System Distortion Poll II

[Phelonious Ponk]

Once the recording is made, THAT is the performance you play back. You never hear what was heard in the studio at the recording. You hear what you hear at home. The rooms are different and so are the studio speakers. The recording is set in stone and it is what it is.

The "source" as I understand it in stereo terms is the CD player or turntable/arm/cartridge, NOT the medium of the recording. Dallasjustice (the OP) is asking about the playback equipment and environment in our listening rooms.

Distortion is not what necessarily separates the good, bad and the ugly when it comes to sound reproduction in our rooms. Frequency response and "flatness" of response and room features like echo and ringing affects the sound tremendously. Do you want any type of distortion in your playback? I fail to see how anything but the recording is what you want to hear, unless you want it adulterated. NO distortion is good -- it is all stuff that isn't on the recording, so I don't want any of it. I want the recording, the whole recording and nothing but the recording. There is no "good" distortion. That's why our rooms and speakers must be held to high qualities. The rest of the electronic chain is much less important.

Systems sound different from each other due to characteristics of the rooms, speakers, amplifiers and CD players or TT/arm/cart characteristics.

One would think so.

Tim

 

[Atmasphere]

How do you know that microphones are that good? By judging with headphones or with speaker systems?

With headphones you cannot judge detail since headphones by their very nature present detail differently than music in front of you. With headphones you also cannot judge if the mic correctly captures the physical impact of the music.

With speaker systems you run into speaker and room distortions and colorations, as well as amplifier behavior. So this will not allow to judge the mic performance properly either, i.e. if it delivers a faithful copy of the live music that it captures.

Fact is that I have never heard any system that properly captures all the timbral detail and color of live music, let alone delivers a faithful copy of its physical impact (just try to reproduce a solo violin and compare with live sound). Regardless how expensive, or if analog or digital (in the larger picture that we are talking about, of live vs. reproduced music, the debate about storage/playback medium becomes almost a side show, especially with today's progress in digital -- it's not 1984 or even 2004 anymore).

So I suspect that the microphone(s) may be a major culprit here, even before the music hits the mic preamp or any storage medium.

It would make sense since, like the speakers and room, the microphone has physical moving parts or physical interaction with the music. Also, by its very physical shape, a mic cannot 'hear' the music like human ears do -- see also for that reason the exploration of binaural recording.

Furthermore, it's not just the mic, it's also how it's used. For example, I have repeatedly heard (and seen in photos) that string quartets are recorded from above. That is a sound perspective that differs from what the listener hears at their seat in the hall. Also orchestras are often recorded with hanging microphones.

All this introduces distortion from the live experience right there.

In this context I also find the following post by Gary on the thread 'Tired of formats, nostalgic for great 44/16 music' interesting:

In a nutshell its really obvious that you have not actually listened to a set of high quality microphones feeding a set of good quality headphones. If you had, you would know that a set of good mics and phones can be so good that they can fool a jaundiced audiophile into nearly having a heart attack

'Way back in the 1980s and 90s I did a lot of on-location recordings using a set of old RCA DX-77 ribbon mics and a hopped up Ampex 351-2 tape machine, and of course a set of headphones so I could hear what I was doing. Some audiophile friends wanted to come to one of the sessions, which on this particular day was in a cathedral in the College of St. Catherine's in St. Paul, MN. I realized I had the mics set too close prior to beginning, so I went to move them. Now ribbon mics can be somewhat delicate and I knew that one of my friends was listening to the direct feed on the headphones, so when I got to the mic stand, I just said out loud 'OK I am going to move the stand now' so he would be prepared for what was to follow. When I got back to the back room where the rest of the gear was set up, one of my friends was laughing out loud and the other was as white as a ghost. You see, when I walked up to the mics and spoke, it sounded so real to him that he spun around to look at me, knowing full well how far away the mics were (and separated by two rooms as well). He was shocked that I had gone through one door, and seemed to run through another route to get back into the room we were set up in (a superhuman task), only to find out that I was not there.

I knew immediately what he had experienced as there have been times when I was listening on the phones myself and been fooled.

IOW, live mics and headphones (other than perspective) can sound very very real, and its safe to say that they have been in that state of excellence for a very long time. Those RCA ribbon mics were made in the late 1950s, the electronics dates from the same era, although rebuilt with new capacitors, and the headphones of the event I described were purchased from Radio Shack. If you want to hear detail, get headphones. Your perspective will not be right, but boy will you hear detail.

Interestingly, it does seem considerably more difficult to get the same sort of reality out of loudspeakers and amplifiers.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

In a nutshell its really obvious that you have not actually listened to a set of high quality microphones feeding a set of good quality headphones. If you had, you would know that a set of good mics and phones can be so good that they can fool a jaundiced audiophile into nearly having a heart attack

'Way back in the 1980s and 90s I did a lot of on-location recordings using a set of old RCA DX-77 ribbon mics and a hopped up Ampex 351-2 tape machine, and of course a set of headphones so I could hear what I was doing. Some audiophile friends wanted to come to one of the sessions, which on this particular day was in a cathedral in the College of St. Catherine's in St. Paul, MN. I realized I had the mics set too close prior to beginning, so I went to move them. Now ribbon mics can be somewhat delicate and I knew that one of my friends was listening to the direct feed on the headphones, so when I got to the mic stand, I just said out loud 'OK I am going to move the stand now' so he would be prepared for what was to follow. When I got back to the back room where the rest of the gear was set up, one of my friends was laughing out loud and the other was as white as a ghost. You see, when I walked up to the mics and spoke, it sounded so real to him that he spun around to look at me, knowing full well how far away the mics were (and separated by two rooms as well). He was shocked that I had gone through one door, and seemed to run through another route to get back into the room we were set up in (a superhuman task), only to find out that I was not there.

I knew immediately what he had experienced as there have been times when I was listening on the phones myself and been fooled.

IOW, live mics and headphones (other than perspective) can sound very very real, and its safe to say that they have been in that state of excellence for a very long time. Those RCA ribbon mics were made in the late 1950s, the electronics dates from the same era, although rebuilt with new capacitors, and the headphones of the event I described were purchased from Radio Shack. If you want to hear detail, get headphones. Your perspective will not be right, but boy will you hear detail.

Interestingly, it does seem considerably more difficult to get the same sort of reality out of loudspeakers and amplifiers.

Once again we find ourselves in complete agreement, Ralph.

Tim

 

[RBFC]

It's a tough call, since the room and speakers work as an integrated unit to define the sound presentation. I know we've all heard speakers that sound great in a certain room, while other speakers sound terrible in the same room. Dispersion pattern, frequencies where distortion lies, etc. all come into play.

Lee

 

[Al M.]

IOW, live mics and headphones (other than perspective) can sound very very real, and its safe to say that they have been in that state of excellence for a very long time. Those RCA ribbon mics were made in the late 1950s, the electronics dates from the same era, although rebuilt with new capacitors, and the headphones of the event I described were purchased from Radio Shack. If you want to hear detail, get headphones. Your perspective will not be right, but boy will you hear detail.

Interestingly, it does seem considerably more difficult to get the same sort of reality out of loudspeakers and amplifiers.

Ralph,

I know a thing or two about headphones. My first system was purely headphone-based, with headphones for guests too, and even featured in a Dutch Hi-Fi magazine since it was such a curiosity. At the time I thought it was the greatest thing in the world, but now I don't care about headphones anymore, even though I still have a pair of higher-grade Grados (worth 700 bucks). My speaker system sounds to me much more real, and it is enormously detailed as well (obvious especially now with my latest upgrades of amps and DAC), but the timbral detail still falls short of unamplified live music. My dealer in The Netherlands actually suggested back then, 23 years ago, that I might like the minimonitors precisely because they would resemble something like my headphone experience.

A couple more points:

Your anecdote about the human voice does not convince me that a mic can adequately capture all the details of timbre of a solo violin, a timbre that in certain ways seems considerably more complex and 'faster' to me. Also, in my system I can get rather convincing reproduction of human singing voices from good recordings, but a string quartet? Now that's much more elusive. I am still quite impressed with what my system can do in that regard, but that doesn't mean it comes close to the real thing.

You have not addressed my point about the actual use of mics, e.g. recording string quartets and other music from above rather than from a regular position in a concert hall. This introduces distortions from a regular live experience in the hall, regardless of how good the mics may be.

You have not convinced me that mics can adequately capture the physical impact of a performance -- just take a kick drum for example (there have been whole threads on physical impact of live vs. recorded music on this forum). You can't judge that with headphones.

Also, what about Gary's anecddote about a recording engineer switching between two mikes and trying to decide on the mike to use for the take, where both were excellent in his view, but sounded absolutely different? If microphones typically present a faithful copy of what they aim to capture they should sound the same.

Al

 

[Lee]

Speaker, amplifier, room, source is an option.

I went with that, thanks.

 

[Al M.]

Once again we find ourselves in complete agreement, Ralph.

Tim

In that case, and since in your view, if I understand correctly, CD is not just in theoretical but also in practical terms close to perfect, the conclusion seems to be that we should be able to hear over headphones from good recordings something that closely resembles live music. But obviously this does not hold.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

In that case, and since in your view, if I understand correctly, CD is not just in theoretical but also in practical terms close to perfect, the conclusion seems to be that we should be able to hear over headphones from good recordings something that closely resembles live music. But obviously this does not hold.

No it does not hold. But I've never said that CD is theoretically or practically close to perfect. That would be what some people say I say when they need my position to be easier to argue against. What I've said is that hi res is theoretically and practically no better, and vinyl is theoretically and practically worse. None of that says anything about the perfection Of CDs. And by the way, headphones do not present anything approaching spatial accuracy. Given adequate listening time, and a complex signal they wouldn't fool anyone. But a brief, simple mic feed? With none of the "feel it in your chest, feel it vibrating the floor" bass that only big speakers and subs can deliver? Great cans can be very convincing.

Oh and just so the record is straight? I only listen to CDs in the car. At home I listen to rips of CDs. A small point, but a significant one.

Tim

 

[Al M.]

No it does not hold. But I've never said that CD is theoretically or practically close to perfect. That would be what some people say I say when they need my position to be easier to argue against. What I've said is that hi res is theoretically and practically no better, and vinyl is theoretically and practically worse. None of that says anything about the perfection Of CDs.

O.k., thanks for the clarification. But if hi res is theoretically and practically no better, and vinyl is theoretically and practically worse, then what would be the perfectly transparent medium?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

O.k., thanks for the clarification. But if hi res is theoretically and practically no better, and vinyl is theoretically and practically worse, then what would be the perfectly transparent medium?

Who knows? There's no perfectly transparent system to reveal it.

Tim

 

[Al M.]

Who knows? There's no perfectly transparent system to reveal it.

Tim

But didn't you agree with Ralph that a direct mic feed could be very transparent through headphones? So this should then be an adequate system to reveal a transparent recording/playback medium.

 

[JonFo]

As someone who has performed detailed system measurements for over a decade, I believe the correct order is:

Room, Speakers, anything else in any order.

 

[c1ferrari]

Well, it appears I'm consonant with 56.25% of the respondents.

 

[c1ferrari]

In a nutshell its really obvious that you have not actually listened to a set of high quality microphones feeding a set of good quality headphones.
IOW, live mics and headphones (other than perspective) can sound very very real, and its safe to say that they have been in that state of excellence for a very long time. Your perspective will not be right, but boy will you hear detail.

Ralph,

I'm presently on the minimally-mic'd, direct to 2-track, no EQ/NR/Limiting, etc., recording path of live acoustic performances in non-studio environments. The current recording chain: Schoeps CMC6 with MK 5 and MK 8 capsules --> Gordon Model 5 mic pre --> Studer A820 (analog tape) / Korg MR-2000s (DSD128). Which closed-back headphones (RS notwithstanding), if any, have you employed for monitoring purpose? Any that you would recommend?

Thanks.

 

[Gregadd]

No it does not hold. But I've never said that CD is theoretically or practically close to perfect. That would be what some people say I say when they need my position to be easier to argue against. What I've said is that hi res is theoretically and practically no better, and vinyl is theoretically and practically worse. None of that says anything about the perfection Of CDs. And by the way, headphones do not present anything approaching spatial accuracy. Given adequate listening time, and a complex signal they wouldn't fool anyone. But a brief, simple mic feed? With none of the "feel it in your chest, feel it vibrating the floor" bass that only big speakers and subs can deliver? Great cans can be very convincing.

Oh and just so the record is straight? I only listen to CDs in the car. At home I listen to rips of CDs. A small point, but a significant one.

Tim

Having conceded digital is not perfect would you care to enumerate some of its imperfections .

 

[Gregadd]

The question is what device produces the most offensive distortions. Your room with few exceptions was not designed to be an audio device. It wins by default. Transducers have the most difficult job.

 

[Atmasphere]

Ralph,

I know a thing or two about headphones. My first system was purely headphone-based, with headphones for guests too, and even featured in a Dutch Hi-Fi magazine since it was such a curiosity. At the time I thought it was the greatest thing in the world, but now I don't care about headphones anymore, even though I still have a pair of higher-grade Grados (worth 700 bucks). My speaker system sounds to me much more real, and it is enormously detailed as well (obvious especially now with my latest upgrades of amps and DAC), but the timbral detail still falls short of unamplified live music. My dealer in The Netherlands actually suggested back then, 23 years ago, that I might like the minimonitors precisely because they would resemble something like my headphone experience.

A couple more points:

Your anecdote about the human voice does not convince me that a mic can adequately capture all the details of timbre of a solo violin, a timbre that in certain ways seems considerably more complex and 'faster' to me. Also, in my system I can get rather convincing reproduction of human singing voices from good recordings, but a string quartet? Now that's much more elusive. I am still quite impressed with what my system can do in that regard, but that doesn't mean it comes close to the real thing.

You have not addressed my point about the actual use of mics, e.g. recording string quartets and other music from above rather than from a regular position in a concert hall. This introduces distortions from a regular live experience in the hall, regardless of how good the mics may be.

You have not convinced me that mics can adequately capture the physical impact of a performance -- just take a kick drum for example (there have been whole threads on physical impact of live vs. recorded music on this forum). You can't judge that with headphones.

Also, what about Gary's anecddote about a recording engineer switching between two mikes and trying to decide on the mike to use for the take, where both were excellent in his view, but sounded absolutely different? If microphones typically present a faithful copy of what they aim to capture they should sound the same.

Al

Al, I totally get what you are saying about headphones. I prefer loudspeakers too. Even though they don't carry the detail, I like the visceral feel of speakers, and their perspective.

I myself don't go for mics hung up high. I like them lower, more like what a person's ears would experience. But when you are in a hall with people, with certain mics set low like that you will get a lot more audience sound. I didn't see this point worth addressing as its not germaine to whether mics are what I said or not- instead that has everything to do with how they are used. And just like with every other field of endeavor (ex.: doctors and lawyers), although they might be 'qualified' you can get very different results when real competence is applied as opposed to the work of someone who is just in it for the money.

I see no point in arguing though. My recommendation is 'experience'. Get some good mics, try them out and see if you don't agree.

 

[dallasjustice]

What type of useful conclusion are you expecting from this poll?

The poll so far shows that about 94% of respondents think that source and amplifier play second fiddle to speakers or room. Even though people like Ethan could easily use objective data to prove that either room or speakers are most important in all systems, the subjective experiences of 94% of others here fit nicely with that reality.

The conclusion that I draw from this poll is that those interested in best sound quality should focus their efforts on the low hanging fruit in their systems. Rooms and Speakers is where the biggest gains will be achieved in all systems.

What conclusion do you draw?

Michael.

 

[jap]

The poll so far shows that about 94% of respondents think that source and amplifier play second fiddle to speakers or room. Even though people like Ethan could easily use objective data to prove that either room or speakers are most important in all systems, the subjective experiences of 94% of others here fit nicely with that reality.

The conclusion that I draw from this poll is that those interested in best sound quality should focus their efforts on the low hanging fruit in their systems. Rooms and Speakers is where the biggest gains will be achieved in all systems.

What conclusion do you draw?
Michael.

The results of 35 votes on a forum with 5333 members are meaningless.

PS- "DSP IS YOUR FRIEND," it's not your friend if it downsamples your 176.4kHz/24 and 192kHz/24 recordings to 96kHz/24 and can't do DSD.

 

[microstrip]

The poll so far shows that about 94% of respondents think that source and amplifier play second fiddle to speakers or room. Even though people like Ethan could easily use objective data to prove that either room or speakers are most important in all systems, the subjective experiences of 94% of others here fit nicely with that reality.

The conclusion that I draw from this poll is that those interested in best sound quality should focus their efforts on the low hanging fruit in their systems. Rooms and Speakers is where the biggest gains will be achieved in all systems.

What conclusion do you draw?

Michael.

You asked : From most distortion to least distortion, which system component contributes to audible distortion at the seated position?

How can we conclude from this poll that "those interested in best sound quality should focus their efforts on the low hanging fruit in their systems. Rooms and Speakers is where the biggest gains will be achieved in all systems. "?

Also IMHO your conclusion completely ignores the accommodation factor - although our room and speakers introduce high "distortions" (in your sense of the word), the brain ignores them. And still it is very sensitive to other type of minimal "distortions". Happily this happens - there is a strong disagreement about room treatment and what is the best speaker type between the audio experts.

BTW, most of us know that a statement carrying the word all is a risky thing in sound reproduction.