Message to golden-eared audiophiles posting at ASR for the first time...

[ralphf]

When I think of transducers, microphones strike me as the problem. Speakers in reverse, smaller diaphragms but basically the same mechanism as regards energy transfer. I'm sure there's a way to measure/record differences in sound pressure without physical diaphragms. That will improve sound across the board if reality is what you seek.
On the other hand, the musicians mostly want to come up with something new and reality is old hat. So there might not be such a big push to change sq upwards as long as it's still growing sideways.

Perhaps software will one day account for the insufficiencies of microphones? AI meet Led Zeppelin?

 

[Robin L]

Perhaps software will one day account for the insufficiencies of microphones?

No, that's an area of energy loss. There might be a simulacrum that works for 90% of the people. We might be there right now, when "good enough" is one hell of a lot better than it was 50 years ago. My guess is that demand for the highest of the high end will become less of a thing over time. And like I said before, the musicians' goals are rarely the goals of audiophiles.

AI meet Led Zeppelin?

I think that already happened with the third remastering of their catalog. "Audiophiles" don't like it because it sounds different from the original LP masterings, the first [supposedly flat] CD transfers or Jimmy Page's opinions on the subject. No accounting for taste, right? It's the glossiest of the masterings, no doubt about that.

The situations where the sort of "digital enhancements" that you speak of would be useful include surveillance. Old recordings of classical music could used such enhancements. But most music is pop and most music is not intended to sound "audiophile" in the sense of mimicking reality.

 

[ralphf]

No, that's an area of energy loss. There might be a simulacrum that works for 90% of the people. We might be there right now, when "good enough" is one hell of a lot better than it was 50 years ago. My guess is that demand for the highest of the high end will become less of a thing over time. And like I said before, the musicians' goals are rarely the goals of audiophiles.

I personally think that music reproduction sounds so unrealistic and so dimensionless that there HAS to be something around the corner that is going to "fix" it. That something is likely going to be processing software. I am not a huge fan of software processing in order to simulate an organic acoustic sound, but to be truthful I don't enjoy listening to music much these days because I find the sound so unnatural. I think I'd be willing to jump into the "artificial sound" pool if they can get close to real.

 

[ahofer]

I suspect stereo-based hifi as practiced by many here and in the subjectivist community will be dead soon. If the demographics I see are correct, it goes with the boomers.

Will there be interest in a new, high-end way of experiencing music? I don’t know. Movies, perhaps. I also wonder whether everyone will be using hearing aids in 20 years anyway. Perhaps the new tech will be piping it in.

 

[Robh3606]

You are missing my point. The point is that in 150 years, you will hear PRESENT DAY RECORDINGS in an entirely different light. And fwiw, I am not making an argument, I'm merely making a guess based on the FACT that current recorded/playback music sounds almost dimensionless and nothing like it does live. And let's remember, that all music is live when it is recorded. It's hard to believe that technology is going to stand still within 150 years and not be able to bring these present day lifeless recordings to life.

I disagree completely. There are plenty of examples of media recorded 40 years ago and reissued on the latest format. Unless you do some kind of re-mastering the warts will be even more audible. You can't hide the original formats limitations.

Rob

 

[David Harper]

Most of all 99% of people couldn't care less about any of this. They think we (audiophiles) are crazy. And the truth is they are probably right. It's only listening to music on a home playback system. Not nearly important enough to devote all this overthinking to.

 

[Inner Space]

I personally think that music reproduction sounds so unrealistic and so dimensionless that there HAS to be something around the corner that is going to "fix" it ... to be truthful I don't enjoy listening to music much these days because I find the sound so unnatural.

Either you're exaggerating in order to impress us with how fantastically discriminating you are ... or you have a really awful system.

 

[dkinric]

I personally think that music reproduction sounds so unrealistic and so dimensionless that there HAS to be something around the corner that is going to "fix" it. That something is likely going to be processing software. I am not a huge fan of software processing in order to simulate an organic acoustic sound, but to be truthful I don't enjoy listening to music much these days because I find the sound so unnatural. I think I'd be willing to jump into the "artificial sound" pool if they can get close to real.

Interesting. I find my current system the opposite of unrealistic and dimensionless. Are you so confident in your current setup/room that the only way it will get better is if technology advances? My combination of low distortion components, good speakers, dsp controlled subs and a good room acoustically provides a stunning and lifelike experience to me and everyone who listens. I would imagine many here feel the same.

 

[dkinric]

Either you're exaggerating in order to impress us with how fantastically discriminating you are ... or you have a really awful system.

Maybe he's a true golden eared audiophile? In that case, well, he's posting in the right forum amirite?

 

[tmtomh]

Of course, goes without saying. But my point still stands. In 150 years, technology will allow us to listen to albums from the 70's and we will likely hear those recordings as if they were recorded live in front of us. And that technology will not revolve around presenting the signal transparently to the speakers, it will involve a manipulation of the signal. How many of the posters in this thread would agree to that? I think very few.

Again, with respect I'd say you're mixing up two different things, and that error is leading you to be convinced that ASR members would not agree with something that, in fact, they probably have no problem agreeing with.

On the one hand, what you are talking about is two separate, although, related, types of signal processing:

1. Digital (or perhaps in 150 years quantum or some other technology) processing of recordings, in ways specific to those recordings, to correct for shortcomings in the fidelity of the original recordings. To claim that ASR members are somehow opposed to such processing is akin to claiming that ASR members are opposed to the use of tube microphone preamps, overload distortion pedals, re-amplification of recorded instrument tracks, etc in the production, mixing, and mastering of music. They are of course not opposed to such things. Those are recording-by-recording techniques used to achieve a certain sound and feel to the musical performance.
2. Digital/quantum/whatever processing of spatial cues in sound reproduction to enhance the perceived realism of recorded-music playback based on an enhanced technological ability to work with the human auditory system to produce that illusion of realism. Again, to say ASR members are opposed to this is like saying they are opposed to surround sound or Dolby Atmos - of course they are not.

By contrast, what ASR is about - and what is different than what you're saying - is the importance of all equipment, regardless of whether it's a 1979 stereo amp, a 2021 Atmos amp, or a 2171 quantum-field 3D realism amp, doing whatever it's designed to do in the highest-fidelity manner possible, with low noise, low distortion, etc.

Now, if 150 years from now it's been discovered that, say, 2.3% added 4th order harmonic distortion in the right-rear-ceiling and left-rear-ceiling surround speakers is a key part of a complex processing algorithm that produces realistic sound in a 22-speaker 3D surround array; or that 1.2% 2nd order harmonic distortion paired with the lowest possible 3rd order harmonic distortion is an essential component to 3D realism with in-ear (or cranially implanted) monitors, that's fine - then in that case Amir's grandchild or great-grandchild will be able to test such equipment, with the goal that it should have vanishingly low harmonic distortion except of the kind called for by the processing algorithm - and that intended distortion should also be precisely the amount the science says it should be to produce the intended effect.

When Amir tests DSP schemes, he tests their fidelity and performance at executing the manipulations - distortions if you will - that they are supposed to execute. He wants to see if, when doing their EQ, they actually EQ the signal as the settings/readout says, and that they don't also add excessive noise, distortion, or other unintended EQ.

I don't think the distinction between (a) the future tech you're discussing and (b) ASR's commitment to transparency, is a particularly difficult distinction to grasp.

 

[ralphf]

Either you're exaggerating in order to impress us with how fantastically discriminating you are ... or you have a really awful system.

Or perhaps I have different expectations than you or am more attuned to sound. I know immediately when someone is playing an acoustic guitar 5 feet away from me (even if they are using a $20 guitar) vs. when I am listening to an acoustic guitar played on a system. I think it is possible that you simply ignore the difference and settle for it. A child 4 years old is "discriminating" enough to immediately hear the difference 1,000,000 times out of 1,000,000, blind testing and all that. Yes, my system sounds great, but the music does NOT sound realistic, not even close. Nobody would ever be confused that Led Zeppelin is playing in my living room rather than my speakers.

 

[sjeesjie]

Interesting. I find my current system the opposite of unrealistic and dimensionless. Are you so confident in your current setup/room that the only way it will get better is if technology advances? My combination of low distortion components, good speakers, dsp controlled subs and a good room acoustically provides a stunning and lifelike experience to me and everyone who listens. I would imagine many here feel the same.

Agreed. Maybe @ralphf is still listening to a little transistor radio.

 

[ralphf]

Maybe he's a true golden eared audiophile? In that case, well, he's posting in the right forum amirite?

A baby can tell the difference between live music and recorded music played back. What planet you on?

 

[BluesDaddy]

Agreed. Maybe @ralphf is still listening to a little transistor radio.

No, he's a self-professed super Golden Eared audiophile who apparently has conducted one MILLion DBTs with a four year old. Impressive.

 

[vibess]

Most of all 99% of people couldn't care less about any of this. They think we (audiophiles) are crazy. And the truth is they are probably right. It's only listening to music on a home playback system. Not nearly important enough to devote all this overthinking to.

This.
Technology will advance in far more places before it comes sound, and frankly I hope they put money and effort of research into more important things. Not to say that it wont advance and in 150 years they might be laughing looking at our ancient tech.
The only thing I feel I'm missing out on now is all the great music I have not yet discovered and may never discover.

 

[dkinric]

A baby can tell the difference between live music and recorded music played back. What planet you on?

I'm not sure what point you are making such a fuss about. That audio reproduction will be better in 150 years? I would hope so.

 

[ralphf]

members are opposed to this is like saying they are opposed to surround sound or Dolby Atmos - of course they are not.
What ASR is about - and what is different than what you're saying - is the importance of all equipment, regardless of whether it's a 1979 stereo amp, a 2021 Atmos amp, or a 2171 quantum-field 3D realism amp, doing whatever it's designed to do in the highest-fidelity manner possible, with low noise, low distortion, etc.

.

Fair enough. But I get the feeling that there is more than that going on. I'd love to see a poll taken here with the following question: do you believe that in 150 years, there will be technology that will manipulate the signals coming from recordings from the 1970s in such a way that the recordings sound lifelike, live and much more pleasing and real than those recordings sound now? I have a feeling you would be surprised at the results of that poll.

 

[ralphf]

I'm not sure what point you are making such a fuss about. That audio reproduction will be better in 150 years? I would hope so.

Exactly. Well said.

 

[tmtomh]

I'm not sure what point you are making such a fuss about. That audio reproduction will be better in 150 years? I would hope so.

@ralphf seems to be fixated on the mistaken idea that because distortion can be defined as any alteration of the signal, that somehow makes signal processing and distortion the same thing, which in turn means ASR members must be opposed to any future advances in signal processing technology.

It's such a clear logical flaw, I'm not sure what more there is to say that hasn't already been said.

 

[ralphf]

Thanks for all the replies. Gotta go. Be back in 150 to say I told ya so......