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

[fas42]

Have not yet read a word of the posted article ... but are quite certain he's on the same wavelength as myself. Most audio people "don't get it" - the whole business went off the tracks badly ages ago, and that's one reason we have this current disaster of a recording industry - if you have no idea what good sound is, why should you bother recording to suit such?

[fas42]

3 hours 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.

 

 

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 ...

[fas42]

To me the "audio truth" is what's on the recording - no matter what the mastering engineer had in his head at the time; and if the result shows cringingly bad choices - I'm thinking Amy Winehouse tracks here - what the source data says, is what you should hear.

 

If then one chooses to play with the data, via fancy DSP, etc - to change the presentation - that's now an entirely different scenario.

[fas42]

12 hours ago, semente said:

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.

 

 

 

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.

[fas42]

9 hours 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.

 

Ummm, the soundstage is always behind the speakers - that is, it starts at the vertical plane where the speakers are located, and exists back from that. Every recording I have meets this criterion when the rig is working at a good level - I'll ignore the "silly" efforts where phase is deliberately manipulated to make things fly around the room, etc.

 

Mono recordings most certainly convey depth; recordings over a 100 years old make it quite easy to judge how far back a particular instrument is, say.

[fas42]

6 hours ago, jhwalker said:

 

I am one of those people who do not hear "depth" or "soundstage" from any stereo system I've ever heard - sound is, for me, very much on a two-dimensional plane running through the two speakers.  Multichannel systems, OTOH, give me a very palpable sense of depth and "reality" that no stereo system can.

 

I wish I could "learn" to hear the depth out of a two speaker systems  but has never happened for me.

 

 

 

You don't have to "learn it", most likely - the way it works for me is, that below a critical quality level, the presentation is just boring ol' fashioned stereo, the same thing I was hearing in the 1960's - no matter how spectacular some of the technical aspects may be. But once you hit that crucial SQ a switch flicks over in the brain, and a full 3D, holographic, whatever you want to call it, vista opens up - and it's impossible to 'unsee' this illusion, no matter how you place yourself in the room, etc.

 

Some people may find that this never happens, because of the wiring in their brains - but the quality of what they're hearing should make up for this, to a large degree, .

 

BTW, I've got a tree which is dangerously uprooted from strong winds we just had, that I have to deal with - so my input here is going to be minimal, for the moment.

[fas42]

3 hours ago, crenca said:

What I really don't get is when folks who mostly listen to modern pop/rock/studio creations and who focus on soundstage.  It's one thing to talk seek a soundstage for real acoustic music played in real acoustic space, but music that is the creation of studio mix boards and computers ???

 

Doesn't matter if all the acoustics are created artificially - the aural clues still carry the same sort of information that the "real thing" contains; and how this translates, to the ears, is that there are frequently multiple acoustics overlaying each other. The different sound elements exist in different spaces in front of you, and you can switch your focus between these spaces, with ease - if the producer is highly creative then the whole thing becomes like a circus spectacular, with myriad sub-events within the whole, each having their own aural integrity.

 

This might sound as if it could become too messy - but in real life situations we deal with these listening situations constantly; and have no trouble switching our attention between each sound element, whether a few inches away, or half a mile distant. And that's how it works on 'manufactured' soundscapes.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

Um no- the soundstage is usually a flat plane between the speakers, and with apologies to Peter, always illusory as well. The speakers are not projecting the sounds of specific instruments to those locations. 

 

Depending upon the configuration and listening position, the soundstage can be very forward, which is actually rather cool too.

 

 

The sounds of specific sound elements are not projected to various locations; rather, all the auditory cues add up sufficiently that the brain decides that the sound of whatever is actually coming from "over there"; and not from the speakers. One day you might experience this from a stereo setup, and will be amazed at how powerful the illusion is - just as amazed as I was when I first had it happen to me.

 

If the soundstage is very "forward" then IME this is all about the distortion being such that all sense of depth is lost; loudness is translated by the brain as meaning the sound is closer, because the other cues telling otherwise are too poorly reproduced.

[fas42]

14 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

We definitely disagree in a lot of areas here. As I hear and love soundstage stuff more than just about any other aspect of our hobby, it is rather amusing to see you suggesting I will experience it one day. 🤪

 

As it happens, I remember exactly  when I first heard soundstage from a stereo system. It was in the 70’s,  a FM broadcast of Jeff Wayne’s WoTWs, around 2 am in the morning. I had dropped something, and as I reached over the bed to retrieve it, I suddenly hit the very small sweet spot. Amazement, understanding, and great joy. Sold on it  ever since. 

 

Yes, we definitely disagree. And it is due to the difference in our experiences; when I started this journey over 3 decades ago I had no concept of soundstage, I just wanted it "to sound better". From the beginning I was always aware when the playback was distorting, which obviously irritated; so I worked on various areas to try and reduce that factor. And convincing sound popped out as a result of that; I got the whole shebang first go, there were no intermediate steps.

 

That is, the sweet spot was everywhere, the speakers became completely invisible; and the most "extreme" recordings delivered a tremendous punch - when I checked out very expensive rigs very shortly following, they were so inadequate in comparison; I spent years checking out other systems, which always turned out to be far too obviously flawed.

 

Quote

A really good soundstage can extend quite a distance into the room, and can present almost tangible images. Much more depth, and height information. Has nothing to do with distortion. It is a myth that a soundstage is only good or accurate if it appears behind the speakers. IMHO, YMMV, etc. 

 

 

Extending into the room - no

 

Completely tangible images - yes

 

A fully formed, aural spatial world opens up - yes

 

Audible distortion is always the culprit - whenever I hear my own rig, or someone else's almost sound right, I go right up to treble driver, and listen - yep, just stinking with distortion; no wonder the SQ is below par.

 

 

YMMV,

[fas42]

5 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Awww - that’s a little bit harsh perhaps. I don’t sense any malice from Frank,  even if he can be very — strident — and stubbornly annoying in his views. My dad would say he has “the courage of his convictions.” 

 

Pretty easy to be "stubborn" - I used to get really annoyed that more people weren't going down the same path as myself - surely to God I wasn't the only person who had stumbled across this, and was actively pursuing it? Only in the last decade have I connected with others who "get it", who understood the pleasures, and frustrations of chasing this goal.

[fas42]

5 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

Somehow I noticed this too and thought of a Harley. I never noticed it before.

As I said, it's getting better and better (as flat as always in your book - haha).

 

Try the Motor Cycle Song from Arlo Guthrie if you don't know it. This was my big fun when I was 12 or so.

 

30 years ago this was my favourite, along these lines - was regularly played,

 

 

The action is at the end, as the speedway car, announced over the PA, makes a circuit - the final explosive acceleration should subjectively tear your ears out, as it would in real life.

 

[fas42]

Talking about hearing depth in mono recordings, old swing orchestra recordings are good for that; in that the drummer, because of the impact of the sounds he can make, is placed waaaay back from the rest of the group; it's quite easy to to pick that he's 10's of feet back from the mic, and you can clearly hear the echos from his kit defining the space the group overall is in.

[fas42]

4 hours ago, STC said:

 

In those days, the dog howling in Amused to Death said to be like coming from my neighbour garden. An effect that I never perceived despite others perceived so in my own system. A simple Harbeth setup. This was about 10 years ago and that was when I realized I do not have the ability perceive an imaginary stage.

 

 

That explains why you put so much effort into generating the acoustic environments for recordings as you do - you need reinforcement of aural clues as compared to other people, to perceive a similar presentation.

 

It's well understood that people have differing reactions to sound cues; there's a whole area of medical research that investigates this aspect of human physiology.

[fas42]

We humans are clever enough to always invent solutions or resolve issues, but a combination of (normally male) pigheadessness and ego, laziness, and an instinct to follow the herd does its damnedest to sabotage, or severely cripple the best intentions - I suspect mankind will keep stumbling along, in the same as one sees exhausted athletes collapsing, and staggering to the line from sheer determination; extremely painful to watch, to experience happening besides one - but ultimately the wanted result  is achieved.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

Here's one I learned a long time ago, if you can not calculate it, you do not understand it. We certainly can model some climate change, but last I looked, the models cannot accurately model history. That really means the models are probably not going to have accurate predictions of the future either. They are not junk science, but they are not well done enough to bet the entire future on either. And when you expand that to ecological and economic effects - the models are the purest fantasy at the moment. Useful in politics though. 

 

 

On just that one point, it is trivially easy to find material online as to which direction the models are "going wrong" ... https://phys.org/news/2018-07-global-climate.html

[fas42]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

Don't waste that manure.  Here is the answer.  Roofs not needed.  24 hrs runs a car or fridge it says.  Of course the energy use of a car and fridge are dramatically different.  So probably just dramatic info. From Argentina btw.

 

 

He's worrying about the wrong end ... something I was made aware of recently, https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/33/which-is-a-bigger-methane-source-cow-belching-or-cow-flatulence/.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

How many would be in favor of an absolute speed limit of 30 mph on all automobiles, light trucks and SUV's?  As a transition I'd suggest 45 mph for 15 years.  The reason is most gasoline vehicles get their best mileage at 45 mph give or take a couple.  Designing for the future we could build vehicles that get best mileage at 30 mph.  Plus traffic fatalities would drop considerably.  Of course that means more people. 

 

You would have a hard time pushing this concept in Australia! A land of "the tyranny of distance", when travelling outside the main urban regions - perfect for EV's, but the number bought is miniscule so far; lack of infrastructure, as in recharging stations.

 

Worries about sources of energy are zero; sun and wind are plentiful - it's guaranteeing continuity of supply that concerns people, pumped hydro is the proposed method.

[fas42]

8 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

I haven't posted my favorite source of news for quite a long time.

(maybe this one gets @Priaptor s approval..)

 

 

 

 

 

Yep. Our government is very cringe worthy - the blokes on the conservative side, which are running things at the moment, are excellent at puffing up their chests and admiring themselves in the mirror; this article pretty well nails where they're coming from, https://www.crikey.com.au/2021/03/10/big-swinging-dicks-liberal-party/