Tír Na HiFi

tony wrote:

Diapason wrote:I'm finding this all very interesting. Poll added.

Can you vote twice?

you're not voting for Sinn Fein now Tony!

Ivor wrote:

tony wrote:

Diapason wrote:I'm finding this all very interesting. Poll added.

Can you vote twice?

you're not voting for Sinn Fein now Tony!

Hehe doesn't look as if I need to with that lot. They seem to be doing just dandy regardless

Well judging by the photos on the previous page... I'm going for Beauty....

As long as the music is enjoyable, reasonably accurate and does not give me a pain in my head... beauty will do just fine.

As long as the music is enjoyable, reasonably accurate and does not give me a pain in my head... beauty will do just fine.

The Beautiful Truth?

tweber wrote:

As long as the music is enjoyable, reasonably accurate and does not give me a pain in my head... beauty will do just fine.

The Beautiful Truth?

Nice one Shane :)

As Dave pointed out earlier, what we hear is simply a reflection of how the engineer set up the recording.  Where he placed the microphones and how he balanced the levels.  After that, we tune our own systems to reproduce the music to fit our respective tastes.  I favour a somewhat warm, somewhat forgiving environment that can make bright recordings more listenable over a longer period of time.  And yet, it's important to strike a balance here.  I want clarity and detail as well.  I want to hear the energy and fire that the performers invested in the music.  And I also want hear air around the performers' voices and instruments.  I want a sense of the live environment and hear how the musicians are interacting with each other.  What I don't want is a clinical approximation of the real thing.  If there is dirt and grime in there, I want to hear that as well.

One could argue that there is more truth in beauty than there is beauty in truth.  Alternatively, the necessity of truth outweighs the desire for beauty.  Keats argued for a more equitable balance between the two but identifed the primacy of the intellect to discern beauty in the truths that endure and give shape and meaning to our lives, whilst accepting the inherently transitory nature of ephemeral truth.

People who pride themselves on their bold, unvarnished honesty - 'calling a spade a spade', 'telling it how it is' - are usually inconsiderate and egotistical. In life, you have to temper truth with tact.

Similarly, 100%, literal candour isn't necessarily truthful on the larger scale or a deeper level. You may momentarily be infuriated by your wife or children, but screaming hatefully at them - truly expressing those impulses - isn't truly how you feel.

Similarly, myths often tell truths, despite not being true.

Similarly, some audio equipment, artfully voiced, aims primarily to communicate musical gestalt ahead of 100% truthfulness to the recording. Some aims only for the latter. Both are hard to make. Only the latter is suitable in a studio, but in your listening room/head, there's no right or wrong. You may favour 'truth' when younger; 'beauty' when older. Or vice versa. Your current preference will probably change.

Truth is beauty; beauty isn't always truth. But music must foremost be beautiful, else what is it for?

Good stuff. After a shaky start, Beauty is winning now...

item_audio wrote:...
Truth is beauty; beauty isn't always truth. But music must foremost be beautiful, else what is it for?

For some there is beauty in truth. Nobody listens to uglyness as the intention of listening to music.

But the truth of a recording is made in the engineer's studio and doesn't need to be remastered at home into something else.

And if you want to change something, do it somewhere else in the signal chain of your setup and not in the software player used by all as the source component, because what is lost can never be regained.

So neutral tonal balance and with as much details as are present in the recording is what should be the aim of an audiophile software player.

If it shows flaws in your setup's hardware/software/hifi-components, so be it and you have to address those issues and not dumb down the input quality so the flaws in your system don't show.

Cheers
Aleg

Aleg wrote:

item_audio wrote:...
Truth is beauty; beauty isn't always truth. But music must foremost be beautiful, else what is it for?

For some there is beauty in truth. Nobody listens to uglyness as the intention of listening to music.

But the truth of a recording is made in the engineer's studio and doesn't need to be remastered at home into something else.

And if you want to change something, do it somewhere else in the signal chain of your setup and not in the software player used by all as the source component, because what is lost can never be regained.

So neutral tonal balance and with as much details as are present in the recording is what should be the aim of an audiophile software player.

If it shows flaws in your setup hardware/software/components, so be it and you have to address those issues and not dumb down the input quality so the flaws in your system don't show.

Cheers
Aleg

agreed

truth beauty thing is very much open to interpretation (what is truth what is beauty)
would be easier to do with system demonstrations
think we might steal some of them beauty votes
detail is best when it is also beautiful