How do you judge your system's neutrality?

I agree with you. Just because a recording is not perfectly accurate does not mean you should throw the whole accuracy thing away. Just giving a different perspective that the best you can hope for is a perfect reproduction of the recording, not to reproduce the live event. The way most recordings I listen to sound, no need for me to go much beyond what I have now.

So some of my points are:
1) If we all want perfect accuracy, then if one stereo had perfect accuracy in all regards, we'd all own the same stereo.

2) I think a lot of hi-end audio is about making a mountain out of a molehill to justify hanging a huge price tag on it.

3) People get so hung up on comparing component A to B, trying to hear the smallest of nuances, that they lose site of the big picture of how close is ANY of it to reality.
How about big picture reasoning that, for example, you could spend $10,000 for wire, etc. on a passive system when you'd be better off spending the $10,000 to go active. Or going with a dipole speaker like Linkwitz Orions vs. a monkey coffin?

The photography analogy is relevant because they are going for the same thing as audiophiles except it is visual and so less abstract. It's a different perspective of the same concept. If we could see sound, it would be like the photography people. Maybe a whole lot less disagreements too. Are photography chat sites as debated as audio? Probably not as it's easier to understand and you can decide for yourself. But with audio, being so abstract, we need each other's help to figure the whole mess out. Makes for good socializing though.

Can Albert Porter explain the photography thing for us? I'm sure a lot of people spend big money on cameras too in the name of accuracy stuff like depth of field, sharp focus, correct colors. But why then is that okay, while an expensive stereo is crazy?

Can Albert Porter explain the photography thing for us? I'm sure a lot of people spend big money on cameras too in the name of accuracy stuff like depth of field, sharp focus, correct colors. But why then is that okay, while an expensive stereo is crazy?
Cdc (System | Threads | Answers | This Thread)

Thanks for the email heads up on this thread, I've been totally slammed with both stereo buzz and photo work. I'm happy to have Boy Scouts of America job on Monday, which should be a blast.

As for expensive cameras versus expensive stereo, they do different things (obviously). A photographer is the creator of the image and gets to own the original (highest quality) version of the image captured regardless if it's film or digital.

With stereo we audiophiles are typically last in line, we take what the artists and recording companies offer and hope to recreate that as close to possible to what we hope is an accurate version of the event.

It gets difficult with music since many artists alter the music with effects and then the recording chain alters it again, sometimes even deliberately limiting frequencies, compressing or otherwise making the music "more suitable" for the masses.

With both photography and music there is a hope to capture beauty, emotion and accuracy as best we can. The big limitation with photography is the camera has only one "eye" where we see with two.

At lest in modern recordings we have stereo (or multichannel) which at least attempts to recreate the space and multiple sounds that we experience in real life.

With either it's a very difficult task. We should be grateful to have all the technology we have today. Stereo has never been better and regardless if you prefer Ansel Adams Black and White approach or ultra high resolution digital we at least have a choice.

"A camera has only one eye"

It hasn't always been so, but beyond the novelty of stereo cameras and viewers, it passed and mono prevailed. Interesting that the depth it provided was seen for what it was, yet in audio some folks still think more can be accomplished to enhance our experience of listening to music when it is in stereo.

Like photographers getting all caught up in equipment and its performance, audiophiles get all caught up in equipment and its sound, neither of which have much to do with the creativity of either art form. IMHO.

Not all better tools belong to fools!!! Nuance at some point becomes the goal, finer and finer detail be it musical instrument, brushes, paints, cameras, race boats, race cars etc.... justifiable advancements in the pursuit of one's personal quest of beauty. Necessary? Maybe not but it's enjoyable to use/design fine equipment/pieces etc....

Hi guys - Cdc, Bryon, and Albert, you made some very interesting points, which I agree with as well. Cdc, on the photography issues, yes photographers also have heated debates over the merits of the latest digital technology vs. the older equipment. I have a cousin who is a professional photographer, and he likes to say that most serious photographers only use the digital cameras for going to a location and taking a great many pictures at once. Then they go back, look carefully over them, choose the exact shot they want, and go back to the location and set up their "real" camera, as he calls it. Of course, there are many professionals who have switched over to the all digital stuff and who would vehemently disagree. For myself, I would say that digital photography is FAR ahead of digital audio.