Ron's Subjectivity & Balance Argument.

[andromedaaudio]

Awesome Awsmone whats stopping you ?
They have laid out the playbook for you .

 

[awsmone]

Awesome Awsmone whats stopping you ?
They have laid out the playbook for you .

Not sure what you mean ?

 

[andromedaaudio]

Not sure what you mean ?

If thats the kind of system you d like to own i d say , get the check book out and buy/ built it

 

[awsmone]

The day I aspire to have a music system that sounds like a video of anybody's music system is the day I want to be institutionalized. I thought the idea was to have a music reproduction system that sounded like unamplified instruments in their actual performance space (as best as it can be captured by microphones and a talented recording engineer). What was I thinking?

yes, I hear something in those recordings that’s I am sympatico with , and this thread is not about vids please

 

[awsmone]

If thats the kind of system you d like to own i d say , get the check book out and buy/ built it

I already own horns, and have been looking for a pair of Cn 191
I wish to reorganise my room currently thx, everyone has their own route to follow but thx for the thought

 

[PeterA]

If thats the kind of system you d like to own i d say , get the check book out and buy/ built it

Andromeda, Awsmone is referring to two very rare systems. It is far from as simple as just buying it or building it, but I am sure you already understand that.

 

[ddk]

Dear Ron,

Dear Peter,

In the other thread you asked me:

It would help me if you would explain why balance is confusing and inappropriate in this context especially after reading David’s opening post in the other thread.

I am also interested in why you don’t like his use of objective and subjective in this context. Some believe we gain a view of reality through observation by our senses. Is it “our truth” or “the truth”, or is it not that simple.

I don't see these issues as being complicated.

Based on The American Heritage Dictionary definitions of "objective" and of "subjective" I believe that even a lifetime of experience listening to music in concert halls used to conclude that a particular audio system and room has the same perceived sonic balance observed in the concert hall is a subjective opinion. The longevity of a lifetime of experience does not make the observation any less subjective. Longevity of experience does not transmute subjective into objective.

Of course it depends on the person's abilities but I have to disagree with you in principal on this. Experience in this and any other field can be very objective. I believe I'm very objective when I comment on sound quality of systems and my judgment of "natural" sound and principles, it's all reality based and completely objective. The only subjective part is my preference for "natural" vs every other sonic types.

An audio engineer could conduct a frequency sweep and frequency response analysis of the acoustics of a concert hall. That same engineer could conduct a frequency sweep and frequency response analysis of the particular audio system and room in question. The measured frequency response of the concert hall and the measured frequency response of the audio system and room are objective facts. (I am assuming industry-accepted test equipment, measuring techniques and reporting results. Different audio engineers might use different equipment and place microphones in different locations in the same room, but the resulting measurements, competently performed, should be much closer to repeatable objective fact than to personal subjective opinion.)

Sweeps only provide data! Data is neither subjective nor objective only true or false.

The American Heritage Dictionary's fifth definition of "balance" seems to be what you and David are aiming at: "A harmonious or satisfying arrangement or proportion of parts or elements, as in a design." Whether referring to a live concert performance or to a reproduction by an audio system I think the evaluation of balanced or not is subjective, not objective.

I only use "balance" in system terms not live music. I've never attended a live venue and thought to my myself that it was "balanced", don't see anyone else doing it either.

"Balance" in my terminology is none of the above, it's simply means that the system isn't tilted towards any sonic attribute and has no obvious signature, all your adjectives are some sort of coloration in my book.

Your formulations of "balance" such as "nothing is spot-lit" and "nothing is exaggerated" and "no frequency range seems to stick out and call attention to itself" and "nothing seemed enhanced or rolled off" seem to be variations on your subjective perception of "harmonious or satisfying arrangement or proportion of parts or elements."

All the above is "objective" when the experienced is experienced and knowledgeable, they are actual parameters if one understands them.

I also think that descriptions such as "nothing is spot-lit" and "nothing is exaggerated" and "no frequency range seems to stick out and call attention to itself" and "nothing seemed enhanced or rolled off" are inevitably synonymous with "even" or "linear" or "smooth" or "flat" or low in variance. How could they not be?

Depends on the context Ron, for example smooth and flat can simply mean colored and homogenized. IMO instead of wasting time and bandwidth defining what some one means or the vocabulary they should use put a little effort understanding their point. Graham @the sound of Tao is 100% correct in his post in saying that all this questioning of terminology is detracting from any rational conversation of audio and sorry to say has turned every conversation into giant petty heap!

dipping my toe into the ddk flow.....

I do not know what "correct balance" means, unless one defines "balance" in the first place. I do not see my use of the term "correct balance" anywhere. The only "balance" I know of in audio refers to equal perceived or measurable output of the left channel and of the right channel as in the...

www.whatsbestforum.com

At the risk of dipping our toes into something other than DDK’s flow some threads tend to get some a bit parsed off when launching into the semantic wars. I guess the contention though can also drive us to then uncover understanding but I’d simply figure an experience is by it’s nature a subjective thing and higher order experiences like these do need abstracts to try and get these very complex experiences and concepts across.

But there is always context to support understanding and this seems to be the first thing that goes MIA when we get into heroic tussles of words. Taking a word out of context makes it’s easy to corner it into a state of wrongness but I’m being honest when I say its not really that often when I can’t get the essence of what people are trying to say if I put the effort into understanding them and I can always ask for clarification if I need. I just figure these are supposed to be conversations and conversation is rarely impossibly exact. The thought that we’ll end up with word and grammar policing going off every time someone uses a word in a way that is not exactly the way people expect or prefer it is much worse to me than any small extra effort required to clarify the intention and the thoughts or interpretations.

Conversations on experiences of others systems like the one here are too important to be choked to a small death over usage. I do get why people get frustrated but I’m way more interested in hearing about the experience of a system than overriding all latitude by making rules about how people describe things even when so often the words are never exactly enough. Perhaps it’s all a matter of balance in the end.

david

 

[awsmone]

Graham @the sound of Tao is 100% correct in his post in saying that all this questioning of terminology is detracting from any rational conversation of audio

I couldn’t agree more, we could spend 100 pages arguing about one word in a post, which really isn’t very interesting , this isn’t a scientific publication, but a sharing of ideas and experience

 

[awsmone]

The day I aspire to have a music system that sounds like a video of anybody's music system is the day I want to be institutionalized. I thought the idea was to have a music reproduction system that sounded like unamplified instruments in their actual performance space (as best as it can be captured by microphones and a talented recording engineer). What was I thinking?

‘The one thing I have learned over the years is that one *never* knows the knowledge base, experience or what one hears within their own personal system just based upon chatting online concerning another member they have never met.

We should not have to get used too the way another member makes rude insults on an opponent with differing thoughts”

from the moderator

 

[thedudeabides]

we could spend 100 pages arguing about one word in a post, which really isn’t very interesting

Reminds me of one of my favorite phrases. Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Dear Ron,

Of course it depends on the person's abilities but I have to disagree with you in principal on this. Experience in this and any other field can be very objective. I believe I'm very objective when I comment on sound quality of systems and my judgment of "natural" sound and principles, it's all reality based and completely objective. The only subjective part is my preference for "natural" vs every other sonic types.

Sweeps only provide data! Data is neither subjective nor objective only true or false.

I only use "balance" in system terms not live music. I've never attended a live venue and thought to my myself that it was "balanced", don't see anyone else doing it either.

"Balance" in my terminology is none of the above, it's simply means that the system isn't tilted towards any sonic attribute and has no obvious signature, all your adjectives are some sort of coloration in my book.


All the above is "objective" when the experienced is experienced and knowledgeable, they are actual parameters if one understands them.

Depends on the context Ron, for example smooth and flat can simply mean colored and homogenized. IMO instead of wasting time and bandwidth defining what some one means or the vocabulary they should use put a little effort understanding their point. Graham @the sound of Tao is 100% correct in his post in saying that all this questioning of terminology is detracting from any rational conversation of audio and sorry to say has turned every conversation into giant petty heap!

dipping my toe into the ddk flow.....

I do not know what "correct balance" means, unless one defines "balance" in the first place. I do not see my use of the term "correct balance" anywhere. The only "balance" I know of in audio refers to equal perceived or measurable output of the left channel and of the right channel as in the...

www.whatsbestforum.com

david

Dear David,

I am sorry to have prompted you to repeat your posts.

I was content to be finished discussing this subject on the other thread. Out of respect for Peter's direct request to me there to re-state my earlier posts I obliged him and answered his specific questions here.

Thank you very much for your thoughts on, and answers to, my comments.

Perhaps Peter will honor us with his thoughts, rather than just throwing both of us back into the ring.

 

[ddk]

Dear David,
Perhaps Peter will honor us with his thoughts, rather than just throwing both of us back into the ring.

!
david

 

[Don Reid]

It seems to me that a system that does everything remarkably well will have remarkable balance. I'm not implying that I have such a system, but I am much closer to that ideal than I was in years past.

 

[tima]

Sweeps only provide data! Data is neither subjective nor objective only true or false.

Thank you for making this point.

'Objective' is a product of agreement on adopting a methodology. Currently in fashion is the methodology named 'scientific method.' The so-called "objective fact" of the Resnickian universe is not a thing that exists apart from our choice to adhere to it.

 

[awsmone]

Thank you for making this point.

'Objective' is a product of agreement on adopting a methodology. Currently in fashion is the methodology named 'scientific method.' The so-called "objective fact" of the Resnickian universe is not a thing that exists apart from our choice to adhere to it.

This is correct all data requires analysis and interpretation, even in particle physics which uses 5 sigma , results require interpretation

 

[PeterA]

Perhaps Peter will honor us with his thoughts, rather than just throwing both of us back into the ring.

Ron, I have already expressed my thoughts here, elsewhere, and to you in private. I do not want to offend folks more unnecessarily. Besides, I am still learning.

Regarding the ring, I would not throw anyone into a cage fight with David unless he is fully prepared. It just would not be fair.

 

[Ron Resnick]

"Balance" in my terminology . . . simply means that the system isn't tilted towards any sonic attribute and has no obvious signature, [and no] coloration . . .

Wouldn't "neutral" more accurately describe what you are talking about than "balance"?

 

[ddk]

Wouldn't "neutral" more accurately describe what you are talking about than "balance"?

Balance is more than simply neutral, a “neutral” system can have many deficiencies and still be neutral.

Another quality of “balance” from my OP;

“Balance" also relates to volume, ie sound level and dimensionality, size, scale and cadence of each instrument in the performance space. A "balanced" system would allow every instrument to play at the right "balance" instead homogenizing and equalizing them during playback. This is one of the major and least mentioned issues that I come across during installations and system analysis.”

david

 

[tima]

Wouldn't "neutral" more accurately describe what you are talking about than "balance"?

"Neutral" suggests no particular characteristic, of indefefinite state.

Using your AH dictionary approach: "3. Belonging to neither kind; not one thing or the other."
Another, MW, 3a: not decided or pronounced as to characteristics : indifferent

Imo, lack of coloration, lack of a particular sonic signature, etc. is not indifferrent.

But instead of thinking about what is not an aspect of the object of our discussion, perhaps think about it in a different way. Aristotle spoke of beauty in terms of order, definiteness and symmetry. A Classical notion of beauty is the holistic arrangement of integral parts with symmetry, and harmony. One of the ideas of the Italian Renaissance is perfect proportion.

The sound of a symphony, a concerto, a chorus - live acoustic music - is proportioned. As others have said, we don't even think about "balance" when listening to live music. I talked about how that proportion comes about with live performances. It comes about in a different way with a stereo system but the ideal, the goal is similar.

Here we seem intent on boxing up characteristics by giving them a name. More and more I come to suspect that we are talking about something that is not so amenable to being parsed and parceled and the effort to do so always seems strained.

Then again, some might say "natural" most aptly describes what David is talking about.

 

[awsmone]

Wouldn't "neutral" more accurately describe what you are talking about than "balance"?

Dear Ron

rather than critique your use of neutral let us translate our frame of reference on to a “ live“ plane

you are the conductor

Mahler 6 is your mission

in my view, all the line of the score need to be made as transparent and organised for the audience as possible

my view of audio system balanced should be the same

I can follow the orchestral lines, appreciate the timbre, musicality , and score in equal measure …..balanced

nothing scientifically is there , science is a servant here of art, as music is an art