# Do "natural" sounding recordings really sound that...natural?



## Tapkaara

One of the highest compliments a reviewer can give a recording is how "natural" it sounds.

Without naming strings specific recordings, I can say that I've encountered a few recordings that were praised for their "natural" sound only to be a little dissapointed when I heard them.

First of all, I find that many so-called natural recordings have low recording levels. Is natural somehow quiet? Also, brass and purcussion sound subdued. I'm sorry, but in the live concert hall, brass and percussion are usually among the loudest orchestral elements. What could be more natural sound than what you hear in a concert hall?

One recording that comes to mind is the praised recording of Mahler's 8th on Naxos with Antoni Wit conducting the Warsaw Phil. Yes, it's a great performance that was praised for its natural sound, but it all sounded white-washed to me. The organ sounds weak, plus everything sounds like it was recorded at a distance. I've not heard this piece live, but I'd imagine hearing it in a hall would be ear shattering. Solti's Mahler 8 seems like it would be a more accurate representation of what a piece would sound like in a hall. (A real organ in a concert hall would be VERY loud, not pushed into the distance.)

So, my questions is: what is it about "natural" recordings that make them sound "natural?"


----------



## Kuhlau

Thanks for inadvertantly reminding me that, despite owning it for almost two years, I've still not listened to that Wit Mahler recording. Perhaps once I have I'll be better able to come back here and give you my thoughts. 

FK


----------



## Guest

I would have thought that natural would equate to "_as close to the original performance sound as was possible_" and agree with you that the dynamics of a concert can be very loud at times. 
These kind of recordings are very rare, and as we discovered on this forum the majority of systems can not cope with this dynamic range, but mine can and I love it


----------



## Tapkaara

As far as dynamic ranges go, what's up with recording where the pianissimos are SOOOO pianissimo that you can barely hear them, even when your player is cranked. In a concert hall, even very extreme pianissimos are easily heard. Again, this seems more "natural" to me.

In Osmo Vanska's Beethoven cycle in BIS, these performances again are very good, and have been priased for their sound, but the levels are sooo low. You can hear every instrument with crystal clarity, but the playback level is low. I was listening to Vanska's Beethoven 9 yesterday and had to crank my player up higher than I normally do to hear an impactful performance. Even though my player was cranked up so high, some pianissimos were still barely audible. This would not happen, normally, at a live performance.

There is a trend, nowadays, I think, to create recordings that are recorded at low levels. I don't understand this. I have really come to appreciate older recordings (from the 50s, 60s, and 70s) over modern ones because engineers back in those days were much more capable at producing exciting sound. What is more, theses older recordings normally seem to be recorded at high sound levels. This is a more accurate concert at home experience, I think.


----------



## Guest

This has been discussed in depth see http://www.talkclassical.com/3155-dont-you-think-dynamic.html If you have a decent system 99% of these problems are absent


----------



## World Violist

But still the point does rather remain about how realistic sound actually is these days.

I personally much prefer older recordings over new ones for the most part, unless there's a better interpretation of the given work. But talking strictly sound, I love '60s recordings above all others. There's a warmth about them that too many other, "better-sounding" CDs completely lack. And that I definitely adore. (as a side note, I do have somewhat of a weak spot for SACDs where I can actually follow a score and hear every line and every instrument (almost) - especially those Mahler symphonies, my gosh! but the overall listening experience MUST go to the older recordings for me)


----------



## Tapkaara

Andante said:


> This has been discussed in depth see http://www.talkclassical.com/3155-dont-you-think-dynamic.html If you have a decent system 99% of these problems are absent


Obviously very proud of your system, Andante.

I don't have a big, honkin' system (yet), but my player is at least quite decent, if not very good! I listen to music fairly loudly, and I don't have huge problems with hearing very quiet sections, but, notwithstanding, even cranked up, there are somerecordings where the level is extremely low. This seems very "unnatural" to me.

I'm with you, Violist. 60s sound engineering was great. Warm, up front, and closer to what is actually heard in a hall very versus the high gloss, clinical sound on a lot of today's CDs.


----------



## Elgarian

Tapkaara said:


> So, my questions is: what is it about "natural" recordings that make them sound "natural?"


I'm glad Andante reminded us about the dynamic range discussion and its relevance to this. While I still feel very uncertain about some of the ideas discussed in that thread, it left me thinking, far more than I had done previously, about the listening environment - basically, the problem that arises from playing the music in the confined space of a typical domestic living room.

I'm not an acoustic engineer, but it seems pretty clear that a recording that sounds 'natural' in an ideal large, well-acoustically-designed listening space, is not going to sound 'natural' when reproduced in a small room. The whole pattern of reflections from the walls, ceiling and floor is going to be completely different: what in a large hall would produce a pleasant reverberative _ambience_ will instead produce all sorts of strange effects, with multiple-reflected sounds entering the ears too close together to be distinguished separately from the original source (the speakers), and muddying the water to an unpredictable degree.

I suppose what I'm wondering is whether this is a problem associated with _recordings_, as such, so much as one produced by the listening environment: if we were to invite, say, a string quartet to play in a typical small living room, would it sound 'natural'? I suspect it wouldn't. In such a confined space, I think it would probably sound pretty horrible.

One possible experiment would be to try what Andy (Simpson Microphones) suggested in that other discussion. Tapkaara, if you listen to one of these problematic recordings using good headhones, does the sound seem more acceptably 'natural'? If it does, then perhaps the room acoustic is indeed a significant factor?


----------



## Tapkaara

Yes, I will have to try the headphone experiment, though I very rarely listen to anything with headphones.

I guess it comes down to what someone considers natural for themselves. For me, natural is what is hear in a concert hall with good acoustics. A full orchestra would sound very diffent if, instead of playing in a hall, played in an open field. Some of thiese so-called natural recordings with extreme dynamic ranges give me the open filed effect where quiter passes have nothing to bounce off of and be heard properly. I think most concert music is meant to be heard in a concert hall, so the acoustic sound effects one encounters in the hall should be reproduced ona disc to creat a natural sound to my ears.

I think a lot of older recordings, (like from the 1960s) better reproduce the concert hall sound than many of todays recordings. Maybe there is a feeling that music that is reproduced at a louder level is somehow vulgar?


----------



## World Violist

Tapkaara said:


> Maybe there is a feeling that music that is reproduced at a louder level is somehow vulgar?


That sounds a bit hilarious to me, actually... so audibility is vulgar??? 

But seriously, I think there's something to this. I don't know what or why. But still, it kind of makes some sort of sense in some bizarre, convoluted way.


----------



## Tapkaara

Well, there is a definite change from the recorded sound of the 60s, for example, to recordings (at least the bulk of them) that are done today. In the 60s, there was this "wall of sound" type thing going on wherease today, it's like wisps of sound. This transition happened for a reason...is classical music that is loud and in your face not preferable to restrained, cold sonics? Perhaps this is the key...


----------



## Elgarian

Tapkaara said:


> Yes, I will have to try the headphone experiment, though I very rarely listen to anything with headphones.


Neither do I, and I ought to make it clear (though I think you understood anyway) that I wasn't suggesting headphones as a viable alternative - just as an experiment to try to see what effect the room acoustics might be having.



> I think most concert music is meant to be heard in a concert hall, so the acoustic sound effects one encounters in the hall should be reproduced ona disc to creat a natural sound to my ears.


I presume most of us would agree that this is what we want to hear. What I don't understand very well is what happens if you take a recording that _has_ very accurately preserved the concert hall acoustic (and so would sound 'natural' on headphones, or if played in an open space), but then then play that recording using a pair of speakers in a small room where the acoustic is entirely different - i.e. much less reverberative, and with reflected sounds hitting our ears with far less delay than in a hall (as I described in my previous post). I can see that this is going to confuse our perception of the listening space to _some_ degree, and it may even transform the most 'natural' of recordings into something unpleasantly artificial. I just don't know enough to resolve my own uncertainty.


----------



## purple99

Another aspect of the natural sound debate is whether we’re even hearing real instruments played by real people at the time of the recording. With most CDs it’s impossible to tell what the sound lab boys have been up to. Computer generated sound, cutting and splicing, sampling, multi-mike techniques, technicians fiddling with sound desks like Spock on the Starship Enterprise, and you risk ending up with a CGI monster. 

A CD then lands on the shelves at HMV. It says on the cover: ‘Mozart’s Violin Concerto in A major played by Spotty Kennedy with the Bagshot Symphony Orchestra’. But is it? The recording company and their sound engineers are under no obligation to say what they did to the tapes. It’s clearly not in the conductor’s or performers’ interests to blow the whistle if shenanigans have occurred. Yet it’s marketed as a faithful representation of real people playing real instruments at a particular moment in history. 

At root it’s a trade descriptions problem and, amusingly, a subject which makes some recording engineers jump up and down with fury. Why? Because they’ve a guilty conscience. They’re unused to the games they play with their computers being exposed, and don’t like being rumbled.

Recordings are always compromises and ‘natural sound’ a laudable but unattainable goal. Put an orchestra in a field and it sounds unnatural (Tapkaara); invite a string quartet into a bedsit and they sound horrible (Elgarian). Make a small baroque ensemble using authentic instruments perform in the Albert Hall and the delicate sound is lost in an auditorium designed for 19th century forces.

The most you can hope for is honesty from CD labels and their paid employees. There’s no reason why computer logs can’t be placed online so buyers and reviewers can check to see what Kevin’s done with his computer. That, in turn, would encourage Kevin to behave, and encourage his employer to avoid instructing him to doctor the record. It’s also a further reason to attend as many live concerts as possible and to view all recorded sound as a poor second best.


----------



## PostMinimalist

Where I live concerts are probably a lot worse than CDs. I have the recording of Mahler 8 with Wit mentioned above and although having been praised for it's realistic sound I personally found it badly played, shoddily thought out and rather loose. I never listen to it! Give me great playing with as many microphones and technical tweaks as you like any day! 
You know this is not like GM tomatoes where there might be terrible health risks we don't know about, it's just a recording you can listen to. (unless Kevin has laced our CDs with subliminal messages! imagine all the way through Mahler 8 having an nearly inaudible voice whispering in your ear "Use more microphones, use more microphones....")
It's just another way to make music. The phrase 'Knickers in a twist' comes to mind.


----------



## Elgarian

purple99 said:


> It's also a further reason to attend as many live concerts as possible and to view all recorded sound as a poor second best.


Exactly so. I reminded myself of that essential truth last week, sitting in the upper circle at the Lowry Theatre watching/listening to _Tosca_ on one evening and _I Capuleti_ the next. I was too absorbed in listening and watching to be thinking much about such things as recording techniques, though when it was all over I couldn't help reflecting that even the best of my best recordings, played through a good amp, and excellent speakers, can't produce a sonic experience to compare for a moment with the real thing.

It's rather like having a high quality reproductive print of a well-loved painting on one's walls. You live with it, and love it, but when you next are confronted by the original, you're shocked by how inadequate the print has really been all that time.


----------



## Guest

Sorry fellow music lovers, but this is heading to be a repeat of the other thread which IMHO got absolutely no where so, with due respect I will bow out of this discussion


----------



## purple99

Elgarian said:


> It's rather like having a high quality reproductive print of a well-loved painting on one's walls. You live with it, and love it, but when you next are confronted by the original, you're shocked by how inadequate the print has really been all that time.


Or reading letters from a loved one, or listening to their voice on tape. It's not the same as being with them in the flesh.

Most music is a performing art and involves a double aesthetic event: an artistic event occurs when the composer writes it, and a second artistic event takes place each time it's performed. That's where the recording industry is a destructive force. It take that second artistic event and rips its guts out. With modern technology and the arrogance of some recording engineers and their CD label masters, they even scrub notes played by real people and replace them with a computer generated simulation. And then fail to inform the buying public what they've done, pretending on the CD cover it's a recording of real people. Take a look at the CDs on your shelves. How much is a computer pretending to be a person?

It's the difference between the genuine, the authentic, the real; and the fake, the deceitful and the unreal. Now, some people don't mind fakes, don't mind being deceived and don't mind living in a computer manufactured fantasy. They're alienated from reality and like it that way. So for them it makes no difference whether they're being tricked. Indeed, they may argue that trickery sounds better than reality, so is preferable. They're like people who say: 'Who needs love? There's a perfectly good brothel just round the corner.'


----------



## Elgarian

purple99 said:


> It's the difference between the genuine, the authentic, the real; and the fake, the deceitful and the unreal.


My immediate response to this is to say yes, of course. Then I stop and realise that I don't think it's so black and white; not so either/or. If I can't own, say, _The Fighting Temeraire_ (because the National Gallery won't let me have it), then it's not a dreadful thing to decide to hang a reproductive print instead, even though it's not 'real'. It's only a fake or a deception if I allow myself to be deceived by it. That doesn't mean I have to constantly spoil my fun by telling myself continually that 'it's only a reproduction', but if I find myself starting to think there's not much difference between this print and the real thing, then that's the signal that it's time to pop into the NG and give myself a shock.

But provided we stay aware of its limitations, it seems a bit hard on the print to point an accusing finger of fakery and deceit at it. It does a useful job, for someone who lives far from the National Gallery. Aren't the CDs pretty much like that, for most of us, whose appetite for music is far greater than our concert-going opportunities? When I start blubbing, while listening to my _Suor Angelica_ recording, surely something real, something genuine and authentic, and - yes, _natural_ - really is breaking through all that techno-paraphernalia, against all the odds (one might think). Anything that assists that process, no matter if it involves a computer or two, would seem valuable, in that light.


----------



## purple99

Elgarian said:


> My immediate response to this is to say yes, of course. Then I stop and realise that I don't think it's so black and white; not so either/or. If I can't own, say, _The Fighting Temeraire_ (because the National Gallery won't let me have it), then it's not a dreadful thing to decide to hang a reproductive print instead, even though it's not 'real'. It's only a fake or a deception if I allow myself to be deceived by it. That doesn't mean I have to constantly spoil my fun by telling myself continually that 'it's only a reproduction', but if I find myself starting to think there's not much difference between this print and the real thing, then that's the signal that it's time to pop into the NG and give myself a shock.
> 
> But provided we stay aware of its limitations, it seems a bit hard on the print to point an accusing finger of fakery and deceit at it. It does a useful job, for someone who lives far from the National Gallery. Aren't the CDs pretty much like that, for most of us, whose appetite for music is far greater than our concert-going opportunities? When I start blubbing, while listening to my _Suor Angelica_ recording, surely something real, something genuine and authentic, and - yes, _natural_ - really is breaking through all that techno-paraphernalia, against all the odds (one might think). Anything that assists that process, no matter if it involves a computer or two, would seem valuable, in that light.


I agree, except for this bit:



> It's only a fake or a deception if I allow myself to be deceived by it.


You're aware enough to know when you listen to a CD that EMI may be playing fast and loose with the truth, that what they label "Suor Angelica" on the CD should truthfully be called "Suor Angelica + Kevin and his bank of computers". But they don't call it that because they're ashamed of what they've done. It's as if they've taken _The Fighting Temeraire_ and drawn a few extra boats in the foreground, touched up the clouds, added sparks to the tug's chimney, and then tried to pass it off as a faithful reproduction of the original.

The answer's obvious: let Kevin muck about with his computers as much as he wants, thrusting himself forward, inserting himself between player and listener, but let have the honesty to say what he's done by publishing his computer logs. Listeners, assisted by the critics, can then decide how much of Kevin they can stick. If they decide they prefer less Kevin and more Puccini -- as seems likely -- then a rival CD label can oblige.


----------



## Elgarian

purple99 said:


> The answer's obvious: let Kevin ... have the honesty to say what he's done by publishing his computer logs. Listeners, assisted by the critics, can then decide how much of Kevin they can stick. If they decide they prefer less Kevin and more Puccini -- as seems likely -- then a rival CD label can oblige.


I think we do this already, don't we? We listen, decide whether we find the sound acceptably 'natural', and proceed from there. I don't think I want the computer logs. I think they may even be misleading - like looking at a loudspeaker's specifications & frequency response etc, and trying to guess from them what it will sound like (which is notoriously unreliable).

Here's a question (or rather, two) which might nudge us out of our rut, perhaps. Elgar recognised that recordings would transform the way people listen to music, and he loved his gramophone, recommending to all and sundry that they should get one. Suppose we were to take one of his own electrical recordings (the cello concerto, say, from 1928-ish) and compare:

(a) the original 78s as Elgar heard them, complete with surface crackle & crunch; 
(b) a modern remastering of of those 78 recordings, 'artificially' cleaned up by someone like Mike Dutton; 
(c) a modern recording of the cello concerto (say du Pre, or later - as late as you like, in fact).

Now here are my questions:

1. Which sounds more 'natural' (a) or (b)? That is, the 78s or the remaster?
2. Which sounds more 'natural' (a) or (c)? That is, the recording with minimal intervention from engineers and computers, or the one with far more?


----------



## PostMinimalist

Ask yourself this - If there were no recordings how much orchestral music would you know? As it is orchestras are too often reduced to playing corny crowd pleasers just to pay the bills. Not everyone is in the privilaged position of having an orchestra readily at hand to play a Tchaikovsky symphony should the whim take them. Granted that the wait and eager expectation for an up coming concert can be also part of the concert-going experience but the ease of use and accessability of the CD outweighs this, does it not?
As for 'concert quality' on a CD how about programming your listening a month in 'advance and then treating the orchestra (these are real musicians trying to make a living too!) that's playing on the CD with the same reverence and respect that you would apply in a concert hall. Just because a guy plays the oboe in front of you doesn't make him any better than one playing in front of the mic for you to hear at your leisure.


----------



## PostMinimalist

of course choice c wins everytime! unless you are interested in the history of recording techniques which is the only joker in the pack.


----------



## Elgarian

post-minimalist said:


> of course choice c wins everytime!


Thanks for supplying an answer to question 2. While we're waiting for more votes to come flooding in, any thoughts about my question 1 (which in some ways may be the more illuminating, if only because there are fewer variables)?


----------



## Guest

post-minimalist said:


> As it is orchestras are too often reduced to playing corny crowd pleasers just to pay the bills.


I just could not resist asking, what are these corny crowd pleasers???


----------



## PostMinimalist

Andante said:


> I just could not resist asking, what are these corny crowd pleasers???


As a pro orchestral player I've played the Radetzky March, the Merry Widow Overture and the Pizzicato Polka so many times I get a special pension for dangerous working conditions! 
Try looking at some progrmaing options of independant orchestras around the holiday times coming up for more examples.


----------



## Elgarian

post-minimalist said:


> Ask yourself this - If there were no recordings how much orchestral music would you know?


I wish I'd responded to this earlier, but better late than never. I don't think the suggestion is that recordings are a _bad thing_ in themselves (certainly I think recordings are wonderful things, myself, and they form an essential part of my life). The issue is to what extent we can/should/might regard them as 'natural', and to what extent they can be _claimed_ to be 'natural'.

I suspect the thing is impossible to resolve, because we all have different concepts of what constitutes 'natural'. For me, it largely depends on the degree to which the technology gets in the way of the music: what's in the forefront of my consciousness - my hifi system, or Puccini's music? If the former, then something's wrong. If the latter, then the music is adequately 'natural' (for me).

For the record, I'll answer my own questions, posed long ago, many posts back:

*1. Which sounds more 'natural' - Elgar's 1928 recording of his cello concerto on 78, or a modern computer-cleaned remaster of it? *

I find the cleaned up sound considerably more 'natural' than the uncleaned. I'm conscious that there's an enhanced sense of 'processing' in the sound, but I find that far less intrusive than the fizz, crackle and splutter.

*2. Which sounds more 'natural' - Elgar's 1928 recording of his cello concerto on 78 (recorded with minimal intervention from engineers), or a modern recording eg du Pre/Barbirolli or later (with far more)? *

It all depends. I'd love to be able to hear Beatrice Harrison/Elgar recorded _well_ with modern techniques. If we could have a recording as good as (say) the du Pre/Barbirolli, then there's no contest. The 78 seems hopelessly inadequate by comparison.

So my own personal response seems to be that on the whole, I find modern, highly processed recordings more 'natural' than old, less technologically complex recordings. It's purely a personal preference, and only a general rule of thumb, of course.


----------



## purple99

Elgarian said:


> I think we do this already, don't we? We listen, decide whether we find the sound acceptably 'natural', and proceed from there. I don't think I want the computer logs. I think they may even be misleading - like looking at a loudspeaker's specifications & frequency response etc, and trying to guess from them what it will sound like (which is notoriously unreliable).
> 
> Here's a question (or rather, two) which might nudge us out of our rut, perhaps. Elgar recognised that recordings would transform the way people listen to music, and he loved his gramophone, recommending to all and sundry that they should get one. Suppose we were to take one of his own electrical recordings (the cello concerto, say, from 1928-ish) and compare:
> 
> (a) the original 78s as Elgar heard them, complete with surface crackle & crunch;
> (b) a modern remastering of of those 78 recordings, 'artificially' cleaned up by someone like Mike Dutton;
> (c) a modern recording of the cello concerto (say du Pre, or later - as late as you like, in fact).
> 
> Now here are my questions:
> 
> 1. Which sounds more 'natural' (a) or (b)? That is, the 78s or the remaster?
> 2. Which sounds more 'natural' (a) or (c)? That is, the recording with minimal intervention from engineers and computers, or the one with far more?


There's an option (d): the CD label admits how they've 'processed' the sound. A small example of one of the software packages -- Pro Tools -- in use:






Here's a big Pyramix operation:






In the first example the guitar sound is processed* to make it 'fatter'. So there's less human in there and more computer. Which is fine on condition the audience is told -- or can find out -- they're being fed computer processed sound. It's amusing that such a simple idea -- be honest with the CD-buying public -- causes such chest beating, temper tantrums and cries of outraged virtue. Methinks the Kevins doth protest too much. 

* Like the cheese


----------



## Elgarian

purple99 said:


> There's an option (d): the CD label admits how they've 'processed' the sound.


But do I need to see the recipe to know whether or not I'm enjoying the meal?

I think the difficulty here is that with any recording/playback process at all, there's an immense amount of 'unknown' processing going on. I'm thinking of things like the complexity of what goes on when an audio signal enters a loudspeaker: the splitting of the signal by the crossover network to divert various proportions of it to the appropriate speaker unit; the way in which the amp reacts to this complicated, active load; the variations in the response of each speaker unit; and so on. That's just one element of the processing that's going on in the chain (and it's not even controllable by the record producer, except insofar as he chooses which monitors to use).

I don't think I want this information - not when I have a pair of ears that, in just a few moments, can listen and say - 'OK, I can accept that sound as adequately natural'. Or not.


----------



## purple99

Mr. Terrible said:


> You and the vast majority of consumers don`t know enough about how recordings are made and what the NECESSARY steps in pre and post production are in order to successfully get the sound, whatever the origins, onto a cd to understand th4e information if it were given to you..


I can read a computer log and notice when Kevin has 'processed' sound produced by a human to give it more compression, expansion, flanging, reverb, noise reduction, equalization, or any other Pyramix trickery. Besides, that's why newspapers and the BBC employ music critics. Let them examine the logs and inform the public should EMI seek to market computer trickery masquerading as human sound.

I think you've just produced a knock down argument for publishing the logs. It's patronising, condescending, insulting, and simply untrue to suggest the general public is too stupid to understand computer processed sound. A ten year old in his bedroom can operate Pro Tools. It's not rocket science as YouTube illustrates.

If the contempt you've just shown for your customers' intelligence is industry-wide then God knows what else the Kevins are up to. It's time their racket -- pretending computer processed audio is a real musician -- was exposed.



Elgarian said:


> But do I need to see the recipe to know whether or not I'm enjoying the meal?


No, but you might choose to eat in a different restaurant should you see the state of the kitchens, or knew what went into the soup.


----------



## PostMinimalist

Often when discussing recording mediums with students I give them an example like this: 
"Imagine a medium with a really high sample rate but with a strange draw back - the sample rate slowly decreases throughout the recording until by the end 30 minutes its about a third of the initial rate and that the total length of recording space is about 30 minutes at a go."
After a bit of weighting up the pros of high sample rate against the unstablity of this rate and the limitations of the recording space the reject this as a bad product. Then I tell them that that's what you get with Vinyl LPs they go retro protective talking about soft analogue compression and natural sound. 
So where does this take us? I recon that any sound engineer working in the 40s was offered a glimpse of the Pyramix system outlined in Purple's Youtube link, he'd humbly request to be put on the next cryogenic chamber for the next half century!


----------



## Krummhorn

Andante said:


> Sorry fellow music lovers, but this is heading to be a repeat of the other thread which IMHO got absolutely no where so, with due respect I will bow out of this discussion


The forum staff quite agrees.

This thread will continue now ... *on topic* ... with a gentle reminder of the forum rules:

*Guidelines for General Behavior*
Be polite to your fellow members. *If you disagree with them, please state your opinion in a »civil« and respectful manner.*

Do not post comments about other members person or »posting style« on the forum (unless said comments are unmistakably positive). Argue opinions all you like but do not get personal and never resort to »ad homs«.

If the personal attacks begin again, this thread will be closed - permanently

Sorry for the disruption of the discussion.


----------



## Elgarian

Thanks, Krummhorn.



purple99 said:


> No, but you might choose to eat in a different restaurant should you see the state of the kitchens, or knew what went into the soup.


I gave you that one on a plate, didn't I? Or was it in a bowl?

It bothers me where one would draw the line. If we demand to see the computer logs, shouldn't we also demand information about the crossover networks of the monitors they used, and the details of the microphone placement, and so on _ad infinitum_?

Or why don't we just skip all of that, listen to the result, and say 'That sounds OK to me, I'll buy one'. (Or not.) Perhaps you'd argue that we're too complacent, but most of the time we do take restaurants' kitchen hygiene for granted. (Incidentally, I believe we may be the founders of an entirely new science - the gastronomic approach to audio engineering.)


----------



## Guest

post-minimalist said:


> As a pro orchestral player I've played the Radetzky March, the Merry Widow Overture and the Pizzicato Polka so many times I get a special pension for dangerous working conditions!
> Try looking at some progrmaing options of independant orchestras around the holiday times coming up for more examples.


I see you are a bass player, [so was I, but a good few years ago]  , I can honestly say that in the last 15yrs of concert going I have not heard one of these pieces that you mention played or any of the usual lollipops that we hear about, are we just lucky in NZ?? Our yearly concert series for the NZSO usually consists of about a dozen works that are repeated and repeated at each venue but are pretty well chosen for variety, and being a pro you have to accept this eh! Just the same as a boy band playing the same thing day in day out, just part of the job


----------



## purple99

Elgarian said:


> Thanks, Krummhorn.
> 
> I gave you that one on a plate, didn't I? Or was it in a bowl?
> 
> It bothers me where one would draw the line. If we demand to see the computer logs, shouldn't we also demand information about the crossover networks of the monitors they used, and the details of the microphone placement, and so on _ad infinitum_?
> 
> Or why don't we just skip all of that, listen to the result, and say 'That sounds OK to me, I'll buy one'. (Or not.) Perhaps you'd argue that we're too complacent, but most of the time we do take restaurants' kitchen hygiene for granted. (Incidentally, I believe we may be the founders of an entirely new science - the gastronomic approach to audio engineering.)


One thing I object to is the arrogance of the mainstream recording industry patting listeners on the head and saying, "There, there, don't you bother your tiny little minds about how we make our recordings. You're too stupid to understand anyway. Leave it to the experts. We know best. Just keep buying the product."

Jobbing musicians know exactly what's going on but keep quiet because their livelihoods are at stake. Recording engineers -- the good ones -- try to keep electronic interventions to a minimum but they also have children to feed and rent to pay so do what their masters tell them.

So you end up with a fraud perpetrated on the CD buying public. CD after CD stacked on the shelves at HMV which fail to mention they've been processed like a Bernard Matthews chicken.

To run the sound produced by a highly trained violinist playing a Stradivarius through Pro Tools or Pyramix insults the composer, the violin maker, the player, and the listening public. To then pretend it hasn't happened is a straightforward trade descriptions violation. No it's not 'Bach's Sonatas and Partitas for Unaccompanied Violin played by Maestro X'. It's 'Bach's Sonatas and Partitas for Unaccompanied Violin played by Maestro X then processed by Kevin on his computer'.

The first is a genuine recording, a worthy aesthetic event; the second a digital vivisection involving a computer. It subverts Bach, the player, Stradivarius and the listening public. It's as if the Borg have taken over recorded classical music. And, as we've seen on this thread and elsewhere, the perpetrators of the fraud get upset and abusive when light is shone on their behaviour.



Elgarian said:


> Or why don't we just skip all of that, listen to the result, and say 'That sounds OK to me, I'll buy one'.


I'm reminded of Mammon's speech in Milton's Paradise Lost when the Fallen Angels have just been chucked out of Heaven:



> Nor want we skill or art, from whence to raise
> Magnificence; and what can Heav'n shew more?
> Our torments also may in length of time
> Become our Elements, these piercing Fires
> As soft as now severe, our temper chang'd
> Into their temper; (II, 276)


In other words: who needs true athleticism? Let them take steroids. Who needs a politician who tells the truth? Let him employ a spin doctor. Who needs a natural woman? Let her have a breast enlargement. There's no difference between Heaven and Hell. We can make Heaven _from_ Hell. That's why Mammon is described as 'the least erected spirit that fell from Heav'n' (I, 679) because he doesn't understand the difference between Heaven and Hell. CS Lewis was hot on the distinction:



> What do you mean by saying we have lost love? There is an excellent brothel round the corner. What do you mean by all this talk of dishonor? I am positively plastered with honors and decorations and everyone I meet touches his cap. Everything can be imitated, and the imitation will do just as well as the real thing
> 
> CS Lewis: Preface to Paradise Lost (pp. 106-7)


----------



## PostMinimalist

@ Andante:
I guess you are lucky in New Zeland, but I wonder how much of your luck isn't actually good Arts management and healthy government funding. I did say indipendant orchestras have this problem much more accutely. Even Mozart can get to you! I lost count of the times I played the Magic Flute overture after 30 and that was decades ago! 

On another keel however, while were talking about puting a log of the editing in the CD package, why not a list of ALL the repairs made by instrument makers to ALL the violins being played on the CD? A good rebuild to a strad can alter the sound it makes much more than the permited limits of most resposible classical recording engineers. 

Mike Hatch of Floating Earth always says get the sound as un altered as you can onto the tape. What if the instrument has been repaired and souds totaly different from that invisaged by the original maker? James Durrant, ex-Principal viola in the BBCSSO and soloist ran over his viola by accident one snowy morning and after a horrific 3 month rebuild (I think by Graham Thomson) Jimmy said it sounded better than ever but completely different from before. Is this not also tamperring with the sound that goes on to our CDs? Why do I get 'poser and show-off' alarm bells going off in my head when I read even the make of an instrument mentioned on a sleve note? Who cares if Niederhammer plays a Horst Grunnert Testore copy or a Plywood box from china if the sound on the record is the same? The same I think should apply to technical audio improvements and DSP (digital sound proccessing) after the fact engineering on CDs.
Remember this is not a restaurant with a recipe containing E145 and MSG, it wont kill you or even make you fat. Recordings by reputable orchestras on reputable labels are made for your enjoyment and that should be translated as aural health. Since we're not looking into subliminal messages and high volume (SPL) ear damage here, we must accept that if we like it, then it's actually good for us. The 'ingredients' don't really matter because they're not the parts that make up the whole as in cooking. Cyanide can kill in soup, but on a CD musical Cyanide poisoning is easily cured by a flick of the off switch! 

FC


----------



## Elgarian

purple99 said:


> To run the sound produced by a highly trained violinist playing a Stradivarius through Pro Tools or Pyramix insults the composer, the violin maker, the player, and the listening public.


I'm going to sound like someone who can only sing one note, but I feel I have to ask again - where do you draw the line? The moment we run the signal through a microphone, a crossover network, or an analogue/digital converter, or any other piece of equipment, we violate it in the same way. To stick with crossover networks, for instance - to split the frequency spectrum of the sound, feed different sections to different speaker units, and then let the sounds recombine in the air is a monstrous thing to do to the music. So why do we do it? Because, on the whole, most people regard the resulting sound as more 'natural' than a single speaker unit can produce. Our ears are the final arbiter, not the details of the signal processing. When we choose a pair of speakers, how many of us need to analyse the details of the crossover network? I don't see any difference, in principle, between the use of a crossover network in speaker design, and the use of other forms of processing. If it's badly done, it won't sound 'natural', and we'll reject it. If it's well done, we'll be too busy enjoying the music to worry about it.



> I'm reminded of Mammon's speech in Milton's Paradise Lost when the Fallen Angels have just been chucked out of Heaven ... CS Lewis was hot on the distinction: ... 'We can make Heaven from Hell'.


I think it's wonderful that you should bring two such powerful guns to bear on the issue, and in some ways I'd prefer to applaud rather than argue the point. Those are sound principles, and Lewis's observations are profound. But I'm not convinced that this is an area where those principles alone are a reliable guide. After all, we could argue that the whole business of listening to recorded sound is an illusion. There's a lie at its heart, if you like: we're trying to pretend that there's a bunch of musicians in the room, playing to us - but there isn't. So if we go down the Milton/Lewis road, I think we'd have to consider whether we should be listening to recorded music _at all_, rather than being concerned about the fine detail of _how_ it's recorded. Seen in this light, the mere act of listening to recorded music is the equivalent of watching a sprinter on steroids.

(Of course I don't believe that, any more than I believe that it's wrong to read a book and fancy I 'hear' the author's voice in my head as I read.)


----------



## PostMinimalist

purple99 said:


> One thing I object to is the arrogance of the mainstream recording industry patting listeners on the head and saying, "There, there, don't you bother your tiny little minds about how we make our recordings. You're too stupid to understand anyway. Leave it to the experts. We know best. Just keep buying the product."


I'm affraid you make a sweeping generalization here. Those possibly guilty of patronising and condecending behaviour are the advertizing executives who try to market and engender a 'Wholesome' image for recordings that are supposedly 'more realistic'. Mostly the music industry employees are interested in great playing, accurate interpretation and good sound quality rather and some mistaking-ridden rendition recorded in a feild with one microphone.



purple99 said:


> Jobbing musicians know exactly what's going on but keep quiet because their livelihoods are at stake. Recording engineers -- the good ones -- try to keep electronic interventions to a minimum but they also have children to feed and rent to pay so do what their masters tell them.


We know what's going on. We enjoy making better and better recordings. We don't have to be silenced by threats to our jobs for blurting out the horrible truth because it's not horrible. Don't degrade the music business by describing some of the finest minds as simple automatons terrified of starvation. (you make this sound like the Neurumberg Trials - "I was only carrying out orders...")



purple99 said:


> So you end up with a fraud perpetrated on the CD buying public. CD after CD stacked on the shelves at HMV which fail to mention they've been processed like a Bernard Matthews chicken.


You'd be a fool to think a Battery chicken in a vacuum sealed pack with four legs and no breast wasn't proccessed, so why would anyone imagine that an entire symphony orchestera served on a small plastic ring isn't either!



purple99 said:


> To run the sound produced by a highly trained violinist playing a Stradivarius through Pro Tools or Pyramix insults the composer, the violin maker, the player, and the listening public. To then pretend it hasn't happened is a straightforward trade descriptions violation. No it's not 'Bach's Sonatas and Partitas for Unaccompanied Violin played by Maestro X'. It's 'Bach's Sonatas and Partitas for Unaccompanied Violin played by Maestro X then processed by Kevin on his computer'.


It's done everyday the players like it, the composers like it, the instrument makers like it and they all know about it in detail. Only the CD buying public don't have a full handle on what's going on, but they too seem to enjoy it. Please read my previous post concerning instrument makers.



purple99 said:


> The first is a genuine recording, a worthy aesthetic event; the second a digital vivisection involving a computer. It subverts Bach, the player, Stradivarius and the listening public. It's as if the Borg have taken over recorded classical music. And, as we've seen on this thread and elsewhere, the perpetrators of the fraud get upset and abusive when light is shone on their behaviour.


Light is non judgemental. When hubris and vehement derision are directed at those trying to make your listening experience better then I believe they have a right to deffend themselves. 
We in the music business are trying to inprove the quality of life for others and in general have no time for manic street preachers.


----------



## PostMinimalist

Elgarian said:


> There's a lie at its heart, if you like: we're trying to pretend that there's a bunch of musicians in the room, playing to us - but there isn't.


But there was! and they got as involved in the music as any stage performer.
Don't let that escape us. Playing for a recording is a nerve racking job since every nuance is not just an etherial moment lost for ever but a real archive subject to microscopic scrutinizartion and re-evaluation over time (rather like your cello concerto example)!
When you listen to a Karajan recording remember he made this for you!
FC


----------



## PostMinimalist

Andante said:


> I see you are a bass player, [so was I, but a good few years ago]  , I can honestly say that in the last 15yrs of concert going I have not heard one of these pieces that you mention played or any of the usual lollipops that we hear about, are we just lucky in NZ?? Our yearly concert series for the NZSO usually consists of about a dozen works that are repeated and repeated at each venue but are pretty well chosen for variety, and being a pro you have to accept this eh! Just the same as a boy band playing the same thing day in day out, just part of the job


Could the corny crowd pleasers I mention be the usual lollipops you mention? Then whyd'ya ask if you knew the answer?
FC


----------



## Elgarian

post-minimalist said:


> But there was! and they got as involved in the music as any stage performer.
> Don't let that escape us. Playing for a recording is a nerve racking job since every nuance is not just an etherial moment lost for ever but a real archive subject to microscopic scrutinizartion and re-evaluation over time (rather like your cello concerto example)!
> When you listen to a Karajan recording remember he made this for you!
> FC


I'd just like to make it clear that I don't need persuading about this. I wasn't stating an opinion of my own, so much as illustrating where a particular line of thinking would lead us. I'm happy to accept that a good recording is an effective method of perpetuating the music of an artist, in the same sort of way as a book is a means of perpetuating the voice of a poet (though I wouldn't want to push the analogy too far). And I very much like your advice to remember that Karajan (or whoever) 'did this for me'.


----------



## purple99

Elgarian said:


> I feel I have to ask again - where do you draw the line?


I think those involved in the music 'industry' (a telling expression) should be guided by a simple principle: be honest with people. I know, I know, it's a radical idea. 

Tell people what's been done to the music so they can choose, with the information to hand, what suits them best. If they prefer Bernard Matthews processed music, fair enough. The Kevins can then play with their knobs and provide it.


----------



## Guest

post-minimalist said:


> Could the corny crowd pleasers I mention be the usual lollipops you mention? Then whyd'ya ask if you knew the answer?
> FC


What a pleasant person you are I will try to keep my distance


----------



## geoffrey terry

*Comments on recording technique*

Close inspection of La Gioconda highlights the fact that she has no eyebrows. Utilising modern, digital technology, it would be perfectly feasible to add a pair of eyebrows, whilst emulating the brush strokes of Leonardo. 
Unfortunately, since the artist painted the work more than 500 years ago it is not possible to refer to him for authority to undertake such a 'correction' or even to establish whether the omission results from intention or an oversight.
No, Miss Mona Lisa should be left as she is.
Such questions could also be posed in the field of musical composition. Maybe flutes should be added to double with strings here or double bases to back up the cellos there. Maybe that melody would sound better on the French horn rather than the oboe
No, once again the masterpieces of the past deserve to remain as the artists and composers offered them for publication.
Certainly in the case where a musician inadvertently plays a wrong note during a recording session, for instance the opening horn solo of Till Eulenspiegel, an electronic correction is justified. However, it is totally unacceptable for the conductor and musicians to request multiple changes in a recording to the extent that the final product does not represent their actual ability.
The recording of a musical composition relies upon just two, fundamental, adjustable components: balance and dynamics.
The conductor's task is to take care of these two aspects by reference to the composer's desires and expressed instructions.
With the development of digital, sound, editing technology the recording engineer also has the potential to alter the sound within these two parameters.
I recently offered up a recording for assessment to a group of highly respected recording engineers.
The first observation received was that the listener had the impression he was sitting on the shoulders of the conductor. The statement was intended as a criticism, whereas I accepted it as a compliment,
When I suggested that I accepted the comment with pleasure, the engineer stated that the sound achieved in that position was the last he would wish to hear.
His suggestion puzzled me and I decided to approach some leading conductors and ask for their thoughts on the subject.
Sir Colin Davis responded that, quote, "his ears only work where he is and the conductor cannot tell what it is like elsewhere in the auditorium."
This suggests to me that the balance and dynamics the conductor establishes and hears, represent that which he intends for the audience.
I have myself been present on many tours by leading symphony orchestras. Each night a different venue, where the conductor gains a feeling for the ambiance and directs the orchestra accordingly. The sound he creates and hears must be the sound he intends for the audience. It would clearly be impossible for the conductor to adjust balance and dynamics for certain positions in the auditorium and if he did so then the sound would be unsatisfactory in other locations in the hall. He can only provide what he considers to be an accurate balance of sound and also a dynamic range for the hall in general.
Clearly if there is a large orchestra of say 100 performers and an audience of say 2,000 then the sound heard throughout the auditorium will vary. Nevertheless, if the architect has designed the ambiance, taking into account all the variables of acoustics, then a satisfactory sound should be available to all members of the audience.
Certainly there are venues where it would be essential to employ several microphones in order to capture all the performers. By definition such a venue is not suitable for performances by musicians since the audience is limited by nature.
Therefore, should a record producer have the desire to undertake a new recording then he should select a suitable environment.
When recording engineers are obliged to adjust the level of sound produced by individual sections or instruments of an orchestra, he either increases or decreases the volume of sound by adjustment of the respective fader. Unfortunately, such an action not only varies the sound level but also creates the impression of actually physically moving the player or players. When continual adjustments are performed, at the request of the conductor, musician or producer, the end result appears unnatural with the instruments or sections of the orchestra apparently running to the front of the stage on each occasion that the volume of the fader, for their particular performance, is adjusted up and then returning to their regular position as the level is decreased. 
There are many tools at the disposition of the recording engineer and they can be of great benefit in the process of CD manufacture; the ability to replace stark performance errors, the removal of extraneous noises, etc.
Prior to a public performance by a Symphony Orchestra it is customary to have a rehearsal, providing the conductor and orchestra with the possibility of familiarising themselves with the program pieces and one another.
Perhaps the orchestra performed the same work the week previously with a different conductor, now they need to familiarise themselves with the reading of the new conductor. 
One of the major differences between a live performance and a performance purely for the purpose of recording is the presence of an audience. The sound characteristic of the hall varies in the two circumstances.
On the question of ambient acoustics it is common amongst recording companies to add electronic echo. Unfortunately, however professionally that stage of the process is performed the end result is unsatisfactory creating the suggestion that the recording was undertaken in St Pancreas railway station. 
By way of entertaining you I would like to propose some samples of recordings I have made. The technique involved the use of just two microphones and once the optimum dynamic level had been established, during rehearsal, the entire recording was made without any adjustment.
1. The Royal Festival Hall organ during a practice session.
2. The Czech Piano Trio
3. The Leipzig Gewandhaus Bach Orchestra
4. The Hungarian State Symphony Orchestra For this particular example there are two FLACs on http://rapidshare.com/files/159245401/direct_txfr_brahms_1.flac.html
And http://rapidshare.com/files/159250754/finale_brahms_1.flac.html
5. The Berliner Statskappeler
& to finish even an opera performance using the same technique.
To hear the other samples go to the foot of the webpage:

http://www.orchestralconcertcds.com/cnstr.html

If you are prepared to offer your opinion of the recordings I would be very grateful.
Regards
Geoffrey


----------



## hugerr

purple99 said:


> In the first example the guitar sound is processed* to make it 'fatter'. So there's less human in there and more computer. Which is fine on condition the audience is told -- or can find out -- they're being fed computer processed sound. It's amusing that such a simple idea -- be honest with the CD-buying public -- causes such chest beating, temper tantrums and cries of outraged virtue. Methinks the Kevins doth protest too much. :


I think it important to try to clear up some of this gross misunderstanding of the engineering process as it applies to various kinds of music.

The example described above related specifically to a pop music track -- an idiom which is inherently 'constructed' -- and as a result the types of engineering practices employed are radically different to those employed in classical music situations.

Furthermore, that clip doesn't make it clear where the requirement to make the electric guitar sound 'fatter' came from. It could easily have been the musician himself that asked for the treatment, perhaps because he was unable to create the sound he required in the studio and therefore needed some additional help -- it is not uncommon. Or it may have been that as more instruments were recorded it was found that the original guitar sound no longer worked in context. Such things are the nature of that particular beast and none of it relates in any way to classical recording.

As to the 'computer processed' aspect... yes, the example showed a simple treatment that happened to be performed within a computer audio editing system for convenience. But exactly the same thing could have been achieved using a traditional analogue console and suitable analogue outboard equipment. It would have taken a little longer, and would have been less convenient, but certainly not that difficult or unusual back in the day before computers became such every-day tools.

In my experience, it is unusual to the point of obscure rarity that anything like this kind of signal processing would ever be applied to a classical recording. Sure, the recording itself may well be made using a computer instead of a large and heavy tape machine, and programs such as Pro Tools, Pyramix, SADiE, Sequoia and many others are the most commonly used. They are all stunningly sophisticated systems with vast arrays of features and facilities, and are used equally in pop music and classical environments. But a recording engineer, like any skilled craftsman only uses the tools required for a specific job, even thought there may be a bewildering array of intriguing options in the box!



> Methinks the Kevins doth protest too much


Methinks opinions should be based on fact and understanding, not baseless hysterical paranoia...

Hugh


----------



## hugerr

purple99 said:


> I can read a computer log and notice when Kevin has 'processed' sound produced by a human to give it more compression, expansion, flanging, reverb, noise reduction, equalization, or any other Pyramix trickery.


So what happens if a computer isn't used to perform these wonders of technical wizardry?

On the occasions when required (which is relatively rare in classical circles, but almost mandatory in pop music) dynamic range manipulation (compression and expansion) can be (and usually are) performed by external analogue hardware units with no computer in sight.

Flanging, again, does not require a computer to produce (it was originally created using two parallel tape machines!) and is an effect confined to the pop music world. Whether added during post-production or introduced during the initial recording makes no difference provided it is the effect everyone involved requires.

Reverb can be added artificially and usually is in pop music, but isn't normally required in classical recordings because the recording venues are generally chosen for their pleasing acoustic properties. One of the few exceptions to this is in broadcasting where orchestral studios tend to be drier sounding than a concert hall to maximise the room's flexibility for other musical genres, and in those specific cases some artificial reverb may have to be used to achieve the desired aesthetic effect.

Noise Reduction is a thing of the past now, and was used to achieve an acceptable signal-noise ratio from magnetic tape recordings. There is no requirement for it with modern digital recording formats (whether computer-based or not).

Equalisation is, once again, not restricted to computer processing -- almost every recording console on the planet is equipped with EQ -- but is confined to pop music applications. I don't think I've ever used any EQ on a classical session, and I can't think why I would ever want to. It simply isn't an appropriate or necessary tool in that application. If those involved in the recording believed that the sound I was capturing from the microphones wasn't acceptable from a tonality point of view, I'd either reposition the mics, or change them for something that did give the required quality of sound. Such is the art and craft of the recording engineer...

Given that the focus of this forum is classical music, surely the inclusion in your arguments of irrelevant techniques and processes which relate to the inherently 'manufactured' nature of pop music is entirely misleading and inappropriate.

Moreover, it is worth reitterating that in the classical music recording industry the use of computers is a mere practical convenience and nothing is done now that wasn't done way back in the days of good old analogue recordings and vinyl records. Classical recording is, in general, the bastion of recording purity and all the classical recording engineers I know pride themselves in their ability to capture the required sound with the minimum of equipment and absolutely no post-production other than maybe some editing to compile the best performances, and possibly some dynamic range control if the production company demands it.



> It's patronising, condescending, insulting, and simply untrue to suggest the general public is too stupid to understand computer processed sound.


As has been argued before, the general public isn't interested, but of those fanatics who are, I agree that most would probably understand if presented with the information. However, it is equally patronising, condescending, insulting, and simply untrue to suggest that 'pyramix trickery' (a term almost as moronic and obnoxious as the constant demeaning references to 'Kevin') is applied to the vast majority of classical recordings when it simply isn't the case.



> If the contempt you've just shown for your customers' intelligence is industry-wide then God knows what else the Kevins are up to.


They are probably wondering why such contempt is being displayed here for their craft skills and professionalism by someone who demonstrably has no knowledge or understanding of the subject 

Hugh


----------



## hugerr

purple99 said:


> To run the sound produced by a highly trained violinist playing a Stradivarius through Pro Tools or Pyramix insults the composer, the violin maker, the player, and the listening public. To then pretend it hasn't happened is a straightforward trade descriptions violation.


Whilst Pro Tools, Pyramix and other computer-based workstations are capable of immensely sophisticated functionality, they are used first and foremost as straightforward, very high quality recorders.... and in the classical recording world that is usually ALL they are used for. To claim some kind of 'trade description violation' in the use of such tools is complete nonsense and can only be based on shameful ignorance.

The equivalent insanity would be to denounce all modern books because they were typeset on computers and so some terrible 'Nancy' (the literary equivalent of Kevin, perhaps?) must have 'processed' the written word in some way to detract from the pure thoughts of the author...



> And, as we've seen on this thread and elsewhere, the perpetrators of the fraud get upset and abusive when light is shone on their behaviour.


I think they get upset because of the gross misinformation being used repeatedly and maliciously to denigrate their craft skills and professionalism.

Hugh


----------



## hugerr

geoffrey terry said:


> With the development of digital, sound, editing technology the recording engineer also has the potential to alter the sound within these two parameters.


The recording engineer has always had the potential ability to adjust these parameters, even back in the days of the crudest vintage analogue technology. The advantage of modern digital equipment is the complete absence of generational loss, improved reliability and repeatibility, and lower cost.



> Sir Colin Davis responded that, quote, "his ears only work where he is and the conductor cannot tell what it is like elsewhere in the auditorium."
> This suggests to me that the balance and dynamics the conductor establishes and hears, represent that which he intends for the audience.


...and the audience are all sitting some way away and therefore hear something which is inherently different.
The conductor attempts to balance the orchestra in order to achieve a sound that the audience will find pleasing and enjoyable -- but let's not be under any illusion that what is heard in the best audience seat in the house is anything remotely like what the conductor hears during the performance.

The aim of most commercial recordings is to capture a sound representative of that heard in the best seat in the house -- a sound the audience will recognise and accept as a natural and pleasing recording. I contend -- although I completely respect that we disagree on this point -- that the majority of the classical record-buying public would not enjoy listening to music with a conductor's close-up perspective.



> The sound he creates and hears must be the sound he intends for the audience.


Section balance-wise yes, I agree. But what he can't control is perspective -- the ratio of direct orchestral sound to reflected hall reverberation and ambience. Inherently, the conductor hears a very close, dry perspective because he is in the midst of the orchstra. The audience, seated at a range of significantly greater distances from the orchestra, hears a much more distance perspective in which the proportion of hall acoustic is significantly larger. And it is this more distant perspective that the listening public expect and require because that it what they hear when they attend a concert. They don't expect (and in most cases won't enjoy) the uber-close conductor's perspective (assuming we are talking about large orchestral works and venues here).

In recent years I have been involved in several classical recordings made in the Symphony Hall in Birmingham. It's a superb venue with the interesting innovation of having a variable acoustic thanks to some massive concrete doors up in the 'eaves' that open into 'echo chambers' within the building, and various reversible acoustic panels around the walls. During rehearsals the condutors instruct the hall technicians on their acoustic requirements, and then wander around the auditorium to assess and approve the acoustics as they are adjusted. In some cases the acoustics are even adjusted for different works within a recording session too, at the conductor's request to optimise the sound to the performance.



> When recording engineers are obliged to adjust the level of sound produced by individual sections or instruments of an orchestra, he either increases or decreases the volume of sound by adjustment of the respective fader. Unfortunately, such an action not only varies the sound level but also creates the impression of actually physically moving the player or players.


Which is precisely why adjusting the balance of 'spot' or 'accent' mics is a cardinal sin in the classical recording world. Not only does it change the perspective of the 'highlighted' instruments in the inappropriate manner described, it makes editing between takes almost impossible! But well balanced (and fixed level) 'accent mics' are often used to supplement and enhance (in an appropriate, subtle and aesthetically pleasing way) the balance achieved with a main stereo pair.



> When continual adjustments are performed, at the request of the conductor, musician or producer, the end result appears unnatural with the instruments or sections of the orchestra apparently running to the front of the stage on each occasion that the volume of the fader, for their particular performance, is adjusted up and then returning to their regular position as the level is decreased.


Indeed... but this would be a particularly inept and unprofessional recording, and I'd like to think one which is not representative of the norm (in the UK at least). Certainly, it's not something I would do, nor any of my professional colleagues.



> One of the major differences between a live performance and a performance purely for the purpose of recording is the presence of an audience. The sound characteristic of the hall varies in the two circumstances.


Not necessarily. Most modern halls -- and the Symphony Hall in Birmingham is a good example -- are designed such that the acoustics change very little regardless of the presence or absence of an audience -- or indeed the size of the audience. Obviously, the background noise will be higher with an audience shuffling about and coughing and spluttering, but the actual character and duration of the reverberation can -- with good design -- remain remarkably stable.



> On the question of ambient acoustics it is common amongst recording companies to add electronic echo.


Not in all the areas I've worked in -- other than in some multi-purpose broadcasting studios where the acoustics tend to be less reverberant than ideal in order to maximise flexibility. If a recording is being made in a decent sounding hall, there is no need or reason to add any more artificial reverberation.



> Unfortunately, however professionally that stage of the process is performed the end result is unsatisfactory creating the suggestion that the recording was undertaken in St Pancreas railway station.


You must have some extraordinary recordings amongst your collection! I would argue that if the recording sounds like it was made in St Pancreas station (and assuming it wasn't) then 'professional' isn't really a term that can be levelled at it!

Hugh


----------



## PostMinimalist

Andante said:


> What a pleasant person you are I will try to keep my distance


I'm sorry if I have upset you. But you did ask in a pretty condecending way about something you already knew and I can only suspect that was done in order to expose some weakness in my arguement in a sarcastic way. I'm sorry you find me so offensive.
FC


----------



## billy-bob-beck

I'm only a newbie here, but I've got to say I'm *astonished* at the amount of ill informed opinion floating around on this thread. The mind boggles....


----------



## Guest

billy-bob-beck said:


> I'm only a newbie here, but I've got to say I'm *astonished* at the amount of ill informed opinion floating around on this thread. The mind boggles....


*WOW*, You cant get away with that   You will have to explain


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Hmmm... is it safe to come out from behind the furniture?! Well, I'll emerge, if only to say this much--

If I were to see a stage performance of Shakespeare's _Henry IV_, I don't think I'd expect a pre-curtain announcement, or a disclaimer in the playbill, stating "what you are about to see is based primarily on a Tudor-sponsored hagiography- it really didn't happen this way." The absence of such an announcement wouldn't inhibit my ability to enjoy the drama.

But then again, I'm a superfan of the Solti/Vienna (and Culshaw!) _Ring Cycle_... so one can keep in mind that preconception of mine as I make my point, and duck back down. We now return you to your regularly scheduled whatever it is that's going on here.


----------



## Hollow Sun

purple99 said:


> My modest proposal is that recording engineers (there are many excellent ones) put pressure on CD labels to be honest with the listening public about what's been done in the sound lab.


Which would be fine except for one small detail....

There is no sound lab when it comes to recording classical music and Kevin is simply a figment of your imagination - he doesn't exist ... engineers do not 'process' classical music recordings. That is a fact.

What you chose to show in those YouTube clips IS a daily occurrence in rock, pop and rap music and other genres. Always has been, always will be where technology is used to get 'a sound' and/or to overcome limitations of the artists' playing ability. That is known and accepted. However (and I don't know how I can make it plainer), it NEVER happens in classical music recordings. And that is a fact as well.

To claim otherwise is insulting, a lie and defamatory and therefore libelous, something for which this forum's moderators would be liable were it to be pursued.

Stephen


----------



## Krummhorn

Hollow Sun said:


> . . . . .
> To claim otherwise is insulting, a lie and defamatory and therefore libelous, something for which this forum's moderators would be liable were it to be pursued. Stephen


Erm, not quite ... in the FAQ for this forum there is this disclaimer:

*All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Talk Classical, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.

Special note:
The posts of Mr. Terrible have been removed from this thread per a request received by the forum administrators from Ivan (Mr. Terrible) himself, and for no other reason whatsoever. 

Thread re-opened: 21-Feb-09
*


----------



## geoffrey terry

This particular thread has been poorly attended, probably because the majority is not particularly interested in whether or not the sound has quality, they just want to hear the 'tune'. 
Six years and only a handful of contributors, maybe we can revive it by making provocative statements. Here goes:
The title invites a response from me in particular because I produce CDs of recordings I made in the 60's and 70's that were undertaken with a total commitment to endeavouring to achieve perfection, by creating an acoustic mirror image of the original sound heard in the concert hall.
I have just added a new post which has a relevance to this one, do please have a look, it is entitled. 'The Most Natural Sounding Orchestral Concert CD of all Time'.
Incidentally your initial reaction will be 'that's your opinion'. Well of course I am biased but my honest feelings, about the fourteen CDs I have published to date, is that they would almost certainly satisfy those who wish to hear a live concert recording that sounds very close to what one would expect to hear in the concert hall.
My claims have been substantiated by, for example, the German Record Critics Association, who commented that, quote, 'the recording technique is sensational' and that was in reference to a recording I made in the Royal Festival Hall in 1967.
Might I suggest that an open minded reaction to what I am saying could lead to visiting the website of Orchestral Concert CDs, where it is possible to hear sound samples for each of the CDs in question. Better still why not accept a free CD copy of the sound samples, I only ask that you pay £3 as a contribution toward the postage, which actually costs more than £3.00. Don't worry I am not making a profit, in fact I have made a substantial loss on the project. Despite the wonderful reviews of each of the CDs by international music critics very few have actually bought any CDs, those who have, normally end up by buying all fourteen. Here is the comment from a gentleman in Edinburgh who began by buying the Shostakovich 10th: "[This is] the most riveting, satisfying and moving performance of this great symphony I've ever heard. I've played it over and over again in the months since I bought it." 
"Your production and engineering on the Shostakovich strike me as things of wonder, with your superb skills placed completely at the service of the music'. This quotation is from a letter to the editor of International Record Review.
I appreciate that I will receive a string of abusive comments in response to what I have said.
The important thing is to attract attention and provoke responses, otherwise the thread will just die, which it virtually has already. 
Ciao
Lazinov


----------



## bigshot

I apologize, but the huge blocks of text have discouraged me from participating in this thread. TL: DR

But I'll respond to the title...

I have LOTS of natural sounding recordings in my collection, going all the way back to the 1930s. Natural sound is about careful balances. For a recording, that can be a bit of a trick, because the world conspires against balance. But classical music has been lucky to have fantastic engineering teams... EMI, Decca, Mercury, RCA, etc... that produced stunningly natural sounding recordings. Natural sound is the norm, not the exception.

There was a period in the 70s where multi track recording techniques set natural sound back a bit, but digital recording technology seems to have turned the tide the other direction. I've heard some modern digital recordings that sound as natural as anything from the past.

The aspects that make for natural sound in order of importance are... 1) Balance of instruments, 2) Frequency response of the recording 3) Ambience from the recording venue and 4) Dynamics. In the past, frequency extension, distortion levels and noise floor were problems, but digital recording has pretty much totally solved those.


----------



## bigshot

Tapkaara said:


> In Osmo Vanska's Beethoven cycle in BIS, these performances again are very good, and have been priased for their sound, but the levels are sooo low. You can hear every instrument with crystal clarity, but the playback level is low. I was listening to Vanska's Beethoven 9 yesterday and had to crank my player up higher than I normally do to hear an impactful performance.


This is very easy to understand... Digital recording doesn't have "headroom" for loud peaks. There is a fixed peak volume level that if you exceed, you will end up with horrible sounding distortion. But thankfully, digital audio has a noise floor so low, the resolution in very low volume levels is tremendous... much higher than analogue. So they just lower the overall level so the peaks don't extend into distortion.

When you play it back, just turn up the volume. Be aware that the loud parts are going to be as loud as a symphony orchestra can get though! That's "natural sound". The BIS recordings have a dynamic range of 50 to 60dB. Add to that 30dB for the room tone in your living room and it comes out to 80 to 90dB which is very loud... but it's naturally loud!


----------



## mtmailey

They may not sound natural because software allows the music to change volume & remove background noise.


----------



## bigshot

There is a difference between natural sound and accurate sound. Accurate doesn't always sound natural and natural isn't always accurate. The goal of sound engineering in classical music is to optimize sound to perfect naturalness. That doesn't come straight out of a mic feed. It has to be created on the mixing board.


----------



## Knotsofast

bigshot said:


> There is a difference between natural sound and accurate sound. Accurate doesn't always sound natural and natural isn't always accurate. The goal of sound engineering in classical music is to optimize sound to perfect naturalness. That doesn't come straight out of a mic feed. It has to be created on the mixing board.


I agree with most of what you've said,but I have to disagree pretty strongly about your comments regarding the mic feed & fixing things on the mixing board. I'll take that a step further & say "fixing things at board", while it works for popular studio recorded music, is detrimental at preserving the dynamic cues of the various orchestral instruments . By no means am I implying that this may have been the Sound Engineers decision to do things this way, as someone at a higher pay grade level may be responsible for that.

I'm pretty certain that in the days of the "Golden Age of Analog" era that the reason the recordings from RCA,Mercury,EMI,Decca & Lyrita had such a wonderful "Sound of the hall" to them, was that the mic levels were set (with a few test passes) before the recordings were started. I'm not naive enough to think that somethings weren't fixed "at the board", but not to the degree where
you've changed the dynamic relationships of the various Orchestral instruments. At some point recording philosophies changed as recording in this manner became progressively more expensive. While investing in more sophisticated post production equipment
may have been equally expensive, in the long run it is still more affordable .

The bottom line is the sound of recordings you have preferences for is subjective. There is an excellent book out there called
"Good Sound" by Laura Dearborn that I would recommend to anyone interested in exploring this subject further.


----------



## bigshot

Yes, you're right. I didn't state that clearly. When I referred to fixing things at the board, I meant non-obtrusive optimization for listening to music in a living room, I didn't mean tearing the whole thing apart and putting it back together into something it didn't sound like in the first place. A light touch and simplicity is the best way to engineer sound. The goal should be to create something that sounds natural, but not necessarily putting a microphone at 14th row center and expecting it to be automatically right. Is that clearer?


----------



## Knotsofast

bigshot said:


> Yes, you're right. I didn't state that clearly. When I referred to fixing things at the board, I meant non-obtrusive optimization for listening to music in a living room, I didn't mean tearing the whole thing apart and putting it back together into something it didn't sound like in the first place. A light touch and simplicity is the best way to engineer sound. The goal should be to create something that sounds natural, but not necessarily putting a microphone at 14th row center and expecting it to be automatically right. Is that clearer?


Well, you're starting to get it,but you've oversimplified a few things.

I would hope that Classical Music Sound Engineers would approach recording as how to best use 
their skills to best faithfully capture the best representation of the sound that is being made by the
players in a given space. Once you've projected the thought that "you" are there to "engineer" the 
sound it can't be said that natural balances can be assured.

Personally , I've discovered that once you've spent the effort to lower the "noise floor" of the "front end"
of your playback system (everything up to the speakers) you are able to listen at lower listening levels 
with much higher level of detail retrieval.

One other thing. I think that most people listen to Orchestral Music at levels that are too high. I think the reason they tend to do this is to get a more dynamic sound . It helps a little but some of the Orchestral contrasts are no longer there due to production choices .


----------



## bigshot

I've supervised a lot of sound mixes in my job and I've found that what gets picked up by the mics never seems to be what you hear in the room. It really takes a bit of engineering work to get it to sound natural and accurate.

I've seen Wagner's Ring live. I can tell you that when Valhalla burned to a crisp it was LOUD!


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> I've supervised a lot of sound mixes in my job and I've found that what gets picked up by the mics never seems to be what you hear in the room. It really takes a bit of engineering work to get it to sound natural and accurate.


Logically it cant eva b the same cos the environments and equipment r diffrent. I guess it can only b similar at best and even then the engineer'd b the only 1 who'd know 4 sure. As regards natural sound that's a different matter as natural is a variable based on environment. I know that concerts have much more dynamic range than CDs but open air ones c some sound lost where halls have it all trapped in the same space as the audience with reverberation from walls and ceilings like in studios I suppose.


----------



## Vaneyes

Keeping it simple, not too close, not too distant, should be easy enough.


----------



## bigshot

That's the broad strokes, but it's a lot more difficult than it looks to get natural sound. Sometimes simplicity will get you there, sometimes you need to work to get it.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> That's the broad strokes, but it's a lot more difficult than it looks to get natural sound. Sometimes simplicity will get you there, sometimes you need to work to get it.


Alas (or maybe not), you can't ever get truly 'natural' sound in the home (particularly as regards a 'full-blown' orchestra). However ... you can get a 'realistic sounding' and, more importantly, 'pleasing enough' result with decent equipment. 'Throw a bit more money' at the retailer and you can get something 'more realistic sounding' BUT 'diminishing returns' applies 'on an ever-increasing sliding scale of reducing value' AND 'careful auditioning' is required ('ideally' in one's own home).

One poster commented _'I've found that what gets picked up by the mics never seems to be what you hear in the room. It really takes a bit of engineering work to get it to sound natural and accurate._' whilst a respondant said _'Logically it cant eva b the same cos the environments and equipment r diffrent. I guess it can only b similar at best and even then the engineer'd b the only 1 who'd know 4 sure._'

Recordings can't ever truly 'sound natural and accurate' as that's physics for you (even though my student days, and my 'first', are 3 decades, and more, behind me). I remember, after hearing a finalised version of one of my first recordings on disc, 'returning to the original tapes' and listening in my home to these on the same 'nearfield' monitors I'd used in the studio (purely for interest ... my 'hi-fi retailer' mentality or just an OCD) ... I was surprised just how big a difference the environment made (even within a 'treated' and 'dedicated' home space) BUT not all surprised that there were differences. As I knew how the original had sounded (our 'musical memory' is astonishing, isn't it) I tried an expensive equaliser 'to remedy things' BUT still couldn't get exactly what I'd heard originally though decided that what I was hearing in the home was pleasing enough albeit different to what I'd heard in the studio. OK, 'nearfield' monitors have no 'audiophile pretensions' and are designed to be listened to in a small 'acoustically dead' room (whilst having to be detailed and neutral in order to reveal problems to the critical listener) whereas Hi-fi loudspeakers, by comparison, aim to fill a living room whilst 'complementing the source'. Hence, the OCD didn't end there and I tried my normal 'floorstanders' BUT to no avail even though Hi-Fi loudspeakers are designed to 'flatter' (and look pretty) unlike monitors.

Many years later I took home a recording I'd made and, again, listened to it on the same speakers I'd used in the studio (and on rather better ones) initially using a highish-quality 'tone-control free' amp and then with a professional equaliser and, similarly, couldn't get exactly what I'd originally heard replicable in my home environment even though 'decades of technology advancement' should have made that more possible. The equaliser gave varying levels of audible pleasurability BUT the 'tone-control free' amp gave the same level of pleasurability ie. it was no less pleasing to listen to than the most pleasing 'home equalised' result. QED, I felt that I could see 'hours wasted' in a game of 'sonic realism table-tennis' or accept the 'tone-control free' amp's level of pleasurability then always live with that and just get on with enjoying music.

As long as 'whatever comes out' is fairly 'natural' and 'realistic' BUT, most importantly of all, 'pleasing' to the listener then that's all that matters ... 'music's for pleasure' so, enjoy.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

I like 2press on and crank up the volume then listen as stereo is an illusion.


----------



## bigshot

The sound in my system is natural sounding, but it was a lot of research, experimentation and work to get it that way. Most people aren't able to do that so they take the sound as it comes.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> The sound in my system is natural sounding, but it was a lot of research, experimentation and work to get it that way. Most people aren't able to do that so they take the sound as it comes.


We all hear things differently. My dad says realism in stereo is illusionary and since he's an otologist I'd accept that tho know it's true from my own perspective also. I'm sure many peeps actually experiment and settle 4their own view of perfection so am glad uv found urs but soz it took such a lot of research 4u 2get there.


----------



## bigshot

Two channel can only get you so far. It's a continuum.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> Two channel can only get you so far. It's a continuum.


I'm not sure what u mean as a continuum is a set of real numbers being the neuter of the Latin _continuus_. Sometimes the term is used for a continuous series whose end points vastly differ but this doesn't match ur usage either?


----------



## bigshot

The procession from unnatural sound to natural sound is a "continuous series", not a fixed destination. More channels can get you closer, because the directionality of sound fields has a lot to do with natural sound. The creation and control of sound fields are the next step in home audio.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> The procession from unnatural sound to natural sound is a "continuous series", not a fixed destination. More channels can get you closer, because the directionality of sound fields has a lot to do with natural sound. The creation and control of sound fields are the next step in home audio.


Ah so ur saying stereo is a starting point and 9.2 rather better but still a long way from natural since the next step in home audio is yet 2 arrive. A concept is not a continuum certainly at this point in time and won't b until that next step.

This brings us bak 2 the fact ur system can't sound natural as no1's can til we reach that next step based on what ur saying.

Ur conjoined statements 'Two channel can only get you so far. It's a continuum.' implied that stereo was a continuum which it obviously isn't.


----------



## Jonathan Wrachford

Well, I think you have to have very good recording instruments for it to sound very natural. Sometimes, it's worse to have an unnatural, electronic sound than to have a piece played on a real instrument, when the recording isn't the best. But, then again, I've heard some pretty nice electric pianos, for example, that sound real, and would not really have a noticeable difference from the sound of a a real piano in a recording. You just have to be careful about the electric piano, not to make it sound very mechanical.


----------



## bigshot

5:1 can sound more natural than 2 channel. Maybe 8:1 might have even more potential. In any case, the full realization of how good it might sound is still being developed. Standards need to be established for recording, equipment and installation in the home, and DSPs need to be developed as plug ins to be able to craft the sound field into a wide range of ambiences. We'll see how it goes as things progress.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> 5:1 can sound more natural than 2 channel. Maybe 8:1 might have even more potential. In any case, the full realization of how good it might sound is still being developed. Standards need to be established for recording, equipment and installation in the home, and DSPs need to be developed as plug ins to be able to craft the sound field into a wide range of ambiences. We'll see how it goes as things progress.


I thought 2day's top end in theatre replication 4 the home was 9.1 but since u say '5:1 can sound more natural than 2 channel. Maybe 8:1 might have even more potential.' and 'In any case, the full realization of how good it might sound is still being developed' this surely means that no1 has a 'natural sounding' system atm even tho u said earlier 'The sound in my system is natural sounding'.

This is a conundrum until we see the concept of a continuum becoming a reality isn't it.

The phrases 'can sound more natural' and 'might have even more potential' are somewhat vague so I guess I'll have 2do a bit of research here as reviews and others opinions r always gonna b biased and sometimes just plain wrong.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Multi-Channel is an illusion too but just a more complicated one with “rear”, “centre” and “sub” additions. I’d guess it’s easier to “make a pig’s ear” out of multi-channel though and then spend a lifetime trying to get such a system to sound “natural” or “realistic”. 

I know some people love playing with equalisers as that’s their hobby. I know some people love hi-fi and swapping equipment in and out of their systems as that’s their hobby. I know some people love talking about hi-fi or recording as that’s their hobby. 

My hobby is listening to music but spending ages trying to alter things to get a slightly more pleasing result would reduce that limited “listening time”. I marvel in a performance and if it’s well recorded I marvel more as stereo is a bit of a miracle when it comes to reproduction so “realistic” and “natural” are unlikely achievable but “pleasing” is “in the ear of the beholder” and I like being pleased easy. 

Liking “being pleased easy” doesn’t make me lazy or imply that I am like the “most” someone said “aren't able to do that so they take the sound as it comes” since I have experimented quite a bit and think it belittling to consider that most people won’t have done “research, experimentation and work” before settling on a system which pleases them.

This hi-fi thing can be a real torment so I’ve gone the way of opting for the “tone control free” solution as it’s the only sensible way for me but “each to their own” and “live and let live”. I find my “realism” in the concert hall and “marvellous trickery” at home since something neither real nor really accurate “cons me believably” and that’s a little miracle imo


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Totally agreed m8


----------



## bigshot

It took my months to fine tune and equalize my 5:1 system, but now that it's all set, there's nothing more to do with it but listen to music. The advantage now is all of the music I play on it sounds perfect. Since it's all calibrated using equipment that measures audibly flat, if any of the electronics burn out, I just replace it and all the settings still work.

It was definitely worth the trouble, because great music plus great sound is a wonderful thing. The pursuit of natural sound isn't a bother, it's its own reward.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> It took my months to fine tune and equalize my 5:1 system, but now that it's all set, there's nothing more to do with it but listen to music. The advantage now is all of the music I play on it sounds perfect. The pursuit of natural sound isn't a bother, it's its own reward.


I don't quite understand how the above can be so 4u since u said _'The procession from unnatural sound to natural sound is a "continuous series". More channels can get you closer. The creation and control of sound fields are the next step in home audio._' and _'5:1 can sound more natural than 2 channel. Maybe 8:1 might have even more potential. In any case, the full realization of how good it might sound is still being developed. We'll see how it goes as things progress'_. Am I missing something in the equation?

_'More channels can get u closer' _implies that even 9.1 wouldn't be perfect let alone mere 5.1 whilst _'5:1 can sound more natural than 2 channel. Maybe 8:1 might have even more potential. In any case, the full realization of how good it might sound is still being developed._' supports a belief that what u have reached is 'more natural' rather than truly 'natural'.

My dad listens 2 music mainly in stereo and movies mainly in 7.2 but on separate systems in different rooms. He is is a professor in otology and an accomplished amateur musician who has spent a bit of time and cash in getting things to a more than acceptable level but knows that the sound is not truly natural and certainly far from perfect. He says the sound is more than good enough for him tho and this may be where ur coming from I guess.

I suspect ur really saying uv the perfect system 4u rather than a perfect system in which case gr8 m8 and wish I had 4me but am sure 1day that'll come.

Like the conceptual continuum referenced further above I suspect perfection is also some way off except "in the ear of the beholder" and who'd knock that idea of perfection as "perfect 4us" is good enuff in my book.


----------



## bigshot

I was referring to a technological progression, not my particular system. My system is now calibrated to a sweet spot for 5:1. I'm sure technological advances in the future will take it even further, but we aren't there yet.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> I was referring to a technological progression, not my particular system. My system is now calibrated to a sweet spot for 5:1. I'm sure technological advances in the future will take it even further, but we aren't there yet.


Ah that explains it. Uv the perfect system 4u. My dad has yet 2 reach that level but his job obviously makes him rather more demanding than an audiophile or musician or recording engineer or just about any normal person I know


----------



## Vaneyes

Perfection, as it pertains to hifi, is one of those "myths". Regardless of EQ or number of channels used in a constant home set-up and acoustic, every recording would have to be recorded in the same unaltered venue, and the same recording engineer and producer used, with their same set-ups and processes...and dare I say, elimination of human error.

If someone discovers a solution that he or she enjoys listening to...fine, but don't call it perfection for anyone else's ears.


----------



## bigshot

If you are defining perfection as being the same thing as the engineer heard, then an acoustically treated listening room, EQ calibrated studio monitors and an audibly transparent chain from source to amp would give you that. That is perfectly possible in the home (wives notwithstanding).

If you define it as the sound of the performers in the concert hall, then two channel won't cut it at all, because a concert hall has a complex 360 degree live acoustic space. You would need a surround system capable of replicating that. It isn't impossible. I have a few 5:1 opera blu-rays that turn my listening room into an uncanny duplicate of a concert hall. Surround recording is still developing though. I'm sure in ten years the quality of engineering and home implementation will be much better and simpler.

I would like to try 9:1 with speakers at floor and ceiling level both front and back along with center and sub. Perhaps center channels in the middle of all four walls in larger rooms. Theoretically, that should be able to reproduce the vertical axis, as well as the horizontal plane, creating a truly three dimensional sound field. That could place sound anywhere in the room and create sound fields that exactly simulate the sound of both indoor and outdoor venues.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> If you are defining perfection as being the same thing as the engineer heard, then an acoustically treated listening room, EQ calibrated studio monitors and an audibly transparent chain from source to amp would give you that. That is perfectly possible in the home. I have a few 5:1 opera blu-rays that turn my listening room into an uncanny duplicate of a concert hall. Surround recording is still developing though. I would like to try 9:1. That could place sound anywhere in the room and create sound fields that exactly simulate the sound of both indoor and outdoor venues.


My dad's job is all about ears and the science of hearing and he's a renowned expert in his field. He is an amateur musician so knows how music sounds. He has an interest in hi-fi and enough cash 2buy what he likes. Jumble all those 2getha in a big bag and u get sum1 who knows what is or isn't natural let alone perfect. Perfect4him is a different matter and based on his own parameters like any1 else's idea of that and cash will come in2 the equation 4 some. Haut Parleur said _Multi-Channel is an illusion too but just a more complicated one with "rear", "centre" and "sub" additions. I'd guess it's easier to "make a pig's ear" out of multi-channel though and then spend a lifetime trying to get such a system to sound "natural" or "realistic"_. Others have commented that the straight wire with gain thing is an as yet unrealised ideal and tho 9.1 will b more realistic it can only eva remain neither truly natural nor perfect as we're bak 2 that conceptual continuum thing again.

If I've learnt 1 thing in life it's not 2rubbish sum1 else's idea of perfection as even if it isn't perfect 4me they're happy and bursting their bubble just makes them unhappy; and I did that once.

As regards studio realism that could surely only be replicable in the home with the same roomspace and equipment originally used. I don't believe that every studio has the same roomspace or uses the same equipment and this can only mean that even this idea of perfection would be limited to a single recording. I also suspect a studio is not a comfy listening place unlike a room in 1s home and since music's 4pleasure y make the experience unpleasant in 1 respect rather than a balancing act.

I think we're getting a bit hung up on this unachievability and should just enjoy the best properly auditioned stuff we can afford since that's an achievabity. Anyway lecture beckons as my 1st bak only had a single rubbishy tutorial but 2day I need 2 knuckle down. Have fun folks :tiphat:


----------



## bigshot

All studios are calibrated to the same specs. Otherwise, if you started a job in one studio and moved to another, it would sound different, which would defeat the whole purpose of calibrating in the first place.

Flat / Clean / Dynamic / Low noise floor = Perfect sound. For home audio that is very inexpensive and simple to achieve in everything except speakers and room acoustics. Those are always the wild card. If folks want great sound out of their systems, those are the areas to focus on.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> Flat / Clean / Dynamic / Low noise floor = Perfect sound. For home audio that is very inexpensive and simple to achieve in everything except speakers and room acoustics.


I can't think of a more sweeping statement in my entire life in relation to home audio. Maybe I should take up a sweeping job in a studio 

This statement must be a joke designed to provoke.

Perfect sound in the home is impossible at this point in time let alone "inexpensive and simple to achieve". Anyone whose only reference in multi-channel is 5.1 needs to dip their toes in 7.1 then 9.1 but maybe with a musician friend to point out the imperfections which will still exist assuming they can't immediately spot these for themselves. I appreciate that some folks hearing won't be as good as others and that this will slew their view of perfection though.

As Vaneyes said "Perfection, as it pertains to hifi, is one of those "myths". Regardless of EQ or number of channels used" and "If someone discovers a solution that he or she enjoys listening to...fine, but don't call it perfection for anyone else's ears."


----------



## bigshot

"Perfect sound" is accurate sound, and that is what digital audio delivered. Flat frequency response, no audible distortion, a dynamic range beyond the range of hearing, a noise floor that's inaudible even at the loudest listening level, no wow or flutter, no phase problems, no generation loss... All of the things that needed to be carefully tended and controlled in analogue sound reproduction were built into the standard as being perfect. A $120 Sony blu-ray player can deliver sound quality that exceeds the best analogue 24 track tape recorders you'd find in recording studios in the 70s. That's a fact. Midrange amps have distortion levels ten times lower than they did in the early 70s and noise floors to match. The best headphones made today are beginning to cross over the threshold of human hearing into transparency.

The area that could stand improvement is speakers. The reason is that mechanical sound reproduction is more difficult, costly and full of compromises than electronic sound reproduction. Add to that the problem of room acoustics and you are looking at the single most challenging part of putting together a good home sound system.

These are facts, not a joke.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

We all know things are constantly improving and it is commonsense that things will continue to improve hence we are some way off perfection. 

Everything can stand improvement and a $120 BluRay player is obviously not the best disc spinner in the world so if that's your benchmark of the perfect front end I guess that explains your concept of perfection but as Ruaskin said "Ah that explains it. Uv the perfect system 4u." and that's fine but as Vaneyes said "If someone discovers a solution that he or she enjoys listening to...fine, but don't call it perfection for anyone else's ears."

I will not be drawn on this and you're welcome to the last word but please don't claim perfection in a 5.1 system fronted by a $120 BluRay player or in any system around today.


----------



## bigshot

A $120 Sony blu-ray player can play just about any audio format to format specs... including SACD. The specs for SACD playback are so far beyond our ability to hear, it's silly. Any player that exceeds the quality of a Sony blu-ray player is going to be doing it far beyond human perception... probably beyond what bats can hear!

It might seem ridiculous to think that people spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars in the past on players that don't come close to the sound quality of the cheapest disposable consumer player today, but it's true. The same way that in 1970, NASA, the Pentagon and UCLA had computers that cost millions of dollars and occupied whole floors the buildings that housed them... but there are bedside clock radios today that have MUCH more processing power.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Some folk really can 'get the bit between their teeth' and that can kill a thread 'stone dead'.

Nothing in life is perfect and Hi-Fi is simply the highest fidelity one can achieve at any given point in time. A $120 Blu-Ray player is far from the perfect 'frontend' else all would 'bow down' and purchase only that. Loudspeakers are an important part in a system as are room acoustics BUT balance is important and 'Garbage In Garbage Out' will always apply.

A Dave Wilson demo some time ago "was meant to explore some prejudices in the way people look at system hierarchy" BUT also to show how good Wilson speakers were when a humble iPod rather than a $25,000 CD player was revealed as feeding a pair of Sophias. DW sees the three most important factors being a) the microphone used in the recordings, b) room acoustics and, c) loudspeakers BUT is exclusively a loudspeaker manufacturer so 'read what you want into that' ;-)

However, the abovementioned demo wasn't set to show that an iPod was as good as a $25,000 CD player since such a player would have made the speakers sound even better and DW sees balance as important too BUT knows that "loudspeakers are the least perfect devices in the system and yet have the hardest job". Because there is such a range between the poorest to the best loudspeaker DW feels "the customer should anchor the system with the best loudspeakers that he can and then to build the rest of the system around that" BUT has also said "just because something is the most important thing in the system doesn't mean it's the only thing. As a system evolves, balance becomes important". Now, 'pardon me all over the place' BUT a company which exclusively manufactures loudspeakers and sub-woofers is bound to feel that their bit is 'the most important part in the audio chain' aren't they. Ivor Tiefenbrun of Linn Products would argue just the opposite whilst Julian Vereker of Naim Audio would agree even though both manufacture frontends, amplifiers and loudspeakers. Few (if any) who make frontends, amplifiers and loudspeakers would argue against GIGO and fewer still (again, if any) would claim to have achieved perfection on any front let alone having created 'the perfect system' (or even a 'truly natural one'). 'Playing Devil's Advocate' … if they did we might just end our purchasing at that point in time (assuming we could afford 'that Holy Grail') BUT that is disingenuous since we all know that all things are constantly improving.

Some favour 'clutter-free' two-channel for audio reproduction whilst others prefer the more complicated multi-channel approach (when media is appropriate) even though, as someone said, 'it's easier to make a pig's ear out of this'. *I think we should just get on with enjoying the music and accept that "perfect is in the ear of the beholder"* as HP neatly paraphrased and, like that poster, "I will not be drawn on this ... but please don't claim perfection in a 5.1 system fronted by a $120 BluRay player or in any system around today".

I find disagreeability most unhealthy (and oft unhelpful) so am going to listen to my 'none too shabby' but 'a little shy of perfect' system as it's actually 'perfect for me' (at least at this point in time). I could cite friends who love my system BUT, of course, they might just be being polite and what'd it matter anyway as it's my system not theirs. I could cite equipment reviews (or retailer opinions) on each bit of kit BUT reviewers (and retailers) are, of course, biased (even if being completely honest) in the same way that we all are. I have always advised folk to read all available reviews (covering their 'span of purchasing interest') then listen to some 'short-listed' stuff and buy the best they can afford ... 'the perfect system for them'. I've experimented and moved stuff 'in and out of my systems' over decades of development and gotten something I am more than happy with which is all that matters to me as 'I'm not going to sell my idea of perfection to anyone else' and, frankly, wouldn't want to as we all need to find our own path to audio nirvana (ie. a state of mind [or being] after desire, aversion, and delusion have been finally extinguished).

And now ... I have music to listen to on a 'tone control free' amplifier fuelled by something rather better (and more expensive) than a $120 Blu-Ray spinner I wouldn't consider attaching to my P60ZT65B, last generation Kuro, or even my son's UE40F8000 which is 'frontended' by a $300 BDPS790 that gives my Oppo 'a run for it's money'.

*I shall try and avoid 'dipping my toes' in here for a bit, again, lest someone tries to convince me that black is white or falsehood truth except insomuch as 'shades of grey' can, perhaps, be 'a kind of truth' for the unwary ;-)*

Ciao


----------



## bigshot

When it comes to the solid state electronics, my system is absolutely perfect. That leaves me plenty in the area of functionality, speakers, DSPs and room acoustics to focus on. Those things are the hard part, and they're the part that makes the most difference. They're also the things most people sacrifice or ignore.

I used to feel sorry for people who were taken advantage of by stereo salesmen and were convinced to buy overkill equipment at huge markups. I've since come to the realization that these unnecessary purchases fulfill some sort of psychological need. Some people find comfort in sparing no expense to own the very best equipment. They cling to the belief and expend a lot of energy justifying it to themselves. I find comfort in having my music presented to me perfectly. Some people focus on equipment and some focus on music. Both are fine.


----------



## Vaneyes

"When it comes to the solid state electronics, my system is *absolutely perfect*"

Again, only for/to you.

Re Blu-ray disc players, for a few years now, I've been a BDP convert out of laziness/convenience, and prioritizing money spending.

I like BDP's ability to play virtually anything. Sometime's my old buddy, _"Mission_ Cyrus _PCM_ II 4x16 Bit Linear _CD Player_ Vintage _1980s_", would balk at some CDs, or CDRs.

I also like BDP's clarity, attention to detail. However, I've found that to get that clarity, a little warmth goes missing.

On a lesser note, I liked the ease to get to a track on my previous CD player, and its capability of basic programming.

I think for budget-minded individuals, the BDP is an excellent recommendation.


----------



## bigshot

You guys keep getting caught up on the word "perfect". I'll clarify... The solid state part of my system is *perfect* for human ears. My player and amp put out sound that exceeds the human thresholds of perception. Inaudible levels of distortion, frequency response balanced across the full range of human hearing, dynamics broader than I'll ever take advantage of. No audible phase or timing inaccuracy... perfect sound.

My speakers and room are not perfect, but I'm always working on improving that.

Blu-ray players play CDs exactly the same way that CD players do. There's an optical drive and a DAC. The only difference is that it plays more types of optical disks and decodes more types of information streams. The only reason to buy any player is for features not sound quality. All players play CDs to redbook spec (assuming they're not defective or broken) and exceed human ability to hear... therefore are audibly transparent. They all sound the same. (see Nyquist)


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Well it seems we’ve a case of same old same old I s’pose with “When it comes to the solid state electronics, my system is absolutely perfect”. 

Like “continuum” the word “absolute” is an oft misused 1 being an unconditional reality above anything normally found.

I feel sorry4 peeps who can’t afford the best and convince themselves that such is “overkill equipment at huge markups” purchased to “fulfill some sort of psychological need” as "they cling to the belief and expend a lot of energy justifying it to themselves". I find comfort in having my music presented to me as best as it can be within the confines of the tech befitting my pocket.

Really nothing is anything other than “perfect4me” else we’re fooling ourselves so Vaneyes, Haut Parleur, Svelte Silhouette and others are right but I appreciate that some believe differently and will always want to hammer home the last word even if 4 one flawed concept or another. It is always going2b difficult to get over an unshakeable “flat earth” belief else there’d b no “flat earth society” would there.

Anyway I should stay away from semantics as I’ve a romantic continuum in a few hours and may well abuse the word “perfect” once or twice 4 my own ends as there’s absolutely no harm in a little white lie is there.

The Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem is best quoted only with full understanding and explanation rather than using internet snippetting as it is quite complex really.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

I wouldn’t get all het up about this as some people just like having the last word even when wrong. 

Be careful in misusing the word "perfect" though and little white lies can see you come a cropper sooner rather than later.

:tiphat:


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Totally agreed and 'been there before' on a similar thread. Some people like to provoke an argument but responses can 'get heated' and lead to infractions being 'handed out'.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

I know but h8 the idea of folk thinking that all electronics are perfect.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

But surely they are aren't they


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

I’ve got the perfect system too by the way.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Odd as we must have the same system then.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

All electronics ‘sound’ but obviously don’t ‘sound the same’, nor 'perfect', as it’s not just about 'spec sheets' since audio reproduction (and our 'hearing') is 'a tad more subtle than that' and nuances lie beyond FR, THD, Noise Floor and Dynamic Range etc etc. Nowt is 'perfect' let alone 'absolutely' so. 

As Vaneyes said “I think for budget-minded individuals, the BDP is an excellent recommendation” and, indeed, will be 'perfect for some' (as a 'frontend') even though it isn't for me.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

I’m sure there’ll b another last word l8r but I’m outta here


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Indeed and I’ve better things to do


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

I only pop on occasionally but this line of flawed argument is getting wearing.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bye 4 now folks


----------



## bigshot

ruaskin said:


> The Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem is best quoted only with full understanding and explanation rather than using internet snippetting as it is quite complex really.


It's very simple actually... A sound waveform can be perfectly reconstructed with a sampling rate that is double the highest frequency. Therefore a sampling rate of 44.1 will perfectly reproduce all frequencies below 22kHz, which covers the entire range of human hearing.

You can increase the sampling rate and extend the frequency range higher, but there is no more resolution to the frequencies covered by 44.1, because they are already by definition *perfect*.

The thresholds of human perception have been studied for more than a century and are firmly extablished. The whole point of the redbook standard was to create a sound reproduction format that perfectly reproduces everything humans can hear.

Any digital player that is performing to the specifications of the format is producing sound that is better than humans can hear in frequency response, signal to noise, dynamic range, distortion, and timing/phase. That doesn't mean that audiophools don't still make up things that are totally bogus just to justify their incorrect subjective impressions. (ie: jitter, the need for high bitrates, unmeasurable vagueries, etc.)

If you're interested in finding out the truth about sound reproduction, I recommend the seminars from the Audio Engineering Society in my sig file. They're a great introduction to help you find out why the things audio equipment salesmen tell you just aren't true.


----------



## Vaneyes

ruaskin said:


> I'm sure there'll b another last word l8r but I'm outta here


You predicted correctly, and as of now, I have the last word. *snapping suspenders*


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> It's very simple actually... A sound waveform can be perfectly reconstructed with a sampling rate that is double the highest frequency. Therefore a sampling rate of 44.1 will perfectly reproduce all frequencies below 22kHz, which covers the entire range of human hearing. You can increase the sampling rate and extend the frequency range higher, but there is no more resolution to the frequencies covered by 44.1, because they are already by definition *perfect*.


'Nyquist-Shannon' is often misused when engineers establish 'sampling rates' or design 'anti-aliasing' ﬁlters. It's a simple assertion really … if you have a signal perfectly 'band limited' to a bandwidth of _f_ then you can collect all the information there is in that signal by sampling it at discrete times as long as your 'sample rate' is greater than 2_f_ (ie. 44.1 KHz for 22.05 KHz). Whilst the theorem is simple to state it can be very misleading when one tries to apply it in practice though ...

It's a common misconception that the theorem can be used to provide a simple way to determine the correct minimum 'sample rate' for a system and while it does establish some bounds it does not give easy answers. The difﬁculty with the theorem is that it is based on the notion that the signal to be sampled must be perfectly 'band limited' and this property of the theorem is unfortunate because no real world signal is truly, and perfectly, 'band limited' (damnation … it's that word 'perfect' again). In fact, if a signal were to be perfectly 'band limited' (ie. if it were to have absolutely no energy outside of some ﬁnite frequency band) then it would have to extend inﬁnitely in time.

If that weren't enough to contend with … there's aliasing, oversampling and reconstruction along with designing for amplitude, time-shape or absolute time responses not to mention 'cut-off' filter frequencies then handling repetitive signals and spikes around the fundamental frequency (and its harmonics) etc etc etc.

To really determine an appropriate 'sampling rate' for a system or to determine the necessary 'anti-alias' and 'reconstruction' ﬁlters for one you have to understand 'aliasing' and ﬁltering. You have to know what aliasing is and how you can avoid it or even whether avoiding it is the best answer for the system at hand. You have to interpret the theorem carefully to make sure you don't fall into a trap and folk 'all too frequently' do.

As Ruaskin said "The Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem is best quoted only with full understanding and explanation rather than using internet snippetting as it is quite complex really" so, not quite so simple after all except 'on the face of it' to a layman.

None of this really matters though as even if everything were 'perfect' with the theorem and associated Nyquist rate that still wouldn't make for 'perfection' either since audio reproduction (and our 'hearing') is 'a tad more subtle than that' and nuances lie beyond FR, THD, Noise Floor and Dynamic Range etc etc.

*Apologies, Vaneyes, as 'snapping suspenders' was probably a much better last word (or two) and definitely unlikely to lead to any flawed argument or heated discussion (except from 'thus pained' girlfriends, partners or wives) ;-)*


----------



## bigshot

All of the problems you raise were solved in the first five or ten years of digital audio.

Just about every current DAC oversamples (with the exception of a few sucker-bait ones aimed at audiophools). Oversampling eliminates the need for crude brick wall anti-aliasing filtering, making band limiting a breeze. 16/44.1 goes in, gets bumped up and band limited at 22.1kHz and comes out the other end with a perfect steep rolloff above the range of human hearing. No problem. Dithering works perfectly too. It can extend the dynamic range to over 100dB and if correctly applied, it is completely undetectable. Time based error is handled to WAY beyond human perception through simple caching. Total non-issue.

Nyquist covers everything that human hearing covers. The whole idea of CDs is that they are capable of producing sound quality that exceeds our ability to hear. It's been proven time and time again. The only people who aren't convinced are snake oil salesmen and the foolish people who put their trust in them.

In order to make sense of home audio, you need to know both sides of the coin... what gets produced by digital audio systems, and what the ear can hear. If the system exceeds our ability to hear, it is transparent- audibly perfect to human beings. We have achieved that in the solid state end of home audio. The wild west remains speakers and room acoustics. But few people address that, because throwing money at the problem can only take you so far. Eventually, you need to exercise your brain and do some work.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> All of the problems you raise were solved in the first five or ten years of digital audio. Just about every current DAC oversamples (with the exception of a few sucker-bait ones aimed at audiophools).


None of what you cite as 'problems' are anything other than simply things to 'bear in mind' when designing a DAC. As you haven't grasped that point it'd be pointless explaining further but "aliasing, oversampling and reconstruction along with designing for amplitude, time-shape or absolute time responses not to mention 'cut-off' filter frequencies then handling repetitive signals and spikes around the fundamental frequency (and its harmonics) etc etc" are not handled the same way in every DAC and I'm surprised you didn't understand, or know, that. This is why one has to be careful with 'throwaway' comments like "They all sound the same. (see Nyquist)" as with yours at Post #94. And, of course, there's what happens 'after the DAC bit' to further 'colour' the sound so even if the DAC were 'perfect' and an amplifier were simply 'a straight wire with gain' we'd still only be 'part-way' to 'perfection' BUT they, and we, aren't.

*All electronics aren't the same and none are 'perfect' even though they may be 'perfect for one end user or another'.* We all know the 'length' of human hearing but not it's 'breadth and height' ('figuratively speaking' lest you 'jump on that statement' for a 'last word') so reliance in numbers on a 'spec sheet' will simply show that there's no fool like an old 'audiophool' ... I am just 'past 50 not out' BUT still let my ears decide as those 'perfect' and 'beyond hearing threshold' numbers are simply part of a more complex equation.

Statements like "I used to feel sorry for people who were taken advantage of by stereo salesmen and were convinced to buy overkill equipment at huge markups. I've since come to the realization that these unnecessary purchases fulfill some sort of psychological need." show how you view retailers and 'much of the buying public' ie. 'somewhat negatively from a self-conceived podium'. I've been involved in hi-fi retail, haven't (to the best of my knowledge) taken advantage of anyone (ie. a purchaser or prospective one) and am, likely, not easily taken advantage of myself in that arena. I've also been involved in software development for a major so understand the compromises in design of both hardware and software. I've even been involved in the recording industry and have a personal interest in hi-fi and 'all things audio' extending over more than 3 decades.* I KNOW that solid state electronics sound different (and are not 'perfect' in 'absolute' terms) and that KNOWLEDGE is not based on 'this or that review' or stuff I've read (in books or on the Wibbly Wobbly Web) BUT on 'some breadth of experience on a variety of related fronts' and, most importantly of all, on my own ears.*

So, as you say, "Eventually, you need to exercise your brain and do some work" but I'm retired now and going to use mine elsewhere and stay away from this "audiophoolery" ...


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> In order to make sense of home audio, you need to know both sides of the coin... what gets produced by digital audio systems, and what the ear can hear. If the system exceeds our ability to hear, it is transparent- audibly perfect to human beings.


Odd in finding something 2agree with L8ly from u but the above st8ment is quite correct.

Unfortunately - maybe fortunately - the human ear can hear rather more than any list of specifications created based on it's known parameters. I s'pose this is where Svelte's 'subtle nuances' come into play. We seem to have drifted in2 'pseudo science' tho and gotten away from how weirdly we hear the oddest of stuff and sometimes things that we don't notice at all until they're pointed out to us assuming we're open-minded enuff 2hear them. Some tones get mixed up in a bundle of others and my dad's regularly played such games with me and that's made me more attentive cept when I don't want2b . My dad also knows that 'solid state electronics sound different (and are not 'perfect' in 'absolute' terms)' but 4sure knows wot we can and can't hear and I'd trust him more on that score than anyone else frankly since it's his renowned field of expertise.

Meanwhile I think we should just leave those who live in ivory towers befuddled closed-mindedly where they are and just get on with our lives in enjoying what comes outta the wired2getha black boxes and goes in2 the wooden ones but I'm happy 2agree with Svelte and Vaneyes that '*All electronics aren't the same and none are 'perfect' even though they may be 'perfect for one end user or another'*

That's my last word and I plan on 'snapping some suspenders' 2nite :devil:


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

I wouldn't get all hot under the collar about this folks as some people only see in black and white without even a shade of grey in sight God forbid a dashing flash of colour. Such people just like having the last word even when wrong and sometimes may be out to provoke. If flawed arguments aren't fuelled they will quickly extingush.

"I used to feel sorry for people who were taken advantage of by stereo salesmen and were convinced to buy overkill equipment at huge markups. I've since come to the realization that these unnecessary purchases fulfill some sort of psychological need" grated on me in it's relevance to my own hi-fi retail career as well as my "end user" hobby but I let that go over my head as life's too short and you have to accept that some folk hold bigotted opinions and have a narrow if not entirely blinkered field of view.

When I got home today I trawled the last 4 pages of this thread and only found a single contributor with a system whose solid state electronics were "perfect". I then went right back to it's start in November 2008 but it seems that only one person has "perfect" electronics and in "absolute" terms. I now have a "psychological need" to own that system so crave to know just what it comprises of.

Apologies for writing so much and as Ruaskin says "I think we should just leave those who live in ivory towers befuddled closed-mindedly where they are and just get on with our lives" as virtually everyone on this thread knows that *'All electronics aren't the same and none are 'perfect' even though they may be 'perfect for one end user or another'*.

Careful with those suspenders though Ruaskin and the little white lies as any suggestion of "perfection" can be misread and "you're absolutely perfect" will be a line easily seen through :lol:


----------



## bigshot

When you put together a system with a firm goal in mind... say for instance meeting and exceeding human hearing ability... it is possible to reach perfection. When you identify problems in your system and directly address correcting them, you can eliminate problems. But too many people randomly swap equipment in and out hoping that higher price tags will bring them some sort of incremental improvement. It doesn't work like that. The only thing that randomness accomplishes in randomness. You have to understand the fundamentals of how sound works, how humans hear and what matters and what doesn't.

The thresholds of human perception have been studied for over a century. They are firmly established. When you go out to buy an amp with a distortion rating of .1%, that means absolutely nothing unless you know what the threshold for perceiving distortion in music is. The same goes for the rest of the specs. 20-20 (+/- how much?) How low should the noise floor be? How much dynamic range is enough? All of these questions are answered by looking at the specs for the human ear, not for equipment. And all of that info is readily available through a simple google search if you do your homework.

If you don't pay any attention to published listening tests, and you don't take the time to conduct carefully controlled tests yourself, there are things you flat out can't know. I've done line level matched A/B comparisons of various solid state players and amps. Every one I compared, and every test I've ever read about came to the same conclusion... they all sound audibly transparent. If they don't sound the same, they are defective or poorly designed. I have yet to run across anything like that myself. It isn't very common.

It's really quite simple, and I'm willing to help anyone who is interested do the same for their system as I have for mine. Perfection can be reached with a bit of work, but you have to work smart... and that is a rare thing in audiophoolery.

Check out the videos linked in my sig file. They are seminars conducted by audio engineer/author Seth Winer presented to the Audio Engineering Society. You'll learn a lot about how sound reproduction really works from pros, not snake oil salesmen.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> When you put together a system with a firm goal in mind... say for instance meeting and exceeding human hearing ability... it is possible to reach perfection. It's really quite simple, and I'm willing to help anyone who is interested do the same for their system as I have for mine. Perfection can be reached with a bit of work, but you have to work smart... and that is a rare thing in audiophoolery. Check out the videos linked in my sig file. You'll learn a lot about how sound reproduction really works from pros, not snake oil salesmen.


One thing implied on this thread is that folk don't want advice from "those who live in ivory towers, befuddled closed-mindedly, only seeing in black and white without even a shade of grey in sight God forbid a dashing flash of colour" whilst believing "all of these questions are answered by looking at the specs for the human ear, not for equipment, and all of that info is readily available through a simple google search". Google isn't 'always our friend' except for those who "hold bigotted opinions and have a narrow if not entirely blinkered field of view".

'One-sided' videos are just that (ie. 'one-sided') and the fact that you've said "every test I've ever read about came to the same conclusion ... all sound audibly transparent" shows that you've only been reading similar 'one-sided' stuff since most audio magazines wouldn't come to that conclusion as wouldn't a majority of purchasers (of anything with even 'vaguely genuine' hi-fi pretensions) who are shrewder than you give them credit for (and most of whom use their ears when testing anything).

You see hi-fi salespeople as 'a thoroughly bad lot' and purchasers of anything more expensive than a $120 BluRay player as 'deluding themselves' having 'been conned' by those 'snake-oil' peddlars. This is an unhealthy view as well as an offensive one to anyone in the retail profession, along with many of the purchasing public, and one which would be better prefixed, if indeed needing to be expressed at all, with 'In my opinion …' in much the same way as 'I have the perfect system' would be better suffixed with 'for me'. Why not think about that in the future as it'd offend less folks and might just give your opinions at least a bit more kudos.


----------



## bigshot

The AES is the foremost trade organization for sound engineers in the world, and it's also the place where most of the independent peer reviewed testing in this field goes on.

If all you know is the sales pitch printed in audiophool advertorial and equipment tear sheets, you would think the world is flat. Jitter ate my grandma! Spend more money and get better sound! You need three different amps- one colored for each kind of music you listen to! Digital is evil- buy this overpriced record player made of plexiglas mounted on a carved marble slab! The more an audio component weighs, the better the sound quality!

If someone really wants to put together a kick *** system, they should look beyond those lies and learn about the science of how sound reproduction works. Then they'll be armed to be able to make themselves a system that is perfect to human ears too.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> The AES is the foremost trade organization for sound engineers in the world, and it's also the place where most of the independent peer reviewed testing in this field goes on. If someone really wants to put together a kick *** system, they should learn about the science of how sound reproduction works. Then they'll be armed to be able to make themselves a system that is perfect to human ears too.


Yada yada yada

"It's also the place where most of the independent peer reviewed testing in this field goes on" is a real sweeping st8ment m8.

My dad knows quite a bit about "how sound reproduction works" and a whole bundle about how we hear. He also addressed the AES annual convention in New York I think 2 or 3 years ago. I'm pretty sure tho that AES members don't all see "damn lies" or "audio myths" as anything other than "opinions" and seminars are just that ie. "discussions of opinions" attended mainly by believers in woteva or those bending in that direction maybe with a few hecklers breaking the monotony of one-sidedness. I know that companies like Sony exhibit a bundle of stuff at AES events ie. ranges of CD players and amps each of which apparently offer ascendingly better sound even tho' none cite 'perfection' so those exhibitors wouldn't have many visitors to their demos if every1 was in the "myths and lies" room would they?

The AES were gonna review some stuff at their rave but it was 2noisy 4them 2hear. They blamed the dynamic range of CDs 2day and yes this is a genuine AES flyer 









*Wot is that "kick *** system" u keep harping on about comprised of tho as u neva seem 2say?

It'd b good if ur next response detailed that "absolutely perfect" frontend and amp as some of us might like 2know*

I'm in no way dissing the AES's opinionated professionals but simply pointing out that within any such bunch not all opinions r the same and that's wot diversity is all about. We just have 2b open-minded and open-eared and humble enuff 2accept that "perfect4us" is good enuff and suggesting "absolute perfection" is liable to lose anyone's faith in anything said therafter.


----------



## bigshot

The AES is very well known and respected among professional sound engineers. And Seth Winer is very well known in his field. You could learn a few things from him. I did. He is a very clear speaker and provides great examples of the principles.

Come to Los Angeles and I'll demo my system for you. It isn't kick *** because of the particular brand and model of components I bought. It's kick *** because of the adjustments I've made to the response and room setup. You can't just go out with a wad of bills and get good sound. You have to work smart. I'd be happy to outline what I did to make it sound so good if you'd like to improve your system too.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> Come to Los Angeles and I'll demo my system for you. It isn't kick *** because of the particular brand and model of components I bought. It's kick *** because of the adjustments I've made to the response and room setup.


*Why not just simply answer the boy's question *"Wot is that "kick *** system" u keep harping on about comprised of tho as u neva seem 2say? It'd b good if ur next response detailed that "absolutely perfect" frontend and amp as some of us might like 2know". *Is that so difficult?*

It looks like theres's some big secret or some mystery surrounding what you do with the kit you've got and a serious case of black box black arts :trp:

All he asked was what you've got, simples :clap:

And if you want to explain how what you've got sounds so great that should be easy without being shrouded in 'Come to Los Angeles and I'll demo my system for you' as a ticket there may be out of his reach.

Anyway, I've work to go to but if you can improve our audio lives then telling us what you've got and exactly how you've made it sound great can only help the rest of us who maybe can't just pop across the big pond to see and hear.

Sounds to me like smoke and mirrors or maybe snake oil at the moment though :wave:


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> The AES is very well known and respected among professional sound engineers. And Seth Winer is very well known in his field. Come to Los Angeles and I'll demo my system for you. It isn't kick *** because of the particular brand and model of components I bought. It's kick *** because of the adjustments I've made to the response and room setup. I'd be happy to outline what I did to make it sound so good if you'd like to improve your system too.


I kno 'The AES is very well known and respected among professional sound engineers' but think u meant Seth Winner in relation to this absolute continuum unless there's another such winer in the AES 

Lots of peeps r well known in fields which can contain opposing camps tho - as an example we can take the argument for and against the existence of God which has for centuries had two camps containing many well-respected intellectuals on both sides thinking and believing they are right but one set can't b can they and so r deluding themselves.

We can all learn things and sometimes b conned into believing something by a good orator - centuries of history has shown this with some horrific results. Examples of principles lend themselves 2 the term blinded by science and in the hands of a good orator doubly so.

I'm not sure how I feel about being called a boy but guess I am 2 most of you so I'm cool with that. A ticket isn't out of my reach tho and I'll likely be in California some time over the summer but I'd like 2 kno wot I'd be listenning 2 in advance and exactly wot 'adjustments' ud made 'to the response and room setup' so "Wot is that "kick *** system" u keep harping on about comprised of tho as u neva seem 2say? It'd b good if ur next response detailed that "absolutely perfect" frontend and amp as some of us might like 2know".


----------



## Wood

B'Jesus this was almost Godwined in the last post.

The subject interests me, I'm pretty ignorant in this area, and I quietly read the HiFi threads, but its a shame how it always gets catty.


----------



## bigshot

Haut Parleur said:


> *Why not just simply answer the boy's question *"Wot is that "kick *** system" u keep harping on about comprised of tho as u neva seem 2say?


I've said many times in the past. Why are you getting so upset?

My system is based around a Mac Mini server, which is attatched to a disk array with around 70TB of media files. The server runs 24/7 streaming music over an Airport network to stereos all over the house. I have a low end Sony blu-ray player and a midrange Yamaha AV receiver. The server, player and amp are all audibly transparent. The video connects to a high end Epson 1080p projector with a ten foot screen. The sound is 5:1 with JBL towers, custom made 12 inch five way studio monitors from the 70s, Klipsch center and rears and a top of the line Sunfire sub. All of the real money in my system is invested in speakers and projection. (mostly speakers)

But like I say... out of the box, it's nothing remarkable. I can hit the direct bypass switch on my amp and cut out all of my corrections and it sounds ordinary. The way I've set up the room and calibrated the EQ and DSP are what truly set it apart. The fanciest equipment without any attention paid to calibration and room wouldn't hold a candle to my setup. And I could go out and buy an expensive player and amp, but it wouldn't make a lick of difference to the sound.

All that matters is that the speakers are capable of producing the full frequency range of human hearing very loud without distortion or clipping. If they can do that, they can be EQed into sounding any way you want. My Sunfire sub can put out mountains of sub bass down to 16Hz, and the supertweeters in my studio monitors can produce 20kHz and beyond loud enough to make your ears hurt. The JBLs and studio monitors cover the rest. But after I've calibrated them properly, they can produce sound loud enough to shake the walls or quiet as a mouse and *always* produce a balanced response and clean sound. No listening fatigue. Totally realistic and natural sound.

I'd be happy to share some tips you can use to improve the sound of your own system if you want.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> I've said many times in the past. Why are you getting so upset? My system is based around a Mac Mini server, which is attatched to a disk array with around 70TB of media files. The server runs 24/7 streaming music over an Airport network to stereos all over the house. I have a low end Sony blu-ray player and a midrange Yamaha AV receiver. The server, player and amp are all audibly transparent. All of the real money in my system is invested in speakers and projection. The way I've set up the room and calibrated the EQ and DSP are what truly set it apart. The fanciest equipment without any attention paid to calibration and room wouldn't hold a candle to my setup. And I could go out and buy an expensive player and amp, but it wouldn't make a lick of difference to the sound.


Smoke and mirrors, maybe with some snake oil, then but at least Ruaskin can save the ticket money :lol:

Have you upset many others in the past? I don't think anyone was upset on this thread though excessive laughter can lead to tears so the misunderstanding is easily understood as are misconceptions and flawed beliefs since "perfect4me" can so easily become "absolutely perfect" if "blinded by science" and not "open-minded".

I assume your server is on 24/7, as most of our home servers are these days, though the words imply 24/7 music is being played which I'm assuming wasn't intended or the picture is an even worse one in which case I'd not mistake any tears from anyone in here as a sign of upset.

I quite liked Klipsch and have a pair of La Scalas from the early 80s boxed up in my cellar - of course they sounded fab back then and really shook the room when the Pink Floyd chopper from The Wall came along but really they are crap compared to what I have now and that's tech advancement for you. As regards 5-way monitors from the 70s with dubious x-overs well I prefer tri-amping and avoidance of all that stuff twixt the drive units but there again I also prefer being tone-control free - horses for courses and just 'perfect for me '. Oh, and I have spent some time investigating and ensuring the room I have for audio only is appropriately engineered.

Anyway, this thread has lost any interest for me.


----------



## bigshot

The Klipsch speakers are just the center and rears. The custom made 12 inch studio monitors and the Sunfire sub (designed by Bob Carver) are what are doing the heavy lifting.

Even if your speakers had a perfect response curve from 20Hz to 20kHz in an anechoic chamber (which I seriously doubt they do), they would shift a LOT as soon as you dropped them into a typical living room. That's why you need to correct the response using room treatment for the big issues and EQ for pulling it all into perfect line. Room treatment only goes so far. You have to EQ if you want perfect sound. A sound system without any sort of tone control is like a race car without a steering wheel.

It took me months of experimentation to refine my response curve. Now it is totally balanced, natural sounding and without auditory masking issues. Perhaps the only way to really understand that perfect sound is possible is to go to the trouble to make it that way. Give me 1) a decent room, 21) speakers capable of producing sound throughout the full audible spectrum and 3) a good digital equalizer, and I can make a perfect system out of it. But if you leave any of those three things out, even I'll never be able to achieve perfect sound.


----------



## bigshot

Wood said:


> B'Jesus this was almost Godwined in the last post.


I think that is the intent, actually.


----------



## bigshot

YouTube time!


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> YouTube time!


Ah I c u meant Ethan Winer rather than Seth Winer or Seth Winner at ur post 114 - names r so easy to mix up a bit like terms such as perfect or absolute particularly when there r winners and whiners in the AES continuum. The AES is legitimately a continuum since the ends or extremes of it are very different from each other but obviously it's not a perfect or absolute example.

My ears r younger than many of urs and less experienced but not inexperienced. My dad is interested in audio and knows about testing hearing and maximising or improving this which enhances my experience level. I know that all CD players don't sound the same and that all amps don't sound the same either and that's personal experience rather than salesman connery. I'm sure I've read or bn told about a blind test where an amp with far worse specs sounded far better than another with far better ones and neither amp was bust. Following on from these things I know that specs don't tell the whole story tho my preference mightn't b urs or anyone elses.

As we age our hearing worsens and I can hear some high tones on a machine my dad has which he knows exist but can't himself hear anymore. The average of 20Hz to 20KHz is just that tho our range really starts at 16Hz with infrasonic sound waves in the range of 4 to 16 Hz felt as body vibrations rather than heard. There is considerable variation between individuals and a gradual decline in the ability to hear higher frequencies with age and this decline starts as early as 8 or 9 with men suffering worse than women. It's probably fairer to state an average of 16Hz to 18Khz my dad thinks since that's a more genuine use of the word 'average'. The organ has the greatest range of any instrument but harmonics extend the high-frequency range though I recall reading somewhere that there's little outside of the 16Hz to 18KHz really so diminishing high-frequency hearing is less visible until one passes the age of 40. Understanding speech only requires a range of about 500Hz to 5KHz whilst outside of harmonics and a handful of instruments such as the pipe organ I think 50Hz to 12KHz ticks the boxes so most of us can probly hear most of what we want well enough until we get real old. That reminds me - Ethan turned 65 last year :tiphat:

*Our hearing is a wonderful thing but outside of any measurable specs for it is an intangible ie. the subtle nuances someone else mentioned and preferences which make something 'perfect4us' so y don't we just settle on 'perfect4us' and stay away from any black box black arts or snake oil from either camp in this as musics4pleasure so let's have fun and leave it at that shall we as one side won't ever convince the other and it'd be wrong for either camp to con others who can seek out the truth themselves wouldn't it? *


----------



## bigshot

It's nice to have it in theory, but there really isn't much content above 14kHz in music. The top octave of sound is the least important in the entire audible range. If you take a track and EQ out everything below 14kHz, you'd be left with a track that is pretty much silent.

When it comes to frequency response, balance in the core frequencies is much more important than frequency extension. The nice things is digital sound gives us both. All players that are functioning to spec are flat as a rail throughout the entire audible range. Audibly transparent.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> There really isn't much content above 14kHz in music. The top octave of sound is the least important in the entire audible range. If you take a track and EQ out everything below 14kHz, you'd be left with a track that is pretty much silent. All players that are functioning to spec are flat as a rail throughout the entire audible range. Audibly transparent.


I did say 'outside of harmonics and a handful of instruments such as the pipe organ I think 50Hz to 12KHz ticks the boxes so most of us can probly hear most of what we want well enough until we get real old' so am not sure where ur coming from with this tho have attached a couple of charts I just found showing that there are harmonics and pipe organ notes extending beyond 12 or even 14KHz but I appreciate that the older folks won't b able 2 hear them.















Last man standing's last word doesn't make for the argument's winner tho and I suspect Vaneyes, Svelte and HP felt it was a case of casting pearls before swine but you don't seem to give up even if there's not a convert in sight.

Regarding 'audibly transparent' nothing in hi-fi is perfect except in the ear of the beholder and no1 can prove otherwise so let's just enjoy wot we have eh and try and get the best we can 4 us without trying to sell any particular brand of snake oil to anyone.

I'm off out so have fun y'all. Maybe I'll b bak next week tho I'm not absolutely certain :cheers:


----------



## bigshot

Audibly transparent is "in the ear of the human". We are corporal beings with limitations. Digital audio was designed to exceed our ability to hear and achieve audible transparency. At this point, failure to achieve that is going to be due to equipment not operating to spec or expectation bias from "golden ears" audiophiles. The latter is MUCH more common than the former.

It's OK that there is no "winner" in this discussion. I'm really not speaking for your benefit. I am addressing an audience beyond you. I hope they find my information useful.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> It's OK that there is no "winner" in this discussion. I'm really not speaking for your benefit. I am addressing an audience beyond you. I hope they find my information useful.


Surely by now you've realised that no-one in the audience finds the disinformation useful.

Not a soul on this thread other than yourself believes in "absolute perfection" for solid state electronics though all are agreed in such items being certifiable as "perfect for the individual" and that's not a bad thing though it seems you need to be able to label something as "absolutely perfect" perhaps to convince yourself of something that really doesn't matter to anyone else and shouldn't to you either.

The audience beyond Ruaskin is now asleep about to be joined by me so further last words are pointless


----------



## bigshot

Absolute perfection to the tolerances of the human ear when it comes to recorded sound is perfectly possible. I have it in my living room right now. If you don't have perfection yourself, I'd be happy to help you identify where the weakness in your system lies.


----------



## Vaneyes

You've perfected what millions of recordings couldn't do. Congratulations. When's the IPO?

I've got the last word...for now. :tiphat:


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> Absolute perfection to the tolerances of the human ear when it comes to recorded sound is perfectly possible. I have it in my living room right now. If you don't have perfection yourself, I'd be happy to help you identify where the weakness in your system lies.


For anyone who can't always clearly hear whats actually being said this may help others understand why









Based on the above "absolute perfection to the tolerances of the human ear when it comes to recorded sound is perfectly possible. I have it in my living room right now." fits Haut Parleur's "in the ear of the beholder" though "If you don't have perfection yourself, I'd be happy to help you identify where the weakness in your system lies." would not be possible since the version of "absolute perfection" in use is somewhat limited 2 the individual rather than a universal truth. It's so easy 4 us 2 misuse terms even when we don't intend 2 I s'pose but ur right as "absolute perfection to the tolerances of the human ear when it comes to recorded sound is perfectly possible" since if I couldn't hear it Live better then it's reached "perfection4me".

Of course if this is a genuine case of "absolute perfection" then I'm agreed with Vaneyes "You've perfected what millions of recordings couldn't do. Congratulations. When's the IPO?" and apols 4 stealing the "last" from u Van m8 but it's been a Bank Holiday weekend here and I've taken advantage of an extended break in the sun.

Anyways that's my lastest last word on this as I have to mug up on the lectures I skipped y'day whilst away ahead of my afty tutorial.


----------



## bigshot

I can't figure that chart out. Is it not compensated for Fletcher Munson? Why is there a huge dip in the chart for all ages? If that chart was designed to use the 20 year old as the baseline, it would be a lot easier to read.

In general, individuals don't vary more than 5dB through the core range, and most of the fall off in hearing due to age occurs in the highest octave, the least important octave for music listening. By the time you hit 80, nothing works right any more! (but we all kinda expect that)


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> Absolute perfection to the tolerances of the human ear when it comes to recorded sound is perfectly possible. I have it in my living room right now. If you don't have perfection yourself, I'd be happy to help you identify where the weakness in your system lies.





bigshot said:


> most of the fall off in hearing due to age occurs in the highest octave, the least important octave for music listening. By the time you hit 80, nothing works right any more!


For anyone into digital audio this whole line is beginning to sound like a stuck LP record. 'If you don't have perfection yourself, I'd be happy to help you' is of no use to anyone with different ears and you don't seem able to grasp that concept which is, I think, the point being made by our young friend at 134.

I'm sure the young have very different ears to me and wonder how far you or I can hear these days and what subtleties we're missing - it doesn't matter how flat something measures on a spec sheet or whatever if we can't hear 100% of what is actually coming out of the sausage machine. We may engineer a room perfectly for us in which a young person may hear some unpleasant high-frequency reflections we simply can't or just find it a less audibly pleasing environment than we do. "Perfect for you" may not be "perfect for me" and vice-versa and that really is quite a simple concept meaning that "absolute perfection" is dead in the water but "perfect for us" is all we really need isn't it?

Anyway I'm not going to dwell on this anymore even though I appreciate that most stuff outside my hearing range will likely be instruments' harmonics - the fact remains that it'll still be stuff I'm missing and not necessarily stuff I'd rather not be missing if I had the choice. 'The highest octave' may be 'the least important octave for music listening' but if stuff in it is lost to us then it's lost, period. I'm 50 so don't have perfect hearing and may have 'the perfect system for me' but whatever I have can never be 'absolutely perfect'. My mum is in her early 80s and can still hear enough to appreciate music even though she doesn't hear higher frequency stuff too well so all is not lost for anyone in here about to hit the suicide pills over this :angel:

The chart is an irrelevance to me really as I know that my hearing is very good for my age though not what it was having had it tested along with my eyes and other stuff a year or so ago in a health check. I've no idea how old any of the other posters on this thread are but suspect several are older than me and with likely worse hearing whilst I suspect Ruaskin's is likely better but none of that affects the idea of "absolute perfection" being a non-starter and so this is an irrelevance also.

Hey, the last word's on me now but



Vaneyes said:


> You've perfected what millions of recordings couldn't do. Congratulations. When's the IPO?
> 
> I've got the last word...for now. :tiphat:


made me smile when I read it a few days ago and lasted a while as a last word in a thread that'll hopefully go away and die now :lol:


----------



## bigshot

It isn't a matter of different sound for different ears. It's a matter of objectively calibrating to the same frequency balance that exists in the real world. If you want "realistic" sound, you need to start by achieving a natural frequency response. That doesn't happen out of the box. No speakers made present a balanced response, and even if they did, the room itself would knock it out of line.

Calibrating to an accurate response is the best way to improve the sound of any system. Once you've done that, you can use the tone controls like salt and pepper to taste to correct for the few recordings that aren't properly engineered.

Accurate sound reproduction, meaning sound that is audibly transparent to the source, is perfect sound. This was very difficult to do in the home back in the analog era. Today, it is much easier because most halfway decent players and amps are already audibly transparent. The only wild card are the tranducers. That's what you need to calibrate to get to natural, realistic, accurate sound.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> It isn't a matter of different sound for different ears. Accurate sound reproduction, meaning sound that is audibly transparent to the source, is perfect sound. This was very difficult to do in the home back in the analog era. Today, it is much easier because most halfway decent players and amps are already audibly transparent.


I can't decide what to disagree with first but all other posters on this thread seem to share a view that "absolute perfection" is a non-starter though you just can't accept that "perfect for you" is good enough and have to try and convert all doubters that what you have is "absolute perfection" even though it shouldn't matter to you what anyone else thinks or believes.

It's as though you have to get others to believe so that you can bolster your own belief. Why not just let it go and just enjoy what you have as there are no converts to this folly many have explained as such.

Maybe the rest of the world is wrong and the earth is flat after all but you have sucked all interest out of this thread for me with closed-minded one-sidedness and an unwillingness to see reason.

As I said earlier 'This line is beginning to sound like a stuck LP record'.

It is a shame that



Vaneyes said:


> You've perfected what millions of recordings couldn't do. Congratulations. When's the IPO?
> 
> I've got the last word...for now. :tiphat:


had not been the last word on this.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> Give me 1) a decent room, 21) speakers capable of producing sound throughout the full audible spectrum and 3) a good digital equalizer, and I can make a perfect system out of it. But if you leave any of those three things out, even I'll never be able to achieve perfect sound.


 This is a bit of a sweeping statement isn't it as "But if you leave any of those three things out, even I'll never be able to achieve perfect sound" implies 'absolute perfection' in one's own abilities within 'any _properly_ levelled playing field'. I've been none too bad at choosing and setting up systems over 3 decades (after all, it was my job as well as a hobby) BUT I am not perfect and someone somewhere sometime will always be able to improve on whatever I do, or have done, I'm sure. However, as Ruaskin said, "It's so easy 4 us 2 misuse terms even when we don't intend 2 I s'pose but ur right as "absolute perfection to the tolerances of the human ear when it comes to recorded sound is perfectly possible" since if I couldn't hear it Live better then it's reached "perfection4me""



bigshot said:


> The supertweeters in my studio monitors can produce 20kHz and beyond loud enough to make your ears hurt.


 upset me as I'm not sure I can hear "20kHz and beyond" anymore so it wouldn't matter how loud it was as it could never hurt ears that couldn't hear it ;-)


----------



## Wood

If one is pretty happy with one's system, but fancies an upgrade, is it a good idea to just upgrade the speakers and equalize the room (if that is the right expression)?


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Wood said:


> If one is pretty happy with one's system, but fancies an upgrade, is it a good idea to just upgrade the speakers and equalize the room (if that is the right expression)?


And there was I thinking that this thread might have come to 'a kind of closure' when you've gone and 'opened a whole new can of worms' ;-)

*If it ain't broke don't fix it ie, 'if one is pretty happy with one's system' why 'upgrade' at all since 'as sure as eggs is eggs' when one upgrades one thing then one invariably finds deficiencies elsewhere in the chain.* If one really 'fancies' a play then why not move the speakers around varying their distance from rear and side walls (and between one another) then try 'toeing-in' or not. After that then try having nothing between the loudspeakers and as little clutter in front of them if you can. If you've some wall-coverings such as tapestries 'hanging around' then try hanging them around the room's walls (but side and 'speaker-facing' in particular). If the 'listening room' can be changed (and designated 'dedicated') then try that along with the advice on speaker placement and wall-coverings etc. Minimise reflective clutter in the room and if the speakers work well in 'a free space' I'd suggest the kit rack is placed against the rear wall with the loudspeakers placed 2-3 metres apart (the oft suggested 6-8 feet 'ideal' is a bit skimpy imho), 1 metre or so in from the side walls and 2 metres in from the rear wall (if this is possible). Get a friend to bring their CD player and/or amplifier round to your home and see if you can tell any differences 'twixt theirs and yours. Obviously it'll help if there apparently 'should' be some disparity 'twixt their and your kit ... 'fraid 'should' in this instance would have to be based on reviews which in themselves are not unbiased even 'with the best intent'. *Basically, try all of the things that don't cost money first BUT, again, why change anything at all if 'one is pretty happy with one's system'.* Loudspeakers are the easiest things to fall in love with or hate, fairly quickly, as their differences are manyfold BUT if you've 'money to burn' and want to satisfy a 'seemingly unnecessary upgrade fancied' then I'd take a look at your whole system and listen to different frontends (and amplifiers) ideally in a shop's dedicated 'after hours' listening room ('unfettered' by salesman advice) and see how 'what you are considering' compares with 'what you already have' since 'a decent shop' will oft suggest such comparison with your own stuff (by means of your own actual kit assuming they don't have the same 'bits and bobs'). If you look at reviews of what kit you have (and set a price for any possible replacements) you can look at reviews of those possibilities and then make a 'shortlist' to audition yourself. If your system is unbalanced anywhere then you can simply balance it by 'throwing the money you have' spare at 'the worst performing bit' having auditioned stuff to be sure that this is, indeed, the bit you should replace. *There is no right or wrong answer as it is your system and needs to be 'perfected for you' within the confines of budgets and level of currently available 'tech' etc.* If using a 5.1, 7.1 or 2 or 9.1 or 2 setup and intending to always listen in an A/V room rather than a dedicated 'listening room' then the playing around with the front 'main' L+R loudspeakers advice has to be 'tailored a bit' as a TV (or screen) plus Centre speaker (and any kit racking etc) will affect re-positioning things whilst the rear L+R (and side L+R in the case of 7.1 or 2 and 9.1 or 2) will affect reflections BUT you can still play around with positioning, try some wall-hangings and de-clutter as all of these things are free. Additionally, if using an A/V room, any replacement of the front 'main' L+R loudspeakers will need 'tailoring around' the other speakers in use when playing something requiring 5.1 etc though. I like keeping my 'audio only' listening separate to my 'A/V (or even 5.1) listening' and so have rooms for each but not a 'dedicated' Home Theatre for the latter since the room I use for this is simply a large 'family room' (albeit one acting as a 'lights off' home cinema for Blu Ray movies most evenings following any early evening TV viewing by children who just can't cope with 'small' 42" sets in their bedrooms ... whatever has our world come to since, as a child, I recall 28" being big [albeit 4:3]). My music room is just that, though, and with enough seating for one (albeit with the capacity to bring in another 8 or 9 seats [my wife has just said I had 10 or 12 in there once though a few were those folding camping ones] if I really want to impair my listening experience or simply demonstrate something).

Long long ago in a galaxy far far away (1972, Scotland) a company called Linn Products manufactured a turntable chassis for about £40 which you could slot into a casing of your own or someone else's design. This suspended sub-chassis unit rivalled Thorens' designs at the time whilst being little more expensive than Connoisseur ones and less expensive than Garrard's 401 one. A year or two after it's introduction the 'suspended sub-chassis' ceased to be supplied as a chassis and thereafter came in a lovely tooled rosewood enclosure with a black full length armboard. The next year saw some a change in the 'power-on' switch but Nirvana and Val Halla upgrades including the significant psu one kept the marque 'at the top' into the 80s with rivals coming along and then 'going by the wayside'. A few years ago 'The Absolute Sound' rated it as the second most significant turntable of all time. Back at the turn of the 80s Garbage In Garbage Out was becoming a 'buzz phrase' and Linn maintained that the frontend was the most important thing which seemed reasonable BUT they went on to say that pairing a (then) £300 Linn turntable along with a £50 Basik arm (and it's 'throwaway' pick-up cartridge) plus a £70 NAD 3020 amp and a £70 pair of Wharfedale Shelton XP2 loudspeakers (along with a few metres of QED 79 strand [or RS 46 strand] cable for a tenner) would give you the best £500 system money could buy. *Many people had argued previously that loudspeakers were the most important thing in the chain BUT this new-fangled GIGO thing showed that they weren't though Linn just had to 'take that a step too far', I'm afraid, as focussing on one thing to the extent of all else is a folly and the 'perfect for me, you or anyone else' system will rarely, if ever, be the same one BUT even if it were then not considering a system as 'a balancing act' is every bit as foolish as considering speakers and room equalisation as being the most important thing.* Moving into the digital age we find that all CD players don't sound alike (even though theoretically they should) whilst no amplifier in existence is simply 'a straight wire with gain' (as 'idealised') BUT the differences in frontend and amplifier are subtler than those between loudspeakers and so some would have others believe that solid state electronics are 'all perfect unless defective' and that anyone being 'sold otherwise' is really being 'mis-sold snake oil'.

*Anyway, I think we're veering off the thread's topic which was 'Do recordings sound natural and/or realistic' as well as endangering it's sprawl spiralling on forever with much mayhem likely to lead to a serious case of*



Wood said:


> it always gets catty.


Apologies for the long, and perhaps a bit unwieldy, post BUT I hope I've helped you save some money now though ;-)


----------



## bigshot

Wood said:


> If one is pretty happy with one's system, but fancies an upgrade, is it a good idea to just upgrade the speakers and equalize the room (if that is the right expression)?


Better speakers and more accurate equalization are the two best things you can do to improve the sound of your system. Everything else is just small and incremental in comparison. The only consideration for the amp is that it have enough power to push the speakers you choose.

But whenever you consider an upgrade, it's a good idea to really think about your current system and try to determine how it could be improved. Random upgrades give random results. If you can identify a weakness, you can attack it directly and correct it.

Sometimes, just paying a little of attention to the layout of the room and placement of the speakers in it can make a good impact, and it doesn't cost anything. If you give me an idea of what you have now and how you have it set up, I might be able to make some suggestions. Happy to help.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Svelte Silhouette said:


> And there was I thinking that this thread might have come to 'a kind of closure' when you've gone and 'opened a whole new can of worms' ;-)
> 
> *If it ain't broke don't fix it ie, 'if one is pretty happy with one's system' why 'upgrade' at all since 'as sure as eggs is eggs' when one upgrades one thing then one invariably finds deficiencies elsewhere in the chain. etc etc etc Apologies for the long, and perhaps a bit unwieldy, post BUT I hope I've helped you save some money now though ;-) *


This post probably has some of the longest paragraphs I've ever seen but a lot of sense is within them as people used to see speakers as "the be all and end all" and some still do. Sure, speakers are an important part in a balanced system and by far they are the easiest things to notice differences in. However, "If one is pretty happy with one's system" there is more chance of doing harm than good unless the end user can pinpoint what is not quite right within it. I like the "If it ain't broke don't fix it" idea.

However 


Wood said:


> If one is pretty happy with one's system, but fancies an upgrade, is it a good idea to just upgrade the speakers and equalize the room (if that is the right expression)?


has derailed the thread a bit and this new trail could lead to some heated discussion I'm sure even though it probably warranted a new thread imo.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> 1. Better speakers and more accurate equalization are the two best things you can do to improve the sound of your system. Everything else is just small and incremental in comparison. The only consideration for the amp is that it have enough power to push the speakers you choose.
> 
> 2. But whenever you consider an upgrade, it's a good idea to really think about your current system and try to determine how it could be improved. Random upgrades give random results. If you can identify a weakness, you can attack it directly and correct it.
> 
> 3. Sometimes, just paying a little of attention to the layout of the room and placement of the speakers in it can make a good impact, and it doesn't cost anything. If you give me an idea of what you have now and how you have it set up, I might be able to make some suggestions. Happy to help.


1. Sure, speakers are an important part in a balanced system and by far they are the easiest things to notice differences in immediately. However "The only consideration for the amp is that it have enough power to push the speakers you choose" is a seriously flawed line of argument as GIGO has to be a consideration since solid state electronics don't all sound the same and are not "absolutely perfect" which gets us back on thread with "Do recordings sound natural and realistic" :angel:

2. Totally in agreement with you here and Svelte alludes to this rather extensively within his really big paragraph as "If one is pretty happy with one's system" there is more chance of doing harm than good unless the end user can pinpoint what is not quite right within it.

3. I'm also in agreement with "Sometimes, just paying a little [bit] of attention to the layout of the room and placement of the speakers in it can make a good impact, and it doesn't cost anything" which is also dealt with by Svelte who made some commonsense suggestions.

Regarding 


Wood said:


> If one is pretty happy with one's system, but fancies an upgrade, is it a good idea to just upgrade the speakers and equalize the room (if that is the right expression)?


I stand by the suggested "If it ain't broke don't fix" idea as even if you tell us all exactly what you have and submit pictures and a dimensioned roomplan we can't actually hear what is being delivered by what you have and even if we could would simply tailor it to our own view of perfection. Notwithstanding this there may be some glaringly obvious tweaks any of us could suggest after seeing what you have where but removing clutter which will affect reflected sound and moving those speakers around a bit are good and "free of charge" starting points which you'll be able to notice an audible differences after.

Actually all of the above will help deliver a "perfect for end user" system for whatever money they have spare and though it may not be "absolutely perfect" who cares as the success or failure of the end result is "in the ear of the beholder". I believe that fully gets us back on thread after a long for me posting :tiphat:


----------



## bigshot

Feel free to PM me, Wood. These guys are determined to stomp all over the conversation.


----------



## Wood

bigshot said:


> Feel free to PM me, Wood. These guys are determined to stomp all over the conversation.


Thanks for your offer Bigshot. PM is the way to go.

I'll be in touch in due course.

Cheers


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> Feel free to PM me, Wood. These guys are determined to stomp all over the conversation.


I was largely in agreement with what you said at 142 and my only real disagreement was that "The only consideration for the amp is that it have enough power to push the speakers you choose". Admittedly I watered down "better speakers and more accurate equalization are the two best things you can do to improve the sound of your system" since "speakers are an important part in a balanced system and by far they are the easiest things to notice differences in immediately". *It'd appear that unless someone is in complete agreement with you on everything you see that as their "stomping all over the conversation"* which fits my comment at 138 relating to absolute perfection v perfect for us since "it's as though you have to get others to believe so that you can bolster your own belief".

I'd said that the new topic really belonged on a different thread and of Wood's wanting advice "even if you tell us all exactly what you have and submit pictures and a dimensioned roomplan we can't actually hear what is being delivered by what you have" as that's a simple fact. However I also said that we would be able to see anything glaringly obvious and Svelte made a lot of suggestions around kit placement even if hanging reflection-deadening tapestries or relocating rooms etc etc aren't going to be practicable for many of us and I know what my wife'd say at some of those suggestions 

PM is always best for "off-thread" discussions with whoever where a new thread is undesirable. A new thread would obviously prove disagreeable but would give advice from all corners and avoid complete one-sidedness or closed-mindedness since any single person's opinion is bound to be as biased as the next single person's one.


----------



## Wood

Haut Parleur said:


> I was largely in agreement with what you said at 142 and my only real disagreement was that "The only consideration for the amp is that it have enough power to push the speakers you choose". Admittedly I watered down "better speakers and more accurate equalization are the two best things you can do to improve the sound of your system" since "speakers are an important part in a balanced system and by far they are the easiest things to notice differences in immediately". *It'd appear that unless someone is in complete agreement with you on everything you see that as their "stomping all over the conversation"* which fits my comment at 138 relating to absolute perfection v perfect for us since "it's as though you have to get others to believe so that you can bolster your own belief".
> 
> I'd said that the new topic really belonged on a different thread and of Wood's wanting advice "even if you tell us all exactly what you have and submit pictures and a dimensioned roomplan we can't actually hear what is being delivered by what you have" as that's a simple fact. However I also said that we would be able to see anything glaringly obvious and Svelte made a lot of suggestions around kit placement even if hanging reflection-deadening tapestries or relocating rooms etc etc aren't going to be practicable for many of us and I know what my wife'd say at some of those suggestions
> 
> PM is always best for "off-thread" discussions with whoever where a new thread is undesirable. A new thread would obviously prove disagreeable but would give advice from all corners and avoid complete one-sidedness or closed-mindedness since any single person's opinion is bound to be as biased as the next single person's one.


Don't worry HP, I'm a big boy, I'll be fine.

It may be some way off, but I'll report back with progress I've made on my system in due course.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

bigshot said:


> I might be able to make some suggestions. Happy to help.


This statement is 'rather easier on the ear', imho, than your Post #124's "Give me 1) a decent room, 21) speakers capable of producing sound throughout the full audible spectrum and 3) a good digital equalizer, and I can make a perfect system out of it. But if you leave any of those three things out, even I'll never be able to achieve perfect sound." as everyone should be open to suggestions for system improvement that anyone might be able to make ... I always am which is, I think, what this whole 'perfect for us' thing on the thread is all about in getting something as 'natural sounding' as we can since 'nothing is, sonically, truly perfect' other than, of course, the real thing.

A shorter and simpler post folks ;-)


----------



## Ingélou

I am a convert to your cool approach, Mr Wood... 
Live & let live. :tiphat:


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Ingélou said:


> I am a convert to your cool approach, Mr Wood...
> Live & let live. :tiphat:


I believe the movie was Live and Let Die


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Yes it was but I agree


----------



## Wood

Ingélou said:


> I am a convert to your cool approach, Mr Wood...
> Live & let live. :tiphat:


All this eastern mysticism is starting to rub off on me!


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Wood said:


> It may be some way off, but I'll report back with progress I've made on my system in due course.


Only spend money if you need to and if you're married be careful out there as a tapestry probably makes a good shroud - and two or three all the more so


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Wood said:


> All this eastern mysticism is starting to rub off on me!


Just don't let any "snake oil" rub off on you :lol:


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

If it isn't Live it can't sound like the real thing as it isn't.

Instruments make a real sound and no matter how many boxes you use to reproduce that it doesn't matter as you can't ever make it like it was.


----------

