Live vs. Reproduced?

[silviajulieta]

This I agree with.....



.... but this I vehemently disagree with! Well-implemented imperfection is far superior to badly-implemented perfection.

It took many years for digital to reach the state it is in today. Even then, it is still not perfect. Analog has been refined and refined for decades already. That is is so good today is testament to the efforts of the designers and engineers who have work on it for many, many years.

There are many of us here who still think that the current state of the art in analog is superior to the current state of the art in digital. There are yet many of us who think that the current state of the art in digital is superior to the current state of the art in analog. Just as there are those who think that massive turntables are superior to light turntables, or those who think that DSD is superior to PCM. It's not wrong, it boils down to preference of implementation.

Dear garylkoh: +++++ " Well-implemented imperfection is far superior to badly-implemented perfection. " +++++:

first I don't beleive digital technology is a perfect one, second there is no real/true evidence that imperfection/analog technology is " well-implemented " by the contrary IMHO is not well implemented overall ( there are analog " steps " very bad implemented. ), third IMHO too the digital technology was not badly-implemented only that the know-how level and tools for implemented was not at the same level than today but even that the digital technology per sé does not change overtime.

In the other side IMHO your statement depend on which kind and which level of imperfection has that " well-implemented imperfection " and how " badly-implemented perfection " really was/is.


+++++ " It took many years for digital to reach the state it is in today. " +++++, IMHO not the digital technology but the CDPs ( you can take a CD recorded in the 80's and hear it today and its quality performance is very good even that is a " vintage " recording that maybe in those times sounded to us wrong. ) and digital recording sound enginners.



+++++ " Analog has been refined and refined for decades already. That is is so good today is testament to the efforts of the designers and engineers who have work on it for many, many years " +++++


IMHO the evidence we have on hand tell us something different on what you are saying. What we heard/hear today in each one home audio system is a lot better quality performance than 30-40 years ago. Is this because analog improved?, not really: what improved were electronics designs ( line stages/amplñifiers. ) that serve both worlds analog and digital, improved the wire/cables/IC area for both worlds too, improved speakers designs used on both technologies, improved room treatment technology, improved anti-vibration audio system" tools/items ", improved our each one audio knowledge/skills level ,etc, etc.
All these improvements were not to help in specific analog but for general use..

IMHO analog is the audio area that almost nothing " moves/improve " over last 40+ years: we have vintage phono cartridges that today not only performs in a " decent " way but that outperforms top today rated phono cartridges and this same " analog true " repeat/repeated with tonearms and TTs. We still have off-center LP holes along non-flat LP surface and LP clicks and pops/noises.

In the other side digital CDP are way better than before and when we can see that the analog source is almost at the end of this technology limits the digital one in the other side still has a improvement world to comes.


+++++ " There are many of us here who still think that the current state of the art in analog is superior to the current state of the art in digital. There are yet many of us who think that the current state of the art in digital is superior to the current state of the art in analog. " +++++


some way or the other is important what we ( each one ) think in any audio subject but IMHO what you think or what I think or what other person think on the digital and analog subject is not important and an endless subjective/preferences subject.
What's is important are the evidences, very clear evidences, that IMHO proves the digital technology superiority against the analog one, superiority that we have to " see " at quality level performance and that we need to " understand " it with out that analog placebo but in more objective terms.

For many years I as many of you was " defending " with fierce the analog alternative till I decided to make a digital subject research to first understand the whole technology at least at the same level I understand the analog one and second made in deep digital listening tests/sessions ( many many hours . ) either on full digital recorded CDs/DVD-A or digital recorded LPs making comparisons first against the analog source looking for : what am I missing with digital? what improves with digital alternative? which one was nearest to the recording? and even against " live events. ".


I still enjoy analog ( I own thousands of LPs. ) and I like it the analog experience but this fact does not affect my " common sense " level and true evidences on the comparison subject.

As I posted, the problem is that several of us are not prepared to " accept " the digital superiority in exactly the same way we are not prepared to " accept " that the tube electronic technology in audio is not ( today ) an inferior one but the worst for music/sound reproduction at home and many other critical/important audio subjects supported by the AHEE.


Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[mep]

As I posted, the problem is that several of us are not prepared to " accept " the digital superiority in exactly the same way we are not prepared to " accept " that the tube electronic technology in audio is not ( today ) an inferior one but the worst for music/sound reproduction at home and many other critical/important audio subjects supported by the AHEE.

Take that all you analog/tube loving wackos out there! Hey wait, that’s me.

 

[Ron Party]

I think we all tweak our systems to some extent to compensate for the "circle of confusion" that exists between the recording and playback chains.

Not all (perhaps most?) recordings are perfect or neutral, so audiophile respond by tweaking their systems to make the recordings sound better to satisfy what they think sounds good.

Until there are some meaningful industry standards in place that control the most important variables in the monitor chain (loudspeaker/room,) where the art is made, the consumer has no idea of what the artist intended. Once those standards are in place, the consumer has a better chance to match their playback systems to the recording industry standard, and reproduce what the artist intended.

Sounds simple enough, but it will only happen if rational minds prevail.

Rationalism. I have posted many times before that I am a (self-described) rationalist when it comes to matters audio, so it would come as no surprise to those who do remember my position in these matters that I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Olive's post.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Rationalism. I have posted many times before that I am a (self-described) rationalist when it comes to matters audio, so it would come as no surprise to those who do remember my position in these matters that I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Olive's post.

Another rationalist, another agreement with Sean. Still, I'll endeavor to have as neutral a system as I can, and do my fine-tuning with components that can be bi-passed with the push of a button. If others want to tweak with colored components and wire, only able to adapt to the next recording with another "upgrade," that's fine by me, but boy, talk about doing things the hard way!

Take that all you analog/tube loving wackos out there! Hey wait, that’s me.

Yes, but you're recovering, Mark.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think we all tweak our systems to some extent to compensate for the "circle of confusion" that exists between the recording and playback chains.

Not all (perhaps most?) recordings are perfect or neutral, so audiophile respond by tweaking their systems to make the recordings sound better to satisfy what they think sounds good.

Until there are some meaningful industry standards in place that control the most important variables in the monitor chain (loudspeaker/room,) where the art is made, the consumer has no idea of what the artist intended. Once those standards are in place, the consumer has a better chance to match their playback systems to the recording industry standard, and reproduce what the artist intended.

Sounds simple enough, but it will only happen if rational minds prevail.

Sean, which blog entry was it in which you talked about how measurements predicted preference? There was also one in which you talked about a preference for the more neutral, a preference that cut across trained and untrained listeners.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

(...) There is no "right" unless you are the recording engineer. And even if you are the recording engineer - you are weaving a sonic tapestry with the contribution of musicians, room, mics, mic preamps, mic cables, etc. and then if you are the mixing engineer, you take the recording engineer's tapestry and overlay your preferences.

Happily in sound reproduction of acoustic music that has life counterpart, we can rely on something:

" How do listeners approach the problem of judging sound quality? Most likely the dimensions and criteria of subjective evaluation are traceable to experiences in live sound, even simple conversation" - from Toole (Sound Reproduction).

Although we will have some problems in this approach due to the entropy increase due to the "circle of confusion" perturbation, we can rely on a statistical analysis to check if our system is improving with most of our recordings - if a modification sounds more like life with most of our loved recordings, than we are going in the sense of "right". It is why I always take a long time before having an opinion on something - I need to listen for it with many recordings.

 

[mep]

It is why I always take a long time before having an opinion on something - I need to listen for it with many recordings.

I think this is a good approach as well. I never claimed to have the fastest ears in the west so unless something is horribly wrong, I need to spend some time with a new component before I pass final judgement on it. Mistakes can be costly.

 

[microstrip]

Example?

I was quoting Dieter Burmester, as I clearly referred. You will have to check with him for an example. I used his public words because he is someone usually associated with electronics sounding and measuring excellently. See its site for further information:

http://www.burmester.de

"Measurements are able to make a statement about the technical and mechanic quality of the piece of equipment. They cannot, however, predict the actual sound. Proof is given by the fact that it is possible to build two devices, which have exactly the same technical data but a completely different sound."

 

[fas42]

Interesting to see how this conversation has proceeded, one has that has been repeated many, many times. One thing that does bear emphasis is the importance of the experiences of the people involved, and a key factor is whether the individual has heard sound reproduction occurring above the normal high end, audiophile level. There is a very clear boundary between normal hi fi, and realistic reproduction, and if you have never heard, tuned into, or only had transitory exposure to the latter then you will always be arguing from the other side of the debate.

As examples of people who know what's possible, there's myself, Vince; Robert and Jack have had short term experiences, Raul sounds as if he's worked hard enough to get the results. Generally this positive experience highlights profoundly how tremendously capable digital really is, I for one am very sure that I haven't got out of it as yet what is fully achievable.

Just to lend some perspective on the situation ...

Frank

 

[microstrip]

I think we all tweak our systems to some extent to compensate for the "circle of confusion" that exists between the recording and playback chains.

Not all (perhaps most?) recordings are perfect or neutral, so audiophile respond by tweaking their systems to make the recordings sound better to satisfy what they think sounds good.

Until there are some meaningful industry standards in place that control the most important variables in the monitor chain (loudspeaker/room,) where the art is made, the consumer has no idea of what the artist intended. Once those standards are in place, the consumer has a better chance to match their playback systems to the recording industry standard, and reproduce what the artist intended.

Sounds simple enough, but it will only happen if rational minds prevail.

This perspective looks interesting, but perhaps too pessimistic. Since these standards still do not exist, and all our recordings were made without them, do you consider that any improvement (either audio components or acoustic treatment) is just a matter of user preference? Recently, I participated in a dinner where a well known acoustic engineer expressed the opinion that small room acoustic treatments reflect mostly the preferences of the acoustic designer - and everyone of them has a completely different taste!

I know I am asking too much, but can you supply us with a list of a few perfect / neutral recordings for reference? My preference is classical music ...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I was quoting Dieter Burmester, as I clearly referred. You will have to check with him for an example. I used his public words because he is someone usually associated with electronics sounding and measuring excellently. See its site for further information:

http://www.burmester.de

"Measurements are able to make a statement about the technical and mechanic quality of the piece of equipment. They cannot, however, predict the actual sound. Proof is given by the fact that it is possible to build two devices, which have exactly the same technical data but a completely different sound."

Hmmm...I don't read German. Was this quote originally in English, because I'd like to see detail. I suppose this depends on how you define "technical data." I suppose if we're talking about the kinds of measurements usually published by manufacturers, it might be true. If were talking about comprehensive, independent measurements, I really have my doubts.

Tim

Tim

 

[tonmeister2008]

Sean, which blog entry was it in which you talked about how measurements predicted preference? There was also one in which you talked about a preference for the more neutral, a preference that cut across trained and untrained listeners.

Tim

I talk about the correlation between loudspeaker measurements and preferences in this blog article. I need to write a follow-up article that summarizes the mathematical model I developed that predicts listener loudspeaker preference ratings based on the set of anechoic measurements we do. The correlation between predicted versus measured preference rating is r = 0.86 based on a sample of 70 different loudspeakers we evaluated in double-blind tests.

 

[fas42]

Hmmm...I don't read German. Was this quote originally in English, because I'd like to see detail. I suppose this depends on how you define "technical data." I suppose if we're talking about the kinds of measurements usually published by manufacturers, it might be true. If were talking about comprehensive, independent measurements, I really have my doubts.

Tim

Tim

Tin Tin, sorry, Tim Tim , try http://www.burmester.de/en ...

Frank

 

[DaveyF]

Interesting to see how this conversation has proceeded, one has that has been repeated many, many times. One thing that does bear emphasis is the importance of the experiences of the people involved, and a key factor is whether the individual has heard sound reproduction occurring above the normal high end, audiophile level. There is a very clear boundary between normal hi fi, and realistic reproduction, and if you have never heard, tuned into, or only had transitory exposure to the latter then you will always be arguing from the other side of the debate.

As examples of people who know what's possible, there's myself, Vince; Robert and Jack have had short term experiences, Raul sounds as if he's worked hard enough to get the results. Generally this positive experience highlights profoundly how tremendously capable digital really is, I for one am very sure that I haven't got out of it as yet what is fully achievable.

Just to lend some perspective on the situation ...

Frank

Frank, It's a shame I don't live close to you in NSW, because if I did, I would bring over my Taylor guitar and demonstrate to you how far away your digital system is from the sound of a 'live' instrument.
I have done this with several other 'believers' ,like you, who felt sure that their systems were 'near perfect' and frankly it's all I can do to not break down in hysterics.
Last weekend, I brought this guitar to an a'phile meeting where the group had assembled a very respectable system with Magico's and Soolution as the primary components. I played just one(1) note...then a chord..just one(1)...we all then listened to a guitar piece on the system to compare...Can you guess the results?.

 

[fas42]

... demonstrate to you how far away your digital system is from the sound of a 'live' instrument.
I have done this with several other 'believers' ,like you, who felt sure that their systems were 'near perfect' and frankly it's all I can do to not break down in hysterics.

I would never say my system is near perfect, in fact it's highly defective!!! I'm having a battle at the moment bringing it up to scratch and having it remain so consistently. The key thing is that I know what I'm after, and where the vast majority of systems fall down. There are many ways of describing aspects of live sound and how good systems can sound: invisible speakers, pressurising the room; intense, almost deafening sound levels without harshness. These things are achievable with a setup, but certainly not with gear, no matter how expensive, that has just been hooked together.

I certainly know live sound: my brother playing saxophone 2 feet away, being adjacent to my grandson hammering a drum kit, a famous classical guitarist fooling around on a sofa opposite, standing 10 feet away, behind the PA, from a big band going flat out, a piano in the room with the system. Live sound feels enormous, fills your head, is overwhelming. That is realisable from reproduced sound!

Frank

 

[DaveyF]

Frank, if you know what you are after and where the vast majority of systems fall down, then I believe you are ahead of the curve. For some reason I was under the impression that you felt your system was able to reproduce a 'live' event. Particularly a 'live symphony orchestra in a hall'.

I would like to ask this question of the other 'digital' defenders...Have you heard a recent recording, done digitally, that can stand up against one of Wilma Fine's analog masters or for that matter one of her Mercury LP's?

 

[fas42]

For some reason I was under the impression that you felt your system was able to reproduce a 'live' event. Particularly a 'live symphony orchestra in a hall'.

You're gently jibing me, but that's OK!

I'm sure some people would, correctly, disagree with me in that I've managed to have a symphony orchestra tucked away, but the thing to remember is that what I am talking about is the audible impression. What is the impressive thing about live sound is its tremendous intensity combined with lack of harshness, making it relatively easy for the brain, depending upon the actual volume of the sound, to focus in on part of the wall of sound and to hear some detail clearly. An example with a symphonic work would be a triangle struck lightly during a fortissimo. Now, with my system working properly I have no trouble getting that, and to put it in context, I will now work out some volume figures for my miniscule system.

I have no sound meter, so a couple of guesses. The speakers have little 3" full range drivers, but with quite hefty magnets, significantly better than the normal tinplate nonsense. I'm guessing about 90dB sensitivity. The amps are weedy little gainclone types, but still would be able to do 20 watts on a peak. I do Beethoven's 9th at maximum volume, number 40 out of 40 on the dial, there's no obvious distortion or compression, so the little amps are probably close to or slightly clipping. This works out to over 105dB peak volume at a close listening distance, reasonably close to what you would get in a concert hall. So the system should be able to do it, and it sounds like that it is as well!

A key thing is that I can drop the volume while listening like this and nothing changes, it's just as if I'm moving further away. I could drop it right down to 5 out of 40 volume setting, and it still sounds the same, I am now just quite a distance away. This has been mentioned elsewhere as being a key sign of a system working well ...

Frank

 

[terryj]

You're gently jibing me, but that's OK!


Frank

you are gently jibing all of us??

you could be pulling all our legs, so if you are I will admit now that you got me.

still, on the off chance you are serious I will continue.

Interesting to see how this conversation has proceeded, one has that has been repeated many, many times. One thing that does bear emphasis is the importance of the experiences of the people involved, and a key factor is whether the individual has heard sound reproduction occurring above the normal high end, audiophile level. There is a very clear boundary between normal hi fi, and realistic reproduction, and if you have never heard, tuned into, or only had transitory exposure to the latter then you will always be arguing from the other side of the debate.

The above seemed to raise a few eyebrows, maybe only mine.

Then you come clean and admit that you have three inch full range drivers??

that's the trouble with audio forums, everyone can just say what they want. We have no way of testing how it sounds.

But, if you think a three inch full range driver is capable of reproducing a symphony orchestra experience........

Davey F one, frank nil.

 

[microstrip]

Hmmm...I don't read German. Was this quote originally in English, because I'd like to see detail. I suppose this depends on how you define "technical data." I suppose if we're talking about the kinds of measurements usually published by manufacturers, it might be true. If were talking about comprehensive, independent measurements, I really have my doubts.

Tim

Tim

You can select the english version - click language.
Are you referring to Paul Miller (HFNRR) , Soundstage or Stereophile measurements when you say "comprehensive, independent measurements" ?

 

[fas42]

But, if you think a three inch full range driver is capable of reproducing a symphony orchestra experience........

Davey F one, frank nil.

I have come clean already, you can check further details in the Member's Gallery. You will note there that there is a subwoofer in the equation, which certainly helps but is not essential. At the moment it's not functioning but that's only losing me information below 200Hz. As I point out, if the amp is behaving itself then the volume output is adequate to reproduce the musical event over the rest of the audible spectrum.

In my experience, the reason most systems fail to convince is because they can't go loud enough without generating too much distortion. It doesn't matter how many bass drivers you have, it still won't work; the only benefit is if the bass area is driven by a separate power amp, taking the load off the amp doing midrange and treble.

Frank