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 19:38:43

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 19:11:12:

""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.

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

Parts Connexion

---

[ 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 ]

---