Damned audiophiles

[jj]

But is accuracy the goal, really? For an audio engineer, maybe. But for someone just listening to music, the goal is enjoyment.

The goal is to listen to what you PREFER to listen to.

I challenge anyone here to define what "accuracy" means for any of the following:

1) A recording, live and unedited, of a symphony orchestra in the Concertgabau
2) A live recording of Emmylou Harris at the Ryman
3) A Kraftwerk song
4) A modern piece-by-piece studio construction.

Please, do tell me what "accurate" means in this context, which is, after all, what we're going to listen for and about.

It's kind of ironic, I gave a 1 hour talk at the AES on this very subject two weeks ago...

 

[jj]

"A music lover will stop what he's doing and stay glued to a favorite piece of music even if it's coming over a 3" speaker or a public-address system..." - Ken Rockwell

Though as an audiophile, if the sound is really bad, I will get annoyed and then when I get home I will listen to the tune again on my hifi

Or run out and buy it, and come home and play it a few times

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You shouldn't need to "plait the innards" of CAT5 cables. They're already constructed of twisted pairs of conductors.

The thing is, there's absolutely no benefit to be gained by using twisted pair cable in an speaker wire application, and the conductors inside CAt5 cables are far too thin to make effective speaker wires anyway.

As I say, it's been a while and I can't remember the specifics, but IIRC, it wasn't just using the CAT5 as is, but rather taking the cables apart and re-plaiting them so that many strands connected onto the one terminal of one connector - essentially turning the numerous small wires into one large wire.

I only considered it because we had tonnes of CAT5 that we didn't know what to do with and not enough audio cable, and I very quickly decided not to because my time was worth more than the money we'd save by not buying speaker cable in and making them out of that.

 

[Kid Eager]

The goal is to listen to what you PREFER to listen to.

I challenge anyone here to define what "accuracy" means for any of the following:

1) A recording, live and unedited, of a symphony orchestra in the Concertgabau
2) A live recording of Emmylou Harris at the Ryman
3) A Kraftwerk song
4) A modern piece-by-piece studio construction.

Please, do tell me what "accurate" means in this context, which is, after all, what we're going to listen for and about.

It's kind of ironic, I gave a 1 hour talk at the AES on this very subject two weeks ago...

What sort of crazy talk is this? This would mean that any sort of half-assed and irrational audio tweaks could be justified, as preferences are fuzzy and changeable! Oh....

 

[jj]

What sort of crazy talk is this? This would mean that any sort of half-assed and irrational audio tweaks could be justified, as preferences are fuzzy and changeable! Oh....

Preferences are inviolate.

But when somebody claims "this pyramid violates conservation of momentum" we aren't in preference-land any longer.

And there is where we are. Look at the claims for how some of the various audiophile stuff works. There are lots of veiled technical and scientific claims, and by and large, they are codswallop.

But seriously, answer my question, PLEASE DEFINE ACCURACY.

Thank you. (and bear in mind that I am usually considered on the objectivist side of the objectivist camp, in other words, on the right side of the right wing of audio)

 

[quadraginta]

What sort of crazy talk is this? This would mean that any sort of half-assed and irrational audio tweaks could be justified, as preferences are fuzzy and changeable! Oh....

Also, jj didn't include the audio enhancement qualities of the Gucci Effect*.


(* i.e.- A $6,000.00 handbag must be better than an in-distingushable $10.00 handbag because $5,990.00)

 

[jj]

Also, jj didn't include the audio enhancement qualities of the Gucci Effect*.


(* i.e.- A $6,000.00 handbag must be better than an in-distingushable $10.00 handbag because $5,990.00)

Oh, yes, that was part of my talk two weeks ago, too.

All functional sensory modalities are evalated as one unit by the brain, all the time, by everyone who has ever been tested for such.

Hence the "Gucci" effect, the McGurk effect, and lots of other effects related to both preconceptions and simple sensory interaction.

This is why, for scientific purposes, a proper double blind test is the gold standard. They are, speaking as someone who knows how to run them, a pain to run, and the test has to be tested as well.

 

[Kid Eager]

Preferences are inviolate.

But when somebody claims "this pyramid violates conservation of momentum" we aren't in preference-land any longer.

And there is where we are. Look at the claims for how some of the various audiophile stuff works. There are lots of veiled technical and scientific claims, and by and large, they are codswallop.

But seriously, answer my question, PLEASE DEFINE ACCURACY.

Thank you. (and bear in mind that I am usually considered on the objectivist side of the objectivist camp, in other words, on the right side of the right wing of audio)

Sorry - you may be misunderstanding my comment - I was agreeing with you.

A minor nitpick though, without wishing to derail the main thrust - preferences are not absolutes. They change over time and are situational as well as choice range dependent. Use "buying a car" as an example and you will see what I mean.

I am what you'd probably call a pragmatic audiophile who can't afford to fulfil his ambitions, so settles for what is "good enough"

I define "good enough" as...
- acceptable compromise of price and perceived sound quality
- is hard for the cats to damage
- meets Wife Acceptance Factor criteria
- doesn't get in the way of actually living in the listening space
- looks good.

Now, as to accuracy. When people use that word in an audio context, I interpret as meaning reproduction is as near as reasonably possible to "as recorded", rather than "as played". In other words, it's accurate if the playing of the recording introduces no additional information. Practically, that's not likely, as distortions various are introduced to the listener through equipment and room.

I don't necessarily seek "accuracy" as some sound engineers seem to have suffered a listening aptitude bypass, or assume I want to hear nothing but bass or whatever. I'd prefer a pleasing sound that is inaccurate to an accurate sound that is not pleasing. This is why god invented graphic equalisers and DSPs....

Things seem to get ugly when dealing with irrational audiophiles. By irrational I refer to those that think that hifi equipment has found a way to bypass the laws of physics, and could save themselves a bucketload of money and complexity by reaching for the graphic equalizer rather than the Pear cables or whatever. They're not chasing "accuracy", unless we define that term as meaning "what I think the performance should have sounded like had I been there sitting in the 10th row back centre stage" without actually having been there.

tl:dr - sound engineers define accuracy in the act of creating the master recording.

whew.... time for some lunch.

 

[jj]

Ahh, ok. To explain, I've been attacked (well pretty much relentlessly) by the irrationalist bunch, to the extent of nasty phone calls at 3AM, letters and emails to bosses, public verbal attacks during talks, you name it for being the worst "objectivist" in the world.

Conversely, I've been attacked by a subset of the objectivsts for being a woowoo subjectivist nutter because I point out that perception is not always related to measurement.

In short, both sides have given me, with some reliability, the "talk to the hand" treatment.

In fact, my Heyser Lecture topic was how that false dichotomy was a very bad thing for the future of both the organization and audio as a scientific discipline.

 

[xtifr]

Relevant xkcd that I'm surprised no one has posted in this thread yet: http://xkcd.com/841/

The mouseover text is particularly relevant (and reflects my own attitude and approach).

 

[Kid Eager]

Ahh, ok. To explain, I've been attacked (well pretty much relentlessly) by the irrationalist bunch, to the extent of nasty phone calls at 3AM, letters and emails to bosses, public verbal attacks during talks, you name it for being the worst "objectivist" in the world.

Conversely, I've been attacked by a subset of the objectivsts for being a woowoo subjectivist nutter because I point out that perception is not always related to measurement.
In short, both sides have given me, with some reliability, the "talk to the hand" treatment.

In fact, my Heyser Lecture topic was how that false dichotomy was a very bad thing for the future of both the organization and audio as a scientific discipline.

Agree - Perceptions are by their nature extremely subjective. One only has to watch a movie whilst drunk and again whilst sober to demonstrate this fact.....

 

[jj]

Relevant xkcd that I'm surprised no one has posted in this thread yet: http://xkcd.com/841/

The mouseover text is particularly relevant (and reflects my own attitude and approach).

I've done those phone calls, too. It's reality, not a cartoon!

I had somebody telling me once that I must have at least 1 kwatt for each speaker in a 5 channel listening setup, with 89 db 1w/1m speakers. Assuming incoherent summing, that's a maximum output (if nothing breaks, cough hack) of thereabouts of 126dB SPL give or take in a moderately dead room (i.e. one that doesn't store too much energy).

Let's not forget that's a level that causes near-instant harm to the cochlea with normal sound pressure levels.

 

[sol invictus]

The goal is to listen to what you PREFER to listen to.

I challenge anyone here to define what "accuracy" means for any of the following:

1) A recording, live and unedited, of a symphony orchestra in the Concertgabau
2) A live recording of Emmylou Harris at the Ryman
3) A Kraftwerk song
4) A modern piece-by-piece studio construction.

Please, do tell me what "accurate" means in this context, which is, after all, what we're going to listen for and about.

For case 1), that the perceived sound you hear when you listen to the recording on your stereo is as close as possible to the perceived sound you would have heard were you to sit in a good seat at the Concertgabau.

For the other cases, it's harder. But I think many "engineer-type" audiophiles would be satisfied with optimizing 1), and let the rest fall where they may.

 

[sol invictus]

Thank you. (and bear in mind that I am usually considered on the objectivist side of the objectivist camp, in other words, on the right side of the right wing of audio)

I've always suspected that audio objectivists are politically and socially much more liberal than subjectivists, on average. I think a lot of the subjectivist enjoyment of tubes, vinyl, etc. is nostalgia for the past, an inherently conservative trait.

But perhaps that's not what you meant by "right wing".

 

[jj]

I've always suspected that audio objectivists are politically and socially much more liberal than subjectivists, on average. I think a lot of the subjectivist enjoyment of tubes, vinyl, etc. is nostalgia for the past, an inherently conservative trait.

But perhaps that's not what you meant by "right wing".

Well, what I mean is that in audiopile circiles I am often portrayed as an evil, militant scientist who is opposed to all change and knowledge, as in arch-conservative.

Since I do research for a living, that's rather obviously off the wall, but that doesn't stop people from arguing that.

In terms of politics, there is an audiophile contingent that is somewhere to the right of Attila, but they aren't all like that.

 

[jj]

For case 1), that the perceived sound you hear when you listen to the recording on your stereo is as close as possible to the perceived sound you would have heard were you to sit in a good seat at the Concertgabau.

Good start.

Now how do I establish which is "closest"? It's kind of hard to do a blind test.

There are some mechanisms to work on this, but it's not easy.

 

[sol invictus]

Good start.

Now how do I establish which is "closest"? It's kind of hard to do a blind test.

I can think of a few ways to get at it. One is to have a live performance in the listening room, and alternate between that and A/B-ing the recording or speaker system. Another is just to ask people which of A/B sounds more realistic to them. A third is to record the sound in the live venue and then in the listening room as you play back a recording, and try to minimize the difference.

 

[pipelineaudio]

The goal is to listen to what you PREFER to listen to.

I challenge anyone here to define what "accuracy" means for any of the following:

1) A recording, live and unedited, of a symphony orchestra in the Concertgabau
2) A live recording of Emmylou Harris at the Ryman

The only possible answer is "it depends", which I guess is your point

3) A Kraftwerk song
4) A modern piece-by-piece studio construction.

These are easier to me: something that is audibly identical to what is coming out of the console's mix buss or DAW's summing buss

This one is easy to measure, test and verify

 

[jj]

I can think of a few ways to get at it. One is to have a live performance in the listening room, and alternate between that and A/B-ing the recording or speaker system. Another is just to ask people which of A/B sounds more realistic to them. A third is to record the sound in the live venue and then in the listening room as you play back a recording, and try to minimize the difference.

Except that when you do a live performance in the listening room, you're not in the Concertgebow. So you lost your reference.

"Which sounds more realistic" is testing preference and only preference. No testable, verifiable equivelence there.

Your third method has some hope of working, but now, how do you record this information? You have two ears, and your head moves around at a concert. You have to capture a lot more than the mere pressure (which is 1/4 of the information at a single point in the atmosphere) at one point in order to do this.

 

[jj]

These are easier to me: something that is audibly identical to what is coming out of the console's mix buss or DAW's summing buss

This one is easy to measure, test and verify

Audibly identical in what? Their studio? Your home? Speakers, headphones, near field, far field, live room, dead room, listening inside critical distance, outside critical distance?

Nope, not as easy as you think.