The "Sound" of Electronics vs Transducers

[SY]

Do you perchance think that the circuit itself is doing something 'deliberately' ?

Yes, in the same sense that a compressor or an equalizer is doing something "deliberately." The designer of the circuit (or the software algorithm) is presumably a human with intention.

[abraxalito]

Originally Posted by SY

Yes, in the same sense that a compressor or an equalizer is doing something "deliberately."

So then, in using the word 'deliberately' just of a circuit and not of a human, we are at last in agreement. The circuit does indeed, in general, 'deliberately' alter the sound. But this language is misleading as a circuit cannot (unlike a human) do anything accidentally - everything it does must be deliberate - even the adding of distortion and noise, which are unavoidable. So now we have this new, Humpty Dumpty meaning for the word, I'd go further and say that the circuit does not merely in general 'deliberately' alter the sound, it does so always, no exceptions. The dichotomy introduced by this new meaning for the word 'deliberate' is a false one, leading to confusion in the readership.

The designer of the circuit (or the software algorithm) is presumably a human with intention.

And their intention is not to change the sound, its to reduce the bit rate. As I've been maintaining all along.

[SY]

And their intention is not to change the sound, its to reduce the bit rate. As I've been maintaining all along.

Note that I *always* used the term "signal," not "sound."

[abraxalito]

Originally Posted by SY

Note that I *always* used the term "signal," not "sound."

Yes, that's fine. My meaning isn't altered by rephrasing it with the word signal instead of sound. I agree they do have different meanings, but I wasn't attempting to be too technical in this case - you were having trouble keeping up as it was

[kavermei]

Originally Posted by abraxalito

[...] The signal is, in most cases altered to fit the constraint of the lower bit rate. But notice that I included the two words 'if any' - in a few cases there's no need to throw anything away. [...]

But even then the process is not 100% lossless; the polyphase filter bank used in MP3 is not strictly reversible (i.e., no bit-exact reconstruction is possible). It wasn't designed to be, either.

Kenneth

[abraxalito]

Yes, thanks for that snippet. I've not been arguing that the codec is lossless - rather that it wasn't designed intentionally to change the signal. No electronics circuit can be truly lossless, only software can achieve that.

[kavermei]

Well, the whole discussion is tomeyto/tomaato -- if you design a lossy codec, you know it's going to be lossy and change the signal -- if you design a lossless codec, you know it'll be lossless.

Personally, I now use exclusively FLAC encoding for my music server & USB DAC setup, and haven't looked back ever since. The ancient MP3 format is good for nothing these days, there are many better alternatives (both lossy and lossless). Saves me the expense of getting a fancy-schmanzy, audiophool-approved CD "transport", too!

Kenneth

[abraxalito]

Originally Posted by kavermei

Well, the whole discussion is tomeyto/tomaato -- if you design a lossy codec, you know it's going to be lossy and change the signal -- if you design a lossless codec, you know it'll be lossless.

Unsurprisingly, I don't recognise your characterisation of the discussion here. The codec first of all isn't a piece of software in this instance, its a piece of hardware, so 'lossless' cannot apply. The thread is, after all about the sound of electronics vs transducers.

Secondly the mp3 codec itself is not germane to my point - I just chose a piece of kit that gave a good enough frequency response and reasonable THD figures as an example of a circuit. That was to offer up a counter example to what I saw as a rather simplistic claim that frequency response and THD figure is all that's really useful to know about a piece of audio electronics in terms of its sound. (I paraphrase heavily, I recognise that CH's position is a little more nuanced than my very brief characterisation of it).

Personally, I now use exclusively FLAC encoding for my music server & USB DAC setup, and haven't looked back ever since. The ancient MP3 format is good for nothing these days, there are many better alternatives (both lossy and lossless). Saves me the expense of getting a fancy-schmanzy, audiophool-approved CD "transport", too!

Pretty much parallels my own experience although I use SPDIF as I haven't yet got a good enough sounding USB DAC. But I'm moving in that direction. I'm currently using a $30 DVD player as my transport and getting excellent results.

[ChrisA]

Originally Posted by SY

Is this true of the direct mike feed in the studio or concert hall recording? Can I assume that every recording in my collection (save one or two exceptionally boring "audiophile" specials) will sound like complete crap regardless of the care and work I've put into designing and building my system?

YES. Even the exceptionally boring "audiophile" specials do NOT sound like a piano. The reason is simple.

(1) A piano is physically large and the sound radiats from a large sound board and a large case and MOST of what we hear when we listen to a real piano is reflectons. the bass reflects off the foor before it reaches our ears and the highes reflect off the open lid.. Stereo speakers are not large, even a 15" woofer is a small "point source" compared to an piano.

(2) stereo at it's best can only reproduce sound in sweet spot. If you had a real piano you could walk in a circle around it while it was being played and it would sound like a piano at every point along your path. Try walking in a circle around a pair of stereo speakers. Because the piano is omnidirectional most of wht you hear is reflected sound from the room. With stereo most of what you here is direct from the speakers

In short, the reason none of your recording sound like a real piano is because they are played through speakers.

I have a goal or project I'm working on to build a "piano speaker". This is a special purpose audio system for ONLY solo piano. It will be omnidirectional and and send the bass into the floor and reflect highs off a lid that raises at an angle and be about the size and shap of a very small baby grand. The goal is to be able to walk in a circle around the audio system an that it sound like a real piano at all points along the path.
The Source will be a digital piano, not a recording. So what I'm really working on is a musical instrument, something that produces music, not re-produces music.

[psemeraro]

Interesting comments Chris! Yamaha and others make "digital" grand pianos that have speakers top and bottom. I've played these often while teaching lessons. The samples are lousy and obviously looped and the speakers sound like something from a Honda Accord but the way the sound is amplified around you feels more like a real piano than playing premium software like Synthogy Ivory (what you actually hear when listening to piano on movies and tv and pop recordings) through a pair of studio monitors.