View Full Version : What's more important to you: PRaT or Tonal qualities?
magiccarpetride
13-05-2010, 19:42
There are three kinds of people in this world: those who are musically well rounded (in the sense that they are capable of experiencing music in its fullness), those who are near or fully tone deaf (or, "pitch deaf"), and those who are near or fully rhythmically challenged.
Let's assume for a moment (and for the sake of keeping this conversation humming) that all of us here are fully capable of experiencing music (the assumption is that we're not tone or pitch deaf, nor are we rhythmically challenged; we can carry a tune, we can tap our feet correctly while listening to music, etc.; I know, I know, bold and largely unfounded assumption, but please humor me).
In that case, the question becomes: when choosing/building your audio chain, which aspect is more important to you -- tonal accuracy (absence of coloration, fine grained presentation of the timbre and texture of the reproduced sound, pitch-perfect reproduction of the recorded instruments, and so on) or accurate PRaT (pace, rhythm and timing/accurate tempo)?
Tonal accuracy.
Even if I've been in UK forums for long, I'm afraid I still don't understand what PRaT is... :scratch:
This could easily become quite a can of worms....
What about soundstage and imaging too?
Re PRaT we may want to consider PRaT that exists in music when played live vs some hi-fi kit that manufactures elements of PRaT into music artificially and continually.
Stratmangler
13-05-2010, 20:02
I am firmly of the belief that it is down to the recording to exhibit PRaT, not the equipment.
If the music on the recording is in itself highly rhythmic then the equipment should be able to to replay that.
If the equipment accentuates the rhythmical aspects of the recording then the equipment is tonally incorrect, as such an effect can be engineered into a piece of equipment by tonal manipulation - a built in EQ if you like.
As Clive has said, there's potential here for opening a real big can of worms.
magiccarpetride
13-05-2010, 20:03
Tonal accuracy.
Even if I've been in UK forums for long, I'm afraid I still don't understand what PRaT is... :scratch:
If you listen to lousy hi fi systems, in situations when you know that a drummer hit the cymbals and the kick drum at the exact same moment, you tend to hear cymbals first. This is mostly due to the inability of lousy speakers to reproduce lower frequencies as fast as they can deliver higher frequencies. Thus, such systems exhibit lack of any ability to offer decent PRaT.
This lack of ability to conjure up an accurate PRaT can truly ruin the music enjoyment.
If you ever listen to Magneplanar speakers and then go back and listen to your average ho-hum cabinet speakers, you'll immediately understand what is meant by PRaT.
magiccarpetride
13-05-2010, 20:11
I am firmly of the belief that it is down to the recording to exhibit PRaT, not the equipment.
If the music on the recording is in itself highly rhythmic then the equipment should be able to to replay that.
If the equipment accentuates the rhythmical aspects of the recording then the equipment is tonally incorrect, as such an effect can be engineered into a piece of equipment by tonal manipulation - a built in EQ if you like.
As Clive has said, there's potential here for opening a real big can of worms.
Not sure I understand your point here, Strat. Any recorded music, whether it be unadulterated or heavily doctored, consists of a variety of frequencies that occur simultaneously, while the music is playing. As the sound equipment is working on reproducing these various frequencies that occur simultaneously, based on how neutral the equipment is, it may or may not encounter difficulties with regards to the speed of delivery of certain frequencies. Such as, for example, if the equipment is built so that it can cope with higher frequencies quite well, but tends to be a bit sluggish with the lower frequencies, or any combination thereof, the end result will be such that the delivered music will not gel. You'll get to hear things slightly out-of-phase, there will be stragglers, some notes will be sluggish and lag behind.
In such cases, we say that PRaT is unsatisfactory. The equipment failed to reproduce faithfully the signal that got captured and doctored in the final mixdown and master.
The system is only as good as its weakest link.
aquapiranha
13-05-2010, 20:12
Prat is to me just marketing BS. Linn (and naim to an extent) used to alsways bang on about the 'foot tapping' ability of a product. Well, I would say that any quality product has that ability, and I just don't see how you can 'build in' such qualities. Either a product sounds good to you or it doesn't - let your ears decide!
magiccarpetride
13-05-2010, 20:15
Prat is to me just marketing BS. Linn (and naim to an extent) used to alsways bang on about the 'foot tapping' ability of a product. Well, I would say that any quality product has that ability, and I just don't see how you can 'build in' such qualities. Either a product sounds good to you or it doesn't - let your ears decide!
I totally agree. However, I was merely presenting a hypothetical example: say if you had to choose between the two (for some reason unexplained here, you just can't have both at the same time). Would you go for the tonal accuracy, or for the PRaT accuracy?
Discuss...
Prat is to me just marketing BS. Linn (and naim to an extent) used to alsways bang on about the 'foot tapping' ability of a product. Well, I would say that any quality product has that ability, and I just don't see how you can 'build in' such qualities. Either a product sounds good to you or it doesn't - let your ears decide!
One way to build in fake PRaT is to ensure the leading edges of notes are over-emphasized.
I'll always remember a Naim dem at a show, the audience were moving in synch, it was like watch the crowd at Wimbledon during a long rally. I suppose they were happy with their shared experience. I wanted to vomit.
aquapiranha
13-05-2010, 20:18
I totally agree. However, I was merely presenting a hypothetical example: say if you had to choose between the two (for some reason unexplained here, you just can't have both at the same time). Would you go for the tonal accuracy, or for the PRaT accuracy?
Discuss...
Fair point. However I don't believe I could do without one or the other! :lol:
when I listen to music I tend to just be transported away, and the 'better' the sound the furthr I travel! I know what you are asking though and if I really had to choose one or the other I think I would go with tonal accuracy as a lot of the music I listen is gentle acoustic type stuff.
magiccarpetride
13-05-2010, 20:20
This could easily become quite a can of worms....
What about soundstage and imaging too?
Re PRaT we may want to consider PRaT that exists in music when played live vs some hi-fi kit that manufactures elements of PRaT into music artificially and continually.
I'd leave soundstage and imaging for another thread, if you don't mind...
If the equipment is interjecting fabricated and artificial signal/information into the original source signal, that is right down criminal. We're not talking music Photoshop here. I went to MoMA and took some snapshots of Picasso's work, but I didn't feel like loading them into Photoshop and enhancing the colors on these masterpieces.
aquapiranha
13-05-2010, 20:21
One way to build in fake PRaT is to ensure the leading edges of notes are over-emphasized.
I'll always remember a Naim dem at a show, the audience were moving in synch, it was like watch the crowd at Wimbledon during a long rally. I suppose they were happy with their shared experience. I wanted to vomit.
Clive, I have spoken to guys from Linn many years ago nearer the tail end of all the tune dem hype, single speaker dem rooms etc. and I know what you eman about the naim people swaying away... what I was trying to say is that a well designed and built piece of hifi will not exaggerate one facet of music oevr another, and to do so gives a false view of what the artist was trying to portray (notwithstanding the ability of a poor engineer to ruin the mix too)
Stratmangler
13-05-2010, 20:25
The point I was trying to make Alex, is that the equipment should accurately replay the recording.
The idea of buying for tonal accuracy or for rhythmical accuracy is a curious one.
If equipment can't do both then it's broken.
If you listen to lousy hi fi systems, in situations when you know that a drummer hit the cymbals and the kick drum at the exact same moment, you tend to hear cymbals first. This is mostly due to the inability of lousy speakers to reproduce lower frequencies as fast as they can deliver higher frequencies. Thus, such systems exhibit lack of any ability to offer decent PRaT.
This lack of ability to conjure up an accurate PRaT can truly ruin the music enjoyment.
If you ever listen to Magneplanar speakers and then go back and listen to your average ho-hum cabinet speakers, you'll immediately understand what is meant by PRaT.
All speakers have higher inertia when trying to move large amounts of air (bass) rather than small (tweeters). Is that what you mean ?
And how could an amplifier/source be "slower" on one frequency rather than another ? :scratch:
Clive, I have spoken to guys from Linn many years ago nearer the tail end of all the tune dem hype, single speaker dem rooms etc. and I know what you eman about the naim people swaying away... what I was trying to say is that a well designed and built piece of hifi will not exaggerate one facet of music oevr another, and to do so gives a false view of what the artist was trying to portray (notwithstanding the ability of a poor engineer to ruin the mix too)
Absolutely agree
Steve Toy
13-05-2010, 20:45
Some systems capture the rhythmic acuity on a piece of recorded music better than others without recourse to manipulation (i.e: accentuating leading edges), so don't kid yourselves.
The same applies to capturing accurate pitch and variation of pitch which is in itself an aspect of rhythm.
Steve Toy
13-05-2010, 20:46
And how could an amplifier/source be "slower" on one frequency rather than another ?
Time alignment glitches between frequencies can occur at any point in the signal path from source through cables, amps and speakers.
Stratmangler
13-05-2010, 20:59
Some systems capture the rhythmic acuity on a piece of recorded music better than others without recourse to manipulation (i.e: accentuating leading edges), so don't kid yourselves.
The same applies to capturing accurate pitch and variation of pitch which is in itself an aspect of rhythm.
Er, no, it isn't !
Pitch is an aspect of pitch.
I am firmly of the belief that it is down to the recording to exhibit PRaT, not the equipment.
If the music on the recording is in itself highly rhythmic then the equipment should be able to to replay that.
I would agree with you on that Chris, for me its the recordings that make a system sound good and not always the kit, you can build on that recording with your kit, but PRat can be had for little money as well as big bucks, the more money you chuck at some recordings the worse they get
magiccarpetride
13-05-2010, 21:18
The point I was trying to make Alex, is that the equipment should accurately replay the recording.
The idea of buying for tonal accuracy or for rhythmical accuracy is a curious one.
If equipment can't do both then it's broken.
In that case, most of us own broken equipment:( (and I hasten to add, I count the listening room as equipment as well!)
Most equipment known to man is a result of some sort of a compromise. Cut one corner here, another little corner over there, and, based on your budget/expertise/luck/etc., you arrive at a home stereo system that you are trying to enjoy.
Few of us have all the planets and stars perfectly aligned on our life path so that we could afford equipment that is not compromised in one sense or another. And, if we were to follow your line of thinking, that means that most of us mere mortals are forced to embrace the constraints and live with more or less broken equipment.
That being the case, my question remains: if you must cut corners somewhere (and guess what -- you must), where would you cut? If it's a tradeoff, what would you trade?
In that case, most of us own broken equipment:( (and I hasten to add, I count the listening room as equipment as well!)
Not me !!! :eyebrows:
Some systems capture the rhythmic acuity on a piece of recorded music better than others without recourse to manipulation (i.e: accentuating leading edges), so don't kid yourselves.
The same applies to capturing accurate pitch and variation of pitch which is in itself an aspect of rhythm.
Who's kidding themselves? There are artificial examples and true/faithful (high fidelity) aspects too, I don't think anyone's claimed that rhythm doesn't exist.
I want my cake with icing and cheries
magiccarpetride
13-05-2010, 21:27
All speakers have higher inertia when trying to move large amounts of air (bass) rather than small (tweeters). Is that what you mean ?
No Dimitri, this is what I mean: if you can, take a recording you're familiar with. Listen to it on a really good, high end system. Then listen to it on a sub standard system. Pay attention to how on a sub standard system, the music somehow fails to gel. If you scrutinize it a bit closer, you'll no doubt notice that one of the reasons the sound doesn't gel is due to the fact that not all frequencies are perfectly synchronized. While each frequency band in itself may be reproduced fairly faithfully, with little or no distortion and coloration, overall, when all these frequencies are observed as a musical gestalt, some (or almost all of them) appear to be slightly out of synch.
Not many people necessarily detect that; they just experience that something is 'fake' in the reproduced music, but they can't put their finger on it.
The operative word here is 'slightly'. However, don't get fooled by it. Even very slight aberrations sometimes get easily detected by the brain, and then get amplified and magnified to the point where the brain screams "take that shit off!"
magiccarpetride
13-05-2010, 21:28
Not me !!! :eyebrows:
That goes without saying, Dimitri. You're not 'most of us'.
magiccarpetride
13-05-2010, 21:29
I want my cake with icing and cheries
Do you want to eat it too?
well at least have a slice of it
I do have a caring side after all
No Dimitri, this is what I mean: if you can, take a recording you're familiar with. Listen to it on a really good, high end system. Then listen to it on a sub standard system. Pay attention to how on a sub standard system, the music somehow fails to gel. If you scrutinize it a bit closer, you'll no doubt notice that one of the reasons the sound doesn't gel is due to the fact that not all frequencies are perfectly synchronized. While each frequency band in itself may be reproduced fairly faithfully, with little or no distortion and coloration, overall, when all these frequencies are observed as a musical gestalt, some (or almost all of them) appear to be slightly out of synch.
Not many people necessarily detect that; they just experience that something is 'fake' in the reproduced music, but they can't put their finger on it.
The operative word here is 'slightly'. However, don't get fooled by it. Even a very slight aberrations sometimes get easily detected by the brain, and then get amplified and magnified to the point where the brain screams "take this shit off!"
Hmmm... I will think of it. And I promise to discuss this thoroughly with Steve, as I'm certain he masters the concept.
In the meantime, I can say that I was rarely frustrated with most of the analogue gear. I was frustrated with most of things (digital) between 1980-95, but I've always thought it came from poor mastering and improper technical implementation. Not the price or whatever.
I never experienced poor "synchronization" (using mainly tapes) even on my first Sankyo cheap recorder.
I'm sure you're doing your best to explain, and I apologize, but it seems I can't grasp the main argumentation. I will keep trying. :)
magiccarpetride
13-05-2010, 21:45
Hmmm... I will think of it. And I promise to discuss this thoroughly with Steve, as I'm certain he masters the concept.
In the meantime, I can say that I was rarely frustrated with most of the analogue gear. I was frustrated with most of things (digital) between 1980-95, but I've always thought it came from poor mastering and improper technical implementation. Not the price or whatever.
I never experienced poor "synchronization" (using mainly tapes) even on my first Sankyo cheap recorder.
I'm sure you're doing your best to explain, and I apologize, but it seems I can't grasp the main argumentation. I will keep trying. :)
Yes, you're right, pure analog sound seems to be flowing more effortlessly. Even when comparing a cheap turntable (such as the Dual I have left in my basement) with fairly high end CD players, Dual wins in the rhythm-and-flow department.
But it loses severely in the quality of sound department, and for that reason it cannot really compete. But a high-end turntable with properly calibrated arm etc. cannot be beat!
Stratmangler
13-05-2010, 21:50
In that case, most of us own broken equipment:( (and I hasten to add, I count the listening room as equipment as well!)
Most equipment known to man is a result of some sort of a compromise. Cut one corner here, another little corner over there, and, based on your budget/expertise/luck/etc., you arrive at a home stereo system that you are trying to enjoy.
Few of us have all the planets and stars perfectly aligned on our life path so that we could afford equipment that is not compromised in one sense or another. And, if we were to follow your line of thinking, that means that most of us mere mortals are forced to embrace the constraints and live with more or less broken equipment.
That being the case, my question remains: if you must cut corners somewhere (and guess what -- you must), where would you cut? If it's a tradeoff, what would you trade?
First, it does not have to cost a fortune to put a system together that is musically satisfying.
As a guitar molester (I never did put in the practise time that I should have)
I'd say that rhythm and timing is where I personally place most emphasis.
I key very much around what a drummer is doing.
Then there's the matter of pitch - there's nothing worse in my book than a poorly tuned guitar. Which is a pity, as the guitar is not a tempered instrument, so frequently is out of tune with itself, depending on where you're playing on the neck. That's where the skill of a good player can compensate for deficiencies in the instrument itself.
So I'd say that I personally am more forgiving on matters of pitch accuracy, or to be more accurate I find it easier to adjust to the tonal abnormalities of pitch inaccuracy.
Oh, one other thing - my system ain't broke !!!
magiccarpetride
13-05-2010, 22:01
One way to build in fake PRaT is to ensure the leading edges of notes are over-emphasized.
I'll always remember a Naim dem at a show, the audience were moving in synch, it was like watch the crowd at Wimbledon during a long rally. I suppose they were happy with their shared experience. I wanted to vomit.
Just because something is hyped up by vendors/marketers, doesn't automatically discredit that same thing. Take real estate for example -- yes, it's been hyped up, yes, it's ballooned beyond any reasonable proportion, and yes, many people lost their life savings, families etc. because of this reckless hyping and spinning. But at the same time, real estate is not bad. It is actually very good! Real estate is indeed real, it exists, and is extremely important to us humans.
Same is with PRaT in the world of audio reproduction. Just because some mindless salesmen are pimping it, doesn't automatically mean that it is nonexistent, that it's a figment of the stupid salesperson's imagination.
Same is with PRaT in the world of audio reproduction. Just because some mindless salesmen are pimping it, doesn't automatically mean that it is nonexistent, that it's a figment of the stupid salesperson's imagination.
I didn't say it's nonexistent, where did I say that? But it is over-hyped by some. I referred to fake PRaT but I didn't say all PRaT is fake.
Pace, some music is pacey but not all.
Rhythm exists, hopefully in most music, save for purposely discordant types.
Timing can get screwed by various means.
Steve Toy
13-05-2010, 22:46
Timing can be screwed up by the means of reproducing the recorded music that may in itself be temporally perfect.
Stratmangler
13-05-2010, 22:54
Timing can be screwed up by the means of reproducing the recorded music that may in itself be temporally perfect.
Eh ?
Eh ?
Put more straightforwardly: The kit wrecks the timing.
The Grand Wazoo
13-05-2010, 23:12
Personally I'm buggered if I know how to tell if a recording is temporally or otherwise perfect or not and if not, whether the hi-fi has wrecked it.
Who's to say the recording chain doesn't stuff up the timing & you're all wrong? You'll never know unless you were there.
And as for knowing for certain that a drummer hit the bass drum & the cymbal at precisely the same moment, I doubt if the drummer even knows that for sure, enough to say that it's wrong when you hear the cymbal first. I'd have thought that a cymbal would be heard first because it's excited faster than a drum skin stretched over a tub.
Stratmangler
13-05-2010, 23:12
Put more straightforwardly: The kit wrecks the timing.
Ah !
Thanks for interpreting.;)
Why wasn't that said at the outset ?
Steve Toy
13-05-2010, 23:15
That's two obtuse posts by Chris in one thread!
We are talking about how music is reproduced through your hi-fi system. Some of us are confusing this with how the music was originally played when it was originally recorded. The musoc itself may be perfect in terms of timing but the playback system can screw it up.
On an earlier point pitch itself has nothing to do with rhythm but reproducing accurately the variation in pitch will also accurately capture the rhythm; not all notes start with an obvious percussive strike so the note change itself rather than leading edge can denote rhythm.
Steve Toy
13-05-2010, 23:29
T'other Chris (TGW) try playing the same recording through different pieces of equipment.
The Grand Wazoo
13-05-2010, 23:36
Yup, I have actually done that Steve!
I can hear differences, but as I say, there are undoubtedly timing problems introduced by the recording chain.
So does this mean that the hi-fi that is able to correct these (and is therefore by definition less correct at reproducing the signal it is fed with) better than the other one is better or worse?
Steve Toy
13-05-2010, 23:42
No a hi-fi cannot correct timing errors aactually on the recording itself but a poor system may mask such glitches.
Stratmangler
13-05-2010, 23:47
That's two obtuse posts by Chris in one thread!
We are talking about how music is reproduced through your hi-fi system. Some of us are confusing this with how the music was originally played when it was originally recorded. The musoc itself may be perfect in terms of timing but the playback system can screw it up.
On an earlier point pitch itself has nothing to do with rhythm but reproducing accurately the variation in pitch will also accurately capture the rhythm; not all notes start with an obvious percussive strike so the note change itself rather than leading edge can denote rhythm.
How nice to be condescended to by you Steve.
The point about pitch that you made had no reference to variation of pitch, otherwise known a vibrato, merely to pitch.
Only now have you clarified the point you didn't quite manage to make earlier.
And yes, vibrato is generally sympathic to the rhythm of the piece being played.
The Grand Wazoo
13-05-2010, 23:49
No a hi-fi cannot correct timing errors aactually on the recording itself
........and how do you know that?
If a device can introduce a timing error through portraying the arrival of one note incorrectly in relation to another then it is surely able to compensate for the input being similarly corrupted by being conversely incorrect. Not to say that such a device would be good or desirable.
Steve Toy
14-05-2010, 00:01
No it can't no more than a monkey could paint the Hay Wain.
GIGO rules here and the source is the recorded material. Once the signal path becomes corrupted, beginning with the recording, it remains corrupted. Any good piece of kit in the chain of reproduction can only reproduce faithfully what went before it.
Steve Toy
14-05-2010, 01:55
How nice to be condescended to by you Steve.
The point about pitch that you made had no reference to variation of pitch, otherwise known a vibrato, merely to pitch.
Only now have you clarified the point you didn't quite manage to make earlier.
Well, this is what I actually wrote:
The same applies to capturing accurate pitch and variation of pitch which is in itself an aspect of rhythm.
To which you replied, missing the point,
Er, no, it isn't !
Pitch is an aspect of pitch.
The purpose of a good, flat earth hi-fi system is to capture faithfully the rhythm, pitch and the combination of pitch and rhythm or vibrato on a given recording. Some systems do this well, others screw it up but produce pleasing tone.
dave2010
14-05-2010, 01:58
Dimitri
Tonal accuracy.
Even if I've been in UK forums for long, I'm afraid I still don't understand what PRaT is... :scratch:Until recently I'd have been with you on this one, and probably used some unfortunate comment about prats listening to music.
It's been a while now since I started to see equipment reviews referring to timing - for some reason I associate Martin Colloms with this - rather than objective reviews based on measurement as well as listening tests.
Recently though I have thought that some kit sounds more musical than others, without knowing why, and it occurs to me that there may be some sense in the terminology, but it is only understood by a few. I'll probably get this wrong too - in the view of those who claim to understand what they're talking about.
Imagine listening to music in different rooms. It will sound different. For example, if a large symphonic work is played in a cathedral the reverberations may smear a lot of the notes together. This may make nonsense of a lot of rhythmically fast music, and there might be a view that playing pieces slower makes sense because it reduces the aural smudging. On the other hand, I have been in churches where the stone floor has given a very strong solid sound to the bass, whereas hearing the same music played in a concert hall one may be aware of the resonance of the wood flooring and the platform.
Conversely, a very absorbent room will sound extremely dead. Musicians often dislike playing in very absorbent rooms, as they can't hear themselves.
Ideally I think that for music reproduction most of the ambient effects should come from the recording, but we have to accept that that isn't always what happens. We do not normally listen to our recordings in anechoic chambers.
I am beginning to think that the use of words like timing and pace refers largely to the behaviour of speakers + amps when responding to changes in sound. If a speaker amp combination is under damped, then it might sound slightly boomy, though this could be compensated by reducing the bass content. Tonally this would work fine on sustained notes, but would not be good on rapidly changing music. Conversely the system could be highly damped, which would tend to give a deader sound. If driven hard this would then perhaps respond better to fast moving music, though there could be a feeling that it wasn't "breathing freely" - another subjective phrase.
Until recently I didn't think that the damping factor of a speaker/amp combination would be that significant, and I've nothing like enough experience of listening to different combinations to know much about it practically, but I do suspect that this is one of the factors which some reviewers have tried to express in words like timing and pace. How resonant a system is may largely affect bass notes, but not only. Imagine also hearing a cymbal which is played and then immediately damped - it sounds diifferent from one which is allowed to continue on reverberating.
I get a feeling also that subjectively how resonant a system is affects the way we perceive the tempo of music, though I'm not quite sure in what way exactly.
I suspect that those who use the PRaT terminology are trying to express something about how reverberant the different components of their systems are. I don't have too much evidence for this, but a few clues have emerged. One is a discussion about the use of T-amps/Class D amps being bass light, yet sometimes showing a lot of detail. Some of these amplifiers behave rather differently in their damping characteristics from other amp designs, and in steady state conditions these may very well sound bass light.
Sorry if I've simply muddled things up even more, but like you, I cannot otherwise understand the terminology which some are trying to use to describe the effects of their systems on music.
Steve Toy
14-05-2010, 02:06
Dave, you are going some way with this, certainly both room acoustics and speaker/amp combinations where the former fails to exert authority over the latter can cause the time smear you describe but the timing aspect of recorded music can also be corrupted by source components both digital and analogue, cabling and poor mechanical isolation/ineffective grounding of unwanted vibrations.
magiccarpetride
14-05-2010, 03:47
........and how do you know that?
If a device can introduce a timing error through portraying the arrival of one note incorrectly in relation to another then it is surely able to compensate for the input being similarly corrupted by being conversely incorrect. Not to say that such a device would be good or desirable.
My old band used to get together in my house for a weekly jam and a rehearsal. Sometimes they'd bring beer, and my bass player would have one too many (and quickly). We'd record the session, and when I listened back, I could hear the bass plodding along and actually lagging behind the band (due to the effects of inebriation). As a result, the music we've recorded was trash, and unlistenable (and irreparable). And that's how sometimes shitty audio systems sound -- as if one or more band members were a bit drunk during the performance.
Now, back to your statement, perhaps if I'd listened to that flawed playback on some devil-may-care heinous mini system (such as the JVC compact combo I used to have back in the '90s), maybe the bass would've locked in quite nicely:)
I'm not saying that my bass player was playing wrong notes, nor that his pace and tempo and rhythm were incorrect, just that he wasn't really synching up with the rest of us (one too many beers can make you slur and sound like a retard;)
This stuff is important, it's just the hype about PRaT that annoys me, we seem to be getting past that now. I tried playing a record on an acrylic platter the other day. With a record clamp it sounds great, without the clamp it was unlistenable, the record must have been moving to the bass relative to the slippery platter, the bass was smeared and out of time with the rest of the music.
Ideally I think that for music reproduction most of the ambient effects should come from the recording, but we have to accept that that isn't always what happens. We do not normally listen to our recordings in anechoic chambers.
That counts me out, I love open baffle speakers....
Properly constructed systems have both in spades, not even been an issue worth raising for the last 6 years.
Properly constructed systems have both in spades, not even been an issue worth raising for the last 6 years.
Agree
Rare Bird
14-05-2010, 12:03
These type of topics amuse me to death. I often wonder if people actually listern to music or the hifi :lolsign:
Stratmangler
14-05-2010, 13:24
These type of topics amuse me to death. I often wonder if people actually listern to music or the hifi :lolsign:
Hear, hear :clap::clap::clap:
It goes back to if it sounds good on your own system within your own enviroment and sounds good to your ears, who gives a shit what others think its YOUR system
Rare Bird
14-05-2010, 13:50
It goes back to if it sounds good on your own system within your own enviroment and sounds good to your ears, who gives a shit what others think its YOUR system
:youtheman:
It goes back to if it sounds good on your own system within your own enviroment and sounds good to your ears, who gives a shit what others think its YOUR system
Its very rare I get involved with this type of discussion but have to say this post is spot on :cool:
Doubly so, as Jon is a (big-boy) Tannoyista - and therefore an hombre of mucho gusto (with PRaT to the max)! :)
Marco.
These type of topics amuse me to death. I often wonder if people actually listern to music or the hifi :lolsign:
It goes back to if it sounds good on your own system within your own enviroment and sounds good to your ears, who gives a shit what others think its YOUR system
At last! :clap:
There ain't half some 'experts' around here at times! ;)
Yes, Andre's was spot on too :youtheman:
This is no time for modesty - we're all just freakin' wonderful! :eyebrows:
:grouphug:
Marco.
anthonyTD
14-05-2010, 15:21
It goes back to if it sounds good on your own system within your own enviroment and sounds good to your ears, who gives a shit what others think its YOUR system
:)
I will also add that in my opinion if we were there at the time of the recording chances are we would find something not to our likening in the original mix, too bright, too middy, too splashy, too forward, not forward enough etc, the best we can hope for is to get our equipment working properly to start with and make the best of the recordings we like within the boundaries of our compromised and sometimes limited environment!
A...
I think I'm going to have a look at the wine and real ale recommendations... :whistle: :cool:
magiccarpetride
14-05-2010, 16:26
These type of topics amuse me to death. I often wonder if people actually listern to music or the hifi :lolsign:
Guys, guys, again you miss the point. This is the "Blank Canvas" forum, meaning sky is the limit, and we're all cordially invited to act out our hi fi fantasies, dry-run our hair brained schemes, and in general brainstorm and bullshit. No?
In that vein, I've originally proposed a hypothetical question: assuming that one can cleanly separate timbre, tone and sound coloration from the pace, rhythm, tempo and timing, and assuming that, due to some arbitrary restrictions, you are forced to do the Sophie's choice and have only one of the above two features, which one would you choose (and why)?
I repeat: this is not a discussion about the difference between listening to music and listening to the hi fi equipment. If you'd like, we could start that discussion as well, but first let me hear you out on this one (if at all you have anything substantial to contribute; please do not waste everyone's time by calling in to triumphantly announce that you don't give a rat's ass;)
I think I'm going to have a look at the wine and real ale recommendations...
Toujours profondément intoxiqué, Dimitri? ;)
Marco.
Stratmangler
14-05-2010, 16:30
:popcorn:
In that vein, I've originally proposed a hypothetical question: assuming that one can cleanly separate timbre, tone and sound coloration from the pace, rhythm, tempo and timing, and assuming that, due to some arbitrary restrictions, you are forced to do the Sophie's choice and have only one of the above two features, which one would you choose (and why)?
In that case, I would say; "I'm not bothered. As long as I enjoy what I'm listening to". :)
Steve Toy
14-05-2010, 17:29
I like alex's hypothesis although I do believe that good pitch usually goes hand-in-hand with good rhythmic acuity in terms of playback equipment.
Alex joins the ranks of the thought provoking folks who really get what AOS is about.
Some of you are blissfully unaware of the fact you have missed the point and one of you would like to get the point but hasn't quite yet.
A belated welcome to Alex from me and Dimitri, we'll discuss this in June (amongst other stuff) over a few glasses of France's finest.
Stratmangler
14-05-2010, 17:32
Some of you are blissfully unaware of the fact you have missed the point and one of you would like to get the point but hasn't quite yet.
And what point is that Steve ?
And it is rather a patronising comment you have made.
And what point is that Steve ?
Good question! :scratch:
magiccarpetride
14-05-2010, 17:40
First, it does not have to cost a fortune to put a system together that is musically satisfying.
No question. Pocket depth is only one of many factors determining the quality of your audio chain. Much more important is your expertise in choosing and balancing your components, and, well, luck.
magiccarpetride
14-05-2010, 17:45
Then there's the matter of pitch - there's nothing worse in my book than a poorly tuned guitar.
Being a guitar molester myself, I know what you're saying (even though there are things in my book that are worse than a poorly tuned guitar; like for example the Haiti earthquake, or that Chinese guy who slashed 28 children in a kindergarden attack -- http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0430/1224269369577.html)
There's a saying to the effect that guitar players spend half of their lives tuning up their guitars, and the other half playing out of tune;)
magiccarpetride
14-05-2010, 17:47
Oh, one other thing - my system ain't broke !!!
If only I had a dollar each time I said the same thing myself! Whenever I get to the point of declaring that my system ain't broke, pretty soon something happens and I acquire some component that completely rips that theory to shreds.
magiccarpetride
14-05-2010, 17:55
:)
I will also add that in my opinion if we were there at the time of the recording chances are we would find something not to our likening in the original mix, too bright, too middy, too splashy, too forward, not forward enough etc, the best we can hope for is to get our equipment working properly to start with and make the best of the recordings we like within the boundaries of our compromised and sometimes limited environment!
A...
Brilliant point! It reveals the somewhat concealed fact that some of us approach the art of sound reproduction with a somewhat idealized set of expectations. I know for sure that I'm that way.
So if I declare that I don't like how some recording sounds, it does not necessarily mean that the audio system reproducing that recording is doing a sub par job. Maybe it's doing a good enough job, but it interferes with my idealized expectations.
After all, folks, isn't most of this just some form of an acquired taste? Like, I remember intensely disliking feta cheese when I was a child, but then later on learning to really like it. You know?
DrMartin
14-05-2010, 18:27
I've stopped blaming my equipement for poor quality recordings. Some CDs sound fantastic whilst others sound terrible. Some sound different on other people's equipement in other people's rooms and I dare say some would sound different on different equipement in my room.
But I fail to see how anyone can assess the 'accuracy' / 'fidelity' of reproduction unless you happened to be at the recording venue when the original source was being mastered???
I did work in a recording studio in the mid 1970s and I know that by the time that the mastered recording was transfered to vinyl and then later replayed - in the same studio, through the same equipment - it sounded nothing like the original stereo master tape.
Additionally, I might not always like the tone of some of what comes out of my speakers but it's impossible to judge the 'tonal accuracy' without having access to the original recording as it was being mastered - surely?
As for PRaT I can't say I've noticed anything out of sync when I'm dancing around and until I started reading about it on HiFi forums I'd never given it a thought to be honest.
Rare Bird
14-05-2010, 18:35
I did work in a recording studio in the mid 1970s and I know that by the time that the mastered recording was transfered to vinyl and then later replayed - in the same studio, through the same equipment - it sounded nothing like the original stereo master tape.
Not to mention the duplications of the master tape made & sent out to other pressing plants.
magiccarpetride
14-05-2010, 19:04
Additionally, I might not always like the tone of some of what comes out of my speakers but it's impossible to judge the 'tonal accuracy' without having access to the original recording as it was being mastered - surely?
The point is that we all have preconceived notions regarding how something should sound. And the closer the recording/our sound system gets to that preconceived notion, the happier we get!
There's nothing objective about it. We may have heard, during our formative years, certain performance in a certain venue, and that initial strong impression is what got imprinted into our psyche. Now we're chasing after that dragon.
The point is that we all have preconceived notions regarding how something should sound. And the closer the recording/our sound system gets to that preconceived notion, the happier we get!
There's nothing objective about it. We may have heard, during our formative years, certain performance in a certain venue, and that initial strong impression is what got imprinted into our psyche. Now we're chasing after that dragon.
Spot on, Alex - that's *exactly* how it is! :)
Marco.
dave2010
14-05-2010, 19:29
This stuff is important, it's just the hype about PRaT that annoys me, we seem to be getting past that now. I tried playing a record on an acrylic platter the other day. With a record clamp it sounds great, without the clamp it was unlistenable, the record must have been moving to the bass relative to the slippery platter, the bass was smeared and out of time with the rest of the music.
That counts me out, I love open baffle speakers....You can run open baffles in a room and they still won't be an anechoic chamber.
Re "timing" - of course there can be timing errors in digital or even analogue recordings and systems, but generally these are very small, and shouldn't be noticeable. It's more likely that you'll hear small errors by the musicians not coming in exactly on the beat etc., and I mean no disrespect to them by saying so. In any case your ears/hearing should be able to adapt to that. Consider listening to a band in which some players are 20 feet further away from you. It would be perfectly possible for the sounds from them to be 20 ms delayed compared with the others, and you might not even notice it.
Adrian Boult, the conductor, was picky about this, and he'd obviously thought about acoustics. He observed that instruments at the back of the orchestra should try to play a fraction ahead so that the audience would hear everything spot on for timing. It was incredibly difficult to do though, and most musicians seem to prefer to listen to others around them, which will introduce larger front/back timing errors, but at least the phrasing and other aspects of the performance will be good. I'm not saying that Boult was wrong - he wasn't - but too much attention to that level of acoustic detail did not always pay dividends as other characteristics of the music might have been ignored. At his best he was superb though, which is also true of some other musicians who didn't worry so much about the acoustics.
A few further comments about timing. Firstly, doing the azimuth alignment on a stereo deck shifts the stereo image from left to right, or vice-versa -surprisingly audible.
Listening to monitor outputs of a tape deck on headphones and feeding the input signal via an amp to loudspeakers gives sufficient timing delays to give a very audible echo.
Lastly, I was listening to a digital recording of a string quartet a few months back. I couldn't get over the fact that I could hear that some of the players (there were only 4!) - probably the viola and cello were always lagging behind. Eventually I loaded the digital file into Audacity, and then it become fairly obvious that the tracks had become misaligned. Not sure how much - perhaps only a few milliseconds, but I had detected this, and once corrected the quartet sounded much more together.
Despite all this, I wouldn't expect more than a few microseconds disparity in most decent systems, which I would consider insignificant. As such I don't believe in "timing". The jitter in digital systems is in the nano/micro seconds range, and it may have an effect on sound quality, but I don't believe it has much effect on timing.
magiccarpetride
14-05-2010, 20:02
Re "timing" - of course there can be timing errors in digital or even analogue recordings and systems, but generally these are very small, and shouldn't be noticeable. It's more likely that you'll hear small errors by the musicians not coming in exactly on the beat etc., and I mean no disrespect to them by saying so. In any case your ears/hearing should be able to adapt to that. Consider listening to a band in which some players are 20 feet further away from you. It would be perfectly possible for the sounds from them to be 20 ms delayed compared with the others, and you might not even notice it.
I'm a musician and a passionate student of music. To me, timing is the most important facet of music, period. Everything else could be just perfect about the performance, but if timing is messed up, even slightly, then it's a shitty experience.
Conversely, if the timing is bang on, then even if there are other detectable errors during the performance (incorrect pitch, out of tune, flubbed notes, poor timbre, lousy vibrato technique, lack of dynamics, etc.) all that mayhem is somehow forgivable. It's amazing how much timing influences our assessment and our judgment of the music performance.
Let me just clarify what do I mean by 'bang on': it is not some computerized mechanical perfection in nailing and accentuating the notes perfectly on the beat (or on the click track in the studio). Far from it. We all know how boring computer executed music is. And it is boring precisely because of the dead perfect timing that the machines deliver.
Many bands and orchestras attain legendary status among their fans due to the unique quirks and foibles in how they collectively treat timing. Subtle variations in timing are the hallmark of creativity in music. Take for example the Beatles song "She Said She Said" off their LP "Revolver" (1966). Try to follow their treatment of time on that track. I bet you that there does not exist a band today that can reproduce that song verbatim, the way the Beatles played it in the recording studio. The time effortlessly ebbs and flows in quite a surprising fashion, and is quite unpredictable. And guess what -- that's precisely why the Beatles have achieved such legendary status. They used to play all those incredibly innovative and creative songs as if breathing like one. Show me a band today who can do that.
Steve Toy
14-05-2010, 21:57
Alez, I think you'll agree that some systems capture these nuances of timing better than others.
Recently I've been borrowing AnthonyTD's Acoustic Precision Eikos CD player, the first one ever built but will all the subsequent modifications. In conjunction with equally able kit in the timing depaertment this has to be one of the best players I've ever heard for timing and will probably leave many a turntable wanting in this resopect. I must find a copy of that Revolver album on CD and hopefully it hasn't been screwed up by remastering.
DrMartin
14-05-2010, 22:05
The point is that we all have preconceived notions regarding how something should sound. And the closer the recording/our sound system gets to that preconceived notion, the happier we get!
There's nothing objective about it. We may have heard, during our formative years, certain performance in a certain venue, and that initial strong impression is what got imprinted into our psyche. Now we're chasing after that dragon.
You're saying that there is nothing objective about tonal accuracy?
Sorry but that's just nonsense. What else can accuracy be if not objectively measured?
Let me just clarify what do I mean by 'bang on': it is not some computerized mechanical perfection in nailing and accentuating the notes perfectly on the beat (or on the click track in the studio). Far from it. We all know how boring computer executed music is. And it is boring precisely because of the dead perfect timing that the machines deliver.
I completely agree. I was in a band (started at school) until I was about 19. It was during the mid/late 80's. We used various midi controlled synths, drum machines etc and various sequencers (Depeche Mode, Yazoo, soft cell, OMD covers;) ). I never understood at the time, but the "quantize" function to 16th or 32nds always corrected my mistakes too perfectly. The music was sterile! It always sounded better when there were 3 of us playing instead of just a sequencer! :)
magiccarpetride
14-05-2010, 22:15
Alez, I think you'll agree that some systems capture these nuances of timing better than others.
Recently I've been borrowing AnthonyTD's Acoustic Precision Eikos CD player, the first one ever built but will all the subsequent modifications. In conjunction with equally able kit in the timing depaertment this has to be one of the best players I've ever heard for timing and will probably leave many a turntable wanting in this resopect. I must find a copy of that Revolver album on CD and hopefully it hasn't been screwed up by remastering.
Absolutely. Not sure if you've already made the transition, Steve, but I wholeheartedly recommend you switch to what I call "containerless content" music. What I mean by 'containerless content' is music that gets carefully and faithfully copied from its container (i.e. the CD) and stored electronically, bit by bit (we call that bit-perfect).
Once there, the bit-perfect music can be streamed wirelessly into a dedicated digital media player (some call those things 'slim devices'), such as Logitech Touch or Transporter, Sonos, or the higher-end Linn Majik and Linn Akurate. The clincher here is that by doing so, you eliminate the moving, and out of necessity, more or less wobbly, noisy parts (i.e. a disc spinning inside the CD transport), as well as ensure that each bit of music is read and delivered and rendered as close to perfection as current technology allows.
Add to that front chain a solid DAC, such as Beresford Caiman, and you'll start hearing what music is actually all about.
If you haven't already tried this, you'll be in for a treat:) Especially with regards to PRaT! It'll bring a wide idiotic grin to your face;)
magiccarpetride
14-05-2010, 22:18
You're saying that there is nothing objective about tonal accuracy?
No, that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that there is nothing objective about our personal value judgments about tonal accuracy.
Stratmangler
14-05-2010, 22:20
Absolutely. Not sure if you've already made the transition, Steve, but I wholeheartedly recommend you switch to what I call "containerless content" music. What I mean by 'containerless content' is music that gets carefully and faithfully copied from its container (i.e. the CD) and stored electronically, bit by bit (we call that bit-perfect).
Once there, the bit-perfect music can be streamed wirelessly into a dedicated digital media player (some call those things 'slim devices'), such as Logitech Touch or Transporter, Sonos, or the higher-end Linn Majik and Linn Akurate. The clincher here is that by doing so, you eliminate the moving, and out of necessity, more or less wobbly, noisy parts (i.e. a disc spinning inside the CD transport), as well as ensure that each bit of music is read and delivered and rendered as close to perfection as current technology allows.
Add to that front chain a solid DAC, such as Beresford Caiman, and you'll start hearing what music is actually all about.
If you haven't already tried this, you'll be in for a treat:) Especially with regards to PRaT! It'll bring a wide idiotic grin to your face;)
:popcorn:
magiccarpetride
14-05-2010, 22:21
It always sounded better when there were 3 of us playing instead of just a sequencer! :)
No question. Because the 3 of you, by being musicians that you are (regardless of the actual level of accomplishment), brought the living charm and the breathing quirkiness of music. And that's what we, the listeners, always appreciate the most.
You're saying that there is nothing objective about tonal accuracy?
Sorry but that's just nonsense. What else can accuracy be if not objectively measured?
Hi Martin,
How do you objectively measure a preconceived notion regarding how something should sound (which is what I believe Alex was referring to)?
It's about *knowing* how instruments actually sound through the experience of being regularly exposed to their sound, in some cases over many years, and using that knowledge and experience as the benchmark from which to judge how accurately a hi-fi system reproduces them....
'Objective measurements' don't come into it, my friend.
Marco.
DrMartin
14-05-2010, 22:28
No, that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that there is nothing objective about our personal value judgments about tonal accuracy.
Ah, well you seem to have shifted the goal-posts slightly from your original question:
"... the question becomes: when choosing/building your audio chain, which aspect is more important to you -- tonal accuracy (absence of coloration, fine grained presentation of the timbre and texture of the reproduced sound, pitch-perfect reproduction of the recorded instruments, and so on) or accurate PRaT (pace, rhythm and timing/accurate tempo)?"
No mention of 'personal judgements' here ... ???
DrMartin
14-05-2010, 22:31
Hi Martin,
How do you objectively measure a preconceived notion regarding how something should sound (which is what I believe Alex was referring to)?
It's about *knowing* how instruments sound through the experience of being regularly exposed to their sound, in some cases over many years, and using that knowledge and experience as the benchmark from which to judge how accurately a hi-fi system reproduces them....
'Measurements' don't come into it, my friend.
Marco.
You can't, of course you can't. But Alex didn't refer to 'preconceived notions' in his original question and that was what I was responding to. If he had, then I wouldn't have taken issue with it.
Fair enough, Martin, but I believe that Alex was only expanding on the original question and offering some rationale to support his viewpoint :)
Marco.
magiccarpetride
14-05-2010, 22:36
Ah, well you seem to have shifted the goal-posts slightly from your original question:
"... the question becomes: when choosing/building your audio chain, which aspect is more important to you -- tonal accuracy (absence of coloration, fine grained presentation of the timbre and texture of the reproduced sound, pitch-perfect reproduction of the recorded instruments, and so on) or accurate PRaT (pace, rhythm and timing/accurate tempo)?"
No mention of 'personal judgements' here ... ???
So you're saying that the phrase 'which aspect is more important to you' does not imply personal judgment?
DrMartin
14-05-2010, 23:13
So you're saying that the phrase 'which aspect is more important to you' does not imply personal judgment?
No, I'm not saying that and that is not the issue.
I'm saying that none of us can make any claims about the tonal accuracy of our audio equipement, when it is reproducing a recording, unless we know what the original recording sounded like at the source.
What we can do is hope that our equipement is reproducing a faithful copy of the original sound - but we can't know that it is (unless we were there at its birth) but even then we are completely at the mercy of the recording engineer and his/her equipement.
And the problem I have with it all is that the better the equipement gets the more it shows up any defects in the original recording.
So I don't really understand what you mean by "tonal accuracy" if it's not about a faithful reproduction of the original (which you cannot know) other than something you want it to be?
I know how I want my CDs to sound - and some of them do sound great, but others sound awful and there's nothing I can do to change that. ie I know what a kick drum sounds like and there's apparently a kick drum on a track, but it might sound like a wet cardboard box being tapped with a feather - either because the engineer was deaf or because the producer wanted it to sound like that? who can say?
Martin nails an important point here : like him, I have reference recordings (with natural instruments and minimal mastering) for judging my equipment's accuracy.
When the rest of my CDs don't sound as I hope they would, I don't blame the messenger (my hifi) : I blame the recording/mastering. ;)
You can run open baffles in a room and they still won't be an anechoic chamber.
That was my point when I said open baffles count me out from those who believe all ambiance must come from the recording. The last thing I want is to listen in an anechoic chamber.
The upshot of this whole discussion for me is that individuals listen for different aspects, I don't believe it's possible to classify people into 2 categories of listener (PRaT or Tone). Hopefully we're all listening to the music but most of us also tend analyse our systems to understand what conveys musical enjoyment. If one of treble, bass, timing, rhythm, tonal colour, speaker boxiness, over-emphasized sibilance, lack of imaging etc are bugging you then you won't enjoy what should be your high-end system. Listen in a car or to a portable radio and your expectations change and you focus on a more restrictive set of qualities (possibly mainly rhythm).
If something sounds 'right' to me, then it is right. I'm never likely to hear the master tape, so how do I know whether the recording I'm listening to is faithful to that, still less whether my system is accurately reproducing the recording?
In response to the original question, if forced to choose one or the other it very much depends on the sort of music I'm listening to. Tonal quality might be more important than PRaT if listening to a string quartet, and vice-versa if listening to blues or rock.
As it happens, both my systems do good tonal quality and good PRaT on all types of music that I listen to. Which is nice.
Hi Martin,
I agree wholeheartedly with the points in your last post; however I just wanted to address this specific issue:
So I don't really understand what you mean by "tonal accuracy" if it's not about a faithful reproduction of the original (which you cannot know) other than something you want it to be?
I know where you're coming from, and agree - we cannot know what the original sound was like and use it as a benchmark unless we've heard it produced in the studio. That is absolutely beyond dispute.
With regard to tonal accuracy, however, consider for a moment that a friend of yours is a professional pianist, who plays a Steinway Concert Grand, and he comes round to visit. On entering, he hears you playing a recording of Gershwin's 'Rhapsody in Blue' on your hi-fi system, which is one of his favourite pieces of music, and something he regularly plays himself at classical concerts - in effect he knows this piece of music intimately.
He also knows the sound of a Steinway Concert Grand equally as intimately, and identifies it as the piano being played on your recording of the Gershwin piece.
After listening to the recording on your system for a few minutes, he turns round and says: "That is the most tonally accurate rendition of a Steinway Concert Grand playing Gershwin's 'Rhapsody in Blue' I've ever heard!"
Now, neither the pianist or you were present when the recording was made, and therefore are unaware of what the original sound was like in terms of its tonal qualities, but the pianist is still qualified and therefore able to judge on such matters (in terms of how accurate your system reproduced the music and the sound of the piano) because he is both intimately familiar with the Gershwin piece and the sonic signature of the piano it was played on.
What I'm saying is that, similarly, anyone else who is regularly exposed to the sound of real instruments (un-amplified), through playing them or regularly attending live musical performances, is qualified to judge on how tonally accurate instruments sound when reproduced via recordings on a hi-fi system, without having been exposed to the original sound made in the studio - it's called having 'experienced ears'.
Therefore when Alex talks about "a preconceived notion regarding how something should sound", and how we use this as a benchmark from which to judge the sonic performance of our hi-fi systems - and that it has nothing to do with objective measurement - he's referring precisely to the experience I have alluded to.
The fact is all of us have "a preconceived notion regarding how something should sound"; the difference is, though, how accurate that preconceived notion is ultimately depends on how experienced our ears are.........
Sorry for waffling on a little, but I trust you now understand where Alex and I are coming from :)
Marco.
DrMartin
15-05-2010, 10:56
With regard to tonal accuracy, however, consider for a moment that a friend of yours is a professional pianist, who plays a Steinway Concert Grand, and he comes round to visit. On entering, he hears you playing a recording of Gershwin's 'Rhapsody in Blue' on your hi-fi system, which is one of his favourite pieces of music, and something he regularly plays himself at classical concerts - in effect he knows this piece of music intimately.
He also knows the sound of a Steinway Concert Grand equally as intimately, and identifies it as the piano being played on your recording of the Gershwin piece.
After listening to the recording on your system for a few minutes, he turns round and says: "That is the most tonally accurate rendition of a Steinway Concert Grand playing Gershwin's 'Rhapsody in Blue' I've ever heard!"
Marco.
That would indeed be nice. It would also be something of an achievement because I'm given to believe that a Concert Grand is one of the most difficult things to record and reproduce properly.
I see where you are coming from now.
Please don't get me wrong, my ears are my benchmark. I know what live music sounds and feels like and I want my system to give me those sensations. So, going back to the original question, I wouldn't want to sacrifice one in favour of the other. I think the thing I'm striving to get from my set up is a sense of 'being there' I can't really put it into any other words.
Steve Toy
15-05-2010, 11:11
I do think Alex's hypothesis is perhaps unrealistic in that systems that do PR&T invariably do pitch. The P of PR&T can stand for either Pace or Pitch anyway. Get the rhythm and pitch reproduction capabilities of your system right and everything else kind of drops into place anyway.
Mr C rightly stated that perhaps such notions of compromise are outdated but having said that if your system can't carry a tune or rhythm it's broken and there are plenty of broken systems out there!
magiccarpetride
15-05-2010, 15:44
I'm saying that none of us can make any claims about the tonal accuracy of our audio equipement, when it is reproducing a recording, unless we know what the original recording sounded like at the source.
We have a philosopher here:)
Basically, your quibble boils down to the age old question: if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it crash, does it make a sound?
I think the thing I notice first about a new system is tone being at least close not over driven on the top or the bottom end,next is,and this is my gripe with alot of expencive speakers. How far away dose the preformance sound from the listener.
I like to hear reed noise,fret noise and when a string is plucked I want to hear it fall and all the insueing vibratto in a real way.
That is why I backed out of a pair of Audio Note K's,they sounded dark and vailed so I kept wanting to get closer to the stereo or turn the volume up to uneeded levels still feeling something missing.
I'm saying that none of us can make any claims about the tonal accuracy of our audio equipement
I would have to agree with that... which is why I don't make such claims.
Or do I? :hmm:
I would have to agree with that... which is why I don't make such claims.
Or do I? :hmm:
I think most of us with reasonable hearing and a head free of crack can tell when something is bloated or way over extended.
I can't speak to anything under or over 6db. but I'm not looking to perfactly recreate a preformance I was never at.I just wan't a sence of balance.
And invaulving speed & detail.
dave2010
15-05-2010, 18:11
To respond to Marco's story about the pianist I'd say that even that doesn't work. Substitute any other instrument/instrumentalist and his story should work, but it doesn't. A flute player, for example, will hear a very different sound when playing from when he/she sits in a concert and listens. The balance is different too, but let's not worry about that. What does happen is that musicians do listen to each other over a wide range of circumstances, and they can tell if (say) a flute player is shrill, or breathy, or has a deep low register tone. Sometimes this works in recordings too, though the microphone positioning and tinkering by the engineers can change the impression.
A good musician will have a sensitivity and understanding of their fellow musicians
Even when playing guitar I found my sound would often change in tone from day to day sometimes I loved this and my playing would respond to this other times the opposite
DrMartin
16-05-2010, 00:35
We have a philosopher here:)
Basically, your quibble boils down to the age old question: if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it crash, does it make a sound?
:) the clues are there.
It's the use of the word 'accuracy' that seems to be at issue. When I hear that word I immediately want to know how it is to be measured or determined. I don't think it's unreasonable to link the words 'accuracy' and 'measurement' together do you? As I said earlier, how else can one determine any kind of accuracy without some form of measurement?
I took your usage of the word accurate to mean something akin to the original source and we've been through all that so the argument doesn't need to be rehearsed here.
However, taking on Marco's example, it now transpires that what we are measuring accuracy against here is a more abstract notion of what certain instruments etc 'ought' to sound like, based on possibly years of experience of listening to such instruments, that we carry around in our heads in our memory.
I'm fine with that.
But the proviso still stands that the music has to be perfectly recorded in the first place for that sort of accuracy ever to happen ...
All I can say is that Goldfrapp's 'Supernature' CD sounds brilliant through my system tonight and I hope that it's the way that they wanted it to sound because I like it like that.
magiccarpetride
16-05-2010, 00:45
It's the use of the word 'accuracy' that seems to be at issue. When I hear that word I immediately want to know how it is to be measured or determined. I don't think it's unreasonable to link the words 'accuracy' and 'measurement' together do you? As I said earlier, how else can one determine any kind of accuracy without some form of measurement
I don't think that applies. Give you an example: I'm an artist, and often times I 'see' an image in my mind's eye which I then try to capture on canvas or on paper. And depending on how close I get to capturing my vision on paper, I speak in terms of that drawing/painting being more or less accurate.
Now how would you propose we measure that? What is the instrument that can measure my inner vision and compare it to my rendition on paper/canvas? You see, accuracy CAN indeed exist without any proper measurement.
Same as with my mind's eye, this also applies to my "mind's ear".
DrMartin
16-05-2010, 01:04
I don't think that applies. Give you an example: I'm an artist, and often times I 'see' an image in my mind's eye which I then try to capture on canvas or on paper. And depending on how close I get to capturing my vision on paper, I speak in terms of that drawing/painting being more or less accurate.
Now how would you propose we measure that? What is the instrument that can measure my inner vision and compare it to my rendition on paper/canvas? You see, accuracy CAN indeed exist without any proper measurement.
Same as with my mind's eye, this also applies to my "mind's ear".
Oh well, if we must ...
The 'instrument' in this case is your eye(s) when you see what you have drawn or painted on the canvas.
The 'measurement' is the comparison between the two entities.
... and as I alluded to in my previous post, I have no problam at all with the concept of the "mind's ear".
... so I'm not really sure what you're arguing about now?
Yes, if we take two different people, it's going to be hard to know who's subjective view is closer to "accurate".
Will this depend on each subject's ability to convince the other ? Sounds funny, really.
Philosophically, the word "accurate" is part of the objective vocabulary. When debating subjective views, it's better not use it... ;)
StanleyB
16-05-2010, 07:54
The unspoken suggestion that PRat and tonal quality are mutually exclusive is a total fallacy. They are both related and should be confined to the loony bin.
To put things into perspective: around 99% of the distortion heard is from the speakers.
DrMartin
16-05-2010, 10:16
Yes, if we take two different people, it's going to be hard to know who's subjective view is closer to "accurate".
Will this depend on each subject's ability to convince the other ? Sounds funny, really.
Philosophically, the word "accurate" is part of the objective vocabulary. When debating subjective views, it's better not use it... ;)
I couldn't agree more. :)
Hi Dave,
To respond to Marco's story about the pianist I'd say that even that doesn't work. Substitute any other instrument/instrumentalist and his story should work, but it doesn't. A flute player, for example, will hear a very different sound when playing from when he/she sits in a concert and listens.
Indeed - I agree.
However, the flute player will still have sufficiently 'experienced ears' to determine how faithfully a hi-fi system captures the sound of his or her favourite type of flute without any need of measurement apparatus - and this is the essence of what I'm getting at here.
It's about having faith in your hearing acuity, and using your experience of hearing live music as an arbiter for effectively assessing how faithfully a hi-fi system replicates the genuine sound of musical instruments.
Going back to the pianist scenario, if an experienced professional pianist were to tell me that my system had succeeded in 'accurately' reproducing the sound of a Steinway Concert Grand, that would have more credence/kudos/importance to me than any 'objective scientific measurement' of such! ;)
Hi Martin,
However, taking on Marco's example, it now transpires that what we are measuring accuracy against here is a more abstract notion of what certain instruments etc 'ought' to sound like, based on possibly years of experience of listening to such instruments, that we carry around in our heads in our memory.
That's exactly it, and it's an assessment methodology I've successfully used for years. In the end, I will always trust my (experienced) ears when analysing the sonic effect of audio equipment and ancillaries more than any man-made measurement apparatus! :cool:
The problem with test equipment is that it can only measure the specific parameters built into its design, which are not necessarily always all that needs measured in order to form an accurate analysis of certain phenomena in relation to audio.
The fact is, science only succeeds to 'prove' some of the effects we hear in audio (what can currently be measured and understood), but it's often the grey areas not yet fully understood by science, where subjective assessment by experienced ears is necessary, that unlocks our understanding and appreciation of the music our hi-fi systems reproduce......
Marco.
Having had a system particularly strong in reproducing PRAT (linn, naim aro, krell ksa100 and isobariks), perhaps at the expense of tonal accuracy (?), I find the current system I listen to, which (I think) excells at musical communication, makes me worry less about PRAT, foot tapping, humming along with the occarina player etc, and just enjoying the time I spend listening to music more.
Musically communicative systems don't necessarily correlate with price - when I was 15, I heard my first, belonging to a neighbour, a lash up consisting of a radiogram turntable, Mullard five tens and some cinema speakers, probably westrex. My dad had just invested in a leak stereo 70, connoisseur turntable and some wharfedale lintons. Yes, you could hear the radio announcers intake of breath between words on my dads, but it was the other one you took your latest 6 months pocket money prized albums to hear.
Funnily enough it took me about thirty years to turn down the road less traveled and assemble such a system - not by any means identical to that long gone system of my youth, but at any rate a system that does it for me.
PRAT and/or tonal accuracy? yes, both are important, but a system which reproduces - or approaches reproducing - emotional communication, musical communication and those rare moments of musical near telepathy, that's the elusive ideal to pursue!
Oh and a fresh - bread - cant - stop - listening sound and a huge soundstage doesn't do any harm either!
magiccarpetride
17-05-2010, 18:27
Going back to the pianist scenario, if an experienced professional pianist were to tell me that my system had succeeded in 'accurately' reproducing the sound of a Steinway Concert Grand, that would have more credence/kudos/importance to me than any 'objective scientific measurement' of such! ;)
Bravo! I just had a recent first-hand experience that corroborates this. A friend of mine, who is a classically trained pianist, visited last Friday evening to listen to my latest audio upgrade. When we got to listening to Shostakovich's piano and cello piece (forgot the exact title), my friend was absolutely blown away! As I am not a pianist myself, many of the adjectives he used to describe why was the reproduction of the piano so perfect went way above my head, but one thing he pointed out made me realize the importance of what you're talking about above: he drew my attention to how clearly audible, almost 'visible' is the way the pianist is working the piano pedals. And indeed, once you pay attention to these things, they are right there, staring you in the face!
These things contribute significantly to the veracity of the illusion that your system is indeed playing real music for you. And sometimes if you don't know what to expect, or what to look for (like in my case, I'd never look for the sound of piano pedals), you miss it.
magiccarpetride
17-05-2010, 18:41
... so I'm not really sure what you're arguing about now?
I'm arguing that the term 'accuracy' can be used when relating subjective experiences. By subjective experiences I mean something that cannot be objectively measured. Like for instance, if I have a vision in my mind and I try to render it on paper in as much accuracy as possible, this assessment of accuracy would be subjective. This is so because no one who is outside of my head could possibly affirm or deny the accuracy of my drawing.
Get it now?
magiccarpetride
17-05-2010, 18:48
The unspoken suggestion that PRat and tonal quality are mutually exclusive is a total fallacy. They are both related and should be confined to the loony bin.
To put things into perspective: around 99% of the distortion heard is from the speakers.
For the third time in this thread, people have missed the point. The argument of the point is not that PRaT and tonal quality are mutually exclusive.
The argument of the point is that, since we can obviously discern and discriminate between them, which of the two would we choose, given some hypothetical scenario that we can't have both?
Let me offer an example, in the hopes that you won't fall into the trap for the fourth time: if you eat a meal for lunch, you can, while eating, consciously discern and discriminate between these two qualities of the food -- taste, and aroma. We could argue till the cows come home that the two are inseparable, and yet we do tend to experience them as two separate phenomena.
Suppose now that the chef who is preparing the meal can also separate the taste from the aroma. And she gives us a choice: either order the tasty meal, or the aromatic meal. Which one would you order?
Again, the above is not to argue that taste and fragrance/aroma are mutually exclusive.
DrMartin
17-05-2010, 19:27
I'm arguing that the term 'accuracy' can be used when relating subjective experiences. By subjective experiences I mean something that cannot be objectively measured. Like for instance, if I have a vision in my mind and I try to render it on paper in as much accuracy as possible, this assessment of accuracy would be subjective. This is so because no one who is outside of my head could possibly affirm or deny the accuracy of my drawing.
Get it now?
I've already explained why you are wrong about this but you don't understand.
Your earlier tree falling in the forrest analogy is also inappropriate but I doubt that you have the capacity to see why.
Here's a clue to help you: a recording is a concrete entity.
Get it now?
DrMartin
17-05-2010, 19:33
For the third time in this thread, people have missed the point. The argument of the point is not that PRaT and tonal quality are mutually exclusive.
The argument of the point is that, since we can obviously discern and discriminate between them, which of the two would we choose, given some hypothetical scenario that we can't have both?
Let me offer an example, in the hopes that you won't fall into the trap for the fourth time: if you eat a meal for lunch, you can, while eating, consciously discern and discriminate between these two qualities of the food -- taste, and aroma. We could argue till the cows come home that the two are inseparable, and yet we do tend to experience them as two separate phenomena.
Suppose now that the chef who is preparing the meal can also separate the taste from the aroma. And she gives us a choice: either order the tasty meal, or the aromatic meal. Which one would you order?
Again, the above is not to argue that taste and fragrance/aroma are mutually exclusive.
You really are clutching at straws now aren't you :lol:
Apart form the fact that it is factually inaccurate, that's an even worse analogy than the tree falling in the forrest that nobody heard :lol:
Hillarious!
magiccarpetride
17-05-2010, 19:36
Here's a clue to help you: a recording is a concrete entity.
I've just listened to a piece of recorded music that was streaming wirelessly from the 'cloud' into my digital media server. It's all vapor (or, conceptually speaking, zeros and ones, or on and off bits). Anyone who knows information theory knows that information is dimensionless.
What's so concrete about it? It's intangible.
DrMartin
17-05-2010, 19:47
I've just listened to a piece of recorded music that was streaming wirelessly from the 'cloud' into my digital media server. It's all vapor (or, conceptually speaking, zeros and ones, or on and off bits). Anyone who knows information theory knows that information is dimensionless.
What's so concrete about it? It's intangible.
Good for you, was it tonally accurate?
magiccarpetride
17-05-2010, 19:54
Good for you, was it tonally accurate?
No, it was tangible.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.