Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[DavidEdwinAston]

Look Matt I believe you really like vinyl. After CDs and cassettes it is the third highest "music reproduction", means, that I own .
Forgive me, your above wall of text, might imply that you are not actually with, the best way of artificially giving us music, in our homes, is digitally! Damn it's heart!

 

[Ken Tajalli]

Agreed, generally speaking.



The problem there, though, is the one I keep raising: it seems to leave the ultimate aim for this hobby unmoored - just hanging in the air without justification.

Why in the world should anyone care about "being faithful to the recording" and reproducing it accurately? Stopping there seems to be utterly arbitrary, as if hif-fi is just some academic pursuit of "reproducing a signal for the sake of reproducing a signal."

And this makes a lot of the derision of "colored" components all the more arbitrary. If you can't give a good answer why anyone should, or would want to concentrate on reproducing the signal faithfully, you'd have no right to castigate any deviation from this goal. And yet we see just such derision for colored components here all the time.

The original version of "high fidelity" at least had a sort of north star goal of "reproducing the sensation of hearing real live performances. " As far away a goal as that may be, it was at least some yardstick/goal that seemed non-arbitrary. (After all, why were they recording music performances in the first place, if not to hear that specific sound at the other end - playback?)

I think that if you take the view "I want to reproduce the recorded signal as accurately as possible" you inevitably bring in some sort of "artist intent" in terms of "hearing the artistic choices of the artist, as unmolested as possible."

And then of course there's quicksand there...the circle of confusion.

My own approach navigating all these concerns is this:

Like Jim Taylor said: I don't worry much about the artist's intent.

Notice I didn't say I don't care about the artists intent. There certainly is a sense in which I care very much about the artists intend. After all they made all sorts of artistic decisions in making the music, and those decisions are what make their music "theirs."

But I don't worry much about not getting the intent because:

1. I can't know precisely the artists intent - circle of confusion among other things. But I would say I can infer a more general intent for most musicians: that the listener enjoys their music! I think most artists are happy that you are listening and enjoying their music on whatever system you have, whatever floats your boat.

2. Possibly more important: The reason I don't worry much is that I think it's just not hard to get the general intent of the artists music. That intent, that is the essential character of the music has, since recorded music became available, "translated" over countless different playback systems, from gramaphones, to cheap record players in teenagers rooms with records strewn all over the floor, to transistor radios on the beach in the 60's, to "boomboxes," walkmans, car stereos - you name it. What makes "Hey Jude" by The Beatles sound like Hey Jude comes through loud and clear on practically any system you are likely to find.

So I spend virtually no time fretting "Oh gosh, maybe I'm not hearing this precisely on the equipment the artists intends" since that modus operandi has, for the most part, never really been part of the dissemination of music.

I therefore have no problem nudging the sound of my system in the direction that makes me want to listen to more music.

This doesn't at all mean a perfect abandonment of the relevance of measurements. Clearly they can help people design equipment to more reliably reach the design goal. And clearly measurements can help understand how something sounds, and to a degree predict how something will sound. Generally speaking, I tend to prefer in speakers which exhibit fairly neutral, low distortion sound. It's not because I'm chasing "pure neutrality per se" but rather "a generally neutral speaker tends to sound better to my ears." If I'm too aware of certain colorations - e.g. if voices tend to reliably sound too chesty, muffled, or too sharpened etc, or if the bass has a homogenized droning character - this can be distracting for me. In many areas "lower distortion" just sounds better to me. However, once I've started with a decent speaker in that regard, I'm find nudging the sound a bit with a coloration that, to my ears, adds a bit without sticking out as obvious distortion, one that doesn't cover up the nuances of recordings.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!

Too long, but I did read it!
I am going to declare that there is no perfect recording - they are all flawed to some degree.
If you accept that, then we have a problem with our replay equipment, " Which recording should it play back wonderfully?"
The reason I said we can only hope our equipment would be faithful to the recording at hand, is the fact, that if any piece of Hifi starts having a "Character" then it fits some recordings, and goes against some others. Like a "bright" setup, would compensate for dull recordings, but on brighter recordings it might screech!
If our playback equipment can start off by being faithful to any recording, then there is no one stopping us from using DSP to tailor the sound to any shape you feel like at the time. But it needs to be capable of being faithful to the recording to begin with.
Here is a funny example:
For a while, my setup was sounding dull! Hardly any crispness to the sound, anything above 8 or 9 kHz was being cut. I tried super-tweeters, equalizers, what you know.
I eventually set up a parametric equalizer setting on my jRiver media player of a high shelf at 9kHz at 12dB ! And it seemed to bring back some crispness. I listened to the system for good 3 months like that.
THEN, I had my ears cleaned! at a local chemist, they sucked the excess wax off my ears.
Few days later, I played some music - WOW - that high filter! it was un-listenable.
You see, I used DSP to tailor the sound, and when it wasn't needed, I could take it off - Imagine if I was stuck with that, because I had bought a bright system when I had ear wax problem.

 

[rwortman]

Archimago once said "All we can expect a device to do, is to be faithful to the recording at hand, we can not guess the intentions of the artists or the engineers who produced it".

I care more about it sounding good to me. I paid for it. Turns out, for the most part, accuracy sound pretty good because mix and mastering engineers are pretty good at their jobs.

 

[rwortman]

The artist’s intent ought to have been to sell some music and thereby to eat and have shelter. These days I roll my eyes at at musicians hating on record companies for pressuring them to be more “commercial”. Either you want to be a professional musician and get paid because your music sells, or a talented amateur at home. The artist’s intent does not extend my listening room, only the music does, and what I do to it after that is my realm. Like prepared packaged food, the cook that devised the recipe already got paid, whether I drown it in ketchup or hot sauce is my business.

 

[MattHooper]

As good a reason as I have heard for using EQ to tailor your sound rather than purchase a deliberately inaccurate and non-neutral system. With an accurate system, you can go wherever you want .... and then "return to base", so to speak, again.



You ought to read some of Matt's epistles. They were truly epic! Jim

Always a fair critique!

At least I'm in good company:

Blaise Pascal famously wrote: "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."

 

[MattHooper]

I'm absconding with that! It's a gem! Jim

I need an editor.

Speaking of which, I'm going to try to write shorter, both for readability and because my current work schedule gives me less time.

^^^ (A good start).

 

[Doodski]

I need an editor.

The way you belt out the extensive and informative text you could be the editor...lol

 

[Newman]

I need an editor.

Speaking of which, I'm going to try to write shorter, both for readability and because my current work schedule gives me less time.

According to Pascal that can’t happen. So was he wrong or are you confused?

 

[Ken Tajalli]

According to Pascal that can’t happen. So was he wrong or are you confused?

Pascal was French! what did you expect

 

[Newman]

Why in the world should anyone care about "being faithful to the recording" and reproducing it accurately? Stopping there seems to be utterly arbitrary, as if hif-fi is just some academic pursuit of "reproducing a signal for the sake of reproducing a signal."

We have been over this before, in other threads. The performing artists typically* don’t have an intention for how the recording sounds, so the recording engineers and production team are the primary artists for how the music sounds when recorded. Their intentions are the primary intentions.

* and when they do, such as Bonnie Raitt in her recent interview on Stereophile, then the recorded sound does have the performing artist’s intent. Similar for classical, where the production team includes the conductor when possible, so yet again, artist’s intent is there, in the recorded production.

In either case, we desire to reproduce at home the sound that the production team produced. So, quite the converse of being “arbitrary” it is the only right place to “stop there”.

cheers

 

[MattHooper]

Thank you, Newman.

We have been over this before, in other threads. The performing artists typically* don’t have an intention for how the recording sounds, so the recording engineers and production team are the primary artists for how the music sounds when recorded. Their intentions are the primary intentions

* and when they do, such as Bonnie Raitt in her recent interview on Stereophile, then the recorded sound does have the performing artist’s intent. Similar for classical, where the production team includes the conductor when possible, so yet again, artist’s intent is there, in the recorded production.

In either case, we desire to reproduce at home the sound that the production team produced. So, quite the converse of being “arbitrary” it is the only right place to “stop there”.

cheers

You've simply made the engineers the "artists." And how do you know their intent? In comes the Circle Of Confusion again. And even then, you can't neatly separate the work/intent of the engineers/producers from the artists as it seems you were trying to do. The performances and all the choices made by the musicians are inextricably wound in to the artistic intent. Generally speaking, the engineers are there in service of the musicians vision (though of course engineers can contribute their own ideas, it's all in concert with the artists vision usually). Most musical artists will have been if not intimately involved in the studio, at least involved in hearing and approving the final studio product. (That's the case with every musician I've ever known, or read about. And it's exactly how my business works too - the client is right there, we are altering the sound to their approval). So this idea that the artists usually don't care how a recording sounds is, I submit, confused.

It would be a very odd thing to say "I don't care about what The Beatles intended artistically; I only care about the artistic vision of their engineers."
As if those were neatly separated or caring more about the engineer makes sense.

So as I said, no matter where you turn there's some level of quicksand and arbitrariness. If you say "I just want to reproduce the recorded signal accurately" the question is "why?" If the answer is "because I want to hear the intent of the mastering engineer" the question remains "why?"
Well, isn't it because he's putting down the music by the artist you want to hear? That he's being faithful to their vision/intent? Certainly that must
be the case. And in any case, there's the circle of confusion to muck everything up.

As I've said before, that's not to say it's a useless approach or not worthwhile. But it doesn't have some sort of obvious "worthiness" over other approaches, since we are dealing with compromises and some degree of arbitrariness wherever we look.

 

[Newman]

You've simply made the engineers the "artists." And how do you know their intent? In comes the Circle Of Confusion again. And even then, you can't neatly separate the work/intent of the engineers/producers from the artists as it seems you were trying to do. The performances and all the choices made by the musicians are inextricably wound in to the artistic intent. Generally speaking, the engineers are there in service of the musicians vision (though of course engineers can contribute their own ideas, it's all in concert with the artists vision usually). Most musical artists will have been if not intimately involved in the studio, at least involved in hearing and approving the final studio product. (That's the case with every musician I've ever known, or read about. And it's exactly how my business works too - the client is right there, we are altering the sound to their approval). So this idea that the artists usually don't care how a recording sounds is, I submit, confused.

It would be a very odd thing to say "I don't care about what The Beatles intended artistically; I only care about the artistic vision of their engineers."
As if those were neatly separated or caring more about the engineer makes sense.

So as I said, no matter where you turn there's some level of quicksand and arbitrariness. If you say "I just want to reproduce the recorded signal accurately" the question is "why?" If the answer is "because I want to hear the intent of the mastering engineer" the question remains "why?"
Well, isn't it because he's putting down the music by the artist you want to hear? That he's being faithful to their vision/intent? Certainly that must
be the case. And in any case, there's the circle of confusion to muck everything up.

@MattHooper I honestly don't think you read me well, or you just don't understand the issue properly. Actually, the above makes it pretty clear that it's both.

You are so confused on these issues. And you refuse to listen and learn. It has been laid out clearly enough and often enough in the past, and next time the topic is up....here you go again. My previous post was so clear, there really isn't anything I can add. The answers to your questions are all within it. Honestly. So frustrating.

The Circle of Confusion is Toole's creation. So what he says is in it, is what is in it, and what he doesn't show as in it, is not in it. Okay? Well here it is from his book:-

Show me where it says "Artist's Intent". Actually don't bother, it's not there. So when you say "if we don't know the artist's intent, in comes the CoC again", you are just making up your own definitions of terms that are not yours to do that with, frankly.

But what it DOES say is "Creating the Art", and the loop under that label backs up exactly what I said (again and again), that the recording production team are creating an artistic product: the recording of a musical performance. It is a different thing from the music itself, it is art wrapped around art*. And THAT is the art that sound reproduction gear can preserve or, if the circle is confused, fail to preserve. That and only that.

Of course it would all be lovely if the recording team preserves the performing artist's musical intent, but that has got nothing to do with sound reproduction or its goals, because whether it is preserved or not is entirely up to the recording production team (and whether or not the artists care, and how much they care). It has nothing to do with the success or failure of the sound reproduction stage, the "Appreciating the Art" loop above, which I am sure you can clearly see is to appreciate the recording art that was created in the loop above it. Capturing the artist's intent has nothing to do with Toole's Circle of Confusion, which is the confusion arising if the consumer audio system in its environment sounds different to the studio sound system in its environment. If they don't sound different, there is no confusion. The end. Don't redefine what is not yours to redefine.

I'm not disagreeing with you about the abject failures of production teams to preserve the performing artist's intent...assuming the performing artists are even good enough to convey their own intent (!). In fact often it is worse than 'abject failure' and more like frank disregard...for the artist...for the consumer...for anything except finishing on time. Terrible! Shocking! I agree! But that's life, and the correct descriptor for what is going on there is Bad Production. It is nothing to do with the CoC, and in fact if bad and good productions are both equally accurately reproduced in the home environment and sound like they did in the studio, then there is no circle of confusion present in that instance. It's just good reproduction.

*and sometimes, like Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans, which is his art wrapped around a graphic artist's label art, it can be a greater work of creativity than the original artwork that it started with.

cheers

 

[solderdude]

Artist intend is the composition and the way the music instruments/singing is played/performed (creative).

Recording is something in the hands of sound engineers and often with some feedback/wishes from the performance.
I would not call this an art but rather a skill even though a 'product' is created.

 

[Waxx]

I agree fully with Matthooper. And to make a summery: your system should make you enjoy music, that is the only thing that matters. Measurments can and do help finding the right system, but they are not the goal, they are an essential tool in seperating the good from the bad. And just like him I like a certain colouration in my sound, and i know how to get it. You should know what you like, and choose the right system for it, be it neutral, coloured like this or coloured like that.

 

[Newman]

And just like him I like a certain colouration in my sound, and i know how to get it. You should know what you like, and choose the right system for it, be it neutral, coloured like this or coloured like that.

Well...that notion has been tested and failed the test. People don't like "coloured this or coloured that".

It's just a false concept that people get, even about themselves, from making the massive mistake of "trusting their ears" in sighted listening, and trusting that sighted listening reveals qualities in the sound waves. Big mistake.

 

[Waxx]

Well...that notion has been tested and failed the test. People don't like "coloured this or coloured that".

It's just a false concept that people get, even about themselves, from making the massive mistake of "trusting their ears" in sighted listening, and trusting that sighted listening reveals qualities in the sound waves. Big mistake.

Wel, that is the big mistake that many make here: take statistically tests and think that is the only truth, while it's a generalisation of tendences and personal preference is not something that can be used generalised for individual cases. Those generalisations are great for speaker designers who want to know what will sell the best.

Many like a coloued sound, even people like me who worked or still work in studio's and know very neutral systems (i regulary listen to Genelc 8030C and Kii Tree speakers for instance), but we still prefer some harmonic colouration. I know even a top level mastering engineer who have a extreme neutral setup (Kii Tree BXT in an extensive treated room) in their studio, but have a vinyl setup with a SET tube amp and an oldskool fullrange driver in horn setup as hifi system. He says his Kii system is a very good mastering tool, but don't engage him to enjoy music while his tube setup is useless as studio monitor, but make him enjoy music more. This guy is btw reading this forum, but don't engage due to this fundamentalistic view of many here (and he is not the only one).

 

[Purité Audio]

There is nothing wrong with enjoying colouration, I spent my teenage years listening to vinyl, it is important to understand why, ie what exactly is the equipment adding, otherwise it is easy to fall prey to the charlatan of which there are many.
Keith

 

[Vacceo]

Wel, that is the big mistake that many make here: take statistically tests and think that is the only truth, while it's a generalisation of tendences and personal preference is not something that can be used generalised for individual cases. Those generalisations are great for speaker designers who want to know what will sell the best.

Many like a coloued sound, even people like me who worked or still work in studio's and know very neutral systems (i regulary listen to Genelc 8030C and Kii Tree speakers for instance), but we still prefer some harmonic colouration. I know even a top level mastering engineer who have a extreme neutral setup (Kii Tree BXT in an extensive treated room) in their studio, but have a vinyl setup with a SET tube amp and an oldskool fullrange driver in horn setup as hifi system. He says his Kii system is a very good mastering tool, but don't engage him to enjoy music while his tube setup is useless as studio monitor, but make him enjoy music more. This guy is btw reading this forum, but don't engage due to this fundamentalistic view of many here (and he is not the only one).

And as you know, software EQ is the best and cheapest way to get the particular coloration you like.

For me, it's easier, as I get what I want by cranking up the subwoofer.

 

[Sokel]

No one can dictate taste.I absolutely adore a big tube-horn system (colored obviously) as much as I enjoy the neutrality of other systems.
Sometimes one wants to cut through music,sometimes it's only fun and it's not wrong to like black-n-white.

The thing is not to take things very seriously (it's only music,is made for fun and emotion!) and don't get biased by scams or fall a victim of some (any) community approval.
The later is a strong psychological factor and I wouldn't be surprised if echo's to the way that one listens or feel about sound.

 

[Vacceo]

No one can dictate taste.I absolutely adore a big tube-horn system (colored obviously) as much as I enjoy the neutrality of other systems.
Sometimes one wants to cut through music,sometimes it's only fun and it's not wrong to like black-n-white.

The thing is not to take things very seriously (it's only music,is made for fun and emotion!) and don't get biased by scams or fall a victim of some (any) community approval.
The later is a strong psychological factor and I wouldn't be surprised if echo's to the way that one listens or feel about sound.

I use my system for films, music (CD, vynil...), videogames and some TV. Neutral and transparent is the most convenient I can do due to the variety of sources I play.