What uncontroversial audible differences cannot be measured?

[francisleung]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

You have precisely and exactly down to the exact bit of every sample, the same signal in both channels.  So any imaging you hear is a result of some sort of setup issue.  There is no such imaging in the file you are listening to in this case.  The reason is the recording was done with one, and only one microphone.  It was either a Shure KSM32 or KSM44.  Can we agree on this point, the recording is monophonic?  Can we agree monophonic recordings can have no side to side imagining in them?

Hi esldude,

Well, you have checked that the Jay recording was monophonic. This I would not dispute.

In ripping audio from the video, the software that I used turned the track into two channels. And just now I checked with the Audacity software the ripped track that I have been listening to has two channels. Double mono perhaps even though Audacity describes it as "stereo" as shown in the screen shot above. 

Whether monophonic recordings turned into two channels in this way can have no side to side imaging in them honestly I do not know and unable to agree or disagree. 

I tried another video from YouTube, a transcribed Air on G String ( J S Bach) with 8 players with ancient instruments. I ripped the audio in same manner and they spread across the soundstage. But I have not checked whether the audio track BEFORE ripping is mono or stereo. 

Anyway, so long as I am able to reproduce in my audio system solo instruments with a small enough image in the centre and upfront, that fulfils my requirement. Whether a monophonic track is reproduced with two side to side images that should only be front to back to each other is not really my concern because I own few and rarely play mono tracks (yes, I have Rachmaninov playing his own works in mono). 

Thanks for pointing out this issue to me.

[Ralf11]

actually many aspects of perception of sound ARE measurable - tho it is easy to argue they are not perfectly measurable

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound#Infrasonic_17_Hz_tone_experiment

 

also has elephant info in the wider article

[semente]

On 2017-6-27 at 10:32 AM, Teresa said:

"No one has yet discovered how to measure soundstage, image width, image height, air between instruments, ambiance, smoothness or roughness of string tone or timbre accuracy, just to name a few unmeasurable parameters of sound."

 

I would not call them parameters of sound but instead qualities that can be perceived when listening to the illusion that is reproduced audio.

Yes, they cannot be measured but I am convinced that some of the mechanisms that produce those qualities can be identified and measured.

For example I think that rough string tone, when not a product of the instrument or the playing, can be caused by a variety of causes: mic positioning, mic frequency response, recording electronics, playback electronics (noise, IMD, etc.), mid-woofers and tweeters (resonances)...

"Ambience" is in my view an attribute of the recording; the more accurate the system, the better you will be able to reproduce it.

Soundstage, audiophile "soundstage" as I understand it is an added effect, an enhancement (like reverb) that can be a product of low even order harmonic distortion and other types of correlated noise like tonearm resonances, the speaker's dispersion pattern, speaker positioning, phase anomalies, etc.

"Air" can be achieved by exaggerating the top octave (>11.36kHz) but high noise floor and other playback problems may add some veiling which reduces clarity in the treble region.

From the https://www.teachmeaudio.com/ website:

 

Brilliance: 6 kHz to 20 kHz

The brilliance range is composed entirely of harmonics and is responsible for sparkle and air of a sound. Boost around 12 kHz make a recording sound more Hi Fi.

[audiventory]

1 minute ago, semente said:

The brilliance range is composed entirely of harmonics and is responsible for sparkle and air of a sound. Boost around 12 kHz make a recording sound more Hi Fi.

 

Exactly. EQ is one of sound enchancement ways, that I remember each time, when discussed subjective sound quality. It may really sound better. Though, it is not fidelity matter.

[sphinxsix]

@semente I'm glad you are searching for other measurable factors that could explain differences in soundstaging and imaging. Good luck with that cause FR definitely doesn't explain it all.

As for DACs and amps different soundstaging abilities - it's not just me and MF who can hear it. I've just read Chris's Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC Reference Series 2 review (is he at least a little bit more trustworthy.?), here are some quotations especially for you :

 

'Through the Alpha RS2 in my system, this guitar has terrific air around it. This is perhaps the hallmark of the RS2 in my experience, air.
The percussion section entered in full swing and each instrument sounded so clear in its own audible space through the RS2
Wonderful acoustic guitar, rich vocals, delicate percussion, all sounding incredibly airy
here is a great amount of space that can be heard around the kit.
I know there will be very evident sonic differences between the RS2 and Rossini. The RS2 leans heavily toward the 3D and airy side of the continuum, whereas the dCS components lean more in a full-bodied, punchier direction'

 

BTW guys I think you may find this interesting too:

 

'When speaking to the Berkeley Audio Design team, they stress the importance of striving for neutrality with their components. They absolutely, to the best of their abilities, try to design out any sonic flavor. It's not in their ethos to color the sound or produce a sound some people may like. If you like neutrality, or no sonic signature, they build the components for you. To do this, they compare the sound reproduced through the Alpha DAC Reference Series 2, to the sound of the microphone feed at Keith Johnson's recordings for Reference Recordings and also use Keith's master recordings during the design process. These subjective comparisons serve to improve upon the objective measurements. When one reaches the limit of the best testing equipment available, one must have a sense for what neutrality "sounds" like.'

 

When I recall interviews I read and my own conversations with different audio gear makers I come to the conclusion that for most of them good measurements are just a technical base and the final word belongs to listening tests and comparisons.

 

And one more thing - the sound quality check at Steinway factory is a listening test not measurements

And I think they have a good reason for that.

 

[semente]

2 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

@semente I'm glad you are searching for other measurable factors that could explain differences in soundstaging and imaging. Good luck with that cause FR definitely doesn't explain it all.

As for DACs and amps different soundstaging abilities - it's not just me and MF who can hear it. I just read Chris's Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC Reference Series 2 review (is he at least a little bit more trustworthy.?), here are some quotations especially for you :

 

'Through the Alpha RS2 in my system, this guitar has terrific air around it. This is perhaps the hallmark of the RS2 in my experience, air.
The percussion section entered in full swing and each instrument sounded so clear in its own audible space through the RS2
Wonderful acoustic guitar, rich vocals, delicate percussion, all sounding incredibly airy
here is a great amount of space that can be heard around the kit.
I know there will be very evident sonic differences between the RS2 and Rossini. The RS2 leans heavily toward the 3D and airy side of the continuum, whereas the dCS components lean more in a full-bodied, punchier direction'

 

That one is easy: (low to high) up-tilting frequency reponse = "3D" & "airy", down-tilting frequency response = "full-bodied".

You can play a bit with Audacity and one of your testing tracks.

 

2 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

@sementeBTW guys I think you may find this interesting too:

 

'When speaking to the Berkeley Audio Design team, they stress the importance of striving for neutrality with their components. They absolutely, to the best of their abilities, try to design out any sonic flavor. It's not in their ethos to color the sound or produce a sound some people may like. If you like neutrality, or no sonic signature, they build the components for you. To do this, they compare the sound reproduced through the Alpha DAC Reference Series 2, to the sound of the microphone feed at Keith Johnson's recordings for Reference Recordings and also use Keith's master recordings during the design process. These subjective comparisons serve to improve upon the objective measurements. When one reaches the limit of the best testing equipment available, one must have a sense for what neutrality "sounds" like.'

I'm not questioning the performance of their designs but to me that is mostly marketing talk...

KJ uses close- and multi-mic'ing, not really what I would call "neutral" or "natural"; spectacular but not "neutral".

If you compare his "Rite of Spring" recording for Reference Recordings with Dorian's recording of the same piece (Mata/DSO) you will understand what I mean.

 

2 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

And one more thing - the sound quality check at Steinway factory is a listening test not measurements And I think they have a good reason for that.

 

Perhaps to make sure the product is not out of tune?

[sphinxsix]

2 hours ago, semente said:

That one is easy: (low to high) up-tilting frequency reponse = "3D" & "airy", down-tilting frequency response = "full-bodied".

These are DACs not speakers. There's no problem with keeping DAC's FR practically flat ( < ± 0.1dB ) even well above our hearing range.

 

2 hours ago, semente said:

You can play a bit with Audacity and one of your testing tracks.

I know what parametric eq is. I use one (JRiver).

 

2 hours ago, semente said:

to me that is mostly marketing talk...

I know they really do it (listening tests) - I know some audio designers personally and have actually seen them doing listening tests, have talked to the others whom I simply trust about their designing procedures.

You simply have to trust your ears to do that

 

2 hours ago, semente said:

KJ uses close- and multi-mic'ing, not really what I would call "neutral" or "natural"; spectacular but not "neutral".

Seems that makers of ones of the best DACs on this planet don't know what they're doing

2 hours ago, semente said:

Perhaps to make sure the product is not out of tune?

You're probably right Actually tuning by using an electronic tuner is very easy and precise.

Steinway's sound quality checks are mainly about timbral matters eg timbral consistency all across the keyboard from low to high keys.

[fas42]

5 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

@semente I'm glad you are searching for other measurable factors that could explain differences in soundstaging and imaging. Good luck with that cause FR definitely doesn't explain it all.

As for DACs and amps different soundstaging abilities - it's not just me and MF who can hear it. I've just read Chris's Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC Reference Series 2 review (is he at least a little bit more trustworthy.?), here are some quotations especially for you :

 

'Through the Alpha RS2 in my system, this guitar has terrific air around it. This is perhaps the hallmark of the RS2 in my experience, air.
The percussion section entered in full swing and each instrument sounded so clear in its own audible space through the RS2
Wonderful acoustic guitar, rich vocals, delicate percussion, all sounding incredibly airy
here is a great amount of space that can be heard around the kit.
I know there will be very evident sonic differences between the RS2 and Rossini. The RS2 leans heavily toward the 3D and airy side of the continuum, whereas the dCS components lean more in a full-bodied, punchier direction'

 

Playing with FR to 'fix' sound is like adding sugar or salt to a poorly made meal to "rescue" it - it may make it more palatable at the moment of eating, but that's about as much as one can say for it ...

 

What the recording actually contains is, 3D, airy, full bodied, punchy - it's up to the system to reveal that, not get in the way or trip over itself while attempting to correctly reproduce this content. Where rigs generally fail is that they blur, discard or distort the low level detail that allows one to hear those aspects of the sound - it's like getting the cheapest Polaroid camera's version of what's in front of the lens.

[sphinxsix]

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

Playing with FR to 'fix' sound is like adding sugar or salt to a poorly made meal to "rescue" it

No need for concern. I noticed a subtle difference in low bass (my subwoofers go down to 20Hz) between playing CDs using my CD player and files from my computer. I use my CD player's internal DAC for playing music from the computer too so the only thing that changes here is an addition of an extra USB cable (so it's clearly its slight bass deficiency) to my analogue interconnect (Siltech SQ-88, real not Chinese fake ) which sits between the DAC and the amp and is used for both - playing music using the CD player and the laptop.

I compensate for it using JRiver parametric EQ - it's 0.6 db

And I agree with you - I think some people overestimate EQing possibilities eg it can't fully compensate for bad room acoustics. These are two quite different things. Of course you can EQ the sound of the system and make the FR curve smoother but the excess room reverb remains and still creates problems.

[Paul R]

On 6/27/2017 at 9:10 PM, fas42 said:

 

What disturbs many people is that I have a very specific goal, for any system that I interact with, and I use ordinary materials, purchasable at modest cost at a local store, to achieve that end. Of course, these same people then ridicule those who purchase "magic goodies" at absurd cost, in their attempts to do similar things - my shtick is that very modest systems, carefully "debugged" and optimised, using everyday materials that have the right properties for the job at hand can deliver competent sound - that is, you just hear music, you are not aware of the machinery getting the job done - it doesn't sound like a "stereo", or a "hifi rig".

 

If I'm aware of the sound reproduction system operating in any sense, then it's failed - in my book. Of course, many people want to 'feel' their baby working, and that's fine - but it's not what I'm after ...

 

I was thinking this post over a bit, and in a large degree, I think I agree with you. On the other hand, I do not agree that the average HTIAB can be made to sound as good as even a very modest stereo system designed for music. Say a $400 receiver and a set of $600 Maggies.

 

I will say this, there are some very cheap tricks that can make amazing differences in sound. Try floating your equipment sometime. You an do it, at least as a test, for well under $20.  (Check out http://barrydiamentaudio.com/vibration.htm )

 

-Paul

 

[fas42]

5 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

I was thinking this post over a bit, and in a large degree, I think I agree with you. On the other hand, I do not agree that the average HTIAB can be made to sound as good as even a very modest stereo system designed for music. Say a $400 receiver and a set of $600 Maggies.

 

I will say this, there are some very cheap tricks that can make amazing differences in sound. Try floating your equipment sometime. You an do it, at least as a test, for well under $20.  (Check out http://barrydiamentaudio.com/vibration.htm )

 

-Paul

 

 

Why I came to this understanding was that I experimented with gear over the years, very deliberately - how "low could I go" and "still get away with it"? In one sense I was as surprised as anyone who has read what I've done, and queried it - I started with standard higher quality gear, got that to 'perform' - and steadily went down market, with each step. There are certain markers in the sound I look for, and I experiment until these markers start to emerge - or, alternatively, the deficiencies in gear are so severe that they dominate what's possible; I've reached the limit of what's reasonable to expect to achieve, without major surgery. The normal limits in every situation are the maximum SPLs possible, and the levels of low bass - these are expensive to expand beyond what the gear in raw form achieves, so are not worth pursuing. But everything else is fair game ...

 

In the early days of my experimenting I went to major efforts to track down and check out the "best of the best", thinking that surely they must be in front in most areas ... but no, they always had problems, there were clear audible flaws that crippled the potential that was there - every time. I'm very sensitive to these issues now, and immediately mark down any system that shows them.

 

The "cheap tricks" are just being smart!! What kills the quality in many systems are often silly little things - and, yes, stopping things rattling can make a huge difference! Cheap gear uses cheap shortcuts - the trick is to realise where these shortcuts are, and bypass them - result: highly satisfactory sound.

[Teresa]

On 7/3/2017 at 10:46 AM, sphinxsix said:

...'When speaking to the Berkeley Audio Design team, they stress the importance of striving for neutrality with their components. They absolutely, to the best of their abilities, try to design out any sonic flavor. It's not in their ethos to color the sound or produce a sound some people may like. If you like neutrality, or no sonic signature, they build the components for you. To do this, they compare the sound reproduced through the Alpha DAC Reference Series 2, to the sound of the microphone feed at Keith Johnson's recordings for Reference Recordings and also use Keith's master recordings during the design process. These subjective comparisons serve to improve upon the objective measurements. When one reaches the limit of the best testing equipment available, one must have a sense for what neutrality "sounds" like.'...

 

On 7/3/2017 at 11:03 AM, semente said:

...KJ uses close- and multi-mic'ing, not really what I would call "neutral" or "natural"; spectacular but not "neutral".

If you compare his "Rite of Spring" recording for Reference Recordings with Dorian's recording of the same piece (Mata/DSO) you will understand what I mean...

 

Reference Recordings are among the most natural and yes most spectacular recordings I own, especially on their 24/176.4 HRx DVD data discs. I don't have the RR Rite of Spring you mention but I do own 23 Reference Recordings.  I have owned the Dorian Mata Rite of Spring CD, I bought it for the coupling Prokofiev's Scythian Suite, I didn't find it a natural sounding recording on my equipment, it seemed to lack the energy these works need. In other words, I traded it in soon after purchase. So I don't understand what you mean. Are you comparing the RR high resolution version or the HDCD? If the HDCD, was it decoded?

 

From the Reference Recordings website: "We at RR believe that how a recording sounds is as important as the music itself. "Prof." Keith O. Johnson, our chief engineer and Technical Director, is a true audio legend, having designed and patented many innovative products in the professional and consumer fields. The RR Sound comes from his singular methods and equipment, hand-built or extensively modified by him. Microphone techniques range from single-point Blumlein to spaced omnis to complex studio mixes, depending on the musical forces and the performing space involved. Our goal is to recreate the sound of real musicians making music in real space."

 

You can look at some of the recording sessions at their website on the Audiophile Corner page, I didn't find any close mic'ed.

 

On 7/3/2017 at 1:41 PM, sphinxsix said:

 ...Seems that makers of ones of the best DACs on this planet don't know what they're doing ...

 

IMHO seems like they do.

[semente]

41 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

 

Reference Recordings are among the most natural and yes most spectacular recordings I own, especially on their 24/176.4 HRx DVD data discs. I don't have the RR Rite of Spring you mention but I do own 23 Reference Recordings.  I have owned the Dorian Mata Rite of Spring CD, I bought it for the coupling Prokofiev's Scythian Suite, I didn't find it a natural sounding recording on my equipment, it seemed to lack the energy these works need. In other words, I traded it in soon after purchase. So I don't understand what you mean. Are you comparing the RR high resolution version or the HDCD? If the HDCD, was it decoded?

 

From the Reference Recordings website: "We at RR believe that how a recording sounds is as important as the music itself. "Prof." Keith O. Johnson, our chief engineer and Technical Director, is a true audio legend, having designed and patented many innovative products in the professional and consumer fields. The RR Sound comes from his singular methods and equipment, hand-built or extensively modified by him. Microphone techniques range from single-point Blumlein to spaced omnis to complex studio mixes, depending on the musical forces and the performing space involved. Our goal is to recreate the sound of real musicians making music in real space."

 

You can look at some of the recording sessions at their website on the Audiophile Corner page, I didn't find any close mic'ed.

 

 

IMHO seems like they do.

 

What makes the RR recordings spectacular (solo instruments sound highlighted and detailed) is the use of spot- and close-mic'ing (in orchestral sessions).

This is what in my view also makes it less natural or realistic sounding (when compared to listening live from the audience) because it affects the timbre and the overall balance (both of detail and tone).

It is my opinion, of course.

 

But I would call them hyper-realistic, not natural-sounding.

[Teresa]

1 minute ago, semente said:

 

What makes the RR recordings spectacular (solo instruments sound highlighted and detailed) is the use of spot- and close-mic'ing.

This is what in my view also makes it less natural or realistic sounding (when compared to listening live from the audience) because it affects the timbre and the overall balance (both of detail and tone).

It is my opinion, of course.

 

But I would call them hyper-realistic, not natural-sounding.

 

Funny, I didn't see either of spot or close-mic'ing on the videos of their recordings sessions at their Audiophile Corner page. The microphones as you can see in this picture of a recording session with the Dallas Wind Symphony are not close, most are 4 to 6 feet above the musicians.

 

IMHO the reason Reference Recordings sound natural and spectacular is because they have realistic dynamic range. Real music that is natural and spectacular, should also be natural and spectacular when reproduced. Many of the softer chamber and jazz Reference Recordings are not spectacular because the music is not spectacular.

[semente]

20 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

Funny, I didn't see either of spot or close-mic'ing on the videos of their recordings sessions at their Audiophile Corner page. The microphones as you can see in this picture of a recording session with the Dallas Wind Symphony are not close, most are 4 to 6 feet above the musicians.

 

IMHO the reason Reference Recordings sound natural and spectacular is because they have realistic dynamic range. Real music that is natural and spectacular, should also be natural and spectacular when reproduced. Many of the softer chamber and jazz Reference Recordings are not spectacular because the music is not spectacular.

 

I know what live acoustic (classical) music sounds like, I go to a lunchtime recital at one of the local churches almost every week.

 

When I get home I will produce DR plots of both the Dorian and the RR, but I think most people prefer the RR because of the hyper-detail.

[Teresa]

1 minute ago, semente said:

 

I know what live acoustic (classical) music sounds like, I go to a lunchtime recital at one of the local churches almost every week.

 

When I get home I will produce DR plots of both the Dorian and the RR, but I think most people prefer the RR because of the hyper-detail.

 

I just had a thought. Could the recordings you heard that you claim are spot and close mic'ed be on Reference Recordings FRESH! label? Those are not engineered by Prof. Johnson, the orchestra ones are engineered by Soundmirror, the jazz and blues ones by other engineers. I don't know how they are engineered.

 

All of my Reference Recordings are on the main label and engineered by Prof. Johnson and none have hyper-detail, they all sound like real music recorded in a real space. Right now I am listening to:

 

[sphinxsix]

Probably the most extreme hyper-detailed orchestra recording I know. Some will say it's spectacular (a certain high end Berlin store used to use it as a demo material) others will say it's equally spectacular and unrealistic..

Zapa's attitude towards recording and mixing was as individualistic as his personality.

 

[esldude]

16 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

 

Reference Recordings are among the most natural and yes most spectacular recordings I own, especially on their 24/176.4 HRx DVD data discs. I don't have the RR Rite of Spring you mention but I do own 23 Reference Recordings.  I have owned the Dorian Mata Rite of Spring CD, I bought it for the coupling Prokofiev's Scythian Suite, I didn't find it a natural sounding recording on my equipment, it seemed to lack the energy these works need. In other words, I traded it in soon after purchase. So I don't understand what you mean. Are you comparing the RR high resolution version or the HDCD? If the HDCD, was it decoded?

 

From the Reference Recordings website: "We at RR believe that how a recording sounds is as important as the music itself. "Prof." Keith O. Johnson, our chief engineer and Technical Director, is a true audio legend, having designed and patented many innovative products in the professional and consumer fields. The RR Sound comes from his singular methods and equipment, hand-built or extensively modified by him. Microphone techniques range from single-point Blumlein to spaced omnis to complex studio mixes, depending on the musical forces and the performing space involved. Our goal is to recreate the sound of real musicians making music in real space."

 

You can look at some of the recording sessions at their website on the Audiophile Corner page, I didn't find any close mic'ed.

 

 

IMHO seems like they do.

RR discs are really great recordings usually.

 

Keith O. Johnson does often use blumlein or spaced omnis for the main base of the recording.  Elsewhere in interviews he has said he doesn't use less than 6 to 7 microphones on a recording.  Sometimes a few more.  This is still less than is the norm, but they aren't quite purist two channel recordings with two microphones.  This would usually entail the extra microphones out in the hall to capture the ambience.  Though he has spotted a soloist from time to time. 

 

In the picture you posted there are 20 microphones.  Some pretty close to groups of musicians.  I would bet he has at least 4 more out in the hall not in the picture.  So 24 microphones is not the minimalist purist recording I would say. 

[Teresa]

4 hours ago, esldude said:

RR discs are really great recordings usually.

 

Keith O. Johnson does often use blumlein or spaced omnis for the main base of the recording.  Elsewhere in interviews he has said he doesn't use less than 6 to 7 microphones on a recording.  Sometimes a few more.  This is still less than is the norm, but they aren't quite purist two channel recordings with two microphones.  This would usually entail the extra microphones out in the hall to capture the ambience.  Though he has spotted a soloist from time to time. 

 

In the picture you posted there are 20 microphones.  Some pretty close to groups of musicians.  I would bet he has at least 4 more out in the hall not in the picture.  So 24 microphones is not the minimalist purist recording I would say. 

 

Thanks for the information.

 

When I zoomed in on the picture I saw 7 microphones placed high above the musicians heads, between 4 to 6 feet, I saw none any closer. Also, if you go to the top of the picture there are another 4 microphones, perhaps between 25 to 30 feet above the musicians, my guess would be these are for capturing the ambiance of the hall.

 

Also, my objection was to the claim of close mic'ing not multi-mic'ing as Prof. Johnson uses minimal to multi-mic'ing depending on the forces involved and the performance space.

 

I have heard many close and spot mic'ed recordings from the major labels (DGG, Decca, RCA and Columbia/Sony Music). On these microphones are placed right on the instruments and even inside of drums, and the resulting recordings sound shrill, dead and non-musical to me. Reference Recordings never sound like that.

 

I also have recordings using just two microphones from Chesky, Pope Music and a few others. I never said Reference Recordings were purist. I said they sounded natural and that is likely the reason that the Berkeley Audio Design team uses them during their design process as sphinxsix reported further up this page.

 

Based on the Reference Recordings I own as heard on my audio system, I believe they have achieved their stated goal of recreating the sound of real musicians making music in real space. Although, listening in person to live acoustic music in a good sounding performance space is still the best.

[semente]

16 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

Thanks for the information.

 

When I zoomed in on the picture I saw 7 microphones placed high above the musicians, between 4 to 6 feet, I saw none any closer. Also, if you go to the top of the picture there are another 4 microphones, perhaps between 25 to 30 feet above the musicians, my guess would be these are for capturing the ambiance of the hall.

 

Also, my objection was to the claim of close mic'ing not multi-mic'ing as Prof. Johnson uses minimal to multi-mic'ing depending on the forces involved and the performance space.

 

I have heard many close and spot mic'ed recordings from the major labels (DGG, Decca, RCA and Columbia/Sony Music). On these microphones are placed right on the instruments and even inside of drums, and the resulting recordings sound shrill, dead and non-musical to me. Reference Recordings never sound like that.

 

I also have recordings using just two microphones from Chesky, Pope Music and a few others. I never said Reference Recordings were purist. I said they sounded natural and that is likely the reason that the Berkeley Audio Design team uses them during their design process as sphinxsix reported further up this page.

 

Based on the Reference Recordings I own as heard on my audio system, I believe they have achieved their stated goal of recreating the sound of real musicians making music in real space. Although, live acoustic music in a good sounding performance space is still the best.

 

Hi Teresa,

 

In my understanding and listening experience a pair of mics positioned at an adequate distance will provide the most accurate timbral and spatial reproduction possible with 2 channel stereo.

Adding two more pairs in different positions changes not only the timbre of the instrument (since it radiates in different directions at distinct frequencies) but also the acoustic perspective.

Have a look at this example that I got from the link you posted where KJ describes his very complicated mic'ing technique:

 

We began the sessions with two microphone setups, each quite capable of making a well- balanced recording. The Coles as a single point 30 degree, or almost blumlein pair was placed about six to seven feet high in front of the piano. The other setup had the modified MKH-405s as an angled out close spaced pair. Both types create the articulate center image we hear focused on the tenor strings of the piano. But, sound would be thin and dimensionless so both setups get MKH-105 stereo pairs with larger spacing between them looking along the bass strings from the back of the piano. These microphones became the dominant pickup or mix and in this position, their outputs have much random phase to help create big weight and a large stage. Placed 3 to 4 feet high, their distance from the piano is set for a best compromise of time – phase coherence with the front directional pickup. Later, both microphone groups were moved to maximize low frequency energy for bass notes just below the inherent drop-off of fundamental production from the piano. Then placements were fine tuned for strike coherence. I use the mike preamps and headphones for this on stage audition – setup mix. Finally, hall or ambience microphones, also MKH-105s, were placed and mixed to create fill and end of track reverb tails.

 

https://referencerecordings.com/audiophiles/bowie-variations-recording-chain/

[esldude]

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/remote-possibilities-acoustic-music-location-recording/1162132-stereophony-senn_ms-vs-dpa4006_ab.html

 

The first post in this thread has two recordings you can download.  One is a spaced pair of omni's.  The other is an mid-side pair.  Both recordings are very nice.  Subtle differences. 

 

I don't hear stereo recordings with more than two mikes that are as good as these.  Not to say they can't be good or that you can't create a good similarity to real.  And sometimes if your hall is not good acoustically purist recordings don't work as well.  I do wish we had more recordings done commercially this way. 

 

One pair of microphones is about $3k and the other is closer to $4k.  Recorded with a Nagra VI digital recorder.  No processing whatsoever, just the straight microphone feeds.

[manisandher]

I posted this in another thread, but it's probably more applicable here.

 

As a bit of background... XXHighEnd is a true memory player, and has the ability to transfer all tracks from storage (a network-attached music server in my case) into the audio PC's RAM, shut down the audio PC's LAN connection and then commence playback. There is a setting in XXHighEnd called SFS (split file size). My layman's understanding is that this determines how large the file is when XXHighEnd accesses it from RAM during playback. Low SFS settings sound different to high SFS settings . All XXHighEnd users hear this difference in a totally consistent way - lower SFS sounding brighter than higher SFS settings.

 

Earlier this year, I took some captures with SFS=1 and SFS=120. I took the captures in two different ways: a) digital, using an USB-to-spdif converter, and straight into the Tascam's spdif input, and b) analogue, feeding the output of my DAC into a Prism ADC, and then into the Tascam's spdif input. Here are my findings:

 

a) the SFS=1 digital capture sounds identical to the SFS=120 digital capture

b) the SFS=1 analogue capture sounds different to the SFS=120 analogue capture

 

Here are the captures:

 

1. SFS=1 digital capture: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0PU5LO5jVjfOE5PZ0RxTVl3M0U

2. SFS=120 digital capture: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0PU5LO5jVjfWXIyaWVaRkt1Znc

3. SFS=1 analogue capture: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0PU5LO5jVjfa05DdTBnZmI1aVU

4. SFS=120 analogue capture: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0PU5LO5jVjfdGhDcXFhdlFOekk

 

That 1 and 2 measure identically and sound identical is non-controversial. However, if 3 and 4 measure identically but sound different, then we have an answer to the question posed by this thread.

 

I can measure no differences between 3 and 4 (but don't really have the most sophisticated tools), and yet they sound subtly different to my ears. Of course, anyone's welcome to download and look/hear for themselves.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

From the MQA thread:

 

40 minutes ago, testikoff said:

Digitally identical audio samples are supposed to cancel each other out. Here is what happens with samples 1 & 2 when they are carefully lined up at start for a null-test:

 

They run in sync for ~5 seconds (but do not cancel each other completely there; the difference at ~-90dBFS), then they get out of sync & SFS1 audio gains ~55 samples for a total of 5:08 excerpt running time.

 

 

32 minutes ago, manisandher said:

Ah yes, thanks for pointing this out. I remember now that elsdude found something similar a while back. The issue is some sort of compatibility issue with the USB-to-spdif converter and the software player. IIRC, periodically (every 6 seconds, according to your analysis), an extra sample gets inserted - heard as a faint but audible click during playback. So it's only valid to compare the files between these clicks.

 

But you've done that and still found a difference at ~90dBFS. I have no idea what could be causing that. Whatever it is, it doesn't seem to affect the sound, because files 1 and 2 sound identical to me.

 

Could you quickly find the difference in dB between files 3 and 4 (taking into account the clicks) please? If this is substantially higher than at ~90dBFS, that'd give a clue as to why I'm hearing what I'm hearing between them.

 

Mani

 

20 minutes ago, mitchco said:

Can confirm @testikoff is correct. I choose a spike at the front of the tracks and lined them up. Then about 37 seconds later found another spike and they do not line up. SFS1 gained about 7 samples.

 

Just saying it is not easy. But if you want to go through with the complete difference test, the procedures listed in this article work and are repeatable: https://www.computeraudiophile.com/ca/ca-academy/JRiver-Mac-vs-JRiver-Windows-Sound-Quality-Comparison/

 

 

 

 

Mani

[esldude]

If you have two digital streams that have differing bits, then stop right there. You need to fix that before proceeding further.

 

And I did find something similar in some past files you posted. 

[petaluma]

On ‎6‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 11:51 PM, esldude said:

Well okay.  Bill just asked for ONE example.  If you know of one simplest possible chain is good or one chain.  Just let it be known in Bill's thread. 

 

Do you have something like this in mind.  We alter the source so the frequency response at the speaker can be either flat or shelved down 1 db at 5 khz and above.  Will be heard as a slight loss of air.  Will be detectable blind.  Might not be noticed at all sighted or might with good level matched comparisons.  So it is real and it is heard.  Make that change .5 db and it will maybe be heard with a good listening environment and excellent listeners.  Make it .1 db (easily measured), and no one will hear it. 

 

So that is pretty simple and one little change.  I don't know of a counter example where something is easily heard, and cannot be measured.  That is what Bill seeks.  Non controversial difference that is heard blind or other suitably controlled conditions yet is not measurable. 

So basically we cannot agree on any measurement that would provide one definitive difference in sound that would be perceived by all camps. It's like wine, which I make, that you can measure until the cows come home but NOBODY agrees on anything when the product is in the glass. Measurements are possible ad nauseam in both wine and audio and yet no one agrees on anything. Watch "Som Into The Bottle" and a nice older lady, a professor at UC Davis, states have you ever seen an industry based in so much bullshit....Audio is no different, in fact much much worse bordering on fanaticism. Keep trying to make it different, its never gonna happen. For the most of the world audio is a subjective exercise.... Not a bunch of engineers arguing over a measurement, as evidenced by this thread, that no one can agree makes one iota of difference when the sound wave hits our ears....