"Music-First Audiophile" Manifesto by John Darko

[Anton D]

Darko doesn't bug me because I don't watch his videos and I rarely read his stuff. I'm aware that he's a presence in the audiophile world, but if nobody posted his stuff here I would never see it. I'm dimly aware of his audio worldview, more so now that he's codified it in a list. As far as that goes... I've seen a lot worse.

I am with you on much of this: videos are too slow and podding.

Reading is faster.

His mission has certainly been accomplished here. Here we all sit talking about him: job one in social media!

 

[Anton D]

It would be a multi channel upmix.
Keith

But it's not accurately reproducing the original artifact.

It is an affectation, not "fidelity" or "reproduction."

Our duty is to the original artifact, not claiming some rather arbitrary or capricious remix is showing fidelity to the artifact.

We are simply allowing "something that sounds nice" to pass itself off as fidelity.

I am all in favor of people doing that, but then why rant that artificial modification of the artifact is true to the artifact?

That's are going for "sounds that please me" as much as anyone the "artifact people" shake their little fists at.

Is this artiifact sacred, or not?

 

[kemmler3D]

So, a multi channel mix of a two channel artifact would be what? An abomination?

In my view, "fidelity" stops once you start doing something other than convey the recording to someone's ears with as little distortion (in every sense) as possible. Once you start adding or changing things, you're moving toward preference and away from reference, to me this includes upmixing. There's nothing wrong with that, unless you personally think there is.

Unfortunately, the concept of capital-F "Fidelity" falls apart pretty fast once you get to the point of speakers in a room, but it's still not an incoherent idea. You just have to accept that there isn't a single, perfect, "most correct" response for a stereo system once you've achieved a more or less flat response at the listening position.

However, I find that the more I try to square the concept of audio fidelity with the reality of acoustics, the more demands I place on any philosophy of authenticity I manage to hold together. Is there a single, most authentic experience one can have of listening to an album? If so, (highly debatable) why is that more valuable than any other experience of listening to an album...? This also relies on rigid definitions and separations of roles between creator and listener, which also starts to feel a bit arbitrary at some point. If you think about it too much you might turn into Andy Warhol*.

Better to just enjoy the music.

*What's interesting is you end up with a lot of audiophiles who think whatever creative EQ or effects they decide to apply to their music is just as valid as any other reproduction of the music, which is a very postmodern idea. However, these same people probably sniff at postmodern art and repeat the old canard about their kid painting it, without a second thought...

 

[Purité Audio]

The remix becomes the artefact.
Keith

 

[Robin L]

This is why it's "high-fidelity" (to the recording) and not "high-accuracy" (in the sense of resembling a live concert somehow).

Both are worthy goals depending on who you ask, but fidelity is measurable while accuracy (in the sense of realism) has too many variables to even agree on a definition, let alone measure it. Accuracy and fidelity are often used interchangeably which makes it confusing.

Right now I'm listening to Leonard Bernstein's first complete set of Mahler symphony recordings, remixed and remastered recently, a budget box from Sony Classics. The originals were recorded on multi-channel recorders, had multi-miking. Many (not all) sound harsh in their first incarnation, with flattened perspectives. They were originally recorded in the 1960s. The refurbishing of these recordings results in a smoother presentation for the most part. So, as regards accuracy to the original event, these recordings have traveled some distance. In addition to EQ and noise reduction, judicious used of digital delay was part of the remastering, shifting the perspectives slightly. This is a case where the accuracy of the original recordings was "compromised" in order to subjectively improve the sound quality. I would say the end result corresponds more to my experience of "Live" orchestral sound while not being entirely realistic.

Whatever the result may be, it is not "high fidelity" to the original recordings.

 

[Purité Audio]

The recording you are playing is the artefact, you can only hope to reproduce that accurately.
Very straightforward.
Keith

 

[kemmler3D]

The recording you are playing is the artefact, you can only hope to reproduce that accurately.
Very straightforward.
Keith

To rephrase perhaps: Fidelity to the original event is someone else's problem. Maybe the recording or mixing engineers. Our problem is to strive for fidelity to what's on the record.

 

[MattHooper]

The recording you are playing is the artefact, you can only hope to reproduce that accurately.
Very straightforward.
Keith

Except of you ask the obvious question:
What for?

What’s the point of trying to reproduce that signal in the first place?

And down the rabbit hole in terms of justifying the use anyone has for their audio system.

We can always make things easy by proposing simple answers and not bothering with further inquiry. But that doesn’t mean the problems are actually solved.

 

[Anton D]

The remix becomes the artefact.
Keith

So, we have a very fungible definition of artifact!

The producer can muck with the actual artifact, and he produces a new artifact, different from the original, that we must be faithful too.

Fine by me, we can then become our own producers and replay the artificial artifact in a way that pleases us, in service to enjoying the artifact.

We can finally quit mewling about LPs and just call them the artifact we want to use science to help do the best job of reproducing. You've solved a big issue for the vinyl haters. LP lovers are also working to maximize the fidelity of an artifact.

 

[Anton D]

The recording you are playing is the artefact, you can only hope to reproduce that accurately.
Very straightforward.
Keith

Agreed.

To each his own artifacts. That's actually awesome.

Fidelity to the artifact.

 

[Purité Audio]

Except of you ask the obvious question:
What for?

What’s the point of trying to reproduce that signal in the first place?

And down the rabbit hole in terms of justifying the use anyone has for their audio system.

We can always make things easy by proposing simple answers and not bothering with further inquiry. But that doesn’t mean the problems are actually solved.

High Fidelity Matt.
Keith

 

[MattHooper]

High Fidelity Matt.
Keith

You just re-stated the assertion instead of answering the question.

Why bother with high Fidelity? (to the recorded signal or anything else)

To what end exactly? What’s the point?

 

[Purité Audio]

So, we have a very fungible definition of artifact!

The producer can muck with the actual artifact, and he produces a new artifact, different from the original, that we must be faithful too.

Fine by me, we can then become our own producers and replay the artificial artifact in a way that pleases us, in service to enjoying the artifact.

We can finally quit mewling about LPs and just call them the artifact we want to use science to help do the best job of reproducing. You've solved a big issue for the vinyl haters. LP lovers are also working to maximize the fidelity of an artifact.

Unfortunately the vinyl medium has distortion of one type or another built in.
Keith

 

[Purité Audio]

You just re-stated the assertion instead of answering the question.

Why bother with high Fidelity? (to the recorded signal or anything else)

To what end exactly? What’s the point?

Really
Keith

 

[pseudoid]

There are a lot of border and lane violations everywhere and everything in the world, both literally and figuratively.
I have a FOMO issue, so I got some yellow paint and drew my own music boundaries.

"If you can beat your head-against-the-wall, or you can slap your thigh, or be able to sing-along, hum, whistle, karakoe or even play an air guitar to it... By gosh, by golly… it gots to be music! Who cares if it is coming out of a Genie's bottle. Just shut up and listen to the music!"

<< My avatar's 'funnel' is optional!

 

[Anton D]

Unfortunately the vinyl medium has distortion of one type or another built in.
Keith

By the time the sound enters your brain, it's been distorted every which way. Perhaps our ears themselves are the poorest performers in the chain.

People think they are serving an artifact, then they find ways to rationalize the format of the artifact that they favor.

Artifacts is artifacts.

Someone wants to spend time and tweak and maximize cassette playback, fine by me. That's their preferred artifact. It certainly doesn't illustrate a lack of enjoying "audio science."

If speakers on the ceiling your bag, I say, "You Go!"

Maybe I'm a bigger tent guy.

 

[MattHooper]

Really
Keith

Yes.

Examining your assumptions is often a good thing. Give it a try

If someone asks: what is the point of reproducing a music signal with high Fidelity, are you truly unable to answer that question? I mean, what are you doing this for in the first place?

 

[Purité Audio]

Uh huh.
Keith

 

[kemmler3D]

To what end exactly? What’s the point?

There are basically 3 philosophical threads that justify Hi-Fi:

1) To enjoy the music.

2) To enjoy the sound.

3) To enjoy the knowledge that what you're hearing is as authentic as possible.

Mostly we take #1 as a given since it's achievable with almost any system.

Fidelity is primarily in service of #2 and eventually #3, but only #3 is particularly problematic, since it requires some authoritative reference.

Unfortunately the most authoritative experience is probably what the mixing or mastering engineer heard in the studio, which is inaccessible, if not entirely unknowable, and it raises the further question as to whether that was what the artists (writ large) intended for the home listener, or what, whether that matters, whether studio sound is actually desirable or just a dead-end of clinging to an arbitrary concept of authenticity.

I actually value #3 somewhat, even though I realize it's a bit futile... others don't. All of us presumably value #1 and #2.

 

[pseudoid]

I made the mistake of asking for a proper word for a music lover.

• Melophile
• Musomania
• Melomaniac
• Musicaholic
• Musicofanatic
• Musicophile
• Melomane
• etc., etc., etc.

I should not have asked as they all - strangely - sound like hereditary and/or genetic diseases.
I like 'Music Megalomaniac' best!