- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,565
- Likes
- 12,767
pt 2.
I agree with you!
I've argued numerous times here why picking accurate gear makes sense for the goal of "trying to hear what the producer intended."
But this has been in the context of recognizing other goals are justifiable as well.
So to what we are trying to get out of recording on our sound system I think various approaches are reasonable.
1. We want to hear what the producers intended, in the sense of something like what they would have heard in the studio. Some may say that The Circle Of Confusion rules this goal out. But a case can be made that we can move further or closer to what they heard in the studio ( Genelec monitors will get you closer to what many recording studios use than using an old transistor radio!). In this case we don't have to make "perfect" the enemy of The Good. So one may say "I won't attain perfect reproduction of everything recorded, but this approach is Good Enough For Me."
2. Someone else can say: That's not Good Enough For Me. I think that leaves too much variability on the table. I'm not going down the rabbit hole of trying to reproduce what people heard in all sorts of different mixing studios. Instead I'm going to concentrate on the recorded signal itself. Because at least THAT is something I know can be reproduced with a high level of accuracy. And whatever it sounds like, it sounds like in my accurate system.
Both are reasonable...and in this case for the most part both approaches will favour accurate/neutral equipment.
Then there's:
3. I just want a system on which I enjoy listening to my favourite music. I don't need to go down some rabbit hole of trying to reproduce what they heard in the studio...see The Circle Of Confusion making that ultimately unattainable. And I don't care about some intellectual goal of "reproducing the signal with the highest accuracy." My goal is whatever allows me to enjoy the music most on my system. And if artists have any broad intent, it's that the listener ENJOYs their music! So I'm good with that, however I get there.
Speaking to number 3, I was just watching a youtube video with a musician/music producer, who railed against the notion that you, the listener, must listen to his music in some defined method or system. As he put it: "The best or proper way to listen to your favourite artist or your favourite album is defined by you."
And knowing a great many musicians (and having been one) that rings true. I can't think of any musicians I know who fret about what sound system is being used by potential listeners. It's also why you don't see Taylor Swift albums accompanied by photos of her recording studio and a gear list "so you can choose equipment to hear it exactly as we did in the studio!" What the artists care most about is that you enjoy their music, in whatever way that gets you there.
So it's perfectly fine to talk in terms of goals for sound reproduction, and for one's personal system. But we should recognize that this will boil down to PERSONAL goals, not THE WRITTEN IN STONE goal, and that various approaches are reasonable and justifiable.
Some audiophiles have the goal of accuracy, and there are plenty of other audiophiles who share that goal, and plenty of manufacturers who cater to that goal! All good!
Some audiophiles have a goal of finding a sound profile that they personally enjoy the most for their music, which may not be as accurate. And plenty of other audiophiles feel the same. And there are companies that cater to that market too. Which is as it should be in a world where people have different tastes, values and goals.
Pick speakers from the large pool of reasonable designs out there and if sound technicians and producers do the same the circle of confusion might get smaller over time .
its an active choice if everyone has “Toole compliant” speakers or what to call them , we could have a small chance hearing what the producer intended us to hear
I agree with you!
I've argued numerous times here why picking accurate gear makes sense for the goal of "trying to hear what the producer intended."
But this has been in the context of recognizing other goals are justifiable as well.
So to what we are trying to get out of recording on our sound system I think various approaches are reasonable.
1. We want to hear what the producers intended, in the sense of something like what they would have heard in the studio. Some may say that The Circle Of Confusion rules this goal out. But a case can be made that we can move further or closer to what they heard in the studio ( Genelec monitors will get you closer to what many recording studios use than using an old transistor radio!). In this case we don't have to make "perfect" the enemy of The Good. So one may say "I won't attain perfect reproduction of everything recorded, but this approach is Good Enough For Me."
2. Someone else can say: That's not Good Enough For Me. I think that leaves too much variability on the table. I'm not going down the rabbit hole of trying to reproduce what people heard in all sorts of different mixing studios. Instead I'm going to concentrate on the recorded signal itself. Because at least THAT is something I know can be reproduced with a high level of accuracy. And whatever it sounds like, it sounds like in my accurate system.
Both are reasonable...and in this case for the most part both approaches will favour accurate/neutral equipment.
Then there's:
3. I just want a system on which I enjoy listening to my favourite music. I don't need to go down some rabbit hole of trying to reproduce what they heard in the studio...see The Circle Of Confusion making that ultimately unattainable. And I don't care about some intellectual goal of "reproducing the signal with the highest accuracy." My goal is whatever allows me to enjoy the music most on my system. And if artists have any broad intent, it's that the listener ENJOYs their music! So I'm good with that, however I get there.
Speaking to number 3, I was just watching a youtube video with a musician/music producer, who railed against the notion that you, the listener, must listen to his music in some defined method or system. As he put it: "The best or proper way to listen to your favourite artist or your favourite album is defined by you."
And knowing a great many musicians (and having been one) that rings true. I can't think of any musicians I know who fret about what sound system is being used by potential listeners. It's also why you don't see Taylor Swift albums accompanied by photos of her recording studio and a gear list "so you can choose equipment to hear it exactly as we did in the studio!" What the artists care most about is that you enjoy their music, in whatever way that gets you there.
So it's perfectly fine to talk in terms of goals for sound reproduction, and for one's personal system. But we should recognize that this will boil down to PERSONAL goals, not THE WRITTEN IN STONE goal, and that various approaches are reasonable and justifiable.
Some audiophiles have the goal of accuracy, and there are plenty of other audiophiles who share that goal, and plenty of manufacturers who cater to that goal! All good!
Some audiophiles have a goal of finding a sound profile that they personally enjoy the most for their music, which may not be as accurate. And plenty of other audiophiles feel the same. And there are companies that cater to that market too. Which is as it should be in a world where people have different tastes, values and goals.
Last edited: