Please note the interpolations and associated questions.

On Sep 4, 10:11 am, Andre Jute wrote:

Surely the question should be, "Whose accuracy?"

I think there is a fundamental issue at hand here, being the
definition of "accuracy". It is NOT precision, although far too
commonly taken as such. Analogy:

A thermometer that reads in 2-degree increments but is always as dead-
on as possible is quite accurate, but not terribly precise. A similar
unit that reads in 0.005 degree increments but is alway and randomly
2-3 degrees off is quite precise, not terribly accurate.

The late unlamented Stewart Pinkerton used to claim that "Audio is
engineering, music is art" or some such rot, together with its express
corollary, "When the amplifier produces exactly what is on the master
tape, the designer's job is done." Clearly, that puts the the
recording engineer, the master of the master tape, in charge of the
outcome.

Not necessarily. Actually, not even a little bit. The _ability_ to
reproduce the "Master Tape" as it would have been heard in the studio
is merely a point-of-departure. And an "amplifier" that is capable of
doing that is only a good start. Picasso once was asked why it was
that he did such wild drawings and scupltures, the question as-asked
cast doubt on his ability to draw or form realistically. During the
conversation, he sketched on a bit of paper a near-photographic
portrait of the questioner.... and answered that by the knowledge of
what was "real", he could depart into what he saw and felt. Without
the ability to reproduce reality as-if-by-rote (per Picasso), he felt
that an artist could not *really* understand beyond that. This analogy
is quite apt for musical reproduction as well.

I can name some recording engineers I have known, including some I
employed, that I would like to throw down the stairs to remove them as
carbuncles from culture. They were soulmates of the execrably smug
Pinkostinko.

Without suggesting that the above statement is purely wishful and
quite likely utterly false, it is all according to taste. Recording
engineers, good and bad, have a real dilemma in whether they reproduce
what they hear to the extent possible, or whether they make
adjustments based on what they know will happen to what they record.
And I am sure that they would be the first to admit that they are
absolutely *NOT* photographers in the snapshot sense.


However, on the whole I think most recording engineers of the kind of
music I like are cultured men who do their best to reproduce the
musicians' performance and the ambience of the environment well. It is
not their fault that a precise reproduction of their master tape (as
through a Krell and Wilson multi-cones, for instance, by the
Pinkostinko definition definitely "blameless") fails to satisfy the
hedonist's desire for closer replication of the experience of the live
event. Many of them are acutely aware that the subliminal cues
experienced in the concert hall are missing from recordings but,
again, that is an *engineering* problem with the reproduction chain
and its fixation on the long-since irrelevant reduction of THD,
presently more for the sake of more because they lack the brains to
think of something else. ("Once we have minimized THD, the
reproduction chain is perfect so WTF are you whining about? We're
giving you ever-vanishing THD!"

What ineffable hogwash. The recording engineer, good bad or
indifferent, if he/she is actually earning a living at it will be
absolutely aware of consequences small and large of every decision
made. That they may not be terribly good at it at every (even any)
moment of every recording does not make them less aware.

Of course, we all have our own version of taste. Mine is simply the
sound I heard in the room on the day, with the performers on the
recording playing live. Peter Walker's "window on the concert hall"
has legs.

The moment the playing goes into a box, what comes out of the box is
less related than first cousins... and that is at the best of times.
And why 98-44/100ths of the tripe around "fidelity" is just that.
Tripe. Spoiled as well for the most part. NO amplifier is capable of
reproducing what was recorded, as the recorder cannot even do that
much without removing or adding artifacts. So, get over it.

My contempt for the farm machinery mechanics among the meterhead
"engineers" is matched only by my contempt for self-acclaimed golden
ears among the "audiophiles" whose only reference is other amps they
have heard, whose definition of "better" is a more stunning sound than
the last amp they heard, regardless of the intrinsic dynamics of the
performance, who never go to concerts because they already know what
they like.

More hogwash. If they 'know what they like', that is enough for them
leaving more room for you. But your taste in electronics vs. theirs
has not one damned thing to do with anything worthwhile for
discussion. And you both are quintessential idiots for holding your
collective and several opinions as being either more accurate, better,
or more precise than anyone else's. That it is yours is entirely
enough. Those very few that might value your opinion will respond
positively. Others will not. In either case, your opinion remains
intact - for you.

Yes, Virginia, you can have it both ways. There is a sane middle road.

Sure there is a middle road. But it had damned well start from
equipment that *at least* can start by adding or deleting as few
additional artifacts as possible from what arrives on the recording
medium. The end-user then has the absolute right and choice to add,
delete or alter the source for their individual listening pleasure.
But if a-priori, their equipment is not capable of reproducing the
recording medium without substantial changes, then it has failed for
general purposes, however melifluous it appears to sound to the
undiscerning ear. The end-user even has the right to use equipment
that already has artifacts programmed into it by design as it is to
their taste. But they do not gain the right thereby to state, aver, or
even imply that their taste is anything other than their own - and no
more than that. And certainly said end-user has no right to foist that
equipment on others as being "high-fidelity"... it simply is not.

Again the analogy of the crippled man in the well-fitted suit comes to
mind. And for exactly the same reasons.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338