[HiFiSoundGuy]

  http://www.tsound.com/audio_hell.html

[JohnR]

I'm afraid he lost me in the giant leap from "If you agree that the goal of your audio system should be to involve us emotionally, physiologically and intellectually with a musical performance" to "An ideal audio system should recreate an exact acoustical analog of the recorded program"

[BrianM]

This:

The more accurate system is the one which reproduces more differences - more contrast between the various program sources.

and this:

Some orchestral recordings, for example, will present stages beyond the confines of the speaker borders, others tend to gather between the speakers; some will seem to articulate instruments in space; others present them in a mass as if perceived from a balcony; some will present the winds recessed deep into the orchestra; others up front; some will overwhelm us with a bass drum of tremendous power; others barely distinguish between the character of timpani and bass drum. In respect to our critical evaluation process, it is of absolutely no consequence that these differences may have resulted from performing style or recording methodology and manufacture, or that they may have completely misrepresented the actual live event. Therefore, when comparing two speaker systems, it would be a mistake to assume that the one which always presents a gigantic stage well beyond the confines of the speakers, for example, is more accurate. You might like - even prefer - what the system does to staging, but the other speaker, because it is realizing differences between recordings, is very likely more accurate; and in respect to all the other variables from recording to recording, may turn out to be more revealing of the performance.

...I'm in total agreement with!  The article is talking about any and all components in the chain, but I think this pertains the most by far to comparing different speakers.  For me the best speakers are always the ones that reveal the most differences between recordings; and the more you're hearing these obvious differences the safer you probably are on the accuracy front.  (It's always one of the most enjoyable things about a great speaker: every recording venue sounds different, and it's fun to keep jumping from one venue to another.)  Whereas, assuming some baseline of information retrieval is being met, the various upstream components are mainly judged by how unobtrusive they are...

I do disagree in part with the notion that one shouldn't rely on certain reference recordings.  Reference quality recordings are great for determining the outer limits of stage width/depth and presence/ambiance.  I agree that it's probably a mistake to use them to try and judge all the fussy tonal details, since every reference recording will be different.

Interesting article!

[Les Lammers]

You can drive yourself crazy in this pursuit/hobby. What is a reference system? Whose reference? I just want a rig that makes poor recordings sound OK and good recordings give you warm fuzzies. There is a fine line between, detail, transparency, musicality and insanity.

[RobertB53]

I agree with Les.  The best playback rigs don't just sound good, they feel good.  I wonder if this writer would endorse as superior the accuracy of older single driver or single panel loudspeaker systems?  "The road to Hell is paved with good inventions"?

[BrianM]

The best playback rigs don't just sound good, they feel good.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that. It's basically tautological.

I wonder if this writer would endorse as superior the accuracy of older single driver or single panel loudspeaker systems?

I wonder what if anything makes you wonder that?  I didn't detect anything in the article to suggest he would.  Maybe I missed it.

[Bigfish]

You can drive yourself crazy in this hobby. What is a reference system? Whose reference? I just want a rig that makes poor recordings sound OK and good recordings give you warm fuzzies. There is a fine line between, detail, transparency, musicality and insanity.

Les:

I think the key word in your post is "hobby." 

Over the years I have had several hobbies like Fishing, hunting, biking and golf.  The lastest being the great hobby of Audio.  Being a hobby means I want to spend time enjoying that particular interest.  While participating in a hobby I will start out with a certian level of gear and always (and I mean always) end-up wanting something different.  I guess what I am saying is compiling a system to play music and having audio become a hobby are not one and the same.  If something becomes a hobby you will never be satisfied, for long, with the gear you currently own no matter how good it is perceived to be.  Life is short and you better enjoy it while you can!

Ken

[BrianM]

Bigfish, I certainly see your point but don't think we can make blanket statements about hobbies. Everyone's a little different.  A hobby may entail endless pursuit and no ultimate satisfaction for you; for someone else the pursuit could be the satisfaction (even if it doesn't always last), etc.  I think it comes down to what proportion this particular hobby is about listening to the gear vs. listening to the music.  For me (being a musician by inclination and training) it's always been about the music first.  I was a record collector long before I started dabbling in being an "audiophile."  Record collecting is its own hobby, of course, with all the concomitant hopeless pursuits of the perfect performance of something.  My personal audio disease has managed to stop short of being perennially dissatisfied with my playback equipment, fortunately.  No one's immune to the joys of acquisition; hopefully, though, you have enough recordings to love that you need countless hours with one particular rig playing all of them through.

[RobertB53]

BrianM, by "feel" I do actually mean sound sensate, palpable.  Good rigs please, not only ears and brain, but the whole human organism.  We can hear heavy bass in our seats, but I think it goes beyond that.  I suspect that we respond physically to our environment in ways of which we are unaware.  That may be the "cloud of unknowing" of zen, but I don't think that it's tautology.  The author cedes that all sound reproduction is compromised and,yet, asserts that "accuracy is the only worthwhile objective."  Would you buy a preamplifier if part of its bandwidth was filtered (not matter how gentle the slope) and out of phase?  Maybe, Peter Walker was right in his belief that the phase anomalies associated with chokes and coils in passive crossovers are negligible, but this becomes more problematic if you believe, as I do, that bad sound can hurt your ears and your feet, as well.

[mca]

Forget about all that crap and just enjoy the music 

[Wayner]

To me, it's all a mater of taste. As I've grown older (and hopefully wiser), I have become more forgiving of some components, realizing that almost all have shortcomings or trade-offs in design. I certainly believe that most designs are a series of compromises, just because of the damn laws of physics.

What I do look for is soundstage! That is the thing that will win my heart (and ears) over every time. If the bass is a little weak, but the soundstage is killer, I can smile. Some people like bass pounding in the face, I don't, nor do I like music that presents the bottom end like that, Boom, boom and more boom. I also like the high end to roll-off nice and easy, just like my hearing. When the soundstage approaches "surround-sound" from 2 channel sources, I know the chain of components is happy.

The hologram of music is mostly realized when the stage is way wider than the speakers and that I can sit almost anywhere in the listening area and not be cheated from one channel or another.

Audio Hell can be avoided, by forgiving the system for not being perfect. As Marshall McLuhan once asked "Is it the medium or the message"?

How can you spot someone living in Audio Hell? He is the guy that has every tweak under the sun trying to perfect something that can't be perfected. I'm talking speaker cable elevators, exotic interconnects, myrtle wood blocks and thousands of dollars spent on power cords. You just never get there and you are never happy. For myself, I seek until there is the point of no return. Then I get a nice cup of tea and put some Pat Matheny on or something like that.

Wayner  

[Les Lammers]

You can drive yourself crazy in this hobby. What is a reference system? Whose reference? I just want a rig that makes poor recordings sound OK and good recordings give you warm fuzzies. There is a fine line between, detail, transparency, musicality and insanity.

Les:

I think the key word in your post is "hobby." 

Over the years I have had several hobbies like Fishing, hunting, biking and golf.  The lastest being the great hobby of Audio.  Being a hobby means I want to spend time enjoying that particular interest.  While participating in a hobby I will start out with a certian level of gear and always (and I mean always) end-up wanting something different.  I guess what I am saying is compiling a system to play music and having audio become a hobby are not one and the same.  If something becomes a hobby you will never be satisfied, for long, with the gear you currently own no matter how good it is perceived to be.  Life is short and you better enjoy it while you can!

Ken

Hi Ken,


I changed my original post. I have done the hobby thing quite by accident and now am just going to assemble a system that sounds good on all recordings. I have had things so *transparent, resolving and detailed* that it made most music unlistenable. As long as you are having fun...have fun.  

Les

[JLM]

I understand the detail vs. musicality vs. insanity as a question of left vs. right side of brain.  My analytical side wants the detail and to understand how all this works.  My emotive side needs to turn all that off and simply enjoy. 

Errors of comission and "excessive" detail makes the analytical side work harder to "make sense" out of what is being heard, leading to listener fatigue.  (Is that part of the road to AUDIO HELL?)  Single driver/planar systems could produce fewer of these types of errors.  (Is that what Robert was eluding to?)

I enjoy each of my systems in their own ways.  Les, I agree with you.  A good system doesn't ruin poor recordings (in terms of my audiophile tastes), but does make the good recordings really shine.

[RobertB53]

By the way, in one of his "Proverbs of Hell," William Blake wrote that one will never know what is enough until he knows what is too much.  I've thought that might apply, especially, to the purchase of high fidelity.  Or detail.

[TheChairGuy]

I've been on that road a few times.......I've taken a right fine detour of late, thankfully 

[Rasta]

As long as you're on the road, it's not too late to do a u-turn.  But, once you're there - it's all over baby.   

The only thing that article proves, is that art and music are bigger than idiotic theories.   

[BrianM]

The only thing that article proves, is that art and music are bigger than idiotic theories.   

Which "idiotic theory" are you referring to?