The answer to the analog vs digital master debate?

RE: The answer to the analog vs digital master debate? , posted on July 27, 2015 at 17:21:21
6bq5 Audiophile Posts: 4387 Location: SF Bay Joined: August 16, 2001	Thanks - should be an interesting disk Happy Listening

Recently I picked up this DG LP reissue..., posted on July 27, 2015 at 17:58:53

kuma
Audiophile

Posts: 10273
Location: IN
Joined: July 8, 2001

Pollini's Beethoven Piano Concerto 2 & 4.
Released in 1983, Concerto No.2 is a digital recording whereas No.4 is an analogue recording from 1976.

Granted, there are a few years apart and different conductor but same venue, same orchestra, same pianist ( probably the same piano ), and same engineer were involved.

No.4 is a poor reissue of the original pressing ( the entire concerto squeezed onto one side ), but hands down, I much prefer this analog recording over the brittle stark sounding digitally recorded No.2 put on a vinyl.

I know that all digital recordings from this era do not sound as poor as DG's but I thought it was interesting that they actually thought this threadbare colourless digital was better!

I have no doubt the difference is audible, posted on July 27, 2015 at 18:26:42

David Smith

and I know what I expect to hear but of course I'll listen with an open mind if the opportunity comes. I do expect both can and will sound very good. FWIW I have an analogue master tape I'd be willing to contribute, though the extant digital master of it is 44/16.

Dave

One thing has to be done to make this a fair comparison. , posted on July 27, 2015 at 20:46:13
Analog Scott Audiophile Posts: 9933 Joined: January 8, 2002	The 96/24 dub has to be taken from the same exact feed at the cutter head when the AAA lacquer is cut. That way the only variable is the 24/96 A/D D/A conversion is the only variable. I would bet they would be indistinguishable other than any unique cutting errors that happen with the lathe, plating errors or pressing errors.

In the end, it's the performance that matters. nt, posted on July 27, 2015 at 21:24:37
jdaniel@jps.net	.

Don't forget the reason why the recording are created, posted on July 27, 2015 at 22:33:13

BPoletti
Audiophile

Posts: 931
Location: Midwest
Joined: October 3, 2010

It's all about the music and performance. But one needs to hear ALL the music. Classical music (99.9% of my listening) is complex and REQUIRES an exceptional system for reproduction.

Regardless of whether it's digital or pure analog is not the issue. It's about whether the music and all its complexity comes through clearly, cleanly, with correct timing and sounding like musical instruments.

If one really wants to hear to the original performance, only analog master tapes will do the trick.

+1 /nt, posted on July 27, 2015 at 22:34:16
BPoletti Audiophile Posts: 931 Location: Midwest Joined: October 3, 2010	.

RE: One thing has to be done to make this a fair comparison. , posted on July 28, 2015 at 03:20:31

John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 23900
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
Since: January 29, 2004

You forget about RIAA equalization and the frequency response of the cutting head and phono cartridge. These things will have a profound effect on making the two sound different. Consequently, if you want a 24/96 digital recording to sound identical to vinyl, you need to select your turntable, phono cartridge and phono stage. Then make your 24/96 digital recording directly from the vinyl record at the phono stage output. Your digital copy will then sound identical to your vinyl record, but only when played on that one system you selected. If you play the record on a different vinyl front-end, the two will sound different from each other.

I've been making digital recordings from vinyl for many years and they all sound very similar if not completely identical when played on my own system. However, there is no way one of my recordings will sound identical to the record played on a different turntable from the one on which it was originally recorded. Digital is very accurate; vinyl is not. No two different turntables and cartridges sound alike. Different digital systems sound much more similar than different vinyl systems.

Best regards,
John Elison

So in the end, (AAA) analogue matters more? I'm confused. nt, posted on July 28, 2015 at 04:30:13
jusbe Audiophile Posts: 5950 Location: North Island Joined: April 4, 2000	Big J "... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal* salvation is a contradiction in terms."*

RE: One thing has to be done to make this a fair comparison. , posted on July 28, 2015 at 06:00:37

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

I didn't forget about the RIAA. I assumed that the two sides would be cut by the same lathe and cutting engineer with the same exact settings. The comparison would be absurd otherwise.

By the way, this isn't about making a 24/96 recording identical to vinyl. This would be a vinyl v. vinyl comparison. the only variable being that one had the signal go through a 24/96 A/D D/A conversion and one did not.

There can be no answer, posted on July 28, 2015 at 06:35:13

genungo

Apples vs. Oranges.

Many of the sonic advantages of vinyl are realized only during actual playback. An AAA recording may or may not make for better vinyl playback than a digital one will. So much depends on the playback rig and the ears of the listener.

RE: One thing has to be done to make this a fair comparison. , posted on July 28, 2015 at 07:02:53

John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 23900
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
Since: January 29, 2004

I didn't read the article, so I'm sure I'm off base in my response. However, if you take a high-speed analog master tape and copy it with a hi-rez digital recorder, the copy will be extremely close to the original if not indistinguishable. Now, if you cut a master lacquer from the same analog master tape, the subsequent vinyl pressings will sound noticeably different than the master tape. Furthermore, part of the difference in sound quality will be a result of the particular vinyl playback system used to play the record.

I've been making digital recordings with an Alesis Masterlink 24/96 digital recorder for years and most recently I just bought a TASCAM DA-3000 DSD recorder. Both of these are exceedingly accurate. Vinyl, on the other hand, has at least one or two orders of magnitude more distortion than digital. This can be measured and easily heard with your ears. At least, I can hear it with my ears.

Best regards,
John Elison

RE: One thing has to be done to make this a fair comparison. , posted on July 28, 2015 at 07:08:49
Analog Scott Audiophile Posts: 9933 Joined: January 8, 2002	This isn't about comparing master tapes to vinyl. It's strictly about the concerns of digitally sourced vinyl. So the idea is to start with an analog tap source and cut two sides to vinyl from that source. One side is all analog the other cut from a 24/96 copy of the analog tape. So the only variable is the 24/96 A/D D/A conversion.

RE: "It's all about the music and the performance...", posted on July 28, 2015 at 07:17:09

genungo

Maybe, or maybe not. "IT" is almost surely about the actual music to some degree but IT is almost never 100% "all about the music" in any recording.

Sometimes producers and recording engineers like to get creative and sometimes they HAVE to get creative. If/when a recording becomes so infused with creativity, IT cannot be only about the actual music anymore. IT is about the art in/of the recording itself, to one degree or another.

There is almost no way live music can ever sound the way music sounds on some recordings and on other recordings the replications seem quite real. No matter though. You simply play the record - and maybe you'll accept and cherish what the recording engineers have to say as being *truthful*, or *delightful*, or *wonderfully weird & crazy*, etc.., - or maybe you'll diss the effort entirely. Your decision matters to no one but you.

One thing is highly likely, though. If/when a live musical event is represented or depicted on a recording in the manner of a "white lie", as a total fabrication, or in any other "creative" or untruthful manner it probably doesn't matter that much if the recording is AAA, or digital. What matters in reality is that everything seems to sound OK on your system somehow... or anyhow.

RE: One thing has to be done to make this a fair comparison. , posted on July 28, 2015 at 08:15:24

John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 23900
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
Since: January 29, 2004

In my opinion, both vinyl copies should sound the same to the vast majority of us over 50-years old. At least in my case, I do not hear any difference between a vinyl source and its 24/96 digital conversion in my own system. I've done this test many times using my Alesis Masterlink as a 24/96 digital bottleneck by placing it in its record mode and switching my line stage between source and tape when listening to a vinyl record. I can switch remotely at my listening position and there is no audible difference that I can detect. Of course, I'm 67-years old now and I can't hear much past 10-kHz. However, I have a very resolving system and I've tested others who failed to detect any difference. There is nothing scientific about these tests -- just sighted A/B tests -- but there is no audible difference that I can detect.

Now, before you argue the point, I realize this is not exactly what you are talking about. However, based on these A/B test results, it is my opinion that there would be no audible difference between a vinyl record made from an analog master tape versus a vinyl record made from a 24/96 digital copy of the same analog master tape. At least, I don't think I would be able to hear the difference.

Best regards,
John Elison

RE: "It's all about the music and the performance...", posted on July 28, 2015 at 09:03:16

Tre'
Industry Professional

Posts: 17302
Location: So. Cal.
Joined: February 9, 2002

James Boyk (Professor at Caltech) once referred to himself as a "recordist" rather than a recording engineer.

A recording engineer's job is to make a hit record so that everyone makes money, a recordist's job is to capture the sound of the event as truthfully as he can.

The "gimmicked" recording (Why Hi-Fi Experts Disagree) can sound "great" and be a lot of fun to listen to but they are not Hi-Fi.

IMO the only way to judge how good of a job a playback system is doing is to first know what acoustic instruments sound like and then play a non-gimmicked recording of same.

Most recordings in the world of pop are gimmicked.

Tre'

Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"

Why Hi-Fi Experts Disagree by J. Gordon Holt

RE: One thing has to be done to make this a fair comparison. , posted on July 28, 2015 at 09:44:59

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

I expect they would be identical. But that was why in my first post I was saying it is important that the analog feed to the cutting lathe should be the same feed that the 24/96 copy be made from. It's analog tape. It will be a little different every time you play back the tape. That could lead to a false positive. Also there could be variations in plating and certainly in each individual pressing. But IMO the 24/96 A/D D/A conversion should be transparent.

What does that have to do with the subject though?, posted on July 28, 2015 at 09:48:17
Analog Scott Audiophile Posts: 9933 Joined: January 8, 2002	This is about the effects of cutting records from hi res copies of analog tapes as opposed to cutting directing from the analog tape. "performance" has nothing to do with that question.

RE: "It's all about the music and the performance...", posted on July 28, 2015 at 09:49:32
Analog Scott Audiophile Posts: 9933 Joined: January 8, 2002	It's just not that simple.

RE: One thing has to be done to make this a fair comparison. , posted on July 28, 2015 at 09:59:10

John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 23900
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
Since: January 29, 2004

> I was saying it is important that the analog feed to the cutting lathe should be the same feed that the 24/96 copy be made from.

That should be easy to accomplish. Simply connect the cutting lathe and the 24/96 recorder in parallel so each is receiving its signal from the same tape play.

> IMO the 24/96 A/D D/A conversion should be transparent.

I agree! That has been my experience in my own system.

Best regards,
John Elison

RE: One thing has to be done to make this a fair comparison. , posted on July 28, 2015 at 11:10:29

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

I think hi res digital has come so far that it might actually be advantageous to do hi res copies of analog tapes and use that as the cutting source. There is an art to picking the right tape deck, making sure it is in perfect working condition and lining up the heads and setting everything up so as to get the best signal possible off of the analog tape. If you only have to do this once all the better. A hi res digital copy being more robust and more reliable in playback will allow a mastering engineer more freedom to do what they want to do in terms of mastering moves when cutting the lacquer.

I think vinyl enthusiasts need to move past their phobia of all things digital. Hopefully this experiment will actually happen and the point will be made.

And I say this as someone who prefers the sound of vinyl and analog tape to all digital media.

Holt was mostly right about most things..., posted on July 28, 2015 at 11:42:14

genungo

Hifi music reproduction has two major goals to meet, and one major hurdle to cross:

"Fidelity to the Recording" and "Fidelity to the Music from which the recording was made" are the two major goals that guide us in the making of gear fit for a hifi system. "Realization" - or compatibility with home acoustic environments - is akin to the final hurdle seen on the horizon after the first two major goals have been met or provided for. It is the final piece in the hifi puzzle.

Modern audiophiles pick and choose gear and adjust their systems with all three of these things in mind - or at least they try to. Part of the reason they do this is because recordists and/or recording engineers always produce "art" (whether they intend to or not), and modern audiophiles have decided that they are obliged to respond in kind. The *art* in every recording must not only be heard, but also understood. And sometimes it takes a bit of system tweaking to make the sonic art in a recording more understandable, I would opine.

Hifi music reproduction has more in common with a realistic oil painting than it does with a photograph. Hifi is a "framed" and (in most cases) *miniaturized* re-enactment of a spectacular live event, but one that effectively invites "suspension of disbelief". Hifi music reproduction is related to the sound of live music, but it is never quite the same.

Our systems, therefore, must be good pitchers as well as good catchers.

IMO.

RE: Holt was mostly right about most things..., posted on July 28, 2015 at 13:01:10

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

These days I wonder about these ideas. I wonder if they came from people who actually have attended many concerts.

"fidelity to the recording"

What is that? The "recording" is an encoded copy of an electrical signal. A recording in and of itself has no intrinsic sound.

"Fidelity to the Music from which the recording was made"

And what exactly is that? The original event took place in a completely different acoustic space. It had many different sounds depending on where in the room you were. No original musical event has *a* sound. It has a multitude of sounds from the multitude of listener positions.

RE: Twin fidelities, posted on July 28, 2015 at 13:32:24

genungo

I was tempted to write "Twin Peaks", but I stopped myself.

"Fidelity to the Recording" (as mentioned by Holt in his essay) involves an accurate reading or processing of the encoded signal. As Holt himself was quick to mention, only those very familiar with the engineering aspects of a recording can know about this. The rest of must rely on the honest recommendations of experienced reporters for a good clue about this.

Of course, "Fidelity to the Music..." is only "realized" or made possible when the listener knows what actual music sounds like. So, I agree with you in that we all should be *experienced listeners* and able to recognize "Hifi" when we hear it.

Really, without live music as our reference we are only lost part of the time. All recordings are, to some degree, mirrors of the wishes of a few men who were once in charge. Most recordings are creations. They are about themselves to some degree, even if/when they are mostly about something *live* or real.

I think the best we can do is to assemble a system that is capable of accurate transmission of recordings while maintaining *amenability*.

RE: Twin fidelities, posted on July 28, 2015 at 14:30:12

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

You didn't really answer my questions though.

"The recording" is not acoustic in nature. It is a code for an electrical signal. It has no sound. So fidelity to the recording is something that can only happen in between the transducers. It is not something one can judge by ear. I see no intrinsic value in it.

"The music" being the original performance does not have "a sound." It has many different sounds depending on where you sit. So how is that a reference for anything? There is no such thing as "THE" sound of live music. Live music has such a vast array of sounds and sound quality that it is far to broad and vague to be of any use as a reference. The fact is live sound can really suck. Believing that live = reference could send folks down the wrong path quite easily.

I don't think we need live music to tell us what we like or don't like. I think we can all make that judgement based on our personal aesthetic values.

Informed Subjectivity, posted on July 28, 2015 at 15:06:27

genungo

I'm a proponent of "Informed Subjectivity".

One can indeed "judge by ear" if/when we are musically and technically informed and our gear is well designed for the task at hand: The transmission and reproduction of music recordings.

Our "judgements" may not always be 100% true or accurate but I believe they can get close enough to that 100% true ideal, so that our expenditures on better gear and better recordings are not completely in vain.

We should respect the innate or *given* qualities and merits of a recording to the best of our abilities. We should also try to make sure "IT" all sounds like music too, to the best of our recollections.

RE: Informed Subjectivity, posted on July 28, 2015 at 15:21:52

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

All subjective judgements are well enough informed by the actual sound of that which one is judging. What else do you need to know if you like it or not? How does being "technically informed" do anything other than bias our perception?

"Our judgements may not always be 100% true or accurate"?

What does that even mean? If you like what you hear how is that judgment any less than 100% accurate to what you like to hear?

"We should respect the innate or *given* qualities and merits of a recording to the best of our abilities."

Why? As far as I am concerned audio is there to serve my aesthetics not the other way around.

RE: "As far as I'm concerned audio is there to serve my aesthetics not the other way around." , posted on July 28, 2015 at 15:33:25

genungo

Here is where we differ, if ever so slightly. I doubt we'll ever agree on certain points.

I might say "A system must be a good catcher as well as a good pitcher". I do think it is possible to find and/or create a reasonable balance point between catching and pitching in an audio system. I think it is possible to "judge" recorded sound fairly accurately (on the upstroke as well as the downstroke) by using "informed subjectivity" - and I think it is our duty to try doing so...

Enjoy your system and the "music" playing therein!

RE: "As far as I'm concerned audio is there to serve my aesthetics not the other way around." , posted on July 28, 2015 at 15:47:13

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

Here is a question. How do you judge the sound quality of a live performance? All live performances are live. So if live is the "reference" by which we judge all sound quality then it would follow that by merely being live, all live performances are all equally of reference quality. Do you believe that or do you subjectively evaluate and rate live sound? If so what is the reference by which you judge it?

RE: "As far as I'm concerned audio is there to serve my aesthetics not the other way around." , posted on July 28, 2015 at 15:59:30

genungo

Live and recorded sound quality are both judgeable, IMO.

I will decide if the performance itself is bad, mediocre, or good. I will decide if a live acoustic performance is taking place in an favorable acoustic setting or an unfavorable one. If the performance is an amplified one, I will decide if the amplified sound is well-balanced and coherent. Ditto for any recording that is marketed as sounding like some live musical event.

I must judge everything according to the standards I formulate and the memories I entertain, but I would hope that both of these things are grounded in reality somehow. I respect the *real*, and I try to honor the intentions of the recording engineers, if honorable they are.

Of course it is my *subjective evaluation* saying that not all live performances and not all acoustic venues are created equal. Hopefully, my subjective evaluations will at all times be informed ones though.

Maybe I'm an optimist and you're a pessimist?

Good point. nt, posted on July 28, 2015 at 16:06:44
jdaniel@jps.net	.

Great discussion - and I hope you don't mind my jumping in, posted on July 28, 2015 at 17:02:04

Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26465
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
Since: February 6, 2012

genungo - I think I see where you're coming from with your "informed subjectivity" phrase. Scott is of course correct that there is no "one sound" even at a live performance - a lot of it just depends on where we're sitting. With a recording, we're even more in the dark as far as knowing what the "original sound" is like, especially since listeners don't normally sit where the microphones are placed!

Therefore, since we can't actually KNOW what the sound is like at the microphone positions, we do something else to determine accuracy: we use the whole history of our listening experience (e.g., what did this bassoon sound like? what did this other bassoon sound like? what does it sound like at this distance? what does it sound like at this other distance?, etc.) to construct an ABSTRACT idea of what a certain instrument or combination of instruments, at a certain distance, in a certain type of hall, etc. SHOULD sound like

Basically, when we listen to a recording, we're GUESSING what the original sound was like at the microphone locations. And depending on their innate skill and ability to learn from experience (i.e., the "informed" aspect), some listeners can make much better guesses and judgements than others can - although the only guesses and judgements that should count for any particular listener are his/her own! It's all so paradoxical! ;-)

RE: "As far as I'm concerned audio is there to serve my aesthetics not the other way around." , posted on July 28, 2015 at 17:12:07

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

"Live and recorded sound quality are both judgeable, IMO."

We completely agree on that point.

"I will decide if a live acoustic performance is taking place in an favorable acoustic setting or an unfavorable one."

That is fine. By what objective standard do you judge?

"I must judge everything according to the standards I formulate and the memories I entertain, but I would hope that both of these things are grounded in reality somehow."

That doesn't make sense. all live music is grounded in reality because it is all real. But you concede that it is not all equal. So by what standard do you judge. It can't be "by reality" because all live music is equally real but not equal in sound quality. So what is the standard?

"I respect the *real*, and I try to honor the intentions of the recording engineers, if honorable they are."

Again, all live music is real. But it is not all equal. so "real" can not be the standard by which you judge live music. So what is it?

"Of course it is my *subjective evaluation* saying that not all live performances and not all acoustic venues are created equal. Hopefully, my subjective evaluations will at all times be informed ones though."

Informed by what? What is the standard?

"Maybe I'm an optimist and you're a pessimist?"

I don't see how optimism or pessimism is at issue here.

RE: Great discussion, posted on July 28, 2015 at 17:28:33

genungo

I think I agree with most of what you are saying. Yes, I think we basically agree...

And yes, Scott is of course correct in saying that there is no one version of live sound to be heard at any live event. OTOH, recording engineer(s) can only provide us with only one version of live sound at a time. If you want different versions of the same sonic event, you must and should buy as many different recordings.

I hope that I am trying to discover recordings for what they are, and I hope that my subjectivity will always be of the highly informed variety, so that any extensions or elaborations on my part might be well-guided ones.

I believe that I am not consciously trying to bend every recording to suit my wishes - at least not in merciless fashion. If I WAS that sort of an audiophile I probably would not realize it, so maybe I'm stuck in the muck after all. Maybe time will tell me for sure.

RE: Great discussion - and I hope you don't mind my jumping in, posted on July 28, 2015 at 17:30:12

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

But does any of that matter? I can point to the wonderful experience of being there with Yuja when she recorded her Rach III Prok II concertos in Venezuela. Having been there for every moment of the recording and having heard the live feed on the headphones being used by the engineer and producer and having listened to the CD on my system I can say that every version was quite different.

The hall in Venezuela simply is not a good hall. The sound was quite different, as can be expected, depending on where one sat. From the best seats the sound of the live performance was quite different than the sound of the CD. Of course the inherent limitations of recording and playing back of a live orchestra and piano meant that many aspects of the recording playback sound would be quite inferior to the live event from the best seats. OTOH there were realities that severely compromised the SQ of the live event. From the bad seats it was truly awful. In no way on any level was that as good as the CD on my system. But, even from the good seats there were some serious issues. Imbalances between different sections of the orchestra and the piano. Audience noise that was beyond belief. Piano tone. All of these problems were addressed either in the recording process itself or in post production. You do not hear the imbalances of the different sections of the orchestra and piano. You really don't hear the severe problems with the piano itself and you don't hear much of the huge problem with the noise from the audience. These fixes are anything but accurate and true to the original event. But they are improvements to be sure.

so what are we to do as audiophiles and music lovers? Do we strive for some convoluted goal of accuracy for the sake of accuracy or do we just seek the best aesthetic based on what essentially sounds best to us?

I say the aesthetic rules the day and rules the choices. I say accuracy for the sake of accuracy is audio masturbation and misses the original point of accuracy back when audio was young and not very good. There was a time when better accuracy always meant better sound. Back when audio so inaccurate that it was barely recognizable as live acoustic music. that was when the concept of "fidelity" was conceived for audio. but really, that went out the door once we actually got into stereo and high end audio playback. The game had changed but no one seemed to inform us that the cliches no longer were gospel.

I think this confusion between accuracy and aesthetic excellence has been the source of many misconceptions about audio and the root of most debates.

RE: "As far as I'm concerned audio is there to serve my aesthetics not the other way around." , posted on July 28, 2015 at 17:45:13

genungo

It's almost seems as if you're confusing the realities present in live musical events with the realities present in recordings.

For instance: Sure, you can walk around the room at any live music venue and you'll notice slightly different sounding versions of the same event sonic event at each new location, but you cannot (dare I say "should not"?) try to do the same thing with a recording.

Recordings can only provide us with one sonic perspective at a time and I think it's our duty to make sure that the recording's intended effects are transmitted through our system and into our ears, as best as is possible. There's no need to cook everything up all over again, because "dinner" is actually being served... as ONE certain version or recipe.

I "judge" live events and recordings differently but of course every judgement I make is somehow *subjective*. "Well informed subjectivity" is the closest we'll ever get to pure "objectivity, I think.

RE: "As far as I'm concerned audio is there to serve my aesthetics not the other way around." , posted on July 28, 2015 at 18:40:16

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

"It's almost seems as if you're confusing the realities present in live musical events with the realities present in recordings."

I am asking you specifically about how you judge the sound quality of live events. There is no confusion on my part. Still looking forward to your answers on those clear specific questions about how you judge the sound qualities of live music.

"For instance: Sure, you can walk around the room at any live music venue and you'll notice slightly different sounding versions of the same event sonic event at each new location, but you cannot (dare I say "should not"?) try to do the same thing with a recording."

I have actually walked around the "room" at a number of concert halls while live music is being played to judge the sound of the hall from the many different sitting positions. In *every* case the sound quality varies quite widely. Your assertion that the sound quality of live music at concert halls varies "slightly" Is simply wrong. There is no reason to bring audio playback into this. Again, I was asking you about live music and specifically what you use as a standard of measure of excellence for sound quality of live music.

So I will ask again. Let's see if you can answer the questions asked this time.

"you state that you "will decide if a live acoustic performance is taking place in an favorable acoustic setting or an unfavorable one."
By what objective standard do you judge that?

You state that you "must judge everything according to the standards you formulate and the memories you entertain, but you would hope that both of these things are grounded in reality somehow."

That doesn't make sense. all live music is grounded in reality because it is all real. But you concede that it is not all equal. So by what standard do you judge. It can't be "by reality" because all live music is equally real but not equal in sound quality. So what is the standard?

You state that you "respect the *real*, and you try to honor the intentions of the recording engineers, if honorable they are."

Again, all live music is real. But it is not all equal. so "real" can not be the standard by which you judge live music. So what is it?

You state that "Of course it is your *subjective evaluation* saying that not all live performances and not all acoustic venues are created equal. Hopefully, your subjective evaluations will at all times be informed ones though."

Informed by what? What is the standard?

RE: "As far as I'm concerned audio is there to serve my aesthetics not the other way around." , posted on July 28, 2015 at 19:32:59
A.Wayne Audiophile Posts: 2527 Location: Front row center Joined: November 30, 2011	Agree , but it will never sound "correct" without the right blend .....

RE: Great discussion - and I hope you don't mind my jumping in, posted on July 28, 2015 at 20:19:28
Chris from Lafayette Audiophile Posts: 26465 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: February 17, 2004 Contributor Since: February 6, 2012	Yeah, I hear you Scott. Not only do we have our abstractions as to what an accurate and faithful capture should sound like, but we also have our idealizations as to what the capture should sound like too. In the best of all possible worlds, there would be no difference between the two! ;-)

I think the audiophile axiom of accuracy as a goal in audio needs to be questioned, posted on July 28, 2015 at 20:32:51

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

You see when we judge sound quality of live music we have no standard or reference that we use as a goal. It really does just amount to how much it appeals to our personal aesthetic values. IOW if you like how live music sounds it sounds good.

so if this is our "reference" and yet that reference when you take a good hard close look at it ultimately is "if it sounds good to us it is good" then why can't we just cut to the chase and say the same for audio recording and playback?

And let's look at the opposite. Let's say we do choose to make "accuracy" our reference. Does that mean, for instance, that the recording of Yuja in Venezuela would be objectively better had they left in the orchestral imbalances, the poor piano tone and the horrific audience noise? It certainly would be more accurate. No way it would sound "better." So should we take "accuracy" over aesthetic beauty when they are at odds with each other?

I say no. I say sounds good = is good. I don't care about accuracy.

RE: "I don't care about accuracy", posted on July 28, 2015 at 20:49:50
genungo	Yes you do. Maybe you hate to admit it? Everyone cares about "accuracy". You depend on it and so do I. Who would want a recording labelled "Beethoven's 9th symphony" that did not sound like that thing?

RE: "I don't care about accuracy", posted on July 28, 2015 at 20:54:09

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

No, I don't care about accuracy.

Please tell me how accuracy applies to the evaluation of live music? How do you determine the level of "accuracy" of the sound of any live concert? If that is the standard of excellence then you can surely answer that question. Do you sit at an actual live concert and say,"yeah, this sounds great! It sounds very very accurate." ?? How does accuracy come into play with live music and why should I care about it?

RE: "I don't care about accuracy", posted on July 28, 2015 at 21:50:36

genungo

I, for one, never said that "accuracy" applies to the evaluation of live music in any way, shape, or form. Maybe it does, but I never said that it does. I'm beginning to think that maybe you are starting to go off on a strange sort of tangent here, though.

I might *judge* a live event (or a recording) according to both "subjective" and "objective" standards, but almost none of this has anything to do with the judgment of "accuracy" (to my mind) - unless there's a question about the "accurate" reading of a musical score(?).

Oh well...

Nevertheless, it might be worth remembering that (in some ways at least) a band of musicians might not sound "subjectively good" if they do not hold themselves to certain "objective standards" - standards that some might view as being related to any one of various *types* of "accuracy". But in general, the word "accuracy" does not come to mind when I listen to live music.

The word "accuracy" mostly comes to mind when I listen to recordings. Remember, I try not to "judge" the two things - music and recordings - in the same exact manner. They are somewhat different from each other in some important ways, I believe.

RE: "I don't care about accuracy", posted on July 28, 2015 at 22:05:49
Analog Scott Audiophile Posts: 9933 Joined: January 8, 2002	You still have yet to answer any questions about what standards you use to judge the sound quality of live music. You also have yet to make any logical argument as to why live music and recorded music should be judged by different standards when it comes to sound quality.

RE: "As far as I'm concerned audio is there to serve my aesthetics not the other way around." , posted on July 28, 2015 at 22:15:52

genungo

I had thought that I had answered all or most of your questions so far. Re-read some of the previous posts just to make sure, as I'm too tired for it right now. Besides, I'm starting to think that this discussion is becoming pointless.

And yes, all things that are real are not equally worthy to me. This does not necessarily mean, however, that I am eschewing the "real". It might only mean that I'm being selective, narrowing down my choices according to subjective and possibly even "objective" judgements and observations. One might say that recordings provide us with a dose of "selective" reality but if they are good recordings they do sound real, convincing, proportionally correct (if miniaturized) in scale, etc...

What I'm after is music that is both "real" (or "sounds like real") and "good sounding", be it live music or music on a recording. OK? I do believe it is possible to have both things, simultaneously. Others can keep the bad-sounding reality if they want it.

Well-said and agreed. nt, posted on July 28, 2015 at 22:33:30
David Smith

RE: "As far as I'm concerned audio is there to serve my aesthetics not the other way around." , posted on July 28, 2015 at 22:54:57

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

Actually you have managed to not answer the questions multiple times now. I suspect you don't want to answer the questions because you know it completely undermines the axiom that accuracy to live music in audio is a valuable goal.

Doesn't matter. I already know the answer to the question. There is no standard by which you or anyone judges the quality of sound of live music other than their personal aesthetic values. No references needed. And this aesthetic value that has no standards or references of it's own is what you believe should be a reference by which one should judge audio playback.

If you can't see the fundamental problem with insisting on people using a reference that in and of itself is overly broad in it's scope and also varies in excellence but has no standard by which it's excellence can be judged then I really don't know what else to tell ya

RE: "I don't care about accuracy", posted on July 28, 2015 at 23:03:12

genungo

Well then, let me see here...

I would say that when the room and the music being played (either in live sound or in hifi playback) interact in a complimentary and harmonious way, then the music is clearly heard, tonal balance seems smooth and well-balanced, and overall "sound quality" is at it's optimum in such a scenario.

That said, the sound we hear on a recording is a mixture of "real" sounding ingredients and the residue of "the art of recording" - all stuffed together in one swell package. It should be judged as if it is referring to something besides itself - not completely perhaps, but for the most part.

Live music, however, is simply *reality*. It can be judged on it's own merits alone. It's "sound quality" will vary somewhat at different points in the venue, but I think that most would agree that clarity and intelligibility combined with smooth and balanced room tone constitute *good* live sound.

Simply put, recorded sound should each be judged as if it was closely related to live music while being significantly different from it in some ways.

These are my beliefs. And, my beliefs are based upon actual experiences (see above) which I consider to be relevant to the here and now of this discussion.

Re-read my posts again. I believe that I've basically said or implied all of this stuff, at least once or twice before.

RE: "I don't care about accuracy", posted on July 28, 2015 at 23:11:35

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

Actually this is the first time you answered the question as to what standards you use to judge live music.

"I would say that when the room and the music being played (either in live sound or in hifi playback) interact in a complimentary and harmonious way, then the music is clearly heard, tonal balance seems smooth and well-balanced, and overall "sound quality" is at it's optimum in such a scenario."

That is basically a breakdown of your personal aesthetics. In short you judge live music by whether or not it sounds good to you, good being a set of qualities you describe above. there is no reference other than your aesthetics.

Great. I'll by that.

But you don't really answer WHY audio playback should be judged by a reference. You simply restate that you think it should.

But this was progress.

Whatever, Scott..., posted on July 28, 2015 at 23:14:32

genungo

I have answered all of your questions. My answers make perfect sense to me, but it's as if you simply won't accept them because they are notably different than your answers might be. Also, I'm growing tired of this discussion as it has turned into a major derailment of the thread. Not my intention, at all.

I will reiterate, however, that "Live Sound" is easily identifiable in a recording if you know what real, live sound can sound like. And "good sound" at a live event is readily identifiable to most people. Read or re-read some of my other posts for my definition of what "good" live sound might be. My typing fingers are starting to wear out.

These things I've said make sense to me and to most people I've talked to, but not to you. Sorry about that.

To an extent, I do., posted on July 29, 2015 at 00:03:08

vinyl survivor
Audiophile

Posts: 1471
Location: Southeastern US
Joined: November 28, 2007

When it comes to recorded music. I do not enjoy a solo piano recording that has the bass on the left and the treble on the right. So that is the way a pianist hears it, but as a listener I hear the opposite. It is extremely distracting.

Another example would be when a drum set in a recording has little or no reverb and then a saxophone or singer has too much reverb and sounds like it is in a different room. I could give many examples, but you get the idea.

Lots of good music destroyed due to poor engineering and or mastering choices that make something sound nothing like the real thing.

Good night, posted on July 29, 2015 at 00:40:38

genungo

I think that have "really" answered all of your questions so far, several times over perhaps. Everything has been clearly implied if not stated outright, over and over again.

That said, everything we do, every choice we make, etc.., *INVOLVES* personal beliefs or aesthetics, of course. But you almost seem to be inordinately hung up on this idea of *free* or disembodied aesthetics. Anyone who believes that a good recording is not a reference (and therefore deserving of honor and respect in it's own right) is simply not into "hifi".

The "fidelity" part of "hi-fidelity" is supposed to refer to the existence of some definite and real things, as Holt points out. I agree with most of what Holt says here, and any disagreements I might have with him are basically insignificant ones, IMO. He and I basically blood brothers, I think, although he himself might have been hesitant to define our spiritual relationship as such when he was alive.

I think that aesthetics normally grow out of relatively "objective" sensual observations. We "know" or remember what real live music sounds like to us once we listen to it. And I dare say that most of us build our systems in honor of that which we recognize as "the sound of music" on decent recordings.

I think that, with the help of a good system, it is possible to hear good recordings pretty much as they were meant to be heard. Maybe we'll never know EXACTLY how a good recording is supposed to sound, but we can get *very close* to that goal with the help of research, practice, and patience.

If you set up a good pair of speakers in an appropriately sized room the way they are intended to be set up and you play a good recording, your chances of hearing that recording as it was meant to be heard are pretty high, I'd say. But, following such a procedure would involve some *trust* on your part, and I feel that you probably mistrust almost anything GIVEN at this point in your audiophile career.

All that remains to be done (after we have taken steps to ensure that good recordings can be heard pretty much as they were meant to be heard) is some final tweaking of the system so that it sounds *listenable* as well as "accurate". Doing this does not mean that something very close to "objective listening" hasn't been accomplished on my part, though.

RE: To an extent, I do., posted on July 29, 2015 at 01:36:53
genungo	Me too.

RE: To an extent, I do., posted on July 29, 2015 at 05:57:34

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

"When it comes to recorded music. I do not enjoy a solo piano recording that has the bass on the left and the treble on the right. So that is the way a pianist hears it, but as a listener I hear the opposite. It is extremely distracting."

See, this is an artifact of recording. In concert you absolutely do not get this kind of directionality from a piano. 80% of the sound comes from the soundboard underneath and it is essentially a mono source.

RE: To an extent, I do., posted on July 29, 2015 at 11:25:48
Chris from Lafayette Audiophile Posts: 26465 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: February 17, 2004 Contributor Since: February 6, 2012	So, Scott, it seems that in the case of a piano recording, you want accuracy - at least as far as it relates to the element of directionality! ;-) BTW, I've heard a number of recordings that even have the pianist's perspective wrong - the engineer somehow got the bass notes on the right and the treble notes on the left. Maybe they thought that was "better than real"! ;-)

RE: "As far as I'm concerned audio is there to serve my aesthetics not the other way around." , posted on July 29, 2015 at 12:24:53

Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26465
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
Since: February 6, 2012

"If you can't see the fundamental problem with insisting on people using a reference that in and of itself is overly broad in it's scope and also varies in excellence but has no standard by which it's excellence can be judged then I really don't know what else to tell ya"

C'mon, Scott - that's a mischaracterization of what genungo is saying. There's nothing overly broad about it. Just because live events and locations vary in excellence is no reason to throw out the baby with the bath water. In the case of concert halls for instance, there are certain objective, measurable characteristics that go into the construction of a good hall. (And BTW, I'm not using "good" aesthetically here - perhaps I should say "a hall which accurately projects sound to the listener"!) Although it's taken us a long time to learn the right lessons to apply, I'd say that the success of modern halls such as Disney Hall, or the Helsinki Music Center are the proof of the pudding that there's an objective component to the judgement of live music. It's not all just likes and dislikes.

What people mean when they say they use live music as a reference is live music in its most ideal form - some elements of which are objective and can be measured objectively. Your bringing in of some middling concert hall in Venezuela where Yuja played isn't really relevant. OK, so they made a recording there and had to correct all the bad qualities that were present. Great! I'm glad they did that! Still, that in no way changes the fact that our reference for recorded music is an accurate rendition of good instruments in good halls. Paradoxically, the very fact that the engineers had to tinker around with Yuja's concert in Venezuela to get the recording to approach that ideal is the proof that the notion of accuracy is an essential element in our judgements!

Again, I go back to the concepts of abstraction and idealization as the twin bases of judging recordings: abstraction in the sense that, through our experiences, we have abstracted what real instruments playing in real spaces actually sound like (good or bad!) and we insist that recordings must relate to this, and idealization in the sense that, both in the concert hall and in the living room, we want the best possible representations of what our abstracted notions of sound quality are derived from, i.e., real sounds in real locations.

IOW, it's both. And if you insist that it's just one or the other (accuracy or aesthetics), then you're arguing from an extremist (and, if I may say so, inaccurate!) point of view IMHO.

p.s.: When you listen to your sound system, do you like to try to correlate your likes and dislikes to something objective (i.e., which can be measured)? Or are your likes and dislikes completely sufficient for you to judge whatever you hear (equipment, recording quality, or even the performance itself)? I'd lay odds that even you have an objective notions of accuracy influencing your judgements somehow. ;-)

RE: "As far as I'm concerned audio is there to serve my aesthetics not the other way around." , posted on July 29, 2015 at 13:08:59

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

I can't make heads or tails of what Gengo is saying.

If one is claiming the "sound of live music" (without qualification) is their reference then I would say it is waaaaaay overly broad. If that is the criteria then it follows that both 10th row center seat at Disney Hall listening to the L.A. Phil and sitting in the back corner of a high school auditorium with a junior high school marching band playing are both legitimate references. That's pretty dang broad and pretty dang useless. But they are both live music. I have heard plenty of live music at real concert halls played by professional musicians that did not sound good and would be a piss poor standard to judge the quality of sound of any recording/playback.

You are absolutely right that there are objective measurable parameters by which we can judge the acoustics of any concert hall. But do you know the history behind that metric? It was created by using listening panels and having them listen to live music in various spaces and having them subjectively rate the quality of the sound. What was the standard? How good did it sounded to them. There was no reference point. It was purely subjective. And out of the body of purely subjective listening tests they were able to derive an objective scale. (so consistent were the results that they were very much able to call the metric objective). The point being the metric was quite simply human aesthetic values.

So why would we need a point of reference to judge the aesthetic value of recording and playback?

I really don't agree that most people mean by "live music" that it is live music *in it's most ideal form*. It is becoming more and more clear that most audiophiles don't really have enough experience with live music to understand just how much it varies in nature. Even in the same building from different seats! (this thread is evidence of that)

How on earth is bringing up the national concert hall in Venezuela "not relevant?" That is not a high school gym! That is the national concert hall of Venezuela and home to the Simon Bolivar Orchestra. It's where they record all their CDs. That's the best anyone in that country has! I know another audiophile who is using Copely Hall in San Diego as his reference to build his stereo. That is a tragedy IMO. That hall SUCKS!!!! But if you are in San Diego ya don't have a lot of options. Good Halls are not a dime a dozen. Bad halls are a reality of live music as are bad seats in good halls. That makes up the vast majority of what real people hear at actual live concerts. The good seats at the good halls are the exception not the rule.

I think your abstract makes an assumption that I can't go with. It assumes that "real" is intrinsically good because it is "real." I assert that "real" when it is done **well** is good because we have 400+ years of experience as concert hall designers, musical instrument makers, composers and musicians, all who have built on the knowledge and experience of the past to make a better aesthetic experience. BUT!!! I would also assert that the reference used in that 400+ years of development was purely aesthetic beauty and practical utility. That's why it sounds so good WHEN it is all done well. not simply because it is "real." Real was all we had up until the last century. When an acoustician designs a better concert hall we know it because we sit in it and listen and like what we hear better. When a builder of musical instruments makes a better instrument we know it because we listen to it and it sounds better. There is no point of reference. No objective goal. It is purely aesthetic values. And it is remarkably consistent.

I suppose I am arguing from an extremist POV in the world of audio because I am tearing down a fundamental basic axiom of hifi that audio is about accuracy. After all it is called "hi fidelity." Accuracy is IMO only valuable in so far as it serves our aesthetic values. But the aesthetic values ALWAYS rule the preference. When accuracy and aesthetic excellence are at odds with each other (and that happens a lot these days) accuracy should yield. To say otherwise is to say there is something wrong with our aesthetics. And that I don't accept.

RE: To an extent, I do., posted on July 29, 2015 at 13:12:05
vinyl survivor Audiophile Posts: 1471 Location: Southeastern US Joined: November 28, 2007	I never said a recording is an exact replication of hearing the performance.

RE: To an extent, I do., posted on July 29, 2015 at 13:16:33

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

What is accuracy in the case of a piano recording?

A real piano varies in sound based on the make, model, individual build, age of the piano, weather, concert hall/acoustic space, where you sit and who is playing it. A live piano can sound amazing and it can sound abrasive. It can sound anywhere in between.

I want the sound to sound good, preferably wonderful. Whether it is a live piano or a recording. My standards are the same for both and my goals are the same in terms of sound quality. Aesthetic excellence. any "accuracy" (and we will never know)we get with playback is incidental.

I'll tell you what I don't want with recording and playback. An accurate rendering of bad sound.

RE: To an extent, I do., posted on July 29, 2015 at 16:58:54

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

I never said you did say that. But you did say this about live piano sound.

"When it comes to recorded music. I do not enjoy a solo piano recording that has the bass on the left and the treble on the right. So that is the way a pianist hears it, ***but as a listener I hear the opposite.*** It is extremely distracting."

Unless you are standing directly in front of the open lid of the piano and are very very close to it, that is not how a piano sounds in real life. Most of the sound comes from the sound board underneath and all the notes resonate off that board. Here is a nice little article that touches on the radiation patterns of an actual piano. They do not produce treble on the left and bass on the right. The sound comes from all over the instrument. They don't image based on the note played unless you are standing right in front of the open lid. and then only marginally so.

In a concert environment there will likely be no seats that would allow one to hear this kind of note dependent imaging.

As a listener you shouldn't be hearing bass on the left or right or treble on the left or right.

OTOH if you like hearing Bass on the right and treble on the left there is nothing wrong with that.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may99/articles/recpiano.htm

RE: "As far as I'm concerned audio is there to serve my aesthetics not the other way around." , posted on July 29, 2015 at 19:11:12

Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26465
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
Since: February 6, 2012

"The sound of live music" is the total sum of experience (good and bad, accurate and inaccurate) that each of us has with live musicians in actual locales playing their instruments. (I'm tempted to add "their ACOUSTIC instruments" - but let's not go there for now!) As listeners, we distill this experience into ideas as to what the musical instruments should sound like in various acoustic environments. So. . .

I'm asserting that the "listening committees", who helped the earliest concert hall builders and acousticians develop an objective/accurate measurement system to improve the acoustics of the halls, were, just like today's listeners, guided by the same process of distilling their listening experiences into their ideas as to what most accurately represents the sound of live music. This distillation is NOT the average of their listening experiences, but is rather a knowledge of the possible range of these experiences - from bad to good. And it's their idea of the ACCURATE representation of the good that forms the basis of their judgements. That's why I said that Venezuelan Concert Hall that you brought up as an example was not relevant - because of the poor quality of the acoustics, etc. And actually, I was wrong about that - the experience of that hall would be one more blip on the continuum from bad to good (i.e., less accurate representations of the instruments to more accurate representations). BTW, I had never heard that story about the "listening committees" who helped the acousticians, but I do trust you on this.

I also agree with you about the unfortunate listeners who have never experienced a live performance that can give them a conception of the kind of ideal I just described. Although I've never been to Copley Hall, I accept your portrayal of its horrific acoustics. But it seems to me that you're hung up on the fact that an accurate sonic representation of that hall in Venezuela would be no one's idea of good sound. (And that would be right!) But the accuracy I'm describing is a kind of Platonic ideal in itself: the recorded representation of god-like instruments in god-like acoustic environments. (And, yes, I'm serious about this!)

When I talk about accuracy, I mean an accurate rendering of an ideal based on live experiences of real musicians in real halls. That some listeners' ideals are so warped because their live experiences are limited to bad halls is, as you say, a tragedy. You are also correct that the good seats at the good halls are the exception, not the rule. But I recall promotional literature for a number of recording companies which had as their selling point their ability to place their microphones in an ideal location - a spot where a listener could never actually sit, fifteen feet above the conductor's head or wherever. The accurate capture of sound from such "ideal" locations is, to me, a valid goal of music reproduction. To the extent that we don't hear that ideal faithfully (i.e., accurately) captured, preserved and regenerated, we become to the same extent disillusioned and disappointed.

You said it yourself: "Accuracy is IMO only valuable in so far as it serves our aesthetic values." But I say that our aesthetic values derive from our total experience with the absolute standard, which is real music in real space - even if it's a bad experience, it still still influences our aesthetic judgement. And it still influences our ideals. Think of it this way: how certain would you be that Mozart (for instance) was a great composer if you didn't have composers such as Dittersdorf to kick around? ;-)

Nobody wants an accurate rendering of bad sound - see my post above [nt], posted on July 29, 2015 at 19:15:12
Chris from Lafayette Audiophile Posts: 26465 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: February 17, 2004 Contributor Since: February 6, 2012

RE: To an extent, I do., posted on July 29, 2015 at 19:26:33
Tre' Industry Professional Posts: 17302 Location: So. Cal. Joined: February 9, 2002	"A live piano can sound amazing and it can sound abrasive. It can sound anywhere in between. " Yes, but a live piano always sounds like a live piano. Tre' Have Fun and Enjoy the Music "Still Working the Problem"

RE: "As far as I'm concerned audio is there to serve my aesthetics not the other way around." , posted on July 29, 2015 at 19:38:43

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

""The sound of live music" is the total sum of experience (good and bad, accurate and inaccurate) that each of us has with live musicians in actual locales playing their instruments. (I'm tempted to add "their ACOUSTIC instruments" - but let's not go there for now!) As listeners, we distill this experience into ideas as to what the musical instruments should sound like in various acoustic environments. So. . . "

First one little point. There is no "accurate" and "inaccurate" when talking about live music. It is live music. It is always accurate to live music. Now the big point. It starts with a question. Why should we care about the *sound* of live acoustic music? What makes it a thing of value to us?

"This distillation is NOT the average of their listening experiences, but is rather a knowledge of the possible range of these experiences - from bad to good. And it's their idea of the ACCURATE representation of the good that forms the basis of their judgements.'

I can not speak for "early" listening panels. I don't even know if they existed. But the listening panels used to evaluate hall acoustics to create the objective metric we now have never considered "accuracy" of representation. that was not on the list of qualities being evaluated.

How would one rate the "accuracy" of the presentation of live music in a concert hall under evaluation? Accuracy can only be measured against a reference. What is the reference by which one measures the "accuracy" of live music? And if there were such a reference wouldn't that create a ceiling of excellence? Concert halls have been getting better. That doesn't happen by using an existing reference as a goal.

" I also agree with you about the unfortunate listeners who have never experienced a live performance that can give them a conception of the kind of ideal I just described. Although I've never been to Copley Hall, I accept your portrayal of its horrific acoustics. But it seems to me that you're hung up on the fact that an accurate sonic representation of that hall in Venezuela would be no one's idea of good sound. (And that would be right!) But the accuracy I'm describing is a kind of Platonic ideal in itself: the recorded representation of god-like instruments in god-like acoustic environments. (And, yes, I'm serious about this!)"

I think this is a fine model by which recording engineers can use to make better recordings and equipment designers can use to make better equipment. But what it gives us is a glimpse of aesthetic excellence. Not an objective reference. It's a good guide because it helps inform us on the upper achievements of sonic excellence. But accuracy for the sake of accuracy is misguided. Accuracy as a means of achieving aesthetic excellence is a reasonable methodology **in so far as it does serve the aesthetic. when the two deviate the accuracy should cease to be the goal. And they do deviate quite often.

"
You said it yourself: "Accuracy is IMO only valuable in so far as it serves our aesthetic values." But I say that our aesthetic values derive from our total experience with the absolute standard, which is real music in real space - even if it's a bad experience, it still still influences our aesthetic judgement. And it still influences our ideals. Think of it this way: how certain would you be that Mozart (for instance) was a great composer if you didn't have composers such as Dittersdorf to kick around? ;-)"

Well that IS the big question. From where do our aesthetic values come? I think there is a very subtle problem that can come from this. Who serves whom? Does the music serve the listener or does the listener serve the music? Is the point of that experience to *correct* our aesthetics or to simply better inform them? Does there come a point with this obsession with accuracy where audiophiles will actually say aesthetically inferior sound is the better choice because it is more accurate? Well I can tell ya, some audiophiles already take that position and with the argument that it represents the artists'/producers' artistic intent.

audiophiles need to get by the dogmatic idea that accuracy = better sound always. Well, I guess they don't need to. But I have and it's been such a relief.

RE: Nobody wants an accurate rendering of bad sound - see my post above [nt], posted on July 29, 2015 at 19:42:45
Analog Scott Audiophile Posts: 9933 Joined: January 8, 2002	I can point you to discussions that show otherwise

RE: To an extent, I do., posted on July 29, 2015 at 19:44:13
Analog Scott Audiophile Posts: 9933 Joined: January 8, 2002	Of course that is a tautological point. But so what? What good is a crap sounding live piano? Do you want that just because it is live?

Bingo, posted on July 29, 2015 at 21:51:10
vinyl survivor Audiophile Posts: 1471 Location: Southeastern US Joined: November 28, 2007	Hi Chris, You understand exactly where I am coming from. I certainly don't want the microphones inside the piano like many pop and jazz recordings. It's also distracting hearing too much of the hammer strike.

RE: To an extent, I do., posted on July 29, 2015 at 22:05:06
Analog Scott Audiophile Posts: 9933 Joined: January 8, 2002	"So, Scott, it seems that in the case of a piano recording, you want accuracy - at least as far as it relates to the element of directionality! ;-)" How did you come to that conclusion? I stated absolutely no preference when it comes to how piano recordings image.

It's no use, Chris..., posted on July 30, 2015 at 06:42:06

genungo

A valiant effort, Chris.

I sensed the problem right at the beginning. The problem is that this hobby is not only about audio logic, at least to some people. Scott has found his way. Gordon Holt and other have found theirs...

The "Hi" in Hi-fi might be said to refer the degree of effort some of us put into dealing with the audio equation in an "objective" manner. I think that, in order to be objective at all, you need to have some kind of an absolute reference along with the tools necessary to dig that reference out from it's resting place. I, for one, think that it is not possible to be 100% objective. But if we try really, really hard I think that we can be *mostly objective* - at least much of the time. I believe that our senses alone can (if we let them) provide us with a awful lot of objectively "accurate" information.

And so, I believe that we can build a fairly "accurate" sounding system. If we set up a decent pair of speakers properly in an appropriate room, I think that it is possible to hear what a truly good recording was MEANT to sound like - with a high degree of "accuracy". Good recordings are made for good speaker systems, and visa-versa.

We can, by trying hard and using decent tools, get usefully close to Holt's Hi-Fi ideal. "Hi-fi" can (and often does) have more than one *reference*. It NEEDS *at least* one reference. Not all references are created equal though, IMO.

I believe that the search for "aesthetics" in Hi-Fi is mostly tied up with the search for excellent record playback. Let the record speak for itself (as much as possible). Add a bit your own aesthetic sense via system tweaking (if you want to) as if it is the frosting on the cake, not as if it is part of the cake itself.

In the end this is only audio, thankfully. None of this mucky muddoo matters that much at all, really. I'm sure Scott has a blast when he listens to music, more power to him.

"But accuracy for the sake of accuracy is misguided", posted on July 30, 2015 at 11:11:50

Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26465
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
Since: February 6, 2012

In the examples you've provided (Venezuela, Copley Hall), yes, I think we can agree that merely getting an accurate sound of those halls would be a pretty woeful endeavor. I think we also probably agree that there's a different sense in which the term "accuracy" can be used. It's this other sense of accuracy that might lead us to choose better halls, better instruments, better microphone placements, etc.

I don't know if you remember my post a few years ago about the time I saw the Vienna Philharmonic live at Zellerbach Hall in Berkeley. In one sense, it was an overwhelmingly beautiful sound. But in the most important sense (i.e., was the sound I was hearing the actual sound they were producing?), it was deceptive and scandalous - because what I was hearing was NOT the Vienna Philharmonic itself, but rather the Vienna Philharmonic as manipulated by some dweeb in the control room running the Constellation "virtual reality sound system" that some doofus decided to have installed in that hall. I will never attend a concert in Zellerbach again. (I'll put up with it for ballets, but NEVER for concerts!) You get my drift?

So you don't mind piano recordings with the treble on the right and bass on the left? [nt], posted on July 30, 2015 at 11:15:57
Chris from Lafayette Audiophile Posts: 26465 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: February 17, 2004 Contributor Since: February 6, 2012

OK - I'm going to use another word in preference to "bad", posted on July 30, 2015 at 11:46:18

Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26465
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
Since: February 6, 2012

About twelve years ago, there was a(n) (in)famous recording of the Philadelphia Orchestra under Sawallisch on the Water Lily label. (The title was "In Nature's Realm", and it contained music by Liszt and Dvorak.) This recording was made in the old Philadelphia Academy of Music, which, by then (because of all the renovations), had a shockingly bone dry acoustic. My understanding is that some of the orchestra members had such devotion to that hall that they actively lobbied the orchestra management to allow a commercial recording to be made there. They got their wish, and, moreover, they contracted with a company (Water Lily) that was famous for its minimally microphoned (and accurate!) approach to engineering. This album was also a very early instance where a 24/96 recording was actually made available to consumers - I think it even pre-dated DVD-Audio, and was available as a regular, audio-only DVD. But of course, you can imagine the result: what we hear on this recording is the accurate rendering of the hall's bone dry acoustics - very unflattering to the orchestra.

OK, so in one sense, I find this recording woefully lacking in hall reverberation. I keep thinking to myself, geez, why didn't they just record in a better hall? But, in another sense, I do RESPECT this recording, because, now, at least I have an idea as to what music in that hall really sounds like. Sure, I accept your observation that it will sound different in different seats. But, in general, I think this recording captures the quality of the hall - so I DO respect it, and I listen to it every so often (it's now on my computer) with fascination and gratitude!

RE: "But accuracy for the sake of accuracy is misguided", posted on July 30, 2015 at 11:56:22

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

yeah, I think I get your drift. what you got was good but it wasn't what you wanted. Like ordering the fish and getting the most amazing steak you ever had. If you came for fish it doesn't matter how good the steak was. It isn't what you ordered.

P.S. I think when we talk about accuracy we need to be very dictionary about it and clear as to exactly what we are talking about being accurate to. Otherwise we can easily talk past each other.

RE: So you don't mind piano recordings with the treble on the right and bass on the left? [nt], posted on July 30, 2015 at 12:45:42
Analog Scott Audiophile Posts: 9933 Joined: January 8, 2002	It's really not a priority for me one way or another. There are soooo many other things about piano sound that matter more to me be it live or recorded.

RE: OK - I'm going to use another word in preference to "bad", posted on July 30, 2015 at 12:54:12

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

But you don't really "like" the sound do you? my point being that you judge the sound quality on aesthetics not on accuracy. the desire for more reverb is based on your aesthetic values not on your quest for accuracy.

You "respect" it. But is that what you want? A library of recordings you "respect" because of their accuracy?

And as far as "accuracy" goes we need qualifiers to ever say any recording is "accurate." We have to say accurate from a specific location in the hall and accurate on the specific playback gear used to listen to it on.

AND..... there is a whole other aspect to live v. recorded that I have not even gotten into that is huge and really puts the whole idea of accuracy as a goal in question. And that is the visual aspect of live music. It's a fact that we hear what we see. Anticipation bias, sighted bias and the McGurk effect are huge factors in our perceptions of live sound. Huge!!!

OK - If that's true, then I stand corrected [nt], posted on July 30, 2015 at 15:38:16
Chris from Lafayette Audiophile Posts: 26465 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: February 17, 2004 Contributor Since: February 6, 2012

What I LIKE about that Sawallisch/Philadelphia recording. . . , posted on July 30, 2015 at 15:57:51

Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26465
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
Since: February 6, 2012

. . . is that I get a sense of satisfaction, based on my belief (because I don't KNOW for sure) that I'm hearing what was really there (i.e., where the microphones were), captured with a minimum number of microphones, with a minimal amount of processing, etc. And, yes, I often like things and people that I respect. ;-)

You're right that we do need qualifiers, and, as I mentioned when I first broke in to this discussion, much of our sense of accuracy about a recording is actually based on FAITH, since hardly any of us were at the actual sessions where the recording was made, and even if we were there, our ears were not where the microphones were (with the exception of binaural recordings, and even then it's highly unlikely), and, unless we listen to the playback via headphones ourselves, we're getting the mixuture of our room acoustics with the recording acoustics.

I think you're probably right about the visual aspect of live music - and it's funny how a lot of listeners prefer NOT to watch recorded performances on DVD or blu-ray, because they get "distracted" by the visuals. Of course, on rare occasions, I get distracted by the visuals at live concerts and prefer not to watch too! (Not with Yuja however!) But again, the visual aspects are something which could be qualified in the definition.

Just because you might need a lot of qualifiers doesn't mean you can't aim for a certain type of accuracy. ;-)

Yup! [nt] ;-), posted on July 30, 2015 at 16:00:51
Chris from Lafayette Audiophile Posts: 26465 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: February 17, 2004 Contributor Since: February 6, 2012

RE: What I LIKE about that Sawallisch/Philadelphia recording. . . , posted on July 30, 2015 at 19:19:29

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

I am quite happy to let all audiophiles aim for whatever they want to aim for. But I do think "accuracy" and excellence have far less overlap than most audiophiles fully realize and/or would like to believe.

To further explore my point about the visuals. Take imaging. Most of us love it. Most of us love to be able to be transported to a sound space that is completely different than our listening room that has a great sense of width, depth and height. And we mostly love to hear the instruments in very distinct places in that sound stage. And we mostly love to hear them with a sense of body and sense of air around them.

Now let's consider something like a string quartet and how that literally images in a live performance. It really doesn't. We perceive imaging though because we see the musicians playing and we know what each individual instrument looks like and sounds like. So we get the McGurk effect and we see imaging that we fully perceive as hearing. Our eye/brain mechanism does most of the "imaging." Much of the emotional content of the performance comes through the physical playing that we see int he musician's performance too. We loose so much without those visuals. And I think a lot of inaccuracies help compensate for those losses and actually fool most listeners into thinking that they are actually more accurate (lower in added distortion)

IMO I like audiophile imaging and sound stage when listening to recordings. It helps compensate for what I loose by not seeing the musicians play. IMO a literally more accurate audio only rendition of the imaging one would hear in concert without the visuals and the knowledge of where the instruments are placed on the stage would be considered quite subjectively inferior and even less "realistic"

I hear you, but. . . , posted on July 31, 2015 at 00:10:51

Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26465
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
Since: February 6, 2012

. . . if you're sitting close enough (and you're in the center), you'll hear the imaging in a live concert too, with or without the visuals. And of course, the microphones are where your ears could never be - which also helps. And I want an accurate sound from where those microphones are! ;-)

I do agree with you though that if you're out further in the hall, you are not going to get this kind of imaging, and if the microphones were that far out into the hall, we wouldn't hear very good imaging on the recording either - even if the recording were 100% accurate from that location! ;-)

RE: I hear you, but. . . , posted on July 31, 2015 at 05:54:47

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

But you will never get accurate sound from where the microphones are. There is always a mix done in post.

I think you might be surprised just how much imaging we think we hear live is actually what we see live. Are you familiar with the McGurk effect? It's freaky. What you see changes what you hear and knowing about it doesn't make it stop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0

Yes I'd seen that clip before and it's fascinating, posted on July 31, 2015 at 11:54:54

Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26465
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
Since: February 6, 2012

Even beyond the McGurk effect, the whole question of psychology when listening is rarely taken into account by listeners - and particularly by audio reviewers! I also loved the experiment they did with wine, where the results were that the more expensive the wine that the tasters thought they were drinking, the better they thought it tasted, even when it was really the cheapest swill! (Someone should alert the ethernet cable subjectivists to this phenomenon - LOL!)

To your first point, maybe we'll never get completely accurate sound. But, in general and IMHO, the closer we approach accuracy, the better - and that's a worthy goal even though there's an aesthetic component to our listening too. As JM likes to say, YMMV and FWIW.

Vinyl Asylum

The answer to the analog vs digital master debate?

208.54.70.162