Thread: Posting Of Listening System.....Your Thoughts

Posts: 59
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6
Post by Dan Popp August 7, 2007 (51 of 59)
Dan:
How can we theorize to each other what the unknown sounds like?

Dusty:
Um -- we're humans, we can extrapolate. That's exactly what I meant by insulting our intelligence.

Dan:
But there is no way of knowing whether your extrapolation is correct. Let me give you an analogy. In a pro audio forum, a poster suggested that we take the old recordings (on 78) of Pavarotti and process them so as to hear the great tenor in today's hi-fidelity sound. Most of us argued that that was not possible, since the missing information (and added information) couldn't be added (subtracted) with absolute certainty. He argued that certainty was not what was desired, but an effect of hearing Pavarotti in "hi-fi." We argued that "hi-fi" was not possible since fidelity to a known standard was impossible.

And round and round it went. But it's the same argument. You can extrapolate, but only if you don't care whether your extrapolation is right or wrong, because you can never know.

Dusty:
by saying that you can see how revealing your system could be used incorrectly, you're saying exactly that you do not see the value in how it could be used correctly.

Dan:
You're right about that - I don't see the value. You do, so convince me.

Dusty:
If I understand your stance correctly, the potential for bad is enough for you to withdraw said information. You're not even addressing the potential for good, and that's what I find insulting.

Dan:
I'm sorry you feel insulted by my not "addressing the potential for good." No one has "addressed" how the other factors can be mitigated. IOW, if the person's hearing ability, and the room, and the listener's familiarity with the system and the room, are - all considered together - less a factor than the system, why is that? "Because I say so" is not really an argument, and could be seen by some (very sensitive) folks as an insult to their intelligence.

Let's do a little thought experiment.

We have a true Golden-Eared mastering engineer, and a construction worker with some unknown amount of hearing damage. The mastering engineer will be listening on a mediocre system in a parking garage - but he has listened to this system in this garage for more than a decade (he uses it to test his masters in a "worst-case-scenario").

The construction worker is set up for the first time ever in the best listening room in the hemisphere with the best system ever heard on the planet. We give them the same recording, which both of them will review. You and I have to bet $1,000 apiece on the one who'll give the most accurate and useful review.

I know where my money's going.

Until you can explain why the other factors are not determinative, I have to say that you are the one "leaving things unsaid."

Dusty:
Well, that would be painting the picture in black and white now, wouldn't it? You can't take all the other variables out of the equation -- you will be perfectly justified and correct in that in some of the cases, people will get the wrong information. My prediction is that this will be a relatively small fraction -- the rest of us will get useful information out of it.

Dan:
But you are "withdrawing" information from us, Dusty. On what are you basing your "relatively small fraction" prediction? I'm basing my opinion on 30 years of experience in the studio. I don't say that to trump you or to insult you, but this is the problem with your position as I see it. You have not had a lot of experience with different rooms and listeners, but you do know equipment, so that's somehow the key.

At least that's how it's coming across to me.
Post by Dan Popp August 8, 2007 (52 of 59)
More insults cunningly disguised as rational discussion:

I’ve been involved in a number of equipment “shootouts” at various studios. There are four or five seasoned audio engineers in a very good room listening over a very good system. The “host” engineer (the guy who works in that room every day) is comfortable and confident about his impressions. The guests can hear differences but aren’t so sure about them as to form an opinion. What the guests want is to get the recording of the shootout so they can take it to their own studios and hear it where they can understand what they’re hearing. The host may have the best system and Control Room of the bunch, but until they’ve spent some time in it, the guests cannot reliably “filter out” the system from the source.

This leads me to the opinion that just knowing another guy’s system is not enough for me to understand what he’s hearing.

As for “extrapolation” (let’s use the regular word for it: “guess”), audio engineers routinely want to know what their mix sounds like in a car. They are familiar with the mix. They are familiar with their car – both the system and the environment. They should be able (one might think) to “guess” what the mix would sound like in their car. It should be no more complicated than closing your eyes and hearing it in your head. But is that what they do? No; they burn a CD of the mix and actually walk it out to their car and listen to it! Why? Because the audio engineer, who does a lot more guessing of this sort than most folks, but who has much more at stake on his “extrapolations,” does not trust them.

When he has checked this set of guesses against reality, he will be able to make a better guess next time, and a better guess the time after that, etc. Yet he will never come to a point where he considers his guesses so reliable that he will forego the CD and just trust his extrapolation (there may be some engineers who reach this pinnacle; I don’t know of any). And without those reality checks in the car, the guesses would never get any better.

Finally, a story.

Bob Dylan was driving at night when he heard his then-latest song come over the radio. He stopped the car at a pay phone and called the producer to have the song remixed. This should not have happened if the “immaculate extrapolation” theory were correct. He knew the music, he knew his car, he knew what songs sound like on the radio, he even knew this radio station. He should have been able to flawlessly predict what his song would sound like on the air. His guess had been so far off that he ordered the remix.

People who are rewarded and/or punished for their decisions on recordings (i.e. professionals) don’t trust their guesses. They know that familiarity with the listening environment is very important to understanding what one hears. They may be sure, on a given day, of what they hear, but they will never pretend to be sure of what you hear.
Post by tream August 8, 2007 (53 of 59)
Dan Popp said:

More insults cunningly disguised as rational discussion:

I’ve been involved in a number of equipment “shootouts” at various studios. There are four or five seasoned audio engineers in a very good room listening over a very good system. The “host” engineer (the guy who works in that room every day) is comfortable and confident about his impressions. The guests can hear differences but aren’t so sure about them as to form an opinion. What the guests want is to get the recording of the shootout so they can take it to their own studios and hear it where they can understand what they’re hearing. The host may have the best system and Control Room of the bunch, but until they’ve spent some time in it, the guests cannot reliably “filter out” the system from the source.

This leads me to the opinion that just knowing another guy’s system is not enough for me to understand what he’s hearing.

As for “extrapolation” (let’s use the regular word for it: “guess”), audio engineers routinely want to know what their mix sounds like in a car. They are familiar with the mix. They are familiar with their car – both the system and the environment. They should be able (one might think) to “guess” what the mix would sound like in their car. It should be no more complicated than closing your eyes and hearing it in your head. But is that what they do? No; they burn a CD of the mix and actually walk it out to their car and listen to it! Why? Because the audio engineer, who does a lot more guessing of this sort than most folks, but who has much more at stake on his “extrapolations,” does not trust them.

When he has checked this set of guesses against reality, he will be able to make a better guess next time, and a better guess the time after that, etc. Yet he will never come to a point where he considers his guesses so reliable that he will forego the CD and just trust his extrapolation (there may be some engineers who reach this pinnacle; I don’t know of any). And without those reality checks in the car, the guesses would never get any better.

Finally, a story.

Bob Dylan was driving at night when he heard his then-latest song come over the radio. He stopped the car at a pay phone and called the producer to have the song remixed. This should not have happened if the “immaculate extrapolation” theory were correct. He knew the music, he knew his car, he knew what songs sound like on the radio, he even knew this radio station. He should have been able to flawlessly predict what his song would sound like on the air. His guess had been so far off that he ordered the remix.

People who are rewarded and/or punished for their decisions on recordings (i.e. professionals) don’t trust their guesses. They know that familiarity with the listening environment is very important to understanding what one hears. They may be sure, on a given day, of what they hear, but they will never pretend to be sure of what you hear.
Interesting points. I am still in favor of posting systems but I believe your point can be extrapolated to provide backup why rapid AB switching doesn't work as an "objective" means to test the relative merits of equipment. One needs to listen to a variety of source material for extended lengths of time to ensure that one is hearing what one is hearing. You need to level set, to hear music over an extended period.

I wouldn't take the info of the system only -I'd need a level set (how did recordings X and Y that the reviewer has written elsewhere and that I own sound on my system?) before drawing any definitive conclusions about what someone is hearing from a given disc. But I still believe posting the system gives valuable and interesting information.
Post by Dusty Chalk August 8, 2007 (54 of 59)
Dan Popp said:

More insults cunningly disguised as rational discussion:...
Au contraire -- I appreciate you keeping this discussion at the civilized level, and hope you appreciate my imperfect doing of same.

I have no argument specifically against your last point. Because I know it's true. But it underlines my point (and provides my fodder against your general point): lack of perfection of this system does not mean that one should not do it. The engineer would like to know what the mix sounds like on every system, but he cannot. So his compromise is to listen to the mix on as many different systems as possible and extrapolate what it would sound like on the others. So he still does *some* extrapolation.

I have more to say, but will save it for another day. Suffice it to say, I agree to disagree with you on this, and as I said before, will of course, honor your desire not to share, and will not try to browbeat you into doing so.

Oh, and I completely agree with both you and tream about equipment -- there really is no substitution for living with equipment in one's own home system. How can one possibly account for the "fatigue factor"?

EDIT: Sorry, didn't see your previous post -- will respond to it -- don't want to be accused of "hiding" anything. The short answer is: I totally made it (the "small fraction" comment) up. I'm just optimistic that way. I think most people are smart enough to know what to do with the information.
Post by Dusty Chalk August 8, 2007 (55 of 59)
Dan:
But there is no way of knowing whether your extrapolation is correct.

Dusty:
It's not. Nothing is perfect. There will certainly be cases where our extrapolations are incorrect. So what? In fact, it would be black and white to say that anyone will get the extrapolations totally perfectly right, just as it would be black and white for you to say that anyone will get the extrapolations totally perfectly wrong. I think (note: pulling this out of thin air -- that optimism again) that most people will get it _mostly right_. The ones who tell you that your system is inferior in such-and-such an area are the loud-mouthed minority, I think most people will quietly think to themselves, "oh, that *is* a very nice system".

Dan:
Let me give you an analogy...*Most of us* (emphasis Dusty's) argued that that was not possible...He argued that certainty was not what was desired, but an effect of hearing Pavarotti in "hi-fi."

Dusty:
Link please. I'm just curious -- from what you've already said, this person sounds like they don't really know what they're talking about. I mean, just ask him, "define 'hi-fi'". I have no idea what he means, and I'm sure, based on what you said about the missing information, that that part of the argument has already been run into the ground. I'm just interested to know how the rest of the argument went.

But I'd also like to point out what *you* said: "most of us", I.E. most of you did get it right, it was only the one idiot. Do you really want to define what you do because of the one idiot? There will always be idiots. I think you should cater to the other people.

Dan:
You're right about that - I don't see the value. You do, so convince me.

Dusty:
Um...um...I forget. I think I was just being selfish -- I enjoy reading about nice systems -- especially well set up ones.

Well, for example -- there are many recordings that substitute slightly hyped midbass for accurate deep bass. Different recordings will sound different on different systems. I heard a CD recording that sounded totally overblown in the bass on full-range floor-standing speakers, but sounded perfectly correct on low-frequency-limited bookshelves. So if a critic were to say that such-and-such a recording had wonderful accurate deep bass, I want to know if I'm going to like it (I tend to like deep accurate bass, but not overblown midbass, as on my system, the midbass is already hyped).

Ditto midrange -- that's a lot harder to suss out on a lot of systems. A slightly recessed midrange, a slightly upfront midrange -- it makes it very hard to tell if the recording is accurate, or if the vocalist has been put forward in the mix a bit.

Dan:
No one has "addressed" how the other factors can be mitigated.

Dusty:
That's because they can't. Let me rephrase your sentence the way I read it, in an attempt to show you what I think is the problem: "No one has addressed how *all* the other factors can be mitigated." When one phrases it that way, it becomes more obvious that you're being perfectionist. I think if it were me (and I will eventually start writing amateur reviews), I'd try to adopt a holistic approach -- do the best I can to convey as accurately as I can as much information as I can, and hope that a conscientious reader will accurately try to glean the correct information out of it.

Dan:
IOW, if the person's hearing ability, and the room, and the listener's familiarity with the system and the room, are - all considered together - less a factor than the system, why is that?

Dusty:
It's not "less", and if I have not yet made that clear, I apologize. It's just another iota of information, to be added to the pile. Of course I trust that you know your system well, and that what you're trying to convey is a critique of the recording, and not your system. As I mentioned when I first joined into this thread, that's just as important as the amount of ear-hair. I had hoped that didn't go unnoticed -- my point was, no-one thinks about how much ear-hair they have, and how it affects their listening experience. They just hope that they subconsciously take it into account, and their readers do the same. I also think it's important to know if someone listens usually in stereo or surround, whether they expect to enjoy the performance or not, whether they usually listen to that genre or not, and whether or not they like an "aggressive" surround mix (most don't; I do; I would prefer to read reviews of aggressive mixes from people who enjoy them), that sort of thing. But that doesn't mean that I'll conclude generalizations -- people who enjoy aggressive surround mixes are few and far between, I'll take what I can get. But a good reviewer will let me know that they don't usually like aggressive mixes, and from the rest of the review, I can still try to determine if I'll enjoy everything else about the recording or not.

Dan:
You and I have to bet $1,000 apiece on the one who'll give the most accurate and useful review.

Dusty:
Peh -- I need more information. What if this construction worker is intimately familiar with all the other work of this rap artist, and the golden-earred mastering engineer doesn't work with rap, never listens to it at all, in fact, hates it? Just as an example of the sort of information I find missing in this thought experiment.

Like I said, it's just another piece of information on the pile, it's not the deciding factor, and I don't think I'm alone -- I don't think anyone is going to say, "pah, this person only listens to SACD and vinyl, never CD's, I'm never going to read any of his reviews ever again". Or whatever.

Dan:
Until you can explain why the other factors are not determinative, I have to say that you are the one "leaving things unsaid."

Dusty:
I didn't mean to convey that the other factors are not determinative -- in fact, once you say it like that, I have to agree that your familiarity with your system -- and my trusting that you are, and I do trust that you are -- is much more important than your system, whatever it is.

Dan:
But you are "withdrawing" information from us, Dusty. On what are you basing your "relatively small fraction" prediction?

Dusty:
As I said in my above post, the polite way of phrasing it is "from out of thin air" -- in other words, I'm totally making this up. I'm optimistic, that's all. Stereophile makes a living on these people, but they're not the ones usually writing in to the editor.

Again, don't mean to browbeat you into it with this lengthy discussion, but...you asked. In fact, if I had to synopsize my own post, I hope you see that I'm kind of withdrawing the active request. I still think it would be useful, and would read it with relish if you provided it, but I think I understand your perspective well enough to understand why you're not, and I will respect that.
Post by Dan Popp August 9, 2007 (56 of 59)
Dusty, I don’t want to extend this discussion into infinity, so here are just a few closing comments:

Your position seems to be that, no matter how many ‘unknowns’ are added to the equation, knowledge of the reviewer’s system is useful information. I say that, at some very early point in the process of adding unknowns, our information becomes relatively useless.

To take your view to its logical but absurd conclusion, the reviewer could be set up on an airport runway, or be stone deaf, and knowing which interconnects he’s using is information of some value.

Your illustration of the speakers with the known mid-bass bump is a perfect example of the danger of “knowing” something and potentially being misled by your own “knowledge.” The reviewer may be listening in a room with a null at that point in the spectrum. At another spot in the same room there is a boost at those frequencies. You don’t know his room. You don’t know where he’s sitting in the room. Therefore you don’t know how the exaggerated mid-bass output of the speakers is reaching his ears - much less what’s happening in his ears and brain as they receive and interpret the sonics.

Thanks for the discussion. I hope that at least you will agree that you were mistaken when you charged me with insulting the intelligence of the readers here. Happy listening.
Post by sgb August 9, 2007 (57 of 59)
seth said:

If you're spending hundreds of dollars on cables, the money could be better spent on acoustically fitting the listening room. In fact, I'm surprised how rarely even the most died hard audiophiles talk about their listening room. Having had my system setup in two completely different rooms, the difference was night and day. One room was drier due to carpeting and other sound absorbing objects. As a result, subtle details in recordings were just lost, and levels always needed to be set higher.

So you could have state-of-the-art audio reproduction technology in your home, but a poor listening space could severely hold it back. So then how much would knowing someone's equipment really tell us about how the recordings are being reproduced in their home?
Or how he perceives the sound he hears?

Totally agree with all of your other points.
Post by raffells August 9, 2007 (58 of 59)
Khorn said:

Tell us what you think about this subject.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

http://www.treklens.com/gallery/Europe/United_Kingdom/photo22588.htm
Post by hYdrociTy August 11, 2007 (59 of 59)
I rewired my AKG K501's with nordost solar wind speaker wire and love the results. I use blue heaven interconnects and also zu oxyfuel(extremely well made). I think the 40 dollar 1m oxyfuel interconnect is worth the money just for the quality- cold forged and feels like it can take abuse of constant plugging/unplugging.

For digital cables i use blue jeans cable coax which is similarly high quality in construction as the zu but in no frills form and costs less than 25 bucks...
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6

Closed