Redbook vs. High Resolution Tests Are Clickbait

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 A very marked improvement with the decoded version.

The original reminded me why I can't normally stand to even listen to .mp3

.mp3 just adds to the damage of the undecoded -- already, undecoded has limited stereo depth and a compressed high end.  mp3 doesn't help.

 

The ONLY reason why I generally demo with .mp3 is that it can be played directly -- people don't have to do an explict download of a snippet.  If sharing or doing a decode for a friend, then I'll happily do .flac.  (Sometimes, I do demos with .flac, but only for the best quality.)

For hearing the difference between the compression and lack of stereo depth (in this case), mp3 did it.

 

But I definitely agree about mp3 being inferior (Id think that 99.9% of audio/music lovers would agree)  -- I actually do have test material that the difference between mp3 and uncompressed can be heard because of the lack of time resolution in mp3.  Interestingly, it was pretty clear that .opus showed better time resolution, but also SEEMED to be grainier (that was a poor experiment, so I won't make an absolute claim about the graininess.)

 

Right now, wishing to produce long term archives of some decode test operations -- mp3 or opus?*  Cannot decide, so keeping with .flac for now, and then will just buy more disk.  (Backups are more the problem than just space.) I even tried .opus at very high bitrates (320 & 512), still not really happy -- even though seems better all around than .mp3.  (The .opus graininess MIGHT be a figment, some day if it is important enough to me, will try to nail the potential figment of my imagination.)

 

* Of course, never use .mp3 or .opus for master copies, or most recent decode attempts.  I'd use those for historical results for testing progress.  I have literally 500+ versions of the DA decoder ready to run in my archives, but much more convenient to just play a test.

 

John

 

[sandyk]

9 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

* Of course, never use .mp3 or .opus for master copies, or most recent decode attempts

 

 Personally, because I have always been able to hear the difference between .flac and .wav, especially at the lower .flac settings, I would use the native format and only .flac for security purposes.

 I always convert your flacs to wav before a serious listening session.

[lucretius]

On 8/6/2019 at 1:27 PM, mansr said:

This is especially relevant with the slow roll-off fad where the filter can easily encroach on the audible range for 44.1 kHz material.

 

So audiophile influence is having a negative effect?  😊

[STC]

2 hours ago, John Dyson said:

limited stereo depth and a compressed high end.....

 

What is stereo depth? How can I describe the depth during a playback? 

[John Dyson]

3 hours ago, STC said:

 

What is stereo depth? How can I describe the depth during a playback? 

I don't know the 'audiophile' term, but the HF compression distorts the sense of the front/back direction.   Material depending on the frequency response hinting sounds more spatially thin because of the very fast HF compression.  It isn't a true thinning/flattening - but it is weaker, because there IS a sense of coming from the side direction, and there IS a sense of coming from forward, but the nuance of location in-between is weaker.

 

* I can produce examples where it might even seem like the code had 'matrixed' the sound, but it really didn't.  It is just that the sense of direction is recovered (the ambiance becomes more natural.)

 

The way that my mind visualizes it -- the 'inbetween' sense of forward and sideways is more 'binary' and more 'weak' -- the space between forward and backwards/sideways is less filled in.

 

(It might have something to do with the frequency response hinting for location being less effective becuase of the distortion in the dynamics.)  Since the dynamics at the 'hint' frequencies are gain/level compressed, then the stereo image is messed up.

 

Normal compression does this also, but a single band compression seems (to me) to create less of the spatial distortion than then multi-band in DolbyA without decoding.  Basically the frequency response hints are all mangled unless the very fast/dynamic DolbyA compression is fairly precisely decoded.

 

Also, my guess that the location information is also distorted in DolbyA also because we often hear location  in ambiance -- and ambiance tends to be at lower levels -- DolbyA VERY FAST and variable (1-30msec attack, 30-60msec decay) and is active more in the  -15 through -30dB range at high frequencies, but not-active in the -0 through -10dB range, so that the peaks and the lower levels are not reproduced at the same level -- spatial hints then distorted -- with gains varying all over the place at lower levels.

 

(The DHNRDS does accuately-enough decode the material so that the sense of stereo space is recovered.)

 

John

[STC]

12 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I don't know the 'audiophile' term, but the HF compression distorts the sense of the front/back direction.   Material depending on the frequency response hinting sounds more spatially thin because of the very fast HF compression.  It isn't a true thinning/flattening - but it is weaker, because there IS a sense of coming from the side direction, and there IS a sense of coming from forward, but the nuance of location in-between is weaker.

 

* I can produce examples where it might even seem like the code had 'matrixed' the sound, but it really didn't.  It is just that the sense of direction is recovered (the ambiance becomes more natural.)

 

The way that my mind visualizes it -- the 'inbetween' sense of forward and sideways is more 'binary' and more 'weak' -- the space between forward and backwards/sideways is less filled in.

 

(It might have something to do with the frequency response hinting for location being less effective becuase of the distortion in the dynamics.)  Since the dynamics at the 'hint' frequencies are gain/level compressed, then the stereo image is messed up.

 

Normal compression does this also, but a single band compression seems (to me) to create less of the spatial distortion than then multi-band in DolbyA without decoding.  Basically the frequency response hints are all mangled unless the very fast/dynamic DolbyA compression is fairly precisely decoded.

 

Also, my guess that the location information is also distorted in DolbyA also because we often hear location  in ambiance -- and ambiance tends to be at lower levels -- DolbyA VERY FAST and variable (1-30msec attack, 30-60msec decay) and is active more in the  -15 through -30dB range at high frequencies, but not-active in the -0 through -10dB range, so that the peaks and the lower levels are not reproduced at the same level -- spatial hints then distorted -- with gains varying all over the place at lower levels.

 

(The DHNRDS does accuately-enough decode the material so that the sense of stereo space is recovered.)

 

John

 

I agree in general regarding the possible loss of spatial information in DolbyA based on your reasoning but I was referring to MP3 as stated in your post. 

 

If anything, loss of HF applies equally to the whole sound track and at most you might sense a more laid back presentation with MP3. But that’s purely speculative in the case of loudspeakers playback because such small difference would be drowned by the room’s own reverberation. 

 

NB: MP3 means 320 bitrate MP3 in my reference. 

[John Dyson]

9 minutes ago, STC said:

 

I agree in general regarding the possible loss of spatial information in DolbyA based on your reasoning but I was referring to MP3 as stated in your post. 

 

If anything, loss of HF applies equally to the whole sound track and at most you might sense a more laid back presentation with MP3. But that’s purely speculative in the case of loudspeakers playback because such small difference would be drowned by the room’s own reverberation. 

 

NB: MP3 means 320 bitrate MP3 in my reference. 

Oh -- on MP3...  Sorry I misunderstood...  I do all of my technical listening on a crisp sounding headphone.  I agree that the small loss of time resolution might not be audible (or as audible) on normal speakers.   Maybe some kind of carefully time-aligned speaker system just might be able to resolve it -- any speakers that I could afford -- probably not.

 

The reason why I was so sensitive to the issue -- I was listening for defects in the DolbyA decoding -- so step-by-step, I would listen to every impairment that I could find.  About the time that I heard the loss of temporal information on mp3, I had to quit using it except for non-critical applications.   I don't necessarily believe 'common wisdom', but when I experience that 'common wisdom' so strongly, it caused a change in behavior.

 

John

 

[STC]

4 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Oh -- on MP3...  Sorry I misunderstood...  I do all of my technical listening on a crisp sounding headphone.  I agree that the small loss of time resolution might not be audible (or as audible) on normal speakers.   Maybe some kind of carefully time-aligned speaker system just might be able to resolve it -- any speakers that I could afford -- probably not.

 

The reason why I was so sensitive to the issue -- I was listening for defects in the DolbyA decoding -- so step-by-step, I would listen to every impairment that I could find.  About the time that I heard the loss of temporal information on mp3, I had to quit using it except for non-critical applications.   I don't necessarily believe 'common wisdom', but when I experience that 'common wisdom' so strongly, it caused a change in behavior.

 

John

 

 

My mistake. I guess most of the disagreements we had because we use different medium to judge sound. 

 

For me, no sound in nature can sound like sound heard through headphones. So, as far realism is concerned it defeats the very purpose of this hobby of recreating the accurate spatial information using headphones as all the perceived space can only confined to the space between your ears.*

 

 

* binaural and Smyth Realiser exempted. 

[John Dyson]

25 minutes ago, STC said:

 

My mistake. I guess most of the disagreements we had because we use different medium to judge sound. 

 

For me, no sound in nature can sound like sound heard through headphones. So, as far realism is concerned it defeats the very purpose of this hobby of recreating the accurate spatial information using headphones as all the perceived space can only confined to the space between your ears.*

 

 

* binaural and Smyth Realiser exempted. 

Another one of our differences -- I *truly* listen for technical reasons -- trying to make sure that there are no subtle distortions in complex gain control systems.   There is ZERO way that any reasonable speaker system could give me the precision that I need.  A speaker system (properly compensated/time corrected/etc) would be nice for casual listening, but I don't casually listen anymore.  Any speaker that I have recently heard just produces blobs -- so I try to 'turn off' the technical listening, with varying success.

So, for example, with headphones I can easily hear the flattening of the spatial relationships, especially when comparing with reference material.  I can do super accurate A/B comparisons.  With speakers, there are too many odd things that happen -- room effects, listening location, changes of objects in the field, heavy diaphragms that need to be corrected/tweaked to get a given response/etc.  Only the most tweaked speaker systems/room/etc can provide the precision and extreme transparency of defects that a reasonably accurate headphone can give.  Most important -- detail (less-so accuracy) and repeatability, because all of the material is compared moreso than worrying so much about technical accuracy (that is handled by the technical tests.)

 

Headphones aren't perfect either, but every micro sized error in the comparisons can be heard.

 

I quit listening for enjoyment about 3yrs ago when the projects started.  I cannot stand most music that I mention -- I am so tired of listening to material for literally 10s and sometimes 100s of times over a few days to make sure that the negative aspects of the processing are mitigated.   Imagine ferreting out every little oddity in the sound, determining if it is 'distortion', what kind of 'distortion', is it a splat, MD, etc?  Most of the time, the distortion isn't really bad -- it is just that mentally digging so deeply into the material sometimes causes the simplest change in focus to make the material sound difference.*

 

*  I did recently get a buzz when I found an absolutely perfect DolbyA copy of the EMI 48 hits 1971-1975 of ONJ.  That was a really nice change -- found it in storage from my move to new apartment.  Once I figured out all of the calibration/EQ parameters, the results were astounding.  (This kind of thing happens soo seldom nowadays.)

 

Unfortunately for me (and I don't regret it), my project is meant to help others -- for example, I am TOTALLY sick and tired of hearing 'SuperTrouper', 'SOS', 'Waterloo', 'For All We Know', 'Everything I Own', 'Orange Colored Sky', 'Alfie', 'You'll never get to heaven', any of Brasil'66, need I go on?  Every song of these associated groups needs to pass muster...  The above are a very small subset of the collection used.   All must sound good -- or have a reason for sounding odd -- no exceptions!!! (This often makes ABBA the acid test -- mushy IMD city on DolbyA HW, actually clean sounding on DHNRDS.)  Each one of these has attributes which can be modified by gain control -- morso than Tchaikovsky or Oscar Peterson (or much other material of this kind of instrumental/Jazz vocal material), even tthough I use that kind of material for testing also.  (Less chaotic material tends to be weaker for my testing/verification.)  Happily, i don't normally listen to the technical test materials (sweeps, different types/levels of noise, etc.)  When I start enjoying those 'for a change', it is time to quit.

 

John

[STC]

13 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Another one of our differences -- I *truly* listen for technical reasons -- trying to make sure that there are no subtle distortions in complex gain control systems.   There is ZERO way that any reasonable speaker system could give me the precision that I need.  A speaker system (properly compensated/time corrected/etc) would be nice for casual listening, but I don't casually listen anymore.  Any speaker that I have recently heard just produces blobs -- so I try to 'turn off' the technical listening, with varying success.

So, for example, with headphones I can easily hear the flattening of the spatial relationships, especially when comparing with reference material.  I can do super accurate A/B comparisons.  With speakers, there are too many odd things that happen -- room effects, listening location, changes of objects in the field, heavy diaphragms that need to be corrected/tweaked to get a given response/etc.  Only the most tweaked speaker systems/room/etc can provide the precision and extreme transparency of defects that a reasonably accurate headphone can give.  Most important -- detail (less-so accuracy) and repeatability, because all of the material is compared moreso than worrying so much about technical accuracy (that is handled by the technical tests.)

 

Headphones aren't perfect either, but every micro sized error in the comparisons can be heard.

 

I quit listening for enjoyment about 3yrs ago when the projects started.  I cannot stand most music that I mention -- I am so tired of listening to material for literally 10s and sometimes 100s of times over a few days to make sure that the negative aspects of the processing are mitigated.   Imagine ferreting out every little oddity in the sound, determining if it is 'distortion', what kind of 'distortion', is it a splat, MD, etc?  Most of the time, the distortion isn't really bad -- it is just that mentally digging so deeply into the material sometimes causes the simplest change in focus to make the material sound difference.*

 

*  I did recently get a buzz when I found an absolutely perfect DolbyA copy of the EMI 48 hits 1971-1975 of ONJ.  That was a really nice change -- found it in storage from my move to new apartment.  Once I figured out all of the calibration/EQ parameters, the results were astounding.  (This kind of thing happens soo seldom nowadays.)

 

Unfortunately for me (and I don't regret it), my project is meant to help others -- for example, I am TOTALLY sick and tired of hearing 'SuperTrouper', 'SOS', 'Waterloo', 'For All We Know', 'Everything I Own', 'Orange Colored Sky', 'Alfie', 'You'll never get to heaven', any of Brasil'66, need I go on?  Every song of these associated groups needs to pass muster...  The above are a very small subset of the collection used.   All must sound good -- or have a reason for sounding odd -- no exceptions!!! (This often makes ABBA the acid test -- mushy IMD city on DolbyA HW, actually clean sounding on DHNRDS.)  Each one of these has attributes which can be modified by gain control -- morso than Tchaikovsky or Oscar Peterson (or much other material of this kind of instrumental/Jazz vocal material), even tthough I use that kind of material for testing also.  (Less chaotic material tends to be weaker for my testing/verification.)  Happily, i don't normally listen to the technical test materials (sweeps, different types/levels of noise, etc.)  When I start enjoying those 'for a change', it is time to quit.

 

John

 

 

We are talking apples and oranges when we talk of the reasons for listening music. If it is good enough to sound like a real performance than it is good enough for me. I don't make A/B comparisons nor go out and buy the same album republished under different mastering.

 

Over the years, I have inadvertently collected multiple copies of the same song and on those occasions I may say "well.... I thought the drum had a bit more bite in the other album" or like that but it ends right there. For an example, I have 5 or 6 versions of Take Five without knowing until I ripped all of them to JRiver. After wasting several days doing DBT, I ended up preferring the 1959 version. The point is, without the 5 versions to compare, the one version that I listened to was good enough for almost 30 years (coincidently the 1959 version). 

 

You also mentioned that headphones tend to be more detailed and reliable for objective listening. I too use headphones whenever I need to compare sounds. Having said that, I now wonder is it really true that only headphones can reveal the micro details? I would be glad if you could show a 5 or 10 seconds audio samples where some hidden information not supposedly heard over loudspeakers. I haven't found a recording that where certain information can only be heard in a headphones or very high end system. There were many occasions where I have said " wow...I have never heard this before" until I listen to an inferior system and the so called hidden details were there but it was me who didn't noticed them before. Perhaps, I was listening to music with cheaper player and listening for details in far more expensive system.

 

And about ABBA, I grew up listening to them in vinyl and tape but I did not get the magic with CD like I first heard them when I was kid. Occasionally,  I hear them over the FM or SW BBC (long ago) and I always though they sound more pleasant over the radio than the CD. Probably, it was mastered differently so that they good on radios. I don't know. Maybe, over the years I am now more familiar with Nana Mouskouri version.  The CD version of ABBA sounds little honky to me. Would love to hear your decoded version of Chiquitita and compare to my CD version.

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

 

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

 

You also mentioned that headphones tend to be more detailed and reliable for objective listening. I too use headphones whenever I need to compare sounds. Having said that, I now wonder is it really true that only headphones can reveal the micro details? I would be glad if you could show a 5 or 10 seconds audio samples where some hidden information not supposedly heard over loudspeakers. I haven't found a recording that where certain information can only be heard in a headphones or very high end system. There were many occasions where I have said " wow...I have never heard this before" until I listen to an inferior system and the so called hidden details were there but it was me who didn't noticed them before. Perhaps, I was listening to music with cheaper player and listening for details in far more expensive system.

 

 

I have yet to use any headphones for "critical listening" - they have always disappointed me as a means for listening, and I can't tolerate having them on my head for more than 5 minutes or so, as they are so artificial as a way of experiencing a musical event.

 

The "hidden details" are always there - I can listen to 'terrible' reproduction and pick what it should sound like; the clues are all audible, and I adjust, consciously, what I'm hearing - the 'crappiness' is always because the playback is faulty, and I can discard the impact of that to varying degrees.

[John Dyson]

31 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I have yet to use any headphones for "critical listening" - they have always disappointed me as a means for listening, and I can't tolerate having them on my head for more than 5 minutes or so, as they are so artificial as a way of experiencing a musical event.

 

The "hidden details" are always there - I can listen to 'terrible' reproduction and pick what it should sound like; the clues are all audible, and I adjust, consciously, what I'm hearing - the 'crappiness' is always because the playback is faulty, and I can discard the impact of that to varying degrees.

See -- I need to hear everything to compare.  Speakers would require I sit in exactly th same place or the comparisons are rendered invalid.  I even have to be VERY careful about headphone placement -- or those comparisons are also invalid.

 

I am NOT listening to enjoy -- refer to the extreme precision of the decoder (it really is precise on a true mastering attempt -- I think Alex just got a true partial mastering attempt from me -- lets see what he says.)  I couldn't rely on measurements for the decoder -- it is a matter of a TOTAL lack of specification and even when referring to the schematic, there were selected components!!!   Simply cannot get the precision & repeatabilty from sitting in any practical room, so the final work on the decoder required great care for comparison and detecting micro-sized details.  Cannot do that at all with speakers.  They might sound good -- give a pretty picture, but won't work for the extreme precision that I have been dealing with (I tried.)

 

If, on the project,  I had something like a single standardized curve (e.g. RIAA), then the design just needed to be checked-out.   On DolbyA, curves flopping all around all of the time -- and DolbyA having two of the bands dancing around in a delayed negative feedback loop -- gotta be DEADLY precise or end up with something that doesn't match the goal.  C4 is a bit better controlled design, but still some of the reverse engineering might be in question.   The level of precision that I am working with is just not encounted by casual listening, or even something like checking out an RIAA design for errant problems (of course, working from spec usually makes things right the first time -- given competenc design.)   Unfortunately, DA didn't allow that convienience -- anyone who didn't go through the pain that I did -- they might have an idea of the level of precision -- it was CRAZY.

 

(The curves are not just a frequency response curve, but attack/release that has to match precisely for 4 different bands, and the attack/release is DIFFERENT for each band, and the thresholds for expansion are DIFFERENT for each band -- any mismatch on especially the HF0/HF1 bands create all kinds of problems.  This is deadly precise stuff, probably the reason why it hadn't been done before.)

 

About the attack/release times -- dependent on DIODE CURVES, not just resistors, so the attack/release changes vs the signal state and previous signal state.  Problem with this is that the diodes were selected without Is values being specified.  There are all kinds of gains flopping around, and if they don't match nearly perfectly -- then the sound has a kind of distortion-like grain (not true HD, but multiple bands changing in an uncoordinated way.)

 

We are talking LITERALLY a magnitude of precision greater than any normal speaker/room/placement/position can provide.

 

John

[STC]

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

The "hidden details" are always there - I can listen to 'terrible' reproduction and pick what it should sound like; the clues are all audible, and I adjust, consciously, what I'm hearing - the 'crappiness' is always because the playback is faulty, and I can discard the impact of that to varying degrees.

 

Yes, I am sure you can. It just that you cannot demonstrate this to others. 

[John Dyson]

2 hours ago, STC said:

 

Yes, I am sure you can. It just that you cannot demonstrate this to others. 

Regarding the previous post -- I can easily find 'crappiness', but the problem is that the detail level that I am trying to discern requires very great stability in the environment - 'crappiness' or 'unexpected problems' -- those are long accounted for.  I have also heard the best sounding systems -- they can sound 'good' -- but the problem for me is the small details that I look for.   I must  *listen for defect*, not *listen for music*.   It is torture, and I don't want ANY variables that I cannot directly control.  No tweaking or adjustment may apply here -- I am already dealing with at least 20-50 variables, no reason to deal with room/temperature/humidity/ambient noise/object placement/comfort location, etc.  Anytime that there is a problem at the level of 'crappiness' and that problem can be resolved -- I would have hopefully already detected & resolved it.  You would NOT believe the impairments that were acceptable to the recording engineering community -- I could not allow those to pass through, and spent an extra 6 months to fix them.   The problems that I resolved were not deemed to cause a failure/bad quality, but I needed to get it as perfect as possible.  I guarantee you that speakers would have made the job more difficult (well, unless I could totally control a room, carefully adjusted/calibrated, specific listening position, computer facilities that don't make any noise.)  Adding more variables, more complexity need not apply -- already dealing with mind bending & subtle/complex time variable interactions -- no more torture, please.

* I could make a very pretty sounding 'processor' that helps with DolbyA -- I did that 2yrs ago.  The problem -- it wasn't a 'decoder', but instead an 'audio processor'.  There is a huge qualitative difference.  'Sound good' is really easy -- I know of a lot of so-called 'audiophiles' who tolerate listening to DolbyA encoded material all of the time.  Those recordings happen to suck (both sound not-good and also disgusting that people got cheated) in my view -- and that is the reason why I originally started playing with audio processing at this level 3+yrs ago!!  I kept hearing that DolbyA sound -- even on some non-pop, even on some premium recordings -- and it wasn't sufficient quality for me.  Maybe 'nice' speaker systems cover up that defect? 🙂 (Don't take that statement too seriously -- but I keep seeing situations where there is an 'Emperors new clothes' syndrom.)

 

The result of my work has to pass muster with the most enthusiastic 'audiophile' -- and so hearing the smallest error is important.  If the speakers were properly coupled to your ears, then that eliminates a LOT of variables.  Playing a game of 'extremism' -- how do you account for everything in the environment not selectively absorbing a range of frequencies?  Answer: even the tightest parametric equalizer wont' fix it.  If you have a very fancy set of time/frequency compensated filters in the signal pipeline all of the time, even then, there will still be so-many opportunities for a frequency or frequency range to be absorbed or 'twisted' (phase shifted.)

 

For my purposes, the direct coupling -- eliminating as many variables as possible -- and hearing the smallest detail (including ambiance DIFFERENCES) is more important than 'feeling' the ambiance and the sound.   I do have to admit that the 'feeling' of lowest frequencies are missing when using headphones, but the issues that I am dealing with are not so much of a problem at lower frequencies. 

 

Frankly, given the effects that I have heard over the last three years -- I am sometimes concerned about humidity & temperature even using  headphones.  (Of course, the human hearing limitations are also an issue -- but those are mitigated by training to *listen for defect* rather than *listen for music*.)  I even consider headphone placement on my head -- and that is less of a problem than dealing with a room/speakers/etc.

 

John

 

[fas42]

12 hours ago, STC said:

 

Yes, I am sure you can. It just that you cannot demonstrate this to others. 

 

Don't panic, ... I've finally been motivated to create a super simple, super cheap media server setup that will do the job - I just need to work out the best raw bits to buy, to then work on to evolve to the necessary quality level; doing the research right now on that ...

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I just need to work out the best raw bits to buy

I suggest you focus on the ones and the zeros.

[fas42]

10 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Regarding the previous post -- I can easily find 'crappiness', but the problem is that the detail level that I am trying to discern requires very great stability in the environment - 'crappiness' or 'unexpected problems' -- those are long accounted for.  I have also heard the best sounding systems -- they can sound 'good' -- but the problem for me is the small details that I look for. 

 

John, I appreciate that you are making great efforts in the approach you're taking, but where I'm coming from I don't see it as necessary: recordings that are poorly done can be processed by the ear/brain to discard all the deficiencies, in a playback working to the right level ... rather than making recordings "nicer", so that they sound good on an "ordinary" system, I aim to make the playback "extra special", which then produces the result that  "ordinary" recordings sound "nicer".

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, fas42 said:

John, I appreciate that you are making great efforts in the approach you're taking, but where I'm coming from I don't see it as necessary: recordings that are poorly done can be processed by the ear/brain to discard all the deficiencies, in a playback working to the right level ... rather than making recordings "nicer",

Frank

John isn't about making recordings sound "nicer". He is about correcting the effects of poorly designed or poorly calibrated Dolby A Decoders ,so that what we hear is much closer to what the Recording Engineer intended, and the brain doesn't need to work so hard to ignore the deficiencies.

The effects of added sibilance and distortion products are often markedly reduced, and as a bonus in many cases the low level ambience and dimensionality is restored at the same time.

They are far more relaxing to listen to as well, even at higher volume settings than normal.

 

Alex

[fas42]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

Frank

John isn't about making recordings sound "nicer". He is about correcting the effects of poorly designed or poorly calibrated Dolby A Decoders ,so that what we hear is much closer to what the Recording Engineer intended, and the brain doesn't need to work so hard to ignore the deficiencies.

The effects of added sibilance and distortion products are often markedly reduced, and as a bonus in many cases the low level ambience and dimensionality is restored at the same time.

They are far more relaxing to listen to as well, even at higher volume settings than normal.

 

Alex

 

Ummm ... Alex, everything you mention in there is about the recording sounding "nicer" - I rest my case, .

 

Brain doesn't need to work so hard to ignore the deficiencies - Tick!

Sibilance and distortion products are often markedly reduced - Tick!

Low level ambience and dimensionality is restored - Tick!

Far more relaxing to listen to as well, even at higher volume settings than normal - Tick!

 

You see, I don't worry about "the effects of poorly designed or poorly calibrated" recording and mastering equipment ... optimised playback makes those sort of issues disappear, completely.

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Ummm ... Alex, everything you mention in there is about the recording sounding "nicer" - I rest my case, .

 

 No, it's about the recording sounding like it was meant to sound. If it sounds "nicer" that's a by product, but it could also mean that to some people it may no longer sound as interesting. Some people prefer a "feral" type sound.

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Some people prefer a "feral" type sound.

Feral hogs?

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

John, I appreciate that you are making great efforts in the approach you're taking, but where I'm coming from I don't see it as necessary: recordings that are poorly done can be processed by the ear/brain to discard all the deficiencies, in a playback working to the right level ... rather than making recordings "nicer", so that they sound good on an "ordinary" system, I aim to make the playback "extra special", which then produces the result that  "ordinary" recordings sound "nicer".

Then why does anyone need anything more than cheap speakers or cheap headphones.  Why does anyone purchase anything better than 44.1k/16bit CDs?   On most 1960s-1990s pop, on alot of non-pop, and even on some premium recordings, you are definitely buying DolbyA encoded (but not decoded) material.  You know, deficient/bad material.   Anything better than a rather cheap system with $30 headphones is a waste, right?\

 

I just got my jollies on the digital Sheffield Labs Thelma Houston 'I got the music in me' -- hint, DolbyA clear and simple.

 

So you have undecoded DolbyA that is being listened to by audiophiles all of the time, worrying about something that is encoded by MQA, or only has 16bits resolution?  Come-on, the deficiencies in true DolbyA decoding, or worse yet, undecoded DolbyA make the audiophile HW hobby almost ludicruious, right?  Undecoded DolbyA is tantamount to distortion -- poorly decoded DolbyA produces TRUE distortion (but better than undecoded), got it?  Who cares about a percent here, or percent there?  Who cares about excessive hiss on 'Simon & Garfunkel' because of no proper DolbyA decoding?  (Premium 192/24 download, by the way.)

 

Bottom line the 'blowing-off' the cr*p being purchased by many in the audiophile community is insulting them even after they purchased poor quality material at 192/24bits...

 

Emperors new clothes everytime I hear about some kind of esoteric system, yet playing some kind of silly 'premium' playout of an EQed master tape, instead of being properly decoded.

 

Why do people go to vinyl so often (in the case where the person IS driven by quality)?  Proper DolbyA decoding.   Lets skip the fancy hardware, and demand proper DolbyA decoding -- direct digital, GOT IT?

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

16 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Then why does anyone need anything more than cheap speakers or cheap headphones.  Why does anyone purchase anything better than 44.1k/16bit CDs?   On most 1960s-1990s pop, on alot of non-pop, and even on some premium recordings, you are definitely buying DolbyA encoded (but not decoded) material.  You know, deficient/bad material.   Anything better than a rather cheap system with $30 headphones is a waste, right?\

 

I just got my jollies on the digital Sheffield Labs Thelma Houston 'I got the music in me' -- hint, DolbyA clear and simple.

 

So you have undecoded DolbyA that is being listened to by audiophiles all of the time, worrying about something that is encoded by MQA, or only has 16bits resolution?  Come-on, the deficiencies in true DolbyA decoding, or worse yet, undecoded DolbyA make the audiophile HW hobby almost ludicruious, right?  Undecoded DolbyA is tantamount to distortion -- poorly decoded DolbyA produces TRUE distortion (but better than undecoded), got it?  Who cares about a percent here, or percent there?  Who cares about excessive hiss on 'Simon & Garfunkel' because of no proper DolbyA decoding?  (Premium 192/24 download, by the way.)

 

Bottom line the 'blowing-off' the cr*p being purchased by many in the audiophile community is insulting them even after they purchased poor quality material at 192/24bits...

 

Emperors new clothes everytime I hear about some kind of esoteric system, yet playing some kind of silly 'premium' playout of an EQed master tape, instead of being properly decoded.

 

Why do people go to vinyl so often (in the case where the person IS driven by quality)?  Proper DolbyA decoding.   Lets skip the fancy hardware, and demand proper DolbyA decoding -- direct digital, GOT IT?

 

John

 

PS:

  Additionally, I cannot believe worrying about the ambiance of a 'speaker' system when playing undecoded DolbyA.  The high frequency compression destroys natural ambiance.

Is the realm of being an 'audiophile' so artificial that they think that a number like 192/24 defines quality, when they are listening to HF compressed material with relatively poor stereo image.  (The DolbyA compression destroys nuance in ambiance.)   Most compression does that to some extent, but when done artistically, it can be accounted for.  DolbyA doesn't do the flattening 'artistically', but is a big sledge hammer on ambiance.

I am SO VERY SURPRISED that it hasn't been noticed -- oh yeah, it has -- the old 'harsh, digital sound', 'bad stereo image', etc.  The problem has not been properly exposed until now.  Does the so-called 'audiophile community' prefer the 'harsh, digital sound' and 'bad stereo image' now?

 

John

[Hugo9000]

@John Dyson I have a few questions for you, if you wouldn't mind:

 

Do you have a list of recordings affected/infected by the horrible Dolby A problem?  Can you create a thread and share this list if so?  (Edited to add:  Can you please share a link if you've already provided a list that I've missed?)

 

So many posts about this, is it a problem with artistic masterpieces?  Any classical masterpieces?  Which labels?

 

Is it mostly recordings that were thrown on the fire in the anti-Disco backlash?

 

Thanks in advance!

 

 

P.S.  Sorry to the OP about the off-topic post.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Feral hogs?

30-50 watts?