Black background - A term often times used when listening to a playback presentation via an unresolving high-end audio playback system. Think unmusical.
Is a Lower Noise Floor, are "Blacker" Blacks, Consonant With the Music?
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
My definition assumes that one has a resolving, musical audio system, especially for this forum.
So how do you equate and absence of audible noise with an un-resolving and unmusical system?? You need a high resolution system to hear the noise?? So if it's noisy it's a desirable thing and that makes a system musical?? Sounds backwards to me.
Rob
So how do you equate and absence of audible noise with an un-resolving and unmusical system?? You need a high resolution system to hear the noise?? So if it's noisy it's a desirable thing and that makes a system musical?? Sounds backwards to me.
Rob
It comes back to our use of terms and uncommon defintions. Because some equate noise with audible distortions while others might equate noise with distortions that are potentially audible and/or inaudible. I'm of the latter camp. In fact, I lean toward the worst distortions being potentially inaudible but raise a playback system's noise floor to highest levels such that greater percentages of all music info read and processed remain inaudible at the speaker because it's below the noise floor threshold. Think blacker backgrounds.
For sake of argument, let's assume 100% percent of a single guitar note embedded in a recording is read and then processed throughout the signal path all the way to the speaker driver(s) but only 70% of that single guitar note remains audible. That should not imply that you are hearing audible noise. Rather, that should imply that you're only hearing 70% of that note at the speaker. Now hearing 70% of an entire note may sound noisy, distorted, perverted, corrupted, etc, but that's only because your not hearing that note in its entirety. It may sound "noisy" but it doesn't have to be. It just sounds unmusical. Like a cheap hi-fi sound. That IMO is what a much raised noise floor will do for the playback presentaiton. And it does not have to include any audible noise for this deficiency to occur. But I guarantee you it will sound noisy simply because the note lacks completeness and hence lacks musicality.
I should also note that there exists volumes and volumes of the live performance's ambient info in most every recording, even poorly engineered recordings. However, the higher the playback system's noise floor the more of this lowest of low-level ambient info becomes inaudible. Perhaps even to the point where one's listening perspective seems like a small carpeted walk-in closet lined with clothing. This is where black backgrounds really come into play. But it has nothing to do with a truly resolving playback system.
I suspect the matter has already been sufficiently explained in earlier posts so there should be no need to restate all of it yet again.
Listen to this poorly-engineered 1965 recording where there exists some soft passages and solo passages. See if you can find even a millisecond where you can point out a black or blacker background (or audible noise). Does your listening perspective here seem more like a walk-in-closet or perhaps something a little closer to the recording hall - even if your perspective is off somewhere by the restrooms? Even the last strike of a cymbal at the tail end continues to spray for a good 5 or 6 seconds after the inital strike.
If one listened to this recording and expressed a black background as a positive trait, then I suspect one of 2 things. Either their system is not very resolving and/or they lack understanding. It's not the noise. It's the noise floor that makes all the difference.
Hello Stheno
Thanks for the explanation! Ok I understand now. I was looking at it a little differently. When I said a black background I was speaking about the system at rest with no music. I agree that the lack of system noise does contribute to how well you can hear the ambience in recordings.
What I meant was before the track starts dead silence so stylus not on the LP and once on you can easily hear the noise level jump right before the music starts such as the lead in grove of an LP.
So actually I think we agree as you certainly should be able to hear when instruments are punched it during a multitrack, the different space they were recorded in and be able to "feel" the room on live recordings.
Rob
Thanks for the explanation! Ok I understand now. I was looking at it a little differently. When I said a black background I was speaking about the system at rest with no music. I agree that the lack of system noise does contribute to how well you can hear the ambience in recordings.
What I meant was before the track starts dead silence so stylus not on the LP and once on you can easily hear the noise level jump right before the music starts such as the lead in grove of an LP.
So actually I think we agree as you certainly should be able to hear when instruments are punched it during a multitrack, the different space they were recorded in and be able to "feel" the room on live recordings.
Rob
While a black background with system at rest (no music) is certainly a commendable achievement, it really isn't worth much of a discussion since 99.9% of this hobby is about music playing.
To be clear I'm talking about a system's established noise floor (not system noise) as this is what renders volumes of the live performance's ambient info embedded in a recording, read from the recording, processed, but then inaudible at the speaker due to a much raised noise floor. Which we all have to one good or great degree or another.
But why? If no music is playing, of course we've no hope of hearing any ambient info of the live performance embedded in a given recording. I think we're talking apples an oranges.
Sorry but I've no clue what you mean by "able to hear when instruments are punched it during a multitrack". I suspect we're using somewhat similar terms with varied defintions while potentially discussing entirely different subjects. My only interest here is a playback system's noise floor which I think is established almost solely by the dirty AC coming in from the street and then further corrupted as the electrical signal is processed throughout the playback system where only a percentage of that input signal is remains audible as it's converted to a mechanical signal at the speaker. IME, the playback system's noise floor alone is the absolute music killer though other things like audible noise may slightly impact the playback presentation here and there.So actually I think we agree as you certainly should be able to hear when instruments are punched it during a multitrack, the different space they were recorded in and be able to "feel" the room on live recordings.
Rob
IOW, I suspect you're talking fender bender impacts related to audible noise where I'm talking salvaged title type of impacts related to inaudible playback system generated noise floors that cannot be salvaged after the fact. Sorry but it seems to me like we're talking apples and oranges.
Stehno, I like your concept of noise floor-- a good way to look at it, I think.
One curiosity, on your YouTube recordings, it states "average volume 98-102 db. I take it these are your average peaks?
Thanks, Wil. But hopefully it's not my concept per se of a playback system's noise floor but rather I hope that my intepretation and understanding of a playback system's noise floor is at least somewhat accurate.
We've discussed decibels before. Most of my recordings would more accurately be around a peak of about 102-104db. My normal listening levels are around the the 94-101db levels unless I'm listening to old rock which is around 104db peak. The 102-104db is necessary to ensure at least a fraction of the gestalt makes it to the recording via my very small stereo condenser mic that attaches directly to the iPhone.
Here‘s my take on digital noise.
As we know from school physics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed....it just changes forms. From a hi-fi point of view, changing energy forms ideally means changing it into a less deleterious form, for example transforming vibrational waves into heat or work, but unfortunately if we’re not careful it can go the other way too.
In digital. Most of the processing is going on at low voltages, extremely low currents and extremely high frequencies, orders of magnitude higher than anything we can hear, so in the same way you can’t see x-rays, this noise isn’t having any direct effect on the signal to noise ratio you hear. But what this noise does do is to disturb that high frequency digital processing, such that there’s a loss in resolution.....the signal becomes less accurate in terms of fine amplitude differences, timing and phase differentials. When that resolution is lost, there’s an impact on the brain’s ability to differentiate tonal and spacial subtleties in the music. Imagine 2 lines of the music.....a loud string section and a very quiet soprano accompaniment, differentiated by subtle tonal differences and subtle spacial differences. In a perfect system, with no HF noise disturbing the presentation, you’ll hear a group of strings comings from a particular origin and a group of sopranos coming from elsewhere in the soundstage. Due to the timing, phase, amplitude and therefore spacial differences, you hear both strings and sopranos in a most musical way. Enchanting.
Now add a bunch of HF noise that distrubs the digital processing. This has an impact on fine resolution, so the sound is missing the subtle differences in amplitude, phase and timing. With those elements gone, the brain is no longer able to differentiate small spacial differences, so what you hear is a blend of loud strings and subtle sopranos. With no means to differentiate the 2 spacially and with the tonality so close together, what you hear are strings with the added but undifferentiated HF energy from the Sopranos. So while you can’t hear the HF noise, what it does is to impede resolution, so you hear harsh string tones. The HF noise causes parts of the signal to itself become noise. The lost soprano signal isn’t gone, its simply not resolved/differentiated, so the noise You hear from HF interference is actually the part of the signal that’s insufficiently differentiated, which means that the Sopranos are adding noise to the strings and you no longer hear the sopranos as a separate well differentiated entity.
So whats happening is: you’re still hearing 100% of the signal, but the lack of resolution has transformed part of the signal to noise, that is, signal that doesn’t belong where you’re hearing it.
This is exactly why, when you hear increased resolution from your system you hear greater dimensionality, finer tonal differences, more details AND less harshness. Your brain is able to use the increased resolution to differentiate more elements in the music that you hear as increased detail and of course, correspondingly less distortion.
As we know from school physics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed....it just changes forms. From a hi-fi point of view, changing energy forms ideally means changing it into a less deleterious form, for example transforming vibrational waves into heat or work, but unfortunately if we’re not careful it can go the other way too.
In digital. Most of the processing is going on at low voltages, extremely low currents and extremely high frequencies, orders of magnitude higher than anything we can hear, so in the same way you can’t see x-rays, this noise isn’t having any direct effect on the signal to noise ratio you hear. But what this noise does do is to disturb that high frequency digital processing, such that there’s a loss in resolution.....the signal becomes less accurate in terms of fine amplitude differences, timing and phase differentials. When that resolution is lost, there’s an impact on the brain’s ability to differentiate tonal and spacial subtleties in the music. Imagine 2 lines of the music.....a loud string section and a very quiet soprano accompaniment, differentiated by subtle tonal differences and subtle spacial differences. In a perfect system, with no HF noise disturbing the presentation, you’ll hear a group of strings comings from a particular origin and a group of sopranos coming from elsewhere in the soundstage. Due to the timing, phase, amplitude and therefore spacial differences, you hear both strings and sopranos in a most musical way. Enchanting.
Now add a bunch of HF noise that distrubs the digital processing. This has an impact on fine resolution, so the sound is missing the subtle differences in amplitude, phase and timing. With those elements gone, the brain is no longer able to differentiate small spacial differences, so what you hear is a blend of loud strings and subtle sopranos. With no means to differentiate the 2 spacially and with the tonality so close together, what you hear are strings with the added but undifferentiated HF energy from the Sopranos. So while you can’t hear the HF noise, what it does is to impede resolution, so you hear harsh string tones. The HF noise causes parts of the signal to itself become noise. The lost soprano signal isn’t gone, its simply not resolved/differentiated, so the noise You hear from HF interference is actually the part of the signal that’s insufficiently differentiated, which means that the Sopranos are adding noise to the strings and you no longer hear the sopranos as a separate well differentiated entity.
So whats happening is: you’re still hearing 100% of the signal, but the lack of resolution has transformed part of the signal to noise, that is, signal that doesn’t belong where you’re hearing it.
This is exactly why, when you hear increased resolution from your system you hear greater dimensionality, finer tonal differences, more details AND less harshness. Your brain is able to use the increased resolution to differentiate more elements in the music that you hear as increased detail and of course, correspondingly less distortion.
Last edited:
I'm guessing this sort of high frequency noise you describe also inserts itself at the front end as well-- from the mic all the way through the process in the recording space, mixing, mastering. I've heard it described that the mic (both the device and the skill in it's placement) is the biggest choke point in the recording chain.
As for the recording mic (the device) one such source for this rumor was Robert Harley editor-in-chief at The Absolute Sound in I think the Mar/Apr 2009 issue declared, "I believe that something catastrophic occurs at the recording mic's diaphragm that prevents much of the music from ever reaching the recording." Paraphrased. Harley went on to describe an experiment conducted by Ed Meitner who used a guitar and amp to record and then played back that recording using the same amp.
So Harley was I'm guessing just parroting Meitner's conclusion. Regardless, there's very little if any truth to Meitner's conclusion that something catastrophic is occurring at recording mic. IMO, Meitner's experiment really could only conclude that something catastophic was occurring but somebody would have to ask him why he singled out the recording mic.
Indeed, there is something catastrophic occurring and his word choice was good.
I try to be careful not to talk authoritatively about things I don't have real expertise in. So, that leaves pretty much nothing in the world of audiobeyond my personal, anecdotal experience. All I can do is read and listen to people whose opinions I tend to respect because of their backgrounds, professional or otherwise. So, that being said, I've read over the past few years quite a few respectable sources (imo) say that the recording mics and the skill with which they are used are one of the major bottlenecks to a quality recording. I wouldn't characterize it as rumor.
Last edited:
Me too.
I understand.
Understood. However, based on my personal, anecdotal experience, I'd venture the rumor is far more widespread than I previously thought. If indeed you've read numerous others spout the same.
But also bear in mind since Harley wrote that piece in 2009 and at that time TAS probably had more respectable types reading that mag that's certainly one way how this rumor could have spread. People respected Harley and Meitner too, hence, I'm sure readers paid attention to Harley's article and I'd guess some took it to heart. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, Harley didn't know squat about it until he heard it from Meitner unless Harley was present for the experiment. But as I recall there was no evidence Harley was present.
IOW, all rumors start somewhere and it is entirely possible that's where this rumor started especially since it's now had 12 long years to propagate.
Not to miss perhaps your main point here. No matter what one may think how musical / unmusical this 1965 recording sounds to them using 1965 or earlier recording mic technology, I seriously doubt the recording mic's have ever been a "major bottleneck" to a quality recording - which this is not. IMO, Harley and/or Meitner were reckless declaring the recording mic's as "catastrophic". But erroneous catastrophic declarations in one out-of-scope area can make for excellent excuses for genuine catastrophic shortcomings elsewhere and within scope.
Hence, I would characterize it as a destructive, misleading, and/or misinformed rumor and if nothing else should bring into question those you've read that you claim are respectable sources.
Last edited:
I cannot agree with this.
A black background is one free of noise, in particular intermodulations to which the ear is quite sensitive. So a black background will be in a system that lacks intermodulations so will also be highly resolving and also more musical.
I presume you're talking about while music is playing and the system is not idle. If so, count the milliseconds if you can of a black background in even this 1965 inferior-engineered recording above.
That's an abundance of ambient info in even this recording revealed by a resolving system such that it's impossible to encounter a black background at any time during a playback presentation. In contrast, I've little doubt with much less resolving systems black backgrounds abound during a playback presentation.
Are you implying the live performance's volumes of ambient information (the lowest of low-level detail) captured at the recording and kept audible at the speaker is not desireable and you'd prefer a black background instead? Which is more desireable, more accurate, more musical, and/or closer toward the live performance? Please explain. Better yet, perhaps you can share an in-room recording to demonstrate how black backgrounds are more musical, more natural, etc.
On second thought, how about counting the milliseconds of black background with this quieter less robust piece as perhaps you'd have a better chance? I'd be surprise if you can find even one millisecond.
Last edited:
I think I see where the problem lies. I am not talking about recordings; as far as I'm concerned that is irrelevant. I'm talking about the background created by the playback apparatus. It must have a perfectly black background, so the recording, with all its excellence and flaws, is presented without editorial on the part of the playback equipment.
Ralph, I agree with this and I think this expresses the importance of most peoples’ desire to lower their system’s noise floor.
The expression “blacker backgrounds” often comes up in reviews when a reviewer is describing the sonic affect of a particular component. It is described as a sonic attribute of the component. And this effect is usually in the context of the component being listened to as a part of a particular system while listening to a recording.
I think you are correct in pointing out this difference. For this reason I usually think of a low system noise floor as different and distinct from a system presenting “black backgrounds, when listening to recordings. I view the latter as a coloration and the former as something worth pursuing.
I see what you mean. However, there seem to be some-to-many who tout a "black background" as a badge of honor who don't stop there but go on to exclaim how exhilerating it is to hear an instrument say a trumpet rise up out of this black background.
The only time I'm aware of such a black background and potential exhileration is when it's the very first note at the very start of the music piece.
So to the best of my knowledge, the term black background remains a very misleading term at least for some.
But thanks for clarifying.
Similar threads
