The most important parameter of all: overall system integrity

[watchnerd]

Doesn't work like that - high quality level reproduction takes one beyond the point of what being aware, continuously, of the "faults" in the recording - they don't go away, they are still all there, but your mind discards them as being "irrelevant" to the message of the recording. Of course, one can choose to force your mind to notice the faults, but it's not easy ...

Maybe that's how it works in your particular mind...

But as someone who works as a volunteer recording engineer for the local symphony and jazz society, I don't agree in the slightest. For one, I've been trained to listen into the mix for flaws.

Second, I listen on monitor systems, including at home, which aren't designed to make things sound euphonic. The ultimate goal is to see if a mix 'translates' between systems, i.e. sounds mostly the same and 'right'.

Third, all recordings are acts of artifice. People underestimate how much the mix has been manipulated by engineers. A good engineer can add "audiophile" traits to a recording entirely through manipulation. You can also add these via PEQ and AU plugins at playback time. Here are some examples:

Want to move the soundstage forward? Add +2.0 db, Fc 1600 Hz, Q 1.00
Want to move the soundstage backward? Add -2.0 db, Fc 1600 Hz, Q 1.00
Want more warmth? +2 dB, Fc 220, Q 1.50
Want more detail? +2 dB, Fc 8000, Q2.50
Want more hall ambience? Pick your favorite reverb plugin
Want to make it sound like tubes? Load up the Softube AU plugin
etc
etc

Your "system synergy" is entirely capable of being manipulated at the source level, whether in the original recording or at playback time using DSP.

And, while our mind can play tricks on us, what I'm talking about is objectively real -- capable of being measured with microphones.

There is no Allegory of the Cave in recorded music. There is no "Platonic form" of the piano hiding within a recording, because how a piano sounds on a recording is a combination of venue, microphones, mix, mastering, etc.

When you say "synergy" what you really mean are a set of preferences that you happen to like. Cool, we all have those. But don't pretend it's some higher truth that is universal.

 

[fas42]

Yes, all recordings can be manipulated - and our minds do play tricks on us - and the latter is what I aim for! What I seek is the subjective impression of the piano, say, being played, for real - and that can be delivered. If I listen to half a dozen recordings of piano they will all have different qualities - just like if I wander into half dozen rooms and spaces where real pianos, of different makes and types are being played. In the latter situation the "pianoness" of the sound is always there, irrespective of anything else - the goal with audio replay is to always make that happen.

"System synergy", as audiophiles talk of it, is usually just the right combinations of everything to allow the mind to accept the illusion, just using the ears. The level to reach is for a blindfolded person to be taken into the room where piano playback from audio is happening - and be completely fooled ...

 

[watchnerd]

Yes, all recordings can be manipulated - and our minds do play tricks on us - and the latter is what I aim for! What I seek is the subjective impression of the piano, say, being played, for real - and that can be delivered. If I listen to half a dozen recordings of piano they will all have different qualities - just like if I wander into half dozen rooms and spaces where real pianos, of different makes and types are being played. In the latter situation the "pianoness" of the sound is always there, irrespective of anything else - the goal with audio replay is to always make that happen.

Is the goal to reproduce how your ears + brain hear a piano sounds? Or how a *microphone* hears a piano? The first is unmeasurable; the second isn't.

And what is the goal of audio replay if you don't care about pianos?

What is the reality test definition for electronic dance music entirely composed on a computer?

Or for Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon", with all its weird sound effects and phase shifts?

Or for a multi-track rock album where the musicians were never in the same room together at any time during the recording process? And were in fact recorded in different booths?

"System synergy", as audiophiles talk of it, is usually just the right combinations of everything to allow the mind to accept the illusion, just using the ears. The level to reach is for a blindfolded person to be taken into the room where piano playback from audio is happening - and be completely fooled ...

What's funny about that is that almost nobody on the recording side believes that is the goal. Even the guys at Reference Recordings don't shoot for that.

Musicians & recording engineers know reproduced sound never sounds like the real live thing and never will. So they don't even use that as a benchmark. Instead, they try to make a recording that:

a) Sounds enjoyable on a wide range of systems
b) Sells well
c) If a recreation of a live event, provides an impression (like an impressionist painting) of what the event was like

 

[tomelex]

There are tens of thousands of audiophiles who do not comprehend what you said. It just goes to show that a great many audiophiles just like to play with their sound believing that somehow your mix or somebody elses mix will both sound the "same" when they get their system right. It stagger s the mind.

 

[fas42]

Is the goal to reproduce how your ears + brain hear a piano sounds? Or how a *microphone* hears a piano? The first is unmeasurable; the second isn't.

And what is the goal of audio replay if you don't care about pianos?

If you get a piano right, vocals, or a trumpet - then everything else falls into place ...

What is the reality test definition for electronic dance music entirely composed on a computer?

Or for Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon", with all its weird sound effects and phase shifts?

Or for a multi-track rock album where the musicians were never in the same room together at any time during the recording process? And were in fact recorded in different booths?

That is what it sounds like - you can "hear" the recording booths used by each sound part; there's a whole gaggle of sound spaces in front of you, and you can tune into each one ...

What's funny about that is that almost nobody on the recording side believes that is the goal. Even the guys at Reference Recordings don't shoot for that.

Musicians & recording engineers know reproduced sound never sounds like the real live thing and never will. So they don't even use that as a benchmark. Instead, they try to make a recording that:

a) Sounds enjoyable on a wide range of systems
b) Sells well
c) If a recreation of a live event, provides an impression (like an impressionist painting) of what the event was like

And that's where they're wrong. Their playback equipment is never good enough to produce a solid enough illusion. Which is not the same thing as nobody having a system good enough to do that.

 

[fas42]

As I've mentioned many times, there is a whole set of acoustic behaviours that occur when the mind gets "tricked", fully - completely invisible speakers, mono images that track one's position in the room; once experienced, never forgotten ...

 

[watchnerd]

There are tens of thousands of audiophiles who do not comprehend what you said. It just goes to show that a great many audiophiles just like to play with their sound believing that somehow your mix or somebody elses mix will both sound the "same" when they get their system right. It stagger s the mind.

I don't understand how they think it's even possible.

When I record a string quartet, I usually use a pair of stereo cardioids to capture the hall acoustics, then between 2-4 spot mics closer to the instruments. That's 4-6 tracks representing different locations in time and space, which then get mixed down to 2 channels. How do people expect to recreate what 4-6 microphones, spread out from one another, heard using only 2 transducers (which are not perfect point sources to begin with)?

It's just the wrong benchmark. The benchmark should be reproducing what the mixing and mastering engineers heard when listening in 2 channels -- that's the closest you can get to original artistic intent.

 

[watchnerd]

If you get a piano right, vocals, or a trumpet - then everything else falls into place ...

Sorry, this is just wrong and ignorant.

If you think a mini-monitor system or electrostatic speaker that does a passable job of reproducing a trumpet (and I've heard several that do) is therefore automatically capable of reproducing the sound of a PA system at a dance club you either don't understand the physics or haven't been to enough different kinds of music events.

 

[tomelex]

yep yep yep

 

[fas42]

Well, the PA at a dance club is the last thing I want to recreate! The latter is about injecting massive amounts of distortion into the playback, with extra large servings of SPLs to add flavour - actually, if I play dance mix tracks, I find them very interesting; a lot of creative thought does go into them; and I can appreciate the subtleties incorporated. If distorted to buggery then all that's lost, they are beyond boring ...

 

[watchnerd]

Which is not the same thing as nobody having a system good enough to do that.

There is no domestic playback system capable of perfectly reproducing a full symphony orchestra at full tilt because the microphones can't capture it, either.

 

[RayDunzl]

The benchmark should be reproducing what the mixing and mastering engineers heard when listening in 2 channels -- that's the closest you can get to original artistic intent.

Benchmark is what somebody else heard?

How am I supposed to decide whether or not what I think what I thought I heard is what I think they thought they heard?

I have only the disc, not their whatever.

Admittedly though, what results is often very satisfactory, and meets my criteria for listening enjoyment.

 

[watchnerd]

Well, the PA at a dance club is the last thing I want to recreate!

This is the problem with placebophile beliefs:

Advancing the science of audio reproduction is not simply about catering to subjective tastes.

More money has been wasted in the last 20 years on stuff that doesn't advance the technology base because audiophiles will pay for it.

Does the world really need another multi-kilobuck Class A heat-monster power amplifier in a fancy case that re-hashes a 50 year old circuit topology? Don't we have enough of them?

Do we need yet another $10k PCM DAC that measures no better in the audible realm than a $500 one?

At least the rich guys who invest in super cars from McLaren, Ferrari, etc, are paying for actual engineering that makes the car lighter, put out more horsepower, accelerate quicker, and post faster times on the Nurburgring.

Placebophiles, on the other hand, seem to mostly be anachronists who prefer to spend ridiculous money on old tech in new boxes and thus actually siphon spending capital away from stuff that actually makes a difference in the name of mystical 'synergy'.

They are well-heeled luddites who engage in magical beliefs and this is why pros laugh at them behind their backs.

 

[watchnerd]

Benchmark is what somebody else heard?

How am I supposed to decide whether or not what I think what I thought I heard is what I think they thought they heard?

I have only the disc, not their whatever.

Admittedly though, what results is often very satisfactory, and meets my criteria for listening enjoyment.

Find out what they used.

Telarc, for one, used to list all the equipment, including monitoring speakers, in the liner notes.

 

[RayDunzl]

Find out what they used.

Telarc, for one, used to list all the equipment, including monitoring speakers, in the liner notes.

That won't necessarily tell me what to think they thought they heard. And me being very unlikely to personally possess or expect to obtain any of the playback chain they used, creates another layer of improbability.

So, I'm afraid that even if I tracked down that information, it would be of little help to me in the Dipole and Heat Monster Room here at Neverland East.

I tune to give a reasonably flat frequency response, and a reasonable impulse and step response, then monitor the in-room RTA vs the source channel's RTA, and have been pleased with the results, which, by my estimation, are as close as I can get to my benchmark of "play what's on the disc" at this time.

 

[watchnerd]

I tune to give a reasonably flat frequency response, and a reasonable impulse and step response, then monitor the in-room RTA vs the source channel's RTA, and have been pleased with the results, which, by my estimation, are as close as I can get to my benchmark of "play what's on the disc" at this time.

Th reality is that until studios standardize on equipment (never going to happen, see Sean Olive / Floyd Toole thread), the best you can try for is neutrality, as you're doing.

But that, at least, is an achievable and measurable objective, unlike pursuing The Absolute Sound.

 

[RayDunzl]

But that, at least, is an achievable and measurable objective

With certain caveats, I think its the best course for now.

It leads me to DRC to flatness - against the wishes of and to the consternation of the better judgement people.

That may be a consequence of my dipole speakers, not sure, but now I have some speakers that would surely garner the "stamp of disapproval" when set up and measured as flat in-room with which to compare.

---

 

[Thomas savage]

I don't understand how they think it's even possible.

When I record a string quartet, I usually use a pair of stereo cardioids to capture the hall acoustics, then between 2-4 spot mics closer to the instruments. That's 4-6 tracks representing different locations in time and space, which then get mixed down to 2 channels. How do people expect to recreate what 4-6 microphones, spread out from one another, heard using only 2 transducers (which are not perfect point sources to begin with)?

It's just the wrong benchmark. The benchmark should be reproducing what the mixing and mastering engineers heard when listening in 2 channels -- that's the closest you can get to original artistic intent.

What many do is akin to thinking if you rehydrate beef jerky you can bring the cow back to life.. You just need the right chemicals in the rehydration fluid...

 

[fas42]

There is no domestic playback system capable of perfectly reproducing a full symphony orchestra at full tilt because the microphones can't capture it, either.

Again, we're talking about the subjective impression, at an appropriate distance. What the musician in the orchestra who is directly in front of the brass section is experiencing doesn't interest me - peaks over 130dB, say. I'm quite happy being an audience member in a row near the stage, getting that intensity hit from the orchestral climaxes - it sounds impressive, but the actual SPLs are quite reasonable; it's the harmonic richness that does the job, to my ears.

There's a divide between systems that convey the magic, and the guts, of music, and those just going through the motions - having experienced the former endless times I have little interest in the latter variety. Remarkably, "big stuff" is not required; just a very high level of overall competence - that's what gets the job done ...

 

[fas42]

I don't understand how they think it's even possible.

When I record a string quartet, I usually use a pair of stereo cardioids to capture the hall acoustics, then between 2-4 spot mics closer to the instruments. That's 4-6 tracks representing different locations in time and space, which then get mixed down to 2 channels. How do people expect to recreate what 4-6 microphones, spread out from one another, heard using only 2 transducers (which are not perfect point sources to begin with)?

It's just the wrong benchmark. The benchmark should be reproducing what the mixing and mastering engineers heard when listening in 2 channels -- that's the closest you can get to original artistic intent.

That's the interesting thing about how the brain appears to work - it combines sound from different POVs and assembles them into a coherent whole; it does another round of mixing, so to speak, inside one's head. This works for completely artificial recordings, very fancy combos of sound elements on pop recording are a carnival of sounds, yet it has an overall structure - and classical is a much more mundane version of the same thing. The spotlighting tricks, and added acoustic elements don't clash - there is an apparent integrity to the whole, the brain automatically resolves acoustic inconsistencies.