Matt, you are too bright to be listening to that function generator all night long. Give Netflix a chance, it isn't bad. Your neighbours will thank you.It depends what you mean by a musical circuit, an oscillator perhaps?
where I have deviated is in making the assumption that both CD and Vinyl LP came from the same source master. On this I forced the cart / preamp to sound audibly very similar from a comparison of both sources. this required changes to RIAA component ratios slightly. It is very possible that my preamp would sound very different on another cartridge.
Absolutely. And different CD players/DACs sound different. Different cables sound different. Everything can sound different! And one thing will mask another so some differences won't be audible until you improve something else. Improving one part of a system can cause other parts too suddenly become a problem that weren't before. Such is audio.
Most of the misunderstanding here I think is semantics.
Fidelity is faithfulness to the original signal and has an objective truth, albeit with some contentious debate.
But what if faithfulness to the original signal is not believable to the listener?
Believability is subjective and is based on the experience and listening tastes of the listener.
The original signal may have limitations, let’s say if you primarily listen to old blues and folk recordings. Or say my desire is to faithfully reproduce my favorite concert hall ambiance, or a rock club, these will all have variations from what an engineer might consider perfect fidelity, however it is *believable* reproduction to the listener which is their goal.
I don’t subscribe to the idea that there is out there an objective correct way to reproduce music, because there is no objectively correct musical source material to reproduce!
However there is an objective way to faithfully take a signal and amplify it with vanishingly small distortion.
The unwillingness of many engineers to accept the needs of their target market and instead beat a dead horse about objective truth seems to ensure this gap in understanding will continue to widen.
Fidelity is faithfulness to the original signal and has an objective truth, albeit with some contentious debate.
But what if faithfulness to the original signal is not believable to the listener?
Believability is subjective and is based on the experience and listening tastes of the listener.
The original signal may have limitations, let’s say if you primarily listen to old blues and folk recordings. Or say my desire is to faithfully reproduce my favorite concert hall ambiance, or a rock club, these will all have variations from what an engineer might consider perfect fidelity, however it is *believable* reproduction to the listener which is their goal.
I don’t subscribe to the idea that there is out there an objective correct way to reproduce music, because there is no objectively correct musical source material to reproduce!
However there is an objective way to faithfully take a signal and amplify it with vanishingly small distortion.
The unwillingness of many engineers to accept the needs of their target market and instead beat a dead horse about objective truth seems to ensure this gap in understanding will continue to widen.
Last edited:
I find it quite easy.
PSUs are very important.
There is a mis-understanding going on in this thread that vivacious, toe-tapping reproduction is an indication of less accuracy rather than better accuracy.
You have no idea what the original sounded like during the mix your your statement dosnt make sense. Maybe the original is boring. Using your ears to tune your system is not the way to get accurate sound, it's a way to get what pleases you, and that's almost never more accurate no matter what your ego says.
Posts 65 & 66 I consider muddled thinking.
What actually goes wrong from time to time is engineers and others focusing on the wrong measures, even to the extent of denying reality when their measures don't agree with it. It's just bad methodology.
I would encourage folks to trust their own hearing and common sense when making judgments about...err...a music reproduction system.
What actually goes wrong from time to time is engineers and others focusing on the wrong measures, even to the extent of denying reality when their measures don't agree with it. It's just bad methodology.
I would encourage folks to trust their own hearing and common sense when making judgments about...err...a music reproduction system.
Last edited:
And yet the mastering engineer who created the source material did just that.... used his/her ears to get what pleases them.
Is therefor the source material inaccurate because it’s been processed by a third party at all?
Would complete accuracy be absolutely no mixing within a live environment? No use of guitar tone controls by the lead guitar player?
Where does your comprehension of accuracy begin?
Is the listener barred from exercising their free will as the musician has?
You must define your view of accuracy with more accuracy. And with the definition of accuracy, clearly define the target of that accuracy and the criteria under which you would validate this accuracy. If there is no target there literally cannot be accuracy as it has no reference with which to define itself.
DSP uses software to *process* the signal, in other words alter, to adjust ones system for greater accuracy based upon room, loudspeakers, seating position, ceiling height, etc. Also perhaps greater precision in a room despite different possible seating positions.
This is accuracy alteration of source material for greater overall accuracy in real world playback conditions.
Sound engineers in live environments use their ears to assist in getting their interpretation of the best result. Why then why in the home is it so sacrilege to tailor something to your personal preferences?
You are misunderstanding that perfect playback of a given source material is the desired result above all other considerations at all times.... this is patently false.
If that were the case no one here should be using loudspeakers, but monitor headphones.
Arguably walking a few steps in either direction of the sweet spot of loudspeakers would result in more source accuracy reduction than some of the suggestions here.
For example, one of my goals in one instance is pleasing room filling music in my office. I move around, and do not want monitors facing my head at each side of the screen. So, I wanted omnidirectional, ambient sound which would be pleasing from a variety seating and standing positions. Is this perfectly accurate to source materials? No, but it meets my needs, perfect accuracy in this case not being one of them.
Using true and false / right and wrong binary thinking is where the issue lies imho.
By the same token I’d like to be clear that I’m not advocating poor or dangerous engineering practices, magical snake oil boxes being foisted on the ignorant/ well intentioned public, 1k interconnects or anything like that.
What I am advocating for is a more balanced, reflective and considerate view by both sides of the debate because frankly it’s become rather one-dimensional and yields no progress.... like relatives in town around the table bickering about politics.
True Fidelity, like life music will not be found "boring" and "sterile".
Wrong fidelity, for instance too much negative feedback applied to minimize distortion, while neglecting other parameters...low slew rate or terrible intermodulation, will be boring and sterile.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
There are some people who care greatly about the science & engineering of sound reproduction. What I have discovered is that many people's enjoyment of music is not about truth in reproduction. Their enjoyment is experienced, they know what they like and what they don't. I have a science background, but find I learn just as much of value from those who offer knowledge based on subjective experience. I can read a text book and update my technical understanding quickly, but I can not easily gain that subjective experience first-hand, it takes a long time and much effort. I value those who contribute such knowledge here.
I recently started to learn about guitars and their amplifiers. A new world to explore. These boyz know how to enjoy their music.
I recently started to learn about guitars and their amplifiers. A new world to explore. These boyz know how to enjoy their music.
Last edited:
No, we want simple black and white choices, this non assertive, indecisive, vague thinking where everybody's view is of equal value is just not sexy enough
Good grief Dave, hasn't that old saw lost its teeth yet? You've cut thru so many posts with that saw (and some SET grease) that it must be slick as ice.
How about a new one? Here you go: "If you want recorded music to sound good or like live music - you are wrong. That is not fidelity." Feel free to use it all you want. You're welcome.
How about J Gordon Holt's famous definition of Neurality? 'The thing that everyone says they want until they get it'
I'll be honest, I chose the last* phono stage I bought on the basis of reviews that said it 'lacked PRaT' compared to a linn phono stage. I concluded this meant it didn't mess things up and have been rewarded with a very cheap and very enjoyable product. It plays music, warts and all with no added extras.
I do look forward to someone someday posting some recordings to indicate the difference between the dynamics of different phono stages so we have something to gain a common understand with.
*Last one I bought and last one I will buy. Back to making them now.
I'll be honest, I chose the last* phono stage I bought on the basis of reviews that said it 'lacked PRaT' compared to a linn phono stage. I concluded this meant it didn't mess things up and have been rewarded with a very cheap and very enjoyable product. It plays music, warts and all with no added extras.
I do look forward to someone someday posting some recordings to indicate the difference between the dynamics of different phono stages so we have something to gain a common understand with.
*Last one I bought and last one I will buy. Back to making them now.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
If you want to know what is "dynamic", listen to the same recording on a Technics amplifier of the 90s and a mid-range or input amplifier like a Rotel or NAD. You will realize the difference. Not to mention if you compare it with a Hi End. The same thing happens with the different phono preamps
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.