|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: RE: When was this ideal abandoned? posted by thetubeguy1954 on November 15, 2007 at 11:45:27:
> > This began to occur IMHO with the start of audio forums, wherein anyone from self-proclaimed audio guru, to audio dealer, to audiophile can espouse any idea no matter how valid it is or isn't!> >
Freedom of speech is a double edged sword but it does cut both ways. One can argue the days when there were only a few outlets and they had one specific POV on audio were the dark ages of audio. Thta was the reason JGH started Stereophile in the first place.
> > Look at Sordidman. He's an audio dealer and seems like a nice enough fellow. However believes and espouses building an audio system is art. Thus as it's an art, no one can tell you you're not doing it correctly because as Sordidman states: "...there is no right and wrong when judging art."> >
Whehter or not it's an art it is a series of personal choices. The idea that there is no right or wrong or good and bad in art is absurd. There ceetainly is standards of excellence in all arts. But the idea that there is no right or wrong in personal taste and personal aesthetic choices is very much true. No one is obligated to change their taste for other peoples' taste. That is simply reality not some recen phenomenon in audio.
> > Those who disagree with his POV are probably just golden-eared audiophools. I don't know for sure if that's how he personally believes as I've never heard him say so, but I know many here that do.> >
Those who wish to dictate other peoples' tastes are definitely self righteous fools. But once you have a group of people who share a common goal then it certainly makes sense to talk about measures of achievement toward that goal. That is what we have in audiophilia with live acoustic music being that reference or goal.We can with some universality within our sphere or audiophilia subjectively measure our success toward that goal with our hardware and our source material. Anyone who does not share that goal is simply outside of the sphere or this prticular flavor of audiophilia. They are not wrong they just want something different.
> > This is the type of statement and belief that caused many people to believe it's no longer necessary, or even desirable, for a home music system to sound like the real thing, i.e. reproduction of the sound of real acoustic music performed in a real space.> >
That is, was and always will be a personal choice. this is not something new nor is it some evil plague upon audio that has been born of audio forums. heck this was a far bigger issue back in the days of early rock and roll. what did the older generation call it? Noise I believe was a common description.
> > I question how many of his clients he endoctrinates with his belief. Afterall as a dealer if this is what Sordidman truly believes wouldn't he be morally obligated to tell his clients the same thing?> >
"Morally obligated?" I think you are taking this HOBBY far too seriously here.
> > I've noticed that people who attempt to convince others that there's no right or wrong about building any audio system usually have 4 main arguements they use to back up their proclomations.> >
If anything that is the assumed position. I think one has to attempt to convince others that there is some sort of right or wrong about building an audio system outside of the basics of putting together a system.
> > 1) They try to confuse people by equating music reproduction with art.
While this has a ring of truth to it, it's not true in the way they present it. There's no arguing the musicians themselves are truly artists. It's to these people that the word art applies. We cannot tell YES, Genesis, Miles Davis, Thelonius Monk, or anyone else you can think of that the songs they wrote or played were wrong.> >
Actually we can. Art is not immune to or above criticism nor is it without standards of excellence.
> > In this case there is no right or wrong. Their interpretation of the music they played, wrote or both is art, period. You may or may not like it, but not liking it doesn't make it wrong.> >
Actually there are thresholds of right and wrong in art.
> > However people building an audio system aren't artists in any sense of the word. They can and often do make mistakes! How about examples as simple as underpowering speakers or impedance mismatches between preamps and power amps? Aren't those mistakes that should be avoided?> >
Absolutely. Those are mistakes in the very basics of audio. They can lead to the self destruction of a ssystem. Not sure anyone has argued that that isn't a mistake based on the notion that building a system is "art." Has anyone really advocated such a position? that one is in right building a system designed to self destruct as an artistic statment?
> > 2) They try to confuse the issue by pretending there are different definitions of "accuracy?"> >
That is a simple fact that there are different definitions of accuracy.
"Main Entry: ac·cu·ra·cy
Function: noun
Pronunciation: 'a-ky&-r&-se, 'a-k(&-)r&-
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
1 : freedom from mistake or error : CORRECTNESS
2 a : conformity to truth or to a standard or model : EXACTNESS b : degree of conformity of a measure to a standard or a true value -- compare PRECISION 2a"
You can't argue away that reality. But to the point. Accuracy exists in a void until one sets goals or references by which accuracy is to be measured. For better or worse those goals clearly are not universal in audio. so each audiophile has to ask themselves what is their goal and what is their reference and what is their methodology for measuring success towards achieving those goals. Then we have the sticky highly subjective problem of evaluating any and all different forms of deviation from that goal. that is inherently subjective and it is absurd to think all audiophiles will react the same way to all deviations from their goals.
> > You can ONLY have different definitions of accuracy if you're attempting to do different things. For Example: If your goal was to have equipment that accurately tracks the musical signal from input to output, your definition of accuracy might not be the same as mine is. But if the goal is to replicate the sound of real acoustic instruments (whatever they may be) in a real acoustic space (wherever that may be) then the definition of accuracy is the system that comes the closest to replicating the sound of that original event, period. Often times it NOT the equipment that most accurately tracks the musical signal from input to output that does this.> >
technically you are not talking different definitions but as I said above different references and different measures of success toward those references. for what it is worth, you and I are very much like minded on this subject. I think the mind set that one measures the accuracy of a component by comparing the input of an electrical signal to the ouput of an electrical signal is very much a failure to see the forrest for the trees. But that is because "my" goals like yours are to achieve a more convincing illusion of live music. That may or may not always coincide with the electrical transparentcy on paper of the components in the system.
> > 3) They say if you weren't present at the original event being recorded you cannot possibly know how accurate the replication of it is. Why? Because if you don't know where the mics were placed you cannot know how accurate the soundstaging and ambient clues are being replicated.> >
I think there is much truth to that. Which makes live music as a reference a complicated ideal that is not a single point but a range of possibilities with certain common characteristics.
> > My typical response it to somewhat agree with them on this one point. But I'll always add this is EXACTLY why you need to attend as much live unamplified musical events as you possibly can. You need to train your ear to know and recognise what guitars, pianos, saxes, etc. sound like outside, in a cathedral, a large hall, a small hall, an intimate event etc. This training takes time and practice, just like anything else you need to learn does. Eventually you'll even get good at determining the size of the place the musical event took place in via the ambient clues in the recording. (I've been told some people can tell fairly accurately what hall a symphony was recorded in just by listening to the recording!) I'll readily grant that if I wasn't present at the original musical event when the recording was made I wouldn't know for sure which recording one that portrayed the room as 32'w X 40'd or the one that portrayed the room as smaller than that, was correct. In that case I'd focus more on the pace, rhythm, timing, harmonic overtones and timbrel correctness, soundstage H, W, D and localization of the individual instruments.> >
Bingo. With extensive experience one becomes familiar with the wide range of sound one hears with live music. But this begs the question, why does it matter. For me the answer is simple. there is an intrinsic beauty in the sound of live acoustic music played well in an apropriate acoustic space that generally trancends the beauty of recording and playback. So it makes sense for us to try to capture the essense of that intirinsic beauty of live music in recording and playback because it is aesthetically superior. I suppose your local rap fan with the massive subwoofer in the back of their car will not share that same aesthetic value. But for those of us who do, we are a certain flavor of audiophile.And we can talk about good and bad, better and worse because we share a common basic goal. OTOH we may have very different opinions about the merits of playback when it fails to achieve the goal of the illusion of live music. we are not going to have the same opinions about the merits of any deviations from that goal. You may be more sensitive to spectral deviations I may be more sensitive to amplitude deviations. No way to quantisize the importance of each distortion towards all peoples' perceptions and tastes.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- a thoughtful post but one I take issue with point for point - Analog Scott 11/19/0703:27:22 11/19/07 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
