George M. Middius wrote:

Why "accuracy"? For certain Usenet poseurs, this is the question that dare
not speak its name.

Normals and 'borgs alike would surely accept that the purpose of an audio
system is to enable us to enjoy listening to recorded music. Normals choose
the pieces of a system that maximizes listening pleasure. How does praying
to the god of "accuracy" help attain that end?

**A good question, with no simple answer. However, I would suggest to
that, rather than asking "why accuracy"? The question might more
accurately be: "WHICH innaccuracy, how much innaccuracy and under what
conditions?" IOW: IT is a can 'o worms.

There is not much point in attempting to use a system with clear and
obvious innacuracies. Let me explain:

Suppose a listener has a speaker system which exhibits a pronounced
'peak' at (say) 10kHz. That listener will probably tend to seek out an
amplifier which suffers a 'suckout' at roughly that frequency. He/she
will forever be 'locked into' using faulty amplifiers to complement
his/her faulty speakers.

Of course, that is a rather rough and ready example, but you get the idea.

On a more subtle level, I can draw your attention to several experiences
I've had:

Many years ago, I worked for Marantz Australia. At that time, the
company was importing one of the Tushinsky Brothers' more bizarre
products - a Pianocorder.

http://www.pianocorder.info/.

Essentially a forerunner to the Yamaha Disklavier.

Anyway, the Pianocorder duly arrived, installed in a Baldwin upright
piano and along with the obligatory piano technician to set the thing
up. I listened to it (this was ca. 1977, BTW) and declared that I would
rather listen to my home stereo, playing an LP. I was labelled a
Philistine, for not enjoyed the sound of a live piano. "Oh well" I
thought. "They must be right".

A few weeks later, I was required to assist in the set up for equipment
at the Sydney Opera House for a public release of the Pianocorder. From
the first few notes, I was awe-struck. It was faulous. Cable of much
more than any one human could manage. The sound of the piano was
delightful. I asked what had changed. "Oh, we're using a different
piano." said the tech. It made all the difference. I can well imagine
that anyone listening to an inferior piano through their system, would
go to heroic lengths to make the sound acceptable.

I find Musique Concrete rather horrible to listen to. The better (ie:
more accurate) the system, the worse it sounds. Some Stavinsky material
can be quite 'hard' on the ear as well (through an accurate system).

Fundamentally, however, when one actively inserts innaccuracy into a
system, then ALL the music will suffer. The pleasant and the not so
pleasant.

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Trevor Wilson said:

Why "accuracy"? For certain Usenet poseurs, this is the question that dare
not speak its name.

Normals and 'borgs alike would surely accept that the purpose of an audio
system is to enable us to enjoy listening to recorded music. Normals choose
the pieces of a system that maximizes listening pleasure. How does praying
to the god of "accuracy" help attain that end?

**A good question, with no simple answer. However, I would suggest to
that, rather than asking "why accuracy"? The question might more
accurately be: "WHICH innaccuracy, how much innaccuracy and under what
conditions?" IOW: IT is a can 'o worms.

Inaccuracy has only one "n".

Suppose a listener has a speaker system which exhibits a pronounced
'peak' at (say) 10kHz. That listener will probably tend to seek out an
amplifier which suffers a 'suckout' at roughly that frequency. He/she
will forever be 'locked into' using faulty amplifiers to complement
his/her faulty speakers.

You must be an equipment dealer. Ever heard of equalizers?

Of course, that is a rather rough and ready example, but you get the idea.

Point not taken. Anyway, the presence of a "peak" or a "suckout" isn't an
argument for or against accuracy. Both characteristics are subordinate to
personal choice.

[snip]
A few weeks later, I was required to assist in the set up for equipment
at the Sydney Opera House for a public release of the Pianocorder. From
the first few notes, I was awe-struck. It was faulous. Cable of much
more than any one human could manage. The sound of the piano was
delightful. I asked what had changed. "Oh, we're using a different
piano." said the tech. It made all the difference. I can well imagine
that anyone listening to an inferior piano through their system, would
go to heroic lengths to make the sound acceptable.

IMO, that's an argument against a dogmatic pursuit of "accuracy". Find
equipment that behaves more to your liking ("better") and you'll get better
sound.

Fundamentally, however, when one actively inserts innaccuracy into a
system, then ALL the music will suffer. The pleasant and the not so
pleasant.

That might be your experience, but it's far from universal.

George M. Middius wrote:

Trevor Wilson said:

Why "accuracy"? For certain Usenet poseurs, this is the question that dare
not speak its name.

Normals and 'borgs alike would surely accept that the purpose of an audio
system is to enable us to enjoy listening to recorded music. Normals choose
the pieces of a system that maximizes listening pleasure. How does praying
to the god of "accuracy" help attain that end?

**A good question, with no simple answer. However, I would suggest to
that, rather than asking "why accuracy"? The question might more
accurately be: "WHICH innaccuracy, how much innaccuracy and under what
conditions?" IOW: IT is a can 'o worms.

Inaccuracy has only one "n".

**OOps, I misspelt. Here is the correct spelling: Innnaccccuracy. Three
'n's and four 'c's.


Suppose a listener has a speaker system which exhibits a pronounced
'peak' at (say) 10kHz. That listener will probably tend to seek out an
amplifier which suffers a 'suckout' at roughly that frequency. He/she
will forever be 'locked into' using faulty amplifiers to complement
his/her faulty speakers.

You must be an equipment dealer. Ever heard of equalizers?

**Equalizers can only be used usfully, if several conditons are met:

* A reference is available.
* An accurate measurement system is used.
* Non-phase shifting eqs are used.


Of course, that is a rather rough and ready example, but you get the idea.

Point not taken. Anyway, the presence of a "peak" or a "suckout" isn't an
argument for or against accuracy. Both characteristics are subordinate to
personal choice.

**Perhaps, but if one is attempting to build a pleasing system, it makes
sense to use equipment which is accurate. Using innnaccccurate equipment
may cause the use of more innnaccccurate equipment to support the
original innnaccccurate equipment. IOW: Two wrongs do not usually make a
right.


[snip]
A few weeks later, I was required to assist in the set up for equipment
at the Sydney Opera House for a public release of the Pianocorder. From
the first few notes, I was awe-struck. It was faulous. Cable of much
more than any one human could manage. The sound of the piano was
delightful. I asked what had changed. "Oh, we're using a different
piano." said the tech. It made all the difference. I can well imagine
that anyone listening to an inferior piano through their system, would
go to heroic lengths to make the sound acceptable.

IMO, that's an argument against a dogmatic pursuit of "accuracy". Find
equipment that behaves more to your liking ("better") and you'll get better
sound.

**Ah, but there's the rub: Had I used a recording of a Baldwin piano, I
may well be tempted to choose equipment which made the sound of the
Baldwin palatable. When time came to play a recording of a Steinway, I'd
be screwed. This is the fundamental problem with the choice of
innnaccccurate equipment.


Fundamentally, however, when one actively inserts innaccuracy into a
system, then ALL the music will suffer. The pleasant and the not so
pleasant.

That might be your experience, but it's far from universal.

**Perhaps. Refer to my example of Musique Concrete.

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Trevor Wilson said:

innaccuracy,
innaccuracy

Inaccuracy has only one "n".

**OOps, I misspelt. Here is the correct spelling: Innnaccccuracy. Three
'n's and four 'c's.

I guess you're covered now, at least in the Krooger sense.

Suppose a listener has a speaker system which exhibits a pronounced
'peak' at (say) 10kHz. That listener will probably tend to seek out an
amplifier which suffers a 'suckout' at roughly that frequency. He/she
will forever be 'locked into' using faulty amplifiers to complement
his/her faulty speakers.

You must be an equipment dealer. Ever heard of equalizers?

**Equalizers can only be used usfully, if several conditons are met:

* A reference is available.
* An accurate measurement system is used.
* Non-phase shifting eqs are used.

Frankly, I have no idea what you're talking about. Equalizers can be used
"usefully" to improve the sound of a system.


Point not taken. Anyway, the presence of a "peak" or a "suckout" isn't an
argument for or against accuracy. Both characteristics are subordinate to
personal choice.

**Perhaps, but if one is attempting to build a pleasing system, it makes
sense to use equipment which is accurate. Using innnaccccurate equipment
may cause the use of more innnaccccurate equipment to support the
original innnaccccurate equipment. IOW: Two wrongs do not usually make a
right.

None of that makes any sense. You're babbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbling.

[piano thingy]

IMO, that's an argument against a dogmatic pursuit of "accuracy". Find
equipment that behaves more to your liking ("better") and you'll get better
sound.

**Ah, but there's the rub: Had I used a recording of a Baldwin piano, I
may well be tempted to choose equipment which made the sound of the
Baldwin palatable. When time came to play a recording of a Steinway, I'd
be screwed. This is the fundamental problem with the choice of
innnaccccurate equipment.

You've stretched the annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnallllllllllllllllllllogy beyond its
breaking point. We're talking about home stereo systems, not that
pianocorder gizmo.

Fundamentally, however, when one actively inserts innaccuracy into a
system, then ALL the music will suffer. The pleasant and the not so
pleasant.

That might be your experience, but it's far from universal.

**Perhaps. Refer to my example of Musique Concrete.

That was irrelevant to the discussssssssssion. If you're want to go off on
tangents, please make an effort to connect them to the point at isssssssue.

George M. Middius wrote:

Trevor Wilson said:

innaccuracy,
innaccuracy

Inaccuracy has only one "n".

**OOps, I misspelt. Here is the correct spelling: Innnaccccuracy. Three
'n's and four 'c's.

I guess you're covered now, at least in the Krooger sense.

**That's what I was going for.


Suppose a listener has a speaker system which exhibits a pronounced
'peak' at (say) 10kHz. That listener will probably tend to seek out an
amplifier which suffers a 'suckout' at roughly that frequency. He/she
will forever be 'locked into' using faulty amplifiers to complement
his/her faulty speakers.

You must be an equipment dealer. Ever heard of equalizers?

**Equalizers can only be used usfully, if several conditons are met:

* A reference is available.
* An accurate measurement system is used.
* Non-phase shifting eqs are used.

Frankly, I have no idea what you're talking about. Equalizers can be used
"usefully" to improve the sound of a system.

**Only under the conditions I mentioned above.



Point not taken. Anyway, the presence of a "peak" or a "suckout" isn't an
argument for or against accuracy. Both characteristics are subordinate to
personal choice.

**Perhaps, but if one is attempting to build a pleasing system, it makes
sense to use equipment which is accurate. Using innnaccccurate equipment
may cause the use of more innnaccccurate equipment to support the
original innnaccccurate equipment. IOW: Two wrongs do not usually make a
right.

None of that makes any sense. You're babbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbling.

**I do that.


[piano thingy]

IMO, that's an argument against a dogmatic pursuit of "accuracy". Find
equipment that behaves more to your liking ("better") and you'll get better
sound.

**Ah, but there's the rub: Had I used a recording of a Baldwin piano, I
may well be tempted to choose equipment which made the sound of the
Baldwin palatable. When time came to play a recording of a Steinway, I'd
be screwed. This is the fundamental problem with the choice of
innnaccccurate equipment.

You've stretched the annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnallllllllllllllllllllogy beyond its
breaking point. We're talking about home stereo systems, not that
pianocorder gizmo.

**Sorry. I didn't explain in sufficient detail. Had a recording been
made of the Baldwin (with either the Pianocorder, or a top line pianist)
and another of the Steinway under the same conditions, then one could
judge a system. I the listener modified his/her system to suit the
Baldwin, they would then screw the system for when they listened to a
recording of the Steinway.



Fundamentally, however, when one actively inserts innaccuracy into a
system, then ALL the music will suffer. The pleasant and the not so
pleasant.

That might be your experience, but it's far from universal.

**Perhaps. Refer to my example of Musique Concrete.

That was irrelevant to the discussssssssssion. If you're want to go off on
tangents, please make an effort to connect them to the point at isssssssue.

**It is utterly relevant. Musique Concrete is a musical style, which, to
most listeners, is unpleasant. That is the aim of the composer. To
design a system which makes Musique Concrete listenable, would destroy
the capacity of that system to reproduce almost any other musical style.

[ANECDOTE]
One of my clients is a wealthy man. Every few years he organises a live
concert for his frieds (the last one, for his 70th birthday, involved
about 1,000 frieds). As his hi fi guy, I get invited to them. His
concerts involve Australia's finest jazz musos and are brilliant. One of
his friends is trumpter, James Morrison (
http://www.jamesmorrison.com.au/ ). Morrison is arguably one of the best
trupeters on the planet. Technically, he is an outstanding player.
Personally, I can't stand the music. In fact, if I played his music, at
the SPLs he plays at, I can almost gurantee that I would sell no
equipment to anyone ever again. And this is live, unamplified music.

My point is that live music is not always pleasing. Building a hi fi
system to circumvent flaws is a fatally flawed

Trevor Wilson

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Trevor Wilson wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:

Trevor Wilson said:

My point is that live music is not always pleasing. Building a hi fi
system to circumvent flaws is a fatally flawed


If music is not pleasing, why bother to listen to it? There is always plenty
that is.

Keith

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .

George M. Middius wrote:


innaccuracy, innaccuracy

Inaccuracy has only one "n".

**OOps, I misspelt. Here is the correct spelling: Innnaccccuracy. Three
'n's and four 'c's.
I guess you're covered now, at least in the Krooger sense.

**That's what I was going for.

Suppose a listener has a speaker system which exhibits a pronounced
'peak' at (say) 10kHz. That listener will probably tend to seek out an
amplifier which suffers a 'suckout' at roughly that frequency. He/she
will forever be 'locked into' using faulty amplifiers to complement
his/her faulty speakers.

You must be an equipment dealer. Ever heard of equalizers?

**Equalizers can only be used usfully, if several conditons are met:
* A reference is available.
* An accurate measurement system is used.
* Non-phase shifting eqs are used.

Frankly, I have no idea what you're talking about. Equalizers can be used
"usefully" to improve the sound of a system.

**Only under the conditions I mentioned above.

Point not taken. Anyway, the presence of a "peak" or a "suckout" isn't
an
argument for or against accuracy. Both characteristics are subordinate
to
personal choice.

**Perhaps, but if one is attempting to build a pleasing system, it makes
sense to use equipment which is accurate. Using innnaccccurate equipment
may cause the use of more innnaccccurate equipment to support the
original innnaccccurate equipment. IOW: Two wrongs do not usually make a
right.

None of that makes any sense. You're babbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbling.

**I do that.

[piano thingy]

IMO, that's an argument against a dogmatic pursuit of "accuracy". Find
equipment that behaves more to your liking ("better") and you'll get
better
sound.

**Ah, but there's the rub: Had I used a recording of a Baldwin piano, I
may well be tempted to choose equipment which made the sound of the
Baldwin palatable. When time came to play a recording of a Steinway, I'd
be screwed. This is the fundamental problem with the choice of
innnaccccurate equipment.

You've stretched the annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnallllllllllllllllllllogy beyond
its
breaking point. We're talking about home stereo systems, not that
pianocorder gizmo.

**Sorry. I didn't explain in sufficient detail. Had a recording been made
of the Baldwin (with either the Pianocorder, or a top line pianist) and
another of the Steinway under the same conditions, then one could judge a
system. I the listener modified his/her system to suit the Baldwin, they
would then screw the system for when they listened to a recording of the
Steinway.

Fundamentally, however, when one actively inserts innaccuracy into a
system, then ALL the music will suffer. The pleasant and the not so
pleasant.

That might be your experience, but it's far from universal.

**Perhaps. Refer to my example of Musique Concrete.

That was irrelevant to the discussssssssssion. If you're want to go off
on
tangents, please make an effort to connect them to the point at
isssssssue.

**It is utterly relevant. Musique Concrete is a musical style, which, to
most listeners, is unpleasant. That is the aim of the composer. To design
a system which makes Musique Concrete listenable, would destroy the
capacity of that system to reproduce almost any other musical style.

[ANECDOTE]
One of my clients is a wealthy man. Every few years he organises a live
concert for his frieds (the last one, for his 70th birthday, involved
about 1,000 frieds). As his hi fi guy, I get invited to them. His concerts
involve Australia's finest jazz musos and are brilliant. One of his
friends is trumpter, James Morrison ( http://www.jamesmorrison.com.au/ ).
Morrison is arguably one of the best trupeters on the planet. Technically,
he is an outstanding player. Personally, I can't stand the music. In fact,
if I played his music, at the SPLs he plays at, I can almost gurantee that
I would sell no equipment to anyone ever again. And this is live,
unamplified music.

At last TW, we agree on something. I can't stand him either. Compared to
Miles Davis, Chet Baker, Ruby Braff, Tomasz Stanko, Palle
Mickelborg....hell, the list is endless, the guy's a bum.
He's a showman like the late, great Louis Armstrong, but without the
originality.
In short, it's all been done before.

My point is that live music is not always pleasing. Building a hi fi
system to circumvent flaws is a fatally flawed

Yes, if that's what Mr. Middius was implying. But was he?

ruff