Posts #2055 - #2058: "Realism"
Sorry for not cluttering up your screens with everything.
Gentlemen,
As one agrees with all that, I just think that the individual hearing faculty sometimes features too low. There has been ample proof/research that hearing varies from person to person - not news. To me that would mean that it possibly features more prominently in "non-instrumental presence" (e.g. home/studio auditioning) than given regard for. Apart from the usual great difference in environment between listening room and live venue, the factor that a live performance "must be right" cannot but have an influence. I mean, the sound cannot be far off; after all there are the live musicians in the flesh with real instruments!
In that sense home realism/studio realism, however distortionless in the widest sense of the term, can never be the same as "the real thing" even when the sound is by some miracle exactly the same. I feel one cannot exclude the visual effect. Regarding that, it is interesting that some tests have been performed where listeners could not statistically distinguish the difference between recorded and live - but that was with performers sitting together with loudspeakers, so that "presence" psychology was not in the equation.
Sorry for not cluttering up your screens with everything.
Gentlemen,
As one agrees with all that, I just think that the individual hearing faculty sometimes features too low. There has been ample proof/research that hearing varies from person to person - not news. To me that would mean that it possibly features more prominently in "non-instrumental presence" (e.g. home/studio auditioning) than given regard for. Apart from the usual great difference in environment between listening room and live venue, the factor that a live performance "must be right" cannot but have an influence. I mean, the sound cannot be far off; after all there are the live musicians in the flesh with real instruments!
In that sense home realism/studio realism, however distortionless in the widest sense of the term, can never be the same as "the real thing" even when the sound is by some miracle exactly the same. I feel one cannot exclude the visual effect. Regarding that, it is interesting that some tests have been performed where listeners could not statistically distinguish the difference between recorded and live - but that was with performers sitting together with loudspeakers, so that "presence" psychology was not in the equation.
Re: Posts #2055 - #2058: "Realism"
Quite right. And what is more, knowing what the recording, mixing, correcting and pressing process does with whatever the mics at the live event capture, how can anyone seriously believe that the final result depends on whether the power amp has 0.1 degree phaseshift at 20kHz or not??
The real event is a total experience, sound is of course important (that's why we go there), but the other factors should not be underestimated. Then, depending on your place in the venue, your sound stage, freq response etc all vary. Then, many 'live' events are not; they are amplified. Even so-called 'unplugged' performances are sometimes amplified, I guess that's inflation for you...
Anyway, then there is the mix-down, 'correction' of instrument and voice positions in the sound stage, some level and freq response corrections, whatever, finally it goes to press. And then we sit at home, in a complete different environment, listening to a mutilated capture of the performance and say, ehh, not quite the live event. Must be that output coil in the power amp.
Give me a break.
Jan Didden
Johan Potgieter said:
Quite right. And what is more, knowing what the recording, mixing, correcting and pressing process does with whatever the mics at the live event capture, how can anyone seriously believe that the final result depends on whether the power amp has 0.1 degree phaseshift at 20kHz or not??
The real event is a total experience, sound is of course important (that's why we go there), but the other factors should not be underestimated. Then, depending on your place in the venue, your sound stage, freq response etc all vary. Then, many 'live' events are not; they are amplified. Even so-called 'unplugged' performances are sometimes amplified, I guess that's inflation for you...
Anyway, then there is the mix-down, 'correction' of instrument and voice positions in the sound stage, some level and freq response corrections, whatever, finally it goes to press. And then we sit at home, in a complete different environment, listening to a mutilated capture of the performance and say, ehh, not quite the live event. Must be that output coil in the power amp.
Give me a break.
Jan Didden
When the sound is right, you will know it, and it will approximate a live event. Worrying over details is not important. Every performance is different, anyway. They change the auditorium almost every performance, for example.
john curl said:
And the original Raytheon-designed 4558 and 4559 begat the 4560, then the 4570, 4574, and now the 4580; all on the same old topology. I have to wonder why NECE and JRC are in what appears to be a contest to constantly "improve" this tired old design. It was obsolete the day that Signetics released their NE5532/5533/5534 chips.
Best Regards, Chuck Hansen
chascode said:
And another interesting item is that a lot of the PA equipment that we listen to when we go to a 'live' event is festooned with 4580's. So maybe we should use 4580's in our home equipment to come as close as possible to a 'live' event ? 😉
Jan Didden
Jan, true live music needs no opamps and no complementary-symmetrical JFET folded cascode circuits.
Actually, many real bands pay more attention to their PA system than to use a 4558 as a matter of course. Usually a 4558 is used in mid fi where cost is very important. Just look at the PRICE of a 4558, then look at the price of a 5532, then a pair of AD797's. With a difference of up to 40:1, at times, would convince any mid fi manufacturer that they MUST be as good as the more expensive stuff.
Many here tend to 'dumb down' the efforts of recording engineers, and at the same time agree with lessor standards.
Serious recording engineers, who want the 'best' sound can invest in more quality IC's, at least.
Many here tend to 'dumb down' the efforts of recording engineers, and at the same time agree with lessor standards.
Serious recording engineers, who want the 'best' sound can invest in more quality IC's, at least.
janneman said:
A lot of PA / studio mixing consoles sound pretty average.
When you upgrade all those OPA's it make a substantial difference
in transparency.
As a specific example I redid one console extensively. All main OPA's
were upgraded, and biased into class A, I threw the whole summing
section away and built a discrete zero FB (but very low THD)
replacement.
The sonic difference was a huge improvement.
Better quality <before> the CD gets pressed is what we are after.
If the studio guys can get a more transparent path, and use
euphonics intentionally and in a more controlled fashion, we
can allow our signal chain to be less euphonic and more CD's
will sound listenable.
That's my theory anway 🙂
T
Good for you, Terry. My discrete designs were first made for pro audio work, and I have made several high end board electronics assemblies for pro audio recording, over the decades. It is so audible that Sony allegedly banned one of my 8 channel boards from listening tests, so says CCRMA.
Even NE5532 are best to avoid, and to substitute them by OP275 makes big difference in clarity.
Terry Demol said:
True. But how about 99% of the music we buy (or download)? I know that John C made a name for himself by custom-designing electronics for the Gratefull Dead (correct me if I'm wrong John). But who can afford that now? Nowadays I see all that equipment from Rane, Behringer, what have you, I'm no expert there, but the few times I can take a peek in that sort of equipment I see 4558's and electrolytic coupling caps.
Jan Didden
Jan, you live in another world than me. Quality op amps are CHEAP! Only amateurs have budget constraints that limit them to junk products.
I have to agree with John. I can see considerable improvement with SACD/CD player, the analog part of which is completely designed with discrete components, no opamps. The noise is vanishing low, no HF content in the output, perfect low level signals both measured and listened.
A friend of mine is like Steve Eddy. He don't like transistors, but like to put quality coupling transformer everywhere 😀
I always enjoy the sight of someone who obsesses over the magnetic properties of resistor end caps sticking a big hunk of iron right in the middle of his circuit, and putting the audio signal right through it.
john curl said:
No, no John, I agree that quality opamps are cheap and that price should not deter one to use good parts.
But the fact is that amateurs and DIY'ers have no qualms about shelling out 10 $ a shot for the latest OPA, but when I open Behringer and Rane stuff, the staple of many 'live' performances, I see 4558's. So, in reality, the diy'er spends pounds and the industry tries to save pennies.
Of course I didn't really mean that we can use 4558's in our home equipment because Rane does. But knowing this situation, I find the goal of trying to approach 'live' sound with esoteric parts somewhat, shall I say, interesting 😉 .
Jan Didden
That is why I would not buy a Rane, even if the VP was a classmate of mine and even shared his class notes with me. I even got him an invite to Alembic in the old days.
That is why I would not buy a Rane, even though the VP was a classmate of mine and even shared his class notes with me. I even got him an invite to Alembic in the old days, to help him get info for his masters thesis.
I have an OLD Behringer EQ. It is pretty good, with good op amps. Now, it is made in China (I think) and not too good. However, it is the fault of the apologists for op amps, like some here, that lets the bean counters overule the concerned engineers, insisting that DB tests won't show a difference. So much for the AES, today.
I have an OLD Behringer EQ. It is pretty good, with good op amps. Now, it is made in China (I think) and not too good. However, it is the fault of the apologists for op amps, like some here, that lets the bean counters overule the concerned engineers, insisting that DB tests won't show a difference. So much for the AES, today.
john curl said:
If that's all there is, that's an easy one. Just do a well-controlled, statistically valid DB test that shows repeatable differences, and you can slap the bean counters in the face with it. Why didn't anybody think about that, anyway 😉 ..?
Jan Didden