| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Playback Listening » Accuracy vs. Musicality (and YMMV) (70 posts, 4 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 4 of 4 (70 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 4
01-09-2026 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,818
Joined on 10-12-2006
Post #: 61
Post ID: 29481
Reply to: 29451
What We Aim to Reproduce
Wojtek dropped some interesting thoughts about "savage sound" on the "My/Your Audio Year In Summary" board, and I am trying to rekindle the "system specific" aspects of that discussion here. Perhaps some Music-specific stuff "should" wind up on the Musical Discussions board?

Back to "savage sound", I understand that some of us hope to be able to "recreate" any sort of Music with our home audio, not just the "proscribed version" of a couple of genres "most people" seem to settle for. Not sure we can simply set aside the issue of a composer's state of mind and intent, but if we do set that  aside, then we move on to the performers, the musicians and the conductors, then to the putative audience, and the entire recording and playback processes, apropos, not to mention the venue. Lots to talk about, blah, blah, blah. But something real we can talk about in the abstract is whether or not a system is capable of producing "savage sound" in the first place. My own idea for facilitating this includes minimal system own sound and minimal limitations on all (known to me) fronts and includes as wide a range of dynamics, tone, timbre, texture and color as possible playing any recording I turn my attention to. For most systems, stuff that's "available" at 90 dB is no longer available at 100 or 110 dB, or with complex Music, and this includes systems that actually do a good job with simple fare at lower volumes. And some (most) systems that "do dynamics" are tone-challenged. But this is old news. Although loudspeakers are typically a bottleneck, any part of a system can impose limits in this regard, in any number of ways. In fact, all systems impose some sorts of limits, and this is on top of limits and "signatures" imposed on the Music earlier in "the chain". Based on my own listening experience I will say that most people who are trying to sell something or prove something audio use "music" chosen to facilitate that end. My own approach for my own system development has been to use the system for continued, deep listening to Music of my choice, and I remain a musical omnivore, albeit it's been a long time since I listened to The Meat Puppets or Iggy Pop.

Paul S
01-09-2026 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
rowuk


Germany
Posts 467
Joined on 07-05-2012
Post #: 62
Post ID: 29482
Reply to: 29481
What is even possible?
Thank you Paul for your well developed thoughts.
Over Christmas I had a discussion with someone visiting about what they wanted in playback. They claimed that their goal was accuracy, something in my view that is so impossible that I refuse to discuss it. There is no recreation in the audio world as the technology does not even come close. The best that we can get in my view, is PLAUSIBLE (reasonable placement and size of instruments, violins doing violin things, trumpets doing trumpet things with no claims that the instruments are a hologram of the original). If the sound field gives me the impression that it "could have happened", I am delighted. "Could have happened" IMHO needs texture, tone, articulation and above all space.
My goals for 2026 are specifically to get more of what I have in under 90dB to playback up to 95dB in an attempt to make the "louder" orchestral passages more plausible. I am happy with my chamber music playback and many of the symphonic recordings on LP, but the masters of live performances that have no compression offer challenges that I want to be better in my own 4 walls.
The composers intentions as a goal in playback is a dangerous rabbit hole as for the most part, we do not know if the composer had the period sound in their heads or if they had their own world and only expressed it with the tools that they had at the time. Would Bach have composed differently if he had modern chromatic possibilities? Would Beethoven have scored his 9th symphony differently if he was not deaf? What would Bruckner have done differently if he had modern instruments and tuning that allow 20dB more volume than his period instruments? I know that when my stereo is turned off, and I am reading a score, in many cases my imagination is NOT limited to the color of the instrument assigned to the notes being read. Maybe a big crescendo was only a wave in the mind of the composer, that they "voiced" as close as they could get to their intention. That "wave" in the listening room is subject to many influencing factors.

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
01-10-2026 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,406
Joined on 05-27-2004
Post #: 63
Post ID: 29483
Reply to: 29482
Measuring philosophical temperature....
I read carefully what was expressed here, and I very much disagree with it. This has nothing to do with being “right” or “wrong”; I am absolutely not thinking in those categories. What you suggest is that an audio experience adds consciousness to a person, or that experiencing art or music is an acquisitional event for the individual.

My present convictions are the opposite.

I recognize that a musical event — whether live or recorded — is a subtractive experience. We spend an enormous amount of effort trying to make music serve us with realizations, and suddenly we begin to feel that the effort itself becomes the means of Truth. We worship talent and breakthrough, but we fail to recognize that these are merely ingredients of the soup — and we worship the soup instead of truly appreciating the peace that consuming the soup provides.


The purpose of music and audio is not to create new consciousness, but to destroy existing consciousness. The observation and destruction of the existent, the known, and the comfortable consciousness is, in my current view, the true strategic objective of musical experience.
It is as if I were a sculptor: when I see a granite block, I already see the delicate sculpture that my consciousness wants to reveal. The amount of material that must be removed from that granite block in order for the internal sculpture to materialize — that is what music and audio are really about.
I know this is a very different concept than what most people would feel comfortable with, but I do not seek to convince anyone of anything. To understand this properly, we must do exactly what quantum mechanics has taught us to do: learn to enjoy ambiguity.
I will probably make an effort to explain how I understand audio today, but I must first consider how to present it, because it is not easily accessible.

To be an irreverent and prolific asshole I will give you a very cryptic but possibly indicative key: In all my studies, I have discovered a musical work that holds encrypted keys to everything. It is BWV 582, specifically the second part — the fugue. There are many great interpretations, but I am particularly fond of Simon Preston’s performance on the gorgeously sounding organ of St. Peter’s Cathedral in Waltrop, Germany.
In my view, this music encodes something that even poor cables and bad elevators cannot compromise — if the entire listening ritual is properly organized, not from the standpoint of audible quality, but from the standpoint of conscious readiness.

"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-10-2026 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,818
Joined on 10-12-2006
Post #: 64
Post ID: 29484
Reply to: 29483
Sculptor, Hammer, Chisel
Thanks for sharing, Romy. No doubt there are people who still want to know which hammer and chisel you are using. Looking at (even ancient) partially finished sculpture, there are indications that sculptors used different tools and methods, depending on the stone, also how far along in their process they were.
Speaking for myself, I have not consciously thought that listening to Music creates new consciousness, rather I think that for me it's a self-indulgent form of exploring my own reactions to the Music I hear, and I cannot say exactly where that experience "goes". I supose part of my hi-fi process is trying to "hear more Music better". So saying, I am still looking forward to being able to do this with a Walkman.

Best regards,
Paul S
01-10-2026 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,406
Joined on 05-27-2004
Post #: 65
Post ID: 29485
Reply to: 29484
You look in the wrong direction....
Based on what you’re saying, you are still viewing this as a vertical endeavor—but it isn’t. The difference is not in the tools, not in the chisels or the Walkmans. That is why I remain deliberately cryptic: I don’t want to be misunderstood.

Here is a small hint, if you would like to look in the same direction I am looking. Imagine that Albert Camus did not die at forty-seven, but instead lived long enough to write a book about the role of sound in his philosophy. I think that book has already been written—in my head.

"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-10-2026 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,818
Joined on 10-12-2006
Post #: 66
Post ID: 29486
Reply to: 29485
Camus
Enjoyed/enjoy Camus, but I am OK with you remaining cryptic, since this seems to be important to you. In case you care, I don't understand your idea of "vertical endeavor", so I can't use that to contrast to your way. As for tools, nobody is using their fingernails to sculpt granite, for good reason. Of course the imagination (or something like it) has to "get there first", and it sure seems like any experience might or might not "accrue" in any mensurable sense.

Best regards,
Paul S
01-10-2026 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
rowuk


Germany
Posts 467
Joined on 07-05-2012
Post #: 67
Post ID: 29487
Reply to: 29483
Granite is not always granite
 Romy the Cat wrote:

It is as if I were a sculptor: when I see a granite block, I already see the delicate sculpture that my consciousness wants to reveal. The amount of material that must be removed from that granite block in order for the internal sculpture to materialize — that is what music and audio are really about.
I know this is a very different concept than what most people would feel comfortable with, but I do not seek to convince anyone of anything. To understand this properly, we must do exactly what quantum mechanics has taught us to do: learn to enjoy ambiguity.

So, I am a sculptor and I see a figure already carved into a granite block - by someone else. This figure in no way appeals to my idea of purpose for this granite. Perhaps  I can appreciate the technique used to carve, the general theme of the sculpture, still my conviction is that the artist was an idiot. This happens in music too, but in my view, there is no destruction, rather a constant test of our conviction.
In the case of BWV582, I have a similar conviction with Simon Prestons reading sounding very much like an englishman very focussed on releasing recordings of all Bachs organ works. A very spectacular registration, but I do not like this granite. At all. It is not a problem with the recording or the organ or the precision of play. I am irritated from the very first notes. A better granite for my "vision" of BWV582 can be found here: The Silbermann organ in Rötha. Silbermann was the artist that created organs that Bach played during his professional life. Certainly more historic in tone and dynamics, but VERY comfortable for me for THIS music. The precision of play is also a very high standard.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CxzjTJke-k
If I am reading the score without the stereo turned on, this where I want to be. I could not attach the handwritten score transcribed by Carl August Hartung, organist in Cöthen; Bach's manuscript is lost. The score can be downloaded at IMSLP.orgMLP04326-BWV_582.pdf" title="Bach BWV 582 Score" href="https://imslp.org/wiki/FileStick out tongueMLP04326-BWV_582.pdf" title="Bach BWV 582 Score">http://tempuri.org/tempuri.html

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
01-10-2026 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,406
Joined on 05-27-2004
Post #: 68
Post ID: 29488
Reply to: 29487
The 582

It is depends of what do you see in 582. At certain level, your or my agreement or disagreement in specific interpretation or even in Bach's interpretation itself become absolutely irrelevant. Think in terms of Bach composing it, he did not mean any specific interpretations or sonics. Ironically, As he composed it, his own interpretation stop to be relevant. if to have a proper acuity to any performance then it is not difficult to subtract interpretation out of intrinsic chromatic archetypes.



"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-11-2026 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
rowuk


Germany
Posts 467
Joined on 07-05-2012
Post #: 69
Post ID: 29489
Reply to: 29488
Maybe being a musician is a disadvantage?
Relevance is another rabbit hole that has changed throughout the centuries. After Bachs death, his relevance was dramatically reduced for a short period of time (meaning his works were not performed). The reason was that it was considered too intellectual. The audience was looking for less "challenging". The early classical era set different goals and performance opportunities for composers. It did not take long (actually one of the "kings" of the classical era - Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy actually brought Bach back.

In any case, the discussion of subtracting interpretation is in my view a bogus argument. The reason for this is the amount of layers of interpretation. 

In my own life, I have my recordings for playback. They have the disadvantage that there are no surprises after the first play. Long notes always have the same length when playing again, loud passages are always the same, articulation is the same with every play. Here I can only "see" what an artist has made out of the granite. If I am disturbed by something intrinsic to the performance, this often gets in the way of deeper appreciation. If I can connect, I can dig deeper with every play. In principle, the successful recordings do something for me that the score does not (huge subject in itself). If not, the recordings collect dust.

Then I have live performances (where I am in the audience). Here I have EXPECTATIONS and reactions depending on surprises encountered. I often have a score with me if it is a piece that I am not familiar with. Here the performance is each time something new. The demands on me are great to grasp what the artist is saying, my attention is very dynamic as some things are easy and others difficult to grasp. Sometimes answers to questions in my head are answered later in the performance.

Then there are the performances when I am playing. In this case, there is a very advanced preparation of the material. There are rehearsals to help the musicians connect with one another. During the performance we must be on transmit and receive at the same time. Based on our preparation, I have expectations, actions, reactions and surprises. Our play must provide the answers. Connecting with the audience is very much part of that.

As a trumpet player, I do not get an opportunity to play Bach BWV582. That does not prevent me from "reading" the score, attending concerts, playing recordings - giving this work many levels of relevance far after Bach died. I would maintain that the relevance actually STARTS with the composing and is carried on with every attempt to learn, perform or playback this piece. When studying Bach, we learn how he integrated composing styles, created opportunities for new methods of tuning, and above all, about his uncanny sense of painting pictures with optimally placed notes.

In the context of this thread (Accuracy vs Musicality), we could argue about the performance, but I believe that the thread is more about the focus of the playback on supposed technical perfection vs enjoyable playback. In this last case any arguments are irrelevant as there is no general accuracy possible with stereo, the best we could accomplish is "plausible". This is NOT vs "Musicality" as this term also has no meaning as applied to playback.

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
01-11-2026 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,406
Joined on 05-27-2004
Post #: 70
Post ID: 29490
Reply to: 29489
Actually....

Actually, the conversation is only now becoming interesting.

Let’s accept everything you said before your final conclusions, and pretend that the entire ceremony has fully materialized — that everything you believed should happen has already happened.

What comes next?

Was that the ultimate objective,

or was it merely a means — a doorway into the discovery of something else?

Because if you follow this line of thought deeply enough down the rabbit hole, you begin to encounter a startling observation:audio might be applied superbly effectively in this journey but audio based upon

a completely different set of principles...

It would be an entirely different form of high-end audio.



"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Page 4 of 4 (70 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 4
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts