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:
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.
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.
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.
.
