The Environmental thread + Conventional (HI-FI) wisdom is almost always invariably wrong

[semente]

I've just come across this very interesting piece:

 

Conventional (HI-FI) wisdom is almost always invariably wrong

 

As I've nearly 30 years experience within the high end industry, I felt that it may be about time that I shared a few considerations, with any discerning person who may be interested, as no one else seems to be similarly inclined.

We should, after all, know where our beliefs come from, and if we think we have reasons for what we believe, that is often a mistake.

"FI" is the abbreviated form of the word "FIDELITY", ie. "HIFI" would indicate a steadfast devotion to music, or musical event in this case. A singular integrity, if you will.

"STEREO" has nothing at all to do with the number "2". "STEREO" actually means solid, or three dimensional, ie. a 3D soundstage in this context.

 

by Peter Djordjevic / Audio Freaks

 

http://www.audiophile.no/en/articles-tests-reviews/item/1396-conventional-hi-fi-wisdom-is-almost-always-invaryably-wrong

 

 

Here's a small taster:

 

Many like what they like because of certain "perceived" qualities, which they focus upon, without which they cannot do.

These perceived qualities, sadly, are most often different forms of DISTORTION; these thoughtless creations of habit are systematic human mistakes which are known as “cognitive biases”, which play havoc with our perceptions and abilities to accurately judge and observe.

A fifty foot tall vocalist, five metre wide violin, right in front of the listener's nose, and every single recording infused with a golden warmth, for example, cannot reasonably be regarded as realistic, nor laudable, even though the presentation may be very immediate and impressive.

When visitors listen to my demonstrations of low distortion, high energy systems at shows, a lot of the music played, does include a proper, realistic and low noise soundstage presented BEHIND the loudspeakers, and I am in no doubt that this is a foreign experience for most listeners

A more immediate and close presentation will SEEM to be clearer and detailed, and many will swear that it is, but, in fact,this is illusory.

Most people who listen to my demonstrations are so profoundly riddled with cognitive biases, that they are effectively unable to make any worthwhile observation nor judgement concerning what they’ve listened to.

It is very often something like showing a card trick to a dog.

The reaction is about the same.

[semente]

1 minute ago, daverich4 said:

 

In other words:

Most people who listen to my demonstrations are ignorant and so profoundly riddled with cognitive biases, that they are totally unable to recognize the awesome sound of the system I put together. 

 

Have you read the whole piece?

[semente]

1 hour ago, Kimo said:

However, if a recording is simply bad, this has to be audible too. Having bad recordings cosmetically tailored to sound palatable, is not the way forwards.

 

So, if I put together a system that makes bad recordings sound a little better, it will not make good recordings sound better?

 

Er, nope. 😉

[semente]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

I've not been to audio hifi shows.  I don't know if the sound he describes is the norm or not.

 

It was in those I've been to, which is why I stopped going.

[semente]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

But I disagree here - it is remarkable how a superbly tuned setup can deliver the musical content in a satisfying manner from the most unlikely recordings - perserverence in doing it "the right way" does pay off ...

 

A higher-fi system will extract more information from a bad recording (sound wise) and this in itself may make it musically more satisfying to listen to but a bad recording is a bad recording no matter how you look at it (when compared to a good recording).

 

This image, taken from the web, compares the corner sharpness of 4 Canon lenses.

How can a "superbly tuned setup" improve on a bad recording such as what you get from the 17-40?

It just can't.

 

[semente]

30 minutes ago, accwai said:

 

Oh yes, looks like there are a lot of unspoken subtitles behind the quoted lens comparison:

• There are 3 generations of 16-35/2.8L. Which generation is in the comparison is unspecified.
• The 17-40 photo says 16mm. I would assume it's 17?
• The 17-40 costs like 1/4 of the more expensive lenses. Who in their right mind would shoot it wide open at its widest focal length for real? Side question: Is this item good value or not?
• In fact, who in their right mind would shoot any of these lenses wide open in a real use case. The TS-E perhaps, but probably the longer ones.
• The 17-40 photo is different from the other three. Why? Is it a different framing or a different crop?
• The 17 TS-E photo is the same as the other remaining. This lens has much bigger image circle than everything else in the comparison. So the photo probably doesn't really show its corner performance as it isn't the real corner. What is the point?

Given the photos above, I personally don't understand the point of trying to fix them up with "superbly tuned" processing chain. They have far bigger problems then just being blurry. Seriously. In any case, these are taken from the web:

 

16-35/2.8L II:

 

 

17/4 TS-E:

 

 

45/2.8 TS-E @ f/3.2:

 

 

To my admittedly amateur eyes, all the above seem serviceable despite being pumped through multiple resizing stages "downstream" to fit on the sharing site. Expert opinions to the contrary would be greatly appreciated of course.

 

I think that you are missing the point.

How much have you invested in your system and why?

Surely if you're content with "serviceable" then any Bose Wave system would do.

 

By the way, I tried to find a Holga vs. Canon/Nikon/etc comparision which would have been more fit for purpose but couldn't find one.

Can you imagine how much better/more enjoyable it would be to experience the singing of Billie Holiday or the playing of Rachmaninoff if they'd been recorded in stereo with the current equipment?

[semente]

20 minutes ago, Paul R said:

That is one of those articles that has a lot of truth in it. So much that one has difficulty separating out the silliness, I think. One of those cognitive bias’ he is so intent upon pointing out is that a soundstage must extend “behind” a set of speakers. This is, of course, kinda cool. But all “soundstage” is built upon illusion. I fail to see how that particular illusion is more important than any other, save as a preference. There are people who care less about soundstage than, for instance, the sound of a violin. Heck, there are people that prefer mono recordings, and find “depth” in those recordings.

 

To me, most mono recordings seem “small” - however there are arguments that a mono recording sounds closer to reality than stereo. 

 

Also, the idea of the absolute sound is just as illusory. Even at a concert in the best venue, where you are sitting is going to make an enormous difference in what you hear. Also, the fact you can see the performance makes a really huge difference. Visual + Auditory perception is never equal to just auditory perception. 

 

A good article, but too many opinions presented as facts, and too much experience presented as the reason those opinions must be facts. Experience is incredibly valuable, but does not make opinion fact. They can be incredibly useful however, perhaps in the same way that Newtonian calculations are useful?  They miss the underlying reality a bit, but are good enough to get good results in the everyday world? 

 

 

Your assessment mostly matches my analysis.

 

The things that I find most noteworthy in this piece are the reference to a lack of healthy references and to a growing trend of moving the goals towards accessory effects instead of focusing on the qualities that form the core of instrument and vocal sound thus of music. And then there's the depressing subject of audio relativism...

 

But I'm not sure that "there are arguments that a mono recording sounds closer to reality than stereo."

[semente]

3 hours ago, Paul R said:

LOL - in the sense you mean Peter, I can agree it is not illusion.

 

However, in the broader sense — all the sounds emanating from those speakers are essentially point sources. That trumpet playing 3 feet behind the speaker, and the violin playing 2ft in front of it on the left are illusions. Technical tricks, as the speakers are not beaming the sound to those points before it originates it. 

 

I do not think we are localizing the sound in the same way as we would in a real performance, though the result may be similar. I think we learn that skill — hearing a soundstage — from listening to  stereo recordings, and it is made feasible by the bass, parts of which are far less directional than treble sounds.

 

Also, people who cannot hear or perceive a soundstage from stereo often seem able to localize sounds, and “see” a soundstage better from multichannel setups. I seems to intuitively make sense though, as that is closer to the way we localize sounds in nature. 

 

Depth, I believe is all related to timing, or rather phase differentials. (Which is another way of saying timing.) I believe this is the same mechanism that creates right to left soundstage. Be it illusion, real, or both, depending upon perspective. 🤪 

 

So there is sound theory for a cable being able to affect depth, or effect soundstage, etc. Arguable, but a sound basis. Again, I agree it is a real effect, but I think that effect produces an auditory illusion of soundstage and depth.  A most enjoyable illusion, but not one that I am sure measures fidelity. 

 

You know a heck of a lot more about the subject, and especially how to manipulate it in hardware or software than I do though. 

 

 

 

 

A few concepts taken from Stereophile's glossary so that everyone knows what I'm talking about:

 

soundstaging, soundstage presentation The accuracy with which a reproducing system conveys audible information about the size, shape, and acoustical characteristics of the original recording space and the placement of the performers within it.

imaging The measure of a system's ability to float stable and specific phantom images, reproducing the original sizes and locations of the instruments across the soundstage.

stereo imaging The production of stable, specific phantom images of correct localization and width.

focus The quality of being clearly defined, with sharply outlined phantom images. Focus has also been described as the enhanced ability to hear the brief moments of silence between the musical impulses in reproduced sound.

 

Assuming that this is what soundstage means to both you and @PeterSt perhaps we can should distinguish between real stereo soundstage from fabricated soundstage.

The former is (optimally) achieved by positioning a pair of mics in a space with natural acoustic reverberation at a reasonable distance from the source or sources. Differences in amplitude, phase and room cues will provide information regarding the location of those sources.
The studio production is a close-mic'ed, multi-track affair, a composite made of several mono takes performed in semi-anechoic conditions which are devoid of any room information, and there wasn't a single original event. During mixing/production each track is pan-potted (like a balance control) into position, EQ'ed to achieve best relative balance between sound sources, compressed, level adjusted. I imagine that to create a more distant source one must add more reverb, bring down the presence region and perhaps roll-off at least the top a tad, maybe add a fraction of delay.

 

I agree with Paul that stereo soundstage should be seen as an illusion or trick because the speakers cannot recreate the original soundfield.

 

I agree with Peter that more room interference will affect imaging focus and drastically reduce the system's ability to recreate the original ambience when listening to real stereo recordings. Studio productions may on the other hand benefit from a bit of boundary reflection if the recording is two dry (lacking in reverberation).

 

And just as the sound engineer can make up a more or less convincing soundstage, so can the audio equipment designer, by manipulating frequency response, harmonic distortion, phase, dispersion, etc.

 

The write up that we are discussing focuses on this subject of equipment intentionally not reproducing the signal that it's being fed and of people expecting or not being able to recognise these departures from naturalness or realism.

[semente]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

There is a solution to the multi-channel problem: genetically modified audiophiles, with 7+2 ears strategically located at the correct angles around their heads. Imagine the soundstage!

Someone's already working on it:

 

 

[semente]

8 minutes ago, esldude said:

Sure it is.  Ask these specialists about phantom images.  Is that like phantom pain?

 

Phantom images are perception of sound in a location where there is no sound.  What could you call that other than an aural illusion. 

 

Don't you mean no sound source?

It's not like we're hearing voices in our heads. 😋

[semente]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Where this analogy does not match up to audio is that a technically poor recording will still have a high level of information, which is usually "buried" in the noise of those imperfections - one's ear/brain can't cope with unravelling this when the system playback then adds its own layer of muck. Also, I seem to remember that "perfectly blurred" images can in fact be unblurred to some degree by clever algorithms; so perhaps there is good ovelap there as well.

 

I've been amazed over the years at how well this works. Nellie Melba recordings, at the dawn of recording, done with incredibly crude technology; usually sound somewhat absurd - I've heard these come to life, the voice sounds huge, with beautiful tone, you understand why she was considered so special - the accompanying piano, well behind her, can be clearly "seen", as a real instrument. Yes, the noise levels are horrendous, but it doesn't matter; you can "see past" that with ease. 

 

What's that word.................🤔.................obstinate. That's it.

[semente]

14 hours ago, STC said:

... without contrasting sound with level and HF difference depth cannot be perceived in a recording.   Depth like height is formed based on prior knowledge.  

 

In a studio mix depth can be achieved through level difference when you have two instruments, and incremented with a bit of reverb, realxation of the presence region and maybe a slight roll-off of the treble, which is what you would hear in unamplified conditions.

 

When recording two unamplified instruments in a space with natural decay and one instrument is further back the distance is given by room cues as well as lower level and a slight roll-off of the treble. This is obvious in some two-mic recordings of the tympany in an orchestral piece, sometimes you can even hear an echo.

 

Height cannot be captured and reproduced with real stereo recordings but can be achieved likely through phase manipulation in studio mixes. I would agree that in most cases height perception is down to expectation bias.

[semente]

 

[semente]

55 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

http://www.preservationsound.com/?tag=vintage-hi-fi

 

Thanks, I'll have a look.

 

This one is also worth watching:

 

 

[semente]

Since the Greens have now taken over the thread, why don't we talk about the Carbon fooprint of streaming?

 

Climate change: Is your Netflix habit bad for the environment?
The entire information technology (IT) sector - from powering internet servers to charging smartphones - is already estimated to have the same carbon footprint as the aviation industry's fuel emissions.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45798523

 

Music consumption has unintended economic and environmental costs

https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/headline_643297_en.html

[semente]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

For future reference, I prefer the definition that High-Fidelity means a “high degree of faithfulness to the original sound” , NOT the recording. 

 

2 hours ago, esldude said:

I understand why you might go with that.  In the case of electronic reproduction however there is only the signal it is presented with.  If you had something that alters a signal to make it sound more real that is good, but high fidelity it isn't.  Your definitions seems more of "sounds real" than a matter of fidelity. 

 

I agree with Dennis.

Where you place your mics and the amount of processing and effects used determine the level of realism. George is fortunate enough to be able to make his own recordings but for the rest of us mere mortals can only aspire to achieve some degree of faithfulness to the recorded signal because one of the crucial aspects of "sounding real" is dependent on the way the recording was produced (this is true even for classical music). Besides, some genres of music or at least some particular works are not even meant to "sound real". At this point "sounding real" has become somewhat subjective because if one is confronted with recordings which weren't conceived to sound that realistic then the end user may wish to alter the signal in a way that makes it sound more to her or his taste.

In my opinion such a an approach to signal-seasoning is really only effective if you treat recordings on a case-by-case basis because not all recordings require the same tweaking, but this would be highly unpractical. My experience also leads me to believe that most spices will produce negative side-effects, albeit of varying degrees of amplitude.

 

There's an old paper by EMI entitled "The Pursuit of High Fidelity" which describes high fidelity as "the creation, in the listener's normal surroundings, of the ILLUSION of the actual performance as it would have been heard under the most favourable conditions."

But I think that they were referring to classical music. Stereo and high fidelity probably came to life because engineers and labels wanted to improve the reproduction of classical music recordings. In those days, rock and other lighter genres were mostly broadcasted and pop only came later, as did the democratisation of the home stereo which replaced the radio receiver.

 

A Tiny History of High Fidelity

http://www.nutshellhifi.com/library/tinyhistory1.html

[semente]

38 minutes ago, Confused said:

At least streaming produces a usable product that provides much pleasure.  This seams relatively unnecessary to me:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/17/bitcoin-big-oil-environment-energy

 

 

Greedy millionaire-wanabees will tell you that Bitcon provides much pleasure...

 

I think that there's now sufficient factual evidence for putting the preservation of the habitat which sustains human life before our personal pleasures (I'm sure someone will come along and say that they don't have children and don't care what happens to the planet after they're gone, and a handful of deniers).

[semente]

33 minutes ago, esldude said:

Not a denier.  Climate change is real enough.  But it is a tough problem.  Maybe the solution is don't have children and lower the world population. 

 

I don't think it is the total chaos and end of human life.  It can eventually get pretty bad, but that is more than 50 years away which does mean it is after I'll be here.  So I can't do much.  It will be dealt with by those people around then.  Not in favor of leaving trouble for those that come after,  but I've not seen any good answers that are really capable of being implemented.  Too many solutions involve some sort of benevolent dictator to make everyone do right, and those just don't have a good history of working out. 

 

Come on, you can't do much? If we all do a bit then we'll get to the much quite quickly.

 

There are many things one can do, simple things like reducing water waste, avoid plastics, compost and recicle, walk or cycle or take public transportation whenever possible, avoid flying for pleasure, fuel-saving driving, less shopping, less food waste, buy locally produced organic food, replace heating/cooling equipment with more efficient and cleaner one, insulate your home, wear warmer clothes in winter and lower home temperature, replace your 3-ton 4-litre SUV with a lighter more fuel-efficient car, demand more action from government and from business...turn off your hi-fi equipment when not in use?

 

Have you watched this documentary? It's preagnant with ideas!

 

 

[semente]

34 minutes ago, esldude said:

Avoid plastics?  Are you sure?

 

Yes. Bags, toys, clothes, bottles, useless stuff in general.

 

34 minutes ago, esldude said:

As for the video you linked.  Pregnancy is bad it leads to resource hogging people.  So stop it.

 

Pregnancy of (good) ideas? Why is that bad?

 

It's not human reproduction that is destroying our habitat, but human actions. Mostly due to greed (shareholder profit-oriented business) which benefits but a microcospic minority of the planet's population; it's made us the growth-obsessed consumer society we are now.

We have the tools and the knowledge and the wealth and yet had decades of growing cleavage between the top and bottom ends of society and created a massive canyon between us. People are not well-educated and this suits the system. It has them voting for populists and choosing emotion over fact, and buying. Like chicken in a factory. It also has them having many children. Poverty in developing countries or regions (because there are poor regions here in England as there are in the US that rival those in Africa) means little education and more children means more chance of a few surviving to adulthood and more people to support you once you retire and cannot access retirement pension or adequate free medical treatment or free elderly care...

 

You should watch the documentary.

As a documentary, it starts by reporting the (alarmist) spotlighting of the climate emergency by the media and goes on to investigate how small groups in different parts of the planet are operating changes to their lifestyle and that of their communities (i.e. the allotments in Detroit after the collapse of the industry) to bring a positive impact on the environment, society and their own lives.

PM me your details and buy you the DVD (mine is PAL and is doing the rounds).

[semente]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

If human actions are destroying the planet, then how can you argue against less humans would result in less destruction? 

 

I get the problem with growth.  There was a fairly advanced model showing how if we'd experienced 3% growth from the time of the pyramids in Egypt until now, we'd have already used up all the resources of the solar system and all the output of the sun.  Yet 3% growth is considered necessary for a 'healthy' economy.  It isn't sustainable at all.  

 

Detroit, yeah that is the place to emulate.  You lost me at this:

 

WHEN ALL OF THE MEMBER OF A COMMUNITY HAVE EASY ACCESS TO ADEQUATE  AMOUNTS OF AFFORDABLE, NUTRITIOUS, CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE FOOD.(sic)

 

Okay what is culturally appropriate food?  It is bullshit.  The people who think this way are fundamentally divorced from reality.  Sorry.

 

Perhaps you should watch the documentary and make up your mind after.

[semente]

1 hour ago, marce said:

Some of us are stuck with using plastic products every day... Had an ECO warrier ranting at me in the street because I said I had to use plastic products every day and there was no alternative for me at this time...

 

The problem with other plastics is that probably every consumer product has some plastic in it and said products are not built to last... I can remember my childhood, when plastic products first appeared and where considered cheap, but then we had milkmen, so mild bottles were recycled, you paid a deposit for your pop bottles, and wrapped your bacon in paper... Have we progressed?

 

I agree that plastic makes good containers but there's also a lot of junk made in plastic that we don't need and can avoid.

Governments should put pressure on Business to reduce plastic.

[semente]

[semente]

8 hours ago, Paul R said:

For example, we do not want to accidentally trigger a new ice age with blind climate engineering. We already have 100 years or more of that experience behind us. You can grow food pretty much anywhere it is warm, but not on glaciers. 

 

That is absurd... What is the chance of creating a new ice age with the rate at which the planet has been warming and knowing that the causes are not likely to disapeer?

I agree that this requires political intervention. It requires fact/science-based decisions. It requires a change in paradigm from a growth-driven consumerism-oriented society to a sustainable and more egalitarian society. It requires responsible, scrupulous business. It requires abstinence and change of habits from developped nations. It requires the end of economic colonialism and exploitation. I requires the end of tax havens and the prosecution of fraudsters and corrupt politicians. It requires the end of financial speculation. Not feasible but a reasonable target.

 

The massive cost of the reunification of Germany is a good example that people will make an effort for a good cause...

But we won't be going anywhere unless the gap between rich and poor is reduced first.

 

Here in the UK wages have dropped by almost 30% since 2008. There's a homeless person in every corner of every street.

15% of the US population is considered impoverished...

Banks were bailed out with public money.

Far-right/nationalist movements are pretty much on the rise everywhere.

 

[semente]

4 minutes ago, Paul R said:

So so many questions. So few answers. So many calls to put draconian restrictions in first world countries and give other countries a free pass.  What would the wars that would generate affect in the climate change? Many many more factors, not enough research. Too much call to do something, even if that something may eventually doom us? 

 

What proof do you have that there'll be (more) wars and doom?

Isn't that what liberalism, in the form of economic colonialism and exploitation, has been doing?

Who put Pinochet in power? Who made the Taliban? Who supported Hussein in the 80s? Who created the space for ISIS? Who is responsible for the expansion of heroin trade? Et cetera.

 

Europe, Russia, China and the US support African dictators in exchange for good deals on goods and dumping ground for waste. Help make those societies more egalitarian, more just, provide the tools for sustainable development.

 

But governments in "free" countries are on the payroll of large corporations, of business...

[semente]

6 hours ago, Paul R said:

High levels of CO2 encourage plant growth, which actually does sequester carbon.

 

But forests are being destroyed to make room for large intensive cultivation land. That's what multinationals do best. Then they grow GM crops and flood the ecosystem with noxious chemicals.

Western societies eat too much food and too much meat. This makes multinationals richer. Multinationals are happier. Politicians get more money. All this whilst whole populations in developing nations are displaced and thrown into unenployment and poverty, and the ecosystem which sustains life on Earth is damaged.

Fortunately this is not always irreversible, as has been proven by Sebastião Salgado's project:

 

http://www.institutoterra.org/eng/conteudosLinks.php?id=23&tl=V2hhdCB3ZSBkbw==&sb=MTI=#.XPI1bXvTXOQ