Relative importance of differences in stereo systems

[John Dyson]

16 minutes ago, Axial said:

NR damage, as in tape decks with A, B, C, S Dolby. ...Filters for the music, adding a veil to disguise the impurities, adding coloring to mask the rain falling down the sky (wow, flutter and jitter). 

 

I think it was in that meaning direction ...

I just uploaded some decoding examples using the DHNRDS decoder.  Please refer to the 'Lies about vinyl vs. digital' forum about what to expect/etc.  The DolbyA encoded material might not sound like what people think -- so read the section that I wrote if you are interested -- it will set-up the thinking process.  PS: this is meant to be informational only -- I am only talking about the decoder software -- and I am certainly willing to talk about most of the internal technology if anyone is interested.  A few sections of the technology are proprietary, and likely never been done before (the gain control is not just gain*signal, but takes a big part of a 4core CPU at realtime, being multithreaded (12 threads, 10 are active DSP calculations) with super complex math.)  (Technical paper will likely be written.)

 

Repo:

https://spaces.hightail.com/space/yDG3L339Rn

 

[Kal Rubinson]

47 minutes ago, Axial said:

NR damage, as in tape decks with A, B, C, S Dolby. ...Filters for the music, adding a veil to disguise the impurities, adding coloring to mask the rain falling down the sky (wow, flutter and jitter). 

Thanks.

[STC]

10 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Maybe a scheme where a head with the same geometry as the listener, microphones in each ear, then headphones on the playback -- that might come close to realism.  However, there are still issues with the frequency response variations of the microphone (pretty well controlled) and the coupling of the headphones to the listener (usually not so accurate, but sounds good.)

Then, then 'head' can be moved around to emulate the location in the studio/hall. :-).  Creating a listening environment where moving around is identical to the recording studio/concert hall isn't likely (but might come close for some people and/or limited movement.)

 

I will confine to what's in quote.

 

About frequency response (FR) - this is only useful if the listener's ears also hear similarly. A flat Frequency response can have peaks and dips as high as 20dB or even more. For many, a speakers that measures somewhat inverse to a listener's FR can sound better than a perfectly measuring speakers, amplifiers or DAC. 

 

[ A recording need not go to the extreme to capture the listening environment. The listening environment is separate from the sound from the instruments. A violin sound is the same but the listening environment reverberation is different. What is the best environment is subjective as you can't agree which is the best seat in a concert hall which depends on individual preference and hearing. It can be difficult for you see from my POV unless we are able to demonstrate to each other. ]

 

 

 

 

[Kal Rubinson]

47 minutes ago, STC said:

For many, a speakers that measures somewhat inverse to a listener's FR can sound better than a perfectly measuring speakers, amplifiers or DAC. 

I do not agree.  How does a listener determine what sounds best, most accurate or like live sound?  (Pick any or all.)  Typically, we do this by comparison, either directiy or from memory, to the live event.  But, wait, one's personal, unique and irregular hearing FR is being applied to both the live and the reproduced sound.   Thus, only a flat/neutral reproduction system is capable of providing any chance of success. 

 

Taste preference is a confounding variable.

 

 

[esldude]

4 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I just uploaded some decoding examples using the DHNRDS decoder.  Please refer to the 'Lies about vinyl vs. digital' forum about what to expect/etc.  The DolbyA encoded material might not sound like what people think -- so read the section that I wrote if you are interested -- it will set-up the thinking process.  PS: this is meant to be informational only -- I am only talking about the decoder software -- and I am certainly willing to talk about most of the internal technology if anyone is interested.  A few sections of the technology are proprietary, and likely never been done before (the gain control is not just gain*signal, but takes a big part of a 4core CPU at realtime, being multithreaded (12 threads, 10 are active DSP calculations) with super complex math.)  (Technical paper will likely be written.)

 

Repo:

https://spaces.hightail.com/space/yDG3L339Rn

 

I've listened to the Eric Clapton "Wonderful Tonight".

 

The undecoded version has some obvious, pumping, well maybe not pumping, but dynamic inconsistencies.  The decoded version sounds very much like the Mobile Fidelity CD of this I have.  So I suppose they were using a master tape or something that was done properly.  

 

Thanks for these examples.  It is very interesting. 

[Axial]

4 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I just uploaded some decoding examples using the DHNRDS decoder.  Please refer to the 'Lies about vinyl vs. digital' forum about what to expect/etc.  The DolbyA encoded material might not sound like what people think -- so read the section that I wrote if you are interested -- it will set-up the thinking process.  PS: this is meant to be informational only -- I am only talking about the decoder software -- and I am certainly willing to talk about most of the internal technology if anyone is interested.  A few sections of the technology are proprietary, and likely never been done before (the gain control is not just gain*signal, but takes a big part of a 4core CPU at realtime, being multithreaded (12 threads, 10 are active DSP calculations) with super complex math.)  (Technical paper will likely be written.)

 

Repo:

https://spaces.hightail.com/space/yDG3L339Rn

 

Hi John, that's an interesting link. 

[STC]

26 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I do not agree.  How does a listener determine what sounds best, most accurate or like live sound?  (Pick any or all.)  Typically, we do this by comparison, either directiy or from memory, to the live event.  But, wait, one's personal, unique and irregular hearing FR is being applied to both the live and the reproduced sound.   Thus, only a flat/neutral reproduction system is capable of providing any chance of success. 

 

Taste preference is a confounding variable.

 

 

 

As you said " one's personal, unique and irregular hearing FR is being applied to both the live and the reproduced sound". Where is the reference? Does it sound perfect when you sit 1 meter away or 4 meters ? Can the FR at 1 meter be the same as at 4 meter? 

 

It helps when the FR of the recording and playback instrument is accurate but the preference or perceived accuracy is dependant on the listener frequency response which is inconsistent and varies according to the loudness level. 

 

About inconsistency, which A4 note is correct? Does it matter if the conductor decides to set the pitch standard to 435Hz vs 440Hz? FR accuracy is overrated virtue for music, IMO. In any case, a flat in FR never sounded good to most despite being accurate. 

[Kal Rubinson]

4 minutes ago, STC said:

As you said " one's personal, unique and irregular hearing FR is being applied to both the live and the reproduced sound". Where is the reference? Does it sound perfect when you sit 1 meter away or 4 meters ? Can the FR at 1 meter be the same as at 4 meter? 

 

It helps when the FR of the recording and playback instrument is accurate but the preference or perceived accuracy is dependant on the listener frequency response which is inconsistent and varies according to the loudness level. 

This gets us into Floyd Toole's "Circle of Confusion" because there is no reference.  However, if the irregularities you refer to as well as the huge and variable influence of personal preference could be controlled, one's own auditory irregularities are still a constant feature of listening to both live and reproduced sound and, therefore, not a differentiating factor. 

[John Dyson]

34 minutes ago, esldude said:

I've listened to the Eric Clapton "Wonderful Tonight".

 

The undecoded version has some obvious, pumping, well maybe not pumping, but dynamic inconsistencies.  The decoded version sounds very much like the Mobile Fidelity CD of this I have.  So I suppose they were using a master tape or something that was done properly.  

 

Thanks for these examples.  It is very interesting. 

There are some more ABBA examples at the site listed below.  Unforutnately, some of the DolbyA copies were EQed, and I forgot to do so.  There is only half of what I planned right now, but enough to see that DolbyA doesn't sound HORRID, but is a serious problem with the reproduced sound quality.  (The worst thing as I noted before -- it flattens the spatial image, and just sounds lifeless with HF dynamics problems.)  Right now, there are a few examples -- more to come at this ADDITIONAL site:

 

repo: https://spaces.hightail.com/space/zqrnA5nqnV

[STC]

2 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

This gets us into Floyd Toole's "Circle of Confusion" because there is no reference.  However, if the irregularities you refer to as well as the huge and variable influence of personal preference could be controlled, one's own auditory irregularities are still a constant feature of listening to both live and reproduced sound and, therefore, not a differentiating factor. 

 

I edited my post which you may have missed. 

 

Just to illustrate this point, give a listener or a recording engineer to tweak the recording via eq and you will have infinity number of FR. I used to demo tracks EQ’ed to my preference and have three or four versions of the same including the orginal recordings. Different visitors prefer different tracks. 

 

 

 

[Kal Rubinson]

1 minute ago, STC said:

Just to illustrate this point, give a listener or a recording engineer to tweak the recording via eq and you will have infinity number of FR. I used to demo tracks EQ’ed to my preference and have three or four versions of the same including the orginal recordings. Different visitors prefer different tracks. 

Personal taste preference.

20 minutes ago, STC said:

IMO. In any case, a flat in FR never sounded good to most despite being accurate. 

"Sounding good" is an expression of preference and I am saying that an individual's hearing variability (as long as it is not pathological or completely disfunctional) has no impact his judgement of accuracy, not on personal taste preference.

[STC]

7 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Personal taste preference.

"Sounding good" is an expression of preference and I am saying that an individual's hearing variability (as long as it is not pathological or completely disfunctional) has no impact his judgement of accuracy, not on personal taste preference.

 

But we don’t listen for accuracy. We judge SQ based on preference. 

 

Our hearing is hardly consistent nor accurate to be used as a measuring tool. Its Fq response and DR varies through out the day. The only thing that can be consistent is the preference even that IME not consistent as I discovered recently while trying to find the best version of Nutcracker - March rendition.  

[The_K-Man]

11 hours ago, STC said:

. In any case, a flat in FR never sounded good to most despite being accurate. 

 

That's why 'God made equalizers!!'  🤣

 

Seriously, you want your recording, production, and playback equipment to be as flat as is possible, over as wide a bandwidth as possible.  I would take 50Hz-16kHz +-2db over 10Hz-22kHz +-6dB any day.  See what I mean?  Then, for playback reproduction, you can EQ to any established standard you want, or to correct a room, or to personal preference.

 

The reason flat does "not sound good" to many folks is because of how we hear.  On a flat tuned system - I would consider 20Hz to 20kHz, maximum +-2dB - our hearing would not be as sensitive at 50 or even 500Hz, or on top at 10 or 15kHz, as it would be between 2-4kHz. It's the way we're made!  And a decent EQ(at least five bands), can help compensate for that, if one knows which frequencies have the most impact when adjusting.

 

As to your previous inquiry regarding FR/distance, yes, the FR can, and usually will, change with distance, or from side to side between, IE two stereo speakers.

[Sal1950]

No matter how different one listeners hearing is from the next is, that's irrelevant.

What listener X hears live is his reference to what is a accurate reproduction.

Same for listener Y and Z

I flat playback by the system is equally important to all if he want's to hear what the engineer did.

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, Sal1950 said:

No matter how different one listeners hearing is from the next is, that's irrelevant.

What listener X hears live is his reference to what is a accurate reproduction.

Same for listener Y and Z

I flat playback by the system is equally important to all if he want's to hear what the engineer did.

Agreed.

[The_K-Man]

16 hours ago, STC said:

 

But we don’t listen for accuracy. We judge SQ based on preference. 

 

Our hearing is hardly consistent nor accurate to be used as a measuring tool. Its Fq response and DR varies through out the day. The only thing that can be consistent is the preference even that IME not consistent as I discovered recently while trying to find the best version of Nutcracker - March rendition.  

 

Proximity to the sound of the original release takes precedence over overall SQ(sound  quality) of an album or single for me.  That's why I seek out and maintain a collection of earlier, original CD releases.

[Ralf11]

Proximity in time?

 

or proximity in sound qualities?

[The_K-Man]

14 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Proximity in time?

 

or proximity in sound qualities?

 

Are you serious?  Context!  

 

Of course:  proximity to sound characteristics of original release.

[Ralf11]

the points made in this thread are that earlier, original CD releases lack such fidelity - why someone would use proximity instead is odd 

[The_K-Man]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

the points made in this thread are that earlier, original CD releases lack such fidelity - why someone would use proximity instead is odd 

 

Again, the sound of the early CD releases of things like 'THRILLER' and 'DARK SIDE OF THE MOON', is more faithful, I feel, to the sound of those albums as released on vinyl, and the artistic intent in general.

 

It might not be high fidelity sound, but it is more faithful to the intended sound of the release.  

 

IE: If an early CD release of  a certain early 1970s album happened to contain the same background hiss as the original release on vinyl or 8-track, then I'd still rather have that CD than a 'remaster' that has the hiss removed, and in the same token  much of the original dynamic range squashed out in the name of loudness.

 

Am I clear now?

[STC]

No one knows what an engineer or composer heard. If that statement is relevant than I can also claim to any unintelligible sound as accurate as what Beethoven heard and composed when he was deaf. 

[fas42]

Being of a fan of the group, the local audio friend has multiple releases of the key Yes albums; including the uppity ones. But the original release is miles in front, on every front - complexity, holding one's interest, delighting in the play of sound textures; a 'composition' ... the special remasters are like Reader's Digest condensations - enough of the meat so you can identify the track; but that's about it.

[STC]

4 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

 

Proximity to the sound of the original release takes precedence over overall SQ(sound  quality) of an album or single for me.  That's why I seek out and maintain a collection of earlier, original CD releases. 

 

Or it is simply a case of "first love" like sympthom. Hard to forget the first time you experience it.

[The_K-Man]

57 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Or it is simply a case of "first love" like sympthom. Hard to forget the first time you experience it.

 

Then you're ok with adding thirty incongruous stories to the Empire State Building to keep it 'up with the Joneses' of Dubai, Hong Kong, and other cities with taller buildings?

 

Because that's what remastering, in the sense of what I've experienced, has been in terms of what was done to legendary albums by Pink Floyd, Michael Jackson, and others.

 

Enjoy your remaster collection.  I'll even sell you a few remaining ones for a buck each - since that's all they're worth compared to the originals in my cabinet.

[STC]

1 hour ago, The_K-Man said:

 

Because that's what remastering, in the sense of what I've experienced, has been in terms of what was done to legendary albums by Pink Floyd, Michael Jackson, and others.

 

I don’t buy remasters unlrss the original version is crap. Currently, searching for the best version of Nutcracker just because the cersion I heard in a demo sounded better and higher fidelity than what I have. 

 

Not all remasters are bad. Some are better than the original. 

 

Guys, which version you prefer for the Nutcracker? just the track 3 only. 

 

https://www.classicalmpr.org/story/2014/12/10/best-nutcracker-recordings