Is the dynamic range of CD sufficient?

[Phelonious Ponk]

Alright, let me rephrase: while room reflections may be needed, there should be no types of room reflection that unnecessarily mask acoustic information about the recorded venue. I assume you can agree with that.

I'm not sure this is even possible. We live in rooms, we are accustomed to their effects on sound and are not well-deceived by artificial ambiance. Most recordings sound better to us with room reflections and gain. But very artfully recorded live records, with very natural venue ambiance (it is not natural, but it sounds as if it is) on record do not benefit from the addition of uncontrolled, added room ambiance. Like everything else, it's all compromise. Some recordings sound better in very quiet rooms; most sound better in reasonably lively ones.

Depends on how you define 'sufffering'. I love that my system can reproduce natural hardness of sound (e.g., that heard from brass in all but the smoothest sounding venues). This hardness of course should not be confused with artificial harshness (which inferior digital is often guilty of), but even so, I would not say that it is a 'pleasant' sound. It's exciting to me nonetheless. In a similar way, if a shrill dissonance is what I hear live in a piece, and is part of the musical expression of the piece, I want that reproduced with full incisiveness in my system as well -- no smoothing over desired.

Those who belive thieir smooth, pleasant hifi is closer to the real thing have not been in a small room with a drum kit.

Tim

 

[Don Hills]

That paper has been brought up earlier in this thread as well

Indeed, it has. And in spite of your protestations that the state of the art has moved on, the state of our ears hasn't. His conclusions are as valid now as they were when he wrote the paper.

 

[Al M.]

I'm not sure this is even possible. We live in rooms, we are accustomed to their effects on sound and are not well-deceived by artificial ambiance. Most recordings sound better to us with room reflections and gain. But very artfully recorded live records, with very natural venue ambiance (it is not natural, but it sounds as if it is) on record do not benefit from the addition of uncontrolled, added room ambiance. Like everything else, it's all compromise. Some recordings sound better in very quiet rooms; most sound better in reasonably lively ones.

Sure, as I wrote earlier in the thread:

I don't know if my room is actually more "dead" sounding than prior to room treatment -- all my tube traps are set towards the diffusive side rather than the absorbent one, and the sound panels are diffusers, not absorbers. Interestingly, while in the hand clapping test all the room echo is gone and consequently conversations in the room sound drier, the music coming from the system sounds acoustically much more alive than before. The extra liveliness comes from letting all the ambience and air of the recorded venues come through, which was completely suppressed before by all the room reverberation and reflections; that had also resulted in a flat, congested soundstage without any depth. Both for small groups and large orchestras everything sounds more alive.

Those who belive thieir smooth, pleasant hifi is closer to the real thing have not been in a small room with a drum kit.

Tim

Yes, that is what I don't understand. I think many systems sound too nicely smooth and inoffensive. It is also telling that in Youtube videos of high-end shows or reference rigs, systems are often presented with this bland, laid-back loungy jazz music, many times with female singers who can't really sing. To the point where high-end becomes a caricature of itself.

I never understood that 'smooth' sound. Systems often appear to feature over-crossovered (pardon that word) and over-filtered speakers that apparently are hard to drive by amps (regardless of their nominal sensitivity which in many cases may not even be that bad). It sucks all the life out of the music. I find it embarrassing when I leave a demo of such a system, step into my car, and find that even my car stereo sounds more lively than what I just heard. No kidding.

One thing that my system, with all its shortcomings, cannot be accused of is a lack of vividness compared to the real thing. Whenever after coming home from an exciting live concert I turn up my stereo the next day I go like, oh yeah, baby. Especially when the concert has been one of a smaller ensemble (e.g., playing classical avantgarde) in a smaller hall where sheer scale is of lesser importance.

But no, my system can't properly reproduce the attack of a drum kit in a small room either. I haven't heard any system that can.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Sure, as I wrote earlier in the thread:

I don't know if my room is actually more "dead" sounding than prior to room treatment -- all my tube traps are set towards the diffusive side rather than the absorbent one, and the sound panels are diffusers, not absorbers. Interestingly, while in the hand clapping test all the room echo is gone and consequently conversations in the room sound drier, the music coming from the system sounds acoustically much more alive than before. The extra liveliness comes from letting all the ambience and air of the recorded venues come through, which was completely suppressed before by all the room reverberation and reflections; that had also resulted in a flat, congested soundstage without any depth. Both for small groups and large orchestras everything sounds more alive.



Yes, that is what I don't understand. I think many systems sound too nicely smooth and inoffensive. It is also telling that in Youtube videos of high-end shows or reference rigs, systems are often presented with this bland, laid-back loungy jazz music, many times with female singers who can't really sing. To the point where high-end becomes a caricature of itself.

I never understood that 'smooth' sound. Systems often appear to feature over-crossovered (pardon that word) and over-filtered speakers that apparently are hard to drive by amps (regardless of their nominal sensitivity which in many cases may not even be that bad). It sucks all the life out of the music. I find it embarrassing when I leave a demo of such a system, step into my car, and find that even my car stereo sounds more lively than what I just heard. No kidding.

One thing that my system, with all its shortcomings, cannot be accused of is a lack of vividness compared to the real thing. Whenever after coming home from an exciting live concert I turn up my stereo the next day I go like, oh yeah, baby. Especially when the concert has been one of a smaller ensemble (e.g., playing classical avantgarde) in a smaller hall where sheer scale is of lesser importance.

But no, my system can't properly reproduce the attack of a drum kit in a small room either. I haven't heard any system that can.

I don't think you're going to. Go to a very well-amplified rock concert; thousands of watts, active amplification/crossovers, huge horn systems with gret dynamic range...you begin to get close, to capture some of the attack and impact, but the tonality isn't quite right, and the scale, at that point, is bloated. Scale, like smooth is, I think, another attribute that's often more about audiophile tastes than realism. Many big high end systems have scale that is impressive, not natural.

Tim

 

[Julf]

Ugh. I'm a kind of guy quick to admit when I'm wrong Julf. This may be a matter of semantics but I ain't wrong this time.

Now I think you are just playing with me by sniping.

No, not sniping. Just having some experience with writing and benchmarking audio software.

As I stated, with modern processors, arithmetic operations are faster and more efficient using 64-bit full words, rather than having to do 32-bit half-word manipulation. Thus any computation-intensive applications will migrate to 64 bits. The fact that it happens to provide even more headroom is a nice bonus.

I am OK on compromising - let's agree that we are both right. There are good reasons from a software speed point of view to go 64 bit, and there are benefits for users with complicated audio processing and gain management needs. I don't think either of us can know 100% for sure which of the two is the main reason Avid went 64-bit (maybe we are both wrong - maybe it simply was "our competitors are doing it, so we have to do it too").

 

[JackD201]

We're always good Julf. For the record I wasn't disagreeing with you. I just wasn't agreeing with you 100%.

 

[Julf]

We're always good Julf. For the record I wasn't disagreeing with you. I just wasn't agreeing with you 100%.

But... But... Isn't the audiophile world an "all or nothing" world?

 

[Al M.]

Scale, like smooth is, I think, another attribute that's often more about audiophile tastes than realism. Many big high end systems have scale that is impressive, not natural.

Tim

Realistic reproduction of scale should be part of high-end reproduction. But yes, you're right, when a truck-sized piano or a soprano with an alligator-wide mouth appear to stand in your living room, you've got a problem. Frequently part of the issue also appears to be incorrect capture of scale on recordings, next to the fact that big systems tend to overblow size. I guess you can't do much about recordings.

That would be a reason for me to be hesitant to pursue scale even if I could: I find it less offensive to hear an orchestra smaller, but string quartet and piano in right proportions, than to hear orchestra in large, but everything else bloated in size. It's hard to get everything right.

Aah, those compromises...Welcome to the real world.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Realistic reproduction of scale should be part of high-end reproduction. But yes, you're right, when a truck-sized piano or a soprano with an alligator-wide mouth appear to stand in your living room, you've got a problem. Frequently part of the issue also appears to be incorrect capture of scale on recordings, next to the fact that big systems tend to overblow size. I guess you can't do much about recordings.

That would be a reason for me to be hesitant to pursue scale even if I could: I find it less offensive to hear an orchestra smaller, but string quartet and piano in right proportions, than to hear orchestra in large, but everything else bloated in size. It's hard to get everything right.

Aah, those compromises...Welcome to the real world.

Yes, and of course the question becomes "what scale?" Front row center at an arena? The center of the floor at a concert hall? A second row table at The Bottom Line? Much of that is recording, most of that is recording, and if the recording is done well and your listening position is right in an appropriately-sized room, you should be able to get the scale of most recordings from monitors and a sub. MHO anyway. A few recordings will, of course, require bigger speakers, but in audiophile systems, I suspect oversized speakers - for the room and listening position - are a problem more often than the opposite.

And yes, the dynamic range of CD is fine.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Sure, as I wrote earlier in the thread:

I don't know if my room is actually more "dead" sounding than prior to room treatment -- all my tube traps are set towards the diffusive side rather than the absorbent one, and the sound panels are diffusers, not absorbers. Interestingly, while in the hand clapping test all the room echo is gone and consequently conversations in the room sound drier, the music coming from the system sounds acoustically much more alive than before. The extra liveliness comes from letting all the ambience and air of the recorded venues come through, which was completely suppressed before by all the room reverberation and reflections; that had also resulted in a flat, congested soundstage without any depth. Both for small groups and large orchestras everything sounds more alive.

Yes, that is what I don't understand. I think many systems sound too nicely smooth and inoffensive. It is also telling that in Youtube videos of high-end shows or reference rigs, systems are often presented with this bland, laid-back loungy jazz music, many times with female singers who can't really sing. To the point where high-end becomes a caricature of itself.

I never understood that 'smooth' sound. Systems often appear to feature over-crossovered (pardon that word) and over-filtered speakers that apparently are hard to drive by amps (regardless of their nominal sensitivity which in many cases may not even be that bad). It sucks all the life out of the music. I find it embarrassing when I leave a demo of such a system, step into my car, and find that even my car stereo sounds more lively than what I just heard. No kidding.

One thing that my system, with all its shortcomings, cannot be accused of is a lack of vividness compared to the real thing. Whenever after coming home from an exciting live concert I turn up my stereo the next day I go like, oh yeah, baby. Especially when the concert has been one of a smaller ensemble (e.g., playing classical avantgarde) in a smaller hall where sheer scale is of lesser importance.

But no, my system can't properly reproduce the attack of a drum kit in a small room either. I haven't heard any system that can.

Al. M,

Unfortunately it is not possible to debate what makes a system giving us listening pleasure - surely reproducing the harsh aspects of music (my usual cliche is the brass section of the Leningrad Philharmonic Orchestra under Mravinsky ) - without the thread drifting towards systems that sound smooth and inoffensive. IMHO, they are the exception, but they are immediately used to show a wrong idea of the high-end.

The vividness of system is also a complex property, that IMHO is strongly connected to "wizard effects"such as synergy and tuning effects, even more than directly than to the speakers or main equipment. Signal cables, power cables and power conditioners have a very important contribution to it. And yes, I love it!
IMHO your whole system would be a very good case study - low power triode amplifiers with tube rectification are IMHO a very good way to get in vividness. When properly used I have found some OTLs to excel in this field.

 

[microstrip]

Yes, and of course the question becomes "what scale?" Front row center at an arena? The center of the floor at a concert hall? A second row table at The Bottom Line? Much of that is recording, most of that is recording, and if the recording is done well and your listening position is right in an appropriately-sized room, you should be able to get the scale of most recordings from monitors and a sub. MHO anyway. A few recordings will, of course, require bigger speakers, but in audiophile systems, I suspect oversized speakers - for the room and listening position - are a problem more often than the opposite.

And yes, the dynamic range of CD is fine.

Tim

Tim,

Scale of a system is much more than soundstage or placement. IMHO scale is much connected to the way the system transmits the feeling of the power to the listener. The perceptual positional clues in stereo are minimal, and must be enhanced in order to help us recreate the full glory of the performance. Wall reflections also help.

BTW1, I am not worried at all that my system can not reproduce a drum kit at real sound levels at 6 feet - IMHO it is not the purpose of sound reproduction, and I do not like using ear plugs when listening to audio systems. We compare our systems with real to get references, not to reproduce it exactly as it is.

BTW2, no one says that the dynamic range of CD is not fine. But if someone shows you a media with higher dynamic range that sounds better, it is not optimum anymore.

 

[Julf]

no one says that the dynamic range of CD is not fine. But if someone shows you a media with higher dynamic range that sounds better, it is not optimum anymore.

Sure. I guess it is the "sounds better" that isn't quite proven.

 

[microstrip]

That paper has been brought up earlier in this thread as well

Yes, Rbbert, we know, but all these long papers from known authors and its conclusions have been ignored in this thread. The article by a great expert in the field referred in post 1 is much easier to read and most people have calculators and soundmeters. Why should we need anything else?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

Scale of a system is much more than soundstage or placement. IMHO scale is much connected to the way the system transmits the feeling of the power to the listener. The perceptual positional clues in stereo are minimal, and must be enhanced in order to help us recreate the full glory of the performance. Wall reflections also help.

BTW1, I am not worried at all that my system can not reproduce a drum kit at real sound levels at 6 feet - IMHO it is not the purpose of sound reproduction, and I do not like using ear plugs when listening to audio systems. We compare our systems with real to get references, not to reproduce it exactly as it is.

BTW2, no one says that the dynamic range of CD is not fine. But if someone shows you a media with higher dynamic range that sounds better, it is not optimum anymore.

BTW1, I'm not talking about volume.

BTW2, "sounds better" is nice, if that's what you hear, but we've had people here claim that the dynamic range of vinyl is superior to CD, and that is demonstrably inaccurate. So who knows what anyone is hearing that "sounds better?"

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yes, Rbbert, we know, but all these long papers from known authors and its conclusions have been ignored in this thread. The article by a great expert in the field referred in post 1 is much easier to read and most people have calculators and soundmeters. Why should we need anything else?

Micro, are you saying you agree with the article referred to in the original post?

Tim

 

[Al M.]

Yes, and of course the question becomes "what scale?" Front row center at an arena? The center of the floor at a concert hall? A second row table at The Bottom Line?

Yes, seating position makes a big difference. While from a front row the sound of an orchestra may appear huge, I am usually surprised when sitting in a mid-hall position how small in size the orchestra sound really is, even if the sonic impact is still very powerful. I notice this especially with eyes closed, in order to avoid fooling myself with visual clues.

 

[Al M.]

IMHO your whole system would be a very good case study - low power triode amplifiers with tube rectification are IMHO a very good way to get in vividness. When properly used I have found some OTLs to excel in this field.

Yes, but technology marches on, and the old rules don't necessarily apply anymore. I was struck with awe when recently I auditioned the Spectral DMA-260. This was the first high-powered solid state amp that I had heard, or even the first solid state amp in general, that displayed great micro-dynamics, an area where good tube designs always had been king. In addition, it had excellent rhythm & timing, another key factor for vividness. And that it got macro-dynamics right as well is almost self-explanatory.

Upon hearing that amp, quite a few dogmas were shattered in my head. I didn't mind too much

 

[Al M.]

Yes, Rbbert, we know, but all these long papers from known authors and its conclusions have been ignored in this thread.

Not by me. After the link had first been posted, I did refer to that article in a post of mine earlier in the thread.

 

[microstrip]

Micro, are you saying you agree with the article referred to in the original post?

Tim

Tim,

I am not an expert on this subject - so the first think I do when reading something is checking the credibility of any author on his subject and also the credibility of the site. Did you check them?

And no, although my non-expert opinion is not relevant I do not agree with many positions exposed in the referred article.

 

[Al M.]

Tim,

I am not an expert on this subject - so the first think I do when reading something is checking the credibility of any author on his subject and also the credibility of the site. Did you check them?

Sure, you may have a point here. Yet while he is not a full-time recording enineer, he does state in the article that he has experience with making recordings himself.