View Full Version : Why HiFi Doesn't Work
Chippy_boy
15-10-2009, 17:04
I'll start a new post rather than editing the last one and risking crossed postings...
Many people prefer vinyl, don't they. I can understand that. It can sound really good. The trouble is, many people who do prefer vinyl (in fact every single one of the people I have met) justify this by the beliefy that vinyl is managing to capture some ethereal elements to the music that is otherwise lost with the horrible low-fi that is digital and yucky yucky digitization. Yuck. "Vinyl sounds better because it is better".
Well I say "what a load of tosh". Vinyl is better because it sounds better. (If indeed you do prefer the sound.) That doesn't mean it's more *accurate*. Merely that it's own set of idiosyncracies happen to sound rather pleasant, and potentially more pleasant that those of the digital process.
I see no conflict or inconsistency in being able to say "digital is more accurate but vinyl sounds better".
Chippy_boy
15-10-2009, 17:06
I know what you mean, but no. I often choose equipment, cables, or whatever that reveal a more 'truthful' sound rather than what I think sounds 'nice'. I could cite numerous examples of this :)
Marco.
Ok, I see your previous post and suggest we leave it here. My final comment is that "truthful" and "nice" are just different words to describe different subjective assessments. "Truthful" can't be objective unless we have an objective reference point, which we do not.
You'll have to excuse me, as I'm having my dinner :)
However, I'll come back to you because I'm sure that it won't come as much of a surprise to know I completely disagree with your post #501 above! I'll explain later why.
Marco.
Rare Bird
15-10-2009, 17:13
Run for your life Chippy
:lolsign:
I see no conflict or inconsistency in being able to say "digital is more accurate but vinyl sounds better".
That's an over-generalisation.
In some cases digital might be less accurate (there are some awful 're-masters' out there) and/or vinyl might sound worse (I have some appallingly-pressed LPs).
But in general I agree with your basic premise; unless you can measure it, a recording's 'accuracy' is just another subjective viewpoint.
Actually, I typed that reply before seeing your last post! So you may wish to retract that statement...
And just how well do you know me in order to say it's "the same old story"? You only joined here a few months back.
Be honest here, because I've always been rather suspicious of you since you refused to give your real name when joining, do we know each other from some forum in the past?
Marco.
He's not me, if that's what you're thinking!
Chippy,
Ok, I see your previous post and suggest we leave it here. My final comment is that "truthful" and "nice" are just different words to describe different subjective assessments. "Truthful" can't be objective unless we have an objective reference point, which we do not.
I completely agree, but in reality it’s not as simple as that (things rarely are in audio). The problem is that people with a mainly objective mindset, such as you, (and thus a propensity for believing that measurements are the best, or perhaps even only, benchmark of judging what true ‘accuracy’ is) tend to think in ‘black & white’, when often shades of grey are needed to get closer to the truth... ;)
The fact is, what we can currently measure in audio doesn't tell the whole story, so therefore we have to use our ears for subjective assessment in order to try and obtain the missing part of that story... And the thing is, some people's subjective assessment of this is better than others, for a variety of reasons - one of them being our respective level of experience of listening to live (unamplified) music, and therefore knowing how things are supposed to sound in real life.
Let me explain what I meant earlier by this:
I often choose equipment, cables, or whatever that reveal a more 'truthful' sound rather than what I think sounds 'nice'. I could cite numerous examples of this
What I mean is that I have often auditioned cables, for example, and chosen the ones that highlighted deficiencies in a recording, thus in the process making the sound appear superficially ‘worse’ to my ears - i.e. the cables I selected showed the ‘nastiness’ of production in the recording more than others which glossed over this ‘nastiness’, and thus made the recording sound superficially ‘nicer’. Some commercial recordings on CD are a good example of this.
Therefore in that instance, I am deliberately not choosing what sounds ‘nicer’ to my ears, but rather what I consider as being more ‘accurate’.
Do you see the difference?
I’ve also done this with equipment, and indeed build my whole system around those principles. I also know, from experience, what real instruments sound like when heard live; for example, a violin. Anyone who’s heard a violin being played up close knows that the sound it makes is not particularly ‘nice’ – it is quite fierce and in some ways unpleasant. Trumpets are the same.
I will therefore always select the component or cable which gets me as close as possible to the sound of that violin or trumpet in real life, fierceness/unpleasantness included, than something which makes it sound ‘nicer’ to my ears than it should be, and thus less faithful to (what I perceive) as the 'real' sound.
I’m in the middle of doing a few things at the moment, but I will return later and tackle your typically misguided ‘objective’ views on vinyl! :)
Marco.
I’m in the middle of doing a few things at the moment, but I will return later and tackle your typically misguided ‘objective’ views on vinyl! :)
.
That will be interesting. I'm fond of tapes, but I don't know much about vinyl (always used it mostly to record).
So, although I've had vinyl for more than 30 years, I have plenty of things to learn about it. :smoking:
The Grand Wazoo
15-10-2009, 18:09
Well I say "what a load of tosh". Vinyl is better because it sounds better. (If indeed you do prefer the sound.) That doesn't mean it's more *accurate*. Merely that it's own set of idiosyncracies happen to sound rather pleasant, and potentially more pleasant that those of the digital process.
Chippy,
Take a look at these statements:
I don't like digital recordings because of the way they spoil the sound. They take a great performance and always just chop it up into little bits, discarding lots of them, taking the better part of the emotional content out of some of the greatest performances, leaving me with a sterile facsimile of the original music.
I like digital recordings because they sound great. Just the greatest facsimile of the original music.
The first represents an analogue recording.
The second represents a digital recording.
The second is accurate to what was said, but it doesn't tell the whole story - it's economical with the truth
Now, the first statement may have been said with an accent (colouration?), but it still tells the full story. It doesn't matter whether the second stament is said with an accent or not - it does not & can not ever tell the whole story.
I think nearly all the arguements here are flawed. Terms like accuracy and truthfulness in reality are a nonsense. Who can say anything is truthful or accurate? Thereafter, if a sound is 'nice', that will always be subjective to the listener that likes it.
To put this in perspective, let's take an accoustic instrument played in a room. No electronics, just pure sound. You will like or dislike what you hear. When recorded, the sound although not altered will probably show distortion because of the the environment it was recorded in. I've commented many times that the 'live performance' as a bench mark is rubbish because every live venue is different and the same music played in one place sounds different played elseware. Surely it will also record differently and on measurement one will seem better than the other but on listening to the recording, the poorer measuring recording might be preferred.
In such circumstances, the applications of words such as truthful and accurate are illogical because actually they have no real meaning. What really counts is what the listener is satisfied with at home in terms of their reproduced sound and this will always remain individually subjective so it is worthless challenging anothers perceptions if they are satisfied with what they have.
My one further observation on this is that through networking and getting to meet and know others in the hobby, it doesn't take long for me to identify others who seem to hear and perceive sound in the same way I do. That makes me comfortable when I have a load of audiofool friends around and they share my take on my system. Of course, we all could be wrong and deluded, but there is some security to be had from shared and corresponding opinion. I'm sure the term 'nice' for sound is as bad as 'accurate' and 'truthful'.
It's much more about a balanced presentation. Balanced sound reproduction is the key. This is why we can get budget systems that blow away mega bucks alternatives and if you concentrate on the balance, you'll be far more rational when you consider how to spend your hard earned money in your next upgrade, do you not think?
Keep it light, keep it subjective, everyones subjectivity is rightfully individual, but when sharing, some peoples subjectivity is more equal than others (apologies,G Orwell).
If you are happy with what you have, simply, you've got it right.....well done!
Regards,
Greg
I think we've drifted far from the original subject of digital room correction.
If an LP sounds good or bad, or, if a CD sounds good or bad, it's to do with the human beings creating the finished product, rather than the technology used IMO. Use both, as I do, with an amp that doesn't react to ultrasonic "CD player" mush and with a good phono stage and you'll be able to enjoy music and not bother what it's played on....
Hi Greg,
Good post - I completely agree with you :)
I'd only add that all of us have an idea in our minds, based on our respective experience, of how instruments and voices sound when played (un-amplified) live, so that is consciously or subconsciously what we use as our 'benchmark' when judging music heard on a hi-fi system, and thus how we 'connect' with the reproduced sound on a musical level. Therefore based on that, we all have different ideas of what is considered as 'accurate'.
However, like I said before to Chippy - who's 'accurate' is more 'accurate': yours or mine?
Therefore, it's just like you say, using the term 'accurate' in relation to the music a hi-fi system reproduces just doesn't work in a real sense - it will of course only ever be our own version of 'accurate', and not genuine accuracy.
The trouble is, because measurements are 'God' to people of Chippy's mindset, he's only getting part of the story, so short of an almost total rethink, this message will never fully hit home.
Marco.
By the way all, just as an aside, I'd like to say that having met and drunk with Marco, what you get here of him in this two dimensional media seriously misrepresents his real persona. Although a big man of Latin appearance he is in person a gentle and most easy going and likeable individual. You could not want to meet a nicer bloke! He does not thrust his opinions on others and quietly likes to explore his and others music reproduction through trial and error at the live gatherings we attend. He is not pushy and actually can be very unassuming in his nature. Vigorous disagreement with him seems to be mostly encapsulated here.
How people present on forums often hides what the real person is like because of the limitations forums can offer. I also have a tendancy for robust posting but actually I hope in reality I'm appreciated as a reasonable man. Having said that, if I am not, I don't really care! ;)
Beechwoods
15-10-2009, 21:49
And having met both of you too, I'd have to say that you're spot on, Greg, for both of you :)
Group hug! http://i560.photobucket.com/albums/ss49/aos_images/smilies/zadiffgrouphug.gif
aquapiranha
15-10-2009, 21:50
By the way all, just as an aside, I'd like to say that having met and drunk with Marco, what you get here of him in this two dimensional media seriously misrepresents his real persona. Although a big man of Latin appearance he is in person a gentle and most easy going and likeable individual. You could not want to meet a nicer bloke! He does not thrust his opinions on others and quietly likes to explore his and others music reproduction through trial and error at the live gatherings we attend. He is not pushy and actually can be very unassuming in his nature. Vigorous disagreement with him seems to be mostly encapsulated here.
How people present on forums often hides what the real person is like because of the limitations forums can offer. I also have a tendancy for robust posting but actually I hope in reality I'm appreciated as a reasonable man. Having said that, if I am not, I don't really care! ;)
couldn't have put that better. :clap:
Aw shucks, Greg - what can I say?
I would definitely say the same about you (and also that you are a reasonable man); in fact you were missed at the last Owston meeting :)
It's a pity you couldn't make it, as IMO it was one of the best ones there's been.
He does not thrust his opinions on others and quietly likes to explore his and others music reproduction through trial and error at the live gatherings we attend.
I always do that when I'm learning from people who know far more about a subject than I do. There's a time to be 'robust' in expressing one's opinions, and also a time to step back and simply take it all in.
Marco.
Beechy and Steve, I've just read your posts, too... Group hug then chaps, but no tongues! :kiss:
Marco.
Chippy_boy
16-10-2009, 10:15
The trouble is, because measurements are 'God' to people of Chippy's mindset, he's only getting part of the story, so short of an almost total rethink, this message will never fully hit home.
Marco.
Completely untrue. Measurements are so far from being "God" in my mind. In fact I don't even think they are at all relevant.
As all of my posts above indicate, I am 100% of the opinion that things can sound pleasing, EVEN IF they measure worse than something else.
How you could have come up with the above conclusion is beyond me.
Rare Bird
16-10-2009, 10:19
How people present on forums often hides what the real person is like because of the limitations forums can offer.
God that is so true..
Completely untrue. Measurements are so far from being "God" in my mind. In fact I don't even think they are at all relevant.
As all of my posts above indicate, I am 100% of the opinion that things can sound pleasing, EVEN IF they measure worse than something else.
How you could have come up with the above conclusion is beyond me.
I have done so, based on what you've written in previous posts, not just the ones on this thread. It's simply the impression you give.
However, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong... You obviously know yourself better than I do! :)
No comment then on my earlier (lengthy) reply to you about my 'nicer' versus my version of 'accurate'?
Marco.
Chippy_boy
16-10-2009, 10:21
That's an over-generalisation.
In some cases digital might be less accurate (there are some awful 're-masters' out there) and/or vinyl might sound worse (I have some appallingly-pressed LPs).
But in general I agree with your basic premise; unless you can measure it, a recording's 'accuracy' is just another subjective viewpoint.
I agree. I was just trying to illustrate the point. In reality there are some truly dreadful cd's and marvellous lp's and the other way around.
By the way, lucky I don't have "Bristol" in my profile (which is where I live) or he really would have thought we are one and the same!
I'll add it now to your profile ;)
Why should I think that Joe and you are one and the same? There's little similarity in your opinions or writing style as far as I can see...
Marco.
Chippy_boy
16-10-2009, 11:14
I have done so, based on what you've written in previous posts, not just the ones on this thread. It's simply the impression you give.
However, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong... You obviously know yourself better than I do! :)
Thank you. Glad we cleared that up then.
No comment then on my earlier (lengthy) reply to you about my 'nicer' versus my version of 'accurate'?
Marco.
No because although you eloquently express a point of view, I don't agree. I was going to prattle on some more (and am still tempted to do so) but really everything that needs to be said has already been said.
Regards the Joe thing, I was just replying to his comment "He's not me, if that's what you're thinking!"
Cheers
Chip
Fair enough, Chips. It would be a boring world if we all thought the same! :)
Marco.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.