|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.154.55.230
In Reply to: RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is posted by Sordidman on June 29, 2010 at 12:33:39
"You can also say that the Manley Stingray presents an absolutely lifelike transparency and accurate reflection of the recording: well, you're stating a subjective interpretation at that point."
-- We'll have to disagree on that point. "accurate reflection of the recording" is not a subjective interpretation in my view, it is saying that the Manley Stingray puts out exactly what goes into it, with gain. And as I just told you in the other thread, that is also exactly what "transparency" means in this context. "Absolutely lifelike?" You got me there. That one is pretty subjective, and extremely vague.
Say it is lovely, warm, smooth..use any purely subjective term you choose that implies no more than that you like the sound, and I'll just congratulate you on enjoying the music. The problem, as I see it, is when audiophile manufacturers, and audiophiles, use quasi objective language in the description of purely subjective attributes. And it is the rule, not the exception. Is it terribly serious? Nope. But it gives us something to talk about.
P
Follow Ups:
> Say it is lovely, warm, smooth..use any purely subjective term you choose that implies no more than that you like the sound, and I'll just congratulate you on enjoying the music <
I'm with you. Unfortunately, when those comments are used, the replies are usually of the "You simply love the sound of distortion and prefer colored, inaccurate components" or something to that effect. Then the responses are "I prefer the lifelike sound of real instruments in real space rather then incomplete measurements"... and the arguments that have been going on for decades continue. :)
Sordidman and Tony seem to think that accuracy and transparency are moving targets. Perhaps that's the essence of the schism between so-called subjectivists and objectivists.
Nice thread!
Cheers,
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
"I'm with you. Unfortunately, when those comments are used, the replies are usually of the "You simply love the sound of distortion and prefer colored, inaccurate components" or something to that effect. "
Yes, an unconstructive response, and one I've used more than once, I'm afraid. Unfortunately it is often the correct answer, even though "enjoy the music" works much better. If someone loves their out-dated technology, there is really no talking them out of it and no point in trying.
P
> Unfortunately it is often the correct answer, <
That's the whole point; no one knows if it's truly correct at the same time they're using it.
> If someone loves their out-dated technology, there is really no talking them out of it and no point in trying. <
True. And if someone loves their new-and-not-improved technology, the same goes. Again, the problem is the frame of reference i.e the subjectivity of it all. The bottom line is that whatever sounds the most "real" or "accurate" or "lifelike" to the listener is what IS the most lifelike. Unfortunately, chasing accuracy to music means I would have had to be there when it was recorded. Aside from a couple of occasions, I haven't had that pleasure. In the end, it's all subjective.
Even in its heyday as something similar to a science, back when reviewers who used measurement instruments were considered valuable contributors to the hobby, not fringe fanatics, hifi didn't chase the accuracy you're talking about. Studio monitoring systems don't even chase that accuracy directly. Microphones don't hear the way people do, so it is compromised before it even gets to the monitoring system. The accuracy you CAN chase, however, is fidelity to the source (high fidelity ring a bell? Not the excellent John Cusack movie...). That's a goal well worth chasing, a goal we'll have to count on the pros to pursue, because audiophiles, their vendors and their press have mostly abandoned it to subjectivism.
P
> That's a goal well worth chasing, a goal we'll have to count on the pros to pursue <
Unfortunately, they'll never know when and if they get there. It'll simply be yet another belief system. Best of luck to the pros.
I don't believe that accuracy is a moving target. It is an unattainable target, although an excellent goal. If it appears moving, it is because each time we attempt to corral it we catch only a partial glimpse of the situation, limited by the particular circumstances of our observations, be they subjective or objective.
Too many times have I compared components (or alternate versions of a recording) and concluded they sounded "the same" only to discover upon further listening that there was a distinct and repeatable difference. The same thing happens with purely objective measurements. With a new test or new test equipment two devices that had previously measured identically can measure differently.
There is a deep truth behind all of this and it goes far beyond the reproduction of music through the use of audio technology.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
agree with this assessment....FWIW
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
nt
Nothing to argue with, there, Tony. Data gathering is imperfect. But there is a sizeable gap between what you're saying and the usual, "it's all subjective, you can't prove anything" argument which, upon further discussion, is too often revealed to mean "you can't demonstrate anything, you can't show valid evidence of anything, there is nothing in the world of science and engineering to show that any component might be more accurate than the ones I've chosen." This argument, made by manufacturers, reviewers and users, has resulted in the abandonment of that excellent goal to a sloppy subjectivism that broadly imagines, and then believes, a plethora of audiophile absurdities, many much more widely-adopted than shakti stones and black CD discs.
Proof is evasive. Evolution is a "theory." That doesn't make my mother a monkey. And it doesn't make clipping valves, just to use one common example, more "natural" than a well-designed solid state amp with more headroom than the load will ever require. I don't need proof to understand that is nonsense.
P
more meaningless words "well designed" another moving target with no real meaning....
"Evolution is a "theory." That doesn't make my mother a monkey"
Of course not: do you think that those are the only two choices? Do you think that Evolution theory is the best explanation that we have available?
Does it have a high probability of being "accurate?" Is it closer to the "truth"
Do you need to have a higher authority than your own listening comparisons to determine what is more accurate?
Whenever there are undefined, "moving targets" like "well designed," and "good sound," and "accurate" sound; how do you resolve a potential conflict or dispute when someone asserts something to be accurate?
Take the LAMM vs Halcro example. Are you saying that because the LAMM has tubes/valves it is less accurate? Are you saying that the LAMM is poorly designed?
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
Not sure what you're referring to. Is there a classic battle of subjectivity between the Gods LAMM and Halcro? I'm blissfully unaware.
P
in this thread.
Don't know if you're worn out by it all. But I did want to thank you for helping me to think about a number of things, as well as bringing some pretty good arguments and reason.
Thanks,
As I mentioned, I used the Halcro/LAMM stuff as an example. As I read it, and I don't know if you agree, - but your definition of ACCURACY has to do with correspondence: like the correspondence theory of truth. (We listen to the trumpet live, then we listen to the trumpet through the audio playback system. The closer the audio system sounds to the real trumpet, the more accurate it is. As I see it, this can never, ever, be objective because human hearing is poor, varies (sometimes widely) from person to person, depends on other things like training, moods, level of distraction, and is by it's very nature, inaccurate).
It's like having several witnesses at a traffic accident each telling a slightly different story through slight variances in their perceptions: (like getting the color of one of the cars slightly wrong because they saw the accident from inside Starbucks).
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
Thanks, but sorry, that's your definition of accuracy, not mine. Mine is much simpler and much more quantifiable. Let's say the component you're evaluating is an amplifier. Take a comprehensive set of measurements of the signal going into the amplifier and a comprehensive set of measurements of the signal coming out of the amplifier. The amplifier that doesn't change the signal at all is absolutely transparent. Pretty rare, I'd guess. What's not all that rare is the one that doesn't change the signal audibly, when compared to the reference amp, assuming the reference amp itself is designed for high fidelity to the source, not a "house sound," and is of very high quality, and assuming the two amps both generate enough current and wattage to properly drive the transducers without driving them into clipping.
I would love it if "transparency" could be defined relative to real instruments, but there are far too many compromises, beginning with the very first component in the signal chain, the microphone. Measuring and listening for the transparency of components relative to the source signal and a reference system, however, is not impossible and is done effectively all of the time. Belief in measurement is not popular in audiophile circles, and a lot of mythology and mystery has been built up over the last couple of decades to dismiss it, but it is, actually, a pretty reliable indicator of how both trained and untrained listeners will respond in listening tests. Go to Sean Olive's (Research director for Harman International) blog, Audio Musings. It hasn't been running that long; you can probably read through the entire archives in a couple of hours. You will be enlightened.
P
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: