The closest approach...really

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.

hi detlof:

i like your approach of assessment by committee. however, if it were possible to remove the potential for misperception, namely, the human brain, the result would be an improvement.

measurement to the rescue ??

what about something as simple as spectral analysis.

here is a simple paradigm:

have musicians perform in a room, and take a spectral analysis (printed of course), of two minutes or so of a performance. record the performance (hopefully, a decent recording). then play the recording through a stereo system and take a spectral analysis of the stereo system's reproduction.

one now has 2 print outs. they can be compared.

of course this is not perfection. the quality of a recording comes into question, and the issue of what instruments to record is also a factor. it's a start, i think.

the whole idea is to make evaluation of a stereo system less dependent on human hearing.

Hi Ggavetti,
You are quite right I feel, with your three headings, where to my mind taste boils down to value judgements of what we have percieved. Also taste can be educated, but only if you agree upon a common benchmark in your judgment of a rig, but as you so rightly say, many audiophiles build up their systems without regard for what is "real" and why should they. We are free to follow our predilections and also my passion for "reality" is nothing but that.

Mrtennis,

Spectral analysis in the way you suggest would indeed be interesting. We once dabbled a bit in it, but gave it up, because we had endless discussions, whether disparities in the results were mainly because of the room, the placement of the performers or faults in the recording process etc.
Those experiments would have needed more scientific rigour, more intelligent planning and much better equipment than we were willing to invest in. We obviously must have thought that using our brains discussing lively with each other was more fun with our particular bent of minds.

By the way, there exists at least one well known manufacturer I know of in the high end, who prides himself that his entire chain of fiendishly expensive gear has been developed without any human hearing involved. I don't want to mention names, but his stuff sounds singularly sterile to my ears. To my mind it needs both, measurement and ears. However not only ears, but also "science" needs to be met with a healthy dose of scepticism, because often enough we only BELIEVE that what is measured has its sights on the parameters we try to assess and what has been highly praised as relevant to sound has later been proved to be a misconception.

Interesting discussion. While I can understand the pursuit of best sound reproduction available (within the constraints of your budget if you have one) what I can't understand is how does one know when the pinacle has been reached and that further pursuit is merely a fine tuning to ones taste? We all know that absolute fidelity to the real thing is impossible, but we really don't know how close you can get.

In essence then my questions boil down to what is a reasonable expectation in the first place? How does the novice establish a goal with some specificity? When should he realize he has obtained his goal and quit spending money in pursuit of the unobtainable? Is all of the pursuit of the 'obtainable' by equipment synergy and ancillary equipment (tweaks) really effective or is it just mental masturbation reduced to actual practice?

Personally speaking, many years ago I had a very satisfying system then I started reading TAS and Harry Pearsons description of 'imaging' and thought I was really missing something essential. So I did the equipment upgrading routine, flat FR, phase correct, time correct, Class A, tubes glore, equalizers, subwoofers, monitors, electrostats, panels, ad infinitum. Never got there folks! Now I'm back to a very satisfying system(s) and am happy as hell. Sans illusions, I actually have more fun playing with the toys than ever before.

Guess I'm an audiophile agnostic...........what are you? :-)

Hi Newbee,
Again you touch upon most important points I find. If you have your perception of live music as a benchmark, then of course - as you rightly suggest - that goal is out of your reach. But then you want to get a close as possible and it is as with expensive cars. Every extra HP above the say 350 will cost you unproportunately more than the first 200. If you are able to hit 100kmh in 5.2 seconds in say an M5 Beemer, to get down to 4.8 will easily cost you another 50 grand more and if you are not satisfied with that, well you can get the Bughatti from Volkswagen which clocks the hundred easily under 3.5 but that will cost you more than a million Euros. The high end ain't much different. It depends on what you strive for, on your pocketbook and last not least on your wife.
When I was a novice, I had only one specifity. I wanted it to sound "real". I ran to all sorts of live events and wanted the same at home. I first fell to the hype of all sorts of salespeople, but contrary to your experience Newbee, I became a tad wiser through TAS. Knowing the real thing intimately and probably having an ear for it, I understood at once what HP meant with terms like transparency, imaging etc. I learned that correct phase made for better soundstage, that ELS, at least say in regard of string quartets came closer to reality than any cone speakers I heard at that time. So I slowly got not "there", but closer, because my ears were full of the sound of real music. I had a benchmark which I found I could trust, my own ears, trained on all sorts of live music. That is why I would tell a novice to first get a grasp on what real music sounds like before he starts spending money and I would probably lend him my earlier copies of TAS, where HP developed a language to grasp in general terms what we were hearing or not.
Besides, Newbee, having had a look at your system, permit me to doubt your statement of being an agnostic. You are not in my terms. You ARE an audiophile, because to my ears, your gear is knowlegeably and wisely chosen, wisely because you
are as fast as it goes and do not have to hit the 100 under 5!
Cheers and happy listening,
Detlof