The closest approach...really

hi detlf:

there are two issues. objective quality, which you so aptly stated should be dependent upon how closely the performance of a stereo system approaches live music.

there is also subjective quality, which is basically opinion based upon preference.

as in any aesthetic endeavor, a consumer may select from competing products and end up with some level of inaccuarcy to the real thing and some degree of pleasure with the sound of his/her stereo system.

i wise designer of phono stages suggested to me that if a stereo system does not pass the foot-tapping test, it doesn't matter how close to reality it sounds, as its owner will eventually tire of it and replace components.

my point is that it is difficult to remove the purely subjective element from the process of evaluating stereo systems.

in the end each of us , hopefully, will enjoy listening to music and probably be less concerned with its accuracy, or lack thereof.

Hi MrTennis,

We always, in our "aesthetic endevor", end up with more than just "some level of inaccuracy to the real thing" because even our best systems with the best software rarely come even close to this benchmark. So, things being as they are, the "subjective thing" has to come in with the necessary compromises we have to make and it is a this point, but only at this point to my mind, that your mantra (I think you know what I mean) makes sense to me. We need to make those compromises, which out of a number of necessarily unsatisfying choices will perforce lead to what we like best. Not so in evaluating stereo systems, here to my mind a benchmark is needed and the shortcomings need to be seen and if possible addressed to find that compromise which satisfies subjectively in the way you have mentioned.
As regards the wisdom of your phono stage designer:
Any system without PRAT, without rhythmic accuracy and that is something that CAN be done, is not even close to the SOUND of reality.
And again, I disagree with your mantra, stated in your last sentence. This is good for music lovers. They don't need audiophilia nervosa to enjoy what they hear. A table radio or car stereo will do. If however you belong to that rarer breed of not only passionately loving music and being an audiophiliac at the same time, you will be concerned with the accuracy of your rigs rendering "or lack thereof." You're a reviewer. You should be concerned. Otherwise you will lead people astray and not educate beginners. My benchmark for this kind of reviewing was the early Harry Pearson in the first 3-5 years of TAS. His benchmark were the venues where classical music was performed in NYC and Chicago and his preference for his favorite software let their prices skyrocket at the time by the way.
On one last word Mr. Tennis: I am sometimes addressed by my name in these pages, but you are the only one who continually gets its spelling wrong. Must be a Freudian thing. I love you too. (;

hi detlof:

sorry about the spelling. i agree with you in principle regarding evaluation of stereo systems.let me add that preference and accuracy of timbre may be two different conditions.

however, even as a reviewer, while i discuss inaccuracy of timbre frequently in my reviews ( you can read them at audiophilia.com), there is the issue of perception.

you have suggested, and so have i in other posts, inviting musicians to perform in a room, then compare a recording of the performance to the performance. assuming the feasibility of this endeavor, i suspect, that if you have more than one "audiophile"/experienced listener in a room,
there will be a disagreement as to corresponce between live and recorded sound. thus , the problem is, who is to judge ?

whenever i review a component, i am the first to admit that my perception may not agree with that of another hobbyist.

however, i agree with everything you have said, in principle. the problem is implementation. do you have any ideas ? perhaps you could be appointed by your peers as mr. golden ears. if you qualify, your prononucements would be very valuable to both designers and hobbyists.

Hello Mr Tennis,
Don't you think that perception can be trained? Especially as far as accuracy of timbre is concerned. Timbre can well be an objective thing and the better your perception of the "real thing" is, the better you will be able to assess it objectively. And yes, you are right, the more my perception is being questioned by my peers vis a vis the comparison of a life event and its facsimile, the more I can train and hone it, in discussion, retrials and verification. In our group nobody really judges. We compare notes, know our subjective preferences, try to learn from each other. We are seasoned audiophiles and have learned to dispose of pecking orders. Within our group the role of Mr. Golden Ears shifts, simply because one friend will be expert in timbre, the other in soundstage, one, because he is a trombone player in the sound of his instrument etc. Nobody pretends to know all, but as a group we would be the horror of dealers, except that a few enlightened specimen of this breed are part of our group. Implementation- and there you absolutely suggest the right thing, if I understand you correctly - can hardly be done by an individual alone, but as a group you come closer and just were you agree to disagree often important qualities of a component vis a vis the shared experience of a live event will easily come to light. To quote early TAS once again, they used to have different reviewers assess the same component and knowing their preferences, that was a real help for the reader. As an individual just by myself I would hardly qualify for Mr. Golden Ears. For once,my ears are too old. But I'm still listened to, when timbre or PRAT is being discussed. Mind you, that's easy, because most gear nowadays is pretty good at this at least as far as timbre is concerned and having been weaned on ESLs and immersed in live music from early on, this is no big feat.

Detlof, I thing we substantially agree. For me there are three things:

a) the actual reproduction of the real thing
b) our perception of the reproduction, which may differ by individuals
c) our taste

These are three different things, and I don't think we should confuse them.

a) is objective, and if we had a tool that could measure how close we get to the real thing along a number of dimensions (like a scale that measures weight), there would be no ambiguity about it. Too bad we don't have such a machine

b) is subjective by definition, but I agree with you and ears can be trained...and significantly so

c) has nothing to do with a and b. A friend of mine loves microscopic details. Too bad these details cannot be heard in life performances. Another friend of mine likes to hear big vibrations in his belly...too bad you can't hear them in a real concert.

In short, I think the fact that a few things get closer than others to the real thing is an objective fact, in my view. The fact that we as individuals may or may not perceive that is another truth. Finally, the fact that we may like the "closest approach" or not is another truth, but this has nothing to do with the other things.