Real vs Hi-FI

[Werner]

Again, there is no single most-accurate reproduction method. Neither is there a single most-accurate recording method.

Once a certain level of competence is reached all explodes into subjectivism and the notion of 'high-fidelity' loses its meaning.

This is very very very very fundamental to the generalised task of recording/creating musical events (I don't even call them performances) for domestic two-channel reproduction.

 

[poppop]

Kinda on subject - and out of interest.

I take it that Bonamassa and other performers of this standard ie regularly touring the World, take the best sound techs with them?

Is there a "training" standard to which they all work or is it "Ive been a roadie and eventually migrate onto sound production? NOT meaning to be rude - I just have no idea!

Once the sound team is established my guess is that all venues are "set-up" in the same meticulous manner - not by ear, but by appropriate measurement? Are the sound/volume levels pre-set and controlled by the system or is the guy at the desk the ultimate arbiter and sets things to his liking?

Apologies if this is understood by most but I have no idea. I suppose Im wondering how much a live event can be influenced by different teams?

Steve.

 

[Chefren]

I dont believe this is possible.

A live acoustic sound, will never be reproduced through a loudspeaker.

A good representation of it, yes. But never sufficient to make you believe that the player was right there in front of you.

Why? I'm not saying I disagree, I'm just curious about why it can't be attained? Are loudspeakers and microphones so fundamentally flawed that they prevent this?

 

[Daniel Quinn]

After 2 glasses of red wine , if I close my eyes and listen to Springsteen's thunder road from his live box set on vinyl , I can 99% believe I am in the room it was recorded in , that is good enough for me

Sometimes my listening room even smells like a sweaty compact live venue .

 

[Paul R]

It's that psychoacoustic thing, again. Nobody knows for sure what numbers are relevant, in creating and sustaining the illusion of live music in the human brain. So we pursue transparency as the best guess. As you say, we really aren't there yet, despite achieving what, some would say, are pretty ideal sets of measurements.

We pursue transparency because that is a consequence of an ideal hifi. It's not a 'guess'. Whether it creates the 'illusion of live music in the human brain' is a complete irrelevance, that's a job delegated to your brain and the producers of the recording you are listening to.

I think the problem with your approach of making the system colour the sound in some way is that it will work wonderfully with some recordings and not with others, which is a recipe for ongoing dissatisfaction. Some people of course enjoy this as a hobby.

Paul

 

[Paul R]

It's not irrelevant since if that succeeds then we have the building blocks of a successful reproduction of a live event:

#1 We can record the instruments well enough.
#2 We have managed to move the recorded sound to the consumer via a media that doesn't destroy the sound recorded in #1 (pretty much a given since at least HD formats).
#3 It is possible to build a sound reproduction system to replay this recording in a convincing manner meaning good enough speakers etc. are available.

Google (or Bing...) 'Edison tone test'.

Paul

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

And my point (that you probably will consider sarcasm)

Not in the least.

… is that I can get goose bumps from listening to some of the 70's and 80's stuff on an old crappy Sony Walkman. The goose bumps have absolutely nothing to do with transparency, and everything to do with the stuff between my ears.

So, do we want to achieve maximum transparency, or maximum emotional impact? The problem with the latter is that there is no universal "gold standard" - it varies from person to person (and day to day).

I agree, particularly with this bit:

The goose bumps have absolutely nothing to do with transparency, and everything to do with the stuff between my ears.

The problem we have is that there are no metrics for achieving that. So transparency becomes the goal, because we don’t know what else to do.

The problem then becomes, in my view, that if we dismiss a less (technically) transparent item in favour of one which measures better (in terms of transparency as we currently define it), yet the less transparent item gives us more goose bumps, more of the time than the more transparent one, then we have let transparency become the master, rather than the servant.

By the way, apropos your comments on the other thread, I do agree that Oliver Sacks is interesting. I have two of his books, am currently part way through ‘Musicophilia’. I await the moment of epiphany you predict. I’ll let you know if it happens.

 

[darrenyeats]

I tried to show that the quest for (undefined) 'transparency' is ultimately a wild sheep chase (due to the uncontrolled and fundamentally flawed first and final steps, and due to the lack of appropriate standards).

Werner, I agree. I could probably warble on about this, but in short there are different ways of putting together a replay system. "Transparency" is certainly one valid way but I believe there are other valid ways too.

 

[cooky1257]

After hearing Rain may fall, Diamond Head and Uli Jon Roth at O2 Academy last night one thing was very apparent, sheer horse power, trouser flapping body shaking power.
Uli Jon Roth had the best sound/mix of the three with some stunningly clear wide band, wide dynamic range music(mono mix btw) the other two sounded small and compressed but really loud. I measured the spl at 95dB average(phone app).
There was some serious low freq sounds at play too.
My system at home can give a reasonable stab at this-I may eq my vlf to further reproduce that flapping effect ;-)

 

[Julf]

The problem we have is that there are no metrics for achieving that. So transparency becomes the goal, because we don’t know what else to do.

I would go one step further - there are no metrics because it varies from one person to another and one moment to another. The ones to figure it out are probably advertising people.

Transparency becomes a goal because it is the only reasonable general solution - the best we can do that will be the best for most people, most of the time.

The problem then becomes, in my view, that if we dismiss a less (technically) transparent item in favour of one which measures better (in terms of transparency as we currently define it), yet the less transparent item gives us more goose bumps, more of the time than the more transparent one, then we have let transparency become the master, rather than the servant.

But what if the less (technically) transparent item only gives goose bumps to a few people?

By the way, apropos your comments on the other thread, I do agree that Oliver Sacks is interesting. I have two of his books, am currently part way through ‘Musicophilia’. I await the moment of epiphany you predict. I’ll let you know if it happens.

Even if it doesn't happen, the books are worth reading . If you like Sacks, you probably like Daniel Levitin too - even more relevant for hi-fi (Levitin is a music producer and musician who went into neurology because he really wanted to understand why people hear what they do).

 

[Yank]

Kinda on subject - and out of interest.

I take it that Bonamassa and other performers of this standard ie regularly touring the World, take the best sound techs with them?

Is there a "training" standard to which they all work or is it "Ive been a roadie and eventually migrate onto sound production? NOT meaning to be rude - I just have no idea!

Once the sound team is established my guess is that all venues are "set-up" in the same meticulous manner - not by ear, but by appropriate measurement? Are the sound/volume levels pre-set and controlled by the system or is the guy at the desk the ultimate arbiter and sets things to his liking?

Apologies if this is understood by most but I have no idea. I suppose Im wondering how much a live event can be influenced by different teams?

There are some industry norms, but each artist's organization is different. Depending on the artist's stature, the FOH sound guy may be a trained professional with a good track record, some guy they found in the clubs, down to the drummer's cousin.

Some artists carry full production, some only carry backline and a console and use a local "PA Du Jour", some carry nothing. Setups can vary from line arrays dialed in to suit the room, to just hanging boxes from the truss and hoping for the best. Most of the big line array systems these days have workable factory processor settings, and all have prediction software so that you can set the array up to cover the room properly. Some users are better at interpreting the software than others. Some rooms are more difficult than others.

But do not assume that, because the FOH guy has his hands on the knobs, that what you're hearing is what he wants, sometimes there are constraints laid down by the artists or their management. I've talked to guys who have been forced to mix louder than they'd like, or always put the lead guitar over the lead vocals, because that's what they were told to do by the person who pays them.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

But what if the less (technically) transparent item only gives goose bumps to a few people?

Indeed. But I think this illustrates the validity of the subjective (ie individual and subjective) viewpoint, for the individual, rather than the universal, measurement-centric approach. It's like a bespoke suit, compared to off the peg.

Measurement, and transparency, should be a tool, a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Even if it doesn't happen, the books are worth reading . If you like Sacks, you probably like Daniel Levitin too - even more relevant for hi-fi

Absolutely! 'This is your brain on music' is excellent, a very good and thought-provoking read.

 

[cooky1257]

Please, not this head of a pin transparency crap again.

Just kidding, carry on it's fascinating.

 

[poppop]

There are some industry norms, but each artist's organization is different. Depending on the artist's stature, the FOH sound guy may be a trained professional with a good track record, some guy they found in the clubs, down to the drummer's cousin.

Some artists carry full production, some only carry backline and a console and use a local "PA Du Jour", some carry nothing. Setups can vary from line arrays dialed in to suit the room, to just hanging boxes from the truss and hoping for the best. Most of the big line array systems these days have workable factory processor settings, and all have prediction software so that you can set the array up to cover the room properly. Some users are better at interpreting the software than others. Some rooms are more difficult than others.

But do not assume that, because the FOH guy has his hands on the knobs, that what you're hearing is what he wants, sometimes there are constraints laid down by the artists or their management. I've talked to guys who have been forced to mix louder than they'd like, or always put the lead guitar over the lead vocals, because that's what they were told to do by the person who pays them.

Thanks Yank.

That's what I suspected the situation would be. I remember watching a documentary on Motorhead, and right from the off, Lemmy wanted everything set to 11!!

What I had hoped, was that because a major touring band's reputation relies so much on the sound, that professional guys fully trained and fully versed in both the requirements of the artist and also all the complexities of using todays equipment would be obligatory. And after all that, I guess if you've been on tour for weeks/months, there is the human element of "that's good enough"!

We pay guys to come and ensure the cables on an LP12 are bent the right way - the artist relies on a very complex sound system doing the same thing night after night in a variety of different "rooms"

cheers
Steve

 

[Werner]

Why? I'm not saying I disagree, I'm just curious about why it can't be attained? Are loudspeakers and microphones so fundamentally flawed that they prevent this?

Strictly speaking in the context of two-channel stereo, with the playback side in a domestic setting ...

In the grand scheme of things microphones can be made near-perfect, that's not the issue.

Loudspeakers are more of a problem. Today no-one even knows the requirements for the perfect loudspeaker, let alone that one can design for it. This is annoying and confusing.


The fundamental problem is with the (perceived) concept of 'high-fidelity'. 'Fidelity' is the troublemaker.

Fidelity to what, exactly?


Is the aim to transport the soundscape of a real event in a real music venue to the living room? Leaving aside practicalities of dynamics and of absolute sound levels, and the gross effect the latter has on the perceived tonal balance, this is still fundamentally impossible
over a decently-large population of recording venues, recording styles, and playback rooms. Some of the reasons are 1) two channels cannot convey a 3D sound field (despite hardcore 'philes illusions) and 2) the playback room is acoustically small, whereas a venue is large, meaning that the playback is royally ****ed up below 300Hz. There are other reasons as well.

Is the aim to transport the musicians to the living room? This can be done, conceptually, but it is not practical and it is not desirable. One could build a loudspeaker that copies the radiation pattern of a saxophone, and one could concoct a sax recording to feed to said speaker. The result will be a simulation of a sax in our room. The system breaks down when we want to hear a piano, and it gets ridiculous when we want to hear sax and piano together. Even so most of us would not be able to cope with a replica of real instruments in our rooms. The roof would come down. And even if that were not a problem, it would get hairy because the playback would not resemble any real-life (venue-based) event.


So if the aim of 'high-fidelity' is not to bring the musicians to our rooms, and if it routinely fails at transporting us to the music venues, than what the duck is the aim? When do we know we have attained it? And what does the fidelity thing have to do with it?

There are two ways out of this.

Either we really start persuing fidelity, meaning setting standards and starting controlling the sound field in the living room. (After which it will look no longer like a room to live in.)

Or we drop the masks and accept that the aim is subjective pleasure, and that all related decisions are, in se, subjective. A large majority of music producers and of music listeners will persue broadly similar ideas that gravitate to a commonly-accepted plausible rendition of an acoustic event. This is valid. Some will gravitate to more outside-field concepts of recording and replay. This too is valid.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Strictly speaking in the context of two-channel stereo, with the playback side in a domestic setting ...

Or we drop the masks and accept that the aim is subjective pleasure, and that all related decisions are, in se, subjective. A large majority of music producers and of music listeners will persue broadly similar ideas that gravitate to a commonly-accepted plausible rendition of an acoustic event. This is valid. Some will gravitate to more outside-field concepts of recording and replay. This too is valid.

Bravo! Completely agree. The hifi is the servant, not the master. Unless you're designing and building the stuff, the numbers should be irrelevant. What matters is whether the end result makes you enjoy your music. How you get to that place is entirely your (and your bank manager's) business.

 

[Julf]

Bravo! Completely agree. The hifi is the servant, not the master. Unless you're designing and building the stuff, the numbers should be irrelevant. What matters is whether the end result makes you enjoy your music. How you get to that place is entirely your (and your bank manager's) business.

Absolutely, as long as you don't claim your preference is "better", or justify it with pseudoscience.

We all know that the typical vinyl setup has limited and uneven frequency and dynamic range, a harmonic distortion of several % in higher frequencies, and a rumble and noise floor at something like -60 dB, but I might still like it, and totally understand that some people prefer it to a CD, despite the low distortion and superior dynamic range (theoretical - too bad modern producers and mastering engineers don't take advantage of it) of CD.

 

[Paul R]

Fidelity to what, exactly?

All we have is the recording. We can define an ideal replay system between the source material and the near field of the speaker. The orientation of the speakers, the style of the speaker's power response and dispersion etc. become a matter of convention subjectivity, and compromise.

Early recordings, most mono, binaural, for examples, all require different arrangements to what has become the convention for stereo, but the aforementioned 'ideal' remains.

Steve's stated aims would be better met with an effects rack than by messing about with valves, cables and all the other subjectivist paraphernalia. He'd be able to spend endless hours fiddling about for each of his recordings. Not my idea of fun.

Paul

 

[Mescalito]

Please, not this head of a pin transparency crap again.

Just kidding, carry on it's fascinating.

IMO, all transparency achieves is a level playing field. The goal is to ensure that any damage the system does to the signal is small enough to be inaudible.

It is then up to the individual listener to modify the signal to suit. But at least the kit is delivering what the artist/production team intended.

Chris

 

[adamdea]

Strictly speaking in the context of two-channel stereo, with the playback side in a domestic setting ...

In the grand scheme of things microphones can be made near-perfect, that's not the issue.

Loudspeakers are more of a problem. Today no-one even knows the requirements for the perfect loudspeaker, let alone that one can design for it. This is annoying and confusing.


The fundamental problem is with the (perceived) concept of 'high-fidelity'. 'Fidelity' is the troublemaker.

Fidelity to what, exactly?

I can see some wrinkles in it, but what about fidelity to the recording? That accepts that you are at least conceptually attempting to reproduce the notional mike feed. I accept that the speaker in the room messes around with all of that.

I'm in complete agreement though that one should be honest with oneself about what one is really looking for in terms of fidelity and pleasure.
There is a paradox at work here though- "fiddling around with things until they sound nice" doesn't sound like much of a hobby, let alone a quest. So whilst we might all be better off fiddling around with the signal till it sounds nice, there is an entrenched religious belief in one form or another held by most audio OCD types of every persuasion that things will only sound nice (or at least will only sound best) by being more faithful (whatever that means to them). And in order so be satisfying a change therefore has to persuade us that it is linked to improved fidelity.

Hence achieving a result by obviously messing around with the signal is a turn off- tonal change by cable swapping is ok but tonal change by graphic equaliser is bad. Who ever says I like NOS dacs because of the frequency droop? Who wants dsp to match vinyl? So strangely despite the knots it ties us up in, most people can't entirely dispense with the concept of fidelity and won't want to make a change unless they believe that it will enhance fidelity.

Strange isn't it how much ink is spilled about digital source components bearing in mind how much bigger a difference it will make to moving your speakers? But more difficult to persuade oneself that moving the speakers will make them more faithful. Why so few rows about speakers? Because we know they are a matter of taste.