Do you agree or disagree with this statement

[DaveyF]

Acoustic guitars are organic. No two sound exactly alike, yet Taylors sound like Taylors, etc. Yet, within that variability, builders do exactly what Gary said -- the pick a top wood, a bridge material, and more importantly, design/construction ideas and conventions that they will build with, understanding the affect those choices will have on sound, predicting what they will get. Which is, of course, the only reason why, in spite of all the organic materials, a Taylor sounds like a Taylor. And for the most part, there are no significant user mods to be made on acoustic guitars.

Electrics are very different. Most of them, even the big hollow-bodied Gretsch, are designed to minimize the impact of the organic material on the sound. See the solid bar of steel on the top of the Gretsch's bridge? Mass. Density. It prevents the vibrations of the strings from transferring to the top (which is heavily braced plywood designed to further prevent vibration). It keeps the energy in the string, for greater sustain and more effective transfer to what matters -- the pickups. There are mods you can make to electrics that have huge impact on the sound, but nothing as huge as the two made on that Gretsch: The pickups and that steel bar bridge.

The black guitar, Black Dog, is a mutt. A Jazzmaster body with a Telecaster bridge/pickup combination. It had a Gibson-style pickup in the neck position, but it was too dark for my tastes and I recently changed it to the Gretsch-style that's in there now. I like it a lot better. It has better synergy with the bridge pickup .

I'm perfectly comfortable with this approach in guitars and find it inappropriate in audio systems. Why? Because the guitars are musical instruments, they are producers of music. In my view, an audio system exists to reproduce the sound of musical instruments as captured on recordings, as accurately as possible. The extent to which it does that is the extent to which it succeeds at its purpose. You may see another purpose, and approach differently. Enjoy.

Tim

Tim , what you say is somewhat true if you are comparing just acoustics to electrics. OTOH, the better electrics that I know of are designed with a keen eye on what organic material is used. As an example, my ash bodied Tele was designed to have a certain sound, just like my alder bodied strat. I'm sure you have seen the latest trend ( which i severely dislike, BTW) which is to design the body with chambers to relieve the weight...plus different types of woods for the body. Same is true with the neck materials....ebony, rosewood, maple...all on electrics and all IMO giving a different sound and playability. So, in this regard, I would say that electrics are very much the same as acoustics.
I know that I played just as many, or more, strats than my Taylor before I bought my "blackie"

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

It's the same old argument, and it's not philosophical. The fidelity of the output of the electronics, and even the speakers, can be measured relative to the recording. And yes, once that signal is out in the air of a live room, all bets are off, or at least we find ourselves facing a whole new wager. That doesn't negate the validity of the quest for qualitative accuracy up to that point; neither does the notion that "cues" which create the perception of "natural," or whatever, are not revealed my measurements. Unless you believe those cues come from electronic distortions. I do not. I believe they come from the listening environment and the listener's expectations.

And so I still believe the ideal is to put the most accurate representation of the recording into that listening environment. YMMV.

And before we go there yet again, yes, I understand that specifications are not measurements and that comprehensive measurements are pretty rare in high-end audio. The industry's, and the hobby's, dismissal of the importance of good, repeatable metrics, coupled with its rejectiion of, and failure to attempt to repeat the measurements that are taken in spite of them, does not make me believe they are not important. It just frees them believe whatever they like.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim , what you say is somewhat true if you are comparing just acoustics to electrics. OTOH, the better electrics that I know of are designed with a keen eye on what organic material is used. As an example, my ash bodied Tele was designed to have a certain sound, just like my alder bodied strat. I'm sure you have seen the latest trend ( which i severely dislike, BTW) which is to design the body with chambers to relieve the weight...plus different types of woods for the body. Same is true with the neck materials....ebony, rosewood, maple...all on electrics and all IMO giving a different sound and playability. So, in this regard, I would say that electrics are very much the same as acoustics.
I know that I played just as many, or more, strats than my Taylor before I bought my "blackie"

Nothing to argue with here, Davey, but you're talking about extreme subtleties. I could take two Custom Shop Teles, made on exactly the same day by the same master builder, of wood from exactly the same ash and maple trees, put Barden pickups on one and vintage Fender pickups on the other and they would sound nothing alike. I could take another Tele, with a chambered mahogany body, mahogany neck and ebony fretboard, built by another guy in another country in a dfferent decade, and put the same electronics in it and one of the ash/maple examples, and they would sound remarkably alike.

It's all a matter of degrees.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

My curiosity is in how a person determines how he personally evaluates the level of accuracy he is at. If the answer is measurements be they published specs or taken by one's self, fine. If there are other answers, these would be nice to know too.

 

[Gregadd]

But is not that what it's all about? If you concede the existence of subtlety and nuance then it should be present on the source. If it's present on the source, an accurate system should convey it. If it's not the system malfunctioned. If it's not on the source then the recording system malfunctioned either intentionally or due to it's inherent limitations.

 

[DaveyF]

Nothing to argue with here, Davey, but you're talking about extreme subtleties. I could take two Custom Shop Teles, made on exactly the same day by the same master builder, of wood from exactly the same ash and maple trees, put Barden pickups on one and vintage Fender pickups on the other and they would sound nothing alike. I could take another Tele, with a chambered mahogany body, mahogany neck and ebony fretboard, built by another guy in another country in a dfferent decade, and put the same electronics in it and one of the ash/maple examples, and they would sound remarkably alike.

It's all a matter of degrees.

Tim

Tim, the musicians are on the same page

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

My curiosity is in how a person determines how he personally evaluates the level of accuracy he is at. If the answer is measurements be they published specs or taken by one's self, fine. If there are other answers, these would be nice to know too.

Well, I guess you don't do it definitively without measurement, Jack, but if desire for fidelity to the recording drives your quest it will guide the kind of equipment you're interested in, the design philosophies you subscribe to...what you believe in and seek when it comes to audio. An admittedly exaggerated example, but I'm pretty sure, without measuring anything, that they guy listening to digital files from a server through a good DAC into a ML driving a pair of Magicos is getting a higher level of fidelity to the recording than they guy playing vintage vinyl through an SET amp driving a pair of classic Klispch. Take that extreme example and bring it down to a much more subtle level and you'll begin to understand. Whether we want to admit it or not, there is high-end equipment that ignores fidelity and pursues systemic "tone." Do your best to ID this stuff and avoid it like the plague and you've got a pretty good start.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

I guess what I'm saying is that I know no way to null the outputs of two loudspeakers playing stereo vs what's on the carrier medium. So as far as measurements go, I have to ask which are relevant if absolute fidelity is the goal.

 

[NorthStar]

-- I guess that the original recording engineer had/has the best seat.
...On how acoustic live music should be accurately reproduced.

At the end, it's the job that they did that we like or not (to taste, to preference).
And the best is exactly that; our own preference.

Like some members have already said; how can we know which mike was used (type), or/and how many of them, or/and if the recording was in-phase or out of-phase.

The incertitude (lack of knowledge) on our favorite music recordings become our confidence in liking them (taste).
And the gear we like is the best; what we prefer. ...Audio reproduction by our loudspeakers, with our sources, from our music mediums of choice. ...Passing by the volume control and level, and through our wires. ...Setting things up as best as we know, learn, and experience.
...By experimentation.

 

[NorthStar]

-- Accuracy only exists in the 'live' reality. ...Not in audio reproduction.

 

[JackD201]

Yes Bob. The thing is, even if you get gear that measures well and match them up, we all know it's no guarantee that there won't be anything screwed up, sometimes royally.

Take a system I tuned up recently. It was an active system, tri-amped plus a pair of subwoofers. The electronic XO was a DBX unit and the subs had two sets of parametric EQs each. The only measurement tool I had on hand was a handheld RTA. The XO points had been set up by someone else before I stepped in. My friend was complaining about the sound being forward and nasal. Gain and XO had been set up by the last guys and the curve on the RTA was a fairly good one in slope but the room was not allowing bass to develop much below 40Hz at which point it was some 6dB down and dropping like a rock. Upon inspection, the main woofers were set to roll off mechanically and the subs to catch it. I decided to cut off the woofers low end because the nasality was easily identifiable as cabinet resonance. I also changed the crossover point and slope from horn to ribbon to an asymmetric setting as the forwardness was coming from this region. A scant 20 minutes later and he was quite surprised and happy with the sound. Now the thing is, the slope/curve before and after looked the same. No surprise since RTA's measure AVERAGED energy. It doesn't tell you what that energy is.

Now I'm not saying the RTA was no help. It was immensely helpful, however what can be taken away from this is that it cannot and never will be able to tell you what exactly you should do.

 

[NorthStar]

-- ...And we'll never know what's exactly behind all our music recordings.

 

[JackD201]

That too. So Tim's position is actually a nice solid one, as solid as any at least. What's there is there, simple. The only chink is that we don't listen to 0s and 1s, grooves or magnetized particles. We don't listen to voltage swings either. We listen to changes in air pressure. THAT is what needs to be measured, correlated and compared.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think you're making the problem, and possibly the systems, too complicated, Jack. Start with manufacturers that are trying to create fidelity instead of tone. If they seem to have measured more thoroughly than the norm, and to have taken measurement, and fidelity to the recording very seriously, take a second look. If they seem to be trying to reduce coloration, increase headroom, eliminate inconsistencies and promote broad compatibility, put them in the consideration set. It they're communication is full of pseudoscience and bad poetry, if they seem to seek a house sound above fidelity - if they even believe that is not a contradiction - run away as fast as you can. Or wrap your loving arms around them, depending on your personal sonic goals.

And listen, of course. Not to digits or grooves or magnetic particles, but to the air moving in the room. Do you hear the recording? Seriously. Some people talk about this as if it is a bad thing, that you can't be listening to the recording and enjoying the music at once. I can listen to the music on my car radio. If I don't want to hear my recordings, there really is no point in this hobby for me. I want to hear their flaws and their victories. If I thought for a moment that a component or a system of mine (other than a changeable signal processing component like EQ) was somehow making my worst recordings easier to listen to I would get it out of my system as quickly as possible. And on the best recordings, I want to hear something a bit closer to the real sound of real instruments. Not the pleasant sound of hifi. You've been in a room with a trap set. You know how intrusive a splash cymbal is. You know stereo can't really do that and I suspect you know when it's getting closer, if somewhat in miniature. It ain't warm and smooth and musical. And if it is, your system, or your recording, ain't accurate.

In any case, this is my path, and it has taken me in a pretty consistent direction, away from tubes and vinyl and horns and even big floor-standers in big rooms and toward headroom and systemic (as opposed to improvisational) compatibility (ie: synergy), simple speaker designs with better drivers, fewer, pre-amplification crossovers, near field and headphones. It has developed in me a taste for precision, imaging, clarity, tonal realism and space around the instruments instead of scale, "soundstage," and tone that leans toward pleasant regardless of the program material. Are those two sets of attributes mutually exclusive? Yes, I believe they are.

Clearly my mileage varies from almost everyone else here, and that's OK. I'm aware of the limitations of both my approach and my systems. But I"m pretty sure the approach has been successful in seeking higher fidelity to the recording which is what this conversation is about.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

It's the same old argument, and it's not philosophical. The fidelity of the output of the electronics, and even the speakers, can be measured relative to the recording. And yes, once that signal is out in the air of a live room, all bets are off, or at least we find ourselves facing a whole new wager. That doesn't negate the validity of the quest for qualitative accuracy up to that point; neither does the notion that "cues" which create the perception of "natural," or whatever, are not revealed my measurements. Unless you believe those cues come from electronic distortions. I do not. I believe they come from the listening environment and the listener's expectations.

Tim,
The cues are in the recording. This is a very important point. They can be enhanced by some sort of processing due to the process of reproduction, but if they are not there originally nothing creates them. It is one of the difference between the great recordings and the average ones. Many systems kill them - and we do not see it in the measurements of single units. A good room helps to show them. We must separate the systematic effects created by artifacts that add something to recordings - it seems your experiences were mainly on this field - from the natural given by a top system when processing a good recording.

 

[TBone]

If you don't listen to live unamplified music twice a month you have no reference point to be able to judge if a system sounds like real music.

I think ... if you don't listen to a music on a reproductive system twice a month will you have no reference point to be able to judge what real music music sounds like?

(just kiddin)
tb1

 

[Alan Sircom]

If you don't listen to live unamplified music twice a month you have no reference point to be able to judge if a system sounds like real music.

The last unamplified concert I went to, I lowered the average age of the audience by 50 years, and I'm 49. Plus, there was so much coughing going on, it sounded like an emphysema clinic during influenza week.

TBH, I couldn't judge anything significant from this concert in relation to audio, unless I can find a copy of The Phlegm Brothers' epic Bronchitis Years LP.

Besides, almost every venue now has some kind of mild sound reinforcement. Some not so mild, and many have induction loops; if you ever want to have the Dream of Gerontius turn into a nightmare, sit next to someone who only stops snoring when their hearing aid feeds back.

I think this benchmarking against live, unamplified music is a good idea, though... if you can find it in the wild, and if the live, unamplified music you can regularly find is relevant to the music you listen to. Insisting someone who only listens to opera sits through two jazz sessions a month because that's the only benchmark they can visit or afford to visit would likely send them into a spiral of audio-hatred, and for good reason. Similarly, enforcing a reference point of live, unamplified music on someone who listens to nothing but Skrillex is pointless, and close to intellectual snobbery. Their reference point lies elsewhere, and we should respect that position as much as we do that of the live, unamplified listener.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,
The cues are in the recording. This is a very important point. They can be enhanced by some sort of processing due to the process of reproduction, but if they are not there originally nothing creates them. It is one of the difference between the great recordings and the average ones. Many systems kill them - and we do not see it in the measurements of single units. A good room helps to show them. We must separate the systematic effects created by artifacts that add something to recordings - it seems your experiences were mainly on this field - from the natural given by a top system when processing a good recording.

I'm sorry, micro, I misunderstood. If the cues you speak of are in the recording we merely have a semantic disagreement, not a philosophical one. The system with the greatest fidelity to the recording (ie: the more accurate system) will reproduce these "cues" most effectively. What the room and your perceptions do with them is, of course, another matter.

Tim

 

[mep]

Headphones are headphones and listening rooms are listening rooms just as eating at McDonalds is eating food just as eating at a Ruth Chris Steakhouse is eating food-they just aren't the same experience.

 

[Alan Sircom]

I think ... if you don't listen to a music on a reproductive system twice a month will you have no reference point to be able to judge what real music music sounds like?

(just kiddin)
tb1

For most of my married life, I've been trying to get my wife to play a tune on my reproductive system twice a month, but so far... not a squeak. Perhaps she's not blowing properly.