Tubegoover (love the moniker, BTW), I agree with everything you wrote. I don't for a minute think that everyone agrees with my take on the issue of accuracy. Moreover, my goals are actually the same as yours; it really is about balance. My comments about the importance of optimizing a system's accuracy were made in the context of answering the original question: does accuracy matter? As I said, I believe that it does, particularly if the alternative is to abandon the quest for such simply because it can never be achieved completely. In my experience there is a fairly wide window of system tuning possibilities that allows us to enjoy the majority of recordings and still appreciate the great ones for what they are. Your point about listeners who prefer pop music is well taken, and I agree (I listen to a fair amount of pop). But my point is not about judgment of a person's taste in music (I listen to just about everything. Well, not hip-hop; unless my son insists. And in fainess, I must say, there have been a couple of occasions when I have gotten it; sort of)
Rodman99999, and Learsfool, thanks for the kind words. Rodman, you wrote: ***To apply the, "standard" of live music, to one's listening, one MUST be familiar with the same. MULTITUDES are NOT*** How true! But that still does not invalidate the standard nor the use of it by those who care. Part of the problem when this subject comes up in discussion among audiophiles is that we tend to get defensive about our goals in this hobby. We want to be right. I prefer to think that a big part of the reason that this is so is the very personal nature of music. It is a wonderful testimony to the power of it, and it's importance in people's lives. We tend to want to validate our choices in music and it's playback. But anyone who says that the standard does not exist, or has no value, because their choice in music makes the standard irrelevant, or because they just don't care to put their energies in that department has his head in the sand.
Jax2, while reference to a painter/sculptor is valid from the standpoint that it may be equally difficult to determine artist intent, I don't think that how you use that reference deals with what the core issue is re accuracy. The visual equivalent of what we are talking about would be (I think) to suggest that it is equally valid to look at a Cornell painting wearing sunglasses, because it pleases our eyes more that way, instead of the stark reality of whatever he painted; and then try to determine artist intent. I don't think it can be done. I suppose one could try. But then, what would be the point? It would no longer be a what he intended. Is that not obvious?
The idea that the way each of us hears is different, is irrelevant; unless we fall into the typical audiophile trap of needing to be right in the eyes (ears) of others. Think about it for a moment. Yes, it's true that Carnegie Hall may sound different to me than it does to you. But, when you listen to a recording made in Carnegie Hall, you are using the same ears that you had when you sat in the hall. Whatever aberrations were caused by our particular set of ears while in the hall, will be the same aberrations that will be caused when we listen to our stereos. So, it is most definitely valid to use a familiar sound (Carnegie Hall) to judge the accuracy of our audio system. I realize, of course, that it depends on wether the recording process did a good enough job of capturing the sound of the hall. But here is where I think we tend to exaggerate the point about the futility of that kind of exercise. To suggest, for instance, that system tuning could cause a recording of Ella Fitzgerald to no longer sound like Ella, is quite a stretch. I doubt any audiophile on this forum has assembled a sytem that sounds so bad that it would not be possible to tell it is Ella singing; or that makes a tenor sax sound like an alto sax. I suggest that if that is the case the main culprit is lack of familiarity with the sound of her voice, and of the saxophone. Who here thinks that the sound produced by the tiny speaker in our cell phone is capable of producing high-end sound? Now, ask yourself: when was the last time your wife, or parent, or child called you, and you did not immediately know who was calling? It is all about familiarity.
Rodman99999, and Learsfool, thanks for the kind words. Rodman, you wrote: ***To apply the, "standard" of live music, to one's listening, one MUST be familiar with the same. MULTITUDES are NOT*** How true! But that still does not invalidate the standard nor the use of it by those who care. Part of the problem when this subject comes up in discussion among audiophiles is that we tend to get defensive about our goals in this hobby. We want to be right. I prefer to think that a big part of the reason that this is so is the very personal nature of music. It is a wonderful testimony to the power of it, and it's importance in people's lives. We tend to want to validate our choices in music and it's playback. But anyone who says that the standard does not exist, or has no value, because their choice in music makes the standard irrelevant, or because they just don't care to put their energies in that department has his head in the sand.
Jax2, while reference to a painter/sculptor is valid from the standpoint that it may be equally difficult to determine artist intent, I don't think that how you use that reference deals with what the core issue is re accuracy. The visual equivalent of what we are talking about would be (I think) to suggest that it is equally valid to look at a Cornell painting wearing sunglasses, because it pleases our eyes more that way, instead of the stark reality of whatever he painted; and then try to determine artist intent. I don't think it can be done. I suppose one could try. But then, what would be the point? It would no longer be a what he intended. Is that not obvious?
The idea that the way each of us hears is different, is irrelevant; unless we fall into the typical audiophile trap of needing to be right in the eyes (ears) of others. Think about it for a moment. Yes, it's true that Carnegie Hall may sound different to me than it does to you. But, when you listen to a recording made in Carnegie Hall, you are using the same ears that you had when you sat in the hall. Whatever aberrations were caused by our particular set of ears while in the hall, will be the same aberrations that will be caused when we listen to our stereos. So, it is most definitely valid to use a familiar sound (Carnegie Hall) to judge the accuracy of our audio system. I realize, of course, that it depends on wether the recording process did a good enough job of capturing the sound of the hall. But here is where I think we tend to exaggerate the point about the futility of that kind of exercise. To suggest, for instance, that system tuning could cause a recording of Ella Fitzgerald to no longer sound like Ella, is quite a stretch. I doubt any audiophile on this forum has assembled a sytem that sounds so bad that it would not be possible to tell it is Ella singing; or that makes a tenor sax sound like an alto sax. I suggest that if that is the case the main culprit is lack of familiarity with the sound of her voice, and of the saxophone. Who here thinks that the sound produced by the tiny speaker in our cell phone is capable of producing high-end sound? Now, ask yourself: when was the last time your wife, or parent, or child called you, and you did not immediately know who was calling? It is all about familiarity.