Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[microstrip]

The simple answer is that it isn't that relevant. The listener's emotional connection should be with the music, not with either the devices used to play that music or the format that it's carried upon.

The more complicated answer is it isn't that simple. The emotional baggage that goes into a mix tape or a CD given as a gift by a long-lost loved one has greater significance than the either the music or the medium itself. As hobbyists, there is an attendant - albeit different - emotional baggage that surrounds the equipment used in the replay chain, in a manner akin to what a fly fisher may have over their lures. They help define our position as 'audiophile' in a way that is both non-existent and incomprehensible to 'muggles'.

This is the elephant in the room with any kind of test, but especially blind or double-blind. The more forensic the audio test, the more it strives to eliminate the emotional connection that audiophiles prize. And, unless or until the hobbyist paradigm shifts so heavily away from that deeper link with the technology than mere utility, I suspect there will always be a clash between those who understand that link and those who dismiss it as irrelevant.

As this link has independently sprung up in the computer audio and headphone worlds long before the audio's old guard to get their hands on the categories, I suspect this peculiar not-quite-emotional connection with the technology has crossed the demographic fault line.

The simple answer can be acceptable if we just consider that better equipment statistically produces a better emotional connection with the listener. The issue can be complicated if you listen mainly to the type of music no one knows how it should sound. But if you listen mainly to acoustic music for which you can have good references from real non-amplified performances, the connection to the emotion is mainly caused by clues to the real think - that does not need to replicate the exact physical conditions, but requires some similitude, such as very good dynamics and timbre.

When carrying listening tests I try to look at all these clues - I have found that systems showing them are more enjoyable for me.

 

[jkeny]

The simple answer can be acceptable if we just consider that better equipment statistically produces a better emotional connection with the listener. The issue can be complicated if you listen mainly to the type of music no one knows how it should sound. But if you listen mainly to acoustic music for which you can have good references from real non-amplified performances, the connection to the emotion is mainly caused by clues to the real think - that does not need to replicate the exact physical conditions, but requires some similitude, such as very good dynamics and timbre.

When carrying listening tests I try to look at all these clues - I have found that systems showing them are more enjoyable for me.

I agree. We have models of sounds stored in our brains(?) to which we compare incoming sounds for identification purposes. When we listen to audio that is portraying these familiar sounds we judge their realism by comparison with our stored model. This is why using human voice/singing is often where we notice issues. Other sounds that we are familiar with also can reveal other aspects of the reproduction's realism such as piano, cymbals, snare drums, applause, etc. Timbre tends to be a big part of this realism, I believe.

 

[NorthStar]

I like the simplistic approach myself (without any complication and worrying).

But! There is another flip side to this coin: The reproduced music that we listen to, from the equipment that we don't see;
it certainly has an emotional connection, and that, has an overall impact on our listening assessment. ...We aren't machines, robots.
If we can 100% detach ourselves from the music's attachments in our vibratory chords, and only assess the equipment (audio gear, loudspeakers, and audio interconnects, cables, ...), then we have true professional listeners of the highest caliber!

And what is preference for one is only that; one.
And the average of a group of serious listeners (experienced), has a greater influence, and we tend to tilt that way.
And that average is what's all about because on that certain day (or evening, night, morning), and in that specific circumstance (with the main 'speaker', the orator, the leader, the doer, the changer of equipment, and the specific listening audience with their disposition at that specific time and space, plus the 'influencers' and the 'influencees'), is how accurate we can deduct those double-blind listening tests under affluent minute nuances.

For me it is certainly less than perfect in this imperfect audio world.

Add all the objectivity and subjectivity together of this world, and you would still end up with an incomplete evaluation. ...I truly think.
So, no abso!ute ever.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The simple answer can be acceptable if we just consider that better equipment statistically produces a better emotional connection with the listener. The issue can be complicated if you listen mainly to the type of music no one knows how it should sound. But if you listen mainly to acoustic music for which you can have good references from real non-amplified performances, the connection to the emotion is mainly caused by clues to the real think - that does not need to replicate the exact physical conditions, but requires some similitude, such as very good dynamics and timbre.

When carrying listening tests I try to look at all these clues - I have found that systems showing them are more enjoyable for me.

Can you share some of these statistics? You do know what statistical means, right?

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

Emotional data?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Emotional data?

Passion and probability.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Can you share some of these statistics? You do know what statistical means, right?

Tim

Yes I know what statistical means. But the way you ask seems you do not. There is nothing to share. Statistically in this sentence just means that not on all events, but with a margin that can exceed the error. Data coming from perceptual processes must me statistically analyzed - do not expect me to debate such matters in depth - besides I am not an expert in this particular field of statistics. If your interest is big buy a textbook.

 

[Alan Sircom]

The simple answer can be acceptable if we just consider that better equipment statistically produces a better emotional connection with the listener. The issue can be complicated if you listen mainly to the type of music no one knows how it should sound. But if you listen mainly to acoustic music for which you can have good references from real non-amplified performances, the connection to the emotion is mainly caused by clues to the real think - that does not need to replicate the exact physical conditions, but requires some similitude, such as very good dynamics and timbre.

When carrying listening tests I try to look at all these clues - I have found that systems showing them are more enjoyable for me.

I'n not so convinced by this argument anymore. I think it's too reductionist. Benchmarking against unamplified music in an acoustic space gives us an anchor point, but it should be considered just one anchor point to define musical reproduction, not the process entire.

Three fairly big counter-arguments drop out of this. First, there's actually not a lot of truly unamplified music played in an acoustic space out there now. Almost any concert hall that has been in for remodelling in the last 30+ years has been fitted with active DSP treatment in the listening space. So, referencing your own listening against a known live benchmark is often more difficult than anyone imagines.

The 'no one knows how it should sound' argument is worn pretty thin too. I never had the opportunity to hear Lady Day sing live, and the only benchmark I have of her, John Coltrane, Jascha Heifetz, Arthur Rubinstein, Eric Dolphy, Louis Armstrong and many more are through their recordings. IIRC, I have never yet heard a zither or a gamelan played live. And yet, not only can I recognise these musicians and instruments on record, but in many cases find their recordings useful to evaluate audio equipment. If you need to have experienced the live, unamplified sound of an instrument to somehow lock your audiophile experience with some kind of Platonic Form of the instrument, then all of these sounds would be rendered invalid.

But perhaps most importantly, it smacks of elitism. The musical experience of someone who listens to EDM or dub is not somehow less significant than the person listening to live, unamplified music. How is the passionate metal fan who has hundreds of recordings to hand and is intensely knowledgable about his or her artform of choice any different from the passionate baroque enthusiast who can do the same? The experience may be very different, and that may require a different set of listening criteria and ultimately even a different system, but the musical passion and impetus to discover more remains the same.

A system built for a metal fan should be constructed with no more or less care and attention than a jazz-loving audiophile receives. But if you turn up to an audio show with something like a Mastodon album under your arm (Crack the Skye in particular is fantastically well recorded), the chances of you listening to more than a few bars are slim at best. In part this is because we have spent so long only using live, unamplified music as our one and only goal, that anything else - even the anything else that usually sounds good - sounds flaccid.

There's another argument, every bit as valid as the prevailing trend. It's the 'I know it when I see it' argument. Put simply, if it sounds good, it probably is good. We already have an anchor point in live, unamplified music. Add more anchor points. Almost everything on the first James Blake or The XX albums is treated or synthesised, but the albums sound unquestionably good. Rather than speculating on why they can sound good or even how anyone has a right to say that, we should be analysing why they tend to sound good on almost every system, apart from those heavily geared toward an 'live and unamplified' approach.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Another great post, Alan. You're on a roll. Jazz, acoustic and classical recordings do have an inherent advantage though: They tend not to be overly compressed. But there are rock recordings out there that have not been digitally squashed too far, and even some recordings that are noticeably compressed, but still sound very good.

Tim

 

[rbbert]

Another great post, Alan. You're on a roll. Jazz, acoustic and classical recordings do have an inherent advantage though: They tend not to be overly compressed. But there are rock recordings out there that have not been digitally squashed too far, and even some recordings that are noticeably compressed, but still sound very good.

Tim

Actually, most new jazz and even folk/bluegrass albums are quite ridiculously compressed; the music tends to be more dynamic so it's not as immediately noticeable, but if you look at the peak-above-RMS values they are much worse today than (say) 20 years ago, and after awhile it becomes very noticeable in listening as well.

 

[rbbert]

Alan, apparently the CD versions of Crack The Skye are quite compressed compared to the LP's. Are there any of the various CD releases of it which sound better than others?

 

[Alan Sircom]

Alan, apparently the CD versions of Crack The Skye are quite compressed compared to the LP's. Are there any of the various CD releases of it which sound better than others?

Not AFAIK. It's not dramatically compressed, but it is cut a lot hotter than the LP.

 

[microstrip]

I'n not so convinced by this argument anymore. I think it's too reductionist. Benchmarking against unamplified music in an acoustic space gives us an anchor point, but it should be considered just one anchor point to define musical reproduction, not the process entire.

We can easily partially agree on this one. I prefer it because I listen mainly to acoustical music and it makes things easier for me.

Three fairly big counter-arguments drop out of this. First, there's actually not a lot of truly unamplified music played in an acoustic space out there now. Almost any concert hall that has been in for remodelling in the last 30+ years has been fitted with active DSP treatment in the listening space. So, referencing your own listening against a known live benchmark is often more difficult than anyone imagines.

Perhaps we should have a poll in WBF asking people how many unamplified performances they have listened in the last five years.

The 'no one knows how it should sound' argument is worn pretty thin too. I never had the opportunity to hear Lady Day sing live, and the only benchmark I have of her, John Coltrane, Jascha Heifetz, Arthur Rubinstein, Eric Dolphy, Louis Armstrong and many more are through their recordings. IIRC, I have never yet heard a zither or a gamelan played live. And yet, not only can I recognise these musicians and instruments on record, but in many cases find their recordings useful to evaluate audio equipment. If you need to have experienced the live, unamplified sound of an instrument to somehow lock your audiophile experience with some kind of Platonic Form of the instrument, then all of these sounds would be rendered invalid.

You are mixing the artist performance with the sound of the instruments or identification of the characteristic of voices to make an argument. No one is referring to the artistic value of the recordings. Also the objective of sound reproduction is not just recognition. It is much more than that. If I had never listened to the sound of timpani live I would not be so critical of many systems.

But perhaps most importantly, it smacks of elitism. The musical experience of someone who listens to EDM or dub is not somehow less significant than the person listening to live, unamplified music. How is the passionate metal fan who has hundreds of recordings to hand and is intensely knowledgable about his or her artform of choice any different from the passionate baroque enthusiast who can do the same? The experience may be very different, and that may require a different set of listening criteria and ultimately even a different system, but the musical passion and impetus to discover more remains the same.

Sorry you find it smacks elitism. It is not my intention and I find sad that many people have this biased perspective. I have referred several times before that if my musical preferences were different my criteria would be different. I sometimes envy the people who systematically listen to music in great music halls with great performers and do not find any elitism when they report their findings. Most of the time I enjoy reading and learning from them.

A system built for a metal fan should be constructed with no more or less care and attention than a jazz-loving audiophile receives. But if you turn up to an audio show with something like a Mastodon album under your arm (Crack the Skye in particular is fantastically well recorded), the chances of you listening to more than a few bars are slim at best. In part this is because we have spent so long only using live, unamplified music as our one and only goal, that anything else - even the anything else that usually sounds good - sounds flaccid.

There's another argument, every bit as valid as the prevailing trend. It's the 'I know it when I see it' argument. Put simply, if it sounds good, it probably is good. We already have an anchor point in live, unamplified music. Add more anchor points. Almost everything on the first James Blake or The XX albums is treated or synthesised, but the albums sound unquestionably good. Rather than speculating on why they can sound good or even how anyone has a right to say that, we should be analysing why they tend to sound good on almost every system, apart from those heavily geared toward an 'live and unamplified' approach.

One of my references for life and unamplified sound are the Shostakovitch symphonies conducted by Haitink digitally recorded by Decca. I suggest you look to the spectrogram of the recordings before going into generalizations. BTW, you are the one who enjoys the James Black and are a good audio writer, perhaps you are the best of us to carry this analysis you suggest. I can guess that finding the vocabulary to describe the action of the system using treated or synthetised music will be different, perhaps even more challenging than acoustical music.

Just to end, I have never been in a battle field, but I appreciate the expertly recorded canon shots of the Mercury Thcaikovsky 1812 Festival Overture conducted by Doratti. I prefer them in some systems over others - I am not be able to tell which are more lifelike but it does not bother me.

 

[Alan Sircom]

We can easily partially agree on this one. I prefer it because I listen mainly to acoustical music and it makes things easier for me.




Perhaps we should have a poll in WBF asking people how many unamplified performances they have listened in the last five years.



You are mixing the artist performance with the sound of the instruments or identification of the characteristic of voices to make an argument. No one is referring to the artistic value of the recordings. Also the objective of sound reproduction is not just recognition. It is much more than that. If I had never listened to the sound of timpani live I would not be so critical of many systems.




Sorry you find it smacks elitism. It is not my intention and I find sad that many people have this biased perspective. I have referred several times before that if my musical preferences were different my criteria would be different. I sometimes envy the people who systematically listen to music in great music halls with great performers and do not find any elitism when they report their findings. Most of the time I enjoy reading and learning from them.



One of my references for life and unamplified sound are the Shostakovitch symphonies conducted by Haitink digitally recorded by Decca. I suggest you look to the spectrogram of the recordings before going into generalizations. BTW, you are the one who enjoys the James Black and are a good audio writer, perhaps you are the best of us to carry this analysis you suggest. I can guess that finding the vocabulary to describe the action of the system using treated or synthetised music will be different, perhaps even more challenging than acoustical music.

Just to end, I have never been in a battle field, but I appreciate the expertly recorded canon shots of the Mercury Thcaikovsky 1812 Festival Overture conducted by Doratti. I prefer them in some systems over others - I am not be able to tell which are more lifelike but it does not bother me.

I hope I didn't cause offence here. It was not my intention at all. And it's not my intent to suggest the methodology you describe lacks validity. Far from it - it stands us in good stead for evaluating, building and installing good systems.

Nevertheless, I stand by what I said. An increasing number of concert halls now use what they call 'electronic architecture', which is a form of active, DSP-driven acoustic treatment. The system is scalable and cheap enough to be used in mid-sized churches and clubs. HDPro Audio, for example, has practically all the London concert halls and opera houses on its books. Chances are, if you go to a major concert hall that has been revamped in the last 30-35 years, there will be a lot of DSP behind the scenes. This challenges the ability for people to reference 'the live music in a natural acoustic space', because the natural acoustic space is anything but natural. Whether this is anything more than an observation (the Barbican has gone from a terrible venue to a reasonably OK venue, so the process itself is beneficial... if 'artificial') remains to be seen.

I still feel the sound of live, unamplified music shouldn't be our only anchor in many cases. Whether it's the main arbiter by which we create our systems or a footnote in design should vary according to the individual. But I think we can get lost if we use a narrow selection of music; this is generally less of an issue for classical enthusiasts, because the scope of that category is so far-reaching. However, I recall listening to the late Alistair Robertson-Aikman's sublime system in his purpose-built room. The system was designed, developed and constructed for playing opera and it was beautiful at playing opera. Far better in fact at playing opera than any system I have heard before or since. However, when you played chamber music or jazz or anything else... you got opera. When you played rock, you got rock opera. It wasn't a bad system by any stretch - the two pairs of steel-reinforced open Quad 63s in an L-shape, the Krell amps, Audio Research preamp, LFD battery power phono stage and SME 20 with a Clearaudio Insider was absolute state of the 1995 art. But it was a system designed and optimised for playing opera. My concern is we've taken the 'live, unamplified' mantra on board to such an extent that there are products that are designed to this criteria – are we making the best products or the best products optimised for live, unamplified music as a result? The two are not necessarily the same.

The elitism that potentially falls out of this is the dismissal of anything apart from anointed musical genre as being not worthy of audiophile consideration. That may not be your intent, but it's a common criticism of audiophiles and their 'snooty' ways. It wouldn't take too much of a scan through another well known US audio site to find people saying "audiophile equipment is wasted on neanderthal rock music fans" with sincerity and conviction. To me, that's an almost perfect expression of elitism.

While there are recordings that sound ugly on all equipment, if a system is incapable of playing a specific genre for whatever reason, it's the fault of the system, not the genre.

 

[microstrip]

I hope I didn't cause offence here. (...)

Alan,

No offense at all - WBF is an extremely open minded forum.

 

[NorthStar]

Another great post, Alan. You're on a roll. Jazz, acoustic and classical recordings do have an inherent advantage though: They tend not to be overly compressed. But there are rock recordings out there that have not been digitally squashed too far, and even some recordings that are noticeably compressed, but still sound very good.

Tim

I totally agree with you Tim; I read everything Allen's posting with the greatest interest. He is a smart and a very skilled writer, on everything audio (music) related. His writings feed the doors of my knowledge, and open others on the unknown. He makes me stop and think, and think deeper, with coordination.
...With objectivity.

 

[microstrip]

(...) However, I recall listening to the late Alistair Robertson-Aikman's sublime system in his purpose-built room. The system was designed, developed and constructed for playing opera and it was beautiful at playing opera. Far better in fact at playing opera than any system I have heard before or since. However, when you played chamber music or jazz or anything else... you got opera. When you played rock, you got rock opera. It wasn't a bad system by any stretch - the two pairs of steel-reinforced open Quad 63s in an L-shape, the Krell amps, Audio Research preamp, LFD battery power phono stage and SME 20 with a Clearaudio Insider was absolute state of the 1995 art. (...)

Listening to music in the SME room was for a long time in my wish list. Curious that you found that the room changed the character of jazz or chamber music - two people who were there reported me that although the system could not play rock adequately it was great on jazz or orchestral, even symphonic music, although not at front row levels. Do you know if this room is still in use?

 

[Alan Sircom]

Listening to music in the SME room was for a long time in my wish list. Curious that you found that the room changed the character of jazz or chamber music - two people who were there reported me that although the system could not play rock adequately it was great on jazz or orchestral, even symphonic music, although not at front row levels. Do you know if this room is still in use?

Last thing I heard was last year's freak (for us) snowstorms damaged the roof, but it's in the process of being restored.

Orchestral and symphonic music works pretty well in the SME room, as does big-band jazz. It has a fantastic sense of stage (as you'd expect for opera), but the stage can't scale down for smaller scale music. It makes A Night At Birdland sound like A Night At Big Birdland.

That said, I haven't been there in years, and it remains one of the pivotal audio experiences.

 

[NorthStar]

Methinks that the music genre has the greatest influence on our overall music assessment/enjoyment (audio sound quality and all).

And that some gear and speakers and rooms are better at reproducing one type over another.

Besides, most Rock music lack sophistication, and clarity.
Classical Opera (& Chorales) on the other way/end is the human voice, with total control; the most emotional/musical instrument of them all.
...And the one we can all relate to at the very best; if we put our mind, humanity, heart and soul into it, of course. ...I do.

 

[853guy]

Methinks that the music genre has the greatest influence on our overall music assessment/enjoyment (audio sound quality and all).

And that some gear and speakers and rooms are better at reproducing one type over another.

Besides, most Rock music lack sophistication, and clarity.
Classical Opera (& Chorales) on the other way/end is the human voice, with total control; the most emotional/musical instrument of them all.
...And the one we can all relate to at the very best; if we put our mind, humanity, heart and soul into it, of course. ...I do.

Well, as someone who actually owns all the Mastodon albums (except Remission which I have on Grooveshark), as well as James Blake's two albums and the XX's two albums - not to mention a lot of technical and progressive alt/metal (Meshuggah, Animals as Leaders, Slayer, Battles, et al), a lot of minimalist techno and avantgarde electronica (Monolake, Autechre, Pantha du Prince, Oval, etc), a lot of ambient and dark ambient (Thomas Koner, Lull, Tim Hecker) plus a lot of Beethoven, Coltrane, Jonny Cash, Diamanda Galas, Arvo Part, P.J. Harvey, Charles Lloyd, Bill Frisell, Chopin, and early Iron Maiden (the list goes on), I can say that personally, I believe it’s our brains that have the greatest influence over our enjoyment.

Unless I was the producer, mixer or mastering engineer then I have no part in how the sonics of an album are presented. The sonics of the above list of albums I own are… rather variable, to say the least. While I understand that many here may not listen to as broad a mix of musical genres as represented above, I’ve never ceased to be amazed at many who shun an album full of life-changing artistic intention and creative facility because the sonics fail to clear the high bar of audiophilia. Hence, I believe why shows and showrooms round the world are beset with Diana Krall albums and the latest and greatest re-re-remastered version of an album already owned on vinyl, then cassette, then digital compact cassette, then DAT, then CD, then the remastered CD, then the SACD, the DVD-A, then the high-rez download and finally back to the 180-gram half-speed mastered 45rpm vinyl.

I like stuff that’s not butchered by brick-wall limiting too. But I have no say on how much compression is added in tracking, mixing or mastering or a combination of all three. Even if the engineer had the skill and talent to ride the fader during tracking it’s still introducing artifacts between the artist and the listener.

So rather than build a system around a set of Platonic ideals that stifle my choice of music and format, I trained my brain to enjoy the greatest breadth and width of music irrespective of how it was engineered, mixed or mastered. It means I can enjoy the broadest collection of music available whether it be on vinyl, CD or streamed via Grooveshark. The system is secondary. Always.