Live vs. Reproduced?

[Phelonious Ponk]

Raul

If we had just to accept what we have and not search for better in anything and everything we , the Humans would have still been in caves ...

The phantom I refuse to chase is not progress, but the notion that somehow, through ever more complex reproduction systems, we can create a performance in our listening rooms that does not exist. What exists is the recording. That is what we can re-produce, imperfectly, and we will get closer to perfection by simplifying our systems, not by making them more complex. Raul makes a great argument for digital microphones. Convert at the true source, keep everything in the digital domain through the entire signal chain, deal with galvanic isolation and jitter at re-conversion to analog, as late as possible, as close to the transducers as possible. Now you have the cleanest, simplest path from your speakers to the recording, and the only remaining question is do you want to listen to the recording, or do you want to listen to your hifi? .

Tim

PS: The latter choice, listening to your hifi, is a legitimate choice. It is exactly what I'm doing when I eq recordings to make them more pleasant to listen to. Enjoy. T

 

[microstrip]

Dear Tomelex: Speaks or chasing phantoms ( Phelonious Monk's sentence. ) is a false ilussion's audio world ( well an illusion is not something real but false. ) that shows only the people frustration. WE have what we have and the best way to go is: accept the way things are because today is all what we can get.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

You are expressing a clear preference for your way of listening. Can we assume that perhaps it is just because you do not enjoy or accept the perception based developments that look to recreate the "illusion" in audio? Or may be because you do not find any pleasure in the search for anything else than what you have now? O.K.

Please do not consider that the other way leads to frustration. I really enjoy my system and the illusion it recreates. Much more than you can imagine, as I also appreciate and enjoy the technical and wizard aspects. I agree that the real opera, even with cheap champagne in the breaks, if better than an opera at home with a flute of Veuve Coquelicot during the LP or CD change breaks. But the last one is an enjoyable illusion...

 

[microstrip]

T Raul makes a great argument for digital microphones. Convert at the true source, keep everything in the digital domain through the entire signal chain, deal with galvanic isolation and jitter at re-conversion to analog, as late as possible, as close to the transducers as possible. Now you have the cleanest, simplest path from your speakers to the recording, and the only remaining question is do you want to listen to the recording, or do you want to listen to your hifi?

Tim

This is a misleading argument. Microphones capture the sound wave pressure at single points. You have to capture the sound wave at many points, and manipulate it to recreate an electrical signal that will try to reproduce the original sound wave from two or more than two transducers. The changes that the signal suffers during this mix invalidates the argument. The argumentation you refer also ignores that microphones and speakers do not work as an ideal reversible transducer system in 3D.

But the main real argument of the "perceptual" people is that existing recordings we now listen to have been mastered in a way that they are carrying the extra information needed for recreating the illusion in our systems and we tune our systems to recreate the intention or the recording engineers. If some people prefer to "listen to the bits" using an accurate system, decode it with their brains using their knowledge of the recording process and enjoy, it is just another way of listening.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

]This is a misleading argument. Microphones capture the sound wave pressure at single points. You have to capture the sound wave at many points, and manipulate it to recreate an electrical signal that will try to reproduce the original sound wave from two or more than two transducers. The changes that the signal suffers during this mix invalidates the argument. The argumentation you refer also ignores that microphones and speakers do not work as an ideal reversible transducer system in 3D.

I'm not arguing, Micro, but I am making the point that much of the signal degradation of analog that Raul described can be eliminated by a digital signal chain. What I described was a theoretical ideal, not something that is practically achievable, though I think we can get a lot closer than you might expect. Not sure I get your point about microphones. The points are valid, I'm just not sure they have anything to do with whether or not the signal chain, and the manipulation is digital or analog.

But the main real argument of the "perceptual" people is that existing recordings we now listen to have been mastered in a way that they are carrying the extra information needed for recreating the illusion in our systems and we tune our systems to recreate the intention or the recording engineers.

If that's what you're doing -- retrieving more information from the recording, then we are in complete agreement. Welcome to the dark side. This, however, confuses me...

If some people prefer to "listen to the bits" using an accurate system, decode it with their brains using their knowledge or the recording process and enjoy, it is just another way of listening.

If all you're doing is getting the extra information from the recording, to recreate the intention or the recording engineers, how could you expect to accomplish that with anything other than an accurate system?

Tim

 

[silviajulieta]

Raul

If we had just to accept what we have and not search for better in anything and everything we , the Humans would have still been in caves ...

Dear FrantzM: I agree with you but that's not my point. Things are that analog LP/R2R has severe limitations to attain the top sound quality performance in any home audio system. Fortunately is not the only alternative, there is at least one that's IMHO is a lot better and that shows you better sound quality performance and the alternative is to go DIGITAL.

Stay on analog with out turn your face is to live in a cave. Today digital IMHO is the " light " and you have several digital alternatives.

IMHO analog was dead in the very first moment that digital appear but for many reasons we try to mantain live even that's is an inferior playback medium. Digital IMHO always, even when started, was and is a better playback source but in the past the CDP/DACS were not up to the digital technology but over time things improved and the best digital proposal are way way better.

Yes, I know that the placebo like analog is to deepest in many of us and we are not mental prepared to accept the superiorit of digital, both: recording and playback.

I think that we need to follow learning what happen inside ( recording/playback ) the whole digital subject and of course change our analog placebo attitude that does not help to go out of that cave/deep hole.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[garylkoh]

Today digital IMHO is the " light " and you have several digital alternatives.

This I agree with.....

IMHO analog was dead in the very first moment that digital appear but for many reasons we try to mantain live even that's is an inferior playback medium.

.... 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.

 

[microstrip]

I
If all you're doing is getting the extra information from the recording, to recreate the intention or the recording engineers, how could you expect to accomplish that with anything other than an accurate system?
Tim

Tim,
You are back on a point I debated previously - the definition of accuracy. In my view one system that hides information that was intentionally recorded by the recording engineer can not be considered more accurate than one that shows it. BTW, accuracy does not mean repeatability - one thousand false measurements all exactly equal do not become accurate because they show the same value.

What do mean precisely, in physical terms, when you refer to " an accurate system"?

 

[microstrip]

Yes, I know that the placebo like analog is to deepest in many of us and we are not mental prepared to accept the superiorit of digital, both: recording and playback.
I think that we need to follow learning what happen inside ( recording/playback ) the whole digital subject and of course change our analog placebo attitude that does not help to go out of that cave/deep hole.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Thanks for warning me. I will activate my anti-digital electromagnetic shields before reading posts about "what happen inside ( recording/playback ) the whole digital subject". Although I enjoy digital and reading about it, I really like analog and do not want to live in a cave

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

What do mean precisely, in physical terms, when you refer to " an accurate system"?

Let's limit the discussion to electronics here, because transducers and rooms are very much the weak links and their inclusion muddies the conversation. With that caveat, the system that sends a signal to the speakers that is the closest to the signal that came to it from the recording is the more accurate system? Do you see "accurate," in this context, any differently?

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Let's limit the discussion to electronics here, because transducers and rooms are very much the weak links and their inclusion muddies the conversation. With that caveat, the system that sends a signal to the speakers that is the closest to the signal that came to it from the recording is the more accurate system? Do you see "accurate," in this context, any differently?

Tim

Unhappily we can not procedure that way. The argument that "transducers and rooms are very much the weak links and their inclusion muddies the conversation" is not valid for this problem separation. Transducers and rooms are the ultimate tools to assess the electronics, and can not be separated for analysis. It is common fault of problem segmentation in engineering - assuming that two problems are completely independent for analysis and at a later phase discovering they are correlated.
BTW, stating they are the weakest link does not diminish their importance.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Unhappily we can not procedure that way. The argument that "transducers and rooms are very much the weak links and their inclusion muddies the conversation" is not valid for this problem separation. Transducers and rooms are the ultimate tools to assess the electronics, and can not be separated for analysis. It is common fault of problem segmentation in engineering - assuming that two problems are completely independent for analysis and at a later phase discovering they are correlated.
BTW, stating they are the weakest link does not diminish their importance.

Fine. Include the speakers. That's the system. The room is not the system, but the. Assume an anechoic chamber if you must. Or assume your room, treated for the speakers in question. The system that delivers, at the listening position the measured signal which most closely resembles the recording is the most accurate system.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Fine. Include the speakers. That's the system. The room is not the system, but the. Assume an anechoic chamber if you must. Or assume your room, treated for the speakers in question. The system that delivers, at the listening position the measured signal which most closely resembles the recording is the most accurate system.

Tim

Although it is not possible to perform such test (the recording and the sound-wave have different physical characteristics ), let us assume it was possible. What is the criteria you will use to determine "the measured signal which most closely resembles the recording" ?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Another good reason to keep the discussion to electronics. Let's take this back to the source of this point. You said your objective was to retrieve more information from the recording, and to get closer to the engineers' intent. Rather than sink deeper into pedantry, tell me with how those goals could lead you to anything other than seeking components that alter that recording as little as possible, or how you can "tune your system" to reveal the recording engineers' intent unless you are "tuning" it to a alter the recording as little as possible. I'm afraid I don't get what you're driving at.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Another good reason to keep the discussion to electronics.

Well, if you just want to discuss electronics separately, it is not worth going on using the keyboard.
Thanks to a reminder of a WBF member I can become lazy and just quote Dieter Burmester.

"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."

Do you agree? Curiously his next statement is about the importance of "the unaltered signal".

Let's take this back to the source of this point. You said your objective was to retrieve more information from the recording, and to get closer to the engineers' intent. Rather than sink deeper into pedantry. (...)

Since you consider that a formally correct debate is pedantry, I do not see any advantage in going on debating this line. I also have questions, not all the answers, and my objective is also to learn something.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Well, if you just want to discuss electronics separately, it is not worth going on using the keyboard.
Thanks to a reminder of a WBF member I can become lazy and just quote Dieter Burmester.

"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."

Do you agree? Curiously his next statement is about the importance of "the unaltered signal".


Since you consider that a formally correct debate is pedantry, I do not see any advantage in going on debating this line. I also have questions, not all the answers, and my objective is also to learn something.

It is formally incorrect to discuss electronics on an audiophile board? How strange. In any case, I'm not attempting to debate you, Micro. I think this debate is pretty futile. I can, however, answer your question: I define an "accurate" component as the one that does not alter the signal audibly. Yes, I believe that is measurable and yes, I believe measurements can be indicative of sound, and I've said all of that before, given examples and referred not just to the statements of WBF members, but to the research of WBF member Sean Olive.

Now, can you answer my question? How, without faith in measurements, can you "tune our systems to recreate the intention or the recording engineers?" How can you even know the intention of the recording engineers? This tuning process seems much more akin to what I do when I use EQ to adjust recordings, and of course that has everything to do with my enjoyment but only brings me closer to the intention of the engineer if by dumb luck. Not that there's anything wrong with that if it helps you enjoy the music. I'd just like to understand where you're coming from.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

It is formally incorrect to discuss electronics on an audiophile board? How strange. In any case, I'm not attempting to debate you, Micro. I think this debate is pretty futile. I can, however, answer your question: I define an "accurate" component as the one that does not alter the signal audibly. Yes, I believe that is measurable and yes, I believe measurements can be indicative of sound, and I've said all of that before, given examples and referred not just to the statements of WBF members, but to the research of WBF member Sean Olive.

Any one agrees that electronic measurements CAN be an indicative of sound quality (for example, highly distorted sound is poor sound) but we do not agree that it is the ONLY indicative. As we say, they are needed, but not enough. I am stating that listening is part of the enough.

When I refer to someone's opinion I usually quote his words, so any one can know specifically what I am addressing, and if he wants, rebut it. Could you please quote or provide a link to the material you refer?

Now, can you answer my question? How, without faith in measurements, can you "tune our systems to recreate the intention or the recording engineers?" How can you even know the intention of the recording engineers? This tuning process seems much more akin to what I do when I use EQ to adjust recordings, and of course that has everything to do with my enjoyment but only brings me closer to the intention of the engineer if by dumb luck. Not that there's anything wrong with that if it helps you enjoy the music. I'd just like to understand where you're coming from.

Tim

I will answer to that later. As I do not want to type to much I hope I will be able to quote parts from a well know book addressing the reproduction of sound, perceptual stimulus and illusion. For that I have to re-install my computer OCR software. But it is an answer based in subjective and statistical criteria. Since your question is really interesting, may be some other people will also contribute.

 

[Ron Party]

"...it is possible to build two devices, which have exactly the same technical data but a completely different sound."

Example?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Any one agrees that electronic measurements CAN be an indicative of sound quality (for example, highly distorted sound is poor sound) but we do not agree that it is the ONLY indicative. As we say, they are needed, but not enough. I am stating that listening is part of the enough.

Actually we do agree on all of the above. We probably only differ on the degrees.

When I refer to someone's opinion I usually quote his words, so any one can know specifically what I am addressing, and if he wants, rebut it. Could you please quote or provide a link to the material you refer?

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/

I don't remember the exact location of the discussion of the correlation between measurements and preference in listening tests, but there is much here to learn and probably some to disagree with. Enjoy.

I will answer to that later. As I do not want to type to much I hope I will be able to quote parts from a well know book addressing the reproduction of sound, perceptual stimulus and illusion. For that I have to re-install my computer OCR software. But it is an answer based in subjective and statistical criteria. Since your question is really interesting, may be some other people will also contribute.

I'm glad you find the question interesting and am looking forward to an interesting answer. It's a core question for me, as I don't object to tweaking a system to taste, I do that myself. But when I do, I don't think I'm getting closer to the creator's intent, I think I'm merely getting closer to my personal preference.

Tim

 

[garylkoh]

I don't object to tweaking a system to taste, I do that myself. But when I do, I don't think I'm getting closer to the creator's intent, I think I'm merely getting closer to my personal preference.

Kudos to you Tim. Many audiophiles I meet do not believe in themselves enough to make this statement. Then, we go into another merry-go-round debate about what is "right".

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.

 

[tonmeister2008]

Kudos to you Tim. Many audiophiles I meet do not believe in themselves enough to make this statement. Then, we go into another merry-go-round debate about what is "right".

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.

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.