Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy? - Page 48

I love the repeated phrase "soul less camera gear collector."

Can we call you a soul less audio gear collector?

I find this a bit ironic, especially so given that the gear they collect can at least be shown to make differences perceivable by humans.

But it does not guarantee that they would be able to make a print that you would like to have hanging on your wall.

There is very little connection between what they think matters vs what makes an inspiring work of art.

But there is absolutely no connection between the quality of music reproduction and the artistic value of the music reproduced.

Interesting assertion.

IME the better the artistic values of the music, the easier it is to record and play back have listeners perceive high technical quality.

Yes, not necessarily a conflict, but... ;-)

Yeah, but the causality is going in the opposite direction.

Just as there is little if any connection between what you think matters and what increases the accuracy of playback? Love seeing you play both sides of the argument.

Then by all means let's use 2-bits sampled at 1kHz and save some space on the media!

x
Edited by kraut - 3/5/13 at 9:02pm

I think that better quality reproduction makes it easier for a wider audience to appreciate the artistic values.

One counterpoint is that as a rule musicians are more accepting of marginal or poor reproduction. It has been conclusively proven by numerous examples that both musicians and conductors can be about as close to stone deaf as it gets and still be not only effective but even perform exceptionally.

Your Callas argument is interesting, because if you change the name to Caruso, then your 5% distortion and 100-1 KHz FR are probably an optimistic view of the SOTA in his era.

Caruso was widely appreciated and I think that was based a lot on his recordings, as bad as they were by modern standards.

There is another argument and that relates to how the limitations of reproduction have changed the art of the times. My ear tells me that the arrangements of the days of lesser quality reproduction were tilted to optimize the limited facilities for reproduction.

First, this is not a belief but a fact. The original is what was heard in mixing/mastering. Secondly, the conclusion is that there can not be one single room but many rooms for each recording. This is also known as Audio's Circle of Confusion.

Objection! Example: The sound of concert halls is an integral part of classical music. Stereo reproduction is a cultural phenomenon to me. Studio acoustics is an integral part of the art.

I thought BC bud was good.....

What the heck are you going on about? In no way did I suggest a lot of other speakers are unnecessary, no idea where you got that from.
The quote about room acoustic effects was in relation to your point about pros disagreeing, and nothing to to do with speakers. The point was that pro's can't argue there is effect to room treatments and rooms, they can only argue preference, in other words that's why they're not all on the same page. It's a subjective argument.
The only thing I alluded to about speakers was that there's a variety because of supply and demand, and different technologies of creating soundwaves.

At the extremes, perhaps. But think about this: How important is it that you are conscious of what instrument is playing? What''s more important—the source of the sound, or the sound itself? I would posit that if you're sitting in a concert hall thinking about that sort of thing, you're not listening to and for the right things.

I know many music lovers who listen on nothing better than a Bose radio. Do not for a moment think that they are missing anything of the artistry. If someone needs something better in order to appreciate music, I'm not sure he shouldn't be pitied.
But again, you're confusing accuracy of reproduction and artistry. There's nothing wrong with appreciating accuracy at the same time you're appreciating the artistry of the music/performance. Confusing the two is a conceptual error, however.
Neither the concert hall nor the recording studio is a reproduction venue.

So have you been able to achieve this with your room?

Up the sample rate by a factor of about 2,000 and cut the number of bits to half, and you have something like SACD. ;-)

Which part of "it's impossible" is so hard to understand?

Well that's the first time you have mentioned "it's impossible."

Previously you said... "But make no mistake there's only one correct way of reproducing a recording. Just like there's only one correct way of calibrating a TV or projector." ... and ... "First, this is not a belief but a fact. The original is what was heard in mixing/mastering."

So if it is an impossibility for anybody to reach that standard then why make such a stupid statement in the first place? What is the point of having some ideal standard that nobody would ever be able to reach?

There is no accepted standard of what a listening room should sound like. You could build an exact replica of a mixing studio down to the very last detail... but then what..? You would only be able to listen to music that was produced in that studio at the time it was in that particular configuration that you copied. It would rather limit your choice of music wouldn't it.

Stating something as a "fact" on an interweb forum is one thing. Having any relevance to the real world is something else altogether.

x
Edited by kraut - 3/5/13 at 9:02pm

Kraut, perhaps I can restate mcnarus point by use of an example.

My favorite performance of the rach III by far is by orozco from I think 1969 or thereabouts. We could argue that preference, and there are many great attributes to all of the famous recordings, but for me this one is it... the most technically mesmerizing and emotionally engaging.

The recording quality is "good" but certainly not superb, being filled with its share of hiss, clicks, pops, a limited frequency response... Do those limitations or imperfections prohibit me from appreciating the artistry of the composition or the performance? Going further, while I've listened to this performance countless dozens of times on many a fine audio system, I've also listened on my iPod, computer speakers (built into the monitor), factory car sound, friends Bose systems, and who knows where else. In every case, the reproduction quality/accuracy was adequate for me to be emotionally moved and to appreciate the artistry. Now, I won't deny that louder and fuller frequency response can invoke a stronger emotional reaction, but that is just as true of test tones or a peewee herman movie as it is of classical music. And there is probably some minimum bar below which appreciation and enjoyment (or even recognition) is seriously impacted, but its a bar far below what is being discussed in this thread. I think this is what mcnarus means by the separation of artistic value and reproductive accuracy. We can appreciate one or both, separately or together, but one is not required to appreciate the other.

x
Edited by kraut - 3/5/13 at 9:04pm

No need to get rude.
It's not that there's a standard "nobody would ever be able to reach". The point is that there is no meaningful standard at all.

That's exactly the problem of sound reproduction.

Just because you can't see the relevance doesn't mean there is no relevance. Did you follow the link to Audio's Circle of Confusion which I've now posted 3 times?

I'm amazed that someone would have to ask that! Because it gives a direction, a vision. Because every step towards it will be an improvement. If I aim to visit Proxima Centauri in my lifetime and I only get to Mars... it was the impossible goal that got me there.

There in lies the crux of many an argument. Some talk about how low the bar can go, or what is good enough, while others discuss a positive direction with a goal to more clearly hear the source. Same field yet two obviously different goal post positions here.

Accuracy of reproduction, not only frequency response but also preservation of very low level tonal and timbral clues, has much to do with being able to more clearly hear artistic intent; "louder and fuller frequency response" is not really how one [properly] improves upon a listening experience, although volume increases have been known to improve enjoyment for some, up to the point where deafness occurs.

Ever think about why many people enjoy playing music loud?


Edited by Joe Skubinski - 2/27/13 at 8:23am

Discussions about what is good enough aren't all the same. They depend on how you define good enough. For example, there is "Good enough for people who like the sound on Youtube". Or, there is "Good enough so that the device is indistinguishable from the proverbial straight wire under any reasonable condition".

Only to a point, unless all you are interested in the non-audible properties of the product.

When the loudness is insufficient to fully exploit human hearing, or frequency response is messed up enough that important sounds are not perceived, then "louder and fuller frequency response" is exactly how one improves upon a listening experience. Both of these undesirable conditions are fairly common problems.

(1) What do you mean by loud?

(2) In some cases its because they have severe hearing damage.

There has to be sooooo many reasons for that.... here's just a few:

* Because "AC/DC Live" just don't do anything at 65dB

* Wanting to have visual confirmation that the 8 12" subwoofers are doing something

* Bored of the old china in the kitchen

* The neighbor has lousy taste in music.

* It's cannons on 1812, not firecrackers... CANNONS!

...

For the purpose of this thread, getting to "good enough" or "clearly hearing the source" doesn't require snake oil products or $250k speakers.

I'd guess the reason for playing music loud is because of louder being perceived as "better", and probably because of how we hear bass at low SPL relative to the rest of the spectrum.

The statement 'only to a point' in this context places an artificial ceiling on it. Critical listening is a learned skill, so who best be the judge of what this point is other than the listener.


Sure Arny, however, couldn't we also look at this in another way. Let's say instead of loudness or FR as the variables we explore how to come at it from another direction. What if we consider other ways to give the brain what it needs to recreate the original event- WRT frequency; proper timing, phase, leading edge impulse response, etc. How many potential ways could you envision to improve upon these, even if incrementally, such that volume need not be increased to improve perception by the individual?

BTW, I have to commend you man, you've had some very good responses last 6 months or so.

Nowhere did I suggest that the point be arbitrary or artificial. In face we determine technical points of vastly lessened benefits by means of observations of nature.

Precisely, so we use actual listeners, and even take pains to train them for maximum sensitivity.

Sure Arny, however, couldn't we also look at this in another way. Let's say instead of loudness or FR as the variables we explore how to come at it from another direction.
[/quote]

The above statement appears to be trying to falsify my answer by changing the question after I answered it. I call: BS!

If you would show me the respect of at least posing your new question as a new question, then maybe I will overlook your mistake, and answer it as well.


Those are not other independent ways of looking at the event. leading edge response, impulse response, timing and phase are all in the time domain, and so is frequency.

An audio channel is fully described by only two parameters, timing and amplitude. There are only two forms of distortion, linear (excaples: timing, frequency response) and nonlinear (examples: harmonic distortion, IM and jitter).

Since we have already covered linear distortion, the other area to improve is nonlinear distortion. In the digital domain, transmission of data with zero distortion of any kind is the default.

If cable "y" costing $$ more is able to send the signal better than cable "x" which results in 0.25 db increase in volume, that would be non-audible property and a natural ceiling due to people's hearing not being able to discern such volume variation. I know one which is called "placebo effect". Are there more? If so, would you mind citing actual cases of such improved perception through audio cables? What did he post 7months ago or so that made you want to exclude?

noice!


In the light of these particular phenomena as exhibited by the speakers, you're recommending cables as the cure?

Good point even tho you kinda shot yourself in the foot. Fix these problems inherent in the speaker and forget cables.