Part 3: How do we know if the reproduced sound is close to real?

[magiccarpetride]

Concluding the trilogy on what is it that makes us recognize a high fidelity sound system, I'd like to open a discussion on the toughest issue of them all. So far, we've been discussing how does a live performance that involves familiar instruments measure up with that same recorded performance that gets reproduced through the audio chain, as well as how does our impression of a reproduced performance that involves unfamiliar instruments get formed. Both discussions delivered some really illuminating observations and a dearth of kick-ass analyses. Let's now see what you can come up with in answer to this conundrum:

Suppose I'm a composer who is focused on producing pure electronic music. You find me sitting in my studio, dicking around with tone generators, computer software, and such. My aim is to produce electronic sounds that would be utterly unfamiliar to listeners. In other words, I'm not interested in approximating the sounds of familiar instruments.

While pursuing that goal, I'd be playing with generated soundwaves on my computer, applying all kinds of filters, effects, arm wrestling the software in the attempt to arrive at the sound that would be pleasing and satisfactory to my ears. Once I get there, I'd mix it down, master it, burn it, and publish/distribute it.

The question now becomes: when the end consumers listen to this completely fabricated sound on two different sound systems, they may form an opinion that the unfamiliar sound, with its unfamiliar timbre and texture, sounds better on one system than it sounds on another system.

What would you say informs that opinion? There is obviously no way that the end consumer would know what kind of a sound was I, the creator, hearing in my "mind's ear" while I was fiddling with the knobs in the attempt to capture it. And yet, the listener can form an opinion, and can feel entitled to claim that, reproduced in one fashion, this new sound appears more 'faithful' than when reproduced in a different fashion.

[StanleyB]

Would it be possible to put al the different parts in one thread instead? It's a lot of bother jumping back and forth for referral to previous episodes for me. I am easily confuses..

[magiccarpetride]

Would it be possible to put al the different parts in one thread instead? It's a lot of bother jumping back and forth for referral to previous episodes for me. I am easily confuses..

Perhaps we could have one giant thread titled "Blank Canvas" so that no one gets confused?

[DSJR]

The artist would use *known* monitors for the main mixing and some 'orrible little Auratones, NS10's or whatever the modern equivalent would be for seeing if the mix sounds ok on crap stereos. Headphones, the best of which are better than many speakers, are often used as well.

[AlanS]

Where is part 2?

[magiccarpetride]

Where is part 2?

Part 2 was not labelled as such, it was titled "How do we know if the reproduced sound is close to real?"

[Mr. C]

Would you care to define 'real' in YOUR sense please Alex.

[magiccarpetride]

Would you care to define 'real' in YOUR sense please Alex.

Avec plaisir, Sir. By 'real' I mean something that really gives one immeasurable pleasure. Anything less than that is to be considered unreal.

[DSJR]

I've been to a number of performances which were "real" enough, but totally unmusical, with cr@ppy rhythm and little involvement...

[The Vinyl Adventure]

Yeah, one thread would have been easier for this and the caiman ones... There's no problem with thread drift on this forum alex, so If you want to take a different direction with a question it's not gonna be frouned upon as long as it still makes sence and you explain your different angle... Anyway

same answer as I said in the other thread...
Better hifi's tend to have more dynamic range and are balanced tonally ie no over blown bass etc... As long as you made the music to be dynamic and tonaly balanced then a better hifi would show up the quality of your mastering etc
if you made it to sound crap though, really grainy or somthing like that, then one good system that is very detailed would show up the grainy sound you had made. Alternativly another equally good system that might be lush sounding and smooth but with less detail might smooth over the grain you set out to make...
Basically without prior knowledge of the sound of the instrument or sound you are creating it would be imposible to determin which was correct when presented with 2 good hifi's with different characteristics... But it would be easy to pick out a shit hifi as, well it would be obvious... Same answer as before really!

[Stratmangler]

:popcorn:

[magiccarpetride]

Yeah, one thread would have been easier for this and the caiman ones... There's no problem with thread drift on this forum alex, so If you want to take a different direction with a question it's not gonna be frouned upon as long as it still makes sence and you explain your different angle... Anyway

same answer as I said in the other thread...
Better hifi's tend to have more dynamic range and are balanced tonally ie no over blown bass etc... As long as you made the music to be dynamic and tonaly balanced then a better hifi would show up the quality of your mastering etc
if you made it to sound crap though, really grainy or somthing like that, then one good system that is very detailed would show up the grainy sound you had made. Alternativly another equally good system that might be lush sounding and smooth but with less detail might smooth over the grain you set out to make...
Basically without prior knowledge of the sound of the instrument or sound you are creating it would be imposible to determin which was correct when presented with 2 good hifi's with different characteristics... But it would be easy to pick out a shit hifi as, well it would be obvious... Same answer as before really!

Thanks Hamish. I just find that previous threads tend to fizzle out and disintegrate into a bit of unfocused chatter as they run out of steam. That's why I try to affix the renewed attention by opening a new thread (albeit with a similar topic).

You bring up an interesting point, though: a good system cannot help but promote well recorded music as it rekindles our renewed attention (the much loved "I'm rediscovering my music library!" syndrome). However, lousy recordings get to sound even worse the better the audio system gets. That's a sad side effect that I'm 'enjoying' right now, as I've discontinued listening to some shitty recordings, because my system is just too unforgiving.

So conversely, shitty systems are the promised land for the shitty recordings. I put an unlistenable CD in my car stereo, and voila! -- all of a sudden it becomes listenable again:)

[The Vinyl Adventure]

we have 2 things here

a bad system that makes a badly recorded album sound listentoable because it hides the bad stuff

and a good system makeing badly recorded music sound worse because it shows up the bad stuff

Those 2 things are clearly different and very easy to identify

It's still easy to hear that it's being played on a better system as the bad stuff becomes more clearly bad...
On a bad system something is being hidden
... If you make a comparison between the 2 it would be clear on the good system you were hearing more of the badness ... Therefore identifyable!

[The Vinyl Adventure]

... Just because it is more listenable on the bad system Doesnt mean it sounds more hifi or better in those terms... It's always obvious it's a bad system when a comparison can be made...

[The Vinyl Adventure]

When I say an album sounds worse on a good system ... I'm not saying that it would make a bad hifi sound like a good hifi by playing a bad sounding album on it....

[The Vinyl Adventure]

This is well confuddling but it seems blindingly obvious in my head, but il be buggered if I can explain it properly ...

[magiccarpetride]

This is well confuddling but it seems blindingly obvious in my head, but il be buggered if I can explain it properly ...

No no, it's clear as mud;) Basically, what you're saying is, if you have to make love to a less than lovely looking woman, it's much better if the lights are dimmed;) Right?

[The Vinyl Adventure]

Ha! Yeah...
So, does that answer the question!

[magiccarpetride]

Ha! Yeah...
So, does that answer the question!

Sorry, what was the question?

[The Vinyl Adventure]

I dunno, it's your confusing thread... Your question ... If there was one.... Erm ... 42?

[Jonboy]

http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp272/jonboy_01/lion-yawning.jpg

[magiccarpetride]

http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp272/jonboy_01/lion-yawning.jpg

Brilliant! I like it when people go out of their way to call in to say that they have nothing to say:)

[Jonboy]

Brilliant! I like it when people go out of their way to call in to say that they have nothing to say:)


You got it, cause i know it all allready and so does my dog

[DSJR]

IMO, a properly sorted better system usually makes bad recordings sound as good as they can get - there's usually some merit in there and the better system hopefully doesn't add compression and colourations of its own to the compromised sources...

Giong the other way, I've been playing the "Coverdale-Page" CD. It sounds incredible even on my speakers, but it's not really for headphones, as the sound needs to expand in a room, rather be squashed into your head by direct-driven 'eadphones..

[The Grand Wazoo]

If the music is of merit, and there's something there that I'm interested in, I'll listen to it. I generally don't give a toss if a system shows up faults - you can mostly listen through faults and the music is the important thing.
Lo-fi is always infinitely preferable to no-fi

[magiccarpetride]

IMO, a properly sorted better system usually makes bad recordings sound as good as they can get - there's usually some merit in there and the better system hopefully doesn't add compression and colourations of its own to the compromised sources...

Sometimes those compressions, distortions and colorations are a godsend. There are numerous recordings from the '80s where a good system is mercilessly revealing those incredibly harsh, synthesized snare drum hits. It sounds like the snare drum is drilling a hole through your head.

Thankfully, when you play the same tracks through a cheapo muffled audio system, the drilling stops, and the super aggressive snare drum becomes mushy and is not bothersome anymore.

So accuracy in sound reproduction is not always a good thing, you see...

[magiccarpetride]

If the music is of merit, and there's something there that I'm interested in, I'll listen to it. I generally don't give a toss if a system shows up faults - you can mostly listen through faults and the music is the important thing.
Lo-fi is always infinitely preferable to no-fi

Good point, and I think we all agree on that. It's just that I'd personally prefer to listen to a poorly recorded/mixed/mastered/produced music on a less revealing system. Like, those poorly produced CDs go for my listening while driving, not in my living room.

[Steve Toy]

Hmmmm, not so fast. A good hi-fi system plays music, right?

It times well and can carry a tune, several tunes simultaneously from different instruments in fact.

A really good system will showcase poor recordings for what they are, for sure, but they will also still make more sense of the music on those same recordings.

I have a test track on one of those freebie CDs the Sunday newspapers used to give away about five years ago - Boulevard Point of View. There is a female vocal and synths to what is a rather catchy dancy pop track. The recording is mediocre verging on rather poor. So-called 'revealing' systems tend to completely trash this recording and bury the music along the way. However, on a really musical system, the kind that will also really showcase a top-notch recording, the track should blow you away with its easy rhythm and melody. The better the sytem in terms of timing, tunefulness and dynamics, the more enjoyable the track will be.



So, if a system is 'so good' it trashes the music as well as the recording then I'm sorry, the system is broken.

[goraman]

Yesterday,while listening to CD1 of the Story of the Clash, Track 4 Should I stay or should I go? I noticed the bass gutar being over driven to distortion with in a second of noticeing it was corrected and the song went on.I never noticed that before but there it was clear to hear.

But I don't belive fine audio systems pointing out flaws is what the auther of this thread was commenting on.
I belive he was looking to an answer that can only be given as an act of faith.

Or you could argue that better compnets with good senergy can be proven to be acurrate useing a scope and signal generator.

Do I belive my stereo dose a fine job at reproducing music YES,Do I think it may have some bump or dip in the sound spectrum YES, but most likely not noticable or worth mentioning.
Most good stereos are not going to be so far out of tone that you would say it sounds off from the origanal.

The guy mixing at a 20 foot long EQ. would not be able to tell you if thats what he recorded,Hell some of those guys don't even remember how they got home on the week end. and they can have as big an effect as the band on the recording.

So I look at it this way,Can I hear small details like reed noise,fret noise ect.. in the recording.Dose it raise goose bumps on my skin and make my foot tap the floor.
Dose it take my mind off my shit job.
If it can do all that,there is no point in questioning it.

Or we could go on about it for several years and end up right back to thread #1 not haveing really answered anything to everyones satisfaction.

Why? because thats the world of Hifi.

HiFi; A hobby that involves audio equptment priced to empty the pockets of obsessive -anal -tech geeks with out mercy.(A hobby marketed to the welthyest of the mentaly ill).

[goraman]

Hmmmm, not so fast. A good hi-fi system plays music, right?

It times well and can carry a tune, several tunes simultaneously from different instruments in fact.

A really good system will showcase poor recordings for what they are, for sure, but they will also still make more sense of the music on those same recordings.

I have a test track on one of those freebie CDs the Sunday newspapers used to give away about five years ago - Boulevard Point of View. There is a female vocal and synths to what is a rather catchy dancy pop track. The recording is mediocre verging on rather poor. So-called 'revealing' systems tend to completely trash this recording and bury the music along the way. However, on a really musical system, the kind that will also really showcase a top-notch recording, the track should blow you away with its easy rhythm and melody. The better the sytem in terms of timing, tunefulness and dynamics, the more enjoyable the track will be.



So, if a system is 'so good' it trashes the music as well as the recording then I'm sorry, the system is broken.

I compleatly agree with this statment,this comment should be in a list of audio truths.

Can we make a section where a brilliantly made statement can be voted on by members to a thread.where only statments voted in can be posted permantly by a moderator. It could be the first time this has ever been done,sort of an living audio discovery of the truth as our members see it.

[Steve Toy]

All posts are permanent unless deleted by a moderator beyond a certain time limit.

All moderators are also equal contributors to discussions.

[Mr. C]

Avec plaisir, Sir. By 'real' I mean something that really gives one immeasurable pleasure. Anything less than that is to be considered unreal.

Arh Alex,

There in lies the quintessential flaw in your logic sir. :stalks:
There are systems that are fully capable of giving 'immeasurable pleasure' in service surrently though many a woman would add, show me a man capable :eyebrows:

I digress, 'immeasurable pleasure' does not necessarily equate to a 'REAL' as close as it gets sound reproduction.
What it may indicate to anyone reading it, is a simple big grin factor, an enjoyable situation that makes you very happy or in some cases euphoric (depending on the amount of Columbian marching power, rat dropping and paint stripping scrumpy or that 3 hour sopping wet session you enjoyed with a pair of nubile students you picked up at Whether spoons the previous evening:)).

Engaging and involving music systems that captivates you, that just make you sit down and let the music wash over and take you there. The only time you leave is for a top up, change the tunes (unless server based ;-) ) or call of nature.

These systems do not need to be costly, nor have 'badges' on, but care in understanding your equipment. The room / speaker interaction, dynamic headroom, linearity. Propagation of sound waves and pressure levels on the room and its contents. A small part of getting to grips with a sound that makes YOU happy nothing more, not your mate, his mate, his best mates left ear lobe or the jack Russell from number 3 who keeps piddling on your front-lawn.


Back to the matter in hand Real, let’s take two examples a full scale orchestra of 120+, where would you say the best place was to earn that 'immeasurable pleasure' title?
In the first 10 rows? mid point in the auditorium? Or in the back row's to savour that 'full bloodied' taste?

Who do you feel maybe best placed to give an opinion on what is Real in this scenario? Possibly the conductor?
He is right at the 'head' of the performance commanding it's every peak and trough, it's ebb and flow, from the tiniest triangle solo to the biggest thundering crescendo.

Have you ever been up close and personal at an orchestral performance? It’s pretty special and yet immensely loud, immediate, brash and shrill at the same time. How could I possibly say these things :eek:
The dynamics, immediacy, sheer force of the sound is something else, this is almost the point of source putting you firmly in the heart of the performance.
Every nuance, bows drawn across strings, brass rasping , huge timpani / kettle drums pounding away etc.
That is a REAL performance as it happens. Can we recreate this?, in a word no, not really however we can get close.

Though to do this, several parameters are required, very simplified list here.
A very transparent and open system which has dynamics capable of containing an orchestra at full flow (no mean feat!), a system that can deliver serious headroom, and SPACE for both the transducers and music to breathe unhindered.

Now, even if you had obtained all these items, would the resulting sound be 'immeasurable pleasure', for some people yes, but the vast majority a resounding NO.
Why? you ask Alex. Very simple most listeners of classical music prefer a midrow seating placement, still keeping a lot of the dynamic intent, intimacy and power, yet the notes having greater time to form convey more depth, palpability and present a 'different aspect' to the performance, a half way house if you like.

There are those that favour the Big sound, at the rear of the auditorium the formation of the whole picture is close to complete, huge staging and presence are generated here, the full picture is very much in evidence here. Notes have pretty mush fully formed.
Not entirely accurate as timing issues are very evident here, however for a few folk it is the only place to be :)
Which one is the most REAL here Alex.

Example two a rock concert, five guys with ego's at least the size of Roy Gregory’s all cranked up to number 11, naff venue, sound mixer who's on his 12th pint of wife beater, a crowd who's baying for blood humm...
Going to be a heady mix. Though the great number of 'front row' seats with be moshing away at warp factor 10 captain.

Tuff one eh?
So REAL in this case for a metal head would be, shrill ear bleeding guitar riffs, thumbing synaptic bass lines, screaming vocalist, and the guy at the back beating seven bells of shit out of the well worn skins.

Translate that to a hifi system, humm tis is going to be a good one :ner:
What remains real for one person is far too in yer face, brash and hard for another.

So this brings us to crux, most people genuinely what a sanitised version of the 'real' event that they have chosen.
On a scale of one to ten, one being dad's radiogram (uber pipe and slippers were quad 57's and 11's are regarded as 'pacy and a bit up front') to a rig that is capable of being as close as it gets given the technology and the constraints place on that system by the record companies
The most UK music lovers are between 2 and 5, the odd guy may go to 7, but very, very few can handle 'Real'.

I'll qualify that statement for you Alex, my company owns a recording studio (commercial one), we record all genres of music from thrash death metal on speed to acoustic solo performances in church halls and pretty much everything in-between.

Are we state of the art, no cost spared Abbey road chasers NO.
However we are passionate about our work, have excellent equipment and in a professional capacity spend the time to genuine give the artist the best possible conditions for them to make their cut the way they wish it and with the best possibly quality.

Now one band will differ wildly from a 'sound' they like in the studio, to a live gig. we know how instruments should sound in a natural unamplified environment, to a full practice session in one of the studio's.
If you sat say Jack Johnson, between your speakers and he played a few tracks (acoustic un amplified) for you at your normal listening distance, the result would be a fantastic intimate performance, full of dynamics, articulation and sheer presence it would be 'Wow', however very, very few people could live with this style on a day to day basis.

Hence compression :doh: which I could go into for eternity, however it has a small place and its overuse has been killing recordings for the best part of 10 years or so now.

I also play in a band (for my sins), have done for close to twenty five years :lol:, I'm the guy that hangs around with musicians, however realism in its purest form would turn off the vast majority of the listening populous verbatim.

Back to 'immeasurable pleasure' this can actually have nothing to do with realism, does it matter, not really if you system truly generates 'immeasurable pleasure' then you should be listening to it as your system is producing multi O's on a grand scale.
Philosophising on the merits of such possibly on forums may lead to large scale OCD.

[goraman]

All posts are permanent unless deleted by a moderator beyond a certain time limit.

All moderators are also equal contributors to discussions.

I didn't state it right, a titled thread where only by a vote a brillent comments from anyone can be added
but only after being voted in by the members then added by a moderator.

A sort of we find this to be true and feel this is a comment worth passing on,who knows mabey it would some day become a book of audio discovery.
The Art of Sound findings.
It would give the forum another level of depth.

[The Vinyl Adventure]

post ratings... id be surprised if vbulletin doesn't support something like that

[Spectral Morn]

Arh Alex,

There in lies the quintessential flaw in your logic sir. :stalks:
There are systems that are fully capable of giving 'immeasurable pleasure' in service surrently though many a woman would add, show me a man capable :eyebrows:

I digress, 'immeasurable pleasure' does not necessarily equate to a 'REAL' as close as it gets sound reproduction.
What it may indicate to anyone reading it, is a simple big grin factor, an enjoyable situation that makes you very happy or in some cases euphoric (depending on the amount of Columbian marching power, rat dropping and paint stripping scrumpy or that 3 hour sopping wet session you enjoyed with a pair of nubile students you picked up at Whether spoons the previous evening:)).

Engaging and involving music systems that captivates you, that just make you sit down and let the music wash over and take you there. The only time you leave is for a top up, change the tunes (unless server based ;-) ) or call of nature.

These systems do not need to be costly, nor have 'badges' on, but care in understanding your equipment. The room / speaker interaction, dynamic headroom, linearity. Propagation of sound waves and pressure levels on the room and its contents. A small part of getting to grips with a sound that makes YOU happy nothing more, not your mate, his mate, his best mates left ear lobe or the jack Russell from number 3 who keeps piddling on your front-lawn.


Back to the matter in hand Real, let’s take two examples a full scale orchestra of 120+, where would you say the best place was to earn that 'immeasurable pleasure' title?
In the first 10 rows? mid point in the auditorium? Or in the back row's to savour that 'full bloodied' taste?

Who do you feel maybe best placed to give an opinion on what is Real in this scenario? Possibly the conductor?
He is right at the 'head' of the performance commanding it's every peak and trough, it's ebb and flow, from the tiniest triangle solo to the biggest thundering crescendo.

Have you ever been up close and personal at an orchestral performance? It’s pretty special and yet immensely loud, immediate, brash and shrill at the same time. How could I possibly say these things :eek:
The dynamics, immediacy, sheer force of the sound is something else, this is almost the point of source putting you firmly in the heart of the performance.
Every nuance, bows drawn across strings, brass rasping , huge timpani / kettle drums pounding away etc.
That is a REAL performance as it happens. Can we recreate this?, in a word no, not really however we can get close.

Though to do this, several parameters are required, very simplified list here.
A very transparent and open system which has dynamics capable of containing an orchestra at full flow (no mean feat!), a system that can deliver serious headroom, and SPACE for both the transducers and music to breathe unhindered.

Now, even if you had obtained all these items, would the resulting sound be 'immeasurable pleasure', for some people yes, but the vast majority a resounding NO.
Why? you ask Alex. Very simple most listeners of classical music prefer a midrow seating placement, still keeping a lot of the dynamic intent, intimacy and power, yet the notes having greater time to form convey more depth, palpability and present a 'different aspect' to the performance, a half way house if you like.

There are those that favour the Big sound, at the rear of the auditorium the formation of the whole picture is close to complete, huge staging and presence are generated here, the full picture is very much in evidence here. Notes have pretty mush fully formed.
Not entirely accurate as timing issues are very evident here, however for a few folk it is the only place to be :)
Which one is the most REAL here Alex.

Example two a rock concert, five guys with ego's at least the size of Roy Gregory’s all cranked up to number 11, naff venue, sound mixer who's on his 12th pint of wife beater, a crowd who's baying for blood humm...
Going to be a heady mix. Though the great number of 'front row' seats with be moshing away at warp factor 10 captain.

Tuff one eh?
So REAL in this case for a metal head would be, shrill ear bleeding guitar riffs, thumbing synaptic bass lines, screaming vocalist, and the guy at the back beating seven bells of shit out of the well worn skins.

Translate that to a hifi system, humm tis is going to be a good one :ner:
What remains real for one person is far too in yer face, brash and hard for another.

So this brings us to crux, most people genuinely what a sanitised version of the 'real' event that they have chosen.
On a scale of one to ten, one being dad's radiogram (uber pipe and slippers were quad 57's and 11's are regarded as 'pacy and a bit up front') to a rig that is capable of being as close as it gets given the technology and the constraints place on that system by the record companies
The most UK music lovers are between 2 and 5, the odd guy may go to 7, but very, very few can handle 'Real'.

I'll qualify that statement for you Alex, my company owns a recording studio (commercial one), we record all genres of music from thrash death metal on speed to acoustic solo performances in church halls and pretty much everything in-between.

Are we state of the art, no cost spared Abbey road chasers NO.
However we are passionate about our work, have excellent equipment and in a professional capacity spend the time to genuine give the artist the best possible conditions for them to make their cut the way they wish it and with the best possibly quality.

Now one band will differ wildly from a 'sound' they like in the studio, to a live gig. we know how instruments should sound in a natural unamplified environment, to a full practice session in one of the studio's.
If you sat say Jack Johnson, between your speakers and he played a few tracks (acoustic un amplified) for you at your normal listening distance, the result would be a fantastic intimate performance, full of dynamics, articulation and sheer presence it would be 'Wow', however very, very few people could live with this style on a day to day basis.

Hence compression :doh: which I could go into for eternity, however it has a small place and its overuse has been killing recordings for the best part of 10 years or so now.

I also play in a band (for my sins), have done for close to twenty five years :lol:, I'm the guy that hangs around with musicians, however realism in its purest form would turn off the vast majority of the listening populous verbatim.

Back to 'immeasurable pleasure' this can actually have nothing to do with realism, does it matter, not really if you system truly generates 'immeasurable pleasure' then you should be listening to it as your system is producing multi O's on a grand scale.
Philosophising on the merits of such possibly on forums may lead to large scale OCD.


Excellent Post.


Regards D S D L

[The Vinyl Adventure]

I was thinking that!

[Barry]

I also agree with Neil regarding Mr C's excellent post.

However to put things in perspective:

"There is not a single system in existence anywhere in the world today, that can fully replicate the experience of a live concert."

Or get anywhere close to it. This applies regardless of whether the instruments or voice(s) are themselves amplified or not.

I've attended enough live events, varying from small-scale chamber ensembles, solo folk singers to full scale rock or orchestral performances, in venues as varied as student bed-sits, cafés and night clubs, through to stadia, cathedrals and opera houses. In most cases I think to myself "Boy have got a long way to go", then I go home, switch on my system and within a few minutes I've forgotten the system shortcomings and am enjoying music again (from a system that is quintessentially 'pipe and slippers')!

Regards

[magiccarpetride]

I compleatly agree with this statment,this comment should be in a list of audio truths.

Can we make a section where a brilliantly made statement can be voted on by members to a thread.where only statments voted in can be posted permantly by a moderator. It could be the first time this has ever been done,sort of an living audio discovery of the truth as our members see it.

I second that. There's a number of brilliant nuggets interspersed throughout long threads of discussion as recorded on the "Art of Sound" forum. Some of them are mere witticisms, which I adore, but some of them, as our esteemed member goraman pointed out, are gems containing timeless truths. They should be a required reading for any patient who joins this asylum.

I think we should work on singling those gems out, and offering them to the community for voting. Those that get thumbs up should be compiled, collated and turned into stickies. That way, the audio truisms bubble up to the surface:)

[magiccarpetride]

You got it, cause i know it all allready and so does my dog

Your dog? I thought that was your lion?

[magiccarpetride]

So, if a system is 'so good' it trashes the music as well as the recording then I'm sorry, the system is broken.

I would also argue that if a system is 'so good' that it ameliorates and euphonizes and embellishes the shitty recording then, I'm sorry, the system is broken.

[The Grand Wazoo]

"There is not a single system in existence anywhere in the world today, that can fully replicate the experience of a live concert."

Or get anywhere close to it. This applies regardless of whether the instruments or voice(s) are themselves amplified or not.
Regards

I think we've both said that before Barry or words to that effect.

[magiccarpetride]

"There is not a single system in existence anywhere in the world today, that can fully replicate the experience of a live concert."

Or get anywhere close to it. This applies regardless of whether the instruments or voice(s) are themselves amplified or not.

I would have to respectfully disagree. The other day I've recorded my daughter and her friend rehearsing for the school performance, and when I played it back through my Maggies, my wife got tripped and thought that it's a live performance. She got caught in the illusion, fully unaware that it was a mere reproduction through some wires and other shit involving electricity.

So it is possible, indeed, to approximate the real live sound through a sufficiently sophisticated audio system.

[Mr. C]

Alex,

I do believe you should get out more sir, it will help no end, a brisk walk, a good bike ride and some fresh air can help clean the senses and open the mind to realistic possibilities
The sun is shining gloriously today, I've been stuck in coding some new idea's for digital singal processing, very dry subject.
Tomorrow see's a new day, a new dawn with a large dose of music. No PC more realism, gentleman start your engines..

[Barry]

I think we've both said that before Barry or words to that effect.

Oh yes, indeed I have - but I think it's worth restating; at least to bring everybody 'down to earth' and to deflate marketing hype.

Regards

[Barry]

I would have to respectfully disagree. The other day I've recorded my daughter and her friend rehearsing for the school performance, and when I played it back through my Maggies, my wife got tripped and thought that it's a live performance. She got caught in the illusion, fully unaware that it was a mere reproduction through some wires and other shit involving electricity.

So it is possible, indeed, to approximate the real live sound through a sufficiently sophisticated audio system.

Hello Alex,

I'm delighted that your wife had an enjoyable trip created by your recording. I do have a couple of comments to make:

Was your wife in the room where your speakers are located, or was she hearing the performance from a neighbouring room?

No disrespect intended, but both you and your wife are not sufficiently impartial to adjudge the fidelity: you are too familiar with your daughter's abilities and so your brain will reinforce the illusion and make up for any system deficiencies. In a similar fashion, musicians are often content with modest systems because they are so familiar with the sound of musical instruments, that again their brain can make up for any shortcomings and 'fill in the gaps'. Ultimately, a musician can simply read the score and 'hear' the music in his head.

Regards

[magiccarpetride]

Hello Alex,

I'm delighted that your wife had an enjoyable trip created by your recording. I do have a couple of comments to make:

Was your wife in the room where your speakers are located, or was she hearing the performance from a neighbouring room?

No disrespect intended, but both you and your wife are not sufficiently impartial to adjudge the fidelity: you are too familiar with your daughter's abilities and so your brain will reinforce the illusion and make up for any system deficiencies. In a similar fashion, musicians are often content with modest systems because they are so familiar with the sound of musical instruments, that again their brain can make up for any shortcomings and 'fill in the gaps'. Ultimately, a musician can simply read the score and 'hear' the music in his head.

Regards

Hi Barry,

You know, I gotta give it to you -- I think you're right.

OK, back to square one;)

[Steve Toy]

I think Barry is right too.

Regarding your earlier point:


I would also argue that if a system is 'so good' that it ameliorates and euphonizes and embellishes the shitty recording then, I'm sorry, the system is broken.


The broken system I was refering to doesn't embellish the baby, it throws it out with the bath water.

[magiccarpetride]

I think Barry is right too.

Regarding your earlier point:



The broken system I was refering to doesn't embellish the baby, it throws it out with the bath water.

No, the baby is still there, only it is screaming at the top of its lungs!

[magiccarpetride]

Alex,

I do believe you should get out more sir, it will help no end, a brisk walk, a good bike ride and some fresh air can help clean the senses and open the mind to realistic possibilities
The sun is shining gloriously today, I've been stuck in coding some new idea's for digital singal processing, very dry subject.
Tomorrow see's a new day, a new dawn with a large dose of music. No PC more realism, gentleman start your engines..

Great advice which, unfortunately, I cannot heed because there is a severe windstorm warning for the area of Greater Vancouver, and we're advised to stay indoors. So I'm afraid you'll have to put up with my shenanigans for a couple of more hours;)

[Themis]

Hmmmm... I think that Mr.C, in just a couple of posts, covered the whole subject.
In my humble opinion, et cetera desunt, of course. ;)

[magiccarpetride]

Arh Alex,

There in lies the quintessential flaw in your logic sir. :stalks:
There are systems that are fully capable of giving 'immeasurable pleasure' in service surrently though many a woman would add, show me a man capable :eyebrows:


Nice rant:) (you must have a great espresso maker handy -- I wish I had access to one as well)

This is great, very nicely put, etc. However, one thing no one ever commented on here is: what about my original question? You went out of your way here to elaborate on different excruciating minutia of various live and studio performances, and the challenges of reproducing them faithfully. Fair enough, and thanks for enlightening us. But if you'd recall, my question was pointedly related to reproducing a sound/sounds that was/were completely fabricated, completely contrived, and designed not to resemble any even remotely familiar sound(s).

Surely you're aware of the fact that we now have the technology at our disposal to generate such 'brand 'new', never before heard sounds. So, to reiterate: when reproducing such made up sounds, what's our criteria in claiming that the audio system is getting close to the faithful reproduction, or otherwise?

[Stratmangler]

http://school.discoveryeducation.com/clipart/images/ani_snooze.gif

[Spectral Morn]

:popcorn: :sofa:


Regards D S D L

[Marco]

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/6489/14101.gif (http://img203.imageshack.us/i/14101.gif/) http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/1376/1495u.gif (http://img63.imageshack.us/i/1495u.gif/)


http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/8288/904572.gif (http://img692.imageshack.us/i/904572.gif/)



http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/4351/1044v.gif (http://img37.imageshack.us/i/1044v.gif/)

Marco.

[The Vinyl Adventure]

if its a made up sound there is no answer to that ... what was the sound being played through when it was made up?
the only way it could be faithfull to the original made up sound is for it to be played back through the thing that made it up...

[Steve Toy]

If it's made-up sound - any electronic music really then we have to focus on other aspects of reproduction than tone and timbre. Like dynamics, timing and rhythm etc.

[Mr. C]

Nice rant:) (you must have a great espresso maker handy -- I wish I had access to one as well)

Hello Alex,

No rant all, just merely observations over the years and I really do not like coffee at all!



But if you'd recall, my question was pointedly related to reproducing a sound/sounds that was/were completely fabricated, completely contrived, and designed not to resemble any even remotely familiar sound(s).

Quietly convinced I covered that issue here, as a rock concert is purely contrived sounds in every fashion. Technically speaking an acoustic guitar is a man made! So perhaps a in the truest sense of the word just the human voice is the purest form of 'music' if we go by your suggestions, so 99% of music we listen too is contrived in some way!

Just to refresh your memory.

"Example two a rock concert, five guys with ego's at least the size of Roy Gregory’s all cranked up to number 11, naff venue, sound mixer who's on his 12th pint of wife beater, a crowd who's baying for blood humm...
Going to be a heady mix. Though the great number of 'front row' seats with be moshing away at warp factor 10 captain.

Tuff one eh?
So REAL in this case for a metal head would be, shrill ear bleeding guitar riffs, thumbing synaptic bass lines, screaming vocalist, and the guy at the back, beating seven bells of shit out of the well worn skins.

Translate that to a hifi system, humm tis is going to be a good one
What remains real for one person is far too in yer face, brash and hard for another.

So this brings us to crux, most people genuinely what a sanitised version of the 'real' event that they have chosen.
On a scale of one to ten, one being dad's radiogram (uber pipe and slippers were quad 57's and 11's are regarded as 'pacy and a bit up front') to a rig that is capable of being as close as it gets given the technology and the constraints place on that system by the record companies
The most UK music lovers are between 2 and 5, the odd guy may go to 7, but very, very few can handle 'Real'."



Surely you're aware of the fact that we now have the technology at our disposal to generate such 'brand 'new', never before heard sounds. So, to reiterate: when reproducing such made up sounds, what's our criteria in claiming that the audio system is getting close to the faithful reproduction, or otherwise?

Alex,
I am not too shabby on digital recording and signal transfer techniques.
Lets us look at how the industry works in a roundabout fashion shall we.

Band or group go into studio to make a new recording, most studios’ record at 24 bits and 192khz, so 192,000 samples per second and a recording window width of 24 bits.

CD has a band width of 44100 samples a second and a recording window (resolution) of 16 bits.
All CD based media sales (lossless downloads or CD's) are derived from the original recording 'master'
The recording engineer /mixer then get his paws on the recording and works his magic :lol: depending on band member ego's and record company constraints.

Now this is basically starting with a big pot (24/192) and making it smaller, so reducing the resolution by 33% and the sample rate by 450% (4.5 times smaller) now this can still sound pretty good, however compared to the original it is a mere drop in the Ocean.

Now I am sure all the 24/192 cdp and dac owners will be screaming YES BUT..
Yes they sure do, however you are starting with 16its and 44.1Khz, then applying a digital upgrade if you like, by improving the resolution to 24 or 32 bits, this is essential by adding dither (which is random noise), then multiplying (upsampling/oversampling) the sample rate by 2/2.5/3/4 or 4.5 times to reach the 24/192Khz figure.
NOT the same as starting with the raw recording resolution in any way, a basic red book CD has between 600 and 750MB of information on it.
An equivalent high resolution recording of the same album could contain close to 6 Gigabyte, I have one single track that 2 gig on it's own!

All the extra information really does go to make the music sound more 'REAL' and palpable, thus raises the question does more resolution equate to a better sounding system?.


I digress again, lets now look at human hearing, max signal to noise ratio around 124db and a band width of 20-24Khz (depending on age and individuals) 96db S to N (when young and not yet exposed to Motorhead!)

So CD has all the bases covered, Vinyl actually has a high band width than CD, it makes 27Khz, yet has a higher noise floor reflecting in it's signal to noise ratio just over 70db (cassettes near 60db).

So a recording of 24bits (possible S to N of 144db) and 192khz well above 20Khz so in essence then both of the resolution and sample rates far exceed human hearing limits, so why do it???

Now lets take a simple instrument say a trombone, which measures up to 57Khz! We certainly cannot hear that far up the frequency spectrum for sure, however 57Khz is pretty near the 3rd harmonic (60Khz).
If we take the 57Khz and transpose that into human hearing terms that equates to roughly 16.5-17Khz, in which we can hear it!

If we compare an identical recording back to back on identical equipment there is a definite and repeatable hike in sound quality.

A lot of you are starting to find this out for yourselves now with digital streaming, squeeze box / touch etc.

The newer high resolution down loads are pretty special, however you will need quality equipment to truly bring them to fruition.
Yes they can still sound good on even modest equipment, but to really make them sing high band, transparent, quality amplification and speakers will be required.

There is recoding equipment (if we discount DSD) out there can genuinely record at 32/64bits and 705.6Khz, now can that be truly utilised in the digital age, I feel you will not have long to wait and see.

Now your original question again Realism, in different senses yes and no.
If you were trying to recreate a 4 piece chamber orchestra / solo artist in an intimate enviroment then the chances are pretty good (not perfect no system on the planet can do this, however they are pretty special).

Let’s now consider the Malher syndrome, the full orchestra going at full tilt :)
I have had the privilege of hearing some quite spectacular systems in the last 5 years, including one awesome valve based system (3 watts) with speakers the size of most people front rooms!
Yes it was WOW, scale, dynamics; presence and depth were without doubt world class, nothing less than stunning. However that is not all which goes to make up the complete performance, there is nuances, delicacy, micro dynamic, timbre, tha ability to show the inter play between the musicians, special acuity. In one respect yes totally amazing, yet flawed in other respects.

Other systems which consisted of high class stand mounts produced almost an equal world class sound, yet for other aspects of sound quality, yes they lacked total scale and dynamics, however they still managed to capture the performance with stunning realism, just in different ways.

So this again gives choices, which do you prefer, up close and intimate with oodles of sweet engaging and captivating music, or the immense staging, depth, sheer scale of the sound with fret blurring dynamics.

At the end of the day, this is all personal and how we each like our coffee: lol:
Then again some of us do not 'do' coffee man, and the number 10 on the realism scale is where it starts :stalks:.

[anthonyTD]

Arh Alex,

There in lies the quintessential flaw in your logic sir. :stalks:
There are systems that are fully capable of giving 'immeasurable pleasure' in service surrently though many a woman would add, show me a man capable :eyebrows:

I digress, 'immeasurable pleasure' does not necessarily equate to a 'REAL' as close as it gets sound reproduction.
What it may indicate to anyone reading it, is a simple big grin factor, an enjoyable situation that makes you very happy or in some cases euphoric (depending on the amount of Columbian marching power, rat dropping and paint stripping scrumpy or that 3 hour sopping wet session you enjoyed with a pair of nubile students you picked up at Whether spoons the previous evening:)).

Engaging and involving music systems that captivates you, that just make you sit down and let the music wash over and take you there. The only time you leave is for a top up, change the tunes (unless server based ;-) ) or call of nature.

These systems do not need to be costly, nor have 'badges' on, but care in understanding your equipment. The room / speaker interaction, dynamic headroom, linearity. Propagation of sound waves and pressure levels on the room and its contents. A small part of getting to grips with a sound that makes YOU happy nothing more, not your mate, his mate, his best mates left ear lobe or the jack Russell from number 3 who keeps piddling on your front-lawn.


Back to the matter in hand Real, let’s take two examples a full scale orchestra of 120+, where would you say the best place was to earn that 'immeasurable pleasure' title?
In the first 10 rows? mid point in the auditorium? Or in the back row's to savour that 'full bloodied' taste?

Who do you feel maybe best placed to give an opinion on what is Real in this scenario? Possibly the conductor?
He is right at the 'head' of the performance commanding it's every peak and trough, it's ebb and flow, from the tiniest triangle solo to the biggest thundering crescendo.

Have you ever been up close and personal at an orchestral performance? It’s pretty special and yet immensely loud, immediate, brash and shrill at the same time. How could I possibly say these things :eek:
The dynamics, immediacy, sheer force of the sound is something else, this is almost the point of source putting you firmly in the heart of the performance.
Every nuance, bows drawn across strings, brass rasping , huge timpani / kettle drums pounding away etc.
That is a REAL performance as it happens. Can we recreate this?, in a word no, not really however we can get close.

Though to do this, several parameters are required, very simplified list here.
A very transparent and open system which has dynamics capable of containing an orchestra at full flow (no mean feat!), a system that can deliver serious headroom, and SPACE for both the transducers and music to breathe unhindered.

Now, even if you had obtained all these items, would the resulting sound be 'immeasurable pleasure', for some people yes, but the vast majority a resounding NO.
Why? you ask Alex. Very simple most listeners of classical music prefer a midrow seating placement, still keeping a lot of the dynamic intent, intimacy and power, yet the notes having greater time to form convey more depth, palpability and present a 'different aspect' to the performance, a half way house if you like.

There are those that favour the Big sound, at the rear of the auditorium the formation of the whole picture is close to complete, huge staging and presence are generated here, the full picture is very much in evidence here. Notes have pretty mush fully formed.
Not entirely accurate as timing issues are very evident here, however for a few folk it is the only place to be :)
Which one is the most REAL here Alex.

Example two a rock concert, five guys with ego's at least the size of Roy Gregory’s all cranked up to number 11, naff venue, sound mixer who's on his 12th pint of wife beater, a crowd who's baying for blood humm...
Going to be a heady mix. Though the great number of 'front row' seats with be moshing away at warp factor 10 captain.

Tuff one eh?
So REAL in this case for a metal head would be, shrill ear bleeding guitar riffs, thumbing synaptic bass lines, screaming vocalist, and the guy at the back beating seven bells of shit out of the well worn skins.

Translate that to a hifi system, humm tis is going to be a good one :ner:
What remains real for one person is far too in yer face, brash and hard for another.

So this brings us to crux, most people genuinely what a sanitised version of the 'real' event that they have chosen.
On a scale of one to ten, one being dad's radiogram (uber pipe and slippers were quad 57's and 11's are regarded as 'pacy and a bit up front') to a rig that is capable of being as close as it gets given the technology and the constraints place on that system by the record companies
The most UK music lovers are between 2 and 5, the odd guy may go to 7, but very, very few can handle 'Real'.

I'll qualify that statement for you Alex, my company owns a recording studio (commercial one), we record all genres of music from thrash death metal on speed to acoustic solo performances in church halls and pretty much everything in-between.

Are we state of the art, no cost spared Abbey road chasers NO.
However we are passionate about our work, have excellent equipment and in a professional capacity spend the time to genuine give the artist the best possible conditions for them to make their cut the way they wish it and with the best possibly quality.

Now one band will differ wildly from a 'sound' they like in the studio, to a live gig. we know how instruments should sound in a natural unamplified environment, to a full practice session in one of the studio's.
If you sat say Jack Johnson, between your speakers and he played a few tracks (acoustic un amplified) for you at your normal listening distance, the result would be a fantastic intimate performance, full of dynamics, articulation and sheer presence it would be 'Wow', however very, very few people could live with this style on a day to day basis.

Hence compression :doh: which I could go into for eternity, however it has a small place and its overuse has been killing recordings for the best part of 10 years or so now.

I also play in a band (for my sins), have done for close to twenty five years :lol:, I'm the guy that hangs around with musicians, however realism in its purest form would turn off the vast majority of the listening populous verbatim.

Back to 'immeasurable pleasure' this can actually have nothing to do with realism, does it matter, not really if you system truly generates 'immeasurable pleasure' then you should be listening to it as your system is producing multi O's on a grand scale.
Philosophising on the merits of such possibly on forums may lead to large scale OCD.

:eek::lol: just brilliant!:)
A...

[Joe]

A very humble system can certainly produce a sound that deceives the listener. For example, many many years ago I was listening to 'European Son' from the Velvet Underground's first LP. This was being played (quite loudly) on my sister's el-cheapo Ferguson stereo.

For those who don't know the track, a little way in there's the sound of glass breaking. On hearing this sound, my father rushed into the room, thinking someone had chucked a brick through the window.

Plus of course there's the phenomenon mentioned by Half Man Half Biscuit as 'Is that our phone ringing, or is it on the telly?'

However, I would agree that this illusion of reality is difficult to sustain for anything much more complicated than voice & guitar, and of course as has been mentioned, much studio-produced rock music is nothing like live music anyway.

[DSJR]

I don't know of any major recording that hasn't had at least some compression added, either to vocalists or the orchestra/backing musicians. Remember where the mics are quite often on a drum kit - a few cm, and then see just how loud this kit is from a few metres away (I did very recently and winced at the volume)...

The best we can ask for is a fair facsimile of the original mastering session and the best engineers seem to do this well.

Sure you're losing 33% approx when transferring from 24/192 to 16/44.1, but you still have a 96db dynamic range which is twice that of our ears, which work on a sliding scale I feel.. Most "audio" people over 40 will struggle to hear much over 16KHz too, so the absolute ability *potential* of CD Red Book is more than ample and the extra bits and pieces in a pro recording setup are more to do with working with the master files and allowing margins for error, which wasn't there twenty five years ago.

[magiccarpetride]

Word!


Hello Alex,

At the end of the day, this is all personal and how we each like our coffee: lol:
Then again some of us do not 'do' coffee man, and the number 10 on the realism scale is where it starts :stalks:.

A couple of things caught my eye. First: contrived sounds. Yes, I agree that all recorded sounds but the human voice are ultimately contrived. However, the distinction I was trying to make is that some of those contrived sounds are overly familiar to most listeners, whilst some are brand new (like, the weird sounds I'm hearing from one of the Bill Laswell albums; I don't think I've ever heard sounds like those, but man, they feel great)

Next thing: high resolution digital music. I'm quite intrigued by it, and have been experimenting with those high resolution formats. In my subjective experience, they really sound much better than the old school red book format, but that may be just placebo.

So I'd be curious to hear more from you about the 'real story' behind these super high density sampled digital representations of the analog sound waves. It stands to lay reasoning that, the more often you sample the analog wave, the closer you'll get to faithfulness (sort of like the more megapixels your camera has, the more details it will capture in the photo).

But is that really what's absolutely necessary? Is there a point of diminishing returns?