 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
77.111.246.119
In Reply to: RE: Not really. posted by Analog Scott on September 04, 2019 at 10:05:22
You seem to be hung up on the notion that there is only ONE single absolute sound. But as I noted in my OP, there are MANY absolute sounds, and, with experience, we will recognize what kinds of sounds they are to a sufficient degree to determine whether or not a given recording (not one synthesized in the studio) is accurate.
You're also hung up on the concept of absolute accuracy - that does not exist either, but, in most instances, all we need is a sense of the relative accuracy of a given recording (compared to others). The sense of accuracy can include a sense of whether the recording was minimally microphoned, or whether it was multi-miked, whether the microphones were colored or not - in fact, all sorts of parameters. Within each category, recordings can be more or less accurate, and we can have a sense of that- accuracy is not a single, unyielding standard - and it's exactly for the reasons you note in your last paragraph. But each scenario you list can have a more or a less accurate presentation of what the sound was really like when it was recorded.
Basically, you are arguing for chaos! You're arguing in favor of engineers or producers modifying the sound to their own liking, and then we play back the results on our own systems, where we don't care about accuracy and we've tweaked our systems to our own separate pleasures (which, likely, do not correspond to the predispositions of other listeners). How can we even discuss the sound quality of a given recording amidst such chaos? It's already bad enough when we try to optimize our systems for what we believe is accuracy. The "please yourself" approach you espouse just makes things worse.
And yet, I do NOT in any way want to forbid folks from setting up their systems in such a way that the systems are in compliance with their own preferences. If you've set up your system that way, then more power to you. I just want people to be aware of what they're doing.
Follow Ups:
"Basically, you are arguing for chaos!"
The reality is that our body of commercial recordings and audio gear is chaos. And surprisingly it works pretty damned well for us all in all
"You're arguing in favor of engineers or producers modifying the sound to their own liking, and then we play back the results on our own systems,"
That is what happens in many cases. And guess what? It really works well quite often.
"where we don't care about accuracy and we've tweaked our systems to our own separate pleasures (which, likely, do not correspond to the predispositions of other listeners)."
Yes, *I* listen to my stereo using my choice of masterings and media. That's wrong? I should listen to what I consider to be inferior sound for the sake of the objectivist audio tribe? Nope. Not gonna happen
"How can we even discuss the sound quality of a given recording amidst such chaos?"
How do you talk about sound quality of live music? It is even more chaotic. But we can have those discussions can we not? What instruements sound better, what halls sound better, what seats sound better. We can talk about those things without any objective points of reference and we can easily understand each other. It's really not a problem. And that really is my point. Why not just judge audio the way we judge live music? Cut to the chase and evaluate what we hear prima facie?
"It's already bad enough when we try to optimize our systems for what we believe is accuracy. The "please yourself" approach you espouse just makes things worse."
On the contrary, it gets bad when you chase the accuracy dragon. It gets really good when you realize that dragon is a creature from the realms of fantasy.
"You seem to be hung up on the notion that there is only ONE single absolute sound."Given the fact that I was very quick to point out a fundamental flaw in the idea of "the absolute sound" was that there is no single "absolute sound" I am not sure how anyone would think I am hung up on that idea.
"But as I noted in my OP, there are MANY absolute sounds, and, with experience, we will recognize what kinds of sounds they are to a sufficient degree to determine whether or not a given recording (not one synthesized in the studio) is accurate."
You are conflating the recognition of certain aural cues that would suggest a more life like sound with accuracy. They are not the same. I can show you examples of recordings that sound more life like with added distortions.
"You're also hung up on the concept of absolute accuracy - that does not exist either, but, in most instances, all we need is a sense of the relative accuracy of a given recording (compared to others)."
"Relative accuracy?" Jeez you get that with tubes and vinyl. Absolute audible accuracy does exist in audio. You can find it with some digital sources and wires and solid state components. It's the objectivists who insist that any deviation from such the accuracy you can get with digital and solid state is an abomination of audio ("after all it is called hifi") who are so hung up on the concept of absolute accuracy. And they are hung up on it despite all the unknown inaccuracies in the rest of the recording and playback chain."The sense of accuracy can include a sense of whether the recording was minimally microphoned, or whether it was multi-miked, whether the microphones were colored or not - in fact, all sorts of parameters."
The "sense" of accuracy is not a measure of actual accuracy. Do we not have an example on this thread of someone claiming vinyl is more accurate because it gives him in effect a greater "sense of accuracy?"
Edits: 09/05/19
Given the fact that I was very quick to point out a fundamental flaw in the idea of "the absolute sound" was that there is no single "absolute sound" I am not sure how anyone would think I am hung up on that idea.
And yet, several of your posts have made reference to "the three-dimensional acoustic sound wave [singular]" as a kind of absolute manifestation of the original musical event. Actually, I'm the one who has continued to argue in favor of multiple manifestations of accuracy at the same musical event, which depend on such things as where one is sitting (or, where the microphones are placed), etc.
You are conflating the recognition of certain aural cues that would suggest a more life like sound with accuracy. They are not the same. I can show you examples of recordings that sound more life like with added distortions.
Hmm. . . I guess you'd better define your terms here. Frankly, if you think I used the term "life like", you're putting words into my mouth. Remember, my priorities include the the following: if the recording was of a beaten-up bar-room piano recorded in somebody's bedroom, I want it to sound like a beaten-up bar-room piano recorded in somebody's bedroom. Is that what you had in mind when you used the term "life like"?
Regarding accuracy, I agree that absolute audible accuracy does not exist in audio. But that doesn't change the fact that some equipment is more accurate than other equipment - that's where my use of the word, "relative", comes in. And, no, it doesn't have anything to do with digital vs. analog. Finally, regarding "hi-fi", that's a lame distinction you're trying to make: some analog equipment is more accurate than other analog equipment, and some digital equipment is more accurate than other digital equipment. Perhaps you're carrying some remarks you've heard on other sites into this discussion?
The "sense" of accuracy is not a measure of actual accuracy. [This is true, as we've discussed on another part of this thread.] Do we not have an example on this thread of someone claiming vinyl is more accurate because it gives him in effect a greater "sense of accuracy?"
No, that someone never said that vinyl gave him a greater sense of accuracy. What he DID say was that a vinyl playback system will always sound better than a digital one - better in this case being a value judgment and not a perception of accuracy. It's an absurd statement anyway (sorry, learsfool, but we all get into the absurd from time to time!) - so the lowliest vinyl system will ALWAYS sound "better" than any possible digital system? QED - I rest my case! ;-)
"And yet, several of your posts have made reference to "the three-dimensional acoustic sound wave [singular]" as a kind of absolute manifestation of the original musical event. Actually, I'm the one who has continued to argue in favor of multiple manifestations of accuracy at the same musical event, which depend on such things as where one is sitting (or, where the microphones are placed), etc."Yes, the original acoustic event is a singular objective acoustic event. How different people hear it/perceive it are all different, not fully objectively accurate perceptions of the singular acoustic event. That is the problem with trying to use one's perceptions as a reference for an objective entity. It is like a three dimensional object that is viewed from different perspectives. It will look different from each different point of view and each point of view will be equally valid and none of them will fully represent the objective reality of the object.
"Hmm. . . I guess you'd better define your terms here. Frankly, if you think I used the term "life like", you're putting words into my mouth. Remember, my priorities include the the following: if the recording was of a beaten-up bar-room piano recorded in somebody's bedroom, I want it to sound like a beaten-up bar-room piano recorded in somebody's bedroom. Is that what you had in mind when you used the term "life like"?"
With most recordings you can't know that it was a beaten up bar room piano in somebodies room. when I pointed this fact out you said that you would draw from your aural "library" of live music experiences. Well.. pretty much the only things we can objectively say those experiences have in common is that they were sound and they were all life like. Given that they were life they had to be "life like." It's a tautological reality Do you disagree?
"No, that someone never said that vinyl gave him a greater sense of accuracy. What he DID say was that a vinyl playback system will always sound better than a digital one - better in this case being a value judgment and not a perception of accuracy. It's an absurd statement anyway (sorry, learsfool, but we all get into the absurd from time to time!) - so the lowliest vinyl system will ALWAYS sound "better" than any possible digital system? QED - I rest my case! ;-)"ah, we are talking about two different posters. I was talking about jdaniel. Here is what he said. "Occasional pops and cracke aside, imho it's vinyl that has the lower noise floor--the sound just seems more liberated from the source. I still give vinyl the edge, not for "euphony", a specious, tired description that makes me bristle a bit, but rather for the positive attributes I mentioned above" So while he doesn't specifically say he thinks vinyl is more accurate he does say he thinks it's better and not because of euphonic colorations. what's left after you eliminate euphonic colorations?
Edits: 09/08/19
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
