Vinyl Asylum Welcome Licorice Pizza (LP) lovers! Setup guides and Vinyl FAQ.

---

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Vinyl Asylum ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

RE: "As far as I'm concerned audio is there to serve my aesthetics not the other way around."

Posted by Analog Scott (A) on July 29, 2015 at 13:08:59

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

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.

Edits: 07/29/15

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Schiit Audio

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---