Introduction and Listening Biases

[PeterA]

IMHO the situation is not being clearly defined. Most of the time the "crispy delineated and clear image" is the result of omitting the natural bloom and decay of voices, including room acoustics. IMHO, if tweaking the system can enhance our perception this information, this means that the tweak is either absorbing some nasty interference that masks the original information or enhancing some information existing in the recording.

I think we must separate two situations - systems that systematically broaden images, giving a diffuse soundstage independently of recording, and those who are able to give a natural image and soundstage, not a pin point type, when the recording has this information, and precise and sharp when the recording has been made in such way. At the other extreme we have systems that systematically sound crispy and sharp.

Please note that, as usually, I am addressing non amplified music.

This is an excellent point, microstrip, and the distinction is worth discussing. I have noticed in the best systems that I have heard, that they have an ability, with the right recordings, to distinguish the origin of the sound, ie, the singer's mouth or the strings/body of the violin, and the sound that emerges or explodes into the listening space. When a system can do that and not simply present the sound as a 2D plane, or even a 3D image behind the speakers that is "viewed" from the listening seat, but rather experienced because it envelopes the listener and fills the room, as it does in good concert halls, then, that system is doing something right. But everything has to be working - the system, the room and the recording.

 

[ack]

A question for people whose philosophical objective is to "2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape":

There seems to be a fair consensus that an audio system which reproduces a solo vocalist with a crisply delineated and clear image is creating that image in an artificial way. The consensus seems to be that, in real life, solo vocalists are a bit diffuse and are not crisply and solidly outlined. (I like the clearly defined solo vocalist image. I never thought of it as being artificially and inaccurately clear delineated.)

LL21 suggests that the clearly delineated solo vocalist image may be an artifact of the way the microphone picks up the sound. Let's assume that this is the case -- that the microphone artificially and inaccurately creates an overly clearly delineated solo vocalist image which does not occur in real life.

For proponents of objective 2) a proper audio system would faithfully re-create this artificial and inaccurately delineated and outlined solo vocalist image. Would it not be better to have a system which re-creates more accurately the more diffuse image of a real life solo vocalist performance?

Let's assume that a proponent of objective 1) -- recreate the sound of an original musical event -- can achieve the more diffuse and realistic solo vocalist image by putting Shun Mooks under his amplifier. Should he accept the master tape objective of 1) or should he modify it to recreate the extra-tape realism of 2)?

Would it not be better??? Sure, it would be; but then you would make every recording diffuse. I find such efforts - to editorialize recordings - an exercise in futility, though it works for some recordings. Said otherwise, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with trying to accurately reproduce the recordings themselves, though I understand not everyone likes that. But I do think modifying the recordings to suite one's tastes is fundamentally wrong.

 

[Detlof]

Would it not be better??? Sure, it would be; but then you would make every recording diffuse. I find such efforts - to editorialize recordings - an exercise in futility, though it works for some recordings. Said otherwise, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with trying to accurately reproduce the recordings themselves, though I understand not everyone likes that. But I do think modifying the recordings to suite one's tastes is fundamentally wrong.

I respect this philosophy and I think I understand the reasons for it, but do we not, alone by our choice of gear, modify how the software is presented, to suit our tastes in the same way as we would perhaps put a certain type of light on a painting to better bring to the fore what we think, what the artist had in mind?
Although i am fully aware, that fiddling with a recording, be it with filtering or with tone controls can easily lead to sonic disaster, I also know, that there are tons of musically valid recordings which are recorded in an awful way. In these cases, I am glad, that my system allows me some correction, via the professional x-over, a dbx, which came with my speakers. In my philosophy I' d rather not be the slave of a production which I find flawed.

 

[ack]

With any editorializing system that I hear, I always ask the question: how can you _predictably_ get from Point A (the recording) to Point B (the sound you like) with _every_ recording, without the use of detrimental signal processing (be it cables that rolloff the highs, or cables that bloat the bass, equalizers, or what you do, etc). The answer is, you can't. That's why I consider these approaches fundamentally flawed. But I do also respect the fact you get the sound that you _like_.

 

[Detlof]

With any editorializing system that I hear, I always ask the question: how can you _predictably_ get from Point A (the recording) to Point B (the sound you like) with _every_ recording, without the use of detrimental signal processing (be it cables that rolloff the highs, or cables that bloat the bass, equalizers, or what you do, etc). The answer is, you can't. That's why I consider these approaches fundamentally flawed. But I do also respect the fact you get the sound that you _like_.

If you put it this way I do agree completely. I do not tweak sound through cables, I do not use the equalising functions which my dbx offers. i have used its drp when setting up the speakers and I will sometimes, but rarely, twiddle with the slopes of of its three way x-over on the fly, while listening. I was an absolute "purist" before with my Sound Labs, but had to suffer through some terrible recordings, now I suffer a tad less if need be, but also that has its price, in that a x- over working in the digital domain costs me some resolving power. Not much mind you, but sometimes I miss my big stators. There simply ain' t no free lunch.

 

[PeterA]

With any editorializing system that I hear, I always ask the question....

Ack, have you ever heard a system that does not editorialize? And if you have, can you describe this system? How are you certain that it was not editorializing the information on the recording in some way? Or are you simply saying that every system editorializes in some way.

To take just one example, we have all heard cables that roll off the highs or bloat the bass more than some other cables. But at what point, and how can we know, that a cable that does this less than other cables is still not adding some coloration to the signal? Perhaps it is adding something which we hear as a clean, highly detailed sound but in fact is a slight addition of high frequency distortion?

Is looking at a clean square wave (cable) or flat frequency response graph (system) sufficient to tell us that either is not editorializing the recording? Also, does not a system's interaction with a specific room editorialize every recording?

 

[DaveyF]

Ack, have you ever heard a system that does not editorialize? And if you have, can you describe this system? How are you certain that it was not editorializing the information on the recording in some way? Or are you simply saying that every system editorializes in some way.

To take just one example, we have all heard cables that roll off the highs or bloat the bass more than some other cables. But at what point, and how can we know, that a cable that does this less than other cables is still not adding some coloration to the signal? Perhaps it is adding something which we hear as a clean, highly detailed sound but in fact is a slight addition of high frequency distortion?

Is looking at a clean square wave (cable) or flat frequency response graph (system) sufficient to tell us that either is not editorializing the recording? Also, does not a system's interaction with a specific room editorialize every recording?

Peter, all commercially reproduced/recorded music has some amount of editorializing attached to it. The engineer's and other studio folk are doing this for us. Personally, I feel this to be somewhat irrelevant, because when I listen to a well recorded piece...for example: Dusty Springfield's "the look of love", I am more interested in how close the reproduction I am getting comes to my 'memory' of the sound of real, live instruments in an acoustic space. "The Absolute Sound".
If, I am fooled into thinking that this is what Dusty sounds like 'Live" ( even though we know she was in an isolation booth in the studio), then isn't that good enough...regardless of what my ( or anyone else's) measurements are telling me?

 

[Purite Audio]

Ack, have you ever heard a system that does not editorialize? And if you have, can you describe this system? How are you certain that it was not editorializing the information on the recording in some way? Or are you simply saying that every system editorializes in some way.

To take just one example, we have all heard cables that roll off the highs or bloat the bass more than some other cables. But at what point, and how can we know, that a cable that does this less than other cables is still not adding some coloration to the signal? Perhaps it is adding something which we hear as a clean, highly detailed sound but in fact is a slight addition of high frequency distortion?

Is looking at a clean square wave (cable) or flat frequency response graph (system) sufficient to tell us that either is not editorializing the recording? Also, does not a system's interaction with a specific room editorialize every recording?

By measuring the input and comparing it to the output, as long as the resistance and capacitance of the cable are decently low
then we can consider them transparent, over the relatively short lengths required for domestic audio.
Cable manufacturers alter those electrical parameters for a reason, inserting a resistor to roll of the HF so that the cable will sound different in a comparison.
Keith.

 

[Rodney Gold]

The room interface does major editorialising all by its lonesome , far more than anything else.
You need to fix this whichever way possible. and considering no one has a handle on exactly what the original sound was like in the control room , you might as well fix it to taste

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Ack, have you ever heard a system that does not editorialize? And if you have, can you describe this system? How are you certain that it was not editorializing the information on the recording in some way? Or are you simply saying that every system editorializes in some way.

To take just one example, we have all heard cables that roll off the highs or bloat the bass more than some other cables. But at what point, and how can we know, that a cable that does this less than other cables is still not adding some coloration to the signal? Perhaps it is adding something which we hear as a clean, highly detailed sound but in fact is a slight addition of high frequency distortion?

Is looking at a clean square wave (cable) or flat frequency response graph (system) sufficient to tell us that either is not editorializing the recording? Also, does not a system's interaction with a specific room editorialize every recording?

Within reason, yes. And yes, all rooms "editorialize." That's a reason to equalize, not a reason to pick system components with deliberate colorations, offering you no control over tone or equalization.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

Equalizers were invented and intended to equalize (perceived equal loudness) so your post looks topsy turvy to me Tim.

 

[ack]

Peter, all systems editorialize to one degree or another. The point of this discussion is that some systems attempt to limit that, while others are primarily about it - all with varying degrees of success.

 

[PeterA]

Peter, all commercially reproduced/recorded music has some amount of editorializing attached to it. The engineer's and other studio folk are doing this for us. Personally, I feel this to be somewhat irrelevant, because when I listen to a well recorded piece...for example: Dusty Springfield's "the look of love", I am more interested in how close the reproduction I am getting comes to my 'memory' of the sound of real, live instruments in an acoustic space. "The Absolute Sound".
If, I am fooled into thinking that this is what Dusty sounds like 'Live" ( even though we know she was in an isolation booth in the studio), then isn't that good enough...regardless of what my ( or anyone else's) measurements are telling me?

Yes, then it is good enough as far as I'm concerned. I agree with your post.

 

[PeterA]

Peter, all systems editorialize to one degree or another. The point of this discussion is that some systems attempt to limit that, while others are primarily about it - all with varying degrees of success.

I have always thought that all systems editorialize also. The phrasing of your post implied to me that you had heard some systems that did not editorialize the content on the recording. We all seek to find the balance that pleases us.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

The following is asked with all seriousness

What about the very expensive systems? Do they editorialize more? or less?

Happy Holidays!!

 

[PeterA]

Hi

The following is asked with all seriousness

What about the very expensive systems? Do they editorialize more? or less?

Happy Holidays!!

Could you define 'expensive'? I am reminded of my friends who recently got married. The groom told me that the first thing they had to decide as a couple was whether or not 200 guests was considered a small or large wedding.

 

[FrantzM]

Could you define 'expensive'? I am reminded of my friends who recently got married. The groom told me that the first thing they had to decide as a couple was whether or not 200 guests was considered a small or large wedding.

Truly Difficult question.

Taking a jab at it:
Amp >100 K
Preamp >$30K
Speakers>100K
TT>50K
Arm>$20K
Cart>$5K
Digital > $50K

...
Or maybe a better clicheed answer: Just like porn, you know it once you see it

 

[amirm]

The room interface does major editorialising all by its lonesome , far more than anything else.

Its biggest impact is in low frequencies. Above a few hundred hertz, it is the loudspeaker that dominates. Look at this measurement:

This is the same loudspeaker measured in three different seats. We see the below a few hundred hertz the frequency response wildly varies. This shows that the room is in charge and moving this loudspeaker from room to room, will sharply change the response in this area.

Above a few hundred hertz, the response hardly varies even though we have changed locations and with it, highly modified the sum of waveforms hitting the microphone.

The reason is that above a few hundred hertz, so many reflections pile on each other that their result gets randomized and hence location/room independent. This is why a Wilson speaker sounds like a Wilson speaker in every room you put it above a few hundred hertz. It doesn't all of a sudden change places with Magico.

Think of the voices of your loved ones in every room of the house. Do they change drastically? They do not, right?

You need to fix this whichever way possible. and considering no one has a handle on exactly what the original sound was like in the control room , you might as well fix it to taste

The "it" better be the low frequency response. An excellently designed loudspeaker should not need any help above that. And if the room is not overly live, you may not have to do anything to it from acoustics point of view.

 

[Purite Audio]

Truly Difficult question.

Taking a jab at it:
Amp >100 K
Preamp >$30K
Speakers>100K
TT>50K
Arm>$20K
Cart>$5K
Digital > $50K

...
Or maybe a better clicheed answer: Just like porn, you know it once you see it

Yet a pair of full range, state of the art pro audio monitors, with everything built in will set you back $20k.
Keith.

 

[Rodney Gold]

A room above schroeder will editorialise ... deaden it and see what happens to your treble sparkle and air and sense of life in music and vice versa ,with a hashy sound in an overly live room..