After ten weeks or so, this thread has slowed to a halt. In light of that, I would like to thank all those who participated. I, for one, learned a lot from our discussions, and I had a lot of fun too.
I have one final set of ideas that I would like to contribute. They are largely ecumenical in spirit, in that they are an attempt to reconcile the major ideological division on this thread, namely Subjectivism and Objectivism. In one way or another, that difference in attitude has affected nearly every argument we have had, whether it was about coloration, neutrality, accuracy, transparency, or whatever.
What I would like to suggest is that both Subjectivism and Objectivism are valid points of view, but that sometimes one is more warranted than the other. Which is more warranted depends on (1) the kinds of recordings an audiophile tends to listen to, and (2) the audiophile’s priorities. To make this point, I have to say some preliminary things about representations and truth. To begin with…
A FEW WORDS ABOUT REPRESENTATIONS:
(1) A representation contains information about some state or event.
To elaborate…
A “synchronic” representation contains information about a STATE, that is, a MOMENT in time. A “diachronic” representation contains information about an EVENT, that is, a PERIOD of time.
Some, but not all, representations are IMAGES of the states/events they represent. That is to say, the relation they bear to the states/events they represent is that of RESEMBLANCE.
Most, but not all, representations are INCOMPLETE. That is to say, they do not contain ALL possible information about the state/event they represent.
Putting these things together…
(2) Music recordings are diachronic, imagistic, incomplete representations that contain information about musical events.
Here is where things get important…
Some representations contain information about REAL events, that is, events that ACTUALLY OCCURRED. Think: A photograph of a landscape that exists.
Some representations contain information about VIRTUAL events, that is, events that DID NOT ACTUALLY OCCUR. Think: A painting of a landscape that is a composite of various landscapes drawn from the painter’s memory.
This bears on music recordings, in that…
(3) Some music recordings contain information about REAL events, while other recordings contain information about VIRTUAL events.
To elaborate…
Music recordings can be thought of on a continuum according to how REAL or VIRTUAL the event is that the recording represents.
At one end of the continuum is a music recording that represents a musical event that is MAXIMALLY REAL: It was a live performance of acoustic instruments recorded in a real acoustical space (i.e. not a studio) with a single stereo or dual mono microphones, it was not edited, and it was minimally altered during mixing. Some audiophile music recordings approach this standard.
At the other end of the continuum is a music recording that represents a musical event that is MAXIMALLY VIRTUAL: It contains no real instruments, it is highly edited, and altered liberally during mixing. Some electronic music approaches this standard.
In the middle of the continuum is where the vast majority of music lies: It was recorded with multiple microphones, sometimes in different spaces or different times, often edited together from multiple performances, and mixed with the use of level adjustment, channel placement, equalization, filtering, reverb, and other “effects.” In the case of popular music, many of the sounds were not sourced from real instruments at all. The more these techniques are used, the more we describe an album as “produced." The difference between recordings that represent real events and those that represent virtual events is crucial to whether a recording can be evaluated as to its TRUTHFULNESS. Which brings me to…
A FEW WORDS ABOUT TRUTH:
(4) The truth of a representation is its objective correspondence to reality.
The meaning behind the word “objective” here is that the truth or falsity of a representation depends only upon its correspondence to how things actually are. It does not depend upon OUR BELIEFS about how things actually are. A representation is TRUE when the information it contains about an event CORRESPONDS to how that event actually is (or was). A representation is FALSE when the information it contains about an event FAILS TO CORRESPOND to how the event actually is (or was).
But what if a representation contains information about a VIRTUAL event, rather than a REAL event? Then the question of its truthfulness, in the sense above, DOES NOT APPLY. That is to say, while representations about REAL events can be judged as to their truthfulness, representations about VIRTUAL events CANNOT.
This brings up back to music recordings…
(5a) The more a music recording represents a REAL musical event, the MORE it can be judged as to its truthfulness.
(5b) The more a music recording represents a VIRTUAL musical event, the LESS it can be judged as to its truthfulness.
“Truthfulness” here refers to TRANSPARENCY TO THE MUSICAL EVENT, that is, how much the information presented at the ear during playback resembles the information that was presented at the microphone during the actual performance. But “truthfulness” could also be thought of as ACCURACY TO THE SOFTWARE, that is, how much the information about the music is preserved as it passes from software to ear. (I am indebted to Almarg for this important distinction.) However, it is transparency to the musical event, not accuracy to the software, that “truthfulness” refers to in (5) above.
These observations were a preliminary to my proposal for…
RECONCILING OBJECTIVISM AND SUBJECTIVISM:
OBJECTIVISM regarding representations is the idea that representations can be evaluated as to their truthfulness. It is a justifiable point of view when representations contain information about REAL events.
SUBJECTIVISM regarding representations is the idea that representations cannot be evaluated as to their truthfulness. It is a justifiable point of view when representations contain information about VIRTUAL events.
In terms of music recordings…
(6a) Music recordings of REAL events can be evaluated as to their truthfulness. And to evaluate a recording’s truthfulness is to adopt the point of view of Objectivism.
(6b) Music recordings of VIRTUAL events cannot be evaluated as to their truthfulness, though they can be evaluated in terms of preference. And to evaluate a recording in terms of preference is to adopt the point of view of Subjectivism.
In other words, I believe that Objectivism and Subjectivism are both valid, but in different situations. The more REAL the musical event that a recording represents, the more OBJECTIVISM is warranted. The more VIRTUAL the musical event that a recording represents, the more SUBJECTIVISM is warranted. Hence, the appropriateness of one point of view or the other is largely a consequence of what kinds of recordings an audiophile tends to listen to.
It is worth pointing out that an audiophile who tends to listen to recordings of real events is still entitled to be a Subjectivist, and hence evaluate recordings solely in terms of preference. My point is not to tell anyone how they should evaluate the playback of recorded music. My point that Objectivism makes less sense as recordings become more virtual, and more sense as they become more real. Whether or not an audiophile who tends to listen to recordings of real events choses to be an Objectivist or a Subjectivist is largely a matter of his priorities, which brings me to a recent TAS web post by Jonathan Valin:
The first kind of audiophile prioritizes TRANSPARENCY to the musical event. The second prioritizes ACCURACY to the software. And the third prioritizes MUSICALITY as he defines it. For those who prioritize transparency or accuracy, Objectivism may seem to be the more valid point of view, but only to the extent that recordings represent real events. For those who prioritize musicality, Subjectivism may seem to be the more valid point of view, regardless of whether recordings represent real or virtual events.
The above is my swan song - my final effort to reconcile the validity of Subjectivism with that of Objectivism. No doubt some will feel I have failed. Others may think that I have given Subjectivism a less important role than Objectivism in music playback. That may be true. Since I have been an outspoken advocate of Objectivism, it has no doubt contaminated my effort at reconciliation. But my attempt has been in earnest. In any case, other than reserving the right to clarify or defend, this is me signing off…
Bryon
I have one final set of ideas that I would like to contribute. They are largely ecumenical in spirit, in that they are an attempt to reconcile the major ideological division on this thread, namely Subjectivism and Objectivism. In one way or another, that difference in attitude has affected nearly every argument we have had, whether it was about coloration, neutrality, accuracy, transparency, or whatever.
What I would like to suggest is that both Subjectivism and Objectivism are valid points of view, but that sometimes one is more warranted than the other. Which is more warranted depends on (1) the kinds of recordings an audiophile tends to listen to, and (2) the audiophile’s priorities. To make this point, I have to say some preliminary things about representations and truth. To begin with…
A FEW WORDS ABOUT REPRESENTATIONS:
(1) A representation contains information about some state or event.
To elaborate…
A “synchronic” representation contains information about a STATE, that is, a MOMENT in time. A “diachronic” representation contains information about an EVENT, that is, a PERIOD of time.
Some, but not all, representations are IMAGES of the states/events they represent. That is to say, the relation they bear to the states/events they represent is that of RESEMBLANCE.
Most, but not all, representations are INCOMPLETE. That is to say, they do not contain ALL possible information about the state/event they represent.
Putting these things together…
(2) Music recordings are diachronic, imagistic, incomplete representations that contain information about musical events.
Here is where things get important…
Some representations contain information about REAL events, that is, events that ACTUALLY OCCURRED. Think: A photograph of a landscape that exists.
Some representations contain information about VIRTUAL events, that is, events that DID NOT ACTUALLY OCCUR. Think: A painting of a landscape that is a composite of various landscapes drawn from the painter’s memory.
This bears on music recordings, in that…
(3) Some music recordings contain information about REAL events, while other recordings contain information about VIRTUAL events.
To elaborate…
Music recordings can be thought of on a continuum according to how REAL or VIRTUAL the event is that the recording represents.
At one end of the continuum is a music recording that represents a musical event that is MAXIMALLY REAL: It was a live performance of acoustic instruments recorded in a real acoustical space (i.e. not a studio) with a single stereo or dual mono microphones, it was not edited, and it was minimally altered during mixing. Some audiophile music recordings approach this standard.
At the other end of the continuum is a music recording that represents a musical event that is MAXIMALLY VIRTUAL: It contains no real instruments, it is highly edited, and altered liberally during mixing. Some electronic music approaches this standard.
In the middle of the continuum is where the vast majority of music lies: It was recorded with multiple microphones, sometimes in different spaces or different times, often edited together from multiple performances, and mixed with the use of level adjustment, channel placement, equalization, filtering, reverb, and other “effects.” In the case of popular music, many of the sounds were not sourced from real instruments at all. The more these techniques are used, the more we describe an album as “produced." The difference between recordings that represent real events and those that represent virtual events is crucial to whether a recording can be evaluated as to its TRUTHFULNESS. Which brings me to…
A FEW WORDS ABOUT TRUTH:
(4) The truth of a representation is its objective correspondence to reality.
The meaning behind the word “objective” here is that the truth or falsity of a representation depends only upon its correspondence to how things actually are. It does not depend upon OUR BELIEFS about how things actually are. A representation is TRUE when the information it contains about an event CORRESPONDS to how that event actually is (or was). A representation is FALSE when the information it contains about an event FAILS TO CORRESPOND to how the event actually is (or was).
But what if a representation contains information about a VIRTUAL event, rather than a REAL event? Then the question of its truthfulness, in the sense above, DOES NOT APPLY. That is to say, while representations about REAL events can be judged as to their truthfulness, representations about VIRTUAL events CANNOT.
This brings up back to music recordings…
(5a) The more a music recording represents a REAL musical event, the MORE it can be judged as to its truthfulness.
(5b) The more a music recording represents a VIRTUAL musical event, the LESS it can be judged as to its truthfulness.
“Truthfulness” here refers to TRANSPARENCY TO THE MUSICAL EVENT, that is, how much the information presented at the ear during playback resembles the information that was presented at the microphone during the actual performance. But “truthfulness” could also be thought of as ACCURACY TO THE SOFTWARE, that is, how much the information about the music is preserved as it passes from software to ear. (I am indebted to Almarg for this important distinction.) However, it is transparency to the musical event, not accuracy to the software, that “truthfulness” refers to in (5) above.
These observations were a preliminary to my proposal for…
RECONCILING OBJECTIVISM AND SUBJECTIVISM:
OBJECTIVISM regarding representations is the idea that representations can be evaluated as to their truthfulness. It is a justifiable point of view when representations contain information about REAL events.
SUBJECTIVISM regarding representations is the idea that representations cannot be evaluated as to their truthfulness. It is a justifiable point of view when representations contain information about VIRTUAL events.
In terms of music recordings…
(6a) Music recordings of REAL events can be evaluated as to their truthfulness. And to evaluate a recording’s truthfulness is to adopt the point of view of Objectivism.
(6b) Music recordings of VIRTUAL events cannot be evaluated as to their truthfulness, though they can be evaluated in terms of preference. And to evaluate a recording in terms of preference is to adopt the point of view of Subjectivism.
In other words, I believe that Objectivism and Subjectivism are both valid, but in different situations. The more REAL the musical event that a recording represents, the more OBJECTIVISM is warranted. The more VIRTUAL the musical event that a recording represents, the more SUBJECTIVISM is warranted. Hence, the appropriateness of one point of view or the other is largely a consequence of what kinds of recordings an audiophile tends to listen to.
It is worth pointing out that an audiophile who tends to listen to recordings of real events is still entitled to be a Subjectivist, and hence evaluate recordings solely in terms of preference. My point is not to tell anyone how they should evaluate the playback of recorded music. My point that Objectivism makes less sense as recordings become more virtual, and more sense as they become more real. Whether or not an audiophile who tends to listen to recordings of real events choses to be an Objectivist or a Subjectivist is largely a matter of his priorities, which brings me to a recent TAS web post by Jonathan Valin:
There are, IMO, three types of listeners in the high end, although these types tend to overlap. First, those who, first and foremost, want recorded music to sound as much like the real thing as possible--I call them the "absolute sound" type. Second, those who, first and foremost, want their recordings to sound exactly as good or as bad as the engineering and mastering allow them to sound (and want to hear the engineering and mastering, to boot)--I call them the "faithful to mastertapes/mike feed" type. And third those who are, primarily, less concerned with the absolute sound or the sound of mastertapes and more interested in hearing their recordings sound as beautiful and moving as possible--I call them the "as you like it" type.
The first kind of audiophile prioritizes TRANSPARENCY to the musical event. The second prioritizes ACCURACY to the software. And the third prioritizes MUSICALITY as he defines it. For those who prioritize transparency or accuracy, Objectivism may seem to be the more valid point of view, but only to the extent that recordings represent real events. For those who prioritize musicality, Subjectivism may seem to be the more valid point of view, regardless of whether recordings represent real or virtual events.
The above is my swan song - my final effort to reconcile the validity of Subjectivism with that of Objectivism. No doubt some will feel I have failed. Others may think that I have given Subjectivism a less important role than Objectivism in music playback. That may be true. Since I have been an outspoken advocate of Objectivism, it has no doubt contaminated my effort at reconciliation. But my attempt has been in earnest. In any case, other than reserving the right to clarify or defend, this is me signing off…
Bryon
