No More Audiophile Hassles

[wgscott]

57 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Is a vial of bile vile?

 

I hit the wrong key on the keyboard, but I kind of liked what I saw...

[Jud]

47 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

I hit the wrong key on the keyboard, but I kind of liked what I saw...

 

Serendipity is our friend.

[fas42]

8 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

They measure the frequency response with Audiotools, REW, Dirac, etc. ...  It really isn't that hard.  You just have to learn not to trust your ears.

 

I've been at a demo of DEQX, where a reasonable system, with typical FR peaks and dips was corrected, to within an inch of its life - ruler flat per microphone feed on the laptop screen. Did it give a Wow! feeling? ... Nope, the signature system distortions were still all there - it sounded reasonable uncorrected, and a variation on that reasonableness with the DEQX in operation.

 

If a system sounds flat, uninteresting, lacking in sparkle and life - that's actually distortion ... resolving the issues creating that type of distortion, noise, call it what you want - brings the sense of specialness, the 'big' quality to the presentation, that makes you want to keep listening, to almost anything you choose to put on.

[Don Hills]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

...If a system sounds flat, uninteresting, lacking in sparkle and life - that's actually distortion ...

 

If food tastes flat and uninterestng without seasoning, it's actually a lack of distortion. You're tasting the food as it really is, not flavour enhanced. Likewise with audio. It's quite clear from the pursuit of "flavour" or "voicing" in audio equipment that the majority prefer it.

[Ralf11]

Did someone claim that freq. response was the only problem in sound reproduction systems?

[fas42]

28 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

 

If food tastes flat and uninterestng without seasoning, it's actually a lack of distortion. You're tasting the food as it really is, not flavour enhanced. Likewise with audio. It's quite clear from the pursuit of "flavour" or "voicing" in audio equipment that the majority prefer it.

 

A lot of people seem to feel that this is the case - that the sound is so damaged by the recording process, and transfer to a playable medium, that its 'real' nature is flat and uninteresting. My experiences are otherwise - that the recording contains all the qualities, as in the actual sound data that was picked up by the microphones, or immediately transferred to the recording devices in the case of direct injection from synthesizers, etc, to deliver a powerful, emotional impact. Classic pro type gear, "spec perfect", is the worst offender in terms of crippling the important qualities of the captured sound field, when used for playback monitoring, etc.

 

The usual sequence of sound "styles" a particular system goes through as it's optimised is: 1) noticeably distorted, clear audible anomalies; 2) flat, dead, lifeless - distortion of low level detail which sucks the interest out of the listening experience; 3) in your face, "bad" recordings are OTT, screechy, silibant, only "good" material is fully enjoyable; 4) last but key step - everything falls into place, and all recordings come to life, present a grand sound field which is immersive and enjoyable as a musical experience.

[sandyk]

DEQX didn't impress me either.

The one that I heard was owned by an E.E. friend who actually worked for them at one stage.

The biggest improvement he made that I heard, was when he thoroughly measured the frequency response of his old B&W801 speakers and designed new, and much larger crossover networks for them using high quality more modern components.

[kumakuma]

59 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

A lot of people seem to feel that this is the case - that the sound is so damaged by the recording process, and transfer to a playable medium, that its 'real' nature is flat and uninteresting. My experiences are otherwise - that the recording contains all the qualities, as in the actual sound data that was picked up by the microphones, or immediately transferred to the recording devices in the case of direct injection from synthesizers, etc, to deliver a powerful, emotional impact. Classic pro type gear, "spec perfect", is the worst offender in terms of crippling the important qualities of the captured sound field, when used for playback monitoring, etc.

 

Not all recording are done well and the purpose of studio monitors is to give you an accurate reproduction of what the recording sounds like. If a recording sounds crippled, it's because it is poorly done.

 

The fact that you can somehow "optimize" your system to make all recording sound wonderful, regardless of how poorly they are recorded, just means that you've tuned it so the coloration is pleasing your ears and the flaws of bad recordings have been sanded away. This is not the same thing as accuracy or fidelity. 

[fas42]

11 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Not all recording are done well and the purpose of studio monitors is to give you an accurate reproduction of what the recording sounds like. If a recording sounds crippled, it's because it is poorly done.

 

The fact that you can somehow "optimize" your system to make all recording sound wonderful, regardless of how poorly they are recorded, just means that you've tuned it so the coloration is pleasing your ears and that it is simply hiding the flaws of bad recordings. 

 

No, the optimising removes as many layers of "crud" that are added by the playback chain as necessary for the ear/brain to be able to filter out the remaining issues; that then you can "hear past" the deficiencies that are still there. The flaws in the recording are still fully reproduced but they exist in "another space" as far as your hearing is concerned - an analogy is going to a live concert, and a pair of people behind you are talking quietly all during the performance; if you're a person who is deeply disturbed by this "conflict" then you probably will always hear the recording as "bad", no matter what. I can happily keep my focus on the musical event that is core and central to what is going on - and hence get full enjoyment from "poor" captures of music playing; I can "see" the performers doing their thing, and easily ignore irrelevant noise components.

[Mordikai]

15 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

No, the optimising removes as many layers of "crud" that are added by the playback chain as necessary for the ear/brain to be able to filter out the remaining issues; that then you can "hear past" the deficiencies that are still there. The flaws in the recording are still fully reproduced but they exist in "another space" as far as your hearing is concerned - an analogy is going to a live concert, and a pair of people behind you are talking quietly all during the performance; if you're a person who is deeply disturbed by this "conflict" then you probably will always hear the recording as "bad", no matter what. I can happily keep my focus on the musical event that is core and central to what is going on - and hence get full enjoyment from "poor" captures of music playing; I can "see" the performers doing their thing, and easily ignore irrelevant noise components.

Wha?

[fas42]

Just now, Mordikai said:

Wha?

 

Which bit?

[Mordikai]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Which bit?

You could start with " another space". It sounds like kinda like your doing the filtering with your own active listening but it sounds like you're kinda doing it with your playback system too.

[AudioDoctor]

Why would you listen to music with anything but your ears?

[witchdoctor]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

Not all recording are done well and the purpose of studio monitors is to give you an accurate reproduction of what the recording sounds like. If a recording sounds crippled, it's because it is poorly done.

 

The fact that you can somehow "optimize" your system to make all recording sound wonderful, regardless of how poorly they are recorded, just means that you've tuned it so the coloration is pleasing your ears and the flaws of bad recordings have been sanded away. This is not the same thing as accuracy or fidelity. 

+1

[fas42]

2 hours ago, Mordikai said:

You could start with " another space". It sounds like kinda like your doing the filtering with your own active listening but it sounds like you're kinda doing it with your playback system too.

 

If one listens to 'natural' sounds, in everyday activities, this happens automatically, all the time - let's say you're listening to your audio system, and it starts to rain; and the sound of that is quite distinctive, as it falls on a metal roof nearby. Do you have any trouble hearing that sound in "another space", as you keep listening to the track that was playing when the rain started? IOW, you can switch your focus, with ease, between the music reproduction and the sound of the rain - they are completely separate, distinctive sound events going on at the same time.

 

So, it's not active, it's completely instinctual; and this is also what happens with competent playback - the distortion artifacts "separate" from the music, as hearing "spaces". I have some deeply, deeply defective recordings, which are an abomination - from needle drops, with crudely applied noise reduction; these tracks are completely unbearable on slightly less than optimal replay - the primitive attempt at cleaning up the track screams at one. Yet, a remarkable transformation occurs when the playback gets good enough - I stop hearing the mess made of the transfer, and only tune into the singer and backing; yes, it still is clear that something funny is going on with the sound, if I choose to focus on that, but I need to deliberately change my attention to this aspect; I have to 'actively' listen for the manipulation happening to register it.

[witchdoctor]

On 10/27/2017 at 12:11 AM, fas42 said:

 

If one listens to 'natural' sounds, in everyday activities, this happens automatically, all the time - let's say you're listening to your audio system, and it starts to rain; and the sound of that is quite distinctive, as it falls on a metal roof nearby. Do you have any trouble hearing that sound in "another space", as you keep listening to the track that was playing when the rain started?

FredericV, if you never heard a thunderstorm in a movie via Atmos or Auro 3D I encourage you to check it out. You don't need to buy anything other than a ticket to a local theater.
The thunderstorms for example at the beginning of John Wick or even Riders on the Storm by the Doors sound uncanny.

[wgscott]

Much better than the real thing.

 

Have you ever heard the way a tornado sounds when recorded with MQA?  The sucking is like a Class D amp.

[GUTB]

You can broadly divide the community into 2 groups — those who have heard high end audio, and those who have not.

 

Sometimes you’ll get people who who have an HD650 plugged into some little Chinese dongle and think they know what high end audio sounds like. Sometimes you’ll have young student / lifestyle people who attach to the scene / community but don’t actually have any interest in high end audio.

 

I’ve noticed a very distinctive differentiator between the two groups — the inability of the first group to describe soundstage, imaging and in particular emotional engagement. They seem to think soundstage is right, a left and a center blob and seem confused about anything beyond that. They don’t understand discussions about euphonics. They don’t link distortion to a lack of emotional engagement because they probably don’t emotionally engage in thier music (definitely not if you’re listening to HD650s).

 

So what I’m going to say is going to challenging for some people. Transparency does not make good audio! A certain degree of transparency is benificial, but if all you have is transparency the sound will be trash. You MUST emotionally engage with your music or your system is TRASH. High end audio is an art form around producing illusions and excitement, NOT seeking the ultimate in fidelity. Our brains filter garbage out of the sound we perceive, and that will make us psychologically tired of listening to it.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

On 10/27/2017 at 11:37 AM, kumakuma said:

The fact that you can somehow "optimize" your system to make all recording sound wonderful, regardless of how poorly they are recorded, just means that you've tuned it so the coloration is pleasing your ears and the flaws of bad recordings have been sanded away. This is not the same thing as accuracy or fidelity. 

 

+1

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

8 minutes ago, GUTB said:

So what I’m going to say is going to challenging for some people. Transparency does not make good audio! A certain degree of transparency is benificial, but if all you have is transparency the sound will be trash. You MUST emotionally engage with your music or your system is TRASH. High end audio is an art form around producing illusions and excitement, NOT seeking the ultimate in fidelity. Our brains filter garbage out of the sound we perceive, and that will make us psychologically tired of listening to it.

 

The problem with this stance for me is that the music becomes MORE emotionally engaging the more transparent, the more accurate, and the less noise I hear. It is precisely these times that I stop listening to the gear and start listening to the music, and engaging with it.

[Jud]

5 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

The problem with this stance for me is that the music becomes MORE emotionally engaging the more transparent, the more accurate, and the less noise I hear. It is precisely these times that I stop listening to the gear and start listening to the music, and engaging with it.

 

But then see your +1 to @kumakuma‘s comment.  How to square this circle - the more accurate the sound and the less noise, the more emotional involvement; but such a system can’t make (nearly) all the music you listen to sound better?

 

I have found vanishingly few recordings in my own collection that aren’t improved by more accurate playback.  This certainly includes recordings made a long time ago and/or not under audiophile-grade conditions.  Whatever attracted me to that music in the first place, even if it was a raucous, “dirty” sound, I get to hear more of it through a more accurate system with less noise.

 

I think of early Beatles recordings, or just a little later, The Band’s classic “Chest Fever.”  The latter is not at all well recorded.  But it has an amazing rough energy, the rhythm and vocals lurching along like some great shambling beast.  And a more accurate system with less noise communicates that to the point that it makes the hair stand up on my arms and the back of my neck.

[sandyk]

6 hours ago, wgscott said:

The sucking is like a Class D amp.

 

 They are going to send Bill's DIY Class D amplifier to the International Space Station and bolt it to the floor, so the Astronauts don't float around bumping into walls and ceilings.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

11 hours ago, Jud said:

 

But then see your +1 to @kumakuma‘s comment.  How to square this circle - the more accurate the sound and the less noise, the more emotional involvement; but such a system can’t make (nearly) all the music you listen to sound better?

 

I have found vanishingly few recordings in my own collection that aren’t improved by more accurate playback.  This certainly includes recordings made a long time ago and/or not under audiophile-grade conditions.  Whatever attracted me to that music in the first place, even if it was a raucous, “dirty” sound, I get to hear more of it through a more accurate system with less noise.

 

I think of early Beatles recordings, or just a little later, The Band’s classic “Chest Fever.”  The latter is not at all well recorded.  But it has an amazing rough energy, the rhythm and vocals lurching along like some great shambling beast.  And a more accurate system with less noise communicates that to the point that it makes the hair stand up on my arms and the back of my neck.

 

leaving aside discussions regarding need for depilation - yeh I agree,  a paradox of sorts because a great system can bring out both the best *and* the worst of a recording - it tells you the truth. You are more in touch with the music either way.

 

 I too have been [cliche warning] rediscovering older recordings from the 50's and 60's that I enjoy very much despite arguably sub-optimal recording quality.Your example of the Stones "Stripped" is one example especially "Love in Vain" - thanks by the way.

 

So, my spin, even sub-optimal recordings can be made to sound better on a great system IF there is *something* of merit, in the first place, in the recording for the system to "deliver" - some substrate of quality to work on, even if that is raw raucous sound serving some rock music.

 

OTOH If *all* recordings have great sound quality, or made to sound great, as some would appear to claim - IMO they have "eupthonized" ( I may have invented a new word combining euphonize and euthanize ) their system.  You can use sonic sunglasses to make the qualities of poor recordings warmer or whatever which validly enhances the musical experience. Trouble is you paint everything with the same brush so I would rather use some creative EQ or something on a track by track basis.

 

 

[Jud]

11 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

leaving aside discussions regarding need for depilation - yeh I agree,  a paradox of sorts because a great system can bring out both the best *and* the worst of a recording - it tells you the truth. You are more in touch with the music either way.

 

 I too have been [cliche warning] rediscovering older recordings from the 50's and 60's that I enjoy very much despite arguably sub-optimal recording quality.Your example of the Stones "Stripped" is one example especially "Love in Vain" - thanks by the way.

 

So, my spin, even sub-optimal recordings can be made to sound better on a great system IF there is *something* of merit, in the first place, in the recording for the system to "deliver" - some substrate of quality to work on, even if that is raw raucous sound serving some rock music.

 

OTOH If *all* recordings have great sound quality, or made to sound great, as some would appear to claim - IMO they have "eupthonized" ( I may have invented a new word combining euphonize and euthanize ) their system.  You can use sonic sunglasses to make the qualities of poor recordings warmer or whatever which validly enhances the musical experience. Trouble is you paint everything with the same brush so I would rather use some creative EQ or something on a track by track basis.

 

 

 

Yes, there’s a difference between removing barriers to what’s actually on the recording, and adding an overlay to the sound of every recording.  Now whether we can tell the difference between these two situations without using something besides our ears is a nice question.

 

Perhaps at least subconsciously we eventually get bored in the overlay situation (what I sometimes refer to as the “one trick pony”).  It’s tempting to think so.  But I have no idea if that’s actually the case.

[fas42]

On 31/10/2017 at 10:15 PM, Jud said:

 

Yes, there’s a difference between removing barriers to what’s actually on the recording, and adding an overlay to the sound of every recording.  Now whether we can tell the difference between these two situations without using something besides our ears is a nice question.

 

Perhaps at least subconsciously we eventually get bored in the overlay situation (what I sometimes refer to as the “one trick pony”).  It’s tempting to think so.  But I have no idea if that’s actually the case.

 

The "overlay" that a competent system delivers is that irritating artifacts triggered from weaknesses in the playback chain, by "difficult" recordings, are removed - some people may wish to have an "awful" recording made to sound as awful as possible, just so that a pecking order is easy to assign; personally, I prefer to get a buzz from whatever recordings of music I choose to play, or listen to - it's sorta the reason I'm still interested in audio ... .