 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
63.155.104.144
In Reply to: RE: Absolute Sound on MQA..jaws drop posted by John Atkinson on January 24, 2016 at 09:17:23
What does "air" or empty space sound like? Perhaps I have noticed this on some subliminal level but have never bothered to think about it much?
Or are you referring to how other types of ambient sounds present themselves within an MQA re-recording? The shuffling of feet? Coughs being suppressed? The rustling of papers or fabrics?
Thanks in advance.
Follow Ups:
which can establish apparent boundaries for its size.
One of the challenges of our hobby/interest/pastime of listening to recorded music is that natural language does not offer the capability to describe accurately and unambiguously that which we perceive with our auditory senses.
We try, but it is way inadequate. Try it yourself. Try to describe unambiguously, and in detail adequate for others to know exactly what you heard, the audible characteristics of the best sounding concert you ever attended.
No matter how hard you try, your descriptions will be a pale and lifeless caricature of the original.
I hear you (no pun intended). I would try my best to describe hall "ambience" basically and realistically but my best efforts may not be good enough.
I would suggest that "ambience" has something to do with reactivity: The low-level noises produced by the movements of physical objects within a specific habitat. I would probably never claim that a room has a *sound* of it's own, but that's just me.
And who knows what I might say some day in the future? Life is unpredictable and the fourth dimension may actually be lurking out there in the somewhere.
Another question might be is what does any of that have to do with musical enjoyment?
And what bearing does it have on rock and pop recordings with artificially created ambiance....
Isn't "high(er) rez" always superior to low(er) rez?
Supposedly, better/finer detail retrieval supports a more lifelike record listening experience. After perusing through audiophile forums like this one, the impression I get is that the very last iota of resolution matters quite a bit...
Some recordings and some music are so bad that low res is better than high res. And with some of these, no-res is even better. One can take one's system, $1000, $10,000, $100,000 or more and switch it off and one well have a more enjoyable experience.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Peter McGrath, who works for Wilson, and apparently a classical recording engineer, and is being quoted by at least half a dozen audio writers to back up their MQA hoopla had the following to say back Feb. of 2015:TAS: Are you partial to analog or digital?
PM: I was always a big analog fanatic and at the end of the day most of what you're hearing is still analog. What we're really debating is what is the storage medium of choice. It starts perhaps in digital but as soon as you convert that digital data to the highest-quality analog, it's analog all the way through. I'm not a big fan of digital processing per se. I feel you're better off getting things out of the digital domain as fast as possible into the analog, and then deriving the benefits from there.
TAS: You have thoughts on formats like double-DSD and DXD?
PM: Indeed I have, and you can hear differences in all of them, but if the engineer used good microphones and minimum processing even standard CDs can sound very much like music. What sounds horrible are bad microphones, bad processing, too much compression, too much manipulation of the data.
Note:"I'm not a big fan of digital processing per se. I feel you're better off getting things out of the digital domain as fast as possible into the analog, and then deriving the benefits from there."
"if the engineer used good microphones and minimum processing even standard CDs can sound very much like music.What sounds horrible are bad microphones, bad processing, too much compression, too much manipulation of the data."
Wow, it seems he found MQA religion and DSP/processing is no longer bad.
Edits: 01/24/16 01/24/16
"Supposedly, better/finer detail retrieval supports a more lifelike record listening experience. After perusing through audiophile forums like this one, the impression I get is that the very last iota of resolution matters quite a bit..."
Do you not therefore conclude that the illusion of realism is directly related to being able to clearly hear what we would hear in the real world. In simple terms, we have an inbuilt auditory model of the world & how auditory objects behave in this world - the closer reproduced/replayed audio comes to this, the more realistic it appears to be.
But bear in mind, in this discussion, this is ultimately limited by the ceiling that stereo playback imposes - it is very much an illusion that we buy into (just as TV/cinema is an illusion) - it can never be the same as a full blown concert
Initial care in recording and mastering have a far, far greater impact.
Do you think 192 Khz/24 bit has 4.x times more "resolution" and "detail" than a 44.1 Khz/16 bit?
Each time you add a bit, you double the resolution! ;-)
It sure doesn't sound that way. How are you measuring resolution?
Alan
Which, with the right equipment, can be resolved with that 24th bit, or with just ONE bit at 2.8224 MHz sampling rate.
Broke my heart when she passed away. :-(
There's a school of thought that asserts that going from 16 bits to 24 bits makes WAY more audible difference than increasing the sampling rate from, say, 48K to 96K. I've heard some incredibly great recordings at 24/48, and I'm not sure I would disagree with that assertion.
Cannot answer that question at this point in time because I've got some more listening to do.
MAYBE, "Only the jaw knows for sure"?
Haha. I like that one. Let us know how your jaw endures....
I'm sure John can answer this but this really is so basic that the asking of such questions makes one wonder.
I was sure everyone knew of acoustic spaces, hall acoustics, venue ambience, etc. but it would seem I was wrong?
Maybe I'm alone on this one but I am not so sure that I know what JA means when he mentions the *sound* of the hall itself. I am not sure what JA means, so I asked the question.
Is he possibly referring to some measurable level of ambient noise that is not easily heard via the naked ear?
Hmmmm, I really don't know.
If you listen especially to classical music before the orchestra starts playing but the sound starts you get the feeling that you are inside of a concert hall. They are saying that this feeling is more realistic. If it is a studio recording the ambience which is artificially created is again more realistically there. this is usually a result of better low level resolution. If you read the discussion below of the Stereophile report on MQA do we really need this discussion? No!!!
alan
I believe that when very low level sounds (which exist in all rooms apart from very specialised anechoic chambers) are reproduced accurately on a recording, the illusion of realism is enhanced because we now can hear the venue ambience as a separate, distinguishable auditory entity from the foreground sounds - just as we do in real auditory spaces when listening to any sound.
In the natural world, every sound has a background ambient environment - that's why people report that sitting in an anechoic chamber is an unnatural & weird experience
That's my take on it - maybe John's is different?
> I believe that when very low level sounds (which exist in all rooms apart
> from very specialised anechoic chambers) are reproduced accurately on a
> recording, the illusion of realism is enhanced because we now can hear
> the venue ambience as a separate, distinguishable auditory entity from
> the foreground sounds - just as we do in real auditory spaces when
> listening to any sound.
Exactly so. Thank you for the clarification.
When I am making my own recordings, there's always that magic moment
when you bring up the faders on the microphones and you sense the space
in which the performance will take place. I always record a couple of
minutes of room tone, with everyone as silent as possible, so I can splice
in a few seconds worth between tracks on the CD rather than fading to
black when I master the record.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Absolutely correct. For me the first opening of the mikes wasn always a magical moment. I wish more people could experience this and the initial console feed of sound from the studio. It is as John has indicated a wonderful experience
Alan
I have said many times, that anyone who has not actually made recordings is not really an audiophile. They have not experienced this magical moment and then have, IMO, absolutely no basis for making any comments about playback of recordings that other people have made, other than their personal enjoyment or fantasies.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Questions are more important than answers in certain cases.BTW, I had thought that sitting in an anechoic chamber sounded weird because it's about the only time one can hear the blood flowing through one's own eardrums against a backdrop of pure silence. But who knows? Maybe, anechoic chambers do indeed have a *sound*?
For now I am reminded of what Herman and his Hermits used to say. Is there, in fact, "... a kind of *Hussshhhh* all over the world tonight..."?
Edits: 01/24/16
"Questions are more important than answers in certain cases." Depends on whether the questioner is genuinely interested in learning or not?"Maybe, anechoic chambers do indeed have a *sound*?" I believe, it's the lack of the natural background ambience that is "weird" because we never encounter such conditions in the natural world, only in a man-made structure.
One of the ways auditory processing works is via a comparison of the auditory stream signals to it's stored auditory models built up & stored in the brain from experience. It's like the old fairground hall of mirrors - disorientating & unnatural for vision
Edits: 01/24/16
They do not have a sound . The total lack of sound is what inables you to hear the internal sounds of your own body. We had a chamber at IIT and you could not stand it for very long
Alan
the PROBLEM is..95% of rock and pop recordings are done with close mike, in isolation booths, with baffles, in neutral rooms. So there goes that theory. At final mixdown, treatments are applied.
If one focuses exclusively on classical music or a small number of purist jazz recordings, yeh, sure.
IMO it is a complete waste of time to even talk about the reproduction of 99 percent of rock and pop recordings. They are garbage, made for one purpose only, extracting as much money from the plebes (while giving as little as possible to the "artists"). In many cases, the "talent" includes "singers" who are selected for their sex appeal without regard to their ability to sing, and who would never have gotten anywhere without disgusting electronic tricks such as "autotune".
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Sure, most recordings are done with fabricated soundstage & so you are therefore writing off that MQA can have any affect on these recordings. On what basis? Because you have decided to isolate & focus on one aspect that Harley & Atkinson reported as being the only improvement that MQA brought to the recording?This seems a very simplistic & biased approach, if you ask me
I believe you could benefit more by getting over your obvious ire & examine what MQA might be doing that could be responsible for the increased realism of the hall ambience experienced by Harley & Atkinson.
From my reading of Harley's piece, I believe two technical focusses were being followed in MQA - improved noise stability & decreased temporal blur. Both of these factors are of great interest to me & I could well see them being responsible for the perceptual improvements reported, so far in hearing MQA
Edits: 01/24/16
How many times do I have to ask this. How can we report on how well M works when we can't listen to it. At least with 4k and 8k tv we can buy the hardware even though there is no software. With MQA even if you can get a meridian explorer II there is also no software. By the way the Meridian device needs a firmware update to do MQA. Guess what. The update is not ready yet.
Alan
Yea, but I'm sure there were early reports from reviewers of just how realistic 4K & 8K TV was before it became generally available - it's the nature of how products come to market - I'm not sure what the problem is?
And I ignored those reports also
Alan
You are not on the same page. Everyone knows what room/hall ambiance is..even if you know nothing about a music. Two people can have a conversation in several different rooms and they will naturally feel the differences.
What we are talking about his the comical hyperbole of hearing magical ambiance before a note of music is even played in some misguided attempt to illustrate how superior a new technology is. I always felt that if you have to grossly exaggerate, then you are a shill, or worse.
It might be believable if the original performance was a recording of a live performance. Once can tell a lot about the venue acoustics by listening to "room tone" especially if it is created by individual people. In some live performance recordings one can hear the conductor walk up to the podium, etc...
I'm generally interested more in the musical performance than the recording. Generally speaking, by the time the first three or four notes have been played it is pretty obvious whether the performance and recording are going to be good. (At live concerts at the BSO in the past this might not have been the case, because sometimes the brass players were drunk and if they weren't scored in the first few bars this situation would't be immediately apparent by listening. However, sometimes this condition was apparent visually.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Of course some of this can be true with "orchestra on the floor" capture it all at once type recordings. 95% of all commercially released recordings are not done this way.
Interestingly, there were a few pop artists who did not like overdubbing, and recorded their vocals with the musicians in the same room. Frank Sinatra and Elvis Presely come to mind.
I have heard Sinatra multi tracks at Capital and on his vocal track you can hear lots of orchestra/band. I think bleed through is part of nature. When musicians play live they don't exist in a sonic vacuum.
"You are not on the same page. Everyone knows what room/hall ambiance is..even if you know nothing about a music. Two people can have a conversation in several different rooms and they will naturally feel the differences." Correct. That's why I wondered what gave rise to your question "Another question might be is what does any of that have to do with musical enjoyment?""What we are talking about his the comical hyperbole of hearing magical ambiance before a note of music is even played in some misguided attempt to illustrate how superior a new technology is. I always felt that if you have to grossly exaggerate, then you are a shill, or worse." So you are not asking about musical enjoyment, then - what you are really complaining about is how someone expresses their enthusiasm for a new auditory experience that they have been exposed to & you haven't?
Maybe you are just ranting as on your other MQA thread - a good rant is good for the constitution - it usually acts a cleansing exercise - has it not had this effect for you?
Edits: 01/24/16
"Maybe you are just ranting as on your other MQA thread - a good rant is good for the constitution - it usually acts a cleansing exercise - has it not had this effect for you?"
the first step on the road to hell is internet posters engaging in amateur psychoanalysis in a smug attempt and avoiding the actual topic at hand.
"So you are not asking about musical enjoyment, then - what you are really complaining about is how someone expresses their enthusiasm for a new auditory experience that they have been exposed to & you haven't?"
No.
I see you make DACs. Are you in chomping at the bit to include MQA in your product?
Maybe it would help you if you followed some of the sensible advice you were given at the start "Relax. Post when you've heard it."
Since MQA is being rolled out with a lavish marketing campaign, with audio writers as de facto PR operative..reporting as if Moses being given the tablet to bring down to the bottom of the mountain for the benefit of the unwashed masses, there is no hearing it.
I will ask again, are you going to include MQA in your products for the benefit of your customers if you believe in so strongly?
Yes, the usual shills are being paid, bribed or wined and dined to roll out the prepared propaganda.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"I will ask again, are you going to include MQA in your products for the benefit of your customers if you believe in so strongly?"
I listen to the reports above about MQA & don't try to denigrate them as a knee-jerk reaction - do you call this "believe in so strongly"? I don't
I also don't see that explaining what hall ambience is "believe in so strongly"
I'm interested in hearing what MQA does & how it does it. I'm also interested in what will be measured & what relationships can be established to auditory perception. I'm interested in the effects of temporal blurring & noise modulation on auditory perception. So, in essence, I'm interested in it from a scientific viewpoint
If you are trying to play some commercial card to win a debate - forget it, it's childish, playgound tactics
You're interested but will make no judgement until you hear it. That is all the rest of us are saying.
Alan
Who cares?
And why on earth would folks who listen to rock and pop (which I frequently do) give a crap about the possibility that MQA is little more than a form of DSP?
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
