Good versus accurate ...

[Jim Taylor]

There has been a good deal of discussion lately regarding whether certain equipment is "good" or whether listeners "like" it. The assumption is that if a listener doesn't "like" the equipment, then the equipment is not "good". This presupposes that the primary goal of engineering is to have the customer "like" it.
Specifically, several members have taken the stance that measurements cannot determine whether we will "like" equipment, and since measurements cannot do so, measurements lack efficacy.

This stance misrepresents the purpose of both measurements and audio engineering.
Since the times of the Edison wax cylinders, the goal of audio engineering is to create a recorded product that more accurately replicates an audio event. Through wind-up Victrolas and shellac platters, acoustic and then electric recording, ever-more-sophisticated tube circuits and then solid-state circuits, plus advances in both microphone and loudspeaker technology, the goal was greater and greater accuracy.
At that time, the stated goal was not for customers to "like" either the recordings or the playback equipment. It was assumed that the customers would "like" a more accurate recording and playback more. The reason, as I see it, is that both the recording process and the playback process fell so obviously short of an ideal that compromises were tolerated while progress was (vigorously) pursued.

The only way to test whether something is more accurate compared to an original is instrumental measurements. The human sensory system is both imprecise and greatly biased, and so cannot hope to replicate the accuracy of instrumentation.
BUT THIS PROCESS OF INSTRUMENTATION DOES NOT AND CANNOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER A LISTENER "LIKES" THE END PROCESS.
To like something is to exhibit personal preference regarding it. We may like a silk shirt, a certain car, a certain color rug or certain fashions and appearances. This process of personal preference is totally independent of engineering standards and goals that define and re-define accuracy.
It is therefore not inconceivable that a desire to satisfy preference would sidestep a desire to satisfy accuracy. The older assumption that customers would "like" a more accurate recording and playback system may no longer hold true.
Part of the reason for this is that in general, older technology recorded acoustic events. Therefore, the goal of accuracy was to replicate that particular acoustic event. The idea of personal satisfaction and emotional involvement laid with the music, not the equipment.
This is, by and large, no longer true. Not only is electronica/synth/techno (for example) not inherently tied to a prior acoustic event, but even the acoustic elements of modern recordings can be manipulated in ways that are not designed to replicate the original event.

This is not necessarily bad ... it's artistry. However, it's a different sort of artistry from 60 years ago, and it uses a recording industry that is aimed in a different direction from 60 years ago. One might say that many recordings are produced today that use the listener's equipment as part and parcel of the performance.
The fan of this recording process and the product it offers us is most likely attuned to a different "like" than a person who appreciates, primarily, accuracy regarding an acoustic event.
It's not true that there are no longer listeners who appreciate either accuracy or recordings of acoustic events, but it seems to be massively true that greater and greater segments of the public appreciate, follow, enjoy and, yes, LIKE recording processes and playback that did not exist 60 years ago.

To these many people, "accurate" does not necessarily equate to "like". ONLY personal preference equates to "like".
The problem is that the methodology of the industry aimed at accuracy (which still exists) is not the same methodology aimed at satisfying personal preference ... especially for a product which is not tied to a verifiable acoustic event.
This portion of the industry is adrift, bereft of a reproducible standard. Recording engineers now garner accolades based not on skill with instrumentation, but on their canny judgements, their taste and their ability to judge current fashions.

So we now have two totally different and unconnected worlds in audio ... and two totally different goals. One is measurable accuracy, and the other is personal and emotional satisfaction. Adherents of each system describe their methodology as producing a "good" result.
Despite that, it's best to not get them confused.

Comments?

 

[kemmler3D]

Good post. Some listeners should be more introspective on what's responsible for their like or dislike of a given listening experience.

Do they actually (knowingly) prefer a non-linear response in their playback equipment?

Do they like the production style of the recording? Do they like the recording engineer's work and not the producer, both, neither?

 

[chervokas]

There has been a good deal of discussion lately regarding whether certain equipment is "good" or whether listeners "like" it. The assumption is that if a listener doesn't "like" the equipment, then the equipment is not "good". This presupposes that the primary goal of engineering is to have the customer "like" it.
Specifically, several members have taken the stance that measurements cannot determine whether we will "like" equipment, and since measurements cannot do so, measurements lack efficacy.

This stance misrepresents the purpose of both measurements and audio engineering.
Since the times of the Edison wax cylinders, the goal of audio engineering is to create a recorded product that more accurately replicates an audio event. Through wind-up Victrolas and shellac platters, acoustic and then electric recording, ever-more-sophisticated tube circuits and then solid-state circuits, plus advances in loudspeaker technology, the goal was greater and greater accuracy.
At that time, the stated goal was not for customers to "like" either the recordings or the playback equipment. It was assumed that the customers would "like" a more accurate recording and playback more. The reason, as I see it, is that both the recording process and the playback process fell so obviously short of an ideal that compromises were tolerated while progress was (vigorously) pursued.

The only way to test whether something is more accurate compared to an original is instrumental measurements. The human sensory system is both imprecise and greatly biased, and so cannot hope to replicate the accuracy of instrumentation.
BUT THIS PROCESS OF INSTRUMENTATION DOES NOT AND CANNOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER A LISTENER "LIKES" THE END PROCESS.
To like something is to exhibit personal preference regarding it. We may like a silk shirt, a certain car, a certain color rug or certain fashions and appearances. This process of personal preference is totally independent of engineering standards and goals that define and re-define accuracy.
It is therefore not inconceivable that a desire to satisfy preference would sidestep a desire to satisfy accuracy. The older assumption that customers would "like" a more accurate recording and playback system may no longer hold true.
Part of the reason for this is that in general, older technology recorded acoustic events. Therefore, the goal of accuracy was to replicate that particular acoustic event. The idea of personal satisfaction and emotional involvement laid with the music, not the equipment.
This is, by and large, no longer true. Not only is electronica/synth/techno (for example) not inherently tied to a prior acoustic event, but even the acoustic elements of modern recordings can be manipulated in ways that are not designed to replicate the original event.

This is not necessarily bad ... it's artistry. However, it's a different sort of artistry from 60 years ago, and it uses a recording industry that is aimed in a different direction from 60 years ago. One might say that many recordings are produced today that use the listener's equipment as part and parcel of the performance.
The fan of this recording process and the product it offers us is most likely attuned to a different "like" than a person who appreciates, primarily, accuracy regarding an acoustic event.
It's not true that there are no longer listeners who appreciate either accuracy or recordings of acoustic events, but it seems to be massively true that greater and greater segments of the public appreciate, follow, enjoy and, yes, LIKE recording processes and playback that did not exist 60 years ago.

To these many people, "accurate" does not necessarily equate to "like". ONLY personal preference equates to "like".
The problem is that the methodology of the industry aimed at accuracy (which still exists) is not the same methodology aimed at satisfying personal preference ... especially for a product which is not tied to a verifiable acoustic event.
This portion of the industry is adrift, bereft of a reproducible standard. Recording engineers now garner accolades based not on skill with instrumentation, but on their canny judgements, their taste and their ability to judge current fashions.

So we now have two totally different and unconnected worlds in audio ... and two totally different goals. One is measurable accuracy, and the other is personal and emotional satisfaction. Adherents of each system describe their methodology as producing a "good" result.
Despite that, it's best to not get them confused.

Comments?

They're really not two separate different parts of the audio industry. Home audio isn't a measuring system, it's a consumer good made to be enjoyed, liked, when listening to music. Measurements are useful in designing gear and especially helpful to the extent that they can be correlated to listener preference, so companies can mitigate risk by making products most people will like the sound of. But there's a pretty wide variety of audio preferences in the world, from car audio and headphones with humped up bass that people love, to horns and flea watt SETs that people love, to more deliberately accurate electronics that people love. Then there are people who don't like one or another of those sounds.

They're not two totally different or unconnected worlds. There's a whole spectrum of preferences out there and a whole spectrum of products and designs that cater to the range of them.

Really the only meaningdul standard for anyone in the business of making a consumer product for listening to music with is are there sufficient customers who like the sound of it so that you can make a living selling it.

 

[DVDdoug]

High fidelity means "highly faithful" (accurate).

It's up to the artists, producers, and engineers to create something listeners will like.

Then a high-fidelity playback system will be capable of accurately reproducing the recording. That doesn't mean you can't boost the bass or up-mix to surround, etc., but the system should be capable of accuracy.

 

[TimF]

It seems obvious to me that over the centuries humans within the context of tribes likely calibrated the parameters of the sensory perception.

 

[norman bates]

true, I have struggled with this (personal preferences).

There is bad, and there is good, but....................

In the good category, it can vary from lush to sterile (maybe pleasant distortion vs none ?)...............

 

[Peluvius]

The “industry” has generally adopted new technology as it has become available on the basis of improving accuracy. It follows then that what most people like tends towards accurate reproduction ie. uptake of CDs, films released in 4k HD, HiFi actually becoming a thing….etc.

What I find fascinating (using myself as the test case), is how difficult it is to know what accurate reproduction is, particularly when comparing relatively well performing systems. I don’t really see how you could do this without measurements as a guide. What I like quickly becomes the reference standard unless brought back into line with measurements.

But then again, if I can eat a shrimp and taste a lobster, isn’t that OK? Assuming I prefer lobster that is…..

 

[Duke]

[off-topic tangent] @Jim Taylor, about your avatar: It looks to me like an A-12, but it has USAF markings, which I would not have expected. Is the image in your avatar "good", or "accurate", or both? Thanks! [/tangent]

 

[Jim Taylor]

@Duke: PM sent.

 

[Chrispy]

Never really cared what others "like" particularly. I'm happy with more accurate/capable generally, but tweaking to your own preference is something else after that. People "like" all sorts of silly imagined aspects of audio gear like cables, dacs, amps, etc.

 

[boxerfan88]

So we now have two totally different and unconnected worlds in audio ... and two totally different goals. One is measurable accuracy, and the other is personal and emotional satisfaction. Adherents of each system describe their methodology as producing a "good" result.
Despite that, it's best to not get them confused.

Comments?

Agree, that’s the dichotomy we have today.
That gives is broadly 3 groups, 1: 100% measurement or nothing, 2: a group that straddles both views, and 3: the anti-measurement group. The tension we see here is between the first two groups. I’m not sure if it is even reconcilable. Maybe best to live & let live, agree to disagree , respect each other’s viewpoints.

I would place myself in group 2

 

[EERecordist]

Hewlett and Packard started with an audio oscillator and science and technology R&D labs produced test equipment very early. The big breakthrough was the FFT and Audio Precision being formed by ex-Tektronix engineers in 1984.

The audio trade press grew pre-the FFT era, and had/has all kinds of subjective creative writing.

Today the variation in nonlinearity is mainly found in the transducers: microphones, phono cartridges, and speakers. Sometimes you want a vintage Telefunken/AKG 251, or a Nuemann U49, and sometimes you want an Earthworks or a DPA 4006, or Schoeps CMC6MK2S. There are clinical monitors, like the Genelec, and large numbers of consumer choice-voiced speakers.

Doubt arguing will convince the subjectivists to turn into objectivists. Subjectivism in audio gear is a hobby that makes its adherents happy. Bully for them.

 

[Waxx]

Personal taste is personal, so by definition subjective. But statistic studies (by Sean Olive & Floyd Toole) showed that most like a relative flat frequency response (with a slight slope down towards treble) and low distortion and an even dispertion. So that is what the industry defines as good.

Wanted deviations due to personal taste are mostly in a a enchanged freuqency response that is still smooth but not flat, or in higher low order harmonic distortion, and both can also be measured and defined in numbers. There is no real magic, it's knowing what your taste is and what to look for to get it. But that there is not one formula to satisfy all is true.

 

[respice finem]

As an objectivist, I am convinced that measurements, if done properly and extensively, are sufficient to tell that the tested device is "good" (transparent).

But, the "like" factor is not limited to this. Many potential buyers are limited by WAF, which is a largely unpredictable subjective factor, hardly related to sound at all, or what they would like... Then, probably nobody likes gear which may be technically good, but is cumbersome to use (like illogical menus etc.). A special case - over ear headphones. If they don't fit on my head, they are not for me, regardless of how good they measure. That's why I'm still using (with EQ, obviously) my old BD T1 Mk2, "flattened" in Amir's review. It will never be perfect, granted. Nor perfectly accurate. But then, my hearing is aging with me, and they are good enough for me. Any further objective improvement, which I won't be able to hear, yields me nothing, apart from maybe better "look and feel".

On the other side of the "fence" - imagine a "hardcore" subjectivist, not buying "science based" at all, and listening without EQ in an untreated room. Is his setup "good"? Subjectively yes, objectively not. The whole setup can only sound "off", if not because of the components (mainly speakers), then because of unmitigated room influence. But, does it really matter, if it doesn't matter for him? As long as he is not mixing/mastering, probably not.

tl,dr: For each their own "good".

 

[respice finem]

Agree, that’s the dichotomy we have today.
That gives is broadly 3 groups, 1: 100% measurement or nothing, 2: a group that straddles both views, and 3: the anti-measurement group. The tension we see here is between the first two groups. I’m not sure if it is even reconcilable. Maybe best to live & let live, agree to disagree , respect each other’s viewpoints.

I would place myself in group 2

In most cases (IMHO) "the line of conflict" is not that subjectivists have other viewpoints, but in stating myths as facts.
For the objectivist confronted with this, it can be very annoying. But, with age comes "thicker skin" most of the time.
I often intentionally ignore statements I would fight when I was younger. It's a losing battle TBH, like in the famous saying "never argue..."

And, subjective factors influence everyone's buing decisions, the look and feel, WAF...

 

[Purité Audio]

Personal choice, but if that listener has only ever heard coloured ( for example ) loudspeakers…
Keith

 

[respice finem]

Personal choice, but if that listener has only ever heard coloured ( for example ) loudspeakers…
Keith

This, and, many younger people have hardly ever heard instruments in a live acoustic environment (not enhanced with loudspeakers and "engineered").
And many older did but have long forgotten.
So, if I don't know what is the "right" sound, how should I know what is "wrong"?

"Coffee vending machine syndrome" - for a person used to hot monkey urine bad coffee, good coffee will taste off.

 

[Purité Audio]

High -fidelity, ‘the degree of exactness with which something is copied or reproduce’,fidelity to the only artefact we have which is the recording.
Keith

 

[respice finem]

Recording, tampering by the streaming provider, room influence, hearing loss with age...
Life is hard and then we die, nothing is ever really perfect. But it's good if it comes close.

 

[Sokel]

I'm 100% objective... to myself.
I like,-no-, I love measurements. But unlike most people what I search through them, is why I like what I like and what are the things that bother me, give me headache, etc.

Some, I know, some others not.
For example, I know I can't live with a speaker+room that does not give impact (I mean the sudden, sharp one, to the chest) or decent extension low.
And although I have listened to a gazillion of them and have narrowed down to the obvious stuff, it's not definite, there are exemptions that throw out this narrowing.

Or, size, I like full size gear, or nice looking ones, or ones that inspire reliability by their build or components, etc, etc.
It's just a hobby at the end of the day, fun is the goal.

And what's for sure, is that no certainty exists that I may like what other people like. I mean I even argue with my friends at the hobby! So...