Accuracy Part 3.

[notaclue]

Interesting that this "true musical appreciation" appears with valves and vinyl. Yesterday's technology. Given that there is good evidence to suspect that much of the audiophiles (sonic) world is illusionary perhaps this is nothing more than simple nostalgia on the part of the listener? A hankering for the good old days?

*sigh*

Things were so much better then...

 

[wadia-miester]

Reverse cynicism with a twist of underlying doubt, excellent Notty

 

[Joolsburger]

Accuracy...Yeah right don't make me laugh.

I have been fortunate enough to hear many, many good systems none of which came anywhere near sounding "real".

It's just about possible to get a simple human voice and maybe a guitar or two to sound pretty good but even then it's still way off, as for an orchestra on full tilt impossible IMHO.

I'm sure that loads will disagree,"oh I heard an XYZ going into a Supermax big nuts class a mark 5 amp and some Crapstonian model 10s and you could have been in the studio" No... You couldn't.

So where does that leave a regular Jo like me. It leaves me thinking that if 100k doesn't get me live sound then why even bother.
For me once hifi reaches a level where it doesn't annoy and sounds pleasing to your ears (No spitty vocals, bloated bass etc etc) I strongly suggest you buy more music..

Seems that too many people seem to get fixated on sound quality and have forgotten that a good tune is good on a transistor radio. Also I laugh at the arrogance displyed by those so called experts who seem to think that they in some way know the "truth" and the rest of us plebs must be listening to shite hifi. I like hifi as much as the next bloke but for me the joy in this pastime is getting the best sound I can for the least money I can and spending the rest on music.

I have no problem with someone spending 100k on hifi good luck to them if they can afford it but I won't be told that they enjoy their music more than I do because of it.

Rant over.

 

[merlin]

Errr,

so who's been telling you that then Jools?

 

[notaclue]

For me once hifi reaches a level where it doesn't annoy and sounds pleasing to your ears (No spitty vocals, bloated bass etc etc) I strongly suggest you buy more music..

Very sensible advice.

No doubt better hi-fi means better sound quality but does it really facilitate a mystical glimpse into the true "musical message"? I sincerely doubt it. Certainly not on a 'universal' level. And whilst it may do in the mind of an individual listener, I would argue that this is largely down to the brain. Not the hi-fi.

 

[merlin]

That would be because you chose such an apt user name mate

 

[Joolsburger]

Errr,

so who's been telling you that then Jools?

Oh you know, them.

 

[penance]

Jools post about sumds it up for me, well said that man.

 

[oedipus]

Accuracy...Yeah right don't make me laugh.

you could have been in the studio"

Well, I'll counter that by saying that for a great many recordings, the studio monitors provide the only performance of a piece, so it is reasonable to discuss how it sounded in the studio, on loudspeakers, and use that as a reference point for comparison,
and therfore it isn't wholly infeasible to discuss accuracy.

So where does that leave a regular Jo like me. It leaves me thinking that if 100k doesn't get me live sound then why even bother.

The point is that 90% of the 100K spent on hifi systems is vanity and not performance.

For me once hifi reaches a level where it doesn't annoy and sounds pleasing to your ears (No spitty vocals, bloated bass etc etc) I strongly suggest you buy more music..

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more.

Seems that too many people seem to get fixated on sound quality and have forgotten that a good tune is good on a transistor radio.

Yep. Day in day out, I get to spend 40 minutes in my car listening to music, on a bog standard Subaru factory CD autochanger. Do I think my home system sounds better? Sure I do, but it doesn't stop me listening to music in the car

Also I laugh at the arrogance displyed by those so called experts who seem to think that they in some way know the "truth" and the rest of us plebs must be listening to shite hifi.

The "real" experts, and here I mean the scientists, will tell you that "people with normal hearing" (who you are labelling plebs) will in blind tests express the same subjective preference as "trained listeners". Moreover, a substantial fraction of the population has "normal hearing". What this really means is that left to your own devices and given a broad range of speakers to listen to, then you are likely to pick a good pair (in the sense that they measure well and are "accurately" reproducing the signal injected into them.)

On the other hand, the "psuedo scientists", those who write for Hifi magazines and folks on the net who imagine that they can hear things that others can't, and assume the status of "Golden Ears", are the ones who seem to be intent on stratifying the levels of audiophile gear into their world order.

The real experts are on the side of the plebs. It's the (self proclaimed) Golden Ears who are telling the plebs that their hifi sounds bad and generally making people miserable. A great deal of "system unhappiness" occurs because of reviews in mags, peer pressure in forums, the launch of a new product - it's all just poetry rather than real informed comment.

I have no problem with someone spending 100k on hifi good luck to them if they can afford it but I won't be told that they enjoy their music more than I do because of it.

Yep, spend 2-5K you're 99% of the way there, and the bulk of that better be in the speakers. After 5K, it's mostly willy waving

 

[titian]

The point is that 90% of the 100K spent on hifi systems is vanity and not performance.

So now I feel directly accused here.
I will reply saying that your affirmation is based on ignorance, envy and basic psychological animal selfdefense instinc.

If you ever gave such a system the same chance that you give your own system and if you would objectively compare them, then you would hear a huge difference. With same chance I mean the time and passion to optimize it, to do tweeking, and to to all the care you do for your own system. And especially the time to listen to it without any "inverted" placebo effect, with this I mean: thinking that more expensive = snob (because of your envy that you don't have that money). I though agree that for that amount of money there are also very "special" products which don't have so much to do with high reproduction quality but putting everything in the same hat is very ignorant from your side. Actually thinking about it, there are also such products in the lower money segment.
If there is any vanity here it is yours and 100% (not 90%). Your vanity that you are the guy who's doing the right things and those others, who spend more than you can afford, aren't. You have my compassion.

 

[oedipus]

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.

If there are any failings in the recorded software, then it is an artistic choice. The recording chain is not at fault. Redbook CD is a better technology than any analog master tape (and analog is what you mentioned earlier) that you are likely to encounter - the very best analog tape has 75dB SNR, and CD can do 20dB better than that.

Now, before you mention SACD or DVD-A, let's put some perspective on those formats: DSD came into being because sony wanted to build cheaper dac's. DVD-A is arguably a better technology (eg. "perfectable" dither). What both formats have going for them is multi-channel which is a step toward a more realistic rendering of the sound of a live event (providing that it is used sensibly and not for putting the lead vocal behind the listener )

FWIW, I am not advocating heavily distorted loudspeakers. The subject was amplification and source components. 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.

But there's little to be gained by adopting 2nd harmonic distortion as a step toward a live event. It's simply the wrong kind of distortion (see below).

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?

It is possible to make an accurate system inaccuate, but not vice versa. For instance, I can get a (pair of) guitar effects peddles for example, and use them to generate as much, or as little 2nd harmonic as I like and I don't have to hardwire that sound into my amp. It's not hard to simulate various kinds of distortion digitally, and more importantly as a switchable and extremely cheap option.

To suggest those in the latter camp are deaf is somewhat insulting, particularly given that they are generally highly experienced music listeners.

If you prefer a system with distortion, then that is your choice. If you were fail to detect the distortion for what it is, then you are deaf.

BTW: Your "highly experienced music listeners" have no better innate hearing ability than everyone else.

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.

I'm confused about what you're advocating then. Are you saying that the recording studio should pre-distort the recording to suit your quest, so that you don't need to?

Or, are you advocating greater accuracy in the recording process so that you can take the original and distort it at home to meet your needs?

You seem to want the second of those two options, otherwise you might still not like the results of option 1, where the interpretation of "live" is stamped on the recording during production.

Now, let's turn to the type of distortion your adding. Why are you going down the valves and vinyl road? [It appears to be a fashion thing? ]

A major factor that distinguishes a "live" event is the room reverberation of the auditorium. This is nothing like 2nd harmonic in structure, so valves will get you nowhere. Why not get a reverb unit or, better yet, why don't you try some of the ambience creation modes in a surround sound processor instead? [Oh wait, no kudos there ]

Seriously, Logic7 from lexicon/Harman Kardon can do a lot of what your asking for with a 7.1 surround sound setup..

 

[titian]

Yep, spend 2-5K you're 99% of the way there, and the bulk of that better be in the speakers. After 5K, it's mostly willy waving

it depends also what you mean by better.

 

[dunkyboy]

A great deal of "system unhappiness" occurs because of reviews in mags, peer pressure in forums, the launch of a new product - it's all just poetry rather than real informed comment.

Didn't realise poetry had gone so far downhill...

Dunc

P.S. - Fun thread; it's almost interesting!

 

[merlin]

If there are any failings in the recorded software, then it is an artistic choice. The recording chain is not at fault. Redbook CD is a better technology than any analog master tape (and analog is what you mentioned earlier) that you are likely to encounter - the very best analog tape has 75dB SNR, and CD can do 20dB better than that.

Specs again Oedipus? Don't you ever listen? The above shows both a chronic lack of attention and experience. There is a huge difference between theoretical dynamic range and reality once the mastering process is complete.

The rest of your post really doesn't warrant a response, as it is little more than a series of insults aimed at me, and in no way associated with the topic of discussion.

FWIW, I have owned most or the systems that you promote (Lexicon, Tact, Velodyne, Dynaudio Air etc.) I very much doubt that you have ever owned something other than studio based setups. Now assuming that we both have equal hearing ability (yes I know you referred to me as deaf, but for the sake of this discussion let's assume neither of us is),which of us is likely to be able to make a more informative comment comparing the subjective qualities of the differing approaches?

 

[michaelab]

The rest of your post really doesn't warrant a response, as it is little more than a series of insults aimed at me, and in no way associated with the topic of discussion.

I don't see any insults at all .

He didn't call anyone deaf he said "If you were fail to detect the distortion for what it is, then you are deaf." . That's simpy a statement of fact, like saying "if you can't see the 'snow' effect of poor TV reception then you are blind".

I really don't see why you're insisting on continuing your crusade against accuracy. If you insist on starting a thread about it you have to accept that people who strongly disagree with you will reply. If you can't take a well reasoned, rational argument against your viewpoint then perhaps it's better not to start the thread at all. You seem to be implying that anyone who doesn't agree with you is insulting you which is absurd.

You will note that oedipus himself (AFAIK) has never started a thread on the subject himself (the Ohm's Law thread has him as the first poster but that was the result of a thread split).

Michael.

 

[merlin]

If you prefer a system with distortion, then that is your choice. If you were fail to detect the distortion for what it is, then you are deaf.

Why are you going down the valves and vinyl road? [It appears to be a fashion thing? ]

why don't you try some of the ambience creation modes in a surround sound processor instead? [Oh wait, no kudos there ]

Michael, all of the above I consider insulting. You would too if I aimed similar comments at you.

The sad fact is that you seem to be making decisions about the running of this forum to suit your own aims. Arbitary removal of posts that you disagree with. The banning of those who are rightly offended by the manner in which they are subjected to jibes about dillusion and scientific naivity.

You are not displaying fairness in your moderation, you are letting your own bias dictate what you feel is insulting and what is not. That is unreasonable and untenable.

The objectivist will argue using statistics. Others will have to respond that subjectively they are incorrect. To then be told you are deaf, stupid, misguided, foolish, gullible etc is grossly insulting to the intelligence and knowledge of the poster. So it's hardly surprising that they will start being offensive back.

The alternative is that they simply don't post about their interests to avoid the mockery. So you end up with a bloody boring place to be unless you want a forum dedicated to debunking of so call audio myths. Haven't we already got one of those? It's bigger too!

I have no intention of replying to the insults with further ones. I will instead take the latter option. And no it is not defeatist. I know what I hear. You do too with your new Dac. It's just that life is too short to spend it being attacked by those for whom music means nothing. It is not entertaining anymore IMO.

 

[LiloLee]

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.

Could you post a link to this please so that I can buy one before the rush.

I`m confused by this thread because I don`t know whether it is about accuracy or `zero distortion`. If the former then only if we had exactly the same equipment at home as the initial recording studio would we have accuracy; or if it is the later then anyone using vinyl, valve amps or even passive loudspeakers will not achieve this because they all introduce some form of distortion.

The search for the audio `Holy Grail`takes many routes, surely as long as you enjoy the music, no matter what route or how much is irrelevant.

BTW I am serious about the cdp, as I need a new one. But does it come in gold (That`s how trivial I am)

 

[michaelab]

I'm sorry you feel that way merlin, but I strongly disagree. I have deleted posts purely based on their insulting nature. If oedipus (or anyone else) were to reply to one of your posts with something like "you sad little man, what a load of self-important crap" he would get the same treatment as others have. As I said, if you find my moderation unfair and untenable then you're under no obligation to post here.

Don't try and play the "I'm insulted" game with me. You have made many similar sarky remarks in your posts, often directed at me and that's just goes with the territory of internet forums. I don't find them insulting anymore than anyone else does (or should do). Oedipus has not directly accused anyone here of being deaf etc.

It would appear that you'd like a forum where objectivists were not allowed? That too would be a pretty boring place with everyone talking about the latest jaw dropping difference from some tweak or other.

being attacked by those for whom music means nothing

Ahh, so you know these people do you? So the only people to whom music means anything are subjectivists ?

Michael.

 

[leonard smalls]

I'm with Lee...
And can I have one of those £100 cdps which are better than mine, as I can flog the Advantage and spend the difference on a fake pretty case, and of course wine, women and song.

 

[sideshowbob]

A Modest Suggestion

Outside of certain niche products, my guess is that most modern gear, tubed or solid state, measures pretty well, and that the euphony/accuracy dichotomy has been overstated here.

As for insults, I don't see enough of them in this thread, it's all too polite. So: you're all a bunch of knobs and my hi-fi's better than yours, nyer nyer.

<Thumbs nose at assembled throng and goes out to buy xmas presents>

-- Ian