Merry go round

@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!

@hilde45 

- thanks for your response, there was a lot in there to parse out, and i hope you won’t mind me thinking aloud.

To start with, my apologies for not writing with greater clarity earlier - when I stated ‘one certainly cannot prefer the recorded sound of a plucked guitar string over that plucked at a live performance’, I did not mean any number of varieties of live performances, but specifically an intimate live performance, of perhaps one, or two guitarists in a duet. Nothing else to get in the way in order venue imperfections get in the way. Better yet, if we can even let go of the word ‘performance’, and just focus on the sound of a plucked string - for those accustomed to listening to the true timbre and tone of each instrument unblemished by space or venue, location in the space, room reflections and the like, there is a deeper understanding gained of how that ‘true’ sound changes with all those variables you mentioned thrown in, such that even with everything going on, there will be good sense of what sounds right, or if someone has messed around too much with the sound engineering. 

This was the unexplained context for my statement which, phrased better, should have read ‘one certainly cannot have a preference for any kind of recorded sound of a plucked guitar string over that of a live plucked string.’ The sound of that live plucked string, together with the sounds of live struck pianos, timpani or bass drums, blown piccolos saxophones and clarinets, forms the the basis of how we each calibrate our systems. None of it is preferential, however deeply involving, complex, or long the process takes.

I hope I’m making sense, so far.

And if you accept my reasoning, then many things follow that help explanation on the issues of listening and the common refrain that we are all different and selective listeners. Thing is, the fact that most of us are selective in what we listen for is far less of a virtue regarding our wonderful diversity than it is an indictment of our incompleteness as listeners. It is often stated we build our systems for each our own ears and no one else’s, as a banner to our individuality no one else need appreciate and yet, the common ground we all share far exceeds the individualism we espouse. Part of the problem is due to the fact many audiophiles believe our hobby to be about putting together a nuanced, resolving and dynamic system, particular to our individual tastes and selectiveness. At its most foundational level, however, I believe the joy of being an audiophile is simply about learning how to listen and to hear as many aspects of music and its recorded outcomes as is possible - to be a balanced listener rather than a perfect one. And, this joy comes not from whatever one might already know and prefer, but over every other aspect of listening we are not familiar with or aware of. 

And that is what I have found my journey of music reproduction to be - less one which is selective, but rather as encompassing as it could possibly be : ) - there is one other issue regarding your search for recording and mixing processes aligned with your sensibilities which, however much I appreciate, I also find limiting, primarily because of the huge wealth of everything else I haven’t yet learned how to listen for: I’ve mentioned it before that ‘good’ recordings are quite easily identified, whereas truly bad recordings are very very difficult to pick out - in part due to the ability of a particular system to tease out all the nuance of resonant air found in any recording studio, but also over our abilities to detect those less unfamiliar aspects of the entire sound spectrum. That said, Adele does have some of the worst sound engineered recordings I have ever heard 😂 - in any case, I hope you too find yourself challenged by this absolutely magical hobby we share : )

In friendship - kevin

Thanks for the clarification.

We will have to agree to disagree. If I’m understanding, you believe in the idea of a "true" sound of live instruments, particularly in an intimate setting as a universal baseline for audio appreciation. You suggest that preferences for recorded sound over this "true" live sound are misguided and that balanced listening, encompassing all aspects of sound, is the ideal.

I still have the same objections as before. Why?

First, your idea of the "true" sound is a construct. You posit a singular "true" sound of a live instrument. However, even in intimate settings, the sound is influenced by numerous factors: the specific instrument, the player’s technique, the acoustics of the small space, the listener’s position, and even their individual physiology and hearing acuity. There is never one objective "true" sound, but always, rather, a range of sonic possibilities. "Oh, but we need to strip that stuff away," you argue. Ok, but if we do that what we wind up with is an imagined ideal, your interpretation of a particular sonic event. But this is an interpretation you claim is true -- it is not truth itself.

Second, experience always shapes perception. Our individual listening histories play a crucial role. Someone who primarily listens to rock music might have a different "baseline" than someone who primarily listens to classical or electronic music. Their brains, we might say, get wired differently based on their sonic experiences. (Try eating a food you detest as analogy. Another person’s testimony that you need to taste it "as it truly is" cannot change your perception.) Therefore, a "balanced" listener, as you describe it, is still balanced *relative to their own experiences*. There’s no universal balance that applies to everyone. When you state you desire that your listening be "as encompassing as it could possibly be," you state an admirable goal, but one nonetheless that starts from a particular experienced standpoint. Your standpoint. No avoiding that.

Third, I suggest that preference is not necessarily misguided. You critique the notion that we are "all different and selective listeners." I assume that this would extend to the person who prefers recorded sound over live sound, too. This merely highlights another limitation to using "live" sound as a "true" standard. That idea, which I believe is a fiction for the reasons above, *also* ignores the artistic choices made in recording and mixing. Producers and engineers are also artists, shaping the sound in ways intended to convey a particular kind of musical experience. Even with live recordings, a mic is chosen, a mixing board is employed, and tastes are anticipated. A preference for a particular recording’s sonic landscape isn’t necessarily a rejection of live sound, but an appreciation for the various additional artistic choices added to the initial sonic events. A lot of people like David Chesky’s recordings or Steven Wilson’s remixes for just this reason.

As for the differences between "good" and "bad" recordings, all I can say is that while you and I might agree on which those are, it is still all subjective. What one person considers a "bad" recording might be another person’s favorite due to its unique sonic characteristics. ("Mono vs. Stereo" debate, anyone?) Some think that tube amps which obscure detail and roll off certain frequencies (speaking crudely) deliver the "true" sound and spirit of the musical performance. Others see these as rose-colored lenses. The tube people will reply that an "everything equal" approach to reproduced music leads to analytical, passionless sound; better to have technology which emphasizes what’s important in the music. The other side replies, "It’s all important. You are just addicted to tubey-ness." And on and on it goes. Then the measurement people will get involved, and insist that there are objective criteria for determining the quality of a recording -- the technical measurements. The subjectivists will argue that the measurements often don’t correlate with perceived quality and so it is the measurements which are incomplete. "Subjective bias!" comes the retort! "Number worshiper!" comes the reply. And on and on it goes.

This is I think where "the spade turns" as Wittgenstein said. In other words, you have justified your way of seeing things and I have justified mine. As he put it, if "this is not a question about causes, then it is about the justification for my following the rule in the way I do. If I have exhausted the justification I have reached bedrock and my spade is turned. Then I am inclined to say: ‘This is simply what I do’." (Philosophical Investigations, 1953: §217)

The difference which remains between us is, I think, that you believe that people (like me) chasing various preferences is somehow not doing the biggest, most generous search possible in audio. I’m too entranced by my own blinders, my preferences and likes. I would be liberated to make more discoveries if I understood how there is a "true" sound and using that as a standard for my audio journey would open it up to make it "as encompassing as it could possibly be."

My reply to that is I am already searching for the greatest variety of experiences, but I believe that blinders really come from believing in a fiction, e.g., a universal "true" sound which would someday dismiss all of the "biased" individual preferences. Such a view, as I see it, overlooks the fundamental and subjective joy of auditory experience. But here’s we reach what’s pivotal for me: if everything is subjective, then nothing is. There is no such thing as objectivity. The question for each of us it to figure out how to find enjoyment. For some, that will be looking for as much expansion of experience as possible. For others, that will mean sticking with what works. Objectivity has nothing to do with it.

@Hilde45

I agree with you. There is no one objective way to perceive a recording. Of course there are many flavors of sound that may be acceptable. I’m not speaking of one objective sound reality. A recording is an artifact unique unto itself. It has its unique sound stamp. When I say “portrays the music accurately” I’m not saying it portrays the original sound accurately. I’m saying it delivers the musical message in a realistic way without distortion of original signal,