Hi Globulator,
It isn't the measurements that are the problem. It is the fact we couldn't measure well enough back then. That's were all this nonsense of "I can hear things you can't measure" came from. Back then they were correct, measurements were helpful then, but didn't tell us everything.
Today, measurements made on the right equipment do agree with subjective opinion for most people. We've come a long way. Previous ideas about the lack of correlation between measured performance and subjective impressions are completely baseless. I know, it isn't romantic. But it is very fortunately true. We now easily measure things well beyond the humans body's ability to sense it in any way. Interpretation is still kind of an art, but if you can get all the spikes that aren't signal below a certain level, you are good.
People will not learn and let go of previous ideas, especially if the new reality threatens their "specialness". Reviewers for example, and some "golden eared" folks.
It isn't the measurements that are the problem. It is the fact we couldn't measure well enough back then. That's were all this nonsense of "I can hear things you can't measure" came from. Back then they were correct, measurements were helpful then, but didn't tell us everything.
Today, measurements made on the right equipment do agree with subjective opinion for most people. We've come a long way. Previous ideas about the lack of correlation between measured performance and subjective impressions are completely baseless. I know, it isn't romantic. But it is very fortunately true. We now easily measure things well beyond the humans body's ability to sense it in any way. Interpretation is still kind of an art, but if you can get all the spikes that aren't signal below a certain level, you are good.
People will not learn and let go of previous ideas, especially if the new reality threatens their "specialness". Reviewers for example, and some "golden eared" folks.
I agree, we can measure everything we can hear and more with modern equipment, even with cheap devices like the Umik microphone and REW software. The only thing that is not measurable is personal taste of one person.
But on larger scale we can measure that also, and some at Harman (Dr. Sean Olive and Floyd Toole) did extensive studies about what most people like, to get to standards like the so called "Harman curve". But that curve does not tell your taste, it tells what most people will like (and so will have the biggest chance to success as speaker or headphone builder).
Personal taste does deviate with a minority from those standards, but less than most will think. And those deviations can also be measured, a lot of people like a bass boost between 150 and 50hz above the harman curve when the music played is for dancing, while listening seated that boost can be very annoying for most i've read in some studies years ago on AES (when i still had a subscription). And all that kind of tricks are now studied (also on acoustics and so).
But at the end, it's your easrs who judge if you like it or not. And some like very flawed systems, even knowing they are flawed. Others want utter perfection. But all that is measurable, because modern measurement equipent is way more sensitive and high resolution than our ears.
But on larger scale we can measure that also, and some at Harman (Dr. Sean Olive and Floyd Toole) did extensive studies about what most people like, to get to standards like the so called "Harman curve". But that curve does not tell your taste, it tells what most people will like (and so will have the biggest chance to success as speaker or headphone builder).
Personal taste does deviate with a minority from those standards, but less than most will think. And those deviations can also be measured, a lot of people like a bass boost between 150 and 50hz above the harman curve when the music played is for dancing, while listening seated that boost can be very annoying for most i've read in some studies years ago on AES (when i still had a subscription). And all that kind of tricks are now studied (also on acoustics and so).
But at the end, it's your easrs who judge if you like it or not. And some like very flawed systems, even knowing they are flawed. Others want utter perfection. But all that is measurable, because modern measurement equipent is way more sensitive and high resolution than our ears.
Hi Waxx,
Yes. I don't think we will ever get speakers and rooms to play nice. But our electronics shouldn't be part of the problem. People generally don't care for distortion in any form, especially if exposed to real live sound for a while, or a good system. People tend to stick with what they are used to, or they try to accept what they are told is the best. But over time the truth comes out given a chance.
Yes. I don't think we will ever get speakers and rooms to play nice. But our electronics shouldn't be part of the problem. People generally don't care for distortion in any form, especially if exposed to real live sound for a while, or a good system. People tend to stick with what they are used to, or they try to accept what they are told is the best. But over time the truth comes out given a chance.
I don't think that is true, i have a full tube preamp/amp setup (with a lot of harmonic distortion) and a superclean full MiniDSP/Ncore amps setup and love both. Many mastering engineers that i know who have a very clean neutral studio setup use at home very flawed systems, often with tube amp or class A amps. One told me that coloured gear for him is for relaxing and clean gear for work (in his case, not mine).
OK, measurement gurus -- let's talk about the musical world.
As a lifelong musician, instrument builder, and audiophile I have always been preoccupied with timbral accuracy. For the last 4 years have developed a sound system that switches effortlessly between 300B, Class A, SEPP, and A/B amplifiers. All are high-end devices.
When you compare acoustical instruments on these 4 amp types you notice that timbral accuracy changes dramatically. Stringed instruments and organs, for example, are markedly superior with the 300B. Large orchestral scores sound most accurate with Class A and SEPP. The A/B amp used -- an Emotiva XPA-1 (gen. 2) has the most power and best measurements -- by far. It is an accepted standard in the field and used by many Nashville recording studios. Yet it sounds "cloudy" in the timbral realm and is poor by comparison to the other 3 amp types.
So what measurements are used for proving timbral accuracy? Why is the 300B, that has the poorest measurements by far, the best in this area?
Accuracy measurements are complicated by the fact that listeners develop their ability to discriminate over time and through exercise. It is often stated on the DIY site that you cannot remember and compare how a system sounds over time -- you need to use measurements.
Musicians laugh at this idea. They measure sound their own way and can remember, clearly, small timbral variants over a lifetime. This is because they train their mind to do this and it is part of their professional need.
But let's just stick to timbral accuracy. How do you measure this? And, please, don't misuse the word "tonality." Tonality refers to a musical style in which the piece returns to a central pitch area. It has nothing to do with timbre.
As a lifelong musician, instrument builder, and audiophile I have always been preoccupied with timbral accuracy. For the last 4 years have developed a sound system that switches effortlessly between 300B, Class A, SEPP, and A/B amplifiers. All are high-end devices.
When you compare acoustical instruments on these 4 amp types you notice that timbral accuracy changes dramatically. Stringed instruments and organs, for example, are markedly superior with the 300B. Large orchestral scores sound most accurate with Class A and SEPP. The A/B amp used -- an Emotiva XPA-1 (gen. 2) has the most power and best measurements -- by far. It is an accepted standard in the field and used by many Nashville recording studios. Yet it sounds "cloudy" in the timbral realm and is poor by comparison to the other 3 amp types.
So what measurements are used for proving timbral accuracy? Why is the 300B, that has the poorest measurements by far, the best in this area?
Accuracy measurements are complicated by the fact that listeners develop their ability to discriminate over time and through exercise. It is often stated on the DIY site that you cannot remember and compare how a system sounds over time -- you need to use measurements.
Musicians laugh at this idea. They measure sound their own way and can remember, clearly, small timbral variants over a lifetime. This is because they train their mind to do this and it is part of their professional need.
But let's just stick to timbral accuracy. How do you measure this? And, please, don't misuse the word "tonality." Tonality refers to a musical style in which the piece returns to a central pitch area. It has nothing to do with timbre.
Craigl59 - Most speakers have an impedance peak around the crossover frequency. An amplifier with high output impedance will emphasize frequencies around the speakers' crossover point. That may sound subjectively "better" (depending on the speaker), but the speaker is not performing as designed.
Ed
Ed
How about the top of this? A MAC1500 I have in my collection. I paid a lot for it and its price hasnt appreciated over the last 20, for whatever reason; if its PT and OPTs were built in the MC240 FF, it'd be in the sky...
A review here, from back in its day;
https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-High-Fidelity/60s/High-Fidelity-1966-05.pdf
A nice Sunday read, for the price of a download.
I'll take a shot. Whatever frequencies comprise the "Timbre" of a sound must remain unmolested in both relative level and phase. So if you have a pile of harmonically related frequencies, such as a guitar would make and the relative levels of each as they decay is preserved, but - say - the phase of ever other harmonic is flipped somehow, you'd probably hear that. I'm pretty sure phase molestation by some audio component is measurable.
There's a way to engineer a circuit so that it's individual distortion components can be "in" or "out" of phase, relative to a driving signal. I certainly dont know how to do that - others on this forum do, I'd bet. I've read they say it makes a difference, so that too.
These things can be measured at input and output, compared.
Time machine? I'll post the plans last Thursday, ok?
Hi Craigl59,
Well, first you addressed us incorrectly. We listen as well. Our information is augmented by measurements, so we hear what you do, and we know why. If you don't or can't access accurate measurements, you only have less than 1/2 the information. This is no longer the 1970's.
Very simply, if your system can't play all music equally well, it's broken. Flawed. End of story.
I deal with musicians and recording studios as well as audiophiles. My best informed customers are just music lovers. They know what sounds right. Their kids are great information sources as to what is right and what isn't. Kids are honest and not influenced by opinions from the industry.
Now for you. You like certain things. You would find that in systems that measure well (actually do with proper equipment and conditions) you wouldn't have any complaint. Not unless you want every system to have been run through an effects processor. That would make you a special case and not representative of the market. Some professional musicians I know love accurate systems. Instruments sound like they do in real life. Not better or different.
Again I'll say. Reproducing music is not creating it. Not even close, creation and voicing has already happened in the studio. Now it's up to us to reproduce the product. Now if you want, buy that perfect system and run it through an effects rack to make it sound the way you want. But it will be distorted, by definition. At least withthe perfect system you can start messing with it from a known place without unknown distortion in the mix.
Well, first you addressed us incorrectly. We listen as well. Our information is augmented by measurements, so we hear what you do, and we know why. If you don't or can't access accurate measurements, you only have less than 1/2 the information. This is no longer the 1970's.
Very simply, if your system can't play all music equally well, it's broken. Flawed. End of story.
I deal with musicians and recording studios as well as audiophiles. My best informed customers are just music lovers. They know what sounds right. Their kids are great information sources as to what is right and what isn't. Kids are honest and not influenced by opinions from the industry.
Now for you. You like certain things. You would find that in systems that measure well (actually do with proper equipment and conditions) you wouldn't have any complaint. Not unless you want every system to have been run through an effects processor. That would make you a special case and not representative of the market. Some professional musicians I know love accurate systems. Instruments sound like they do in real life. Not better or different.
Again I'll say. Reproducing music is not creating it. Not even close, creation and voicing has already happened in the studio. Now it's up to us to reproduce the product. Now if you want, buy that perfect system and run it through an effects rack to make it sound the way you want. But it will be distorted, by definition. At least withthe perfect system you can start messing with it from a known place without unknown distortion in the mix.
Well, I saw that on a recent thread there were those Zingers, speakers created by Wolf teeth, that are good for retrofitting old speakers, using a 8" woofer and 1" tweeter.
I remember the woofer being a dual voice coil, so 4Ω but higher power handling than an old woofer. The tweeter, same-same.
I don't call it a 'faith in science ' or rely on R&D product...We use what state of the art offers, leaded by technology and industry...
Timbre and measurement.
Let's try one more time.
What measurement system is used to assess timbral accuracy and why do certain amps sound more timbrally accurate than others?
Timbre is composed of attack, sustain and decay -- measurable elements include speed and overtone structure. What is not measured is the nature of time variance. The sound of a violin includes a broad overtone structure that begins with fricative noise followed by sustained tone and eventual decay. The sustained portion is not a single value but is time variant within parameters established by the instrument's design. So a piano "sound" has a broad overtone structure that all pianos share but within that broad structure individual instruments vary. And the way in which they vary determines their characteristic timbre -- the Steinway sound versus the Bosendorfer sound. The main difference is in the type of time variance within their sustained timbre.
Now it is possible to measure speed and frequency and distortion. But what is not measured is the time variant value of continuity -- both quantity and movement.
Again, 300B tube amps reproduce certain timbres better than SS ones. Why is this considering their (current) measurement values are less good?
As I mentioned above, have been listening to four amp types daily for years and have constantly been asking myself this timbral question.
Here's what I have determined.
The simpler the amplification design, the better it reproduces the timbral quality of continuity. Meaning, Class A amplifiers have a single input and output transistor and, so, the electronic signal is passed directly through with no conversion, addition, or alteration. Do not know, but speculate that 300B tube amps have an even simpler and more direct system of amplification. Their ability to reproduce highly complex timbre is, therefore, superior to A/B designs (and greatly superior to Class D ones). This is because as the wave form recreates the extremely subtle time variant changes acoustic instruments produce (that occur constantly and in great subtlety) this timbral quality is amplified more accurately (within the limitation of 8-10 watts volume of course).
Large A/B amps pass the signal through multiple transistors so the signal must be separated and/or divided then recombined. This process lowers timbral accuracy because the continuity is disrupted.
When listeners accustomed to digital reproduction hear quality analog for the first time they often note that it sounds "continuous." This is because the signal is not being sliced and slithered into numbers then recombined. The ear is extraordinarily adept at hearing these small waveform plateaus that lower the sense of continuity.
In both analog and amplifier cases the quality of "continuity" improves reproduction accuracy.
So I ask, further, what values and measurements could be used to assess continuity?
And, btw, it is good to remain civil in our discussions. Comments about "groups" lessen the ability of our fine forum to consider important issues.
Let's try one more time.
What measurement system is used to assess timbral accuracy and why do certain amps sound more timbrally accurate than others?
Timbre is composed of attack, sustain and decay -- measurable elements include speed and overtone structure. What is not measured is the nature of time variance. The sound of a violin includes a broad overtone structure that begins with fricative noise followed by sustained tone and eventual decay. The sustained portion is not a single value but is time variant within parameters established by the instrument's design. So a piano "sound" has a broad overtone structure that all pianos share but within that broad structure individual instruments vary. And the way in which they vary determines their characteristic timbre -- the Steinway sound versus the Bosendorfer sound. The main difference is in the type of time variance within their sustained timbre.
Now it is possible to measure speed and frequency and distortion. But what is not measured is the time variant value of continuity -- both quantity and movement.
Again, 300B tube amps reproduce certain timbres better than SS ones. Why is this considering their (current) measurement values are less good?
As I mentioned above, have been listening to four amp types daily for years and have constantly been asking myself this timbral question.
Here's what I have determined.
The simpler the amplification design, the better it reproduces the timbral quality of continuity. Meaning, Class A amplifiers have a single input and output transistor and, so, the electronic signal is passed directly through with no conversion, addition, or alteration. Do not know, but speculate that 300B tube amps have an even simpler and more direct system of amplification. Their ability to reproduce highly complex timbre is, therefore, superior to A/B designs (and greatly superior to Class D ones). This is because as the wave form recreates the extremely subtle time variant changes acoustic instruments produce (that occur constantly and in great subtlety) this timbral quality is amplified more accurately (within the limitation of 8-10 watts volume of course).
Large A/B amps pass the signal through multiple transistors so the signal must be separated and/or divided then recombined. This process lowers timbral accuracy because the continuity is disrupted.
When listeners accustomed to digital reproduction hear quality analog for the first time they often note that it sounds "continuous." This is because the signal is not being sliced and slithered into numbers then recombined. The ear is extraordinarily adept at hearing these small waveform plateaus that lower the sense of continuity.
In both analog and amplifier cases the quality of "continuity" improves reproduction accuracy.
So I ask, further, what values and measurements could be used to assess continuity?
And, btw, it is good to remain civil in our discussions. Comments about "groups" lessen the ability of our fine forum to consider important issues.
Haha, I know that this is your view, but too many 'bad' things sound wonderful, for me to agree.
0.2 % was trumpeted as superb for a tube set, e.g. McIntosh, < 1% for a Sansui 1000a, and these regularly blow away 0.001% transistor amplifiers today.
The measurement method is wrong, that's all.
Perhaps a comparism of input vs output, while driving a speaker, on real dynamic music, to a statistical correlation method that gives a good indication, perhaps with a small tunable delay for the input to find the best correlation.
I would suggest that in general 2nd harmonic, and other even harmonics, are pleasant and merely 'thicken' the sound. It's just like adding a faint octave higher note, to a note. Nice.
I'd also suggest that 3rd harmonic, and other odd harmonics, sound disproportionally unpleasant.
Perhaps this is why Triodes sound nicer that other, more complex transfer curves, and multiplication of that 2nd in any multi-stage or GNFB merely results in a 4th, 8th etc - still nice.
Very interesting. My SEP (Single ended pentode, not push-pull 🙂 is my favourite sound, I'm constantly amazed by the effortless open sound, from a single GU50.
I'm sure the THD isn't that great, but the sound is magical.
My Maplin MOSFET amplifier is good, with distortion levels low enough to make brave men weep, it's very competent, i can't really fault it, but for female folk rock, Alison Sudol, Norah Jones, Ingrid Michaelson, Amanda Rogers, Amilia K Spicer etc, and stuff like Floyd and Muse, Fleetwood Mac, AC/DC, Deep Purple... I always end up listening to my SEP tube amp... it's just less constrained, less 'polite', as if I was there.. more real.
That magazine is awesome, what an amazing scene - complete with enthusiasm and discussion of music, was back then!! Such riches! The Mac1500 looks awesome too. It's interesting that the mid to late 1960s was the transition from tube to transistor.
It fits in with this article too:
http://www.nutshellhifi.com/library/tinyhistory1.html
I do recall the old british tube (valve) stuff being considerably more reliable that the english transistor stuff - but that was in the 1970s, I don't recall the 1960s 😀
And still one of my favourite films, 'Back to the Future'!
In the film I can almost feel the freedom and hope, all the new cool things, cool cars, far more wealth in the middle class.
A different world.
Well that's an interesting idea, but perhaps horse for courses, the best vocal I've heard was on a stereo tube table-top radiom, that would be hopeless with Muse, 'The Void' etc. Perhaps we should look at a HiFi like an instrument, some instruments are better at some sounds, but not others.
For many decades there have been two schools of thought: the 'accuracy' viewpoint and the 'musical' viewpoint.
http://www.nutshellhifi.com/library/tinyhistory2.html
But for general HiFi it's not a bad philisophy I guess, the market is so niche these days that even decent department stores struggle to stock anything worthwhile.
HiFi used to me mainstream, something to aspire to. Now no one cares. Actually I stopped caring too, and stopped visiting hiFi shops when they decided selling ridiculous cables was an easier way to make money. Then I noticed in the HiFi magazines that last years top advertiser's speakers that were perfect when reviewed, were now boxy and outdated by this years super new model of speaker. Hold on - last year it was perfect, but now it's boxy? Are any of the reviews real? I had to conclude.. probably not.
I still think the measurement method is faulty, some type of music based correlation method would at least be relevant, and perhaps explain why so much 'good' stuff sounds dull.
Or awful... I still recall being at a HiFi show, retreating from a £1XX,000 (Chord+Something else) system strangling a screechy 'Money' from Floyd, it sounded so much better at home on my old 1970s-80s system it was embarrasing.
However I did find at that show a nice Usher R1.5 that I bought, that sounds good, < 0.015% THD I think
https://positive-feedback.com/reviews/hardware-reviews/usher-r-1-5-amplifier/
But it's no better than my SEP amp, the sound is very similar, but the SEP just a little more open.
And uses less electricity LOL 😀
@Craigl59,
Being also a musician, audiophile and amateur-builder, I agree that what you call Timbre - we have that same precise word in French - is indeed very difficult to measure (even by spectrum analysis) and at best, numbers can provide only an evaluation, not really a measurement of Timbre.
IMHO, Timbre has something still subjective over any objective attempt. Its perception can be influenced for the best or the worse by your "mood" of the instant, if I can say so. So it is subject to some kind of variable appreciation.
I consider rather Hi-Fi or Audiophile Elements as some kind of Musical Instruments themselves. That's why Timbre is a premium consideration to me - or more precisely the Balance of the Timbre, which I would add to Accuracy as an even more obvious character to perceive and respect.
I'll take an example : Cymbals. When my drummer hits his Crash 18" Zildjian, in no way any audio system is able to reproduce this, to my knowledge - and by far ! But I can hear if the Timbre is respected enough by the audio system, by comparison.
I don't know if this can be included in your definition of Accuracy, but that's what is the most important to me, and furthemore, it explains probably why Wide-Band speakers are so prized today, above their very measurable multiple flaws... The Timbre !
This is a strictly personal standpoint, though... 😉
T
Being also a musician, audiophile and amateur-builder, I agree that what you call Timbre - we have that same precise word in French - is indeed very difficult to measure (even by spectrum analysis) and at best, numbers can provide only an evaluation, not really a measurement of Timbre.
IMHO, Timbre has something still subjective over any objective attempt. Its perception can be influenced for the best or the worse by your "mood" of the instant, if I can say so. So it is subject to some kind of variable appreciation.
I consider rather Hi-Fi or Audiophile Elements as some kind of Musical Instruments themselves. That's why Timbre is a premium consideration to me - or more precisely the Balance of the Timbre, which I would add to Accuracy as an even more obvious character to perceive and respect.
I'll take an example : Cymbals. When my drummer hits his Crash 18" Zildjian, in no way any audio system is able to reproduce this, to my knowledge - and by far ! But I can hear if the Timbre is respected enough by the audio system, by comparison.
I don't know if this can be included in your definition of Accuracy, but that's what is the most important to me, and furthemore, it explains probably why Wide-Band speakers are so prized today, above their very measurable multiple flaws... The Timbre !
This is a strictly personal standpoint, though... 😉
T
I agree. I think this is due to a more linear, or at least a less 'odd-harmonic non-linear', core of the amplifier.
Lynn Olson goes into this in some huge depth, with FFTs etc.
Essentially I think GNFB works best on a linear amplifier. On a non-linear one, I.e. a real one, odd harmonics multiply.
When dabbling in LTSpice I noted that every stage added a phase issue, that affected terminal stability.
I.e. an LPT phase splitter was inferior to a cathodyne one, because two components needed to react now, rather than one.
So perhaps a shorter path with less components just gives a bit more phase margin - i.e. makes the phase more consistent, in some cases.
I think the older stuff, such as the Dynaco-70, still sounds better than the vast majority of modern stuff 🙂
@tubelectron:
"IMHO, Timbre has something still subjective over any objective attempt. Its perception can be influenced for the best or the worse by your "mood" of the instant, if I can say so. So it is subject to some kind of variable appreciation."
Brilliant and a main reason why I frequent these sites. This points out, precisely, why measurement systems have limitations.
My biggest issue with measurement is correlation. I have to measure my amps for bias and DC offset, my tape machines for azimuth, and on and on. These are highly correlated and the practical effect is immediate.
But making aesthetic or building decisions on the basis of testing a sample group is counterproductive in my world. Do not know how correlation can take place in this scenario.
We discussed earlier the concept of "low enough." Would add to this the idea of "correlation degree." Here you would assess the degree to which your measurement system/results relates to real world listening and equipment design/maintenance.
The continually lower distortion figures touted by equipment makers highlights this concept. People purchase equipment because it registers 0.0001% rather than 0.01%. Better number, right? Must sound better, too.
But if you consider correlation degree you decide this kind of "improvement" is irrelevant to reproduction quality.
"IMHO, Timbre has something still subjective over any objective attempt. Its perception can be influenced for the best or the worse by your "mood" of the instant, if I can say so. So it is subject to some kind of variable appreciation."
Brilliant and a main reason why I frequent these sites. This points out, precisely, why measurement systems have limitations.
My biggest issue with measurement is correlation. I have to measure my amps for bias and DC offset, my tape machines for azimuth, and on and on. These are highly correlated and the practical effect is immediate.
But making aesthetic or building decisions on the basis of testing a sample group is counterproductive in my world. Do not know how correlation can take place in this scenario.
We discussed earlier the concept of "low enough." Would add to this the idea of "correlation degree." Here you would assess the degree to which your measurement system/results relates to real world listening and equipment design/maintenance.
The continually lower distortion figures touted by equipment makers highlights this concept. People purchase equipment because it registers 0.0001% rather than 0.01%. Better number, right? Must sound better, too.
But if you consider correlation degree you decide this kind of "improvement" is irrelevant to reproduction quality.
Last edited:
@Globulator states:
"I'm sure the THD isn't that great, but the sound is magical."
Magical is a valuable term for the audio world. When I first heard 1/2 inch tape, 2 track, playing master tapes at 30ips I understood audio magic. This sound is so much more accurate and alive than any other repro device I had ever heard. Explains why so many of the great master tapes from the 50s-80s were dubbed onto these machines. And why they have never been surpassed by later media formats.
Regularly record my German Piano (Schimmel) at my sound studio with an Otari Mt-10 1/2 inch 4-track (30ips with Dolby SR) and, at the same time, Digital at 192khz/32 bits (floating). They both sound great but the analog tape is so much more realistic that the two are not at all close.
R2R is having something of a renaissance and Revox has just started issuing another B77, model 3.
Interestingly, you can still buy pre-recorded R2R tapes (mostly on EBay) with the Barclay-Crocker ones frequently available. But Revox is offering the B77 as a 2-track and this will not play the pre-recorded items that are 4-track.
"I'm sure the THD isn't that great, but the sound is magical."
Magical is a valuable term for the audio world. When I first heard 1/2 inch tape, 2 track, playing master tapes at 30ips I understood audio magic. This sound is so much more accurate and alive than any other repro device I had ever heard. Explains why so many of the great master tapes from the 50s-80s were dubbed onto these machines. And why they have never been surpassed by later media formats.
Regularly record my German Piano (Schimmel) at my sound studio with an Otari Mt-10 1/2 inch 4-track (30ips with Dolby SR) and, at the same time, Digital at 192khz/32 bits (floating). They both sound great but the analog tape is so much more realistic that the two are not at all close.
R2R is having something of a renaissance and Revox has just started issuing another B77, model 3.
Interestingly, you can still buy pre-recorded R2R tapes (mostly on EBay) with the Barclay-Crocker ones frequently available. But Revox is offering the B77 as a 2-track and this will not play the pre-recorded items that are 4-track.
Over the decades I've heard this from many in the industry, and musicians - the master tapes (tapes, not digital master files), always allow the music through best.
The fall of the HiFi industry was IMO driven by the record industry: CDs were dreadful at first, with Philips's daft choice of encoding a log signal with a linear coding, but from then on the record industry embraced the CD and resisted all attempts at better formats, hobbling the SACD.
All they really needed was 48kHz/24 or 96kHz upgraded DVDs with error correction. Instead they sat on the 44.1kHz/16 - which technically with great decoders could sound good - but at the time the CD players were all a bit rough and ready, as was the mastering - so free 320k MP3 were just as good to most potential buyers. This 'MP3 is good enough' phase coincided with internet speeds that made downloading them very easy and cheap players.
At this time there was a few years window to sell the higher resolution formats, too bulky to download, but they sat on it. Madness.
And then of course they brought out all the manufactured boy bands, auto-tune, pitch editing, more dynamic compression, and everyone lost interest and bought big TVs instead. At HiFi shows I'd note that film soundtrack quality was better than the HiFi, the film had dynamics, long stamped out of CDs.
HiFi shops then turned to selling cables for horror markups, something that turned me right off them, the honesty of buying something of value was lost in the mystique of hype and marketing BS. I note HiFi fuses are still available LOL.
https://www.analogueseduction.net/fuses/HFT-SUPF[1].html
So the decent old analogue stuff was pushed to the back, while cheap plastic dominated the shelves - we sort of lost the whole magic of HiFi.
Back in the days of Vintage, they recorded real drum kits with real snare drums you could hear, had real dynamics - e.g. 'Sky 2' on Vinyl still knocks the socks off most modern efforts IMO - the sheer dynamics are amazing.
It's nice to see Vinyl resurging, hopefully real HiFi will follow. By real I mean decent quality affordable stuff, and reconditioned vintage.
I remember the Revox, I never pursued tape as I wasn't sure how to get the music.
.. but I remember tuning the azimuth on my cassette decks. The hiss never got in the way of the music either, from cheap cassettes, and I never really understood the faff of Dolby, a wider cassette would have been better.
Perhaps S/N is also overrated, even live there is external noise, and here I can hear the fridge fan LOL, and the wind and rain today!
It is easy to tune out uncorrelated noise. Something that is clearly not the music - the amp fan, rain, even tape hiss. It doesn’t seem to get in the way of resolution unless it’s effing loud (example - wife talking your ear off while trying to listen). “Digital noise” is far worse. There may be NO background hiss on a low or even moderately high bit rate MP3, but the noise floor comes up as the signal does (maintaining a constant SNR) degrading the resolution of detail in the music. No obvious distortion, but something missing that’s back on the original lossless format. With enough bit rate it will become non obvious to me but others may continue to hear improvement. I’m more sensitive to phase errors myself and usually notice THAT before others do. Put it in L-R and it usually becomes obvious to anybody - the normally centered lead vocal track that cancels nearly perfectly on analog will go in and out of cancellation like someone is feeding that track through a flanger. It’s not far off what’s happening.
Yes. This is sometimes - not ot say often - questionable, in the sense of "is it worth ?"
IMHO, beyond that point of view and choices, there's again a matter of subjectivity, which more or less arbitrates the compromises...
The assessment - or qualification - that you describe (as quoted above) is indeed fully pertinent : I had also wondered about this dilemma in the past.
But how can be measured the "correlation degree" ? Personally, I don't see a simple way to "objectively rate" that ideal parameter...
Deduced from this, I'd rather say that this degré de corrélation (In French) falls in the end under the personal appreciation, in terms of evaluation.
Speaking personally, simply about complexity of design and building , I consider these points - unexhaustive list :
- Is the improvement of measurable performances worth ?
- Is the improvement of auditive performance worth ?
- Will the setup, the maintenance be more demanding, affecting reliability ? Is it worth to accept it ?
- Will there be scarce or critical parts to find in the future ? Is it worth to use them ? And store them for servicing ?
- Do I want to experiment, to put me a challenge ? Is Art's for Art's Sake worth ?
Finally, my decision of "worthiness" of the project - if I can say so - honestly looks like a rather subjective assessment !
Again, it's a personal standpoint, and even if guess that I am not alone in this case, unfortunately I'll be very embarassed to rate, or quote, a "correlation degree" on a defined, objectively trustable measurement scale, like Volts, Amperes, Watts, Decibels, kilograms, liters and the like... A bit like if you wanted to rate Philosophy with numbers !
I think that if such "correlation degree" rating existed, it would be from suprising to terrible for some Audio equipments and manufacturers ! 😱
T