Audio Debates - Consensus?

[JohnVF]

They woold probably tell you that the better system is the one with the highest highs and lowest lows, people tend to like impressive and colorful sound. It takes training to know how to listen..

And the person who has only heard the sound of a saxophone over their car stereo will have a different idea of what is 'right' than the person who has played saxophone since the 6th grade.

Which brings up something...I've always trusted the ears of musicians more than the ears of audiophiles. I know a guy who is really really into stereo who, by his judgment of what sounds real to him, might not have ever heard a live performance in his life. Our relative experience in the world outside of our stereos can have a dramatic affect on what we perceive as accurate sound (subjectively speaking).

 

[marqueemoon]

I've always trusted the ears of musicians more than the ears of audiophiles. I know a guy who is really really into stereo who, by his judgment of what sounds real to him, might not have ever heard a live performance in his life. Our relative experience in the world outside of our stereos can have a dramatic affect on what we perceive as accurate sound (subjectively speaking).

It's a blessing and a curse.

A real drum set in a room sounds way different than a drum set tracked with a mic inches from each drum head, eq-ed, compressed, gated, reverbed, etc...
The goal of most recorded music is not "real", it's "better than real".

 

[JonL]

Some recent posts also beg the question of what the objective really is... a system that sounds "real" and life-like, or a system that is pleasing to the listener despite not necessarily being so natural and life-like. As post 122 notes most recorded music does not sound like a true live performance. And most live performances push the sound to the listener through a multi-channel PA system anyway, so there goes life-like out the window. Solo performers and small ensembles in a very intimate, unamplified setting are pretty rare to hear unfortunately. Not very many people go hear unamplified orchestral music often enough to have a good sense of how it sounds. Most people - probably most audiophiles included - are accustomed to hearing "better than real" on a good stereo and some might prefer the stereo over live in many situations.

 

[JonL]

The issue of common language is useless without common experience. Its truly the road to hell which is paved with good intentions. This gives rise to mass delusion. I'll give you a case in point.

Our beloved Steve Hoffman speaks of the "breath of life". Since coining the term I have read many reviewers and people on this forum use the term. I would submit however unless you were sitting next to Steve as he was demonstrating "breath of life" you havent a clue what he is really talking about.

High end audio is full of such nonsense so I would stay away from terminology and reduce the concept to its simpliest --- does A sound more live than B.

You may be correct about needing a common experience. The word for the shade "chartreuse" means little to someone who hasn't seen it. So perhaps part of the effort to work with a common language requires choosing a vocabulary that has meaning to a reasonably large number of people. Without such a common language you may get an answer to your question "does A sound more live than B" but you won't get an answer to the next logical question - "in what way?"

 

[whoaru99]

What we really want to know is WHY people prefer B over A (or the other way around), and to understand that we need a common language.

Personally, since I don't design or sell equipment, why A or B is preferred isn't that important to me.

I'm more interested in what makes A sound like A and B sound like B, or why A+B sounds like C, so that I might be able to use that information to guide decisions about gear or the system.

 

[marqueemoon]

Personally, since I don't design or sell equipment, why A or B is preferred isn't that important to me.

I'm more interested in what makes A sound like A and B sound like B, or why A+B sounds like C, so that I might be able to use that information to guide decisions about gear or the system.

That's the part I left out, but yes, absolutely.

 

[JohnVF]

Some recent posts also beg the question of what the objective really is... a system that sounds "real" and life-like, or a system that is pleasing to the listener despite not necessarily being so natural and life-like. As post 122 notes most recorded music does not sound like a true live performance. And most live performances push the sound to the listener through a multi-channel PA system anyway, so there goes life-like out the window. Solo performers and small ensembles in a very intimate, unamplified setting are pretty rare to hear unfortunately. Not very many people go hear unamplified orchestral music often enough to have a good sense of how it sounds. Most people - probably most audiophiles included - are accustomed to hearing "better than real" on a good stereo and some might prefer the stereo over live in many situations.

But if you go to any unamplified shows, or have been a musician, you will develop a sense of the timbre of real instruments. If you go to a live rock concert, you will get a sense of real life dynamics. A lot of speakers, to me, sound off in one or the other. Or both. I guess the person designing the speakers measured them, but then I wonder what they measured? . The problem is...I don't know. I wish I had more of background in it,and am not against measuring. So the best I can do for myself, personally, is to just go by what sounds the most real to me. That doesn't mean I think that's the solution for everybody...it's just what gives me the most satisfaction. It's also why I like tubes and vinyl, without regard to measurements. It's just what sounds real to me in a completely subjective sense.

I think a lot of the objective folks out there think that those like me, who are by default subjectivists because we don't know the scientific stuff, are against measuring..but I'm not. I think that it's an important tool. But I also think that a familiarity with real world timbre and dynamics is essential....listening AND measuring can both live together. I've read a few interviews with Harbeth's designer, and he reiterates the importance of both in almost every interview. And by many accounts, those are some of the most seemingly 'real' and musical speakers around.

 

[LIONKING]

Some recent posts also beg the question of what the objective really is... a system that sounds "real" and life-like, or a system that is pleasing to the listener despite not necessarily being so natural and life-like. As post 122 notes most recorded music does not sound like a true live performance. And most live performances push the sound to the listener through a multi-channel PA system anyway, so there goes life-like out the window. Solo performers and small ensembles in a very intimate, unamplified setting are pretty rare to hear unfortunately. Not very many people go hear unamplified orchestral music often enough to have a good sense of how it sounds. Most people - probably most audiophiles included - are accustomed to hearing "better than real" on a good stereo and some might prefer the stereo over live in many situations.

While all this sounds logical it really isnt accurate. A good system will communicate that you are hearing a really bad recording of a real event and still engage you enough so that your listening experience is positive.

Said another way when you wear sun glasses and look at the real world --- the frequency response is all shifted, but you still know there is a real world out there...

The issue is that most manufacturers and retailers want you to live in the world of the tallest dwarf. They are trying to perfect an aspect of performance which is irrelevant to the reproduction of music in your home.

I may be missing something though --- I own a minority interest in a recording studio and I was never under the impression the guys who run it are trying to improve on real. I do know that one can master for a boom box but this is hardly making something better than real and most professionals are fully aware of this.

 

[ke4mcl]

My question was whether anyone had seen any serious attempts to reconcile the two sides. So far, no one's seen anything, it appears.

i dont think its gonna happen evar....
i see two trains of thought.

1) the guy who buys into esoteric cables, stands and such - well off, spends thousands on stereo system without a flinch and looking for every possible tweak even if it cant be explained.

2) the guy that doesnt buy into it - struggled for years to get his system together through very careful purchases on a limited income.

i dont see them ever agreeing. eventually the argument will turn into a "you dont understand it because your hearing isnt as refined" urinating match.

 

[Art K.]

i dont think its gonna happen evar....
i see two trains of thought.

1) the guy who buys into esoteric cables, stands and such - well off, spends thousands on stereo system without a flinch and looking for every possible tweak even if it cant be explained.

2) the guy that doesnt buy into it - struggled for years to get his system together through very careful purchases on a limited income.

i dont see them ever agreeing. eventually the argument will turn into a "you dont understand it because your hearing isnt as refined" urinating match.

The two you describe may not ever come together. However, something to keep in mind is that most folks I know who are into audio and music don't come close to fitting either of your descriptions. Certainly your explanation of one is considerably more flattering than the other.

 

[Brett]

i see two trains of thought.

1) the guy who buys into esoteric cables, stands and such - well off, spends thousands on stereo system without a flinch and looking for every possible tweak even if it cant be explained.

2) the guy that doesnt buy into it - struggled for years to get his system together through very careful purchases on a limited income.

i dont see them ever agreeing. eventually the argument will turn into a "you dont understand it because your hearing isnt as refined" urinating match.

The above is nearly a strawman; there is an entire spectrum of individuals with beliefs and goals in this hobby, of which those are only two points on it, neither of which would represent most of the audio hobbyists I know personally.

 

[crackerkorean]

Its hard to bridge the gap when it comes something that is subjective and then numbers. Subjective is just that, it based on personal perception and tastes. Numbers and measurements are just that nothing more and nothing less, its black and white.

Also it seems many have differences in opinion on what is accurate. Accurate is not something that somebody can identify by ear day in and day out to the degree that test equipment can. People cannot identify frequency tones properly, this is shown by graphs of actual versus perceived frequencies.

Via test equipment accuracy can be measured, what goes in must come out with no change what so ever. This is impossible to do but can be done with minimal deviance from input to output over the audible frequency range. Any coloration introduced is not accurate by definition.

So for a person to say A is better than B, what is that being compared to? Are his ears certified and calibrated by NIST saying that this person should be listened to when they say something about audio? Or is it more that its more to their liking as opposed to something else and what they believe to be accurate.

I haven't measured my system but it sounds good to me. I dont really care how it measures. I am curious and will probably measure its frequency response and do a waterfall on it etc, but it wont change my opinion of my system. If somebody doesn't like them, I don't care.

In the end i guess what needs to be discussed first is what is the stereo being compared to? Cant be a real band, there is no way, its impossible. It would have to be the incoming waveform from a song to the amplified version on the output side. If the two are the same minus the difference in gain the system is accurate. If it has changed its not.

So I guess through my ramblings I just want to know what is accurate in the first place? (you cant say the band or how it sounded in the studio, unless you were there you dont know)

From there is it fair to say that any deviation from that accurate sound is wrong, or just not to some peoples liking. Some like more bass others like more treble whos right, or are the both wrong?

Once a control is established then comparisons can be taken, until that happens nothing constructive can be had from either side. Just my .02

 

[JimPA]

I am a firm believer that it is better to just give helpful advice. on the forum.

Regardless of the facts if one believes that new or vintage is the best audio available no one is going to change their mind.
The same can be said about the wide variety of topics that are discussed on the forum.

Lately I enjoy just reading the opinions of other forum members.