|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
65.143.8.191
Stereophile this month has an interesting article about two of the different camps of Audiophilia.The Accuracy (Truth) camp and the Beauty (I prefer this sound even though it is not faithful to the source) camp.
It used to go without saying that the the words Hi-Fidelity meant "faithful to the source," however, judging by some of the equipment that exhibits large variations in frequency response, distortion, etc. and that is still well reqarded by a large part of the Audio community, perhaps that definition needs to be changed.
I would put myself in the "Accuracy" camp, even with all its warts, not that I can't see the validity of the thinking of the folks that are in the "beauty" camp.
I believe that the beauty should be in the source, and if it isn't, it shouldn't be artificially imposed by a piece of audio gear, be it amplification or speaker.
Regards, Larry
"This ain't the only place on earth---but it's the only place that I prefer. Where the Stars and Stripes, and the Eagle fly."
Follow Ups:
Maybe only the mastering engineer?The "truth" is a subjective illusion at home:
With two-channel at its best, it may sound like a band is playing in your room.
With surround sound at its best, it may feel like you're listening to a band playing in another venue.
If "beauty" means coloration, I'll take truth. That said, why can't you have both? I've heard components that do a great job of straddling that fence between sonic romance and accuracy. I don't think you necessarily have to have one to the exclusion of the other.
Where do you sit in the concert hall? In the first few rows (not far from where the recording mikes tend to sit), where the attacks on instruments are strikingly clear, where the blending of instruments has not yet really taken place, where concert hall resonances have not yet had their effect, and where the air and hall have not yet begun to attenuate the treble? Halfway back, where attacks sound less assertive, individual instrumental voices have blended, and the room's boundaries have begun to play their filling and warming roll? Or toward the rear, where the hall and resonance and the audience itself have warmed and mellowed the whole? We call upfront "accurate;" halfway back "neutral" or "balanced" or "natural;" and all the way back mellow and/or romantic. Beauty is where we prefer to sit.
(nt)
All audio components have compromises, even SOTA equipment.Within the criteria for absolute accuracy (truth), there is some wiggle room for tweaking and adjustments toward beauty.
As an example, it is quite a feat to achieve a multi-way loudspeaker frequency response to within +/- 1 dB across a given bandwidth, this is considered a VERY flat response. But within that +/- 1 dB, is room to wiggle, to tweak the response one way or another.
Let's say that on one speaker, the woofer is slightly higher in level than the tweeter, still within plus or minus 1 dB, but the woofer is about 1/2 dB "hot" compared to the tweeter being about 1/2 dB "weak".
The overall tonal flavor of this system will be on the "warm" side of absolute neutrality. On SS based systems, notorious for a cold and/or analytical sound, this would provide a very nice deviation from "absolute neutrality". However, this same speaker system, voiced the opposite way, with the woofer 1/2 dB "weak", and the tweeter 1/2 dB "hot", would sound very clear and defined on a typical tube based system. For a variation on this theme, substitute vinyl for tubes, and CDP/DVDP for SS, similar kind of reaction.
Of course, there are those who will claim that the speaker should be balanced with the woofer and tweeter at the same overall level, none of this 1/2 dB up or down business, in the interests of "truth".
This begs the question: which truth? The truth of a flat frequency response? This ignores other factors such as the distortion each driver has, and how it affects the tonal balance due to the higher order distortion products causing the sound to become brighter sounding, or even harsh.
In this case, the tweaking becomes even more subtle and tailored to the situation, and using my loudspeaker example, the bottom range of the tweeter can be made slightly "weak", and the top range of the woofer as well. This would tend to compensate somewhat for the distortion in each driver, allowing the overall tonal balance to come out sounding neutral or totally flat, despite the non-flat-as-it-could-be FR.
Which one is more truthful, the totally flat loudspeaker that sounds bright and a bit brash, or the tonally flat sounding loudspeaker that measures not as flat, but still within a very tight tolerance?
None of the parts within the components we have to work with are perfect, none of the processes in audio are perfect, they ALL have problems, distortions, deviations from absolute accuracy.
In my opinion, the art of audio design is blending all those less than perfect parts into an as truthful as possible whole, while not ignoring the beauty; this is what separates the mediocre from the finest.
I could only add that early room reflections can significantly change the sound of a speaker, if ignored, and usually not for the better.
The beauty of truth, unknown to right-wing fruitcakes.
I think we can't divide systems to these two categories, because comparing truth and beauty is like comparing father and mother.
Which is better? There is no priority. We need both parts.The purpose of music is manyfold; the lowest priority is to reproduce the same sound that a guy heard at a specific time, or to reproduce something in a way that when we hook up a machine to measure certain qualities we get the same data when we hook it up when it was recorded. Where does this lead to???
It's a great game, and a quest for reproducibitliy with certain equipment in a specific acoustic environment. The same thing as trying to clone things - a great achievement indeed.I beleive the highest purpose music a recording can play is to convey the message of the composer (or band, or singer, etc...) Looking at music as a means of passtime or enjoyment is missing out the most of it - same thing as using a violin bow to scratch our backs instead of playing the violin. At this level any kind of truthfulness or beauty is completely futile, as it does not add up to our integrity. We could have gone to play golf, or watched TV instead.
When we get the message of the composer and learn from it, that's when recording & playback technology has reached its goal.If you want to reach a place, it does not matter whether you walk, hitchike, own a Bentley, a ship, or an airplane as long as you get there........
Long live DIY-audio!
Janos
between two options that are clearly not mutually exclusive?Which would you choose between a photograph and a painting?
Is one better, more accurate than the other, or just more beautiful?Can accuracy in audio become sterile?
Is beauty just warm and fluffy?
Would you prefer a skinny fashion model with no breasts or Raquel Welsh?Maybe we should consider the fact that the product of accuracy x beauty is reality=truth.
Would you say that Kokoshka's work is more real than David's? I would, even though you could argue that David painted in a much more technically 'accurate' manner. Kokoshka captured something much more of the life, spirit and humanity of his subjects in his pictures. Which also have a certain life in and of themselves.
This I call reality, and it is much closer to real Truth than pure accuracy or simple beauty.
That is what I expect in my audio system.
.
Neither in my opinion. Music reproduction is an abstraction starting with the mike used to record the sound. If live is the reference, reproducing that event via Audio is impossible, but a nice postcard of the event.From the first Edison tests, people have said that what they heard was "real". From Edison onward the industry assured us that reproduction equalled reality, the goal was reachable - and at hand. Nothing has changed about this search for the best illusion.
Since fidelity is impossible, if you don't have a feeling for beauty then the search for accuracy can easily lead to sterile, detailed, one-dimensional system; like a big colorless sheet of sound. On the other hand the only reason I became interested in Audio was because I eventually realized how much detail/nuance I was missing in the recordings I loved, and that detail hit me emotionally.
In some ways my pre-audio systems were more "accurate". Sounds can get obscured in live performance, you can't hear everything. So the heighten (detailed) reproduction is not necessarily more accurate - even if you believe accuracy to live is possible. Like fingers on the fretboard.
All the rest is part of a subjective abstraction.
.
nt
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Truth and Beauty as Platonic Forms, or ideals, that all earthly things are mere reflections of...
Makes you think twice about the true value of audio.
Saul
nt
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
I subscribe to S'Phile and enjoy the writing and the music and equipment reviews but come on guys lets get honest. A debate about accuracy versus euphonia from a pack of characters that think the only trustworthy measurement tool is human hearing and that comparing two musical experiences serially without visual cues is completely ineffective. Just how the hell are they determinining what is accurate? By comparing today's stereo listening to last month's live concert? This is just a difference of opinion about two particular flavors of sound. Accuracy hasn't got much to do with it.
Nobody really knows what an "accurate" audio system would actually sound like. One may think he's listening to an accurate system... But since most recordings don't come close to live sound, there really is no true standard to evaluate such performance. (I often want to think my system approaches "live," but when I attend a concert where the sound is right, no audio system comes close.)And one man's definition of "accuracy" may be totally different from another's. I personally don't equate an "analytical" sound to accuracy, simply because music itself isn't analytical.
.........Hi Todd,……..IMHO the only way to know if a recoding is “accurate” is to be present when it is recorded.
IMHO there are two main ‘types’ of live music and countless subtypes.
*1* Live un-amplified music
*2* Live amplified music
Each of the above types of music can be played in;
• Large theatre/concert hall
• Smaller theatre/hall
• Small club/music room/bar
• Dedicated studio
• Open air in a stadium
• Open air in the open
• Open air on a road/concourse/ paved area
• Open air on lawn/dirt/sand etc.I have heard music played in all of the above situations and it all sounds vastly different to me in each situation, but of course it is all “live” music.
My above example shows sixteen different types of live music without going into the relationship of where the listener is compared to the band. IE – front/back/side/ centre/ above/below/ etc etc.
Also, so called musical “accuracy” can only be determined if you KNOW what the music is meant to sound like AND sound like in your own room. –example – If you place a 5 or 6 piece band, of any persuasion, in a small domestic living room (12’ x 14’) it will in most circumstances sound pretty damn awful. My point is – what the hell is accurate and to who and where? – I suspect it means countless different things to countless people.
This type of thread can be interesting but never really achieves or solves anything.
Just my two cents worth,
Enjoy your evening.
Smile
Sox
A common misconception. Even if one was present at a recording session, one is not listening at the microphone position, nor does one hear in the same way microphones do, nor do microphones have a brain to sort out direct vs. reflected, nor are we likely to hear the same kind of imaging produced by what? A coincident pair, a near-coincident pair, ORTF, two spaced omnis, three spaced omnis, spaced omnis with outrigger cardiods, multiple coincident pairs, multiple near-coincident pairs, all of the above with a few spot mics, close multimiking?We cannot get to the event itself in a recording; we can only get to a version of the event. That's why, despite the fact that hearing real instruments in real spaces often is a useful thing, the concept of the "absolute sound" is mere flummery.
Even if we carefully replicated the recording engineer's monitoring setup, we cannot even get to the sound he heard while recording it: different room, different RFI/EMI environment, different level of AC grunge. Meanwhile, monitoring setups are chosen for reasons other than pleasing, or even accurate, sound.
No, after all this time on both sides of the microphone, I've come to the conclusion that the best we can do is strive for accuracy to the recording . The more accurate our systems are to the recordings we play, the greater the likelihood we will extract the maximum information from them, which in turn means the greater the likelihood we will increase our listening enjoyment, and perhaps even suspend disbelief once in a while.
Now, if folks want euphony from their systems--having every recording "sound good"--that doesn't bother me a bit, whatever floats your boat. But any coloration or other audio-type artifact will overlay itself on all recordings, and some will benefit while others won't.
If, say, someone wants "rich-sounding lows and mids" then he will have them, but he will be missing out. Threadbare recordings will sound about right, and he will make the bad recording sound good. But an accurate recording will sound a bit plummy, and an overly-rich recording will sound bloated and slow.
See the problem? Insert any audiophile concern into the above equation and you get the same results.
To an extent this means we have to put up with less than stellar sound from lousy recordings, but it's been my experience that the better the gear (particularly the front end) the less objectionable these recordings become. And since we buy the music rather than the recordings, we are stuck with what we have.
Luckily, audio gives us choices and folks will choose what pleases them.
The only thing I would add is that it's a mistake to think that musical sound has to be beautiful or "musical". Composers and artists use sound expressively, and some musical sounds can be downright harsh or ugly. The range of things that music can express is basically the range of things that we can feel, and not all of them are pretty or beautiful.It's a mistake to try and make everything beautiful, or to try to make everything reflect any single quality you like. We need to retain the full range of qualities expressed in the performance if we possibly can or we lose some of what is contained in the music. Making everything "beautiful" can't help but lose some of what is in a lot of music.
......G,day,…….. You are entitled to come to any conclusion you wish. But surely you are not so conceited as to be suggesting that any one else’s view, belief or understanding of the subject is wrong or invalid?
You say \\\the best we can do is strive for accuracy to the recording/// IMHO if one doesn’t have the faintest idea of what the recording is “meant” to sound like then I fail to see how you can strive for something that is unknown. Unless of course you blindly accept that the recording is good and exactly how it “should” be?
I can get out my trusty vintage b-flat euphonium and play a solo of “From the Halls of Montezuma” and have it recorded. I could have my solo performance recorded in;
*1* A dedicated studio
*2* My listening room at home
*3* My tin machinery shed with concrete floor
*4* My fishing boat floating around the Pacific Ocean
*5* The middle of my golf driving range.Now please believe me when I tell you that a normal conversation sounds different in each of those environments. Obviously with the vastly different acoustical properties of each venue that is to be expected.
If I send you a recording of my performance will you know if what you hear has any correlation whatsoever with what I ‘actually played’ ?? Or is that irrelevant to you?
IMHO you will of course be able to determine if YOU like what you hear but you won’t have the faintest damn clue as to if the recording I sent you is me playing or is even a real instrument or if the recording is anything like what I played without being processed. You simply have no idea how my euphonium sounds and how I play it.
My point? – If you were here when the recording was done you would have a much better idea if the recording you play on your system at home is anything like what you heard here.
IMHO this is not a right or wrong discussion. It is about beliefs, impressions, comprehensions, definitions and perspectives.
Your point about microphones, placement and mixing is of course valid but just how valid or invalid the point is depends of course on how the individual’s perspective relates to your own.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Smile
Sox
"But surely you are not so conceited as to be suggesting that any one else’s view, belief or understanding of the subject is wrong or invalid?"Just where on earth did you get that? To quote myself: "that doesn't bother me a bit, whatever floats your boat. . . " and "Luckily, audio gives us choices and folks will choose what pleases them."
Are you responding to what I said or what you think I said? You brought "right or wrong" into the discussion--I left the door open for anyone to do anything they like in audio and more power to them.
"IMHO if one doesn’t have the faintest idea of what the recording is “meant” to sound like then I fail to see how you can strive for something that is unknown. Unless of course you blindly accept that the recording is good and exactly how it “should” be?"
You are correct: You cannot know how the recording sounds. However, it's relatively easy to determine your system's accuracy to recordings in general just by listening.
The long version is below, but here's the short version. Since any coloration or other inaccuracy will overlay every recording you listen to, the system or DUT that reveals the most differences between recordings must, logically, be the most accurate. It's letting the most information through, and not putting it's own spin on every disc.
In other words, you listen to one DUT and it makes all recordings sound warm; you plug in a different DUT and it reveals some recordings to be warm, others threadbare, others just right. The latter is the more accurate, and more likely to give satisfaction in the long run. And all this without having a clue as to how a recording actually "sounds."
Now, calm down and have a nice read. As I said before--I thought quite clearly, but apparently not--you can have your audio any way you like. The fact remains, however, that even if you recorded yourself on known equipment in a known room, you can't know how the recording sounds. And as I ineptly explained (and the article does better), it doesn't matter.
...........I got ‘that’ because I said in my initial post \\\IMHO the only way to know if a recoding is “accurate” is to be present when it is recorded/// And YOU replied \\\No, alas. A common misconception///As far as I am concerned ‘IMHO’ is exactly that. From my perspective and context of what I mean I stand by my belief.
So hence, my choice of words when I ASKED you the question.
You say \\\Now, calm down and have a nice read/// Your comment seems a little condescending to me and based on an ignorant premise. (I am calm and as cool as a cucumber)
You say \\\The fact remains, however, that even if you recorded yourself on known equipment in a known room, you can't know how the recording sounds.///
Of course, from one particular perspective and context that is true. However, from the perspective and context I am talking about it is also a fact that I can send you a recording of an unknown artist playing an unknown instrument in an unknown room using unknown recording equipment and even if YOU conclude you like the recording and the sound; YOU will still have no idea, other than a guess, if the sound of the recording has any relationship whatsoever to the actual sound of the performance.I think it is obvious we are looking at the subject from totally different perspectives. I think I will now go for a float in my boat. :o)
Smile
Sox
since few audiophiles will ever have the opportunity to attend a recording session, much less compare what they hear in the hall to the live mic feed or the master tape/disc.I apologize, for I seem to have given offense: rest assured, none was intended.
I'm afraid I must apologize once more, for I will not adopt the habit of referencing my observations, based as they are on over 30 years on both sides of the microphones, as "opinions" or "beliefs," since they are neither.
............My point is certainly not moot in the context of my initial post that was clearly prefaced “IMHO” and relates to my own experiences.
Using your context I could just as easily say your point regarding “on over 30 years on both sides of the microphones” is moot in relation to the context few audiophiles would be in that position.No apology necessary. I would only ask that you not be condescending.
I don’t know if the last sentence of your post is sincere or sarcastic. Either way, it is irrelevant in the context of my initial post.
Lastly, my views are based on my own experiences of performing, with the performances being recorded, at the Sydney Opera House & the Sydney Town Hall. Also, I have had many bands and musos jam, play, perform & record here on my property.
I will be the first to admit that the small anecdotal evidence I have seen and heard first hand is in noway definitive. However, it certainly, in my belief, gives me some basis for having a humble opinion on the subject based on my own experiences.Enjoy your week.
Smile
Sox
"A common misconception. Even if one was present at a recording session, one is not listening at the microphone position, nor does one hear in the same way microphones do, nor do microphones have a brain to sort out direct vs. reflected, nor are we likely to hear the same kind of imaging produced by what?"ZINGER! NAILED IT! BOO-YA!
Agree 100%. I would have used more words to try and say the same thing. Nicely done.
Cheers,
You never known exactly what the recording engineer had in mind, but I want to hear what I think real life sounds like. I thought that was what everyone wants.
________
"Occasionally we list eccentrically, all sense of balance gone."
If the search is for beauty, that's fine for any individual. But for every individual it can be different. And if the search is for beauty then your not interested in fidelity which is how this fun hobby began. And if a system always sounds good then it must be colored because software varies from superb to very bad. A system that professes a semblance of fidelity must sound bad sometimes. And since beauty varies for all of us there is no standard and in a world of repetition that only works for single custom products. Fidelity is the only common factor. Of course in an imperfect world it's almost impossible to cleanly define fidelity but it is the only search that makes any sense.
if you mean a poorly mastered/transferred recording, that's one thing, but even these can be good if the music is engaging and has artistic quality. Some of the best perfromances of truely great music were recorded well before anything we would now consider High Fidelity even existed.That doesn't make those recordings bad...just lower fidelity.
A good quality system will make those recordings that much more enjoyable too. IMO.
Why would anyone want to pay for and live with something they dislike? Isn't life too short?
know the truth. The Dalai Lama points out that there are many paths to truth.
Jesus said there was only one.
all of the books that portend to record Jesus's words were written substantially after his death.
Did God really say...?
x
nt
Unless you where there at the studio or where the mics where at the concert good luck. Even then how could you remember what each sound was like. On almost all of my albums you can hear instruments a little to lean, fat, or just right from cut to cut. Which one is right. In regards to this measurement thing why are the people in the know going back to those crappy tubes.Before all the math guys going crazy on me think about this. What if by getting the perfect sine wave (as we know it) we screw up 100 things we can not measure yet. Has science and technology come to the end of expansion and understanding.
In the final game it is about what it sounds like. Most systems I have heard at high end stores are just wrong. The tone is not even close. Way to bright. Bass doing one thing the rest of the music doing something else. I knew this long before I started building all my own stuff.
So ask yourself a question. Would you want the system that make the piano sound like a piano regardless of the measurements or that nice graph system that did not? So give me tubes, transformers, chokes, albums, and all the rest of that old crap. Call it beauty or hi fi, measure it, do what you will. At the end of the day it will make you rock or cry like real live music!!!
...
What I look forward to in my system is being able to kick off my shoes and wash away the working day. To be enveloped in a system that does a little bit of it all well enough while involving me emotionally to take me to that special place, where the performance is rendered in truth of instrumental tone along with vocal presence, dynamics and soundstage recreation, so put me in the beauty camp. However; great performances wouldnt exist if it werent for truth both in the studio{ I think Bob Ludwigs Rolling Stones SACDs} as well as the playback chain as Ive heard analytical systems that entertain as well. But for me its all about enjoyment and involvement so when my system takes the snapshot I find myself to involved with the picture to spend too much time fussing,by the way good thread as I enjoyed the article from my monthly Stereophile as well.Regards Tim W.
Truth, what is the truth? How can we expect to know the truth when it is travelling through so many variables, from microphone -----to speaker. Beauty is an emotion, if you enjoy the music through products you have assembled then that is the beauty. Spending more on expensive equipment may produce better hi fi but does that mean better music?. Assemble components that enhance your musical pleasure and forget the truth.
Why is it that the microphone is not investigated more?
But I don't believe that it is one or the other. I beleive that every component in my system would test well. I don't have components that are built to sound a certain way to make music sound good at the expense of truth. In fact, my system is very transparent and revealing, but it manages that while still sounding good. To purposefully put together a lean mean sounding machine that only the finest sweetest sounding recordings would be bearable would be a waste of money in my opinion. I listen to music for pleasure. This is a hobby. It's supposed to be fun. Maybe S&M types see it differently.
Things can be done to make a poor recording more pretty, but these same measures applied to the very fine recording will sap its beauty. The finest recordings are best served only by the most accurate reproduction.
I agree. I have (mostly) tube equipment and gravitated towards a more accurate sound, finding it more natural and musically satisfiying.
`
Once subjectivism becomes the standard, there effectively is no standard, every opinion is worth as much as every other opinion and a pocket radio is as valuable as the most elaborate state of the art sound system. From a commercial point of view, this allows for an infinite variety of product each able to claim with equal validity that it is the best. And it lets engineers off the hook by never having their feet held to the fire because they have designed "inaccurate" equipment since one man's intolerable distortion is another's beautiful sound. Of course, based on the cataleptic state of the art which has failed miserably to advance very much in decades, this might be the best course of action to advocate for those who want to stay in business. After all, what other justification can they offer for new products and high prices if they don't have any substantiable claims to more accurately performing models?
> Once subjectivism becomes the standard, there effectively is no standard, every opinion is worth as much as every other opinion...>This is the case and always will be because:
1. no component or system is totally 'accurate', and
2. they all vary from perfect 'accuracy' in different ways and to varying degrees.> From a commercial point of view, this allows for an infinite variety of product each able to claim with equal validity that it is the best.>
True, since every component design and every system is a series of trade-offs.
So maybe I chose dynamic 'accuracy' over ultimate timbral 'accuracy'.
Whose system is more 'accurate' and who gets to decide?
As far as my system is concerned, MY opinion IS worth more than yours, or anyone else's for that matter.
Good to see you using the word hobby. It goes with horse very neatly.When audio becomes a world shattering, life threatening imperative that can only be solved with a DBT I'll join you. In the meantime beauty will do nicely.
I will most certainly not use the simplistic criteria of low THD and an equalized "flat", yet totally lifeless speaker to make that statement.There is far more to the musical experience than mathematical equations.
rw
When you can't tell the difference blinfolded, then the reproduction is accurate. In this day and age, we aren't even close to daring such comparisons because most equipment would fall embarrassingly flat on its face.
"When you can't tell the difference blinfolded, then the reproduction is accurate."
but, the RECORDING is another form of interpretation that further prevents the playback system from achieving a real instrument accuracy.There is only subjectivity here, manufacturers, and recording producer's INTERPRETATIONS of accuracy.
Heck, accuracy can't even be defined. And different people hear differently, (someone can have an ear infection when listening).
And, someone who plays, or hears a Stradavarius everyday will be able to discern that violins ACCURATE signature better than someone like me, who has little or no experience.
I agree that very, very, many systems would fall short of, (accuracy; by whatever definition), reproducing a complex instrument; even if the (idiosyncratic) recording were not a factor...
"Swimming in the river that floods the neighborhood, I could call to you, but it would do no good"
Soundmind:As I said, music is beauty. Reproduction of music is truth.
If the frequency response of your speakers has glaring humps and dips then the timbral 'signature' of the instruments is altered. It's not necessary going to result in a TERRIBLE sound - heck it still may be very pleasing. Especially if one does not know the 'correct' timbre of that intrument for lack of experience!
But this does not mean that meeting specs alone is the be-all-end-all.
In fact, I bet instead of seeking gear with good specs that sounds good and synergizes well, its JUST AS EASY to find gear with good specs that does NOT sound as good and does NOT synergize well.
This music thing is a human experience - and I believe that it goes beyond meeting published engineering specifications. Like two people with the same IQ have different personalities, two pieces of gear which measure almost identically can have different 'characters'.
Cheers,
I will be the first to agree that the methods of measurement we have today are very inadequate to describe the capabilities and shortcomings that are germane to evaluating sound recording and reproduction equipment. They are inhereted from a far simpler time when they showed us differences in more primitive equipment. By those standards, equipment which is textbook perfect is not adequate in itself to satisfy the requirements of subjectively accurate sound reproduction. There is much about temporal and spatial aspects of sound as it is perceived which we do not know and for which the systems of recording and playback are totally inadequate to satisfy. The basic research has not yet been done. Even within the limited paradyme of what we do have, we can't reliably correlate the objective lab tests we perform with subjective experience with them. Don't look for answers to these issues from the people who offer the current crop of solutions, they aren't even asking the right questions and they certainly don't have a clue as to the right answers.
Soundmind:Defining "this hobby" for a second, we are talking about PLAYBACK of recorded material. We buy the players, the wires, the speakers and provide the room. We have NO CONTROL over how the recording process is capturing the live performances.
First of all, not all recordings are live. If people ONLY listen to live recordings, that is THEIR preference but I highly doubt this represents the majority of music lovers and audiophiles.
Secondly, you seem to allude to the concept that "one's choices in stereo components" have the greatest bearing on whether or not a recording will sound 'perfectly' live or not. I think that this is completely false, although it is a very common misconception.
There are soom very good reasons why you don't hear what you hear at a live performance when you listen to a RECORDING of it at home:
a)you are listening through MICROPHONES
b)microphones are placed differently than the human ears
c)very often more than TWO microphones are used - so the recording is NOT A STEREOPHONIC CAPTURE OF A LIVE SOUNDSTAGE with respect to a specific listening position.
d)even if two mics were used, they were probably not 8" apart with a human nose in the middle - this will affect the perceived location of sounds, soundstage "width", etc.
e)your listening room has very different acoustics than the live venue. The reverberations in your listening environment are interacting with any reverberations and delays caught in the recording process.
f)In a live performance there are reflections from the venue hitting you from all sides. Microphone pickup patterns are also very different from the human head/ear combination.
g)even if your speakers are ruler flat in an anechoic environment, your room response will alter what is being reproduced.There is no stereo in existance (nor will there ever BE) which can "fool" someone in a live versus canned music experiment because of this. Perhaps a pair of headphones with a digitally altered (convolved) waveform to simulate the acoustics of the venue - now THAT I could give a chance...
But a stereo system consisting of two loudspeakers? C'mon. You would need a digital correction filter for each recording that completely transforms your room into the acoustical equivalent of the live venue.
Even then, I'd bet I could tell I wasn't there EVERY TIME - blindfold or not.
Cheers,
"There is no stereo in existance (nor will there ever BE) which can "fool" someone in a live versus canned music experiment "What unfounded pessimism. In less than 200 years men went from horse drawn carriages to traveling to the moon, from carrying letters on the pony express to instant communications with anyone, anywhere in the world at any time and you are sure nobody will ever be able to fool others that a reproduced recording sounds like live music. I will agree in this however, if they continue going about it the way they have up to now, it won't happen. But I'm optomistic. I think in the future, we will see far more clever engineers who are not imbeciles who will bring radically different approaches to design equipment for reproducing sound. I just don't know if I'll see it myself in my lifetime. As for the current crop, they are hopeless and I can understand your pessimism.
it is interesting with all the vast advances in many technologies that Audio is NOT progressing the way it should -- MP3 may be a regression if anything -- certainly advancement in size and convenience but hrdly an advancement in quality -- SACD is an advancement in stopping piracy.I think I know what Soundmind is after and it can be done...since we're copying many of Star Trek's technology -- cell phones = Heck they even look like the ommunicators, PDA's yup, and hey someone has supposedly transported One cell from one place to another.
So hey science fiction does have the word science in there for a reason -- there is a Nasa guy working on a holodeck. Now c'mon if you can create a holodeck then you can certainly recreate being in row 12 seat 9 of any hall in the world.
On a simplere set-up you would need one design team to control the COMPLETE audio Chain. Not just source to speakers but also control the recording -- all the way through to STRICT room set-up guidelnes.
I don't see any reason to be annoyed by what soundmind issaying here because this is a worthy goal to attempt to be at least explored. Right now because of the recordings available we are buying gear that can try and get what's there as much as possible and have the highest resolution within the limits of the gear to differentiate between those recordings creating a palpable sound. Or enjoyable sound.
But please give us designers from Star Trek. Walk into the room and have Picard call up Beethoven's 9th and it perfectly plays in his quarters from thin air and adjusts to everything including head movements and ear wax build up.
Of course soundmind -- you don't really believe we went to the moon do ya? That was a big conspiracy -- you have to check the fact big guy -- go youreself and make sure it can be done. If you don;t die from the Van Allen Rasdiation belt I'll be impressed. (Umm yes we did land on the moon this is for humor purposes only but most don't get me so I need to put the warning tag on).
"I think in the future, we will see far more clever engineers who are not imbeciles who will bring radically different approaches to design equipment for reproducing sound"Soundmind:
What one would need to pass your 'live/recorded' acid test is radically different approaches to how live music is recorded in the first place. I honestly don't think that "fooling the listener into thinking he is really there" is the current end to which recording engineers are making CDs/DVDs. Even the surround sound recording - which 'allegedly' can be used to recreate a venue - is more often used to create "spacey effects" which are not true to the live performance at all. Reminds me of the maracca player SITTING BEHIND YOU in the Eagles Hell Freezes over concert. Uh - wasn't he on stage somewhere? Recording engineers are not imbeciles- they're just making stereo recordings the same way they've been doing it since the invention of the microphone and the mixing console: take instruments recorded with mono mics, and "pan" them across a virtual soundstage and record it onto a stereo master.
Equipment engineers are not idiots either. But they are TOLD what to build by their boss who listens to MARKET RESEARCH teams and not us whiners here at the asylum. Are the guys at Toshiba who built a $120 DVD player with 24bit/192khz DACs that can play every format known to man, with 2-channel sound that rivals some $1000+ CD players? C'mon. They can't be THAT dumb. Give 'em a break!! lol
Don't get me wrong one bit... if I could have a stereo system that COULD make me believe I was at a live performance, I would be all over it. But I honestly think it would require special recordings, very accurate setup, and digital room correction / alteration. And it would require a unique convolution impulse for each unique venue (churches, concert halls and collesiums are all unique reverberant environments). In fact, on the internet some guys are actually handing out impulse files for famous churches and other places - heck you COULD attempt to use that data. You could cancel out your room response and add in the response of the desired venue at the same time!
That being said, I like your concept. It would be awesome. But my point (which was not meant to be a personal slam/attack) was that your live/recorded test is FAR more stingent than anybody was recording or designing for in the first place.
It's like laughing at a kid who failed to get his model rocket into orbit. It's a simulation of a rocket - it's not a real rocket. And live recordings are simulations of live events. The word "reproduction" in audio implies "recreation" when it is really only capable of a pleasant SIMULATION.
I do think there is a case for pharmaceutical innovation here - we just need the right DRUG to think we're there man.
Pfffffffffooot...(ear!) <- you should not know what that means. :o)
Cheers,
but the truth is that this industry is more than stagnant, it's practically dead. There hasn't been anything really new in it for decades. Nada, no innovation, no breakthroughs, no pioneers going off in their own direction doing their own thing. I agree that people in much of it are just doing what they're told by their bosses and that recording engineers use what they have but as for equipment designers and those who brainstorm new concepts, the current crop are to put it as generously as I can, mediocre hacks reworking old ideas ad nauseum and every little new twist is a silver bullet and a revolution. It's pathetic. There really isn't much interest in it among people who have the capability to invent, they are off doing things they find far more interesting and challenging. But when the real thing does come along, it may just come from a totally unexpected direction as a complete surprise. That's how technology takes giant leaps...sometimes. When it does, the best we have now will seem as antiquated to those who embrace it as wax cylinders do to us today.
That's pretty funny.
If I had no equipment at all, that's what I might do. But having bought fine yesteryear equipment and recognizing that time has brought models which are different but not necessarily better, I see no point. Also, I know very well while there are certainly technical challenges to be overcome, this is NOT rocket science even though from the current pathetic practitioners, you'd think it was. Just read what they and their reviewer and dealer friends write about their "output" and you will see how full of themselves they are. Problem is, I sometimes get in trouble for not pandering to their egos, but then I've lived my life among scientists and engineers including rocket scientists and I know what the real article is.
Yo've got it nailed.
nt
I thought I knew everything when I was your age too.
nt
Early 1929. You?
"Early 1929."It's about time dontcha think? Dontcha dontcha dontcha?
Aw let's face it, I'm just a kid at heart and I'll never change.
rw
.
Is it fair to say the pair you heard were not so equipped? Similarly, would your tweeter enhanced AR-9s sound the same without your EQ duo? I could have sworn you were an equalizer evangelist.You can get a Behringer third octave unit delivered to your door for $160. You may be surprised to know that I use one of those critters in my HT system.
The reason is the same as with most speakers. While the direct on axis field can be made flat, there is no possible way short of adding additional drivers to compensate for the fact that sound reflected off other surfaces before you hear them will not be and in most rooms, this constitutes a lot of what you hear. After about 17 years of experimentation, I am more convinced than ever that there is no way to achieve perceived flat response without solving this problem first. This IMO is the underlying reason why many listeners prefer bi-polar speakers, move their speakers away from nearby reflective surfaces and apply sound absorbing material to those surfaces. It reduces some but not all of this reflected sound FR distortion. It's one approach but the more effective one IMO is to correct it for both its inherent FR distortions and those created by differential (frequency selective) reflections which reach the listener. In this way, radically different designs can converge to have similar perceived FRs.
My long term fondness for bipolars is largely indirect (no pun intended). I highly value the resolution and inherent coherency of a full range electrostat (which the M-L is not) vs. a collection of dynamic drivers. With few exceptions like the recently revived Beveridge, full range stats are bipolar.Indeed, the room does play a large role and as you indicated, I do employ various treatments to control the back wave and first reflection points so as not to "confuse" the image at the listening position. Also, full range stats do not require a great deal of distance to listener for the drivers to blend properly - as I experience with my Advents. A quick search on vintage reveals that others agree with that notion or when using cousins like the AR-3a.
How far away is your listening position to the 9s?
There is no mystery to making accurate amplifiers and cd players, sacd players, turntables and cartridges. The only tricky problem anymore is the performance of speakers in rooms. Of course, fidelity to the recording, ultimately to the performance, is the only meaningful goal.
________
"Occasionally we list eccentrically, all sense of balance gone."
your post asserts that the 'point' of this 'hobby' is to aim for a unitary standard of accuracy.speak for yourself. we obviously have different hobbies.
even if hobbies had to have a 'standard', i don't see why all participants in a hobby (however the hobby might be defined) should share the same standard.
even if your hobby has a standard of 'accuracy', i don't see how you could define accuracy in a way that satisfied all the other participants in your hobby.
or do you belong to some secret club of hi-fi hobbyists who all share the same strict rules about what is quality and how accuracy can be measured?
and at what point does your hobby stop being a hobby and start being a scientific exercise, or an exercise in regulating taste and sonic preferences?
...but most folks around here take this "hobby" too seriously. I'm not exempt from this problem, but I'm working on it. The goal of my hobby is to put together a system that makes music enjoyable to listen to. It would be cool if it turned out to be "accurate" too. I hear enough live music to have a reasonable idea of what things should sound like.
True, mine is high fidelity sound reproduction. I have no idea what yours is or what its goals and rationalizations are. Whatever it is, it doesn't interest me in the least.
from your description it sounds like your hobby is the pursuit of perfect reproduction of a live musical event. i think most people would be satisfied with the approximate reproduction of a live musical event, which is why the hobby is called 'high-fidelity' rather than 'perfect-fidelity'. in my admittedly limited experience and from my observations of other people, the hobby is about balancing compromises of truth and beauty, rather than pursuing perfection.my hobby doesn't interest you in the least even though you "have no idea what [my hobby] is or what its goals and rationalizations are". are you really this prejudiced, or are you just throwing a rhetorical tantrum?
So many times I've become disapointed in my system's sound due to poor recordings. When this happens, I just sit back, and stop analizing the sound, and simply enjoy the music. Which is not difficult because I love music far more than components.But another problem I have with your above statements, is that accuracy equates to cash. If my system is close enough with all the money I've spent, then it will have to remain close enough, because I simply can't afford to keep spending money on new and improved components.
"But another problem I have with your above statements, is that accuracy equates to cash."No, accuracy relates to technology. The problem the contemporary audiophile cult has is that it refuses to accept that the best available technology is grossly inadequate. That it why it perpetually chases elusive fixes for problems inherent in the concepts for which no real fixes exist yet. By agreeing to pay rediculous prices for equipment of little or no greater value than far cheaper equipment, it sends manufacturers a message that it's OK for them to continue on producing one me too product after another after another. I would have no problem spending a great deal of money on new audio equipment...if I felt I were getting something of genuine value for it. As things stand, there is no valid reason for me to trade what I aready own. I'm far better off trying to understand it and tweak it to improve what's wrong with it than I am buying someone elses new and improved failure.
I can agree that manufactures raise prices without a proportional rise in sonic quality. And I've taken to building speaker cables and power cords that are superior to the commercial version I replaced, but I will admit I've not much luck with building interconnects.But still if I want to upgrade the fine sound of my current cart, I would most likely have to spend more money; there are aspects of this hobby that I feel are better left to experts.
"there are aspects of this hobby that I feel are better left to experts."If the self appointed experts were even a tenth as good as they would like you to belive they are, then they wouldn't be coming out with one model after another after another and they wouldn't waste their time in tiny insignificant incremental changes. Go back to some speaker from years and years ago that you don't like and consider that the guy who designed it was considered by at least some people back then to be just as much an expert as his counterparts are today. And if you read the ad copy of that day and the reviews, you will see they used almost exactly the same words to praise it.
Quote might come from a Limelighters album; not sure since that was forty years ago.Anyway, I respectfully disagree. What is the point of this hobby if the music is not beautiful/enjoyable? I'd rather hear .002 more (measured) distortion if it resulted in something that captured my emotions and set my foot a-tappin'. But then this is a discussion that has been going on for decades so fortunately you can select a system by your criteria and I can do the same by mine and we can both be happy.
Whatever the design, form Follows function.
....but ugly is to the bone!"
but do you mean 'truth' as herein described is....well ugly? :)
I think I understand you better in person, 'cause I don't know what you mean.The quote is just a quote....just like your sculpture can be enjoyed just for what it is....it doesn't have to part the Red Sea.
In a discussion like this [and so many I read here] the basic premis is so skewed as to become self contradictory....and funny.I like the fact that your quote worked in that light.
For the most part, my sculptures ARE the red sea....or river. :)
nt
Julien
"There's someone in my head, but it's not me"
.
I started running about 3 years ago. I got every running magazine there was. In the end, while they motivated me, ultimately there was not one thing in that magazine that could help you when you were a few miles from home and out on that lonesome highway quite alone.I just enjoy music and try not to overevaluate it. I used to sit in front of the stereo thinking about moving speakers a third of a millimeter and it wasn't enjoyable.
'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'> Ode to A Grecian Urn <
I love both..Beauty & Truth as long as not at the expense of one over the other..
AP
# The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men # Samuel L. Jackson (Ezekiel 25:17)> Pulp Fiction <
If there's beauty in the music, truth in the equipment will allow it to pass unimpeded. It's the musician's job--not the component designer's--to create beauty. We don' need no homogenized, sanitized-for-our-protection hifi.
.
...that provide the greatest pleasure as a listener. So it is a "dynamic blend", as a good recording will sound best with truth, but a poorer recording with a touch of beauty. What I have realized then, in 25 years of this hobby, is that since more recordings are poor rather than good, that I prefer beauty over truth, because that will give me the emotional impact I desire the most often.Now if I were mastering, the opposite is of course true...I want truth so I know whether my emotional response is an artifact of the reproduction chain.
My system is a touch too truthful at the moment. This, as you can see, is judged by listening to a variety of recordings that I enjoy for emotional impact, not just the best sounding ones or everything under the sun, two extremes that are fraught with danger and likely disappointment. It also explains why someone with a narrower range of musical taste has a bit easier road to hoe.
I am constantly chasing musicality without overt coloration.
I think too much is made of these concepts as polar opposites (is that redundant?) I can't imagine truth without beauty or beauty without truth.I do understand the audible characteristics that are being discussed though, and people do have their preferences, but I don't think recasting these characteristics as "beauty" or "truth" is helpful; nor is making them mutually exclusive. It only adds a layer of interpretation that leads to more misunderstanding. It is hard enough already to talk about audio qualities without making it more confusing by charging these characteristics with vaguely defined aesthetic values.
Also, though I feel faily confident that I know what is "beautiful" in what I hear, I don't have the same certainty about what is "truth" in what I hear. How do I know what is the "true" sound of a piece of music? I have heard studio tapes of sessions that I've played in, and they are vastly different than the sounds I hear on an LP or CD. But then studio tapes are mastered for playback according to the wishes and ears of engineers, producers, musicians, etc. The ultimate accuracy, if we want to go there, is the sound the engineers hear on the studio monitors when they finalize the master. I guess we could reproduce that by reproducing the studio in our homes and getting a hold of master tapes. That, I guess is "truth" or accuracy.
Since most of us are not going to go there, we make our versions of beautiful music at home. I think all of us want the feeling that the music we are hearing is beautiful, that's what we are seeking. Some of us find in the details and the precision, some in the tones and harmonics, some in the timbres and dynamics, some in the attack and decay. We're all looking for different things at different times, but it's still about the experience that tells us: this music is something special and beautiful.
don't you think?
The issue the article was do you have a revealing, detailed, and transparent a system as possible (Truth), OR do you have a less detailed, perhaps softer sound system that can mask imperfections in source material, your equipment, and your room (Beauty).In my experience, there is no ideal solution, and you cannot have both. In properly tuned truthful system with the best recordings, it can sound great (perhaps better than a less truthful system). However, with many records, or with lessor equipment/or setup, a truthful system will be less musical since the imperfections will be more obvious.
It is a very tough choice indeed.
nt
Hey, that day I stayed awake in English Lit finally paid off!To paraphrase: "Beauty is truth, truth beauty, that is all
Ye know on hi fi, and all ye need to know"
xx
.
"Swimming in the river that floods the neighborhood, I could call to you, but it would do no good"
x
Could you say, Truth + Beauty = Goodness?
more accurate, but is ultimately wrong."I can't see the lines, I used to think I could read between."
Hello to Eno fans everywhere!!
"Swimming in the river that floods the neighborhood, I could call to you, but it would do no good"
1. correspondence has a referrent in 'reality'(blue sky);
2. coherent is internally consistent (mathematics);
3. pragamatic 'works' even though we don't know what it is (magnetism).
All are functions of language....
Thanks Mom and Dad for the philosophy class at college...
logical atomism
logical sub-atomism
identity theory
coherence theory...Plus a myriad of others...
"Swimming in the river that floods the neighborhood, I could call to you, but it would do no good"
I thought the sky was clear!When they shows pictures from space looking down through the sky, it ain't blue.
Come to think of it, water ain't blue, neither, it's clear.
Correspondent truth is relative, maybe? Situational?
*Disclaimer: Friday goofing off only, no actual umbrage at the concept of blue sky is implied or inferred.
"Beautiful women are also the most boring which is why some people feel there is no God."
.
I loved him until the context of how I take his jokes was changed by the fucking the step-daughter thing.That really gave me the humor cooties from him. He's still funny and I like his quotes and all, but there's something that gives me a small chill when I think about him, like something that went bad somewhere in the ether of the universe and he reminds me that it's there.
Obviously, an example of too much knowledge. I'd love him more if I didn't know anything about him!
__________________________
10. TRUTH, BEAUTY, AND GOODNESSThroughout this glorious age the chief pursuit of the
ever-advancing mortals is the quest for a better understanding and
a fuller realization of the comprehensible elements of
Deity--truth, beauty, and goodness. This represents man's effort to
discern God in mind, matter, and spirit. And as the mortal pursues
this quest, he finds himself increasingly absorbed in the
experiential study of philosophy, cosmology, and divinity.Philosophy you somewhat grasp, and divinity you comprehend in
worship, social service, and personal spiritual experience, but the
pursuit of beauty--cosmology--you all too often limit to the study
of man's crude artistic endeavors. Beauty, art, is largely a matter
of the unification of contrasts. Variety is essential to the
concept of beauty. The supreme beauty, the height of finite art, is
the drama of the unification of the vastness of the cosmic extremes
of Creator and creature. Man finding God and God finding man--the
creature becoming perfect as is the Creator--that is the supernal
achievement of the supremely beautiful, the attainment of the apex
of cosmic art.Hence materialism, atheism, is the maximation of ugliness, the
climax of the finite antithesis of the beautiful. Highest beauty
consists in the panorama of the unification of the variations which
have been born of pre-existent harmonious reality.The attainment of cosmologic levels of thought includes:
1. Curiosity. Hunger for harmony and thirst for beauty. Persistent
attempts to discover new levels of harmonious cosmic relationships.2. Aesthetic appreciation. Love of the beautiful and ever-advancing
appreciation of the artistic touch of all creative manifestations
on all levels of reality.3. Ethic sensitivity. Through the realization of truth the
appreciation of beauty leads to the sense of the eternal fitness of
those things which impinge upon the recognition of divine goodness
in Deity relations with all beings; and thus even cosmology leads
to the pursuit of divine reality values--to God-consciousness.The worlds settled in light and life are so fully concerned with
the comprehension of truth, beauty, and goodness because these
quality values embrace the revelation of Deity to the realms of
time and space. The meanings of eternal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 647
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
truth make a combined appeal to the intellectual and spiritual
natures of mortal man. Universal beauty embraces the harmonious
relations and rhythms of the cosmic creation; this is more
distinctly the intellectual appeal and leads towards unified and
synchronous comprehension of the material universe. Divine goodness
represents the revelation of infinite values to the finite mind,
therein to be perceived and elevated to the very threshold of the
spiritual level of human comprehension.Truth is the basis of science and philosophy, presenting the
intellectual foundation of religion. Beauty sponsors art, music,
and the meaningful rhythms of all human experience. Goodness
embraces the sense of ethics, morality, and religion--experiential
perfection-hunger.The existence of beauty implies the presence of appreciative
creature mind just as certainly as the fact of progressive
evolution indicates the dominance of the Supreme Mind. Beauty is
the intellectual recognition of the harmonious time-space synthesis
of the far-flung diversification of phenomenal reality, all of
which stems from pre-existent and eternal oneness.Goodness is the mental recognition of the relative values of the
diverse levels of divine perfection. The recognition of goodness
implies a mind of moral status, a personal mind with ability to
discriminate between good and evil. But the possession of goodness,
greatness, is the measure of real divinity attainment.The recognition of true relations implies a mind competent to
discriminate between truth and error. The bestowal Spirit of Truth
which invests the human minds of Urantia is unerringly responsive
to truth--the living spirit relationship of all things and all
beings as they are co-ordinated in the eternal ascent Godward.Every impulse of every electron, thought, or spirit is an acting
unit in the whole universe. Only sin is isolated and evil gravity
resisting on the mental and spiritual levels. The universe is a
whole; no thing or being exists or lives in isolation.
Self-realization is potentially evil if it is antisocial. It is
literally true: "No man lives by himself." Cosmic socialization
constitutes the highest form of personality unification. Said
Jesus: "He who would be greatest among you, let him become server
of all."Even truth, beauty, and goodness--man's intellectual approach to
the universe of mind, matter, and spirit--must be combined into one
unified concept of a divine and supreme ideal. As mortal
personality unifies the human experience with matter, mind, and
spirit, so does this divine and supreme ideal become power-unified
in Supremacy and then personalized as a God of fatherly love.All insight into the relations of the parts to any given whole
requires an understanding grasp of the relation of all parts to
that whole; and in the universe this means the relation of created
parts to the Creative Whole. Deity thus becomes the transcendental,
even the infinite, goal of universal and eternal attainment.
Again Clark proves that eruditeness and irrelevant BS aren't mutually exclusive. He's not unique though: so many audio reviewers use a lot words to convey little, pertinent substance.Hey guys, I could be reading 'New Yorker' or something; I don't need it from you.
Friday Philosophing, eh? OK, I'm open for some mental masturbation.I like your post, especially:
"Variety is essential to the concept of beauty." I'd go so far as to say it's the veritable spice of life!
But I do take issue with a few minor points:
1) "...materialism, atheism, is the maximization of ugliness, the
climax of the finite antithesis of the beautiful."I can't be an atheist and appreciate beauty? Aesthetic appreciation is the providence of faith, and faith alone?
I guess I'll have to claim to be part of that "variety," without which the beauty of faith cannot be appreciated.
2) "...Truth is the basis of science and philosophy..."
I would say the basis of science is the creation of harmonious metaphors. Science is descriptive, at its root. It only serve to give us metaphors to place observations in a context. Particles don't obey physics theories, they behave in such a way that theories are able to describe their behavior.
Science cannot know truth. It can only dance around it and suppose.
3) "...Goodness is the mental recognition of the relative values of the diverse levels of divine perfection. The recognition of goodness
implies a mind of moral status, a personal mind with ability to
discriminate between good and evil..."Two things here. I like that goodness seems to also require variety in order to be appreciated, hence "relative values."
However, "relative values" also points out our inability to draw a universal border in the sand between the good and the not good. Where this line is drawn becomes relative, as well. For instance, I consider female genital mutilation to be not good, but believers in such consider it to be a right of passage into adult hood and to be of important spiritual value. Here, "goodness" must be left at some point as a relative phenomenon, not something that stands an unarguable evident truth.
The spectrum from beauty to ugliness or good to evil takes place on a spectrum, with every observer potentially having a different but valid reference point.
4) "...Every impulse of every electron, thought, or spirit is an acting unit in the whole universe..."
We should not anthropomorphize electrons. We cannot speak to their impulses or motivation. Electrons act, but do so without intention. The author confuses "acting" with "acting." :)
5) "...Only sin is isolated and evil gravity..."
Again, the variety thing, without sin we cannot know virtue. Sin is inclusive in our existence, not isolated from it.
________________________________
________________________________Just some Friday jabbering. Sometimes posts can't show friendly intention or good humored debate. I meant this to sound like we were drinking fine beer on tap somewhere and having friendly discourse.
First, I forgot to credit the source: It's the Urantia Book, written between 1914 and 1934.1) Delete the "atheism" and you have a more acceptable sentence, nicht wahr?
2) You're quibbling, sir. Substitute "Search for truth" for "truth" and you're golden.
3) "Female genital mutilation"? Good grief! (BTW is male genital mutilation OK by you?) But, getting real for a moment, I don't believe the authors were engaging in relativism over the whole spectrum. In fact in other chapters they deal with the Luciferian problem at length.
4) Maybe "is an acting unit" should have been "is acting as a unit"...? But really what the writers meant I think was the interconnectedness.
5) Sin, you know, just means to stray, or to blunder. No big deal, if you apologize.
So, what's your favorite brew? Can I buy the next round?
Or is it strictly eno for you?
clark
PS Don't you find the writing in that book, interesting at the very least?
A friend of mine chooses beauty and has a pretty system that does not sound very good. He loves it. To each his or her own.If I had to choose I'd choose good sound but I'd like both.
Bill
Definitely a false dichotomy for me. When I hear live music, I would not always call it "beautiful", or even close to that. There are so many adjectives to TRY to describe any particular music. I've never understood the idea of trying to make all of one's music "beautiful". You can put me in the "truth" camp, if that's how you want to think of it, though. I've always found that the better my equipment becomes, the more differences I hear in music and in recordings. And the more beautiful the truly beautiful music is.
.
.
"Swimming in the river that floods the neighborhood, I could call to you, but it would do no good"
And while a piece of equipment that measures well may or may not sound particularly good, a piece of equipment that does not measure well, at least in my opinion, cannot do justice to well recorded sources.
Regards, Larry
"This ain't the only place on earth---but it's the only place that I prefer. Where the Stars and Stripes, and the Eagle fly."
all personal opinion of course...One needs tubes somewhere!!
Super high current, big muscle, roll-up-strong Amplification is really critical!! (These hybrid, or tubed pre, combined with ss muscle-power, that get close to, or double their wpc with resistance; really present a wonderful relaxed, beautiful, yet accurate character).
Rockin big beats for little kids....
"Swimming in the river that floods the neighborhood, I could call to you, but it would do no good"
N/T
*** Q:Why's the chicken cross the road?
***A: Fats Waller: They don't, they all stay on my side now...***
...so it's a false arguement (although I have not yet received this month's issue yet so I haven't read the article).If you must err in one direction or the other - I'd say few would intentionally chose a more accurate, 'unmusical' sound, over a more beautiful, but less accurate one.
always has, always will.The trick is to learn to recognize real truth and real beauty...I suppose.
SET amplification with high quality, high efficiency speakers can provide both, and with some systems, on a level that simply leaves one breathless. Just can't move except to smile.
That is when you know why you continue to pursue this hobby.
What is wrong in saying looking at the musical world through rose colored glasses (Beauty) is a bad thing? It is not, and certain choices like tubes move more in that direction. However, it also not truth.Truth in this case puts the music under a microscope to reveal all that is there, good and bad. Sometimes a microscope can reveal beauty, but with it imperfections.
The article (which it appears from the responses in this thread you are not alone, and most have not read it) summarizes by saying those interested in truth approach music analytically focusing on every aspect of every note, vs. those interested in Beauty focus on the emotional message of the music (forest vs. the trees).
'But what do I know - I prefer tubes.'
I would say you know quite a bit.
> However, it also not truth...Truth in this case puts the music under a microscope to reveal all that is there, good and bad. Sometimes a microscope can reveal beauty, but with it imperfections.>To me, and I suspect many audiophiles, the truth we are seeking is *the sound of live unamplified music occuring in a real space* as opposed to *the output measuring as closely as possible to the input*.
There really is no contest between 'analytical' and 'euphonic'. While there may be "good and bad" and "imperfections" as you say, live music never sounds analytical.
Viz., " To me, and I suspect many audiophiles, the truth we are seeking is *the sound of live unamplified music occuring in a real space* as opposed to *the output measuring as closely as possible to the input*.On the other hand if routinely modify the input, you will never appreciate the truly successful recording.
No, but mostly it sounds like crap....With the exception of a small unamplified chamber orchestra in a "blessed" room....
Almost never: (perhaps Crowded House in the Berkeley Square in Berkeley CA.), - does music sound even good live.
One's stereo is simply the best place to hear the truth of the art form of the composition, and the truth of the art of the recording, - which are two different processes.
Classical, jazz, rock, you name it, - it sucks live....
"Swimming in the river that floods the neighborhood, I could call to you, but it would do no good"
...I'm talking about> *the sound of live unamplified music occuring in a real space*>
you said:
> No, but mostly it sounds like crap....With the exception of a small unamplified chamber orchestra in a "blessed" room....>As a resident of the Bay Area like you, I can recall hearing beautiful music at Davies Hall back in the 1980s - Isaac Stern, Andre Watts, etc. - when I had season tickets and the hall hadn't been tweaked as well as it is now.
And I find that at amplified live music performances, and I hear mostly rock/pop at places like the Fillmore, Greek Theater and Concord Pavillion, that unless the sound is actually irritating, I focus much less on the sound quality and more on the *experience* of seeing the music live.
Oh yeah....Sorry... big difference. Yeah performances are great, sound quality sucks. I have only been to the Opera and to Davis about 5 to 10 times, loved just about every performance, - hated the pathetic sound. Hated more the horrible audiences, - the noise from those people... yuck....
IMO, - the best sound quality is always to be had at home. But, one does often miss out on exceptional performances...
Cheers,
"Swimming in the river that floods the neighborhood, I could call to you, but it would do no good"
A very careful, blended balance of both.
Absolutely, but finding that balance is not as easy as it might seem.
nt
.
"Music is God's gift to man, the only art of Heaven given to earth, the only art of earth we take to Heaven."
-Walter Savage Landor
Because by stating "a balance of both" you would have to have something in the chain that measures outside the parameters considered essential for accuracy.
Regards, Larry
"This ain't the only place on earth---but it's the only place that I prefer. Where the Stars and Stripes, and the Eagle fly."
"Through the Holy Filiment"
*
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: