Yes Scott, why monoed bass can bring some goods ( despite it may seems a limitation).
Johnego,
Yes i agree. And you could blame me as i was part of this ( loudness war) until i decided to quit this.
About recording of reverbs mics are not to blame. They can retrieve a reverb no issue ( in 'pop' music drums recordings for them to sound credible needs 'room mics' dedicated only too the room- located way past 'critical distance' of room and not pointing at the kit at all).
You can even bring some life on close micd takes if needed thanks to mic/room/ (good) loudspeakers:
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/the...quality-vs-measurements-1922.html#post6658531
About artificial reverbs it really depend from style ( more often in 'pop' yes) and aesthetic choice ( eg: ECM records of J.Garbareck from 90's use it but other labels don't).
About converters i test them with recordings i listen to for 30years and a known pair of headphone: i know how they should sound 'as an average' and have a basis. Works i've done too (this is not something most enthousiast have i know). Not very scientific but it prooved to be sufficient for my needs.
When i was really into engineering ( now it's more an hobby) i regularly evaluated mine agaisnt the 'reference of the moment' ( hype,hype,hype,...even on pro field there is).
Johnego,
Yes i agree. And you could blame me as i was part of this ( loudness war) until i decided to quit this.
About recording of reverbs mics are not to blame. They can retrieve a reverb no issue ( in 'pop' music drums recordings for them to sound credible needs 'room mics' dedicated only too the room- located way past 'critical distance' of room and not pointing at the kit at all).
You can even bring some life on close micd takes if needed thanks to mic/room/ (good) loudspeakers:
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/the...quality-vs-measurements-1922.html#post6658531
About artificial reverbs it really depend from style ( more often in 'pop' yes) and aesthetic choice ( eg: ECM records of J.Garbareck from 90's use it but other labels don't).
About converters i test them with recordings i listen to for 30years and a known pair of headphone: i know how they should sound 'as an average' and have a basis. Works i've done too (this is not something most enthousiast have i know). Not very scientific but it prooved to be sufficient for my needs.
When i was really into engineering ( now it's more an hobby) i regularly evaluated mine agaisnt the 'reference of the moment' ( hype,hype,hype,...even on pro field there is).
Last edited:
The point is I don't know what is supposed to be in the recording (it helps to use recording that we know for sure, like in your case). I don't know what the recording should sound like. There are so many mics with differing qualities (not talking about the technique) and mostly the raw/flat result is not used but the processed one.
Some mics are "detailed" (transparent) to capture that plug, fingering and such effects on double bass but don't have the proper low response, vise versa. If I don't hear the decay, where should I find the bottleneck? Most of the time it is in speakers but when speakers is stellar where should I go next? Should I blame the musician which is not good enough with the instruments?
I think that is the point brought by TNT and that I agree with.
Hi Andrea,
Through my work, I have seen that , properly executed, certain amplifier typologies do have characteristic sound profiles. This shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone. All it means is that I have an awful lot of experience, that's all.
In this example, I had seen that Cyrus does design PCBs properly and normally executes a design rather well. While I do not like the finishing on the heat sink mounting surface or the small form factor, they make an excellent product. When I received these two new amplifiers and connected them, I was satisfied that they did sound as predicted. So, I'll give Cyrus a plug for making an excellent product.
As for your concerns, why not take them up with me directly? I certainly could have explained to you in more detail, but instead you posted an except that didn't cover the entire post, so a little out of context. Please don't do that in the future.
Anyway, the truth of the matter is that with a schematic, you can get a general idea of how something will sound at best. Why do you think that a simulator can predict a distortion profile? I will state that I'm an old technician and don't know how to run a simulator and don't completely trust their results. But, in very general terms (like me), the can give you a good idea of performance. No shock, no magic. Just some experience.
-Chris
Did you not read the entire post? What do you have an issue with? I was developing a similar amplifier and already knew what the characteristic sound quality was going to be like.
Through my work, I have seen that , properly executed, certain amplifier typologies do have characteristic sound profiles. This shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone. All it means is that I have an awful lot of experience, that's all.
In this example, I had seen that Cyrus does design PCBs properly and normally executes a design rather well. While I do not like the finishing on the heat sink mounting surface or the small form factor, they make an excellent product. When I received these two new amplifiers and connected them, I was satisfied that they did sound as predicted. So, I'll give Cyrus a plug for making an excellent product.
As for your concerns, why not take them up with me directly? I certainly could have explained to you in more detail, but instead you posted an except that didn't cover the entire post, so a little out of context. Please don't do that in the future.
Anyway, the truth of the matter is that with a schematic, you can get a general idea of how something will sound at best. Why do you think that a simulator can predict a distortion profile? I will state that I'm an old technician and don't know how to run a simulator and don't completely trust their results. But, in very general terms (like me), the can give you a good idea of performance. No shock, no magic. Just some experience.
-Chris
Any basic technical analysis points exactly to the opposite. I think you are just longing for the old ages
//
I'd like to thank you and others for bringing in more light with discussion on sound qualities to a previously dark unknown area to me.
But please be reminded that civil discussion on subject such as this depends on a certain self professed authority and only if he admits ability to hear room sound or whatever other qualities being discussed. As all of you have previously seen, if he denies (even though billions of others can) then he would butt in with his nonsense (complete with utmost polite words) like demand a proof (which he will very likely never accept anyway) of ability to hear (from those seeking knowledge) which also has to include its metric of properties or proof of efficacy of various weird nonsensical methods used by other diyaudio members or proof of efficacy of some snake oil product sold by a certain despicable charlatan. Noted pestering was not made to those giving explanation, however nothing was stated or implied to what code of conduct he would impose to participants of such discussions in the future.
Additionally, he is of the very strong opinion that further research in the area of correlating any measurement of sound that people hear to perceived quality would not bring any benefit.
I won't be surprised if any discussion wrt to room sound or other qualities he subjectively categorize as extrapolation of hearing illusion would get nowhere in this forum. I for one find current topic very interesting and would very much like to join in but have to refrain participating since that could result in me taking meds on a regular basis just to maintain some state of health or sanity.
Modern recordings, unfortunately, have a lower dynamic range than older recordings. Loudness war. It has nothing to do with the delivering format.
For listening tests with good protocol, iow can be used in scientific publications, the correlation between measurements and soundquality is very high.
For other protocols, its not.
I wonder why...
For listening tests with good protocol, iow can be used in scientific publications, the correlation between measurements and soundquality is very high.
For other protocols, its not.
I wonder why...
Tnt,
Well if you look at technical capability of media yes digital is (supposed) to be way better than analog regarding dynamic range, bandwidth and all.
But as digital open to new ways of treatments and peoples are peoples ( give some knobs to a sound engineer to tweak and wait and see what happens) there is excess. Have you been protected from loudness war? If so you are lucky and a lucky few.
I could go on and on about it but i don't wan't to go offtopic so i will link you to some post i already wrote about it ( and if you have time to waste i know i wrote many others about it in the pasts years):
Average Music Transients/Peaks Data across genres of Music ?
I'm not into technology nostalgia ( despite what it may seems in this thread). For recording/ tracking purpose in some way yes because in this case some older tools are way better to my likings than newer ones. And because studio pro ( big ones) are very conservative about tools ( because when time is money you can't use something which have not been prooven to be trustfull, good,whatever...) and i've got the habits of the field i evolved in.
That said my own mains are based around a Dolby Lake ( used as main AD in my 'studio' config, an Rme AES card and a pc with daw and all including restauration software (RX soft), and it is my main DA too..).and multiamp to a 3 way with 'big' drivers, i'm sure you won't tell it is nostagia oriented.
There is a misunderstanding between what the technology is able to do and what is done with it.
Well if you look at technical capability of media yes digital is (supposed) to be way better than analog regarding dynamic range, bandwidth and all.
But as digital open to new ways of treatments and peoples are peoples ( give some knobs to a sound engineer to tweak and wait and see what happens) there is excess. Have you been protected from loudness war? If so you are lucky and a lucky few.
I could go on and on about it but i don't wan't to go offtopic so i will link you to some post i already wrote about it ( and if you have time to waste i know i wrote many others about it in the pasts years):
Average Music Transients/Peaks Data across genres of Music ?
I'm not into technology nostalgia ( despite what it may seems in this thread). For recording/ tracking purpose in some way yes because in this case some older tools are way better to my likings than newer ones. And because studio pro ( big ones) are very conservative about tools ( because when time is money you can't use something which have not been prooven to be trustfull, good,whatever...) and i've got the habits of the field i evolved in.
That said my own mains are based around a Dolby Lake ( used as main AD in my 'studio' config, an Rme AES card and a pc with daw and all including restauration software (RX soft), and it is my main DA too..).and multiamp to a 3 way with 'big' drivers, i'm sure you won't tell it is nostagia oriented.
There is a misunderstanding between what the technology is able to do and what is done with it.
In a general sense, I think Kosko is right. Of course, noise can be further classified into subtypes. A couple of examples:
Deterministic noise - Wikipedia
Understanding of stochastic noise
I shall give you the benefit of the doubt because I'm not an academic, can you explain to me what this has to do with noise in audio reproduction and the measurement of it?
The answer Anatech made to N101N post about senses which cannot be analysed could be used to answer you too.
Here again there is misunderstanding/misconception/ false premises about what a soundengineer can do, could or should do and the tools used.
If you seek for things which aren't present in a recording whatever the reason ( technical issues, esthetic choice, decision made by the artist or artistic director, etc,etc,...) your not going to make them appear thanks to your reproduction chain.
Iow you have to take recordings for what they are and don't put what you think they should sound like into the equation.
Mics, loudspeakers, tools in general are just that in a studio. Some of the 'best' mics doesn't work in all situation, sometimes an sm57 is the tool needed for a kind of voice, sometime you'll need a U47 or an Ellam 251...
It's all question of compromise about a goal to reach.
Sorry to go back to loudspeakers but often enthousiast visit a studio or see some pictures and spot references they know of ( Yamaha NS10 is a good example) and deduce they should be great because they are used in a pro room. Without understanding they are here as a reference for freelance which change rooms and monitor on a daily basis and not to be lost need a 'reference'. Despite this loudspeakers are just an atrocity by themself... and the guy who work in the place use the 'big mains' they know rather than a suboptimal ref.
It's all matter of habits of a pro fields which are almost never explained to enthusiasts...it lead to misunderstanding. We are responsible of that i agree ( and as i was a teacher i know those things wasn't even understood by some students...) but enthousiast/amateur have to listen to pro too in order to reduce incomprehension, quiproquo, and we all move together to better things.
We all face the situation you describe ( how to be sure?). The pro field answer is reference recording and an average. Is it an absolute answer? No absolutely not. Is it acceptable? If you are used to it, yes, the less worst compromise... or you'll have to abx everything and we just have one life...and why in my view measurements are needed.
Last edited:
And may be there is some truth to it? At least, the fact that there are bigger fishes to fry...
For me it is a fact that every individual have different hearing threshold. And this brings consequences.
Obviously; but never mind, some people do enjoy their grudges, I’m not the one to spoil their fun
.I have pointed out before in forum threads that different types of noise encountered in audio sound different. For example, the sound of jitter-induced noise coming out of a dac does not sound like resistor noise at all to me. However, the math used to calculate the effects of such noises usually neglects differences that matter to me for audio.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.