That's not the point. The point is that you can mutilate a sound rather harsly without being able to hear a difference. It proves that there are cases when you cannot hear differences between two waveforms that can easily be measured. And that's all we need to know.
Edit: I believe Kazinator (what's in a name
was referring to a signal similar to the attached.jan
Attachments
Last edited:
I think it is also true that a tone interrupted by noise can sound continuous. There was a demo of this on the radio but I can't remember what the noise was...something like breaking crockery perhaps. It was played several times and, even when you know the tone is actually absent, you can't help hearing it.
If I understand this correctly, a 'correct' sound system duplicates the limitations and distortions of the recording monitors. A flatter, cleaner system which reveals more about the recording is then incorrect. Whether the end result is closer to the actual sonic event is irrelevant. Well, it's a certainly a consistent viewpoint.
You cannot reveal more information about the original event than is in the recording. The 'correct' sound system faithfully duplicates whatever is on the CD/DVD etc.
In theory, the reproduction system might compensate for the shortcomings of the recording system, but how would you know what these are? All you have to go by is the CD/DVD etc.
jan
In theory, the reproduction system might compensate for the shortcomings of the recording system, but how would you know what these are? All you have to go by is the CD/DVD etc.
jan
No, you have your own perception too, with all its experience of what is right and what isn't.
Of course. Why take it on faith the control room system revealed everything, or that the engineer was effectively perfect in tweaking the recording to compensate? Recording monitors and home systems are two different views into the same event. Each will be more or less accurate, proclaiming either as an absolute 'standard' is irrational in my view.
Yes, absolutely, but there's more..."different views into the same event" begs the question "what event?" Could it be that the event, the performance, includes the listening, and that therefore they are different events rather than different views of the same one?
Why should I accept the judgement of some geek in a recording studio? The performance isn't for the engineer, it's for me and you usually, these days. The whole idea of reproduction for the most part didn't last long, and was soon replaced by the transmission of a live performance by some medium such as vinyl or CD. Arguably, the highest fidelity system is the one the music expects to find, the one it was performed for.
I think it's legitimate to apply the same kind of judgement as if we were arranging a real-time live performance. It not about being perfectly the same as some other performance. That would be impossible and undesirable in any case. Neither is it just about what we like the sound of. Somehow it's about both and neither...it's about being faithful, legitimate, and all those other qualities that art critics go on about, presumably.
Symphony for a Group of Solipsists? Schrödinger's Cantata in a Box?
The instruments and transfer function of the surrounding air in the performance space don't transform per listener. Each listener rather performs a personalized transfer function on the air molecules hitting the ear drum in the process of creating their perception, a Tf molded over a lifetime by nature and nurture. However, it's the same transfer function they bring to everything they hear, including reproductions.
To me perfect reproduction means getting the air molecules in the living room to vibrate at my ear drum in a manner that can't be perceptually differentiated from those at the original performance. It's a hugely difficult and complex task but not logically inconsistent and it's far too early to claim 'game over'.
Exactly. Plus, they are effectively in series - you can't get out more, even with the most sophisticated replay system, than the recording engineer has put into it. In a sense, the recording engineer is part of the artistic performance, maybe even can be considered an extension of the performing artists.
I've met several well-regarded recording engineers at their job and they try very hard to produce a great recording, but unavoidably, that effort includes personal preferences about how it should be. And, unless you are going to equalize and tone-control at the replay side, that's what you have to live with.
jan
I believe you misunderstood my meaning - I meant that the recording (CD/DVD etc) is all you have for replay, and all you can do is to try to reproduce it as faithfully as possibly. Unless you want to equalise/tone control or process otherwise, which means you are actually interpreting, not reproducing.
jan
While I agree with the above, I would mention another aspect. As a young eager beaver, I actually banged on some drums for about two years. This served me well in that it taught me what a drum section really sounds like, even if it can be adjusted to personal taste.
So, listening to my only source, the said CD or DVD, I hear music which sound about right in most places, but I hear that the drums have been reduced in volume, muffled or whatever. I do not need sophisticated measuring gear to hear it's not right (I cannot say "wrong" because I don't know what and how the author and engineer wanted to be heard), I know how that particular sound should be like, and having heard it on other sources, I know my system is perfectly capable of doing it just right.
My point is, what we get from the source may not always relate well to the sounds we know from live music listening, but we don't know whether that is on purpose, or is inadequate engineering in mixing or production. Yet, in practice, otherwise worthy systems get blamed.
Of course, it all depends on why are you listening to music, are you after the thrill of the composer's idea he's trying to convey, or are you listening to systems and/or their faults, names and price tags, etc.
Symphony for a Group of Solipsists? Schrödinger's Cantata in a Box?
Actually, I had in mind just ordinary folk like us in our living rooms.
What original performance? Most music is notional until it comes out of some speakers somewhere. It was listened to in a studio, but not performed for the studio. If the music is made for me and you, then the performance is not complete until we hear it.
Your view may be consistent, but I don't think it's practical, and it's not what really matters. For the most part the idea of recording a performance for the purpose of subsequent reproduction was just the beginning of a revolutionary change in the nature of music. Soon music found studios could be sources rather than conduits. The studio is the performer, we are the original audience, no reproduction is involved. A wise studio knows its audience and panders accordingly.
We are neither artists nor engineers, but must find a position that finds resolution by subsuming both. It's a dialectic thing, which is why we argue round in circles and, as we struggle to comprehend the continuing revolution, the history of music unfolds mostly regardless.
Most people who care about music don't worry too much about their equipment. Perhaps we tend to preciousness?
Yes, and on where you are and how much cash you can spare. Legend has it that Phil Spector's nemesis, "River deep mountain high", was a flop because its dense layering sounded like a noisy muddle on American car radios. What sounds to you like inadequate engineering may just be wisdom born of experience.
But, what we are really, really, really interested in, is the reverse case: where meaningful differences can be heard, and the measurement of the significant difference appears to be be very hard to come by. There is little value in knowing stuff, when it doesn't tell us something useful - like having data on how fast a car can go in reverse ...
Well, my personal experience is that there is more on the recording than the engineer probably realises is there. So far my experience of studio monitors is that they are relatively hopeless in revealing any deeper levels of detail in raw form, it was a bit of a surprise to find this - of course, the top of the line, very expensive units will mostly likely perform better - but how many engineers are using such?
Every effort to bring out more in the recordings has rewarded me by making listening to them a more satisfying, richer experience, even the supposedly bad ones. In contrast, I find listening to 'audiophile' recordings the few times I do so quite often tedious, they can come across as quite barren and empty of sound texture, many of the elements that add body to the quality seem to have been stripped from them ...
Last edited:
depending on point of view.... you can
for example, recording with mic which has some small hf rolloff
now you gonna listen on (tube) eqipment with some 2nd distortion, that will "regain" lost information.
So, let me get this straight - people prefer tubes BECAUSE they have distortion?
Distortion is what helps them get more out of the source?
Holy Moly!
Nige, we need to design a "THD Enhancer" circuit.
No. It will replace lost tones with the harmonics of other tones. Its cheating, and someone with your Golden Ears will immediately hear the difference.
jan
My speakers are low in distortion . Many amps I like are low distortion . Many amps I like are not . The ones in the middle I usually don't care for , the almost OK amps . Technics comes to mind . Not prejudice , just ears . My speakers are the right choice . The image width is a bit restricted as a major criticism . Sansui always sounded odd to me . Also Onkyo . Likable enough and suggestions of wonderful at times . Yamaha gets close to being OK . Sony TA5650 was my cup of tea if the bias was set to original levels . I am told TA1010 was good , never heard one although we did repair one which proved to be difficult . How stupid not to listen .
Most studio monitors no matter how good do not say things about the music like good cheap headphones do . Alas headphones don't do it for me in terms of perspective . When recordings are being completed the sound I usually hear is horrible . The engineer is just listening for defects . To be honest what they point out I would never notice . Minute gaps if from analogue masters , sounds taking from another section and spliced in digitally . How a good sound is arrived at I will never now . It would be like you permanently were doing doughnuts in your car and inferring everything from the doughnuts . Why not some Maggie's to check ? Peacefrog in London are not like that . Get them to do stuff I would say .
What I will say is that speakers that owe their existence to the Quad ESL 57 should be sort as things to own . Of conventional speakers I always liked the Klipsch Forte 2 . All the things wrong with them are to degrees wrong with all box speakers . If you can imagine the Heresy with everything bad about them resolved that is them . Like a Bumble Bee they can not possibly work . Analysis of that Bee says it has 33 % the power it needs to fly . Wrong science certainly . Science can get simple things wrong .
Last edited:
Robin Marshall said to me that the only significant quality the Quad ESL has is no box .
Listening to my Panasonic TV recently I thought how good it sounded . A friend says it uses digital progressing to do that . Whatever is uses it puts to shame many box speakers . The drive units must be cheap . Would a number driven by chip amps on a 19 x 48 inch baffle work ? If so better than Magnaplanars in terms of high frequency image width . The TV is good on that .
The Sweet Sixteen link I gave before was to ask if a Bose on a baffle works ? Bose drive units are very simple . The old 9 x 5 inch Elac TV speaker was well liked . Dahlquists had similar ( Philips , B&O ? ) . Fostex get big money for their drive units . They still sound to me like good TV speakers where they fail . I can live with that when cheap .
Listening to my Panasonic TV recently I thought how good it sounded . A friend says it uses digital progressing to do that . Whatever is uses it puts to shame many box speakers . The drive units must be cheap . Would a number driven by chip amps on a 19 x 48 inch baffle work ? If so better than Magnaplanars in terms of high frequency image width . The TV is good on that .
The Sweet Sixteen link I gave before was to ask if a Bose on a baffle works ? Bose drive units are very simple . The old 9 x 5 inch Elac TV speaker was well liked . Dahlquists had similar ( Philips , B&O ? ) . Fostex get big money for their drive units . They still sound to me like good TV speakers where they fail . I can live with that when cheap .
- Status
- Not open for further replies.