|Click title to read one, or click date to read all below it.|
Hi byron: my point is simple: if you enjoy a stereo system ... Mrtennis
mrtennis - i disagree that the "analysis" of musi ... Bryoncunningham
Bryon, several posts back you raise interesting points by di ... Dgarretson
Bryon - analyzing or not is a personal preference but we dis ... Kijanki
"sounding better and sounding neutral are two completel ... Dgarretson
Neutral is the letting the music on the disc to be fully rea ... Muralman1
Dgarretson- you suggest in your question that neutral is a g ... Kijanki
Muralman1 wrote "better is the listener's subjective no ... Kijanki
Kijanki, my view is that analytic & sterile err at the oppos ... Dgarretson
Dgarretson - absolutely agree. the problem is who is the ju ... Kijanki
Complete neutrality, that is the live performance, cannot be ... Muralman1
Vince, i hope you realize that what sounds neutral to you mi ... Kijanki
Kijanki, let me give you an example. i have a dac that is tu ... Muralman1
Tuned to warmth - that is your preference. i don't care for ... Kijanki
You did not read what i wrote. i said i changed that colored ... Muralman1
Vince, i'm sorry - i read it too quick. Kijanki
There was an iteresting piece in stereophile edited by marku ... Mrtennis
Kijanki, warmth that lacks correct pitch definition is yet o ... Dgarretson
Dgarretson - you're obviously in a "warm" camp wh ... Kijanki
Oops - did i say i want neutral sound? i guess we're all se ... Kijanki
Such descriptions of personal experiences regarding colorati ... Dgarretson
Dgarretson - i also like system a little on the warm side be ... Kijanki
It seems there exists a dichotomy--enjoment of music and ana ... Mrtennis
Dgarretson wrote: i completely agree with this. and: ... Bryoncunningham
Wow - i have been unable to read/post here for a while now d ... Learsfool
Learsfool, as one progressively raises the bar in the hobby ... Dgarretson
learsfool – i agree with this. my view is that, although pe ... Bryoncunningham
Dgarretson, i was speaking more of improvement in listener a ... Learsfool
what is the evidence for this belief? why is the effort to ... Bryoncunningham
Great ideas for a gazlay's sequel. Shadorne
When i began this thread, i advocated a strict kind of objec ... Bryoncunningham
Hi bryon - i have been out of town again for several days, a ... Learsfool
learsfool - i agree with you that audiophiles commonly lose ... Bryoncunningham
After ten weeks or so, this thread has slowed to a halt. in ... Bryoncunningham
Interesting. did you take the blue pill or the red one? Shadorne
I'm sufficiently out of it that i didn't get shadorne's clev ... Almarg
Bryon, your constructs are interesting, and in conclusion t ... Dgarretson
Nice concluding post. it does, however, raise the question ... Cbw723
like bryon, i took the red one. but that blue one can be ... Cbw723
Ultimately, i think most of us do not listen to music in an ... Mrtennis
Hi bryon - just saw your most recent post. very interesting ... Learsfool
Learsfool – interesting thoughts. as i understand you, you a ... Bryoncunningham
Hi bryon - good reply. i grant your point that 4) does not ... Learsfool
Learsfool – i believe that you and i are talking about two d ... Bryoncunningham
Hi bryon - to reply to the first part of your post first, i ... Learsfool
Learsfool - i am aware of the extent to which recording, edi ... Bryoncunningham
actually, technically, that's a playback of a performance u ... Cbw723
Cbw and bryon - you both seem to be assuming that a "pe ... Learsfool
Musicians consider all recordings to be performances. The difference between a live and a recorded performance is that the recorded performance is permanent, and a live performance is not.
The idea that all recordings should be considered performances is strange to me. It is not merely the fact that some electronic music involves no real instruments. It is the fact that much electronic music is never PLAYED IN REAL TIME. It is ASSEMBLED OVER MANY HOURS OR DAYS in a computer software program. I have personally worked with electronic composers who create recordings this way. To call their work a “performance” seems to stretch the limits of any ordinary use of the term. However, since you are a professional musician and I am not, I will defer to you that musicians consider all recordings to be performances. Having said that, this disagreement is quite tangential to the main issue of my post on 1/18, which is the source of our current disagreement. So, to return to that…
This brings me to "truthfulness" vs. "transparency." Bryon, you seem to equate these two things, and this is where the confusion lies.
This is almost correct. In my post on 1/18, I did not EQUATE transparency and truthfulness, but I did propose that we think of transparency as a KIND of truthfulness. Specifically, I proposed that we think of transparency as...
…how much the information presented at the ear during playback resembles the information that was presented at the microphone during the actual performance.
It does not matter whether we disagree about this conceptualization of transparency. “Transparency” is simply the term I chose, following Almarg’s suggestion, to refer to the CORRESPONDENCE between…
(1) The information presented at the ear during playback, and
(2) The information presented at the microphone during the performance.
I have called the correspondence between (1) and (2) "transparency." But you can call it anything you like. The important thing is not the term, but what I have used the term to mean, namely, the correspondence between (1) and (2). That correspondence is a KIND OF TRUTHFULNESS, which I will now try to show again...
Since (1) refers to a REPRESENTATION of an event and (2) refers to the REAL EVENT that it represents, then “transparency,” as I am using the term, refers to the CORRESPONDENCE of a REPRESENTATION to a REAL EVENT. And the correspondence between a representation and a real event is the MEANING of truthfulness. Hence transparency, in the sense of the correspondence between (1) and (2) above, is a KIND OF truthfulness (but not the only kind, since music recordings are not the only kind of representations).
I think your continuum IS correct IF you are speaking of transparency, not truthfulness. In my view, a recording can be very transparent yet not truthful…
You are either using a different meaning of “transparent” or a different meaning of “truthful” than the meanings I used in my post on 1/18, and in all my posts since, including this one. I suspect that you are using the term “transparent” differently. I do not want to squabble over the use of the term. If you object to my usage, you can substitute whatever word you like whenever I use the term, so long as you understand your substitute as referring to the correspondence between (1) and (2) above.
Only if one has familiarity with the performers and the venue can one accurately judge the truthfulness of a recording…I am able to apply this objectivist perspective in this way because I am VERY familiar with the hall and my colleagues. If one is not familiar with these things, then all one can do is guess at the truthfulness of the recording - you can only know approximately…
I completely agree with this. What you are describing here, however, is not WHAT MAKES a representation/recording truthful, but rather HOW YOU JUDGE whether a representation/recording is truthful. In my post on 1/18, I was proposing ideas about WHAT MAKES a representation/recording truthful, namely, its correspondence to the real event. I was not proposing ideas about HOW YOU JUDGE whether a representation/recording is truthful.
If one is not familiar with these things, then all one can do is guess at the truthfulness of the recording - you can only know approximately…Therefore you would really be applying a subjectivist, not an objectivist perspective, because you don't really know what the live event sounded like. You would have to use your own personal reference point for how you think it is supposed to sound.
I agree with this as well. If you do not know what real performance sounded like, then you are far less well equipped to evaluate a recording of it in terms of its objective correspondence to the real event, simply because you don’t know what the real event sounded like. In that case, you would be left to evaluate the recording in terms of preference, which is most certainly subjective.
But none of this seems to me to be inconsistent with my proposals on 1/18 or my defense of them since. Here are the proposals you objected to:
(5a) The more a music recording represents a REAL musical event, the MORE it can be judged as to its truthfulness.
(5b) The more a music recording represents a VIRTUAL musical event, the LESS it can be judged as to its truthfulness.
(6a) Music recordings of REAL events can be evaluated as to their truthfulness. And to evaluate a recording’s truthfulness is to adopt the point of view of Objectivism.
(6b) Music recordings of VIRTUAL events cannot be evaluated as to their truthfulness, though they can be evaluated in terms of preference. And to evaluate a recording in terms of preference is to adopt the point of view of Subjectivism.
(5a) is intended to describe a NECESSARY condition for judging the truthfulness of a recording, namely the recording must represent a “real-ish” event. (5a) is NOT intended to describe SUFFICIENT conditions for judging the truthfulness of a recording. As you point out, (5a) is not a sufficient condition for judging the truthfulness of a recording, since there is at least one other necessary condition: familiarity with the real event the recording represents.
(5b) is simply the converse of (5a)
(6a) is partly a restatement of (5a), and partly intended to point out that Objectivism – the view that a representation can be evaluated as to its truthfulness – is more warranted when recordings represent real events, simply because the truthfulness of a representation REQUIRES that there be a real event for the representation to correspond to. That is the MEANING of truth. And this is not an idiosyncratic definition of truth. If I defer to you, as a professional musician, about the meaning of “performance” as used by musicians, please believe me, as a professionally trained philosopher, that truth is used by philosophers and scientists alike to mean “correspondence to reality.” And if you will grant me that, then it is a short step to the conclusion that a necessary condition for judging the truthfulness of a representation (whether it is a recording, or any representation) is that there is or was a real event that the representation represents. In light of this, judging the truthfulness of a recording is an act of Objectivism BY DEFINITION, since Objectivism is the view that representations can be evaluated as to their truthfulness.
(6b) is simply the converse of (6a).
I can assure you that the more mikes used, and the more mixing done (in other words the more virtual the recording), the easier it is to hear where the recording falls short of the live event as far as truthfulness is concerned. I am able to apply this objectivist perspective in this way because I am VERY familiar with the hall and my colleagues.
Once again, you are providing ideas (good ones, I think) about HOW TO JUDGE the truthfulness of a recording. I agree with these ideas, but they do not mean I’ve gotten things backwards in (5a) and (5b), or in (6a) and (6b). It only means that the perception of the “virtuality” of a recording make it possible to JUDGE the truthfulness of the recording. In other words, one way to judge the truthfulness of a recording is when it DEVIATES FROM truthfulness. The perception of virtuality in a recording is, in effect, the perception of CONTRAST between the recording and the real event. But for some recordings, there is no real event. When recordings are altered liberally during editing and mixing, they can become so virtual that there is no longer any real event for the recording to correspond to. And if there is no real event for the recording to correspond to, then the recording cannot be judged in terms of its truthfulness, since truthfulness MEANS correspondence to a real event. And if a recording cannot be judged in terms of its truthfulness, then we are left with evaluating it subjectively. Hence the more virtual a recording, the more the attitude of Subjectivism is warranted.
Bryoncunningham (System | Reviews | Threads | Answers | This Thread)
Hi bryon - first, the performance discussion. all music mus ... Learsfool