| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Playback Listening » Accuracy vs. Musicality (and YMMV) (103 posts, 6 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 6 of 6 (103 items) Select Pages:  « First ... « 2 3 4 5 6
01-29-2026 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,829
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 101
Post ID: 29554
Reply to: 29553
Delivery Systems as Content (as Content)
It seems some people are moved by "Eastern" thinking on these things, Zen, as it were. Here things might be "reduced" or "streamlined" to a sort of metaphysical symbology. Look at gardens, for instance. One gets the idea that one might look anywhere any time for "meaningful content". The Grand Jest works in all directions, too. I think the onerous aspect of audio as we have known it is not exclusive to audio, as the idea that aesthetics are for sale has itself stumbled and fallen in on itself, yet "nobody seems to care". Glad to hear attendance is way down at The Kennedy Center, anyway.

Paul S
01-30-2026 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,421
Joined on 05-27-2004

Post #: 102
Post ID: 29555
Reply to: 29554
There is no conflict there.
Paul, you are not wrong in sensing Eastern subtexts in my position on this subject. The reality is that it is not necessarily Eastern per se, but rather a complementary musical and cultural logic, one in which shame and guilt are not the primary moderating forces. Also, do not discount age here. An accommodation of, and an openness to, the specific advantages the Eastern world offers is a common inclination in the second half of life for many people.

I have absolutely zero issue with the East versus West question. To me, it is not a competition of any kind, but an organic fusion. Even musically, I tend to appreciate a restrained and intentional introduction of Middle Eastern modal practice into Western contexts. When done properly, even briefly, such an introduction adds depth precisely because it suspends the Western bias toward functional harmony and teleological resolution, allowing perception to reorganize around melodic contour, micro-inflection, and timbral emphasis rather than chordal logic. The effect is not exoticism but reorientation, a bypassing of the purely intellectual layer in favor of direct perceptual engagement. When it is done properly and tastefully, it is absolutely astonishing and beautiful.

This is not about conflict. It is about integration.It is mildly amusing that you, Paul, mention Eastern elements. Just yesterday I was listening to a remarkable recording of medieval Sephardic Jewish vocal music. In terms of melodic grammar, modal behavior, and expressive intent, it felt like a trip to Mars: a completely different musical world and a fundamentally different mechanism for communicating with consciousness. Whether one likes it or not is beside the point.

For me, the point is that while my mind functions comfortably within a familiar Western musical system, the introduction of an Eastern modality operates analogously to a Gödelian shift between formal systems. Just as Gödel demonstrated that certain truths can only be formulated and recognized within the internal logic of a given system, the encounter with an alternative musical logic briefly exposes the limits of the Western framework without negating its validity, allowing another coherent order of meaning to become perceptible. I absolutely love those moments.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-31-2026 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
rowuk


Germany
Posts 479
Joined on 07-05-2012

Post #: 103
Post ID: 29557
Reply to: 29553
Here we go again...
 Romy the Cat wrote:
 rowuk wrote:

When communicating on line, we need mutual understanding for the things that we want to discuss (the audio press has done little to help here). I can explain my views of accuracy and musicality, both have nothing to do with gear however. Musicality is something that a musician does with his/her play. I think that this word is misplaced in the audio world. Accuracy is also a function of definition. Geometrically, it is impossible to have accurate playback. There is no recreation of the original space - regardless of the effort and money invested. Pitch and timbre coulds have degrees of accuracy, but what was the original, what microphone, how close was the microphone to the instrument, what EQ or compression was used? As there is no way of knowing, I feel that we must replace the word "accurate" with the word "plausible". With these reservations, someone could talk to me about my "sound" or my "opinion".

It is ridiculous how much I disagree with the above. I am absolutely fine with the notion that it is impossible to have accurate playback, but, in my view, you, Robin, attribute accuracy to live music. I do not. Accuracy is not live music. Demanding that playback reproduction be, in any way or form, a reflection of live events is an absolute abomination of audio objectives, and this is what I have been opposing for over 25 years.
 
Music is just one of the forms of consciousness that impacts us. If your doctor sticks a syringe in your ass, do we need to care about the syringe or about the medicine that it contains? The whole fucking audio industry has invented a mechanism of worshipping and adulating disposable plastic syringes, arguing about how one syringe (audio) is different from the “true” syringes (music). This is the most boring and idiotic objective, in my view.
The only accuracy that exists is the accuracy of the medicine in audio syringes versus music syringes. The form, shape, or any other property of syringes are wonderful observations to make, and you can publish a lot of publications to corroborate them, but it is all irrelevant bullshit that simple-minded audio morons consume as some kind of “wisdom.”
 
Can a syringe impact the quality of the medicine it carries? Ironically, yes—but not in the way audio people think. They are trained to believe that there is a direct relation between syringe quality and the performance of the medicine, and this works fine for anyone at the first level of meta-cognition. As soon as a person begins to question the value of their own understanding, knowledge, and perception, the whole charade of sophisticated syringes collapses.
 
 
What I am trying to say is that music itself is not privileged. It is one of many carriers through which consciousness is altered, informed, or provoked. Sound, language, image, chemical agents, silence, memory, meditation, and imagination all operate on the same substrate. Consciousness does not discriminate based on delivery medium. It consumes content, not containers. It does not ask how the signal arrived; it only registers what arrived.
The moment a person begins to question their own perception—its limits, its conditioning, its expectations—the mythology collapses. The elaborate hierarchy of “better” syringes reveals itself as a house of cards: impressive in construction, empty in foundation. What remains is the only question that ever mattered: what, exactly, is being delivered to consciousness, and why?
 
At that point, playback ceases to be a fetish and becomes what it always should have been—a tool. Not a shrine. Not a competition. Not a moral ladder. A tool for exploring how consciousness responds to structured stimuli. Everything else is noise, in my view.

 rowuk wrote:
When our system becomes a tool to explore our minds reaction to stimuli…
When our system becomes a tool for exploring the mind’s reaction to stimuli, it ceases to be a hierarchy of syringes or musical experiences and becomes a hierarchy of consciousness. Consciousness does not give a flying fuck about whether information arrives through audio, music, literature, conversation, psilocybin, meditation, intellectual inquiry, or anything else. Consciousness consumes content, not delivery systems. It is indifferent to whether that content comes via a syringe, a song, a poem, a painting, a play, or simple reflection during active imagination.

To steal a Romyism, "you are perfectly within your constitutional rights to disagree", although I do sense the discussion becoming semantical. The thread here is Accuracy vs Musical and my point from the beginning is the mutual understanding of the words that we use. Of course, hundred of discussions can be made at any level of conciousness that we choose.

In my view ACCURATE means true to an original - whatever that may be (always needs a definition for context). Regardless if we are talking about music, photography, cooking, automobiles, AI generated voices or probably even cigars, "accuracy" first needs parameters against which it can be measured. Live music is NOT accurate, it is GENUINE, an original, singular time in space. That original can be AI generated, a live concert, a practice room one or more musicians. To what degree a playback can create any type of image of the original event depends on what we include or exclude. That degree of "plausibility" can be the result of fetish, opportunity, not giving a shit or higher standards of perception based on the systems "creator" goals.

In my experience, advanced audio practices need to remove things that distract, allowing the message (again needing definition) to more easily enter the conciousness. Those distractions can be practical room or gear decisions as well as a hot shower to relax or a meditation session before listening. Understanding what is blocking our individual path is outside of any Accuracy vs Musicality discussion in my view. The discussion of higher conciousness (or perhaps better stated: higher level of perception) is not advanced audio practice, it is advanced life practices, in fact not limited by the media carrying the "message". Perception implies "understanding", conciousness implies just being able to detect that something is happening.

To quote Donald Rumsfeld:"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tends to be the difficult ones."

This thread is starting to point towards the unknown unknowns. These happen to be things that we also need mutual words for.


Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
Page 6 of 6 (103 items) Select Pages:  « First ... « 2 3 4 5 6
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts