 
|
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 |
113.28.145.117
In Reply to: RE: Question for all industry Insiders posted by Dale Clark on November 06, 2017 at 06:36:45
Fidelity to what? This so called philosophy is more of a religion with two waring cults. Both are full of it. The idea of fidelity in audio is a joke. I ask again, fidelity to what? Whatever answer you give I can completely deconstruct and destroy be it the subjectivist nonsense, fidelity to the absolute sound or objectivist nonsense, fidelity to the source signal/master recording. Both ideas are B.S.
Follow Ups:
I know it when I hear it.
I mean, come on, some recordings and components sound less unlike the real thing than others.
Or do you think cylinder players have high fidelity?
In the context of playback, what is wrong with trying to reproduce a recording accurately?and what do you mean when you say "Transparency".
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 11/07/17
"In the context of playback, what is wrong with trying to reproduce a recording accurately?"
Actual "reproduction" of a **recording** is nothing more than an accurate copying or transmission of an electrical signal. A recording on it's own has no sound. Nothing wrong with doing that for the purpose of just doing that. What is wrong is the belief that this is somehow actually creating accuracy to an original accoustic event. That is simply not true. It isn't accurate to an original acoustic event and audio recording and playback has never been designed to be a literal reproduction of an original 3D acoustic waveform. That simply isn't how audio works ad it most certainly isn't how stereo/mulitchannel works. Stereo/multichannel recording and playback is an attempt at creating an aural illusion not a literal recreation. Two entirely different things. If literal reconstruction of the original waveform were the actual path being taken in audio recording and playback then accuracy every step of the way would be the goal. Of course that would be completely different than what is actually done in audio. But since an aural illusion is the goal the means to achieving that goal is to create electrical signals that will transfer to the two or more transducers in the playback room that will best create the aural illusion from the listener position. It is a totally different process. Accuracy is only valuable in so far as it serves the goal of an aural illusion. And that is just part of it. That aural illusion is only valueable in so far as it serves another goal. aesthetic excellence. And that is very subjective. Accuracy is not the goal. Accuracy is one of many means of achieving a goal of desirable aesthetic qualities.
Was with you up until you got to "aesthetic excellent." Well, I agree with that -- aesthetic excellence is the ultimate goal. And yet, almost inevitably, in my experience, the recordings of acoustical instruments that depart most from reality sound worse. Typically this occurs because the improvements were botched -- if they really were intended as improvements.
Those recordings that push up the violins, for example. If the violins were the loudest section in an orchestra, composers would have taken that into account. But they aren't. So pushing them up just distorts the composer's intentions -- and puzzles the ears as well, since in real life violin sections don't sound like that.
"What is wrong is the belief that this is somehow actually creating accuracy to an original accoustic event."
I would never say that.
"It isn't accurate to an original acoustic event and audio recording and playback has never been designed to be a literal reproduction of an original 3D acoustic waveform."
Only because we don't know how to do that.
"But since an aural illusion is the goal the means to achieving that goal is to create electrical signals that will transfer to the two or more transducers in the playback room that will best create the aural illusion from the listener position."
I think that's a different hobby than mine.
In my hobby I accept that recordings are flawed and I only try to get the speakers to accurately play that flawed signal.
A system designed to do what you talk about would be called a production system, not a reproduction system.
BTW what did you mean when you typed "Transparency"?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Do you listen to stereo or multichannel playback? Because that is how they work. They are designed to creat an aural illusion at the listener position. You do experience some sort of imaging when you listen no? Or do you just hear 2 or more seperate sound sources when you listen to stereo? Hearing the speakers as speakers with all the sound being perceptually located at the speakers? Which do you hear? I hear imaging.
"In my hobby I accept that recordings are flawed and I only try to get the speakers to accurately play that flawed signal."
And what exactly does an "accurate" 3 dimensional acoustic waveform look like in comparison to the 1 dimensional electrical signal that the speaker was fed? You do understand that they are completely different in nature do you not? And let's not forget the effects of cross talk, comb filtering and wall reflections that will affect that 3 dimensional acoustic waveform. what does that look like in terms of accuracy in direct comparison to the electrical signal that was fed to the speakers?
that's cool. There is no right or wrong way. I just hope folks actually understand the realities of "their way." And the reality is there is no such thing as accuracy to an originl acoustic event in audio because audio is not designed to create literal reconstructions of the original waveform. And there is no such thing as accurate sound of a recording bcause recordings are captures of electrical signals that have no sound on their own.
Actually, if we include your view then it's 3 if not 4 or 5 warring cults.
But you do bring up a good point. I don't think high fidelity was originally intended to be a joke but it looks like some-to-many have turned it into exactly that - especially those who make a living at it.
But I see striving for fidelity to the music info embedded into a given recording medium as the best alternative and one that should be entirely within our scope - either actually or at least potentially and therefore entirely attainable.
In other words, from our own experiences with computer backups and restores, we can be pretty certain that reading digital information is pretty close to 100% accuracy unless a piece of hardware has failed.
If reading close to 100% of the music info is true, then it's really just a matter of minimizing distortions such that the vast majority of music info read and processed remains audible above a given playback system's noise floor, rather than below the noise floor where it is inaudible.
Hence, this option should at least theoretically be above reproach such that one like yourself would be hard-pressed to "deconstruct and destroy."
Anything beyond that target is simply outside of our scope and therefore seemingly pointless or nebulous for a target. In other words, at some point we have to trust others e.g. sound and mastering engineers, etc, to perform due diligence.
"But I see striving for fidelity to the music info embedded into a given recording medium as the best alternative and one that should be entirely within our scope - either actually or at least potentially and therefore entirely attainable."
What actually is embedded into a given recording medium is in fact a recording of an electrical signal or in the case of stereo or multichannel a group of electrical signals. Fidelity to those electrical signals gives you a copy of those electrical signals. It doesn't give you sound or music. To get sound or music those electrical signals need to be fed to transducers. Transducers that had no part in the original creation of the music that was the source of the recording. It is not "fidelity to music" whatever that actually is. Fidelity to the original source of music, that being musicians playing musical instruments and/or singing is completely lost. The original waveforms that existed in the room where the music took place is not literally copied in those electrical signals. Those signals that come off the mics are 1 dimensional electrical waves induced by 3 dimensional sound waves from some point in space subjectively picked out by a recording engineer based on what he or she heard over some sort of monitoring system that has in and of itself it's own set of distortions and limitations of representing what little information is being collected by those microphones. You claim this is the best alternative. What makes it the best? The best by what measure? Certainly not any reasonable notion of accuracy to the original acoustic event. That was lost.
"In other words, from our own experiences with computer backups and restores, we can be pretty certain that reading digital information is pretty close to 100% accuracy unless a piece of hardware has failed."
It is true that we can be sure that a digital file can be accurately copied. That's great for the purpose of transfering and storing files. That isn't all there is to sound and music.
"If reading close to 100% of the music info is true,"
False assumption. It is not "music info." It is recording of an electrical signal info. They are not interchangable. No recording captures an original 3d sound waveform. That is lost. Maintaining accuracy of those electrical signals does not restore all the real musical info that was never captured and could never be captured int he firts place.
"then it's really just a matter of minimizing distortions such that the vast majority of music info read and processed remains audible above a given playback system's noise floor, rather than below the noise floor where it is inaudible."
But that isn't what is being transfered. It isn't music info. It's electrical signal info that was produced by highly colored microphones each of which were in one spot in a room where the actual music took place. It is not a literal and accurate capture of the sound that came from any instrument or voice. It is a distorted capture from a point somewhere away from the source. Positions that were subjectively chosen by a recording engineer. The waveform that was the original music in that physical space is lost.
"Hence, this option should at least theoretically be above reproach such that one like yourself would be hard-pressed to "deconstruct and destroy.""
The option you offer makes incorrect assumptions aout the very nature of the data that is being accurately transfered. Deconstruction accomplished
"Anything beyond that target is simply outside of our scope and therefore seemingly pointless or nebulous for a target."
"Pointless?" OK this is a big part of this. What really is the point of concern over sound quality of audio recording and playback? This is absolutely key here.
"In other words, at some point we have to trust others e.g. sound and mastering engineers, etc, to perform due diligence."
That is simply the reality of audio. It has no bearing on the argument.
I will assume that you therefore find no reason to attempt to accurately reproduce a recording.
In your mind there is no point since the recording is terribly flawed to start with.
Do I have that right?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
"I will assume that you therefore find no reason to attempt to accurately reproduce a recording."
I do when I am making a copy of it for my computer or my mobile audio player. You do understand what accurately reproducing a recording actually means right? It means making a copy of the recording. Has nothing to do with playback
"In your mind there is no point since the recording is terribly flawed to start with.
Do I have that right?"
Honestly, at the risk of offending you I don't think you understand the very basics of my points. No, you don't seem to have it right.
You seem to be conflating recordings with playback.
Let me be clear, do you have interest or do you not have interest in 1. retrieving the signal from the medium as accurately as you can, 2. amplifying that signal as accurately as you can and then 3. using that amplified signal to drive accurate speakers that will turn that signal into sound waves in your listening area? Sound waves that follow, as accurately as possible, the signal they are being driven with.I don't believe you do.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 11/08/17
You are asking absurd questions that do nothing but demonstrate your failure to understand the subject.
I have asked you once I will ask you again, how do you compare the one dimensional electrical signal of a recording to the three dimensional acoustic waveform from a transducer that was fed that signal through an amplifier for accuracy? If you don't answer this question you are dismissed and you failed the lesson.
"how do you compare the one dimensional electrical signal of a recording to the three dimensional acoustic waveform from a transducer that was fed that signal through an amplifier for accuracy?"
How do speakers manufactures measure their speakers for accuracy?
Why are you afraid to answer my simple questions?
Let's take them one at a time.
Are you interested in retrieving the signal from the medium as accurately as you can?
and if so, why?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I'm not afraid. Your questions are simply absurd and premised on a gross misunderstanding of audio. You failed. I am not wasting any more time with you. You obviously don't understand the issue. You are begging the question and don't even know it.
So how distorted is your system.
How do you decide in which ways to distort your system in an attempt to "repair" bad recordings?
Is that all done by ear?
Does the distortion that you have added to your system make your system "sound better" to you on all recordings?
Scott, I think you are the one who has failed.
Te'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
..:the goal is not to reproduce the original performance/music but rather to produce an (imperfect) illusion of the original performance/music. Subtle but significant difference .
I wonder if advanced VR might be capable of achieving credible reproduction of a musical performance.
Thank you. But to take it a step further. It isn't just about that illusion it is also about the aesthetic values of that illusion. IMO the aesthetic values take precedence over the perception of perceptual accuracy. Something many audiophiles don't even consider...what if the live sound sucks? what if there is room to subjectively improve it with the use of recording, mixing and mastering techniques? I say you do it. accuracy for the sake of accuracy is audio masterbation.
"the goal is not to reproduce the original performance/music but rather to produce an (imperfect) illusion of the original performance/music."
I believe that is Scott's goal.
Mine is to reproduce the recording, warts and all.
Two completely different hobbies.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
so if the original recording is shit you want it to sound like shit?
Absolutely!and if a bad recording sounds anything other than bad on your system then there is something wrong with your system.
How the hell do you build a system that will make a bad recording sound good but not ruin a good recording?
You don't want a reproduction system, you want a "happy happy sound machine" and that's fine if that's what you want but I still say that's a different hobby.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 11/08/17 11/08/17
OK we have established that you like shit sound if you believe it is "accurate" even though accuracy is a sham and you have no way of gauging it. Hey, whatever makes you happy.
"How the hell do you build a system that will make a bad recording sound good but not ruin a good recording?"
first of all, I am not just talking about "systems" I am talking about media, indvidual masterings of recordings and individual components that ad euphonic colorations. But we been through this before and you didn't even get that you have euphonically colored components in your own system. Explaining these things to you feels a lot like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdKa9bXVinE
Analog Scott seems to prefer his shit to taste like chocolate ice cream even though it is still shit. Feel free to educate me if I am wrong.
When they discover the center of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it. ~ Bernard Bailey
Are you into eating shit or something? What a bizarre and disturbing post.
I'm not sure what flavor Scott likes but it's clear to me he doesn't like it "as served".
I see that as being hugely disrespectful to the engineers and artists who worked hard on those recordings. But, it's a free country.
Whatever!
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
"accuracy is a sham and you have no way of gauging it."Really? I can't compare the electrical signal at the output of a CD player to the electrical signal at the output of a preamp to determine if the preamp circuit is distorting that signal?
Hell, maybe I am dumb.
"OK we have established that you like shit sound "
When did I say that I liked bad sound?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 11/08/17
...designed to create an illusion and only an illusion. It cannot create or reproduce the original performance. A reproducing piano in a specific space come might come close to reproducing a performance that occurred in that space. A conventional recording of the piano reproduced thru speakers in that space can't come close IME.
" It cannot create or reproduce the original performance."
Agreed.
"A reproducing piano in a specific space come might come close to reproducing a performance that occurred in that space. A conventional recording of the piano reproduced thru speakers in that space can't come close IME."
You lost me there. What is a "reproducing piano"?
Help me with this "in a specific space come might come"
What is a "conventional recording"?
I'm not trying to argue Steve, I'm just trying to understand what you typed.
maybe after I understand what you typed then I might want to argue :-)
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
AS covers "reproducing piano" below in link but think of sophisticated, computer controlled "player piano".
Second question is a typo...should be ".....might come close........"
Conventional recording is where the piano would be recorded to some medium using microphones and whatever else is nec to produce something you could play back thru a conventional "stereo". How most of us obtain and listen to our music today.
Steve thank you for that info.I agree, no recording, when played back, can ever sound like the sound in the studio at the time of the recording.
The question is, what do we do about it?
Live with it for what it is or try to compensate for the short comings of the recording?
I say live with it for what it is because IMO trying to compensate for those short comings is a slippery slope that leads to one chasing their own tail.
Every recording has it's own particular short comings. What helps one recording will hurt another.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 11/08/17
This
god it's such a breath of fresh air. thank you
| 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 © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
