[miklorsmith]

You leave alot of questions. If there are Many dimensions of "truth", then the vast majority would not prefer your interpretation, or any reviewer's interpretation. So why have any reviewers? We don't need you. So why shoot yourself into extinction so to speak?

Having so many "truths" opens up some dangers. First it would give an unscrupulous individual or reviewer the option of manipulating definitions/descriptions etc to suite his goals. (We have already seen definition changes in some manufacturer's ads. Always for someone's advantage and minipulate the perception to those purchasers.)

One may sit anywhere in the audience and receive his individual dose of reality, or "truth", the positioned microphone only allows one version of the "truth" at best, unless one is able to move the mic to one's sitting position.

As one moves and sits farther away from the mic, the spacial cues etc changes. This cannot be duplicated by changing the tonal balance of the audio system. So one is creating his own music. It may be to his liking, which is fine, but it is not the "truth" compared to where he would be sitting in the actual venue.

One might say, the recording from the mic is not accurate either. Should we stray farther away? Or, why not continue to work towards more truly accurate recordings and reproduction? We should not stop imo.

Having many "truths" allows one to comment his position/belief in one post/string/forum and then state an entirely different position/belief on another post/string/forum to fit the audience. Having multiple "truths" allows one an "escape" excuse while slyly desparaging one product and promoting another. How do we know which is truly superior? Any questions, hey it is just my version of the "truth". This is one of the very ways a shill/scam artists work. I would veare away from that model to be safe.

Another result is that the rogue reviewer can change the perception of a product by simple phrase minipulation(s); therefore enhancing sales. Very subtly of course. On the contrare, with so many 'truths" how can one desparage any product or give any recommendation? Anyway, no one could effectively communicate a description when "truth" has so many meanings.

Of course, the real life music experience involves all the possible attributes, tonal balance, attack and decay times, dynamics, transparency, soundstaging etc in their proper relationships.

I hope this gets some thinking more deeply and the ramifications involved.

You don't need me?  OK.  I don't need you either.

Your writing is decent, but your logic is fuzzy.  Assuming it is fact, having many dimensions of truth does not lead to the conclusion that "the vast majority" would disagree with me.  If they do, c'est la vie.  I'm not pretending to be omniscient.

Why do we have reviewers at all?  Short answer - people like to read about audio gear.  Pictures are neato too.  If you want to get anything out of them, figure out which ones share your personal truths and accord them greater weight. 

I didn't say there were "many truths", I said "dimensions of truth".  Spinning the difference into a license for unscrupulous behavior is a tremendous stretch.  On the other hand, if I were the speaker at a "Dynamics and Tone" convention I would probably skew the subject material that direction, even if my next engagement were at the "Soundstaging and Imaging" gathering.  Would I say "I like this" at one and not the other?  Of course not, but I would speak to different aspects of the performance.  This is not a hard concept.

Your statements about microphone placement support my position - where you sit in a performance affects the sound you get.  All seats in the auditorium capture live music but noone would argue the sound is homogenous.

How can a reviewer forward any recommendation or disparage a product?  This is a good question - one that I have thought about a lot lately.  On either side of the ledger, the result is highly dependent on all the variables affecting anyone's assessment - personal dimensions of truth, room interactions, system synergy issues, etc. 

I think reviewers have a lot of responsibility.  Good press elevates a product to some degree and bad pub diminishes it likewise.  A poor showing in a review system could be related to many things.  A good reviewer will try to get the piece to sound good in their system to get a real grasp of it.  Obviously there are limitations in resources and only so many combinations can be tried.  If a speaker doesn't fit a room, is it the speaker's fault?

What if the reviewer's ears/room/system represent 20% of the listening whole and the other 80% would find the piece satisfactory or excellent?  From the reviewer's perspective, that 20% is 100% of their understanding.  A strong ego may declare "this thing sucks", but the tempered view would not castigate without much experimentation and thought.

With a positive review, it's easier.  The reviewer at that point can say with confidence that there is at least one situation where the piece shines.

Undeserved good reviews hurt the consumer, undeserved bad reviews hurt the company.  I don't want to encourage painful buys but I don't want to penalize hardworking manufacturers either.  A lot of reviews these days are being written with some cautionary points but also emphasizing strengths.  If a manufacturer is full of it, they won't last long.  Neither will a reviewer.

Wizened combatants will usually say they never buy anything on the basis of a review but they might put it on their list to audition.  This is good advice.  Knowing the source of the review helps a ton.  Do they like single drivers and you have 1,000 watts on tap?  Are they 24/7 classical and you like Metallica?  Are they bragging about their new vinyl rig and you love your Transporter?  Do they go on and on about imaging character and you're a tone guy?

I connected with the 6moons ethos way before I started writing for them.

It's easy to simplify, unless "truth" is the goal.

[Zero]

Sheesh...  All this fluster and huff over such kibbles and bits. Sometimes, things iz what dey iz;

High Fidelity Audio is by in the most traditional sense - an effort to recreate the most life-like sound reproduction possible through a mechanical system - with the ultimate goal aimed at obtaining reproduced sound that is virtually indistinguishable from a performer/performers in the same room/environment. It's a noble, ambitious, and at this point in time - still a far fetched and lofty goal.

Truth? The Truth is that, whether or not people want to admit it, most of our experience of music is through a manufactured product. Until you've branched out and have attained the impossible; such as hearing every instrument on this earth in it natural form, have heard your favorite bands/performers in your own home, was present for every step during the recording process of the music you listen to, and subsequently participated in every step of the mix-down process, please drop this whole truth diatribe.

I in fact, feel similar to the gentlemen from Stereophile in a sense that high end seems to lack any general, agreed upon direction anymore. Instead, we exist in an orgy of "feel good" rhetoric; "Whatever sounds best to you", "only you can decide, listen for yourself", "Let your ears be your guide". Hey, I love to drink that kool-aid like everyone else. However, this wide embrace of personal choice ultimately leads to the feeling of being caught on a spinning hamster wheel. You're literally going nowhere - fast.

Yet, what can someone reasonably expect from a difficult goal that is still operating on the same exact principles since its inception? At the end of the day, as I've said for years and as I said earlier in this thread...

It's fake. All of it. It's just a matter of choosing the fake you can enjoy/live with. I just hope I live long enough to see the day when that phrase is no longer applicable.

And thus concludes my very hap-hazard post.   

[miklorsmith]

But you'd agree that, in practice, every system is a compromise right?  Certain elements are better served than others?  Maybe my choice of words isn't perfect but in the end we're saying the same thing.

I disagree about the hamster wheel and going nowhere fast.  I believe if you figure out what's important to you in reproduction you can attain it.  If absolute perfection is the goal then no, you won't get there.  But if you define what you "need" in reasonable terms it's available today.

[Zero]

One more thang;

The reviewers job is simple; to take in a product and to tell its story all the while clearly illustrating its character and inherent strengths in weaknesses - so that the reader/consumer can gather the information necessary to make an informed decision (or at the very least walk away with a bit more knowledge). Any reviewer and manufacturer worth their salt will have a sit down, discuss the product to determine whether the reviewer is a) qualified to handle the product and b) to comfortably accommodate it. The job sounds easy, but to do it right is a very time consuming and requires a great level of experience. In every industry, consumers look to professional opinions and evaluations for a bona-fide insight/guide in regards to a product of interest. Crass though as this may sound, reviewers are the messengers... the informants.

That said; we are all human and subsequently are prone to personal bias - just like anyone else is. Some are better at restraining it than others, but the bottom line is that every once in awhile - even the best let a bit of it slip in every once in awhile. And others, well... there will always be those with their own agenda.

Ultimately though, a reviewers word, however qualified it may (should) be; is at the end of the day, nothing more than a summary from one man or woman. Never should it be taken more than just that.

>end sidetrack rant.

[JoshK]

Gordon's views are valid within the realm of classical music.  His model of what audio reproduction should be does not extend to the creative art of making records with anything beyond a stereo pair hanging over the orchestra.  If you only dig 2-channel orchestra recordings and focus solely on your own hearing whilst blocking out all the other stimuli that comes with live music then yeah, maybe you can pursue the high-fidelity angle and trick yourself into thinking you're at the performance and not in front of your stereo with your eyes closed.  Still, if live music is so great, the reference which we must worship, then GO TO SEE LIVE MUSIC.  Sitting at home listening to records will never ever be the same as seeing a live band and I think everyone knows this, accepts this and enjoys this disparity greatly.  They are apples and oranges, one cannot BE the other.  And the only way you can really judge this is if you are listening to a recording made at the same performance you just attended yourself.  Better yet, if you made the recording yourself.  How many people does this apply to?

It's also a mistake to think that playback equipment, if designed to some unattainable level of perfection, will be the difference between realistic and unrealistic sound.  The audiophile cannot control the recording process, he only controls the playback.   It's only part of the total equation.  The audiophile can only do so much.  Besides, most recordings are not designed to have aural cues which suggest a real-time performance in an external space, they are designed to be an internal, personal experience.  They're recording a song, an idea, a feeling, not the performance played at the ACME Music Shack on July 8th in Chicago.  Our brains happily fill in the rest.

I'd point fingers at the recording biz instead, who quite often produce overly artificial-sounding music with no natural reverb or interesting spatial cues. But of course this is just a subjective style, a creative choice, not a standard to emulate.  And again, it's not something the listener can control on a recording that's already been made.

Absolutely and positively agree! Very well said, Nathan.

[Zero]

Mike -  Compromise, Yin and Yang. That whole thing. Of course I agree. 

As for the whole 'finding whats important to you'. I concur. By all means, if you can piece together a rig that capture all the elements you seek, than as far as I'm concerned..  you've found "it" or at least as 'it' pertains to todays limitations of reproduction. However, personal satisfaction within attainable means is still a separate entity from the original goal of sound reproduction. Problem iz; the whole process of reproduction as it stands is screwed! Thankfully, we've got imagination to ease over whats missing.

edit: You guys have NO idea how hard it is to type up these messages with LL COOL J's "doin it well" playing in the backround... 

[miklorsmith]

At my place, in my rig reproduction is not screwed.  It kicks ass, with no angst.  I love it.  I'm sure not everyone would, but I'm not building for them.  They can build their own kickass.

If I can do it, so can they.

Ask Jeff over at Tone how crappy he thinks reproduction is.  He's a planar guy and as far as I can tell he LOVES his main rig.  There are a lot of folks at AC that are very happy with their setups.  This pursuit is not a helpless walk off the plank.

[Zero]

In hindsight - I should have been satisfied in my original response.  No matter what is said in-between, it all comes around full circle to reproduction being what it is - fake/reproduced.  Some fake may sound better than others, but its never going to be something its not. It's best to simply enjoy whatever you've got and, if you are the ambitious sort; aim for greater leaps in fake-ness as finances and opportunities allow. 

[Steve]

Yep zero, not perfect. But as I think you agree, we should keep striving and see where we go.

-----------------

"Your writing is decent, but your logic is fuzzy. Assuming it is fact, having many dimensions of truth does not lead to the conclusion that "the vast majority" would disagree with me. If they do, c'est la vie. I'm not pretending to be omniscient".

>Because there are so many different brands available in the price category of your highly reviewed components.

"Why do we have reviewers at all? Short answer - people like to read about audio gear. Pictures are neato too. If you want to get anything out of them, figure out which ones share your personal truths and accord them greater weight."
 
>And hopefully, they can trust them. That is my point. We have to stay above reproach and that includes definitions etc.

"I didn't say there were "many truths", I said "dimensions of truth". Spinning the difference into a license for unscrupulous behavior is a tremendous stretch. On the other hand, if I were the speaker at a "Dynamics and Tone" convention I would probably skew the subject material that direction, even if my next engagement were at the "Soundstaging and Imaging" gathering. Would I say "I like this" at one and not the other? Of course not, but I would speak to different aspects of the performance. This is not a hard concept."

>But we are not at a "dynamics and Tone" convention. Ultimate "truth" is the culmination of those "dimensions" and if they are accurate/truthful. The further off the dimensions are, the farther off from the ultimate "truth". So each dimension must be faithfully "truthful" itself if one is to have ultimate "truth". My description was correct. And those "unscrupulous behaviours" are what I described as potential dangers one must watch out for, right? Or do we just trust without any thought.

"Your statements about microphone placement support my position - where you sit in a performance affects the sound you get. All seats in the auditorium capture live music but noone would argue the sound is homogenous."

>You completely missed my point. No one disputes that where one sits is what one hears, at the recording venue. You see, mik, where the microphones are located is where the recording source and ultimate "truth" lie. Those are the spacial cues etc on the recording and what one is trying to reproduce at home.

So trying to change the home audio system to give the impression of sitting somewhere else at the recording venue will not recover those cues, tonal balance, or dynamics correctly. More than one dimension will not be accurate, or "truthful". So the ultimate "truth" will not be accurate. You see, the question becomes how far off is the ultimate "truth" and are the listeners satisfied with the results.Yes there are many "truths" which make up the ultimate "truth".

"How can a reviewer forward any recommendation or disparage a product? This is a good question - one that I have thought about a lot lately."

>Quite simple. I am sure you are aware of bait and switch tatics? It is used to slyly elevate one product over another. Once in a while one sees it. Doesn't take much; a short phrase or even a specifically chosen word. Deception, minipulation, and deceit are of course used as those are the main ingredients in any scam/fraud/shill schemes.

"I think reviewers have a lot of responsibility. Good press elevates a product to some degree and bad pub diminishes it likewise. A poor showing in a review system could be related to many things. A good reviewer will try to get the piece to sound good in their system to get a real grasp of it. Obviously there are limitations in resources and only so many combinations can be tried. If a speaker doesn't fit a room, is it the speaker's fault?"

>Yes, that is good, but bait and switch tatics can be used anywhere, even if one has not heard the component, let alone in a review.

>"Wizened combatants will usually say they never buy anything on the basis of a review but they might put it on their list to audition. This is good advice. Knowing the source of the review helps a ton."

>I wonder how many do purchase by heavy consideration of a review? Hopefully you are correct.

"I connected with the 6moons ethos way before I started writing for them."

>I know.

"It's easy to simplify, unless "truth" is the goal."

>That is why it is important to correctly understand what makes up the ultimate "truth". The ultimate "truth" is the culmination of "individual" dimensional "truths".

And away I go. 

[James Romeyn]

He's pretty much right on, see my post here

I don't understand how people have been in this hobby for years and years and they don't have a basic understanding of how to reproduce the sound field of a live event. You don't get it done with $10,000 power cords etc.  You achieve it by studying acoustics and how the human brain/ear system operates. Then, you use system setups that can imitate the sound of a live acoustic hall as closely as possible. Two channel 2D equilateral systems can never come close to sounding like a 3D performance and they sound so boring to me.

I'm just guessing, but it would seem like if you really wanted to kill off audio as a hobby for good and all, you'd wean companies off of building 2-channel systems and try to move everybody into highly specialized & complicated "system setups that can imitate the sound of a live acoustic hall as closely as possible."

Not that I have anything against the concept, but there's a beauty of simplicity about 2-channel audio...and it can sound darn good.  Good enough for most people, and deep enough for real enthusiasts to explore with a lot of satisfaction.  So keep shooting for the ideal, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water -- I doubt there is the consumer base to sustain it.  I.e., what kind of a room do I need for this ideal recreation of a 3D performance?  And what about all the recordings that aren't compatible with it?  Most of the good music has been recorded already, in stereo, don't forget.

I've worked in the industry & have experienced many of the (considered) best multi-channel systems for music & video (moderate priced some, but most admitedly $200k +).  The only that really was splenderiferous was Ray Kimber's estimated $250k special four-ch system playing proprietary Iso-Mic recordings of his own recorded near my current residence in UT (Univ of UT).  No others sounded as satisfactory as a particular 2-ch system w/ about $12k invested (msrp new estimated twice that amount).  But everyone's got their own ears.  Multi-channel is to me of little to no practical interest except for video.

[miklorsmith]

There is no ultimate truth aside from the real thing.  And thus the circle would seem to be closed.  Do continue though . . . 

[Steve]

There is no ultimate truth aside from the real thing.  And thus the circle would seem to be closed.  Do continue though . . . 

Wow, I guess first of all we should bow to you?  Sorry that won't happen.

Interesting I read one week you claim accurate is the best, then a week later colored, then a week later adding some 2nd harmonic distortion. I can easily produce those posts if anyone wants and John R approves. So what do you really believe mik??? Does it depend on your audience at that particular string?
 
Now there are dimensions of "truth", but no ultimate "truth but the real thing". Ok.

Nice way of slipping around the mic being closest to the truth since the recording is sourced at the mic position.

So I take it from your last post, that advancing towards "ultimate truth" is an unworthy goal? I mean first you believe accurate is best, now your prefer anything goes? You remind me of a mexican jumping bean; hard to pin down.

So how close are we to ultimate "truth"? Can you give an accurate answer?

The question again has to be asked, what do you really believe Mik??

[woodsyi]

Steve,

I don't think you are suppose to ask religious questions here.   

I keep striving for improvement but I enjoy the process and don't expect the process to ever end until I kick the bucket.   I have several different approaches that are each good with certain types of music.  I don't know that there is one universally best path to all music.  I think each path does a genre of music better than others.  I am into trying everything -- both in gears and music.   

[miklorsmith]

I really believe whatever I think my audience wants to hear.  Pandering is my loftiest goal and popularity essential.  If I believe you want me to say yellow is blue I will use all my powers to make that true.  Getting you to like me is more than my goal, it is my sole mission in life.

Please like me, please.

The only exception to the "please like me" rule is if I'm being paid to shill.  If the dollars are streaming in I crank up the squak box and churn out whatever message I'm being paid to promote.  Some might call this pathetic, I call it the mortgage.  You may dislike me after buying the crap I'm selling, which does violate rule #1 but hey a man's gotta have values and I value money even more than your affection for me.

I can argue audio all day but attacks on my character really get under my skin.  Piss off, chump.  You don't need permission to dredge up past posts so knock yourself out and paint yourself as the paranoid loser you are.

If you really want to get down, I saved the attack you had for me over at AN.  I played the high ground there but I saved that post for a rainy day.  It's raining outside my window and my trigger finger is itchy.  One more crap attack from you and I'll air that baby in Fight Club and see where the court of public opinion falls.

BTW - I don't recommend you pursue this.  It will not reflect well upon you.

[Zero]

Time-Out for yous guys.. 

[rajacat]

Yes, time to go stand in the corner.

[BrianM]

If it's a choice between vitriol and dorm room pot-smoking, I'll take the vitriol.  More, please!

[rajacat]

I disagree. Maybe they should pass the peace pipe.
Peace not war.

[TheChairGuy]

This is one stupid, endless, time-consuming hobby we're involved with, no?

I've boiled it down to fairly simple elements now.....when I turn on my system and I like what I hear, I leave it.  If something sounds off, I tinker (without spending serious dough) until it sounds good again 

What's right is what makes you happy - and that changes thru the years with age, and subjectivity.  If your happy no matter what your doing to your system - then either you need to try a bit harder or your system is not the source of your unhappiness - something other in your life is. 

I shelved my whole system for 6 years and listened to a Panasonic boombox 1993-2000 because I knew what a distraction 'audio' was for me and I needed that time to establish my business(es) and family.  It was time well spent - I don't have unhappy moments of that timeframe.   

I'm now co-exiting peacefully in my life, with music around, once again 7 years later    It feels great to have balance - may many of you afflicted as I was make peace with your system soon

John

[acd483]

This is one stupid, endless, time-consuming hobby we're involved with, no?

I've boiled it down to fairly simple elements now.....when I turn on my system and I like what I hear, I leave it.  If something sounds off, I tinker (without spending serious dough) until it sounds good again 

What's right is what makes you happy - and that changes thru the years with age, and subjectivity.  If your happy no matter what your doing to your system - then either you need to try a bit harder or your system is not the source of your unhappiness - something other in your life is. 

I shelved my whole system for 6 years and listened to a Panasonic boombox 1993-2000 because I knew what a distraction 'audio' was for me and I needed that time to establish my business(es) and family.  It was time well spent - I don't have unhappy moments of that timeframe.  

I'm now co-exiting peacefully in my life, with music around, once again 7 years later    It feels great to have balance - may many of you afflicted as I was make peace with your system soon

John

Your post further convinces me that this "hobby" (though I think it's more of a disorder) is based more on the pursuit of the components than on listening to music. The addiction to the purchasing/selling cycle can be kicked as you have demonstrated and the truth is that music over the boombox is the same as music over the Hi-Fi, it just doesn't sound as good. But the music still stirs your soul in the same way. I've argued that about iPods as well. Non-audiophiles are just as happy listening to the same song as we are, probably more as they aren't "burdened" with the quest to reproduce it as well as possible.

The only way to enjoy being an audiophile is to research, listen and understand, quite literally, the state of the art before moving cash around. Once you've built a system...just enjoy the music, it's not going to sound much different at a certain point.