Right on Bomarc. I think it's high time that the vast majority of audiophiles stand up and admit that they are not pursuing accuracy...rather they are pursuing their own "personal sound". There is nothing wrong with this and I am surely doing this as well.
There are many components that produce, what I find to be, a "pleasing" sound. These are not accurate. I find horns a little too harsh when played live. Therefore I've built a system that is very warm and, usually more pleasing to me. So I've spent tens of thousands of dollars more than the average person and have produced a less accurate system. It sounds bigger and fuller, has a much wider soundstage and certainly plays much louder. And it sure does look good. Sure, there are many nuances that can be heard that aren't heard in a mass-market stereo. But the opposite also applies. I just started using an ipod and the cheap earbuds reveal sounds in almost every single song that my stereo does not!
So, as someone who has played music for 22 years out of the 26 that I've walked this green earth let me be the first to stand up and say that I am not pursuing accuracy. |
Sean, I'm not trying to intentionally ruffle feathers here, but that being said... You claim to be pursuing accuracy and dislike either etched or sugar coated sounds then proclaim your love of a certain type of tube amp (although I don't believe you're currently using this). In my humble opinion, while tube amps can sound wonderful, and I am, in fact, in the midst of setting up a second tube only system, they are, to my ears, very inaccurate. But you say that if you had to choose between etched and sugar coated you would choose the latter (as would I) so perhaps that is where your love of tubes comes into play.
That being said, as a musician, I have a great deal of experience both playing and listening to live music. Live music is almost always etched and bright while, at the same time as Kkursula pointed out, there can be some fat bass in there as well. Yet, for some reason, I do not seek out these attributes in my system. I am currently running Vienna Acoustics. I think these speakers really sound quite beautiful. Consider photography for a moment. Many photographers will place a filter over the lens of the camera--this results in many beautiful pictures. Are these an accurate reproduction of the original? Clearly not, but they are very pleasing. Presumably, the photographer thought this was MORE pleasing than the original. Whether on purpose, or by accident, my speakers place a beautiful filter over the music. I thoroughly enjoy it, but I do not for a second pretend that it is accurate.
This next comment is not in the slightest way directed at you because I really don't know anything about you...it's more directed at the slice of the audiophile community that I know personally. The average audiophile (in my experience) does not attend many live events. Their love of music, mysteriously, does not seem to extend beyond the confines of their listeing room. As such, when I see so many people touting accuracy as their end-all goal, I have to ask myself, "who are they to know what accuracy is?"
I find this to be a fascinating hobby and there is room for all whether one's involvement stems from the pursuit of accuracy (and this IS the pursuit of some people), the pursuit of a pleasing sound, the pursuit of great looking equipment, or perhaps, simply the pursuit of pissing off one's wife. I just wish we were all more honest. I think we could all make more informed decisions if we knew the motivating forces behind a particular endorsement.
I apologize if I have offended, this is simply an opinion like the thousands of others on here. |
Unsound, I don't quite follow your logic. I guess I would agree with you, I just don't see how that differs from what I said. It is all an act of expression. That could be an expression of perceived accuracy or simply something different and pleasant.
Sean, sounds like fun with all the systems. I truly am jealous. Is it new gear or old gear? And if they all sound different which one is more correct? Logically, if we are pursuing accuracy there are clearly systems that are "right" and systems that are "wrong". Taking that a step further, If you have 5 systems that all sound differently that means that, at the very least, you have 4 "wrong" systems. The fact that you are keeping them around tells me that you enjoy, at least some of the time, inaccuracy. I also have a "wrong" system. But I have a "good" system (for me) and I bet you have 5 "good" (maybe "great") sytems for you.
As far as attending live music shows...good for you. Again, that statement was not directed at you personally, just audiophiles as a whole.
When I talk about live music and knowing how an instrument generally sounds, I am not talking about amplified music in some large venue. That is the very epitome of inaccuracy. Worse everything than we all have at home plus distortion. If we want to compare our systems to that then nearly everyone here has far more accurate systems than what is heard at these venues. To hear accuracy you need to hear an unamplified instrument. Generally, to hear an unamplified instrument you need to be playing it. To KNOW accuracy (unless you are extraordinarily gifted) you need enormous experience playing.
Finally, since I feel I'm getting off track with Sean's original post... Without knowing 1/100th of what you do in your area of expertise, based on what you say, I agree with you that those particular components seem to be trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Maybe they sound great, or maybe they sound like crap, but it doesn't seem likely that they would be pushing the limits of accuracy if, in fact, that's what they were trying to accomplish. |
Zaikesman, I really like how you phrased that, "live acoustic music can never really be accused of sounding overly bright or etched: it is what it is." I completely agree. I was not very clear in my previous statement. I meant acoustic and should have specified that. I used those terms as they seem to be defined by audiophiles. A lot of what I hear accused of being bright I find to be more accurate than something accused of being "neutral" (I do, however, prefer the "neutral" or "warm" sounding equipment). Live acoustic music, "Is what it is" I was just pointing out that, in audiophilese, it is generally bright (while the bass can sound fat).
Also, I have never set up a tubed system. I am embarking on my first, but I have had the pleasure of listening to some and generally like what I hear. However, going back to my assertion that live music is "bright" and tubes are always described as "warm", clearly this is not a match.
Lastly, I am talking about the sound of an instrument, you are talking about the sound that instrument makes through and amp and out a speaker. These are two completely different things. Granted, if you play electric, there isn't much of a sound without the amp and speaker. I don't play guitar much so I don't have much experience comparing tube and SS amps. But you talk about the pleasing distortion of a tube amp, then call SS dead and lifeless. Perhaps dead and lifeless is more accurate? I have no idea in this case--I simply don't have the experience. You appear to have chosen a sound that is pleasing to you and attached the label "accurate" to it. Then you dismiss SS for not sounding like it, therefore it's inaccurate. THIS IS NOT A SS vs. TUBE COMMENT!!! I'm just pointing out a flaw in the collective audiphile logic. We all speak of accuracy, but we are all talking about different things; usually we are simply (perhaps unknowingly) referring to a particular sound that we like.
And I can't stop now without getting this off of my chest. Assuming one knows what accurate is, the second that individual invokes vocabulary words like: warm, bright, etched, rolled of highs, lack of lower octaves etc. you have automatically identified that component (or chain of components) as inaccurate. An accurate component "is what it is". There would be no description. |
I realize that we are limited by the original recording and then again by the copying of that recording. I realize that, no matter how good one's ear is and no matter what equipment they have, music out of ANY system will be sub-par in comparison to the original performance. I also realize that our goal (for the most part) is to come as close as possible to faithfully reproducing the music on whatever media we happen to be playing within a given budget. My original point, which I still maintain, is that the average audiophile, has absolutely no idea what accurate sounds like.
Zaikesman, Unsound and Sean, please realize that this statement is not directed at you as individuals. You're creditials and experience in the realm of live music may far outweigh mine. If it does though, I feel you would understand this point I am trying to make. By the way, to avoid offending anyone else, my "average" audiophile to which I keep referring, is simply the stereotype I'm applying to audiogon from the observations I've made of individuals I know personally in this hobby. On the whole, with a few exceptions, they do not attend live shows with any greater frequency than the average population and, more importantly, they do not play an instrument. Their ability to hear the subtleties and nuances of music is generally far less developed than a musician. I know this will most likely fall on deaf "golden" ears with which we so pride ourselves, but the true golden ears are not to be found among audiophiles. I am not talking about enjoyment. Some of the guys seriously into this hobby could sit and listen to music all day long; their enjoyment of it is obvious and I think this is wonderful.
I guess what prompted this outburst of mine, is that I am frustrated by the advice which flies around on these pages regarding components or systems and how accurately they reproduce the music. Here's some simple logic here which I briefly addressed in a response to Sean regarding his 5 systems: If two components/system sound different from each other, then one of them is more accurate than the other. The fact that there is not a set of magical components or a magical system out there (and by this logic there could be only one) is proof of one of two scenarios: either the average audiophile is not striving to achieve accuracy (that would be me), or the average audiophile has no idea what accuracy is. Since it has been so clearly stated by hundreds of people on this page that they are searching for accuracy, we are left to conclude that, on the whole, they are unable to perceive what accuracy even is. If one doesn't feel they fit into this category they may not be "average". I am hardly offering myself up as the end-all expert in this matter; I'm simply trying to point out that the emperor is not wearing any clothes. Although, in this situation, most of us don't even have the eyes to see him in the first place. I'm just looking for a little honesty. |
I see a total abandonment of logic in this thread.
Sean, your contention is that new gear is getting worse. For the sake of argument, lets say that it is (and for what its worth, I would probably be inclined to agree with this statement). Why is this?
Going back to an earlier response I made in this thread, you have 5 different systems, 4 solid state and 1 tube. Do these all sound exactly the same? Of course not. If you are pursuing accuracy (as you claim to be) why the need for 5 different systems that all have different sounds? Using logic, assuming all 5 systems dont sound exactly the same, you have at least 4 inaccurate systemsperhaps all five. Accurate is accurate, there are no degrees. If something sounds different from the original it is, by definition, inaccurate. The farther from this original sound, the more inaccurate a system becomes. Why are you keeping these inaccurate systems around? Presumably because you enjoy the sound that they make, accurate or not. Why then are you knocking Legacy speakers? For the record, I think they sound dreadful too, but someone out there might love the sound even though it is inaccurate. Lets try to stick to logic and avoid hypocrisy.
In addition to this fact (and going back to some of my earlier posts in this thread) is my contention that the average audiophile is not honest with himself; he is either not seeking accuracy or, most often, has no idea what accuracy is. What then is the standard for purchasing new equipment? How about greed, lust and envy of anothers possession for a start. People complain about $1000 machined aluminum face plates and silly blue LEDs, yet the high-end masses purchase them. The amount of times Ive read the phrase Pride of ownership on these pages disgusts me.
So whats wrong with knocking a $9500 Hovland that measures like an Onkyo receiver? You are entitled to say that it doesnt perform like it should and its grossly overpriced, but to make such a big fuss over this particular piece in this sad day and age in high end audio seems silly when people are paying $1000/watt in so many other products. Why on earth should Hovland reduce the asking price for this amplifier (or Legacy for their speakers or ANYONE in high end audio for that matter)? That will only result in less people buying it because the sound of a component is rarely the number one criteria in purchasing equipment in high end audio. And why on earth should Hovland or Legacy take the time to perfect their product when that wont result in increased sales either? They are running a business and the high end audiophile community allows them (I would say encourages them) to continue running it as such. Im just happy that many people who buy this are going to experience that warm fuzzy feeling known as pride of ownership that they simply would be missing out on by purchasing an amplifier for half of the price that out performs theirs in everyway.
Yes, a lot of new gear sucks. But it is the audiophile community as a whole that has created this situation and we are only making it worse. If you choose to make a stand now, abide by logic, avoid hypocrisy and you may see others follow your lead. |
