Jump to content
  • entries
    17
  • comments
    756
  • views
    12575

The Purpose of Audio Reproduction


fas42

Time to crack this back open again, 😄.

 

Yes, what's the point? There could be a zillion answers, but my answer is to be true to the contents of a recording ... I was going to post this to that unloved thread, now gone to zombie land, but I'll do it here, instead,

 

 

Bit of a mess, eh? And, this is the remaster, from 2015!! - I've got it on a double CD from 1998 - a low cost release - sludgy, plus? ... You bet!

 

What should a system do to, for this? In my book, absolutely nothing more than the best job possible to being accurate to the data - now, what I'm getting at the moment is not elimination of the sludge - but is a realistic pickup of what was heard in that club. The reproduction, currently, is not the best it could be - my active speakers still need to be refined more; which will gain me greater clarity, a better connection to the musicians doing their thing ... this sort of track is very helpful in making it clear where the shortfalls are.

479 Comments


Recommended Comments



On another forum, they mentioned the "dunny" test - Oz slang for toilet. Does your system make you think that real musicians are performing in your home, when locked away here, with at least one closed door between you and the sound? Also known as the LIAR, Listening In Another Room, method of assessment. All the speaker alignment fiddling, and room treatments don't do any good now - but your ears are very used to, highly skilled at deciphering the audio cues when sounds come via torturous routes. If the system does poorly here, then it's a clear giveaway that things are not of an acceptable standard.

Link to comment

One of the benefits of competent playback is to give you the immersive experience - conventionally set up systems have too many audible anomalies, which prevents one from raising the volume to the necessary levels. This is why there are regular discussions of the "right volumes" for playback - below that level the presentation is small, somewhat insipid and uninteresting; above, and the distortion now becoming too obvious means that such is reserved for pop and rock music; which is accepted to have a blaring quality about it - because that's what PA rigs also do, ^_^.

 

The various surround sound setups, becoming more sophisticated, are a workaround. Dividing the labour between multiple amps and speakers reduces the need for any one channel to be on top of its game ... and the listening ear 'forgives' the remaining flaws - you get a convincing, immersive presentation.

 

So, should we just forget about two channel and embrace more than 2 speakers pumping out the sound? Perhaps. The downside is that marginal, less technically perfect albums will always excite far more obvious anomalies in what you hear, as the distortion of the playback channels intermodulates with the deficiencies of the source waveform, creating all the unpleasantness that is so common on conventional stereo ... we tried to get away from that, by going multichannel - and it's still following us!! :D

 

The simplest way out, and perversely also the most difficult, currently, is to refine the reproduction chain until any distortion, signature, giveaways in a single channel become subjectively inaudible. This is of course non trivial, otherwise everyone would be doing it! :) But it has always been around, as accounts of "magic SQ!" going back decades tell us. They are rare, it's never become mainstream. But that's no reason to simply reject the concept out of hand - unfortunately, group think is a powerful beast, and likely will maintain the status quo for some time yet ...

Link to comment

The pity for the audio reproduction landscape is that so few people take the business of accuracy seriously. Oh, they play the game, pretending to to be working towards that - but the element of "audiophiles just want to have fun!" is usually too strong, and they accept, nay, desire the creating of their highly individual version of inaccurate, um, "accuracy" :).

 

Why a pity? Because it means that the industry never gets on top of what needs to be done to achieve that standard - it's far more profitable to create all the paraphernalia which gives the hobbyist instinct free rein; that which advances deeper understanding is not delved into, apart from a few individuals and very small companies.

 

I say this because of recent posts, and where my current active speakers are currently - the latter are seriously pushing into the territory of presenting with no significant audible signature; challenging CDs that sounded their best 35 years ago are now so close to perfectly recreating the sense of what they sounded like back then, you can taste it, :). What sort of material? Pop music of the late 80's - massive soundstages, intense, deeply convoluted mixes, driving rhythms which carry you along at a 100 miles an hour - fabulous stuff! This can sound awful, so easily - only the highest accuracy can pull this off ... it's good huntin' ^_^.

Link to comment

The future of music playback is not multichannel or Atmos, but competent playback chains. If the latter is achieved then 100 year old, mono, technically low grade recordings become special, and 'immersive' - because you are then able to replay at any sound level, with complete comfort; they "delight the ears", and allow one to fully connect with the musical content ...

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The future of music playback is not multichannel or Atmos, but competent playback chains. If the latter is achieved then 100 year old, mono, technically low grade recordings become special, and 'immersive' - because you are then able to replay at any sound level, with complete comfort; they "delight the ears", and allow one to fully connect with the musical content ...


the future of music playback is something people had had over 100 years to do, but most have chosen not to?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:


the future of music playback is something people had had over 100 years to do, but most have chosen not to?

 

Not a case of choosing, but rather finding extremely difficult to achieve. Digital "made it worse", because the flaws in the SQ of typical setups are irritating enough to cause many who deeply involve themselves in getting the best possible sound to reject this source as being "good enough". Until very recently. Most haven't the time or money or interest to pursue "good enough" SQ; so it degenerates into something which is just used for background for the majority ... only the really committed do what's necessary to evolve systems to competent SQ standards.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Not a case of choosing, but rather finding extremely difficult to achieve. Digital "made it worse", because the flaws in the SQ of typical setups are irritating enough to cause many who deeply involve themselves in getting the best possible sound to reject this source as being "good enough". Until very recently. Most haven't the time or money or interest to pursue "good enough" SQ; so it degenerates into something which is just used for background for the majority ... only the really committed do what's necessary to evolve systems to competent SQ standards.

Just so I have this right. 
everyone can get Atmos now for $10 per month and use headphones or 16 channels. But, you think the future of audio is something that’s “extremely difficult to achieve” and people somehow will be alleviated of “Most haven't the time or money or interest to pursue "good enough" SQ” and the future of audio is for “only the really committed” who “do what's necessary to evolve systems to competent SQ.”

 

Hmmm, Frank. Something doesn’t compute. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Just so I have this right. 
everyone can get Atmos now for $10 per month and use headphones or 16 channels. But, you think the future of audio is something that’s “extremely difficult to achieve” and people somehow will be alleviated of “Most haven't the time or money or interest to pursue "good enough" SQ” and the future of audio is for “only the really committed” who “do what's necessary to evolve systems to competent SQ.”

 

Hmmm, Frank. Something doesn’t compute. 

 

See my comment in the Atmos article ...

Link to comment

It's good to see that Chris's Atmos setup delivers a magic experience with the right recordings,

 

 

There is just one, slight problem :) ... I estimate it would cost of the order of about half a million Aussie dollars to replicate what he has there - so, I can't see systems like that taking over the audio world in a great rush, any time soon, ^_^. Now, if very close to that level of quality could be done for 1/10 or 1/20th of the money then it might have a hope, amongst the great unwashed ...

 

The key would be to work where the compromises could be made, without losing too much - while it stays in the class of requiring a very lopsided dedication of time and money to make work, then setting the world on fire ain't gonna happen.

Link to comment

Been visiting the StereoNET forum a bit, and found a fellow traveller who understands what happens when enough of the kinks in a rig are sorted;  a post that captures the sense of the transition, https://www.stereonet.com/forums/topic/548031-thor-drm9520a-–-din-mount-elite-filtration-with-high-capacity-surge-protection/?do=findComment&comment=6013345

 

Again, it's all about tweaking - doing everything that's needed to improve the integrity of the chain until the signature of the recording, rather than that of the reproduction setup, completely dominates.

Link to comment

A bit amusing ... Chris just responded to a previous post as I was about to add here - as it turns out, what I was going to say anyway is quite relevant ... :)

 

I was musing on this current talking of getting height; and then thought back to the experiencing of a current Ruark R7 'stereogram', up the road a few days ago. Yes, one of the obvious shortfalls in its performance, using up to date technology, but minus any tweaking, was its 'smallness'. And a lack of any 'height', on reflection, was there in spades - flat as a tack, you might say ^_^.

 

This aspect of the sound subjectively just barely hovering over the floor is obviously very unsatisfactory; well, just lift the damn speakers up, so that they are getting might close to the ceiling will solve that, you might say - ummm, might be a bit hard to organise, in many situations :D ...

 

Of course the answer is to improve the SQ; and my audio friend's other rigs have little trouble, currently, projecting that expansiveness which is essential for for satisfying listening. My active speakers also do the sound is "completely out of the boxes, and up from and beyond them" thing - which happens automatically as the listening brain decodes what the acoustic cues are saying, and assembles a presentation which makes sense.

Link to comment

On another audio forum, a post by a member there which firstly describes what the results are of acquiring the right components, and secondly underlines how nearly all of the audiophile world finds it so difficult to understand what the process of evolving competent SQ is really about. In part,

 

Quote

I bought a CD player in 1995 based on those reviews.A Sony CDP715.In that group test it was compared to some far more expensive and  highly regarded CD players and was unanimously preferred by all the listeners and they commented on its superior soundstaging and imaging.I still own that CD player and although I own far more expensive and exotic and modern digital sources and DACs that player still sounds very good compared to them.It is a player that sounds especially 3D [which is what they said]and yet there is absolutely nothing unusual in its measurements or technology or components that would hint at why that would be.I do wonder if good imaging is often just a case of all the design and components synergising together and being more than the sum of their parts.Good luck as much as anything.

 

Very close to my experience. I purchased a top of the range unit from Yamaha, 10 years earlier than that date, and it was made well enough so that just some slight tweaking was enough to push it over the level for, well, "magic sound", :).

 

Especially 3D. Yes, that's how it works ... competent playback automatically projects huge spaces; because that's what's on the recording!! ... Duhh, :P

 

Okay, the last couple of sentences in the quote above exemplify how audio people have things completely back to front as regards to what makes system equipment do the job properly - the general belief is that 'magic' measurement numbers, very special technology, or incredibly convoluted processing by circuitry with very impressive figures involved, are so important ... um, no. Or, that this super sauce, "synergy", has to be splashed all over the show ... also, no.

 

Unfortunately for many, the answer is simply, competent engineering. "Synergy" is a flowery way of saying that - the piece of gear actually does what the measurements imply; which is being accurate to the source material. This is something which is still far too rare; we still live in the world of very inaccurate, 'accuracy', where the "signature" of the rig is so, so important ...

Link to comment

From

 

Quote

"I found that the Eigentakt was not only powerful enough to drive the A1s -- it sounded as good as the Constellations. As I wrote in my review, 'almost nothing about the A1s’ sound had changed -- the tonal balance was the same, the highs were just as extended and the midrange just as pure, voices were equally robust, bass just as extended, and the soundstaging and imaging were exactly as before.'

 

Now isn't that amazing ... if two parts of a system are of a high order, no matter how they are constructed, then they are both doing their job - that is, being largely accurate to the recording :D. Which goes against the grain of how many enthusiasts think, being, the more expensive the piece of gear is, the "more special" it will make the playback - analogous to the idea that the bigger the engine you put in a car, the more impressive it will be to drive; which ignores the fact that the gearbox, suspension and tyres become ever more a poor match for the potential of the vehicle, and it will be not pleasant as you push the limits ...

 

Looking through a pane of glass onto a magnificent vista is a far more appropriate method of thinking about system building. The landscape beyond always remains the same; your job is simply to make the glass in between as clear as possible. And once you get some aspect of how the window is organised as well as it can be, then that's the limit. And that part of the 'engineering' could be achieved by a well thought out $100 mechanism; or an OTT, Rube Goldberg contraption, dripping with gold and diamonds, which costs $1,000,000 - nothing whatsoever is gained by using the latter; apart from emptying your wallet, :).

Link to comment

And this sort of thinking, so endemic in the audiophile community, really, really annoys me,

 

 

This is total twaddle - a "better ruler to measure something" doesn't make for earth shattering differences; it just has the capability of getting things, a little bit more accurate. In spite of many wishing for magical transformations via doing things this way, IME it does sweet bugger all - some of my worst listening experiences have been via Wilson speakers, as they ruthlessly revealed all the problems earlier in the playback chain ...

 

It's The System, Stupid! Get the overall right - and 'magic' emerges ... one can choose to have a system attempting to wallop a listening area into submission, like a highly pricey PA rig in a small club; or, be a window into the recording space of the musicians ... your choice, :).

Link to comment

Chris's review of the latest speakers gives a good sense of what the goal is,

 

 

A particularly telling comment is this,

 

Quote

What I hear in Nat's voice through the V, that I didn't hear through the Series 2, is a front to back depth and dimensionality that's a bit hard to explain. It's as if Nat is standing at the famous Neumann microphone at Capitol, and he's looking right at me from between the speakers.

 

Yes. The believability of something that is so familiar to us, like the human voice, which appears to have all the attributes of the "real thing", being in a space in front of us does indeed make for, ahem, magic :).

 

The other benefit is that recordings of very, very poor technical quality can come to life ... I have a double CD set of Nat King Cole full of tracks that were done for radio broadcasts, and many are extremely marginal, like listening to an old time short wave radio transmission. Yet, every ounce of the musical content seems to come through, and you respond to the artistry of Nat and the musicians - you hear all the positives, and are able to discard the negatives.

Link to comment

I was just reminded of why I have a major dislike of remasters ... there's talking of Atmos versions of Talking Heads, and I looked up YT clips of Psycho Killer - I don't have this album - and came across an official  Rhino version of such ... yuck!! Then, found an original release - ahhh!! So much better!

 

Right, the Rhino thing is a 2005 remaster ... I'm steadily learning that everything that Rhino does is pretty awful - steer well clear! :)

 

Wonder if the Atmos rejig is based on the Rhino master, or the original stuff ...

Link to comment

The raw technology is now good enough, at excellent prices, to get SQ to be accurate with minimal tweaking - this thread,

 

 

is another confirmation of this. Which will upset some audiophiles, who will need to feel that only pricey gear can pull it off, :). Well, sorry 'bout that ... it's called, "progress", and you can't do much about it ^_^.

 

Optimum quality still needs input and effort, by the purchaser, to extract that standard - but an off the shelf solution is getting closer ...

Link to comment

Paul McGowan of PS Audio certainly gets it - in the two senses of the phrase, :) - as mentioned here, https://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/vanishing-sound/.

 

A particularly interesting comment occurs down the page, to wit,

 

Quote

Paul, I think that by “vanishing sound”, in your final sentence, you actually mean ‘vanishing loudspeakers’.

 

For those out there who have not as yet experienced the ‘disappearing loudspeakers presentation’ that Paul is describing above, or even better the 3D holographic soundstaging & imaging that is an absolute jaw-dropper, don’t give up yet.
I didn’t experience it until I was 33yo & it was akin to a religious experience when it happened, because before I heard it I thought that it was a load of horse crap (snake-oil) concocted to entice audio-nuts to keep spending more & more money to obtain the unobtainable; but not so, it does happen when all the planets align.

 

Yes. When the planets align. Interestingly, I was almost exactly the same age, and indeed it was "akin to a religious experience" ... :).

 

The bizarre thing in all of this is that so many audiophiles are so ferociously determined to deny that such is possible - yet, if one keeps one's eyes open there will always be another instance of some person's experiencing of this, to be found ...

Link to comment

Missed this post earlier ...

 

 

This is as stark as it gets, in pointing out how digital reproduction is still so fragile, currently ... the "shoutiness" of the lesser version of that DAC is a very precise example of "the monster that has to be tamed" - it's highly audible distortion, pure and simple; and something that the industry still has a very poor handle on - pretending that everything is under control, because the usual measurements say so; but just a bit of focused listening makes it immediately obvious that the poorer performing unit delivers flawed playback of recordings.

Link to comment

Another one to add to the list, ^_^ ...

 

On another audio forum, just found this post,

 

Quote

There is an imaging phenomenon that I just can’t wrap my brain around.
I almost always sit down in the same chair, in the same position to listen to my hifi and the image is wide, deep, etc.
But I just walked around the room and no matter where I am, dead center or 10 feet to the left or right of the speakers, the image stays locked in place, all the instruments and voices maintain their specific position between and behind the speakers. How can that be? Makes no sense to me.

 

This will be getting more common, as the value for money products with sufficient integrity will keep increasing - it's a good sign, :).

Link to comment

Came across this on the Wadax website,

 

Quote

Conventional digital decoding struggles to achieve its theoretical performance: components and circuits never behave ideally, generating a complex, polluting mix of non-linearities that contaminates the delicate audio signals during and AFTER conversion. The delicate micro-information and expressive nuances in the musical signal are obscured by inter-reactions between power supplies, clocking, grounding, analog circuitry and the digital to analogue converter. To further complicate things, these non-linearities and error mechanisms are load dependent, varying with signal amplitude. Together they form the core of what we have all come to recognize as “digital sound.”

 

Yes. It's a nasty business, trying to eliminate all the subtle factors that degrade SQ in a digital playback chain. Heroic engineering gets you there; also, well thought through tweaking, and careful attention to detail in one's own rig gets one a long way towards subjectively accurate sound.

 

Of course, what would a maker of one of the most expensive product lines in digital replay components, who has had many, many converts to their brand of doing things, know about what matters ... ^_^ ?

Link to comment

Particularly interesting was this piece, https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/wadax-atlantis-reference-music-server/ - the relevant section is Sound, where I agree with everything said. A couple of key points ... first, with a "poor" recording, of Dave Holland’s acoustic bass, "I could suddenly discern individual notes, pitches, and textures rather than a blur." Yes. That's what accurate reproduction does ... all of a sudden, the "mess" starts to make sense ... :)

 

And then,

 

Quote

I was once in a Mexican restaurant with the great turntable designer and deep audio thinker Basis Audio founder A.J. Conti when a roving mariachi band approached our table. The four-piece band played right in front of us, the trumpet’s bell a few feet away and pointed at us. After the musicians left, A.J. commented on the very high level of high-frequency energy the instrument produced, noting that it didn’t offend the ears the way that amount of high-frequency energy would from any reproduced music. It’s the lack of distortion in the live instruments that allows us to experience that sound-pressure level without wincing. The Wadax’s ability to present a full measure of treble energy without glare, hardness, or fatigue reminded me of A.J.’s astute observation.

 

Again, yes! That's a big part of the magic that competent replay delivers - high intensity sound levels, from such a reproduction chain, just ... work ^_^.

Link to comment

The thinking behind the design, and implementation of the Wadax digital components are an excellent pointer to where the industry will eventuate end up - that they are disturbingly expensive is merely a milestone on the road of how good progress usually occurs in many fields; the first off the rank is terrible value for money, because it is, well, the first ... :).

 

This particular take on the key unit is as good as any at nailing the transformation that occurs, with what one hears, when all the artifacts that afflict normal digitally sourced music are comprehensively dealt with, reduced to inaudibility,

https://www.audioexotics.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Wadax-Atlantis-Reference-Dac-Review.pdf.

 

The differences that the reviewer notes are exactly why I can't take the usual standard of playback seriously - exposure to how good replay can be reduces one's tolerance for anything less, dramatically ... a good, used in advertising phrase is that you can't unhear quality ... ^_^.

Link to comment




×
×
  • Create New...