Audio reproduction is a matter of taste?

[semente]

The level of detail retrieval, tonal balance and how speakers interact with the room are the main factors which contribute to the overall presentation. Depending on how one chooses to mix and match them the combinations are endless.

Listening is inevitable, even if measurements correlated with listening can provide helpful shortcuts.

[semente]

13 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

Nonsense, but you can use a vocal track of a singer you have heard live if you are more comfortable with that. End of story. 

Not really.

 

Was the singer voice amplified? If so then you won’t have listened to the singer.

 

And if the singer was not amplified how close was he/she mic’ed and which mics were used and were any EQ, compression or effects applied to the final edit?

Even if you were in the mastering suite with the engineer the monitors and the room will sound different to your own speakers in your room, even if you have the same speakers.

[semente]

9 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

What is high-end to you? Is a 4000 $ DAC high-end or do we need to push it up to 10000$?

 

What do you mean by "which is correct"? 

 

I believe that the original meaning of high end was higher fidelity or performance equipment (capable of superlative accurate reproduction).

It unfortunately very quickly became a synonym of luxury goods...

[semente]

7 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

People should read this as long as it takes to get the message out of this;

If you can't hear that a floor tom is really that (and confuse it with a kick) when played singular (hence out of the context of the other), then your system is not doing well at all. Obviously this requires the knowledge of the sound of the two *and* how they are played (which obviously is totally different from each other).

I really don't need to know whether it is a Yamaha or Pearl. I also don't need to know the brand of skin used.

Harder it becomes if you don't know the tension of the skins because a lower tension is quite similar to an under performing system in the transient-bass (making drums sound like paper).

 

@Judand his little contest also hits the nail on the head with the differentiation between electric and acoustic guitar. This too is something not every system can do easily. Here too, I really don't need to know the make of the guitar. You'd need the experience of the sound of the two types, though.

 

Might you be more in the beginning of your travel to good sound, then you could start to discern nylon vs metal strings, the latter with wound vs non-wound. And talking Yggy, the vibrancy of the ever back not-so-good-measuring device which nobody was supposed to hear because of the too low level, would make all metal strings sound like wound ones.

Would I need to know the make of the guitar ? of course not. The sheer fact that suddenly too many strings are wound ones (especially for their (frequency) reach), would make me decide something is wrong.

I would need to have the real-life reference of the wound string, though.

 

One of the best examples of things which can go wrong, is that most cymbals suddenly sound like China cymbals. Many drummers have one, but few have more than one in the set. Thus, if in a track two different cymbals sound like China ones, something is definitely wrong.

I would need to know how a China cymbal sounds in real, though. There's really no need to know whether it is a Zildjian or a Paiste, never mind the two sound distinctly different in themselves.

Would I need to know the microphone used ?

 

My father ever practicing the viola, my mother the grand, I know perfectly what to watch for when I tune gear or elements in it, for the most realistic sound. The grand really does not need to be a Steinway or any other make I never listened to because it is not about that. However, it *is* about how the artist brings across his mind, mood and feelings to the instrument. This is obviously totally different for both instruments, including the drums and *all* instruments. Would I need to know the mood or intent of the artist ? it would help - but it works so nicely the other way around; his/her music would teach me that (and the title may be / should be telling). Once you got the hang of this in real life, you can do it with each instrument, if you only have that reference in your own system. From there on it can improve (no reference makes you blind and left to taste).

Btw, this is one of the most difficult aspects of music reproduction (I suppose, obviously ?).

 

There are dozens and dozens of these examples, which may not tell you a thing. But they really exist and can be used for measure when it is about how realistically a system performs. Or better said: what still annoys and distracts, hence what's subject for improvement.

 

I don't recognize really that this is about distortions as such (as in shrill sound). It is far more about the consistency in frequencies which create the timbre. Jud's example with the woofer via the cross-over to the mid is almost a good one, but in the end it is not so much because the speaker would be not-so-good if that would really show (but is a first thing which goes wrong in a chain).

 

The theoretical improvements are so infinite, that it makes the hobby ever-lasting just the same. The best fun is that your standard of today, is your challenge for tomorrow.

 

Great post.

 

I would add that after many years of participating in several forums I have come to truly believe that for some people it is more important that their system makes nice sounds or presents their favourite recordings in a pleasing/exciting/vibrant manner.

They are not (that) interested in whether the floor tom isn't actually a kick, only that it sounds good to their ears and enhances the music-listener engagement.

And that's brings us back to the original question:

 

Audio reproduction is a matter of taste?

 

Yes, it is.

 

Had @hopkins asked "high fidelity" then my reply would have been different...

[semente]

49 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

Then I'll ask you: what is high-fidelity, how do you know when you have achieved it (if at all possible)? 

 

High fidelity is the accurate reproduction of the recorded signal.

To assess fidelity measurements and objective critical listening are required. The two are complementary tools for achieving the same goal.

[semente]

1 hour ago, hopkins said:

 

Agree on the definition. 

Let's put measurements aside. How do you go about doing "objective critical listening"? 

 

You need training and adequate testing methodology.

This might be a good place to start:

 

SoundGym - The Gym for your Ears

Get audio ear training online, improve core listening skills like frequency detection or compression, and start sounding like a pro. Anytime, anywhere. Let's start training!

https://www.soundgym.co

 

[semente]

1 hour ago, Kimo said:

The latter was designed to sound like real instruments.

 

Do you really believe that such a thing is at all possible?

[semente]

6 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

I don't see people "tuning" their system in a particular way to make it systematically pleasing, and I don't know how that would be even possible. Perhaps you are referring to "compensating" - for example putting a "bright" component with a "darker" to strike a balance? Not a recipe for success IMO. But you see that being done even with people who have very expensive equipment. 

 

There are also many people who only listen to "audiophile" recordings, or worse specific types of music that "sound good". 

 

I agree somewhat because many people use reviews and trial and error as their upgrade method, which will at best produce the occasional fortunate accident.

But also see a lot consistency in what individuals say that they prefer.

 

I also agree that two wrongs don't make a right. One could in theory achieve a more neutral tonal balance by matching equipment with inverse tonal characteristics but there's more to the sound of an equipment than just its frequency response and often tonal balance issues are accompanied by other problems.

Oversimplification can only lead to falacy.

[semente]

On 9/14/2021 at 10:53 PM, Jud said:

 

Let's move from the theoretical to the specific:

 

- Does better imaging or slightly flatter frequency response throughout the audio band sound more realistic to you in a speaker?

 

- Does a faster (higher slew rate) amplifier or one with more limited bandwidth and thus lower IMD sound more realistic to you?

 

- Does a DAC with lower IMD or one with less group delay sound more realistic to you?

 

Of course appended to each of these questions are two sub-questions: (1) If you know, and (2) How much of these sorts of distortion are we talking about?

 

Many audiblity studies use tones for testing and they isolate the specific parameter at play.

Hardly anyone of us audiophiles has ever performed such a test (you often mention that blind test at RMAF but the conditions were hardly ideal).

 

It would require a very methodical approach for one to say that a speaker produces more audible group delay or IMD, and ideally it would be supported by or correlate with measurements.

Personally I hear differences and effects (generally negative), and then I try to correlate those with measured performance. It is not always clear which particular parameter is producing a specific effect.

 

Electronics are a whole 'nother story, trying to pin down the cause of an audible issue with contemporary equipment which produces measured distortion that is below current audibility thresholds. But most of us will report audible differences which according to those thresholds are not audible, et pur...

 

In my opinion, not only do we need to optimise methodology in our own assessment protocol in order to limit any potential bias or distortion, but we also desperatly need a review of the audibility thresholds.

Listener/ear training is also important because it makes audible issues a lot more obvious (in other words we are trained to listen for particular issues).

[semente]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I hate to be That Guy in response to your very good point, but consider this: What if you're hearing the vocals better because the speakers have a presence hump in the vocal range?

 

@PeterSt said something once that has stayed with me, which is that if you hear an audio system performing impressively, something is wrong.  Think about it: Someone sits in front of you in a small room playing an acoustic guitar and singing - do you throw up your hands and say "My god, how resolving! What detail!"?  Then why should a system which faithfully reproduces a good recording of that scene cause you to do so?  With live acoustic music, it is the music itself you are involved with.  Consider (though I am certainly ready to listen to counter-arguments) that perhaps a really fine music reproduction system will do the same rather than calling attention to itself.

 

Interestingly you'll often hear people complain that these speakers sound "dull" or "lifeless", that a certain amplifier sounds more "exciting" and "involving".

My view is that those people have gotten used to or enjoy reproduced music which sounds like, well, reproduced music.

[semente]

8 hours ago, firedog said:

Thought of something else. There's a community building where I live - doesn't have the greatest acoustics. 

I've heard chamber music performed there live. It's obvious to me that there's something off about the sound. But the live sound, all the detail I CAN hear (in spite of the problems with the acoustics), and the presence of the performers - makes it a great experience. Looking at the fingers of a cello player and hearing the exact effect that produces is a different experience.

 

If an engineer close miked those intruments and mixed the result, it would probably be technically better sound played back than what I experienced live. But it wouldn't sound like the live performance I heard in the room itself.

 

And like some audiophiles enjoy playback which sounds like "reproduced or hi-fi sound", there's people who prefer recordings made with close-mic'ed instruments and vocals and/or a very well-defined soundstage instead of a more natural or realistic presentation.

 

Toole/Olive/Harman did try to push their agenda that the majority prefered the same sound presentation, that the majority prefered wide-directivity, that the majority prefered accuracy. Even with help from a new powerful publicity platform like ASR they are failing to standardise taste... Thankfully. (though I can see the appeal from a marketing perspective)