Objectivity vs Subjectivity

[Passive_audio_enthusiast]

We'll need to ask Cher.

As an aside, I think the way we are now enlightened at HFV, someone needs to enlighten Dali, Marantz, Dynaudio, Fluance, B&W etc. on what "as the artist intended" means so that they change their published philosophy. They probably need to use a better figure of speech so that it is not lost on us.

Cher’s music including auto tune is heard by Cher at the studio and she knows how it sound in the final product. So when I say artist intended it’s what’s at the recording desk I mean not the sound coming out of the artists mouth. Depending on the mic used, eq used in the recording, what is sung there infront of the mic can be vastly different in the recording. At this point, the producer/artist/ engineer they all agree about what should be there as the sound of the final recording and to me that’s artist intended.

When it comes to certain genre of music like electronic there aren’t even singers so people like daft punk decide - ok this is it, this goes on the disc

 

[Passive_audio_enthusiast]

Have you even heard of Alan Parsons and Steven Wilson , and know what they do ?

I am not friends with them.

 

[keith_correa]

Cher’s music including auto tune is heard by Cher at the studio and she knows how it sound in the final product. So when I say artist intended it’s what’s at the recording desk I mean not the sound coming out of the artists mouth. Depending on the mic used, eq used in the recording, what is sung there infront of the mic can be vastly different in the recording. At this point, the producer/artist/ engineer they all agree about what should be there as the sound of the final recording and to me that’s artist intended.

But I will still nitpick and insist on interpreting "as the artist intended" literally even though I know it wasn't meant literally. Why? Because that's the way I get my jollies.

 

[chander]

Again - sorry for being that one child with a learning disability. Even if the artist's inputs were taken in consideration while creating the published music. How do we know what was the record they created at the studio? Won't you need a frequency response spec sheet for every song to actually be able to tell whether your speakers are true to the source or not?

 

[Bloom@83]

But I will still nitpick and insist on interpreting "as the artist intended" literally even though I know it wasn't meant literally. Why? Because that's the way I get my jollies.

And it gets my goat to think that we could be so delusional , after years in this hobby , as to believe that mass market CDs and streaming content would be identical to the original master (be that analog or digital )….
And that a section of us are fools to desperately get hold of that Steven Wilson mix , or the Grundmann / Hoffman / Guthrie master / the Pallais pressing or the hot cut UK first print…

Again - sorry for being that one child with a learning disability. Even if the artist's inputs were taken in consideration while creating the published music. How do we know what was the record they created at the studio? Won't you need a frequency response spec sheet for every song to actually be able to tell whether your speakers are true to the source or not?

Only by listening to the original master , which in any case is stored away in vaults for pre 80s music, and the unaltered digital files post 80s. None of which are available to us.
Which is why we rely on the works of the famed mastering and mixing engineers who in most case get access to the master tapes to make a reissue edition, or , getting hold of the first pressing (LP or CD ).
Of course there are many exceptions where the musician and record producer / mastering engineer collaborated to ensure that the sonic qualities are true fidelity and of the highest quality in mass market media , but it isn’t the usual norm.

 

[Analogous]

So…
We can’t ask the artist what they intended
We don’t have access to the master versions
We have in some cases several versions, mixes, remastered, compressed files of the same piece of music
Older music was recorded with older technology.
Every recording engineer makes his/her own choices while mastering music.
Our equipment imposes it’s own influence on the reproduction
Some of it measures well, others not
Our musical preferences vary widely
The formats we use as sources vary
The sound signature, spl, preferred by us vary widely
Our susceptibility to marketing and snake oil claims vary
Our rooms are different, each has its own acoustic properties
Our hearing ability varies by age, amount of abuse, disease
Our enjoyment of music varies depending on our mood and chemicals imbibed.
We are on page 26 of this discussion with no end in sight
We sometimes agree on the above and at other times disagree. Mostly in an amicable way.

It’s bewildering…

 

[arj]

So…
We can’t ask the artist what they intended
We don’t have access to the master versions
We have in some cases several versions, mixes, remastered, compressed files of the same piece of music
Older music was recorded with older technology.
Every recording engineer makes his/her own choices while mastering music.
Our equipment imposes it’s own influence on the reproduction
Some of it measures well, others not
Our musical preferences vary widely
The formats we use as sources vary
The sound signature, spl, preferred by us vary widely
Our susceptibility to marketing and snake oil claims vary
Our rooms are different, each has its own acoustic properties
Our hearing ability varies by age, amount of abuse, disease
Our enjoyment of music varies depending on our mood and chemicals imbibed.
We are on page 26 of this discussion with no end in sight
We sometimes agree on the above and at other times disagree. Mostly in an amicable way.

It’s bewildering…

Now maybe solve the Tube vs SS, Vinyl vs digital and "do power cords matter" question so Audio forums all over the world can close down and we can then move over to solving lesser issues like world hunger and Ukraine war

 

[keith_correa]

Again - sorry for being that one child with a learning disability. Even if the artist's inputs were taken in consideration while creating the published music. How do we know what was the record they created at the studio? Won't you need a frequency response spec sheet for every song to actually be able to tell whether your speakers are true to the source or not?

If you mean the media that has been published for our consumption by the studio, we don't need a per song meta data - all we need to ensure is that the equipment the media is played on colors the data the least. I say, "the least" because all equipment WILL color the sound; it is inevitable and we need to accept that - only the degree and nature of coloration differs and varies. Coloration can be harmonious and many of us like it - nothing wrong with that preference. Does that answer your Q?

 

[chander]

If you mean the media that has been published for our consumption by the studio, we don't need a per song meta data - all we need to ensure is that the equipment the media is played on colors the data the least. I say, "the least" because all equipment WILL color the sound; it is inevitable and we need to accept that - only the degree and nature of coloration differs and varies. Coloration can be harmonious and many of us like it - nothing wrong with that preference. Does that answer your Q?

Yes, cause these are my thoughts exactly!

 

[jls001]

So…
We can’t ask the artist what they intended
We don’t have access to the master versions
We have in some cases several versions, mixes, remastered, compressed files of the same piece of music
Older music was recorded with older technology.
Every recording engineer makes his/her own choices while mastering music.
Our equipment imposes it’s own influence on the reproduction
Some of it measures well, others not
Our musical preferences vary widely
The formats we use as sources vary
The sound signature, spl, preferred by us vary widely
Our susceptibility to marketing and snake oil claims vary
Our rooms are different, each has its own acoustic properties
Our hearing ability varies by age, amount of abuse, disease
Our enjoyment of music varies depending on our mood and chemicals imbibed.
We are on page 26 of this discussion with no end in sight
We sometimes agree on the above and at other times disagree. Mostly in an amicable way.

It’s bewildering…

This is an excellent one-post executive summary of the quandary we're in

 

[Passive_audio_enthusiast]

Again - sorry for being that one child with a learning disability. Even if the artist's inputs were taken in consideration while creating the published music. How do we know what was the record they created at the studio? Won't you need a frequency response spec sheet for every song to actually be able to tell whether your speakers are true to the source or not?

That’s why studios have standards. At the listening desk all studios use equipment that adheres to a standard flat frequency response.

While setting up the studio they measure if it’s flat at the listening spot using a DSP or by treating it acoustically, so that any eq the engineer adds to a music instrument via a software or a real console eq is accurately represented to his ears, so that he can Judge if he needs more or less of that frequency band.

Don’t think this DSP correction is coloring the recording as it is done at the output stage of the recording setup - meaning we are still working on our recording with a flat frequency device. Think this way, I m playing a sound from my computer- I am changing the bass / treble controls on my computer speaker . So that lets me hear a colored sound but the sound coming until the computer speaker isn’t altered.


Let me give a scenario:
Lets say with no sound playing I have 0 db level on all my frequency bands. When I hit a drum, I excite certain frequencies say -from 60hz to 500hz. Let’s assume I am working with a non standard equipment with a non flat frequency response- say at 100hz it has a dip of 3 db.

so whatever I hear through has a deficiency of 3 db at 100hz. This affects my judgement and if I am already hearing the drum wrong. If I think ok the kick isn’t enough, I may think of pushing the slider few dbs up. Say I pushed the slider at 100hz 6dbs and now I feel satisfied.

Now if we play this on a speaker with a flat frequency it would be 3 db boosted than I intended.

But luckily studios are all set to standard flat frequency response at listening spot to allow good judgement meaning that if you start r cording at one studio, you can do the rest of it in another studio.

At home unless you have a flat frequency at the listening spot somehow you aren’t hearing it like they heard it. May be your version of colored is appealing to your ears and it’s alright as people has preferences. But it doesn’t change the fact that you are not hearing what was intended in the recording.

 

[Passive_audio_enthusiast]

So…
We can’t ask the artist what they intended
We don’t have access to the master versions
We have in some cases several versions, mixes, remastered, compressed files of the same piece of music
Older music was recorded with older technology.
Every recording engineer makes his/her own choices while mastering music.
Our equipment imposes it’s own influence on the reproduction
Some of it measures well, others not
Our musical preferences vary widely
The formats we use as sources vary
The sound signature, spl, preferred by us vary widely
Our susceptibility to marketing and snake oil claims vary
Our rooms are different, each has its own acoustic properties
Our hearing ability varies by age, amount of abuse, disease
Our enjoyment of music varies depending on our mood and chemicals imbibed.
We are on page 26 of this discussion with no end in sight
We sometimes agree on the above and at other times disagree. Mostly in an amicable way.

It’s bewildering…

Why should we come to an agreement? Nobody has to compromise their perspective here if m not wrong.

 

[vkalia]

So…
We can’t ask the artist what they intended
We don’t have access to the master versions
We have in some cases several versions, mixes, remastered, compressed files of the same piece of music
Older music was recorded with older technology.
Every recording engineer makes his/her own choices while mastering music.
Our equipment imposes it’s own influence on the reproduction
Some of it measures well, others not
Our musical preferences vary widely
The formats we use as sources vary
The sound signature, spl, preferred by us vary widely
Our susceptibility to marketing and snake oil claims vary
Our rooms are different, each has its own acoustic properties
Our hearing ability varies by age, amount of abuse, disease
Our enjoyment of music varies depending on our mood and chemicals imbibed.
We are on page 26 of this discussion with no end in sight
We sometimes agree on the above and at other times disagree. Mostly in an amicable way.

It’s bewildering…

One might even be forced to conclude that there are no real truisms in audio, other than “if you like it, it is good”….

Huh. Go figure.

Also, a clarification not specifically related to the above post: while i have been beating the drums of “preference > reference” in this thread, i dont think that objectivity or science has no role to play.

For starters, good engineering is a way for audio makers to design and make a product that meets their sound goals. Otherwise, how do you achieve your goals?

Second, when it comes to specific, fact-based decisions - “does A sound different from B” - science trumps opinion all the time. Does amp A really sound different from amp B or is it a small difference in gain between the two that is fooling your senses? Are you REALLY hearing a difference between 2 cables or is that placebo?

Science is the best tool for deciding if a difference exists or to achieve a specific performance goal.
Your ears are the best tool for deciding if that difference matters or which is better.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[coaltrain]

Why should we come to an agreement? Nobody has to compromise their perspective here if m not wrong.

That’s the most sensible post in this thread so far, and I completely agree with your sentiment.

Btw, Alan Parsons and Steve Wilson are two of the most highly regarded recording engineers out there who share your distaste for high end audio. The video provides an insight into their recording techniques and has nothing to do with high end hifi, despite the title.

 

[Analogous]

a frequency response spec sheet for every song

@chander, I think that’s a important insight: a reference FR spec sheet for every recorded piece of music so that those who are interested can use this to tailor their set ups closest to “how it sounded when the artists performed”

 

[arj]

@chander, I think that’s a important insight: a reference FR spec sheet for every recorded piece of music so that those who are interested can use this to tailor their set ups closest to “how it sounded when the artists performed”

The commercial point is how many would be interested and also have the means to accurately measure

 

[Bloom@83]

And then there would be Amir critiquing FR graphs of Abbey Road by Giles Martin 50th Anniversary or Thick as a Brick by Steven Wilson. Can’t wait to see it !

 

[Analogous]

The commercial point is how many would be interested and also have the means to accurately measure

Absolutely! But we are talking about some FM who are desirous of “maximum accuracy”
Probably never going to happen (Imagine Bob Dylan’s expression if asked to do this!!!)

 

[Passive_audio_enthusiast]

Absolutely! But we are talking about some FM who are desirous of “maximum accuracy”
Probably never going to happen (Imagine Bob Dylan’s expression if asked to do this!!!)

This is an example of „whataboutery“

 

[Analogous]

This is an example of „whataboutery“

Well spotted, but do note there is no malice intended.