The circle of confusion
out...@city-net.com
production and reproduction in reality. A recent thread in this group
related to what reality reference is used in audio production and how it
might relate to the final product, which in turn has an obvious effect on
reproduction for our various loudspeaker and listening contexts.
This the blog author refers to as "the circle of confusion" and points to
the lack of a reference for both production and reproduction of audio by
which music can be recorded and played back in any listening context.
For the production side it is a pig in a poke and grows instantly far
worse when unknown sources are used in listening contexts.
This is why the "subjective" listening approach is next to worthless as
used in the various hifi mags. We just can not account for all the
factors that make an auditory difference without universal references for
the recordings used and loudspeakers, not to mention the loudspeaker /
room interactions in which subjective impressions were formed. It adds
only one more level to "the circle of confusion" for the reader.
How to break the "circle" and produce an universal industry reference?
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/
The last and next to last entries, as blog format goes, discuss the
problem and proposed solution.
Earlier entries are related in discussing how objective reproducible
loudspeaker and speaker room interaction can be addressed in blind
listening using trained listeners in controlled listening contexts to
establish a basis for "preference" in the listeners.
The audio industry is now in a place to get beyond subjective listening
and to discover what is really relevant using listening alone and to do so
on a repeated basis for loudspeakers and rooms.
Peter Wieck
> The audio industry is now in a place to get beyond subjective listening
> and to discover what is really relevant using listening alone and to do s=
o
> on a repeated basis for loudspeakers and rooms.
With respect, that horse is thoroughly dead. The Audio Industry as a
whole cannot afford any sort of serious dose of reality. Should that
ever happen the Naked Emperor would be illuminated in all his gory,
um, err, glory. There is one truism within the Audio Industry that has
prevailed in the 40+ years that I have been peripheral to it: There is
nothing new under the sun.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
Sonnova
(in article <7lc1frF...@mid.individual.net>):
OK, I understand what the "blogger" is saying, but it really isn't that
simple (I wish it were!). The problem on the production end of things is that
different types of music, designed for different venues and audiences, must
be recorded differently.
Pop and rock, for instance, is largely comprised of performances that don't
actually exist in real space. The electronic instruments - guitars, Fender
Rhodes pianos, synthesizers, etc. don't actually make any "sound" they output
electrical signals that need amplification. It is often easier, and more
controllable for musicians to play this music directly into the electronics
of a recording console than to use amps and speakers played into microphones.
The exceptions, of course are acoustical instruments such as drum sets and
saxophones or trumpets. Drum sets are multi-miked with a separate, dedicated
microphone for each drum in the kit and other acoustic instruments are
"frapped" I.E. picked-up via a contact microphone affixed directly to the
instrument or very close-miked with conventional microphones. .
Acoustic jazz is usually close-miked, with, often, a separate microphone for
each instrument. The reason for this is that jazz is meant to sound intimate,
and a distant, stereo miking technique, while it might get the space right,
will sound wrong when played back on a stereo system. Even big-band jazz
sounds overly reverberant and distant when overall stereo-miking is used
without some form of highlighting.
Symphonic Classical, OTOH, needs to be stereo-miked. Since large ensembles
play in large spaces, the most natural, or accurate (if you will) sound is
picked-up when the microphones are at a distance and the SPACE the orchestra
occupies is recorded rather than the individual instruments themselves.
Chamber music, too, is usually best served with a single stereo pair. In
classical music, one wants the sound of the venue as part of the performance,
while it detracts from the sound of jazz and is close to ludicrous for most
pop and rock.
This is one reason why sources are so disparate. Add to that the incompetence
and/or "individual thinking" on the part of some producers, and rules get
broken, often with disastrous results. For instance, when multi-track
recording came in in the late 1960's, many classical producers thought that
it was a good tool for recording symphony orchestras and most record
companies adopted it. The results were orchestral recordings where, at best,
the performance sounded like 80 musicians stretched across a stage in a
single line, with no real depth or soundstage whatsoever, and at worst,
sections of the orchestra, such as the string section, sounding like 20
violinists playing solos in unison. Massed strings are supposed to sound like
massed strings not 20 individual violins and the only way that a recording
can capture that sound properly is for the sound of those 20 violins playing
together to mix in the air not in a mixing console and not picked-up with a
separate microphone aimed at the F-hole of each and every violin! Luckily,
CD showed that practice up for the travesty on music that it was and it is
not used much (if at all) any more.
But the fact that recording producers, record companies and engineers tastes
vary as much as do the tastes of the listeners makes a uniform standard for
recording all but impossible. And one cannot rightly say that only one
methodology is proper and all others are improper. The goal is to produce a
reasonable facsimile of the original performance in the original venue,
whether that venue be a recording studio, a small intimate club, the parlor
or music room of some rich patron, or a concert hall. Since all venues and
instrumental ensembles are different and present unique challenges to those
doing the recording, to ever hope for a uniform standard is whistling in the
dark. It won't and can't happen. So, as listeners, we have to learn to hear
around this "circle of confusion" and develop a sense for what sounds like
music and what doesn't. It's nowhere near as hard as the "blogger" makes out,
and in fact, with experience, people can become very good at it.
Sonnova
(in article <7lc95vF...@mid.individual.net>):
Quite true. "Reality" is a matter of perception and opinion anyway. There are
almost as many versions of it as there are musicians, producers, recording
engineers and listeners. It is possible to find very 'realistic' sounding
recordings - depending, of course, what your personal definition of
'realistic' is. And that's just the point. You pays your money and you takes
your chances, as they say.
Scott
> This the blog author refers to as "the circle of confusion" and points to
> the lack of a reference for both production and reproduction of audio by
> For the production side it is a pig in a poke and grows instantly far
> worse when unknown sources are used in listening contexts.
Is this merely a case of Olive finally coming to grips with the
reality that commercial recordings are all over the place when it
comes to spectral balance and that their main focus on flat frequency
response is virtually rendered mut by this unchangable reality?
>
> This is why the "subjective" listening approach is next to worthless as
> used in the various hifi mags.
Quite the opposite. Given the fact that most reviewers use a wide
range of source material but apparently that is not the case at HK it
kinda shows the utility of subjective review and the futility of the
methodologies employed at HK. no doubt they have, after millions of
dollars spent, designed the best speaker for their room and their
listeners using their source material. Unfortunately that is pretty
damned limited for someone like me. That is not to say they haven't
made excellent speakers. Just not the objective world beaters I think
they had imagined.
>=A0We just can not account for all the
> factors that make an auditory difference without universal references for
> the recordings used and loudspeakers, not to mention the loudspeaker /
> room interactions in which subjective impressions were formed. =A0It adds
> only one more level to "the circle of confusion" for the reader.
yeah, it's scary out there in the real world of recordings.
>
> How to break the "circle" and produce an universal industry reference?
>
> http://seanolive.blogspot.com/
IOW completely abandon the vast catalog of recorded music that
contains all those great performances. yeah that's the ticket. That
doesn't defeat the whole point of audio for those of us who got into
it because we wanted to hear our favorite recordings sound their
best.
>
> The last and next to last entries, as blog format goes, discuss the
> problem and proposed solution.
>
> Earlier entries are related in discussing how objective reproducible
> loudspeaker and speaker room interaction can be addressed in blind
> listening using trained listeners in controlled listening contexts to
> establish a basis for "preference" in the listeners.
>
> The audio industry is now in a place to get beyond subjective listening
> and to discover what is really relevant using listening alone and to do s=
o
> on a repeated basis for loudspeakers and rooms.
And in so doing become completely irrelevant to the music lover. Count
me out. the very thing that got me into audio, the music, is now the
obstacle and has been redubbed "the circle of confusion." Talk about a
tail chase.
ScottW
> The goal is to produce a
> reasonable facsimile of the original performance in the original venue,
> whether that venue be a recording studio, a small intimate club, the parlor
> or music room of some rich patron, or a concert hall.
Does anyone really want to reproduce the real sound of a snare drum
in a small intimate club in their listening room? It was always
overbearing and at times downright painful last week as I overlooked a
fusion jazz quartet from about 25 feet away. Some aspects of some
live music are IMO, best left out of my daily home listening
experience.
The opportunity to provide a more pleasing experience from a recording
than reality is capable of does exist. Why not pursue it?
ScottW
Sonnova
(in article <hd46l...@news3.newsguy.com>):
> On Nov 3, 7:12=A0pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
>
>> The goal is to produce a
>> reasonable facsimile of the original performance in the original venue,
>> whether that venue be a recording studio, a small intimate club, the parl=
> or
>> or music room of some rich patron, or a concert hall.
>
> Does anyone really want to reproduce the real sound of a snare drum
> in a small intimate club in their listening room?
Possibly not, but one might want to reproduce the snare drum AS IT SOUNDED IN
THE RECORDING VENUE. A quite different thing altogether.
>It was always
> overbearing and at times downright painful last week as I overlooked a
> fusion jazz quartet from about 25 feet away. Some aspects of some
> live music are IMO, best left out of my daily home listening
> experience.
>
> The opportunity to provide a more pleasing experience from a recording
> than reality is capable of does exist. Why not pursue it?
Because then one has to ask the question, "more pleasing to whom?" Second
guessing the listener is always a trap. No matter what you do, some portion
of the listening (buying) audience is not going to like it. Best to record it
as realistically as the technology will allow, and then let the listener
alter the sound on his end to suit individual tastes.
Scott
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:18:57 -0800, ScottW wrote
> > Does anyone really want to reproduce the real sound of a snare drum
> > in a small intimate club in their listening room?
>
> Possibly not, but one might want to reproduce the snare drum AS IT SOUNDED IN
> THE RECORDING VENUE. A quite different thing altogether.
But the small club Scott W described is the recording venue in this
case.
>
> >It was always
> > overbearing and at times downright painful last week as I overlooked a
> > fusion jazz quartet from about 25 feet away. Some aspects of some
> > live music are IMO, best left out of my daily home listening
> > experience.
>
> > The opportunity to provide a more pleasing experience from a recording
> > than reality is capable of does exist. Why not pursue it?
>
> Because then one has to ask the question, "more pleasing to whom?"
Recording engineers have to ask and answer this question no matter
what.
> Second
> guessing the listener is always a trap. No matter what you do, some portion
> of the listening (buying) audience is not going to like it. Best to record it
> as realistically as the technology will allow, and then let the listener
> alter the sound on his end to suit individual tastes.
"As realistically" covers a wide range of possibilities. The sound of
a snare drum from 5 feet away is no less realistic than the sound of a
snare drum from 50 feet away. The recording engineer has to make
certain choices about perspective and balance even if he or she is
going for maximum realism. That will to some degree be a matter of
taste. But Scott W asks a question that is interesting "The
opportunity to provide a more pleasing experience from a recording
than reality is capable of does exist. Why not pursue it?" IMO that
question has to be prefeced with an "if" and a real big "if" at that.
With live acoustic music IMO the likelyhood is pretty small if the
sapce is good. It's just a matter of finding the best perspective
within that space as a point of "reality." But in the studio, it's a
different story.
Andrew Barss
: Does anyone really want to reproduce the real sound of a snare drum
: in a small intimate club in their listening room? It was always
: overbearing and at times downright painful last week as I overlooked a
: fusion jazz quartet from about 25 feet away. Some aspects of some
: live music are IMO, best left out of my daily home listening
: experience.
: The opportunity to provide a more pleasing experience from a recording
: than reality is capable of does exist. Why not pursue it?
This is exactly my feeling. And so I have never understood the argument,
sometimes presented here, that music made in a studio (and perhaps never
played as a single performance by the musicians) is irrelevant to
high-end audio.
No gourmet home cook tries to reproduce the
sounds of the couple at the next table arguing, or the sound of the
waiter coming through the kitchen door.
It's all about optimum pleasing sound, not making your living room into a
facsimile of a small commercial performance space (which often have
lousy acoustics).
-- Andy Barss
Peter Wieck
> =A0No gourmet home cook tries to reproduce the
> sounds of the couple at the next table arguing, or the sound of the
> waiter coming through the kitchen door.
Mpffffffffffff...
Such a W-I-D-E opening. Sorry, but I cannot resist walking right
through it.
No, a cook is a pretty limited creature appealing to taste and smell,
texture and appearance - were the potential to incude ambience
available, who knows what might be attempted.
I would posit that I would expect my equipment to have the capacity to
reproduce the arguing and the waiter coming through the door. And were
those sounds actually there as part of the base information, they
should be there on the reproduction. After which I should be the one
making the choices - not the engineer at the scene.
Of course that position is patently absurd as the engineer by nature
makes a nearly infinite number of choices during the recording process
each one of which precludes any alternative. Hence the basic silliness
of the premise. My experience in choosing recordings to audition is to
follow those labels/orchestras/directors that have given me pleasure
in the past and hope that they do so this time. Always a moving
target, but I spend a good deal of time being pleasantly surprised.
Any attempt to analyze/quantifiy/delineate/specify the process is
futile. Whining about said futlity demonstrates an essential ignorance
of the difference between art and science. Art often (even must in
most cases) include science - but science without art is meaningless -
however technically refined.
ScottW
>
> > On Nov 3, 7:12=A0pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
>
> >> The goal is to produce a
> >> reasonable facsimile of the original performance in the original venue,
> >> whether that venue be a recording studio, a small intimate club, the parl=
> > or
> >> or music room of some rich patron, or a concert hall.
>
> > Does anyone really want to reproduce the real sound of a snare drum
> > in a small intimate club in their listening room?
>
> Possibly not, but one might want to reproduce the snare drum AS IT SOUNDED IN
> THE RECORDING VENUE. A quite different thing altogether.
I heard it live, I didn't like it. I've also had the misfortune of
actually enduring
my kids brief exploration of percussion live in my listening room.
I liked that even less.
>
> >It was always
> > overbearing and at times downright painful last week as I overlooked a
> > fusion jazz quartet from about 25 feet away. Some aspects of some
> > live music are IMO, best left out of my daily home listening
> > experience.
>
> > The opportunity to provide a more pleasing experience from a recording
> > than reality is capable of does exist. Why not pursue it?
>
> Because then one has to ask the question, "more pleasing to whom?"
The listener. Obviously subjective but I doubt anyone would complain
about that snare being toned down a bit.
> Second
> guessing the listener is always a trap.
Not second guessing is a trap. Look at the volume wars....maybe I
should be careful what I wish for :).
> No matter what you do, some portion
> of the listening (buying) audience is not going to like it.
No doubt. But I think recording engineers can find a sweet spot....or
better yet, just please me. Everyone else be damned.
> Best to record it
> as realistically as the technology will allow, and then let the listener
> alter the sound on his end to suit individual tastes.
I don't know how to tone down the snare drum on the final recording
without grossly affecting the bass or the electric fiddle....do you?
ScottW
ScottW
Even with acoustic instruments in the best space there is rarely the
optimal spot that provides the perfect balance of every instrument.
Or perhaps I haven't the good fortune of being able to occupy that
spot very often. That drum was acoustic BTW amd I was supposedly in
one of the best seats in the house.
Anyway, a studio can aid that balance...or different mic'ing/mixing
approaches in the live venue may produce a result that might be better
than any seat in the house.
It's worth noting that before the live show they played recordings and
videos of prior performances of other bands. There were many aspects
of those recordings (including the lack of the overbearing snare drum)
that were superior IMO to the live music in the same venue.
My system, with good recordings, typically produces a more satisfying
and comfortable musical experience for me than the vast majority of
live musical experiences I've had.
I have no intention of downgrading it to be more like the real thing.
ScottW
Ed Seedhouse
quite simply, though perhaps not very practically. Bur conceptually
all we have to do is have a specification for the recording monitor
and the listening room such that the home speakers will reflect
accurately the sound through the studio monitors. Then the recording
engineer does what he does and when satisfied with the monitor sound
releases the recording. The listener who's system meets the spec can
then be assured that they are at least hearing the sound the engineer
intended. Then if they don't like it they can apply further
equalization.
If the engineer makes a recording of a symphony that sounds, on the
studio monitors in the studio, like the live sound, then the home
listener will hear that. If the engineer wants to create an aural
landscape that is completely nonexistent then he is free to do so, and
the listener with a system that meets the spec will at least know that
he is hearing what the engineer intended, whatever that was.
Surely it should not be beyond modern technology to manufacture
speakers to a solid specification just as they do with amplifiers.
Even back in the 1970's the BBC could manufacture a line of speakers
such that any random two would create a stereo image well within
spec. I doubt if the ability is missing. I imagine that what is
missing is the will.
Maybe we need Dolby to lay down a loudspeaker spec for stereo sound?
Steven Sullivan
> On Nov 3, 4:51=A0pm, out...@city-net.com wrote:
> > This the blog author refers to as "the circle of confusion" and points to
> > the lack of a reference for both production and reproduction of audio by
> > which music can be recorded and played back in any listening context. =A0
> > For the production side it is a pig in a poke and grows instantly far
> > worse when unknown sources are used in listening contexts.
> Is this merely a case of Olive finally coming to grips with the
> reality that commercial recordings are all over the place when it
> comes to spectral balance and that their main focus on flat frequency
> response is virtually rendered mut by this unchangable reality?
Since you're on threads with Olive over on AVSforum and Hydrogenaudio,
why don't you ask him?
> >
> > This is why the "subjective" listening approach is next to worthless as
> > used in the various hifi mags.
> Quite the opposite. Given the fact that most reviewers use a wide
> range of source material but apparently that is not the case at HK it
> kinda shows the utility of subjective review and the futility of the
> methodologies employed at HK. no doubt they have, after millions of
> dollars spent, designed the best speaker for their room and their
> listeners using their source material. Unfortunately that is pretty
> damned limited for someone like me. That is not to say they haven't
> made excellent speakers. Just not the objective world beaters I think
> they had imagined.
That is a gross mischaracterization of the work done over decades
at HK.
> > How to break the "circle" and produce an universal industry reference?
> >
> > http://seanolive.blogspot.com/
> IOW completely abandon the vast catalog of recorded music that
> contains all those great performances. yeah that's the ticket.
Another gross mischaracterization of what Olive is saying.
That
> doesn't defeat the whole point of audio for those of us who got into
> it because we wanted to hear our favorite recordings sound their
> best.
> And in so doing become completely irrelevant to the music lover. Count
> me out. the very thing that got me into audio, the music, is now the
> obstacle and has been redubbed "the circle of confusion." Talk about a
> tail chase.
Floyd Toole has been writing about the 'circle of confusion' for years now.
You're just catching up.
--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine
Kalman Rubinson
>Surely it should not be beyond modern technology to manufacture
>speakers to a solid specification just as they do with amplifiers.
>Even back in the 1970's the BBC could manufacture a line of speakers
>such that any random two would create a stereo image well within
>spec. I doubt if the ability is missing. I imagine that what is
>missing is the will.
>
>Maybe we need Dolby to lay down a loudspeaker spec for stereo sound?
The complication is specifying the room as well as the equipment.
Without that, equipment specs are woefully inadequate.
While it would be complex and, probably, anathema to some, DSP might
be the answer if we could assume that everyone uses digital room EQ
and has done the measurements with skill and care (yeah, I know it is
improbable). Then we need a target curve defined in the studio and
contained on each disc for the DSP to EQ the listener's room so that
it emulates the studio's sound.
Oh, btw, I do not believe that the BBC actually manufactured the
speakers, other than the prototypes. Manufacturing was licensed and
tightly controlled.
Kal
Scott
> Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 4:51=A0pm, out...@city-net.com wrote:
> > > This the blog author refers to as "the circle of confusion" and points to
> > > the lack of a reference for both production and reproduction of audio by
> > > which music can be recorded and played back in any listening context. =A0
> > > For the production side it is a pig in a poke and grows instantly far
> > > worse when unknown sources are used in listening contexts.
> > Is this merely a case of Olive finally coming to grips with the
> > reality that commercial recordings are all over the place when it
> > comes to spectral balance and that their main focus on flat frequency
> > response is virtually rendered mut by this unchangable reality?
>
> Since you're on threads with Olive over on AVSforum and Hydrogenaudio,
> why don't you ask him?
Sean Olive is free to come here and participate in this thread if so
chooses.
>
>
>
> > > This is why the "subjective" listening approach is next to worthless as
> > > used in the various hifi mags.
> > Quite the opposite. Given the fact that most reviewers use a wide
> > range of source material but apparently that is not the case at HK it
> > kinda shows the utility of subjective review and the futility of the
> > methodologies employed at HK. no doubt they have, after millions of
> > dollars spent, designed the best speaker for their room and their
> > listeners using their source material. Unfortunately that is pretty
> > damned limited for someone like me. That is not to say they haven't
> > made excellent speakers. Just not the objective world beaters I think
> > they had imagined.
>
> That is a gross mischaracterization of the work done over decades
> at HK.
I disagree.
"At Harman International, we try to minimize loudspeaker-program
interactions in our loudspeaker listening tests by using well-recorded
programs that are equally sensitive to distortions found in
loudspeakers. Listeners become intimately familiar with the sonic
idiosyncrasies of the different programs through extensive listener
training and participation in formal tests. In each trial of a
loudspeaker test, the listener can switch between different
loudspeakers using the same program, which allows them to better
separate the distortions in the program (which are constant), from the
distortions in the loudspeaker. "
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html
Now if you have any meaningful evidence that says something to the
contrary please speak up. But this pretty much concurs with my
assertion that they have indeed "designed the best speaker for their
room and their listeners using their source material." so long as they
limit their testing to their chosen source material based on the
criteria that is explained in the quote above and they limit the
testing to their listening space in their multi-million dollar
facility and they use their listener panel then my description is
pretty spot on.
>
> > > How to break the "circle" and produce an universal industry reference?
>
> > >http://seanolive.blogspot.com/
> > IOW completely abandon the vast catalog of recorded music that
> > contains all those great performances. yeah that's the ticket.
>
> Another gross mischaracterization of what Olive is saying.
Well please do clarify.
"Breaking the Circle of Circle of Confusion
As Toole points out in [1], the key in breaking the circle of
confusion lies in the hands of the professional audio industry where
the art is created. A meaningful standard that defined the quality and
calibration of the loudspeaker and room would improve the quality and
consistency of recordings. The same standard could then be applied to
the playback of the recording in the consumer’s home or automobile.
Finally, consumers would be able to hear the music as the artist
intended."
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html
How does one go about creating a "meaningful standard" for the vast
ctalog of recorded music? You can't. So the only way to reduce this
"circle of confusion is to abandon that catalog altogether. One need
look no further than HKs own choice of reference material and the
criteria by which they chose it to see that this is what they have
already done. "At Harman International, we try to minimize loudspeaker-
program interactions in our loudspeaker listening tests by using well-
recorded programs that are equally sensitive to distortions found in
loudspeakers." "Minimize" that says it all.
>
> > That
> > doesn't defeat the whole point of audio for those of us who got into
> > it because we wanted to hear our favorite recordings sound their
> > best.
> > And in so doing become completely irrelevant to the music lover. Count
> > me out. the very thing that got me into audio, the music, is now the
> > obstacle and has been redubbed "the circle of confusion." Talk about a
> > tail chase.
>
> Floyd Toole has been writing about the 'circle of confusion' for years now.
> You're just catching up.
So they have been aware of the gross limitations to their approach for
years? And their solution is that the rest of the audio industry needs
to be fixed rather than their approach? oh well.
Ed Seedhouse
> >Maybe we need Dolby to lay down a loudspeaker spec for stereo sound?
>
> The complication is specifying the room as well as the equipment.
> Without that, equipment specs are woefully inadequate. =A0
Modern DSP technology is already able to fix around 90% of this
problem I believe.
Already cheap A/V receivers available for under $500.00 contain
reasonably effective room and speaker correction chips.
> Oh, btw, I do not believe that the BBC actually manufactured the
> speakers, other than the prototypes. =A0Manufacturing was licensed and
> tightly controlled.
That agrees with my memory. Part of the control specifications was
that if one speaker in a stereo pair failed one should be able to drop
in a randomly selected unit and experience no degradation in the
stereo performance. And that was to be true of units manufactured by
different licensees.
Kalman Rubinson
>On Nov 9, 3:26=A0am, Kalman Rubinson <k...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> >Maybe we need Dolby to lay down a loudspeaker spec for stereo sound?
>>
>> The complication is specifying the room as well as the equipment.
>> Without that, equipment specs are woefully inadequate. =A0
>
>Modern DSP technology is already able to fix around 90% of this
>problem I believe.
>Already cheap A/V receivers available for under $500.00 contain
>reasonably effective room and speaker correction chips.
Yup. What I was suggesting could ride on that. The built-in routines
have a target curve which is flat or some calculated curve based on
assumptions related to movie/theater acoustics. This, clearly, does
not help a lot with music. Adding a target on the distribution
(medium, disc, download or other) to match the playback acoustics to
the studio or concert venue acoustics would serve all.
Kal
Andrew Haley
> On Nov 8, 8:26=A0pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > How to break the "circle" and produce an universal industry
> > > > reference?
> >
> > > >http://seanolive.blogspot.com/
> > > IOW completely abandon the vast catalog of recorded music that
> > > contains all those great performances. yeah that's the ticket.
> >
> > Another gross mischaracterization of what Olive is saying.
>
> Well please do clarify.
>
> "Breaking the Circle of Circle of Confusion
>
> As Toole points out in [1], the key in breaking the circle of
> confusion lies in the hands of the professional audio industry where
> the art is created. A meaningful standard that defined the quality and
> calibration of the loudspeaker and room would improve the quality and
> consistency of recordings. The same standard could then be applied to
> Finally, consumers would be able to hear the music as the artist
> intended."
> http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html
>
> How does one go about creating a "meaningful standard" for the vast
> ctalog of recorded music? You can't. So the only way to reduce this
> "circle of confusion is to abandon that catalog altogether.
What's being proposed is no less than a revolution in the way that
music is being recorded. But mankind has only just begun to record
sound: the first recording device only dates from about 1865 or so,
and what we'd now recognize as high-fidelity only dates back a little
more than fifty years. Therefore, assuming that people continue to
record music, it's likely that the overwhelming majority of
high-quality recordings have yet to be made.
Also, there's no reason that a system designed along the lines
proposed by Toole at al. will reproduce today's recordings any more
badly than they are reproduced at present. And, if we know the
characteristics of the reproduction system for which a recording was
intended, old recordings can be corrected with equalization. This is
done today, of course, but any correction is likely to be far better
if one knows what the reproduction system will sound like. Indeed,
one could argue that unless one knows what the final system sounds
like, any truly meaningful correction is impossible.
So no, I don't think there's any reason to abandon any recordings and
there is potentially a huge amount to be gained.
Andrew.
Steven Sullivan
> On Nov 8, 8:26?pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 4:51=A0pm, out...@city-net.com wrote:
> > > > This the blog author refers to as "the circle of confusion" and points to
> > > > the lack of a reference for both production and reproduction of audio by
> > > > which music can be recorded and played back in any listening context. =A0
> > > > For the production side it is a pig in a poke and grows instantly far
> > > > worse when unknown sources are used in listening contexts.
> > > Is this merely a case of Olive finally coming to grips with the
> > > comes to spectral balance and that their main focus on flat frequency
> > > response is virtually rendered mut by this unchangable reality?
> >
> > Since you're on threads with Olive over on AVSforum and Hydrogenaudio,
> > why don't you ask him?
> Sean Olive is free to come here and participate in this thread if so
> chooses.
Is he even aware RAHE exists?
You're both posting on the same forums elswhere, and this topic is
being discussed on them, yet you post your strong word here.
And you provided a curious spin of this information in your post....
and further deeming the methods 'futile'
Are you at all familiar with the history of such testing at Harman?
> > > > How to break the "circle" and produce an universal industry reference?
> >
> > > >http://seanolive.blogspot.com/
> > > IOW completely abandon the vast catalog of recorded music that
> > > contains all those great performances. yeah that's the ticket.
> >
> > Another gross mischaracterization of what Olive is saying.
> Well please do clarify.
Olive is not by any stretch of imagination telling anyone to abandon
the catalog of extant recorded music.
> How does one go about creating a "meaningful standard" for the vast
> ctalog of recorded music?
You can't. So the only way to reduce this
> "circle of confusion is to abandon that catalog altogether
No, it's to abandon current music industry recording practice and
subsistute something more akin to current movie sound recording
practice. That is, to implement standards.
> One need
> look no further than HKs own choice of reference material and the
> criteria by which they chose it to see that this is what they have
> already done. "At Harman International, we try to minimize loudspeaker-
> program interactions in our loudspeaker listening tests by using well-
> recorded programs that are equally sensitive to distortions found in
> loudspeakers." "Minimize" that says it all.
Only if you're being willfully simplistic about it.
Harman experiments deal with a variety of questions. Experiments
involve variables. If the question happens to be evaluation
of the loudspeaker sound preference, the goal is to minnimize the effect
of other variables, including effects due to the program material.
Other experiments might examine the effects of varying the program
materiual. Harman has done those too. There, you would try to
control for loudspeaker variation.
It rather amazes me that someone who has multiple lines
of public dialogue with the ACTUAL INVESTIGATOR available to him would
prefer instead to come here, display his apparent unfamiliarity with
details of the investigators work, and draw conclusions from
that.
> > > doesn't defeat the whole point of audio for those of us who got into
> > > it because we wanted to hear our favorite recordings sound their
> > > best.
> > > And in so doing become completely irrelevant to the music lover. Count
> > > me out. the very thing that got me into audio, the music, is now the
> > > obstacle and has been redubbed "the circle of confusion." Talk about a
> > > tail chase.
> >
> > Floyd Toole has been writing about the 'circle of confusion' for years now.
> > You're just catching up.
> So they have been aware of the gross limitations to their approach for
> years? And their solution is that the rest of the audio industry needs
> to be fixed rather than their approach? oh well.
Perhaps you should write papers in JAES explaining the 'gross limitations'
pof their published work...since you seem so certain you're right and they're
wrong.
Speaking of certainty loudspeakers most *certainly* could use
some better testing and provision of consumer information. The audio industry could
*certainly* standardize some studio practices that are currently catch as
catch can, to the consumer's detriment. Toole and Olive are HARDLY the
only folks in the audio industry who believe this. IIRC you admire both
Bob Katz and JJ -- and I'm pretty sure both would agree.
Scott
> Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 8:26?pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > This the blog author refers to as "the circle of confusion" and p=
oints to
> > > > > the lack of a reference for both production and reproduction of a=
udio by
> > > > > which music can be recorded and played back in any listening cont=
ext. =3DA0
> > > > > For the production side it is a pig in a poke and grows instantly=
far
> > > > > worse when unknown sources are used in listening contexts.
> > > > Is this merely a case of Olive finally coming to grips with the
> > > > reality that ?commercial recordings are all over the place when it
cy
> > > > response is virtually rendered mut by this unchangable reality?
>
,
> > > why don't you ask him?
> > Sean Olive is free to come here and participate in this thread if so
> > chooses.
>
> Is he even aware RAHE exists?
You might want to ask him.
>
> You're both posting on the same forums elswhere, and this topic is
> being discussed on them, yet you post your strong word here.
>
My posts here are relavent to the topic being discussed here.
>
> > > > > This is why the "subjective" listening approach is next to worthl=
ess as
> > > > > used in the various hifi mags.
> > > > Quite the opposite. Given the fact that most reviewers use a wide
> > > > range of source material but apparently that is not the case at HK =
it
> > > > kinda shows the utility of subjective review and the futility of th=
e
> > > > methodologies employed at HK. no doubt they have, after millions of
> > > > dollars spent, designed the best speaker for their room and their
> > > > listeners using their source material. Unfortunately that is pretty
> > > > damned limited for someone like me. That is not to say they haven't
> > > > made excellent speakers. Just not the objective world beaters I thi=
nk
> > > > they had imagined.
>
> > > That is a gross mischaracterization of the work done over decades
> > > at HK.
> > I disagree.
> > "At Harman International, we try to minimize loudspeaker-program
> > interactions in our loudspeaker listening tests by using well-recorded
> > programs that are equally sensitive to distortions found in
> > loudspeakers. Listeners become intimately familiar with the sonic
> > idiosyncrasies of the different programs through extensive listener
> > training and participation in formal tests. In each trial of a
> > loudspeaker test, the listener can switch between different
> > loudspeakers using the same program, which allows them to better
> > separate the distortions in the program (which are constant), from the
> > distortions in the loudspeaker. "
> >http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html
>
> And you provided a curious spin of this information in your post....
> and further deeming the methods 'futile'
>
No I said nothing about futile. I am of the opinion that they are
limited by the very things I have cited. Nothing more nothing less.
What spin are you refering to? The above is a direct quote from HK.
> Are you at all familiar with the history of such testing at Harman?
>
Yes. Are you? You seemed to have just called a quote from their own
literature a "curious spin."
> > > > > How to break the "circle" and produce an universal industry refer=
ence?
>
> > > > >http://seanolive.blogspot.com/
> > > > IOW completely abandon the vast catalog of recorded music that
> > > > contains all those great performances. yeah that's the ticket.
>
> > > Another gross mischaracterization of what Olive is saying.
> > Well please do clarify.
>
> Olive is not by any stretch of imagination telling anyone to abandon
> the catalog of extant recorded music.
But clearly his testing methodologies have done just that. And he is
now describing that catalog as a "circle of confusion."
>
> > How does one go about creating a "meaningful standard" for the vast
> > ctalog of recorded music?
>
> You can't. So the only way to reduce this
>
> > "circle of confusion is to abandon that catalog altogether
>
> No, it's to abandon current music industry recording practice and
> subsistute something more akin to current movie sound recording
> practice. =A0That is, to implement standards.
Yeah that's just wahat we need. THX quality sound. No thanks. I think
the "circle of confusion" has done better actually. The reality is
this aint gonna happen. recording engineers are not going to turn into
mindless robuts that follow some protocol so HK can stop worrying
about variety in the world of recordings. Yeah let's just cut the
creative proccess out of recording. That's a great idea.
=A0
>
> > One need
> > look no further than HKs own choice of reference material and the
> > criteria by which they chose it to see that this is what they have
> > already done. "At Harman International, we try to minimize loudspeaker-
> > program interactions in our loudspeaker listening tests by using well-
> > recorded programs that are equally sensitive to distortions found in
> > loudspeakers." "Minimize" that says it all.
>
> Only if you're being willfully simplistic about it.
Do tell me what subtle complexities I am overlooking.
>
> Harman experiments deal with a variety of questions. =A0Experiments
> involve =A0variables. If the question happens to be evaluation
> of the loudspeaker sound preference, the goal is to minnimize the effect
> of other variables, including effects due to the program material.
But in the real world the program material is standardized. so it
would seen Sean Olive would like to change the reality of recording to
conform to his methodologies. Aint gonna happen. So all the while we
have them drawing the conclusion that flat response is all important
while limiting their testing to a very narrow band of source material
that doesn't represent the real world ctatlog that audiophiles are
actually going to be using. I would think the flaw of this choice
would be fairly obvious and I would think the idea of changing the
world instead of changing their methodologies would be just as
obvious.
>
> Other experiments might examine the effects of varying the program
> materiual. Harman has done those too. =A0There, you would try to
> control for loudspeaker variation.
They "might?"
>
> It rather amazes me that someone who has multiple lines
> of public dialogue with the ACTUAL INVESTIGATOR available to him would
> prefer instead to come here, display his apparent unfamiliarity with
> details of the investigators work, and draw conclusions from
> that.
Again Sean Olive is free to come here and correct any error of fact or
logic. So far you really haven't seemed find any.
>
> > > > doesn't defeat the whole point of audio for those of us who got int=
o
> > > > it because we wanted to hear our favorite recordings sound their
> > > > best.
> > > > And in so doing become completely irrelevant to the music lover. Co=
unt
> > > > me out. the very thing that got me into audio, the music, is now th=
e
> > > > obstacle and has been redubbed "the circle of confusion." Talk abou=
t a
> > > > tail chase.
>
> > > Floyd Toole has been writing about the 'circle of confusion' for year=
s now.
> > > You're just catching up.
> > So they have been aware of the gross limitations to their approach for
> > years? And their solution is that the rest of the audio industry needs
> > to be fixed rather than their approach? oh well.
>
> Perhaps you should write papers in JAES explaining the 'gross limitations=
'
> pof their published work...since you seem so certain you're right and the=
y're
> wrong.
Steve it's just a thread on Rec Audio High-end and my posts are on
topic. If you feel this is the wrong forum for this topic you might
want to discuss that with the moderators.
>
> Speaking of certainty loudspeakers most *certainly* could use
> some better testing and provision of consumer information.
In your opinion. I actually think there are some pretty terrific
speakers out there despite your concerns.
>=A0The audio industry could
> *certainly* standardize some studio practices that are currently catch as
> catch can, to the consumer's detriment.
Standardization is the last thing artists need. The consumers have
actually been well served by great recording engineers over the years.
But if you would rather hear the sort of crap one gets from THX....
Count me out. I don't want recording engineers to be turned into
technicians. They are artists. I'm really not into an Orwellian vision
of audio.
>=A0 Toole and Olive are HARDLY the
> only folks in the audio industry who believe this. =A0IIRC you admire bot=
h
> Bob Katz and JJ -- and I'm pretty sure both would agree.
I don't "admire" Bob Katz and I think JJ can speak for himself.
Arny Krueger
news:hdag2...@news5.newsguy.com
> Scott <S888...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Sean Olive is free to come here and participate in this
>> thread if so chooses.
> Is he even aware RAHE exists?
Sean once posted both on Usenet, both RAHE and even RAO, as a simple
retrieval from Google groups will demonstrate.
Andrew Barss
: On Nov 7, 3:59=A0pm, Andrew Barss <ba...@mint.u.arizona.edu> wrote:
: I would posit that I would expect my equipment to have the capacity to
: reproduce the arguing and the waiter coming through the door. And were
: those sounds actually there as part of the base information, they
: should be there on the reproduction.
But the engineer on the scene (studio or live venue) makes all sorts of
choices -- why not mike himself talking to his assistant? Why not
reproduce the sound as it was to someone sitting very far left, so
everything is panned hard right? Why not record the performance as it
sounds outside the club, or in the kitchen? Etc. (Cooking wasn't the best
analogy, but it was the best I could think of at the time!).
Lots of people love the sound of the audience throughout a live recording.
I don't. It's a distraction from the music, and obscures the music in some
caes (loud audience), and I'm delighted to find recordings of live
performances that leave the audience completely out (or relegate them to
the intro and outro).
: After which I should be the one: making the choices -
:not the engineer at the scene.
But how do you block the sound of an annoying audience if it's there on
the CD? That's a decision the engineer/mizer/producer has to make before
creating the final product, and before you get it to your equipment.
: Of course that position is patently absurd as the engineer by nature
: makes a nearly infinite number of choices during the recording process
: each one of which precludes any alternative. Hence the basic silliness
: of the premise.
Ok, so we agree?
My experience in choosing recordings to audition is to
: follow those labels/orchestras/directors that have given me pleasure
: in the past and hope that they do so this time.
Sure, so you like good sounding music, and we agree. Question: suppose
fidelity to the original performance sounds worse to your ear than a minor
adjustment to the original performance? Which recording would you pick?
(And saying "both" doesn't count!).
-- Andy Barss
Peter Wieck
On Nov 10, 2:14 pm, Andrew Barss <ba...@basil.u.arizona.edu> wrote:
> Peter Wieck <p...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> : On Nov 7, 3:59=A0pm, Andrew Barss <ba...@mint.u.arizona.edu> wrote:
> But the engineer on the scene (studio or live venue) makes all sorts of
> choices -- why not mike himself talking to his assistant? Why not
> reproduce the sound as it was to someone sitting very far left, so
> everything is panned hard right? Why not record the performance as it
> sounds outside the club, or in the kitchen? Etc. (Cooking wasn't the best
> analogy, but it was the best I could think of at the time!).
Because in those cases either a) he is adding information that did not
occur spontaneously, or b) he is skewing the information radically, or
c) he is missing the point. The live audience experience is a function
of many things, including spontaneous ambient noises. And yet the
point of a recording is the music the audience wants to hear. The
engineer is charged with getting as close as possible to that - and
whether he wishes to enhance, modify, ignore or suppress ambient
information is where the choices come in.
> Lots of people love the sound of the audience throughout a live recording.
> I don't. It's a distraction from the music, and obscures the music in some
> caes (loud audience), and I'm delighted to find recordings of live
> performances that leave the audience completely out (or relegate them to
> the intro and outro).
That is just fine. Knowing that about yourself allows you to make
certain choices in what you wish to include and exclude. Preference is
not anything shameful.
> : After which I should be the one: making the choices -
> :not the engineer at the scene.
> But how do you block the sound of an annoying audience if it's there on
> the CD? That's a decision the engineer/mizer/producer has to make before
> creating the final product, and before you get it to your equipment.
Actually, I don't block the sound of an annoying audience. If I
actually find it so annoying as to make the experience insufferable, I
would reject the recording but certainly not blame the engineer for
making the choice of including what was 'actually there' during the
recording process. "Fidelity" is not only a matter of pure music - and
his interpretation of the term may include _all_ the relevent
information at the scene of the recording audible to the 'typical'
audience member.
> Ok, so we agree?
Not impossible that we agree - but I think we are approaching the
problem from radically different views.
> My experience in choosing recordings to audition is to
> : follow those labels/orchestras/directors that have given me pleasure
> : in the past and hope that they do so this time.
>
> Sure, so you like good sounding music, and we agree. Question: suppose
> fidelity to the original performance sounds worse to your ear than a minor
> adjustment to the original performance? Which recording would you pick?
> (And saying "both" doesn't count!).
Well, then - following your supposition, I would have to fault the
original performance, and not the engineer for capturing it
accurately. And, again, I always have the option of rejecting the
recording for something more pleasing to me. And lest you think I am
splitting hairs - how would you define a 'minor' adjustment? Altering
microphone position? Adding equalization because one instrument/
section dominates the others inappropriately? Would this last not be a
directing error? The engineer is a tiny piece of the puzzle.
Point being that any recording is a function of thousands of variables
and hundreds of small and large choices. It has a lot of science to it
but is as much art as science. And any recording played back in our
homes is necessarily subject to the vagaries of our personal choice in
equipment, the room that equipment lives in, and how we choose to
listen to which source. Setting a standard anywhere along that chain
without including the entire chain is about as useful as a $2,000 2-
meter line cord on an amplifier at the end of 100 miles of utility
grid. Futile, however interesting or well-meaning.
There are dozens if not hundreds of recordings of almost any even
vaguely popular bit of music composed in the last 1,000 years or more.
Odds are that if I like the piece I can find a pleasing (to me)
recording of it. Even if it includes the conductor singing along WAY
off-key (Toscanini being a great example of this phenomenon. Given the
state of the art at that time, I am SURE that engineer could have
removed this had he wished).
nm...@optonline.net
> Odds are that if I like the piece I can find a pleasing (to me)
> recording of it. Even if it includes the conductor singing along WAY
> off-key (Toscanini being a great example of this phenomenon. Given the
> state of the art at that time, I am SURE that engineer could have
> removed this had he wished).
>
One particular (deceased) Canadian classical pianist's humming and
beloved creaking chair became his 'trademarks'. Having withdrawn from
performing on-stage before live audiences, all his later year
recordings are studio jobs.
Sonnova
(in article <7lurv9F...@mid.individual.net>):
That wouldn't have been Glenn Gould, would it?
Kalman Rubinson
>Sean Olive is free to come here and participate in this thread if so
>chooses.
Wow. I find it unreasonable and egocentric of you to think
that he, or anyone who does not normally follow this
newsgroup, would be aware of what is going on here.
Moreover, since this matter came up consequent to his posts
on AVS and on his own blog, it would be encumbent on you to
go there to make your points or, at the very least to inform
of the existence of this thread.
Kal
nm...@optonline.net
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:13:29 -0800, n...@optonline.net wrote
> (in article <7lurv9F3fe4s...@mid.individual.net>):
>
> > On Nov 10, 7:05=A0pm, Peter Wieck <p...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Odds are that if I like the piece I can find a pleasing (to me)
> >> recording of it. Even if it includes the conductor singing along WAY
> >> off-key (Toscanini being a great example of this phenomenon. Given the
> >> state of the art at that time, I am SURE that engineer could have
> >> removed this had he wished).
>
> > One particular (deceased) Canadian classical pianist's humming and
> > beloved creaking chair became his 'trademarks'. Having withdrawn from
> > performing on-stage before live audiences, all his later year
> > recordings are studio jobs.
>
> That wouldn't have been Glenn Gould, would it?
Yes, indeed. Often times I've found myself listening to his recordings
solely to hear his humming, without which I'd have to regard them as
being incomplete.
Norman
Dick Pierce
>>One particular (deceased) Canadian classical pianist's humming and
>>beloved creaking chair became his 'trademarks'. Having withdrawn from
>>performing on-stage before live audiences, all his later year
>>recordings are studio jobs.
>>
> That wouldn't have been Glenn Gould, would it?
I once knew of a Canadian harp seal that hummed when it
played and had creaky stool, but, yes, I suspect the
poster was referring, in this case, to Gould.
--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+
Scott
Wow. I find it unreasonable that anyone would think that I, and I
only, would have some sort of obligation to inform Sean Olive about
the content of my posts on rec.audio.high-end or to express my
opinions anywhere else for his convenience. Rec Audio high-end is an
appropriate venue to discuss these thngs and my posts have been on
topic. If you or Steve are so concered about the content of my posts
you are free to fill Sean Olive in. Seriously? It is egocentric of me
to post my opinions here that are completely on topic?
Sonnova
(in article <hdfh8...@news1.newsguy.com>):
> Sonnova wrote:
>>> One particular (deceased) Canadian classical pianist's humming and
>>> beloved creaking chair became his 'trademarks'. Having withdrawn from
>>> performing on-stage before live audiences, all his later year
>>> recordings are studio jobs.
>>>
>> That wouldn't have been Glenn Gould, would it?
>
> I once knew of a Canadian harp seal that hummed when it
> played and had creaky stool, but, yes, I suspect the
> poster was referring, in this case, to Gould.
>
>
Well, since I don't know any seals, and certainly haven't been close enough
to one to "hear" its stools, I'll take your word for it. 8^)
Yes, I suspect it was Glenn Gould as well.
Steven Sullivan
> Yeah that's just wahat we need. THX quality sound. No thanks. I think
> the "circle of confusion" has done better actually. The reality is
> this aint gonna happen. recording engineers are not going to turn into
> mindless robuts that follow some protocol so HK can stop worrying
> about variety in the world of recordings. Yeah let's just cut the
> creative proccess out of recording. That's a great idea.
This is just more offensive mischaracterization on your part. No creative
process is being 'cut out' by establishing measurable monitor and
monitoring room performance standards -- it can only help
bring what's heard at home and what was heard in the control room
into better alignment. No one will go to jail if
they don't adhere to them and no one will prevent you from
twiddling with the sound to your heart's content at home.
> > > One need
> > > look no further than HKs own choice of reference material and the
> > > criteria by which they chose it to see that this is what they have
> > > already done. "At Harman International, we try to minimize loudspeaker-
> > > program interactions in our loudspeaker listening tests by using well-
> > > recorded programs that are equally sensitive to distortions found in
> > > loudspeakers." "Minimize" that says it all.
> >
> > Only if you're being willfully simplistic about it.
> Do tell me what subtle complexities I am overlooking.
Gladly: Loudspeaker listening test methods in their current form at Harman derive
from many years of testing the relative contribution of different variables to loudspeaker evaluation
(including listener variability and program variability).
It also makes perfect scientific and methodological sense to try to
*minimize* variables that aren't under test and whose relative
contribution has already been tested.
In light of all that, 'minimize that says it all' aside from being
ungrammatical, is nothing more than the sort of sniggering anti-thoughtful
reduction that we heard in the last presidential campaign, where mentioning
funding for *fruit fly research* was code for 'look at the academic nonsense those
head-in-the-clouds scientists are wasting their time and our money on'.
> > > > Harman experiments deal with a variety of questions. =A0Experiments > > involve =A0variables. If the question happens to
be evaluation > > of the loudspeaker sound preference, the goal is to minnimize the effect > > of other variables, including
effects due to the program material.
> But in the real world the program material is standardized. so it
> would seen Sean Olive would like to change the reality of recording to
> conform to his methodologies. Aint gonna happen. So all the while we
> have them drawing the conclusion that flat response is all important
> while limiting their testing to a very narrow band of source material
> that doesn't represent the real world ctatlog that audiophiles are
> actually going to be using. I would think the flaw of this choice
> would be fairly obvious and I would think the idea of changing the
> world instead of changing their methodologies would be just as
> obvious.
Instead of opining on what 'seems' to you that Olive would like, I wonder
again why you don't simply get the truth directly from the source, since
you are apparently confused if you think he is saying the
programming itself (rather than performance of studio gear) needs to
be standardized.
Sean has been very willing to expand publicly on points
made on his blog and in his papers.
And 'ain't gonna happen' has been said about many things in many
industries that eventually...happened.
And the 'obvious' flaw I see is that you aren't nearly as familiar
with Olive's work and rationale for methods , as you fancy yourself
to be. Your argument there is basically one from incredulity...
'it can't work'.
> > Other experiments might examine the effects of varying the program
> > materiual. Harman has done those too. =A0There, you would try to
> > control for loudspeaker variation.
> They "might?"
Yes, Scott, in formal language such experiments *might* (could, can) be done,
if we're discussing possible avenues for experimental study. Harman has in fact done them.
Instead of picking out individual words for pouncing upon, please connect them to
their contexts.
> >
> > It rather amazes me that someone who has multiple lines
> > of public dialogue with the ACTUAL INVESTIGATOR available to him would
> > prefer instead to come here, display his apparent unfamiliarity with
> > details of the investigators work, and draw conclusions from
> > that.
> Again Sean Olive is free to come here and correct any error of fact or
> logic. So far you really haven't seemed find any.
Isn't it pretty to think so?
> > > > > And in so doing become completely irrelevant to the music lover. Co=
> unt
> > > > > me out. the very thing that got me into audio, the music, is now th=
> e
> > > > > obstacle and has been redubbed "the circle of confusion." Talk abou=
> t a
> > > > > tail chase.
> >
> > > > Floyd Toole has been writing about the 'circle of confusion' for year=
> s now.
> > > > You're just catching up.
> > > So they have been aware of the gross limitations to their approach for
> > > years? And their solution is that the rest of the audio industry needs
> > > to be fixed rather than their approach? oh well.
> >
> > Perhaps you should write papers in JAES explaining the 'gross limitations=
> '
> > pof their published work...since you seem so certain you're right and the=
> y're
> > wrong.
> Steve it's just a thread on Rec Audio High-end and my posts are on
> topic. If you feel this is the wrong forum for this topic you might
> want to discuss that with the moderators.
Remember the scene in Annie Hall where Woody brings on Marshall McLuhan
to address the posturing of the patron on line behind him who's criticizing
McLuhan's work?
> > Speaking of certainty loudspeakers most *certainly* could use > > some better testing and provision of consumer information.
> In your opinion. I actually think there are some pretty terrific
> speakers out there despite your concerns.
Your ability to spot an opinion is unparalleled. Thank you for reminding me that
there are people who are ideologically opposed to measurement of audio performance.
But you're wrong if you believed I don't think there *are* any 'terrific speakers
out there'. There are also some pretty terrific speakers out there in the
literal sense of the word.
> >=A0The audio industry could
> > *certainly* standardize some studio practices that are currently catch as
> > catch can, to the consumer's detriment.
> Standardization is the last thing artists need. The consumers have
> actually been well served by great recording engineers over the years.
> But if you would rather hear the sort of crap one gets from THX....
> Count me out. I don't want recording engineers to be turned into
> technicians. They are artists. I'm really not into an Orwellian vision
> of audio.
This is all quite melodramatic, the rhetoric of fear.
But if you were as familiar with Toole's writing as you claim, you'd know
he does not propose a wall between the ART and the SCIENCE. He advocates
that science be used in service of the art. Recording engineers are
technicians and artists, not one or the other.
> >=A0 Toole and Olive are HARDLY the
> > only folks in the audio industry who believe this. =A0IIRC you admire bot=
> h
> > Bob Katz and JJ -- and I'm pretty sure both would agree.
> I don't "admire" Bob Katz and I think JJ can speak for himself.
If not 'admire', then perhaps "respect"? Or at least "quote"?
The point is there are serious recording engineers, and figures
within the audio industry, who seem unafraid that introducing
some order into chaos might lead to audio Stalinism.
Are you against the Scarlet Book standard that tried to prevent
the introduction of digital clipping to SACD masterings?
Sean
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 19:02:23 -0800, Peter Wieck wrote
> (in article <7lc95vF3dp6i...@mid.individual.net>):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 3, 7:51=3DA0pm, out...@city-net.com wrote:
>
> >> The audio industry is now in a place to get beyond subjective listenin=
g
> >> and to discover what is really relevant using listening alone and to d=
o s=3D
> > o
> >> on a repeated basis for loudspeakers and rooms.
>
> > With respect, that horse is thoroughly dead. The Audio Industry as a
> > whole cannot afford any sort of serious dose of reality. Should that
> > ever happen the Naked Emperor would be illuminated in all his gory,
> > um, err, glory. There is one truism within the Audio Industry that has
> > prevailed in the 40+ years that I have been peripheral to it: There is
> > nothing new under the sun.
>
> > Peter Wieck
> > Melrose Park, PA
>
are
> almost as many versions of it as there are musicians, producers, recordin=
g
> engineers and listeners. It is possible to find very 'realistic' sounding
> recordings - depending, of course, what your personal definition of
> 'realistic' is. And that's just the point. You pays your money and you ta=
kes
> your chances, as they say.
The point of breaking the circle of confusion is to allow consumers to
experience the recording as it was heard by the artist in the studio.
Films are made over calibrated video monitors, and we can watch those
films at home using similar calibrated monitors. So why can't we do
the same with sound?
It has nothing to do with imposing artistic constraints on the
musician ad recording producer or helping them make more "realistic"
recordings. As you point out, reality is in the eye or ear of the
beholder. As a musician, how can I begin to communicate to you my
version of reality if you aren't even hearing the same sounds as me?
This is pretty simple stuff that the other arts (video, photography,
film) have already figured out long ago. The audio industry is still
in the dark ages.
Scott
I don't know where people get this idea. Films are not made over
calibrated monitors. Video sometimes is but not film. Can't calibrate
a monitor to match film. But when we shoot digital the monitor is not
calibrated for an aesthetic judgement. It's calibrated to assure that
we see digital clipping. The image on a monitor while shooting digital
or film is not used to judge the image quality. I can assure you that
what we see on our monitors while shooting bears very little
resemblence to the final broadcast (if TV) or projection (if a movie)
>
> It has nothing to do with imposing artistic constraints on the
> musician ad recording producer or helping them make more "realistic"
> recordings. As you point out, reality is in the eye or ear of the
> beholder. As a musician, how can I begin to communicate to you my
> version of reality if you aren't even hearing the same sounds as me?
> This is pretty simple stuff that the other arts (video, photography,
> film) have already figured out long ago. The audio industry is still
> in the dark ages
What exactly have they figured out again? What is standardized in
film? As for video.... not even close. Every monitor has it's own look
as does every camera. What you see on set, in post and in broadcast
are all different. It is a royal crap shoot. and yet it does work.
The real trick though with this "circle of confusion" is the end
user. How are you going to "standardize" their equipment? Maybe we
should have all the studios and home speakers be Bose 901s? No of
course not. They suck. Hmmm maybe Top of the line Martin Logans? Maybe
they should set the standard. I like my Soundlabs. Maybe they should
be the standard. If we are going to have the consumers hear the same
thing as the musicians in the studio.....gotta be the same speakers
and same room no? Whose speakers should be the standard????? Sean, you
got any suggestions?
Sonnova
(in article <7n17e4F...@mid.individual.net>):
For one thing, sight and sound are very different. For instance, when a red
car is on the screens of a wall full of TVs at the local appliance emporium,
you will likely notice that there are almost as many shades of red for that
car as there are TVs on that display wall. . Which one is right? We have no
way to know - unless the car is right there in front of us for comparison. We
can look at the car and look at the screens at the same time and pick the one
that's closest to the real color. BUT, we can't listen to a real oboe and a
dozen reproductions of that oboe simultaneously and pick which one is the
most real, because we can't separate sounds in our minds the way we can
separate the individual visual representations of the REAL red car. Also,
human memory of sound is not accurate enough for us to directly compare the
sound of the live oboe with one of dozens of reproduced oboes. This is
certainly bourn-out by the ease with which live vs recorded demonstrations
have been "fooling" listeners since the days of acoustic recordings.
> It has nothing to do with imposing artistic constraints on the
> musician ad recording producer or helping them make more "realistic"
> recordings. As you point out, reality is in the eye or ear of the
> beholder. As a musician, how can I begin to communicate to you my
> version of reality if you aren't even hearing the same sounds as me?
> This is pretty simple stuff that the other arts (video, photography,
> film) have already figured out long ago. The audio industry is still
> in the dark ages.
My point is that because of the nature of sound, there is nothing TO figure
out. When you, as a musician, are playing your instrument, you are in a close
proximity to that instrument, that I, as a listener will never experience.
That alone makes what you hear and what I hear different. Also, as a
musician, you and I, the listener, are probably listening to and for vastly
different things. This makes a commonality of expectations unlikely. Add to
that the varying tastes in individual listeners (I might focus on soundstage
and imaging, another listener might prefer big bass and bright highs, while
still another might find the accurate reproduction of the midrange to be the
end-all and be-all of the listening experience). Add to these characteristics
the known inaccuracies of transducers at both ends of the
recording/reproduction chain, added to the room interactions, again, at both
ends of the chain, and the variables are simply too many to quantify in any
meaningful way. And even if you could, you would have so many opinions as to
which of those various quantizations are the CORRECT quantizations that any
such attempt would end up being meaningless. You might as well standardize
recipes and ingredient qualities in cooking. That's the closest analogy I can
come up with. There are dozens of different ways to prepare most dishes, and
as many opinions about which is THE right way to prepare a given dish. In
many cases, most of the recipes will yield results which are palatable, even
though individual diners might strongly prefer one recipe over another, and
many would not agree on which was the best. In this case, standardizing
recipes would not only be futile, but it would ruin any diversity in the
process. IOW, if all spaghetti sauces were the same, the only Italian
restaurant the world would need would be Olive Garden. And what a dull world
that would be!
Sean
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:51:07 -0800, out...@city-net.com wrote
> (in article <7lc1frF3do6q...@mid.individual.net>):
>
>
>
>
>
> > There is an audio blog I read that describes efforts to anchor audio
> > production and reproduction in reality. =A0A recent thread in this grou=
p
> > related to what reality reference is used in audio production and how i=
t
> > might relate to the final product, which in turn has an obvious effect =
on
> > reproduction for our various loudspeaker and listening contexts.
>
> > This the blog author refers to as "the circle of confusion" and points =
to
> > the lack of a reference for both production and reproduction of audio b=
y
> > which music can be recorded and played back in any listening context. =
=A0
> > For the production side it is a pig in a poke and grows instantly far
> > worse when unknown sources are used in listening contexts.
>
> > used in the various hifi mags. =A0We just can not account for all the
> > factors that make an auditory difference without universal references f=
or
> > the recordings used and loudspeakers, not to mention the loudspeaker /
> > room interactions in which subjective impressions were formed. =A0It ad=
ds
> > only one more level to "the circle of confusion" for the reader.
>
> > How to break the "circle" and produce an universal industry reference?
>
> >http://seanolive.blogspot.com/
>
> > The last and next to last entries, as blog format goes, discuss the
> > problem and proposed solution.
>
> > Earlier entries are related in discussing how objective reproducible
> > loudspeaker and speaker room interaction can be addressed in blind
> > listening using trained listeners in controlled listening contexts to
> > establish a basis for "preference" in the listeners.
>
> > The audio industry is now in a place to get beyond subjective listening
> > and to discover what is really relevant using listening alone and to do=
so
> > on a repeated basis for loudspeakers and rooms.
>
> simple (I wish it were!). The problem on the production end of things is =
that
> different types of music, designed for different venues and audiences, mu=
st
> be recorded differently.
>
> Pop and rock, for instance, is largely comprised of performances that don=
't
> actually exist in real space. The electronic instruments - guitars, Fende=
r
> Rhodes pianos, synthesizers, etc. don't actually make any "sound" they ou=
tput
> electrical signals that need amplification. It is often easier, and more
> controllable for musicians to play this music directly into the electroni=
cs
> of a recording console than to use amps and speakers played into micropho=
nes.
> The exceptions, of course are acoustical instruments such as drum sets an=
d
> saxophones or trumpets. Drum sets are multi-miked with a separate, dedica=
ted
> microphone for each drum in the kit and other acoustic instruments are
> "frapped" I.E. picked-up via a contact microphone affixed directly to the
> instrument or very close-miked with conventional microphones. =A0.
>
> Acoustic jazz is usually close-miked, =A0with, often, a separate micropho=
ne for
> each instrument. The reason for this is that jazz is meant to sound intim=
ate,
> and a distant, stereo miking technique, while it might get the space righ=
t,
> will sound wrong when played back on a stereo system. Even big-band jazz
> sounds overly reverberant and distant when overall stereo-miking is used
> without some form of highlighting.
>
> Symphonic Classical, OTOH, needs to be stereo-miked. Since large ensemble=
s
> play in large spaces, the most natural, or accurate (if you will) sound i=
s
> picked-up when the microphones are at a distance and the SPACE the orches=
tra
> occupies is recorded rather than the individual instruments themselves.
> Chamber music, too, is usually best served with a single stereo pair. In
> classical music, one wants the sound of the venue as part of the performa=
nce,
> while it detracts from the sound of jazz and is close to ludicrous for mo=
st
> pop and rock.
>
> This is one reason why sources are so disparate. Add to that the incompet=
ence
> and/or "individual thinking" on the part of some producers, and rules get
> broken, often with disastrous results. For instance, when multi-track
> recording came in in the late 1960's, many classical producers thought th=
at
> it was a good tool for recording symphony orchestras and most record
> companies adopted it. The results were orchestral recordings where, at be=
st,
> the performance sounded like 80 musicians stretched across a stage in a
> single line, with no real depth or soundstage whatsoever, and at worst,
> sections of the orchestra, such as the string section, =A0sounding like 2=
0
> violinists playing solos in unison. Massed strings are supposed to sound =
like
> massed strings not 20 individual violins and the only way that a recordin=
g
> can capture that sound properly is for the sound of those 20 violins play=
ing
> together to mix in the air not in a mixing console and not picked-up with=
a
> separate microphone aimed at the F-hole of each and every violin! =A0Luck=
ily,
> CD showed that practice up for the travesty on music that it was and it i=
s
> not used much (if at all) any more.
>
> But the fact that recording producers, record companies and engineers tas=
tes
> vary as much as do the tastes of the listeners makes a uniform standard f=
or
> recording all but impossible. And one cannot =A0rightly say that only one
> methodology is proper and all others are improper. The goal is to produce=
a
> reasonable facsimile of the original performance in the original venue,
> whether that venue be a recording studio, a small intimate club, the parl=
or
d
> instrumental ensembles are different and present unique challenges to tho=
se
> doing the recording, to ever hope for a uniform standard is whistling in =
the
> dark. It won't and can't happen. So, as listeners, we have to learn to he=
ar
> around this "circle of confusion" and develop a sense for what sounds lik=
e
> music and what doesn't. It's nowhere near as hard as the "blogger" makes =
out,
> and in fact, with experience, people can become very good at it.
All of this is irrelevant to the solving the circle of confusion.
Individual tastes in music, production values, and recording styles
can continue on as they have in the past. The only differences is that
there would be minimum performance standards on the monitors used to
monitor the art. Recording artists, producers and engineers could make
their recordings in any studio in the world and get consistent
results, as long as the playback chain met the standard. Better still,
their fans would hear their art as they intended.
Phil Ramone - one of the greatest record producers of all time -
has commented that one of his saddest realizations is that consumers
rarely hear the same quality of sound that he heard when he was
crafting the record in the studio.
Sean
> To add my own take here, it seems to me we can eliminate the "circle"
> all we have to do is have a specification for the recording monitor
> and the listening room such that the home speakers will reflect
> engineer does what he does and when satisfied with the monitor sound
> then be assured that they are at least hearing the sound the engineer
> equalization.
>
> If the engineer makes a recording of a symphony that sounds, on the
> studio monitors in the studio, like the live sound, then the home
> landscape that is completely nonexistent then he is free to do so, and
> the listener with a system that meets the spec will at least know that
> he is hearing what the engineer intended, whatever that was.
>
> Surely it should not be beyond modern technology to manufacture
> speakers to a solid specification just as they do with amplifiers.
> Even back in the 1970's the BBC could manufacture a line of speakers
> such that any random two would create a stereo image well within
> missing is the will.
>
> Maybe we need Dolby to lay down a loudspeaker spec for stereo sound?
Thank you, Ed. You understand what the circle of confusion is, and
what the solution is for breaking it.Please explain it to Scott.
[ Although this edges on provocation, I am allowing it because of
the unusual and specific circumstances. -- dsr ]
Sean
> On 23 Nov, 20:57, Sean <sean.e.ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 4, 5:19=3DA0am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 19:02:23 -0800, Peter Wieck wrote
> > > (in article <7lc95vF3dp6i...@mid.individual.net>):
>
>
> > > >> The audio industry is now in a place to get beyond subjective list=
enin=3D
> > g
> > > >> and to discover what is really relevant using listening alone and =
to d=3D
> > o s=3D3D
> > > > o
> > > >> on a repeated basis for loudspeakers and rooms.
>
a
> > > > whole cannot afford any sort of serious dose of reality. Should tha=
t
> > > > ever happen the Naked Emperor would be illuminated in all his gory,
has
> > > > prevailed in the 40+ years that I have been peripheral to it: There=
is
> > > > nothing new under the sun.
>
> > > > Peter Wieck
> > > > Melrose Park, PA
>
here=3D
> > =A0are
> > > almost as many versions of it as there are musicians, producers, reco=
rdin=3D
> > g
> > > engineers and listeners. It is possible to find very 'realistic' soun=
ding
> > > recordings - depending, of course, what your personal definition of
u ta=3D
> > kes
> > > your chances, as they say.
>
> > The point of breaking the circle of confusion is to allow consumers to
> > experience the recording as it was heard by the artist in the studio.
> > Films are made over calibrated video monitors, and we can watch those
> > the same with sound?
>
> =A0The real trick though with this "circle of confusion" is the end
> user. How are you going to "standardize" their equipment? Maybe we
> should have all the studios and home speakers be Bose 901s? No of
> course not. They suck. Hmmm maybe Top of the line Martin Logans? Maybe
> they should set the standard. I like my Soundlabs. Maybe they should
> be the standard. If we are going to have the consumers hear the same
> thing as the musicians in the studio.....gotta be the same speakers
> and same room no? Whose speakers should be the standard????? Sean, you
> got any suggestions?
The loudspeakers can be made by any of those companies you mention as
long as their products meet the specification defined by the industry.
Scott
> On Nov 8, 6:11=3DA0pm, Ed Seedhouse <eseedho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > To add my own take here, it seems to me we can eliminate the "circle"
y
> > all we have to do is have a specification for the recording monitor
> > and the listening room such that the home speakers will reflect
ng
> > engineer does what he does and when satisfied with the monitor sound
an
> > then be assured that they are at least hearing the sound the engineer
> > equalization.
>
> > If the engineer makes a recording of a symphony that sounds, on the
> > studio monitors in the studio, like the live sound, then the home
> > landscape that is completely nonexistent then he is free to do so, and
> > the listener with a system that meets the spec will at least know that
> > he is hearing what the engineer intended, whatever that was.
>
> > Surely it should not be beyond modern technology to manufacture
> > speakers to a solid specification just as they do with amplifiers.
> > Even back in the 1970's the BBC could manufacture a line of speakers
> > such that any random two would create a stereo image well within
is
> > missing is the will.
>
> > Maybe we need Dolby to lay down a loudspeaker spec for stereo sound?
>
> Thank you, Ed. You understand what the circle of confusion is, and
> what the solution is for breaking it.Please explain it to Scott.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0the unusual and specific circumstances. -- dsr ]- Hide quoted =
text -
>
Really? So Sean, you are willing to let Dolby Labs determine the
standards and dictate how your speakers will be designed for the sake
of this standardization? And you are willing to pay them a licencing
fee for this?
ScottW
If someone calibrates their room response to a standard....then
wouldn't it be up to the recording to replicate the venue response?
I don't see why a new target curve is required with each recording.
ScottW
Sonnova
(in article <7n2afeF...@mid.individual.net>):
> On Nov 3, 7:12=A0pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:51:07 -0800, out...@city-net.com wrote
>> (in article <7lc1frF3do6q...@mid.individual.net>):
>>
[quoted text deleted -- deb]
>>> How to break the "circle" and produce an universal industry reference?
>>
>>> http://seanolive.blogspot.com/
>>
>>> The last and next to last entries, as blog format goes, discuss the
>>> problem and proposed solution.
>>
>>> Earlier entries are related in discussing how objective reproducible
>>> loudspeaker and speaker room interaction can be addressed in blind
>>> listening using trained listeners in controlled listening contexts to
>>> establish a basis for "preference" in the listeners.
>>
>>> The audio industry is now in a place to get beyond subjective listening
>>> and to discover what is really relevant using listening alone and to do so
>>> on a repeated basis for loudspeakers and rooms.
>>
>> OK, I understand what the "blogger" is saying, but it really isn't that
>> simple (I wish it were!). The problem on the production end of things is that
>> different types of music, designed for different venues and audiences, must
>> be recorded differently.
>>
>> Pop and rock, for instance, is largely comprised of performances that don't
>> actually exist in real space. The electronic instruments - guitars, Fender
>> Rhodes pianos, synthesizers, etc. don't actually make any "sound" they output
>> electrical signals that need amplification. It is often easier, and more
>> controllable for musicians to play this music directly into the electronics
>> of a recording console than to use amps and speakers played into microphones.
>> The exceptions, of course are acoustical instruments such as drum sets and
>> saxophones or trumpets. Drum sets are multi-miked with a separate, dedicated
>> microphone for each drum in the kit and other acoustic instruments are
>> "frapped" I.E. picked-up via a contact microphone affixed directly to the
>> instrument or very close-miked with conventional microphones. =A0.
>>
>> Acoustic jazz is usually close-miked, with, often, a separate microphone for
>> each instrument. The reason for this is that jazz is meant to sound intimate,
>> and a distant, stereo miking technique, while it might get the space right,
>> will sound wrong when played back on a stereo system. Even big-band jazz
>> sounds overly reverberant and distant when overall stereo-miking is used
>> without some form of highlighting.
>>
>> Symphonic Classical, OTOH, needs to be stereo-miked. Since large ensembles
>> play in large spaces, the most natural, or accurate (if you will) sound is
>> picked-up when the microphones are at a distance and the SPACE the orchestra
>> occupies is recorded rather than the individual instruments themselves.
>> Chamber music, too, is usually best served with a single stereo pair. In
>> classical music, one wants the sound of the venue as part of the performance,
>> while it detracts from the sound of jazz and is close to ludicrous for most
>> pop and rock.
>>
>> This is one reason why sources are so disparate. Add to that the incompetence
>> and/or "individual thinking" on the part of some producers, and rules get
>> broken, often with disastrous results. For instance, when multi-track
>> recording came in in the late 1960's, many classical producers thought that
>> it was a good tool for recording symphony orchestras and most record
>> companies adopted it. The results were orchestral recordings where, at best,
>> the performance sounded like 80 musicians stretched across a stage in a
>> single line, with no real depth or soundstage whatsoever, and at worst,
>> sections of the orchestra, such as the string section, sounding like 20
>> violinists playing solos in unison. Massed strings are supposed to sound like
>> massed strings not 20 individual violins and the only way that a recording
>> can capture that sound properly is for the sound of those 20 violins playing
>> together to mix in the air not in a mixing console and not picked-up with a
>> separate microphone aimed at the F-hole of each and every violin! Luckily,
>> CD showed that practice up for the travesty on music that it was and it is
>> not used much (if at all) any more.
>>
>> But the fact that recording producers, record companies and engineers tastes
>> vary as much as do the tastes of the listeners makes a uniform standard for
>> recording all but impossible. And one cannot =A0rightly say that only one
>> methodology is proper and all others are improper. The goal is to produce a
>> reasonable facsimile of the original performance in the original venue,
>> whether that venue be a recording studio, a small intimate club, the parlor
>> or music room of some rich patron, or a concert hall. Since all venues and
>> instrumental ensembles are different and present unique challenges to those
>> doing the recording, to ever hope for a uniform standard is whistling in the
>> dark. It won't and can't happen. So, as listeners, we have to learn to hear
>> around this "circle of confusion" and develop a sense for what sounds like
>> music and what doesn't. It's nowhere near as hard as the "blogger" makes out,
>> and in fact, with experience, people can become very good at it.
>
> All of this is irrelevant to the solving the circle of confusion.
> Individual tastes in music, production values, and recording styles
> can continue on as they have in the past. The only differences is that
> there would be minimum performance standards on the monitors used to
> monitor the art. Recording artists, producers and engineers could make
> their recordings in any studio in the world and get consistent
> results, as long as the playback chain met the standard. Better still,
> their fans would hear their art as they intended.
So, what about about listening rooms? Are you implying that standards be
imposed there as well? Good luck with that. And without it ,loudspeaker
standards are simply meaningless as a way to insure those "consistent
results" that you seem to think are so important.
> Phil Ramone - one of the greatest record producers of all time -
> has commented that one of his saddest realizations is that consumers
> rarely hear the same quality of sound that he heard when he was
> crafting the record in the studio.
In some cases, he might be right. But I've been in dozens of recording
studios from San Francisco and LA to New York and even Rome, and I can tell
you that many of the speakers that are used for monitoring and playback in
those studios are, in my estimation, terrible. In the 1970's and 1980's for
example, most studios used pro monitors made by JBL. These were supposed to
have a consistent sound across the entire line and were sold as "the
standard". I wouldn't have a pair in my garage for listening to AM radio.
They were efficient and loud and could play cleanly at high SPLs.
Unfortunately, any relationship between the sound of these JBL "monitors" and
real music was mostly coincidental. This begs the question, who picks these
standards, and how do we know the standard is going to sound the way real
music sounds? Standards in amplifiers are one thing. We all know, basically,
what's needed and what we want and today's technology can provide amplifying
equipment that is, essentially, perfect. But speakers are transducers and
perfect transducers are, as yet, impossible. So, how does one build speakers
to any standard when that standard would be, by definition, far short of
perfection?
Scott
> On Nov 24, 5:23=A0am, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On 23 Nov, 20:57, Sean <sean.e.ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text deleted -- deb]
> > > The point of breaking the circle of confusion is to allow consumers to
> > > experience the recording as it was heard by the artist in the studio.
> > > Films are made over calibrated video monitors, and we can watch those
> > > films at home using similar calibrated monitors. So why can't we do
> > > the same with sound?
>
> > The real trick though with this "circle of confusion" is the end
> > user. How are you going to "standardize" their equipment? Maybe we
> > should have all the studios and home speakers be Bose 901s? No of
> > course not. They suck. Hmmm maybe Top of the line Martin Logans? Maybe
> > they should set the standard. I like my Soundlabs. Maybe they should
> > be the standard. If we are going to have the consumers hear the same
> > thing as the musicians in the studio.....gotta be the same speakers
> > and same room no? Whose speakers should be the standard????? Sean, you
> > got any suggestions?
>
> The loudspeakers can be made by any of those companies you mention as
> long as their products meet the specification defined by the industry
So are you prepared at HK to make your speakers to the standards set
by Martin Logan? I'm guessing not. I'd love to be a fly on the wall
when you and Gayle Sanders hash out the standards along with every
other player in the business.
Seriously, this does sound a lot like THX. Which has devolved into one
company issuing a licence for a fee so you can have a rather
meaningless trade mark on your equipment.
The probelm with standardization is either speaker manufacturers all
make the same exact loudspeaker which is a horrible idea for many
reasons or the standards have to be loose enough for meaningful
variety in which case they loose their standardization. That leaves us
with a new brand name, a new licencing fee and no real progress. You
simply can't have this standardization and continue to have any
meaningful variety. That leads to loss of choice as a consumer. The
speakers either all gotta be the same or there is no standardization.
Now lets consider this circle of confusion and how it applies to the
real world music already in existance that consumers actually listen
to.
1. How is it that if I switch from my Soundlabs to this proposed
standardized loudspeaker am I going to get something closer to what
those artists heard in the studio?
2, Why should I, as a consumer, actually want that?
I am very much against using such a standard for the simple reason
that I think it is inherently aesthically inferior to that which I
already use as a standard, premium live acoustic music.
I can give you a classic specific example of my standard being better
than yours. I am a huge fan of the Blue Note catalog of classic jazz
recorded by Rudy Van Gelder in the 50s and 60s. Ther has been two
reissue series on 45 rpm LPs mastered by Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray,
Those LPs played back on my system offer an extraordinary illusion of
live musicians palying in a real sound space. Of course these were
"studio" recordings and no such configuration as I hear on these LPs
ever existed in the studio. Rudy Van Gelder monitored these recordings
on IMO a vastly inferior system in mono. So if the prescribed standard
is what RVG heard in the control room then I am missing by a country
mile and yet I am quite confident that what I am hearing with these
reissues on my non standardized speakers through a turntable no less
(the horrors) is vastly superior in so far as it sounds much more like
live musicians playing in a good sound space. This is not a unique
situation.
Kalman Rubinson
Mixing/mastering studio acoustics s vary nearly as much as home
systems. In order to make certain that the standard room response
was, in practice, used in the production and to correct for any
disparities, a target curve or shaped noise pulse would allow for
local adjustments.
Kal
Sonnova
(in article <hehtr...@news6.newsguy.com>):
> On Nov 9, 4:07=A0pm, Kalman Rubinson <k...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On 9 Nov 2009 23:05:23 GMT, Ed Seedhouse <eseedho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 9, 3:26=3DA0am, Kalman Rubinson <k...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Maybe we need Dolby to lay down a loudspeaker spec for stereo sound?
>>
>>>> The complication is specifying the room as well as the equipment.
>>>> Without that, equipment specs are woefully inadequate. =3DA0
>>
>>> Modern DSP technology is already able to fix around 90% of this
>>> problem I believe.
>>> Already cheap A/V receivers available for under $500.00 contain
>>> reasonably effective room and speaker correction chips.
>>
>> Yup. =A0What I was suggesting could ride on that. =A0The built-in routine=
> s
>> have a target curve which is flat or some calculated curve based on
>> assumptions related to movie/theater acoustics. =A0This, clearly, does
>> not help a lot with music. =A0Adding a target on the distribution
>> (medium, disc, download or other) to match the playback acoustics to
>> the studio or concert venue acoustics would serve all.
>>
>> Kal
>
> If someone calibrates their room response to a standard....then
> wouldn't it be up to the recording to replicate the venue response?
>
> I don't see why a new target curve is required with each recording.
>
> ScottW
And that seems to be the problem with some of the ideas for standardization
put forth in this thread. To many people here just don't understand.
Sonnova
(in article <hehue...@news6.newsguy.com>):
> On 24 Nov, 07:33, Sean <sean.e.ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree. Rudy Van Gelder's jazz recordings from the 50's and 60's were simply
made on equipment, that as you point out, would be considered quite primitive
by today's standards. Other examples would be the the Lewis Leyton classical
stereo recordings for RCA and the C. Robert Fine classical stereo recordings
for Mercury. Some of these sound so convincing and life-like that it almost
makes one wonder what real progress has taken place in the art and science of
recording in the last 50-or-so years. Certainly, the monitoring equipment
used for those recordings is downright laughable compared top what is
available today. I used to know a guy (he's long since passed on)who had the
exact same same speakers that Lewis Leyton used to monitor the early RCA Red
Seal "Living Stereo" recordings of the 1950's. Designed by the famous Harry
Olson at the RCA Labs near Camden New Jersey (my friend used to work for
Olson), this speaker system consisted of two eight-inch speakers mounted in a
long box about 30 inches long so that they are 28 degrees from the back panel
of the box and firing into metal wave-guides that exit at an angle of 40
degrees out the ends of the box. Olson did tests that suggested that the
virtual sound sources appeared to be 3-inches beyond the ends of the
enclosure giving an overall separation of 36 inches. This was fine for the
interior of RCA's sound truck that they used to record the likes of the
Chicago Symphony in their own hall, or the Boston Pops in Boston's Symphony
hall. But for a large room wouldn't have worked. The speakers rolled-off
sharply below a hundred hertz and were more than 10 dB down at 40 Hz with a
slight hump at 50. They were also down about 5 dB at 15 KHz and not too flat
over the rest of the spectrum. They sound very mediocre by today's standards.
Any inexpensive pair of modern nearfield monitors such as Edirol's MA15Ds (at
less than $250/pair) will perform rings around them. Yet Leyton (and other
RCA recording engineers) obtained recordings that, even by today's standards,
are often startlingly real and of the highest-fi!
Good recording engineers and producers, learn to "listen around" the
shortcomings in their monitoring equipment and manage to produce the product
that they are striving for in spite of any such shortcomings. They know their
microphones, they know their recording desk and their DAW tools They know
that their digital recording equipment is flat in frequency response and low
in distortion. When they used analog magnetic tape, they spent hours
calibrating the tape path to make sure that the heads were properly aligned
and they calibrated the round-trip record/playback performance to insure that
the frequency response of the tape recorders was flat within reason
(generally pro machines, running at 15 or 30 ips were calibrated to be dead
flat at zero Vu from 50 to 15,000 Hz. Although these recorders had response
below and above those limits, due to a phenomenon called head fringing on the
low end, and self-erasure on top, analog tape decks were usually not held to
any calibration standard above or below the frequencies indicated.). The
bottom line is that the type of standards setting that has been suggested in
this thread is not only unnecessary, it is, for the most part unwanted
because of the limitations it places upon engineers and producers who
already, for the most part, know what they want in a finished product and
know how to get it. The fact that you or I might not agree with their tastes
or "sonic vision", is, well... that's what makes ball games, isn't it?
Ed Seedhouse
produce, in your home, exactly what the recording engineer hears in
his studio? Why would one not purchase such a system in preference to
any that had no such guarantee?
All Sean seems to be claiming is that it is likely possible to produce
such a system today, or will in the near future. He may be wrong or
right, but given that he is right, what possible reason is there to
buy something else?
If it is possible to produce a specification which, if followed by
anyone, will allow anyone to manufacture a system that is guaranteed
to reproduce in the home an exact sonic replica of what the engineer
hears in the studio, why would any manufacturer not want to follow
that specification given reasonable costs? I can't see any reason not
to, myself.
I think it is probably possible to produce such a specification today
or, if not today, is likely to be in the near future, and at
reasonable cost. If I knew of a system which, at reasonable cost, was
able to do this, I would choose it over any system at more or less
equal cost that couldn't.
Scott
> Suppose it were possible to purchase a system that was guaranteed to
> produce, in your home, exactly what the recording engineer hears in
> any that had no such guarantee?
>
> All Sean seems to be claiming is that it is likely possible to produce
> right, but given that he is right, what possible reason is there to
> buy something else?
>
> If it is possible to produce a specification which, if followed by
> anyone, will allow anyone to manufacture a system that is guaranteed
> to reproduce in the home an exact sonic replica of what the engineer
> hears in the studio, why would any manufacturer not want to follow
> that specification given reasonable costs?
The last time I heard a pitch like this it went something like this.
"Perfect sound forever."
>=A0I can't see any reason not
> to, myself.
I think my example using the Rudy Van Gelder Blue Note catalog pretty
much offers an excellent reason.
>
> I think it is probably possible to produce such a specification today
> or, if not today, is likely to be in the near future, and at
> reasonable cost. =A0If I knew of a system which, at reasonable cost, was
> able to do this, I would choose it over any system at more or less
> equal cost that couldn't.
Why would you set the standard for audio at the level of modest
speakers? Do you believe that such a system could ever create a
convincing illusion of a live orchestra? A live Jazz ensemble? If not
you just set a glass ceiling for your own aesthetic goals in audio. I
would avoid such a system like the plague. It's hard to think of a
worse idea than using mediocre equipment as the reference for ideal
sound.
Ed Seedhouse
> The last time I heard a pitch like this it went something like this.
> "Perfect sound forever."
This, like the rest of your response here, sounds to me like mere name
calling, and so not in the least convincing.
> Why would you set the standard for audio at the level of modest
> speakers?
Aside from the fact that this is clearly just more name calling, what
evidence do you have that studios rely on "modest" loudspeakers? You
certainly supply none here. Actually if the magazine articles on the
subject I have read are not a pack of lies, many of them have very
high end speakers indeed.
Of course many of the most expensive "high end" speakers actually are
observably much less accurate than so-called "modest" systems.
Sonnova
(in article <hem7m...@news7.newsguy.com>):
> Suppose it were possible to purchase a system that was guaranteed to
> produce, in your home, exactly what the recording engineer hears in
> his studio? Why would one not purchase such a system in preference to
> any that had no such guarantee?
Knowing what I do about how most studio monitoring environments sound, I'd
have to say NO, absolutely not.
> All Sean seems to be claiming is that it is likely possible to produce
> such a system today, or will in the near future. He may be wrong or
> right, but given that he is right, what possible reason is there to
> buy something else?
Because my tastes in what sounds "right" might not coincide with the
recording engineer's version of "right" or with the results he obtains from
the tools he's forced to work with.
> If it is possible to produce a specification which, if followed by
> anyone, will allow anyone to manufacture a system that is guaranteed
> to reproduce in the home an exact sonic replica of what the engineer
> hears in the studio, why would any manufacturer not want to follow
> that specification given reasonable costs? I can't see any reason not
> to, myself.
Yes, I know you can't. If you did understand, you wouldn't be posting this
now. What you seem to fail to realize is that what you find a very important
result (sounding exactly like what was heard in the studio playback) is
really not all that important or even desirable. Most people don't listen at
the SPLs that are common in a studio, for one thing. and secondly, many
studio monitors lack deep bass and much of the studio monitoring is done
near-field, and that's not how most people listen to music.
> I think it is probably possible to produce such a specification today
> or, if not today, is likely to be in the near future, and at
> reasonable cost. If I knew of a system which, at reasonable cost, was
> able to do this, I would choose it over any system at more or less
> equal cost that couldn't.
To each his own. But what would anyone WANT to do that? Isn't the goal of a
hi-fi system to replicate the sound of music rather than the sound of
somebody else's taste in loudspeakers? I can't speak for others, but I want
a system that sounds like MUSIC, not one that sounds like a pair of studio
monitors that can be anything from a pair of inexpensive near-field monitors
to huge 20-30 year old JBLs or Weslakes or even sound reinforcement speakers.
IOW, there's no consistency in any studio, so, how can there be any
consistency on the listening end? For instance, let's say that I could buy
the same speakers that the Beatles used at Abby Road to mix their stuff, what
happens when I put on a recording of, say, the Beach Boys? The speakers that
their stuff was mixed on was either whatever they had in their home studio of
whatever Capitol had at their Hollywood studios, and whichever those were,
they are not likely to be the same make or model as the Beatles used. I was
at a famous studio in San Francisco a few years back listening to a new mix
of Ravel's "Daphnis et Chloe" originally recorded in the 1970's with
Skrowaczewski and the Minnesota Orchestra by Aubourt and Nikernz for
Vox/Turnabout. This "Quadraphonic" recording was about to be re-released on
Mobile Fidelity. At the studio, I heard the final mix-down from the original
8-track master to two track and 4-track DSD. I thought the playback sounded
terrible with screechy highs and little real bass. Later, when Mo-Fi sent me
the finished SACD, I thought it sounded GREAT on my own system, much better
than Vox's own CD re-release of the same material and miles ahead of the
playback I heard in the studio. So, tell me again, why I want this sound in
my home?
And whatever the various studios use, how are you, the listener, or for that
matter, this magic system that you envision going to know how the original
playback sounded? There are thousands of combinations of equipment used daily
to record music all over the world. Some of the monitoring environments are
commercially available and some are purely custom. Assuming for a moment that
it were possible to characterize that sound, encode some DSP setting into the
recording somewhere so that a smart playback system could adjust parameters
to equal that sound, how could that be done for recording venues that have
been altered since the recording was made or no longer exist at all? How do
you go back and program this smart playback system to replicate THOSE
situations? The whole notion is not only wrongheaded and impractical, it
isn't even what most listeners would want.
Malcolm Lee
> Suppose it were possible to purchase a system that was guaranteed to
> produce, in your home, exactly what the recording engineer hears in
> his studio? Why would one not purchase such a system in preference to
> any that had no such guarantee?
>
a) Because one may not like what "the recording engineer" has heard.
b) Because all recording engineers will hear sound differently.
c) Because all individuals will hear sound differently to any give
recording engineer.
> All Sean seems to be claiming is that it is likely possible to produce
> such a system today, or will in the near future. He may be wrong or
> right, but given that he is right, what possible reason is there to
> buy something else?
>
It is not at all likely. In fact, it is impossible. No one can know
exactly what any other human being hears.
> If it is possible to produce a specification which, if followed by
> anyone, will allow anyone to manufacture a system that is guaranteed
> to reproduce in the home an exact sonic replica of what the engineer
> hears in the studio, why would any manufacturer not want to follow
> that specification given reasonable costs? I can't see any reason not
> to, myself.
>
Again, this is impossible. To reproduce the exact pattern of sound waves
that existed in the studio would need an exact replica of that studio
in each home that played that recording. That in itself is total
fantasy, let alone the fact that everyone would need a separate
listening room for every recording they owned.
> I think it is probably possible to produce such a specification today
> or, if not today, is likely to be in the near future, and at
> reasonable cost. If I knew of a system which, at reasonable cost, was
> able to do this, I would choose it over any system at more or less
> equal cost that couldn't.
You're living in dreamland, I'm afraid.
You seem to be totally unaware that audio is a psychoacoustic
phenomenon. Each individual listener listening to a given sound source
will have their own perception of that source. If you have proof that
all those perceptions are identical, please let us know.
Sonnova
(in article <7n8b9cF...@mid.individual.net>):
> On Nov 26, 9:43=A0am, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> The last time I heard a pitch like this it went something like this.
>> "Perfect sound forever."
>
> This, like the rest of your response here, sounds to me like mere name
> calling, and so not in the least convincing.
He's not name calling at all. He's merely pointing out his belief that what
you propose won't give the results you think it will.
>> Why would you set the standard for audio at the level of modest
>> speakers?
>
> Aside from the fact that this is clearly just more name calling, what
> evidence do you have that studios rely on "modest" loudspeakers?
You err again by believing that that the recording engineer and producer are
listening for the same things in their mixing sessions that you would be
listening for at home. While some monitoring speakers MIGHT be highly
accurate, and might even be expensive, they aren't there for the engineer's
or producer's listening pleasure. They are there to confirm that the
recording has picked-up the sounds that they want picked-up and that they are
present in the proper relationships to other sounds and locations. Like I
said in another post, most people wouldn't want to listen to a recording
studio's monitoring environment for pleasure and for a variety of reasons.
> You certainly supply none here. Actually if the magazine articles on the
> subject I have read are not a pack of lies, many of them have very
> high end speakers indeed.
No doubt that some are very expensive, but some aren't. Some are very
ordinary or even less than ordinary. If you had actually done recording in a
studio you would understand that this "monitoring room" sound that you have
been going on about is simply not very applicable to the home listening
experience and ultimately has little or no meaning to the average listener.
> Of course many of the most expensive "high end" speakers actually are
> observably much less accurate than so-called "modest" systems.
That's neither here nor there. As I pointed out in another post (and again,
above), hearing exactly what the engineer and producer heard in the studio is
largely irrelevant to the home listening environment and most people wouldn't
want to listen that way. At the very least, it's making the listener's
playback choices for him and most of us wouldn't like that either.
nm...@optonline.net
> On 26 Nov, 07:43, Ed Seedhouse <eseedho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Suppose it were possible to purchase a system that was guaranteed to
> > produce, in your home, exactly what the recording engineer hears in
> > his studio? =A0Why would one not purchase such a system in preference to
> > any that had no such guarantee?
>
> > All Sean seems to be claiming is that it is likely possible to produce
> > such a system today, or will in the near future. =A0He may be wrong or
> > right, but given that he is right, what possible reason is there to
> > buy something else?
>
> > If it is possible to produce a specification which, if followed by
> > anyone, will allow anyone to manufacture a system that is guaranteed
> > to reproduce in the home an exact sonic replica of what the engineer
> > hears in the studio, why would any manufacturer not want to follow
> > that specification given reasonable costs?
>
> The last time I heard a pitch like this it went something like this.
> "Perfect sound forever."
>
the pitch. It correctly stated (as most will recognize) that if
handled as suggested, a CD would sound "perfect forever", meaning
sounding as perfectly as it did after the millionth play as it did
during for the first play. I don't think anyone would suggest that a
poorly engineered recording would sound "perfect", be it on any
medium, 30 IPS O/R tape, CD or SACD... (so I'd suggest to stop
repeating it in this reference).
Norman
Scott
> On Nov 26, 9:43=A0am, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > The last time I heard a pitch like this it went something like this.
> > "Perfect sound forever."
>
> This, like the rest of your response here, sounds to me like mere name
> calling, and so not in the least convincing.
>
> > Why would you set the standard for audio at the level of modest
> > speakers?
>
> Aside from the fact that this is clearly just more name calling,
What name calling? who have I called names? I'm a bad guy because I
know the smell of a sales pitch?
> what
> evidence do you have that studios rely on "modest" loudspeakers?
I never said they did. I am basically arguing against your assertion.
Your words
" If it is possible to produce a specification which, if followed by
anyone, will allow anyone to manufacture a system that is guaranteed
to reproduce in the home an exact sonic replica of what the engineer
hears in the studio, why would any manufacturer not want to follow
that specification given reasonable costs?"
IME "reasonable costs" result in "modest" loudspeakers. I suspect Sean
Olive himself would not argue against this given the price tag and the
flagship Revel loudspeakers.
> You
> certainly supply none here.
I certainly can supply your assertions.
> Actually if the magazine articles on the
> subject I have read are not a pack of lies, many of them have very
> high end speakers indeed.
I'm sure they do. But I'm not the one trying to change what they have
to some standard that as you say can be made at "reasonable cost."
>
> Of course many of the most expensive "high end" speakers actually are
> observably much less accurate than so-called "modest" systems.
Accurate to what?
Ed Seedhouse
> You're living in dreamland, I'm afraid.
One of us may be, but probably we will disagree as to which of us, if
either, it is.
> You seem to be totally unaware that audio is a psychoacoustic
> phenomenon. Each individual listener listening to a given sound source
> will have their own perception of that source. If you have proof that
> all those perceptions are identical, please let us know.
Well, you have, it seems to me, just defined away high quality sound
reproduction, so we may as well go back to the thorn needle directly
driving a horn, like we had in the 1930's (actually at my house we
still had one in the 1950's, but it was already out of date). But by
your definition it wouldn't be, it seems to me, and one wonders why,
believing as you say you do, you would be posting in a supposedly
"high end" forum dedicated to the realistic reproduction of sound,
which you have above defined as being impossible anyway.
Whatever happened to "reproduction"? That, I thought, is what we were
attempting to do. What are we to reproduce? An ability to reproduce
the sound created by the recording engineer would take us a lot closer
than we are now to reproducing the original performance than we were
before, it seems to me. Assuming I can be assured that at least I am
hearing a good facsimile of what the engineer put on the record, then
the problem resolves down to getting sound engineers to put that real
event on the record in the first place.
If you can't even be assured that you are hearing what the engineer
put on the record why would you spend megabucks on a system that then
produces an essentially random sound? Seems odd to me. And believing
that this megabuck system will somehow reproduce "realistic" sound
without any standard to live up to, well, that seems to me rather like
being in that "dreamland" you referred to.
Scott
> On Nov 26, 12:43=A0pm, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 26 Nov, 07:43, Ed Seedhouse <eseedho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Suppose it were possible to purchase a system that was guaranteed to
> > > produce, in your home, exactly what the recording engineer hears in
ce to
> > > any that had no such guarantee?
>
e
> > > such a system today, or will in the near future. =3DA0He may be wrong=
or
> > > right, but given that he is right, what possible reason is there to
> > > buy something else?
>
> > > If it is possible to produce a specification which, if followed by
> > > anyone, will allow anyone to manufacture a system that is guaranteed
> > > to reproduce in the home an exact sonic replica of what the engineer
> > > hears in the studio, why would any manufacturer not want to follow
> > > that specification given reasonable costs?
>
> > The last time I heard a pitch like this it went something like this.
> > "Perfect sound forever."
>
> And something like that is silly being neither a put-down of CD nor
> the pitch.
Actually it was very much a put down of the pitch. The pitch was a
false promise since one did not get sound that was perfect.
> It correctly stated (as most will recognize) that if
> handled as suggested, a CD would sound "perfect forever", meaning
> sounding as perfectly as it did after the millionth play as it did
> during for the first play.
which would have been imperfect each of those million times. It was a
common understanding that perfect meant transparent to the original
recording. That simply was not happening at the time. Now we have a
similar pitch. "Hear exactly what the recording engineer heard."
Similar pitch with a likely similar failure to meet the promise.
> I don't think anyone would suggest that a
> poorly engineered recording would sound "perfect", be it on any
> medium, 30 IPS O/R tape, CD or SACD... (so I'd suggest to stop
> repeating it in this reference).
I didn't suggest it either. But I think the similarites in both
pitches are uncanny. Sorry if you don't see it.
Scott
> On Nov 26, 8:39=A0pm, Malcolm Lee <malcREMolm...@canREMtab.net> wrote:
>
> > =A0You're living in dreamland, I'm afraid.
>
> One of us may be, but probably we will disagree as to which of us, if
> either, it is.
>
> > phenomenon. Each individual listener listening to a given sound source
> > will have their own perception of that source. If you have proof that
> > all those perceptions are identical, please let us know.
>
> reproduction, so we may as well go back to the thorn needle directly
> driving a horn, like we had in the 1930's (actually at my house we
> still had one in the 1950's, but it was already out of date).
It seems to me he simply stated a reality that has to be delt with. I
don't see how throwing in the towel is the correct approach to dealing
with that reality.
>=A0But by
> your definition it wouldn't be, it seems to me, and one wonders why,
> believing as you say you do, you would be posting in a supposedly
> "high end" forum dedicated to the realistic reproduction of sound,
> which you have above defined as being impossible anyway.
1. It is not a definition, it is a circumstance that we face in audio.
2. if one is interested in an illusion of realism then why on earth
would one use studio playback as a reference?!? That is what you are
proposing.
>
> Whatever happened to "reproduction"?
It was never the actual goal since th invention of stereo. The goal is
an *illusion* of reproduction of the original acoustic event. So I
would ask you, what happened to the "original acoustic event" if one
uses the sound in the control room as their reference?
> =A0That, I thought, is what we were
> attempting to do. =A0What are we to reproduce?
In my home the goal is best aesthetic experience. Not what someone may
have heard in some control room.
> =A0An ability to reproduce
> the sound created by the recording engineer would take us a lot closer
> than we are now to reproducing the original performance than we were
> before, it seems to me.
Nope. again see my comments on the Blue Note recordings and RVG's
monitoring of those recordings.
> =A0Assuming I can be assured that at least I am
> hearing a good facsimile of what the engineer put on the record, then
> the problem resolves down to getting sound engineers to put that real
> event on the record in the first place.
What the engineer puts down on record is an electrical signal. what he
hears in the control room is not. You can't casually switch those two.
they are entirely different entities.
>
> If you can't even be assured that you are hearing what the engineer
> put on the record why would you spend megabucks on a system that then
> produces an essentially random sound?
No one can hear what was put on record because it was an electrical
signal with no intrinsic sound of it's own.
> =A0Seems odd to me. =A0And believing
> that this megabuck system will somehow reproduce "realistic" sound
> without any standard to live up to, well, that seems to me rather like
> being in that "dreamland" you referred to.
The belief is based on actual experience. The point you are ignoring
is that many of us actually own such systems and get an amazing
illusion of live acoustic music from them regardless of the lack of
standardization of speakers and the lack of similarity to the sound
that was heard while monitoring these recordings.
Malcolm Lee
All the above has nothing whatsoever to do with your original point -
which was:
"Suppose it were possible to purchase a system that was guaranteed to
produce, in your home, exactly what the recording engineer hears in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
his studio?"
As I pointed out - this is impossible - no-one can know exactly
how the engineer "hears" (perceives) the sound. In fact, everyone
will perceive the sound of the same record differently on different
occasions. I don't think it's an original statement to say that the
cheapest way to improve your hi-fi system is to drink a few glasses
of scotch/beer before listening.
You are now talking about "what the engineer put on the record" - as
opposed to what he "heard". The former is potentially measurable and
reproducible - the latter is not. If you wish to argue the point of
standards relating to the reproduction of what is "on the record"
then I'm sure others may want to debate with you. However standards
relating to reproducing "what the recording engineer hears" are a
chimera.
Sonnova
(in article <heorp...@news3.newsguy.com>):
> On Nov 26, 8:39=A0pm, Malcolm Lee <malcREMolm...@canREMtab.net> wrote:
>
>> =A0You're living in dreamland, I'm afraid.
>
> One of us may be, but probably we will disagree as to which of us, if
> either, it is.
>
>> =A0You seem to be totally unaware that audio is a psychoacoustic
>> phenomenon. Each individual listener listening to a given sound source
>> will have their own perception of that source. If you have proof that
>> all those perceptions are identical, please let us know.
>
> Well, you have, it seems to me, just defined away high quality sound
> reproduction, so we may as well go back to the thorn needle directly
> driving a horn, like we had in the 1930's (actually at my house we
> still had one in the 1950's, but it was already out of date). But by
> your definition it wouldn't be, it seems to me, and one wonders why,
> believing as you say you do, you would be posting in a supposedly
> "high end" forum dedicated to the realistic reproduction of sound,
> which you have above defined as being impossible anyway.
>
> Whatever happened to "reproduction"? That, I thought, is what we were
> attempting to do. What are we to reproduce? An ability to reproduce
> the sound created by the recording engineer would take us a lot closer
> than we are now to reproducing the original performance than we were
> before, it seems to me. Assuming I can be assured that at least I am
> hearing a good facsimile of what the engineer put on the record, then
> the problem resolves down to getting sound engineers to put that real
> event on the record in the first place.
We are attempting reproduction of the music (or at least, most of us are),
not the monitoring environment of the studio.
> If you can't even be assured that you are hearing what the engineer
> put on the record why would you spend megabucks on a system that then
> produces an essentially random sound?
To a greater or lesser extent (depending on your equipment and your listening
room), you ARE hearing what the recording engineer put on the recording.
Believe me, what the recording engineer put on the record is NOT the result
of what he heard on the monitor speakers. It's the result of him knowing his
equipment such as knowing which microphones to use where.
> Seems odd to me.
Because you believe that the recording engineer makes his decisions about the
overall sound of the recording from what he hears from his monitors, and that
only that exact same reproduction chain will allow the listener at home to
hear the music the way it was "meant" to be heard and this is a false
assumption. Even if it wasn't a false assumption, you aren't allowing for the
listener's own taste in this equation.
> And believing
> that this megabuck system will somehow reproduce "realistic" sound
> without any standard to live up to, well, that seems to me rather like
> being in that "dreamland" you referred to.
There is a standard, its called the sound of live music performed in a real
space. But even that definition of a standard is somewhat restrictive. Most
people who are interested in audio reproduction have their own ideas about
what sounds good. They buy the speakers that they like and wish to live with
day-in and day-out. You are the only person I've ever encountered who wants
to abrogate their tastes and subjugate them to the arbitrary whim of some
studio personnel. That's fine. You have that right, surely, but you need to
realize that you are proceeding from an incorrect assumption.
Sonnova
(in article <7nakh8F...@mid.individual.net>):
I agree with most of what you say here, but this above statement is not
strictly correct. The sound on the "record' is a result of the conversion
from acoustic energy to electrical energy as performed by the microphones
used. However, you are correct in saying that the monitor sound, in the
control room, has no DIRECT effect upon the captured sound on the "record."
Also, I might point out that whether we're talking about vinyl or CD sound
here, what the recording engineer captures is NOT the final arbiter of how
the commercial release will sound. Another engineer, post recording, will
largely determine that aspect of the sound when he masters the release
version. So then, the question becomes, which set of monitor speakers do we
emulate to get Mr. Seedhouse's vision of audio utopia? The recording studio
monitoring environment or the mastering engineer's studio monitoring
environment?
>> =A0Seems odd to me. =A0And believing
>> that this megabuck system will somehow reproduce "realistic" sound
>> without any standard to live up to, well, that seems to me rather like
>> being in that "dreamland" you referred to.
>
> The belief is based on actual experience. The point you are ignoring
> is that many of us actually own such systems and get an amazing
> illusion of live acoustic music from them regardless of the lack of
> standardization of speakers and the lack of similarity to the sound
> that was heard while monitoring these recordings.
Absolutely. And, Mr. Seedhouse seems sufficiently unfamiliar with the
recording process not to understand that what the recording engineer puts
down on the recording media, is a result of his experience, not what he hears
in the monitor speakers. Mr. Seedhouse seems to not realize that that this
experience means that the engineer knows his equipment. He knows what his
microphones sound like, he knows that his recording console or DAW desk is
quiet, has low distortion, and is flat in frequency response from at least 20
Hz to 20 KHz. He also knows the limitations of his monitoring speakers and
rarely ever mixes so that the recording sounds optimum on THEM. Most
recording engineers rely on headphones to do the actual mix anyway. They also
capture the performance using microphones that the know are ideal for the
task at hand, I.E., this microphone is best for the drum cymbals, another for
the kick drum, still another to capture the vocals, and yet another on the
saxophone or lead guitar (whatever). The result is that the experienced
engineer knows what the instruments will sound like when recorded before the
first note is played. He captures each instrument (or group of instruments)
to separate tracks, then he goes back and pan-pots them to the proper
location across the soundstage (perhaps) and sets the levels of each track to
make-up the whole performance. He might do this on monitor speakers, but he's
just as apt to use headphones. I know that many of the better studios these
days rely on Stax electrostatic headphones or other reference-quality phones
for this work. Any EQ employed is, again, a result of experience rather than
an absolute reliance on what he hears from the monitor speakers. Most
recording engineers will tell you that they listen "around" their monitoring
equipment rather than listening "to" it for the simple reason that all
speakers are colored in some way and none tell the absolute truth.
The bottom line, is, of course, that assuming that all speakers are flawed,
My idea of what the music sounds like in my living room is just as valid as
that which the engineer heard in the studio. So why should I subjugate my
judgement and personal tastes to his? The recording is what it is. I either
like it's sound or I don't. On my end, it's up to me to play-back the
recording in a manner which pleases me. If I don't like what the
engineer/producer has wrought, I don't listen to that recording at all and
I'm sure that hearing it through the engineers monitoring equipment won't
change that opinion one iota.
ScottW
> On 25 Nov 2009 00:30:51 GMT, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 9, 4:07=A0pm, Kalman Rubinson <k...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> On 9 Nov 2009 23:05:23 GMT, Ed Seedhouse <eseedho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> >> >Maybe we need Dolby to lay down a loudspeaker spec for stereo soun=
d?
>
> >> >> The complication is specifying the room as well as the equipment.
>
> >> >Modern DSP technology is already able to fix around 90% of this
> >> >problem I believe.
> >> >Already cheap A/V receivers available for under $500.00 contain
> >> >reasonably effective room and speaker correction chips.
>
ines
> >> have a target curve which is flat or some calculated curve based on
> >> not help a lot with music. =A0Adding a target on the distribution
> >> (medium, disc, download or other) to match the playback acoustics to
> >> the studio or concert venue acoustics would serve all.
>
> >> Kal
>
> >wouldn't it be up to the recording to replicate the venue response?
>
> >I don't see why a new target curve is required with each recording.
>
> Mixing/mastering studio acoustics s vary nearly as much as home
> was, in practice, used in the production and to correct for any
> disparities, a target curve or shaped noise pulse would allow for
Given that the number of listening rooms exceeds the number of
studios
by many orders of magnitude and the fact that room eq is limited in
its ability to completely correct room response, I think it is much
more plausible to establish a standard response which the
listeners can then tune their systems and rooms for.
The studio who choose to participate can do likewise and then
advertise their product as compliant with blah de blah standard.
Then the listeners of such recordings don't have to retune their room
and system
for every recording, a requirement that isn't really feasible IMO.
ScottW
ScottW
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:43:15 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
>
> > Suppose it were possible to purchase a system that was guaranteed to
> > produce, in your home, exactly what the recording engineer hears in
> > his studio? Why would one not purchase such a system in preference to
> > any that had no such guarantee?
>
> Knowing what I do about how most studio monitoring environments sound, I'd
> have to say NO, absolutely not.
>
> > All Sean seems to be claiming is that it is likely possible to produce
> > such a system today, or will in the near future. He may be wrong or
> > right, but given that he is right, what possible reason is there to
> > buy something else?
>
> Because my tastes in what sounds "right" might not coincide with the
> recording engineer's version of "right" or with the results he obtains from
> the tools he's forced to work with.
Forced? I think one should consider the possibility that given a
standard there might be another limitation in mixing/mastering lifted.
I suspect nearfield monitoring would still be used to create the
soundstage balance
and imagery in similar fashion as today.
But rather than relying on the engineers experience and ability to
translate that poor sound into something suitable for home listening,
I think a standard might provide a better tool to accomplish that.
You've pointed out how some engineers have achieved fantastic results
with the use of limited tools, but I must also point out that many
more fall woefully short of those results.
>
> > If it is possible to produce a specification which, if followed by
> > anyone, will allow anyone to manufacture a system that is guaranteed
> > to reproduce in the home an exact sonic replica of what the engineer
> > hears in the studio, why would any manufacturer not want to follow
> > that specification given reasonable costs? I can't see any reason not
> > to, myself.
>
> Yes, I know you can't. If you did understand, you wouldn't be posting this
> now. What you seem to fail to realize is that what you find a very important
> result (sounding exactly like what was heard in the studio playback) is
> really not all that important or even desirable. Most people don't listen at
> the SPLs that are common in a studio, for one thing. and secondly, many
> studio monitors lack deep bass and much of the studio monitoring is done
> near-field, and that's not how most people listen to music.
Perhaps you should consider that the development of a standard may
not leave
current studio practices unaffected.
I can envision an additional evaluation step on the standard compliant
room/system
to assure the results expected on the near field monitors with poor
bass etc, are in fact achieved.
>
> > I think it is probably possible to produce such a specification today
> > or, if not today, is likely to be in the near future, and at
> > reasonable cost. If I knew of a system which, at reasonable cost, was
> > able to do this, I would choose it over any system at more or less
> > equal cost that couldn't.
>
> To each his own. But what would anyone WANT to do that? Isn't the goal of a
> hi-fi system to replicate the sound of music rather than the sound of
> somebody else's taste in loudspeakers? I can't speak for others, but I want
> a system that sounds like MUSIC, not one that sounds like a pair of studio
> monitors that can be anything from a pair of inexpensive near-field monitors
> to huge 20-30 year old JBLs or Weslakes or even sound reinforcement speakers.
> IOW, there's no consistency in any studio, so, how can there be any
> consistency on the listening end? For instance, let's say that I could buy
> the same speakers that the Beatles used at Abby Road to mix their stuff, what
> happens when I put on a recording of, say, the Beach Boys?
I agree that we don't want to replicate in our listening rooms the
sound of currently used monitoring equipment. But the problem you
pose exists today with no
apparent solution. A standard established for home reponse systems
gives the stuido an opportunity to improve their mixing mastering for
optimal performance on systems compliant with that standard.
Since none exists, none bother and do their best depending on the
genre and their
perceived target audience and their listening venues which range from
car thumpers, to ipods, to high end audio.
I would absolutely not expect current mastering practices to remain
unaffected by the adoption of a standard as discussed here. If that
was the case, the standard would fail.
ScottW
Ed Seedhouse
> =A0As I pointed out - this is impossible - no-one can know exactly
> how the engineer "hears" (perceives) the sound. In fact, everyone
> will perceive the sound of the same record differently on different
> occasions. I don't think it's an original statement to say that the
> cheapest way to improve your hi-fi system is to drink a few glasses
> of scotch/beer before listening.
Well, we can hear the closest possible approach to what he heard if we
go to his studio and play his masters on the same equipment. That's
as close as we can come, but it's close enough. If he made a master
that sounds like real music playing in real space, that's pretty much
what we will hear ourselves. If he failed to do that we won't. But
at least we will hear what he put on the tape the way he heard it, as
closely as it may be approached.
And it is becoming possible with modern electronics and digital
processing, to bring this sound into the home pretty accurately. Not
perfectly accurately, but pretty darned accurately. If we can now
make it not merely possible, but fairly cheap and reliable, then we
have taken a giant step forward, it seems to me.
It's true we are working toward an ideal we will likely never reach,
but at least we have a target to shoot at, and if we don't hit it we
will at least be able to tell how much we missed by, within reason,
and take steps to get closer. There's not much point in having a
shooting competition without a target.
Ed Seedhouse
=A0
> Also, I might point out that whether we're talking about vinyl or CD soun=
d
> here, what the recording engineer captures is NOT the final arbiter of ho=
w
> the commercial release will sound.
Ah well, but if we're talking vinyl, we're not talking "accurate" or
"realistic" anymore, are we? We're talking "pleasing" sound, which is
not what I see real "high end" as being about.
Ed Seedhouse
> We are attempting reproduction of the music (or at least, most of us are)=
,
> not the monitoring environment of the studio.
Well, but if the recording engineer has no put the music on the tape,
we'll never be able to reproduce it at home, will we? And if he has,
then that's what we want to reproduce.
> Because you believe that the recording engineer makes his decisions about=
the
> overall sound of the recording from what he hears from his monitors, and =
that
> only that exact same reproduction chain will allow the listener at home t=
o
> hear the music the way it was "meant" to be heard
No, I don't believe that, and if you think I do you haven't been
reading attentively, in my opinion.
>and this is a false
> assumption.
Not one which I made, though, but merely a red herring you are raising
for some reason.
>Even if it wasn't a false assumption, you aren't allowing for the
> listener's own taste in this equation.
This is also false. I am happy to let the user adjust the tonality if
that's what he wants. I often do myself, and so I adjust it to my
liking. But at least I would have something to start with that was
accurate and that I could go back to. This belongs, though, in the
control electronics, not the basic amplification or the speakers.
The point is to give the listener real control, not the facsimile that
passes for it so often these days.
Ed Seedhouse
> It seems to me he simply stated a reality that has to be delt with.
I
> don't see how throwing in the towel is the correct approach to dealing
> with that reality.
It seems to me that it is not a reality at all, and you're defining it
that way is precisely throwing in the towel, it seems to me.
Sound, of course, is purely physical. And it is what we try to
reproduce with audio equipment, not music, merely sound. And, since
music is the reaction of the human brain to certain sounds,
reproducing the sound will also reproduce the music.
The minute we try to make our systems "more musical" we have lost the
thread. If we make the reproduction of the actual sound of the
performance accurate, then we, ipso facto, reproduce the musical
event. No mystical mumbo jumbo about "musicality" is required.
Now of course perfect reproduction of sound is in practice
unattainable, but at least it is a clear direction to move in.
Reproduction of music cannot be measured with instruments, but
reproduction of sound can be. So at least we have something to work
on. And we have, actually, over the last hundred years or so, done
amazingly well.
But we have done well, when we have, by applying science to sound.
Scott
> On Nov 27, 8:49=3DA0pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
> =A0=3DA0
>
> > Also, I might point out that whether we're talking about vinyl or CD so=
un=3D
> d
> > here, what the recording engineer captures is NOT the final arbiter of =
ho=3D
> w
> > the commercial release will sound.
>
> Ah well, but if we're talking vinyl, we're not talking "accurate" or
> "realistic" anymore, are we?
If one wants absolute accuracy to the source one can come extremely
close with vinyl.If that is what you want. If we are talking about an
illusion of live music vinyl still sets the standard in two channel
playback.
> =A0We're talking "pleasing" sound, which is
> not what I see real "high end" as being about.
I can not relate to the idea that high end is not about pleasing
sound. If, in the end, what you hear is not pleasing then what was the
point?
Arny Krueger
news:7nho8bF...@mid.individual.net...
> If one wants absolute accuracy to the source one can come extremely
> close with vinyl.
Depends what you call "extremely close". To me, "extremely close" is what
you find in a comparison that is a challenging ABX test.
Back in the days of vinyl, some of the people associated with our audio club
were also senior techs or technical consultants to local recording studios.
Therefore, we had opportunities to compare tapes were related to commercial
LPs and lacquers to the highest quality LP playback that was available.
These would be final masters not cutting masters, so their quality was what
the producers wanted the public to hear under ideal conditions.
I've never heard a case where a comparison between vinyl and the final
master tape related to it would even make an interesting ABX test. Until
you've heard how vinyl technology inherently limits dynamic range in
increases distortion, some may find this hard to believe.
In comparison, a comparison between a CD prepared from the same tape, and
the tape itself is an extremely challenging listening test, to say the
least.
Scott
> On Nov 27, 10:36=3DA0am, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
> =A0> It seems to me he simply stated a reality that has to be delt with.
> I
>
> > don't see how throwing in the towel is the correct approach to dealing
> > with that reality.
>
> It seems to me that it is not a reality at all, and you're defining it
> that way is precisely throwing in the towel, it seems to me.
>
> reproduce with audio equipment, not music, merely sound. =A0And, since
> music is the reaction of the human brain to certain sounds,
> reproducing the sound will also reproduce the music.
>
> The minute we try to make our systems "more musical" we have lost the
> performance accurate, then we, ipso facto, reproduce the musical
>
> Now of course perfect reproduction of sound is in practice
> unattainable, but at least it is a clear direction to move in.
> Reproduction of music cannot be measured with instruments, but
> on. =A0 And we have, actually, over the last hundred years or so, done
> amazingly well.
>
> But we have done well, when we have, by applying science to sound.
Your entire position is based on a false premise that stereo recording
and playback is an attempt to literally reproduce the original
soundfield of the live music. "Sound, of course, is purely physical.
And it is what we try to reproduce with audio equipment," That simply
is not what we are doing with home audio. The soundfield in the
control room bears no resemblence to the soundfield in the room where
the mics are nor should it. Unless an audiophile truly understands
this basic fact they have already lost the thread as you say before
taking their first step. Once one truly understands this basic fact
about audio they understand the absurdity of the quest for absolute
accuracy. Then one is free to persue better sound through high end
audio.
Scott
> "Scott" <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7nho8bF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > If one wants absolute accuracy to the source one can come extremely
> > close with vinyl.
>
> Depends what you call "extremely close". To me, "extremely close" is what
> you find in a comparison that is a challenging ABX test.
I would agree that difficulty in hearing a difference between the
source and a copy under blind conditions can constitute "extremely
close."
>
> Back in the days of vinyl, some of the people associated with our audio club
> were also senior techs or technical consultants to local recording studios.
>
> Therefore, we had opportunities to compare tapes were related to commercial
> LPs and lacquers to the highest quality LP playback that was available.
> These would be final masters not cutting masters, so their quality was what
> the producers wanted the public to hear under ideal conditions.
Perhaps we would be better served to talk about such a comparison done
on modern state of the art equipment now that we are in the golden age
of high end vinyl.
>
> I've never heard a case where a comparison between vinyl and the final
> master tape related to it would even make an interesting ABX test. Until
> you've heard how vinyl technology inherently limits dynamic range in
> increases distortion, some may find this hard to believe.
"There are more things in heaven and earth"
Must be you have never heard of this particular case that has become
well known in audiophile circles.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=133328&highlight=blind
Steve Hoffman
"First, let me say that I love records, compact discs and SACDs; I
have a bunch of all three formats. Nothing that I discovered below
changed that one bit.
I did these comparisons a few years ago. Since I spilled the beans to
an interviewer on mic last year I continually get quoted and misquoted
about this subject. I'll try to set the "record" straight in this
thread. Please note I'm typing on a whacked out computer not my own
with a tiny monitor and no spell check.... There could be a (gasp)
typo or two...
A few years ago, mainly out of curiosity (and nothing else) I got the
chance at AcousTech Mastering to compare an actual master tape to the
playback of a record lacquer and digital playback. Also did the same
test using DSD (SACD) playback as well later on in the day. The
results were interesting. The below is just my opinion. Note that we
cut the record at 45 because the lathe was set for that speed. A
similar test we did using the 33 1/3 speed yielded the same result.
FIRST COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE LACQUER AT 45 RPM with
DIGITAL PACIFIC MICROSONICS CAPTURE.
We had the master tape of the Riverside stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/
WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to do this little comparison.
Since the actual master needs a bunch of "mastering" to make it sound
the best, I set the title track up as if it was going to be mastered
(which in a sense it was, being cut on to an acetate record).
We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to
the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.
Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels.
Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I
listened. (We took turns switching and listening). First thing I
noticed:
The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the same. We couldn't tell one
from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the
tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The
acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the
SAE arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in
so many pictures posted here of AcousTech).
The flat digital playback of my mastering sounded different. NOT BAD,
just different. The decay on the piano was different, the plucks of
Scott's bass were different, the reverb trail was noticeably truncated
due to a loss of resolution. Non unpleasant, just not like the actual
master tape. This is slightly frustrating to me because it confirmed
the fact that when mastering in digital one has to compensate for the
change (which I do with my usual "tricks"). The record however, gave
back exactly what we put in to it. Exactly. This reinforced my opinion
that AcousTech Mastering has the best cutting chain in the world."
>
> In comparison, a comparison between a CD prepared from the same tape, and
> the tape itself is an extremely challenging listening test, to say the
> least.
No doubt, And yet in the Hoffman/Gray comparisons it was actually less
transparent than the laquer. Go figure.
Arny Krueger
> On 30 Nov, 06:43, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> "Scott" <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:7nho8bF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> > If one wants absolute accuracy to the source one can come extremely
>> > close with vinyl.
>>
>> Depends what you call "extremely close". To me, "extremely close" is what
>> you find in a comparison that is a challenging ABX test.
>
> I would agree that difficulty in hearing a difference between the
> source and a copy under blind conditions can constitute "extremely
> close."
>
>
>>
>> Back in the days of vinyl, some of the people associated with our audio
>> club
>> were also senior techs or technical consultants to local recording
>> studios.
>>
>> Therefore, we had opportunities to compare tapes were related to
>> commercial
>> LPs and lacquers to the highest quality LP playback that was available.
>> These would be final masters not cutting masters, so their quality was
>> what
>> the producers wanted the public to hear under ideal conditions.
>
> Perhaps we would be better served to talk about such a comparison done
> on modern state of the art equipment now that we are in the golden age
> of high end vinyl.
I see zero scientific evidence to support the contention that vinyl playback
performance has improved signficantly since then. All I see is a lot of
vendor hype and enthusiast's anecdotes. I've personally investigated these
claims over the years by visiting enthusiast's homes and listened to their
vinyl playback systems and also by visiting vendor displays at high end
audio shows and had private demonstrations. No joy!
>> I've never heard a case where a comparison between vinyl and the final
>> master tape related to it would even make an interesting ABX test. Until
>> you've heard how vinyl technology inherently limits dynamic range in
>> increases distortion, some may find this hard to believe.
>
> "There are more things in heaven and earth"
> Must be you have never heard of this particular case that has become
> well known in audiophile circles.
>
> http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=133328&highlight=blind
[ Excessive quoting deleted -- dsr ]
> The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the same. We couldn't tell one
> from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the
> tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The
> acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the
> SAE arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in
> so many pictures posted here of AcousTech).
Interesting given that I've had numerous LP enthusiasts denigrate my years
of personal experience with a number of Shure V15s in SME arms.
> The flat digital playback of my mastering sounded different. NOT BAD,
> just different. The decay on the piano was different, the plucks of
> Scott's bass were different, the reverb trail was noticeably truncated
> due to a loss of resolution. Non unpleasant, just not like the actual
> master tape. This is slightly frustrating to me because it confirmed
> the fact that when mastering in digital one has to compensate for the
> change (which I do with my usual "tricks"). The record however, gave
> back exactly what we put in to it. Exactly. This reinforced my opinion
> that AcousTech Mastering has the best cutting chain in the world."
>
>>
>> In comparison, a comparison between a CD prepared from the same tape, and
>> the tape itself is an extremely challenging listening test, to say the
>> least.
> No doubt, And yet in the Hoffman/Gray comparisons it was actually less
> transparent than the lacquer. Go figure.
Seems like just another enthusiast's anecdote....
Harry Lavo
news:7nijg8F...@mid.individual.net...
>snip<
> I see zero scientific evidence to support the contention that vinyl
> playback
> performance has improved signficantly since then. All I see is a lot of
> vendor hype and enthusiast's anecdotes. I've personally investigated these
> claims over the years by visiting enthusiast's homes and listened to their
> vinyl playback systems and also by visiting vendor displays at high end
> audio shows and had private demonstrations. No joy!
>
And you believe you do not have biases that might lead you to this
conclusion, no?
>snip<
>
>> No doubt, And yet in the Hoffman/Gray comparisons it was actually less
>> transparent than the lacquer. Go figure.
>
> Seems like just another enthusiast's anecdote....
>
I see. All enthusiasts are experience mastering engineers, using
state-of-the-art studio equipment with direct access to the master tape? I
think most folks would give Steve Hoffman a bit more credibility than "just
another enthusiast".
Dick Pierce
> I think most folks would give Steve Hoffman a bit more
> credibility than "just another enthusiast".
The following link:
http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm
provides one data point in Mr. Hoffman's credibility curve.
--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+
Harry Lavo
news:7niu4mF...@mid.individual.net...
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>> I think most folks would give Steve Hoffman a bit more
> > credibility than "just another enthusiast".
>
> The following link:
>
> http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm
>
> provides one data point in Mr. Hoffman's credibility curve.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you, Dick, that one point doesn't form a
straight line, much less a trend. Who knows, perhaps he is a friend of the
inventor; perhaps he got paid to endorse it. It doesn't help his
credibility, but the mastering he has done has established much more
credibility than this one "data point" can diminish.
Sonnova
(in article <heuf6...@news5.newsguy.com>):
> On Nov 26, 8:38=A0pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:43:15 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
>> (in article <hem7mj02...@news7.newsguy.com>):
>>
>>> Suppose it were possible to purchase a system that was guaranteed to
>>> produce, in your home, exactly what the recording engineer hears in
>>> his studio? =A0Why would one not purchase such a system in preference t=
> o
>>> any that had no such guarantee?
>>
>> Knowing what I do about how most studio monitoring environments sound, I'=
> d
>> have to say NO, absolutely not.
>>
>>> All Sean seems to be claiming is that it is likely possible to produce
>>> such a system today, or will in the near future. =A0He may be wrong or
>>> right, but given that he is right, what possible reason is there to
>>> buy something else?
>>
>> Because my tastes in what sounds "right" might not coincide with the
>> recording engineer's version of "right" or with the results he obtains fr=
> om
>> the tools he's forced to work with.
>
> Forced?
Yeah, you know, as in: "I work for this studio, they have this equipment.
It's not my choice of equipment, but it's what my employer has provided, and
I have to use it." seems like a simple enough concept to me.
I think one should consider the possibility that given a
> standard there might be another limitation in mixing/mastering lifted.
> I suspect nearfield monitoring would still be used to create the
> soundstage balance
> and imagery in similar fashion as today.
> But rather than relying on the engineers experience and ability to
> translate that poor sound into something suitable for home listening,
> I think a standard might provide a better tool to accomplish that.
> You've pointed out how some engineers have achieved fantastic results
> with the use of limited tools, but I must also point out that many
> more fall woefully short of those results.
Certainly, some recordings simply sound bad. But my suspicion (having made
recordings in a studio environment before) is that most bad-sounding
recordings are the result of choices made by the studio's customer, I.E., the
artist(s) and/or their producers rather than the engineering staff at that
facility. Basically, there is little that an engineer can do to screw-up the
capture of a performance. It's all multitrack, it's all captured "raw". The
opportunity for "screwing-up" comes "in the mix" as it were. Relative levels
of vocals to instrumental balance, relative balances of one instrument or
instrumental ensemble to another, The eq added (if any) to a track or even
overall, the amount or reverb or other "special effects" added; these are
pretty much the limits of what can be done in the mix. None of these is
particularly monitor sensitive - with the possible exception of post-capture
eq. Even then, there are practical considerations as well as artistic ones to
consider. Modern pop recordings are laid-down pretty hot and there is not a
lot of headroom left on top of the capture level to add much boost to
anything. That's the practical aspect to the subject. But again, we are
assuming here that the experienced recoding engineers KNOWS his equipment -
and this is key - he knows when a microphone chosen, let's say, for the
cymbals, needs "sweetening" to get that exact, correct result. He doesn't
need to hear it in the monitor speakers, he's heard that result on other
recordings he's made countless times in countless different environments. It
might sound one way over his monitoring equipment (speakers or headphones),
but he knows what result is actually being recorded. In other words what is
recorded is one thing, and what comes through the monitor speakers is
another. And most importantly, what comes through the monitor speakers does
not need to be accurate to what is actually recorded in order for the
engineer to get his (or the client's) desired result. Those things over which
the studio can exhibit control can be heard satisfactorily over anything from
a modern near field monitor to a huge pair of 30 year-old Weslakes or JBLs.
>
>>
>>> If it is possible to produce a specification which, if followed by
>>> anyone, will allow anyone to manufacture a system that is guaranteed
>>> to reproduce in the home an exact sonic replica of what the engineer
>>> hears in the studio, why would any manufacturer not want to follow
>>> that specification given reasonable costs? =A0I can't see any reason no=
> t
>>> to, myself.
>>
>> Yes, I know you can't. If you did understand, you wouldn't be posting thi=
> s
>> now. What you seem to fail to realize is that what you find a very import=
> ant
>> result (sounding exactly like what was heard in the studio playback) is
>> really not all that important or even desirable. Most people don't listen=
> at
>> the SPLs that are common in a studio, for one thing. and secondly, many
>> studio monitors lack deep bass and much of the studio monitoring is done
>> near-field, and that's not how most people listen to music. =A0
>
> Perhaps you should consider that the development of a standard may
> not leave
> current studio practices unaffected.
I consider that such a change will likely have zero effect on the sound
turned out by any given studio or engineering team, for the simple reason
that experienced recording engineers listen around the limits of their
monitoring equipment. Think of it this way, a standard in this regard will do
nothing but present the engineer with a different set of monitoring
limitations that he has to learn to listen around. Other than that, it will
change nothing. And consider this, if studios thought that this type of
standardization would improve their product, the industry would have gotten
together and implemented such a standard long ago.
> I can envision an additional evaluation step on the standard compliant
> room/system to assure the results expected on the near field monitors with
poor
> bass etc, are in fact achieved.
But it's not necessary or even desirable to do that. Most listeners listen on
equipment as disparate as a table radio, to a car radio, to a pair of
$100,000 Wilson Audio Grand-Slams. And what do you think the majority of
buyers of any given piece of music are going be listening on. The mix must be
made to sound decent on the lowest common denominator. The poor bass is part
and parcel of the the procedure to mix for that table radio or boom-box. We
audiophiles, naturally, want the best sound that we can get. We want
thunderous lows and silken highs, but we aren't the audience for these
recordings. Not by a long shot. A modern pop recording engineer has to take
into account the reality that these tracks will mostly be listened to via MP3
files on "ear-buds" or on cheap boom-boxes or other portable systems and in
cars. These recordings need to sound reasonable through these limited systems
and that's the goal. At some point, before a mix is finalized, it's even got
to be phase-checked to make sure that when played in mono on an AM or a
mono-FM table or car radio, that nothing cancels out.
>
>>
>>> I think it is probably possible to produce such a specification today
>>> or, if not today, is likely to be in the near future, and at
>>> reasonable cost. =A0If I knew of a system which, at reasonable cost, wa=
> s
>>> able to do this, I would choose it over any system at more or less
>>> equal cost that couldn't.
>>
>> To each his own. But what would anyone WANT to do that? Isn't the goal of=
> a
>> hi-fi system to replicate the sound of music rather than the sound of
>> somebody else's taste in loudspeakers? I can't speak for others, =A0but I=
> want
>> a system that sounds like MUSIC, not one that sounds like a pair of studi=
> o
>> monitors that can be anything from a pair of inexpensive near-field monit=
> ors
>> to huge 20-30 year old JBLs or Weslakes or even sound reinforcement speak=
> ers.
>> IOW, there's no consistency in any studio, so, how can there be any
>> consistency on the listening end? For instance, let's say that I could bu=
> y
>> the same speakers that the Beatles used at Abby Road to mix their stuff, =
> what
>> happens when I put on a recording of, say, the Beach Boys?
>
> I agree that we don't want to replicate in our listening rooms the
> sound of currently used monitoring equipment. But the problem you
> pose exists today with no
> apparent solution.
Just the opposite of "posing a problem", my attempt here is to demonstrate
that there is no problem. The sound heard in the studio is not, by any means,
the final arbiter of the ultimate sound of any commercial recordings. Were
that the case, the industry would have standardized on some specific "sound"
ages ago. They haven't because the sound of the monitoring equipment simply
isn't that important.
> A standard established for home reponse systems
> gives the stuido an opportunity to improve their mixing mastering for
> optimal performance on systems compliant with that standard.
And we've all seen how successful and how important THAT is (a clue - all THX
certification has done is to gain licensing fees for LucasFilm. In the "home
theater "environment, it means less than NOTHING)!
> Since none exists, none bother and do their best depending on the
> genre and their
> perceived target audience and their listening venues which range from
> car thumpers, to ipods, to high end audio.
My point is that none is needed no is any desirable. except, perhaps, to
those who don't really understand the process of studio pop/jazz recording.
> I would absolutely not expect current mastering practices to remain
> unaffected by the adoption of a standard as discussed here. If that
> was the case, the standard would fail.
Believe me, they would be unaffected by the adoption of such a "standard" as
I explained above.
Malcolm Lee
> On Nov 27, 8:45=A0pm, Malcolm Lee <malcREMolm...@canREMtab.net> wrote:
>
>> =A0As I pointed out - this is impossible - no-one can know exactly how
>> the engineer "hears" (perceives) the sound. In fact, everyone will
>> perceive the sound of the same record differently on different
>> occasions. I don't think it's an original statement to say that the
>> cheapest way to improve your hi-fi system is to drink a few glasses of
>> scotch/beer before listening.
>
> Well, we can hear the closest possible approach to what he heard if we
> go to his studio and play his masters on the same equipment. That's as
> close as we can come, but it's close enough. If he made a master that
> sounds like real music playing in real space, that's pretty much what we
> will hear ourselves. If he failed to do that we won't. But at least we
> will hear what he put on the tape the way he heard it, as closely as it
> may be approached.
>
No, we will *not* "hear what he put on the tape the way he heard it".
You are conflating sound with human aural perception. They are totally
different beasts. Play the same piece of music on the same system to
N different people and you will get N different perceptions of that
sound. Some may think the bass light, others OK. Some may think the
soundstage is well defined, others not. Some may think the music
has great rhythm - others not. Some may think it "sounds like real music
playing in real space", others not. So where's your "standard" now?
It is utterly irrelevant "what the engineer heard". Sonnava put it well
in his post of 28th Nov - so I'll merely repeat what he said here:
Sonnova
(in article <7ni9vlF...@mid.individual.net>):
This above anecdote reflects my experiences as well when I worked at the old
Century Records (they were a nation-wide franchise which provided
record-producing services for local bands and symphony orchestras, vanity and
demo recordings for individuals, etc.) . I had the master tape and I had the
test cuttings and the test pressings later-on. I also had digital copies of
the master tapes recorded via a Sony 1620 and a U-Matic VCR. I always found
the LP to sound closer to the master tape, more palpably real, that I found
the digital copy. I realize that some of this (maybe even a lot of it) was
due to the fact that the Sony 1610, 1620, and 1630 range of digital
processors were lousy sounding devices, so, I would be less than honest in
this post if I didn't point that out.
It's as I have been saying all along, LP along with both analog and digital
tape, as well as CD, Hi-Rez digital downloads, SACD and 24/96 DVDA are ALL
viable musical sources. While they are all different, to be sure, there is
musical pleasure to be found in each and anyone who cuts one or another
source off on some theoretical technical grounds is merely depriving himself
or herself of a rewarding musical experience. That' the individual's choice,
of course, but it certainly seems limiting to me, and it's certainly NOT my
choice (I'm not fond of MP3 because I can hear the compression artifacts. But
that doesn't mean that I don't listen to them. I listen to streaming Inetrnet
radio over my Apple TV box all the time. As long as I don't listen with
headphones, the streaming radio can be quite listenable).
An aside, here. Last night I pulled out a fancy harpsichord record (Rafael
Puyana "Italian Harpsichord Music" , Philips 802-898-LY) that I bought back
in 1971 (You ought to see the cover-work and liner notes booklet that this
record came in. BEEEYOOTIFUL - and something else that CD can't replicate)
and popped it on the turntable (J.A. Michelle "Orb" with electronic speed
control, AudioQuest PT-9 arm, Grado Statement "Master 1" cartridge, "Revolver
2" Phono preamp). I was amazed at the quality of the sound. The
harpsichord(s) were right there in the room. Transient attack, decay, timbre,
were all, spot-on and it wasn't long before I found myself completely lost in
the music, and after all, isn't that the point of a home audio system? When a
program source can give me THAT much listening pleasure, then all the
theorizing, all the "numbers" that tell me that the medium is inferior, pale
into meaninglessness.
Sonnova
(in article <7nho81F...@mid.individual.net>):
> On Nov 27, 10:36=A0am, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
> > It seems to me he simply stated a reality that has to be delt with.
> I
>> don't see how throwing in the towel is the correct approach to dealing
>> with that reality.
>
> It seems to me that it is not a reality at all, and you're defining it
> that way is precisely throwing in the towel, it seems to me.
>
> Sound, of course, is purely physical. And it is what we try to
> reproduce with audio equipment, not music, merely sound. And, since
> music is the reaction of the human brain to certain sounds,
> reproducing the sound will also reproduce the music.
>
> The minute we try to make our systems "more musical" we have lost the
> thread. If we make the reproduction of the actual sound of the
> performance accurate, then we, ipso facto, reproduce the musical
> event. No mystical mumbo jumbo about "musicality" is required.
No one will argue that point - if accuracy is one's goal. The only argument
here is that what you are proposing won't advance your goal one iota.
Sonnova
(in article <7nho7jF...@mid.individual.net>):
> On Nov 27, 8:46=A0pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
>
>> We are attempting reproduction of the music (or at least, most of us are)=
> ,
>> not the monitoring environment of the studio.
>
> Well, but if the recording engineer has no put the music on the tape,
> we'll never be able to reproduce it at home, will we? And if he has,
> then that's what we want to reproduce.
I'm not sure what you mean here, but if it's what I think you mean, then you
are exactly right. We are interested in reproducing what the engineer PUT ON
"TAPE" (or some other recording medium), not what he hears in his studio
listening environment, and make no mistake, they are NOT the same thing.
>
>
>> Because you believe that the recording engineer makes his decisions about=
> the
>> overall sound of the recording from what he hears from his monitors, and =
> that
>> only that exact same reproduction chain will allow the listener at home t=
> o
>> hear the music the way it was "meant" to be heard
>
> No, I don't believe that, and if you think I do you haven't been
> reading attentively, in my opinion.
>
>> and this is a false
>> assumption.
>
> Not one which I made, though, but merely a red herring you are raising
> for some reason.
Not a red herring. It is honestly my assessment of what you are proposing. If
I am wrong, then I humbly apologize, but it does bring up an interesting
point. To wit: either I'm incorrectly reading what you are writing, or you
aren't writing what I am reading. In either case, we seem to not be
communicating on this issue. I might add that several other responders to
your posts seem to have read your intended meaning in a similar fashion to
the way I read it. Perhaps if you re-stated your position a bit more clearly
for the rest of us?
>> Even if it wasn't a false assumption, you aren't allowing for the
>> listener's own taste in this equation.
>
> This is also false. I am happy to let the user adjust the tonality if
> that's what he wants. I often do myself, and so I adjust it to my
> liking. But at least I would have something to start with that was
> accurate and that I could go back to. This belongs, though, in the
> control electronics, not the basic amplification or the speakers.
>
> The point is to give the listener real control, not the facsimile that
> passes for it so often these days.
>
My whole point is that what I think you are proposing, is not only not
feasible, but even if it were, it would not move the-state-of-the-art at all
in the direction that I believe you think it will .
Arny Krueger
news:7nio3nF...@mid.individual.net...
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:7nijg8F...@mid.individual.net...
>> "Scott" <S888...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:7ni9vlF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>>snip<
>
>> I see zero scientific evidence to support the contention that vinyl
>> playback
>> performance has improved signficantly since then. All I see is a lot of
>> vendor hype and enthusiast's anecdotes. I've personally investigated
>> these
>> claims over the years by visiting enthusiast's homes and listened to
>> their
>> vinyl playback systems and also by visiting vendor displays at high end
>> audio shows and had private demonstrations. No joy!
> And you believe you do not have biases that might lead you to this
> conclusion, no?
Any personal biases I might have would be instantly overcome by reliable
evidence.
For example, I have in my possession technical tests using recently cut LP
test recordings and recent LP playback equipment, some very expensive. They
show the usual relatively degraded performance that we've come to expect
over the years. This should be no surprise to anybody who understands how LP
technology works at a reasonably detailed level. Its technical limitations
are due to its geometry and materials, and they have not changed.
Sonnova
(in article <7niu4mF...@mid.individual.net>):
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>> I think most folks would give Steve Hoffman a bit more
> > credibility than "just another enthusiast".
>
> The following link:
>
> http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm
>
> provides one data point in Mr. Hoffman's credibility curve.
>
>
Wow, it certainly does put a chink in Mr. Hoffman's credibility as a
listener! The Hallographs are just mouse-milk, they do NOTHING at all. (I
mean, just look at them. What COULD they do?) They're right up there with
myrtlewood blocks and cable "elevators". If this guy thinks that they work
(unless, of course, he was paid to "think" that - in which case that casts
doubts on his honesty and sincerity), he obviously has no "ear" at all!
Scott
> I see zero scientific evidence to support the contention that vinyl playback
> performance has improved signficantly since then.
I haven't seen Russia. Fortunately neither of our personal
observations are the standard by which we determine reality.
> All I see is a lot of
> vendor hype and enthusiast's anecdotes.
But all you offered was an anecdote. Why the double standard? If
anecdotes are unacceptable why do you use them?
> I've personally investigated these
> claims over the years by visiting enthusiast's homes and listened to their
> vinyl playback systems and also by visiting vendor displays at high end
> audio shows and had private demonstrations. No joy!
That is just an anecdote! Kinda ironic after making an issue about
anecdotes,
> Interesting given that I've had numerous LP enthusiasts denigrate my years
> of personal experience with a number of Shure V15s in SME arms.
Not my favorite cartridge either but we were talking accuracy not
preference.
> Seems like just another enthusiast's anecdote
Kind of like your anecdote only Steve Hoffman is an actual top notch
mastering engineer who used an actual master tape as his reference on
state of the art equipment. His anecdote had some very specific
information which makes his tests repeatable. His tests were level
matched and time synced. Your anecdote OTOH had none of that. No way
to varify your story. IOW his anecdote really is better than your
anecdote.
Sonnova
(in article <7nji1vF...@mid.individual.net>):
I don't think that even the most dyed-in-the-wool vinylphile would try to
argue that LP is more accurate than CD (I certainly wouldn't, but then, I'm
not a dyed-in-the-wool vinylphile. either) but I will say that in many, many
cases, I find vinyl more musically satisfying, and really, that's all I care
about.
Harry Lavo
> "Harry Lavo" <hl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7nio3nF...@mid.individual.net...
>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:7nijg8F...@mid.individual.net...
>>> "Scott" <S888...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7ni9vlF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>>snip<
>>
>>> I see zero scientific evidence to support the contention that vinyl
>>> playback
>>> performance has improved signficantly since then. All I see is a lot of
>>> vendor hype and enthusiast's anecdotes. I've personally investigated
>>> these
>>> claims over the years by visiting enthusiast's homes and listened to
>>> their
>>> vinyl playback systems and also by visiting vendor displays at high end
>>> audio shows and had private demonstrations. No joy!
>
>> And you believe you do not have biases that might lead you to this
>> conclusion, no?
>
> Any personal biases I might have would be instantly overcome by reliable
> evidence.
You just stated above that your "evidence" consists of visiting audiophile
homes and audio shows. Why is your antidotal experience anymore "reliable
evidence" than that of those who content that vinyl playback has improved.
> For example, I have in my possession technical tests using recently cut LP
> test recordings and recent LP playback equipment, some very expensive.
> They
> show the usual relatively degraded performance that we've come to expect
> over the years. This should be no surprise to anybody who understands how
> LP
> technology works at a reasonably detailed level. Its technical limitations
> are due to its geometry and materials, and they have not changed.
>
Very much moving the goalposts. When I suggest that you may be open to your
own anti-LP bias, you then blithly change the "evidence" to some vague,
unspecified tests based on "recent LP playback equipment, some very
expensive". Nothing specified, and no test outlined. So no independent
assessment can be made. You seem to be saying that since playback geometry
has not changed, ipso facto vinyl playback cannot have improved. Such an
assertion is just that....hardly a fact....and hardly one that most
audiophiles would agree with. No allowance for improved vinyl quality and
thickness, no stylus improvement, no headamp improvement, no advances in
design of turntables, no advances in arm materials, no advances in
computerized cutting and the sophistication of the lathes, no improvement to
attention to detail in the electronics of the cutting devices, etc etc etc.
How about trying again?
Arny Krueger
It's not just that one data point. Hoffman's shall we say *exceptional*
comments on his online conference are well-known. Mr. Pierce is simply
using a more reliable, easier-to-quote source of very many that are out
there. Basically, once someone buys into the myth that there's something
magic in the analog domain that can't be effectively captured in the digital
domain, its a slippery slope.
Arny Krueger
> On 30 Nov, 11:07, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> I see zero scientific evidence to support the contention that vinyl
>> playback
>> performance has improved signficantly since then.
>
> I haven't seen Russia. Fortunately neither of our personal
> observations are the standard by which we determine reality.
To follow your metaphor, I haven't seen Russia either, but there is ample
reliable evidence to ascertain many useful things about it.
>> All I see is a lot of
>> vendor hype and enthusiast's anecdotes.
> But all you offered was an anecdote.
It's a challenge, Scott. I've done my homework and come up empty. If you can
do better, please enlighten us at your earliest convenience.
>
>> I've personally investigated these
>> claims over the years by visiting enthusiast's homes and listened to
>> their
>> vinyl playback systems and also by visiting vendor displays at high end
>> audio shows and had private demonstrations. No joy!
> That is just an anecdote! Kinda ironic after making an issue about
> anecdotes,
It's an anecdote to you Scott, but that does not change the fact that it is
real hands-on experiences for me.
>> Interesting given that I've had numerous LP enthusiasts denigrate my
>> years
>> of personal experience with a number of Shure V15s in SME arms.
> Not my favorite cartridge either but we were talking accuracy not
> preference.
Interesting that you're so willing to admit that accuracy is a lesser
concern of yours, Scott. What happened toaccurately recreating live musical
events? Isn't that what High Fidelity started out being?
>> Seems like just another enthusiast's anecdote
> Kind of like your anecdote only Steve Hoffman is an actual top notch
> mastering engineer who used an actual master tape as his reference on
> state of the art equipment.
Compared to digital, analog tape is a less-accurate medium. There's only one
justification to use it when accurate recreation is the goal - the only
justification is that the analog tape is all there is.
> His anecdote had some very specific
> information which makes his tests repeatable. His tests were level
> matched and time synced.
> Your anecdote OTOH had none of that.
Of course there have been time-synched and level-matched double blind
evaluations. Just because I didn't go on and on doesn't it didn't happen.
> No way to verify your story.
I see no way to verify Hoffman's.
> IOW his anecdote really is better than your anecdote.
Yes, but I haven't made the mistake that he has of going public with the
self-damning claims that Mr. Pierce has brought to our discussion.
I'm also familiar with some of Hoffman's other equally-problematical antics.
Would I buy a used car from him? No, not at least not without a Carfax
report! ;-)
Fred.
> There is an audio blog I read that describes efforts to anchor audio
> production and reproduction in reality. A recent thread in this group
> related to what reality reference is used in audio production and how it
> might relate to the final product, which in turn has an obvious effect on
> reproduction for our various loudspeaker and listening contexts.
>
> This the blog author refers to as "the circle of confusion" and points to
> the lack of a reference for both production and reproduction of audio by
> which music can be recorded and played back in any listening context.
> For the production side it is a pig in a poke and grows instantly far
> worse when unknown sources are used in listening contexts.
>
> This is why the "subjective" listening approach is next to worthless as
> used in the various hifi mags. We just can not account for all the
> factors that make an auditory difference without universal references for
> the recordings used and loudspeakers, not to mention the loudspeaker /
> room interactions in which subjective impressions were formed. It adds
> only one more level to "the circle of confusion" for the reader.
>
> How to break the "circle" and produce an universal industry reference?
>
> http://seanolive.blogspot.com/
>
> The last and next to last entries, as blog format goes, discuss the
> problem and proposed solution.
>
> Earlier entries are related in discussing how objective reproducible
> loudspeaker and speaker room interaction can be addressed in blind
> listening using trained listeners in controlled listening contexts to
> establish a basis for "preference" in the listeners.
>
> The audio industry is now in a place to get beyond subjective listening
> and to discover what is really relevant using listening alone and to do so
> on a repeated basis for loudspeakers and rooms.
This entire discussion reminds of, when year's ago, I attended a
lecture by Noam Chomsky. At the end of the lecture a student asked,
"What is a phoneme?". Dr. Chomsky replied: "It's a construct like an
electron. It only makes sense in the context of a theory." The
student asked: "What theory?". Dr. Chomsky smiled and said: "There
isn't any yet."
We are talking about a process which involves at least 3 subjects:
the artist who is trying to convey something with the performance, the
recording engineer who is trying to convey something about the
performance, and the listener who is trying to apprehend something
from the performance. Since we are often at a loss for words when we
try to detail what any of these somethings are, it is unsurprising
that we have no workable measure of the the effectiveness with which
they are transferred in the process of reproduction.
I think those who are talking about reality in this context are not
conveying meaning, they are simply waving their hands. There may be
an objective reality to be abstracted from all our subjective
realities, but we are a long way from a universal theory of what it
might be.
Fred.
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:hf1v5...@news1.newsguy.com...
>> "Harry Lavo" <hl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7nio3nF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7nijg8F...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> "Scott" <S888...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:7ni9vlF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>>snip<
>>>
>>>> I see zero scientific evidence to support the contention that vinyl
>>>> playback
>>>> performance has improved signficantly since then. All I see is a lot of
>>>> vendor hype and enthusiast's anecdotes. I've personally investigated
>>>> these
>>>> claims over the years by visiting enthusiast's homes and listened to
>>>> their
>>>> vinyl playback systems and also by visiting vendor displays at high end
>>>> audio shows and had private demonstrations. No joy!
>>
>>> And you believe you do not have biases that might lead you to this
>>> conclusion, no?
>>
>> Any personal biases I might have would be instantly overcome by reliable
>> evidence.
>
> You just stated above that your "evidence" consists of visiting audiophile
> homes and audio shows.
Seems like a failure to communicate.
I said first:
" I see zero scientific evidence to support the contention that vinyl
playback performance has improved signficantly since then."
> Why is your antidotal experience anymore "reliable
> evidence" than that of those who content that vinyl playback has improved.
Deal with the first point that I raised, please.
Harry Lavo
Absolutely not. You are attempting to change the subject away from the fact
that YOUR antidotal "investigation" is offered as refutation of the claims
of others....and that is equally antidotal. Can you not simply admit that?
ScottW
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:40:00 -0800, ScottW wrote
>
> those who don't really understand the process of studio pop/jazz recording.
Being a consumer of recordings and desiring a higher quality product
than most of the studios produce, let me suggest that it is those who
defend the process today
as not in need of improvement, as you have strongly done, have lost
touch with the needs of many consumers.
>
> > I would absolutely not expect current mastering practices to remain
> > unaffected by the adoption of a standard as discussed here. If that
> > was the case, the standard would fail.
>
> Believe me, they would be unaffected by the adoption of such a "standard" as
> I explained above.
Too bad. Fortunately the cost of a quality studio setup continues
to rapidly decline such that the so-called experts who are stuck in
their obsolete ways will be swept aside by more diversified methods of
recording, production, and music distribution.
ScottW
Sonnova
(in article <7nl3ubF...@mid.individual.net>):
There's plenty of evidence that vinyl playback has improved. Just compare
today's best phono cartridges with those of a few years ago. The new ones are
much better. Materials technology alone accounts for some of the improvement.
Modern cartridges track better, have less distortion, and modern cartridges
(moving coils, especially benefit) have less mass for any given output and
therefore have flatter frequency response across the audio spectrum. I
remember a time, not too long ago, when MC cartridges were ear-bleedingly
bright. This is no longer the case. Even relatively inexpensive MCs (Blue
Point #2, Benz Silver -S, Ortofon X5) are very flat and track very well.
Since most pre-amps, integrated amps and receivers don't have phono stages
these days, the phono preamp is now a stand-alone, external item. The best of
them are very accurate, RIAA-wise. Much more so than the phono stages of a
generation ago, Again, this accuracy has trickled down to the under $500
models and some of them are excellent and extremely quiet. Turntables haven't
changed much, that's true. Acrylic platters might insure that when tightly
clamped together, the record and the turntable are closely married and that
they have a very well damped resonances compared to the cast, machined
"bells" that tables used to have as platters, but this is probably a tertiary
effect. But arms, again, have benefitted from materials technology such as
carbon fiber and improved bearing manufacturing methods and are better than
they once were. Still, in all, someone who has one of those gorgeous old
Audio Empire 598 or 698 "Troubadour" turntable and arm combos, still has a
very viable setup and with the careful selection of cartridge and perhaps a
sorbothane mat, will still perform well, but probably not as well as more
modern setup which can elicit a lot more information from the groove than
could yesterday's phono rigs.
Of course, I have never understood why Shure decided to drop the V-15 while
keeping their lesser cartridges in the lineup. The V-15 was a superb
cartridge in almost every way. The only place where I felt that other types
of cartridges bettered it was in imaging and soundstage. But tracking, flat
frequency response, and low distortion were it's metier, and in these
regards, there were none better (IMHO, of course).
Scott
> "Scott" <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7nji1vF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > On 30 Nov, 11:07, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
> >> I see zero scientific evidence to support the contention that vinyl
> >> playback
> >> performance has improved signficantly since then.
>
> > I haven't seen Russia. Fortunately neither of our personal
> > observations are the standard by which we determine reality.
>
> To follow your metaphor, I haven't seen Russia either, but there is ample
> reliable evidence to ascertain many useful things about it.
It wasn't a metaphor Arny it is a fact. That is besides the point.
The point being that neither you nor I can use our personal
experiences as an objective standard to measure reality. As you point
out there are things beyond either of our personal experiences that
suggest Russia is quite real. The same is true about the realities of
vinyl manufacturing and playback. The realities of that technology
extend beyond your personal experience.
>
> >> All I see is a lot of
> >> vendor hype and enthusiast's anecdotes.
> > But all you offered was an anecdote.
>
> It's a challenge, Scott. I've done my homework and come up empty. If you =
can
> do better, please enlighten us at your earliest convenience.
>
I don't think I can do any better in varifying your anecdotes. Thus
they remain, to the best of our collective knowledge, beyond
varification. So your use of such anecdotes as evidence of anything
whilst criticizing other peoples' arguments as anecdotal strikes me as
a classic case of employment of a double standard.
>
>
> >> I've personally investigated these
> >> claims over the years by visiting enthusiast's homes and listened to
> >> their
> >> vinyl playback systems and also by visiting vendor displays at high en=
d
> >> audio shows and had private demonstrations. No joy!
> > That is just an anecdote! Kinda ironic after making an issue about
> > anecdotes,
>
> It's an anecdote to you Scott, but that does not change the fact that it =
is
> real hands-on experiences for me.
No Arny, it is an anecdote period since there is no way to varify any
of it. Are you suggesting that your story about visiting recording
engineers at their place of work back in the day is somehow
"scientific evidence?"
>
> >> Interesting given that I've had numerous LP enthusiasts denigrate my
> >> years
> >> of personal experience with a number of Shure V15s in SME arms.
> > Not my favorite cartridge either but we were talking accuracy not
> > preference.
>
> Interesting that you're so willing to admit that accuracy is a lesser
> concern of yours, Scott. What happened toaccurately =A0recreating live mu=
sical
> events? =A0Isn't that what High Fidelity started out being?
Not since the invention of stereo. I have already covered that in a
previous post. If you didn't follow the assertion and explanation let
me know and I'll review it. But in brief, "high fidelity" has been
about creating that which sounds best to the listener. In the case of
recorded live acoustic music, the experience of actual live music
played well on excellent instruments in an excellent acoustic space
from an excellent seat in the house sets the standard of aesthetic
beauty over and above any recording and playback of it. So the goal is
to get the perceptual experience of recording and playback as close to
that general excellent live perceptual experience as possible. But
stereo recording and playback do not work as a literal reconstruction
of the original 3 dimensional soundspace. It works as a means of
creating an aural illusion of that space from one particular
perspective. (that is if eveyone is doing a good job) Given that
understanding it should not be so surprising that literal accuracy in
each stage of the chain would not be a primary concern, The primary
concern is the final illusion. Accuracy is only valuable in so far as
it serves that illusion. IME one can get a much better illusion with
less than perfectly accurate TT rigs than one can get with the most
accurate rigs. If one understands these things it should not be all
that interesting at all that I or anyone else would admit to something
so obvious,
>
> >> Seems like just another enthusiast's anecdote
> > Kind of like your anecdote only Steve Hoffman is an actual top notch
> > mastering engineer who used an actual master tape as his reference on
> > state of the art equipment.
>
> Compared to digital, analog tape is a less-accurate medium. There's only =
one
> justification to use it when accurate recreation is the goal - the only
> justification is that the analog tape is all there is.
Clearly in the case of any Bill Evans recording that is what we are
talking about. perhaps you didn't know who Bill Evans was and didn't
realize that all of his recordings were analog. ironically I would
challenge you to find any digital recordings of Jazz trios that create
as good an illusion of live musicians in a real sound space as do
those antiquated Riverside analog recordings of The Bill Evans trio.
You might find a few from Chesky that are pretty competetive. but
mostly you will find miserable failures in that endevour despite the
media involved. That ought to tell you something about the relative
merits of analog tape.
>
> > His anecdote had some very specific
> > information which makes his tests repeatable. His tests were level
> > matched and time synced.
> > Your anecdote OTOH had none of that.
>
> Of course there have been time-synched and level-matched double blind
> evaluations. =A0Just because I didn't go on and on doesn't it didn't happ=
en.
I know there have been. Steve Hoffman did at least two. we know the
specifics of his tests and the results. So far that is all we have
that is actually varifiable. It also supports my original assertion
that if one is actually interested in such literal accuracy it can be
had with vinyl.
>
> > No way to verify your story.
>
> I see no way to verify Hoffman's.
The fact is the facility is still there with all the same equipment
so repeating the test would be quite simple whether you see that or
not.
>
> > IOW his anecdote really is better than your =A0anecdote.
>
> Yes, but I haven't made the mistake that he has of going public with the
> self-damning claims that Mr. Pierce has brought to our discussion.
If one believes that any anecdotal account of hearing a difference
under sighted condtions is self damning then one simply doesn't
understand the nature of such experiences. The fact is Steve Hoffman
is a very skilled and knowledgable mastering engineer and his tests
were done blind and are well enough documented to be varified if
someone wanted to do so. What is truly self damning is attacking blind
tests by making inferences that the testors and testees were somehow
either incompetent or dishonest based on some sighted listening
experience that was completely unrelated.
>
> I'm also familiar with some of Hoffman's other equally-problematical anti=
cs.
> Would I buy a used car from him? No, not at least not without a Carfax
> report! ;-)
More silly ad hominem with zero substance. The isn't selling cars, he
is selling his skills as a top flight mastering engineer and the
audiophile public is buying it at premium prices. If you doubt his
skills maybe we can set up some blind comparisons for you between his
work and the work of others to see what your unbiased opinion would
be. Although I suspect your biases are so severe on this subject the
only test that would yield meaningful results would be one where you
didn't know what was being tested.
Sonnova
(in article <hf4cf...@news4.newsguy.com>):
> On Nov 30, 6:21=A0pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:40:00 -0800, ScottW wrote
>>
>> My point is that none is needed no is any desirable. except, perhaps, to
>> those who don't really understand the process of studio pop/jazz recordin=
> g.
>
> Being a consumer of recordings and desiring a higher quality product
> than most of the studios produce, let me suggest that it is those who
> defend the process today
> as not in need of improvement, as you have strongly done, have lost
> touch with the needs of many consumers.
I am not defending anything. I'm just saying that a "THX-like" minimum spec
for studio monitors and home listening environments would not make the
recordings any better nor would it make what you hear at home sound any more
like what the engineers and producers put on disc. This is because, as I
have restated until blue in the face, the monitoring equipment is PERIPHERAL
to the recording chain, not a part of it.
>>
>>> I would absolutely not expect current mastering practices to remain
>>> unaffected by the adoption of a standard as discussed here. =A0If that
>>> was the case, the standard would fail.
>>
>> Believe me, they would be unaffected by the adoption of such a "standard"=
> as
>> I explained above.
>
> Too bad. Fortunately the cost of a quality studio setup continues
> to rapidly decline such that the so-called experts who are stuck in
> their obsolete ways will be swept aside by more diversified methods of
> recording, production, and music distribution.
Maybe, but that's irrelevant to the subject at hand, Scott.
Arny Krueger
news:hf4ci...@news4.newsguy.com
> There's plenty of evidence that vinyl playback has
> improved. Just compare today's best phono cartridges with
> those of a few years ago.
Please provide evidence based on reliable, unbiased comparisons between
various cartridges. There need to be both technical measurements and
subjective listening tests with results that agree. The standard of
performance must be sonic accuracy.
Ed Seedhouse
> =A0 It is utterly irrelevant "what the engineer heard". Sonnava put it we=
ll
> in his post of 28th Nov - so I'll merely repeat what he said here:
>
> "My idea of what the music sounds like in my living room is just as valid=
as
> that which the engineer heard in the studio. So why should I subjugate my
> judgement and personal tastes to his? The recording is what it is. I eith=
er
> like it's sound or I don't. On my end, it's up to me to play-back the
> recording in a manner which pleases me. If I don't like what the
> engineer/producer has wrought, I don't listen to that recording at all an=
d
> I'm sure that hearing it through the engineers monitoring equipment won't
> change that opinion one iota."
However well he put it (about which I suspect our opinions will
differ), it amounts to nothing more than simply throwing out the baby
with the bathwater. It is, in my opinion, simply giving up on the
problem by asserting it doesn't exist. But, however often you may say
it doesn't exist, there it is.
Sonnova
(in article <7nlvdlF...@mid.individual.net>):
> On 1 Dec, 06:16, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
[quoted text deleted -- deb]
>> Compared to digital, analog tape is a less-accurate medium. There's only one
>> justification to use it when accurate recreation is the goal - the only
>> justification is that the analog tape is all there is.
>
>
> Clearly in the case of any Bill Evans recording that is what we are
> talking about. perhaps you didn't know who Bill Evans was and didn't
> realize that all of his recordings were analog. ironically I would
> challenge you to find any digital recordings of Jazz trios that create
> as good an illusion of live musicians in a real sound space as do
> those antiquated Riverside analog recordings of The Bill Evans trio.
Absolutely! I agree 100% They are palpably real (especially "Bill Evans Trio
at Shelly's Manne-Hole in Hollywood" which was recorded by Wally Heider
(before he opened his own studios) and with me always pass, what J. Gordon
Holt used to refer to as "the goosebump test."
> You might find a few from Chesky that are pretty competetive. but
> mostly you will find miserable failures in that endevour despite the
> media involved. That ought to tell you something about the relative
> merits of analog tape.
It's also the relative merits of a very simple recording setup. Most of the
best sounding recordings are always simply recorded with a minimum of gear.
Rudy Van Gelder's stuff, for instance, as well as Bob Fine's Mercury classics
from the Fifties and early Sixties as well as the RCA Red seals done by Louis
Leyton and his associates all used a simple mixer, a minimum of microphones
and two or three tracks of analog tape. I've said this before. Some of these
40 and 50 year-old analog recordings make me think that there has been very
little progress in the art and science of recording in the last 50 years, and
if there has been, it's often not very noticeable (now that computerized
autocorrelators can remove tape hiss without affecting the music, many of
these old recordings sound a damn-sight better than most new ones!
Ed Seedhouse
> news:hf4ci...@news4.newsguy.com
>
> > There's plenty of evidence that vinyl playback has
> > improved. Just compare today's best phono cartridges with
> > those of a few years ago.
>
> Please provide evidence based on reliable, unbiased comparisons between
> various cartridges. There need to be both technical measurements and
> subjective listening tests with results that agree. The standard of
> performance must be sonic accuracy.
But of course, even if Arny is wrong and vinyl has improved, it is
still not as good as CD.
As I grew up in the days of vinyl I will agree that, even back then,
with the proper equipment, a vinyl record could achieve (barely) a
standard worthy of the name "high fidelity". But the CD, while not
of course "perfect" is far better.
Ed Seedhouse
> Your entire position is based on a false premise that stereo recording
> and playback is an attempt to literally reproduce the original
> soundfield of the live music. "Sound, of course, is purely physical.
> And it is what we try to reproduce with audio equipment," That simply
> is not what we are doing with home audio.
Well, what you do with your home audio is your business.
But the original idea behind the idea of "High fidelity", way back
before the fifties, was pretty much just that. Fidelity means
"faithfulness" and in this context it means faithfulness to the
original event. It still basically means that as far as I am
concerned and it has the advantage of at least creating a target. Of
course it is essentially an unattainable target but it is one that can
be aimed at (that's what targets are for you know) and approximated
reasonably closely. Closely enough to make sound in the home that can
approximate the event I experience in a concert hall.
> Once one truly understands this basic fact
> about audio they understand the absurdity of the quest for absolute
> accuracy. Then one is free to persue better sound through high end
> audio.
But the very concept of "better" in any objective sense becomes
meaningless. Better than what? The target disappears and the whole
project becomes pointless. Thank goodness the people who invented the
concept of fidelity in recorded sound never thought that way!
Sonnova
(in article <hf70g...@news6.newsguy.com>):
> On Dec 2, 6:01=A0am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> news:hf4ci...@news4.newsguy.com
>>
>>> There's plenty of evidence that vinyl playback has
>>> improved. Just compare today's best phono cartridges with
>>> those of a few years ago.
>>
>> Please provide evidence based on reliable, unbiased comparisons between
>> various cartridges. =A0There need to be both technical measurements and
>> subjective listening tests with results that agree. The standard of
>> performance must be sonic accuracy.
>
> But of course, even if Arny is wrong and vinyl has improved, it is
> still not as good as CD.
But I think Arny's point is that LP is not as ACCURATE as CD. In this he
would be right. But most of us don't listen to specifications, we listen to
music, and this where the "CD rules!" crowd errs. Most of us want to listen
to recordings that sound like music, not recordings that are "accurate". And
make no mistake, while they CAN be the same thing, they mostly aren't. If
accuracy = musicality, then all CDs would sound perfect, much better than any
old analog recording from the "golden age" of stereo, but they don't, and
most of them don't sound anywhere nearly as good. So "accurate" and
"musically and or sonically satisfying" are not the same thing.
>
> As I grew up in the days of vinyl I will agree that, even back then,
> with the proper equipment, a vinyl record could achieve (barely) a
> standard worthy of the name "high fidelity".
I have 50-year-old vinyl records that would challenge that belief of yours.
And if you are honest, it would challenge that belief to the point of
actually changing your mind.
> But the CD, while not
> of course "perfect" is far better.
It can be. But it can also be MUCH worse.
Sonnova
(in article <hf70f...@news6.newsguy.com>):
> On Nov 30, 8:03=A0am, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Your entire position is based on a false premise that stereo recording
>> and playback is an attempt to literally reproduce the original
>> soundfield of the live music. "Sound, of course, is purely physical.
>> And it is what we try to reproduce with audio equipment," That simply
>> is not what we are doing with home audio.
>
> Well, what you do with your home audio is your business.
>
> But the original idea behind the idea of "High fidelity", way back
> before the fifties, was pretty much just that. Fidelity means
> "faithfulness" and in this context it means faithfulness to the
> original event. It still basically means that as far as I am
> concerned and it has the advantage of at least creating a target. Of
> course it is essentially an unattainable target but it is one that can
> be aimed at (that's what targets are for you know) and approximated
> reasonably closely. Closely enough to make sound in the home that can
> approximate the event I experience in a concert hall.
>
>> Once one truly understands this basic fact
>> about audio they understand the absurdity of the quest for absolute
>> accuracy. Then one is free to persue better sound through high end
>> audio.
>
> But the very concept of "better" in any objective sense becomes
> meaningless.
You are learning. Of course it's meaningless. Everybody has their own idea of
how music ought to sound. This is based upon a number of factors, not the
least of which is taste, expectations, and a personal focus on what is
important to the listener. Since getting everything "right" is not possible,
audiophiles tend to fixate on certain aspect of a performance. This fixation
not only defines what kinds of recordings they like, but also on the
equipment which does those thing the best. For instance, I tend to favor
recordings that present a palpable soundstage, one in which I can pinpoint
the instruments with my eyes closed just as can be done in the concert hall.
Therefore I also like speakers that image well. Multi-track and multi-miked
recordings I find less than satisfying. The next guy might not care about
that at all, and might like big bass or bright highs, still another might
focus on the midrange, with a certain amount of "presence" in that range
being de riguer. Unless one can find equipment that does everything "right"
these fixations will continue to dominate recording and the design and
manufacture of playback equipment such as speakers.
> Better than what? The target disappears and the whole
> project becomes pointless.
And so it will remain until the recording and playback process becomes
perfect. Even so, I'll guarantee you that somebody still won't like it.
Thank goodness the people who invented the
> concept of fidelity in recorded sound never thought that way!
Actually they did and do.
Scott
> On Nov 30, 8:03 am, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Your entire position is based on a false premise that stereo recording
> > and playback is an attempt to literally reproduce the original
> > soundfield of the live music. "Sound, of course, is purely physical.
> > And it is what we try to reproduce with audio equipment," That simply
> > is not what we are doing with home audio.
>
> Well, what you do with your home audio is your business.
>
> But the original idea behind the idea of "High fidelity", way back
> before the fifties, was pretty much just that. Fidelity means
> "faithfulness" and in this context it means faithfulness to the
> original event. It still basically means that as far as I am
> concerned and it has the advantage of at least creating a target.
OK so if you are going to listen to an orchestral recording using that
approach what would that involve? If we are talking about a faithful
reproduction as you are talking about of the original event that would
involve heavy construction to rebuild your room to match the concert
hall, a unique 100+ channel reording of each instrument in the
orchestra recorded in an anechoic chamber and a unique speaker for
each instrument that mimics the radiation pattern of each unique
instrument. This might get you into the ball park. Seems to me any
discussion of CD v LP or standardization of studio monitors is pretty
insignificant conpared to the obvious problems you would have in this
literal approach. I say this only to illustrate the absurdity of the
idea that audio is about faithfulness to the original event. nothing
like that is happening at all in audio recording and playback with the
exception of binaural systems.
> Of
> course it is essentially an unattainable target but it is one that can
> be aimed at (that's what targets are for you know) and approximated
> reasonably closely. Closely enough to make sound in the home that can
> approximate the event I experience in a concert hall.
Yeah I don't think so. Concert hall soundspace and your room are
worlds apart not to mention the source points and radiation patterns
of 100+ instruments v. 2, 5 or 7 speakers. But, as you said, what you
do with your home audio is your business. Best of luck with the
faithful "recreation of the original event" approach as opposed to the
aural illusion approach. Kind sucks for you that all the recordings
since the invention of stereo are designed for aural illusion
approach. (with the exception of binaural recordings)
>
> > Once one truly understands this basic fact
> > about audio they understand the absurdity of the quest for absolute
> > accuracy. Then one is free to persue better sound through high end
> > audio.
>
> But the very concept of "better" in any objective sense becomes
> meaningless.
Yeah of course. "Better" is intrinsically a subjective quality.
> Better than what?
if you want a great example you can review the one I gave with the
Blue Note recordings.
> The target disappears and the whole
> project becomes pointless.
No the target does not disappear at all. One does not need literal
accuracy as a goal to maintain a target of aesthetic beauty. the point
is whatever you make it. Personally I see accuracy for accuracy's sake
as rather pointless.
> Thank goodness the people who invented the
> concept of fidelity in recorded sound never thought that way!
But they did. You might want to review the history of stereo recording
and playback.