bluedog Posted July 7, 2010 Posted July 7, 2010 OK chaps i have been reading allot about different systems on forums etc and i would like to get a handle on "accurate" how do you Know:confused: i can understand musical, if it make your toes tap it is i guess Musical:D. Is there some pre-requisite to a system being accurate :confused: just thought i would put it out there and see what sort of answers come out of the wood work
Shane Hanify Posted July 7, 2010 Posted July 7, 2010 Gidday BD, my understanding on accuracy is that it gives you the album as the engineer intended. Unfortunately the only person that knows how that sounds is the engineer. Instrumental / venue accuracy is easier. Guitars should resonate but not sound boxy. Violin strings should be bathed in texture. Kick drums should hit you in the chest and a good vocalist should make your hairs stand on end. If the recording is in a large space then that should be transported into your listening space. Musical is simple. Does the piece communicate to you emotionally. Does it make you forget your gear and simply enjoy it? Are you always up till the wee hours because you simply don't want to stop? Does it gel together like an experienced band? Cheers, Shane.
Pete Posted July 7, 2010 Posted July 7, 2010 Low Orbit;126926 wrote: Gidday BD, my understanding on accuracy is that it gives you the album as the engineer intended. Unfortunately the only person that knows how that sounds is the engineer. Even better, as the musician intended. Sometimes the engineers mess it up
Electra Posted July 7, 2010 Posted July 7, 2010 to me, a good system is both musical and accurate at the same time. Their not mutually exclusive. Accuracy - being able to hear the various different nuances of the various instruments, the various different production techniques and the various different recording venues. However, it should never detract from the ability to lose yourself in the music. But, the ability to lose yourself in the music does not mean that you cant hear all the finer details of it.... Don't aim for one or the other, aim for both.
a poindexter Posted July 7, 2010 Posted July 7, 2010 too_tall;126935 wrote: to me, a good system is both musical and accurate at the same time. Their not mutually exclusive. Accuracy - being able to hear the various different nuances of the various instruments, the various different production techniques and the various different recording venues. However, it should never detract from the ability to lose yourself in the music. But, the ability to lose yourself in the music does not mean that you cant hear all the finer details of it.... Don't aim for one or the other, aim for both. +1 , good posting Mr Tall . this is how i feel to , to me hifi is a necessary evil from which we can enjoy the music . (only achievable with vinyl of course )
stephennic Posted July 7, 2010 Posted July 7, 2010 Hi, Well said Too tall and Low orbit. I might add sometimes people say that accurate might mean cold and analytical. But I would say for something to be accurate it needs be true to how the musician and hopefully the engineer intended (true to life). To me music should be musical - move you emotionally, enjoying the whole musical piece as well as accurate (true to the real event). I must say though I had a cambridge cd player it seemed quite analytical - hearing all the detail but didnt sound quite sound natural to me - actually fatigued after awhile ( not a good match for my system). Sometimes I think certain components sounds quite digital (produced) very detailed but not very natural or tonally balanced (cold - hard sounding) therefore not musical. I hope that all made sense - sorry I think Im waffling. Cheers Steve.
Shane Hanify Posted July 7, 2010 Posted July 7, 2010 too_tall;126935 wrote: to me, a good system is both musical and accurate at the same time. Their not mutually exclusive... Agreed, but I've heard very few systems that do this. Most of the time it's a compromise between one and the other. [edit] PeteG;126933 wrote: Even better, as the musician intended. Sometimes the engineers mess it up Sometimes? I have a haunting suspicion that the record companies call the shots on that. Eng -"How do you want it?" RC - "Loud" (Eng groans) It would be good if more musicians learned at least the basics of production so there was better communication with the Engineer and a better result for us. Cheers, Shane.
Brian Ono Posted July 7, 2010 Posted July 7, 2010 Low Orbit;126942 wrote: Agreed, but I've heard very few systems that do this. Most of the time it's a compromise between one and the other. [edit] Sometimes? I have a haunting suspicion that the record companies call the shots on that. Eng -"How do you want it?" RC - "Loud" (Eng groans) It would be good if more musicians learned at least the basics of production so there was better communication with the Engineer and a better result for us. Cheers, Shane. Good production and engineering is an art in itself.Some musicians "produce" great albums IMHO (Daniel Lanois)some appear to be not so good(the artist previously known as Prince)
King Size1553552683 Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 Low Orbit;126942 wrote: Sometimes? I have a haunting suspicion that the record companies call the shots on that. Eng -"How do you want it?" RC - "Loud" (Eng groans) :mad:Sorry guys but I am tired of the continual blaming of the record company for this one. As some of you may (or may not) know I work for a record company, and not once have I heard anything like the above conversation taking place. Most artists aren't audiophiles either and I suggest that many of them would be bemused by our obession with dynamic range and the loudness war... I recently drew attention to an article called "Music Mastering: The Art of The Transfer" in Tone Audio Issue 29. It makes for very interesting reading... Rant over:(
bazza hallward Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 When I saw the title of this thread, I immediately thought as others have here: Accurate is not the opposite of musical - unless you've defined the words that way. A musical system should be an accurate system - especially if it is music you're listening to. For example, if a piece of music sounds boring on one system but good on another, how do we know if it was the music that was boring or the system that was boring? What I mean is that an accurate system is one that should allow the music to speak for itself. Of course that's assuming that the recording process didn't get in the way first. Then you have a case for tailoring a system to try and revitalise the music.
Antipodes1553552706 Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 Yes, if a system is 100% accurate it will be musical. I believe that the idea that you can add colouration to improve musicality is wrong over time. I think that when people make this distinction between accuracy and musicality they are referring to measuring or assessing the performance of a system using two different measuring sticks. For accuracy the measuring stick is often about no obvious peaks or troughs in the response and no roll-offs top or bottom. This forces you to think very objectively about what you are hearing, and to assess things that may or may not be important to you. But with moderately priced gear the best musical result can come by accepting some otherwise obvious trade-offs, such as a softened and rolled off top end - such as you find in some, but not all, NOS DACs. So my understanding of the distinction is that accuracy is objectively assessing what you are hearing, whereas musicality is something you feel more or less of through how you are reacting to what you hear. The problem with this distinction is that if something is more musical but less accurate than something else, then the listener's perception of how to measure accuracy is probably a bit off, since the objective of a system must be to convey the music. In my view there is a tendency to think about accuracy in frequency response terms, when all music, live or reproduced, is quite coloured by a number of factors such as the acoustic environment, or the difference between the wood used in one guitar compared to another. Additionally a system can be convincing in how it renders some instruments timbre, but not in how it renders others. Some modest systems can be very good with voices and acoustic guitars, but hopeless with larger drums or glockenspiels. So depending on the music we listen to, a system that is compromised in terms of frequency response may nevertheless appear to be timbrally damn good with what is contained in the music. Some of the more critical areas where we need accuracy are in dynamic linearity and in phase coherence. In my view these two contribute more to our ability to engage with the music and respond to even the most subtle pieces of musical expression, than does a flat frequency response. But most listeners find it harder to identify inaccuracy in these things than they do with frequency response anomolies. In fact many abberations that we identify as frequency response problems are actually phase issues - which is why something that seems to measure flat (like almost all power amplifiers) are perceived to have frequency response issues.
King Size1553552683 Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 Some interesting posts so far. I would like to elaborate a little on my original post. Earlier this year I had the opportunity to hear an album played back in the very studio it was recorded (not mastered). The session was hosted by the artist and recording engineer and I sat in the control room. I was dissappointed with what I heard and also felt the playback itself was also too loud. I then had the opportunity to listen to the album on my own system, hoping that it would sound better, but was still dissappointed in the overall production of the album. It sounded like what I had heard in the recording studio (although not as loud and on a smaller scale - it was distorted and compressed to hell. The record company had no input into creative process of this album whatsover, all decisions were entirely those of the artist and the production team he, not the record company, employed. Funnily enough I recently read a review of the same album in an audiophile targeted publication that praised the production. I guess one man's meat is another man's poison. As far as accurate v musical goes I would say that an accurate system is not necessarily musical and vica versa. This is not to say that you can't have both (or at least strike a balance between the two), simply that an accurate system isn't by definition musical (or even musical because of its accuracy). My simple definition of a system that strives for accuracy (maybe analytical is a better term for me to use?) is one that allows you to see the individual details and brushstrokes of the painting. A musical system is one that organises and presents the details in a way that allows the listener to see (hear) how they fit together to create the big picture. Some of us give precedence to the former, others the latter. Most of us probably think we aim for both, which would require striking a balance between the two. For eg. too much detail could be distracting and result in a presentation where you can't see the wood for the trees.
Pete Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 bazza hallward;126961 wrote: When I saw the title of this thread, I immediately thought as others have here: Accurate is not the opposite of musical - unless you've defined the words that way. A musical system should be an accurate system - especially if it is music you're listening to. For example, if a piece of music sounds boring on one system but good on another, how do we know if it was the music that was boring or the system that was boring? What I mean is that an accurate system is one that should allow the music to speak for itself. Of course that's assuming that the recording process didn't get in the way first. Then you have a case for tailoring a system to try and revitalise the music. +1
MarkH Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 In my experience studio monitoring is pretty poor. Sometimes I'm stunned at how crappy the sound is, especially in the bass, a pet peeve of mine being a bass player! I think it's 50/50 if an album is going to sound any good, even before it's been mastered to anyones particular ideal of loudness.
Owen Y Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 Antipodes;126962 wrote: I think that when people make this distinction between accuracy and musicality they are referring to measuring or assessing the performance of a system using two different measuring sticks. Yes indeed.... I believe that any apparent difference between perceived Accuracy vs Musicality is due to our in adeptness at measuring 'accuracy'. ie. We are (still) not very good at how to measure accuracy, and/or... we do not yet know exactly what is important to measure.
kiwi_1282001 Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 Courtesy of Holt, G. H. (1983) Stereophile, July Ed. accuracy The degree to which the output signal from a component or system is perceived as replicating the sonic qualities of its input signal. An accurate device reproduces what is on the recording, which may or may not be an accurate representation of the original sound. musical, musicality A personal judgment as to the degree to which reproduced sound resembles live music. Real musical sound is both accurate and euphonic, consonant and dissonant.
King Size1553552683 Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 This is my favourite quote on the subject: "...audio systems can try to replicate the sound of the event with spatial cues, tonal accuracy and resolution. This is what hi-fi is generally considered to be about. This facsimile can contain the outline, the picture of the event but without the drama, the interplays, dammit, the music, this is at best an academic exercise."
nixon76 Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 I forget the correct terminology but tubes introduce some harmonic distortion at some order. Now a lot of people like what this does for their music reproduction - so one could surmise that it is for them 'musical'. But accurate? One could immediately say that it can't be accurate as it's introducing distortion. This isn't so cut and dry. When something is recorded at 24/192 and downsampled down to 16/44 noise is introduced - on purpose. Does this introduction imply loss of accuracy from the original? I suspect most people are happy with 'musical' rather than 'accurate'. That's until they hear something that is both......
Guest Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 kiwi_1282001;126974 wrote: Courtesy of Holt, G. H. (1983) Stereophile , July Ed. accuracy The degree to which the output signal from a component or system is perceived as replicating the sonic qualities of its input signal. An accurate device reproduces what is on the recording, which may or may not be an accurate representation of the original sound. You beat me to it. What previous responders have been calling accuracy is better described as authenticity; to the music, venue, etc. It's disturbing that many manufacturers and listeners alike are forsaking accurate reproduction of what is on the recording and have taken on the role of music producer rather than reproducer.
Omegaspeedy Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 Remember also that if your system is setup right (synergy, quality compatible gear) and the engineer didn't come to work with a hang over on final production day and did a great job, IF THE SONG WAS PERFORMED POORLY, you'll still have a dead un-musical system when you play that song.
nixon76 Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 But it'll be playing the dead song accurately! It for this reason I wonder if people are okay with losing some accuracy if it can bring some musicality to the picture.
Pete Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 kiwi_1282001;126974 wrote: Courtesy of Holt, G. H. (1983) Stereophile , July Ed. accuracy The degree to which the output signal from a component or system is perceived as replicating the sonic qualities of its input signal. An accurate device reproduces what is on the recording, which may or may not be an accurate representation of the original sound. musical, musicality A personal judgment as to the degree to which reproduced sound resembles live music. Real musical sound is both accurate and euphonic, consonant and dissonant. We could say, going on from this, that in fact accuracy is objective, yet "musicality" is subjective....
King Size1553552683 Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 PeteG;126987 wrote: We could say, going on from this, that in fact accuracy is objective, yet "musicality" is subjective.... Only if you know what the sonic qualities of the input signal are. If you don't then it becomes subjective again. I found this quote online: "You can measure all you want, but a mass spectrometer isn't going to find a lot of difference between lunch at a high school cafeteria and the best dinner at a four-star restaurant." --Lynn Olson I guess the musical equivalent is "it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing":)
Recommended Posts