Mallette Posted October 2, 2015 Author Share Posted October 2, 2015 May have to stop in at Three Finger Mickey's on the way home. All I have is good ol' Happy Face beer at home. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DizRotus Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Regnad Kcin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I had to smile, a rebuttal article to a NY Times article reminded me of part of this thread. WARNING: language. language warning and stuff. Don't click if manly talk is offensive. original piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/fashion/mens-style/27-ways-to-be-a-modern-man.html?_r=0 rebuttal: http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/10/02/fisking-the-new-york-times-modern-man/ Notice #13 on the rebuttal. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twk123 Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) I had to smile, a rebuttal article to a NY Times article reminded me of part of this thread. WARNING: language. language warning and stuff. Don't click if manly talk is offensive. original piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/fashion/mens-style/27-ways-to-be-a-modern-man.html?_r=0 rebuttal: http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/10/02/fisking-the-new-york-times-modern-man/ Notice #13 on the rebuttal. You just won Friday... Edited October 2, 2015 by twk123 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshnich Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Is there an album coming out called "Green Day Does Country" or something? Not exactly. Norah Jones and Billie Joe did a cover of the Everly Bros LP "Songs our Daddy Taught Us" The LP is called Foreverly Pretty good actually its a song by song cover of the whole under appreciated Everly Bros. LP. Just and FYI now back to the original thread topic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 So why do audiophiles like Nils Lofgren's acoustic live album but don't show the same love for Rodrigo y Gabriela or Armik? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesD1957 Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 I have a slightly different take on this thread. I retired from band directing about a year and a half ago. Spent 30 years teaching fantastic kids and loved (almost) every minute of it! But, one of the hazards of the job is that you become a very critical listener, and it's not something that you can just leave at the office. No matter what music I was listening to, part of my brain was busy hearing the flaws, problems, and how I would make corrections. Without realizing it, I had stopped enjoying music for music's sake and was always thinking technically. About six months into retirement I caught myself listening to a song and just flat out thinking how beautiful it was, warts and all. That put a smile on my face that lasted the rest of the day! Every since then, I've been "enjoying" music more than I have in decades, because for the most part, music is an art, not a science. On the other hand, now I want better speakers! 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted October 6, 2015 Author Share Posted October 6, 2015 About six months into retirement I caught myself listening to a song and just flat out thinking how beautiful it was, warts and all. You shared that issue with audio equipment designers. Actually, your take is not that different. Your main interest is the music and unless something really gets in the way that's what you are going to hear instead of musicians errors, time alignment issues, or jitter. And, a big Klipsch family welcome to the Forums! Dave 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muel Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 So why do audiophiles like Nils Lofgren's acoustic live album but don't show the same love for Rodrigo y Gabriela or Armik? I saved the stream NPR did of Rodrigo y Gabriela live in Dublin. Don't know how "audiophile" it is but I have listened to it many more times than Nils Lofgren's live album (which I like too). Hey Nils... Keith didn't go! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Mike, I love and respect you too much to get into a yowing session. Seems you ignored my recognition that great modern music has been produced totally artificially. But if AC/DC doesn't sound right on a system that is designed to play back as accurately as science can provide then I'll do without. The only possible "standard" can be attempting accuracy. As to bring up RIAA and gain riding...these were mandates of physics, not voluntary. Might as well criticize God: "What's up with this Fletcher-Munson thing, Lord? Couldn't you design it flat?" Dave So just to be clear, mandates of physics justify processing in your world? Because it's usually physics that forces companies to spend money on processing that they otherwise wouldn't want to implement... Believe me, the bean counters would prefer to not have any of this stuff in the signal chain. It costs money, and it creates all sorts of complexity that nobody wants. Although it gives us engineers a job, so I'm not complaining too much ========================================= Btw, AC/DC and Symphony music have different requirements when it comes to the real world trade-offs that need to be made. In other words, I agree that accuracy would be a good goal, but accuracy to what variables? Physics mandates that we can't meet the criteria for every variable at the same time. The metrics of accuracy will be different for different genres and listening practices....just as the metrics for accuracy on anything depends entirely on the context and goals of that medium. There seems to be this underlying assumption that classical music (or jazz) with a specific recording technique is somehow the assumed reference for "audiophile" listening. Therefore (because it is the standard), all other source material must also sound great on that same playback system - otherwise the conclusion is that other source material is flawed somehow in its recording process. I have a hard time stomaching such a narrow (elitist?) approach about the audiophile experience. Does anyone else feel the negative vibe the second someone mentions listening to rap or pop music on the forums? Oops, you can't be an audiophile now! It's almost as if those genres aren't worthy of accurate reproduction. I disagree with this mindset, but I definitely feel its pressure in most of the audiophile contexts I've been in. I would posit that the system must be created around the playback goals of the source material. It gets a bit fuzzy because the goals are ultimately artistic in nature and set in motion by the artists themselves - and we all know how logical and form-fitting artsy types can be. Nevertheless, one can begin quantifying various technical attributes that are ideal for the source material - and that which is most significant to the perception of accuracy changes with the source material. For example, single driver systems have horrible intermodulation distortion created by the doppler effect and driver non-linearities. However, this distortion will never be generated by single tones because it requires the presence of multiple simultaneous tones to trigger. Extrapolating a bit further, source material without much tonal density doesn't stimulate this distortion to an objectionable level. People that enjoy sparse recordings that are vocal dominant can often find themselves enjoying these systems quite a bit - and as such, they get to enjoy the benefits of a system without all the issues surrounding multi-way systems and crossovers and phase response and polar response issues that crop up. But the second you throw on some tonally dense music - like say a symphony orchestra with everyone playing at once, then of course it sounds horrid....so we trade-off all that multi-way gobbly goop to lower the doppler effect distortions. You simply don't get both at the same time because physics dictates otherwise. "It's all about compromise." I know that's an anecdotal example, but it's an incredibly common situation - especially at trade shows. Physics dictates that a certain system will be ideal for one scenario, but not another and so forth. This plays out into every single minor system level decision - or if you're not a speaker designer, then it manifests itself in the speakers that you think sound better. When you start to understand all of the various variables, then you start to realize which systems are most likely going to be preferred for a given application. I would posit that this is fundamental to the audiophile approach....yet the fact that it needs to be explicitly stated makes me think there is a level of delusion about what "accuracy" could actually mean in the real world. The abstract ideal to which you refer would absolutely be an ideal, but the problem with ideals is they are physically impossible to achieve. It's just the way audio works, and is in my opinion why audio is such a fun field of engineering. We are constantly redefining what theoretically ideal accuracy means for a particular application....and occasionally we're even able to hit those theoretical ideals with real circuits. This theoretical ideal moves around with the application because of the complex intricacy of the trade-offs required by the physics. What we have today is audiophiles running around and getting all snooty about other approaches that don't satisfy their preference in music. Nobody is more right in their approach - no matter how much science you want to use to back up your preferences. ========================================= Btw, I don't know what a yowing session is, but I actually value your opinion quite a bit Dave. I'll always come on full strength in the arguments I'm making, but behind the keyboard is someone trying to understand the balanced perspective and greater wisdom that often leads to a viewpoint residing somewhere in the middle. I would be the first one to jump onto the standardization bandwagon - but my current experience tells me that there is always going to be some application that nets a loss with the standard, and that ultimately prevents the standard from gaining traction. That said, there are several efforts towards standardization where they benefit everyone - and those are the ones where I personally feel we should focus our attention. Industry-wide standardization just doesn't make sense when you start getting into the nitty gritty details. That said, I would like to see standardized compression schemes employed in the 90th percentile markets (automotive / mobile listening), but the economic cost to have that integrated into all those systems far outweighs the monetary benefit for the other 10%. It's not good business to pursue a model of increased complexity and less revenue, and that's why we're at where we are today. It doesn't help that 10% audiophile world makes most of its purchases on the used market... Anyways, just some random thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 I would posit that the system must be created around the playback goals of the source material. We might say then, that to best have HipHop and Rap in the home, one would be best advised to build a speaker system that looks like the speakers they put into cars whose owners play that music deafening levels as they ride along? It only makes sense, and I mean this sincerely not sarcastically, that if 90% of the playing time of "Rap Music X" is in a car, that to experience it home, you need a similar rig. I am not at all being facetious here. I enjoy some kinds of rap here and there, so I have no axe to grind about it, or the artists who produce it. I am only trying to push your point to understand it. I thought it made a lot of sense. If you go to stadium rock concerts, it makes sense to have sound that mimics PA systems and so on. If that is your meaning, I agree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdfanfl Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Love music! everything from talking heads,frank sinatra, stones, james taylor,metallica, and everything in between. My interest in the gear is just to make all of these wonderful sounds sound as best as possible. The music is eternal. The gear always changes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaddeus Smith Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 there's a bunch of hippy dippy crap in here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigStewMan Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 there's a bunch of hippy dippy crap in here. everyone’s just feeling groovy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted November 13, 2015 Author Share Posted November 13, 2015 Therefore (because it is the standard), all other source material must also sound great on that same playback system - otherwise the conclusion is that other source material is flawed somehow in its recording process. Mike, to reference a response you made to another old fart on this forum recently I certainly remember when you were a kid here. Genius smart *** kid. Now you are a genius full adult and so far ahead of me in the science of this business as to make meaningful communication in that area totally impossible. Therefore. of your entire post I've seized on that sentence. No, not only will everything else NOT sound great on that system it really can't happen in the current world. The moment a mixer is inserted into any recording of an acoustic time/space event accuracy is no longer relevant nor possible. The presence of such a device is in itself an admission of that and notification that accuracy isn't what the engineer is after. That is NOT a value judgment. Simply an observation of science as I see it. The moment you insert ANYTHING other than ears, artificial or real, in a recording you are deviating from accuracy. As a layman, readily open to correction. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bella Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Here's what is telling, statistically: Distribution by sex of audio forum regulars: 95% men, 5% women Distribution by sex of concert attendees (music lovers) 50% men, 50% women Do your stats take into account those who are male and identify as female, and vice-versa? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 The moment a mixer is inserted into any recording of an acoustic time/space event accuracy is no longer relevant nor possible. The presence of such a device is in itself an admission of that and notification that accuracy isn't what the engineer is after. I see where you're going with this, but I think you're looking at accuracy here as defined/chosen by the content creator. I was thinking more broadly about accuracy in the playback. Or more specifically, I'm suggesting there is still a concept of accuracy that applies even to the recordings that used a mixer in the process. For example, in the early days of electronic music the artists went to great lengths detailing every aspect of the playback system. Some of you guys may even have some of these records. This was the only way these artists could guarantee the listener experienced the intended result. In other words, it's a measure of accuracy. Some of these instructions even detailed the listening environment, the lighting, the atmosphere of the evening, etc. I never attended any of these parties, but I've read about them...entire evenings devoted to a sonic and visual experience. Any of you guys ever attend one? Certainly the artist wasn't thinking accuracy during the creation of the electronic music, but they were absolutely concerned with accuracy in the playback. All that to say, I think we need to think about accuracy differently for playback versus content creation. Just because the artist "deviated from accuracy" in the creation process, doesn't mean we lose the possibility of accuracy in the playback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cradeldorf Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) If you are in a friend's car and hear a great song by Dream Theater you have not heard in a long time... Do you: 1) Say this sound system sucks. 2) Think this song rocks, reach over and turn it up and start playing air guitar and sing along. 3) Punch the driver in the ribs cause you just saw a VW bug. 4) Wish the DAC was better. 5) Ask how much longer until we reach Arby's. ??? Punch him because I saw a VW bug. And I think audiophile is a nickname that people place on themselves because they think they're better than everybody else, Like Millionaire or debutant. I simply like my music to be clear and coherent at a reasonable level. I don't need it to be clear at 150db I leave that to the people who are desperate for attention. Edited November 13, 2015 by cradeldorf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) Therefore (because it is the standard), all other source material must also sound great on that same playback system - otherwise the conclusion is that other source material is flawed somehow in its recording process. Mike, to reference a response you made to another old fart on this forum recently I certainly remember when you were a kid here. Genius smart *** kid. Now you are a genius full adult and so far ahead of me in the science of this business as to make meaningful communication in that area totally impossible. Therefore. of your entire post I've seized on that sentence. No, not only will everything else NOT sound great on that system it really can't happen in the current world. The moment a mixer is inserted into any recording of an acoustic time/space event accuracy is no longer relevant nor possible. The presence of such a device is in itself an admission of that and notification that accuracy isn't what the engineer is after. That is NOT a value judgment. Simply an observation of science as I see it. The moment you insert ANYTHING other than ears, artificial or real, in a recording you are deviating from accuracy. As a layman, readily open to correction. Dave If it sounds good, it is good Edited November 13, 2015 by Don Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 I think that Dave actually hits that mark: if anything other than a pair or matrix of five microphones are used to record, I've found that the recording quality diminishes. The whole idea of multi-track recording negates the musicians themselves mixing and blending their own music in real time and hands it to someone else, and often times, they're not musicians. I once read where a noted mixing engineer was talking about issues using digital mixing consoles. Being curious, I read on and found that the guy was trying to mix significantly more than 30 separately recorded tracks together and that the track-to-track phase cancellation issues and processing times on the DAW were becoming excessive. He also didn't like the newer higher digital sampling rates (96 and 192 kHz) because it took him and his DAW "too much time". Imagine now that same process if there was no mixing, and the entire mastering instead consisted entirely of balancing the tracks, removing common mode line noise (50/60 Hz) and placing track markers on each musical composition, then releasing the tracks for download. I'd bet many will say that that's impossible. I know that the most realistic recordings that I've ever heard were produced just like that. Chris 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.