Come on guys, let's not parse about what is HI FI and what is 'sweetening' of an existing source.
I have heard with my own ears that adding Aphex to a 'dead' sound source can make it sound more 'alive' and 'realistic'. Once to the point that I got all the GD members to listen to it, 45 years ago, and I was tactfully told by Jerry Garcia that is was a 'sweetener' not a 'miracle'. IF the test had better HI FI reproduction in the first place, it would not have needed the Aphex. Keep that in mind guys.
I have heard with my own ears that adding Aphex to a 'dead' sound source can make it sound more 'alive' and 'realistic'. Once to the point that I got all the GD members to listen to it, 45 years ago, and I was tactfully told by Jerry Garcia that is was a 'sweetener' not a 'miracle'. IF the test had better HI FI reproduction in the first place, it would not have needed the Aphex. Keep that in mind guys.
Last edited:
Stereophile on Snake Oil
There is a good article in December 2018 issue of Stereophile on Snake Oil, by Jim Austin. I could not find it in the web version, so please find the part I mean attached. I think it exactly reflects what is going on here and on another "audiophile" forums as well. My scanner is off, so I could only make a night-photograph copy, my apologies.
There is a good article in December 2018 issue of Stereophile on Snake Oil, by Jim Austin. I could not find it in the web version, so please find the part I mean attached. I think it exactly reflects what is going on here and on another "audiophile" forums as well. My scanner is off, so I could only make a night-photograph copy, my apologies.
Attachments
Have you connected your CD player to the electric guitar amp/speaker combo and listen to music for an hour?
//
//
That's about what I have been saying, that people focus attention in a particular way when they know which device, file, or whatever, they are listening to, and it is the focusing of attention on different aspects of the sound that makes two similar things sound more different than they really are.
Yes to the former, I knew we would all get there in the end.
As to the latter, the process (technique) you are referring to is known as 'tri-colour separation photography' I happen to be an published expert on this technique. If some of you find this groaningly upsetting - then tough. Anyway, I will explain......
All two dimensional colour artworks will eventually fade and lose their colour fidelity. Over time, we get so used to this phenomenon that it becomes impossible to remember what an artwork looked like originally. So, from a conservation perspective, we need a high fidelity record of the original. Something that is in its self not susceptible to fading.
Before the advent of digital, this used to be done by making three separate exposures through narrow cut spectrum red, green, and blue colour separation filters onto panchromatic black and white film. The film image, made of silver halides, is then gold toned, thereby rendering the negatives impervious to oxidation. Stored away in the cool, dry and sterile dark, these separations will last for a least 1000 years. There are some extremely wise institutions who do both analog and digital conservation recordings of artworks, as digital is not yet future proof, whereas analog is.
This is were it gets really interesting. Unlike conventional tripack colour film, there is no bleeding of colour into a chemical matrix where fidelity is subsequently lost. Instead, the separated colour information remains intact, and is recombined at a later date through what was known as the 'dye transfer' process. The results are truly astonishing. Check out the work of the photographer William Eggleston.
So now let's look at how this relates to high fidelity sound. A piece of analog black and white negative film is made up of a theoretical infinite number of shades of grey. However, If that piece of film is digitally scanned into a 16bit colour space, it will result in a mere 4096 shades of grey, from a pure white to a pure black. The reality is that the 1st bit contains too much highlight information to compress losslessly with any efficiency, and the 16th bit contains too little genuine information, except for a lot of randomised noise, to effectively represent the shadows.So the result is mathematically clipped into 14bits of information within a 16bit colour space.
This is for each RGB channel. So we are talking about a 48bit tricolour separation colour space containing billions of colours, and the human eye can only see in millions of colours. A fully tricked out colour inkjet printer can only reproduce thousands of colours. However, the eye will see the final colour CMYK print out in what appears to be full range high fidelity colour, or shall I say the successful ILLUSION of high fidelity colour.
In the context of this audio orientated discussion, I see no essential difference between digitised light or digitised sound as the fidelity is again entirely, yet convincingly illusional. To say otherwise can from a real world listening perspective can/should/could be considered - delusional.
If we look back to before the invention of magnetic sound recording, we had in early cinema the optical soundtrack on film. This can be seen in depth at the beginning of Disney's Fantasia in the funky animation depicting sound waves from a bassoon and a piccolo. The film itself was shot in tricolour separation Technicolor. I have seen Fantasia as it was meant to be and it is a truly fantastic piece of audiovisual cinema.
There must somebody out there with enough smarts to make high fidelity optical sound recordings onto microfilm and just run with it.
Over to you, John.
Which is fine - if you like it, it's good. Excellent - you are happy.
The problem comes when someone says that their subjective preference is right, that other views are wrong. That's what the whole discussion is about...
.... and "Springfield" (his original spelling) is Dusty Springfield
This just reflects what this guy is writing on audio, Springfield-Springstein-Springsteen doesn't matter, right?
Yes, you are absolutely right. However, my subjective preferences change from day to day, even hour to hour on every aspect of life in the realm of the senses. I am completely aware of my own tiny speck of nothingness. There is nothing for me to hold onto, and plenty to grasp - if I choose to.
I think what you are referring to is the marked degree of solipsism quite evident at times within the discussion.
PS: You make synths? - what a dude!
Hi Scott,
That's what I was about to ask. This should be self evident to anyone who have ever played an instrument.
Hi tapestryofsound ,
We can only go on what you write here. You made the comment, and I made an observation. No insult was intended, but I can't control how you take things I might "say".
I think I've made instruments before - acoustic. I've repaired countless electric guitars and power amplifiers over the years. I've always been in awe of those who can create any sound they choose to. I've spent many, many hours in recording studios watching them create content. A sometimes painful process where you hear one rif over and over as they try to get it right. In the end, whatever they create is sent to the public in some form. After that, our job is to attempt to reproduce what was created in the studio. Most of my life has been concerned with audio reproduction, and to make flaws as pleasant as possible. I've spent over 40 years doing this as my main focus. The difference between creation and reproduction of music is clear and distinct. So different are they that you must know the difference. There may
only be a few people who don't see the difference here, and I doubt you are one of those.
-Chris
That's what I was about to ask. This should be self evident to anyone who have ever played an instrument.
Hi tapestryofsound ,
We can only go on what you write here. You made the comment, and I made an observation. No insult was intended, but I can't control how you take things I might "say".
I think I've made instruments before - acoustic. I've repaired countless electric guitars and power amplifiers over the years. I've always been in awe of those who can create any sound they choose to. I've spent many, many hours in recording studios watching them create content. A sometimes painful process where you hear one rif over and over as they try to get it right. In the end, whatever they create is sent to the public in some form. After that, our job is to attempt to reproduce what was created in the studio. Most of my life has been concerned with audio reproduction, and to make flaws as pleasant as possible. I've spent over 40 years doing this as my main focus. The difference between creation and reproduction of music is clear and distinct. So different are they that you must know the difference. There may
only be a few people who don't see the difference here, and I doubt you are one of those.
-Chris
- Status
- Not open for further replies.