What Do You Strive For In A System - Accuracy Or Euphony?

[TomD]

This is why we all just need to sit back and enjoy the music.

I tell you, this is a great group, but some of you are clearly INSANE!

DT says it all.

Accuracy begets euphony, and euphony begets accuracy. The more faithfully the sound on the source is reproduced the better the results. Am i describing accuracy or euphony? I guess if you’re an engineer with all sorts of gadgets you read it as accuracy, if an end-user you interpret it as euphony.

Damn! now you got me dragged into it.

 

[Bernard]

I tell you, this is a great group, but some of you are clearly INSANE!
.......................

Damn! now you got me dragged into it.

Does that make you "clearly INSANE" as well ?

 

[User211]

To me, an accurate system is one which faithfully reproduces what's recorded on the source medium.

Did you miss my point? Given that all (sufficiently different) replay systems do not sound the same, how can you ever possibly know whether the playback is accurate or not?

 

[sleepysurf]

As I'm getting older, and losing more high-frequency hearing, "Euphony" becomes more important than "Accuracy." As I keep "tweaking" my room acoustics, I guess I'm really trying to compensate for my own "non flat" hearing frequency response. In the end, it's my ears that matter, so even if my system measures a perfectly-flat room/speaker frequency response, it might not sound perfect to me. In fact, I suspect my system sounds a bit bright to those with "younger ears".

 

[Gordon Gray]

Assuming the "basis" for accuracy is the sound of unamplified instruments in a live venue, such as a symphony orchestra or a live jazz concert in a club, this basis is also frought with inconsistency.

I've had the chance to visit / hear several orchestras in different venues over the years and they all sound different, depending on the acoustic signature of the hall.

Then there's the issue of where you are sitting.

My personal "benchmark" is the sound of strings and piano. If I can get those two items close, the rest of the "musical picture" seems to come into focus and balance.

Accurate or euphonic? Who knows and as others have said, as long as you are enjoying the sound from your system, that's all that matters.

GG

 

[risabet]

Assuming the "basis" for accuracy is the sound of unamplified instruments in a live venue, such as a symphony orchestra or a live jazz concert in a club, this basis is also frought with inconsistency.

I've had the chance to visit / hear several orchestras in different venues over the years and they all sound different, depending on the acoustic signature of the hall.

Then there's the issue of where you are sitting.

My personal "benchmark" is the sound of strings and piano. If I can get those two items close, the rest of the "musical picture" seems to come into focus and balance.

Accurate or euphonic? Who knows and as others have said, as long as you are enjoying the sound from your system, that's all that matters.

GG

This is exactly the issue. Having heard many groups in very different acoustics the issue of "accuracy" becomes one of constantly changing measure. The local JC jazz band is awesome, dynamic and powerful in the college concert hall, the LA Phil is marvelous in the excellent acoustics of Disney Hall, not so much at the Hollywood Bowl. Jazz clubs are really to numerous to mention.

My references are typically voices, small chamber and jazz ensembles and for dynamics full orchestras. All being subject to the above limitations.

 

[eknuds01]

Probably closer to euphony.

We all put in long hours, many of us have families, or have other obligations and projects that occupy 99% of our time.

For the rare free minute(s) that I can sit back and listen to the music, I only care about enjoying the moment.

The instant I start worrying about the placement of the vocals, the accuracy of the instruments, and so on - it goes from an enjoyable experience to various levels of disastisfaction. That is to say, the second you get it 'right' you then want it to sound better.

 

[User211]

This is exactly the issue. Having heard many groups in very different acoustics the issue of "accuracy" becomes one of constantly changing measure. The local JC jazz band is awesome, dynamic and powerful in the college concert hall, the LA Phil is marvelous in the excellent acoustics of Disney Hall, not so much at the Hollywood Bowl. Jazz clubs are really to numerous to mention.

My references are typically voices, small chamber and jazz ensembles and for dynamics full orchestras. All being subject to the above limitations.

So essentially I think we are agreeing that there is no true reference. There can't be. I know my acoustic guitars sound very different from room to room.

A loudspeaker manufacturer recently posted on another website that he will not quote the frequency response of his speakers. Why? Because move the mike a bit when doing the test and everything changes. Put them in a different room, and everyting changes. So what is the point?

However, I believe we all know, or at least we think we know what we are talking about when we use the term euphonic. How so, given the above?

Interesting...

 

[David Matz]

This is why we all just need to sit back and enjoy the music.

Amen,

Preferably live music! I heard Brubeck on Friday night, Diana Krall Saturday, Chicago Blues fest a couple weeks ago, etc. Barely have had the system on all summer.


The funny thing is that Brubeck is old, and his cd's contain better performances. But he and his band are amazing. You can't get the energy and the dynamic swings captured on the recording. I don't care how good the room is or how much the speakers cost. At least I have not heard it, and no speaker designer can claim to do it. Same with Krall. The Live in Paris cd has amazing performances. However, standing 15 feet behind the last row of seats at Ravinia in the rain is much better than the cd.


The is no better cure for audiophilia and these types of discussions than getting out there and hearing live music.

 

[User211]

The is no better cure for audiophilia and these types of discussions than getting out there and hearing live music.

Totally true. But then again, I believe you are an audiophile, David!

What amazes me is the number of audiophiles who can't or don't or won't learn to play an instrument.

If you truly what to understand music and appreciate it, there is no better way. And until you do so, you have no true idea of the talent some of these guys have.

So I urge you all to at least try - and not give up the instant you realise just how difficult some instruments are to play well. Persevere and you will be rewarded! Not only with the pleasure it will bring to you, but also with a much better appreciation of what others can achieve.

I'm sure most realise it's not an easy thing anyway - but hey - no pain, no gain!

And as far as sound quality goes - you'll be getting it direct! Nothing better.

Trouble is, even instruments vary alot with the sound they produce. And, as ever, the best sounding ones usually cost and arm and a leg... But they are things of beauty and craftmanship, and a real pleasure to own.

That said, you can buy a very reasonable acoustic guitar for around £300/$450, say. A Washburn J28SDL, for instance. Or a set of drums, a clarinet, a violin... choose your weapon!

 

[David Matz]

Totally true. But then again, I believe you are an audiophile, David!

What amazes me is the number of audiophiles who can't or don't or won't learn to play an instrument.

If you truly what to understand music and appreciate it, there is no better way. And until you do so, you have no true idea of the talent some of these guys have.

So I urge you all to at least try - and not give up the instant you realise just how difficult some instruments are to play well. Persevere and you will be rewarded! Not only with the pleasure it will bring to you, but also with a much better appreciation of what others can achieve.

I'm sure most realise it's not an easy thing anyway - but hey - no pain, no gain!

And as far as sound quality goes - you'll be getting it direct! Nothing better.

Trouble is, even instruments vary alot with the sound they produce. And, as ever, the best sounding ones usually cost and arm and a leg... But they are things of beauty and craftmanship, and a real pleasure to own.

Justin,

I agree with you that I am an addict, but I have found no better cure than live music. As for learning to play an instrument, it would not be the best use of my time. I am too impatient. I am also too busy. If I take time to learn something, I would rather work on my strengths and make myself even better at it than invest time in a weakness. I would rather hear Lurrie Bell play the guitar than me!

 

[User211]

That's what you need to get over, and is the standard sort of response i.e. I haven't got the time and I'd be rubbish at it.

You don't need to be good - you just need to enjoy it. I know I'll never be great, but I am massively better than I was a few years ago.

Finding the time is easy - just practise whilst you watch the telly - and drive your wife insane, like me

Don't worry no pressure on you David, or anyone. Just trying to encourage a fellow bunch of music appreciators...

 

[amey01]

I'd love nothing more than to be able to play, but alas - I'm too impatient too. I'd rather listen to someone who can play. My parents should have kicked me when I was a kid.

My wife plays the violin, and I love to listen to her play but she does it so rarely it annoys me. She has tried to teach me but other than a squawky rendition of "Happy Birthday", I'm a lost cause.

 

[Craig]

Assuming the "basis" for accuracy is the sound of unamplified instruments in a live venue, such as a symphony orchestra or a live jazz concert in a club, this basis is also frought with inconsistency.
GG

I tend to agree with this concept but what about instruments that are made to be amplified like an electric guitar? And even some music is originally written and composed to be amplified with the use of synthesizer.

I've attended concerts where the live music was not as good as the recorded music because of the less than stellar venue acoustics. Again, I agree that acoustic instruments and unamplified vocals can be a good reference but this can also be a limited reference.

 

[Bernard]

A Washburn J28SDL, for instance. Or a set of drums, a clarinet, a violin... choose your weapon!

Duelling banjos?

BTW for my 40th birthday my wife signed me up for piano lessons as I love listening to the piano. It was frustrating not being able to get my hands to do what my brain was telling them to do. Then, as I was doing a lot of travelling at the time, I had to drop the lessons.

 

[risabet]

What amazes me is the number of audiophiles who can't or don't or won't learn to play an instrument.

If you truly what to understand music and appreciate it, there is no better way. And until you do so, you have no true idea of the talent some of these guys have. . . .

And as far as sound quality goes - you'll be getting it direct! Nothing better. . . .

That said, you can buy a very reasonable acoustic guitar for around £300/$450, say. A Washburn J28SDL, for instance. Or a set of drums, a clarinet, a violin... choose your weapon!

Playing an instrument or singing or whatever is as unlike listening as watching BassMasters is unlike fishing. I spent a number of years in choirs and recreationally played percussion. Being in a choir is nothing like listening to one. In a choir you are not able to hear the blending or the parts distinctly. When in the audience the effect is TOTALLY DIFFERENT and clearly more like the sound of an audio system.

I would have to think that your guitars sound very different to you playing them than to someone listening to you play them. The benefit in performing is, as you stated, understanding the talent of the musicians we so love and developing an in depth appreciation of the music.

I would add that reading music adds to the appreciation of the art of music e.g. the score to Messiah adds immeasurably to my enjoyment of the music YMMV.

 

[crusty]

Just some observations and thoughts…

Indeed, I wish it was, but I don’t think it is possible to recreate the sound of real acoustic instruments in real space. In order to do this, you need real acoustic instruments played in real space. Real instruments couple with, and energize the air in a way only real instruments can, and each instrument couples with and energizes the air unique to its own physical and acoustic character. Acoustic instruments have a resonating body to them, whether it be the tubular brass and bell of a French horn, or the varnished wood of a violin, sound emanates from them with a (3-)dimensional character and presence that is hard to mistake. The same can be said for an entire symphony orchestra. The sound seems to comfortably occupy the space it’s played in and when it crescendos the sound swells and fills the space. The image that comes to mind is an inflating balloon. When amplified sound is played louder, it seems to sound closer, rather than bigger, and fails to fill the space in the way an acoustic instrument can. Simply put, real instruments sound big and full, and satisfying. One of the things I like about Martin Logan speakers is that they can reproduce image size very well, and though they still do not sound like real instruments played in real space, it is still satisfying to listen to music through Martin Logans.
I wonder if some of what people describe as a euphonic character to sound, whether it be from tubes, cables, speakers, etc. is a coloration that mimics the image size and swelling of the sound of an acoustic instrument. I don’t know if it is simply a matter of euphonic versus accurate sound, because acoustic instruments have both, otherwise, they would lose their acoustic character and cease to be pleasant to listen to. When a note on a piano is struck, one can hear the vibration of the strings as well as the resonance of the sound as they couple with the sound board and emanate out from the instrument. When a note on the violin is played, one can hear the attack and raw friction of the bow across the string, as well as the warmth and body of the instrument as the sound develops and emanates out into the acoustic space.

:music:

 

[Irishtom]

Accuracy in a loudspeaker can't even be defined, at least not with a definition that engineers agree on. Dipoles vs. monopoles, electrostat vs. dynamic, horn loaded vs. direct radiating, wide dispersion vs. narrow, good transient response vs. low distortion----cases are made for all.

 

[Rich]

The question wasn't about loudspeakers specifically, but the system as a whole. And most folks on this site aren't engineers; they are audiophiles. Most audiophiles have an understanding of the difference between accuracy and euphony, although probably few would agree on exact definitions. In general, my take is that euphony means it has a very pleasant sound with some exaggerated richness, although not entirely accurate to the source material. Often this occurs because of the addition of even order harmonics. Accuracy means that the sound closely matches the actual recording on the source material. By playing the same material on many different systems, you start to get an idea of what systems play the material accurately, and what systems don't.

Personally, although I can enjoy the sound of a euphonic system for a little while, I much prefer an accurate rendition of the source material. That is why I have the system that I have. The Ref 3 and the Sanders amps, combined with the Summits, produces a very accurate rendition of the source material.

 

[User211]

I'm going round to a meeting this week to listen to some guy's horn based system. There'll be a few there.

I'm going to take my guitar, and a recording of my guitar. I'll play both. It'll be interesting to see what the remarks from the group are. I'll post back if all goes to plan.