The only thing important to me is for the music to get through.
Real or Surreal. Do you throw accuracy out the window for "better" sound?
I visited a friend recently who has an estimated $150,000 system. At first listen it sounded wonderful, airy, hyper detailed, with an excellent well delineated image, an audiophile's dream. Then we put on a jazz quartet album I am extremely familiar with, an excellent recording from the analog days. There was something wrong. On closing my eyes it stood out immediately. The cymbals were way out in front of everything. The drummer would have needed at least 10 foot arms to get to them. I had him put on a female vocalist I know and sure enough there was sibilance with her voice, same with violins. These are all signs that the systems frequency response is sloped upwards as the frequency rises resulting in more air and detail. This is a system that sounds right at low volumes except my friend listens with gusto. This is like someone who watches TV with the color controls all the way up.
I have always tried to recreate the live performance. Admittedly, this might not result in the most attractive sound. Most systems are seriously compromised in terms of bass power and output. Maybe this is a way of compensating.
There is no right or wrong. This is purely a matter of preference accuracy be damn. What would you rather, real or surreal?
147 responses Add your response
| Post removed |
The hyper detailed system is a common result of the pursuit. I have heard a number of systems that sound exactly like the one you describe. I think it is a fairly predictable outcome of analytical minds pursuing better and better systems. I can’t speak for others, but I definitely headed that way… not realizing that by maximizing detail and slam I was loosing the music. When working 70 hours a week and having at most 45 minutes to listen to music a day… the detail and slam was enthralling. A number of things happened to me that got me questioning the character of the sound of my system. I had a little more time to listen… I would get bored after 45 minutes of listening. I noticed many recordings sounded bad, and I started listening to live acoustic music… on purpose. The nail in the coffin was when I bought a high end Woo 300B headphone amp for my already great headphone system. My headphones came alive with tremendous detail, but with mid-range bloom, and rhythm and pace as I had never heard before. It was an epiphany. It made my main system sound simply terrible… dry, lifeless. Instantly all sorts of experiences with different systems across the decades came together. That began the revolution in my main system that brings me to the all tube systems I have today. Detailed, warm, and completely realistic sounding. See my virtual systems. So, for me, I had to discover the error in the direction of my system building.
I know of a few people that had their eye on musicality from the beginning. I know of a lot of people pursuing the highly detailed, sometimes holographic systems. I don’t know if they just haven’t had the epiphany yet, or that their systems simply tickle their fancy. I have known quite a few people that were equipment swappers… they just seem to love to swap out a top notch component every few months. I don’t get it… seems to make them happy.
All I know is that I am estatic that I figured this out before I retired and now can enjoy simply stunningly musical systems, that I have a hard time dragging myself away from after listening three or more hours a day.
|
I’ve listened to a lot of concerts in a way where I paid audiophile-style attention. Concerts often have a lot of flaws -- imbalances, echo, etc. Live music doesn’t always set the standard. In those cases I don’t prefer "real." Even in concerts with very good, balanced sound, they are typically not "hyperdetailed" the way some systems are. I like that. So, to answer your question -- I prefer "good real" over "weird hyper-detailed." I prefer "good not-real" over "bad real" and over "hyper-detailed." In good fiction writing courses, they teach writers, "Show, don't tell." Good systems "show" but they don't "tell."
|
I often throw away stereotypes on better sound for bigger money and it works very well. Hey, you never know It might be those high-end wires that do cost a lot and do make a difference you've just experienced. Same pattern only with a LOT larger magnitude is around medications... You might think that it was made out of bunch of magic and expensive substance that will help ya, but at the end, you've only spent a fortune without much desirable outcome. |
Buying with the money to buy will not replace acoustics knowledge... I own a system with headphone and speakers under 1000 bucks... 😊 With no major defects...Upgrading will cost me 10,000 bucks but it is unnecessary because i already enjoy immersiveness and good timbre...On my headphone and even with my speakers... My system is better than what you described... My system show me ALL but did not tell me what to hear... As Hilde45 put it well... Amazing how there is no linear relation between price and sound... Nothing replace acoustics knowledge because if you dont understand the 5 factors interplay describing TIMBRE or the many factors related to spatial dimensions of the soundfield how can you create them by learning how to control them in some way for yourself ? By buying costly components ?🤨 We create,ourself or not, our sound experience with any basically good synergetical components RIGHTFULLY EMBEDDED IN OUR ROOM/HOUSE...This is related to basic knowledge and synergy ONLY ,not price tag AT ALL ... By the way did you know why i did not recommend my low cost speakers and headphone choices to eveyone ? It is because they are optimal ONLY after many modifications and the rightful embeddings ... I recommend studying, reading, embeddings controls, experiments with creative and fun imagination based on ACOUSTICS not only room acoustic here... I never recommended my brand name gear pieces as solutions as many did... I recommended acoustics learning and experiments... I modified my speakers after i studied crosstalk effects reading in acoustics and Helmholtz resonators ...Same for my headphone and other acoustics concepts ... Without modifications they are not so good at all even if i bought them because of the users reviews unanimously good almost... We must dare to read about all acoustics concepts to understand what we perceive when we hear a sound... If not we will go on the upgraditis wheel and marketing hype... There is a MINIMAL acoustic satisfaction threshold, when you get it, music became immersive so much that you forget sounds and marginal and most useless upgrades... You can economise much money but you cannot economise time study and experiments sorry...It is why most people pay with money instead of thinking and paying with time ... Most have not my time leisure in retirement... I will never had did it before my retirement ... Then i understand people... But the truth must be said...😊 Investing time can be fun and it is way more rewarding than most upgrading... |
The concept of "accuracy" is misleading completely here... Accuracy in electrical engineering is not accuracy in digital engineering nor accuracy in music experience nor accuracy in physical acoustics nor accuracy in psycho-acoustics perspective... And accuracy for audiophiles is not any of these different accuracy concepts, it is most of the time gear choices related though not musically and acoustically related first and last .. It is why we must study fundamental basic acoustics and psycho-acoustics concepts to understand what we spoke about speaking of "accuracy"... Accuracy is most of the time a design marketing keyword used most of the time coming from electrical engineering measured specs or from digital audio engineering coming from Fourier analysis... An audio system well embedded must sound NATURAL not "accurate"...Musical not "detailed"... And all this it is not grounded on our tastes for some gear component or branded name so much as grounded in acoustics knowledge and controlled factors in a general sense of the word including psycho-acoustics when we learn how to embed an audio system nevermind his price ... |
Yes. What you are listening to is recorded music.
@mapman +1 Well said! |
The essence of music is conveyed via emotional component of it not via its mathematical constructs. But the mathematical constructs are necessary to make music happen at all. Most of the recordings that I listen to are quite bad. If I can somehow make them sound a little better I will do it. But I would not be doing too much of a "remastering engineering" either. I'll try to find a balance. Live music is not hyper detailed, it is just detailed. |
I have tried a variety of gear over the years and have mostly kept the stuff that I enjoy listening to. My predominate criteria have been tone and dynamics, and I have been fortunate to acquire gear that is also quiet, smooth, and generally accurate-sounding compared to live music I listen to. I have no illusion that I am listening to anything but recorded music played back on a home system but the rich tonal quality and generally powerful dynamic response both go a long way toward my enjoyment. I pay almost no attention to measurements, audiophile-type analyses, or comparisons with idealized references. |
@erik_squires Have you named your Oscilloscope yet and which name you've chosen, boy's name, girls name or neutral? If you have chosen the name, are you looking for picking the last or second name? |
In reproduction audio, accurate sound means closer to the original music (real). The better sound is the more accurate sound. The real sound = accurate sound = better sound. There is no chance a surreal sound is the better sound. Surreal sound is always worse (dirty sound, confused sound image and sound-stage, sonically and musically). Surreal sounds can be momentarily better to people who don’t have much experience in real music or true natural sound audio. Since every audio systems (low-end, hi-end, all $million systems) sound un-natural (except my audio system). Your audio sounds un-natural and you may not know exactly what is real or surreal sound. Alex/Wavetouch |
The original recording is an acoustic perspective or take resulting from trade-off choices conveyed by the gear system to another acoustic perspective ,where they will be translated in our room for specific ears/head... Accuracy refer to measured numbers of specific factors of any kind .... Digital, electrical, acoustical or psycho-acoustical MEASURES but the end PERCEIVED EXPERIENCE is not about accuracy it is about the way a gear system convey an acoustical trade-off set of choices by the recording engineer and how it is translated through your speakers-room by ears and by your specific HRTF or head related transfer function to your speakers/room... And i need an explanation about YOUR speakers being the only possible one accurate in the world, in any room for any inner ears structure and any HRTF sorry , Why and How is it possible ? 😊
|
My audio system sounds the closest to the original music. That makes my system the most accurate sound system. All your speakers behave like a left speaker in below. Only my speaker sounds like a right one. Alex/Wavetouch Killing me softly - Natural vs. Un-natural sound, PA speaker comparison. |
Unfortunately, I think it is song dependent. Lean one way and you find some tracks that make you long for more detail. Lean the other way and your looking for more bloom. Maybe some have more normalized feeding habits than me, but any system that works for Sydney Bechet is going to struggle with Pavement. |
i perceive clearly a difference in your video as evweryone who will hear them ... One is more fatiguing than the other and you were right , one is more natural it is evident especially when coupling your voice with the recorded one... Now i will not like this unnatural sound nor on my headphone neither on my speakers exactly as you dont like it at all ...😊 i dont have this fatiguing sound on neither my headphone and my speake only one in the worlr exactly as you but me i can explain WHY... Before my various modifications i disliked the sound of my actual speaker and from my 9 headphones... I implemented 6 modifications critical for my less ARTIFICIAL sounding headphone and as much on my speakers... Describe what you have done for the benefit of others...😁 Where is your explanation ? I perceive your difference clearly but you are not the only one in the world owning natural sound... An artificial sound is easy to spot...i hate it...I dont think that i can change as i did for my speakers all headphones i ever owned because i dislike headphone artificiality...I succeeded only with the K340 to my satisfaction ... For example all my 9 headphones without exception sounded "artificial" , the only one i did not discard was sounding better but unbalanced and muffled the AKG K340 ... It takes me 6 months every day to discover how to make them natural sound so much that i NEVER listen to any other headphone again after that and i will never need to upgrade... Same for my speakers which i owned for 12 years and which i discarded for computer use not music for 12 years 😁... But when I lost my big speakers and room acoustic one year ago... I did not have any other choice than modifying and optimizing the small one i hated... In a dedicated acoustic corner tailored made for them for the first time .... To figure it out with specific box modifications , vibrations control and EMI shielding , take me 6 months of experiment ... All homemade modifications by the way... Then my sound too is now as natural as yours ...I can explain why and how... What are your explanation ? You never gave one and then you claimed to be the only one with a natural sound in the world ... It is a bit too much claim....Synergy, modifications , and acoustic optimization can be done ... I did them with complete success ...it was not e3asy to figure it out... Most will not... There is not one road only nor only one possible piece of gear to modify, optimize and put in their right acoustic environment designed for them...😊
|
To me, surgically dissecting each track and obsessing about instrument placement isn't enjoyment, it's an OCD vampire sucking all the enjoyment out of music and probably life in general. I listen to music for pure enjoyment. I know the way I like it to sound and I build my system to obtain that sound. I want deep but not over bearing bass, natural mids and crisp but not harsh highs. I realize and accept that not all recordings have those attributes to reproduce, and I'm fine with that. No amount of money spent on gear will ever make a crap recording sound like anything other than what it is. Finally, I never audition my system for others because, quite frankly, I couldn't care less what others think of my system. I built it for me to please me, and it does that quite admirably. |
I am not bothered if i analyse my soundfield at all because it was done right... It was not easy to do it , we must learn about acoustics and few other things.. I refused to listen music with unnatural sound component...I cannot it bother me too much... I am not bothered now by ANALYSING the soundfield if i listen music because AFTER my embeddings controls and the right synergetical components picked up, i can listen the sound EFFORTLESSLY, all is at the right place in space, differentiated , and timbre... What disturb me was CONCENTRATING ON THE MUSIC knowing in the back of my head that my sound stay bad...Then i adressed it in headphone and speakers because i disliked them all anyway right out of the box ...I optimized them... After that only music captivated me with a very good sound on ALL my recordings even the bad one sound less bad and i can listen to them...In my headphone and in my speaker... There is no difference now between listening sound and/or music because nothing bother me in the back of my head and i am not in the obligation to concentrate on the music through a bad sound...music and sound became ONE... Acoustics rule... Mechanical and electrical controls and synergy matter... There is difference between some of my recording for sure, but not as much as you describe... I listen jazz, classical and world music where bad recording is not as rare as in jazz and classical... A good system give us all recording choices takes by the recording engineer clearly, then discovering these choices different in each case, we enjoy them and no more separate them in few good one and a majority of acceptable and few top one... my system IMPROVE all even the bad recording because it give me a fair representation and a good translation of the recording acoustic choices...Almost no recording disturb me now as so bad as unlistenable...They became interesting each one because each one present a unique set of choices......
|
I think this question is much dependent on the kind of music you like. Over my entire life I have always leaned towards heavy music, starting with rock, hard rock, prog metal and now electronic. So in my case I definitely lean real, the only way to put the correct amount of weight into this kind of music. However I also have a sizable classical collection and plenty of softer acoustic style music and in that regard, a little less real and little more surreal is acceptable. However I have gotten to a point with my house of stereo where I don't really pay anymore attention to all the specific sound effects that it produces but rather I just flow into the music without over thinking it anymore. So much more relaxing... |
Yes, studio recordings are frequently surreal either by intent (art) or bad engineering. What I mean by accuracy is the ability to reproduce live instruments, usually acoustic but not necessarily, in timbre, size and location. Concerts via PA systems are not a modality you can judge a system by other than the ability to produce accurate bass and dynamics, which very few systems are capable of doing. I usually use live trio or quartet jazz recordings and string quartets. I have heard both genres many times at live concerts. Again, there are a range of recording qualities. The first thing I always listen for is the size of the piano. We do not listen to pianos with our head inside them. Unfortunately, this is frequently were they place the microphones, so you get things like the bottom keys in the left channel and the top keys in the right channel with the bass and drums in the middle. You are usually listening to pianos from the side so all the notes should be in the same place, but give you the sense of a larger instrument by not being as sharply defined like a trumpet or sax. Dave Holland Quartet recordings are a great example of how it should be done. "To me, surgically dissecting each track and obsessing about instrument placement isn’t enjoyment, it’s an OCD vampire sucking all the enjoyment out of music and probably life in general. I listen to music for pure enjoyment." This person is not an audiophile. He enjoys music like the rest of us, but that is a different subject. Being an audiophile is all about building a high performance audio system. The question is what do we mean by high performance. Is it the accurate reproduction of timbre and space or just a system that sounds good to the owner.
|
Recordings are terrible. Speakers are terrible. Rooms are terrible. Electronics are fantastic relative to recording and speakers. Different, but relatively fantastic. Everyone has different sensitivities, preferences, and goals. Such is life on this planet. Laws of physics, being human etc. So, do we want the cleanest most accurate? Do we want various, unfortunately not quantified, added distortions to mask the above imperfections? Do we want to impress our friends with what it costs? You decide. Most of my music is older. Lots analog mastered, some early horrible digitally mastered, some very good, some new that is the worst I have heard. Source is source, we have to deal wit it. My room is only as well tuned as "domestic distortion" allows. It is our living room, not some dedicated uber-ego perfect listening room. A little too bright but my Lokius deals with that very well. Even if I had the bucks, I would not want to shut myself up in a hole to listen to music. Personal choice. Others will disagree. But in any case, a limit. My speakers are very articulate; very good IMHO. I have hauled them around and really surprised shop owners as a lot of DIY they have heard is pretty bad. It did take me about 30 years to get here. A significant step up costs more than I am willing to pay. I have heard some in the 5 to 8K range I would like, but won't pay for them. I have heard ones for a lot more that I would pull my Elac's out of the workshop first! Again, choice. So, clean or euphonic? Choice. I think the biggest mistake is thinking things like cables or feet will make that last huge difference when the differences are tiny relative to everything else. In order: Source ( fixed, stuck with it). Room (we can do within limits) Speakers ( pay to play), Electronics, small differences, even ss to tube is small in relation. Tweaks, tiny tiny tiny. Fine when you get the above as far as you can but a big pit of squeaky snakes awaits. I go first to make sure nothing bothers me, or my wife with really sensitive hearing. Do no harm first. That has actually been very hard. After that, it is easy to ignore most things and just enjoy music. Your brain will adjust really quickly if there is nothing "bad" going on. Only when I am looking to do a change to I switch hats and pick apart details that may make a tiny difference. Of all the DAC's I have heard, of the ones that "do no wrong" from $100 to $15K, heard in quick A/B yes there are differences. Some good, some bad and they don't track price! But if heard in isolation, those differences are so small, I could be happy with any of them. Still looking for that one I can afford that is clearly better. The last audition /comparison was through Hegel on Watts of 24 bit streaming so don't give me any "not good enough" system excuse. Example, which makes a bigger difference? Listening to the original D-G VonKarjan Beethoven through a Holo DAC, or the later Ozawa with my JDS? I'll take the latter any day. If anyone wants to give me a Holo, well I'll take it. Or a Hugo. I am leaving out all the lies your brain tells you. Sound is real, hearing is mental. If you believe, consciously or not does not matter. If it is better to YOU for the price, then well, it is better. Maybe not for me, but for you. Go ahead and buy a $400 power cord to bring out those micro details. I'll go buy another box of CD's. For us, more music matters most. |
This seems to be a continuation of a recent thread on a "French" sound. Isn't hyper-detail another equipment design aesthetic? It's not my cup of tea, but it certainly seems to be a design goal valued by some manufacturers and their customers. They appear to have gotten quite successful in achieving the design goals, too. If one accepts hyper-detail as a design aesthetic, then it can't be "wrong." For example, I don't think much of Cubism, but it's a valid artistic aesthetic. In the audio world, however, some hold natural reproduction as a non-relative gold standard. I suppose that it is at least feasible to set up a blind a/b test for someone with good ears in Orchestra Hall in Chicago. With a suitable high-end system, could they distinguish which was the real thing and which the reproduction? With a really good system, maybe not. However, as @mahgister points out, even if the audio system passes this acid test once you take it out of Orchestra Hall all bets are off. My search is for equipment designers who have a certain approach or goals that I share. Along the way I hope to discover the alternatives - most of which I will reject but not disparage. Finding the right ones for me will be very rewarding. |
Is it real or is it Memorex? This is an interesting thread so I will jump in. The subjectivity and variables in recorded music is inherent in the entire creation process from the capture to the audio engineer’s bias to the equipment used to listen to it to the ears and brain of the listener. Take most recording of the 50’s and into the 60’s were mono then stereo was simulated by the audio engineer. Miles Davis “Kind of Blue” is an example, What was the audio engineer’s bias, do you like the mono or the stereo version or both? Now time travel ahead to Steely Dan’s Aja album, one of my favorites for the music and the audio engineering. To say that a live recording is more “Real” that “Surreal” may somehow start out at the capture point but then the number of fingers in the pie is extremely large from the capture to a person’s listening session. In the end it is all a degree of “surreal” So, what is real? What is surreal? I like them both….. if I like them! |
The more i read audio threads the more i realized people are unsatisfied in many cases and frustrated... This had nothing to do with price tags or branded name choices very often... Synergy between components at any price and embeddings of components at any price is necessary... But it was almost impossible for me to figure out ways to do it with my components before studying general acoustics concepts and i dont speak about only specialized small room acoustic here but about acoustics in general, what is crosstalk or what is an Helmholtz resonators for example among other acoustics questions, or what define TIMBRE acoustically and how can i use that ?...What is listener envelopment ? What is the sound source width ? Etc... People dont study acoustics and pick their experience with gear changing one after the other pieces...They became consumers slaves of marketing...They must read acoustics articles to understand their experience FIRST not the owner of gear manual... Am i deaf if i claim to be happy with low cost components well embedded ?😊 Am i delusional? Am i someone who claim happiness because i decided to live with a relatively bad sound pretending the opposite ? Delusional people exist by the way... Why am i not envious of any system here and most if not all other system are costlier and better than mine in design especially compared my actual speakers choice? No... I am happy because i optimize my system till i reach this minimal acoustic threshold where details and musicality became ONE and did not impose on me mandatory "taste" choices... There is no tastes choices forced upon us in well done acoustic environment , only factors under control... And without any mechanical and electrical embeddings controls no system can be optimal... And there is also "necessary "tweaks" for me of my own i used without which my soundfield dont please me... All that cost me NOTHING or peanuts but it must be experimented and learned, it takes time... Or pick your choice and call me delusional... I dont care listening my music... Acoustics , synergy, and the rightfull embeddings controls rule in audio not the gear pieces and the price tag ...Sorry but i am not the one delusional...😊
Without experiments we cannot embed our system rightfully... Anyway almost nobody will put a bundle of different straws of different volume and lenght behind their speakers in the porthole to increase bass depth and extension as i did knowing that any vented speakers is an Helmholtz resonators often badly designed in his ratio volume/ neck section and lenght ...Most people will upgrade this low cost speakers instead of experimenting and learning to a very costlier one giving more bass... Me i did it at not cost and now instead of 85 hertz i enjoy 50 hertz on my 4 inches driver and 50 hertz very clear and punchy with even taste under is ENOUGH for most music instrument save deep organ note ...And i also introduced other changes to decrease crosstalk mechanically to some degree with success it was possible because i listen near field and the small speakers are on my desk...... It look "nuts" yes... I even increase the tweeter directionality in my near listening field with success.. It look as some laughing ignorant will call "tin foil hat" system but i am not frustrasted with beautiful unsatisfying costly speakers with no acoustic optimization as many are ... Thats my point... We dont need money we need experimenting and learning in acoustics...And we need to control a bit the EMI and electrical noise floor ... Etc... By the way there is no "surreal" concept of sound in any acoustics book...These distinction had no meaning for me at all they are gear focussed metaphor not grounded in acoustics ... It is a metaphor not an acoustic concept... Natural TIMBRE sound is an acoustic concept and experience well defined by at least 5 characteristics in acoustics with which we can play and experiment...
|
Very good. Several points. Euphonic can be clean as in low distortion levels. That says nothing about amplitude response which is generally where the euphonic comes from. As you pointed out most distortion comes in the form of loudspeakers. There are speakers which are uniquely better in this regard, true ribbons and ESLs. Rooms effect amplitude response, clarity and imaging. As you suggest where the eyes go goes the hearing, if it looks good it must sound better. Just the way we are wired. The more expensive the better the sound, expectation bias. False beliefs, again expectation bias. We are ruled by our minds whether we like it or not. Being aware of this is the first step in countering it. |
If your speakers are anyone of Thiels, Dunlavys, Vandersteens, etc., with first-order crossovers and time/phase aligned, then you cannot throw away accuracy. These speakers give an accurate reproduction of music. So, you have to throw away the speakers. If you are going to do such a thing, please contact me ahead of time, I have a dumpster near my house that will accept any one of the above speakers. But do please call me ahead of time (LOL). |
The perennial question for audiophiles (assuming by "surreal" the OP meant something like "super-real"; I doubt any but the oddest of us would prefer our systems to sound "unreal," "bizarre," "freakish" or any of the other synonyms of "surreal," which originally designates visual art like that of Salvador Dali). No, you don't want reproduced music to be the acoustic equivalent of clocks melting over table tops! So: do you want your system to sound like "real instruments at a live (acoustic) concert"...or do you want MORE than that? This, I presume, is what the OP meant to ask. Mahgister always brings us back to the fact that perception of sound is a complicated thing involving a lot more than the straightforwardly measurable (that is, the "undistorted"). If that were not true, we'd all like the same equipment—and the same music, too, probably. If measurable accuracy were the gold standard, everyone would prefer solid state to tubes; tubes add distortion. But we often like the "right" kinds of distortion; don't be misled by the seemingly pejorative character of the word. Having said that, I'll admit to being fond of various kinds of "distortion," despite the fact that I play cello and guitar, my wife plays piano, my daughter violin, and we all play here in our home in the same environment where I also listen to piano, violin and cello as recorded music on my system. Yes, getting timbre right is important. Yes, conveying the scale of the instrument, and its position in space in relation to other instruments in an ensemble—all that is important. But finally, a kind of "super-realism" is often desirable in reproduced sound. Perhaps it compensates somehow for the displacement effect created by the domestic space, which inevitably reminds the brain that it is not actually listening to live music. Here's a possible analogy to make this point. I used to be a photographer, back in the pre-digital days. I've won awards at juried shows, had my photographs published, etc. I knew what I was doing with a camera. Now, however, I find that I rarely can resist using one or another post-production retouching program for my digital images. I can not only correct for an out-of-true horizon, or crop the image easily; I can actually enhance the color contrast in ways that make the image "pop." Whether you know it or not, most, if not all, published images have been manipulated in such ways. Is that "realistic," "true" to the "original"? Strictly speaking: No. But we often like it better. There's nothing wrong with that. A photograph of, say, an Alpine vista simply cannot capture all the features that make the "original experience" so compelling: the freshness of the air, the sense of grandeur that comes with the sheer physical scale, and so on. So tweaking the photo a bit may trick the brain into supplying some of that missing visceral excitement. The photo is a simulacrum, not a substitute. So with reproduced music. Despite all this, I agree with tvrgeek about the relative importance of the different elements in the audio chain, no matter what final effect one is striving for: "In order: Source ( fixed, stuck with it). Room (we can do [adjust] within limits). Speakers (pay to play [not sure what this means here]). Electronics (small differences, even ss to tube is small in relation). Tweaks (tiny tiny tiny)." I've got two systems, both built over many years, both excellent (to my ears), both in acoustically sympathetic rooms. One is "more accurate": I've had PSB Synchrony Ones in there, which measure extremely well; then Von Schweikerts, which sounded a little "better"; now Magneplanar 1.6 QRs, which are the "best" yet. That's my second system. My favorite rig has speakers you've probably never heard of (Scientific Fidelity "Teslas"), which were very badly reviewed by Stereophile when they were made in the 1990s, which pretty much killed them on the market. So be it. They create a more compelling simulacrum of piano, violin, cello—to my ears, which hear these same real instruments in this same acoustic environment daily. They also are more exciting for jazz and rock: better imaging (more than "realistic"), more bass punch, etc. Are they more "accurate"? Draw your own conclusions.... |
I'm with these folks. The word "real" should be abolished from everyone's lexicon. It does no work, sheds no light, though it does permit a lot of flatus vocis* * [A mere name, word, or sound without a corresponding objective reality —used by the nominalists of universals. -- Merriam-Webster's] |
"Real" as "flatus vocis"; me like! But then, to some degree, ALL language is flatus vocis, since words are not the things they stand in for. On the other hand, Webster says that words should not be, but "correspond" to, some "objective reality" in order to be more than (or other than) mere flatus vocis. If that's the standard, then the word "real" used in the audio evaluation context surely is NOT a mere flatus vocis. The "real" here which is to serve as the "corresponding objective reality" is the sound of a piano, violin, cello, guitar, voice produced not by one's audio system, but by the things themselves. Unless, of course, you want to insist (as Mahgister always does) that "perception" is not "reality." Granted; I'm a Kantian, too. But then, we're back to my first disclaimer here: that ALL language is flatus vocis! The point: if we can't use the word "real" in discussing a "reproduction" of something—if it is a "mere sound without a corresponding reality"—then there is no way to evaluate the "re" in "reproduction," and we must just shut up altogether. "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen." |
i am not nominalist... Perception is not the capture of a non transformed nor participated reality outside an isolated subjectivity... We dont perceive the world through a head set... We "resonate" and "synchronize" with the phenomenon we focus on and we perceive them with some filtering through our specific species evolutive and personnally acquired filters...The fil;ters are not arbitrary either... Words exist on two levels : conscious and unconscious... Each word exist as a Poetical metaphorical MUSICAL deep grounding on some layer in the body/world relation and history and on a prosaic conscious habit and conditioned surface manifesting level...The iceberg peak... Any meaning is the result and the cause at the same time of this partially unobserved dynamic... Then when you use a word we condition our mind in some perspectival take on the phenomena but this conditioning is unconscious but never completely arbitrary ... UNIVERSALLY ALL WORDS are born from a metaphor...Because the prosaic level is completely derived from the basic poetical-musical-metaphorical deepest level... When Saussure established the belief in the COMPLETE and ABSOLUTE arbitrary of signs by commodity for his analysis he was wrong and his disciples make a dogma of this isolation tool principle ... But going there and explain it will be too long here... The choice of words matter...Yes... When we say a sound is REAL , the only objective meaning come from experimental acoustics and psycho-acoustics ... Timbre, transients, dynamic, tonality, etc all concepts are scientifically described in controlled acoustic settings as a laboratory ... But when we dont know these concepts by experience , we used isolated conventional metaphors and we use the words as metaphors to translate our subjective experience with the gear disconnected from acoustics conditions and knowledge in many case... Then using the word "real" to qualify our system experience has no clear meaning for someone else...This metaphor is then disconnected from the necessary acoustic concepts necessary to assign meaning to it... We say often our system experience is "real" because we are unable to relate our experience with acoustic concept to substantiate it ... It is not false because it is not even wrong ... We must live always on two language levels but we must distinguish them but not negate one at the exclusive profit of the other...Creative non conventional metaphor revived our dead prose but must be inspired by real experience to do so...
Here is my philosophical belief as an aside :
I dont believe philosophically in a world completely separated from consciousness ... I am a Perceian not a Saussurian and i am a disciple of the french linguist Gustave Guillaume whose works even if very different different from Peirce semiotics perspective, anyway as Peirce himself negate an absolute separation between the sign and the meaning, as between the soul and the Body separated in such a way in the Cartesian frame ... Here what Peirce think : «Peirce understood nominalism in the broad anti-realist sense usually attributed to William of Ockham, as the view that reality consists exclusively of concrete particulars and that universality and generality have to do only with names and their significations. This view relegates properties, abstract entities, kinds, relations, laws of nature, and so on, to a conceptual existence at most. Peirce believed nominalism (including what he referred to as "the daughters of nominalism": sensationalism, phenomenalism, individualism, and materialism) to be seriously flawed and a great threat to the advancement of science and civilization. His alternative was a nuanced realism that distinguished reality from existence and that could admit general and abstract entities as reals without attributing to them direct (efficient) causal powers. Peirce held that these non-existent reals could influence the course of events by means of final causation (conceived somewhat after Aristotle’s conception),[1]and that to banish them from ontology, as nominalists require, is virtually to eliminate the ground for scientific prediction as well as to underwrite a skeptical ethos unsupportive of moral agency.» https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/peirce-and-the-threat-of-nominalism/ In a word, qualitative experience and subjective experience are not completely arbitrary meaningless isolated experience from a reality itself isolated from consciousness ... Husserl go deeper here after Goethe...And Peirce is philosophically right...It is the greatest American thinker...With Whitehead who is British anyway...
|
@snilf There is no corresponding "objective reality." That’s right. Everything that "is" must be somehow taken by us. No raw given, no way to check. Even the "real, objective" cello on the stage, playing live, is heard by me -- my sitting position, my ears, my distracted mind -- and, most important -- my interpretative taking of that acoustical experience. If, in my home, I want to experience what I did in the concert hall -- ok, then I try to figure out how to do that. (And, as @mahgister points out: there are a hundred interpretive acts which are between me and that moment: engineers, mastering, etc.) But in this enterprise, let me not fall into the trap that I’m "really" getting back to something "more real." That’s folly and, worse, obfuscation. But it makes for some great chest-beating online. |
Exactly... Thanks...
|
I find that a speaker’s frequency response should measure flat on axis under anechoic conditions, and follow a downward tilted curve at the listening position something close to the Harman curve to sound best overall to me. That seems to be one measurable metric and established standard I can count on to work for me. Of course it’s not all that matters, but it is important and works for me every time. Indeed, some surreal and interesting effect can happen with boosted treble. I’ve been working on some new speakers recently and have been down that rabbit’s hole again, adjusting levels up and down by ear on the treble, mid, and bass to see what happens. The initial goal is to do tiny adjustments but then I sometimes go hog wild with it and hear some beguiling things. Like the OP said, the boosted treble and bass can be good at low volumes, acting as a loudness curve. Overall I just prefer to let the midrange become naturally more prominent as the volume goes down. I estimate myself to be in the more "real" than "surreal" camp. Some recordings sound surreal no matter what you do, and that’s fine. I don’t want to add my own particular flavor of surreal to every recording. |
When I'm at a concert I don't hear precise locations of each instrument but can tell their decay easily. In a home system I'm trying to get all the small details as I can that to me makes listening more enjoyable. So I'd take hyper detail but not etched sounding over anything else. Each one of us has our own set of biases and that's why there are thousands of different types of speakers and tubed vs ss gear. We build our system to enjoy it ourselves not for others. |
I see a personal preference. What one likes is what one likes. It’s not going to be the same with every person. I say, “have fun with your music, however that may be.” |
Mahgister and hilde45: I'm not a "nominalist," either, nor was I trying to suggest that either of you might be. ("Not that there's anything wrong with that.") My philosophical intuitions are mostly Kantian these days, after half a century contributing to the discipline. But this is not a philosophy forum. Reality "in itself" (in the Kantian sense) is inaccessible and not worth even trying to talk about anyway, since it's inaccessible. Still, for practical purposes, "reality" can be said to be the source of the "source," as it were: the performance which the recording attempts to record and that our audio systems attempt to play back. Now, obviously we were not present at the recording session, nor do we have access to the acoustics of the recording studio in which mastering decisions were made. Etc. Nevertheless, a violin has a slightly different timbre than a viola (violists and violinists would challenge that qualification "slightly," but I presume you see what I mean). For that matter, a Guarneri violin has a slightly different timbre than an Amati, or a Stradivari. BUT...a "live" violin has a characteristic timbre, whether played in one's living room or in Carnegie Hall. If you are familiar with the sound of a live violin—especially if you are familiar with that sound in the acoustics where your audio system is set up—then you know, in your own head, whether or not, and to what extent, your system reproduces that timbre (mutatis mutandis: again, the differences between a Cremona instrument and a good modern "copy" are subtleties we can argue about in a different thread, and one can parse those differences in terms besides "timbre"). Bottom line (for me): I want to be able to hear the "voice" of the first violinist as against that of the second, and I certainly want to hear the voice of a violin in a string quartet as against that of the viola, or the cello. That's partly a matter of timbre, but also of imaging: I like to be able to "see" where the sound is coming from in the recreated "soundstage" of my listening room. That's essential to really following the music: I need to be able to discern the "voices" that make up the Gestalt. And that point bridges the "audiophile" concern for sound quality with the music lover's love of the music: it's difficult to fully appreciate what's in the music without a high level of fidelity to the subtle features of sound quality. "Reality," as I was using the word (without all the philosophical asides), simply refers to the signature features of the live instrument as a perceptual baseline, against which the "accuracy" of the reproduction must be judged. Is this really problematic? Or unclear" |
@snilf Didn’t think you were! I’m a Deweyan pragmatist, so, Kant plus more practice and no ding an sich. I’ll go as far as Peircean Secondness but that’s where I get off. Your post was not problematic or unclear at all. In fact, a real pleasure to read and I'm 100% in agreement. We see and seek the same thing in audio, no doubt. Cheers! |
The recording engineer take also a perspectival angle on this reality pie which is also himself ...My system is a link between my acoustic perspective and his own trade -off...And the recording engineer and me we can partake the same conscious inner core through acoustics knowledge... The timbre of a violin dont exist in itself in some inaccessible absolute reality or truth over all others ... The violin timbre is always a relativized perspective from some location , for some ears, from some material violin design wood etc... Even the violonist does not have the truth about the playing timbre experience..His near position implicate a trade-off exactly as each musician playing around and exactly as any listener will have their "truth" experience about the timbre experience and they will recognize it and they can analyze it psycho-acoustically and acoustically ... We are what we experience together, there is no absolute inaccessible material or sensible reality OUTSIDE , there is only only relatively inaccessible levels ;it is consciousness itself on his many layered levels...But they are all synchronized and manifest each one as different consciousness at different level...The core is ONE for ALL ... Nobody had access to his own whole being to his own core save God ...Material reality is not the reflection of a head-set as claim Donald Hoffman, a Kantian too...Reality is a musically synchonized event...I like Cassirer who being more than just a mere Kantian add a Goethean perspective ... For Goethe there is no theory BEHIND the phenomena , there is no theory without the phenomena either , the phenomena are themselves the perspectival potential and manifested theory... The meaning and the sensible sign then are related through symbolic forms which are read as many possible synchronized perspectives ...This view is so deep... Husserl rediscovered it without refering to Goethe phenomenology, Henri Bortoft the physicist explain it for EVERYONE in few books...Read them...
The Infinite is scary because we cannot be outside of it, and we are held captive of it,if we dont recognize that we are it... We are chained by our own acts and we may free ourself by another act; this is why we need the act of thinking, the producted content on which we may focus to free ourself and be conscious of what we are doing... This is the reason why the qualitative content of any sound must be created anew inside the listener perspective for example but it is also why the qualitative content of a sound reflect the vibrating body source qualities ( wood,metal, plastic , hard, soft, empty, full, and these qualities inform us about our relation with the world and ourself ... We need air for the fire to awake, but the fire is not the air; we need air for the sound to travel but the air waves or their abstraction content are not the sound experienced qualities... I will stop here...😁 And i apologize for being a bit too much... 😊 |
Super real will do I suppose. In the case of the system I mentioned, very pretty, but not realistic. Female voices and violins are not sibilant in person. Drummers do not set up their kit so the cymbals are 10 feet in front of the snare. Obviously, this takes a proper live recording. I find it amusing that engineers of yor do a better job of getting this right. This system is not beyond help at all. Just a steady roll off from 1 kHz at 1 dB/oct would result is less super-realism, but more accurate sound. Because this system is point source, images will alway be smaller, as if you are seated in the back of the venue. The system has very accurate bass down to about 50 Hz where it starts to lose power. He really needs two 15" subwoofers, another rabbit hole. Sounding correct in terms of timbre is relatively easy. It is just a matter of correct amplitude response given a loudspeaker with a well designed crossover and phase response. Casting an image is the hard part. You can't know what you are missing until you experience it. It was about 10 years as an audiophile until I heard a system image correctly and another 10 before I could reliably replicate it. In short, IMHO, it does not have to be perfectly accurate, it just has to be convincing. |
hilde45: Like the pragmatism, but not so sure about Pierce (despite mahgister's fondness). And I don't see how we can do away with the ding an sich! The "I'm not a nominalist either" remark was a response to mahgister's opening line. Mahgister: "It is the strangest claim in the world—raised sometimes, but never lived up to even by those who raise it—that one should present experiences without any theoretical link between them, and leave it to the reader, or the pupil, to form his own convictions. But the mere looking at a thing gradually merges into contemplation, contemplation into thinking, thinking into establishing connections, and thus it is possible to say that every attentive glance which we cast on the world is an act of theorizing. This, however, ought to be done with consciousness, self-criticism, freedom, and, to use a daring word, with irony…." "Theorizing is inherent in all human experience, and the highest intellectual achievement would be to comprehend that everything factual is already theory." Goethe, in a translation by my former teacher Erich Heller. (Listening now to Mozart's "Linz" symphony in the superlative performance by Berlin and Abbado in a great 20-bit Sony recording.) |
Thanks for the beautiful Quote snilf ...
The thing- in- itself idea came from the brain-in-itself idea ... And Kant decided to fix for himself the task to explain how is it possible that we can know something in spite of the thing-in -itself, or with it...He suppose a brain-in-itself facing a thing-in-itself to do the job via active schematizing imagination ...... Peirce was a reeducated and a recuperating Kantian ,because he was also a polymath scientist, a more pragmatic man and then he created pragmatism to face and cure Kantism , because he never bought the thing-in-itself nor the brain-in-itself double ideas ...Peirce is nearer to Goethe IMPLICIT phenomenology and semiotic in his scientific books than to Kant ... Contemporary science had quit pure materialism since 1925 and any Cartesian claims of dualism is void now... My best philosopher of science right now is an Indian genius , who discovered how the microtubules work on each neuron at another frequencies scale and in a quantum way... All the universe is based on musical synchronization in a way...The synchronization tool clocks are time crystals arranged geometrically by the prime number distribution... His ideas are so novel creative and complex i can only refer people to his book ; nanobrain... All other A.I. scientist resemble each other mathematically compared to this new innovative and completely different genius on a level of creativity of his own with a new information theory and a new concept of Artificial consciousness ... But beware he spoke the most horrible english possible, be patient... Here two short conferences : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNKRbujzSok&list=PLnQJF3Qi_4_ANsyFHeEjTVNyZ-OWWoY9Q&index=3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5YyxHzT6QI&list=PLnQJF3Qi_4_ANsyFHeEjTVNyZ-OWWoY9Q&index=1 His twitter account : https://twitter.com/anirbanbandyo/status/1696414403531264483 Anirban work with Penrose and Hameroff, on the microtubules physics but his own ideas are independant and totally revolutionary by themselves... Here Hameroff in a short take on microtubules physics : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDgFFvu-0Z8&list=PLnQJF3Qi_4_ANsyFHeEjTVNyZ-OWWoY9Q&index=2
|
