Can You Trust Your Ears? By Tom Nousaine

[Purité Audio]

So you put together the most linear playback system you can, which will reproduce the recording as accurately as possible .
Keith

 

[Analog Scott]

So you put together the most linear playback system you can, which will reproduce the recording as accurately as possible .
Keith

OK, a real world example. I have done comparisons between the LP and CD versions of the Performance Recording comparison package of PR-7 Pictures at an Exhibition for solo piano. All three versions sound terrific. All three versions sound astonishingly life like. The LP version sounded better to me. Clearly of the three that would be the least neutral and most distorted version. So how do I reconcile this? The prefered sourece component/medium is the more distorted source component/medium. And yeah, I did do the comparisons under blind conditions. What takes precedence in this situation? My preferences based on pure aesthetic values or a philosophy that accuracy is mandated in audio playback in order to "preserve the art?"

By the way, let's not forget the option I have chosn. To have both.

http://shop.performancerecordings.com/product.sc?productId=5

 

[Frank Dernie]

OK, a real world example. I have done comparisons between the LP and CD versions of the Performance Recording comparison package of PR-7 Pictures at an Exhibition for solo piano. All three versions sound terrific. All three versions sound astonishingly life like. The LP version sounded better to me. Clearly of the three that would be the least neutral and most distorted version. So how do I reconcile this? The prefered sourece component/medium is the more distorted source component/medium. And yeah, I did do the comparisons under blind conditions. What takes precedence in this situation? My preferences based on pure aesthetic values or a philosophy that accuracy is mandated in audio playback in order to "preserve the art?"

By the way, let's not forget the option I have chosn. To have both.

http://shop.performancerecordings.com/product.sc?productId=5

All you have shown to yourself, and us, is that you prefer the euphonic colouration added by LP playback (and, incidentally and inevitably the manufacturing process).
Lots of people do, I like it too but rather than believing that there is some magic as-yet-unexplained-by-man feature of LP records I accept that the well known (for decades) and well documented shortcomings are almost entirely euphonic and it is that that people are hearing and liking.
I have no problem with people preferring LPs, I like them a lot too. What I find refreshing here is that I don't generally get a host of people going on about the fact that the distortions are inaudible and LPs are just better when in fact it is the audibility of the distortion that they like.
Ditto SET amplifiers.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I don't think that is quite all that Toole is saying. And you can't hear what's on the recording in any "pure" form because the recording has no sound of it's own without a playback ssyetm on which to hear it. But we have alrady been over all of this and I would prefer not to do so many laps on the same points.

Ok, but if you have not read Toole's books to see what he is really saying, then you might be accused of trying to enlist some out of context words of his incorrectly to justify whatever opinion you wish. But, yes, of course, he, as would we all here, agree with the Circle of Confusion idea about the inexactitude of what is on the recording. It is a fact of life, but one which does not in any way preclude striving for the highest fidelity in recording and playback systems.

 

[Analog Scott]

All you have shown to yourself, and us, is that you prefer the euphonic colouration added by LP playback (and, incidentally and inevitably the manufacturing process).
Lots of people do, I like it too but rather than believing that there is some magic as-yet-unexplained-by-man feature of LP records I accept that the well known (for decades) and well documented shortcomings are almost entirely euphonic and it is that that people are hearing and liking.
I have no problem with people preferring LPs, I like them a lot too. What I find refreshing here is that I don't generally get a host of people going on about the fact that the distortions are inaudible and LPs are just better when in fact it is the audibility of the distortion that they like.
Ditto SET amplifiers.

My example wasn't meant to prove anything. Nor did I make any assertions of magic or unexplained phenomenon transpiring in that example. There was a question attached. What takes precedence in this situation? My preferences based on pure aesthetic values or a philosophy that accuracy is mandated in audio playback in order to "preserve the art?" Fell free to answer it if you like. I wan't trying to prove anything to anyone.

 

[Analog Scott]

Ok, but if you have not read Toole's books to see what he is really saying, then you might be accused of trying to enlist some out of context words of his incorrectly to justify whatever opinion you wish.

Toole's assertions have been presented in this thread in quotes and there have been plenty of folks here who have expressed opinions on what Toole "is really saying." If you think I have taken anything out of context please feel free to cite it and correct it.

But, yes, of course, he, as would we all here, agree with the Circle of Confusion idea about the inexactitude of what is on the recording. It is a fact of life, but one which does not in any way preclude striving for the highest fidelity in recording and playback systems.

Yes, it is a fact of life. One that I do think puts a wrench (one of two wrenches) in the belief of the absolute value of accuracy above all and anything else as a goal for the entire playback chain. A belief system that in and of itself is something I don't believe adherents are really doing when they are using loudspeakers in a room instead of headphones. But hey it's their money. Whatever makes an audiophile happy is OK with me.

 

[Cosmik]

OK, a real world example. I have done comparisons between the LP and CD versions of the Performance Recording comparison package of PR-7 Pictures at an Exhibition for solo piano. All three versions sound terrific. All three versions sound astonishingly life like. The LP version sounded better to me. Clearly of the three that would be the least neutral and most distorted version. So how do I reconcile this? The prefered sourece component/medium is the more distorted source component/medium. And yeah, I did do the comparisons under blind conditions. What takes precedence in this situation? My preferences based on pure aesthetic values or a philosophy that accuracy is mandated in audio playback in order to "preserve the art?"

By the way, let's not forget the option I have chosn. To have both.

http://shop.performancerecordings.com/product.sc?productId=5

Can a test with vinyl really warrant a blind test? The noise and pops in the quiet bits must surely give it away..? (even if you don't consciously notice them)

Maybe we should reconcile ourselves to the idea that, perhaps, transient preferences are nothing to get hung up about. There are times, no doubt, when gourmet chefs crave comfort food - beans on toast or something. Serious art film directors probably want to watch Police Academy now and again, etc. Listening to worthy music on a great, neutral system is actually hard work, just as attending a classical concert in a great concert hall is. Sometimes we're not even in the mood for excellence. We mustn't dilute what is superb by suggesting that Pot Noodle is just as important as top quality restaurant food.

I, personally, like to listen to 60s music on a 60s valve radio with large open back speaker, now and again - I like to imagine that I am travelling back in time and experiencing something as it was 50 years ago. I would never think to suggest that this 'preference' should be promoted as a measure of excellence or sold as a product for $10,000.

 

[Frank Dernie]

My example wasn't meant to prove anything. Nor did I make any assertions of magic or unexplained phenomenon transpiring in that example. There was a question attached. What takes precedence in this situation? My preferences based on pure aesthetic values or a philosophy that accuracy is mandated in audio playback in order to "preserve the art?" Fell free to answer it if you like. I wan't trying to prove anything to anyone.

I said nothing about "proof", nor would I.
You buy whatever sounds nicest to you, I am sure nobody has any problems with this. I also have not personally mentioned "preserving the art", that is not something I have any sensitivity to.
If you find the added, inevitable, and well known colouration of LP replay preferable to listen to, that is fine by me.
I listen to LPs and CDs and do a bit of streaming of files I have on my computer.
I know the digital systems, and I have used both analogue and digital for recording both data and music (I suppose music is really just sound data anyway) over the last 50+ years, and I know the digital systems are usefully more accurate than analogue from experience.
When it comes to listening to music at home it is now possible to hear a sound much closer to that the sound engineer produced than any analogue system is capable of, but maybe you don't like what he liked and overlaying a bit of euphony over it is more pleasing to you - so go ahead, I don't imagine anybody here cares which you prefer - I certainly don't.

FWIW in my profession as an engineer designing and running Formula 1 racing cars I was the pioneer of recording data digitally on them, purely since no analogue system was good enough to produce useable data, and useable data is what I needed.
Prior to that, when working on record players we only had analogue measurement systems and they were adequate for the work we were doing.

 

[Analog Scott]

Can a test with vinyl really warrant a blind test? The noise and pops in the quiet bits must surely give it away..? (even if you don't consciously notice them)

It's a fair question. When I did the comparisons I was not consciously aware of which selection was which. The sections used for the comparison were free enough of cues that would give away which selection was the LP. It's been a while since I did them. I got a brand new comparison package from Acousence. Die Stereo O Hortest-Edition. Various Artists. LP, SACD, DVD-A, Hi res digital file comparison package. ACO-11011. When I get a chance I will do the comparisons again.

Maybe we should reconcile ourselves to the idea that, perhaps, transient preferences are nothing to get hung up about. There are times, no doubt, when gourmet chefs crave comfort food - beans on toast or something. Serious art film directors probably want to watch Police Academy now and again, etc. Listening to worthy music on a great, neutral system is actually hard work, just as attending a classical concert in a great concert hall is.

Attending classical concerts in a great concert hall is "hard work?" Please explain that assertion.

Sometimes we're not even in the mood for excellence. We mustn't dilute what is superb by suggesting that Pot Noodle is just as important as top quality restaurant food.

This all has the familiar scent of not so subtle pseudo intellectual snobbery. I would assert that in many instances the so called comfort food is flat out better tasting than a lot of offerings found at pretentious high end restaurants that do a better job of pimping the alleged quality of their food than actually producing the goods. I'll take the baby back ribs at Dr Hogly Wogly's Tyler Texas Barbeque over anything on the menu at Patinas in Disney Hall any day. They may not put on the show of sophistication but the food tastes better. Most folks who really know their stuff about film appreciate the artistry that goes into a high quality popcorn movie too. Even Shakespeare wrote gory exploitation scenes in his greatest plays to please the working class therater goers in the cheap seats. What is and what is not superb is not such a simple matter of pure subjective or objective measure. It is a combination of the two and opinions, even among experts, are harldy unified. I get plenty of superb sound quality from LPs while listening to the superb music contained in their grooves. If you or anyone else does not find the same sound to be superb it is an opinion you or others get to have. But I am afraid your opinion does not have any greater authority than mine. Not that it matters. We are all the ultimate authority on what is superb to our own ears.

I, personally, like to listen to 60s music on a 60s valve radio with large open back speaker, now and again - I like to imagine that I am travelling back in time and experiencing something as it was 50 years ago. I would never think to suggest that this 'preference' should be promoted as a measure of excellence or sold as a product for $10,000.

I assure you that the sound quality I get from my best sounding LPs on my system bears little resemblence to a 60s music console playing 60s pop music. I guess some folks simply can't get past their prejudices and their hard stances made in the crusades between objectivists and subjectivists to appreciate the actual sound quality of vinyl at it's best. If one ultimately does not favor the euphonic colorations of high end vinyl playback I see no fault in that opinion or that set of aesthetic values. But to liken the best that high end vinyl has to offer sonically to beans on toast or a 60s stereo console is only to show one's prejudices against the medium. And such biases do dominate one's opinions in these matter as audio science has shown us.

 

[Analog Scott]

I said nothing about "proof", nor would I.
You buy whatever sounds nicest to you, I am sure nobody has any problems with this. I also have not personally mentioned "preserving the art", that is not something I have any sensitivity to.

This is not a conversation just between you and me. Others have raised to the issue of "preserving the art" and it is clealry an issue in Toole's book which has been referenced numerous times in this thread.

If you find the added, inevitable, and well known colouration of LP replay preferable to listen to, that is fine by me.

That is quite comforting to have your blessings. Thank you

I listen to LPs and CDs and do a bit of streaming of files I have on my computer.
I know the digital systems, and I have used both analogue and digital for recording both data and music (I suppose music is really just sound data anyway) over the last 50+ years, and I know the digital systems are usefully more accurate than analogue from experience.

No one I see here is arguing otherwise.

When it comes to listening to music at home it is now possible to hear a sound much closer to that the sound engineer produced than any analogue system is capable of,

The sound engineer produces recordings. Recordinsg require a playback system. Unless you are matching playback systems any claims to greater accuracy to the actual sound produced by the recording engineer are pure speculation and is not really a function of analog or digital technology. The differences in analog and digital technology are in most cases and oder of magnitudes smaller than the differences between your home system and that which was used by the recording engineer. What you hear at home is likely very unlike what the recording engineer heard in the studio regardless of choice of medium.

but maybe you don't like what he liked and overlaying a bit of euphony over it is more pleasing to you - so go ahead, I don't imagine anybody here cares which you prefer - I certainly don't.

It's funny the length some folks go to to say this all the while trying in not so subtle ways to imply that it is an objectively inferior preference. As if personal preferences have objective measure. You do understand That I also have a universal digital player too right?

 

[Purité Audio]

It doesn’t matter what the engineer or anyone else heard at the time, the only artefact we have is the record itself.
Keith

 

[Analog Scott]

It doesn’t matter what the engineer or anyone else heard at the time, the only artefact we have is the record itself.
Keith

I agree with that. But I am not going to let an artifact with unknown origins affect my aesthetic choices. Whatever way it sounds best to me will be my choice when given options.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Well I said many pages back in the thread it seems Analog Scott is intent or maybe just content to maintain the circle of confusion rather than try to open that circle. The circle can be opened, so one need not maintain it must stay closed just because reducing confusion isn't perfectly eliminating confusion. There in the remaining confusion is room to proclaim the audiophile's preference as supreme and inviolate. So despite protests to the contrary that is about where things lie.

 

[Analog Scott]

Well I said many pages back in the thread it seems Analog Scott is intent or maybe just content to maintain the circle of confusion rather than try to open that circle. The circle can be opened, so one need not maintain it must stay closed just because reducing confusion isn't perfectly eliminating confusion. There in the remaining confusion is room to proclaim the audiophile's preference as supreme and inviolate. So despite protests to the contrary that is about where things lie.

Hold on here. How is this about me? We have a vast legacy of recordings of great music that fall within this idea of the circle of confusion. That is reality. it has nothing to do with me either being "content" or being "intent" on maintaining it. That ship sailed when it comes all music that has already been recorded. No amount of worry about the accuracy of your playback system or my playback system will fix that. So how I choose to listen to those recordings has no bearing on this issue. "The circle can be opened?" Not retroactively!

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I agree with that. But I am not going to let an artifact with unknown origins affect my aesthetic choices. Whatever way it sounds best to me will be my choice when given options.

Ok, ok, we gladly concede your right to choose whatever sounds best to you. Knock yourself out. But, that was true ever since your first post. You seem to be seeking some sort of justification or approval from us for your choices, but none is or ever was needed. And, you will never, ever sell your own arbitrary subjective preferences to us. We each have our own, thank you.

So, if it was not obvious, you have our full permission to indulge yourself however you choose, as you have always had in this forum. With that out of the way, do you actually have a point worth discussing, as all you have been doing is arguing for argument's sake without offering anything of use other than your own preferences. Can I suggest a better forum for that, like WBF? You will find many kindred spirits there.

 

[Analog Scott]

Ok, ok, we gladly concede your right to choose whatever sounds best to you. Knock yourself out. But, that was true ever since your first post. You seem to be seeking some sort of justification or approval from us for your choices, but none is or ever was needed.

I am not looking for validation. Having given a lot of thought to these ideas in audio of accuracy and fidelity I thought it might be thought provoking to share those ideas and challenge the common axioms of audiophilia about fidelity and accuracy. Clearly it was provoking. But more fight provoking than thought provoking it would seem. Oh well.....

And, you will never, ever sell your own arbitrary subjective preferences to us. We each have our own, thank you.

Not selling anything. But why do you feel compelled to call my preferences "arbitrary?" They certainly are not arbitrary. Does calling them arbitrary give you a greater sense of security about your own preferences? Yours being better because they are not arbitrary?

So, if it was not obvious, you have our full permission to indulge yourself however you choose, as you have always had in this forum.

Oh that is such a relief! Thank you! thank you!! thank you!!!!

With that out of the way, do you actually have a point worth discussing,

I thought so but it looks like some folks are just uncomfortable challenging their own axioms so it follows that they get all riled up.

as all you have been doing is arguing for argument's sake without offering anything of use other than your own preferences. Can I suggest a better forum for that, like WBF? You will find many kindred spirits there.

Would it make you more comfortable if I did not participate in this forum?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Hold on here. How is this about me? We have a vast legacy of recordings of great music that fall within this idea of the circle of confusion. That is reality. it has nothing to do with me either being "content" or being "intent" on maintaining it. That ship sailed when it comes all music that has already been recorded. No amount of worry about the accuracy of your playback system or my playback system will fix that. So how I choose to listen to those recordings has no bearing on this issue. "The circle can be opened?" Not retroactively!

Like some others I have struggled to understand what point you are trying to make other than disagreeing with Toole's results indicating something useful or important. So it is about you only in the sense of trying to see what your point really is. So far it seems evasive and designed to maintain our acceptance of your idea that the circle of confusion is not or cannot be unraveled.

The circle if opened for the here and now then gives us a platform from which to assess past recordings. Doesn't change the past recordings, doesn't mean we have perfect insight into the past intent when confusion was intact.

 

[Analog Scott]

Like some others I have struggled to understand what point you are trying to make other than disagreeing with Toole's results indicating something useful or important. So it is about you only in the sense of trying to see what your point really is. So far it seems evasive and designed to maintain our acceptance of your idea that the circle of confusion is not or cannot be unraveled.

The circle if opened for the here and now then gives us a platform from which to assess past recordings. Doesn't change the past recordings, doesn't mean we have perfect insight into the past intent when confusion was intact.

At this point I'd be happy to walk away because to be perfectly honest the above statement sounds borderline cultish. But I do have one last question. maybe last we'll see. I got the Toole book today. Skimmed through it very quickly before staring to read it. I was trying to find all this research he did that I have been asking about throughout this thread.

So can anyone tell me where I can find the actual published research that lead to the conclusions that....
1. A distortion free audio playback chain is subjectively superior regardless of recording
2. That preferences for speaker designs tested in mono in one room using limited program material and a set of listeners trained to detect specific distortions transfers to other speakers in different systems in different rooms (many of which are customized to suit the specific speaker) with a multitude of listeners and a multitude of recordings.

These are the assertions I find most interesting and unlikely. But hey, if they are really are supported by a substantial body of evidence that has been compiled by Toole and Olive and they really put all of these variables to a meaningful test then so be it. But I'd like to see the actual research. It's not in Toole's book

 

[Purité Audio]

Subjective doesn’t mean anything, what is subjectively better to you may not be to me, I just want to hear what is on the record, a linear system, what goes in is what comes out only louder.
Keith

 

[svart-hvitt]

At this point I'd be happy to walk away because to be perfectly honest the above statement sounds borderline cultish. But I do have one last question. maybe last we'll see. I got the Toole book today. Skimmed through it very quickly before staring to read it. I was trying to find all this research he did that I have been asking about throughout this thread.

So can anyone tell me where I can find the actual published research that lead to the conclusions that....
1. A distortion free audio playback chain is subjectively superior regardless of recording
2. That preferences for speaker designs tested in mono in one room using limited program material and a set of listeners trained to detect specific distortions transfers to other speakers in different systems in different rooms (many of which are customized to suit the specific speaker) with a multitude of listeners and a multitude of recordings.

These are the assertions I find most interesting and unlikely. But hey, if they are really are supported by a substantial body of evidence that has been compiled by Toole and Olive and they really put all of these variables to a meaningful test then so be it. But I'd like to see the actual research. It's not in Toole's book

Ad 1: If you playback an LP without RIAA correction, i.e. «neutral» vinyl playback, most (all?) will prefer the distorted (i.e. RIAA corrected) playback to the neutral.

So you can construct cases where Toole’s research doesn’t apply and where distorted playback is systematiclly preferred.

However, most people understand the purpose and limits of Toole’s and others’ research. You try and make the proposition that the research is not universally bullet proof, which it of course isn’t.

You have written tens of thousands of words on these pages and I still don’t understand what’s your point(s).