|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.46.7.90
What constitutes accurate reproduction of music?Many would describe accurate reproduction as being the amplifier who's signal output most closely replicates a microphones signal output of the music being recorded. Many others would describe accurate reproduction as being the amplifier who's output most closely replicates a musical instrument's acoustic output of the music being recorded.
Why does this great divide exist between these two differing beliefs? Well the divide is created because there's a vast difference between what the ear/brain perceives as musically accurate and what test equipment perceives as accurately tracking the output signal of a microphone as it's transfered on the software. It seems that those who propose using audio signals as the means for verifying musical accuracy are forgetting something, i.e. it was our ear/brain combo that taught us how to listen, not microphones. Look at infants. Even with their very senses just developing, eyes that cannot see, ear/brain combos learning a myriad of new sounds and yet look how quickly they learn to recognize their mother's voices over all others. So much for the short-term audio memory arguement. Now as it was all our ear/brain combos that were responsible for originally teaching us how to determine what a violin, sax, singer piano, guitar etc sounds like in the first place, shouldn't it be these very same ear/brain combos also be responsible for deteremining how accurately an audio component is replicating the instrument(s) in question?
Humans are not machines. We don't hear/listen like machines do. No matter how many studies have been done that "prove" that ear/brain combos can be fooled, I don't know one serious music lover/audiophile that's ever mistaken live music for recorded or visa versa. The ear/brain combo for all it's faults is remarkably adept at recognizing sounds it's famliar with. Just like you immediately recognize your spouse's or parent's voice on the phone, "IF" you attend live unamplified concerts you'll also learn to immediately recognize individual instruments unique voices and when one audio component get's it more correct than another at replicating that voice, no matter what some piece of test equipment says.
To those that would dismiss this approach and insist that the best way to accurately replicate a recorded event is to choose the audio components that most closely track the software's output signal as it was recorded by a microphone. I'd like to say that a a microphone and the ear/brain combo don't hear/listen the same way. If that's true and I believe it is then why would we want to follow the output of a device that doesn't hear/listen like we do? Sure you could accurately follow it's output, but you'd be accurately following an output isn't a reasonable facsimile of what the ear/brain combo heard in the first place, so why use it as reference standard?
All serious music lovers/audiophiles need to attend live unamplified concerts, to be sure their ears are calibrated to what these instruments really sound like. If you attend concerts indoors sit at various locations in the hall and go to different halls. Attend as many outdoor unamplified concerts as possible. Listen to your friends play their instruments. Best yet is play and record yourself in your audio room. Put the mic where you sit when you listen to your audio system. Now play the instrument 1/2 way between your speakers and record yourself playing --just be prepared to be shocked when you listen to this recording! The more you listen the more sensitive your ears become to subtle differences. Anyone who does this will eventually come around and see that what test instruments call accurate often aren't what your ear/brain combo calls accurate. Once you've done all this, NOT before, then you can honestly decide for yourself which method provides the closest to accurate musical reproduction to you. There's really no one correct way for everyone, but unless so educated, you cannot make an educated choice for yourself.
Finally for Pat D who seems to need the blatantly obvious explained to him, when listening to amps it is required that a source, wires and speakers be used. I cannot believe anyone needs to be told this, but sadly Pat D does, or else he'll comment on how can an amp make a sound by itself!
Thetubeguy1954
Follow Ups:
d
An accurate replication is one that is believable by the listener. In my opinion it is not possible to achieve this because the dynamic range of live music is greater than any of the recoding mediums we have.
Hello Beerman,I agree 100% that it is virtually an impossibility to replicate a live unamplified musical event in our homes. The reasons for this are many, insufficient dynamic range capabilities of the audio system, inability to replicate the size of a large hall within the confines of the typical audio room, various cues that our era/brain uses to recognize live umaplified music are are stripped away in the recording process etc.
What we should strive for is to get as close as we can to replicating the sound of individual instruments such as a violin, piano, sax, guitar etc. This is, of course, a lot easier to do when the person is quite familiar with the sound of live unamplified music itself. Then one could use a small jazz ensemble with say a piano, bass, sax and drums. These would provide a nice variety of instruments, plus it would be recorded in smaller rooms than say a symphony would be. Thus we'd also have a room that closer to the dimensions of our audio rooms, so we should be able to get viable spacial clues. I believe "IF" we can get a small jazz ensemble to sound as close to how it would at a live unamplified event, we're off to a good start. Next I concentrate on getting the vocals correct, I like to use Khani Cole, Kevyn Lettau, Diana Krall and Pamela Driggs's (from Brasilia)for individual females with different vocal ranges and singing styles. Next I use Steve Moos and the harmonies from the band Jump In The Water for male vocals and group singers. I'm postive there's a myriad of other singers that could be used as well. Typically once the system will do these vocals and instruments correctly or as correctly as I'm capable of achieving, the other music, in different enviroments, symphonies, larger jazz groups, rock etc. are done the best an audio system can within today's limitations of the software and equipment.
I recognize that we'll never replicate a live unamplified musical event with 100% accuracy as it occured. However it's my contention that just because we cannot replicate a live unamplified musical event 100% accurately doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to get the highest percentage of that 100% that we can. Once we've achieved the highest percentage that we can within our financial means, our personal capabilities, and within the limitations of today's software and equipment. Then that will constitute the most accurate musical replication we can achieve as individuals period!
But this highest percentage will NEVER be achieved by comparing the signal output of a microphone vs my amplifiers signal output for accuracy. The only real chance of getting as close to the 100% mark that we are capable of is for individuals to familiarize themselves with as much live unamplified music as they can. Then as our ears become more and more accustomed with how these different instruments really sound like, we'll be more adept at reaching higher percentages of the 100% we all, hopefully, are striving for...
Certainly we should aspire to the best that we are capable of. Faithful capture and reproduction of musical events is the pursuit of the passion we call Hi-Fi. Comparison of playback to live music is required to gauge performance and maintain focus on the goal of a believable recreation of the original event captured in the recording.
Sure, one goal in audio is high fidelity. But it's not a moral imperative for people to have that goal. Aren't they entitled to their preferences in audio?
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat D,As usual you'd rather argue and hijack a post than discuss the actual topic, i.e. What Constitutes Accurate Musical Replication? The topic isn't about whether or not people can choose to assemble audio systems following different methods Pat! You are always talking about proper posting yet you constantly change the topic and hijack posts like you're doing once again here.
beermanpete, myself and I'm quite sure many others here, believe What Constitutes Accurate Musical Replication? is done via the "Faithful capture and reproduction of musical events is the pursuit of the passion we call Hi-Fi." The ONLY way one can know if they are getting close to that goal is via exposure to as much live unamplified music as is possible for one to obtain.
You, as well as anyone else here, are free to follow any other method you so choose. In fact the proof that you don't follow the method beermanpete and I are refering to is evidenced in your audio system. These choices of audio components reflects you're exercising your entitlement to other preferences in audio, other than the goal of high fidelity. Now I finally understand why we never agree on anything in audio. I want a system that sounds as close to live unamplified music as I can achieve and you have other audio goals and preferences than that. Thanks for finally making that so abundantly clear.
You can aspire to less the your best if you like. That is your choice.As for live music being the goal goes; A believable recreation of live music is the goal of MY pursuit. All the rest is the means to that end. I must confess that I spend more time with the technology and thinking about circuit behavior and how to improve its behavior than I do listening to music. However the primary purpose remains to be to improve the capability of my playback system.
.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Sadly they/we are in the minority
In your second para. you talk of "Next I concentrate on getting the vocals correct ...." (and that just asan example.)What exactly are you adjusting or altering to to do this?
I would take issue with your room sizes analogy:I can't think of ANY small ensemble that would not blow my head of if live in my 15' x 21' room.
Clifff,Besides room improvements, I believe all anyone can do to taylor the sound of their system is to change interconnects, speakerwire, amps, preamps (in my case I use an integrated) and speakers. Besides the fact that I believe tubed equipment sounds the best, it also offers another method of tayloring the sound by the chaging of tubes.
I can even tell you how many different 12AU7-type tubes I tried. Here's a list of EVERY 12AU7-type I located and believe it or not there's more I couldn't locate. I tried the 12AU7A, 12AU7WA, 5814, 5814A, 5963, 6067, 6189 < < < (Mazda "chrome-plates of these are my personal favorite) 6680, 7730, B749, CK5814, CV4003, CV491, E82CC < < < (RFT "yellow lettering of these are my second favorite 12AU7-type) ECC802, ECC802S, ECC82 & M8136.
But not only did I try different 12AU7 types Clifff, I tried the same types from different manufacturers such as: Amperex, Bugle Boy, Brimar, Cifte, Electro Harmonix, GE, Haltron, Marconi, Mazda, Mullard, Philips, Raytheon, RCA, RFT, RT, Siemens, Sylvania, Telefunken, Tesla, Tungsram & Tungsol. I don't even want to think of how much $$$$$ I spent to find my 2 favorite 12AU7-type tubes.
Most of the time these tubes offered subtle differences that gently but truly allows one to taylor how there system sounds. Sometimes the differences were a lot more pronounced which was precisely the case when after trying virtually every 5687 type I could find, I replaced my favorite Tung-Sol 5687s with Bendix 6900s.
So Clifff that's how I personally alter, adjust or taylor the sound of my audio system. Sorry again for the delay in my response.
Thetubeguy1954
Hi TubeguyReproduction encompasses all the links in the chain including the highly variable end user’s room and speakers.
What are recordings supposed to sound like anyway?
It takes a rare system to produce realistic stereo images, the rare listener who cares much, the average is the target in the studio most of the time.
The recording business is big business now run by comparatively few conglomo corps instead of a zillion independents as it was in the heyday of hifi recording, they are focused on money.
The goal of most recordings is not to have a pristine accurate real sound but to sound like a hit.
Best,Tom
Hello Tom,I realize reproduction encompasses all the links in the chain including the highly variable end user’s room and speakers. The best way to know how much the room and speakers are effecting the music (and they are) is to know what these instruments really sound like. This is why I believe that each individual should:
1) Familiarize themselves with as much live unamplified music as they can. Only through doing this can our ears become accustomed with how the different instruments really sound like live and unamplified.
2) Then when setting up an audio system in one's room. They could use a small jazz ensemble with say a piano, bass, sax and drums. These would provide a nice variety of instruments that has the bite of brass, the quick transients of drums and quick piano strikes, woody sound of bass and a fairly wide frequency coverage. Plus it's recorded in a smaller room than say a symphony would be. This smaller room that is most likely closer to the dimensions of our audio rooms, should provide nice, viable spacial clues.
3) Next I'd suggest concentrating on getting the vocals correct, I like to use mostly female, but some male vocals with different styles, ranges and arrangements.Typically once the system will do these vocals and instruments correctly or as correctly as I'm capable of achieving, the other music, in different enviroments, symphonies, larger jazz groups, rock etc. are done the best an audio system can reproduce it within today's limitations of the software and equipment.
====================================================================
tomservo: What are recordings supposed to sound like anyway?TG1954: IMHO a recording should sound like the individual instruments sound like live and unamplified. The engineer should alter the recording as little as possible. That's another reason why I suggest people need to familiarize themselves with as much live unamplified music as they can. Then when they listen to recording they can hear if the engineer is altering the sound of the instruments too much. Of course this isn't easy as a many recordings are created by engineers who view themselves as artists who are improving the musical performance. I think a lot of people would be surprised just how much many recording are altered with by the engineer. Direct to disk, sans any recording tricks is best. But that of course is just my opinion.
====================================================================
tomservo: It takes a rare system to produce realistic stereo images, the rare listener who cares much, the average is the target in the studio most of the time.TG1954: BINGO! You're 100% correct. I cannot tell you how many times I've visited another audiophile/music lovers home, be they objectivist or subjectivist, who doesn't attend ANY live unamplified musical events and doesn't play an instrument. I've seen these people confuse an oboe for a clarinet or amazingly enough a clarinet for a soprano saxophone (probably because both are pitched to B flat -- but one is almost always made of wood and the other metal and still they cannot hear that difference?) let alone not be able to differentiate a french horn from a trumpet! These same people often proclaim to me how accurate their systems are???!!!! How could they possible know that? Granted many of these systems are pleasant enough to listen to, but they don't sound anything like what I hear when I listen to live classical music. Then of course there's those who don't even realize there system is backwards. I'll put on something classical and BAM! the violins are on the right hand side, when they should be on the left as I face the orchestra. Don't even get me started on speakers postioned near back and side ways that shouldn't be. I know some speakers are designed to be, but most like some breathing room & dipoles should NEVER be positioned as such! There's also listening chairs postioned closer to one speaker than another or nowhere near forming a proper triangle with the speakers.
====================================================================
tomservo: The recording business is big business now run by comparatively few conglomo corps instead of a zillion independents as it was in the heyday of hifi recording, they are focused on money. The goal of most recordings is not to have a pristine accurate real sound but to sound like a hit.TG1954: Of course you're correct in this statement Tom. That's why we as individuals, that's if you honestly care about getting the most accurate reproduction you can within the limits of our finances & the available hardware & software, need to familiarize themselves with as much live unamplified music. They also need to search out and find recording that aren't altered with a lot by the engineer who considers himself and not the musician to be the artist. This is what will enable one to build the best audio system they can. After that you don't even need to listen to the CD/LP/Tape that enabled you to build your system if you don't like that style of music, because you'll know your system has been assembled on sound practical technics and ANY software you now use will be replicated at the highest degree of accuracy that you can obtain. For you'll have done everything within your power to remove the faults of the system and it's interaction with the room from the audio equation. Now it will really be all up to the software, which as it always has been, will be the one thing you have no control over in the system.
We'll probably never have 100% accurate musical reproduction, but as an audiophile/music lover who's honestly striving for the very best they can achieve within their means and capabilities, it's up to each one of us to remove as many faults as we possibly can. In the end your best tool is an ear that's been well trained via as much exposure to live unamplified music as is possible to obtain.
Thetubeguy1954
If the listener desires a truly neutral system, one should be able to hear the recording set up: right or wrong, real or artificial. If you like the sound of a particular venue, well, then, you can make some recordings sound that way, but not not others. You will be forever tweaking and changing, depending on your current musical tastes.The problem is how to define neutrality. I originally started out by purchasing recordings which had copious amounts of recording information: RCA's, Decca's, Mercury's, certain jazz recordings, etc.
Through many hours of listening, I eventually came to the point where I could discern the actual microphone placement. Mind you, not every or any recording sounded really superb (I have heard them sound better in certain other systems). Every recording had its own personality, however, and overall the system is more 'accurate'.The soundstage and tonality presented falls in line with the known recording techniques and known tonal characteristics.Then later I got very lucky and got the opportunity to make a recording of our local Youth Symphony and another organization. I then had the experience very few listeners have: listening to a live unamplified recording, the recording of that event, and being able to sit where the microphones were set up. It made for a very interesting double check, with very known variables.
These are not two different beliefs, simply two different definitions.One is indicated by the image of a straight wire with gain, that the amplified signal is so very similar to the input signal that no difference can be heard.
The other is that the final result should sound like the real thing, and it really does take more to do that at home than a mere amplifier and a stereo system.
TG54
"Finally for Pat D who seems to need the blatantly obvious explained to him, when listening to amps it is required that a source, wires and speakers be used. I cannot believe anyone needs to be told this, but sadly Pat D does, or else he'll comment on how can an amp make a sound by itself!"Well, why not just say that? Attributing pyschoacoustic accuracy to a mere power amplifier just confuses communication. The recording, the speakers, the room acoustics, and signal processing are more critical than which amplifier is used, as long as the amplifier is suitable.
I have linked to an article by Wes Philips on a system worked up by jj when he was with AT & T.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Actually PatD, I would more or less agree with you that they are two different definitions. The question is, "What should we be striving for, technical accuracy or psychoacoustical accuracy??""One is indicated by the image of a straight wire with gain, that the amplified signal is so very similar to the input signal that no difference can be heard.
The other is that the final result should sound like the real thing, and it really does take more to do that at home than a mere amplifier and a stereo system."
I wouldn`t really agree with this though because the image of a straight wire with gain is of course technical accuracy...as envisioned by engineers. What is not accounted for is the METHOD used to achieve such specs and the AUDIBILITY consequences of these methods. The goal should be psychoacoustical accuracy because after all we are not oscilloscopes. If this can be achieved with technical accuracy, great! If not, then it is clear the process of achieving low distortion is more important than the final result (in terms of absolute amount).
...technical vs psychoacoustic - only relative accuracy between two amplifiers.There is no such thing as a perfect amplifier, so either way there are trade-offs.
So which psychoacoustic parameters are most important to YOU?
And which measurements will best correlate with the amplifier's actual musical performance to reflect THOSE parameters?
I personally think sound reproduction most-faithful to the signal is a lot closer to the "psychoacoustic ideal" than a lot of "technical" people would like to believe..... I'm not talking about artificial "bloom", signal enhancements, or whatever. I'm talking "straight-wire-with-gain"....A system that sounds analytical IMO is *not* doing a good job in sound reproduction, even though some might consider this "accurate." When we get very close go faithful reproduction, the "technical" and "psychoacoustical" means approaches identical ends.
"When we get very close go faithful reproduction, the "technical" and "psychoacoustical" means approaches identical ends."This can happen. Apparently, if you play back the music in a concert hall, reproduced music can sometimes sound a lot like the real thing.
But most of our home listening rooms are not acoustically much like concert halls. If you brought the performers home and they played for you, THEY would not sound much like they do in a concert hall, either. In the introductory remarks to Flanders and Swann's "A Song of Reproduction," Michael Flanders remarked, "Personally, I can't think of anything I should hate more than having an orchestra actually playing in my sitting room: but *they* seem to like it and it's about them that we've written this next song."
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
part of the "signal processing" of the system?I won't bother asking what a "suitable amp" is. ;)
Tube amplifiers may indeed change the frequency response significantly.But no, ordinarily, one does not include amplifiers under the signal processing category. Signal processors usually are considered to be such things as tone controls, equalizers, digital time and amplitude processors, and surround sound processors.
In this context, a suitable amp is one which can drive the speakers.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
...if you are going to determine the accuracy of an amplifier by measurements, then tell me this:You have two amplifiers -
One measures 3% distortion at 1000Hz.
The other measures 5% distortion at 100Hz.Which is the more accurate amplifier (both are well-designed, whatever that means)?
.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
> Insufficient data.>...and what more data do you need to determine amplifier accuracy?
.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
...a hypothetical situation - which is the more accurate of the two according to measurements.So make it 0.5% (@100Hz) and 0.3% (@1000Hz) distortion - which one?
And for much the same reason: you would have to show the distortion spectrum and assess it for audibility.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
...amplifier measurements alone don't tell you much about sound quality.
Nope. All this means is that THD isn't weighted for audibility.On the other hand, some magazines (Soundstage, Stereophile) give distortion graphs showing the different components.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
z
rw
mkuller when you asked Pat D, ...and what more data do you need to determine amplifier accuracy? Did you mean besides Pat D's knowing what either Real JJ, Klaus, Dan Banquer, Aczel or whatever other objectivist Pat D happens to be following at the time, believes the correct answer is?Thetubeguy1954
...a suitable amp is one which can drive the speakers.A totally unexpected direct answer to a question! I am honored.
Hi E-Stat,I too am shocked by such a straight forward answer. Now I can say that by Pat D's definition of a suitable amplifier, i.e. ...a suitable amp is one which can drive the speakers. My Mastersound is a suitable amp, because it drives my Aliantes just fine! :^ D
I knew Pat D would come around in time...
TG54
"Now I can say that by Pat D's definition of a suitable amplifier, i.e. ...a suitable amp is one which can drive the speakers."You'd be lying if you did. Your remark totally ignores the context.
TG54
"My Mastersound is a suitable amp, because it drives my Aliantes just fine!"But is it well-designed? And is it accurate?
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
First, I only had to be concerned about "well designed". Now I gotta worry about "suitable" and "accurate", too???? :)
You guys have got to love this one! E-Stat said to Pat D "I won't bother asking what a "suitable amp" is. ;)" In this post:http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/32064.html
Pat D answered by stating: Tube amplifiers may indeed change the frequency response significantly. But no, ordinarily, one does not include amplifiers under the signal processing category. Signal processors usually are considered to be such things as tone controls, equalizers, digital time and amplitude processors, and surround sound processors. In this context, a suitable amp is one which can drive the speakers. As seen in this post here:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/32065.html
So I responded by stating: I too am shocked by such a straight forward answer. Now I can say that by Pat D's definition of a suitable amplifier, i.e. ...a suitable amp is one which can drive the speakers. My Mastersound is a suitable amp, because it drives my Aliantes just fine! :^D I knew Pat D would come around in time... Which can be seen in this post:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/32085.html
How did Pat D respond to that? Well first by claiming I'd be lying if I did state that because my remark totally ignores the context. Then knowing full well he put his foot in his mouth for the umpteenth time Pat D goes further and asks me about the Mastersound 1) But is it well-designed? And 2) Is it accurate? As seen here:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/32089.html
I invite everyone to read the entire posts I've provided links to, to see if anyone but this lunatic fringe objectivist believes I'm quoting out of context. As far as I can see and my co-worker who read the post at my request, it is quite certainly in context of what was said.
Now for Pat D if you'll give me a straight forward answer as to what constitutes a "well-designed" amp and what an accurate amp is to you I'll be able to answer those questions, but as it stands you don't provide sufficient enough data for me to do so.
Nice to see you ducking and dodging like the Pat D we all know you are. I just knew your "supposedly" straight forward response had all sorts of conditions and catches attached to it. But that's just typical Pat D, so I'm not surprised.
Thetubeguy1954
Your amp will drive speaker--won't clip severely. mess up the music. It affects the sound less than the recordings and room acoustics and in all probability, less than the speakers do.According to the list of criteria you have cribbed from Peter Aczel of The Audio Critic, your amp probably is not particularly accurate nor well-designed. It probably doesn't do have some of the things he wants in an amp (i.e., low output impedance, flat FR into most speaker loads, ability to handle low impedance loads).
Since your amp seems to work well in your system, you no doubt would regard your system as accurate and the ampwell-designed. (It evidently has noise low enough noise and distortion and is reliable, etc. You'll have to make up your own criteria.)
As I and others have pointed out, "well-designed" doesn't mean exactly the same in every context. The same is true of other words. You appear to think otherwise. You seem to think that when people speak of a well-designed amplifier, they should all have the same thing in mind. You seem to think there is a right set of criteria for that and that all others are wrong.
Well-designed----for what?
Accurate----compared to what standard?
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat D,You say a lot but directly avoid the 2 questions I specifically asked you, i.e what does well designed mean to YOU (and for added clarification) in the context of this discussion and what is accurate to YOU in the context of this discussion.
Those are 2 very simple and straight forward question, if you really make up your own mind as you claim and which I don't believe, they should be very simple questions to answer...
I'm amazed that you are bringing up Aczel once again when just a couple of days ago you were proclaiming those were his opinions not yours! Yet here you are stating: According to the list of criteria you have cribbed from Peter Aczel of The Audio Critic, your amp probably is not particularly accurate nor well-designed.
Pat stop worrying about what you think I believe, stop worrying about how my amps fits into Aczel's misguided opinion and answer the two questions I asked you or at least admit you cannot!
Changing the question does not constitute clarification.BTW, it is you who have whined about Peter Aczel's list of characteristics for an accurate, well-designed amp. His definition obviously bothers you a great deal as you have brought it up several times. However, I have in the past pointed out that you have utterly failed to prove him wrong. But I have never said I agree with Peter Aczel on this, and you incorrectly try to foist his opinions on to me.
Anyway, I have pointed out that one definition of amplifier accuracy is that it amplifies the signal without otherwise adding or detracting from it in an audibly significant way.
You have proposed that accurate equipment should sound like the real thing. Unfortunately, you verbally attribute this to your amplifier while you really mean it is the system which should do this. Your silly way of stating it needs correction.
Both (as corrected) seem to me to be sensible definitions (as corrected), and I may add, they are not in conflict with each other. I see no sense in calling them 'mine' as I did not invent them.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat D,Why can't you act like an intelligent adult at least once. You started this after I said: "My Mastersound is a suitable amp, because it drives my Aliantes just fine!" By asking me 1) But is it well-designed? And 2) is it accurate? As is seen in this post:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/32089.html
I then asked you to define what "well-designed" and "accurate" is to you, BEFORE I answered your questions. Then knowing you to be the slippery snake you are and how you almost always claim everythings "out of context" I decided to clarify or amplify my original question with "In the conext of this thread."
Now if you're too damn stupid to follow that or to understand that everyone knows without saying, NO audio component can make a sound unless it's part of a system, yet each part of that system has it's own unique voice or sound, as witnessed, by changing preamps, amps, wires, CD players etc., then I'm sorry I don't know how to dumb down the conversation so I can talk with someone who cannot understand that simple concept.
But I forgot I just read another of your posts and now realize I want an audio system that sounds as close to live unamplified music as I can achieve and you prefer to follow other audio goals and preferences than that. So we really have nothing to say to each other as our goals are clearly different...
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/32230.html
> > Many would describe accurate reproduction as being the amplifier who's signal output most closely replicates a microphones signal output of the music being recorded. Many others would describe accurate reproduction as being the amplifier who's output most closely replicates a musical instrument's acoustic output of the music being recorded.Why does this great divide exist between these two differing beliefs? < <
Because both sides are confused by the huge and substantial difference between "reproduction" and the"illusion of reproduction froma single fixed perspective." Note that you are discussing the amplifier's output and whether it "closely replicates a musical instrument's output" That is just the thing. The "output" of the musical instruments is not being replicated at any point in the chain of recording or playback. It is being picked up at certain fixed points by transducers with certain characterisitics as chosen by a recording engineer. The idea that the signal generated from the mics is in anyway going to translate into any sort of *reproduction* of *The original acoustic event* is laughable. It's like taking a snap shot of a landscape and thinging the print is going to be an actual place.
> The idea that the signal generated from the mics is in anyway going to
> translate into any sort of *reproduction* of *The original acoustic
> event* is laughable.No. The brain is very good at filling in missing information so long as the cues are correct.
Proper multichannel recordings played back over loudspeakers are a substantial step towards "being there" type accuracy compared to stereo recordings. Accurate binaural recordings are an even bigger step. Both these involve straightforward established knowledge and fairly cheap hardware compared with the typical prices of audiophile hardware.
The only problem seems to be that nobody appears to believe that there is a market for high sound quality outside a small number of professional and research areas. The audiophile market has never demonstrated any interest in accurate sound reproduction in a real rather than marketed sense. The most clear example of this is probably what companies opted to do with new media like SACD and DVD-Audio.
I got excited about the possibilities of this a few years ago. I bought a couple of dozen binaural recordings by mail. I have good headphones and a good headphone amp. Bottom line: they did not work that well for me. While the illusion of instruments to the left and right worked well, the illusion of front and back did not work very well.My conclusion was that the HRTF used in recording these probably does not match my own head size and shape. This is one of the pitfalls of binaural recording, you use a dummy head that is supposed to represent the listener, but listeners are all different.
I wish that this had worked for me as well as it does for some others. It would indeed provide a cheap way to achieve a highly realistic illusion of surround sound. But it does not do that for me.
> My conclusion was that the HRTF used in recording these probably does
> not match my own head size and shape.Indeed. As well as using your individual HRTF you also need to back out the transfer function of the headphones plus add the tracking of head movements to adjust the HRTF in real time. This is what an accurate binaural recording means and it is all quite doable at modest cost if anybody believed there was a market for real high quality sound reproduction.
There are some other issues such as how we perceive low frequencies that would probably dictate the use of a supporting loudspeaker for an all out attempts at quality but, again, this is not really a problem.
> > The idea that the signal generated from the mics is in anyway going to translate into any sort of *reproduction* of *The original acoustic event* is laughable. < <
> No. The brain is very good at filling in missing information so long as the cues are correct. <Missing cues? I'm talking about complete missing information. You have an acoustic event that is happening in literally millions of cubic inches and you have mics with distinctive characteristics of their own trying to capture this event with anywhere from a a few square inches to a few dozen square inches of transduders. As far as reproduction is involved the very idea is absurd. But the people who designed stereophonic recording and playback knew *reproduction* was an absurd goal which is why they went for a stereophonic *illusion.*
> Proper multichannel recordings played back over loudspeakers are a substantial step towards "being there" type accuracy compared to stereo recordings. <
Actually they aren't at all. Multi-chanel in essense, is just another stab at a stereophonic illusion with more chanels. It still is an attempt at an *illusion* rather than a *replication* of an original event and it still can only attempt to create an illusion from a single fixed perspective.
> Accurate binaural recordings are an even bigger step. Both these involve straightforward established knowledge and fairly cheap hardware compared with the typical prices of audiophile hardware. <
Binaural is just two channel stereophonic playback. The differences are very much a matter of detail. The basic approach is exactly the same.
> Binaural is just two channel stereophonic playback. The differences
> are very much a matter of detail. The basic approach is exactly the
> same.Can I suggest you count your ears and then look up binaural recording on the web. It is quite different from stereo.
Main Entry: bin·au·ral
Function: adjective
Pronunciation: (")bī-'no r-&l, (")bi-
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary
1 : of, relating to, or involving two or both ears
2 : STEREOPHONICAs for my ear count, two ears. So is the idea that two is different than two part of the new math?
> So is the idea that two is different than two part of the new math?No it follows from knowing what stereo and binaural recording and playback means. Are you confident in your source? If so, how do you explain all those sources describing binaural and stereo recording as different?
I am quite confident in my sources.> > it follows from knowing what stereo and binaural recording and playback means. < <
Perhaps you should look them up.
> > Are you confident in your source? If so, how do you explain all those sources describing binaural and stereo recording as different? < <
Stereo is a very broad term.
Main Entry: ste·reo·phon·ic
Function: adjective
Pronunciation: "ster-e-&-'fä-nik, "stir-
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary
: of, relating to, or constituting sound reproduction involving the use of separated microphones and two transmission channels to achieve the sound separation of a live hearing
There are many different techniques binaural being one of them.Main Entry: bin·au·ral
Function: adjective
Pronunciation: (")bī-'no r-&l, (")bi-
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary
1 : of, relating to, or involving two or both ears
2 : STEREOPHONICSome people may try to seperate the two to emphasize the unique approach and qualities of binaural recording and playback but the *fact* is binaural recording and playback is a subset of stereo recording and playback. Therefore binaural is stereophonic.
Every source I've located says two.Yes, mike placement is different from stereo (spaced closer together), but NOT the number of channels. Now, those folks with three ears will not get the appropriate effect. :)
From the link on binaural that you yourself gave:"Does it matter if the two channels get bolluxed up along the way?"
"Yes! It is vitally important to keep the two channels carrying the binaural signals completely separate, with no mixing as frequently occurs with stereo recording. The left ear signal must also be heard at the playback end by the listener's left ear and vice versa. Many binaural recordings begin with an identification of the two channels since this is even more important than with stereo recordings. Reversing the channels gives the equivalent of having had your back to the performers when they were playing; the facial features on the front of our heads are missing on the back of our heads!"
Binaural works rather differently from stereo.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
rw
It's not just mic positioning!
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Indeed, we have binaural hearing because we have two ears, and we can get directional cues. We'd be in a sorry pickle if our hearing was merely stereo!
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
You might want to look up the actual meaning of wordshttp://history.sandiego.edu/GEN/recording/stereo.html
1916 - Harvey Fletcher joined the Research Division of Western Electric Engineering Dept to work with Irving Crandall on hearing and speech, was director of acoustic research at Bell Labs 1927-49, built the Western Electric Model 2A hearing aid and a binaural headset in the 1920's, published the widely-read book Speech and Hearing in 1929 that analyzed the characteristics of sound. Fletcher would lead much of the research on binaural, or what later would be called "stereophonic" sound recording, at Bell Labs.Binaural is a subset of stereo. To say Binaural isn't stereo is like saying Blumelein isn't stereo or thre track mixed down to two track isn't stereo. If it is played back in two channels it is stereo.
Main Entry: bin·au·ral
Function: adjective
Pronunciation: (")bī-'no r-&l, (")bi-
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary
1 : of, relating to, or involving two or both ears
2 : STEREOPHONICMain Entry: ste·reo·phon·ic
Function: adjective
Pronunciation: "ster-e-&-'fä-nik, "stir-
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary
: of, relating to, or constituting sound reproduction involving the use of separated microphones and two transmission channels to achieve the sound separation of a live hearing
nt
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
There is no binaural system that isn't stereophonic. there are plenty of stereophonic systems that are not binaural.
One does not establish a logical hierarchy simply by the number of instances.Stereo simply doesn't work the same way as binaural.
In real listening, when we hear an instrument playing or a singer singing in a concert hall, we get the direct sound from the instrument or singing plus reflected sound from various directions delayed by varying amounts of time and differing in frequency content compared to the direct sound.
Stereo reproduction provides direct sounds and recorded reflected sound from two or more locations creating a phantom image located between the speakers as a rule. The sound of a single performer reaches our ears from each speaker from a different direction and travels around our head to reach the ear shadowed by our head. The sound from the different speakers is mixed by the time it reaches our ears. This is not what would happen live, where the sound of the performer originates from a single source. I illustrate using a single instrument or performer for simplicity.
Binaural recording mimics the way we hear. When recorded, sound is mediated by our head and ear structures the same as if the person were sitting there, and when played back through high quality headphones, the sound mimics the way hear a live performance. Stereo does not.
No useful purpose is served by confusing stereophonic and binaural reproduction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_recording
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereophonic_sound
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
rw
Not your most brilliant move.Have you ever heard a binaural recording? You might change your tune if you had!
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Fact is they got it right.> > Not your most brilliant move.
Welll that would be sad if looking something up on an online dictionary were my most brilliant move.
> > Have you ever heard a binaural recording? < <Yes I have.
> > You might change your tune if you had! < <
Not a chance. The headphones I used were made for two ears. The recording was a binaral stereo recording using the traditional dummy head with one mic in each ear (that adds up two two mics for two channels) for the stereo recording...
Since binaural is two channel, that happens to coincide with the number of ears that I have.
nt
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: