or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy? - Page 94

post #2791 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Neither of which can get objectively closer to the original sonic event without a defined reference. What is that again, exactly?
The defined reference is the original sonic event. Exactly. Are you trying to confuse me? Or maybe you're saying that equalization for room acoustics does not get us closer to this reference? Or you're saying that compensation in amplifiers for frequency response distortion does not get us closer to the the original sonic event? Could we have some clarification, or possibly even some evidence?
post #2792 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post

By compensating for the distortion at some other place in the reproduction chain. I've been saying that. To me, that's the main point of taking the original sound to be the reference -- you're looking then at the whole chain, and when there's problem at one place, you have a shot at fixing it by adding compensation elsewhere.

Okay,, I have for you a 2 minute recording of a snare drum solo. The batter (top head) is miced with a dynamic microphone that rolls off the highs and is a little slow, compared to a small diaphragm condenser, on transients. The bottom head is miced with a mic that is a little bright. The two are mixed together dead center. How do you correct for the essentially opposite microphone distortions?

Take that times 10 or 20 at least for typical multitracked music. There's not "a" correction to correct for the wide variety of departures from accurate.

All, of course, leaving aside the fact that, as I've said before ,IMO a mic an inch from a drum head never "hears" what a human hears (even the drummer is probably twenty times farther from the drum than the mic).
post #2793 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

How do you correct for the essentially opposite microphone distortions?
I haven't the slightest idea -- I'm not in the biz. But I have every confidence that you can work it out, somehow.
post #2794 of 3048
Quote:
I haven't the slightest idea -- I'm not in the biz. But I have every confidence that you can work it out, somehow.
Then you're right—you haven't the slightest idea. wink.gif
post #2795 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

But if you didn't hear the sound ias it was originally being recorded and you know the recording process itself distorts the sound, how does one get there?
By compensating for the distortion at some other place in the reproduction chain. I've been saying that. To me, that's the main point of taking the original sound to be the reference -- you're looking then at the whole chain, and when there's problem at one place, you have a shot at fixing it by adding compensation elsewhere.

Most of the recording chain is as clean as you wish to make it, sonically transparent if that is what you want.

The interface between the sound source (musical instrument) and the audio cable coming into the mixing console or recorder is very messy, and has as yet never ever been cleaned up.
post #2796 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

How do you correct for the essentially opposite microphone distortions?
I haven't the slightest idea -- I'm not in the biz. But I have every confidence that you can work it out, somehow.


It is mission impossible because the input to the microphone exists in three dimensions, and the output of the microphone exists in just one dimension.

Yet, most of the distortions happen on the 3 dimensional side of the mic.

How can you make alterations in one dimension that correct problems that exist in three dimensions?
post #2797 of 3048
I
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post

I haven't the slightest idea -- I'm not in the biz. But I have every confidence that you can work it out, somehow.

As long as you believe in magic
Once all the pieces are mixed into one channel that channel contains only a single electrical signal. The signal doesn't know whether it represent one incoming channel or a hundred. You literally cannot differentially eq that signal. In oyher words you cannot turn up the treble control and turn it down at the same time
If you've ever turned a treble control it should be pretty much self evident
post #2798 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

Watch the first half of video linked. It explains your theory quoted below except that it happens even before you go home and play the recordings.

But I thought Dave Wilson was some kind of nut-job that didn't know what he was talking about, according to you guys..???
post #2799 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee 
The defined reference is the original sonic event. Exactly.

Exactly what? Where? Let's grant that for a specific orchestral work, for example, you have in mind a specific venue in which it was performed. I'll even grant that you know which performance on which day by a specific orchestra. We're going to recreate that actual performance, that is your original sonic event.

What seat in the hall is your exact reference? Measurements taken at various locations for the same short segment of music will all be different, and not trivially so. Is your reference for the first half, before the guy seated in front of you had to leave, or the second half? Is your head tilted a bit to the left... or rotated a little right?

Wait, you say, doesn't matter, its all the same sonic event. Sure, but measurements for all of these variations will be noticeably different. If you are going to attempt "corrections", you need a defined objective reference to correct to. You're in the objective world, this needs to be something measurable. If you can't point to a specific criteria that is the reference, your definition of fidelity is vacuous.

Perhaps you say the small variations don't actually matter, aren't audible, etc. Actually, it is our impressive ability to receive and process this wavefront information that allows us to know we are in a real space, not listening to a reproduction, and is why your proposed abx test would fail. The little variations as our head position changes or the guy in front moves within that 3d wavefield provides us those perceptual clues. And conventional techniques are incapable of capturing and delivering the wavefront information.

Maybe you mean that a blind test between original sonic event and reproduction in real time is the test and criteria, bypassing any measurement middlemen. Fine, but as the two will be easily distinguished you again are faced with population preference trend and no objective measure of fidelity that necessarily applies to an individual.

That's fine if that is your reference and criteria. It happens to be mine too. But it isn't fidelity. Words have meanings, and this one doesn't mean that.
Quote:
Could we have some clarification, or possibly even some evidence?
I hope I've clarified my exception to your definition. As for evidence, you've made some pretty big assumptions and bold claims that "it can be worked out" and I won't be bothered with setting up an impractical or even impossible abx test to simply show null results.
post #2800 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd68 View Post

Certainly some high-end companies and especially the ID companies are not total rip-off artist. People shouldn't try to lump the whole high-end industry in one group,(overpriced rip-offs) Some offer value plus even offer trial periods. If you don't receive enhanced enjoyment you could return it. These companies are the type companies I think can offer better value and better performance, if that's what you want.

DIY is another interesting option, and you get the satisfaction and pride of building your own great sounding gear. I built my own phono stage preamp, a World Designs phono kit and my own high quality turntables built from old Lenco drive mechanisms. I enjoy this part of the hobby very much.

Well it's not rip-off if it has value to the buyer. Having said that, there's no way on gods green earth you're going to tell me that $250,000 speakers exist to give me $245,000 better sound than a $5000 pair of speakers.

I don't know how you could judge those or similar products as anything but a way to part money from someone's wallet who has too much of it.
post #2801 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Thanks for the suggestion. I've played in orchestras and other ensembles for twenty years. Often I'd rather just be a listener in the audience though. Not sure how that is particularly relevant to what I had said.

Do you think some hifi systems you have heard do a better job of reproducing the natural sound of instruments verses other hifi systems you have heard?
post #2802 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

But I thought Dave Wilson was some kind of nut-job that didn't know what he was talking about, according to you guys..???
What made you think that? Can you quote it?

As for your advice for "you guys" on how to compare live vs recorded orchestral sound (http://www.avsforum.com/t/1425262/are-audio-companies-all-involved-in-a-huge-conspiracy/2760#post_23141877), do you still stand by it after watching the first half of that video?
Edited by diomania - 3/30/13 at 12:01am
post #2803 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

What made you think that? Can you quote it?

You obviously have the memory of a goldfish.


Quote:
As for your advice for "you guys" on how to compare live vs recorded orchestral sound (http://www.avsforum.com/t/1425262/are-audio-companies-all-involved-in-a-huge-conspiracy/2760#post_23141877), do you still stand by it after watching the first half of that video?

Yes. Even with the variance of where you sit in a concert hall... your hifi system could fail miserably in coming any where near the tonal qualities I mentioned earlier.

Go to an orchestral concert and listen then come home and listen to similar music on your system.
post #2804 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 

Do you think some hifi systems you have heard do a better job of reproducing the natural sound of instruments verses other hifi systems you have heard?

Sure, for me. I'm not sure if that would hold true for other listeners, or even if it should.
post #2805 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

Let me ask you again, have you ever been to a performance with synthesizer in use? If you have, how did it sound to you?

I would think most of those occassions, the synth has not been in use, rather those parts were playback. But in any case, I've yet to go to any concert venue with loudspeakers even remotely of the class I have at home and in general those places also play their amps into clipping. So a good reproduction of the CD sounds better.

Depeche Mode is a great experience to see live, but their live act do not rival the recordings music/quality-wise
post #2806 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View PostI wouldn't call the Seymore 200 watt monoblock @ $1,000 any kind of price/performance leader.

And with load dependent frequency response variations like these:



(Bel Canto amp -1 dB at 20-30 KHz)

and fairly ordinary THD performance:



I don't see a lot to brag about. I don't think this kind of performance is necessarily a deviation from sonic transparency, but why pay kilobucks for nonlinear distortion performance that looks up to see a low end AVR?

 

Agreed that's why I stay away from ClassD amplification

post #2807 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View PostInstead of trying to look at and worry about things under a microscope... go to an orchestral performance and listen to unamplified music. Take note of the tone of the violin section. Note the warmth as if you can almost hear the timber they're made out of. Listen to the cello and double bass sections and note the tonal subtleties they can produce and once again that rich warmth as if you can hear the timber they are made out of. Take notice of the trumpet section in how they can reach out and grab your attention and the rich subtle tones they can produce.

Now go straight home and play some orchestra music on your system.

PS... It doesn't really matter what orchestral performance you go to or what recording you listen to later on your system. The difference could be so night and day that even worrying about reproducing the performance you just heard in real life on your system is academic at this point. Chances are your system isn't even in the ballpark to begin with.

That's for sure, the rooms are so different one is engineered to the max the other is a cube!

post #2808 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

Agreed that's why I stay away from ClassD amplification

Those aren't pure Class D, they're a hybrid of sorts aren't they?

But for the purpose of this thread it illustrates a couple of points, one being that you don't always get better products by paying more money, i.e. Seymour vs Jeff Rowland.
And second is that as bad as those modules measure, the 500w module in the Bel Canto Ref e1000 became a reference amplifier for a ton of reviewers, which goes to show the level of "audibility" for variances such as above.
How on earth are you supposed to hear differences two amps being far more linear?

(Also I thought Seymour sold the 500w amp for $1k not the 200w one.... but if they don't Red Dragon does.)
post #2809 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

That's for sure, the rooms are so different one is engineered to the max the other is a cube!

Exactly.

Besides, it doesn't get any simpler than a systems' job is to accurately reproduce the recording on the media of choice, not fix it.
post #2810 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post


Yes. Even with the variance of where you sit in a concert hall... your hifi system could fail miserably in coming any where near the tonal qualities I mentioned earlier.

Go to an orchestral concert and listen then come home and listen to similar music on your system.

I disagree. I think you can get there with good recordings in an EQ'd & treated room with decent speakers. Certainly not "fail miserably" anyways.
post #2811 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

I would think most of those occassions, the synth has not been in use, rather those parts were playback. But in any case, I've yet to go to any concert venue with loudspeakers even remotely of the class I have at home and in general those places also play their amps into clipping. So a good reproduction of the CD sounds better.

Depeche Mode is a great experience to see live, but their live act do not rival the recordings music/quality-wise

I think it depends on venue, it's no different than your home and how well treated your room is or isn't. As an example, I've seen Sting in a sports arena and in our Queen E theater, which has excellent acoustics, and the difference is not subtle with the latter easily approaching that of a good recording. No clipping there, and if I had to guess I don't think it got up over 90db except in extreme passages.
post #2812 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

You obviously have the memory of a goldfish.
LOL. Of all members, I thought you would be the last one to criticize someone about his memory. Remember this?: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1425262/are-audio-companies-all-involved-in-a-huge-conspiracy/1530#post_23038613
Quote:
Yes. Even with the variance of where you sit in a concert hall... your hifi system could fail miserably in coming any where near the tonal qualities I mentioned earlier.

Go to an orchestral concert and listen then come home and listen to similar music on your system.
There are so much flaws in your approach that I'm not sure where to begin. For starter, it would have to be the recording of the same performance to be played back. Aren't you aware of that already?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

But I thought Dave Wilson was some kind of nut-job that didn't know what he was talking about, according to you guys..???
You are imagining things.
post #2813 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post


All, of course, leaving aside the fact that, as I've said before ,IMO a mic an inch from a drum head never "hears" what a human hears (even the drummer is probably twenty times farther from the drum than the mic).

I don't know much about the recording process, but to play devils advocate, if the mics are calibrated similar to a measuring mic, and you have both near-field and far field mics recording then sum them somehow aren't you gonna get there?

All I know is I have some excellent recordings of live music on Blu Ray that rival, if not exceed, anything I've heard live. Pat Metheney's "The Way Up Live" comes to mind.
post #2814 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

How can you make alterations in one dimension that correct problems that exist in three dimensions?
Add mics?
post #2815 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Maybe you mean that a blind test between original sonic event and reproduction in real time is the test and criteria, bypassing any measurement middlemen. Fine, but as the two will be easily distinguished you again are faced with population preference trend and no objective measure of fidelity that necessarily applies to an individual.
You're doing great. You've designed a thought experiment which makes it apparent that fidelity of a reproduction to the original sonic event can be measured.

I don't understand the objections you immediately go on to raise. What is a "population preference trend"? What is the problem with applying a measure derived by testing a population to an individual? We do that all the time. I caught a case of cancer some years ago, and my oncologist told me that if I chose to do chemotherapy, I would increase my chance of surviving 5 years by 25%. How could he possibly know that about me, a unique individual? In the population of patients with my type of cancer, he was comparing the survival rates of those who did chemotherapy with those who didn't. Straightforward. (I did the chemotherapy and survived over 5 years.)
post #2816 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee 
You're doing great. You've designed a thought experiment which makes it apparent that fidelity of a reproduction to the original sonic event can be measured.

I didn't design anything... certainly didn't reinvent the wheel. You're entering a thought train that has been hashed and rehashed for decades.
Quote:
I don't understand the objections you immediately go on to raise.

Because I believe our current state of the art makes it impossible to create a reproduction that passes your abx for identicality. There are problems with capturing the source that we have only begun to tackle. I'm hardly going to expend huge resources and effort to show what I am certain are going to be null results. You are welcomed to show otherwise.

You can't point to a quantifiable measurable reference, and are left with a single subject's subjective impression.
Quote:
What is a "population preference trend"?

The data gathered from controlled subjective tests where the question is preference. The kind of data that says "most people prefer lateral reflections to absorbing them all..."
Quote:
What is the problem with applying a measure derived by testing a population to an individual?

Nothing if you are talking about probability. Perhaps you're trying to redefine fidelity as based on probabilities. If so, why?
Quote:
I caught a case of cancer some years ago, and my oncologist told me that if I chose to do chemotherapy, I would increase my chance of surviving 5 years by 25%. How could he possibly know that about me, a unique individual?

Probabilities. He didn't offer a specific prediction, did he.
post #2817 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Nothing if you are talking about probability. Perhaps you're trying to redefine fidelity as based on probabilities.
I have some bad news for you. It's a risky world we live in, but it's the only world we've got. There's no choice about dealing with probabilities.
post #2818 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

I would think most of those occassions, the synth has not been in use, rather those parts were playback.
Then the answer would have been just simply "no". rolleyes.gif

What do you think kiwi2's "real instrument" and my "acoustic instrument" meant?
Quote:
But in any case, I've yet to go to any concert venue with loudspeakers even remotely of the class I have at home and in general those places also play their amps into clipping. So a good reproduction of the CD sounds better.

Depeche Mode is a great experience to see live, but their live act do not rival the recordings music/quality-wise
Sounds like it's time for you to travel further out for better quality performances. frown.gif
post #2819 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee 
I have some bad news for you. It's a risky world we live in, but it's the only world we've got. There's no choice about dealing with probabilities.

What? Sure, plenty of things can only be measured or judged in terms of probabilities. Audio reproduction fidelity isn't one of them.

Unless we accept your insistence to redefine words, which I simply see no reason to do. The definition of fidelity works perfectly fine. There are plenty of other suitable less well defined terms which could be used for the reference and judgement you describe. Pick one.

Or unless you're going to invoke a quantum description for all of this. I highly doubt that was your intent.
post #2820 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

What do you think kiwi2's "real instrument" and my "acoustic instrument" meant?

Something that needs help to get into the electric domain.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy?