Accuracy and Emotion

[Erik Mandaville]

Both have come to the forefront in recent threads, and both are topics about which I mentioned some of my own ideas. The second of the two, emotion, is something I referenced in terms of my own response to a pair of loudspeakers I had never heard before. The name brand doesn't matter. I described the experience as one where I was simply drawn in to what was playing by the quality and impact of the sound, relative to what we have at home, which to me also has incredible impact and presence.

On the subject of whether music reproducing machines are capable of capturing the accuracy of the sound characteristics of the original recorded event, I basically said I thought that it was an element that is difficult to measure because of the unavailability of the sound of that original event to use as a baseline of comparison. I can only rely on my memory of how instruments sound live, particularly the sharp and distinct quality of drums and percussion. Memory, whether comparing capacitors (big yawn) in crossovers or live vs reproduced music events, isn't always on the mark, in my opinion.

I think the emotional aspect of the recorded event is equally elusive. I myself have used descriptions of the importance of a system to capture the emotional aspect of music, but this morning I found myself challenging my own thinking on that. As in the case of the accuracy of reproduction, which is impossible to calculate unless one happened to be in the studio (and even then the memory of what took place will lack complete clarity), emotion is just as hard, or even harder, to quantify. How can we know whether the actual emotion present during the recording is being reproduced or not? All we here is the music.

My point is that, regardless of whether the reproduced sound is accurate or emotionally revealing, the key for me has to do with how I respond when I sit down to listen. I would much rather listen to inaccuracy that nevertheless possesses the quality of sound I like, than a very accurate (whatever that means) presentation that sounds terrible. It also doesn't matter (to me) if the performers felt like laughing or crying during the recording, unless the sounds of either interfere with what's being played. We hear the elements of music anyway.

Erik

[DrWho]

How bout moving away from the realm of the unknown and the unknown to

discuss things that are known? You most certainly can quantify all

sorts of attributes that deviate from accuracy. Whether or not you like

each particular quantifiable attribute is up to each individual.

The best of wine tasters pride themselves in identifying impurities in

their wine. Or heck, the same is true of milk judges too. There

certainly is no shortage of people that will immensely enjoy a a

McDonald's hamburger, but that doesn't make it a 'high-fidelity'

burger. The problem with "relying on emotion" is that "quality" is

being measured by a meter stick that changes daily.

Surely you wouldn't expect wine tasters to enjoy a really bad glass of

wine. In the persuit of excellence, they are training their taste buds

to reject imperfection. And it's immensely interesting to read about

all of the science that goes into a good glass of wine; science based

originally on the perceptions of wine tasters. Science is being used as

a tool to improve the quality of wine that a winemaker manufactures.

And it is no different in the audio world. And when I refer to science,

I am referring to the process of identifying imperfections. The art (or

magic as audiophiles would prefer) is in finding solutions to the

problems. Not all solutions are the same.

So while the end goal is always to enjoy the music, we must realize

that we must also train our ears to know what is good. The most obvious

fruit of that training is going to be the natural rejection of a bad

glass of wine. The ability of a person to forego that rejection is

nothing less than lack of refined listening habits.

And finally my point, fidelity cannot be measured by unrefined

observation. Anything short of refined listening to identify fidelity

is an absolute waste of time.

If I may make an observation, there is no shortage of unrefined

listeners trying to masquerade as audiophiles by making themselves feel

good when finding other fakes that also enjoy poor fidelity. Fancy talk

does not equal refinement.

[jdm56]

Although everyone who cares about reproducing music in their home may initially approach the task from the objectivist or subjectivest camps, once the music begins to play, I think all we are left with is, "does it illicit an emotional response or not? Is it enjoyable or not?" I tend to think of myself as an objectivist when it comes to audio reproduction, but truth be told, when given a choice of unpleasant reality versus self-deluded pleasure, I'd probably take pleasure every time.

[Duke Spinner]

well ..

I belive High Efficiency speakers have an edge in "involvement", simply by fact of , what to call it ..??

Impact ..??

tho my JBL 4430's dredge up soooo much detail my Klipsch speakers gloss over, they simply arent as enjoyable to listen to....

they sound "Flat" compared to say the Forte's ....

well, they are Flat ...[] as Frequency response goes ..

hmmnnn ..proper word needed, i guess

[Erik Mandaville]

"there is no shortage of unrefined listeners trying to masquerade as audiophiles"

What's an audiophile?

[Erik Mandaville]

jdm:

" but truth be told, when given a choice of unpleasant reality versus self-deluded pleasure, I'd probably take pleasure every time."

Absolutely. We've all got one chance at the whole thing, why not make the best of it. Thanks for simplifying things!

Erik

[pauln]

And finally my point, fidelity cannot be measured by unrefined
observation. Anything short of refined listening to identify fidelity
is an absolute waste of time.

What
do you mean by refined listening? I think refined listening is
more like hearing music as sound rather than hearing sound as music.



I play a half-dozen other instruments, but I still enjoy listening to
the ones I don't play. I read music and can evaluate a score, know all
the Itallian words, signatures and times; but this is not why I love
listening to music.



I have enjoyed music played back on primitive systems within which the
objects of refined observation were all but missing, maybe were
missing; yet the music was there to enjoy. Lots of musicians have
unrefined systems, yet I'll bet many hear music better than you do. Lot
of self claimed audiophiles have a tin ear and are quite tone deaf to
music, but they can find the refined sounds after practice. I think
some audiophiles truely do not enjoy music as music.

Your point
is quite daring. The logical extension leads to all kinds of trouble.
For example, it leads to the conclusion that since I have 35 years
experience as a lead guitarist I am among the elite few that are
refined enough to listen to the fidelity of the sound of a guitar, and
those that don't have this experience, and those that don't play the
guitar, and especially those that don't play any instruments are
variously unrefined and certainly have no basis from which to judge the
sound of guitars... therefore; even a sound engineer like yourself has
no basis to judge the sound of guitar music if you are not a serious
guitar player. Are you a guitar player? How much popular music is
dominated by guitars? How much of the populace actually plays the
guitar? Have you been sucessful in engineering guitar music that people
enjoy - even non-guitar playing people? See where this line of thinking
leads?

[Jay481985]

How bout moving away from the realm of the unknown and the unknown to
discuss things that are known? You most certainly can quantify all
sorts of attributes that deviate from accuracy. Whether or not you like
each particular quantifiable attribute is up to each individual.





The best of wine tasters pride themselves in identifying impurities in
their wine. Or heck, the same is true of milk judges too. There
certainly is no shortage of people that will immensely enjoy a a
McDonald's hamburger, but that doesn't make it a 'high-fidelity'
burger. The problem with "relying on emotion" is that "quality" is
being measured by a meter stick that changes daily.





Surely you wouldn't expect wine tasters to enjoy a really bad glass of
wine. In the persuit of excellence, they are training their taste buds
to reject imperfection. And it's immensely interesting to read about
all of the science that goes into a good glass of wine; science based
originally on the perceptions of wine tasters. Science is being used as
a tool to improve the quality of wine that a winemaker manufactures.
And it is no different in the audio world. And when I refer to science,
I am referring to the process of identifying imperfections. The art (or
magic as audiophiles would prefer) is in finding solutions to the
problems. Not all solutions are the same.





So while the end goal is always to enjoy the music, we must realize
that we must also train our ears to know what is good. The most obvious
fruit of that training is going to be the natural rejection of a bad
glass of wine. The ability of a person to forego that rejection is
nothing less than lack of refined listening habits.





And finally my point, fidelity cannot be measured by unrefined
observation. Anything short of refined listening to identify fidelity
is an absolute waste of time.





If I may make an observation, there is no shortage of unrefined
listeners trying to masquerade as audiophiles by making themselves feel
good when finding other fakes that also enjoy poor fidelity. Fancy talk
does not equal refinement.

what is funny is just like every other thing in the world there is perception and not, even in the wine country. Some people just must have that french wine even though a california, especially the stag's leap region or the russian river area are quite nice. Heck most wine in France is made to be drunk as eau d'vie or table wine.... And then there are those super premium labels that we all wish to have (jubilee, klipschorn, those crazy jbl, wilson, krell, etc) and even in wine like the first growth, be it a rothchild or such (though not a first growth the pomerol, petrus) but then again is the gains really worth it? Is a 30 dollar bottle not comparable to the 3000 dollar bottle? Is that 3000 dollar bottle of wine going to taste better on your worst day than the 30 dollar bottle on your happiest day? variables like that change our perception, It might be time to actually listen and still dream but give a chance to what you have.

btw drwho "

The best of wine tasters pride themselves in identifying impurities in
their wine." uhh unless it is a really bad wine there should be no impurities to really taste..... you must mean different tastes they can try and identify in the wine.

[Painful Reality]

The best of wine tasters pride themselves in identifying impurities in their wine.

Fancy talk does not equal refinement.

You seems to prove your own point pretty well...

Might better stick to Dr Pepper.

[DrWho]

I think refined listening is

more like hearing music as sound rather than hearing sound as music.

??????????????????????????

Lots of musicians have

unrefined systems, yet I'll bet many hear music better than you do.

That is likely true, but that doesn't make them better at critiquing speakers or amps or whatever it is you're "reviewing". In fact, I would argue that it makes them worse at it simply because they are trained to focus differently.

Your point

is quite daring.

You missed the point.

Enjoying music on a crap system just means you happen to really like the song.

[Erik Mandaville]

"Enjoying music on a crap system just means you happen to really like the song."

Or that what's going on musically -- melody, rhythm, harmony, phrasing, etc. -- is more important than whether or not the music sounds, in your words, 'accurate.'

What's a 'crap' system? One that happens to be different from the one you have?

And again: What's an audiophile?

What do you mean by enjoying impurities in wine, by the way? With all due respect, it seems to me that you may have pulled the cork on your own boat with that one.

Erik

edit: " The best of wine tasters pride themselves in identifying impurities in their wine."

Let me stand corrected: I referred to this quote as 'enjoying impurities' rather than identifying them. Accept my apology for that.

The point I have in mind is that any system will have 'impurities' in the sense that every component in the listening chain will impart some kind of coloration. So, it seems to me that what we are thus left with is the choice and selection of those components that ultimately work the best for our individual listening preferences, tastes, or maybe even more importantly, objectives.

Our Primary systemconsists of Klipschorns driven by 3 watt single-ended amps, and Heresy and center channel (for Home theater) surround speakers powered by two Teac 3-channel digital amplifiers. Primary source is a Denon 2900, and our digital processor is a Lexicon that was modified by Shawn Fogg so that it can also be used in an analog bypass mode as a dedicated, multi-channel linestage for SACD. The passive dividing network for the Klipschorns is the type A, which I have selected after building several others, including the AA, as well as one of higher order (which I didn't like with SET amps). I am using the BEC tweeters, as well a small series choke on the squawker for a lower crossover point to the tweeter.

Our secondary system, which gets tons of use (maybe it's the primary one?) uses an older Denon CDP, a 6SN7 linestage, and completely rebuilt Dynaco ST -70. Speakers are a mint pair of very early Heresies, the crossovers for which were also rebuilt using iron core inductors and decent poly tubular capacitors. I've also lightly stuffed the cabinets with poly fill, which has improved efficiency not hugely, but enough to help. I'm going to order another pair of BEC tweeters as soon as we get some other things out of the way.

Is my choice of wine that bad? I will do anything to be thought of as an audiophile!

Erik

[Erik Mandaville]

"Is that 3000 dollar bottle of wine going to taste better on your worst day than the 30 dollar bottle on your happiest day? variables like that change our perception, It might be time to actually listen and still dream but give a chance to what you have."

That is good!

Erik

[Klipschguy]

Paul, I understand and agree with what you are saying about audiophiles not enjoying the music as music. Notice the attributes of a musical arrangement, i.e. key, timing, measures, syncopation, etc, and you will often get a blank stare from the audiophile. It is sad. If an audiophile wants to launch his ability to understand & appreciate music foward (and is willing to eat a little humble pie), pick an instrument and study music. Even a year of piano lessons will make an incredible difference. (You are never too old!)

Andy

[Mallette]

Great thread, Erik.

Emotion and music...I recorded a Percy Grainger piece a few years ago. I have a clear sonic memory of the event, and the recording was exceptional. The first time I played it after my mom passed away I shed sweet tears of nostalgia from the first touch of bow to string until the last organized distrubance of air dipped below my brains ability to resolve it. For reasons unfathomable, it reminded me of her in a way that made her presence almost palpable, even though in life Percy Faith was more her cup of tea. I've little doubt that if I pushed such mush from my mind I could pick out the interconnects without enough $$$ in them, bias needing attention, and perhaps my mikes were 5 degrees from optimum. I have expressed admiration for those who can do this and find pleasure in it. Personally, I'd not trade those tears and that presence for anything this earth has to offer.

That is only one. The Navy Hymn, All You Need is Love, the Franck Chorale in B Minor, and The Garden of Prayer are amongst the many pieces of music that set of extraordinary neural events in my brain that result in a variety of emotions from exultation without limits to sadness beyond words.

Music that does not evoke emotion suggests something about the listener, the music, or both. Frankly, my desire to have a high fidelity audio system isn't really related to meeting this deep hunger for emotional exercise at all, as as my tears or giggles are just as readily triggered by a car radio.

Dave

[DrWho]

Music that does not evoke emotion suggests something about the listener, the music, or both. Frankly, my desire to have a high fidelity audio system isn't really related to meeting this deep hunger for emotional exercise at all, as as my tears or giggles are just as readily triggered by a car radio.

Exactly! [Y]

[Erik Mandaville]

Dave:

"Frankly, my desire to have a high fidelity audio system isn't really related to meeting this deep hunger for emotional exercise at all.."

Nor mine. High fidelity is the subjective element at work here. If you have memories of actual recording events, which I know you have extensive experience with, that is a good and helpful thing in terms of giving you a baseline of comparison. I would say though, that the vast majority of what most of us listen to is devoid of that. To determine the extent of true fidelity, out of necessity requires the comparison of two things. Moreover, the interpretation of this faithfulness or fidelity is something that is personal and individual because of the fact that people hear and process sound differently, as well as perhaps listen for different things.

IMO, It's not something that can be standardized.

Erik

[Mallette]

Erik:

You caused me to realize something I'd never connected before. My "memory" of space and time, whether of an actual recording event or of the best playback of some music I love is what makes the difference under less than optimum conditions. When I hear a great piece of music on a car radio, PA speaker, or whatever, my mind feels (I came back to correct this, but it somehow feels rather Zen) in the rest.

Nice processor, this mind thing. No artifacts...

Thanks again for the thought-provoking thread.

Dave

[Duke Spinner]

you meant ..." fills in the rest", Dave

you... suffer from " Musician's Ear " .......[]

[Erik Mandaville]

Dave:

"Nice processor, this mind thing. No artifacts..."

What a fascinating way to describe it. It, is in fact, a very fundamental part of an audio system -- something I've tried to hint at in the past. Excellent thought!

Erik

[maxg]

"I think the emotional aspect of the recorded event is equally elusive. I myself have used descriptions of the importance of a system to capture the emotional aspect of music, but this morning I found myself challenging my own thinking on that. As in the case of the accuracy of reproduction, which is impossible to calculate unless one happened to be in the studio (and even then the memory of what took place will lack complete clarity), emotion is just as hard, or even harder, to quantify. How can we know whether the actual emotion present during the recording is being reproduced or not? All we here is the music. "

I am not sure I am ever looking to recapture the emotional aspects of the music from a live event. Emotions are funny things - they are influenced by related experiences often during, prior to, or immediatly following an individual music event. To attempt to recapture that is far from a system related issue.

Listening to a piece of music, or indeed the sudden passing of a familiar aroma, can being back totally unrelated memories of an event long passed. this may be a happy memory or a sad one - it probably very much influenced our memory of a given piece of music. I am not sure it says anything about how accurately the replaying comes across - merely accurately enough to return the memory.

In the main, when I sit down to listen to a piece of music on my system at home is it, of itself, an event. Influences ranging from my mood, how tired I am and various other environmental issues (comfort, temperature, have I eaten, drank etc. etc.) have a very direct effect on my listening experience - possibly far more than what the system is, or is not, doing.

Now I might hear, for example, Neilsen's "Without You" on a transistor radio and that will be enough to stir a fond memory and bring gobs of emotion flooding back (I wont say what I was doing - for the first time - when this was playing - but you can probably guess).

Separating out - the above obviously un-audio-related aspects of music is not that easy. It can happen - but it does not necessarily refer to any given event in our lives - live performance or otherwise.

Looking at emotion slightly differently I have experienced suddenly "getting it" with a given piece of music. Like most listeners I have music I generally like and music that just doesnt quite do it for me. If I take an example close to my heart - I get La Traviata - it just does it for me, but till recently Il Trovadore simply missed the mark. Last week, late one evening I decided to give Trovadore a whirl on the TT - side one. For possibly the first time - I really feel that I got it - it hit home in a way it has never done before and I ended up listening to the entire Opera (all six sides) till the early hours.

It is here, I feel, that a good playback system CAN help - but not always. I just became totally immersed in the music and everything else in my life disappeared. Sadly it does not happen every time - nor with every piece of music I chose to play. There are evenings when I flit from one recording to another desperately seeking imersion only to be unable to find it. Sometimes it is the first disk on the platter that does it - and sometimes it takes a few. I would venture that it is more likely to happen on my system than a lesser one (according to my tastes) - or even a possibly better one that doesnt quite connect me to the music (witness the Avantegard system I heard recently).

Where I come totally unstuck in all of this is when something played back simply comes across as totally real. I am not saying it is exactly like live but it appears to be so - to me, at that moment in time. I had it recently with a guitar being played back on a system. It just seemed so tangibly "guitar" - in the philosophical sense that I was quite amazed. To me - this is neither accuracy nor emotion - it is something quite different but I am pushed to be able to label it. It has happened before - a lone trumpet over the orchestra, a sudden bang on a drum that just hits the mark of perfection.

I do wonder how much counterpoints help in this assessment. In the system described above the guitar - so real - was followed by voice that was so not real. At the same time this provided massive disappointment and yet served to underline how good the guitar was.

Very ocasionally - an entire piece can be right. At a recent ACA meeting we were fortunate enough to hear Stokowski's Liszt Hungarian Rhapsody No.2 on a very nice system indeed. This was so absolutely right in some undefinable way that at the end of the performance - and performance it was - I sponanteously stood up and applauded. To my amazement I was joined by others and it was only at that moment that I realized the whole room had been totally silent throughout the playback. For a room full of Greeks to be silent for such a period is quite a rare event I can tell you.

I could go further and say that actually at that very moment I realized I was not alone listening - that there was, in fact, 20 other audiophiles listening along with me.

Needless to say the owner of the system was very proud at that moment - and rightly so.

What is this "reality" to the sound that can be so elusive? Mood? System? Recording? Room? I do not know. I do find it is not reliably repeatable in the main but beyond that?????