Dgarretson, I was speaking more of improvement in listener ability than improvement in technology. It would be the former, not the latter, that would "liberate him to reassess and refine preference," no matter what the context. As I think I may have said some time back in this thread, one should learn something anytime one listens critically, even if it is one more way not to do it. As different audiophiles refine their own preferences in this way, these preferences should become more and more unique to each individual.
As far as technology is concerned, I think a great many audiophiles would argue that there haven't necessarily been any huge advances in basic audio technology in a long time now. Many people on this and other boards lament the trend towards more and more compression, etc. Certainly the "golden age" of orchestral recording was decades ago now. My point is not to start an argument over different types/advances in technology, but merely to point out that a new technology is not necessarily better. Also, as you implied in your last post, no matter what type of technology one prefers for the various system components, building a system with the best possible components is simply out of reach of most of our budgets. We all make choices based on what we can afford, refining these as we go along in this hobby. I have a few different ideas about the directions I would like to go with my system in the future, but they are on hold, probably for some time.
Bryon, I understand how you are differentiating priorities from preferences. However, I think that the latter should always determine the former, not the other way around. As far as "taste" goes, the interpretation my brother and I are using is the set of judgements about what is most valuable when choosing among characteristics, as you put it. Quality would have more to do with how close a component or system comes to matching the ideal playback characteristics in this context, though again this would ultimately be a subjective judgement as well.
I guess my feeling is that too many audiophiles lose the forest for the trees by getting bogged down in trying to eliminate various types of colorations, etc. This is ultimately a negative approach, and as several have pointed out, the search for "neutrality" usually ends up with a very lifeless, unmusical presentation. A better approach, for me, is to keep the concentration on the forest by choosing components that come the closest to how you want the music to sound overall. Analysis of different types of colorations can help this, but too much focus on it is detrimental in the end. The same goes for a performer that gets too bogged down in certain aspects of technique, losing the focus on the phrasing, for example. One of the most famous horn players and teachers in the country likes to say "analysis is paralysis." Some is very necessary, but too much is fatal. He also says that "technique should serve the music, never the other way around." Similarly, the overall sound of the system is most important, not any one particular detail of it. Put another way, one's system choices IMO should be much more artistic than scientific, the science being used in the service of the music, not indulged in for it's own sake.
|
I guess my feeling is that too many audiophiles lose the forest for the trees by getting bogged down in trying to eliminate various types of colorations, etc. What is the evidence for this belief? Why is the effort to reduce colorations any more likely to “bog down” the audiophile or make him “lose the forest for the trees” than any other audiophile pursuit? …the search for "neutrality" usually ends up with a very lifeless, unmusical presentation. My experience is exactly the opposite. That is to say, as I have reduced the colorations in my system, its presentation has become more musical. There is nothing musical about intermodulation distortion. There is nothing musical about speaker cabinet resonance. There is nothing musical about room modes. And these are just a few examples of colorations. A better approach, for me, is to keep the concentration on the forest by choosing components that come the closest to how you want the music to sound overall. Analysis of different types of colorations can help this, but too much focus on it is detrimental in the end. The same goes for a performer that gets too bogged down in certain aspects of technique, losing the focus on the phrasing, for example. One of the most famous horn players and teachers in the country likes to say "analysis is paralysis." Some is very necessary, but too much is fatal. The value of analysis for successful music playback cannot be validly inferred from the value of analysis for a successful musical performance. Creating a system is not like creating a performance, except that both result in music. Analysis interferes with a musical performance because the centers of the brain that mediate sensorimotor functioning are distinct from those that mediate conceptual functioning, and simultaneously activating both centers disrupts the functioning of both. It is the problem of split attention, and the impaired functioning that inevitably results from it. This fact has no analogue in creating a playback system. The only context that resembles the mutually antagonistic relationship between analysis and performance is analysis and listening to a playback system. That is to say, successful listening can be frustrated by too much real-time analysis. But listening is not the only source of valuable information when assembling a playback system. There is also learning and reflection. And analysis does not frustrate successful learning and reflection. On the contrary, it promotes them. Which brings me to… …one's system choices IMO should be much more artistic than scientific, the science being used in the service of the music, not indulged in for it's own sake. I think the implied contrast here between art and science, and hence between things subjective and things objective, is a misconception both of art and science. Having spent the better part of a decade devoted to the study of one, and an equal number of years devoted to the study and practice of the other, I can say from personal experience that both art and science require their practitioners to be both subjective and objective. Put another way, the analysis of science would be impossible without a large amount of creativity, and the creativity of art would be impossible without a large amount of analysis. |
Great ideas for a Gazlay's sequel. |
When I began this thread, I advocated a strict kind of Objectivism regarding coloration and neutrality. That is to say, I argued that coloration and neutrality are characteristics that are INDPENDENT OF PERSONS. In my second post on 12/12, I relaxed my position somewhat, by defining colorations as “audible inaccuracies.” If colorations are “audible,” I conceded, then their existence is DEPENDENT UPON PERSONS. In that sense, I believe that…
(1) Colorations are SUBJECTIVE characteristics.
To say that colorations are subjective characteristics is to say that their existence is DEPENDENT UPON PERSONS. For example, one person may hear distortion when another person does not, which seems true enough. In cases where two people disagree about the presence of a coloration, a Subjectivist might conclude either…
(a) There is no fact of the matter about whether the coloration in question exists.
…or…
(b) The coloration in question exists for one person but not for the other.
I believe that (b) is correct. In other words, in cases of intersubjective disagreement, a coloration exists for one person but not for another. Put another way, the existence of a coloration is, to some extent, IN THE EAR OF THE BEHOLDER. I say “to some extent” because, to a complementary extent, colorations are also IN THE WORLD, as I will now try to show…
Recall that I defined colorations as “audible inaccuracies.” By defining colorations as “audible,” I have acknowledged that they are SUBJECTIVE. But by defining colorations as “inaccuracies,” I have subsumed colorations under a larger category of characteristics that are OBJECTIVE, namely, inaccuracies. In other words, I believe that…
(2) Inaccuracies are OBJECTIVE characteristics.
In a previous post, I defined inaccuracies as: Alterations to information in the playback system that conceal, corrupt, or eliminate information about the music. To say that inaccuracies are objective is to say that their existence is INDEPENDENT OF PERSONS. For example, jitter may exist in a playback system even if no one can hear it. The existence of jitter is therefore independent of persons, or objective. Likewise for other inaccuracies.
Taking (1) and (2) together, we get:
(1) Colorations are SUBJECTIVE characteristics.
(2) Inaccuracies are OBJECTIVE characteristics.
This raises the following question: What is the relation between colorations, as subjective characteristics, and inaccuracies, as objective characteristics? The answer, I believe, is that…
(3) Colorations CORRELATE with inaccuracies for expert listeners.
In my view, as a person develops expert perception with respect to the playback of recorded music, inaccuracies become more audible. Put another way, as listener expertise increases, the perceptibility of colorations increases. For this reason, the expert listener will hear far more colorations than the naïve listener.
In light of this, colorations are clues that help the audiophile understand his system. By correlating with inaccuracies, colorations enable the audiophile to use his ears to identify how information about the music has been concealed, corrupted, or eliminated by his system. And colorations empower the audiophile to make informed changes to his system when the inaccuracies those colorations reveal are inconsistent with his preferences. |
Hi Bryon - I have been out of town again for several days, and have just read your last two posts. To respond to the 12/31 one first: evidence for too many audiophiles losing the forest for the trees is all over any audio site. I would estimate that at least one person a week posts in each one about how he drove himself crazy and is not enjoying the hobby or the music anymore, or some such story. We will have to agree to disagree about the applications of analysis to music performance vs. music playback. As you say, both result in music, and the bottom line is whether the music is enjoyable or not. To use your phrases, too many listeners to an audio system have their attention split between the music and the equipment, resulting in impaired functionality. They will completely ignore many recordings, even entire recording labels, because "they don't sound good on my system." This, to me, is a crying shame; the definition of misplaced priorities, the system becoming more important than the music. Many threads on this forum and others have discussed such issues at length. I agree completely that both the art and the science are important, and both have their subjective and objective aspects - it is a question of prioritizing all of this, which will vary with each individual, and there are a great many audiophiles who complain that they struggle with how to do this. My contention earlier in the thread was that if more audiophiles spent some time learning a little music theory and taking an aural skills class, that this will be much more beneficial to their enjoyment of their music in the short term, and for their ability to hear how better to tweak their systems in the long run as they develop these abilities. The one must be done to truly be able to do the other, as one must decide not just whether or not a coloration is there, but how damaging to the music it actually is - preferences determining priorities (the classic example would be the analog/digital debate).
This brings me to your post of 1/5. Not sure I agree with everything you say about your numbers 1), 2), and 3), but granting them for the moment, the real issue I have is with the "expert listener" concept. The fact that everyone hears differently has been much discussed already in this thread, I will only point out that this certainly includes "expert listeners." Mrtennis has made some other very good points about human hearing in this thread. Too many audiophiles are ONLY concerned about learning to listen for flaws in their systems, and this is as far as their ear training ever goes. I would never call an audiophile of this variety an "expert listener," no matter how many years experience in the hobby they have. I have talked with people who cannot identify a major from a minor chord, yet claim to hear very specific "colorations" in a speaker when in fact they are merely biased against it's design based on things they have read/been told, and probably could not tell one speaker from another if their back was turned and they were only relying on their ears, to use an extreme example. I have often read a review of one of my orchestra's concerts in the paper the next day and wondered if the reviewer was at the same concert I was. Same with the reviewer of a piece of audio equipment. And just because one is an audiophile does not mean that one has better ears than someone who is not. On this forum there is usually a new thread every couple of weeks, it seems, where some guy is posting about how his wife heard something better than he did, even though she knows nothing about the hobby, helping him make up his mind. Orson Welles' final film, F for Fake, is a hilarious send-up of the idea of "expertise," by the way. I think you would greatly enjoy it, though as an objectivist you may find it very disturbing. :) |
