How do you judge your system's neutrality?

Hi Bryon - just saw your most recent post. Very interesting. My initial thought, after reading it twice and thinking about it, is that I am not so sure that you don't have your points 5a and 5b (and therefore the following 6a and 6b) backwards. If I may give two examples - first of a real event, as I understand your terms. This could be me playing my horn on a concert hall stage. A virtual event could be someone creating an electronic tone on a synthesizer in a recording studio. Now what is interesting to me about these examples is that the first one would be almost impossible to recreate EXACTLY. Sure, I can play the same note twice and it will sound exactly the same to all but the very most discerning listeners. However, chances are that it isn't actually exactly the same. Whereas in my virtual event example, anyone anywhere using the same synthesizer could theoretically EXACTLY reproduce that sound. This is the biggest advantage of electronic instruments. So it seems to me that this reverses what you state - objectivism would be more appropriate to the second, virtual example than the first, real example. Now I realize you are speaking of recordings, not live events, but if the standard for recording is to reproduce the live event as closely as possible, it is clearly much easier to come close to the "truth" of my second example on a recording than my first, as I understand your use of the term. In the first example, it would be almost impossible to determine, as Cbw asks, how much your system is altering the source material (let alone how the recording altered the live event), whereas with my second example, this would be easier to determine. What do you think? Am I misinterpreting your terms?

Learsfool – Interesting thoughts. As I understand you, you are saying:

(1) An acoustical musical performance is not repeatable, i.e., identical over multiple iterations.
(2) An electronic musical performance is repeatable, i.e., identical over multiple iterations.

I agree with this. From (1) and (2), you conclude that:

(3) An electronic musical performance is more likely to be "truthful" to (i.e. qualitatively resemble) an "original" musical event than an acoustical musical performance is to its "original" event.

I agree with this too, but it does not bear on the claims I made in my last post, because I was not talking about the qualitative resemblance of musical PERFORMANCES, but rather the qualitative resemblance of musical RECORDINGS. You acknowledge this when you say:

Now I realize you are speaking of recordings, not live events, but if the standard for recording is to reproduce the live event as closely as possible, it is clearly much easier to come close to the "truth" of [electronic musical events].

In other words, you are concluding, from (3) above, that:

(4) A RECORDING of an electronic musical event is more likely to be “truthful” to (i.e. qualitatively resemble) an original musical event than a RECORDING of an acoustical musical event is to its original event.

I disagree with this. A recording of an electronic musical event is not inherently more truthful than a recording of an acoustical musical event. However, it may be more difficult to judge the truthfulness of a recording of an electronic musical event, for the reason that we do not have a lifetime of experiences with electronic sounds to compare recordings against, the way we do with voices and acoustical instruments. Hence, recordings of electronic musical events may appear more inherently truthful, because our standards for judging the truthfulness of these recordings are much less exact.

In other words, (4) does not follow from (3), and I believe that (4) is false. I think your reasoning incorrectly collapses the distinction between a REPEATED PERFORMANCE and a RECORDING. Although both can be judged as to their qualitative resemblance to an “original” event, they are of course created differently. A repeated performance is created by instruments (in the case of acoustical music) or devices (in the case of electronic music). A recording is created by a playback system. This obvious fact results in another, somewhat less obvious, fact:

The inherent TRUTHFULNESS of types of music RECORDINGS (acoustical vs. electronic) cannot be validly inferred from the inherent REPEATABILITY of types of music PERFORMANCES.

This is the essence of my reply to the your question. As to your question, first raised by Cbw, about how an audiophile might judge how his system “alters the source material”: First, I believe Cbw was teasing me in good fun by asking that question, because I tried to “sign off” during my last post after contributing at great length, and his question essentially starts the whole conversation over from the beginning, which is funny in a Myth-of-Sisyphus kind of way. Second, I proposed a way for the audiophile to judge how his system “alters the source material” in my original post. That’s what we’ve been talking about this whole time! Perhaps you are asking: How is the audiophile to judge how his system differs from the real events it represents? That is a good question. Perhaps someday, when I recover from this thread, I will create a thread entitled, “How do you judge your system’s transparency?” Because that is essentially the question you are asking. My current answer is: I don’t know.

Hi Bryon - good reply. I grant your point that 4) does not necessarily follow from 3) ( truthfulness of types of recordings cannot validly be inferred from the repeatability of types of performances).

However, I completely disagree with you about 4) itself. 4) to me is an obviously true statement (that's why I didn't mention it), and I am a little puzzled as to why you think it is false. Any recording engineer will tell you that electronic instruments are MUCH easier to record than acoustic instruments or voices. Despite the more complex wave forms today's digital systems are capable of creating, these wave forms are still far less complex than those created by acoustic instruments and voices (they still haven't even come close, despite the theoretical potential). The simpler the timbre, the easier it is to reproduce, and the easier it is to tell whether or not the reproduction is "truthful." Electronically produced sounds are also much less affected by room acoustics, at least when we are considering timbre, especially if the room in question is a recording studio. Electronically produced tones can be 100% controlled, regardless of environment, making them much easier to record. You brought up the point that we are less familiar with electronic timbres. This may be true, but I think that this is actually irrelevant, especially since as you said we are speaking of recordings, not the live event. A recording engineer can know EXACTLY how an electronically produced tone is going to sound. This is NEVER true of acoustic instruments or voices, even the same exact player of the same exact instrument in the same exact environment from one day to another. This is a big reason why engineers want to make sure that a recording of any given song or movement of a multi-movement work is finished in one session - it is simply too difficult to reproduce the exact same pitch level on a different session (which is why many engineers/orchestra conductors still forgo patch sessions when making a "live" recording). This is of course no problem for electronic instruments.

Based on the above, then, it follows that one can be much more of an objectivist about electronically produced music. The standard for judging "truthfulness" can be much more, not less exact than with acoustic instruments.

Learsfool – I believe that you and I are talking about two different kinds of electronic music recordings. In my last post, I was talking about:

(1) A recording in which electronic sounds are produced by a device, performed in a real acoustical space, and recorded with a microphone to a recording medium.

I believe that you are talking about:

(2) A recording in which electronic sounds are produced by a device and recorded DIRECTLY TO THE RECORDING MEDIUM.

In (1), the recording is just like a recording of an acoustical musical event, except that the sounds are produced from electronic “instruments,” rather than acoustical ones.

In (2), there is no performance, no real acoustical space, and no microphone. There is just the device that creates the sound and the recording medium.

I agree with you that recordings as described in (2) are more likely to be ACCURATE representations of the original electronic sounds. You may be right that this is partly attributable to the fact that electronic sounds are less complex than vocal or acoustical ones. But it is also attributable to the fact that MORE THAN HALF THE RECORDING PROCESS HAS BEEN ELIMINATED. The performance has been eliminated. The acoustical space has been eliminated. The microphone has been eliminated. And in some cases, the need for a “field” recording format (distinct from the subsequent “storage” recording format) has been eliminated. It is no wonder, then, that the resulting recording is MORE INHERENTLY ACCURATE, as you suggested.

However, the kind of accuracy just described is not the same as the concept of “truthfulness” I used in my post on 1/18, which was rather: TRANSPARENCY TO THE MUSICAL PERFORMANCE. In the case of music recordings as described in (2), there quite literally IS NO PERFORMANCE. Therefore, the question of the recording’s truthfulness, in the sense in which I’ve been using the term, does not apply.

But all of this seems like a peripheral matter, since the real goal of my post on 1/18 was not to highlight the difference between acoustical and electronic recordings, but rather to highlight the difference between recordings of REAL events and recordings of VIRTUAL events. I only brought up electronically produced sounds as one example of what, in my view, contributes to making a recording “virtual.” Among the other things that make a recording virtual: Multiple microphones with different perspectives, music editing, and the liberal use of creative mixing techniques.

Perhaps the simplest illustration of what makes a musical event virtual is music editing, that is, editing together segments from multiple takes to create the illusion of a single, continuous “performance.” This is done all the time in popular music, and when it is, the performance that is on the recording is, at least partially, VIRTUAL, in the sense that IT NEVER EXISTED IN REALITY. To use an analogy…

Consider a painting of a landscape that never existed, but is a composite of various landscapes drawn from the memory of the painter. In other words, it is a virtual landscape, in the sense that it never existed in reality. As such, the painting cannot be evaluated in terms of its truthfulness, i.e. its correspondence to reality, simply because there is no real landscape for the painting to correspond to. So the question of the truthfulness of the painting does not apply. Hence the attitude of Objectivism about the painting is unwarranted.

As I see it, the case is almost exactly the same with music recordings. Consider a “performance” edited together from many segments of multiple takes recorded over different days. In other words, it is a virtual performance, in the sense that it never existed in reality. As such, it is difficult or perhaps impossible to evaluate the recording in terms of its truthfulness, i.e. its correspondence to reality, because there is no real performance for the recording to correspond to. So the question of the truthfulness of the recording does not apply. Or more precisely, it applies less and less as recordings are more and more edited (since I understand the distinction between real and virtual events as being on a continuum). Hence the more virtual the event a recording represents, the less the attitude of Objectivism is warranted.

Hi Bryon - to reply to the first part of your post first, I could certainly quibble with you about that distinction. Especially the "performance" part - one could argue that even a device going straight to a recording medium is still a performance. Frank Zappa certainly thought so, for one. As soon as anyone else listens to it, it does technically become a performance. Also, in your 1) it is still much easier for recording engineers to record an electronic music performance than an acoustic one, for the reasons I have already stated. The difference between 1) and 2) is not as great as you seem to believe, though it is of course there, and I do understand the distinction - certainly the acoustic of the room is eliminated in 2), as is the mike. However, this elimination of variables arguably makes the objectivist perspective even more apropos, not less.

Going back to the real vs. virtual distinction you are making, I must point out that nowadays, and really for quite some time now, just about all recordings made would be virtual by your definition (multiple mikes with different perspectives, music editing, creative mixing techniques). Even a "live" orchestral broadcast on the radio is not usually. The broadcast is very rarely actually live (though that still sometimes does happen) - it is almost always a presentation of the best bits of the weekend. The first movement of the symphony may be from Saturday while the rest is from Sunday, for instance.

In fact, unless a concert is truly being broadcast live over the radio as it is actually being played, there really isn't any such thing as a "real" recording anymore, now that digital recording techniques have completely taken over. There are always many different mikes used, and all kinds of mixing and editing techniques are applied routinely. I know of no orchestra nowadays that releases any commercial recordings without any editing whatsoever, and there is usually a ton of it. Georg Solti was the last conductor I know of who insisted on "one-take" recording (with some funny results sometimes, I might add). It of course goes without saying that all digital recordings have heavy mixing applied to them, which one could argue is a form of editing as well.

And any recording of any pop or jazz singer is done with a digital mike that alters their voice - most of the time this is even done at live performances. The bigger the star, the bigger the mixing board that her/his voice is being put through before it even gets to the speakers. There is far more mixing of rock and pop and country done than with classical or jazz or even folk. There is almost never any such thing as a recording that would not be virtual by your definition anymore, no matter what type of music is involved, and this has been the case for at least two decades now (to use the most conservative estimate, three would probably be more accurate). And as you say, this makes an objectivist viewpoint less and less warranted. This is indeed what I was arguing back when this whole thread first started.