Jump to content
IGNORED

Audio reproduction is a matter of taste?


Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Blake said:

I hope I'm not being pedantic, but it seems that distinguishing the term 'distortion' from 'alteration' is important because of the negative implications of the term 'distortion' which can often start online fights.  

 

As a professional in the industry, I'd be curious if you if you have any thoughts on 'distortion' versus 'alterations' when you are engineering or producing and whether you find tubes to be introducing distortion, or alterations of the sound signal?

Any alteration of the signal is a distortion of the signal.  EQ is distortion.  Compression is distortion.  “Tube warmth” is distortion. Etc.  Not all distortion is bad, in that many forms enhance our listening pleasure.  But if the waveform that hits your ears is not the same one generated by the source, it’s distorted. 

Link to comment
20 hours ago, GregWormald said:

...and that's why short auditions, trying to hear the "realism" can be quite useless. The harder the mind has to work to 'make sense' the more fatigued it gets. 

 

Depends upon how one goes about it ... I usually take about 30 secs to sum it up 😁 - that's how long it normally takes to hear a clear anomaly in the sound output; at which point your hearing will keep picking that same problem in the SQ, over and over again. If you have to work at the listening, then the system playback is a fail - "effortless" is a word that gets tossed around, and it's a good one ...

 

20 hours ago, GregWormald said:

 

As had been said, perfection (in audio reproduction) hasn't been achieved yet, so our preferences choose our music and our reproduction. I've heard very 'accurate' (according to others) systems where my favourite music was ruined, and others where I didn't want to turn it off.

 

That so-called accurate rig is far from it - anything that ruins the music has major issues. A 'perfect' setup, as said before, highlights all the positives, meaning that you enjoy whatever you listen to.

Link to comment

There's a very simple definition of reproduction accuracy - it's where you are never aware of any distortion being contributed by the playback chain; as soon as you hear a 'tell' of something in the SQ that is contributed by the components of the rigs, then you have lost accuracy - a really special setup has absolutely zero personality; it never, never, never "makes it sound better!" - what it's doing is getting completely out of the way; something which turns out to be pretty difficult ... which is why many people just completely give up on such a goal ... 😉.

Link to comment

Absence of distortion is the big one - I've said many times I've been amazed by how people calling themselves audiophiles can listen to rigs generating gross levels of distortion, seemingly in blissful ignorance of what's going on. And their wives, etc, just shake their heads, and get out of the room as soon as they can - they couldn't give a stuff for how amazing some of the bits of the system are supposed to be; they just know it's not pleasant to listen to - and move on, 😄.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

It did not sound like a "typical" guitar, but did not sound "electric" either, so I was simply not sure. It did not sound "distorted" and I did conclude that with headphones I thought that the "characteristics" of the guitar were even more evident (meaning the sound was even more "unique" to my ears). I simply had a hard time associating it with something I knew. Incidentally, I forwarded the file to some "audiophile" friends. One of them thought it was electric but was not really sure, the other acoustic but banjo, a third amplified banjo... So they were all a little confused.

 

 

This means zero of course, but I couldn't pick anything in the tone, playing the YT video yesterday, which said, "electric" - very rich sound, but nothing that indicated it wasn't acoustic.

 

Quote

Now we have two stumbling blocks.

 

(1) Jud telling us that a "zero distortion" (perfect) system is not possible, and that is all about compensating between different types of distortions, so we are left compromising...

 

Forget about compensating or compromising ... the special stuff is available, if you achieve "low enough distortion".

 

Quote

(2) Everyone else explaining that even if we did have a "zero distortion system" we would not be able to know that because the recording itself introduces its own "distortions" (from microphones, the recording process, mastering, etc...) and we are never getting the true sound of musical instruments (even if we were able to know how each of them sounded) 

 

What's the problem? There is no "true sound" of anything, even if you listen to it live, feet away; the environment is always going to 'adjust' what you hear - the closest you're gonna get is in listening to it in a perfect anechoic chamber; which I'm told is a pretty awful place, 😜.

 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Every recording engineer I've ever talked to, including those who've won Grammys for best engineered album, chose microphones for their sound. If the listener doesn't know the sound of the microphone being used, he can't tell if the playback is accurate because he doesn't know what sound the microphone has on the recording. 

 

If a microphone adds warmth to a vocal, but the playback system doesn't sound warm, the listener may say it's more accurate without the warmth. However, that isn't what's on the record because the microphone added warmth that was selected by those involved in the recording. 

 

Thus, people may know instruments all day long, but without knowing the sonic signatures of microphones, they are still guessing what's accurate. 

👍

I watched a video of my favourite singer choosing a new microphone for her tours and recordings. She would sing a phrase or two and choose. 

I could barely hear (OK maybe not at all) the differences. 

But boy, do I love music in my living room.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, GregWormald said:

👍

I watched a video of my favourite singer choosing a new microphone for her tours and recordings. She would sing a phrase or two and choose. 

I could barely hear (OK maybe not at all) the differences. 

But boy, do I love music in my living room.


Hearing my own voice through my Neumann, before A to D or anything, is really enlightening. My voice completely changes based on how close/far I am from the mic as well. I’m talking 1/4 inch increments, not across the room. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I can't speak for @bluesman, but my thinking was a little less around discrimination and more about familiarity - the folks who say "Of course I know what a guitar sounds like (doesn't everyone?)!" I think this sort of memory becomes less useful to evaluate accuracy once we begin to realize just how many sorts of guitars (or any other instrument) there are.

 

People will say we should use unamplified acoustic instruments. So I did, in order to illustrate with an actual demonstration how divergent the sounds of "just" acoustic instruments can be. How reliable then is this unamplified acoustic instrument as a reference when judging accuracy? Not very, unless we're familiar with the sound of this specific guitar. And this of course leaves all the rest of the infinite numbers of variables we've mentioned.

Its bleeding obvious its an acoustic guitar! 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Its bleeding obvious its an acoustic guitar! 

 

You'll want to speak to the cloth-eared idjits who either couldn't tell or insisted it was an electric then.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

What is relative accuracy then?

 

Chris - honestly - you're not reading my posts before diverting to something tangential to what I'm saying.

 

I'll answer your question in good faith - even though what I mean is already clear enough in what I've said already.

 

What we hear maps to what's in our brains - with varying degrees of "success". This is a matter of psychology. Yes - my specialty. I post some ideas for conversation's sake. I don't expect the thread to attend to me. At the same time I don't see the need to flog a dead horse if nobody wants to go there.

 

As a secondary observation - I note that "accuracy" can also be understood thus:

 

5 hours ago, bluesman said:

the question of accuracy is usually based on comparison between the master and what you’re hearing from your system.

 

How many of us can compare the master with what we're hearing?

 

Put another way:

 

7 hours ago, bluesman said:

few [audiophiles] consider how close what they're hearing comes to the original program or master

 

Now I'm not arguing zealously with this. I'm just saying that it's easier to reference what we're hearing with what's in our brains than with the master ...

 

... and that the extent to which what we're hearing maps to what's in our brains is just as relevant a way of appreciating "accuracy" as any other. What's in our brains is arguably a greater "reality" than "the master".  None of us get to hear the "master" anyway (played back where and how?) - and as you keep suggesting (as I read you) you can't anchor the master to absolute accuracy - if for no other reason than people will hear different things depending on their location in the same room - i.e. they all have different brain representations of the same "reality".

 

I don't think this leaves us with "taste" alone. Our brains are pretty good registers. Some of us have amazing brains.

 

A system has to be resolving enough for our brains to prosecute these amazing gymnastics. I find it doesn't need to be very resolving - for the most part.

 

Carry on!

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, Jud said:

More listening fun in search of accuracy:

 

Artist: Brian Bromberg

Album: Wood

Track 1, "The Saga of Harrison Crabfeathers" (thanks to @Superdad for first turning me on)

 

There are photos below of the 300 year old acoustic bass Bromberg is playing.  Knowing that, if you don't fear at least a little for the physical integrity of the instrument when you hear the track, I suggest your system isn't presenting the music with full fidelity.  (Without the photos, I wonder how many people would think it was a 300 year old acoustic bass that was being played so energetically?)

 

@hopkins, our host for this very interesting thread, mentioned detail as one of the things he listens for, and someone else said more amplitude in the presence region can easily be confused with detail retrieval.  That's why I like to listen to low strings (double bass, cello) in pizzicato for detail, because they're in the wrong frequency range to be impacted by an elevated presence region.

 

 

Bromberg Bass.jpg

Bromberg Bass 2.jpg

Are you saying a system that reveals the physical integrity of the istrument is objectively more resolving than one that doesnt?

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Are you saying a system that reveals the physical integrity of the istrument is objectively more resolving than one that doesnt?

 

I'm saying a system that lets you hear how energetically someone is playing a centuries-old acoustic bass is more revealing than one that doesn't.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

Chris - honestly - you're not reading my posts before diverting to something tangential to what I'm saying.

 

I'll answer your question in good faith - even though what I mean is already clear enough in what I've said already.

 

What we hear maps to what's in our brains - with varying degrees of "success". This is a matter of psychology. Yes - my specialty. I post some ideas for conversation's sake. I don't expect the thread to attend to me. At the same time I don't see the need to flog a dead horse if nobody wants to go there.

 

As a secondary observation - I note that "accuracy" can also be understood thus:

 

 

How many of us can compare the master with what we're hearing?

 

Put another way:

 

 

Now I'm not arguing zealously with this. I'm just saying that it's easier to reference what we're hearing with what's in our brains than with the master ...

 

... and that the extent to which what we're hearing maps to what's in our brains is just as relevant a way of appreciating "accuracy" as any other. What's in our brains is arguably a greater "reality" than "the master".  None of us get to hear the "master" anyway (played back where and how?) - and as you keep suggesting (as I read you) you can't anchor the master to absolute accuracy - if for no other reason than people will hear different things depending on their location in the same room - i.e. they all have different brain representations of the same "reality".

 

I don't think this leaves with "taste" alone. Our brains are pretty good registers. Some of us have amazing brains.

 

A system has to be resolving enough for our brains to prosecute these amazing gymnastics. I find it doesn't need to be very resolving - for the most part.

 

Carry on!

I thought we dropped the 'accuracy' thing a while back... Whether you can judge an audio systems playback objectively or not is the question. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Rexp said:

So its objective and not a matter of taste. Case closed. 

 

Good, then you can tell us all what equipment and specs we each need in order to hear this.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

Chris - honestly - you're not reading my posts before diverting to something tangential to what I'm saying.

 

I'll answer your question in good faith - even though what I mean is already clear enough in what I've said already.

 

What we hear maps to what's in our brains - with varying degrees of "success". This is a matter of psychology. Yes - my specialty. I post some ideas for conversation's sake. I don't expect the thread to attend to me. At the same time I don't see the need to flog a dead horse if nobody wants to go there.

 

As a secondary observation - I note that "accuracy" can also be understood thus:

 

 

How many of us can compare the master with what we're hearing?

 

Put another way:

 

 

Now I'm not arguing zealously with this. I'm just saying that it's easier to reference what we're hearing with what's in our brains than with the master ...

 

... and that the extent to which what we're hearing maps to what's in our brains is just as relevant a way of appreciating "accuracy" as any other. What's in our brains is arguably a greater "reality" than "the master".  None of us get to hear the "master" anyway (played back where and how?) - and as you keep suggesting (as I read you) you can't anchor the master to absolute accuracy - if for no other reason than people will hear different things depending on their location in the same room - i.e. they all have different brain representations of the same "reality".

 

I don't think this leaves us with "taste" alone. Our brains are pretty good registers. Some of us have amazing brains.

 

A system has to be resolving enough for our brains to prosecute these amazing gymnastics. I find it doesn't need to be very resolving - for the most part.

 

Carry on!

Awesome. This really registered with me, in terms of understanding where you’re coming from. Thank you. 
 

When I talk about accuracy, I speak solely about what’s on the CD/album/file we play back in our homes. I assume what made it to the final released version is what we as consumers are supposed to hear because that’s what was delivered to us. Could be better or worse I know, but it’s what we’re given. 
 

I say that judging accuracy is impossible because we have no clue what the release is supposed to sound like. That’s where I’m coming from. 
 

We are clearly looking through different lenses. I view the way you look at it as perception = reality, but please don’t take that in the wrong way. It’s just how I look at your point of view. I’m also guessing you think my point of view is somewhat primitive, but it’s all good. 
 

Again, thanks for the layman’s explanation. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Rexp said:

I thought we dropped the 'accuracy' thing a while back... Whether you can judge an audio systems playback objectively or not is the question. 

 

We did. But words are funny things. As I understand it, "absolute" accuracy has fallen by the wayside. Different understandings of the word permit additional degrees of freedom ... if people are open-minded enough to tolerate such.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Awesome. This really registered with me, in terms of understanding where you’re coming from. Thank you.

 

Thank you. I appreciate that.

 

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I say that judging accuracy is impossible because we have no clue what the release is supposed to sound like. That’s where I’m coming from.

 

I think I have said the same thing in a recent post. We may share the odd lens or two.

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Its bleeding obvious its an acoustic guitar! 

 

Here are a couple of mysteries for you then, and no fair peeking if you don't already know.  They're both Beatles tracks.

 

- On the old US stereo version of "I'm Looking Through You," with the voices hard-panned to the right channel, what is the background percussion instrument in that right channel?

 

- What is the percussion instrument on "I'll Follow The Sun"?

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Here are a couple of mysteries for you then, and no fair peeking if you don't already know.  They're both Beatles tracks.

 

- On the old US stereo version of "I'm Looking Through You," with the voices hard-panned to the right channel, what is the background percussion instrument in that right channel?

 

- What is the percussion instrument on "I'll Follow The Sun"?

Ive never owned a Beatles record. 

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...