Audio Myths and Human Perception - Explored

[Marvel]

6 hours ago, Chris A said:

I've read a few--including the ones on mastering.  That's where I got some of the comments. Even in Katz's presentations, there is strong tendency of preference toward the "sound of old technology" (extremely old analog stuff...>40 years old) versus what you can go buy new today. 

 

This is simply decision bias.  I would guess a significant portion of that is probably now based on mythology rather than the performance of currently available gear.  I've seen this in engineering practice, too, and it isn't a very attractive trait to have there either.  It's also not something that a lot of people like to talk about since it hits ageism dead center.

 

I've seen this "mastering culture" also in other dimensions in all of the mastering articles that I've read to date, and I haven't said much on this subject.  But if we're talking about audio mythology, I think that a lot of people running in audiophile circles (i.e., "old guard" audiophiles) are simply holding on to that which they feel comfortable or familiar with, but not generally "hi-fi" by Ethan Winer's definition.

 

Chris

 

Ok, here is something I ran across on the forum for my DAW software. It started out asking if recording in hi rez, made any difference. While it was acknowledged that recording benefited, regular playback didn't, but this is from guys recording events. One list this in order of importance:

 

Look, I know a good sound engineer who supports the idea of recording at higher res (he goes for 88k), and people like Andrew Schepps and Tony Maserati (if memory serves) agree with him. But the points made above are correct, there is a hierarchy of impact made on the quality of sound which, to my mind goes like this (most important to least):
------
1 Artist performance
2 Room in which recording is made (acoustic treatment etc)
3 Recording technique on the performance (mic placements etc)
4 Signal chain into the computer (mics, preamps, converters etc)
5 Bit rate
6 Sample rate (although must be at least 44.1k)

------

Then, one of the guys down under in Oz said this:

 

------

And later at mixing stage the same applies: Quality of the interface, speaker amps, speakers, room, your ears, your experience... and last but not least, despite old, "if it sounds good it is good".

The real key to quality still lies in the analogue domain ...

------

So much of what we end up hearing still utilizes all analogue gear. These are the men and women who sit behind the glas, go out into the room with the talent and work to capture the magic, the tone, the vibe, the whole performance. Whether it is done live, in a performance or built up piece by piece, that is their goal. They use technology to capture it. It isn't old fashioned.

[mikebse2a3]

10 hours ago, Chris A said:

Mike: even that longish YouTube tutorial on EQ posted above has advice to use EQ at levels that are in reality 2-6 times too much and much more low frequency attenuation EQ below about 100 Hz...as was shown in the video.  I find this sort of advice to be endemic to the domain.  Many aspiring participants apparently don't have quality mixing or mastering studios with high quality treated rooms and real high performance monitors to hear what they are really doing. Instead they're using "translation monitors" like the old Yamaha NS-10Ms sitting on top of the mixing console. These are typical practices used in the popular music realm (including rock, etc.), but are still frowned upon in classical and other serious music circles.

 

I thought parts of it had good information and some questionable.

 

I liked the attempt to correlate parts of the spectrum with certain sounds and mention of the "Mudd" region which as I stated earlier will shift depending on room dimensions.

 

I also questioned the low frequency attenuation but did note he stated it was to remove unwanted noise on certain instrument tracks if that is what you are referring to.

 

I also use the technique of creating a narrow notch filter and rolling it through the spectrum when exploring room modal issues and it is very enjoyable to see people when they hear the clarity that results when these "Mudd" causing modes are brought under control.

 

Anyway I'm sure there are other video's on EQing that would be better but I thought it was a good example of what is being done with some recordings.

 

miketn

[Chris A]

1 hour ago, mikebse2a3 said:

 

This begs the questions......

"What's So Sacred About Our Recordings?"

I say the "Devil" is at play in many of our recordings and "Fidelity" is not even on the list of goals in way to many of them..!!!

 

"Do you believe it is a Sin to Re-master them..?"

 

"If we have a weapon to battle this Devil and attempt to undo/minimize the "Devil's" works are we in reality "Not Sinners" but instead are we not trying to rescue the "Good" from the "Evil" done upon it..?"

 

miketn

 

 

I was beginning to think that I was pretty much alone in my thoughts on this subject.  It's nice to know that perhaps I'm not alone.  Your first comment about "fidelity is not even on their list of goals of producing music recordings" is precisely the problem.  Any professional culture that reinforces the idea that fidelity really doesn't matter is fundamentally flawed.  That's what I was referring to in my comments about mastering culture.

 

The entire mastering culture is apparently geared to mess with your music...no matter what...and the more that they mess with it, the more credit--and therefore money--that they get.  Conversely, if they don't mess with the music, they stand to lose their livelihoods, or at least that's the belief that apparently keeps those practices recurring again and again. 

 

I do understand how this culture comes into being: it was once my job to understand those kind of processes and undo them.  But it's extremely difficult to do this, however.

 

The same type of destructive "memeplex processes" come into play in the judging the design of hi-fi sound reproduction systems and design of its components by both designers and buyers, but for very different reasons.

 

When I look at mastering processes, historically these have been "save the day" processes for typical music recording screw-ups, but now the mastering function has grown into some big "Mr. Fix-It" culture that believes that it's the "creative mastering" itself--and not the musicians' creations (i.e., the music)--that are responsible for the financial success of the albums.  This is the problem. 

 

I know of at least one music production company that doesn't do mastering: they instead record, mix, and then put the tracks on their website for sale--no mastering.  Talk about a threat to the way of life of an entire profession.

 

Chris

[mikebse2a3]

3 hours ago, robert_kc said:

That’s my 2.5 cents for now.  OP:  Is this relevant to what you want to discuss?

 

Excellent Post robert_kc ...!!! 

Your post and others as well are exactly what I would like to see happen.

 

1 hour ago, Chris A said:

I do believe that this thread is all about getting the good things out of Winer's videos, and perhaps leaving behind the stuff that isn't...for the benefit of the readers and participants here, as well as adding the good stuff that we've each found ourselves.

 

Exactly....and hopefully to promote more open minded interaction and tolerance/respect of others ideas so that we might see where it takes us all.

 

 

4 hours ago, Chris A said:

The real issue that I see is perhaps the tendency to "dig holes" on well-worn subjects.  I personally like the fact that we can move on from those typical "hole excavations" to cover a subject for the benefit of the general forum readership, instead of people merely flaming those old, tired subjects and taking sides, like in any typical zero-sum game. 

 

Yes it's a real problem on forums and can kill the opportunity for us all to have fun and learn some things.

 

All it takes to stop this cycle is to show some respect that we won't always agree and for those involved to choose one's words wisely when responding to each other and yes sometimes to just let it go..!!!

 

 

miketn

[Zen Traveler]

Well, admittedly I am not one of the more scientifically ones posting here but I thought most solid state amps within the same specs would sound the same and didn't think that was a 'myth.'  In fact, I thought that was the goal (not coloring sound) insofar as adding power to the chain....

[mikebse2a3]

6 hours ago, tube fanatic said:

Mike, you and I have had enough discussions on here for you to know that I don't consider my words or opinions to be the gospel and that my mind is far from closed to the ideas of others.  What I find offensive is someone who is considered knowledgeable making a statement which is too ludicrous to be allowed to stand.  Such a generalized statement is a disservice to every person who is involved in the design of audio electronics.  I'm sure that someone like Nelson Pass, among dozens of others, could write a long dissertation refuting the claim that they are "amateurs" simply because they know that electronic components can affect the sound of an audio system.  

 

Maynard I have a great deal of respect for you and your contributions to the forum and I believe you are a fairly open minded individual.

 

Lets all admit we are all human and I'm sure everyone here can fall into the trap of a "closed mind" from time to time and sometimes we don't even recognize that we are being that way till someone or something brings it to our awareness.

 

So Chris made a statement about amateurs and that is his opinion.  I believe it would have been better if he had not made such a general statement and had instead been more specific in his criticism because I don't believe he ever meant electronics doesn't matter but instead to what degree he believes they matter relative to loudspeakers and room acoustics.

 

7 hours ago, tube fanatic said:

Obviously,  room/speaker interaction has a profound effect on the resultant sound.  And, you have no doubt read many of my recommendations to folks on here in which I have asked them to try a small adjustment in speaker or listening position (among other things) as a means of changing an undesirable characteristic.  However, I am also a realist in knowing that few have the luxury of a dedicated listening room in which they can hang panels, or use other physical devices to create the desired result.  Most often listening rooms are shared with family members with the result being that certain compromises must be accepted.  And it is in those instances that changing the electronics can often create a result which is far closer to what is desired.

 

Hmmm.......I don't know Maynard....while I agree with getting maximum enjoyment within our unique compromises we all have to make it's important that people don't get the wrong idea that changing electronics(amps,pre-amps..etc..) is going to solve audible issues due to compromises in room acoustics.

 

I would really be interested in any experience you have had in a case of changing an amplifier made up for audible room acoustic issues. 

 

miketn

 

 

 

[mikebse2a3]

Hey Guys..... I work.. have a girlfriend, daughter and grandson so I don't always get to post as much as I would like to but I am really enjoying this thread so far and appreciate everyone who is participating....!!!

 

 

miketn

[mikebse2a3]

5 hours ago, robert_kc said:

My goal for my home hi-fi systems is to recreate as close as possible the experience that I had in the symphony hall or opera house – or perhaps I should say an accurate facsimile.  Because a full-scale orchestra cannot be reproduced with 100% accuracy via recorded music played on a hi-fi, this introduces subjectivity regarding sound quality (i.e., which compromises a listener prefers to accept).

 

In regards to "accurate facsimile".........are you familiar with the work of Richard C Heyser and also the articles he wrote for Audio Magazine..?

 

If not I have posted the pdf of the Anthology on page#1 of this thread and I believe you would find this most interesting and especially the article "Hearing Vs Measurement" . 

 

miketn

[mikebse2a3]

Anyone downloaded the Richard C Heyser  Anthology of his works yet on page #1 of this thread..?

 

I would like to suggest you start by reading " Hearing Vs Measurement " and let me know what you think afterwards.

 

This was written in 1988 and IMHO everyone interested in audio reproduction should be familiar with it.

 

 

miketn

 

 

[Khornukopia]

13 hours ago, Marvel said:

...and how a lot of music production suffers from a non standard use, unlike the movie industry.

 

So you are pointing out that the movie industry has audio mastering quality standards? 

 

The movie soundtrack music that plays during the end credits usually sounds impressively good when listening to the Blu-ray or DVD version of almost any movie through my Klipsch speakers. 

[tube fanatic]

8 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

Well, admittedly I am not one of the more scientifically ones posting here but I thought most solid state amps within the same specs would sound the same and didn't think that was a 'myth.'  In fact, I thought that was the goal (not coloring sound) insofar as adding power to the chain....

I don't have the time to write a long piece on my thoughts about this subject, but this will give you some idea about what could be going on (keep in mind that I usually agree with Rod Elliott on just about every subject):

 

http://www.audioholics.com/audio-amplifier/the-sound-of-an-amplifier

 

Maynard

[Marvel]

9 hours ago, Khornukopia said:

 

So you are pointing out that the movie industry has audio mastering quality standards? 

 

The movie soundtrack music that plays during the end credits usually sounds impressively good when listening to the Blu-ray or DVD version of almost any movie through my Klipsch speakers. 

 

The short answer is yes.

 

This article by mastering engineer, Bob Katz gives a good explanation:

 

https://www.digido.com/portfolio-item/level-practices-part-2/

[mikebse2a3]

Heyser's points in this article show that a bridge between both the extreme Subjectivist and Objectivist exist and it is a matter of properly  mapping/correlating from one dimension to the other to actually advance the goal we all actually share..!!!

 

HEYSER:  It's an "Illusion" we are creating not a "Hologram"..!!!! 

I believe PWK called it Stereophony for this very reason but seems to me that many listeners are not fully aware of this by comments you often read on forums.

 

HEYSER:  "The end product is the listening experience"

 

HEYSER:  "it is what we hear, not what we measure or compute that is the final arbiter of audio quality"

 

HEYSER:  "For it is still the sole dominion of technology to give us objective and repeatable measures of are gradual climb toward perfecting audio systems"

 

miketn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chris A]

On 7/29/2017 at 1:23 PM, twk123 said:

Here is a great talk from Tony Andrews about audio compression and the adrenal effects of bad sound vs the dopamine response of good sound. Interesting stuff and Tony is pretty much the English equivalent to PWK.

Most of what Mr. Andrews is saying is universally accepted by audio aficionados: lossy formats (and the mp3 format is still the poster child, but also AAC, and all the other variant formats) that are typically done very poorly by the commercial on-line download sites.  I don't believe, however, that he was really talking to the home hi-fi crowd as much as the club/DJ crowd that have fairly spectacular loudspeakers in large, high-powered arrays in large listening spaces (some acoustically well treated), but then bring in what he clearly considers to be trash lossy music files to play on them.  I can see why he's probably tired of having to deal with that.

 

However, Mr. Andrews casts aspersions on the CD format (44.1 kHz, 16 bit stereo PCM). All the tests that I'm aware of show that there aren't any listeners that can consistently identify 96 kHz/24 bit files vs. 44.1 kHz/16 bit files extracted from the same source music file-at least on the type of music reproduction systems used in those sort of tests--which may be of a lower performance quality (actually) than those that his company installs in clubs.

 

On 7/29/2017 at 1:23 PM, twk123 said:

There is another video about him discussing his speaker design as well.  The notable difference is Tony's Funktion 1 sound system uses horn loaded paper cones while Klipsch uses compression drivers. The Funktion-1 system in Beta Nightclub in Denver is actually what got me addicted to horn loaded music and down the Klipsch rabbit hole.

 

There were a few things that I believe are worthy of mention:

 

1) the idea that the midrange or tweeter diaphragm material being paper, titanium, beryllium, or even polyester has no bearing in the resulting reproduced sound, unless driven to the point that they no longer exhibit pistonic motion, or that harmonic distortion is produced.  The relative harmonic distortion numbers are easy to measure.  What I believe Mr. Andrews is referring to is self-damping properties of the material--not that they're "more organic"--which is a nonsensical comment.  Either the diaphragm has low distortion (harmonic distortion...but also FM distortion, too) to be inaudible, or it doesn't--at high SPL.  It's already been mentioned above that horn-loaded loudspeakers exhibit near-inaudible levels of modulation distortion (FM and AM distortion).

 

2) The idea that horns should exhibit flat frequency response (and I believe he was implying measurement on-axis) without the need for EQ says that Funktion-One is not using controlled coverage horns, which means that their off-axis coverage varies with frequency.  This is a trade that I personally would not make.  Constant coverage vs. frequency in each horn axis is by far the better choice for all applications that I can think of.

 

3) Perhaps the comments about the smoothness of the upper midrange of his cone-driven midrange or tweeter horns is due to the propensity of club DJs to use harsh-sounding mp3 files and other music files that have been mastered poorly (harshly).  Suppose that the upper midrange is rolled off in frequency response, this would tend to mitigate that harsh sound; however, this would present a non-flat response overall. 

 

There is one other source of distortion that can be ascribed to "harshness": at extremely high SPL, the moisture in the air will condense, thus forming a non-linear response in the horn/driver that leads mainly to increased levels of harmonic distortion. The solution to this is to use larger acoustic driver diaphragms and/or larger diameter horn throats, and to expand the throat area of the horn more rapidly than a typical exponential/tractrix, or hyperbolic, horn expansion profile.  This is where straight-sided midrange/HF horns come into their own, since the expansion is more rapid at the horn throat.  Use of an external phase plug (as Funktion-One is using) is one element in that rapid expansion in order to increase the frequency bandwidth of their horns without half-wave cancellations occurring in the horn throat.  However, these external phase plugs can create coverage issues with frequency, especially on-axis with the horn centerline.

 

As far as comparisons with Winer's presentations, Andrews presents his ideas with a decidedly greater reliance on an "emotive understanding" of the topics than Winer.  I see strengths and weaknesses in both men's approaches, but I have to raise that a famous quote, attributed to A. Einstein, should be kept in mind:

 

Quote

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

I believe that Andrews at times crosses that threshold.  But I attribute at least some of that oversimplifying to a need to connect with his audience.  I have found that it is easy to fall into this mode in order to help our audiences remember and retain the essence of the physics of what's really happening.  The tendency to make sound bites out of the more complete understanding of the physics or other phenomena sometimes occurs.  If I could offer any advice it would be to interject more basic physical principles and ideas where the oversimplifications are currently being relied upon to carry the message.  In the end, the oversimplifications create problems on their own...not the least of which are the cultural or organization memes discussed above as the source of audio mythologies.

 

Chris

[alzinski]

18 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

Well, admittedly I am not one of the more scientifically ones posting here but I thought most solid state amps within the same specs would sound the same and didn't think that was a 'myth.'  In fact, I thought that was the goal (not coloring sound) insofar as adding power to the chain....

 

 

Testing of said amplifiers is done with resistive loads. Not all amps will behave the same way when a capacitive load is introduced like in the real world, some behave badly giving way to instability and ringing. This will be audible.

 

SS gear requires a substantial amount of negative feedback to linearize the active devices and get distortion acceptable. Introduce large transients or worse clipping into high feedback amps and they all don't behave the same. There will be time domain distortions E.G. Transient Intermodulation Distortion.  Devices and or circuits with low slew rate and high amounts of feedback will be the worst offenders.

 

So even though "specs" on paper look good and you would think they should all sound the same, in the real world with real loads and real music going through them they do not behave the same and hence do not sound the same.

 

I will agree that speakers and room play a very large role in the total equation, but it's foolish to overlook amps because certain specs appear to be similar on paper.

 

[Chris A]

20 hours ago, Marvel said:

there is a hierarchy of impact made on the quality of sound which, to my mind goes like this (most important to least):
------
1 Artist performance
2 Room in which recording is made (acoustic treatment etc)
3 Recording technique on the performance (mic placements etc)
4 Signal chain into the computer (mics, preamps, converters etc)
5 Bit rate
6 Sample rate (although must be at least 44.1k)

This parallels the "discussion" above on the relative importance of factors in hi-fi sound reproduction.  Note that if no subsequent mixing or mastering operations are performed on the recorded data stream, then the last two items lose most of their importance.  They are there because of the intense manipulations that are routinely applied to all recorded music tracks.  This is the "mastering culture" that I was referring to. 

 

If you remove the mastering altogether, fidelity goes up, not down.  The reason for which it began was 1) to fix screw-ups in recording, and 2) to put the signal on a lousy format: phonograph records--which then could almost not handle the impressed audio signal. After the need for optical mastering disappeared with the introduction of digital downloads, it seems to me that the reason for mastering at all...goes away, unless of course someone is willing to admit screwing up something during the recording process...

 

20 hours ago, Marvel said:

So much of what we end up hearing still utilizes all analogue gear.

 

Apparently not uniformly.  If you look at classical recording, mixing and mastering, I think the picture changes.  Of course, they're not trying to significantly change the "sound" of the resulting product through computer or mixing board manipulations, and typically aren't trying to mix over 70 tracks together simultaneously--which is where they get into trouble using digital mixing/mastering.  They usually don't want to admit that, since it highlights what they are actually doing--routinely--to the recorded music tracks.  No wonder that we have so many people here saying that their at-home hi-fi setup doesn't sound like the real thing. 

 

There was one person on this forum that mentioned that he got the opportunity to listen to original recordings before the "production processes" were performed, and he also mentioned that they always sounded much better than "after production" versions of the same recordings.

 

I've noticed that the movie industry seems to use completely different processes, and the comment that the end-credit themes that play at the end of movies can be truly spectacular--this is an interesting point to consider.  I've experienced this many times myself.  If you buy the CD--which typically goes through a heritage audio-only studio, the music doesn't sound nearly as good as on the video disc.  There is something to the 5.1 format that increases the immersion and presence of the end-credit music, but I would tend to believe--not by the factor that I hear on the soundtrack CD vs. the videodisc playback fidelity differences.

 

YMMV.

 

Chris

[hsosdrummer]

56 minutes ago, Chris A said:

All the tests that I'm aware of show that there aren't any listeners that can consistently identify 96 kHz/24 bit files vs. 44.1 kHz/16 bit files extracted from the same source music file-at least on the type of music reproduction systems used in those sort of tests--which may be of a lower performance quality (actually) than those that his company installs in clubs.

 

I record live music in my home studio at 24-bit/96kHz resolution. For comparison, I used my DAW software to rip a 24/96 file down to 16-bit/44kHz. It took repeated listening to zero-in on the extremely miniscule differences between the master 24/96 file and the 16/44 rip. However, since computer storage space is so cheap, it's worth it to me to have my master recordings in as high a resolution as possible, so I continue to record and mix in 24/96 and rip down to 16/44 when I burn 2-channel CDs.

 

One thing I've noticed over the years is that it's the increase in bit depth that correlates with a sound quality difference, not the increase in sampling rate.

[Chris A]

The increased precision of the data words parallels the same practices in the engineering world from decades ago:

 

If you needed to do any processing or high resolution simulation--such as maintaining accuracy requirements in using differential equation forward integration routines like the standard 4th-order Runge-Kutta approximations used in that era, you simply increased the "bit depth", i.e., double precision or a computer having longer words as standard to compensate for the progressive loss of precision due to the subsequent mathematical operations, or you decreased the forward integration step size.

 

I find that I can hear differences in the decays of the musical tracks, i.e., the higher bit depth/rate tracks sound more "solid", but only on those tracks originally recorded at high bit depth--or perhaps the best analog recorders of the day, using the best type of archiving methods to preserve the extremely sensitive analog tapes over long periods of time. 

 

Chris

[hsosdrummer]

Any information that's "down in the weeds" so to speak will benefit from an increase in resolution because that increase helps distinguish the information we want to preserve (for example reverb decays, as you state) from information that would mask it (digital or analog noise, for example). Moving from 16-bit depth to 24-bit depth pushes that noise from –96db down to –144dB below 0dBfs.

 

It's interesting to note that the best you can get from even the most fastidiously mastered and pressed LP is around –70dB below the level at which your stylus will jump out of the groove. Someone mentioned in an earlier post that "the real key to quality lies in the analog domain". That's because an analog audio signal (which is an alternating current waveform or a copy of that waveform that is stored as magnetic flux variations on a tape or as width and depth variations in a V-shaped groove) is infinitely less robust than digital code, and the analog audio creation/reproduction process is full of places where this delicate copy of the original event can be damaged or corrupted.

[Zen Traveler]

1 hour ago, alzinski said:

I will agree that speakers and room play a very large role in the total equation, but it's foolish to overlook amps because certain specs appear to be similar on paper.

 

Thank you for your response but I meant similar specs on benchmark tests and not just what the mfg claims.