[Tomcat]

One more favourite quote from the article:
Quote:

This natural tendency to "try hard" is a fatal mistake because it is diametrically opposed to normal music-listening practice. By concentrating on the specific, the subject misses the overall experience that is the true indicator of audio equipment quality.

Exactly: we should be listening to the music, enjoying it, and we should not marvel about scientific models and measurements that are only there to predict how well we will be able to with specific equipment. Because all we have to do to establish this is to listen to this equipment - sorry: to the music coming through this equipment.

Tyll's anecdote is fairly disturbing: Quote:

"Does the quality of reproduction affect the listeners ability to experience the art of the music?" The answer was a unanimous, but tentative, no.

If this opinion of the SoundStage writers was valid, we could just stop whatever we are doing here. It would be completely meaningless. We could all get the boom box, Tyll is talking about. Why should we care? Why should Tyll care with any of his designs?

Well, I care, to me, there IS a difference. And I suggest the following: whenever music is as enjoyable on a boom box as on hifi-equipment, this hifi-equipment might just be doing something very important very wrong. If anyone feels there is no increase in musical enjoyment due to his hifi-equipment, he should definitely start re-thinking his criteria for choosing it. Fast.

 

[Tyll Hertsens]

>>>>If this opinion of the SoundStage writers was valid, we could just stop whatever we are doing here. It would be completely meaningless. We could all get the boom box, Tyll is talking about. Why should we care? Why should Tyll care with any of his designs?

The point is that the experiencing of art and the pleasureable and satisfactory reproduction of an audio system are two completely different things.

>>>(from me earlier) tentative because we all believed that meditation was possible on a bed of nails, but we would all rather do it in a La-Z-Boy.

Basically, I know I'm building a La-Z-Boy for people to listen to music with. I guess the point is that I hate it when people refuse to buy high quality music that is poorly recorded. I listen to a lot of old jazz and much of it is mono! It took me a long time to stop obsessing about sound quality enough to enjoy the music.

 

[eric343]

You sound like my dad. He dosen't care about the quality of his music so long as he can hear it. (Well, so he says. But HE was the one who insisted on getting a McIntosh when our old amp went to the Great Magnolia Hi-Fi in the Sky)

 

[rickcr42]

funny thing about jazz (hey Tyll !)

as a reproduction , as in cd , enjoyable but PLANNED

Real jazz needs to be heard live

The virtuosity,the spontaneous chord changes (watch the drummer and bass player,they follow whoever takes the lead,and if good , well......)

but know what ?

Try to sit still at a live jazz performance

can't be done

some part of your body will be slidin' wit' the music

As for musical enjoyment VS "supersystem"

At home I do headphones , kinda an unwind thing after work

To/from work I listen to FM radio, "Classic Rock",may be classic now but oldies to me (and nothin' new holds me lyrically since '82 or so)

On the job we do a piece of **** "boombox" set to an "oldies " station

Oldies as in the '50s to early '70s

Most of these songs sound like crap on a good system,but somehow sound great on "low fi" , even AM

Why ?

Because it used to be about the song , not the sound

Give me well engineered, clean tight , "ART" over cans

But out loud it is about the song,nothin' special , nothin' fancy ,

But when is the last time you were with some buds and a song came on that all knew ,and all started singing

Was not the "system" that got the juices going,was about the music , the SONG

Good tunes , good buds , good times/memories

Don't get better man

Rambiling Rick

 

[bootman]

AMEN!

 

[Tomcat]

Tyll,
Of course the only important thing here is to enjoy the music, to gather its meaning, to experience its emotional content, to treasure the interpretation. But that is exactly the reason why this: Quote:

The point is that the experiencing of art and the pleasureable and satisfactory reproduction of an audio system are two completely different things.

amounts to a declaration of bankruptcy. I know you are the Prez and all, but if you honestly belive that this is true, you might as well step down and let Dan Quayle run things. Why bother? If all I wanted was a comfy chair, I would get myself one. My concern is not so much how poor recordings are, it is how poor most equipment makes them sound. Can you enjoy monaural recordings from the thirties - you bet. And you will enjoy it even more with better equipment. But if all you end up enjoying with your gear is a handful of audiophile recordings, this equipment might be a lot of things - one thing it certainly isn't: better.

 

[Tyll Hertsens]

Maybe you misunderstand me---maybe I shouldn't go on long rants late at night!

>>My concern is not so much how poor recordings are, it is how poor most equipment makes them sound. Can you enjoy monaural recordings from the thirties - you bet. And you will enjoy it even more with better equipment.

I'm pretty sure GOOD equipment (in the way I define it) doesn't make bad recordings sound better. But bad equipment definitely makes good recording sound worse. It’s just that neither RUINS the ability to enjoy music unless you are obsessive about the reproduction quality. But, I admit that poor reproduction can make it harder to reach that enjoyment. What the hell was my point, anyway?

Oh yeah! The problem is that the objectivists and the subjectivists are actually talking about two different things and don’t know it. Objectivists essentially believe that audio equipment that is perfectly transparent (the signal coming out is exactly like the signal going in) is best to listen to; the subjectivists essentially believe that some distortions are pleasurable and some aren’t, and that audio products must be tested by “pleasure” measurement test equipment---which is a human being!

I guess I mainly fall into the first category professionally, with a healthy smattering of the second in my personal life. I believe that audio equipment should reproduce what the recording engineer put on the disk. I believe that good audio equipment should not editorialize. But, I also believe that there is nothing wrong with breaking out a tube amp when I play my old 70s rock LPs ‘cause the recordings generally suck so bad that sweetening them up makes listening to them a more comfortable experience.

FWIW, I'm about to move and in the new place I'll have the EAR V20 driving some DiMarzio speakers in the living room. It's a very "sweet" sounding system. For sure a subjectivist system. But I intend mainly to be playing MP3s through it, although I will have my Sonic Frontiers CD player there. I find the V20 and DiMarzio speakers really "pleasure up" the MP3s, and I like having 60 Gig of my favorite jazz MP3s on random play so I don't have flip disks.

>>>I know you are the Prez and all, but if you honestly belive that this is true, you might as well step down and let Dan Quayle run things. Why bother?

Because so many people do such a poor job of delivering value per dollar in the audio equipment business. A lot of high end equipment is poor design with expensive parts; a lot of cheap equipment is good design with crappy parts. I’d like to have a product line that is a balance. I think we’ve done that, and with our latest offering, have done it even better.

Way too many people involved with high-end audio want to make this whole thing very magical sounding. They want to tie the equipment’s performance with some ecstatic ability to access the music. I think they end up elevating the equipment to a position of far too much responsibility. I think the artist and recording engineer have done most of the work long before it hits your equipment.

But, is there room in this way of thinking for an enthusiastic participation with the equipment? Sure! Does the industry need fans like those in this space? Absolutely! Especially in headphones, as there are sooooo many bad ones out there. No matter what you do, any piece of audio equipment will degrade the sound; and the mechanical transducers---speakers, headphones, phono cartridges---are the points of greatest distortion. Since they are going to distort, why not have fans who are able to select them based on how pleasurable the distortion is? The only way to do that is subjectively, because a subject is the only thing that can measure pleasure.

As an amp manufacturer, I have the opportunity of building a device that has low distortion and is able to reduce the amount of distortion inherent in the headphones by driving them with authority----the authority of fidelity to the signal. That is an objective task. It’s my experience that, assuming a great recording, fidelity of reproduction is the most consistent way to deliver a pleasurable result. The reason for this is that the pleasure comes from the artist communicating something to you, and not from some distortion artifact in the signal. It’s also may experience that given a bad recording, reproduction quality can make it less comfortable to be in a state of awareness to receive the artists communication, and audio equipment that distorts pleasurably can help you---which is what the La-Z-Boy thing is all about.

Personally, I’ve found that I like articulate transparence and a little bit of smoothness to the sound of the equipment itself; and then a lot of material non-attachment (lack of subjective obsession) to the equipment to get the most out of my music listening.

 

[eric343]

Good points, as usual...

I personally find that I'm more of an objective listener-I think the best headphones should be totally transparent-so that you don't even notice that they're there, sonically AND physically; for example when I tried the Orpheus the one thing I did notice (since I couldn't really hear the music because of backround noise) was that they were almost not there-the earpads were *very* *very* comfy and the headband put very little pressure on these nice velvet (ooohhh...

) earpads so you didn't notice them-Kinda like the AKG1000s must be like.

Whoa. That was all one sentence. My English teacher would freak out

 

[Tomcat]

Tyll, so you DO have a sweet tooth. What a relief. Although I see myself firmly in the subjectivists' camp, I had some problem picturing you as a transistor-wielding Satan. But when it comes to food, I want nothing but candy. To me, "euphonic distortion" is a contradiction in terms.

I think you have put this very well:
"Objectivists essentially believe that audio equipment that is perfectly transparent (the signal coming out is exactly like the signal going in) is best to listen to; the subjectivists essentially believe that some distortions are pleasurable and some aren’t, and that audio products must be tested by “pleasure” measurement test equipment---which is a human being!"

I would add one thing, though. The subjectivists' standard argument about distortion is, that any equipment will introduce distortion that is to some degree obscuring, colouring and distracting. Output that is perfectly identical to the input is impossible. But what we candy-lovers always say is that it is the nature of the distortions that is at issue. That the predominantly second order harmonic distortion caused by valve amplifiers is simply more benign, less distracting and less objectionable than higher and odd order harmonic distortion produced by transistor amplifiers, for example. The question is not whether a component "editorializes", they all do, the question is how relevant this audible and often measurable error is. And the only reliable way to grasp the true psychoacoustic relevance of these distortions and imperfections is to listen with your own ears (although I tend to use my ears for this).

I admit: It is far easier for me than for you. I am just a consumer. I don't have to improve recipes, I just have to go the candy store and demand a feast. All I ask for is obesity, this pleasure thing, uuh - music.

 

[AndreYew]

Tyll Hertsens writes:

"Personally, I’ve found that I like articulate transparence and a little bit of smoothness to the sound of the equipment itself;"

Tyll,

It's very interesting that that's the sound you look for, because my initial impression when listening to a friend's Home/HD600 setup a couple of years ago was of very impressive articulate transparence without obtrusive highlighting --- sort of like you could see and feel all the hinges of the notes in 3D relief, if that makes any sense at all. It's very nice, and I hope you guys continue that trend with your new amps, especially with the New Max/stepped attenuator I have on order

.

--Andre

 

[AndreYew]

eric343 writes

"the headband put very little pressure on these nice velvet (ooohhh...

) earpads so you didn't notice them-Kinda like the AKG1000s must be like."

Eric,

The AKG K1000s are actually uncomfortable for me. The little pads that sit against your head put a lot of pressure on my head (which is wider than normal), and I have to shift the K1000s around after a while so the pressure moves around. I haven't been brave enough to try the Grado headband fix on them yet --- bend the steel bands out a little to relieve the pressure.

--Andre

 

[eric343]

Oh. Well, I've never tried the K1000s, but I'll keep it in mind. (I have a slightly large head too

)