![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Accuracy in the sound of your system, or forgiveness? I have heard system that really show the flaws some recordings have. Systems like this are just not that enjoyable to listen to. I like forgiveness, it makes listen to music much more enjoyable.
![]()
Follow Ups:
... with given combination of components. What happens if you want to change something? Phuut! you're back to yuck!
In my main system I want accuracy, as I have the most invested into it. In my computer system I just want musicality and forgiveness, as I sometimes listen to MP3's. In my basement system I just want it to sound good and not cost me much. When I listen to my main system, I can lose a few hours and it has proven to be the most enjoyable of the three. The computer system is a background system and I don't pay that much attention to it, but so far it is not all that bad. My basement system is fun as it is the Guinea Pig for different cables, tweaks and what not.
![]()
Bandit
![]()
Or more-specifically, "linearity"...I do have a different idea on what "accurate" is, relative to conventional wisdom. I think if a system is linear in the bottom end, the "accuracy" becomes *extremely* listenable. Or in other words, if it sounds "analytical," it is wrong IMO, from an accuracy standpoint. Even though many consider this "accurate."
I don't think "euphonic" in the classic sense is accurate either. I like tubes, but I cannot stand excessive "tube warmth."
By the same token, I would consider good 45 SET amp more-accurate than a good 200-watt solid-state amplifier. Once again, within its power limitations, *much* more-linear. Even compared to the high-powered SS amp pushed to just a few watts.
![]()
> > By the same token, I would consider good 45 SET amp more-accurate
> > than a good 200-watt solid-state amplifier.
How could you know which one is more accurate unless you know which models you are actually discussing? Are the standards for "good" lower with SS equipment?
Give me rhythm or give me death!
![]()
I have yet to hear a solid-state amp that I would consider comparable to a good 45 SET amp. (I love my Symfonia Opus 10 solid-state amp- one of a select few solid-state amps I could live with for the rest of my life, but I would still give the nod to a good 45 SET.) The properly-designed 45 SET amp in *my* estimation better-approximates the real musical event (within power and drive limitations), and consistently so.And if you disagree with my assessment, that's perfectly fine. I'm just stating my *personal* preference in amplifiers. And what I *personally* consider "accurate" sound reproduction.
![]()
According to your original statement you said given a good tube amp and a good SS amp you think the tube amp is more accurate. Since "good" is a statement of your preferences I can only assume in assigning the rating of good to both amps you prefer colorations or the sound of the SS amp. Accuracy is not a subjective evaluation - assignment of terms like "good", "best", etc is.> > And if you disagree with my assessment, that's perfectly fine.
Why would I care about your assessment - other than your confusion with the term accurate.> > I'm just stating my *personal* preference in amplifiers.
Fine!> > And what I *personally* consider "accurate" sound reproduction.
Your personal preferences are independent of how well a system reproduces a recording. Ie - accuracy is not a subjective value.
"Since 'good' is a statement of your preferences I can only assume in assigning the rating of good to both amps you prefer colorations or the sound of the SS amp."I am not sure what you're saying here. I think you are saying I prefer the colorations of the "tube" amp to the sound of the solid-state amp. (The context could also mean "preferring colorations or sound of the SS amp over those of the tube amp.") Presuming my reading of this is correct, I guess I either perceive *less* colorations in the SET amp or am not as sensitive to colorations in the SET amp. I would like to think the prior case is the actual case, but I won't lose any sleep if it is the latter case.
"Accuracy is not a subjective evaluation"
It should not be, but I say it **is**... People tend to assign components with an "analytical" character as "accurate." (Or the pre-conceived notion that "accurate" *has* to be analytical in sonic character.) The problem is whenever a component is deemed to be "accurate," how do we really know it is truly the case? Great specs, possibly, but IMO established specifications have little correlation to real-world performance.
What is "accurate" to one person may be "sonically colored" to another. It all comes down the the adage, "Pick your poison."
![]()
> > I am not sure what you're saying here. I think you are saying I
> > prefer the colorations of the "tube" amp to the sound of the solid-
> > state amp. (The context could also mean "preferring colorations or
> > sound of the SS amp over those of the tube amp.") Presuming my
> > reading of this is correct, I guess I either perceive *less*
> > colorations in the SET amp or am not as sensitive to colorations
> > in the SET amp. I would like to think the prior case is the actual
> > case, but I won't lose any sleep if it is the latter case.No that's not what I'm saying. If you think both the SS and the tube amp are good - but the tube amp is more accurate it implies that the colorations (or lack of), as you percieve them with the SS amp are desirable, since you consider both amps as being "good" yet you feel the SS amp is not as accurate as the tube amp. Thus the colorations of the SS must make up for it's lack of nuetrality.
I believe accuracy is measureable and can be defined within some limits and two amps that measure the same into an identical load will sound identical in the same room - regardless of the technology. If this isn't true than the set of measurements is not complete.
So if someone can have a preference of SS or tubes than they must have a preference for the colorations or distortions (or even the appearance of) commonly associated with that technology - and trying to base that preference on "accuracy" seems somewhat misguided at best.
I understand that to be PC we have to say most equipment is good regardless of whether or not it suits our own subjective preferences or not, but then to turn around and redefine "accuracy" to justify a personal preference seems just a little disingenuous.
"but then to turn around and redefine 'accuracy' to justify a personal preference seems just a little disingenuous."
> > How is this, may I ask?Your comment -
> > And if you disagree with my assessment, that's perfectly fine. I'm
> > just stating my *personal* preference in amplifiers. And what I
> > *personally* consider "accurate" sound reproduction.
What you personally consider accuracy has nothing to do with what's real and measureable. Does it?Even you say
> > People tend to assign components with an "analytical" character
> > as "accurate."
Just like you assign the "45 SET" sound as being "accurate".Then you continue on to say
> > What is "accurate" to one person may be "sonically colored" to
> > another.
and
> > By the same token, I would consider good 45 SET amp more-
> > accurate than a good 200-watt solid-state amplifier.Back to the beginning - How could you possibly know? It seems to me that your premise is nothing more than stating the your belief that your own preferences are more accurate than the the preferences of others - who by your own words must appreciate the colorations and distortions of SS.
IMO - accuracy is a real and measureable quantity and has nothing to do with personal preferences. Why is it never good enough to just like something more - do we have to prove that our subjective preferences are somehow objectively superior as well!
"What you personally consider accuracy has nothing to do with what's real and measureable. Does it?"I'm not sure what you mean by real. I do hear characteristics that I would personally associate with "accuracy," but I've yet to see measurements that correlate to this. I'm referring to bass linearity, which I've described qualitatively, but have not seen a "measurement" that quantifies it. (I think it could be a form of intermodulation distortion.)
"Back to the beginning - How could you possibly know?"
I don't!! That's my point. Hence this is why I say "accuracy" is subjective.
"It seems to me that your premise is nothing more than stating the your belief that your own preferences are more accurate than the the preferences of others"
I apologize about the mis-perception- I did not intend to project such an impression. My definition of accuracy is no better or worse than someone else's, aside from being my personal preference. I just happen to believe that "bass linearity" is paramount for accurate reproduction. If you or anyone else think it's irrelevant to accuracy, no problem.
"who by your own words must appreciate the colorations and distortions of SS."
Where did I say or imply that?
"IMO - accuracy is a real and measureable quantity and has nothing to do with personal preferences."
I think you're confusing personal preferences with "accuracy" in an absolute sense, which I say has yet to exist. I also believe if measurable quantities *fully* described the characteristic of audio equipment, such "accuracy" *would* exist. But I think the current measurable specifications for audio equipment are not even close to defining *true* accuracy. Hence I have no problem with people "redefining" accuracy.
"Why is it never good enough to just like something more - do we have to prove that our subjective preferences are somehow objectively superior as well!"
From an unmeasurable but qualitative standpoint, yes. For the reason I stated above. I would not put "bass linearity" in the same "subjective" boat as things like "warmth", "graininess", "bloom", "PRAT", etc.. It is a technical term. And every system I've heard does it anywhere from awful to superb. And personally, I think it has a much bigger impact on accuracy than established, measurable objective specifications like THD, power ratings, HF bandwidth, slew rates, etc.
![]()
if you can argue that your preferences are based on your subjective perspective on what's accurate and what's not accurate how then can you consider both amps, "good" SS and 45 SET, as being "good", in the same breath as you reveal your preferences.Personally it would make much more sense to me if you claimed that you preferred the accuracy of reproduction due to bass linearity provided by 45 SET amps over solid state amps if at the same time you did not pay lip service to SS devotees by claiming both amps are "good".
Truthfully I think magazine reviewers have an obligation to realize that their subjective preferences aren't shared by everybody and the only fair thing they can do when they review a product is put it in the best light possible - and to do a negative review on a component really can't be justified except in the most extreme cases. But why individual audiophiles have to be so PC is beyond me.
You could compare an accurate system to playing LPs. On accurate systems you hear everything that's good and everything that's bad. On LPs you hear the tunes (good) and you hear the cracks and pops (bad) and loads of distortion (also bad). Do you dislike LPs for the bad things you hear ?I happen to have very revealing speakers, but it's actually not as bad as many people say. Yes I hear flaws on some recordings but I still enjoy the tune. I don't throw my LPs away just because they contain cracks and pops.
Accurate systems have the advantage (over forgiving systems) that they show you 100% of the good things whereas forgiving systems show less than 100%.
An accurate system has furter the advantage (over a forgiving system) that you can turn it into a forgiving system (by EQ for instance). OTOH, you can't turn a forgiving system into an accurate one. You choose.
Age old debate - which is "better"
Thing is , it boils down to personal preferences
Considering recorded music is "damaged" there is no right or wrong in terms of accurate - most people tune the system to give maximum pleasure to themselves and tune to what they think the music should sound like - and that is all subjective - subjective choices are inviolate.
This Q has no real answer
Rodney Gold
![]()
Why do so many people think that accurate systems sound bad?
I dont think you have to pick one or the other.
If an upgrade doesn't sound better to me for every recording then it's not an upgrade.
![]()
.
![]()
If you don't have to pick one or the other, then you can have your cake and eat it too! sounds fine to me.
![]()
actually, the reason I don't pick accuracy is only because I don't know what that is.
I just don't separate music listening that way. when something works together, all those traits really don't matter, me thinks. I just think that good music making is more than accuracy or forgiveness.
![]()
that stated: "these speakers are so revealing only the best recordings will sound right".I thought "who the hell would want those?" I'd much rather prefer a speaker that sounds good 70% of the time -vs- one that sounds great 30% of the time.
I am of the opinion that a truly accurate (linear) system will make recordings sound distinctly different from each other (like different flavors), but only a small percentage of the recordings will sound "bad."
![]()
How can great speakers make a recording sound that bad? Sometimes upstream components can, I acknowledge that. But great speakers do not make mediocre recordings sound bad.
![]()
recordings sound bad." You should read the review of the Dynaudio Temptation in T.A.S. issue 134. The review descrided these speaker as merciless on poor recordings.
![]()
But I defy anyone to sit my butt down and show me how speakers alone can make a recording sound unlistenable. I'll fault upstream components first.
![]()
So, if an inherently flawed system could be defined accurately as accurate the inherent flaws of recording become more noticeably flawed, or, if an accurately flawed system were to reproduce a recording accurately which would take your attention from the music most, the flawed accurate equipment or the accurately flawed recording?Maybe the flaw is in how we listen to recoded music but, none the less, I'll take listening to the flawed accuracy of flaws over the reverse anyday.
![]()
I have no idea what you just tried to say, sorry.
![]()
it was meant to be a little confusing but I thought my point was obvious, maybe not. Why, if a system is able to highlight recording flaws is that considered accurate? Secondly, what is meant by recording flaws, since what is recorded is generally engineered to be that way are you referring to a general flawed desire result sought after by many recording engineers, is it because you can hear the character or limits of the recording equipment, or are you referring to flawed musicianship?Similar to you, I try to purchase gear that allows me to enjoy the music but for me the most important quality to this end is vibrancy, it has to feel alive.
![]()
You are correct that the 'vibrancy' is the most important thing. However, you can have accuracy too.
When you get it 'right' the extra distortion information can be ignored, yet you can hear the music more clearly. Now, sometimes at a given price-point you have to make a choice. You can make it fairly accurate, with some added 'edge' , then good stuff sounds pretty OK, but the bad stuff sounds awful.
On the other hand, you can 'mush up' the sound and yet get the essence of the music, even when you are listening to an almost muffled sound.
For example, in my bathroom, I use a Telefunken Bajazzo portable radio. This is about my 5th unit since 1965. Put in on an oldies station, and it ROCKS! Guess who helped developed this unit? Dick Sequerra! I did not know that for the first 30 years, I just knew that this radio was special.
Now, my main system has WATT 1 speakers. They were originally designed for studio monitoring. They are forward and bright. A pristine input will give marvelous performance, but the same rock station, as I use in the bathroom, SUCKS!
Then there are Dick Sequerra's latest Met 7's. I replace the Watts with them and I can live with just about any input, but I can't easily what is wrong with the input. You choose.
![]()
I'm not too sure if accuracy can be defined in the context of recorded music and agree with Rodney Gold that there may not be an answer to the question. Each designer I'm sure has their own ideas and philosophies about what makes a piece of equipment accurate, assigning relevance to different mixes of variables. Some of the designers may actually get it correct but with no commandments of accuracy we will never really know which it is, ultimately we must rely on our instincts to make the determination and succumb to the probability that accuracy can not be defined by a measurement or a statement.I do agree distortion patterned properly can be irrelevant to the music the key being harmony. Also key would be using an input from the same techological era as the rest of the equipment after all, generally, that is what the input was originally voiced/referenced with wasn't it? Or does it not work like that?
Getting back to the term accuracy, I speculate that the term "an accurate system" is sometimes confused with one lacking of proper harmonics, with musical harmonics wiped clean or dirtied the unmusical "flaws" which have little harmonic structure become relatively magnified and draw attention. How else could "an accurate system" be unsatisfying musically? I would think a truly accurate system would more satisfying to a greater number of disks than an inaccurate one instead of the general belief of the opposite.
![]()
A more accurate system should sound more like the MUSIC that was the source for the recording, and be true to that sound, deliver it as it was.I prefer a system that brings me closer to the live music than to the defects of the recording equipment used.
Some systems highlight the very boundaries of the recording techniques, not caring for reproducing the music, but showing off what the media is capable of. Is that accuracy? In a way, yes, it shows everything that is on the RECORD.
But that may or may not have to do how the actual performance sounded....
An example: I have a Dyna st70 / PAS / Voigt pipe setup, that is considered very anti-audiophile, some even despise it as unacceptable.
I have a friend who made a guitar recording at his home, that turned out to be 95% of what he wanted. (By my standards, one of the best I ever heard of a guitar recording, and all my audiophile friends wanted to get a copy instantly they heard it). I listened to this recording at a mega-buck system, and it was wow! I heard every detail, everything! But it did not sound at all like his guitar, that I have heard at his place playing.
He has a bunch of guitars, yet based on the recording I could not tell which he was using. Had I not known which he used, I would have said he was using another.Went home, played it again at the supposedly very inaccurate and coloring system, and I was stunned, because it sounded almost exactly as what I have heard at his place! I instantly recognized the guitar from its tone. The experience was _very_ similar to listening to him playing...
Janos
nt
![]()
Cut-Throat
![]()
<.
![]()
CT,Old Chinese proverb: "Can't make Chicken Salad out of Chicken Shit."
![]()
A very good system readily reveals flaws, yet forgivingly. A lot of people blame the recordings for bad sound - sure, some are wretched, but a great system will make the most of the recordings to let you enjoy the music! It is the music that matters. I have a lot of so-so records and CDs that I still enjoy because they're fun to listen to. If they're recorded and mastered well, it's a bonus.
![]()
![]()
IMO poor recordings cannot be made into good ones by playing through a "forgiving" system and any attempt to take this route would be likely to dull the realism in good recordings - a ghastly prospect.Having said this, IMO any system that has been chosen and set up for musical accuracy will require pretty awful recordings to generate the artificially "etched" sounds that I hear some folks praise as "detail". I feel that it is self-evident that this delivery has absolutely nothing to do with the sounds heard when listening to a live performance, which is my personal priority.
This is a mixed community, with a wide variety of tastes and preferences. Whichever choices we make, we ought to be happy to live with them and enjoy the music. If we have reservations, this can only be that we have used poor judgement and made the wrong choices in the first place. It follows that without a clearer focus any upgrading may well have similar results.
Cheerful thought, eh?
so I have a couple of systems around the house. My main one is mostly digital, another is fairly current stuff set for analog, and another that is a vintage system. Yes, there are certain recordings that don't sound all that great played through the digital system. For some reason, some of the vintage music I own sounds best played on a vintage system. There are others that don't sound good no matter what I play them on, but those are rare.
()
![]()
I love tube amps and line stages, also love L.P.'s! My next up-grade will be a tube line stage. But I do love my McCormack Power Drive DNA 0.5 Deluxe edition solid state amp!
![]()
()
![]()
BH.
![]()
nt
![]()
<.
![]()
What does your "forgiving" system do to excellent recordings?
![]()
excellent, well at least to my ears. More importantly it makes good to mediocre recordings sound enjoyable.
![]()
-t
![]()
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: