Why do some Objectivists fear Psychoacousitics?

[microstrip]

Harman's tests indicate a preference very widely and by a large margin agreed upon by listeners comparisons. Further the target their data pointed to isn't anything strange. A very even balanced response. One must pay particular attention to even small resonances as they are audible and detract from a speaker. A wide controlled, even directivity off axis. Is any of that non-audiophile?

They have tested employees, the public, pro audio people, and even groups from other countries with langauges other than English in case that altered a general preference. So far none of that seems to matter.

So if audiphile preferences are different what would they be? More coloration, more zing, more zip, what? Their proposed target isn't any oddball idea. I guess the audiophile oxen being gored is the idea some highly respected, revered high end designs have some measured performance issues, and when auditioned blind they score poorly. Other high end speakers that score well, don't do any better than less expensive speakers that more or less match their performance. Again, really not a strange idea.

I will use the words of Nelson Pass to address you question. Although they are about amplifiers IMHO we can transpose them.

Our real customers care most about the experience they get when they sit down to listen to their music. We create amplifiers that we like to listen to, on the assumption that we share similar taste. We want our products to invite you to listen. We want you to enjoy the experience so much that you go through your entire record collection - again and again.

The audiophile taste and great audiophile experiences have been described by many experts with good writing skills, highlighting its diversity and its convergences. Surely it does not need one more amateur post summarizing it.

BTW, just to please my curiosity, can I ask you why you list a pair of some of the worst measuring speakers (SoundLab Aura) in your system? BTW, I own its larger brother that does not measure better according to Harman guidelines.

 

[esldude]

I will use the words of Nelson Pass to address you question. Although they are about amplifiers IMHO we can transpose them.

Our real customers care most about the experience they get when they sit down to listen to their music. We create amplifiers that we like to listen to, on the assumption that we share similar taste. We want our products to invite you to listen. We want you to enjoy the experience so much that you go through your entire record collection - again and again.

The audiophile taste and great audiophile experiences have been described by many experts with good writing skills, highlighting its diversity and its convergences. Surely it does not need one more amateur post summarizing it.

BTW, just to please my curiosity, can I ask you why you list a pair of some of the worst measuring speakers (SoundLab Aura) in your system? BTW, I own its larger brother that does not measure better according to Harman guidelines.

I don't know that Soundlabs are some of the worst measuring. In fact I know they aren't though I know how they fail. I do room correction, and have measured them. Seeing the measurements you do wonder how they are so appealing to listen to. One thing they don't have is a boxy resonance. It is what has drawn me to various panels for many years. Some modern and a few older box speakers managed that well enough it isn't a big issue.

Now without room correction on the Soundlabs would I prefer something else, maybe a JBL, or Revel from Harman? I don't know. I have been told by a person with quite good ears and lots of experience with quality equipment the top of the line JBL from Harman is quite a dandy speaker by any measure. He said at first it seems like nothing special, until you listen awhile and realize it is nothing special because it gets out of the way and becomes a near non-factor. That doesn't sound like a bad idea for a speaker.

In another system I have some Referenca 3A de Capo speakers. Very inert cabinet. By itself a very appealing speaker with one fatal horrible flaw. Fortunately that one flaw is very easily fixed with room correction or even simple parametric EQ. Do that it becomes a very nice speaker. Measurements of it in the main look much like those Harman suggests. I don't have the setup to measure directionality so it may differ in that respect.

Now prior to room correction panels (especially electrostats) attracted me for two reasons. No boxy resonance, and subjective speed. Things like acoustic guitar strings. Most box speakers if you hear acoustic guitar up close sound like they have missed the first of the strings being plucked. Good stats sound like they miss only a tiny bit of that. Of course most of that sense of speed is from no real bass and no resonance.

Now if good science and good design produce a box speaker that gets it better I would be happy. Have heard Wilsons that do a tremendously good job. If someone can match that in a way that doesn't cost $68k I would be quite happy.

The other thing I think about is if speakers are made with very even response, good efficiency, and low distortion you can make it what you want. By that I mean if you should prefer something not on the curve for most prefered by most people, such a speaker can be tailored in software to sound how you like it to sound. The key is getting a clean, even, predicitable output to start with.

 

[bonzo75]

I don't know that Soundlabs are some of the worst measuring. In fact I know they aren't though I know how they fail. I do room correction, and have measured them. Seeing the measurements you do wonder how they are so appealing to listen to. One thing they don't have is a boxy resonance. It is what has drawn me to various panels for many years. Some modern and a few older box speakers managed that well enough it isn't a big issue.

Now without room correction on the Soundlabs would I prefer something else, maybe a JBL, or Revel from Harman? I don't know. I have been told by a person with quite good ears and lots of experience with quality equipment the top of the line JBL from Harman is quite a dandy speaker by any measure. He said at first it seems like nothing special, until you listen awhile and realize it is nothing special because it gets out of the way and becomes a near non-factor. That doesn't sound like a bad idea for a speaker.

In another system I have some Referenca 3A de Capo speakers. Very inert cabinet. By itself a very appealing speaker with one fatal horrible flaw. Fortunately that one flaw is very easily fixed with room correction or even simple parametric EQ. Do that it becomes a very nice speaker. Measurements of it in the main look much like those Harman suggests. I don't have the setup to measure directionality so it may differ in that respect.

Now prior to room correction panels (especially electrostats) attracted me for two reasons. No boxy resonance, and subjective speed. Things like acoustic guitar strings. Most box speakers if you hear acoustic guitar up close sound like they have missed the first of the strings being plucked. Good stats sound like they miss only a tiny bit of that. Of course most of that sense of speed is from no real bass and no resonance.

Now if good science and good design produce a box speaker that gets it better I would be happy. Have heard Wilsons that do a tremendously good job. If someone can match that in a way that doesn't cost $68k I would be quite happy.

The other thing I think about is if speakers are made with very even response, good efficiency, and low distortion you can make it what you want. By that I mean if you should prefer something not on the curve for most prefered by most people, such a speaker can be tailored in software to sound how you like it to sound. The key is getting a clean, even, predicitable output to start with.

The best speaker I have heard is horns with JBL for tweeter and midrange and allnico sub. I am a panel guy too. It had the midrange beauty, openness, and great bass integration, awesome. It was custom made though.

 

[microstrip]

I don't know that Soundlabs are some of the worst measuring. In fact I know they aren't though I know how they fail. I do room correction, and have measured them. Seeing the measurements you do wonder how they are so appealing to listen to. One thing they don't have is a boxy resonance. It is what has drawn me to various panels for many years. Some modern and a few older box speakers managed that well enough it isn't a big issue.

Now without room correction on the Soundlabs would I prefer something else, maybe a JBL, or Revel from Harman? I don't know. I have been told by a person with quite good ears and lots of experience with quality equipment the top of the line JBL from Harman is quite a dandy speaker by any measure. He said at first it seems like nothing special, until you listen awhile and realize it is nothing special because it gets out of the way and becomes a near non-factor. That doesn't sound like a bad idea for a speaker.

In another system I have some Referenca 3A de Capo speakers. Very inert cabinet. By itself a very appealing speaker with one fatal horrible flaw. Fortunately that one flaw is very easily fixed with room correction or even simple parametric EQ. Do that it becomes a very nice speaker. Measurements of it in the main look much like those Harman suggests. I don't have the setup to measure directionality so it may differ in that respect.

Now prior to room correction panels (especially electrostats) attracted me for two reasons. No boxy resonance, and subjective speed. Things like acoustic guitar strings. Most box speakers if you hear acoustic guitar up close sound like they have missed the first of the strings being plucked. Good stats sound like they miss only a tiny bit of that. Of course most of that sense of speed is from no real bass and no resonance.

Now if good science and good design produce a box speaker that gets it better I would be happy. Have heard Wilsons that do a tremendously good job. If someone can match that in a way that doesn't cost $68k I would be quite happy.

The other thing I think about is if speakers are made with very even response, good efficiency, and low distortion you can make it what you want. By that I mean if you should prefer something not on the curve for most prefered by most people, such a speaker can be tailored in software to sound how you like it to sound. The key is getting a clean, even, predicitable output to start with.

Thanks. According to the Harman people no room correction will be able to get absolution of the horrible SoundLab sins. Large panel curved full range speakers do not follow Harman rules. Besides I really know about it as I have measured the and many others. My measurements were carried in my specific room, but relative to others such as ESL63 or the Aida's the A1's were really poor. Curiously, by my subjective standards the Slabs are also the better. Perhaps if I could afford a complete system to feed properly the Aida's my preference would tilt towards it.

As as aside, I have recently upgraded the backplates of my A1's using Mundorf resistors, capacitors and coils (the same brand used by Magico or the Aida's). The improvement was really noticeable.

 

[amirm]

Amir,

You have a point, if Harman target are not the audiophile preferences, no hope they will please them.

Oh, they are targeting audiophiles but with the wrong marketing message.

If I polled 10 high-end audiophiles, how many would want to hear that I have verified the performance of the speaker against the very models they are buying *blind* and it has won?

If I built what I thought it was one of the best speakers ever built but priced at $22K instead of $80K, how many audiophiles would take notice?

If I built the world's best speakers but didn't talk about coming to a show with $200,000 in speaker interconnect and pick your favorite high-end bling amplifier, how many high-end audiophiles would take notice?

If I did not hire the type of sales people who come from high-end audio of believing in stuff that objectivity scuffed at, how many audiophiles would listen to them?

I hope you get my drift . Harman believes that it can get high-end customers to take objectivity seriously. That is a serious mistake, pun intended . No one wants to hear that Harman will not release a speaker until it beats its competitors in double blind tests. No one wants to read AES papers on what is important in speaker design.

What they want to hear is that the speaker wood came from forest of Indonesia harvested by virgins. They want to see a gray haired guy talking about how he has perfected his ideas of speaker design in the last 50 years. They want to see the speakers in highest of the high-end showrooms (which requires a lot more margin than a $22K speaker may produce).

They are aiming for a cross section of audiophile beliefs in price not being a barrier to purchase and true science in audio. That captures people like me. I want the best but want some verification of it, not just some glossy brochure, and a 2 hour demo. Unfortunately I am in tiny minority here. Most objectivists buy mass market products and are not in the market for $22K speakers. Heck, even I am too cheap to buy a $22K speaker.

And the ridiculous story of JA weeping is not enough to move me. BTW, I think the same about his poetic story of retiring with the Alexia's. It is funny that the enemy (reviewers that carry sighted reviews) become good friends when they say something that supports our beloved ...

He is genuine though as I have seen him repeatedly say that the Revel Salon 2 has been the best speaker he has ever heard. I post that not as proof of anything as per above, the proof from Harman always comes in the form of science. But rather the notion that no audiophile has cared about Harman speakers. I thought JA's account was enough to counter that argument.

Bottom line is this: pick any high-end speaker you want. Then let's arrange Harman to perform a double blind test against it. And let's see where you would put your money on. Mine would be on Harman.

Why? Because of a single factor: when you design something properly and verify it the same, then it has broad performance. It will sound good in many place with many content. Build a flawed but a "magnificent" piece and its performance will be narrow. Many high-end speakers require hours of positioning in the room for example. Why? Because of their poor off-axis response which they have not even measured (because it requires an anechoic chamber), you have screw around with them enough to reduce the impact of those reflections. Once you do that, their giant enclosures and over the top design can outperform smaller speakers like Revel Salon 2.

You don't hear me talk this way because I love you guys and don't want to spoil your fun . Buy what you like. But let's not say that the Harman speakers don't deliver true performance. A JBL M2 behind a curtain where you can't see what it is, will blow your pants off, literally. Let's put aside our prejudice against blind listening and use of audio science in design of speakers and benefit from the incredible bargain these speakers can be. Listen to Revel M208 and tell me you have heard better bookshelf speakers.

Note: my company carries Harman speakers although much of what we sell are their in-ceiling speakers and JBL for theaters. And I have long been friends and hold a ton of respect for a number of Harman employees researchers, and designers. So please take what I say with grain of salt in that regard .

 

[amirm]

Thanks. According to the Harman people no room correction will be able to get absolution of the horrible SoundLab sins.

They don't say that. They say it inversely. That if you want the electronic EQ to work best, it needs to operate on a speaker that has similar sound on-axis than it has of-axis. If what you hear doesn't sound good because of off-axis, you cannot correct that electronically as that problem is sourced inside the speaker. Any chance upstream electronically will impact both direct and indirect sound which won't cure this problem.

Large panel curved full range speakers do not follow Harman rules.

It is not their design rule. It should be everyone's design rules. It is not that they don't like panel speakers. It is that they show them to not sound good in double blind tests (I thought the darn speaker was broken) and measurements that show extreme amounts of resonance.

I mean look at this comparison:

How can we make a case that that uneven response in the Martin Logan mid to high frequencies is a good thing? Wouldn't any musical note hitting those regions not sound correct?

We fall in love with their big sound and ignore their flaws (remember what I said in my last post about flawed but magnificent designs). Sit in one blind test and hear better sounding speakers and those flaws will no longer be forgotten.

 

[microstrip]

Amir,

IMHO you are now leaning towards the Harman aggressive marketing style. I am not interested in having this type of debate in WBF. Sorry I am out.

 

[TBG]

I think that you are wasting your time. As you say, no room is going to give even a perfect 20 Hz to 20k Hz speaker a chance to have a flat response. No listener's hearing is going to give a flat frequency response. And the phase accuracy of no speaker is going to be right on. I have gone through 28 different sets of speakers in a 45 year time as a listener seeking pleasure and, of late, realism in music reproduction. Everything is so fragile in hearing realism. Moving a wire can harm it. Boxes or records lying around can harm it. And certainly having two levels as at CES are awful.

The key here is the question of how strong a relationship there is between listeners' pleasure and double blind testing of any sort is strong. I don't believe there is any value in double blind or blind testing or whether most manufacturers care. I would love to be able to have the perfect reverse of a microphone with 20 Hz to 100k Hz response, the same rise time as the microphone tracks and able to reach 100 db levels at all frequencies. Make that and the world will beat a track to your door.

 

[Robh3606]

IMHO you are now leaning towards the Harman aggressive marketing style. I am not interested in having this type of debate in WBF. Sorry I am out.

Hello Micro

What aggressive marketing style??? We used to complain all the time over on Lansing Heritage about just how poor JBL markets it's high end speakers. You see plenty of low end blue tooth gear headphones and the like but the good stuff very rarely do you see much of anything. They also send the cream of the crop to Asia with many really nice systems not available in the US.

The key here is the question of how strong a relationship there is between listeners' pleasure and double blind testing of any sort is strong.

Hello TBG

They get very good correlation between preference and their design criteria.

Rob

 

[jkeny]

I can understand that consistency between on-axis & off-axis response is important to ensure that there is a wider sweet spot & that reflections are more consistent with the illusion of a real world source. But do Harmon's blind tests use their mono speaker placement in a normal room boundary placement? And once the sweet spot is found & adhered to in another speaker, does this not make mute this aspect?
Is there another reason for the on-axis/off-axis consistency?
I presume that there are other factors besides this?

 

[jkeny]

The key here is the question of how strong a relationship there is between listeners' pleasure and double blind testing of any sort is strong.

They get very good correlation between preference and their design criteria.

Rob

Yes, but does this correlation only hold for Harmon's blind test or does it hold generally. is TBG' point, I think?

 

[TBG]

What are these correlations? Anything less than .50 is not much as it explains only 25% of the variance.

Long ago I sought Everest speakers that were made in the US. Ultimately, I gave up in finding them. Now I see more current ones at shows.

 

[esldude]

Oh, they are targeting audiophiles but with the wrong marketing message.

If I polled 10 high-end audiophiles, how many would want to hear that I have verified the performance of the speaker against the very models they are buying *blind* and it has won?

If I built what I thought it was one of the best speakers ever built but priced at $22K instead of $80K, how many audiophiles would take notice?

If I built the world's best speakers but didn't talk about coming to a show with $200,000 in speaker interconnect and pick your favorite high-end bling amplifier, how many high-end audiophiles would take notice?

If I did not hire the type of sales people who come from high-end audio of believing in stuff that objectivity scuffed at, how many audiophiles would listen to them?

I hope you get my drift . Harman believes that it can get high-end customers to take objectivity seriously. That is a serious mistake, pun intended . No one wants to hear that Harman will not release a speaker until it beats its competitors in double blind tests. No one wants to read AES papers on what is important in speaker design.

What they want to hear is that the speaker wood came from forest of Indonesia harvested by virgins. They want to see a gray haired guy talking about how he has perfected his ideas of speaker design in the last 50 years. They want to see the speakers in highest of the high-end showrooms (which requires a lot more margin than a $22K speaker may produce).

They are aiming for a cross section of audiophile beliefs in price not being a barrier to purchase and true science in audio. That captures people like me. I want the best but want some verification of it, not just some glossy brochure, and a 2 hour demo. Unfortunately I am in tiny minority here. Most objectivists buy mass market products and are not in the market for $22K speakers. Heck, even I am too cheap to buy a $22K speaker.


He is genuine though as I have seen him repeatedly say that the Revel Salon 2 has been the best speaker he has ever heard. I post that not as proof of anything as per above, the proof from Harman always comes in the form of science. But rather the notion that no audiophile has cared about Harman speakers. I thought JA's account was enough to counter that argument.

Bottom line is this: pick any high-end speaker you want. Then let's arrange Harman to perform a double blind test against it. And let's see where you would put your money on. Mine would be on Harman.

Why? Because of a single factor: when you design something properly and verify it the same, then it has broad performance. It will sound good in many place with many content. Build a flawed but a "magnificent" piece and its performance will be narrow. Many high-end speakers require hours of positioning in the room for example. Why? Because of their poor off-axis response which they have not even measured (because it requires an anechoic chamber), you have screw around with them enough to reduce the impact of those reflections. Once you do that, their giant enclosures and over the top design can outperform smaller speakers like Revel Salon 2.

You don't hear me talk this way because I love you guys and don't want to spoil your fun . Buy what you like. But let's not say that the Harman speakers don't deliver true performance. A JBL M2 behind a curtain where you can't see what it is, will blow your pants off, literally. Let's put aside our prejudice against blind listening and use of audio science in design of speakers and benefit from the incredible bargain these speakers can be. Listen to Revel M208 and tell me you have heard better bookshelf speakers.

Note: my company carries Harman speakers although much of what we sell are their in-ceiling speakers and JBL for theaters. And I have long been friends and hold a ton of respect for a number of Harman employees researchers, and designers. So please take what I say with grain of salt in that regard .

Amir, you said a whole lot of true things in this post. And no, most audiophiles do not want to hear it. I don't know whether Harman thinks objectively good designs can win out in the high end (like you I think it a big mistake to think that) or they think the High end audiophile is a niche market that will die out in time leaving them with the real goods (maybe they are right, but I doubt that too).

 

[TBG]

Amir, you said a whole lot of true things in this post. And no, most audiophiles do not want to hear it. I don't know whether Harman thinks objectively good designs can win out in the high end (like you I think it a big mistake to think that) or they think the High end audiophile is a niche market that will die out in time leaving them with the real goods (maybe they are right, but I doubt that too).

I disagree that audiophiles don't want to hear this as yet unsubstantiated work by Harmon. Rather they don't give a fig about it. Rather I think that many designers and small manufacturers are using trial and error to greatly improve speakers, amplifiers, sources, etc. In all the suites at high end audio CES, no one was doing blind testing and there were few demonstrations. Mainly people sat down and listened. CES is a trade show, but many attendees were trade but not really dealers or manufacturers. I did hear dealers discussing whether they need less costly products or could sell those with quality sounds.

Yes, the number of audiophiles, not here used as a derogatory term, has declined as home theater, portable audio sources, games, etc. have made inroads on peoples' time for entertainment. But parts quality has advanced greatly, knowledge of the impact of noise on the ac lines and the influence of Emi and Rfi, and the impact of motion in signal lines causing magnetic waves that in turn cause signal in wires as well as harming speaker performance and cartridges in record grooves have greatly added to the quality of music reproduction all going well beyond what science we have on these topics.

In short, those who seek realism in the reproduction of music, have little or no interest in objectivists or blind testing.

 

[jkeny]

...
In short, those who seek realism in the reproduction of music, have little or no interest in objectivists or blind testing.

I believe this is the crux of the matter - the small number of audiophiles still left realise that we have reached a stage where to progress towards a better illusion of realism requires far more than the objectivists/measureists can offer & the only instrument sophisticated enough is auditory perception & not some unnatural A/B listening test which delivers null results.

A good example of the pitfalls of blind testing is the history of a poster, Vital, on Pinkfishmedia forum. He was a confirmed objectivist because he had not heard differences between DACs, sighted or blind. He had organised & been to get-togethers where no differences were heard by most in attendance. It was only when he heard some differences in the Winer A/D D/A loopback audio files test that he began to look more seriously into the possibility that there are audible differences. In the last group session where many heard differences he was still prevaricated (nothing wrong with that) & he organised his own session where sighted & blind tests were done. When one member passed the blind test 4/4 & told him what to listen for, he passed the blind test with no problem differentiating a Sonus Vs Pyxis Pre/DAC. He still thinks the differences are small but it will be interesting to see if this changes over longer term listening as he owns both of these DACs

Now, he attributes a large part of the blame on blind tests for his former convictions.

I know this is not a well run blind test but it's what passes for evidence on forums & unfortunately what biases peoples hearing & their expectations.

 

[TBG]

You make the last statement as though it means it is worthless. I have often heard mono records that have an openness to them. I certainly I have also heard stereo records that do the same or even more so. I have never heard a multichannel recording that I thought sounded real.

 

[esldude]

I disagree that audiophiles don't want to hear this as yet unsubstantiated work by Harmon. Rather they don't give a fig about it. Rather I think that many designers and small manufacturers are using trial and error to greatly improve speakers, amplifiers, sources, etc. In all the suites at high end audio CES, no one was doing blind testing and there were few demonstrations. Mainly people sat down and listened. CES is a trade show, but many attendees were trade but not really dealers or manufacturers. I did hear dealers discussing whether they need less costly products or could sell those with quality sounds.

Yes, the number of audiophiles, not here used as a derogatory term, has declined as home theater, portable audio sources, games, etc. have made inroads on peoples' time for entertainment. But parts quality has advanced greatly, knowledge of the impact of noise on the ac lines and the influence of Emi and Rfi, and the impact of motion in signal lines causing magnetic waves that in turn cause signal in wires as well as harming speaker performance and cartridges in record grooves have greatly added to the quality of music reproduction all going well beyond what science we have on these topics.

In short, those who seek realism in the reproduction of music, have little or no interest in objectivists or blind testing.

Your first sentence says you disagree. Then the entirity of your post shows you in fact do agree that Harman's work is something audiophiles don't want to hear or believe.


Oxymoron-a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g. those who seek realism in the reproduction of music, have little or no interest in objectivists or blind testing. ).

 

[esldude]

Logically, if the recording contained all the information needed to create a stunning image of the live performance, then truly accurate reproduction and the war to make as many zeros after the decimal in IMD and THD tests and the least amount of spurs in the spectrum tests would win out.

But, the reality is stereo is quite incapable of reproducing the real thing, and folks all hear differently and since they are spending their own money they want the thing to sound good to them.

I don't know anyone who can pass a moderate hearing test that could be played music from different speakers and not hear differences. Hearing differences is not tantamount to being able to describe accuracy to the original event since the original event is someones idea of what they think you would like to hear, in plain old stereo.

If two channel audio was a replication system that could bring the event to your room, then pure accuracy to the signal would likely be the measure of reference, but since it can't the measure of reference is each persons ears and internal references deciding what sounds good at that particular moment.

Two channel audio is an entertainment system trying to trigger in our heads some semblance of what we want to hear and like to hear based on uniqueness that each of us has. However, those Harmon tests do show that taking the speaker as a sound reproducer, folks tend to like one that is more accurate. Its a fact for the way they did their test and test conditions.

While I do not align myself fully with either camp, the part of me in the objectivists camp is not afraid of psychoacoustics, however, I think the reality is that the other side of the camp is more afraid to find out just how trustless their hearing is. They have staked all they know, over and over on forums, about how their ears are superior. they are, to them. but to some of us, with some knowledge of the audio art, we know better. Looks like Amir has been one to mention how you can begin to doubt yourself when the differences are so small as you begin to start hearing things....I have done this in designs where I have made a change only to find out that the lead fell off the component and there I was thinking, hummm, this sounds better. Humility is one thing those with "ear trust" could use more of IMO. However, only some tout their experience as some sort of trump over others. Thankfully most are simply stating their opinion.

actually, two channel audio is a system simply to allow two speakers to generate images (in our heads) between them, read the patent.

Kudos on a very nice post.

 

[TBG]

They are not interested in any of the concerns of blind testing.

 

[esldude]

They are not interested in any of the concerns of blind testing.

Yet how smart is that if they insist they are interested in realism of reproduction? You really don't see the contradiction? WOW!

Let me wax elogquent about my prime music listening concern: REALISM of MUSIC REPRODUCTION. Let me deny, argue, or disagree with any objective attempts at laying bare the envelope needed to have realism in reproduction. And yet insist, that is all I am interested in, as long as I only approach realism from an obtuse, unfocused, mystical way rather than just figuring out what is real, and now to reproduce it as closely as possible.