Accuracy Part 3.

Interesting, though it's hard to understand why this should be - ie. it's hard to see how, for example, the recording / mastering process could take the original acoustic event and encode it in a distorted fashion such that playing the recording back with added harmonic distortion makes it sound more real than playing it back 'accurately'.

 

Titian,

It is not an obsession. You must know me better to understand it. Even Michael doesn't know me that well.

I like to test my thoughts through other people thoughts... that way I'll know if I am right. And in this case I never felt so right in my life.

This approach has two advantages:

1) I enjoy knowing other people's mind to better understand mine;

2) I love talking with other persons and knowing new persons. Eventually I'll end up finding someone with whom I shear great affinities and then maybe I can make a friend;

And one great disadvantage:

3) I make "enemies" easier and very easly. But it just goes on making my feelings for someone I like very strong and even stronger. So, that's a good thing.

Now you've broken my heart... but it is ok, because, most of all, I like shearing experiences.

HELLLLLLLLLLLP!!!!!!

 

Pete, just go and listen to a decent valve and vinyl setup and you'll soon understand. Kevin at Definitive Audio would be a good place to start.

 

Julian,

For that kind of nuances you choose different musics... An accurate amp will play heavy metal as well as Bach.

In the case of cars accuracy only means speed, corner speed, straight speed... fighting the clock!

 

An accurate amp will play heavy metal as well as it will also play Bach.

 

The most important thing for Hifi or music reproduction as Titian has eluded to is does it convey the emotions, does it make you smile, does it make you cry, happy, angry, or just transport you somewhere else, as BD would say, at the end of the day this is the most important thing, and 'twill be slightly different for every individual, putting labels on what we are after is folly, as Merlin and others have stated, the recording is only a facsimilie, and those after an accurate sytem above all else will forever be unhappy as none exist, TBH I think PR is a bit strong, most of those arguing that have what Paul calls fantasy sytems that shouldn't be called hifi, prolly have pretty accurate systems, ie they just play what's on the disc, where the arguments start is peoples perceptions and what they think the labels mean, I used a label to describe texture, you may call it something else PRat is another thing, ones mans prat is another mans forward etc, I think we should stop arguing this until we can define what each term means, forward, smooth laid back, grunt, groove, drive, all thes jargon terms are perceived differently by each of us and as such this argument pointless, we might all be arguing the same thing, just the jargon we use to describe what we hear is different.

 

Pete,

Hear an analogue mastertape of an acoustic recording and I'd tend to agree with you. The sad fact is we don't listen to anything approaching that

What ends up missing from a recording after the processing, compressing, decimation, pressing chain of events is perhaps intangible - but missing it is.

Is it not possible that some systems possess qualities that somehow subjectively seem to restore some of the missing links?

 

Nice idea but I reckon you're at the windup

 

No Merlin! You need accuracy from your reproduction chain in order to be able to demand better accuracy from the record chain.

Hey look... I have a system where the output is equal to the input and I am not liking what I'm hearing... and it only can be your record.

I DEMAND A BETTER RECORD!!!

That's the only way to push the industry, because they need to sell records.

 

You ever seen inside those mixing desks ooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh nasty man

 

I don't care where the problem lays because I don't make records...

I know what seems to be good records and what seems to be bad records but I only can be sure if I have an accurate reproduction system.

All I want is that all records be equally good and even better.

 

Problems? how it that possible with a prefect set up Vasco?. Remember you can't get good of bad, shite in shite out or can you do that as well now?, do tell old bean, then we all ditch these audio shackels and set free the emotions that lie dorment within, tell us, oh tell master of the sonic enlightenment

 

Far from it AK

How do people like Kondo San, Tim De Pavarinci, Johnathan Carr to name just three, manage to recreate the feel of live music in a fashion that appeals to most of the people lucky enough to hear their wares?

Do you think maybe they are referencing their products to the sound of music rather than a scope? I'm not saying the scope is unimportant - of course it's not. But it seems that you need to add a little sugar somewhere to create the illusion - otherwise Rotel would make music sound like the real thing too.

BD,

I agree we need better software (in the interim I choose to listen to records). But there is a tiny minority of listeners who give a monkey's about it. From a commercial point of view, it makes no sense to make the effort. The music industry has IMO gone too far along the wrong path to change now. Quality is of lesser importance and will continue to be until their revenues hit rock bottom.

Until that time, there are many who believe it's important to look beyond technical perfection to realise the dream.

 

when you put it like that mike, well thats the side of the fence I happen to sit on, the ears have it, everything else is pointless, to the consumer.

 

'accuracy' must be to the source material, in our cases CD or vinyl (or for some SACD etc). The source material is an artistic creation from (sometimes) recordings of live instruments. I want to hear that creation, not a deconstruction or refabrication of it.

Obviously a perfect hifi doesn't exist, but quite accurate ones do. You are specifically arguing for an extension of the artistic process into the reproduction system, by definition not 'accurate' and not hifi. But if this is what you want, if this gives you greatest pleasure from the music you like then fantastic, that's what a system is for.

Just stop trying to square the circle.

Paul

 

Now you've said it all, Paul.

 

No BD I reckon you've said the most and then some, but we are still no further forward.

 

Perhaps we are 'subjectively restoring' what's lost in translation by papering over the cracks with another effect - audibly pleasing distortion? No denying the apparently positive effects that can be gained with this approach. Strictly speaking its not accurate. Determining which method you prefer is an inherently subjective exercise - there is no right or wrong - just personal preference.

Given this, why de we generate billions of bits across the internet arguing round in circles about accuracy? Is this simply a problem of expectations and semantics? That is, we each have our own preferences for the sort of sound we'd like to hear from our systems, yet are trying to discuss this with a limited selection of imprecise words that we filter through our own pre-conceptions?

Stuart.

 

That's a different kind of folly. Only a sucker spends £5K on a cd player when the same (and sometimes) better accuracy can be had for $100. Excellent amplifiers are available for substantially less than $1000, and many AV receivers have outstanding performance all rolled up into one neat package.

Good speakers are not cheap, but again, $1000 will get you a pair which will be limited by the aesthetics of their placement in the room (not their ability). For $5000 you can get a first class pair of speakers (eg. Quad 988's).

Wrapping that up, accuracy does not have to cost a fortune. People spend a lot of money on designer hifi because it looks nice and they believe it to be different, even though there's no evidence that it is actually different, there's just copious and fanciful reviews, coupled with forums such as this where word of mouth provides "group therapy" for the easily led.

Just how much is your system worth? And how much have you saved in your "downgrade to distortion"?

As you say a lot of people do change, and for something that is provably worse (in terms of distortion), but I would be inclined to argue that they have swapped one kind of folly for another: an overly expensive accurate system, for an overly expensive inaccuracte system.

I'd also argue that many of them are smug about how they can "hear the difference" because now a difference does exist, and they can identify a change in the system, albeit a change for the worse. I guess there is some pleasure in hearing the difference. However, the change is not perceived as a backward step, but is typically hailed as an improvement, rather than heard for what it really is. The folks taking this path, can rightly be labelled as "deaf", and it is therefore ironic that they see themselves as the "Golden Ears". Moreover, these folks seem to be the habitual serial changers too, constantly looking for the new kick.

BTW: I wouldn't be surprised if you get bored in a few months and seek out a new level (and definition) of musical reproduction

Nonsense. In properly conducted double blind tests where people were aked to assess the subjectice quality of a speaker based on sound alone, there was excellent correlation with the measured performance of the speaker. Speakers that measured well were subjectively well liked. "loudspeaker measurements abd their relationship to listener preference: part 1 & 2"J Floyd Toole, AES April/May '86. Another interesting finding was that people who prefered "bad speakers" were usually selecting speakers that compensated in some way for a hearing deficiency that they had. So, if you find yourself in a small select group liking some esoteric speaker, which doesn't measure well, then you might have some hearing impairment

I have a suggestion: if you are going to persue the inaccurate path, then you have to give up your right to criticize a recording and the recording process itself. You can't bitch and moan about the recording unless you have some idea what it sounded like in the studio and there is after all a standard for studio monitors: EBU Document 3276-1998..

I've given this a lot of thought, and I'm starting to think we made a major mistake when we did away with tone controls in the '80's People are now substituting whole components to achieve the effect of a minor amount of non-adjustable tone control.

 

Oedipus,

I was hoping we'd gone beyond the strict accuracy dogma by opening up the recorded software to scrutiny.

I can criticise the recordings because I have been lucky enough to have had exposure to both mastertape and live music. It is the latter that I am trying to recreate in my living room. With the acknowledged failings of current compressed software, what I am suggesting is that some equipment does a subjectively better job of representing the live experience than the simple zero distortion chain.

FWIW, I am not advocating heavily distorted loudspeakers. The subject was amplification and source components. Your response is only to be expected. Focussing on money spent, on spangly boxes, esoteric names etc. We aren't talking about that. We are talking about some equipment whose aestetics leave a great deal to be desired even compared with the Rotels and Yamahas of this world. We can include Michael's home made Dac in a perspex box (c.£100). We can include numerous Chinese made valve amplifiers below £1,000.

The simple question is this. Are those who build a system around measured accuracy any cleverer than those who use live music as a reference? To suggest those in the latter camp are deaf is somewhat insulting, particularly given that they are generally highly experienced music listeners.

In closing, have you ever heard a commercial CD played back through a studio setup? I presume you have - I know I have. can you honestly say that the results get anywhere near experiencing the live session or even the original mastertape? No of course you can't. Once you have heard this demonstration, the idea of subjectively improving on that state of affairs becomes not just attractive, but critical to true musical appreciation IMO.