Music is an art form that is given by the musicians, singers, sound engineers and producers. The final form of any piece of music is the result of decisions made by these people. A recorded piece of music is equivalent to an original framed and mounted painting; this is the painting, now look at it and enjoy, and so; this is the piece of music, enjoy.
Accuracy of reproduction is all important so that you can see/hear the art form in the way that the musician/artist/singer/sound engineer intended.
To add colour to any piece of music due to 2nd/3rd order distortion because it pleases your ears is like going to an art gallery with a variety of coloured filters to look at paintings through.......?!!
Accuracy of reproduction is all important so that you can see/hear the art form in the way that the musician/artist/singer/sound engineer intended.
To add colour to any piece of music due to 2nd/3rd order distortion because it pleases your ears is like going to an art gallery with a variety of coloured filters to look at paintings through.......?!!
Almost there but...flawed.
Painting,sculpturing and photography are the arts of stillness.Dead.
On the contrary music is ethereal.It moves and flows,in ways unknown to us,mostly.
If thus,how on earth or in universe,do we know what the "poet" had in his mind ,doing the certain piece of art that we are trying to reproduce with accuracy?
And to push it to the end... what was in Mozart's mind while composing a piece? The performance that our disc copy plays,or the other interpetations by other "meisters" ? Played by whom ,and with what instruments?
Off to the recording studio..
What were the production values?Who is the sound engineer?How heavy handed is the mastering engineer,and how much high, in the accuracy scale are his tools...? We can write a book ,with all the parameters and the variables,that are sealed for ever,into a piece of music,and are proclaiming ACCURACY.
Opinion,yes.Perception yes.Preference,yes.Accuracy no.
Oh and btw,how do you know the quality of the glasses that, hypothetically speaking,your hypothetical painter ,was wearing? And how the lighting in his place was? Or what brands of pigments he was using?
The mind boggles.
B.L
And if someone goes to art gallery with coloured glasses, who is to stop them?
They have their free will to change the appearance of any artwork they buy.
Anybody can rebuild and modify his car .. even if it was a standard product.
So, those who do not believe in going for lowest possible distortion, using exact op-amps,
can buy a reproduction of Mona-Lisa by Leonardo Da Vinci,
paint her smiling lips red
and colour her hair blonde!
😉
To each his own ....
Hello
Not all tube studio equipment do lack of accucary for recording, look at Manley Labs Pro Studio Equipment, I still have some VTL music cd that was record with that equipments, before it's split in two companies, they sound superb without any lack of accucary.
Bye
Gaetan
Last edited:
Hi lineup,
what you say is of course true, but my point is that the music/art we listen to/look at is presented to us as "they intended" whether we agree with the way they have done it or not.
I myself would never want to change the picture that any artist had produced; that to me would be the highest form of arrogance. I might want to create the best lighting conditions in order to see the picture or whatever in the best possible light, but nothing else. This is why I have speakers that can re-produce the full range of frequencies that might be on any recording that I might choose to play.
Yes, it might be amusing for awhile to see how the art looked under different conditions but not for long. The original is after all an expression of the creative urge of the "artist" and not our own creative urges.
With music we can electronically do almost anything with it when in the digital domain and yet all efforts are still set to achieve the maximum possible fidelity delivery from the original source material to our ears. When I say "fidelity" I of course mean the re-production of all intended effects and distortions added by the recording production process as well.
At some point in the future there will be complete control of the sound coming to your ears with many levels of error correction feedback performed with digital algorithms that will remove all distortions from the original data stream created by amplifiers and speakers (not your ears of course) and then add whatever distortion mechanisms that you like, as much as you like, and when you like. Actually that is more than likely possible now.
Hi wjlamp,
I have never heard anyone describe the arts of painting, sculpture and photography as being "dead"; At least not as a generalisation. I am sure that you do not mean that.
Sure, a lot of painting and sculpture and photography is amazingly dull and basically "crap" but so is a lot of music. There is a lot of "dead" music out there, and there is a lot of crap music out there. There is Bob Dylan's versions of Christmas Carols
for instance............!? Both dead and crap.
Cheers
Time for a cup of tea.
what you say is of course true, but my point is that the music/art we listen to/look at is presented to us as "they intended" whether we agree with the way they have done it or not.
I myself would never want to change the picture that any artist had produced; that to me would be the highest form of arrogance. I might want to create the best lighting conditions in order to see the picture or whatever in the best possible light, but nothing else. This is why I have speakers that can re-produce the full range of frequencies that might be on any recording that I might choose to play.
Yes, it might be amusing for awhile to see how the art looked under different conditions but not for long. The original is after all an expression of the creative urge of the "artist" and not our own creative urges.
With music we can electronically do almost anything with it when in the digital domain and yet all efforts are still set to achieve the maximum possible fidelity delivery from the original source material to our ears. When I say "fidelity" I of course mean the re-production of all intended effects and distortions added by the recording production process as well.
At some point in the future there will be complete control of the sound coming to your ears with many levels of error correction feedback performed with digital algorithms that will remove all distortions from the original data stream created by amplifiers and speakers (not your ears of course) and then add whatever distortion mechanisms that you like, as much as you like, and when you like. Actually that is more than likely possible now.
Hi wjlamp,
I have never heard anyone describe the arts of painting, sculpture and photography as being "dead"; At least not as a generalisation. I am sure that you do not mean that.
Sure, a lot of painting and sculpture and photography is amazingly dull and basically "crap" but so is a lot of music. There is a lot of "dead" music out there, and there is a lot of crap music out there. There is Bob Dylan's versions of Christmas Carols
for instance............!? Both dead and crap.
Cheers
Time for a cup of tea.
How could you possibly listen to a recording as "they intended" unless you listened to it in the same studio using the same equipment that was used to mix and master the recording?
I'm not aware of the existence of a perfect loudspeaker. Each is ultimately its own set of "colored glasses." And every recording made is made looking through a particular set of "colored glasses." So how can you hope to listen to a wide variety of recordings "as intended" without an equally wide variety of "colored glasses"?
What are you going to do, wheel in a pair of JBL 4350's for some recordings and a pair of B&W 801's for others?
It's folly.
Music is subjective. From the making of the instruments, to the performance, to the recording, etc. The highest form of arrogance in my opinion is the notion that that subjectivity must suddenly come to a grinding halt once the recording has been made. That the artist's patrons are to subservient to the artist.
No one should be subservient to anyone else. The artist should make music to please himself. The listener should listen to please themself. Simple as that.
se
I've learnt to stay clear of threads that go along these lines... but the "paintings" thing is interesting... but you still just don't get the "bigger picture" do you 😛
If you have viewed, and enjoyed viewing a masterpiece, suppose you suddenly found out that there were several near identical pictures all done by the artist at the same time but with slightly different hues and shades of light and dark. I'm sure your favourite wouldn't be the same as the artists or the closest to the original image that the artist intended.
Would you still stick with your opinion that the picture you viewed at first with no knowledge of the others is "the best".
Which would choose to hang on the wall ? the one you liked at first, or the one that the artist said was best, or perhaps one of the others ?
So which sound system do you prefer, the one that sounds fantastic with most stuff, that has a real "something" about it the like of which you have never heard before ?
Or the one that is technically best, passing the audio in it's purest form, even if you don't actually like the sound it makes on most material.
Enjoy your music folks
I do 😉
If you have viewed, and enjoyed viewing a masterpiece, suppose you suddenly found out that there were several near identical pictures all done by the artist at the same time but with slightly different hues and shades of light and dark. I'm sure your favourite wouldn't be the same as the artists or the closest to the original image that the artist intended.
Would you still stick with your opinion that the picture you viewed at first with no knowledge of the others is "the best".
Which would choose to hang on the wall ? the one you liked at first, or the one that the artist said was best, or perhaps one of the others ?
So which sound system do you prefer, the one that sounds fantastic with most stuff, that has a real "something" about it the like of which you have never heard before ?
Or the one that is technically best, passing the audio in it's purest form, even if you don't actually like the sound it makes on most material.
Enjoy your music folks
I do 😉
The terrible 😉 situation could arise:
- That the technically best is the one that sounds best, too.
Why do people always asume that an amplifier with great specs have to sound less good?
And those with plenty of distortions have a great enjoyable sounding.
The truth is that a good and proper amplifier with good data
will generally give a faithful reproduction of music.
Without any disturbing additions.
Another situation.
The aartist want music to sound bad. With plenty 3rd, 5th dist.
Now an audiophile runs music through his system
which adds plenty of 2nd order dist.
To soften up and make more 'enjoyable'.
This of course destroys the original intention of the artist.
If we are intested in artists & their music
we should try to get a good and high fidelity experience of their artwork.
At least this is my opinion. 🙂
Hi wjlamp,
I have never heard anyone describe the arts of painting, sculpture and photography as being "dead"; At least not as a generalisation. I am sure that you do not mean that.
Sure, a lot of painting and sculpture and photography is amazingly dull and basically "crap" but so is a lot of music. There is a lot of "dead" music out there, and there is a lot of crap music out there. There is Bob Dylan's versions of Christmas Carols
for instance............!? Both dead and crap.
Hi,
it looks like you've missed the previous line.Before the word Dead. I wrote:
'arts of stillness'.Dead.
I do not know the exact words ,or idiom in your language,English,aren't my mother language,but how do you call a painting of a field with flowers?
For us is "dead nature". Still. The artist have picked the moment.Nothing else.
But music is comlpetely opposite to that.
I hope that its more easily understood,as far as,dead arts.
Regards
B.L.
I have never heard anyone describe the arts of painting, sculpture and photography as being "dead"; At least not as a generalisation. I am sure that you do not mean that.
Sure, a lot of painting and sculpture and photography is amazingly dull and basically "crap" but so is a lot of music. There is a lot of "dead" music out there, and there is a lot of crap music out there. There is Bob Dylan's versions of Christmas Carols
for instance............!? Both dead and crap.
Hi,
it looks like you've missed the previous line.Before the word Dead. I wrote:
'arts of stillness'.Dead.
I do not know the exact words ,or idiom in your language,English,aren't my mother language,but how do you call a painting of a field with flowers?
For us is "dead nature". Still. The artist have picked the moment.Nothing else.
But music is comlpetely opposite to that.
I hope that its more easily understood,as far as,dead arts.
Regards
B.L.
Hi,
a perfect example of your post,is an old Phillips ad,just a day minus one,before the launch of 'perfect sound forever'.Year 1983
A human head dissected vertically in a half man, half machine motif.
A bunch of cables were plugged to the robo side,and the human side was aurally connected to sounwaves emanating from a speaker.
The logo was ' anyside you choose...'
B.L.
I always used to assume that the amp with the best specs sounded the best.
I have bought amps in the past on the basis of "great specs" in the sure knowledge I would end up with a great sounding system... I used to kid myself it was me, or the CD's or the tape as to why it just seemed to lack something.
I built the "blameless" amps... same problem.
Ultimately it's totally subjective... I know the sound I like.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Perhaps there is another way of looking at the injection of H2/H3, or perhaps the 'turning of a blind eye' to the level of H2/H3 produced by an amp.
I have read more than once a claim that the human ear/brain rejects distortion of a particular nature - that which is naturally generated by the ear itself. I believe this has been measured and documented. The findings, if I remember, were that the ear generates a fair bit of H2 and H3 and some higher order products in a particular descending profile of amplitude. Our brains have evolved to tune out this distortion as natural.
Now, an amplifier that generates distortion products that are not natural to the brain sounds bad. An amplifier that has a dominant H5 say, or a lot more H3 than H2 would not be an unusual situation. By adding H2/H3 it is in principle, possible to generate a distortion profile that is closer to that which the brain will naturally filter out. In this case, the added distortion masks the distortion that was there and can not be removed. At the end, we find the sound is preferable. These amplifiers are not as clean as an amplifier that has low distortion to begin with but these amplifiers may be preferred for other reasons not directly related to the distortion profile and hence overall they are a very good way to enjoy music.
I don't claim to be an expert here, just reminding us of a different viewpoint.
I have read more than once a claim that the human ear/brain rejects distortion of a particular nature - that which is naturally generated by the ear itself. I believe this has been measured and documented. The findings, if I remember, were that the ear generates a fair bit of H2 and H3 and some higher order products in a particular descending profile of amplitude. Our brains have evolved to tune out this distortion as natural.
Now, an amplifier that generates distortion products that are not natural to the brain sounds bad. An amplifier that has a dominant H5 say, or a lot more H3 than H2 would not be an unusual situation. By adding H2/H3 it is in principle, possible to generate a distortion profile that is closer to that which the brain will naturally filter out. In this case, the added distortion masks the distortion that was there and can not be removed. At the end, we find the sound is preferable. These amplifiers are not as clean as an amplifier that has low distortion to begin with but these amplifiers may be preferred for other reasons not directly related to the distortion profile and hence overall they are a very good way to enjoy music.
I don't claim to be an expert here, just reminding us of a different viewpoint.
Certainly this technique might be a way of "bypassing" nature,and cheat the brain.As with low level noise -dither -in a digital signal in order to linearize it. I read about it, in Audio magazine,in the mid 80's.
But do not forget,that serious acoustic research in the labs is not using,music.
Only sounds,and waveforms but not of the musical kind.Not only that they do not care,but because it is unmeasurable.
Even the supposed special audiophile press,steers away exit left.Correct me if I 'm wrong.
So what we have. A series of graphics,produced by equipment with their own kind of distortions,based on acquired knowledge,personal bias,and two,not always good, ears.
In the majority of times,these tests are conducted under controlled conditions,anechoic rooms et all.
The outcome? Straight frequency responses,into their mechanicoelectrical limits. Have you ever heard a ruler flat frequency response? It can be done today,I assure you. You will be running for cover. It is the most amusical sound.But it gives marketable, straight lines.
Let us take the assumption that it is good.Try replicate the same measurements in your ideal audio room . The ruler flat line is more like the mountains, Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls.Not too sane to print in a leaflet and present it to AES.It is not politically correct,because the market will not take it. Therefore give what they thing that they want. Hi end ? Hi end,SACD ? SACD, HDTV ? HDTV class D? CLASS D.
Have you ever wondered my friend,if you allow me to call you my friend,why "The Girl Can't Help it?". Is it because she doesn't know,is it because she doesn't care,is it because she doesn't want? Or maybe because she isn't a girl !!!
Regards
B.L
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I've no idea how flat my speakers and amps are. I thought it would be nice to be able to measure it but I don't have a PC with a sound card, software and microphones and really can't be bothered to get all that. But I agree with your point, once you've immersed yourself into the DIY world it's impossible to look at commercial gear without a sense of distaste in some cases and perhaps in others just a quiet smile to oneself.
Last edited:
I could add that a thunderous laugh,in some cases,eases the pressure more.
It is a hobby after all,and we ought it to ourselves to have a good time ,while at it.
Regards
B.L.
I forgot to mention here... if you take a vacuum tube and stick it in a circuit like that it's not running at the voltages needed for vacuum tunes. Tubes need like 300 volts, and that CD player was probably running on something like 15V. Low voltage "starved plate" circuits give even more distortion and an aggregated tube sound.
That type of tube circuit is used all the time.... in electric guitar distortion effect boxes!
I must say this, I have long time been a discrete-transistor man.
Circuits I have built and circuits I design with help of SPICE still are mostly transistors.
I even have begun to SPICE and see what can be done with Triode tubes. (6DJ8 and 6H30P)
But I have also now used Op-Amps.
If you want to construct a very low distortion amplifier
then op-amps are the quick, reliable and easy way.
You would have to attach many many transistors to acheive the quality one op-amp has.
My favourite op-amp for my circuits is OPA134 (single channel of OPA2134).
It has FET-input, is resonably stable, pretty fast och has a lot of output current.
There is nothing wrong with opamps.
And there are many cases they simplify designing enormously.
Compared to our loved discrete devices.
Circuits I have built and circuits I design with help of SPICE still are mostly transistors.
I even have begun to SPICE and see what can be done with Triode tubes. (6DJ8 and 6H30P)
But I have also now used Op-Amps.
If you want to construct a very low distortion amplifier
then op-amps are the quick, reliable and easy way.
You would have to attach many many transistors to acheive the quality one op-amp has.
My favourite op-amp for my circuits is OPA134 (single channel of OPA2134).
It has FET-input, is resonably stable, pretty fast och has a lot of output current.
There is nothing wrong with opamps.
And there are many cases they simplify designing enormously.
Compared to our loved discrete devices.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.