Jump to content
STC

CPU Load and Sound Quality

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

DolbyA is a compression system unintended to reach the consumer.  IT DOES DISTORT, and the distortion should be undone before presenting to the consumer.   If you like distortion free bass, for example -- then DolbyA encoded material wont do it for you.  It should be decoded for proper bass.

 

As has been said many times now, Dolby may be used, deliberately, as an effect - it's considered a standard "trick" in the industry. So should we accept at face value that mastering decision, and hear the recording "as was intended by the producer and artists" - or remaster to suit ourselves? Twiddling the treble on a simple radio is remastering at an obvious level, and is perfectly acceptable to most - personally, I'm not against anyone doing such remastering, on the consumer side; rather, it's the emphasising of the term "distortion" that disturbs me.

 

50 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

The best approach is to start with wide dynamic range, and then for the local system to modify the recording for compatability.  A small system or automobile would benefit from compression...  A good system does NOT benefit from compression except maybe low level play.

 

John

 

 

Agree entirely.


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Ahhh, Mankind ... Porsche intellect, Trabant emotions ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

People have to work under the constraints of what the market wants, and expects - the lack of attention to detail is an industry wide behaviour; the designers just produce what the manufacturer wants - just read what John Curl says at times about the difficulties of producing a design that is acceptable to the manufacturer; that he's personally happy with.

 

Let's use you as an example. Are you designing for a manufacturer? You are going to say NO. So in 35 years how many products you managed to make. You are going to say " I am almost there".  Now ask yourself again. Can there a man out there who is equally as smart as you are and who works just for himself and for his satisfaction producing some exceptional equipment just for love? 

 

There are some good designers who are here not for profit alone. You can see some of them even in this thread. BTW, your SHARP and the laptops were made for  to enrich themselves.

 

And congratulation. Managed to bait another reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

As has been said many times now, Dolby may be used, deliberately, as an effect - it's considered a standard "trick" in the industry. So should we accept at face value that mastering decision, and hear the recording "as was intended by the producer and artists" - or remaster to suit ourselves? Twiddling the treble on a simple radio is remastering at an obvious level, and is perfectly acceptable to most - personally, I'm not against anyone doing such remastering, on the consumer side; rather, it's the emphasising of the term "distortion" that disturbs me.

 

DolbyA is used seldom as an effect, except for vocal enhancement -- it is not a very good effect to just put on a recording.   It had an advantage over other early compressors in that there was a carefully controlled attack/release.  Frankly, one reason why the sibilance on Karen Carpenter was so messed up was using a DolbyA for effect.

 

Using a device for effect is VERY DIFFERENT than just using on a recording as a whole.

 

Have you ever heard PURE DolbyA material? -- not so good.  The distributors are EXPLICITLY CHEATING by skipping the decoding step and doing a rather ugly EQ to compensate.

 

Just using a distortion device all of the time is BAD, for specific sound effect, then it can be good.


Just blasting all distributed material through a distortion creating device like a DolbyA shouldn't be done -- in fact, it is NOT done...  It is a left-over from something that was incomplete.

 

John

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Let's use you as an example. Are you designing for a manufacturer? You are going to say NO. So in 35 years how many products you managed to make. You are going to say " I am almost there".  Now ask yourself again. Can there a man out there who is equally as smart as you are and who works just for himself and for his satisfaction producing some exceptional equipment just for love? 

 

The problem about where I come from is that there is "no product". It's a method, as George is happy to point out - how do you sell a method? At the moment i get satisfaction seeing the audio mate down the road getting some very, very impressive sound out of relatively ordinary gear - the 'product' is that he understands what's going on, and will likely pass it on, etc.

 

3 minutes ago, STC said:

 

There are some good designers who are here not for profit alone. You can see some of them even in this thread. BTW, your SHARP and the laptops were made for  to enrich themselves.

 

And congratulation. Managed to bait another reply.

 

Ahh, I forgot that the point of audio forums was to not react to someone's comment, which one personally felt worked against achieving greater satisfaction when listening to recordings ... got it! 😉


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Ahhh, Mankind ... Porsche intellect, Trabant emotions ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

DolbyA is used seldom as an effect, except for vocal enhancement -- it is not a very good effect to just put on a recording.   It had an advantage over other early compressors in that there was a carefully controlled attack/release.  Frankly, one reason why the sibilance on Karen Carpenter was so messed up was using a DolbyA for effect.

 

Using a device for effect is VERY DIFFERENT than just using on a recording as a whole.

 

Have you ever heard PURE DolbyA material? -- not so good.  The distributors are EXPLICITLY CHEATING by skipping the decoding step and doing a rather ugly EQ to compensate.

 

Just using a distortion device all of the time is BAD, for specific sound effect, then it can be good.


Just blasting all distributed material through a distortion creating device like a DolbyA shouldn't be done -- in fact, it is NOT done...  It is a left-over from something that was incomplete.

 

John

 

 

So if some of the mix has had DolbyA  applied, and other sound elements haven't - and the two 'types' are layered on top of each other - how do you deal with this? Do you do some degree of unmixing; or just apply some level of compromise decoding?


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Ahhh, Mankind ... Porsche intellect, Trabant emotions ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

The distributors are EXPLICITLY CHEATING by skipping the decoding step and doing a rather ugly EQ to compensate.

 

 

Have you got anyone strongly active in the industry to admit that they use this 'shortcut'?


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Ahhh, Mankind ... Porsche intellect, Trabant emotions ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

So if some of the mix has had DolbyA  applied, and other sound elements haven't - and the two 'types' are layered on top of each other - how do you deal with this? Do you do some degree of unmixing; or just apply some level of compromise decoding?

When the DolbyA is used like an effects box -- that isn't what I deal with.  I deal with the problem of ENTIRE recordings being passed through the DolbyA -- when the entire recording is done, it is usually (by far) not used for effect, but is for 1) NR purposes, 2) compatbility with systems that assume NR.

 

It appears that sometimes the DolbyA had been used for transport even on more recent recordings.  That is, the vinyl plant might assume DolbyA?  I don't know -- but I have seen the DolbyA on even more contemporary material, and it would be difficult to claim that such use (and feral EQ) was an improvement when compared with the after-decode version.

 

John

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The problem about where I come from is that there is "no product". It's a method, as George is happy to point out - how do you sell a method?


What method?  Method means it can be followed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

When the DolbyA is used like an effects box -- that isn't what I deal with.  I deal with the problem of ENTIRE recordings being passed through the DolbyA -- when the entire recording is done, it is usually (by far) not used for effect, but is for 1) NR purposes, 2) compatbility with systems that assume NR.

 

 

Ok, I'm confused now ... one of the key decodings you do is of Carpenters' material, but you said above that DolbyA was used as an effect on her vocals. So are you saying that a double dose of DolbyA was used here, and you are only undoing the faulty decoding of the complete mix?


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Ahhh, Mankind ... Porsche intellect, Trabant emotions ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fas42 said:

 

Ok, I'm confused now ... one of the key decodings you do is of Carpenters' material, but you said above that DolbyA was used as an effect on her vocals. So are you saying that a double of DolbyA was used here, and you are only undoing the faulty decoding of the complete mix?

Yes, DolbyA was to brighten up her deep voice, and also used for the final mix to avoid tape hiss...  Later on, left on the digital tape copies...   The problem with decoding from digital is that it requires a REAL TIME dolbyA decoder, having to go trhough an analog/digital/analog/digital/etc type thing and using a DolbyA analog HW device.   The nice thing about my decoder is that you can get better than DolbyA quality (using one of the lower quality modes) faster than realtime directly on the digital files themselves.

 

John

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Well quite honestly, given the number of times I’ve read the assertion that audiophiles’ ideas violate the known laws of physics I would have thought we could do better than a Google search and the 4 forces of nature.  This is your chance to put a nail in the coffin of several subjective audiophile observations, otherwise the only ‘physical law’ I’m currently noticing related to this discussion is buoyancy caused by hot air, and so far it’s being confirmed rather than violated. 

 

Don't be silly, Blackmorec - you don't want a sensible answer, because that would spoil the fun of hurling over-ripe tomatoes over the barriers ... 🙂.


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Ahhh, Mankind ... Porsche intellect, Trabant emotions ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Dyson said:

Even a Sheffield Labs CD made from "I've got the music in me'" direct to disk session had DolbyA imprint on it.  My decode was pretty good (ask Alex.)

 

John

 

 

I never much liked Thelma Houston, but this corrected version from John doesn't sound too bad .

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/blydkkf32hpzcw6/07 Thelma Houston%2CI've Got The Music In Me.flac?dl=0


How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

 

PROFILE UPDATED 18-06-2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Don't be silly, Blackmorec - you don't want a sensible answer, because that would spoil the fun of hurling over-ripe tomatoes over the barriers ... 🙂.

 

At least they don't smell as bad as what you're slinging...


Girl, you want it, you take it, you pay the price

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 

I never much liked Thelma Houston, but this corrected version from John doesn't sound too bad .

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/blydkkf32hpzcw6/07 Thelma Houston%2CI've Got The Music In Me.flac?dl=0

Oh my, and I can do much better now!!!!  Sorry that I didnt' send it to you -- I know that you don't like it much, but I'll send you the newest/best after I get done testing the decoder tomorrow.  (No reason not to be complete, right?)

 

John

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, esldude said:

Audio translation:  If you say it, they will hear it.


This is so true. I witness this during one of the ASI demo where after moving the resonators he claimed there was a hollow in between the two speakers. The audience agreed. I didn’t hear them and so too another person who believes in these kind of magic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blackmorec said:

Well quite honestly, given the number of times I’ve read the assertion that audiophiles’ ideas violate the known laws of physics I would have thought we could do better than a Google search and the 4 forces of nature.  This is your chance to put a nail in the coffin of several subjective audiophile observations, otherwise the only ‘physical law’ I’m currently noticing related to this discussion is buoyancy caused by hot air, and so far it’s being confirmed rather than violated. 

 

use your own initiative a do a search on here - as per above your claims have been debunked ad nauseum

 

if you have trouble using a search engine just post back and someone will lead you by the hand


"The overwhelming majority [of audiophiles] have very little knowledge, if any, about the most basic principles and operating characteristics of audio equipment. They often base their purchasing decisions on hearsay, and the preaching of media sages. Unfortunately, because of commercial considerations, much information is rooted in increasing revenue, not in assisting the audiophile. It seems as if the only requirements for becoming an "authority" in the world of audio is a keyboard."

-- Bruce Rozenblit of Transcendent Sound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

use your own initiative a do a search on here - as per above your claims have been debunked ad nauseum

if you have trouble using a search engine just post back and someone will lead you by the hand

 

Only by sarcastic and closed minded members like yourself with cloth ears and mediocre gear. :P


How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

 

PROFILE UPDATED 18-06-2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Only by sarcastic and closed minded members like yourself with cloth ears and mediocre gear. :P

 

 I apologise for my provocative reply, but it doesn't help when insulting statements like in the 2nd sentence are used in so many replies.


How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

 

PROFILE UPDATED 18-06-2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Only by sarcastic and closed minded members like yourself with cloth ears and mediocre gear. :P

What about sarcastic and closed minded members with excellent ears and even more excellent gear?

 

Everyone is in their own niche you know.  


To paraphrase Rick James, "sighted listening is a helluva drug".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

Hmmm, ducking and diving aplenty, but so far no physics. Cumon guys, you can do better than this. Surely? Which known laws of physics are violated and how? 

I’ll tell you what’s been said ad nauseum is that audiophile ideas violate the known laws of physics. I’ve given you five classical audiophile ideas.....all I’m asking you to do is match them up with the laws they violate and explain why or how. 

 

No we have said audio electronics have to follow the laws of physics....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...