Thread: A Search for Truth and Tonality, Part 2 ...

[fas42]

* By the way, I disagree with you regarding that "all" recordings are quality recordings.
No way Jose, some sound awful, and no matter what!

That's why I put the word "quality" in quotes, thus. They may not be recorded well, but the musical message still gets through; the "awfulness" of the recording can easily be put to one side by your mind, without special effort, and the detail picked up by the microphone still conjures up a sufficient illusion.

That's how I've got my systems to the state that I often mention in the forum. I put on a recording, and it sounds "awful": so, I say, why does it sound bad, and the answer always is that the level of distortion I can hear is too high. So next step is to try and work out where that distortion is coming from, and from experience, I assume that it is not in the recording. I always, always find that there is a problem in my audio setup that is the underlying real problem, so next trick is to sort that out, and, hey presto, that unpleasant recording is not so bad after all ...

Frank

 

[NorthStar]

Frank, that "level of distortion" as you like to enumerate it so eloquently, started right at the artist's end. Or his/her guitar was out of tune, or his/her violin purchased from the thrift store, or he/she had a bad virus in his/her throat, or he/she woke up that morning under a bad moon rising, ... but the recording itself won't ameliore the artist's bad performance.

Also, there are better artist's performances, but the recording/mixing engineer's job was poorly created. ...Or too much of a heavy hand on the 'echo' controls, or the 'tremolo', or the 'dynamic expander', or simply too much pizza in his stomach on that day. Or perhaps some bad wiring in his studio mixing console.

Oh man, Frank, what are we going to do with this world of ours? :b

Enjoy your day, enjoy your life; to the fullest (verse 1).

So many things are part of that 'audio chain'. And it all starts at the very beginning with the artist, the singer, the musician, and his message. And the vast majority of people (95%+) are simply listening to crap anyway. ...The audiophile community with true taste for REAL MUSIC is just a very small minority of passionate people like some of us here.

And you certainly don't need the most expensive sound systems in the world to be one of us.
Some people possess full islands, but don't have the time to walk on them!
Others have no piece of land, but walk through the forests as if it was their own gardens.

Frank, I tell you this; the true love for our planet is in the soup! ...Its consistence & its flavor.
And everything else is just cheap whiskey. :b

Enjoy your day, enjoy your life; to the fullest (verse 2).

 

[fas42]

Very eloquent, Bob ... :b

My "retort" will simply be, that so much detail has been captured by those microphones, the ones that a number here love to disparage, even on miserable, old, or "bad" recordings, that even if the artist was a total jerk, on a bad morning, after the guitar was left outside overnight, then if you tune into musical sounds, no matter how badly they are executed, then you will still get a kick out of listening to such recordings.

Maybe I'm the only person in the universe who's like this, but if I walk into a music shop and there's some kid there who hasn't got a clue, who's fooling around with some Marshall gear that's wound up a bit, then I just get a kick from the "kick" of that amp and speaker doing its thing. Doesn't matter if it's a musical mess, just the sound alone, the texture does it for me. Same thing if someone trying out a saxophone, there's a "magic" about the output of music creating devices, including the human voice. And that's what I'm after in a system ...

Now, your typical high end system is so far away from doing this, with any conviction, that I can understand why people despair of getting it right. But it is only the result of not taking care of the little details: is the Ferrari with the out of balance tyre a piece of junk, an incompetent contender, or a highly capable machine that has a very simple, debilitating weakness ...??

Frank

 

[NorthStar]

Frank, I think you are just too modest and simple. :b

 

[fas42]

A minor note: I'm noticing the word "organic" bandied around a bit, this is another synonym for, a lack of low level high frequency distortion. All recordings, and systems, should sound "organic", since they are creations of organic creatures, us -- even the ones which are aggregations of totally synthesised sounds ...

I think I prefer the word "comfortable": music should always be comfortable to listen to, no matter what the volume level is -- no irritating, unnatural edginess. You know it when you have it! :b

Frank

 

[NorthStar]

I have organic cookies at home Frank. ...And silence sounds very peaceful.
...Organic too (in particular outside). :b

 

[fas42]

From http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...with-Alon-Wolf&p=114418&viewfull=1#post114418 ...

It may be comforting from the fact that he is stating the obvious and is not trying to convince us that Magico has pulled a live rabbit out of their audio hat, but it is still disconcerting to know how far away we are from truly capturing and reproducing the sound of instruments being played live.

To paraphrase:

... but is is still disconcerting to know far away we are from appreciating that everything matters is a truism and not a glib, throwaway line, and addressing the significant weakness in how systems are assembled and optimised is the key to reproducing the sound of instruments being played live.

Frank

 

[fas42]

From http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...-what-says-you&p=114863&viewfull=1#post114863 ...

my perceptions are that at the top of the analog food chain, both vinyl and tape better digital in pitch, bass, and quietness. particularly when you really listen into the ambience of a recording. sure; digital is cleaner, but what it cleans up is the sense of real space and micro-detail. it's a limitation of digital, not an asset. so if you said you liked the clean-ness of digital i would agree. but quiet infers that you hear more. in fact you hear less. i'll agree that analog has more varibles in pitch, but that is balanced by a much more organic density of tone and texture. analog bass might not as easily plumb the depths of under 20hz, but digital bass pales compared to what analog can do on acoustical instruments or voice

Nice tussle about digital vs. analogue. Which is missing a key point, which Mike effectively points to here: analogue (vinyl) frequently has obvious "problems" with pops and crackles, mistracking, which is the playback distorting, less than optimum sound quality. But digital has its own "demon", which is the apparent lack of detail. And I use the word "apparent" very deliberately: what a lot of people still don't appreciate is that this lack of "life" is digital's equivalent to the aforementioned "failings" of analogue, a manifestation of less than optimum playback -- yes, good ol' distortion.

People are very familiar with how analogue taken to the highest quality levels can transcend theoretical limitations of the medium -- Mike just pointed to such an example. Well, digital is exactly the same, except the limitations aren't even theoretical in the digital world: throw enough storage and computing power at the "problem" and it can be as accurate as you want. But you don't need to go to those lengths, Redbook is perfectly fine enough; but if a system reproduces CDs with the equivalent of vinyl "noise", which is the notoriously grey, uninteresting, fatiguing quality of a lot of digital sound, then people can point with as much verve as people who don't like vinyl misbehaviour, to how they can only take CD sound in small doses.

But, the big difference is that a lot of people believe that the common digital "distortion" described is intrinsic, can't be fixed, has to be lived with. But that is not the case, it's just a sign that not enough effort has been made to resolve the issues ...

Frank

 

[NorthStar]

But Frank, with hi res audio (352/32) and jitter-free machines and cables; Digital sounds real good. :b You dig? :b

 

[fas42]

But Frank, with hi res audio (352/32) and jitter-free machines and cables; Digital sounds real good. :b You dig? :b

'Course it does. Or can ... . But 44.1/16 can sound brilliant, in every sense of the word. Even MP3s, IF they are resampled to to a rate that suits the playback mechanism. Old digital, or new, I don't mind: some "killer" CDs are very early Denon classical, late 70's, early 80's; they used relatively "primitive" A/D converters, and captured very intense violin, and other solo instrument sounds. The very sort of recordings that could make non-tweaked digital playback at realistic volumes unbearable to listen to ...

But many people who have very high end systems end up with digital sound that's very "weird": it's been twisted and cajoled into something they find acceptable to listen to, which bears little resemblence to realistic sound ...

Frank

 

[NorthStar]

-----Frank, let me ask you this:
Do you believe in good Auto/Manual Room Calibration & EQ systems?

Analog or Digital?

And if Digital, how can you integrate it with analog records (turntables) and R2R tapes (decks)?

 

[fas42]

-----Frank, let me ask you this:
Do you believe in good Auto/Manual Room Calibration & EQ systems?

Analog or Digital

Short answer, no. IF you have a system that emphasises bass, as I have heard in a few listening situations, then I'm certain that such will be needed to tame resonant frequencies. But strong, bottom octave bass is not my bag, if there's nothing below 60Hz it doesn't fuss me, all the "real" music, and information, is well above that.

Best technique I "discovered" to cure room problems was to lock the speaker structure tightly to the room structure: people who build their speakers as forming part of a concrete bunker have got the right idea :b. Basically, you want the only thing to move, ever, no matter how loud the system goes, is the speaker cone. Or panel. As soon as anything else moves, you start having problems. To me, the big downside with panels is that the supporting frame is normally free to wobble around as much as it likes, I could never be happy with that!

Again, if the sound is damaged by the time it leaves the speaker driver then EQ'ing, etc, is just band aiding the situation. Typically, treble sounds are somewhat corrupted by the system, so you knock back those frequencies: wrong approach, the real cure is elsewhere, and harder, unfortunately ...

And if Digital, how can you integrate it with analog records (turntables) and R2R tapes (decks)?

Digital correction, IF you want to fiddle, is the only way to go. And for such matters you need a top notch A/D converter to handle analogue inputs. The hairy thing here is that the A/D conversion, and following D/A is very susceptible to interference: this part of the chain is frequently contaminated and the analogue "qualities" of the input are lost. But there is no underlying reason why this can't be totally transparent, it just requires attention to detail by those putting the whole thing together.

Frank

 

[NorthStar]

---Thank you Frank for a great reply. :b

Also, if I follow you properly, Room acoustical treatments are secondary?

Plus, in Music you have some very good content in the 40 to 60Hz region. Even the piano can go as low as 27Hz.
{I guess you ain't an Organ luver?} :b

And, what about speakers without enclosures? ...No boxes at all! ...Just drivers with their domes/cones. ...Panels (stats)? ...Horns?

Sorry Frank for all of this, but you do arouse my music listening interests (the stuff around it). :b
... A search for Truth and Tonality (this Part).

 

[fas42]

---Thank you Frank for a great reply. :b

Also, if I follow you properly, Room acoustical treatments are secondary?

Always happy to offer thoughts, Bob, if people are interested! :b

Yes, for me, acoustical treatments have never been an issue: what comes out of the speaker driver is all important, what the sound then does in the room I don't worry about. I have listened to numerous setups, which varying levels of room treatments: if the sound is not up to scratch from the speakers themselves then I find the sound disturbing, irrespective. And as well, heavy handed acoustic damping I find very intrusive, very unnatural, not my thing.

Plus, in Music you have some very good content in the 40 to 60Hz region. Even the piano can go as low as 27Hz.
{I guess you ain't an Organ luver?} :b

And, what about speakers without enclosures? ...No boxes at all! ...Just drivers with their domes/cones. ...Panels (stats)? ...Horns?

Sorry Frank for all of this, but you do arouse my music listening interests (the stuff around it). :b
... A search for Truth and Tonality (this Part).

There may be content, but it is just room "rumble" normally. Yes, the instruments may go that low, but try counting how many times in an hour a musical note whose fundamental frequency lies in that range is played. The brain actually reconstructs a musical note from the harmonics, if the fundamental is missing -- clever thing!

I do enjoy Organ, the Sydney Opera House beast is on one of my test CDs, and the supposedly lack of bass is never a problem: the richness of the harmonics is where the action is, and it's been a long time since I heard organ sound good on another system ...

The Steinway audio system I heard a few days ago was a true boxless one, dipole; you have 8 12" drivers pumping out bass, but when I heard it it was very unbalanced: all big bass notes and scrawny treble, from a jazz ensemble -- EQ'ing needed here!!

Whatever the type of the speaker I would first listen to the quality of the treble standing directly in front of one side, relatively close to it. If that was in good order then I would consider improving the bass by coupling the speaker strongly to the room, and only then use EQ to organise the bass: a cheap Behringer will do that for you ...

Frank

 

[NorthStar]

Yes, for me, acoustical treatments have never been an issue: what comes out of the speaker driver is all important, what the sound then does in the room I don't worry about. I have listened to numerous setups, which varying levels of room treatments: if the sound is not up to scratch from the speakers themselves then I find the sound disturbing, irrespective. And as well, heavy handed acoustic damping I find very intrusive, very unnatural, not my thing.

Frank

 

[NorthStar]

---BONUS:

 

[fas42]

And the point is, Bob ...?

An extremely reverberant environment will give a very echoey sound, which you can deaden to any degree that you wish. But most of the time we listen to sound in a reasonably balanced environment, not too hot, not too cold (said Goldilocks ... :b). And we're used to such, so it sounds fine. In our previous place we had glass all along one side wall, on the other side wall, book shelves. This, I think, is supposed to be "not good", but no-one complained ... :b

That 3rd video says it all: extremely crappy sound that is either splashy, or dead. Each is as bad as the other, the real solution is to throw that playback system out the window ...

Frank

 

[fas42]

But thanks for pointing me to Ethan's videos, Bob ... I had a look at some of the other Realtraps material, intrigued because they're using Mackie monitors to demonstrate effects of adding treatment. At least it showed me the results I experienced in the music shops down here weren't unusual with regard to studio monitors in raw form: these speakers, unmodified, are not particularly worth listening to whether the room is treated or not; that signature sound of monitors even on the posted videos is very distinctive, and uninspiring -- I'm surprised Ethan uses them, surely he could do better ...?

Frank

 

[NorthStar]

---Frank, I don't have a point; you make your own point. ...I'm just an interlocutor, a provider. :b

 

[fas42]

A catalyst, Bob ... :b ?? And, a good one too, helping to propel my thinking and focus into some interesting places: this is an arena where efforts, initiated from people's thoughts, are additive. "Fixing" audio is a subtractive exercise, you remove the problems to allow the good stuff through, but the thought processes for getting there are additive, each extra piece of insight helps in a cumulative way. When I think back over the years how I've progressed in my ideas, improved my understanding of what's important and what's not, it's been a fascinating journey ...

Just a couple of other thoughts. Firstly, the fussier you are about fixing up some aspect of the sound making machine, the more fussy you have to be to make the next step forward ... the task doesn't become easier as you progress. And, in one of Ethan's videos the point is made that a recording of speaker playback typically doesn't sound right; and his own videos demonstrate this beautifully. But, this is a very useful way of assessing the progress made in getting good sound, an amateur sound grab of the audio playback should sound like the real thing: whether chamber, orchestra, rock group, or whatever, a recording of the playback should be able to fool you ...

So, thanks for all your input, Bob,
Frank