neutrality vs. realism

I don't think that systems that perform suffieciently close to reality are ever boring, its just that - and Paulwp please take note here - the variables used to describe or define what is sufficiently close are many times not reducable (at least not yet) to measurable responses. The accuracy school I'm referring to looks to measurable variables like frequency (by your last paragraph, Paulpw, I don't think you fall completely in this school, no one ever does by this decade, but I do notice the mention of frequency as you main defining quality, one that measures relative quantity across of spectrum of observation). The result is a bias that seems to imply that such factors are determintive towards this sufficiency, and the default towards that "accuracy" bias leads invariably to its contra-implication, namely, that that which may not be measurable is less important.

We seldom see dogmatic acolytes of scientism anymore, but the bias, as an operational force in the argument, still remains.

So, are there sufficient qualities of stereo rendition that are also not measurable?

Question: When listening to a stereo, as the mind "let's go" of its tendancy to think (deepening musical perception DEFINED by its cognitive fading)does the mind percieve qualities of music that frequency et al can not define?

My point is that at deep levels of stereo perception we experience existential spatial/temporal cues that, as yet, are not measurable, and YET, are VERY important for sufficiently catalyzing the mind to these deeeper levels.

Its not only that our mind is filling in "frequency" in places where it is insufficient, but that at a deeper level - beyond present empiric abilities of quantitative analysis - the stereo component that is highly "musical" is "filling in" spatio-temporal cues so that our mind perceives that existential perception as congruent with "real" space/time.

At the more surface levels of listening - when the thinking mind is "looking" for sound - the measurable variables are critical; a stereo that has insufficient frequency performance draws the thinking mind's attention to that incongruency so you would never go deeper. But a stereo (or the mind of its assembler) that looks PREDOMINANTLY towards measurables such as frequency et al, and whose creation in sound reflects that bias, will not go AS DEEP.

Its not as simple as saying that bias towrds hyper-detail is the issue...also bias towards (attachment of) the measuring ruler of science and its Galilean perspective.

I will stop there; enough to digest.

Paulw, the foregoing is a foil/catalyst for your response, if any, not personally directed.

Interesting point, Subaru.

Even live music can be un-musical, as in, keep you from falling into the musical meaning deeper.

So, even if frequency is OK, that is not the determintive variable in the dynamic of "musicality", or catalyzing the thinking mind to let go. Of course, your point addresses performance, not how a stereo performs. Fun issue though.

Maybe Paulp can integrate it into a response...?

Ernie (Subaruguru) and Muralman, thnak you, but you should give credit to Asa for the catalyzation idea as well as the notion of sufficency.

Ernie, you've really opened a can of worms with the first arrival/second arrival problem. From a designer acquaintance (a scientific objectivist, Asa): "we don't have complete accuracy available as of yet. We may have accuracy on one dimension, such as axial frequency response, but not have accuracy in another dimension, such as sound field arrival vector/intensity accuracy." Moreover, "angle of arrival has much to do with perceived tonal balance. While the data can be gathered there is no established perceptual index for percentage of program intensity per program angle of arrival, even though it plays a very significant role in perceived accuracy. This of course includes boundary effects, timing/phase cues as well as angle of incidence. The perceived summation is quite complex." (These are not my ideas, so don't give me credit for them.)

So, Asa, I think that frequency response is all important in accurately reproducing the recorded event. The caveats are that (1) a perfectly accurate on-axis frequency response may not result in accuracy at your ears in your listening room, and (2) you may find a dollop of sweetness or a rounded edge or a little tweaking with presence for soundstaging effects more pleasing to your ears. (I might too.)

There are lots of other things to measure besides on-axis response; dispersion, off-axis response of speakers, cabinet resonance in speakers, jitter in cdps, amplifier performance into real loads, etc. I think everything that can be heard can be measured. The trick is using the measurements to predict what the listener will experience in his chair in his room.

Asa, the important issues you bring up deserve more thought and discussion, especially considering the secondary (and tertiary, etc.) arrival problems Ernie raises. Is it possible that there is a level of sufficiency that is preferable to complete accuracy in the real world, in order to minimize some of the problems with secondary arrivals? Is it possible that too much auditory information may be a detriment?

Of course, I think I have said, or at least implied, that I really do prefer a little built in loudness compensation on the bottom for warmth and a little (not much, just a tad) of roll-off at the top. My favorite speakers also employ a BBC or Grundee dip centered around 3khz to move centered vocalists back just a bit in the soundstage. I think these deviations from a flat frequency response yield greater realism, that is they conform to what I hear in real life. But, those are just my preferences.

Paul

Paulwp hits a long one again. Although I do not rely on technical statistics, I must admit I peruse them with some amusement. I mainly trust my ears as I hone in on my dream system. I share in the premise there are wave interractions out there that remain unmeasurable. I do not rely on specs for that reason. I would never buy a component based on it's distortion figures. I doubt there is any experienced audiophile that does.

I understand there are live performances and there are live performances. One that I attended this week consisted of electronically reengineered violin music played through an array of outdoor speakers. It was fun, especially the visuals. Never could I recapture that event. Last night I listened to a group playing piano, cello, and violin doing some really thought provoking Chinese scores. I had a good seat, with no early reverberation arrival problems. It was a good live event to judge by.

I remain pleased with how close my evolving system approaches recreating the live experience. Each incremental step takes my enjoyment closer to the heart of musician.

If I may weigh-in here, I have the notion, that a good part of the reason for the measurement aspect of stereo gear is the fact that all components are designed to be interchangeable. Mix and match, if you will. Since the other gear that may be used with any one component is not known my the mfr., an attempt is made to have a "benchmark". This "benchmark" has resulted in a relatively arbitrary, but well meaning, set of measured standards that are meant to assure the user of conformity and usefulness with other units measured by the same standards. So, standards of measurement were adopted for various aspects of performance such as frequency response, total harmonic distortion, power output, etc.

The problem with this is that these processes assume a given idea that flat frequency response or low THD will allow accurate pass-thru to the next component with flat frequency response or low THD. While this may superficially seem to be the case, it is not. Little or no regard is given to the additive or interactive effects of the other components in the chain because the designer is unaware of what the other components will be. So this leads to the designing of equipment in a "vacuum", so to speak. Only the most basic "standards" like output level and impedance levels under static conditions are even considered. All of the other issues are left to the consumer to determine, regarding which items may work well together. And the consumer is ill-equipped to make these decisions, because there is little, if any, data provided for this, and most consumers would not know how to use such data anyway.

This is what leads to the mysterious "synergy" discussions, and the apparent "disconnect" between measurements and sound quality. It is not that the measurements are bad, it is the basic idea of what should be measured, and how to measure it,and provide useful data, that is at the root of the problem.

If a consumer knew that his amp exhibited a THD profile of primarily even-ordered harmonic distortion with a major part at the 2nd harmonic, he could choose a speaker that also had a major part of its THD in the 2nd harmonic,and wire them 180 degrees out of phase, thereby cancelling a significant portion of the distortions of the amp/speaker combination. But, nobody seems to be aware of this type of "system integration design" and none of the measurements really are geared to help anyone do this. Everybody just wants flat response and low distortion, but all components have some dips or rises, and all have some components of distortion. Failure to correctly match these, and other, characteristics will result in additive distortions or frequency anomalies. The consumer is frequently unaware that he is even making this mistake. Also, there is a big difference in having two-tenths of a percent of distortion at the 2nd harmonic, and having one-tenth of a percent at every harmonic point up the scale. In the first case there is a relatively small amount of distortion at one point on the curve. In the second case, there is a smaller maximum distortion rating, but the distortion is all over the place.

So, to sum up, I do believe, as Paulwp seems to, that things that are heard can be measured. But the things measured, and the ways they are measured, and the applications of those measurements leave much to be desired. Now, add that to the things that we haven't learned how to measure, or even realize that they need to be measured, and we end up with a reliance on a faulty set of measurements, and misunderstanding of same, that cannot accurately be used to select our equipment. Thus, many of us rely on our ears to measure what we do know, the sound.

Ultimately the ear is the judge. But I do not discount that certain measurements can lead one to an informed platform from which to begin auditioning, if one can adequately interpret the data that can be found, and apply it in a meaningful way, resulting in a happy combination of components(synergy). And although I personally am a proponent of listening as the final arbiter, I do use design data and measurement data when I can find ways to apply it.

Regarding the brain's interpretation of the sounds generated by the system, I am not in an informed position to comment on that. But I do find it interesting.