I have never heard reference quality audio before - Page 3 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 114Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 135 Old 04-13-2018, 11:37 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PrimeTime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lower California
Posts: 3,234
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 788 Post(s)
Liked: 487
Les Paul: Chasing Sound on AXSTV

Quote:
Originally Posted by unretarded View Post
How does everyone deal with this or has anyone ever heard how anything is supposed to sound beyond a live unamplified orchestra?

Now I would like to know what is the song even supposed to sound like to begin with......
Anyone interested in this subject should set their DVRs to this fascinating program, showing this Sunday 4/15 at 9:00 AM on AXSTV (DirecTV 340).

Without doubt the most significant person in the evolution of modern recorded sound (and the electric guitar), as well as a sensational musician (along with his wife, Mary Ford). He's the one responsible for obliterating the meaning of what something is "supposed to sound like to begin with."
PrimeTime is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 135 Old 04-13-2018, 09:09 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,753
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4672 Post(s)
Liked: 3470
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFEer View Post
They have different levels of transient response and distortion so yes. The degree of difference would depend on how loud they are played.
Most people would be surprised to discover that had they the right gear to run the test [a fast speaker shuffler] that their left speaker sounds different, using the right material, from their right speaker. This is because the frequency response varies slightly. 2dB for a good speaker and 1dB for a great speaker but over the right range and with the right material you can tell.

Clark [one of the ABX inventors] explains why attempts to EQ the problem away usually often fails here:

Last edited by m. zillch; 04-13-2018 at 10:30 PM.
m. zillch is offline  
post #63 of 135 Old 04-13-2018, 10:08 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,753
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4672 Post(s)
Liked: 3470
Quote:
Originally Posted by unretarded View Post
I know personal preference for audio sound signatures is really what it boils down to.
Not to me. What I seek isn't preference, it's high fidelity, i.e. faithful reproduction. The highest accuracy (I can afford) to the original master. A truthful, "perfect" clone that's (hopefully) so accurate I simply can't tell a difference between the original master sound [be it a studio master recording or a live trumpet, etc.] and my electronic reproduction of the same in my home. AKA "transparency".

Here's a classic TV commercial that explains the goal amazingly well in just 30 seconds:


True, we usually can't get Chuck Mangioni to come to our house so that we can do our own A/B comparisons like this [often called a "live vs. recorded test" in audio engineering circles] but that doesn't mean we should throw this basic goal out the window and instead randomly fiddle with our equalizers until it sounds pleasing to our ears. At least I don't.
4891ttt and unretarded like this.

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there IS no concept of "accounting for personal taste/preference". As art consumers we don't "pick" the level of bass, nor the tint/brightness of a scene's sky, any more than we pick the ending of a novel or Mona Lisa's type of smile. "High fidelity" means "high truthfulness", faithful to the original artist's intent: an unmodified, neutral, accurate copy of the original master, ideally being exact and with no discernable alterations, aka "transparency".

Last edited by m. zillch; 04-14-2018 at 12:30 PM.
m. zillch is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #64 of 135 Old 04-14-2018, 10:59 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PrimeTime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lower California
Posts: 3,234
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 788 Post(s)
Liked: 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post
Not to me. What I seek isn't preference, it's high fidelity, i.e. faithful reproduction. The highest accuracy (I can afford) to the original master.
Oh, I dunno. To each his own....

I'm trying to locate a cogent editorial cartoon I tore out of an old High Fidelity Magazine. It shows two hi-fi aficionados seated front row center at the concert hall. During the performance, one leans over to his friend and comments, "Not enough bass."

"Not enough bass" -- a view certainly shared by many who post in these Audio forums.
PrimeTime is offline  
post #65 of 135 Old 04-14-2018, 02:55 PM
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 282 Post(s)
Liked: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimeTime View Post
I'm trying to locate a cogent editorial cartoon I tore out of an old High Fidelity Magazine. It shows two hi-fi aficionados seated front row center at the concert hall. During the performance, one leans over to his friend and comments, "Not enough bass."

"Not enough bass" -- a view certainly shared by many who post in these Audio forums.
It's like critiquing an artwork, "Not enough red on that painting". It's up to the artist. If I was the artist and heard that critique, I'll say, "If you don't like it, lets see how you would paint."
m. zillch likes this.
psyberlogy is offline  
post #66 of 135 Old 04-14-2018, 03:04 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 6,534
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1203 Post(s)
Liked: 1391
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimeTime View Post

"Not enough bass" -- a view certainly shared by many who post in these Audio forums.
I suspect the context is typically home theater systems. Not that those won't be used for music as well, but the aim is mainly in regards to wringing out ever last bit of deep subsonic bass available for movies.
CruelInventions is online now  
post #67 of 135 Old 04-14-2018, 04:50 PM
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 282 Post(s)
Liked: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by CruelInventions View Post
I suspect the context is typically home theater systems. Not that those won't be used for music as well, but the aim is mainly in regards to wringing out ever last bit of deep subsonic bass available for movies.
Good point. What I've often seen as the culprit is so called the operator error. It's either improper subwoofer placement or lack of bass trap or in some cases both.
psyberlogy is offline  
post #68 of 135 Old 04-14-2018, 06:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ovation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: St. Hubert, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 3,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Liked: 156
The issue of preference vs fidelity raises an intriguing point about the purpose of art.

On the one hand, there is the idea that a work of art (of whatever type, but we'll stick to music here) is the expression of an artist's vision and should be taken as is--like it or lump it. The artist is not owed admiration nor is the audience owed satisfaction. That is the inherent risk of any interaction between the producer of art and the consumer of art. In that light, fidelity is the utmost goal to which we should aim, and every element in our audio playback system should seek to minimize (where eliminate is impossible) anything that makes the reproduction deviate from the original. As we know, the chase for such recreation can lead to a neverending cycle of upgrades and substitutions of gear, though it can be pleasant along the way (both for achieving fidelity to a high degree and for meeting the technical challenges to doing so).

On the other hand, there is the idea that once a work of art is produced and available on the market (let us stipulate the original version is safely stored for retrieval--unlike, say, a Renaissance painting that cannot be replicated), it becomes the property of the audience (via record, tape, CD, other optical disc, data file) and can be manipulated in any manner the new owner wishes. Some want zero processing, others want matrixed MCH playback via DSP, still others just want to tweak the tone controls a bit--and anything in between. Here, preference takes precedence over fidelity (though fidelity remains an option--it simply isn't assumed as the required goal). Again, the chase for gear is present, though for different ends.

We are fortunate, in audio, to have the capacity to indulge either pursuit (fidelity or preference), as we are provided with the same material with which to work (assume a theoretical perfect copy of the master--let's not get sidetracked by formats and loudness wars). Moreover, unless our gear lacks the features allowing for preference (tone controls, DSP, etc.), we can do it with the same gear. We are largely spared the unfortunate cases where films are released in a non-OAR version (though this is not nearly as much a problem as it once was), whereby we are left without choice, as the alteration is not made on a case by case basis by individuals, but imposed from without. I can listen to Haydn String Quartets by Kodaly Quartet without changing any tone settings or I can matrix it to 5.1, or I can EQ with a number of different presets, or I can manually EQ--I still have the original CD to go back to. If I subscribe to The Movie Network (in Canada, where I live) and tune in to watch a film originally projected in 2.35:1, I will almost certainly be presented with a 1.78:1 crop. This is, of course, done to placate people who "hate the black bars" who, simultaneously, are ignorant of their ability to crop the picture with their display at leisure.

So let us be happy we can pursue either fidelity or preference (and move easily between them) in audio without the limitations placed on many home video versions of films. It is good to have choices.
mthomas47, unretarded and AmerCa like this.
Ovation is offline  
post #69 of 135 Old 04-15-2018, 08:31 AM
AVS ***** Member
 
mthomas47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,139
Mentioned: 324 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5381 Post(s)
Liked: 10067
^^^

I like the above post about the purpose of art, but I would broaden the thesis. I believe that once art leaves the creator it becomes something else that is inherently somewhat different from what the artist originally conceived and created. For that matter, the conception and the creation of art are two entirely different things. Good and/or successful art is often described as "a happy accident", and some artists use that phrase to describe their own works.

Let's say an artist writes, performs, and produces a song, just to make things simple. He either had some specific concept or story in mind with the lyrics, or he was just stringing pleasing rhyming sounds together, as is sometimes the case. But, whatever his intent (or lack thereof) each person who hears that song will interpret the lyrics in his own way. And, as for the fidelity of the original recording, is it wrong to listen to the song on a car radio, or on a small stereo system in an untreated room? What about humming or whistling the song? How faithful are those things to the artist's original intent?

The same idea actually applies to all forms of art from cave paintings to old masters. Take a well-known painting by a famous artist. He may not have been famous (or affluent) at the time he painted it, and may in fact have used whatever medium was available including a previously used canvas, which he painted over, or an old wood panel. And, he may have framed it with whatever frame he could afford. Over time, that painting's varnish will have aged and discolored, and it will have been covered with soot from having been inside a coal or wood burning dwelling.

The painting will have been cleaned/restored several times over a period of several hundred years. Some of the most recent restorations may have been highly professional and will have attempted to not only duplicate brushstrokes, where there was damage, but also the use of the same pigments, mixed in the same way. But, some earlier ones won't have been nearly so painstaking, and each cleaning/restoration will have subtly changed what we see. And, as the painting was acquired by more wealthy owners, or as it attained fame, it may have been reframed in a more ornate gilt frame than the artist could ever have afforded.

And, what about the way the painting is displayed. Originally, it would have hung at a much lower height than would be the case today, because average eye levels would have been much lower when it was painted. And, paintings were typically hung wherever there was a nearby light source. Different people, of different heights, would have been perceiving the painting differently, at any point in time. And, there would have been no meaningful artificial light to illuminate the painting when it was first created.

So now, we have a painting that has been cleaned/restored several times, which may well be in a different frame, or one that has also been restored, hanging at a different height, in a completely different light, and subject to the different interpretation of everyone who looks at it. (And, if it's a truly famous painting in a museum, we may be seeing it behind plexiglass, and won't be able to approach the painting too closely, in any case.)

With all that, we believe that we are experiencing that painting in exactly the way the artist intended? Not likely! I believe that the same thing is true with respect to other art mediums as well. And, that includes films and recordings of music. The most that any artist can hope is that his art will be appreciated and remembered. But, no one else will ever hear it or see it in exactly the same way that he did. And, that was even when we stipulated that he controlled every aspect of the creation and production of the recording.

We all have preferences with respect to our appreciation of art. Preferences for the medium, the style, and the application, whether we are talking about music or any other art form. And, some of our preference may be for an almost obsessive determination to hear the music as a particular artist originally intended for it to be heard (before mixers or producers changed it, or before dozens or even hundreds of other artists reinterpreted it). But, even if we focus on a single recording of a piece of music, it is unlikely that we will ever completely succeed in that quest. And, those who are less driven, may be deriving just as much pleasure, or perhaps even more so, in their appreciation of that same art.

I apologize for the long post, but I have wanted to say something like this for a while. To me, art is an almost infinitely broad and fluid term, and preferences for art enjoyment can also be almost infinitely broad. I certainly respect the idea of having reasonably flat speakers in acoustically-appropriate spaces (although we will find our personal definitions of "appropriate" varying). But, I think that at some point, most of us just need to accept the fact that our own listening circumstances and preferences will play heavily into our ability to appreciate recordings, irrespective of original intent, or of hypothetical standards of reference.

Regards,
Mike
Ovation, AmerCa and markmanner like this.

GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES

* The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including:
Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass
Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement.

Last edited by mthomas47; 04-15-2018 at 08:59 AM.
mthomas47 is online now  
post #70 of 135 Old 04-15-2018, 10:04 AM
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 282 Post(s)
Liked: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ovation View Post
On the other hand, there is the idea that once a work of art is produced and available on the market (let us stipulate the original version is safely stored for retrieval--unlike, say, a Renaissance painting that cannot be replicated), it becomes the property of the audience (via record, tape, CD, other optical disc, data file) and can be manipulated in any manner the new owner wishes. Some want zero processing, others want matrixed MCH playback via DSP, still others just want to tweak the tone controls a bit--and anything in between. Here, preference takes precedence over fidelity (though fidelity remains an option--it simply isn't assumed as the required goal). Again, the chase for gear is present, though for different ends.
What you are saying is, audience are the artists of their own via copying and then manipulating the original? I don't believe that to be the norm. I can see listeners trying to fix the deficiencies of fidelity in their audio playback system but just to manipulate the sound output for the sake of their own desire is extreme or even uneducated in this field.
m. zillch likes this.
psyberlogy is offline  
post #71 of 135 Old 04-15-2018, 10:05 AM
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 282 Post(s)
Liked: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthomas47 View Post
So now, we have a painting that has been cleaned/restored several times, which may well be in a different frame, or one that has also been restored, hanging at a different height, in a completely different light, and subject to the different interpretation of everyone who looks at it. (And, if it's a truly famous painting in a museum, we may be seeing it behind plexiglass, and won't be able to approach the painting too closely, in any case.)

With all that, we believe that we are experiencing that painting in exactly the way the artist intended? Not likely! I believe that the same thing is true with respect to other art mediums as well. And, that includes films and recordings of music. The most that any artist can hope is that his art will be appreciated and remembered. But, no one else will ever hear it or see it in exactly the same way that he did. And, that was even when we stipulated that he controlled every aspect of the creation and production of the recording.
Fortunately for music, there are music notes. We can recreate Mozart's sonata today the way it was written.
m. zillch likes this.
psyberlogy is offline  
post #72 of 135 Old 04-15-2018, 11:02 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PrimeTime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lower California
Posts: 3,234
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 788 Post(s)
Liked: 487
"We" can? Recreate a Mozart sonata, that is?

Maybe Trifinov, Goode and Ax can. Each will be played differently, on different instruments, recorded and reproduced differently.

You cannot step into the same river twice.
unretarded likes this.
PrimeTime is offline  
post #73 of 135 Old 04-15-2018, 11:16 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,753
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4672 Post(s)
Liked: 3470
Quote:
Originally Posted by psyberlogy View Post
It's like critiquing an artwork, "Not enough red on that painting". It's up to the artist. If I was the artist and heard that critique, I'll say, "If you don't like it, lets see how you would paint."
Quote:
Originally Posted by psyberlogy View Post
What you are saying is, audience are the artists of their own via copying and then manipulating the original? I don't believe that to be the norm. I can see listeners trying to fix the deficiencies of fidelity in their audio playback system but just to manipulate the sound output for the sake of their own desire is extreme or even uneducated in this field.
You get it!

I go by the motto: "You don't mess with an artist's work". Just because in this modern age we can manipulate sounds and images doesn't mean we should when reproducing art. I'd rather respect the original artist's intent as best I can and reproduce it in my home with the highest fidelity possible.

As an analogous example, here I've added more red (because I think Mona looks better with a tan and more color to her cheeks) plus I "prefer" her with a bigger smile, a gold ring, and on a sunny day. [The left image is the original sourced from wikipedia]:



Is this an OK thing to do? NO, not in my book. This is messing with an artist's work and a big no-no in my opinion. [My apologies to Leonardo da Vinci but I think he would understand I did it only to illustrate that I consider it wrong.] So now I have an image to illustrate my forum signature. [see below]
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	MONA LISA NOT ENHANCED.jpg
Views:	100
Size:	256.9 KB
ID:	2391206   Click image for larger version

Name:	MONA LISA ENHANCED 2.jpg
Views:	102
Size:	289.9 KB
ID:	2391208  

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there IS no concept of "accounting for personal taste/preference". As art consumers we don't "pick" the level of bass, nor the tint/brightness of a scene's sky, any more than we pick the ending of a novel or Mona Lisa's type of smile. "High fidelity" means "high truthfulness", faithful to the original artist's intent: an unmodified, neutral, accurate copy of the original master, ideally being exact and with no discernable alterations, aka "transparency".

Last edited by m. zillch; 04-15-2018 at 12:40 PM.
m. zillch is offline  
post #74 of 135 Old 04-15-2018, 11:43 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PrimeTime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lower California
Posts: 3,234
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 788 Post(s)
Liked: 487
^ Yes, it does look like your Lisa could benefit from some Photoshopping.

I suppose that you could theoretically "borrow" Lisa from the Louvre and hang her in your living room. And then, restoration aside, you would get pretty close to the original Mona Lisa Experience.

A Mozart Sonata is different. All we have to go by are some dots on a page, which is merely a schematic outline of how it might be temporally performed. It won't sound the same as Wolfgang's fortepiano version did to him. But the important point is: Don't kid yourself -- your "hifi" reproduction system isn't going to be mistaken for a piano by an attentive listener in the same room. Not. Even. Close.
mthomas47 likes this.
PrimeTime is offline  
post #75 of 135 Old 04-15-2018, 12:05 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,753
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4672 Post(s)
Liked: 3470
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimeTime View Post
^ Yes, it does look like your Lisa could benefit from some Photoshopping..
Are you being sarcastic? Because if that's what you got out of my post you clearly did not understand my point, at all.
m. zillch is offline  
post #76 of 135 Old 04-15-2018, 12:06 PM
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 282 Post(s)
Liked: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimeTime View Post
"We" can? Recreate a Mozart sonata, that is?

Maybe Trifinov, Goode and Ax can. Each will be played differently, on different instruments, recorded and reproduced differently.

You cannot step into the same river twice.
Sure we (today's performers) can, the way it was written.
psyberlogy is offline  
post #77 of 135 Old 04-15-2018, 12:08 PM
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 282 Post(s)
Liked: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimeTime View Post
^ Yes, it does look like your Lisa could benefit from some Photoshopping.

I suppose that you could theoretically "borrow" Lisa from the Louvre and hang her in your living room. And then, restoration aside, you would get pretty close to the original Mona Lisa Experience.

A Mozart Sonata is different. All we have to go by are some dots on a page, which is merely a schematic outline of how it might be temporally performed. It won't sound the same as Wolfgang's fortepiano version did to him. But the important point is: Don't kid yourself -- your "hifi" reproduction system isn't going to be mistaken for a piano by an attentive listener in the same room. Not. Even. Close.
Haven't you read about live vs replayed sound comparisons?
psyberlogy is offline  
post #78 of 135 Old 04-15-2018, 12:08 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,753
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4672 Post(s)
Liked: 3470
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimeTime View Post
Don't kid yourself -- your "hifi" reproduction system isn't going to be mistaken for a piano by an attentive listener in the same room. Not. Even. Close.
So instead of coming as close as we possibly can (re. realism/accuracy), within our budget constraints, we should instead throw in the towel and alter the sound to taste? That's really what you think?

Last edited by m. zillch; 04-15-2018 at 12:19 PM.
m. zillch is offline  
post #79 of 135 Old 04-15-2018, 12:37 PM
AVS ***** Member
 
mthomas47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,139
Mentioned: 324 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5381 Post(s)
Liked: 10067
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimeTime View Post
^ Yes, it does look like your Lisa could benefit from some Photoshopping.

I suppose that you could theoretically "borrow" Lisa from the Louvre and hang her in your living room. And then, restoration aside, you would get pretty close to the original Mona Lisa Experience.

A Mozart Sonata is different. All we have to go by are some dots on a page, which is merely a schematic outline of how it might be temporally performed. It won't sound the same as Wolfgang's fortepiano version did to him. But the important point is: Don't kid yourself -- your "hifi" reproduction system isn't going to be mistaken for a piano by an attentive listener in the same room. Not. Even. Close.
Good point! Unfortunately, though, the "Mona Lisa" will never look exactly the same to us now, any more than the music that Mozart composed will sound exactly the same as the way it did to Mozart. Pigments darken over time, and so do the varnishes used to bind and protect the oils used. Each successive restoration represents a best guess as to what a painting was originally supposed to look like. But, modern restoration is an extremely conservative process (the use of the word conservator is deliberate) so no one wants to dramatically change the current coloration of a very old oil painting.

It is very unlikely that da Vinci painted that portrait in as darkly muted colors as they appear today. And, displaying it under modern electric lighting (of any sort) would inevitably give it a different look from the way it would have been seen in an interior space by torchlight, and by candlelight, in da Vinci's time. Just as the Mozart sonata would inevitably sound different than it would have when played by Mozart, on his fortepiano, in his music room.

None of this is to say that we shouldn't wish to be reasonably faithful to as much of an artist's original format, intentions, or actual production as we wish to be. It is just to say that real fidelity may be more of a chimera than we care to admit. I wouldn't ever wish to change the natural coloration of a painting, or to add anything to it, but I might (and have) put some older paintings in more flattering and expensive frames. And, I will hang them as I wish, with the best modern lighting that I can without worrying about how they would look by candlelight.

Similarly, I would certainly listen to a Beethoven symphony without worrying about whether I were listening at the same volume as the composer intended when he was conducting his own orchestra, particularly as his deafness worsened. Again, I think that there are a lot of ways to respect and to appreciate art. Not just one way.

Regards,
Mike
AmerCa likes this.

GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES

* The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including:
Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass
Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement.

Last edited by mthomas47; 04-15-2018 at 12:43 PM.
mthomas47 is online now  
post #80 of 135 Old 04-15-2018, 01:07 PM
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 282 Post(s)
Liked: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthomas47 View Post
Just as the Mozart sonata would inevitably sound different than it would have when played by Mozart, on his fortepiano, in his music room.
You think?
About Concerts at the Mozarthaus:
Quote:
The „Concerts in Mozart’s House“ take place in the house of Mozarts first apartment in Vienna, now the monastery of the “German Teotonic Order”. Mozart lived and worked here for Archbishop Colloredo in the year 1781. The "Sala Terrena" with its beautiful frescos is the oldest concert hall in Vienna, where Mozart himself performed many concerts. The “Mozart Ensemble” will enchant you with a musical program that includes well-known compositions as well as great works of famous composers like Mozart, Haydn, Schubert, Beethoven, Bach etc. By performing in Austria and abroad, the “Mozart Ensemble” has established itself in the Viennese concert culture and has become an “insider tip” for visitors from all over the world.
https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attracti...us-Vienna.html
What about the concerts he conducted in Vienna halls and outdoors?
psyberlogy is offline  
post #81 of 135 Old 04-15-2018, 01:25 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
unretarded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Ventura Ca
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1687 Post(s)
Liked: 2072
While I both agree and disagree.........I mostly agree......



Something hard to readily access is master recordings........youtube...google music and all the MP3 based options make it incredibly easy to get compressed and altered music so far away from any meaningful quality it does require manipulation just to listenable.


I can play 30 different youtube clips of the same song and it will run from unlistenable to not bad, which will sound way different than my album version and way different from the master tapes/recordings.


I think a lot of people now upgrade speakers due to poor quality material, rather than a poor quality speaker. Some speakers are much better at masking the poor content that is readily available now.


While I would not advocate manipulating a studio recording being played back on calibrated system, I do advocate manipulating the poor sound that is found all over the net or on some of the bad CD copies made from terrible recordings or that were remastered before being put on the CD by other than the creators.


I guess it depends on a persons definition of manipulating..........manipulating the sound to fit the room to get a flat frequency response is not the same as fundamentally changing the master recording as is manipulating the sound of a MP3 or any other low quality content that is every where now.

Some purists even argue sound recorded digitally has been manipulated from the start and they want analog recordings in a pure analog playback chain.


I guess I can be the odd one out and appreciate the creators content for what it is in a dedicated listening session designed to soak in as pure as possible ART appreciation session, but I am also happy to add bass or treble in a jam session more in the spirit or enjoyment/entertainment, rather than critical listening in the company of friends and good drink.


I do calibrate with REW and DSP/EQ to get a flat response so I always have a baseline to return to or a setting for critical listening of the artists works, but I have no problem adding bass or treble when rockin out or compensating for poor recordings/media........


I guess that is what my question boils down to, where does one get a perfect recording to even have reference for exactly what it is supposed to sound like ?


There are a few sources for master track quality audio, not just high bitrate recordings, but who knows what environment the artists created that content and how well that system was calibrated they mastered on.......you would think it would be in a perfect environment, but the more I learn, I see that is not always the case.

Which leaves us with flat as possible and the best quality media as possible, which may or may not be even close to the artists intent. But even with the best media and best playback equipment there is no way to know how close or far we are from that artists intent, even fidelity even crossed their minds beyond not wanting it sound distorted and horrible, they might have been more focused on how it makes the audience feel, rather than the fidelity of the sound.



That's why I enjoy interviews with musicians to get some insight into this.......and in some interviews you can hear them admit to not really caring about the musical integrity, rather how it makes you feel. So perhaps we are putting way more into it than even the artist did and some of them might even be saddened to see such a heavy slant towards the reproduction of the sound, rather than the intended effect of the music by the artist.


So who is to say a perfect reproduction is even what was intended, it might have been mastered to play back on cheap speakers that most people own or in the big era of radio to sound good in car.

I was doing some work at Westerly ranch here locally and at the time was not as in to audio as I am now, I would have loved to talk with them or have a listen and talk to some of the artists there at the time to get their perspectives on this. Röyksopp was staying there, recording at the time and I got to meet/talk to them, this would have been a perfect topic for conversation..Stone Temple Pilots have recorded there, so I am sure some questions could have been answered and I could of heard real reference sound.
m. zillch and mthomas47 like this.

Link to Stereo Integrity SI HT 18 sub build......https://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-di...-pedestal.html
Speakers and subs for sale...https://www.avsforum.com/forum/209-au...kers-subs.html
unretarded is offline  
post #82 of 135 Old 04-15-2018, 01:30 PM
AVS ***** Member
 
mthomas47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,139
Mentioned: 324 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5381 Post(s)
Liked: 10067
Quote:
Originally Posted by psyberlogy View Post
You think?
About Concerts at the Mozarthaus:
https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attracti...us-Vienna.html
What about the concerts he conducted in Vienna halls and outdoors?
I understand, and that's a very valid example. Now, all they need to do is to find someone who plays exactly the way that Mozart did, if we could know what that was, and then we could hear what he heard, if our hearing were exactly the same as his was. I'm not sure why you are cherry picking sentences from my lengthy posts, as I am not really attempting to debate anyone. The original premise of this thread was whether we could ever expect to be completely faithful to "Reference" sound in our individual listening rooms, even if we could define what it was. Others, and I, have pointed out some of the difficulties with respect to all art forms, including music.

Leaving aside who plays the pianoforte in Mozart's music room, or whether your hearing is the same as Mozart's was, do you think that a recording of one of his sonatas played in your audio room, on your equipment, will sound the same as it does in the music room, listening in person? Will you choose to listen at the same volume as the musicians play in the live session (if you even knew what that volume was), and will your speakers accurately translate the same nuances of sound as you would hear in person, even before your room influences that sound?

That is really what the discussion has always been about. It's about the sheer difficulty of art ever being something completely static, as opposed to something that inevitably changes somewhat with different settings, and with individual perceptions.

Regards,
Mike

GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES

* The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including:
Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass
Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement.
mthomas47 is online now  
post #83 of 135 Old 04-15-2018, 01:38 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,697
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 785 Post(s)
Liked: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthomas47 View Post
..., and so do the varnishes used to bind and protect the oils used....

Regards,
Mike
Let's not get carried away with violins of the past and present.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/no.../#.WtO3BYjwZhE

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/...modern-fiddles
CharlesJ is offline  
post #84 of 135 Old 04-15-2018, 01:55 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,753
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4672 Post(s)
Liked: 3470
Quote:
Originally Posted by unretarded View Post
I guess that is what my question boils down to, where does one get a perfect recording to even have reference for exactly what it is supposed to sound like ?
There is no longer one creative "artist" making decisions these days which alters the sound, even for a solo trumpet recording:

The way the trumpeter performs will alter the recording. [S/he may even play notably different on different takes or different sessions)
The trumpet s/he selects will alter the recording.
The microphone(s) the recording engineer selects for the task will alter the recording.
The distance and positioning of the mic(s) will alter the recording.
The studio or recording booth acoustics will alter the recording.
The balancing of one track/mic to another and mixing will alter the recording.
Any possible processing [EQ, compression, reverb, etc.] will alter the recording.

But in the end it all comers down to a final decision and from the long creative process a final 2ch recording is made we will call the "master" [Let's not worry for now about how an album has sometimes different masters, made at different dates and times, using different consoles and monitor speakers, by different engineers' ears/tastes, and for different mediums.]

This master is what I want to get my hands on to then reproduce through my speakers (albeit imperfectly no matter how much I spend) and my room (also imperfect). CD (uncompressed 44.1kHz/16-bit PCM) does an amazingly if not audibly perfect replication of this master. We know this because studies such as Meyer and Moran's use of a CD recorder found that listeners were not able to tell "Is it live, or is it Memorex" in double-blind ABX tests, however their "live source" was actually various Hi-res recordings on SACD and DVD-Audio disc.

That's why CD was such a revolutionary step in audio. We achieved the first, consumer priced, transparent medium. It is like getting a perfect copy of the Mona Lisa to your home. All you have to worry about is lighting [speakers and your room acoustics].
unretarded and drh3b like this.

Last edited by m. zillch; 04-15-2018 at 02:34 PM.
m. zillch is offline  
post #85 of 135 Old 04-15-2018, 01:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 6,534
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1203 Post(s)
Liked: 1391
Quote:
Originally Posted by unretarded View Post

{SNIP}
That's why I enjoy interviews with musicians to get some insight into this.......and in some interviews you can hear them admit to not really caring about the musical integrity, rather how it makes you feel. So perhaps we are putting way more into it than even the artist did and some of them might even be saddened to see such a heavy slant towards the reproduction of the sound, rather than the intended effect of the music by the artist.


So who is to say a perfect reproduction is even what was intended, it might have been mastered to play back on cheap speakers that most people own or in the big era of radio to sound good in car.

{SNIP}
Yes, that's what many artists care about, and the rest is mostly just window dressing to them (i.e., what equipment is being used to listen).

For many, any kind of listening device or system is going to communicate 95% of their music effectively enough. Whether it be listening on a lowly boombox or high end system, the melodies, the rhythms, the lyrical content, or tone/mood or whatever combination the artist most wants to convey will all still be there, sufficiently communicated.
CruelInventions is online now  
post #86 of 135 Old 04-15-2018, 02:23 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,753
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4672 Post(s)
Liked: 3470
Quote:
Originally Posted by unretarded View Post
While I would not advocate manipulating a studio recording being played back on calibrated system, I do advocate manipulating the poor sound that is found all over the net or on some of the bad CD copies made from terrible recordings or that were remastered before being put on the CD by other than the creators.
Yes, good points.

There are many reasons to EQ and manipulate:

Correct deficiencies in the original recording mic(s), room, medium [unlike CD, LPs suck], etc. Then there's incompetent engineers, hearing impaired engineers, engineers using monitors and rooms with colored sound, etc.

I also have been known to show off how my sub can be cranked to make my kitchen dishware rattle, just to show off. I also like killing my sub frequencies entirely when I listen late at night so as to not wake up my neighbors.
mthomas47 and unretarded like this.
m. zillch is offline  
post #87 of 135 Old 04-15-2018, 02:44 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ovation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: St. Hubert, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 3,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Liked: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by psyberlogy View Post
What you are saying is, audience are the artists of their own via copying and then manipulating the original? I don't believe that to be the norm. I can see listeners trying to fix the deficiencies of fidelity in their audio playback system but just to manipulate the sound output for the sake of their own desire is extreme or even uneducated in this field.

Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post
You get it!

I go by the motto: "You don't mess with an artist's work". Just because in this modern age we can manipulate sounds and images doesn't mean we should when reproducing art. I'd rather respect the original artist's intent as best I can and reproduce it in my home with the highest fidelity possible.
I am NOT suggesting "messing with an artist's work" in any absolute sense. It's not like I'm suggesting all black and white masters and copies of It's A Wonderful Life be destroyed so we only have the colourized version. But, if someone wants to watch the colourized version, and it is available without damaging the original, then fine. I would never do it, but if it makes the viewer happy...

It's the same with music. Most of the time, I try to pursue fidelity as best as I can with my gear (always cognizant of the impossibility of 100% fidelity). However, for a house party, I might crank up the bass setting, or otherwise alter the signal--as is entirely my RIGHT--I paid for the copy of the recording AND I am not altering the original master in any way. My point was that we have the ability to do one, the other, or both--and there's nothing inherently wrong with being able to do so.

This, of course, leaves aside all the excellent points about just how difficult it is to ever attain fidelity, as well as how much farther away we are from fidelity than many usually suppose. Essentially--playing around with EQ and other tone controls to adjust the sound of one's personal collection of music to preference is not evil, nor immoral. It is simply a choice.
m. zillch, mthomas47 and AmerCa like this.
Ovation is offline  
post #88 of 135 Old 04-15-2018, 02:50 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
torii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,703
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3325 Post(s)
Liked: 1878
stick a live band in the anechoic chamber and measure...then grab a speaker and measure in same chamber of the band..are they close?
m. zillch likes this.

Power: Marantz sr7008, NAD C 275Bee x 2, Video: Oppo 103, Samsung 75un6300
Speakers: Focal aria 948, Focal cc900, Klipsch synergy KSF 10.5, Magnepan LRS
Subs: Rythmik FV25HP, Rythmik FV15HP
torii is online now  
post #89 of 135 Old 04-15-2018, 03:35 PM
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 282 Post(s)
Liked: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthomas47 View Post
The original premise of this thread was whether we could ever expect to be completely faithful to "Reference" sound in our individual listening rooms, even if we could define what it was. Others, and I, have pointed out some of the difficulties with respect to all art forms, including music.
So what's your solution? Don't get into it because it's so difficult?
psyberlogy is offline  
post #90 of 135 Old 04-15-2018, 03:45 PM
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 282 Post(s)
Liked: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ovation View Post
I am NOT suggesting "messing with an artist's work" in any absolute sense. It's not like I'm suggesting all black and white masters and copies of It's A Wonderful Life be destroyed so we only have the colourized version. But, if someone wants to watch the colourized version, and it is available without damaging the original, then fine. I would never do it, but if it makes the viewer happy...
In such case, it would be called It's A Wonderful Life, colored version. In m. zillch's Mona Lisa case, it would be called something like Zillch's Mona Lisa.

Just out of curiosity, what's your view on those copycats in the music and art industry?
Quote:
This, of course, leaves aside all the excellent points about just how difficult it is to ever attain fidelity, as well as how much farther away we are from fidelity than many usually suppose. Essentially--playing around with EQ and other tone controls to adjust the sound of one's personal collection of music to preference is not evil, nor immoral. It is simply a choice.
Such difficulty would be subjected to individuals. For example, the recording / mastering engineer would have easier time obtaining it in his audio system since he has access to various sources.
psyberlogy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Audio Theory, Setup, and Chat

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off