Sound: objective or subjective?

Personally I think people should worry about listing to music above all else.

If you can't in this day and age put a little system together that sounds outstanding with good specs and a high level of musicality your pretty lost. Not to mention the lost time one goes though debating frivolous little things that don't mean anything really.

Theory and measurement tools have nothing to do with enjoying music.
 
Getting back to Mr. Curl's interview; it strikes me that he would say that if hears it, but can't measure it objectively something is wrong. He does manage to make almost everybody's else's seem like they're poorly designed compared to a Parasound. I guess company loyalty is a good thing.;)
 
robert_kc said:
Obvious to many people (including me) who listen to music produced by natural instruments in the intended venue (e.g., symphony hall or opera house) - with no electronics involved. Examples include classical music and opera. People who regularly attend live classical music performances – in the intended venue - know what a violin sounds like. We know what a string quartet sounds like. We know what a large-scale orchestra sounds like. We know what opera sounds like when performed live in an opera house that has good acoustics – and no PA system (or sound reinforcement system) is used. (Obviously when a symphony orchestra performs the National Anthem at the baseball park, a PA system must be used. That is NOT what I’m talking about.)




I don’t give a rat’s patootey what the recording engineer wants. For the music I love, the recording engineer(s) or producer(s) aren’t the composer, conductor, or musician – they don’t create the art – their job is to capture the performance as faithfully as possible.

Perhaps things are different for pop music. Based on what I’ve read - for some pop music - producers and engineers largely use electronics to blend together multiple sounds – some generated by synthesizers – some generated by different musicians in different studios at different times - to create a “song”. For this type of music, who is to say what the song is supposed to sound like? Apparently the only people who can say for sure are those who were in the recording studio listening to their electronically cobbled together song on some studio monitors.



For classical music, acceptable to people who know what live classical music sounds like.




For live music, the venue affects the sound of the original performance. Again – for the music I like – the engineers aren’t creating the music – the composer, conductor, and musicians are – and the venue (i.e., the concert hall) affects the overall sound.

The “gear” that is involved in creating classical music are instruments such as violins, violas, trumpets, etc.

Apparently for some pop music, the “song” is not created in a real space (i.e., a venue), but rather is created via some electronic mixing console (whether that be hardware or software). I confess I don’t know what a mixing console (or synthesizer) is supposed to sound like.




I agree with "garbage-in/garbage-out".
Click to expand...
Although your points and position may be valid, you fail to recognize they are an apples vs oranges argument. I'm simply attempting to make that clear.
Garbage in/garbage out does not address the fact that quality recordings may still not be adequate to realize the full potential of a high end system, something you may not ever become aware of. There's no dispute that artificially reproduced music does not approach a live unamplified event in sq. But I'm referring to the op here, you are not. You can not alter the frequency response of a recording without degrading it aside from room correction. You will never achieve the sq of a live event with gear although I do have a direct to disc jazz 45LP that will put up a good argument.
 
As someone who has dabbled in making my own music before, I kind of fall somewhere inbetween.

If I make something (crappy as it may be), I want it to sound like I intended. But where do you start? You have to have a reference point. But what is it being played back on? Am I gonna hate myself because I have to mix it for the lowest common denominator? What if it only sounds good on my speakers or on (ugh) headphones ?

This kind of harkens back to the other thread about audiophiles and flat frequency response. imho studio monitors, flat response, etc are great for production. If everyone recorded and mixed to those standards then you will always have a decent reference point with probably some minor variations based on gear choice, etc.

But then as a listener, I kind of sympathize with the audiophile approach of removing tone controls, having the best system possible, etc. I hate having to play with tone controls on a per album or per song basis.

It actually got me wondering, like.. FM always sounds so good, I guess because of the compression being applied? It's a lot easier for me to get bass out of my system on an FM station than say, a vinyl or computer source, where I feel like I might be breaking my speakers by cranking the bass all the way over, or playing Loudness mode high, etc. I wonder if there's some universal compressor /EQ/Limiter settings out there that FM stations use or if someone masochistically EQs songs for radio by themself.

One thing is clear tho. I'm a bass head, I love bass even in songs where it really isn't supposed to be there :dunno:
There is probably a minDSP 2x4 HD in my future, after I get myself a subwoofer.:music:
 
0Hz said:
I wonder if there's some universal compressor /EQ/Limiter settings out there that FM stations use or if someone masochistically EQs songs for radio by themself.
Click to expand...
Radio is massively compressed to optimize quality in the car. And limited at the bottom to 50 hz. No first octave bass to be found.
 
Superampman said:
But were you not making a distinction between two perspectives when you said "those that want the end result to sound like the real instruments and those that want the end result to sound like the recording on the medium being played back"? Not taking you to task here but unless the first camp's goal is the goal of the second, it's wishful thinking , no? I mean as far as the gear is concerned. We're limited by the recording so the best we can do is play it back as faithfully as possible. Some are better than others but it's an exercise in futility to attempt to improve a recording with playback gear.

So to your point, a very good one, it seems in the end it takes a subjective ear to evaluate what's going on regardless. Hence the wide variation in specs among high end gear.
Click to expand...

But aren't you assuming that the recording cannot be faithful? If one has been to several/many live venues, cannot one get a feel for accuracy and naturalness? Can't we improve on the recording equipment etc?

keep on truckin

joe
 
Last edited:
Superampman said:
There's no dispute that artificially reproduced music does not approach a live unamplified event in sq. But I'm referring to the op here, you are not. You can not alter the frequency response of a recording without degrading it aside from room correction. You will never achieve the sq of a live event with gear although I do have a direct to disc jazz 45LP that will put up a good argument.
Click to expand...

Really? What %, 50, 75, 90, 97% is possible? What % from recording itself and playback? Just curious.

keep on truckin

joe
 
Joe Dawson said:
But aren't you assuming that the recording cannot be faithful? If one has been to several/many live venues, cannot one get a feel for accuracy and naturalness? Can't we improve on the recording equipment etc?

keep on truckin

joe
Click to expand...

This would be so only if said live venue is completely acoustic. As soon as you bring in amplification you become subject to the electronics. Whatever you hear has been changed by the electronics. When electronics are used what are you faithful to?

Live unamplified music, preferably symphonic is the only true reference.
 
JoeESP9 said:
This would be so only if said live venue is completely acoustic. As soon as you bring in amplification you become subject to the electronics. Whatever you hear has been changed by the electronics. When electronics are used what are you faithful to?

Live unamplified music, preferably symphonic is the only true reference.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I did not mean the musical group used electronics. I meant only the recording of course. I listen to live, un-amplified music every now and then. Electronics can't be perfect, to the ear, not simple measurements?

keep on truckin

joe
 
Joe Dawson said:
But aren't you assuming that the recording cannot be faithful? If one has been to several/many live venues, cannot one get a feel for accuracy and naturalness? Can't we improve on the recording equipment etc?

keep on truckin

joe
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. The goal is improvement.
 
Joe Dawson said:
% accuracy from recording studio live through playback at home?

keep on truckin

joe
Click to expand...

My system achieves 133.57596% accuracy of the original performance. I ran through the calculations three times and got the same answer, so it is no doubt correct. How can a recording be more accurate than the live performance? Synergy, metaphysics, and the art of sixty-cycle maintenance all play a role, but perceptual factors in response to ripples in the space-time continuum, modulated via alignment of the listener's chakras, trump all else. Unless, obviously, one's aura is red. Bad red. Real bad red.
 
Last edited:
A third factor has been left out:

Subjectivists, objectivists, and realists.

Successful designers have to be the latter. The dictionary definition (at least acording to 'Oxford') of high fidelity is closest possible approach to the original. Realism as I see it is perhaps in between the first two, and thus "both" as many said above, but realism includes a somewhat better defined 'both'. It includes what is audible - there is an often neglected factor in 'both', which includes how exactly the original (live) sounded to YOU, i.e. what kind of balance between subjectivism and objectivism is realistic. Realism for a military band playing on parade ground will be different to the Boston Pops performing the same piece of music in Symphony Hall! Will an audio system performing either have the same performance requirements - not necessarily.

As an EE and designer of amplifiers I need to observe all factors involved. This is a tall order, but mecifully the 'end- detector/adjudicator' (hearing) has limitations, which, if overlooked, can result in over-design, often found to be not as impressive to human hearing as thought. One the other hand, some "per definition" not really high-fidelity systems, can sound most involving.
 
Audiovet said:
On the contrary (and respectfully!), without involving theory and measurement tools, there will be no high fidelity system for you to enjoy!
Click to expand...
Music and the enjoyment of it has nothing to do with hypothesizing theory and measurement tools.
Do you understand it better that way?

Let me know when this thread make you enjoy music more, or the time you spend thinking about it is actually productive in that enjoyment.
 
4-2-7,

No, in absolute sense, you are right of course. But this thread seems to be 'limited to' if you will, 'music and the enjoyment of it ...' via reproducing equipment. (Otherwise I don't see any sense?)

Apology if that is wrong, but if that is in fact the subject here, do you then see my point?

(and NO intention to quibble, but nobody is talking about 'hypothesizing' theory, only proven theory, as in proven/accepted basics of, in this case, electronics/acoustics/whatever-else... I am an engineer, not a phycisist.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
"Subjective," or "Objective?"
Replies
17
Views
496
phidauex
phidauex
Back
Top Bottom