The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[March Audio]

On 4/7/2021 at 7:47 AM, fas42 said:

On 4/7/2021 at 7:47 AM, fas42 said:

How do I know it's correct? . IOW, I'm largely hearing the recording, not the playback signature.

Excuse my pedantry but how do you know what the recording is supposed to sound like?

 

What is your reference?

[March Audio]

1 minute ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

We can't even be sure that we hear the same recording the same way every time. 

Indeed we don't.  Your hearing and its perception changes all the time. 

 

Ever noticed how some days your system is unengaging and you can't get into it, yet others it's just wonderful and you can't get enough?

 

It's not the system that's changing, it's you 😀

 

 

[March Audio]

51 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Process of elimination. As given in my original post, the full wording was

 

 

Evey recording has a signature. Every track of a compilation of tracks assembled from a variety of sources - Greatest Hits of the 80's type of thing - has a distinct signature, from one to the next. The more that differentiation is toned down, the more 'even' it becomes; then the more the signature of the playback is intruding - the goal is to eliminate the latter.

 

What the recording is supposed to sound like is irrelevant - it sounds like what it is. As soon as you hear a recording you're familiar with sound significantly different from normal then you can embark on getting a handle on the playback chain distortion; its 'signature'. From experience, you then feed it recordings for which the first misbehaviour has given you clues, as to to where it will trip up, and you quickly build up a clear picture of its weaknesses. Which gives the information that guides sorting out the replay.

 

How can you eliminate anything if you dont know what the original is supposed to sound like?

 

You werent at the recording.  You have only heard it replayed on a different system.

[March Audio]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Again you use the word, "supposed".  There is no "supposed" about it - a digital version is locked, by the set of 0s and 1s within; and 10 completely different, but "perfect" systems will replicate the "sound captured in the recording" the same way, every time. Take a real world mechanism: Yamaha produces player acoustic pianos; 10 off the production line are sent to different rooms around the world, and the same digital file is sent to each, to play them. Yes, the sound will vary slightly because of the room, variations in instruments - but what a person in each place hears is essentially identical.

 

I look at a replay system in the same way - eliminating audible characteristics that are due to the playback chain can worked upon in a step by step manner, until the system itself becomes completely anonymous. At this point all that is left is the uniqueness of each recording, which is as recognisable as the voice of a member of your family.

Sorry but I don't follow you.

 

Unless you were at the recording you simply don't know what it was meant to sound like. You have no reference.

 

Therefore you have no idea if what is being replayed is accurate.

 

10 different systems will have 10 different sounds. NONE of them will be perfect.

 

You are just guessing and picking one you think is the best.  

[March Audio]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

This is true. There's no way around it even though many people will twist themselves into knots trying to explain they know what a recording should sound like. 

 

A common response is, "I know what a violin sounds like."

 

I always say, which violin (which Strad, which Guarneri, which etc...), in which room, using which DAW for recording, and the list goes on. 

As you allude to, even saying that you have heard a violin so know what it should sound like, doesn't help.

 

Up close in a small venue sounds very different to a concert hall.

 

Then add into the situation the sound of the specific microphones, their configuration, positioning and so on.

[March Audio]

38 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

If 10 different systems have 10 different sounds, then the chances are that none of them are particularly accurate.

 

What is best is the one that conveys the sense of what occurred at the recording site most convincingly..

I'm afraid that doesn't follow.  Some could be quite accurate, some less so.

 

But this is the whole point. You don't know which is best because you weren't at the recording site.  You don't know what it sounded like, so you have no idea which system comes closest.

[March Audio]

20 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The reference is one's experiences with sound in the natural world - the easiest to work with is vocals; which we are all intimately familiar with. You hear the sound of a voice from another room - 99 times out of 100 anyone will be able to instantly pick whether that is an actual person, or the reproduction of a person's voice ... when a system is in a good zone, it will drop back to 50 out of 100 - it becomes a guess ...

As both myself and Chris explained the sound of an instrument varies dramatically depending on many factors.

 

Add on to this the sound of the recording varies dramatically depending on the choices of the recording engineer, such as microphone choice, configuration and placement.

 

As an example, how do know if the variation from "reality" is due to the microphone or your speaker?  You could change your speaker when it was the microphone at fault.

[March Audio]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The accuracy will depend upon how the listener judges what he hears - it would always be a subjective evaluation.

 

What I'm interested in is whether the replay sends the messages to my brain, completely unconsciously, that what I'm hearing has all the characteristics of what live music delivers - it's not an analytical process, it's purely whether the emotional triggers are happening. IME, when a system has been sufficiently 'debugged', then those triggers fire all the time, no matter what recording is on. This is accompanied by all the beloved audiophile phrases of good things heard in the SQ - it's an "all win, no lose" experience 🙂.

That's not accuracy, that just what the listener thinks is accurate.  It's simply what they like.  It may have no relation to genuine accuracy.

 

Your emotional triggers are your own, no one else's.  They will vary dependant on a myriad of reasons and don't convey or indicate accuracy in the replayed sound.

 

I can get emotionally involved by music being replayed on a cheap Bluetooth speaker.

 

In the car I will go all "Bill and Ted" when the heavy bit of Bohemian Rhapsody comes on the radio.  The radio sound  is anything but accurate.

[March Audio]

15 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Let's keep with the voice, since everyone knows when this is 'fake' or not, 😉.

 

 

Yes, recordings change with all those choices - this is why every recording, and track- , has a signature ... we played a 31 track compilation of Elvis a couple of days ago - it was a bewildering ride of acoustics, and styles of sound - but in each one of them the main vocalist, 🙂, was still that person, singing ...

 

 

See above the comment about Elvis - his voice 'changed' on every track; what counted was the sense of hearing The Man - if I was irritated at all by the quality of the voice on one of them, then I know that I have an issue with my replay quality; and that's what I would look to fix ...

It makes no difference. The voice is still affected by environment and recording set up.

 

From Sure microphones, one of their vocal mics:

 

 

So you would change the sound of your system to suit this microphone?  What happens when a different mic is used with a different response?  Your changes are suddenly all wrong!

 

https://www.shure.com/en-US/performance-production/louder/mic-basics-frequency-response#:~:text=A shaped response microphone is,some frequency ranges than others.&text=A shaped response microphone also,%2C" of voices and instruments.

 

They have a recording sample of different mics there.

 

Also mic position affects the sound.  A cardiod mic placed close to a sound source will exhibit a bass boost due to proximity effect.

 

All these variables, and many others, you have absolutely no idea about when you are listening in isolation at home.

[March Audio]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

So, how does one define, "genuine accuracy"?

 

 

If you go around to all the rooms at a HiFi show - in some you will think, "Yuck!", and walk out immediately; with others, you will think, "Hey, not bad ... !!" and stick around for a bit ... what do you think is going on?

 

 

Yes, if you have a strong memory of that music, the triggers will happen ... now, put on that same system some music style that usually leaves you cold, of a track that you have never heard before ... will "the power of music" perform its magic, this time, 🙂?

Good question.  It's certainly not defined by just listening in isolation to replay, you have to have a known reference.

 

In the hifi show it's just the stuff you personally like.  Other people will like other things.  None of this indicates accuracy.

 

You are just reinforcing my point.  Your emotional responses are your own, no one else's.  Your emotional response does not indicate replay accuracy.

[March Audio]

49 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

OK, let's turn that around - you by some method have decided that the replay is 'accurate" - and you put on a recording ... and it sounds awful; you can't bear listening to it - you either have to walk out of the room, or switch off the playback ... where are we now?

What if the sun doesn't come up tomorrow?

 

You are just inventing scenarios.  There is no reason to assume an accurate recording will sound bad.  By definition that means you are saying that the sound of the original instrument sounds bad 

[March Audio]

29 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That’s a fantastic way to look at it. 

If you like it, you like it. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. 😀 However let's not conflate a personal preference with good or accurate sound

[March Audio]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

This is about linear changes, to FR - something that human hearing effortlessly deals with, every day. Whether we are aware of it or not, we constantly process what we hear, "so that it sounds right" - except, with reproduced sound there are so many issues much of the time, the brain gives up - hence, it needs a crutch; fiddle with the FR so at least that is roughly in the right territory, 🙂.

 

 

Nope, they hear the changes.  That response is specifically designed to give vocals more "punch".  In other words to audibly distort the sound from accurate.

 

Recording engineers/artists often choose specific microphones precisely because they have certain sound characteristics.

[March Audio]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

We are not talking about the recording being accurate, to what was occurring in front of the microphones - rather, whether the replay is accurate to what's on the recording.

 

IME, a well sorted and largely accurate reproduction chain conveys the sound of the original instruments - irrespective of the recording chain. I have always found that if it sounds "bad", that it ends up being because of an issue with my system - resolve the latter, and the "badness" evaporates.

 

 

The Good News is, that accurate sound produces an experience which is extremely likeable - which means, as a very powerful tool for use in refining a setup, that if you don't like the sound, then you can evolve the rig to a point where it is both 'accurate', and likeable ... 😉.

Are the goal posts moving?

 

So again, how do you know whats an accurate rendering of the recording?  What is your reference?

[March Audio]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

IME, a well sorted and largely accurate reproduction chain conveys the sound of the original instruments - irrespective of the recording chain. I have always found that if it sounds "bad", that it ends up being because of an issue with my system - resolve the latter, and the "badness" evaporates.

 

Playback cant convey what isnt there. Equally it cant remedy errors that are unknown.

 

If the recording is messed up then so is the playback.

[March Audio]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

The Good News is, that accurate sound produces an experience which is extremely likeable - which means, as a very powerful tool for use in refining a setup, that if you don't like the sound, then you can evolve the rig to a point where it is both 'accurate', and likeable ... 😉.

 

Yes, but I also know people who are total bass heads.  They like what is IMO (and measureably demonstrable), excessive bass.  Its not accurate but they like it 😀

[March Audio]

Yes, so this is just your personal guess, or just your personal interpretation, or simply just what you personally prefer.

 

I may prefer something different.  The bass heads certainly do 😜

 

Its got nothing to do with accuracy.

[March Audio]

19 minutes ago, Summit said:

Without having been involved in that particular recording I can hear and judge if it sounds convincing and that folks is what is meant by sounding accurate. 

I will post a link to 2 versions of a recording and let you tell me which is most accurate.

[March Audio]

Which is more accurate,

 

This

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgRLwGMmGkepGjqf1

 

Or

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgRNbYMA3jco3WOPf

 

[March Audio]

1 hour ago, Iving said:

 

Oh go on then.

 

To me it sounds like someone's fiddled with the first one. Almost a loudness kind of thing.

 

But I am listening on my ripping PC with Yamaha desktop speakers.

 

Think I prefer #2 anyway.

Neither are accurate. They are both an artificial construct.  They are mixed, panned, equalised, compressed with reverb added.  

 

Most people prefer 1.  BTW fas42 previously thought 1 was better and more accurate.

 

What came off the mics

 

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgRQYSaaSdlUdeHS3

 

Which again is quite different to what was heard directly in the venue.

[March Audio]

1 minute ago, Iving said:

 

Is it possible - objectively - to say which of the two was more accurate / less distorted?

No, but that's my point.

 

We have fas42 claiming that he can identify what's accurate when he wasn't at the recording so has no idea what it sounded like, and when most recordings are an artificial construct.  The sound has been created by the engineer/producer/artist.

[March Audio]

Just now, Summit said:

 

Yes you and the fellow that call him self an audiophile have got an hung up on this. If you want to use measurements and believe that they will give you a more accurate information on how audio gear/systems and recordings sounds like, please don't let me stop 

Nothing I have said here has anything to do with measurements.

 

It's entirely  about subjective interpretation.

[March Audio]

6 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

It is you that don't understand that music is meant to be heard and whats counts is perceived sound quality. This mean good illusion. 

Good illusion to whome?

 

Your perception is different to mine and different to fas42.

 

Fas thought 1 was better more accurate, Iving thought 2. Both are actually entirely artificial and unlike what was heard in the venue, or what actually came off the microphones.

 

The conversation was about the fact that fas42 thought he could definitively define what was most accurate or lifelike by just listening to the recording.

[March Audio]

3 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

Yes Its about subjective interpretation and how we audiophiles describe how it sounds. Sounds real, lifelike or accurate is words that nor Frank or I have invented. It is common ways of describing the kind of SQ may of us are aiming for. 

 

Yes it is not easy to put word on what we hear and many things has to be read in its context. 

And where is that getting you if there is no commonality, reference or concensus?

 

It's just personal preference, which is fine, but let's not conflate that with accuracy.

[March Audio]

3 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

Everyone. 

But we have just demonstrated people have different opinions about this.  You can't say everyone.  There is no consensus. Different people like the sound of different equipment.