Audiophilia and its discontents

[MickeyBoy]

The current issue of Harper's magazine has a curious article about some fringe audiophiles. Link. The author, Sasha Frere-Jones, apparently a jazz musician, music critic, and naif about sound reproduction, describes his peregrinations among some of the wilder partisans of what he calls triode horn (set power amps with mid and treble horns.) Centered on the author's interviews in the east coast, the article offers a few observations about the incongruence of our vocabulary and the experience of music. Agreed, but why then describe the sound of the stratospherically priced OMA Imperia speakers as "wide and vivid and full of dirty weight, the breath of an organism.?" It is unclear whether this is before or after he "developed a new way of thinking about how we listen to music." He seems to be on the same wavelength as the designer, who confessed being influenced by Heidegger. (Not a joke, to quote the occupant of the White House.)

Still it is an amusing article, starting off in Japanese jazz clubs and going through compression drivers and horns, but without mentioning any of the Japanese audio gurus, such as Jean Hiraga, or JBL. This is not a developed history, just a few anecdotes. Most amusing is how he chose speakers for his apartment. His guru Steve Guttenberg's PureAudio speakers sounded "sick." Apparently this is a great compliment. On Guttenberg's recommendation the author bought a used pair of Klipsch RP-600M. About a recording by John Martyn: "Through the Klipsch speakers, it sounded alive, drunk, and present. I felt a little reverent, maybe even bashful, about finally having real sound. It was not quite a prayer, but not not a prayer." You can look up Amir's evaluation of these speakers.

With a purplish pastiche of the writing style from the heyday of the New Yorker, a dash of post-modernism, and the brazen conviction that whom you know, not what is important, you too can pretend yourself into the audiophile bi-coastal elite.

 

[MattHooper]

The current issue of Harper's magazine has a curious article about some fringe audiophiles. Link. The author, Sasha Frere-Jones, apparently a jazz musician, music critic, and naif about sound reproduction, describes his peregrinations among some of the wilder partisans of what he calls triode horn (set power amps with mid and treble horns.) Centered on the author's interviews in the east coast, the article offers a few observations about the incongruence of our vocabulary and the experience of music. Agreed, but why then describe the sound of the stratospherically priced OMA Imperia speakers as "wide and vivid and full of dirty weight, the breath of an organism.?" It is unclear whether this is before or after he "developed a new way of thinking about how we listen to music." He seems to be on the same wavelength as the designer, who confessed being influenced by Heidegger. (Not a joke, to quote the occupant of the White House.)

Still it is an amusing article, starting off in Japanese jazz clubs and going through compression drivers and horns, but without mentioning any of the Japanese audio gurus, such as Jean Hiraga, or JBL. This is not a developed history, just a few anecdotes. Most amusing is how he chose speakers for his apartment. His guru Steve Guttenberg's PureAudio speakers sounded "sick." Apparently this is a great compliment. On Guttenberg's recommendation the author bought a used pair of Klipsch RP-600M. About a recording by John Martyn: "Through the Klipsch speakers, it sounded alive, drunk, and present. I felt a little reverent, maybe even bashful, about finally having real sound. It was not quite a prayer, but not not a prayer." You can look up Amir's evaluation of these speakers.

With a purplish pastiche of the writing style from the heyday of the New Yorker, a dash of post-modernism, and the brazen conviction that whom you know, not what is important, you too can pretend yourself into the audiophile bi-coastal elite.

That article was discussed here earlier.

Certainly the article is packed with stuff the ASR crowd will find cringy. And it no doubt contains some dubious technical ideas.

But ultimately it's a writer trying to put his experience with new audio gear in to language...which is what writers (and humans) do.

One theme is it documents the writer's grappling with the idea of what does one want out of a sound system? He wrote about how, as someone who also made records: "You shape the material you have to make it do what you need it to. The idea of anything being “natural” or “accurate” in the field of recorded music made no sense to me."

He wondered what is the "more" that some audiophiles are looking for with their audio gear.

Basically his article seemed to me to document his journey from the mind set of not really expecting too much from a recording...beyond the basic sonic information contained about any recording...to experiencing how much more life-like sound reproduction can seem. So along the way he hears about some of the attributes some audiophiles are seeking, e.g.:

"When the audio critic Herb Reichert hears this quality in good speakers, he calls it “believable corporeality,”


Eventually the writer reports experiencing just something like that, when listening to music through the big horn system:

"One day, I brought Weiss a copy of Comet Meta, a record by David Grubbs and Taku Unami that features the sound of two electric guitars playing at relatively low volume. When we put the vinyl through his Imperia speakers, we heard the guitar lines ring and hang and interlock—and then something else happened. I felt a presence, as if someone had entered the room. The music had become a concrete experience. I don’t mean that I could see the musicians, but that the people in the music, and of the music, were with me."

He experienced a system producing a type of "life energy" from the musicians that he wasn't used to hearing, or even expecting could be part of listening to a stereo system. And it had a big effect on him. Good for him!

As you note, part of this article also has to do with grappling with language in describing sound. He's a writer with a new experience to express. And I enjoyed his attempt to put his experience in to words. And on the theme of the worthiness of putting experience in to words, in whatever domain:

It would be awfully impoverishing to de-legitimize or dismiss the worth of language and it's role in humans trying to communicate experiences and impressions to other humans. Who would want to dismiss literature from James Joyce (or name any other great authors), simply because they were using the imprecision of language, "Listen James, give us what you are trying to describe in measurements or don't bother, thanks!" How impoverished it would be to describe to one another the sensation and characteristics of a great meal, or cooking a recipe, or a sunset, or a concert, piece of music etc, only in terms of chemicals and physics, utterly missing the subjective phenomena.

Some here will roll their eyes at an article discussing audio in purely descriptive terms. But I enjoy it. Measurements can surely be enlightening about what is happening technically, but to know what this means perceptually, we need to (or can) put things in to language. There is no reason to treat the phenomenon of sound as inherently siloed in to technical language. Sound, like everything else, produces subjective experience. Audio gear doesn't just "measure like X or Y" it also "Sounds LIKE X,Y, Z" once you play music through the system. The subjective perception it produces is ultimately the point, and humans discussing "what this sounds like" "what type of experience this produced for me" is natural, normal, often informative and...fun...(unless perhaps one has some intrinsic discomfort with the imprecision of language and prefers numbers to descriptions).

As to the poor writer being misled by Steve G in to buying those Klipsch speakers...the writer seems utterly thrilled, and finds that they produced for him something like the thrill he had discovered in the bigger horn speakers. Could he be educated out of liking them and preferring something else? I suppose. But frankly I'm happy for him that he is thrilled with music through his new system. I mean, I could try to educate my son out of being happy with the sound of youtube music coming from his laptop. But when I see him dancing around and singing along happily...I re-consider why I would be compelled to do that

 

[fpitas]

It wasn't my cup of tea, either. But I'm an engineer who listens to test tones and dummy loads.

 

[egellings]

"listening to dummy loads"? The sound of power resistors frying & popping open? I 'spoze. I did that once or twice. Ouch!

 

[fpitas]

"listening to dummy loads"? The sound of power resistors frying & popping open? I 'spoze. I did that once or twice. Ouch!

It's a memorable trope bestowed on us by a troll.

 

[Ra1zel]

One theme is it documents the writer's grappling with the idea of what does one want out of a sound system? He wrote about how, as someone who also made records: "You shape the material you have to make it do what you need it to. The idea of anything being “natural” or “accurate” in the field of recorded music made no sense to me."

Let's hypothesize a bit. Let's say I'm well familiarized with sound of accoustic instruments played in various spaces thanks to attending live acoustical events throughout my life. Now let's say we have a recording of accoustic instruments that was carefully recorded with realism in mind and then only minimally altered in mastering with huge crest factor. Now it would seem logical to me that I want my system reproduce it without any blemish if I want to retain the intended realism, I don't want any imd, thd, emphasis on any frequency etc. Now when all that is achieved and what I hear is consistent with what I'm familiar, then I'd say my system is natural and accurate or at least it can resolve what is natural and accurate.

This view of mine also highly challanges many audiophile indulgences:
Vinyl doesn't sound natural or accurate to me, I don't remember my music having cracks, clicks, pops, noise etc,
Tubes with high distortion are the very anathema of realism for me, how can I call a tinted lens as accurately showing real color?

 

[Ra1zel]

Measurements can surely be enlightening about what is happening technically, but to know what this means perceptually, we need to (or can) put things in to language. There is no reason to treat the phenomenon of sound as inherently siloed in to technical language.

It's a nice view but measurements are necessary for honesty control, any subjective experience can be nothing more than fantasy a fabrication of the mind. Should I make a wikipedia page that aliens are real because they visited me on my LSD trip?

Edit. For me listening to subjective only reviewers is like giving a colorblind person my monitor to calibrate rather than using measurements to do it.

 

[Ken1951]

I heard John Martyn back in the day at The Cellar Door in DC. A small club and it was just him. He sounded superb on my small system in my room at the house I shared back then with my Magnepan MG-1s. Didn't need any insane prose or weird tri-amped horns either.

 

[MarkS]

As to the poor writer being misled by Steve G in to buying those Klipsch speakers...the writer seems utterly thrilled, and finds that they produced for him something like the thrill he had discovered in the bigger horn speakers. Could he be educated out of liking them and preferring something else? I suppose. But frankly I'm happy for him that he is thrilled with music through his new system.

OK, fine. But I prefer to teach a man to fish. What the dude likes is a big dip at 2kHz:

Many people like such a dip. My Lyngdorf amp comes with chooseable "voicings" that have similar dips, and I have made up some of my own too (I like my dip a bit broader, and closer to 3kHz).

Nothing wrong with liking dips. But isn't it better to know that what you like is a dip, rather than ascribing it to some magical audio woo preached by fancy people, many of whom (Steve G) should know better?

 

[MattHooper]

Let's hypothesize a bit. Let's say I'm well familiarized with sound of accoustic instruments played in various spaces thanks to attending live acoustical events throughout my life. Now let's say we have a recording of accoustic instruments that was carefully recorded with realism in mind and then only minimally altered in mastering with huge crest factor. Now it would seem logical to me that I want my system reproduce it without any blemish if I want to retain the intended realism, I don't want any imd, thd, emphasis on any frequency etc. Now when all that is achieved and what I hear is consistent with what I'm familiar, then I'd say my system is natural and accurate or at least it can resolve what is natural and accurate.

Agreed. At least in a hypothetical, idea scenario, it should work like that.

This view of mine also highly challanges many audiophile indulgences:
Vinyl doesn't sound natural or accurate to me, I don't remember my music having cracks, clicks, pops, noise etc,
Tubes with high distortion are the very anathema of realism for me, how can I call a tinted lens as accurately showing real color?

The thing is that, if we are talking about fully recreating a sense of the real thing, there are so many routes to coloration involved in most recordings, and most playback systems, what comes out the sound system is going to be pretty heavily compromised. It's not really, for the most part, going to recreate the real thing.
So, if one still is using real sound as a reference - not one expected to be fully reached but one that guides to further or farther away from the real thing - then it becomes a question of picking one's set of compromises. So for instance one system may reproduce more "realistic" detail or tonal character, another may reproduce a sense of presence and dynamics more realistically. And audiophile A may focus on the first speaker as being "closer to reality" because those are the things he cares about most, audiophile B may cue in to the dynamics/impact/presence of the other speaker as "sounding more like the real thing."

In the absence of actual blind live vs reproduced tests, we are stuck with these subjective impressions: how a speaker sounds compared to our memory of live music - how it convinces any individual. This is why I've often said that while I hear things in some vinyl that I find to be more like the real thing (even if distortions), I can also hear in the digital versions qualities that another audiophile will seize on as "sounding more like the real thing."

For me, whether due to the colorations of most recordings, or due to inherent limitations in sound reproduction (including limitations in stereo sound), ALL systems sound "colored" compared to the real thing, even the most "neutral." So if I find certain bits of coloration sound more natural to me, I'm happy to indulge. I can understand why you would feel differently!

It's a nice view but measurements are necessary for honesty control, any subjective experience can be nothing more than fantasy a fabrication of the mind. Should I make a wikipedia page that aliens are real because they visited me on my LSD trip?

I agree that measurements (and listening tests using controls for bias) are necessary for gaining the most reliable information. But as I've so often argued here, I disagree that this entails that in lieu of measurements/controls, our sonic impressions (and ways of expressing them) are rendered worthless. Your reference to aliens and LSD trips don't take in to account all the ways in which sonic impressions can be reliable, and can be communicated about, without appeal to measurements. For instance, I just finished sound editing a scene in which some characters where shrunk down to inches in size, and I needed to make the sound of a "giant onion rolling across the ground toward them." An actual recording of the onion rolling (which I recorded) didn't sound large enough, so I found sounds of boulders etc with much deeper, more impactful bass to add beneath the sound. Now the onions sounded far larger than a normal onion.

Not a single measurement was referenced, just using my ears. Yet I can certainly predict that the sound of the onion will be percieved as exaggerated and larger than that of a real normal sized onion, when we are all in the mixing theater going over the mix.

So, do you think all of these perceptions and decisions based on those perceptions must be placed in the same category, as illusory and unreliable, as "alien visitations" and "LCD" trips? If so, could you suggest how I would do my job other than using my perception? Would it be pragmatic to have to look to measurements and blind-test my every sonic decision all day long? Could you explain, if a lack of measurements leaves our perception so unreliable, how my sonic choices based on my own perception so often translates in to what others will perceive? (My job would be impossible if it weren't the case).
But if you can not provide a reasonable alternative, and accept that work like this can be achieved without measurements/listening controls...where will you draw this seemingly magic line that renders perception of sound becomes utterly unreliable...just in the case of high end audio perception? I can accurately percieve when I've added more bottom end to the onion scene, just by using my ears, but can't accurately percieve if one speaker produces more or lower bass than another? Where do you draw this line?

Reductio ad absurdum is certainly a legitimate form of argument, so long as it doesn't strawman the reasoning involved. The reference to LCD/Aliens does become a strawman in this case, given I would not argue from the stance just any claim or any perception is to be taken as veridical.

Edit. For me listening to subjective only reviewers is like giving a colorblind person my monitor to calibrate rather than using measurements to do it.

I can totally empathize with your not paying attention to subjective sound reports (from reviewers or other audiophiles) and wanting the greater reliability of
objective evidence. It's only if you are seeking to argue they are worthless in general, not just for your own purposes, that I'd disagree. Cheers.

Har...meanwhile I'm arguing on audiogon for the relevance of measurements and blind testing...

Audiogon Discussion Forum

Recent studies in Canada for patients with so-called long covid show us on how science and measurements and research actually works. Patients with lo...

forum.audiogon.com

 

[Chrispy]

More attempts at creative writing for silly audio gear. Not something I'd look for, too much of that already.

 

[Ra1zel]

For me, whether due to the colorations of most recordings, or due to inherent limitations in sound reproduction (including limitations in stereo sound), ALL systems sound "colored" compared to the real thing, even the most "neutral." So if I find certain bits of coloration sound more natural to me, I'm happy to indulge. I can understand why you would feel differently!

I agree with this, the main issues seem to lie in recordings and our current formats mono/stereo/multichannel

So, do you think all of these perceptions and decisions based on those perceptions must be placed in the same category, as illusory and unreliable, as "alien visitations" and "LCD" trips? If so, could you suggest how I would do my job other than using my perception? Would it be pragmatic to have to look to measurements and blind-test my every sonic decision all day long? Could you explain, if a lack of measurements leaves our perception so unreliable, how my sonic choices based on my own perception so often translates in to what others will perceive? (My job would be impossible if it weren't the case).
But if you can not provide a reasonable alternative, and accept that work like this can be achieved without measurements/listening controls...where will you draw this seemingly magic line that renders perception of sound becomes utterly unreliable...just in the case of high end audio perception?

I think this is why there must be a distinction in production and reproduction. When you create your art there are no objective values that must be satisfied, you simply do whatever to reach your vision - express your imagination. Yet when I want to reproduce your work any alteration is straying from accuracy, "reality". When you hear your recording with a new unfamiliar setup can it for example sound more "real" than initially intended? I fail to see how it could be. Surely if my playback causes somehow your giant onion to sound less giant then its not more realistic since you intended otherwise. Reality is dictated by the recording and artist intention in this case.

I can totally empathize with your not paying attention to subjective sound reports (from reviewers or other audiophiles) and wanting the greater reliability of
objective evidence. It's only if you are seeking to argue they are worthless in general, not just for your own purposes, that I'd disagree. Cheers.

I don't think subjective sound reports are worthless, it's just that most subjective only reviewers those days write 2000 word articles about how power conditioners and magic dust changed their sound completely. Surely that doesn't inspire confidence in what they then have to say about speakers. Another problem - most people don't have a good reference, too many times I visited people who were saying they have amazing bass yet I could recognize the usual 20dB peaks and dips of horror or even worse, completely randomly implemented sub that runs 20dB hot masking almost any other sound. That's not amazing bass yet they say so.

All in all I just still can't get it why audio is the only tech hobby treated this way. You don't see people choosing their TV based on someone's word on how subjectively real are the colors, they go to rtings and look how accurate the colors measure to standard or some youruber who measures(all of them do). You don't see people choosing computers on someones subjective feeling that it runs smoother, they look at benchmarks/fps numbers. Seems that audio people are just more interested in engaging in fantasy rather than reality. Do people like fidelity or reading good fantasy? Sense or nonsense?

 

[Ra1zel]

When Gutenberg says ""Through the Klipsch speakers, it sounded alive, drunk, and present. I felt a little reverent, maybe even bashful, about finally having real sound. It was not quite a prayer, but not not a prayer" I don't think he is wrong, but I think he is talking nonsense

When I hear them to have sharp, piercing treble, lack of detail and clarity, unpleasant muddy character overall and messed up timbre, my description is still highly subjective but looking at how they measure something tells me I'm talking sense

 

[MattHooper]

I think we are mostly on the same page. Perhaps just slightly talking past one another.

I think this is why there must be a distinction in production and reproduction. When you create your art there are no objective values that must be satisfied, you simply do whatever to reach your vision - express your imagination. Yet when I want to reproduce your work any alteration is straying from accuracy, "reality". When you hear your recording with a new unfamiliar setup can it for example sound more "real" than initially intended? I fail to see how it could be. Surely if my playback causes somehow your giant onion to sound less giant then its not more realistic since you intended otherwise. Reality is dictated by the recording and artist intention in this case.

Yes, sensible. Except that wasn't the point of the example

My example was addressing your concern that measurements were "necessary" for honesty control, since any subjective impression can be a fantasy.
This left the implication, at least, that subjective impressions, and language, lacking measurements or controls may be totally unreliable or worthless. And that is the implication I was addressing. But it seems we mostly agree now.

I agree with you there is tons of B.S. and flowery useless writing in subjective reviews. I find I have to wade through a fair amount of turd to find the truffles
I just don't find them inherently worthless - a well written review can be perceptive and informative.

I also agree that the "Klipsche speakers sound drunk" description was too abstract for my tastes. Your description would be better!

 

[kemmler3D]

I think there is value in subjective description of audio, when there is some possibility of relating the description to something tangible or quantifiable.

If we have no chance to relate it back to something *real*, we are often just supplementing our imagination with someone's description of their emotional response to a quantifiable phenomenon... which can be fun to read, but as ASR members never get tired of pointing out, is not reliable guidance on the actual sound.

For example, if I say "I saw a really tall guy yesterday", this isn't very informative to you unless A) I can give an estimated number like 7 feet, B) you can also see the guy for yourself, and see what 'really tall' means or C) there is an actual measurement of the guy.

Speakers are the same way. If I say "This speaker sounds crunchy", that's not meaningful info unless you can hear it yourself or see some measurements. Maybe I can say "sounded like THD around 2khz" (better than nothing) (A) or you can hear the speaker yourself to find out what I mean (B) or Amir reviews the speaker and we see where the "crunchiness" might be coming from (C).

 

[kongwee]

I heard with $150k 300B setup with some $150k horn. It is really nice sounding that you wouldn't care about FR but loading of loudspeaker. You can get $2k plus 300B too with 90dB speaker. I even run it with Martin Login if you don't play loud in a small room.

 

[Beave]

I heard with $150k 300B setup with some $150k horn. It is really nice sounding that you wouldn't care about FR but loading of loudspeaker. You can get $2k plus 300B too with 90dB speaker. I even run it with Martin Login if you don't play loud in a small room.

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

 

[MattHooper]

I think there is value in subjective description of audio, when there is some possibility of relating the description to something tangible or quantifiable.

If we have no chance to relate it back to something *real*, we are often just supplementing our imagination with someone's description of their emotional response to a quantifiable phenomenon... which can be fun to read, but as ASR members never get tired of pointing out, is not reliable guidance on the actual sound.

For example, if I say "I saw a really tall guy yesterday", this isn't very informative to you unless A) I can give an estimated number like 7 feet, B) you can also see the guy for yourself, and see what 'really tall' means or C) there is an actual measurement of the guy.

Speakers are the same way. If I say "This speaker sounds crunchy", that's not meaningful info unless you can hear it yourself or see some measurements. Maybe I can say "sounded like THD around 2khz" (better than nothing) (A) or you can hear the speaker yourself to find out what I mean (B) or Amir reviews the speaker and we see where the "crunchiness" might be coming from (C).

Yes I agree that sonic descriptions matched with measurements are the best of both worlds.

In fact, technical language can even substitute for subjective description in the right scenarios. If one is familiar enough with EQ for instance, and one starts with a neutral speaker, if someone says "I added a 6 dB boost at 4K with a filter Q of 2" you will have a general sense of "what that sounds like." It would be even more precise than "sounds bright" or whatever.

The thing is given all the different ways EQ can be adjusted, most people won't have the experience with listening to EQ to immediately translate numbers in to "I know exactly what that sounds like." So verbal short hands, subjective descriptions, still have their place. And also, it would still be legitimate to try to put in to language "the effect it has on the sound of music."

As to whether descriptions like "crunchy" would be useful, they certainly could be for me. Again, I have to translate people's informal language - sonic requests - in to actual results all the time. If someone wants a sound texture of a certain type (e.g. a surface someone is walking on, or an alien's skin movement, or whatever) they can use terms like "smooth""sandy" "grainy" "gritty" "crunchy" "crackly" etc and those will certainly invoke different sounds. If someone says "crackly" I'm not going to use the sound I might have for "sandy" or "grainy."

Likewise, all sorts of sonic distortions can happen with speakers/recordings, resulting in different types of higher frequency character. I'm fine with someone trying to convey the specific types of high end character via words. For instance I would describe the upper mids/presence region on my Joseph speakers as "extremely smooth and clean" while the same area in my old pair of Thiel 02 speakers sound in comparison slightly "gritty/rough" even a bit "spitty." While it's true that to know precisely what those two speakers sound like in those regions it would be best to hear them yourself. But I think you know what I generally mean to get at when describing one as more smooth than the other. (At least...many audiophiles of my acquaintance certainly would). Just as you'd know what I'm getting at if I describe one dish as much spicier than another - "ah, yes I know what it's like when something is more spicy" - even if you didn't have the precise Scoville Scale for each dish.

 

[kongwee]

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

I never own a cat.

 

[Beave]

I never own a cat.

Me neither, but I have owned a television.