Forgive me Computeraudiophiles, for I have sinned

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, tmtomh said:

we cannot equate high fidelity with high enjoyment/musicality.

 

Statement of the year. ++

[joelha]

14 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

Joel, thanks for your thoughtful reply.

First off, I want to clearly acknowledge your "For this audiophile" qualifier - you did indeed write that, and it can indeed change the meaning of what you wrote afterwards. So I should have been clearer that for me your comment raised a larger problem/issue, and it was not my intention to criticize you specifically.

 

I also agree with what I take to be an important implication of your point about fidelity: Accuracy has many components, and different people might weight those components differently, and tolerate/accept different levels of deviation from total accuracy from different aspects. (For example, some people aren't bothered by the pitch variations of slightly off-center LP pressings, and others find audible tape hiss to be not only tolerable but also comforting.)

 

At the same time, I don't think there's much mystery about the meaning of fidelity - faithful to the original, which is to say accurate.

 

And while there is a danger to asserting that we know everything - we don't of course - I think too many folks in the audiophile world aren't sensitive enough to the converse danger: The claim that "there might be some other not-yet-measured factor out there" can become a way to claim that one's personal coloration preferences are in actuality a higher level of accuracy that we just haven't yet figured out yet how to measure. This is the root fallacy from which people argue that identical data on different hard drives can still sound different, not because of playback conditions, but rather that that data itself, sitting on the drive, is just somehow different. When it's pointed out to them that this cannot be true, their inevitable response is some version of "I hear it, so it must be true and we just don't have a way to measure it yet."

 

Again, I'm not saying you specifically are going down that dark and stony path. I'm just saying that while we don't know everything, we actually do know a lot more than we think we do - it's just that most of us (and I'll include myself there) are not expert enough to be aware of or fully grasp the full state of science's current knowledge about this stuff.

 

At any rate, at the end of the day I would only reiterate my prior argument that it's not that digital has lost something that analogue tape preserves or adds back, but rather than analogue tape adds in something new that makes music more enjoyable to you. And that's just fine. 

 

tmtomh,

 

Thanks again for another well-worded message.

 

I agree that the tape is adding some sort of coloration. How many people have to love that coloration before we say "Maybe we're missing something in the way we reproduce music?"

 

That's all I'm saying. I'm far from alone in my perception and the folks who agree with me are far more experienced and knowledgeable than I am.

 

Maybe many of us are wired to like a certain kind of distortion which takes us further away from accuracy. I suppose that's possible too. But just as you don't want to write off this discussion to disparaging digital, likewise, I don't want to assume that digital (as we currently know it) is as far as we can go with music reproduction.

 

Joel

 

 

[Jud]

1 hour ago, tmtomh said:

we cannot equate high fidelity with high enjoyment/musicality.

 

To the extent that musicians are trying to be musical, perhaps we can.  ?

 

Of course there are a thousand things that intervene.  Is the production going for a natural ambiance or a loud mess?  To us, at least in the short term, louder is better, so we might not recognize what's most true, at least initially.  But hey, I do love a well played acoustic guitar, piano, cello, whatever, and maybe over the longer term a more faithful rendition of those sounds is where I tend to go.  Maybe not, there's no way to be sure.

 

To some extent contradicting what I just said ? , I like the way Mark Knopfler records his albums, but from what I've read, he likes to bounce his recordings back and forth between analog and digital consoles to get a particular sound or "feel."  So I'm not enjoying the sounds of the instruments and vocals on his albums, but those sounds as run through a few items of studio recording equipment.

[tmtomh]

20 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

To the extent that musicians are trying to be musical, perhaps we can.  ?

 

Of course there are a thousand things that intervene.  Is the production going for a natural ambiance or a loud mess?  To us, at least in the short term, louder is better, so we might not recognize what's most true, at least initially.  But hey, I do love a well played acoustic guitar, piano, cello, whatever, and maybe over the longer term a more faithful rendition of those sounds is where I tend to go.  Maybe not, there's no way to be sure.

 

To some extent contradicting what I just said ? , I like the way Mark Knopfler records his albums, but from what I've read, he likes to bounce his recordings back and forth between analog and digital consoles to get a particular sound or "feel."  So I'm not enjoying the sounds of the instruments and vocals on his albums, but those sounds as run through a few items of studio recording equipment.

 

I don't disagree with anything you've said here, except for your first sentence.

 

I have zero problem with anyone setting up their listening environment, equipment, or media choice to get a sound they like - the whole point is to enjoy the sound.

 

And I have zero problem with musicians, producers and engineers doing all sorts of things in the quest of the desired sound for artistic reasons.

 

But if Knopfler is going to do D-A or A-D bounces to get a sound he likes, then the one thing you can't defend doing is seeking to replay that sound in an intentionally colored way, in the name of achieving more accurate sound or sound that's true to what Knopfler heard in studio or intended you to hear.

 

That's why I feel we have to have some objective standard of fidelity - not a standard musicians and producers have to use, and not a standard we listeners have to use. But rather a standard for what comes in between: the physical or digital medium should aspire to bring us Knoplfer's sound exactly as it was - or as close as possible to what it was - when it was created in the studio. That's all I'm saying.

[Jud]

23 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

I don't disagree with anything you've said here, except for your first sentence.

 

I have zero problem with anyone setting up their listening environment, equipment, or media choice to get a sound they like - the whole point is to enjoy the sound.

 

And I have zero problem with musicians, producers and engineers doing all sorts of things in the quest of the desired sound for artistic reasons.

 

But if Knopfler is going to do D-A or A-D bounces to get a sound he likes, then the one thing you can't defend doing is seeking to replay that sound in an intentionally colored way, in the name of achieving more accurate sound or sound that's true to what Knopfler heard in studio or intended you to hear.

 

That's why I feel we have to have some objective standard of fidelity - not a standard musicians and producers have to use, and not a standard we listeners have to use. But rather a standard for what comes in between: the physical or digital medium should aspire to bring us Knoplfer's sound exactly as it was - or as close as possible to what it was - when it was created in the studio. That's all I'm saying.

 

I agree.  And my first sentence wasn't meant to disagree.  I was just saying (to be a little more detailed) that if the musician has tried to make a musical and enjoyable recording, then if the producer has succeeded in capturing that, an accurate system may provide us with musicality and enjoyment from that recording.  But I agree with you that our own enjoyment, especially in the short term, doesn't necessarily indicate accuracy.  Especially in the case of a studio production, we won't necessarily know what the reproduction is supposed to be faithful *to*.

[semente]

58 minutes ago, joelha said:

I agree that the tape is adding some sort of coloration. How many people have to love that coloration before we say "Maybe we're missing something in the way we reproduce music?"

 

You've probably read this but I'll post it again anyway:

 

Analogue Warmth - The Sound Of Tubes, Tape & Transformers

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/analogue-warmth

[joelha]

1 minute ago, semente said:

 

You've probably read this but I'll post it again: https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/analogue-warmth

 

I did, semente, but you get full credit for posting it anyway.

 

Thanks a lot. Others might benefit from it as well.

 

Joel

[Allan F]

5 minutes ago, Jud said:

But I agree with you that our own enjoyment, especially in the short term, doesn't necessarily indicate accuracy.  Especially in the case of a studio production, we won't necessarily know what the reproduction is supposed to be faithful *to*.

 

With the exception of acoustic music that is not intentionally "coloured" or compressed as part of the recording process, this is inevitably true.

[esldude]

Studios sometimes use things like this.

 

https://warmaudio.com/tb12/

 

 

To put the color in so you don't have to upon playback.  

 

You have two different xfmr's to choose from for saturation color, different types of capacitors to run signal thru, even op amps can be used for that crunchy sound.  Plus you can roll the op amps as they are pluggable.  

[jabbr]

2 hours ago, joelha said:

I agree that the tape is adding some sort of coloration. How many people have to love that coloration before we say "Maybe we're missing something in the way we reproduce music?"

 

As I’ve mentioned, the HDTT DXD/DSD256 transfers are sourced from 15 ips tape — surely if the tape is able to impart a coloration to a digital system, you’d find it in these recordings.

[joelha]

5 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

As I’ve mentioned, the HDTT DXD/DSD256 transfers are sourced from 15 ips tape — surely if the tape is able to impart a coloration to a digital system, you’d find it in these recordings.

 

Just bought one an hour ago, jabbr.

 

Thanks.

Joel

[fas42]

6 hours ago, Jud said:

 

My thinking is running along these lines:

 

- Plangent is a process to correct tape wow and flutter.

 

- Let's say the "magic" for you is contained in a small enough amount of flutter that you consciously notice it not as flutter, but at a subconscious level as something like very subtle vibrato, making the music feel richer and warmer.

 

 

It's probably scrape flutter that you are referring to here - this is a good rundown of the factors that are relevant, https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/analogue-warmth.

 

Ummm ... should have read the remainder of the posts, first!! ... sorry about that ...

[fas42]

I will make the quick point that music recording processes going right back to the very dawn of such activities have captured enough information to make the business of listening to these time capsules an enormously satisfying, highly pleasurable use of time - there has always been plenty of "elbow room", because the human hearing system is so adaptable in compensating for "errors" in the recording process. The real trouble is, that this facility has not been properly exploited, to this day - the obsession with having only certain types of 'accuracy' reign supreme has meant that the listening to a high percentage of recordings is a somewhat unpleasant endurance test - something that is totally unnecessary.

 

The "elbow room" allows one to hear everything meaningful in the musical message, with nothing of value thrown away; and nothing added to spice it up, season to taste - unfortunately, the number of systems capable of doing this successfully is extremely small ... it doesn't have to be this way.

[elcorso]

4 hours ago, joelha said:

Maybe many of us are wired to like a certain kind of distortion which takes us further away from accuracy. I suppose that's possible too. But just as you don't want to write off this discussion to disparaging digital, likewise, I don't want to assume that digital (as we currently know it) is as far as we can go with music reproduction.

 

Joel

 

Completely agree!

 

It's like when we dance with a beautiful and sensual woman ... It's not only her beauty, not her ways, but the scent of the woman ...

 

You can call it distortion, but what a beautiful distortion!

 

Bringing from my memory (the memories) of my times of listening and analogical reproduction I could only compare it with this digital recording in DSD, reproduced also in the same format, from NativeDSD:

 

 

Roch

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, elcorso said:

It's like when we dance with a beautiful and sensual woman ... It's not only her beauty, not her ways, but the scent of the woman ...

 

You can call it distortion, but what a beautiful distortion!

I call it perfume.

[elcorso]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

I call it perfume.

 

Not exactly... Each body reacts different to each perfume. Plus the lady natural scent.

 

But we could agree to call it taste.

 

Roch

[fas42]

4 hours ago, Jud said:

Of course there are a thousand things that intervene.  Is the production going for a natural ambiance or a loud mess?  To us, at least in the short term, louder is better, so we might not recognize what's most true, at least initially.  But hey, I do love a well played acoustic guitar, piano, cello, whatever, and maybe over the longer term a more faithful rendition of those sounds is where I tend to go.  Maybe not, there's no way to be sure.

 

 

Ummm, if they were trying to produce a "loud mess" then they invariably fail! These days, they could do it because careful software manipulation is able to destroy the integrity of the recording to any degree desired, beyond the ability of the ear/brain to unravel back to the original sounds. With a competent rig, and older recordings without sophisticated destruction of the musical content, you should be good to hear "beyond the messiness", and enjoy the musicianship.

[Ralf11]

15 minutes ago, elcorso said:

 

Not exactly... Each body reacts different to each perfume. Plus the lady natural scent.

 

But we could agree to call it taste.

 

Roch

 

pheromones

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

pheromones

Isn't that a myth? Or perhaps wishful thinking.

[elcorso]

13 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

pheromones

 

Of course, but the pheromones that you like, taste again.

 

Roch

[elcorso]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

Isn't that a myth? Or perhaps wishful thinking.

 

Oh no, there are studies on this...

 

On my family, some of us, we have Hyperosmia.  Not caused by a malady, is genetic.

 

Roch

[Ralf11]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

Isn't that a myth? Or perhaps wishful thinking.

 

neither, but I highly advise you not to buy anything marketed that way

 

there are a number of lines of evidence pointing to human pheromones but the specifics are not well worked out

 

OTOH, we know a lot about them in moths, even plants (phero-auxins??)

[Ralf11]

androstenol with appropriate dither is the way to go!

[TubeLover]

On 7/9/2018 at 3:21 PM, Jud said:

 

To the extent that musicians are trying to be musical, perhaps we can.  ?

 

Of course there are a thousand things that intervene.  Is the production going for a natural ambiance or a loud mess?  To us, at least in the short term, louder is better, so we might not recognize what's most true, at least initially.  But hey, I do love a well played acoustic guitar, piano, cello, whatever, and maybe over the longer term a more faithful rendition of those sounds is where I tend to go.  Maybe not, there's no way to be sure.

 

To some extent contradicting what I just said ? , I like the way Mark Knopfler records his albums, but from what I've read, he likes to bounce his recordings back and forth between analog and digital consoles to get a particular sound or "feel."  So I'm not enjoying the sounds of the instruments and vocals on his albums, but those sounds as run through a few items of studio recording equipment.

Jud, I'm also a big Knopfler fan. I read, at some length, his own comments about how he recorded his most recent solo album, "Tracker" solely by using tubed, analog equipment in the primary chain. To me, its sound is the best I've heard from him, or almost anyone, in a long time.

 

JC

[esldude]

55 minutes ago, TubeLover said:

Jud, I'm also a big Knopfler fan. I read, at some length, his own comments about how he recorded his most recent solo album, "Tracker" solely by using tubed, analog equipment in the primary chain. To me, its sound is the best I've heard from him, or almost anyone, in a long time.

 

JC

 

 

 

From the engineer of the album:

 

Guy Fletcher

APRIL 6, 2015 AT 1:04 AM

Hi Mark, the engineer you speak of in this article is myself….Guy Fletcher. I’d like to clarify a few misconceptions you have highlighted/created. Firstly, this IS to all intents and purposes an analog recording. Everything was recorded onto tape (using CLASP) and then resided in the Pro Tools system at 96k 24bit. ALL overdubs were treated in the same way and any ‘comping’ from multiple takes we did, were done in the digital domain. The album was mixed (using individual outputs) on an API Legacy console DIRECTLY to 1″ stereo analog tape and the CD and Vinyl were BOTH cut directly from this analog master (no digital there). The only (very small) compromise to this otherwise entirely analog project was the A-D and D-A conversion into and out of the DAW for which we use Prism converters as we rate these very highly. The reaction to the sonic quality of the record speaks for itself.

I’m happy to answer any questions about this or any other MK or GF project on my website. http://www.guyfletcher.co.uk

thanks
Guy