April 2015 Toole video on sound reproduction

[NorthStar]

"Art, Science, Business" ... Science in the service of Art is our Business. ...His philosophy (@ 44:06).

Floyd E. Toole used those three words in his video. It's important, they are the essence, opinions and facts.

@ Tom & Rodney, from the previous page, thanks for sharing your experience; it was a good read.

 

[amirm]

This is not to say vinyl doesn't have a place. Some very credible folks argue that vinyl offers unique crosstalk distortion which may make the brain's job of decoding the signal a little easier. This is just a theory. I mention it just to say that I don't doubt the sincerity of those who swear by vinyl. I just think it can be improved if passed through an A to D and processed digitally for RIAA and room DSP first.

While we don't want to get into the analog versus digital debate, there is one aspect of it that impacts this thread which is important to cover. If we assume that analog does sound better, then the explanation for why lands in two domains:

1. Somehow analog is better than digital in capturing sound. From engineering and scientific point of view, this argument has least merit. I know analog advocates think this is true but I also hope they accept they have no objective argument to put forward for why the reality is such. They may still be right but they have no proper evidence to put forward to show this outside of what they say they hear. Since what we hear is subject to placebo and other distortions, then that doesn't constitute proof.

2. That the mastering, and distortions it provides as you say, are euphonic or helpful in some manner in creating a more enjoyable experience. This clearly has strong proof points as we know by definition the distortions are there and the mastering different than the CD. Whether it should result in better experience for everyone can be debated but we can't debate the difference.

In the context of this acoustic discussion, a trip to and from digital would null the benefit in #1. So if that is the belief one has, then it reasons why they would want to avoid any digital conversion.

If the belief is in #2, then a trip to and from digital should be harmless. This can be tested with a digital rip and playback but would need to eliminate listener bias against digital.

In my book, the most likely explanation for preference of analog is #2. Why else would LPs of digital recordings be preferred to straight digital delivery? Unfortunately for the opposing camp, they most likely want to think it is #1. Which gets us to the domain of conjecture because as I said, the proof points do not demonstrate any better fidelity in favor of LP. The youtube video shows a rather extreme case of how invalid that claim of more transparency can be with very audible distortions in addition to what is showing up on the scope.

So I say decide inside your gut why you believe analog sounds better. Be honest and truthful as much as you can. If that tilts you toward #2, then DSP should be another powerful arsenal in your toolbox to get better sound. If on the other hand you still want to think it is #1, that is OK. Just don't try to convince the rest of us who need more than a gut feeling to believe something technical .

 

[amirm]

I'm glad that people switched out of their 78s, I wouldn't be able to get them otherwise. I love them dames too...

Nothing in the first video to like or not like, you see a couple of signals on a scope from a beep and comments that one is generated from a mechanical system and the other from a non contact one, and so what? Have you seen the signal from a grand piano compared to a keyboard's?

What is shown there is audile distortion of a 1 Khz tone. Run either piano through it and both of them get screwed up in the same manner. I don't know how anyone can dismiss that kind of clearly audible distortion as being immaterial. The wow and flutter are both visible and audible. Nothing is high fidelity in that system.

I remember listening to Bob Stuart, founder of Meridian, showing his Philips modified CD player in an audiophile shop circa 1982. The room was full of analog lovers in this high-end audio place. So a guy raises his hand when he was finished and asked him how he could like digital compared to analog. His answer was that he loved piano and something always sounded wrong to him in analog. And that with digital, the sound was "grounded." That video clearly shows what ungrounded sound would do to piano with the notes varying annoying as they are played on the turntable. So the last example I would use is Piano in dismissing the speed related distortions shown there.

The right talking point, which I hope we have, is that stat-of-the-art turntables don't remotely have that type of wow and flutter. Precise speed control can lower the flutter frequencies below threshold of masking as to make them inaudible even though they would show clearly in scope displays. Someone tell me that this is the case and that if I play a 1 Khz tone, I don't hear those modulations. Please!

 

[Nyal Mellor]

Nyal,

The subject of almost this entire thread and the point of contention is DIGITAL EQ!

david

So you are good with room EQ, just not when it is implemented in the digital domain?

 

[ddk]

So you are good with room EQ, just not when it is implemented in the digital domain?

I'm actually in favor of both, that wasn't the argument. They're just tools Nyal and have their own uses. My arguments were first, Digital EQ isn't simple at all as suggested but complex and specialized. For it to work at a high level it also requires a knowledgeable, skilled operator and specialized tools. 2nd part of the argument was that it's (digital EQ) not a silver bullet and in case of an analog system the side effects of digitization precludes its usefulness for me. In this case I prefer to use non-digital room tuning techniques that don't completely alter the source signal.

david

 

[jkeny]

If you simply listen to those two tones, you will notice the vinyl one sounds more interesting and the digital more clinical. That amplitude modulation provides more information for your ear to hear, some call it more richness, etc, yet certainly the clean tone from the cd is not as interesting to my ear.

It's probably more interesting because it's more life-like. Sounds in nature are hardly ever pure tones - they modulate & different frequencies that come from the same audio object tend to co-modulate. This co-modulation seems to be one of the ways that we associate different frequencies as belonging to the same auditory object. I wonder if this factor has ever been investigated & reported on for vinyl playback?

Perhaps one of the appeals of vinyl is that it is more natural sounding to our auditory perception? So vinyl maybe not be as accurate a reproduction but it maybe fits better our expectations & experience of real world audio (at least in some elements) & therefore sounds more realistic, on balance? After all, this is all about illusions, not accuracy - so whatever produces the closest illusion to our auditory system's library of real world auditory objects, wins!!

Edit: So I don't think the correct phrase is "a more enjoyable experience", I believe it might be more accurately reworded "a more realistic experience". The judge in all of this is our auditory perception & it's criteria is the sounds of the real world. We really won't be able to tease this out fully until we understand more of the workings of psychoacoustics & Auditory Scene Analysis

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

So you are good with room EQ, just not when it is implemented in the digital domain?

That would seem to be David's big hangup, for better or for worse, amid all the hubbub. I note, Nyal, that he made no response to your earlier suggestion of the Rives PARC or the Meyer Sound CP10, both of which are analog parametric EQs. That was an excellent post, by the way. Rives is, however, out of business. And, since he also has a concern about ease of use, I think he should avoid the parametric type that requires measurement and entry of the discrete filter parameters.

The fact of life, as we know, is that EQ devices are more difficult to implement cleanly, efficiently and cost effectively in analog, particularly without concurrent time domain issues. That is one compound reason EQ in general among consumers never took off in the analog era. So, the newer, digital DSP approach continues on the accendancy and analog EQ is dwindling to nothingness. Analog just ain't gonna make a comeback in this product category any time soon. Also, ease of use is generally maximized by the common automatic target curve calibration method built into many DSP EQ systems, as opposed to parametric.

A hybrid approach would seem to make the most sense for our friend David, since he seems to want to avoid digital in every way possible. The hybrid approach would entail one or more subwoofers using an analog crossover, then applying DSP EQ only to the sub channel below the xover. That might provide the best of both worlds, with zero digital "pollution" of the main stereo channels.

A fair number of subwoofers might already provide this, with the digital EQ built in for the sub channel, although that EQ capability is often stripped down relative to separate EQ packages that are independent of the sub. Care in selection must also be exercised because subs are increasingly using digital for the crossovers, as well, for many of the same reasons as digital EQ. My own view is that digital crossovers implemented in DSP are miles ahead of most analog crossovers, particulary in transparency in the mid frequencies above the xover. But, we want to be sure David is happy above all else.

Here is another product that also apparently navigates this treacherous digital/analog divide:

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/dspeaker-anti-mode-8033-dsp-subwoofer-equalizer-tas-204/

My understanding is that Bob Harley, Editor of TAS, reported great results using this together with subs in his stereo setup, with which he played a great deal of analog sources material. The sub xover is analog.

There may be other devices to achieve this. Or, it can be done piecemeal with sub-components, such as the Wilson external analog subwoofer crossover plus one's choice of a DSP EQ system for the sub channels.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I am completely in agreement with you, Carl, but I do not think this referenced device is suitable in a number of ways. AFAIK, it lacks any crossover, for sub or mains. A more sophisticated device, and one that can implement crossovers, is the Anti-Mode 2.0 Dual Core. Unfortunately, its crossover is digital but that can be advantageous for some of us.
http://www.dspeaker.com/en/products/20-dual-core.shtml
http://www.stereophile.com/content/music-round-57

Here is another product that also apparently navigates this treacherous digital/analog divide:

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/dspeaker-anti-mode-8033-dsp-subwoofer-equalizer-tas-204/

My understanding is that Bob Harley, Editor of TAS, reported great results using this together with subs in his stereo setup, with which he played a great deal of analog sources material. The sub xover is analog.

There may be other devices to achieve this. Or, it can be done piecemeal with sub-components, such as the Wilson external analog subwoofer crossover plus one's choice of a DSP EQ system for the sub channels.

 

[NorthStar]

It's probably more interesting because it's more life-like. Sounds in nature are hardly ever pure tones - they modulate & different frequencies that come from the same audio object tend to co-modulate. This co-modulation seems to be one of the ways that we associate different frequencies as belonging to the same auditory object. I wonder if this factor has ever been investigated & reported on for vinyl playback?

Perhaps one of the appeals of vinyl is that it is more natural sounding to our auditory perception? So vinyl maybe not be as accurate a reproduction but it maybe fits better our expectations & experience of real world audio (at least in some elements) & therefore sounds more realistic, on balance? After all, this is all about illusions, not accuracy - so whatever produces the closest illusion to our auditory system's library of real world auditory objects, wins!!

Edit: So I don't think the correct phrase is "a more enjoyable experience", I believe it might be more accurately reworded "a more realistic experience". The judge in all of this is our auditory perception & it's criteria is the sounds of the real world. We really won't be able to tease this out fully until we understand more of the workings of psychoacoustics & Auditory Scene Analysis

About a more accurate illusion?

 

[ddk]

It's probably more interesting because it's more life-like. Sounds in nature are hardly ever pure tones - they modulate & different frequencies that come from the same audio object tend to co-modulate. This co-modulation seems to be one of the ways that we associate different frequencies as belonging to the same auditory object. I wonder if this factor has ever been investigated & reported on for vinyl playback?

Perhaps one of the appeals of vinyl is that it is more natural sounding to our auditory perception?

"Natural" is the only adjective that I care for in high end audio and imo the most difficult arrive at. Much of high end these days is focused on tech or being impressive, that impression they're trying to make might entice one to start off with but once it becomes familiar its just another coloration competing with the music. IMO the only impressing or not should come from the music, hifi shouldn't offer a distraction, then its natural. Of course its ideal and very hard to achieve but we can have various degrees of naturalness. In my case digital can be many things, including enjoyable but natural is what I struggle with. YMMV!

david

 

[Kal Rubinson]

"Natural" is the only adjective that I care for in high end audio and imo the most difficult arrive at. Much of high end these days is focused on tech or being impressive, that impression they're trying to make might entice one to start off with but once it becomes familiar its just another coloration competing with the music. IMO the only impressing or not should come from the music, hifi shouldn't offer a distraction, then its natural. Of course its ideal and very hard to achieve but we can have various degrees of naturalness. In my case digital can be many things, including enjoyable but natural is what I struggle with. YMMV!

I certainly agree with everything here (except, perhaps, all of that last sentence). The issue remains that natural is the subjective analog of accurate and, while the latter is amenable to objective measurement (albeit not easily nor completely), the former is not. As a result, your natural is not everyone's.

 

[jkeny]

About a more accurate illusion?

Well "accurate illusion" can be interpreted in many ways. Some will focus on the "accurate" part of the phrase & end up trying to use measurements as a means of evaluating this but the "illusion" part is actually where the focus should be, I believe. I'm not saying anything different then has been said many times before - we are not listening to music with analysers, we are using our auditory perception. But, because of the technical underpinning of music reproduction, its easy to forget this very basic underlying truth.

 

[jkeny]

I certainly agree with everything here (except, perhaps, all of that last sentence). The issue remains that natural is the subjective analog of accurate and, while the latter is amenable to objective measurement (albeit not easily nor completely), the former is not. As a result, your natural is not everyone's.

I don't think the bold text is correct. I think it's been said may times here that 2 channel audio is a very flawed version of the realistic audio event - the limitations of the capturing process misses so much of what is realistic that we are already starting with an unconvincing portrayal of what we know as real world audio. Unless our measurements incorporate knowledge of psychocoustics then I'm pretty sure we are losing the focus of what should be at the centre of the hobby - achieving as realistic an illusion a is feasible. Without this focus & the associated measurements that incorporate the best understanding of our mechanisms of auditory perception, we are just operating in a technical vacuum - focussing on accuracy but accuracy to what?

Fundamental to all of this is the premise that, in normal hearing, auditory perception works in roughly the same manner in all of us. The idea of preferences is a second order issue, the primary one being how best the illusion works, how many boxes it ticks off. Unfortunately, we don't yet know what all the checkboxes are.

In a way this is like trying to work out the Grand Unified Theory of Audio

 

[ddk]

That would seem to be David's big hangup, for better or for worse, amid all the hubbub. I note, Nyal, that he made no response to your earlier suggestion of the Rives PARC or the Meyer Sound CP10, both of which are analog parametric EQs. That was an excellent post, by the way. Rives is, however, out of business. And, since he also has a concern about ease of use, I think he should avoid the parametric type that requires measurement and entry of the discrete filter parameters.

I didn't comment because the exchanges were generic to the types, I wasn't soliciting advice for any specific product or project here. For that I'd call Nyal or whoever and pay them for their expertise. Also I'm not concerned with difficult, objection was to presenting complex and involved as simple. The objection to Digital EQ was in the context of an analog system where the signal needs to go through a conversion process and not the technology by itself, its just another tool.

A hybrid approach would seem to make the most sense for our friend David, since he seems to want to avoid digital in every way possible. The hybrid approach would entail one or more subwoofers using an analog crossover, then applying DSP EQ only to the sub channel below the xover. That might provide the best of both worlds, with zero digital "pollution" of the main stereo channels.

Right tool for the job, I'm not opposed to anything that works. Everything you mention are possibilities and can be applied as needed. As an example the sub solution you mentioned and which in someways the simplest to implement, is historically impossible for me to use as a tool. I haven't found a way to satisfactorily way to isolate the low frequency energy in an apartment building or other multi-family dwellings. In this situation any room tuning solution that involves subs, digital or otherwise is a non-starter by definition. There's no universal situation or solution, when the time comes and I need help the correct thing is to call the right expert and pay for their services, devising plans here is amateur hour...[/QUOTE]

david

 

[ddk]

I certainly agree with everything here (except, perhaps, all of that last sentence). The issue remains that natural is the subjective analog of accurate and, while the latter is amenable to objective measurement (albeit not easily nor completely), the former is not. As a result, your natural is not everyone's.

Everything I wrote there is in first person. My personal criteria of accurate and/or high end is "Natural" as it relates to music reproduction. You're right, its not universal and everyone's "Natural" can be different. Fortunately this is one of those occasions that we can all take our own merry paths individually and not be accountable to anyone else!

david

 

[amirm]

Also I'm not concerned with difficult, objection was to presenting complex and involved as simple.

But it is simple in bass frequencies with a parametric equalizer. It takes me a minute or two to perform a measurement, pull down a peak and do an AB and listen for the effect. There is no unknown here. You are in control of how much or how little you pull down the peak and results instantly verifiable.

I am not an LP guy but I suspect getting a new tonearm and installing and tuning it is years more work than the filter programming above.

I haven't found a way to satisfactorily way to isolate the low frequency energy in an apartment building or other multi-family dwellings. In this situation any room tuning solution that involves subs, digital or otherwise is a non-starter by definition.

How is the same amount of bass energy coming out of the mains speaker any different? If your sub is playing deeper and louder than this, just turn it down.

There's no universal situation or solution, when the time comes and I need help the correct thing is to call the right expert and pay for their services, devising plans here is amateur hour...

Using a parametric EQ requires knowledge that not everyone has. But it is trivial to learn and do. It is far less work to learn than many other audio endeavors. Positioning speakers and listener for example is orders of magnitude harder than using the EQ.

If you want to have good sound, and consider yourself skilled at delivering it, then learning to use an EQ for low frequency is part of the education and mandatory toolset. It is no different than other examples of audio optimization I have given.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Well "accurate illusion" can be interpreted in many ways. Some will focus on the "accurate" part of the phrase & end up trying to use measurements as a means of evaluating this but the "illusion" part is actually where the focus should be, I believe. I'm not saying anything different then has been said many times before - we are not listening to music with analysers, we are using our auditory perception. But, because of the technical underpinning of music reproduction, its easy to forget this very basic underlying truth.

I disagree. It's very easy to remember in the face of actual recordings. And if the "accurate" system sounds warm and natural playing great recordings - and it does - then it is right. The system that makes harsh recording easier to listen to will make the best recordings unnaturally soft. I'm really at a loss as to how that can be denied.

Tim

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I don't think the bold text is correct. I think it's been said may times here that 2 channel audio is a very flawed version of the realistic audio event - the limitations of the capturing process misses so much of what is realistic that we are already starting with an unconvincing portrayal of what we know as real world audio.

I was not restricting consideration to stereo only. A functional definition of natural (or realistic) is that something closely resembles the real thing in nature or, in this case, the creation of live music in the real world. That is a subjective assessment analogous to the an objective assessment of accuracy.

Fundamental to all of this is the premise that, in normal hearing, auditory perception works in roughly the same manner in all of us. The idea of preferences is a second order issue, the primary one being how best the illusion works, how many boxes it ticks off. Unfortunately, we don't yet know what all the checkboxes are.

It depends on your definition of perception. If you are talking about the transduction/encoding process, it is roughly the same in all of us. However, conscious perception/awareness varies greatly from person to person or, even with a single person, over time and context. Soooo.......

In a way this is like trying to work out the Grand Unified Theory of Audio

We can take shots at it.

 

[amirm]

As promised, the first chapter of the tutorial on room measurement is here: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...torial-for-Dummies-Part-1&p=319411#post319411

 

[jkeny]

I disagree. It's very easy to remember in the face of actual recordings. And if the "accurate" system sounds warm and natural playing great recordings - and it does - then it is right. The system that makes harsh recording easier to listen to will make the best recordings unnaturally soft. I'm really at a loss as to how that can be denied.

Tim

Sure, if any system sounds natural then it is doing something right, I don't disagree. I do think that analogue gets certain aspects of the illusion correct & others not so much & the same goes for digital but they are different aspects it gets correct.

As regards harsh recordings, we do get into the zone of confusion with this one, as Toole says