Audio reproduction is a matter of taste?

[John Dyson]

5 minutes ago, hopkins said:

Here is what Joe Whip has to say about a power cord:

 

 

 

"What really shocked me was the sound of the piano. With the strip in place, piano recordings sounded even more like the real thing, especially the upper registers which had a purer smoother sound. To me, listening to a system fully powered by these Essential Sound Products, you are more fully able to hear what your individual components and system are capable of producing. You get a clearer, smoother yet more detailed and dynamic sound, much more like the real thing, at least as far as I could imagine from my system and room." 

The problem with 'sound' isn't just taste, but like the problem I have -- HEARING.   Oddly, I don't even know when my hearing is working or not.

So, what might sound good for me (like a hearing-aid) might not sound good to someone else.

Of course, the ultimate is the sound of the instrument -- but what is in memory might have come from when hearing was working well.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

There seems to be bit of a bifurcation here...    Of course, one wants the most neutral system that is possible, but perception/sensation is the goal.   Trying to listen to music for perfection is not always the same as listening for enjoyment.  The kind of enjoyment can be a matter of taste, but it isn't about 'good taste' or 'bad taste', but 'different taste'.

Some people might really enjoy their boom box or their boomy car system, but who am I to say that someone has 'bad taste'?

The real problem about taste is the quality of recordings, because we do have the technical quality down to perfection, certainly often much better (more 'elite') than what was used in the recording studio.

Part of the sensory mechanism can also include the kind of packaging finish on the equipment.   To some people, that might be very important, but to others (like me) -- I don't care.  However, those who want the latest in-vogue high-tech look to their equipment are not wrong.   Same as $200 cables, even when most of the audio path was likely done by standard industrial cables.  It isn't wrong to prefer the experience from the high-end consumer audio HW, but not everyone agrees.  I don't think that there will ever be 100% agreement about any single thing in audio.

 

 

[John Dyson]

22 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

At the late lamented RMAF, I attended a seminar on different forms of distortion given by Audio Precision. I learned that I can't abide slew rate limiting distortion and am particularly sensitive to it. My amp has a tremendously fast slew rate. On the other hand, the very wide bandwidth this requires can potentially cause problems with harmonic and intermodulation distortions, to which other people are more sensitive than I am.  Which of us is objectively correct?

 

In filtering used in software players and DACs, time-based distortions and frequency-based distortions are what are called "conjugate variables." Mathematically, as you reduce one the other necessarily increases. What is objectively accurate - maximum time-based distortion, maximum frequency-based distortion, or something in between?

 

There are "compromises," as you call them, throughout the playback chain. Different components make these compromises in different ways for different people's listening preferences. Please do tell us which of these is objectively "accurate," since you are the one maintaining such a thing exists. Which specific components, and what are the specs that make them objectively accurate?

I think that you are thinking similar to me -- it is about DISTRACTIONS, and mitigating them.   The goal is normally 'listening', not 'engineering', even though some people do focus on engineering their systems.   When listening to music, there might be a distraction that needs to be mitigated.   You talk about slew rate -- and that can be a bit irritating for sure.  I think that you know what I don't like -- severe common defect in recordings.   That defect is *distracting* to me...   Some distractions seem to become stronger and stronger as they irritate more and more.   Eventually, the problem needs to be fixed, or the hobby enjoyment will suffer.

 

When one has any kind of device that they might be using, there are sometimes 'bugs' in the device.   Lets call those audio distractions a 'bug'.   Some bugs/distractions have a high priority, some have a low priority.  However, practically everything has 'bugs'.   If the goal is audio perfection, then that becomes less of an audio hobby, and more of an engineering hobby.   In that case, there is a lot to learn to understand how to fix all of the engineering bugs.   It is easiest to keep the goal as listening enjoyment, sometimes needing to fix an audible 'bug'.   Sometimes though, people don't choose the easiest hobby.

 

There is nothing wrong with the hobby being focused on engineering, but fixing bugs or tolerating bugs has NOTHING to do withgood taste or bad taste.   We all have a personal taste, but there isn't really a 'good taste' or 'bad taste'.   (Some kinds of recordings/systems really push my limits on avoiding judgement 🙂.)

 

 

[John Dyson]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Of course the disc has "a sound" - it is all the characteristics of the recording, meaning what was on the front side of the microphones, and everything behind them, including the peculiarities of the gear used for mastering ... if one wanted to forensically disassemble, dissect, analyse to the last bit every possible aspect to a track on a recording, it could be done - if you were dumb enough to want to waste your time doing this, 😁. And the result you would get now would be identical to doing the exercise in a hundred years time - the event was captured, frozen in time.

 

Accuracy means that the highest level, percentage of that capture is audible, with the least doctoring of that by the playback chain ... nothing like a compilation of pop hits to hit you between the ears with how this works - every track takes to a "different world"; like hopping on different rides, at random, at an amusement park - each ride has its own message, its own integrity, its own identity.

Again, no matter where the problem is -- it is about removing the distractions.   If there are distractions in the recordings, then remove those.   Most people accept the garbage in most commercial recordings.   This is like speakers...   Almost no speakers/environment are really super good from a technical standpoint, but there are some speakers  in a controlled environment that are technically really good.   It is all about avoiding the distractions, and trying to solve them, if possible.   If you have good speakers, but they appear boomy -- there are a few possible solutions, one or two of them might help.   Looking at the problems one by one will allow enjoying the system as it grows (if needed.)

 

IMO, the *source* material going into the playback chain is mostly severely damaged to the point of being *almost* impossible for me to listen, but sadlyeven though the tools and my time/capabilities have expanded, my hearing has diminished.  I really wish that back in the 1980s that the tools existed for me to remove the distractions -- back when I could hear reliably and well -- solving the problems would have been helpful for everyone.   As it is now, even when the source problems are corrected, I really cannot enjoy the results as I might have in the past.

 

On the other hand, just looking at someones normal, $2k system might be a distraction for someone expecting to listen to equipment that looks prettier.  There is nothing wrong with 'packaging' being part of the subjective experience -- some of us do NOT care about packaging at all.

 

It is a subjective experience, and taste matters for the individual listener.   To me, removing distractions is much more important that a general sense of 'good taste'.   Even back when I could have EASILY afforded a $50k system, I wouldn't have considered a boom box as being 'bad taste'.  It is personal taste and matters of personal distraction being remedied.

 

Trying to fix *everything* will drive you nuts.   Trying to fix the problems as they come  is the only way to enjoy music without being confused with trying to be an engineer.   Frankly, most of the silly or extreme HW stuff being sold today is specious considering the (really poor) quality of most source material.

 

[John Dyson]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

 

If it has no filtering, it's an A to A! 😀

 

Of course, the above A to A comment is intended in humor, but even 'clean' analog stuff is minimally filtered as described below.   Even most recent digital recordings have the same limitations:

 

Almost all older commercial/taped analog recordings from the middle 1990s and before have an HF rolloff minimum starting at about 30kHz, and is quite a few dB down at 40kHz.   That rolloff comes from a major HW (NR) component common to most of those recordings.   Somewhere, I have the curves or can recreate them.   This assumes a *perfect* tape deck.  Of course, there are a few recordings that used a different technology, but each NR technology had its' response/quality limitations,

 

Most digital material, if you see 'stuff' much above 20kHz, it isn't actually audio but is noise modulation or signal interference.   You can get 'good stuff' with actual >20kHz detail, but most recordings are junk above 21kHz.

 

The important things when using audio filters are what happens at/below 20kHz, including IMD/sampling products from above 20kHz and time delays from not-linear-phase filters.

These in-band frequency dependent time delays (e.g. group delay) are a major component for hearing a difference between linear phase and not-linear phase filters.   Also. IMD products/sampling wrap-around can also affect <20kHz.

 

Just keep your designs distortion/sample-rate clean, and use not-linear phase filters for sound effects, not for clean signal filtering.   Assuming you can accept the long fixed/stable delay associated with linear phase EQ, then just use those.  Metaphysical engineering isn't needed to get technically good audio.   Sometimes, the metaphysics helps with the subjective experience, but that kind of thing is outside of my scope.

 

 

 

 

 

[John Dyson]

19 hours ago, Rexp said:

Yes i used to demonstrate good imaging to non audiophiles and even they could see palpable images of musicians playing in an almost 3d soundscape on a good recording. It is not subjective and not many speakers/systems are capable of delivering it. 

One time, a long time ago, I had some IMO  really smooth (accurate?) speakers.   I had played some orchestral material for an orchestra director, and the result was *a very impressed director'.   I haven't had such good speaker oriented equipment for a very, very long time.  What were the speakers?  Koss CM1030? also CM1020 for other situations (Cannot remember exactly.)  They certainly didn't sound 'hyped up', but had a very, very smooth sound with more than adequate HF.   That was back when I had *really good* hearing, but now probably wouldn't think that there would be adequate HF (probably would need 6 add on super-tweeters given my current hearing. 🙂)

 

The sound that I previously liked would probably not meet the standards today, but certainly impressed a director who was very atuned to natural sounding orchestras.  Hyped up speakers intended to sparkle with rock would probably have screwed up the image.  (I have found, including in the past, that too much superHF will screw-up a stereo image faster than almost anything else.)

 

Bottom line:  I had attained something that I liked, but I'll suspect that NO-ONE else reading this would have accepted it.  OTOH, I could hear/was distracted by the temporal/dynamics distortion so very common in recordings.   Who cares if any other audiophile wouldn't have accepted my system? -- I really enjoyed it until the recordings started sounding like hash.

 

Trying to find 'perfection' seems to be futile and a waste of time for me.   I just want to enjoy the music without serious distractions.

 

 

 

[John Dyson]

43 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Not to most people or authors in the context of the sound of DACs.  In fact, the goal of a number of DAC designers has been to sound more like analog, meaning more like vinyl. You might want to do yourself a favour and take Chris' hint regarding your high horse.

It is *so* sad that the original complaint about 'digital sound' back in the 1980's was caused by a profound difference in signal processing.  We still have that 'digital sound' affliction for both new analog and digital consumer recordings, but now the argument has degraded into 'counting the number of Angels on the head of a pin'.