Merry go round


it.

rvpiano's avatar
rvpiano

2,674 posts

 

I was on the audiophile merry go round of never being satisfied with my system, compulsively tweaking and changing equipment, searching for perfection  for quite a number of years. But despite all the conflict I have come out of the ordeal with a system that, I  can honestly say, portrays the music accurately.  So in many ways,  it wasn’t a waste of time and money.
 The trick is,  once you have found a system that satisfies you, stop agonizing over the sound. You’ve reached Nirvana, where all you have to do is sit back and enjoy your music in glorious sound. If there are sound defects, SO WHAT!  The fault is NOT in your system. You’ve reached your system’s benchmark sound and anything that strays from that is the fault of the medium. Even ENJOY the faulty track for the great music that lies within.  I’m sure you’ll even find some  niceties of sound that exist.   
I'm not saying that I’ll never buy another “upgrade.”  But, as of now, I don’t see the need.
For those who listen only for SQ, enjoy the quest.

128x128rvpiano

In the last fifty plus years I have changed everything in my system more times than I can count.  And as of right now, I’m close to my happy place. Improving my DAC is coming, but I am not in a huge rush to do so. I’m currently able to listen to music at comfortable levels for hours without any fatigue and for me, that’s what it’s all about.
 

Now if I hit Powerball, all bets are off.😁

@hilde - thank you for your kind response ; ) - just to clarify, I am certainly not saying there is one kind of reality, only that at any one venue that live music is being played, no one is going to point at the plucked string of a guitar and say that doesn’t sound like their sort of preferred reality. It is ‘real’ for everyone at the venue, for how they each hear reality. It is the same string, the same guitar and the same resonant air.

One may well ‘prefer’ the taste of us grade prime beef over that of New Zealand stock, but if high fidelity is indeed what one cares for, one certainly cannot prefer the recorded sound of a plucked guitar string over that plucked at a live performance. This sort of comparative evaluation is our only gauge of how well resolving a system is, not a random personal preference of taste regarding sound reproduction.

If you disagree, I would certainly like to understand how you critically evaluate the performance of your system ; )

In friendship - kevin.

Great reply, @kevn
I appreciate you pushing me on this. It helps me become clearer about my convictions and intuitions, perhaps even realizing that some are wrong. ;-)

At the venue, when you say something "is ‘real’ for everyone" I agree. But "real" is probably something which involves the immediacy of the experience but only partially (and very imperfectly) the various elements of sound we are discussing in relation to audio, here.

Why is that? Well, what counts as the single "real" listening episode? Now the questions come about the people at the show: Where are they sitting? Near or far? Right or left? Is the background quiet or is there (as at my jazz club) there a fan in the background? Are we talking about the 20 year old’s ears or the 60 year old’s? All those variations affect what is "heard as really happening" by those at the show. These include tonality, soundstage, texture, and more.

Now I think a sensible reply (perhaps yours) might be: "Right, right -- all those things are variables. But I’m thinking about what is real-within-a-range, a reality that most could agree with." After all, no one looks at a sunset and says, "What a beautiful moon." We are way more similarly equipped to agree with what is "basically real." And I agree with that. But outside of those basics, there will be a vast amount of disagreement about what is actually heard. And, of course, some listeners are paying more attention to the voice and not the plucked strings, or the cymbal not the bass, etc. What a person listens FOR influences what they perceive.

If the above is correct, then the reply should probably be: "Ok, but what is real is what the ideal listener would hear. With great hearing, and with no particular attention to this or that, etc. They don't care more for the voice than the bass, etc. They are ecumenical." Problem is, there is no such listener. We listen because we're interested and we're always interested in some way or another. (Only God is indifferently interested, I suppose. Which makes it weird to think that God cares. But I digress.) Differences in interest explain why people always differ about particulars. So, when someone mics the show and then engineers it, they have to decide which particulars are aesthetically best to convey -- this is why they call it the "recording arts" rather than "science."

As for your statement, "one certainly cannot prefer the recorded sound of a plucked guitar string over that plucked at a live performance" -- I have to disagree. Most concerts I go to are plagued with sonic imperfections -- where I’m sitting, the mediocre PA’s the use, background noise, etc. If you mic the performance and then use technologies to "clean it up" it can sound much better. That is not a random personal preference at all -- I’m am looking for a recording and mixing process that makes me happy, aligned with my aesthetic values.

Cheers!