Toward a Theory To Increase Mutual Understanding and Predictability

[stehno]

Extremely predictable though...

DaveC, it's probably no surprise to you when I say that my tolerance for nonsense isn't what it could or perhaps should be.

On its face, Amir's response seemed pleasant enough and I contemplated just ignoring it. But I decided to respond and I think for good reason. Especially in light of this thread's topic.

Tell me, DaveC. Do you know anything about Ethan Winer whom Amir referenced as material I should read? Assuming we're talking about the same Ethan Winer, Ethan authored a book a number of years ago entitled, The Audio Expert. Ethan Winer, whom I've engaged in discussions with too many times has freely admitted things like:

1. That all components and cables (that includes yours) all sound the same and all retain the fidelity of the input signal being processed.

2. That if a given system is unable to accurately reproduce the live performance, then it's because the recording engineer's faulty placement of the recording mic's.

3. That his ears (and therefore everybody else's) are untrustworthy so he relies on his trustworthy eyes for his system's audio-only performance.

Wait a minute.... Earlier in this very thread (post #306) I listed a number of highly questionable dogmas that result from people of this very same mindset.

... More importantly, a long list of dogmas result from overlooking this most basic fundament i.e. one's ability / inability to hear and interpret what one hears. For example:

- Some-to-many think most of us hear and interpret what we hear is very much like most.

- Some-to-many think because they cannot hear differences between components, cables, etc, that nobody else can or should hear differences either.

- Some-to-many think because they’ve been in this hobby for 40+ years, that longevity alone makes them an expert thus implying that hacks, bush-leaguers, and also-rans only exist in other industries.

- Some-to-many think performance comes from a price tag.

- Some-to-many have abandoned their “untrustworthy” ears for their “trustworthy” eyes (in an audio-only industry) and are convinced measurements are the new holy grail.

- Some-to-many who think they are high-end because of their alleged knowledge.

- Some-to-many think it common to have a given playback system sound remarkably close to the “live performace.”

- Some-to-many who think they just need to purchase high-end gear and plug'n play and they're in like Flint.

- Some-to-many who’ve never heard any improvements when swapping cables or components are often times the first to condemn those who have.

- Some-to-many think because they play an instrument, that somehow translates automatically to having well-trained ears.

- Some-to-many think high-end audio is mature from a performance perspective.

- Some-to-many who’ve never heard any improvements after trying a new technology are often times the first to condemn those who have and shout snake oil.

...​

I wrote a number of those dogmas with Ethan (and a few others) in mind and I could easily have gone on as well as included topics like denial, potential self-aggrandizing, people educated beyond their intelligence levels, paper tigers, etc.

And whether or not you adhere to any of the dogmas I listed above, none of these listed which cost the perpetrator and the perpetrated thousands of hours in wasted debate time have a thing to do with real performance. Moreover, it seems any time a thread makes any apparent progress along comes the Ethan types to sow discord and contention and bring everybody back to the lowest common denominator performance levels.

IMO, there's often times more to these personality types than meets the eye and the potential damage they induce regarding this industry's seemingly inability to grow and mature from a performance perspective seems never ending. Or to even engage in a single meaningful thread without having to go down 29 different technical rabbit holes already bantered in a previous thread that in the end always seem to fall into the abyss, only to be bantered yet again in the very next new thread. And then the next new thread. Yes, I actually blame these types as part of high-end audio's problem, not its solution.

So here we are in a "high-end" audio forum entitled WhatBestForum and Amir suggests I read a white paper authored by "The (earless) Audio Expert" to substantiate a point?

My question to you is, if 1/10th of what I claim to have experienced with the Ethan Winer I think I know is true, why do you suppose Amir used him as a reference and suggest I read his writings? I guess my question is, why was I the only one who took offense?

In that light, I thought I was rather kind in my response to Amir.

BTW, I do try to be respectful of others even if I don't care for them much. In fact, in that same thread I mentioned earlier with Mark Levinson and John Curl, they both went to town on Ethan pretty good in what seemed an almost tag-team relentlessly demeaning and disrespectful manner. And in Ethan's defense (believe it or not) I lashed out at Levinson and Curl pretty severely for their behavior toward him. But eventually (months and years later) I think it was I who came around to ultimately realize what Levinson and Curl were really dealing with.

In my opinon.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Audiophile discussions are more convoluted and argumentative they have to be. A lot of our posts talk past each other, rather than attempt at the outset to understand the other person’s frame of reference and perspective.

I believe that if we were to take a step back there is a fairly simple way to better understand each other, and to better and more accurately interpret the opinions others hold and the comments others post. There are two elements to this theory: 1) determining, understanding and stating explicitly your objective of high-end audio, and 2) knowing and stating your musical preference.

First, I believe there are three primary alternative objectives of high-end audio:

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape, and

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile.
​

I am well aware of the critiques of even this list of objectives. What is an "original musical event"? Isn't the person in the third row experiencing a different musical event than the person in the last row? I am not focusing here on those questions.

An audiophile who believes in Objective 1 (“recreate the sound of an original musical event”) is unlikely to agree with an audiophile who believes in Objective 2 (“reproduce exactly what is on the master tape”). This difference in objective will manifest itself in debates about frequency response, accuracy, fidelity, “musicality,” realism, etc., and, of course, about loudspeakers, amplifiers, analog versus digital, etc.

Of course we may think we have more than one objective. Someone who wants to reproduce exactly what is on the master tape is not likely to feel that he has no interest in what the original musical event sounded like.

If each of us could be introspective enough to identify what each of us considers to be our primary objective of high-end audio and state it at the outset I think that a great amount of the mutual misunderstanding and argumentativeness would dissipate, like the “fog” of war clears once the shooting ceases. Instead of posting back-and-forth like the old-school Rock’em Sock’em Robots game until one or both parties is exhausted, I think a higher level of mutual understanding could be achieved.

Second, I think an even incrementally higher level of mutual understanding could be achieved if we then cross reference our high-end audio objective with our preference in music. Combining our high-end audio objective with our preference in music allows us to take predictability about the sound and component preferences of others to the next level.

I believe there will be a significant correlation between an audiophile for whom the objective of high-end audio is Objective 1 (“recreate the sound of an original musical event”) and who listens primarily to jazz and such person's preference for horn speakers driven by SET amplifiers. Conversely, I believe there will be a significant correlation between an audiophile for whom the objective of high-end audio is Objective 2 (“reproduce exactly what is on the master tape”) and who likes a mix of musical genres including rock and pop and electronic music and such person's preference for dynamic driver speakers driven by solid-state amplifiers.

This may be more controversial but I think that an audiophile for whom the objective of high-end audio is Objective 2 (“reproduce exactly what is on the master tape”) is more likely to be a fan of digital playback than is an audiophile for whom the objective of high-end audio is Objective 1 (“recreate the sound of an original musical event”).

To illustrate this theory I will discuss a post on Brad’s thread Live music, Tone and Presence: What most systems get wrong opened on December 5, 2016. In Post #170 of that thread Al wrote: “The point is, a life-like saturated tone color from a tube amp, or perhaps even a SET, may be just a distortion, notwithstanding that the tone color may remind you more of live music.”

I am not in any way picking on Al. This is simply one of dozens of examples I could have used to attempt to illustrate this theory. I think this one sentence embodies the talking past each other to which I refer.

Someone who believes that of the objective of high-end audio is Objective 1 (“recreate the sound of an original musical event”) cares only about whether an audio system reminds him of live music. Someone who believes the objective high-end audio is Objective 2 (“reproduce exactly what is on the master tape”) is likely to believe that whether a system creates a sound which reminds one more or less of live music is not particularly relevant; this person cares about whether the system is producing a sound which accurately reproduces what is on the master tape. These two audiophiles may argue endlessly without ever understanding each other.

The audiophile who believes in Objective 1 doesn’t care doesn’t think in terms of “accuracy” or “neutrality” or about “fidelity to the master tape.” This audiophile may know that each of his components produces some theoretically undesirable distortion, but all he cares about is that when sautéed together the system creates a sound which to him is a reasonable facsimile of the sound of the original musical event.

An audiophile who subscribes to Objective 2 would be horrified by putting together components which are “colored” or “non-linear” or which generate excessive distortion. To this audiophile such a system is not accurate, does not reflect the master tape with fidelity, and is untethered from any determinate recording reference.

I hope it is obvious that I am seeking merely to impose a modicum of order on spectrums of preferences with infinite diversity of opinions and preferences. I am scanning for useful correlations, not perfect predictability. I am not trying to develop neat, clear lines, or to put everyone squarely into a box on a matrix. I realize fully that there are many people who listen exclusively to small jazz ensembles on conventional dynamic drivers speakers powered by solid-state amplifiers with digital as the source!

By failing to know and understand each others’ objective of high-end audio and musical preferences at the outset I think we are making mutual understanding and agreement more difficult to achieve than it needs to be. We would achieve a greater level of mutual understanding and we would discover that we agree on many more issues than it appears that we do if we were to begin by understanding each other’s objective of high-end audio cross-referenced by our musical preferences. If we were to conduct somehow a broad survey, filling in with statistically valid samples this matrix of hobby objective versus musical preference I expect that we would find a higher degree of predictability in our opinions then we presently suspect would obtain. At the least I believe this theory will give us a better idea of where someone is "coming from."

Perhaps we could be more conscious of these issues and think about, determine and state explicitly what is our personal objective of high-end audio, and state what is our musical preference, when we join a discussion of complex and subjective issues?

Should we try this as an experiment? Volunteers are welcome!

I will start: I subscribe to Objective 1. I want my audio system to recreate as believably as possible the sound of an original musical event. I listen mostly to regular rock and pop and solo vocals, a bit of jazz and a little bit of classical.

Ron,

Still loving this thread even though at times it seems to have lost its way deeply in the noise.

In your opening paragraph you are clearly wanting to hear past the noise of the various debates and I believe then get to a more essential signal, that is a cleaner understanding of our underlying strategy or benchmark aims in our system design. I believe that a further deeper understanding would come for us if we determine which of these we relate to and then go one layer deeper again. If we look beyond what we feel we are aiming for and also look towards why exactly we are doing that.

Understanding why the experience of a system recreating an original event might be an important aim for someone... or to what end is there any real deeper meaning for someone in chasing the rabbit down the rabbit hole and trying to exactly recreate the sound of the original master tape. What is the underlying meaning of why some sense of our systems reproducing the liveness of the real event might be a valid pursuit. Why someone would want to adjust their experience towards a specifically tailored subjectively pleasing outcome.

The one connection between all of these strategies is that for whatever reason one or more of these criteria seems to equate to happiness for us.

EQing out the chaos and infinitely complex noise of how we do all the amazing things we do in this pursuit and then just reminding ourselves of the essential purpose and the true meaning of the whole journey might lead us to our true destination.

So I have my own notions of why I have as goals all 4 (including the recently discussed 'seems live' criteria) to some extent and at varying times focus on one or all as evaluative goals.

But maybe my one true ultimate goal is in the experience of music. To explore and experience the range of music that a system connects me deeply to is my ultimate strategy for system design. Does the music elevate us... and I'm not talking elevator music here.

So maybe the 3 of the 4 essential benchmark aims discussed respresent different perceptual sets and the odd one out for me is 2) as it represents something of a maya, an illusory objective that is not necessarily directly correlated to the human experience of listening and perception. Not to say that it isn't in some ways also a valid sub goal but it is coming from a different place to the others which have higher order distinctions in that they require an interpretation or synthesis of the human experience to be understood and applied.

So if the aim is the elevation and intoxification of the spirit ask yourself if any of all of these things make you want to join in, to dance, to feel, to understand the players and directly connect to them and through them as they whisk us away in their created sound fields and musical landscapes and guide us to our most essential and hidden places, to soul, the infinite container of all spirit. If it doesn't feel real is it valid anyway. If we aren't transported to union then wtf are we doing this for and are any of these criterias actually a destination point or are they all just markers along the way?

 

[morricab]

DaveC, it's probably no surprise to you when I say that my tolerance for nonsense isn't what it could or perhaps should be.

On its face, Amir's response seemed pleasant enough and I contemplated just ignoring it. But I decided to respond and I think for good reason. Especially in light of this thread's topic.

Tell me, DaveC. Do you know anything about Ethan Winer whom Amir referenced as material I should read? Assuming we're talking about the same Ethan Winer, Ethan authored a book a number of years ago entitled, The Audio Expert. Ethan Winer, whom I've engaged in discussions with too many times has freely admitted things like:

1. That all components and cables (that includes yours) all sound the same and all retain the fidelity of the input signal being processed.

2. That if a given system is unable to accurately reproduce the live performance, then it's because the recording engineer's faulty placement of the recording mic's.

3. That his ears (and therefore everybody else's) are untrustworthy so he relies on his trustworthy eyes for his system's audio-only performance.

Wait a minute.... Earlier in this very thread (post #306) I listed a number of highly questionable dogmas that result from people of this very same mindset.

... More importantly, a long list of dogmas result from overlooking this most basic fundament i.e. one's ability / inability to hear and interpret what one hears. For example:

- Some-to-many think most of us hear and interpret what we hear is very much like most.

- Some-to-many think because they cannot hear differences between components, cables, etc, that nobody else can or should hear differences either.

- Some-to-many think because they’ve been in this hobby for 40+ years, that longevity alone makes them an expert thus implying that hacks, bush-leaguers, and also-rans only exist in other industries.

- Some-to-many think performance comes from a price tag.

- Some-to-many have abandoned their “untrustworthy” ears for their “trustworthy” eyes (in an audio-only industry) and are convinced measurements are the new holy grail.

- Some-to-many who think they are high-end because of their alleged knowledge.

- Some-to-many think it common to have a given playback system sound remarkably close to the “live performace.”

- Some-to-many who think they just need to purchase high-end gear and plug'n play and they're in like Flint.

- Some-to-many who’ve never heard any improvements when swapping cables or components are often times the first to condemn those who have.

- Some-to-many think because they play an instrument, that somehow translates automatically to having well-trained ears.

- Some-to-many think high-end audio is mature from a performance perspective.

- Some-to-many who’ve never heard any improvements after trying a new technology are often times the first to condemn those who have and shout snake oil.

...​

I wrote a number of those dogmas with Ethan (and a few others) in mind and I could easily have gone on as well as included topics like denial, potential self-aggrandizing, people educated beyond their intelligence levels, paper tigers, etc.

And whether or not you adhere to any of the dogmas I listed above, none of these listed which cost the perpetrator and the perpetrated thousands of hours in wasted debate time have a thing to do with real performance. Moreover, it seems any time a thread makes any apparent progress along comes the Ethan types to sow discord and contention and bring everybody back to the lowest common denominator performance levels.

IMO, there's often times more to these personality types than meets the eye and the potential damage they induce regarding this industry's seemingly inability to grow and mature from a performance perspective seems never ending. Or to even engage in a single meaningful thread without having to go down 29 different technical rabbit holes already bantered in a previous thread that in the end always seem to fall into the abyss, only to be bantered yet again in the very next new thread. And then the next new thread. Yes, I actually blame these types as part of high-end audio's problem, not its solution.

So here we are in a "high-end" audio forum entitled WhatBestForum and Amir suggests I read a white paper authored by "The (earless) Audio Expert" to substantiate a point?

My question to you is, if 1/10th of what I claim to have experienced with the Ethan Winer I think I know is true, why do you suppose Amir used him as a reference and suggest I read his writings? I guess my question is, why was I the only one who took offense?

In that light, I thought I was rather kind in my response to Amir.

BTW, I do try to be respectful of others even if I don't care for them much. In fact, in that same thread I mentioned earlier with Mark Levinson and John Curl, they both went to town on Ethan pretty good in what seemed an almost tag-team relentlessly demeaning and disrespectful manner. And in Ethan's defense (believe it or not) I lashed out at Levinson and Curl pretty severely for their behavior toward him. But eventually (months and years later) I think it was I who came around to ultimately realize what Levinson and Curl were really dealing with.

In my opinon.

Interestingly, Ethan's point 2 about the recording is more right than not. The other points are silliness and pure ego centrism.

I particluarly like this myth you put forward:

"Some-to-many think it common to have a given playback system sound remarkably close to the “live performace.” "

This was at the heart of my post a couple months ago about a close up live performance in a house concert. Almost NO playback systems I have heard sound like live in more than a passing resemblence, regardless of how good the recording.

I still don't get why this instigated an attack on Amir when he was only pointing out that Ethan made some files with sound supposedly below the noise floor that were supposedly audible (I have seen on other forums some technical experts taking apart his files and claiming the sounds weren't really below the noise floor). You say you have your reasons and you seem like an otherwise reasonable fellow... Amir was only pointing out that hearing below the noise floor (and detection in general of signals) IS possible below the noise floor. Anyway, I just want to point out that I generally like your posts and that is why that one stood out.

I have an analytical method that I use at work for X-Ray Photoelectron Diffraction (XRPD) in order to determine crytallinity in an otherwise amorphous material. The signal is often below what we consider a detectable peak but with multiple scans you can average the signal and reduce the noise by square root of n (n is number of scans). This works because the signal is always there in the same place and amplitude but the noise is random (or at least it should be) and therefore cancels itself out to some degree on averaging. This allows for detection when at first glance there is no signal.

 

[RogerD]

I still think we approach our sonic goals from a arse backwards mentality. First must come the goal of audio signal purity in our systems then whatever level of audio reproduction that is realized then if needed then we can make changes.
Also I think I would use the goal of getting closer to what the microphone is able gather and transfer to the recording medium. As many say "I am closer to the music",but how close can we get to the microphone? What would that do to reveal the level of information? How would it affect the presentation? If we do indeed achieve @ the microphone would that change gain levels or improve speaker efficiency? Also this level of information should have a dramatic effect on clarity,compression,dynamics,tone.ect.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Mine would go from the letters A to Z, so I would need some space on the island. If there wasn't, I' d settle for yours but would bring some Handel, Schnittke, Berio and Prokofiev as well.

Id love to spend some quality time on your island of A to Z and also visit Astrotoys island of 15,000 deccas and then swing past Al's to experience some Schnittke and Schubert as well. The music and the people connected to it are the adventure and the core. I figure the gear is just the doorway albeit a very fascinating and at times beautiful and alluring door but still the thing is to not get stuck just looking at the doorway but going through it and settling within.

 

[stehno]

Interestingly, Ethan's point 2 about the recording is more right than not. The other points are silliness and pure ego centrism.

I particluarly like this myth you put forward:

"Some-to-many think it common to have a given playback system sound remarkably close to the “live performace.” "

This was at the heart of my post a couple months ago about a close up live performance in a house concert. Almost NO playback systems I have heard sound like live in more than a passing resemblence, regardless of how good the recording.

I still don't get why this instigated an attack on Amir when he was only pointing out that Ethan made some files with sound supposedly below the noise floor that were supposedly audible (I have seen on other forums some technical experts taking apart his files and claiming the sounds weren't really below the noise floor). You say you have your reasons and you seem like an otherwise reasonable fellow... Amir was only pointing out that hearing below the noise floor (and detection in general of signals) IS possible below the noise floor. Anyway, I just want to point out that I generally like your posts and that is why that one stood out.

I have an analytical method that I use at work for X-Ray Photoelectron Diffraction (XRPD) in order to determine crytallinity in an otherwise amorphous material. The signal is often below what we consider a detectable peak but with multiple scans you can average the signal and reduce the noise by square root of n (n is number of scans). This works because the signal is always there in the same place and amplitude but the noise is random (or at least it should be) and therefore cancels itself out to some degree on averaging. This allows for detection when at first glance there is no signal.

Thanks for the constructive note, morricab. That was just a small sampling of some the nonsensical claims I remember and would prefer to forget.

Yes, I remember your post from a few months ago as I found it refreshing to read as I don't see admissions like that with any real frequency.

Amir's response actually contained 3 links to Ethan's stuff. I never clicked on those links for I already knew their value. But I did just now click on the first link to ensure it was a paper presumably written by Ethan. I tried reading one of Ethan's papers once so I just assume all of his writings would be equally frustrating. Regardless, I thought I was pretty clear why I responded the way I did and prefer not to elaborate further.

With all due respect, I do have a question to ask you.

How is it possible for one to think somebody is more right than wrong about recording mic's placement being the sole culprit for a playback system's presentation that falls short of the live performance unless one also thinks there's gotta be more right than wrong to the claim that all components and cables sound the same and all maintain the fidelity of the input signal?

Sorry but I had to ask.

 

[amirm]

Amir, I have my own opinion but in your opinion, which would you consider to be the bigger hack, Ethan Winer or you?

Well, truth to be hold we are both highly competitive. Sometimes he pulls ahead, sometimes I do. Then came the time when I invented this method of reheating frozen Pizza and I won the race for good:

 

[RogerD]

Well, truth to be hold we are both highly competitive. Sometimes he pulls ahead, sometimes I do. Then came the time when I invented this method of reheating frozen Pizza and I won the race for good:

That's got to be a first....speechless from a scratch pizza maker

 

[DaveC]

DaveC, it's probably no surprise to you when I say that my tolerance for nonsense isn't what it could or perhaps should be. ........

I definitely agree more than disagree with you, but patience is a virtue and ignoring certain people is always an option. I did laugh about Amir bringing up Ethan, but apparently Amir holds him in high regard? ... that was more entertaining than offensive, lol.

 

[Whatmore]

DaveC, it's probably no surprise to you when I say that my tolerance for nonsense isn't what it could or perhaps should be.

On its face, Amir's response seemed pleasant enough and I contemplated just ignoring it. But I decided to respond and I think for good reason. Especially in light of this thread's topic.

Love it!
The oft repeated line that Americans don't get irony. So true

 

[morricab]

Thanks for the constructive note, morricab. That was just a small sampling of some the nonsensical claims I remember and would prefer to forget.

Yes, I remember your post from a few months ago as I found it refreshing to read as I don't see admissions like that with any real frequency.

Amir's response actually contained 3 links to Ethan's stuff. I never clicked on those links for I already knew their value. But I did just now click on the first link to ensure it was a paper presumably written by Ethan. I tried reading one of Ethan's papers once so I just assume all of his writings would be equally frustrating. Regardless, I thought I was pretty clear why I responded the way I did and prefer not to elaborate further.

With all due respect, I do have a question to ask you.

How is it possible for one to think somebody is more right than wrong about recording mic's placement being the sole culprit for a playback system's presentation that falls short of the live performance unless one also thinks there's gotta be more right than wrong to the claim that all components and cables sound the same and all maintain the fidelity of the input signal?

Sorry but I had to ask.

That is highly illogical captain, Mr. Spock would say. And Kirk would respond ,"Yes Mr. Spock" and that would say it all. Internal inconsistencies are all too human.

 

[amirm]

That's got to be a first....speechless from a scratch pizza maker

In that case, you will get a real kick out of my other invention:

Now you can stock half as much utensils and use the rest of the space for audio cables and such.

 

[RogerD]

In that case, you will get a real kick out of my other invention:

Now you can stock half as much utensils and use the rest of the space for audio cables and such.

Amir if that's Minestrone....count me in...

 

[spiritofmusic]

I bet that device measures flawlessly

 

[microstrip]

(...)

I particluarly like this myth you put forward:

"Some-to-many think it common to have a given playback system sound remarkably close to the “live performace.” "

This was at the heart of my post a couple months ago about a close up live performance in a house concert. Almost NO playback systems I have heard sound like live in more than a passing resemblence, regardless of how good the recording.

(...)

Just to point that this a subjective statement, and your opinion on it is also subjective. "remarkably close" is a relative statement that can have very different meanings according to people preferences and weighting of the factors that approach reality.

Surely our perception of relatively close is evolutionary - every time we listen to a better system we come closer to the live performance. IMHO it can be an objective, but not used as an absolute scale for system comparison. The participation of the listener in the creation of the illusion in the sound reproduction process is so large that only understanding and tolerance can help towards in a healthy and interesting debate. I must say that IMHO considering other people views as myths does not help.

Increase Mutual Understanding is a desirable point in WBF, predictability is still a dream in the high-end, as the high-end is too individualist. The only way to achieve predictability is narrowing or denying the individual preferences, something that, fortunately, most audiophiles are not prepared to accept.

 

[bonzo75]

Playback systems are not supposed to sound like live, just supposed to help you sufficiently suspend disbelief so that it appeals to the senses conditioned to live music (this is for those whom reproducing live is the goal). The more it helps you suspend the better the system

 

[amirm]

Playback systems are not supposed to sound like live, just supposed to help you sufficiently suspend disbelief so that it appeals to the senses conditioned to live music (this is for those whom reproducing live is the goal). The more it helps you suspend the better the system

Pretty reasonable .

At RMAF I heard a singer sing along her own music. Her voice was flat and pretty uninteresting whereas the one in the recording was full of warmth, and pleasantness. If presented behind a curtain I am sure everyone would prefer the recording to her plain voice! There is a reason we like to sing in the shower than outdoor.

To say that we are trying to replicate live experience is to nullify the tons of work that goes on in capture, post production and mastering of the music. Ask those people what they do and they will explain how they take the ordinary and make it great. We are listening to their taste.

One of the best pre-recorded sounds I hears was a couple of nights ago in the form of soundtrack of the movie Arrival. The Composer, Jóhann Jóhannsson made normal recordings that he then washed through a 16-track Reel to Reel recorder in a loop and varied its speed. Using just a bit of reverb and no other effect he created music that had superb dynamics and importantly for this topic, great sense of realism. Realism to something that does not even exist -- soundtrack of aliens and how they and the actors felt at the time. The level of fidelity was out of this world. He created an artificial sound which was so real.

As audiophiles we develop jointly a sense of clarity, dynamics, frequency response, balance, etc. that we look for. When those are present, we give the combination of the content+system a thumbs up. Ton of that is created by the music itself. That is why if I volunteer a great piece of high fidelity music, many would agree regardless of what system they use to play it on. If as micro says we all have different preferences, that should not happen yet it happens every day of the week and twice on sunday. And this affection doesn't have anything to do with creating a live sound but what bonzo says in creating a virtual sense of realism. It is what we think transparency is even though it is a painting we are looking at and not at all transparent to any live source.

We keep talking about the system sounding like live music because that is the accolade lay people use to describe our crazy systems. And is the mother of all marketing tactics for selling audio since Edison. As people in neither camp, we need to accept the reality, rally around it rather than insisting on things that cannot exist. Or are ways to sell us systems.

Micro insists on the differential between people preferences which has been shown to simply not be there over and over again, as a justification for why every system component choice and combination goes. Well, that can't possibly be true as there is only one truth which is the live music. It can't possibly have unlimited variations which the owner says is truthful to live music. One or the other part of this argument must be wrong within the argument itself. Put these systems behind a curtain and no way do you get the variations that exists otherwise. People for the most part like the same things. Most of us like chocolate, steak, pizza and minestrone soup.

 

[bonzo75]

I disagree, you can form taste for food by experimenting with cuisines and stress testing restaurants and menus. I don't really enjoy pizza and while I have steak for protein with veg I think this is something the developed western world came up with because it is relatively quick to cook and they did not have time - the hard work is done by a butcher. As opposed to a cooking process that takes hours at home, developed over centuries. Similarly, if you go to live concerts your frame of reference will change from the pizza equivalent of music. And then suspension of disbelief that i referred to is tougher.

 

[amirm]

I disagree, you can form taste for food by experimenting with cuisines and stress testing restaurants and menus. I don't really enjoy pizza and while I have steak for protein with veg I think this is something the developed western world came up with because it is relatively quick to cook and they did not have time - the hard work is done by a butcher. As opposed to a cooking process that takes hours at home, developed over centuries. Similarly, if you go to live concerts your frame of reference will change from the pizza equivalent of music. And then suspension of disbelief that i referred to is tougher.

It is fine to be an exception. There are people who don't like Pizza but in a survey of general population, we find that vast majority do and hence that is a reliable fact we can use. Looked up the numbers and the US Pizza market alone is $35 *billion* dollar market. That doesn't happen if we don't have such commonality in taste.

But maybe there are differences in food but I can tell you that for audio that has been studied and the results overwhelming agree that most of us prefer the same thing. If we are all different why doesn't Wilson make bunch of speakers with wildly different sounds?

Let's get even closer. Recently I started a project to track down music that reviewers use to test equipment. I added to that personal visits such as what was used when MikeL visited David (ddk). I then dug through Tidal and found most of the music: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/reviewers-music.1373/#post-35999

I then played those albums. Needless to say, my system is wildly different than David's. I am streaming digital and not playing LP. I don't have his speakers. I don't have tubes. Heck in some cases I even got the wrong version of the album. Yet, despite all of that, I found the music he played to sound very good to superb on my system. I read that MikeL also went home and played some of the same music on wildly different system yet he found the music just as satisfying.

What this says is that we are rallying around the same production of music and that we do so in a similar manner. Which is a great thing or we would be wasting our time trying to explain our experience to each other!

Again, all of this has been tested in controlled experiments rather than anecdotal. But we don't talk about that here so I won't post it. Importantly there is no such data that supports we all have different taste in audio reproduction. It is our opinion driven by our gut which is fine. It is just that it is in dire need of validation.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

techie/quasi-scientists have a hard time dealing with subjective nuance. it makes their minds go 'tilt' and want to go 'fix it'. so denying the legitimacy of 'approaching live' with relative 'suspension of disbelief' is essential for them.

but we really don't want fixing. we embrace subjective nuance and the subjective part is precious to us.

actual real live scientists are just fine with subjectivity. they know they don't have all the answers.