Introspection and hyperbole control

[Groucho]

I recently saw a portrait painting in a small cafe on holiday & the overriding impression which struck me was that the painting exuded life - in other words there was more to it than a photograph of the subject could reveal - it felt like I had more of an emotional connection with the portrait's subject or that an aspect of the subject's aliveness was being captured. Should I be able to describe this in terms of light & shade, skin tone, hues & colours, brush strokes, etc? I don't believe so - I think an honest reports of my impressions is not hyperbole.

A painting analogy could be quite interesting. In Photoshop there are effects you can select that will turn a photograph into an 'oil painting' or 'charcoal sketch' or 'engraving'. Some effects are able to turn a fairly restrained photograph into something superficially striking ('Neon glow'..?).

It's a purely automatic process, but I dare say some people would prefer the result compared to the original. Could it be that some audiophiles are looking for their systems to do something similar to a recording? Maybe they even imagine that if the system has been created by someone with the right credentials, the effect is not completely automatic but rather a direct manifestation of an artist's skill?

 

[853guy]

It is a distinction I do not understand. We perceive images by transducing light rays into signals coupled into the brain. We hear sounds by transducing air pressure variations into signals coupled into the brain. We have devices that are analogues of our biological transducers and can transmit or store and replay renderings of those signals as though through a 'portal' in time and space. The quality of the 'portal' is related to factors like resolution, dynamic range, linearity.

Well, I don’t know that I can make the distinction any clearer than I did in my previous post.

I can perceive live music using only my ears. I can perceive a painting or a photograph using only my eyes.

I cannot perceive a recording of live music except via an intermediary mechanism - then I am perceiving both the recording and the mechanism simultaneously, and I cannot perceive one without the other. I cannot perceive a film, television signal or digital video file expect via an intermediary mechanism - then I am perceiving both the medium and the mechanism simultaneously, and I cannot perceive one without the other.

That is: I cannot perceive a recording except via the mechanism, and I cannot perceive the mechanism except via a recording. I can, of course, play steady-state test tones via the mechanism, and make measurements of each individual component separately or at the speaker/room interface when all are combined together into the mechanism whole, but few would argue that’s the purpose of the mechanism.

The big question is: can a man-made portal adequately convey a real life experience, or does it need to be 'embellished' to compensate for inherent and unavoidable limitations? If the former, we only need to consider the portal's design and measurements in assessing its quality. If the latter, anything goes - although there must be better ways of achieving it than hoping that accidental side-effects of archaic technology can provide it.

(I am in the former camp).

I think it’s multiple questions, based on multiple assumptions, and perhaps better answered by you, clarifying why you think you’re in the former camp. Personally, I prefer non-binary questions where I'm not asked to be in an either/or camp.

 

[Diapason]

Could it be that some audiophiles are looking for their systems to do something similar to a recording?

Yes, although for reasons I can't quite fathom we're loath to admit it...

Maybe they even imagine that if the system has been created by someone with the right credentials, the effect is not completely automatic, but rather a direct manifestation of an artist's skill?

I'm not sure about that, but I think it's easy to conflate "enjoyable sound" with "more emotionally involving" or "closer to the artist's intentions".

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I think you confuse emotions with impressions in my post (I know I used the phrase "emotional connection" to try to describe it) - I didn't say it moved me emotionally, I said it portrayed a certain live quality that a photograph lacks. There are many photographs that move me emotionally but a painting can capture a certain essence in a subject that a photograph can't - it's the artist highlighting, in subtle ways, a certain aspect of the subject that he/she sees & strives to capture.

Yes, MAY being the important word in the highlighted piece above. It MAY also have everything to do with how it actually sounds. As I said if there is widespread, uninfluenced agreement coming to the same conclusion, it leads me to conclude that there is an objective reason for my perception. If I live with the device & continue to perceive it in the same way then why should I care what is the underlying reason for my perception.

I wonder where your guarantee of lesser emotional response is coming from? Are you basing it on the fact that many audiophiles change their systems on an ongoing basis? Just because we change audio devices doesn't mean that we now think what we had before was junk. Often it's because they are improving their systems & discovering new aspects of realism in audio reproduction as their systems improve. Yes, we can go down wrong paths & cul-de-sacs in this journey. As I said in my last post, I believe underlying noise modulation in a system is one of the biggest barriers to the perceived realism of reproduced audio. The more this is brought under control, the more realistic the audio system sounds. Could I be wrong - yes but it's a working theory that currently seems to fit my experience & recent uncovering of the thresholds of our perception of noise (ITU-R-468) which is more sensitive by > 12dB centered around 6Khz only strengthens this.

I'm reminded of some Leonard Cohen lyrics when reading yours & other's posts
"I fought against the bottle,
But I had to do it drunk –
Took my diamond to the pawnshop –
But that don’t make it junk.

I know that I’m forgiven,
But I don’t know how I know
I don’t trust my inner feelings –
Inner feelings come and go."

Yes, I agree, I did confuse your "impressions" with "emotions", literally. But, impressions are highly influenced by our emotions. So, I think my point still has some validity. It takes great listener discipline to objectively separate purely "sonic impressions" from the underlying emotional stimuli, which might be more of a response to the music rather than the sound itself. I think it is a telltale hallmark of an incompetent review or listener impression when it does not make that separation.

You are obviously a Romanticist, and I may be more of a Classisist. But, there are few things I enjoy more than getting emotionally wrapped up in listening to music in my leisure time. I actually do not enjoy listening to component swaps for "better sound". It is tiresome, and listening to the same musical passages multiple times definitely does not trigger the same emotional response after the Nth listening. I do it, shifting gears to try to control my emotions in the process, because that way it might lead to better sound. And, better sound leads to better musical enjoyment, including potentially a better emotional high while listening, but that is variable.

 

[jkeny]

Yes, I agree, I did confuse your "impressions" with "emotions", literally. But, impressions are highly influenced by our emotions. So, I think my point still has some validity. It takes great listener discipline to objectively separate purely "sonic impressions" from the underlying emotional stimuli, which might be more of a response to the music rather than the sound itself. I think it is a telltale hallmark of an incompetent review or listener impression when it does not make that separation.

But do you consider "realism" an impression or an emotion? How do you express the feeling of more "realism" in audio reproduction without ultimately mentioning the comparative emotional connection with the sound?
To exaggerate somewhat, it's similar to hearing a band playing without enjoying it - just playing by numbers Vs another band playing with emotion/interplay & enjoyment. The differences between these portrayals can often be in the low level details - hearing these details in the reproduction (if they're on the recording) can make this an emotional connection with the audio reproduction.

You are obviously a Romanticist, and I may be more of a Classisist. But, there are few things I enjoy more than getting emotionally wrapped up in listening to music in my leisure time. I actually do not enjoy listening to component swaps for "better sound". It is tiresome, and listening to the same musical passages multiple times definitely does not trigger the same emotional response after the Nth listening. I do it, shifting gears to try to control my emotions in the process, because that way it might lead to better sound. And, better sound leads to better musical enjoyment, including potentially a better emotional high while listening, but that is variable.

Well we are saying the same thing - the more realistic the reproduction can often result in a better connection to the music but as L Cohen sings "I don't trust my inner feelings, inner feelings come & go"

 

[Groucho]

I think it’s multiple questions, based on multiple assumptions, and perhaps better answered by you, clarifying why you think you’re in the former camp. Personally, I prefer non-binary questions where I'm not asked to be in an either/or camp.

Basically, is the ultimate aim of the intermediary mechanism to simply be 'linear', or is it to add a certain something to compensate for unavoidable deficiencies in the intermediary mechanism?

A concrete example: in the world of laptop and smartphone audio, it is known that being linear isn't enough because the speakers can't do loud, and they can't do bass. In this case, the manufacturers synthesise harmonics or shift the pitch of the bass components in the music so that they can be heard over the tiny speakers. They change the EQ dynamically and so on. People seem to like it. Could a reviewer of such a system describe its effect in purely objective terms? If the manufacturer has done their job well, the reviewer won't even be aware of the tricks being played, and if they praise the clarity of the bass, they're praising a purely synthetic and complex algorithm that is synthesising sounds that were never even there in the original recording.

In our high end audio systems, the speakers are bigger, but few systems can do bass all the way down. Also, it is still often said that an audio system cannot do "realistic volume" (and the listener's neighbours might object anyway) which, in scientific terms, means that we are changing the perceived EQ (Fletcher Munson). So does this mean that we still need 'tricks' to adequately convey the original experience? No self-respecting audiophile would ever countenance the use of DSP 'effect' algorithms, but do they, nevertheless, choose valves and vinyl (for example) because it will result in a little magic being applied to the audio (dynamic compression, euphonic distortion)..?

My idea is that no, we don't need the tricks if our systems are up to the job in the most basic ways: size, power, linearity. But that once we apply an artificial restriction (reduced speaker size, low amp power, non-linear recording system) then all bets are off; maybe some 'tricks' are needed.

 

[jkeny]

Basically, is the ultimate aim of the intermediary mechanism to simply be 'linear', or is it to add a certain something to compensate for unavoidable deficiencies in the intermediary mechanism?

A concrete example: in the world of laptop and smartphone audio, it is known that being linear isn't enough because the speakers can't do loud, and they can't do bass. In this case, the manufacturers synthesise harmonics or shift the pitch of the bass components in the music so that they can be heard over the tiny speakers. They change the EQ dynamically and so on. People seem to like it. Could a reviewer of such a system describe its effect in purely objective terms? If the manufacturer has done their job well, the reviewer won't even be aware of the tricks being played, and if they praise the clarity of the bass, they're praising a purely synthetic and complex algorithm that is synthesising sounds that were never even there in the original recording.

In our high end audio systems, the speakers are bigger, but few systems can do bass all the way down. Also, it is still often said that an audio system cannot do "realistic volume" (and the listener's neighbours might object anyway) which, in scientific terms, means that we are changing the perceived EQ (Fletcher Munson). So does this mean that we still need 'tricks' to adequately convey the original experience? No self-respecting audiophile would ever countenance the use of DSP 'effect' algorithms, but do they, nevertheless, choose valves and vinyl (for example) because it will result in a little magic being applied to the audio (dynamic compression, euphonic distortion)..?

My idea is that no, we don't need the tricks if our systems are up to the job in the most basic ways: size, power, linearity. But that once we apply an artificial restriction (reduced speaker size, low amp power, non-linear recording system) then all bets are off; maybe some 'tricks' are needed.

A couple of points:
- at the recording level adjustments are usually made to what has been recorded to change the levels of certain aspects of the sound in order to make it "more realistic" sounding for the final cut
- Our audio systems are not linear from one end to the other which needs to be recognised so as not to constantly repeat this myth of linearity
- finally, we need to understand what is important to our auditory perception & focus on these important aspects rather than the blunderbust approach that currently prevails. This means that we are more than likely wasting our time trying to linearise certain aspects of the audio signal & not spending enough effort in addressing other areas of the signal.

 

[Bill Hart]

A couple of observations/suggestions:
trying to describe in words what a musical performance (or recording of a musical performance played over reproducing gear for the purpose of identifying attributes of the gear) is like trying to describe a work of visual art to a sight-impaired (blind) person; you can convey information but it isn't the same as seeing or hearing it (leaving to one side what 'conclusions' the author makes about the gear as a result of the listening and description).
On hyperbole, as a (now retired) lawyer, I can tell you that judges and others (including adversaries) tend to read submissions with a BS meter- the more purple the prose, the less convincing it is- they want facts and information, in uncolored fashion. It is fair to draw a conclusion, and one can be very persuasive in lining up the facts, but heavy-handed efforts to persuade are not well-received, even in a context where the aim is advocacy. Where the aim is to inform or report, and not persuade, the hyperbole is even less convincing and, in my estimation, makes the reportage less credible. Authors aware of this may temper their enthusiastic prose if they realize that their exuberant declamations are probably having the opposite of intended effect on readers.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

No, that’s still not appropriate. Whether we view the painting itself, or a photograph of a photograph of a photograph of the painting, we would only ever need to use our eyes to perceive it. There is no intermediary mechanism required.

To listen to a reproduction of a recording of the music (an LP, digital file, radio signal) always involves an intermediary mechanism.

In this sense the reproduction chain is inextricably linked to our perception of the original art. We certainly cannot perceive the latter without the former, and we cannot perceive an individual component’s sound without it entering into a dynamic relationship with other components.

Due to the nature of the laws of thermodynamics, this mechanism (the reproduction chain) comprised of several non-linear individual components linked together to form a less-linear system which becomes unpredictably and immeasurably less-linear when playing back music is therefore always part of the re-performance of the original art as captured and formatted.

Because the laws of physics tell me perfect reproduction is impossible, I therefore cannot deny that this non-linear mechanism has anything less than an interpretative role in playing back pre-recorded art, and why acknowledging my preference for particular non-linearities is about the most honest I can be in discussing any audio component and its cumulative effect on my perception of it when playing back music.

OK. I was thinking of the painting as the art, the print of the photograph as the intermediary. Maybe I needed to stretch that metaphor another step, but all metaphors are imperfect, and the metaphor wasn't the point anyway. This was:

Audio is reproduction. It is not the art itself. It isn't even close.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

OK. I was thinking of the painting as the art, the print of the photograph as the intermediary. Maybe I needed to stretch that metaphor another step, but all metaphors are imperfect, and the metaphor wasn't the point anyway. This was:

Audio is reproduction. It is not the art itself. It isn't even close.

Tim

As I asked before:

Tim & Tom, do you believe you are hearing (a facsimile of) the original audio event (if this was even a recording of an audio event rather than some stitched together individual recordings) when you listen to audio reproduction?
If you don't then please define what you think you are listening to?

I've added "a facsimile of" to my original question.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

As I asked before:

Tim & Tom, do you believe you are hearing (a facsimile of) the original audio event (if this was even a recording of an audio event rather than some stitched together individual recordings) when you listen to audio reproduction?
If you don't then please define what you think you are listening to?

I've added "a facsimile of" to my original question.

And in doing so, you've completely changed the question. Let me add a couple more key words. Yes, when listening to live concert recordings, I believe I am listening to the reproduction of a facsimile of an original audio event.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

And in doing so, you've completely changed the question. Let me add a couple more key words. Yes, when listening to live concert recordings, I believe I am listening to the reproduction of a facsimile of an original audio event.

Tim

Nope, haven't changed the question - just made it more tempting for you to answer, this time

A facimile is a reproduction that is true to the original source. Do you accept that this "truth" that you listen to in your reproduced playback is a result of a number of decisions, each of which change the sound that you would have heard listening live to the audio event. (we will keep it simple by NOT talking about tracks which are not a recording of a live event but a stitching together of various parts of a track)?

The facsimile is actually a result of various decisions concerning the microphones used, position of microphones, adjustment of parts of the captured sound & editing of the final cut for release i.e an artistic interpretation of an artistic performance.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Nope, haven't changed the question - just made it more tempting for you to answer, this time

A facimile is a reproduction that is true to the original source. Do you accept that this "truth" that you listen to in your reproduced playback is a result of a number of decisions, each of which change the sound that you would have heard listening live to the audio event. (we will keep it simple by NOT talking about tracks which are not a recording of a live event but a stitching together of various parts of a track)?

The facsimile is actually a result of various decisions concerning the microphones used, position of microphones, adjustment of parts of the captured sound & editing of the final cut for release i.e an artistic interpretation of an artistic performance.

I guess I need to review my vocabulary lessons:

fac·sim·i·le
fak?sim?l?/Submit
noun
1.
an exact copy, especially of written or printed material.
synonyms: copy, reproduction, duplicate, photocopy, replica, likeness, print, reprint, printout, offprint, fax; More
antonyms: original
another term for fax.
verb
verb: facsimile; 3rd person present: facsimiles; past tense: facsimiled; past participle: facsimiled; gerund or present participle: facsimileing
1.
make a copy of.
"the ride was facsimiled for Disney World"

Some of the synonyms listed above work -- reproduction, likeness. Others not so much. And it certainly doesn't fit the definition of facsimile here, "an exact copy." I have a feeling you're trying to make a point...

Tim

 

[jkeny]

I guess I need to review my vocabulary lessons:
........

Some of the synonyms listed above work -- reproduction, likeness. Others not so much. And it certainly doesn't fit the definition of facsimile here, "an exact copy." I have a feeling you're trying to make a point...

Tim

Huh? Tim, are you trying to deflect by reverting to dictionary definition & make some debating point of order? I've read your post a couple of times but still fail to tease out what you are trying to say.

I used the word "facsimile" to point out exactly the flaw in your statement "Audio is reproduction. It is not the art itself. It isn't even close."
To show that the creation of this "audio" is an art - a different art to the "original" audio event but an art, nonetheless.
Your original statement & the next "I believe I am listening to the reproduction of a facsimile of an original audio event" reads to me that you believe you are hearing an exact replica of the audio event.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Audio is reproduction. It is not the art itself. It isn't even close.

Tim

Yes, but without good audio you will not have the art ... And according to some knowledge people we must use the perception of the art to test the good audio.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Yes, but without good audio you will not have the art ... And according to some knowledge people we must use the perception of the art to test the good audio.

Sorry, I do not agree. I can enjoy the art of great music in my car, on my clock radio, etcetera. I got deeply wrapped up in classical music in my teens listening to a cheap little bedside AM radio late at night, static, whistles, fade outs and all. No question that the enjoyment, immersion and appreciation is heightened by a great sound system. But, the art of the music can come through even with a much less exalted sound system. How many musicians, even great ones, have you seen with mediocre sound systems?

I think the requirement for good, mainly expensive sound, inextricably associated with the art and full emotion of the music is something that was seized upon long ago by skillful marketers. Yes, good sound can make it better, and less fatiguiging,of course. But, sound quality has attained some hyperbolic and mythological connection directly to our emotional responses which it does not fully deserve. The music can often still be emotionally moving even without the greatest sound.

 

[Andre Marc]

Sorry, I do not agree. I can enjoy the art of great music in my car, on my clock radio, etcetera. I got deeply wrapped up in classical music in my teens listening to a cheap little bedside AM radio late at night, static, whistles, fade outs and all. No question that the enjoyment, immersion and appreciation is heightened by a great sound system. But, the art of the music can come through even with a much less exalted sound system. How many musicians, even great ones, have you seen with mediocre sound systems?

I think the requirement for good, mainly expensive sound, inextricably associated with the art and full emotion of the music is something that was seized upon long ago by skillful marketers. Yes, good sound can make it better, and less fatiguiging,of course. But, sound quality has attained some hyperbolic and mythological connection directly to our emotional responses which it does not fully deserve. The music can often still be emotionally moving even without the greatest sound.

Absolutely 100% spot on sir. I could not agree more. My clock radio as a teen also transported me to worlds I never knew existed. I will never forget laying in bed hearing the Jimi Hendrix version of All Along The Watchtower for the first time and having my mine blown.

The above statement you quoted is pure pretentious drivel.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Huh? Tim, are you trying to deflect by reverting to dictionary definition & make some debating point of order? I've read your post a couple of times but still fail to tease out what you are trying to say.

I used the word "facsimile" to point out exactly the flaw in your statement "Audio is reproduction. It is not the art itself. It isn't even close."
To show that the creation of this "audio" is an art - a different art to the "original" audio event but an art, nonetheless.
Your original statement & the next "I believe I am listening to the reproduction of a facsimile of an original audio event" reads to me that you believe you are hearing an exact replica of the audio event.

Like a lot of words, "art" covers a lot of things. Often, when associated with technological things, for example, it is really more of a metaphor for craftsmanship, skill, inventiveness, etc. That usage should in no way be confused with the "fine arts", such as music, and we usually leave the "fine" out of the discussion, referring to music, for example, as "art".

"Art" has many different meanings, just like countless other words. We need to understand the context of usage to figure out which specific meaning to apply. Even though the word is spelled exactly the same way does not make the meaning the same in different sentences/contexts.

So, Tim's reference to "art" is clearly, to me at least, referring the music. Same word, but completely different meaning from your usage, which is about the creation of audio. You seem merely trying to be argumentative by playing on the dual meanings of the same word, as though there were only one meaning, which ain't the case here.

 

[KeithR]

Audio reviews are to much extent prose - nobody wants to read a technical journal. If you dont enjoy the prose, dont read them.

The key for me is finding a reviewer who has similar taste in music and gear as i do- that provides valuable insight into other gear i should research or demo.

 

[NorthStar]

Words are useful only to the extent they help us distinguish certain things from other things. In this hobby, which generally is subjective listening oriented and thus usually not quantitative or scientific oriented, we typically use words, and not numbers, to express our subjective views about, our impressions about and our evaluations of, the sonic characteristics of audio components and of high-end systems. We describe, among many other characteristics, the magnitude of improvement or degradation in one or more aspects of sound quality; our estimates of frequency ranges and sonic characteristics within each frequency range; spectrums of macrodynamics, microdynamics, brightness, timbre and speed; perceptions of relative amounts of detail; linearity or lumpiness of perceived frequency response; etc.

If someone has an elaborate, very expensive, state-of-the-art type of system which he has been optimizing, tweaking and perfecting for years, and he changes the input tubes in his pre-amp, I am sure there will be differences in sound qualities between the old tubes and the new tubes which at least some of us will be able to hear. But does that change in input tubes cause a major improvement in sound quality, a small improvement in sound quality or a tiny improvement in sound quality? Is that improvement in sound quality actually a net improvement on an aggregated basis, or has the listener improved one sonic attribute to the detriment of one or more other sonic attributes? Is an improvement in one aspect of sound quality (e.g., “less analytical”) offset, or more than offset, by losses in other aspects of sound quality (e.g., less dynamic and lower “jump factor” and, therefore, less “live” sounding)?

If a member with a revealing, dynamic, full-range and linear frequency response system tapes a two foot square piece of sound absorbing material above each of his speakers in a large, dedicated listening room, is it truly accurate to report a “significant” increase in soundstaging or a “dramatic” reduction in instrumental smearing? What is the starting point intending to be referenced? Did you explain to us that starting point in your post? Are you articulating accurately and authentically the magnitude of the difference you believe you hear, and not merely gleefully reporting your understandable and justifiable excitement about having made a very small, marginal improvement to an already stunningly believable system?

Does replacing the Stillpoint Ultra SSs with Stillpoint Ultra 5s underneath your speakers really make your speakers sound like “new” or “different” speakers? Are you trying to describe a significant increase in some sonic attribute or an incremental increase in that sonic attribute? Are they truly a “major upgrade”? How are you defining “major”? Is your description carefully thought-through, evaluated and as accurate as you can articulate? Are you sure that “like new” truly is what you mean? Is the difference really that significant? Did going back to the Ultra SSs really cause your soundstage to “collapse”?

I hereby respectfully request greater introspection about how each of us describes the differences each of us hears, and about the magnitude of the differences each of us hears. This is a plea to each of my fellow WBF members to think carefully about how you think about and evaluate and describe the changes you believe you hear and the magnitude of the changes you believe you hear.

By being careful about hyperbole and unintended exaggeration, and by thinking long and hard about the sonic difference you are evaluating and the magnitude of the sonic difference you are evaluating, and the relative importance of the change in question versus the “before” sound of your system overall, you are helping each of us to better understand what you are attempting to describe, and you are explaining more convincingly the changes you made to the sound quality of your system.

Disclaimer: The examples used herein do not refer to any particular member or any particular posting. Any similarities to any member or posting are purely coincidental and unintended.

Our words are our tools to describe what we hear...that's the very best we can do. And what we hear, each one of us, from one day to the next, our words are our best companion.