Hypothetical situation: measure good/sounds bad vs. sounds good/measures bad (1 Viewer)

[John Corkery]

I think I know exactly what you mean. Kinda like the difference between admiring a picture of a beautiful woman, versus having her pounce on you and tackle you to the ground.

But what if the type of behavior you've described (or any behavior you'd want the woman to possess) really isn't contained within that woman?

 

[Saurav]

OK, my idea of "accurate reproduction of music" is something that evokes the same (or similar) emotional response in me that would have been evoked had I attended the original event. In my experience, systems which are "accurate" as the word is understood today, usually highlight characteristics of the recording, which distract from the music. For example, systems with pin-point imaging leave me marvelling at how well defined the position of each musician is in the soundstage. To me, that is a distraction.

the accuracy of "music" reproduced on any stereo system is entirely dependent upon the accuracy of the recording.

Agreed. In my limited experience, the recordings which I have found to "accurately" capture the music have some common characteristics. They are usually minimally miked and processed. Most recordings which use individual mikes on all instruments seem to lose the music in the process.

Just my tastes, that's all.

 

[Saurav]

But what if the type of behavior you've described (or any behavior you'd want the woman to possess) really isn't contained within that woman?

A little wine usually helps
I see your point. Yes, a demure woman is a demure woman, and I wouldn't want every woman in the world to jump out at me. At the same time, I don't want to sit and analyse all women with my left brain either, sometimes I want to be so completely caught up and lost in an emotional experience that I totally forget to analyse what's going on.

 

[John Corkery]

As a kid, have you never jived to a song playing on a tinny radio or a boombox? I know I have. That's the emotional response I'm looking for, and it has nothing to do with "accuracy".

I agree; that has nothing to do with accuracy. If I hear a song I really like, I'll most likely enjoy it regardless of the playback system. (Well, unless it sounds like I'm listening to it over a telephone with constant static interference...!) But, that doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy it more on a system of my choice!

 

[Larry B]

Saurav:

In my experience, systems which are "accurate" as the word is understood today, usually highlight characteristics of the recording, which distract from the music. For example, systems with pin-point imaging leave me marvelling at how well defined the position of each musician is in the soundstage.

While it is true that some systems are "overly accurtae" (if that's possible), but many, I repeat, many high-end systems are not.

An interesting fact is that studio monitors, which are desgined to be as accurate as possible, are generally not liked by the public. This suggests (as someone mentioned above) that what we like is not the sound of the original event, but something else. On a personal note, I have mentioned in the past my love of the Amati Homages, and their captivating midrange ("like dripping honey," as a friend of mine put it). Yet I often wonder if their wonderful midrange is in fact, exaggerated. The antithesis of the Amati Homages, the Watt Pupies, which I (and many others) find too analytical, are considered by many to be the most neutral. Really makes one wonder.

Larry

 

[Larry B]

John:

But, that doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy it more on a system of my choice!

Right. And in general, the better the system, the more we enjoy it.

Larry

 

[Saurav]

I think you understand what I'm trying to say. I'm an engineer by profession, so it already takes an effort of will to quell the analytical side of my brain when I'm listening to music. The first system I got was all the way over to the left(brain) - I spent all my time oohing and aahing over the imaging. However, (and this is just me), that soon gave way to fretting over stuff - was the voice coming from dead center? Were the cymbals coming from outside the speakers? Were the drums as far behind the singer as so-and-so said it was supposed to be?

But, that doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy it more on a system of my choice!

Absolutely. For you, the presence of those little details probably enhances the musical experience. For me, it doesn't. Thus, our systems of choice will be different, with different presentations. Nothing right or wrong in either approach, IMO.

 

[Saurav]

While it is true that some systems are "ovrly accurtae" (if that's possible), but many, I repeat, many high-end systems do not.

What is "overly accurate" anyway? Like you said, it's a very personal/subjective definition. For me, if my first reaction to a system is "great imaging" or "shimmery cymbals", it's not doing it's job right. That's the analytical side of my brain speaking, the side that likes to break things down into little pieces and critically examine them. That's not what music felt like when I played in a band, it was an exhilirating and joyous experience (yes, even playing Deep Purple).

 

[John Corkery]

I want to be shaken, stirred, and impressed by the sound coming out of my system. I don't care if it really sounds like the original, if it sounds better, more impressive, cooler, I like it better.

I can certainly relate to that, but that can be a problem if you listen to many different types of music. A system that adds "life" to certain types of music might very well add undesirable qualities to other kinds of music. That's why many people prefer "neutral" equipment.

 

[Saurav]

A system that adds "life" to certain types of music might very well add undesirable qualities to other kinds of music. That's why many people prefer "neutral" equipment.

Agreed. I'm not talking about something that adds life where it is missing, or even is unwanted. The distinction I'm trying to draw is between highlighting the details, versus showing the bigger picture. Take a large orchestral piece of music, for instance - it ebbs and flows and has a life of its own. It also has details about placement and tonality of instruments. These are two aspects of the presentation, and has nothing to do with adding something artifical into the mix. A perfect system will do both sides of it well. In my experience (and budget), systems tend to be compromised, and they do one or the other better. My preference would be to pick one which conveys the bigger picture, I'd be willing to sacrifice the details for that.
I hope that makes more sense now

 

[Larry B]

Saurav:

For me, if my first reaction to a system is "great imaging" or "shimmery cymbals", it's not doing it's job right. That's the analytical side of my brain speaking,
the side that likes to break things down into little pieces and critically examine them.

Perhaps you're not doing your job right. (No offense meant by that, so please don't take any.) That is, perhaps you are not sufficiently used to high resolution systems so that when you hear one, you go into "analytical mode," rather than "enjoy the music" mode. If this is what you're doing, you are certainly not alone and in fact, part of a very large crowd. (Especially among we left-brainers.) When I first got into "high-end" audio I did exactly the same thing but with time, my response changed. Once you get use to the detail, timing and coherence of high resolution systems, it's hard to like anything that falls short on these measures.
This is speculation on my part (albeit, that based on experience) and if I missed my mark, I truly apologize.
Larry
Edit: Listening in the dark, and when I'm a bit drowsy, help me switch modes, which is why that's my preferred way to enjoy music.

 

[Saurav]

That's a good point, but it could cut both ways, couldn't it?

Once you get use to the detail, timing and coherence of high resolution systems, it's hard to like anything that falls short of these measures.

For instance, you could be so used to a detailed presentation that you've totally lost touch with the music, which is why when you hear a system that better presents the big picture, you're lost because (a) you're missing the details you like so much, and (b) you don't know how to hear the whole thing anyway.

No, you have a good point, and I fully expect my ideas and tastes to refine themselves as I spend more time with this hobby.
You raise an interesting point though - does high resolution equal analytical? Take horns, for instance - they're supposed to be more detailed (to the point of being harsh, depending on who you ask) than cones. You talk of "detail timing and coherence" - I think those are important attributes of a system for it to get the music right. Soundstage and imaging are a "happy accident" byproduct of these qualities, their primary objective being to convey movement.
Now I'm rambling. You've given me something to think about though.

 

[Larry B]

Saurav:

You've given me something to think about though.

Then my efforts have been rewarded.
And last, thank you for responding so positvely to what could have easily been interpreted as a slight. (Oops, a sentence beginning with "and." Now we're both guilty. )
Larry

 

[Aslam Imran]

Wooow, what are you guys talking about. Its beyond me. What does the left part of the brain do exactly again? and what does it have to do with the beautiful woman pouncing on you and nailing you to the ground after drinking a little wine. Now I need a little wine and I wouldnt mind a beautiful woman at this point in the discussion. But thats just the left side of my brain talking or should I say thinking.

 

[John Corkery]

(OK, I noticed that Larry B has already expressed pretty much what I wrote in this message, but I wrote it, so I'm gonna post it, doggone it!!)

That's not what music felt like when I played in a band, it was an exhilirating and joyous experience (yes, even playing Deep Purple).

Does playing "air guitar" while you're listening help?

 

[Larry B]

John:

(OK, I noticed that Larry B has already expressed pretty much what I wrote in this message, but I wrote it, so I'm gonna post it, doggone it!!)

To which I reply, "great minds think alike."

Larry

 

[Saurav]

If I'm used to listening to my music through a clock radio, any equipment more "hi-fi" than that is going to produce a "distracting" sound at first. It'll be impossible *not* to notice the "great imaging" (or whatever terminology a person might use to describe this quality) or the "shimmering cymbals."

Hmm.... maybe. But would these be the first thing you notice?

 

[Saurav]

To which I reply, "great minds think alike."

So do people living the same delusion

 

[Larry B]

Saurav:

So do people living the same delusion

Ah, but our delusion is better than your delusion...

 

[Saurav]

LOL!! That's the beauty of delusion, surely