrical signal is the very foundation of "high fidelity" and it is sacrilege to add any colorations in this part of the audio chain even if they may actually sound subjectively better because it isn't "high fidelity. And I do argue that that is bullshit and that when accuracy and subjectively superior sound diverge then the obvious choice is the better subjective sound. And this is why I have no trouble with the fact that to my ears my high end vinyl playback gear is subjectively better sounding than transparent digital sources even though it is clearly less accurate by what many objectivists consider to be the right measure of accuracy.


I'd only say here that the trouble with this line of argument is that "better subjective sound" is just that: subjective. What's better to me may not be better to you, and vice versa. As I said above, I have no problems with people modifying the sound to their own likings and preferences. But you've got to start with something that's a commonly agreed base of perception - and in the case of audio, the base of perception (as well as of measurement!) has to mean accuracy. If we can't agree about a common base, then our discussions will devolve into the type of political discussions wherein people can't even agree on the basic facts.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  McShane Design  

Topic - Finally - back to the important stuff: accuracy or euphony? - Chris from Lafayette 17:50:50 09/1/19 (167)
FAQ

Post a Message!

 Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]