[Sonnova]

On Tue, 5 May 2009 07:41:54 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

On May 4, 8:09*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



On May 3, 5:11 pm, wrote:
But "realism" isn't definable, whereas "accuracy" is
easy to define and gives us something concrete to work
towards.

I don't see why ease of definability should in any way
affect our aesthetic goals.
Because you can't hit the target if you don't know where
it is.

Well there you go.

Hold that thought!

In an earlier post I defined ideal realism as reproduced sound that is
ABX-indistinguishable from what I hear when I'm seated in my preferred seat
in the concert hall, with the same musicians, the same music, the same
performance.

IME, very few audiophiles have access to the resources that it takes to make
that kind of determination.

One of the most ludicrous examples of this showed up recently on the Gizmodo
site:

http://i.gizmodo.com/5213042/why-we-need-audiophiles

Billed as: *"A Gizmodo *Listening Test"

....with the operative word being "test". *In a triumph of high end
audiophile journalism over reason, we find that this isn't even a proper
test for lack of a reasonable reference standard.

In an example of one of the most poorly-thought-out examples of pro-analog,
anti-digital propaganda yet, the author demeans a good digital music player
in a bogus comparison involving two different pieces of music, two vastly
different recordings, one played on an iPod with presumably the standard
iPod earbuds; versus a high end audiophile system featuring $65,000 Wilson
MAXX3 speakers. No surprise that they found that the two systems sounded
different.

And that's the problem with so much audiophile posturing. How do these
people know what the recording they are listening to is supposed to sound
like? *They can't, not in any reasonable sense. Their "reference standard"
is not "The Absolute Sound" but rather it is a figment of their imagination.

I think you are missing the point of using the "absolute sound" as
reference completely. Especially in so far as it applies to
audiophiles and their quest for "realism" with commercial
recordings.You have to always keep in mind why an audiophile seeks
realism. I can't speak for others but I seek it because IME there is
an intrinsic beauty that can be found in live acosutic music that sets
the standard aesthetic excellence in sound. Now that doesn't mean it
can be found in all live acoustic music just that the very best can be
found in some live acoustic music. So that is why I use live music as
a reference for my playback of live music. But the level of exactness
you are refering to in your standard simply can't be applied to
commercial recordings by most audiophiles. We weren't there. But it
matters not. Live sound gives us a standard of measure not a specific
goal. For example, I have two different masterings of a John Renbourn
album "The Lady and the Unicorn." The acoustic instruments on both
versions offer pretty amazing realism but one is distinctly better to
me than the other. For all I know the less prefered version is more
accurate to the master tape or even more accurate to the original
sound. It doesn't matter though. They both achieve an excellent
illusion of realism but one simply has a superior over all aesthetic.
So in your example of the "Gizmo listening test" it doesn't matter if
there is no reference. Preferences are inarguable. The only point I
see in using live acoustic music as a reference is because it sets the
bar for a personal preference.

Exactly. We use live, unamplified music to "calibrate our ears" and by that,
I mean that we identify those characteristics of a live unamplified
performance that lights our respective pipes. We find out what it is that we
like about the sound of real music and we apply those criteria to our
reproduced music. It's not so much that we expect our recorded music to
actually sound like the real thing (although that IS a consummation devoutly
to be wished) but we inherently listen for those characteristics in our
playback of recorded music which gave us so much pleasure in the presence of
the "real thing". Of course, this methodology is fraught with pitfalls and
its all too easy to be thrown off course or to be beguiled by some flashy
audio pyrotechnics. That's why, IME, its important for audiophiles to listen
to as much live music as possible. Go to concerts, frequent bars and night
spots that feature live music. This way, you'll never lose sight of either
your listening goals, or the fact that those goals are, for the most part,
impossible to fully achieve.