Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

Return to Propeller Head Plaza

Using Live, Unamplified Music As A Reference Standard, Is It A Subjectivist's Or An Objectivist's Approach?

74.235.214.141
Posted on October 20, 2009 at 13:51:22
thetubeguy1954
Audiophile

Posts: 3149
Location: Orlando, Fla
Joined: January 7, 2001
 I'm curious how those who use live, unamplified, music as a reference standard, view this. Up till now the ONLY people I've ever met who used live, unamplified, music as a reference standard were other subjectivists like myself. However recently I've had someone insist to me those who use live, unamplified, music as a reference standard are really more objectivists then the objectivists who are measurement oriented.

This person said: ---I hear your kind of whining often from those professing the importance of the live reference. What you and other of your ilk seem forget is that such a philosophy requires a more rigorous scientific methodology than does one based on measurement alone. Without such a rigorous methodology you really aren't doing much different than just about any other guy who buys a stereo based on how good it makes his records sound - you live reference guys just use the same set of records as if somehow that gives somekind of greater credibility to what you end up throwing together. I find that intellectually dishonest too!

So I'm curious how those who actually use live, unamplified, music as a reference standard, like I do would respond to such a POV as the one this other poster presented. Do you think his POV is correct and we're more of an objectivist than a measurements oriented objectivist is? Does using live, unamplified, music as a reference standard actually require the rigorous scientific methodology this person proposes? Or is this an objectivist attempting to take a subjectivist approach at audio and make in an objectivist one? I know what I believe but unfortunately I find many times I cannot take the words in my head & heart and write them as eloquently as some others who share the same beliefs as I do. So I'd like to hear what my fellow proponents of using live, unamplified, music as a reference standard have to say on this matter...

TIA

Thetubeguy1954

~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~



RE: Using Live, Unamplified Music As A Reference Standard, Is It A Subjectivist's Or An Objectivist's Approach?, posted on October 21, 2009 at 21:33:58
Presto
Audiophile

Posts: 2946
Location: Canada
Joined: November 10, 2004
 How is listening to unique sonic iterations of instruments - even the same 'type' of instrument - qualify one to decide what an 'instrument should sound like'? If you listen to ten samples of a given instrument, each with a different "brand" of instrument, venue and player you'll get ten different "definitions" of what that instrument should sound like live. All different. So which one is correct then? Which one represents what a "live instrument should sound like". Now record those ten different events - with ten different recording companies. Now you have ONE HUNDRED iterations because each recording company will make a different sounding recording out of each of the events.

The idea that frequenting live events makes one more familiar with the sound of live music is a reasonably acceptable claim. Where is gets foggy is how this makes one inherently better at blindly selecting components in a vortex of trial-and-error iterations while system building. Where it gets even more foggy is how one listening to LIVE music has anything to do with listening to recordings of live music. Want more fog? What about complex soundstages with multi-mics introducing spurious echos and false reveberations into the mix. How about delays and polarity flips and God knows what else that happens during mixing and mastering? What *does* recorded music even have to DO with live events? WHere is the real corollary? Listening to live music often would make one a connoisseur of live performances. Some of the best systems I have heard, assembled by the "best" subjective audiophiles I know, have been done using not live music as reference material - but AUDIOPHILE GRADE RECORDINGS of live material. There is a difference!

SOme of the best sounding systems I have heard are (coincidentally) owned by audiophiles that collect AUDIOPHILE GRADE MUSIC. Hmmm...

I wonder how their top 100 would sound on a lesser system, by their own definition of lesser?

Probably every bit as good - with all those hand picked audiophile grade recordings!

Cheers,
Presto

RE: Using Live, Unamplified Music As A Reference Standard, Is It A Subjectivist's Or An Objectivist's Approach, posted on October 25, 2009 at 16:55:51
morricab
Dealer

Posts: 4456
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 "How is listening to unique sonic iterations of instruments - even the same 'type' of instrument - qualify one to decide what an 'instrument should sound like'?"

And yet, when you hear it through a stereo its nearly always clear its not the real thing. When you know what the real thing should sound like (it is a red herring this "there are so many variations etc." because at least to date when its live you know it instinctively), which comes from repeated exposure...regardless of the instrument quality, you will be able to make better informed decisions about what sounds more or less right in hifi.

"Where is gets foggy is how this makes one inherently better at blindly selecting components in a vortex of trial-and-error iterations while system building. Where it gets even more foggy is how one listening to LIVE music has anything to do with listening to recordings of live music."

No one said it was easy. If it were then we would all pick the right stereo the first time and be done with it. It would be more like television where people don't generally obsess over the kinds of things we do for audio. But it is better to have SOME guide than to have pure relativism that the "if you like it then it must be good" crowd advocate.

I understand, posted on October 25, 2009 at 19:49:23
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 "But it is better to have SOME guide than to have pure relativism that the "if you like it then it must be good" crowd advocate."

Gotta love it coming from an admitted "no pain no gain"er like yourelf! I've considered trying to take your advice to build systems that sound like heaven with some recordings but like rank dog poop with others but by golly I just can't for the life of me understand why anyone would spend more money on a hifi that's not even going sound as good as a boom box or a car stereo with most of the recordings they own.

But alas the fact is that if a system meets my criteria and I like it, it IS good. No I can't claim the Absolute Sound as my ultimate objective reference but neither should most of those who've embarked on the "live reference" methodology due for the most part of haphazard implementations. Nor can I claim measurements insure me an objective standard but then again I don't have to worry about test errors or mistakes in quantification of measurements screwing up my results either.

Nope all I do is listen to a wide range of recordings, diversity in genre as well as recording styles and qualities leads me down the road to finding "good" audio equipment capable of meeting my requirements. Is this "relativism? Maybe but surely achieving satisfying results with the diversity of genre and style has to mean something beyond pure relativism. And further understanding that bad sound is a function of what has been recorded more often than how it was recorded means something too - it means one actually has stereo that is not messing up our ability to make value judgements.








RE: I understand, posted on October 27, 2009 at 14:55:57
morricab
Dealer

Posts: 4456
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 LOL! You are the very definition of a relativist.
RE: I understand, posted on October 27, 2009 at 16:06:35
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 "LOL! You are the very definition of a relativist."

LOL if you must and really I hope you enjoy the laugh! Gotta admit I'm still LMAO at your no pain no gain comments and your admission that your system sounds like dog poop with some recordings that sound great on your boombox or car stereo. That's funny stuff!

You do understand, I hope, that I realize you are one of the few around here that actually have some clue about using the live reference. But just reading your posted results should make it obvious to most audiophiles that yours is a road best not taken.


RE: I understand, posted on October 28, 2009 at 15:21:18
morricab
Dealer

Posts: 4456
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 I am enjoying very beautiful sound right now of Mozart violin concertos in 24/96 flac. Very good recordings and quite realistic sounding...which means they sound very very good indeed.

I am happy for you!, posted on October 29, 2009 at 17:57:24
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 Honest I'm not kidding that's really one of the great things about this hobby. No doubt I would be impressed listening to your music on your system but that hardly would inspire me to change my approach.

Good job!
Agree with Presto 100%, posted on October 24, 2009 at 05:14:13
Halcroman
Audiophile

Posts: 180
Location: Sydney
Joined: February 12, 2007
 Halcroman

RE: Using Live, Unamplified Music As A Reference Standard, Is It A Subjectivist's Or An Objectivist's Approach?, posted on October 21, 2009 at 12:21:32
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 1420
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 I agree with mkullers post below re your question about using unamplified live music as a reference by which to judge a systems recorded event playback capabilities. Identifying live event and played back event types and quantities of differences whether with humans, electronic test equipment or whatever is an objective chore while assigning personal preference value to these differences is a subjective task.

While I love unamplified music events and attend them as often as possible, I feel that there are better live unamplified sound references for me than music since I have much more experience with them. My belief is that any set of simple and complex sounds I'm familiar with are equally valid as calibration tools. I feel that getting a system to be able to fool me with the sound of every day events I am more familiar with will by default do it for the recorded music I love as well. For example: footsteps, a motorcycle being ridden past, doors slamming, wind through the trees, talking humans, birds or crickets chirping etc. I would still consider live unamplified music as one tool in the toolbox but certainly not my only one and perhaps not even the best one considering I have exactly zero recordings of events I've actually attended.

It Is Extremely Difficult To............., posted on October 20, 2009 at 19:57:18
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 ..... measure the frequency response and total harmonic distortion of live unamplified music........ [-;

"This person said: ---I hear your kind of whining often from those professing the importance of the live reference. What you and other of your ilk seem forget is that such a philosophy requires a more rigorous scientific methodology than does one based on measurement alone."

I agree with that statement (except for the "ilk forget" interjection)...... This is the most-important part of "ear training", in my humble opinion.

"Without such a rigorous methodology you really aren't doing much different than just about any other guy who buys a stereo based on how good it makes his records sound - you live reference guys just use the same set of records as if somehow that gives somekind of greater credibility to what you end up throwing together. I find that intellectually dishonest too!"

This would only be true if the listener didn't observe and train his ears to recognize the sonic characteristics of the real thing, especially the characteristics that distinguish it from even the best of home sound reproduction.

In regard to the "intellectually dishonest", it's a conclusion based on what I think for trained listeners is a grossly inaccurate premise.


RE: Using Live, Unamplified Music As A Reference Standard, Is It A Subjectivist's Or An Objectivist's Approach?, posted on October 20, 2009 at 16:07:13
tomservo
Manufacturer

Posts: 2517
Joined: July 4, 2002
 Hi again

A hard question without a simple answer.

If you have ever been around live sound, you are aware that a band playing on stage may use 20 - 24 microphones or even more.
If you watch the VU bank on the mix board, you will see that when the drummer hits a snare drum lets say, you can see all of the mic inputs light up.
Each mic signal captures the drum, each delayed in time, each having a unique signature based on the reflections, time delay, angle and mic type.
When one is mixing a live band, your job is to do “as best you can” and it is NEVER anywhere as good as a studio recording in part because of all the “extra” signal in the mix.

In a studio, the drums and other instruments are usually isolated from each other and then the engineer still does “as best you can” to make a satisfying recording.
Extremely rarely is it possible to capture the original event as it occurred in time.
Nearly all studio recordings are the result of a skilled engineer doing “as best you can” to make a believable image.

In physics, it is known that two specify or measure one plane, takes two points of reference. As you have two ears, the immediate conclusion might be to say you can only hear in one plane as a result, left to right etc.
Your eyes can move so here the two reference points allow for depth perception.
But your ears are more than they seem too.

The frequency response of your ears varies with vertical position, you have “learned” this an interpret it as “height” so to a degree up / down can be ‘simulated” by treating the signal with a general eq that mimics your pina response, IE fake up and down.
Evryones ears are different but there is enough similarity that a few tricks work universally, TV stereo makes good use of these.
This combined with the other things you have learned (and are un-aware of) is how you can also hear “depth” or localize the position front to back of a sound.

The point is, most recordings are at best is sort of a photorealistic painting, NOT as much the real thing and that is before going to the electronics and speakers.

Personally, the huge strength that a recording can have can be achieved at home with a modest amount of gear.
Forget Stereo for now.
If you record with ONE good point source microphone and no processing, you have avoided all the multipath delays and such, your capturing the event from ONE point is space and time.
Not only that, you are present at the original event, unlike a commercial recording, you know what it sounded like because you were there.

As your brain is especially good / evolved for hearing the human voice, this makes an excellent evaluation source as well.
Playing this back through one speaker is boring BUT revealing.
AS I mentioned, you hear X, Y and Z depth because of the brain association.

When you hear one speaker reproducing a voice and close your eyes, you can obviously tell what direction the sound is coming from but hearing how far away it is the key.
All speakers radiate various clues in addition to the signal, the smaller these extra source related clues are, the less able you are to “hear” how far away the speaker is.
The worse a speaker is (the more clues it produces and radiates), the more obvious its position in depth is.
Now, when you switch to Stereo, the less obvious speaker normally makes a much more “real” stereo image (if present in the recording) or stronger the phantom center image is and less audible the left and right speaker are when driven with a mono signal.
Really good speakers are inaudible as the source when in the center and driven in mono.

Of course, being in a room only harms this effect, the more close reflections there are (in addition to the speakers clues), the less strong the center image is.

Other recording formats like head transforms and such all suffer from the fact that they are not picking up the sound from one point in space and so do not preserve a phantom center well. Put some headphones on and try the Harley or train recording on our web site, that microphone thing I am working on is a single point in space array.

Anyway, I hope this makes sense, this is what I think I see as of today haha.
Best,
Tom Danley
I think you missed his point, posted on October 21, 2009 at 10:20:50
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 If you have ever been around live sound, you are aware that a band playing on stage may use 20 - 24 microphones or even more.

Live, unamplified sound has no need for microphones, much less 24 or any notion of "mixing" whatsoever. It is what I'll be hearing tonight over at the local college. The Department of Music is hosting a recital by trumpet, flute and piano playing a variety of pieces by Mendez, Hindeminth, Purcell and Bozza. I assure you there will be no microphones, mixers, amplifiers, or speakers at all. Just live unamplified music in a wonderful acoustic space.

That is what he is talking about.

rw

RE: I think you missed his point, posted on October 21, 2009 at 10:49:24
tomservo
Manufacturer

Posts: 2517
Joined: July 4, 2002
 "That is what he is talking about."

My intention was to clarify why most recordings are NOT the best way to judge faithfulness of reproduction, why they do not represent the "event", starting with a worst case, with an easy to envision example.

Conversely, explaining how your ears work and how essentially anyone can make a recording which is useful making that judgment.

Do try a couple of the recordings i mentioned, see if they don't sound more 'lifelike" than normal.

Actually i do deal with reinforced sound with realism as the goal.
Here is a sample;
Sorry if I misunderstood, posted on October 21, 2009 at 11:04:35
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 My intention was to clarify why most recordings are NOT the best way to judge faithfulness of reproduction...

I presume then you agree that miked, mixed, and amplified musical venues are not ideal reference points, no matter how well executed.

Sorry, but I'm not much of a jazz fan.

rw
RE: Sorry if I misunderstood, posted on October 22, 2009 at 07:51:19
tomservo
Manufacturer

Posts: 2517
Joined: July 4, 2002
 "I presume then you agree that miked, mixed, and amplified musical venues are not ideal reference points, no matter how well executed."

Hi
Well not exactly.
If one wants to compare something with the goal of determining if it is the most realistic, you pretty much need to have the original of what whatever it is to compare to the reproduction of it.

With most recordings, what one is actually doing is making a single ended judgment based on how pleasing the reproduction seems based on your imagined rendition of the original event.
A tough call given the recording is a "work of art", the most pleasing rendition the engineer could compose.
Maybe like judging which painting is most real without seeing the original scene that was painted.

So far as real, being up close to un-amplified instruments gives the best chance to hear what they are really doing.

So far as evaluating a recording /electronics chain/ reproducer, music may not even be the "best" material as it is mostly harmonic in structure meaning some added harmonics may sound acceptable or even more pleasing than the actual original spectra.
Sounds in nature on the other hand are what your ears are more tuned into and are mostly sounds which are NOT harmonic in structure so an addition of either even or odd harmonics changes the sound away from "real"..

While the home listener would find it very hard to record a musical event that would be as satisfying as a good commercial recording, the home listener is easily able to make a one mic recording which captures an actual event more realistically than most commercial recordings AND there is the plus that you were present at the original event and have that as a reference.
The only problem is, it is not in stereo, attempting to produce "stereo" is a primary departure from reality the way it is done.

I'm not a big Jazz fan, nor do i live in Europe but i do enjoy hearing from people that use the stuff i design and are as pleased as these folks were.
Lastly, no problem, none of this may have that been clear in my post unless you had read other posts to Tubeguy about this same problem using recorded music.
Best,
Tom
There is an irony, posted on October 22, 2009 at 08:11:08
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 ...you pretty much need to have the original of what whatever it is to compare to the reproduction of it.

If it's popular music to which you refer, the LAST thing I want is the *original" event if that means a typical "live" concert: 130 db of low resolution monophonic mud. I gave up going to such back in the 70s. My hearing is all the better for it.

making a single ended judgment based on how pleasing the reproduction seems based on your imagined rendition of the original event.

To an extent. I've heard a truly live drum kit on a stage before. I've heard solo vocalists on a stage before. I can tell if one is standing at far left of stage or far right. I've heard an electric guitar played through a simple amp behind the individual on a stage before. There can be a reality other than the dreadful result we normally hear. While I listen to a wide range of recording quality, I don't use any massively mixed pop music to ascertain the ultimate imaging capability of a speaker.

rw

RE: There is an irony, posted on October 22, 2009 at 08:39:26
tomservo
Manufacturer

Posts: 2517
Joined: July 4, 2002
 "If it's popular music to which you refer, the LAST thing I want is the *original" event if that means a typical "live" concert: 130 db of low resolution monophonic mud. I gave up going to such back in the 70s. My hearing is all the better for it."

Agreed; much of popular music when live is closer to a musical chainsaw than even a studio version of same. Even the good recording engineers are sad about the the past decades race to zero dynamic range in order to make the "loudest" CD. UGH!!!! Convert the fireworks recording to an MP3 even at 320k and you ruin it.

"To an extent. I've heard a truly live drum kit on a stage before. I've heard solo vocalists on a stage before. I can tell if one is standing at far left of stage or far right. I've heard an electric guitar played through a simple amp behind the individual on a stage before. There can be a reality other than the dreadful result we normally hear"

You know, if you were to do some casual recording your self, you would find it is an excuse to be up close to the live event, although drums alone can be very loud, at least they are uncompressed.
My favorite things are recording small acoustic groups, on of my favorites are two women that play at church occasionally, piano and violin. The sense of space and the purity of sound are a delight to listen to.

Your speakers have a large near field which is a very good thing, if your at all inclined, look into casual recording using your computer etc, i would bet in not too long you will find things that makes the hair on the back of your neck stand on end (in a good way).

One reason (the other is no patent coverage yet) i used "natural sounds" on the recordings at the web site is that I was there and they are not easy to reproduce.
I have permission to use an Irish folk band i recorded a while back but it hasn't been linked at the website yet.
Slightly different approach, posted on October 22, 2009 at 09:08:03
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 The sense of space and the purity of sound are a delight to listen to.

As is listening to wifey play her baby grand in the living room. As is hearing small ensembles at the local university (where she teaches). :)

i would bet in not too long you will find things that makes the hair on the back of your neck stand on end (in a good way).

There are recordings I've had for thirty years which do that. I listen to a number of small acoustic ensembles on the Windham Hill label. And I've heard several of their artists *truly* live devoid of compromised sound reinforcement. Liz Story, Mark Isham, and George Winston have played at the Woodruff Arts Center. Alex DeGrassi played at a church in Atlanta which was a stage in the round. My favorite Liz Story album, Solid Colors was recorded "direct to two-track using a Studer A80 VU MKIII half-inch recorder at 30 ips through a Harrison board. No noise reduction, limiting, or compression was used". Telarc has released countless wonderful recordings using minimal miking techniques and little or no processing. I played a minor role in the first Atlanta Symphony Orchestra recording of The Firebird. Those are the kinds of recordings I use to evaluate audio gear. Then I listen to whatever I please, multi-tracked or not.

rw

You're on to something..., posted on October 20, 2009 at 14:57:02
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 15929
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 ...comparing what you hear to an objective standard - the sound of live unamplified music in real space - and describing the deviations is *objective*.

Saying what of that you like or don't is *subjective*.

RE: You're on to something..., posted on October 20, 2009 at 19:22:30
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 7558
Joined: June 20, 2000
 mkuller
"...comparing what you hear to an objective standard - the sound of live unamplified music in real space - and describing the deviations is *objective*."

Few people have actually compared their systems to live music in real time. Even so, such comparisons are not directly relevant to how a system will perform at home, which is likely acoustically much different from the original recording or recording venue.

Descriptions of subjective experiences are always selective and that involves subjectivity.

What is reputed to have been one of the best systems for recreating the illusion of a live performance was designed by James D. Johnston, a staunch advocate of subjective testing (that is, DBTs) when he was with AT & T. Link below to an article by Wes Phillips.

"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
RE: You're on to something..., posted on October 20, 2009 at 21:33:38
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 "Descriptions of subjective experiences are always selective and that involves subjectivity."

When referring to "live references" we are usually referring to the sound of live accoustical instruments and not an experience. I submit that the importance of trained listeners is that they will all tend to hear the same things, ie. the sound of the instruments, independent of the experience of listening to the sounds.

"Few people have actually compared their systems to live music in real time. Even so, such comparisons are not directly relevant to how a system will perform at home, which is likely acoustically much different from the original recording or recording venue."

When it comes to proponents of the live reference it is exactly that truth which they attempt to minimize. It goes far beyond simply being a trained listener.
RE: You're on to something..., posted on October 21, 2009 at 11:55:20
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 "Few people have actually compared their systems to live music in real time. Even so, such comparisons are not directly relevant to how a system will perform at home, which is likely acoustically much different from the original recording or recording venue."

When it comes to proponents of the live reference it is exactly that truth which they attempt to minimize. It goes far beyond simply being a trained listener.

In the past I have done this with excellent results. I was using a single piano (Steinway B) and playing back in the same room in which the recording was made. There was no significant difference in sound quality between the live recording and the playback. The principle difference was that the sound came from a different place (piano vs. center of speakers). Apart from that, NADA, but it did take quite a few rounds of tweaking microphone position, speaker position, gain and polarity to get this result.

This quality of playback can be expected on small ensembles that would fit comfortably in one's living room. At the time I had a large space big enough for the piano and perhaps one or two other instruments. I was using AKG C451E cardioid microphones and Snell A/III speakers. I had more than enough headroom to reproduce the music played (Beethoven, Bach and Brahms).

Anyone using live references needs to have a tremendous amount of experience attending live concerts by a range of musical groups in a variety of venues and seating positions. There is simply too much variation from concert to concert, hall to hall and seat to seat to get an adequate perspective from a small experience set. Similarly, using a collection of reference recordings to calibrate a playback system requires dozens of recordings. Failure to understand this will result in judgments which do not translate well to other recordings. One reason for this is that there can be corresponding "errors" in record and playback that completely offset. As a simple example, if one tunes the system to sound good on LPs recorded with Columbia equalization it will not sound right on LPs recorded with RIAA equalization, and conversely.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

Nice!, posted on October 21, 2009 at 15:59:50
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 It's nice to hear someone chime in who seems to understand more about this way of evaluating hifi performance. By choice I don't attempt to do things this way because I just don't know or understand enough about what it is that I'd actually being doing.

If done correctly it ensures one choses audio equipment that performs best. However being done correctly is no small task. That being said if one is interested most in reproducing the sound of a violin, or an oboe, or bowed stringed instruments, or whatever, this is probably the best way to get a system that works best for that purpose. But without a comprehensive test set, one will most likely end up with a system that performs wonderfully with some recordings and mostly unsatisfactorily with others.

Me I don't think it's easy to find equipment that sounds great on wide range of musical styles and recording qualities. Trying to maintain an objective standard is just too much effort and for me the rewards just aren't worth it. I've found it much easier, but still not particularly easy, to build systems that simply meet my far lower standard.

RE: Nice!, posted on October 21, 2009 at 17:02:31
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 Yes, it is hard to set up a system properly by ear. Extremely hard and time consuming. But this kind of attention to detail is worthwhile because it pays big dividends on sound quality, much greater than spending lots of money on equipment, IMO. Getting the room setup right can be the most critical part, including finding the most suitable speaker and listening position(s) and applying various acoustic treatments, which may be simple (adjusting drapes) or specialized (e.g. tube traps or other acoustic treatment). I've been working with various audio equipment for over 50 years so I have a certain amount of experience.

I am not one to obsess over minor differences in frequency response that can be adjusted by raising or lowering the drapes, repositioning the speakers, moving around in the room, or even making a small change in volume. Once one appreciates how all of these things can affect sound as much or more than component or cable changes, it is very hard to obsess over minute differences. Notice them, yes, but consider them important, not necessarily. (It is different if one is more concerned with ego gratification than music. I would like to hope that I have progressed beyond that stage.)

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

I'm aware..., posted on October 20, 2009 at 21:11:59
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 15929
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 ...he's your idol and I read about his Deathstar surround mics.

I've disagreed with him many times.

Still, the only thing we as audiophiles have to compare objectively to our home music systems is the live music experience.

The more live music you listen to, the better a reference it becomes.

Having a few good reference recordings can be a good *objective* reerence as well.

The only better reference would be a recording of live music you've made.

The hobby of audio requires an objective reference if *musical accuracy* is your goal.

Perhaps you're talking about something else.

Page processed in 0.101 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ] [ Go Green ] [ Take5 ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]