Introspection and hyperbole control

[Groucho]

A couple of points:
- at the recording level adjustments are usually made to what has been recorded to change the levels of certain aspects of the sound in order to make it "more realistic" sounding for the final cut
- Our audio systems are not linear from one end to the other which needs to be recognised so as not to constantly repeat this myth of linearity
- finally, we need to understand what is important to our auditory perception & focus on these important aspects rather than the blunderbust approach that currently prevails. This means that we are more than likely wasting our time trying to linearise certain aspects of the audio signal & not spending enough effort in addressing other areas of the signal.

Of course I know that a recording is not an objective reproduction of an audio event; that 'artistic' decisions have been made even if the recording is just a pair of mics recorded directly without any further processing. So let's think of all recordings as the audio equivalent of the Mona Lisa and that we can't get to the gallery to view the painting directly. The question remains: how do I want to view (the reproduction of) the painting?

I don't accept the point about audio systems not being linear from one end to the other. Of course, in practice, they're not literally linear - there are distortions - but there's no reason for a system not to be very close:
- good mics are close to linear;
- digital audio is linear to any arbitrary degree we choose, by definition;
- a solid state amp is linear to all intents and purposes;
- a good speaker transducer is close to linear especially if not driven beyond its limits (so it pays to be clever in how we use them).

A recording engineer can choose to feed a pair of mics directly into ADCs and into digital storage. We play the recording directly over a pair of DACs and into our amplifiers and speakers. It's a close-to-linear system if we choose it to be.

Would I rather view the Mona Lisa (or a photograph of the Mona Lisa) over a 2" phone screen, a 15" laptop monitor, a 26" CRT, or life size on a 100" screen with the capability to go very bright? I would say it should be obvious, but I'm not sure everyone makes that choice in audio terms. For a while, I believed that CRTs were inherently superior to LCDs, and went out of my way to keep on using a CRT TV while all around me, everyone changed to LCD. I wouldn't make that choice now.

For my audio system, I want the 100" screen with as high a pixel density as possible - so it can still display a dim 2" image if that is what the person who made the image wants me to see, but can also do a huge painting life size. If I choose to limit myself to less than the 100" screen, or it is imposed on me by necessity, do I want to process the image in the hope of making it closer to the experience of viewing the real painting? I would suggest that on the 2" screen, it would pay to zoom in on the Mona Lisa's face and optimise the contrast, gamma and saturation for a not-very-bright display, and on the 26" CRT we might want to do something similar but different. Maybe we employ an automatic algorithm that zooms and pans over the image slowly. Maybe the subjective experience is 'improved' - and maybe the effect, for some people, is even more intense than viewing the original painting. But in describing the system, shouldn't we really point out that it's a small, dim screen and an algorithm, rather than describing the (spurious?) emotional effect that the processed, cropped Mona Lisa has on us?

 

[jkeny]

Like a lot of words, "art" covers a lot of things. Often, when associated with technological things, for example, it is really more of a metaphor for craftsmanship, skill, inventiveness, etc. That usage should in no way be confused with the "fine arts", such as music, and we usually leave the "fine" out of the discussion, referring to music, for example, as "art".

"Art" has many different meanings, just like countless other words. We need to understand the context of usage to figure out which specific meaning to apply. Even though the word is spelled exactly the same way does not make the meaning the same in different sentences/contexts.

So, Tim's reference to "art" is clearly, to me at least, referring the music. Same word, but completely different meaning from your usage, which is about the creation of audio. You seem merely trying to be argumentative by playing on the dual meanings of the same word, as though there were only one meaning, which ain't the case here.

Well, what I'm replying to is the fact that Tim's original statement & subsequent statements I understood to mean that he thought he was hearing a facsimile of the original music event - "Audio is reproduction. It is not the art itself. It isn't even close." - I was trying to dispel this notion. I believe you are being argumentative in splitting hairs between "art" & craftmanship - they tend to be intertwined - art involves the production of something "new" based on aesthetic choices & usually involves some craft in realising this vision - it applies to writing a song, playing a song, recording an audio track, editing an audio track - none of these activities are a purely transcriptive process.

 

[jkeny]

Of course I know that a recording is not an objective reproduction of an audio event; that 'artistic' decisions have been made even if the recording is just a pair of mics recorded directly without any further processing. So let's think of all recordings as the audio equivalent of the Mona Lisa and that we can't get to the gallery to view the painting directly. The question remains: how do I want to view (the reproduction of) the painting?

Good then we can progress

I don't accept the point about audio systems not being linear from one end to the other. Of course, in practice, they're not literally linear - there are distortions - but there's no reason for a system not to be very close:
- good mics are close to linear;
- digital audio is linear to any arbitrary degree we choose, by definition;
- a solid state amp is linear to all intents and purposes;
- a good speaker transducer is close to linear especially if not driven beyond its limits (so it pays to be clever in how we use them).

This becomes the sticking point - you say it's not linear but it's close enough. How do you measure a non-linear system's transfer function & judge it's acceptability? I say that using test signals which don't stress the non-linear aspects of a system is a waste of time & ultimately leads to fooling oneself about the "linearity" of the system. So, recognise the non-linearity of what is being dealt with & do testing with this in mind in order to characterise the system.

A recording engineer can choose to feed a pair of mics directly into ADCs and into digital storage. We play the recording directly over a pair of DACs and into our amplifiers and speakers. It's a close-to-linear system if we choose it to be.

Would I rather view the Mona Lisa (or a photograph of the Mona Lisa) over a 2" phone screen, a 15" laptop monitor, a 26" CRT, or life size on a 100" screen with the capability to go very bright? I would say it should be obvious, but I'm not sure everyone makes that choice in audio terms. For a while, I believed that CRTs were inherently superior to LCDs, and went out of my way to keep on using a CRT TV while all around me, everyone changed to LCD. I wouldn't make that choice now.

Well, for a long time LCDs were inferior to CRTs when fast action was being displayed on screen - I'm not sure that this problem has been completely resolved yet i.e that our visionary perception doesn't perceive an issue still? Is this analogous to audio where certain problems only show when tested with the right test signals

I know that in our cable TV systems in Ireland displaying fast motion causes a pixelation of the screen probably due to the centralised computer processing & communication systems being used - this is a non-linear system which will not be revealed in tests unless the system is specifically stressed yet it is revealed when real-world signals are used that involve fast action. So have we progressed? In some aspects, yes - in other ways, no.

For my audio system, I want the 100" screen with as high a pixel density as possible - so it can still display a dim 2" image if that is what the person who made the image wants me to see, but can also do a huge painting life size. If I choose to limit myself to less than the 100" screen, or it is imposed on me by necessity, do I want to process the image in the hope of making it closer to the experience of viewing the real painting? I would suggest that on the 2" screen, it would pay to zoom in on the Mona Lisa's face and optimise the contrast, gamma and saturation for a not-very-bright display, and on the 26" CRT we might want to do something similar but different. Maybe we employ an automatic algorithm that zooms and pans over the image slowly. Maybe the subjective experience is 'improved' - and maybe the effect, for some people, is even more intense than viewing the original painting. But in describing the system, shouldn't we really point out that it's a small, dim screen and an algorithm, rather than describing the (spurious?) emotional effect that the processed, cropped Mona Lisa has on us?

This analogy has been driven into a completely different siding off the main track & I don't believe that it's very useful to continue flogging it?

 

[Groucho]

This analogy has been driven into a completely different siding off the main track & I don't believe that it's very useful to continue flogging it?

As a potential purchaser of a system, am I interested in someone else's emotional response to a contrived 'algorithm'? Are certain audio systems just an embodiment of a contrived 'algorithm'?

 

[jkeny]

As a potential purchaser of a system, am I interested in someone else's emotional response to a contrived 'algorithm'? Are certain audio systems just an embodiment of a contrived 'algorithm'?

I'm not really sure what you are talking about but I think you are asking should we use some form of audio enhancement which is more pleasing - is this correct?

 

[jkeny]

.............
So, Tim's reference to "art" is clearly, to me at least, referring the music. Same word, but completely different meaning from your usage, which is about the creation of audio. You seem merely trying to be argumentative by playing on the dual meanings of the same word, as though there were only one meaning, which ain't the case here.

You do realise that this goes back to Tim's post #35 where in response to my question

"Is this not similar to our impressions in audio? All we can judge is our impressions of the audio portrayal we are listening to. We often don't know if it is a recording of a real audio event or a stitched together interpretation."

He replied:

In my opinion, no, it's not similar to our impressions of audio. It's similar to our impressions of music. You're comparing the emotional impact of art to a photograph. It would be an appropriate analogy to audio if you were comparing a print of a photograph of the painting to the reproduction of a recording of the music. Audio is reproduction. It is not the art itself. It isn't even close.

 

[microstrip]

Yes, but without good audio you will not have the art ... And according to some knowledge people we must use the perception of the art to test the good audio.

Absolutely 100% spot on sir. I could not agree more. My clock radio as a teen also transported me to worlds I never knew existed. I will never forget laying in bed hearing the Jimi Hendrix version of All Along The Watchtower for the first time and having my mine blown.

The above statement you quoted is pure pretentious drivel.

Andre,

I fail to see why you consider such a simple statement pretentious.

Perhaps I should have been more explicit - the above comment I am repeating addressed mature audiophiles who consider that the recording engineer and mastering people are part of the art.

It seems to me you are mixing the art and the emotion caused by the art - two different entities. Emotions must be analyzed statistically - we all known about that great time in our car or bed, even in underground tunnel, or the well know case of musicians. IMHO they are the exceptions - perhaps of high intensity, but a small number of times.

IMHO the purpose of good audio is creating these experiences frequently, in a reliable and trusty way.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Huh? Tim, are you trying to deflect by reverting to dictionary definition & make some debating point of order? I've read your post a couple of times but still fail to tease out what you are trying to say.

I was actually trying to agree with you; facsimile, in the strict sense of the word, does not apply.

I used the word "facsimile" to point out exactly the flaw in your statement "Audio is reproduction. It is not the art itself. It isn't even close."
To show that the creation of this "audio" is an art - a different art to the "original" audio event but an art, nonetheless.
Your original statement & the next "I believe I am listening to the reproduction of a facsimile of an original audio event" reads to me that you believe you are hearing an exact replica of the audio event.

OK. Maybe I misunderstood your original question. I would agree that recording and post-production (is this what you mean by "creation of audio?"), while an engineering function, definitely has elements of art in it. It can, in fact, transform the original performance, and it is often the ultimate manifestation of the artist's vision, because often they're not even attempting to capture anything like a live performance.

But, and this is where I may have misunderstood you, I wasn't talking about the science and art of recording music. I was talking about reproduction, what our systems do with the recordings. That is not the art itself. It isn't even close.

Tim

 

[PeterA]

But, and this is where I may have misunderstood you, I wasn't talking about the science and art of recording music. I was talking about reproduction, what our systems do with the recordings. That is not the art itself. It isn't even close.

Tim

Tim, This clarification helps and I better understand what you meant.

But now, I have another question which may drift too far from the OP. Are our systems actually reproducing the recordings? I think of our systems as doing something different. It seems to me that our systems are translating, or transposing, the information, ie, the recording, that they read from the recording medium - magnetic tape, squiggly grooves in black vinyl LPs, data bits on silver CD disks or computer files - into a form that we can now interpret as something resembling the sound of music, ie sound pressure, in our listening rooms. They are not reproducing the recordings which are the data on the storage media. Record presses and cd stampers do that. Or am I being to literal?

Perhaps we are saying the same thing, or it is a distinction without a difference. I think of "reproduction" as everything from the mic picking up the original signal to the speakers creating sound waves in our rooms. The reproduction of the original audio event is that entire chain. The problem lies in the first part which is making the recording. There is art involved in that front end part. Sometimes a lot, and sometimes not much, depending on the intent of those involved in the process. The second part, the translating the recording into something that we actually hear, that part, may also involve art, or not. Can it be truly linear and accurate at transposing the recorded information? That seems to be the goal, but there are many different interpretations of how to best achieve it and whether or not perfectly linear sounds best or most accurate.

 

[jkeny]

I was actually trying to agree with you; facsimile, in the strict sense of the word, does not apply.



OK. Maybe I misunderstood your original question. I would agree that recording and post-production (is this what you mean by "creation of audio?"), while an engineering function, definitely has elements of art in it. It can, in fact, transform the original performance, and it is often the ultimate manifestation of the artist's vision, because often they're not even attempting to capture anything like a live performance.

But, and this is where I may have misunderstood you, I wasn't talking about the science and art of recording music. I was talking about reproduction, what our systems do with the recordings. That is not the art itself. It isn't even close.

Tim

Yes & my original statement was "All we can judge is our impressions of the audio portrayal we are listening to. We often don't know if it is a recording of a real audio event or a stitched together interpretation." to which you replied as I quoted in my above post #68 - this seemed to me that you were in disagreement with what I posted.

 

[microstrip]

(...)

I was talking about reproduction, what our systems do with the recordings. That is not the art itself. It isn't even close.

Tim

Tim,

For me the reproduction becomes part of the art every time we listen. I have no doubt that there is much more real information encoded in the recording than what we perceive in one audition. Listening to the same recording in different systems makes me perceive it differently and react accordingly.

Surely our divergence arises mainly on the semantics around the definition of art, a very disputed concept. Some people focus mainly on the creation, representation and expression, but for most the communication of emotion is mandatory in art.

 

[NorthStar]

Tim, This clarification helps and I better understand what you meant.

But now, I have another question which may drift too far from the OP. Are our systems actually reproducing the recordings? I think of our systems as doing something different. It seems to me that our systems are translating, or transposing, the information, ie, the recording, that they read from the recording medium - magnetic tape, squiggly grooves in black vinyl LPs, data bits on silver CD disks or computer files - into a form that we can now interpret as something resembling the sound of music, ie sound pressure, in our listening rooms. They are not reproducing the recordings which are the data on the storage media. Record presses and cd stampers do that. Or am I being to literal?

Perhaps we are saying the same thing, or it is a distinction without a difference. I think of "reproduction" as everything from the mic picking up the original signal to the speakers creating sound waves in our rooms. The reproduction of the original audio event is that entire chain. The problem lies in the first part which is making the recording. There is art involved in that front end part. Sometimes a lot, and sometimes not much, depending on the intent of those involved in the process. The second part, the translating the recording into something that we actually hear, that part, may also involve art, or not. Can it be truly linear and accurate at transposing the recorded information? That seems to be the goal, but there are many different interpretations of how to best achieve it and whether or not perfectly linear sounds best or most accurate.

Hi Peter,

Each one's of our system reveals more or less what's on the recordings with accurate resolution and pleasurable transposition/disposition (euphony).

But here's the effervescence, the true live question: Are we all listening to the same exact recordings from the same sources and masters? ...And in the same rooms? ...No.
So our words are our best arsenal to display our personal emotional impact mixed with our technical knowledge. ...A balance between our own experience and satisfying description of all sound elements...through our veins, through our heart, through our ears, and through our soul.

We are all worthy. :b ...Enjoy a sublime long Labor Day weekend everybody.

 

[PeterA]

Hi Peter,

Each one's of our system reveals more or less what's on the recordings with accurate resolution and pleasurable transposition/disposition (euphony).

But here's the effervescence, the true live question: Are we all listening to the same exact recordings from the same sources and masters? ...And in the same rooms? ...No.
So our words are our best arsenal to display our personal emotional impact mixed with our technical knowledge. ...A balance between our own experience and satisfying description of all sound elements...through our veins, through our heart, through our ears, and through our soul.

We are all worthy. :b ...Enjoy a sublime long Labor Day weekend everybody.

NorthStar, I completely agree with you.

If interested, please read my flowery and poetic prose in these two reviews:

Transparent REF XL

Pass XA100.5

Even the title of my virtual system page thread is "Sublime Sound". If that is not subjective prose from the alliterative mind of the owner referencing his own particular system in a specific room, I don't know what is.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim, This clarification helps and I better understand what you meant.

But now, I have another question which may drift too far from the OP. Are our systems actually reproducing the recordings? I think of our systems as doing something different. It seems to me that our systems are translating, or transposing, the information, ie, the recording, that they read from the recording medium - magnetic tape, squiggly grooves in black vinyl LPs, data bits on silver CD disks or computer files - into a form that we can now interpret as something resembling the sound of music, ie sound pressure, in our listening rooms.

Yes, all systems are changing the recording, because all systems are imperfect. Transposing or translating? That one's a stretch for me, because anything the system does to change the only data it has to work with - the recording - is, by definition, distortion. And while it may sound good on some recordings, it will always make others worse. That's sure not what I'm looking for.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yes & my original statement was "All we can judge is our impressions of the audio portrayal we are listening to. We often don't know if it is a recording of a real audio event or a stitched together interpretation." to which you replied as I quoted in my above post #68 - this seemed to me that you were in disagreement with what I posted.

Well, the statement above is not what I was answering, but I do disagree. I can definitely tell the difference between a multi-tracked studio recording (I'm assuming that's what you mean by "stitched together") and even one that is produced "live, in-studio) without isolating or tracking individual instruments. I'm sure you can as well.

Tim

 

[PeterA]

Tim, This clarification helps and I better understand what you meant.



Yes, all systems are changing the recording, because all systems are imperfect. Transposing or translating? That one's a stretch for me, because anything the system does to change the only data it has to work with - the recording - is, by definition, distortion. And while it may sound good on some recordings, it will always make others worse. That's sure not what I'm looking for.

Tim

Sorry Tim, what I mean is that the system is taking what it reads - the impression in the vinyl or bits in the disk, ie, the recording medium - and it is converting that into something that we can hear - ie soundwaves being launched by our speaker drivers into the room. Those soundwaves are then interpreted by us as music and something resembling the original musical event, however imperfect.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

For me the reproduction becomes part of the art every time we listen. I have no doubt that there is much more real information encoded in the recording than what we perceive in one audition. Listening to the same recording in different systems makes me perceive it differently and react accordingly.

Surely our divergence arises mainly on the semantics around the definition of art, a very disputed concept. Some people focus mainly on the creation, representation and expression, but for most the communication of emotion is mandatory in art.

I don't think it is semantics. Art is created, and includes the writing and arranging, the producing, the performances and the studio craft. The goal of an audio system is fidelity to the recording. All systems are imperfect. Some are more perfect than others. If a system reveals more of what is encoded in the recording, it is a relatively more perfect system. If it is creating anything, it is a relatively less perfect system.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Sorry Tim, what I mean is that the system is taking what it reads - the impression in the vinyl or bits in the disk, ie, the recording medium - and it is converting that into something that we can hear - ie soundwaves being launched by our speaker drivers into the room. Those soundwaves are then interpreted by us as music and something resembling the original musical event, however imperfect.

Of course.

Tim

 

[Diapason]

That's sure not what I'm looking for.

Hi Tim. Can I ask an impertinent question here: how do you know?

By that I mean that every audiophile worth his salt has a subjective idea of "accuracy" (based on who knows what) that serves as their own personal benchmark. Nobody will ever consciously or publicly admit to liking coloration, but if the standard explanation of euphonic even order distortion in vinyl/tubes, etc. is anything to go by, some people find their subjective accuracy by many and varied means.

So, my question, and I hope this isn't disrespectfully stated, is "what makes your stance different?" Does objective measured accuracy tally well to your ears with your subjective sense of accuracy? Do you care? If accurate is ever "unpleasant" do you just shrug your shoulders and assume it's the recording? What do you say to other people who can't find subjective accuracy in equipment that measured well?

I've no axe to grind here, I'm just interested in the various views.

 

[microstrip]

I don't think it is semantics. Art is created, and includes the writing and arranging, the producing, the performances and the studio craft. The goal of an audio system is fidelity to the recording. All systems are imperfect. Some are more perfect than others. If a system reveals more of what is encoded in the recording, it is a relatively more perfect system. If it is creating anything, it is a relatively less perfect system.

Tim

Real life in stereo is more complicated that that, Unfortunately it seems that most of the time when we make a system more revelatory we are also adding something. No two systems reveal the same thing in the same way. The choice of what to show and how it is revealed is partially made by the equipment designer.

IMHO in stereo systems the equipment designer and even the listener become part of the art. It is in part why a well known audio scholar wrote that stereo is an individual system and considered that multichannel should be a much better system to deliver the art as created by the artist to the consumer.