-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
There is nothing holy about the signal
- Thread starter Keith_W
- Start date
We're just an iconoclastic bunch.
here's a recent gem .. just skip the 'linguistic misundestandings' and read the last paragraph. Goes like
Last edited:
Sgt. Ear Ache
Major Contributor
which is?
I voted "no it isn't", but I also greatly value system accuracy. The signal isn't "holy." But it is better than random guesswork.
Sgt. Ear Ache
Major Contributor
Sorry, I was referring to SINAD. Whether harmonic distortion sounds "good" or not is up to you I guess. That's a preference thing. Otoh, if you're going to try and claim that having some added harmonic distortion is "better" or "more musical" or "something that improves system SQ" in any sort of general sense rather than just a personal thing you happen to like, well we might have an issue.
I prefer to have as accurate a system as possible to provide a good basis or starting point. I do not want my system adding distortion or unknown frequency response aberrations. From that (hopefully) uncolored start I manipulate to my preference. I can listen as the artist intended, remembering it is not just the artist but also the mixing, mastering, and perhaps corporate input driving a frequency response that may or may not be what the artist actually intended. Decades ago when I had some (very limited) involvement in the process, mastering was a fuzzy target given the recording had to sound "ok" in systems from high-end home stereos to 8-track car players. It was my exposure to the circle of confusion long before I knew that term. It did teach me that adjusting the sound in my system to sound what I liked was not some sort of sin against the recording gods. In fact, most recordings were created IME/IMO to sound good on more modest systems and sound OK in the car, and were not EQ'd to sound great on a more accurate system.
My curve is close to the Harman curve with some tweaks. I do not listen as loudly as most mixers (or so I have been told) so have implemented the bass boost, but since my room is fairly well treated my high-frequency roll-off is milder than the basic Harman curve. From there it is up to the recordings, which I found to be all over the map, at least to my ears. Some seem way too "piercing" in the highs, others have very "boomy" bass. I'd love a simple bass/mid/treble set of tone controls I could easily change from the listening position. One of my frustrations with modern processors is that they have gone all-in on room correction and target curves, exhibiting tremendous processing capability, but don't offer a simple way for me to do just the basic "tweaks" I used to do all the time with my tone controls.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 48726
Guest
It was going so well until you decided on bashing The Super Fuzzbox..
It is though. It's used to rank it in the review where there are actual tiers like "poor" "great" etc.I know .. that's how I figured that the money line had a lot more success
Same time though, there is a lot of what I'd call "preference/fidelity police": holy signal, distortion suks etc...
Here's a 'funny' experiment:
- Go into the measurement thread of a 50-SINAD device and post something like "it sounds good to me". You'll get answers like "prove it" or "no way" or "DBT or it did not happen" or "you're hearing crickets" or the clasic "sucker likes distortion".
- Then go into the thread of a 120-SINAD device and say the exact same. Nobody asks for DBTs, everyone instantly believes that it sounds 'better' than your previous device, everyone congratulates you.
Why so? That THD-number is still not correlated with either audibility or preference. And both posts are just stating a very subjective preference.
Ain't that (a tiny bit) of double standards?
Of course you get people with pitchforks over that. Some should know better. I'd rather have the value and then a "audible" or "inaudible" designation than the tiers used..
true.
And who's most annoyed & vocal when their own oppinions/institutions are challeged: iconoclasts
Yeah. Frustrating. I can EQ bass humps just fine, thank you. Give me usable tone controls!
It's an expensive addition. But worth it!It was going so well until you decided on bashing The Super Fuzzbox..
Do you just hang around here to needle them? I mean, I guess somebody has to do it, but...true.
And who's most annoyed & vocal when their own oppinions/institutions are challeged: iconoclasts
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2021
- Messages
- 2,430
- Likes
- 4,228
Oh nice, who does not love a debate about epistemology!
The signal is just a prescription for how a sensory experience can be recreated. Without the reproduction equipment, it has no meaning on its own, in the same way a digital image has no meaning until a monitor that knows how to interpret the data converts it into light we can see. Problem with audio of course, is that the recording and reproduction parameters are not well defined. So there is no way to know what was the exact sonic experience intended. But then again, it probably does not matter since the objective of music, like any other art form, is to trigger thoughts and emotions, which it does most of the time, regardless of the curve you chose to tune your headphones or speakers; and for most of the people other than the odd audiophile who is more concerned about the transients of a cymbal then the actual song.
Having said that, in a world we can have reproduction equipment that can stay true to the source signal, I see no reason to leave the changes that will be introduced to the signal in the hands of badly designed electronic circuit or a speaker - I will gladly do that myself, as per my liking, with the DSP and the EQ.
The signal is just a prescription for how a sensory experience can be recreated. Without the reproduction equipment, it has no meaning on its own, in the same way a digital image has no meaning until a monitor that knows how to interpret the data converts it into light we can see. Problem with audio of course, is that the recording and reproduction parameters are not well defined. So there is no way to know what was the exact sonic experience intended. But then again, it probably does not matter since the objective of music, like any other art form, is to trigger thoughts and emotions, which it does most of the time, regardless of the curve you chose to tune your headphones or speakers; and for most of the people other than the odd audiophile who is more concerned about the transients of a cymbal then the actual song.
Having said that, in a world we can have reproduction equipment that can stay true to the source signal, I see no reason to leave the changes that will be introduced to the signal in the hands of badly designed electronic circuit or a speaker - I will gladly do that myself, as per my liking, with the DSP and the EQ.
Last edited:
*Nervously raises hand. But is unsure if his opinion is valid*
I have different answers according to what do you mean by 'signal'.
If signal means a particular unique recording, trying to replicate artistic intent, or the acoustic experience of those who made the recording...
I say heck no, not important. It's almost technically impossible to recreate the acoustic experience.
And imo, logically absurd to try to guess who's intents,....... artists, engineers, producers, financiers..... shaped the particular recording..
If signal means any recording or stimulus, and how well its acoustic output matches the electrical signal...
I say heck yes. Give me as accurate a transfer function as possible.
It's the best chance we have at hitting the center of the circle of confusion, and maximizing the probability that any particular recording will sound good.
But that's all we get....a great start at maximizing the probability that any random recording will sound good.
I see a house or target curve as an overlay on a flat transfer response, to increase the probability that any random recording will sound good, in our listening environment.
My house curve simply equals finding the best odds anything I play will sound good.
When that fixed house curve doesn't work and a recording still sounds tonally bad........I'm quick to apply tone controls to fix it to taste.
Most of the time sub level is all that's needed. But often enough to matter, HF/VHF can also need level adjustment.
My tonal adjustment method is, In addition to my "ground-zero" house/target curve, I also can make any number of house-curve presets. They basically change the degree of downward tilt, from the ground-zero curve.
Also keep a preset to reset to completely flat...no curves.
(Processor is super powerful and allows graphic presets to be created and named for easy recognition, on PC/touchscreen remotes...quick, easy, seamless switching.
How can it not ???
audio_tony
Addicted to Fun and Learning
My enthusiasm for 'good*' sound began in the mid 70's, when the only affordable EQ was a graphic equaliser.
I was always satisfied with the sound quality, and a few years later I discovered that the better the input signal, the better the system sounded.
Working in electronics, I ended up building most of my own gear, and at one time even constructed a pair of speakers here and there. When designing my own gear, I always ensured that there was more than enough bandwidth for the audio spectrum.
I experimented with a graphic equaliser over the years but as one would expect from the limited adjustment, never found any improvement.
Equalisers worked well in cars and that was about it for me.
I just prefer to leave the signal alone, and 'tune' (where necessary) the room to achieve 'good*' sound which I'm happy with.
*good = the sound I like.
I was always satisfied with the sound quality, and a few years later I discovered that the better the input signal, the better the system sounded.
Working in electronics, I ended up building most of my own gear, and at one time even constructed a pair of speakers here and there. When designing my own gear, I always ensured that there was more than enough bandwidth for the audio spectrum.
I experimented with a graphic equaliser over the years but as one would expect from the limited adjustment, never found any improvement.
Equalisers worked well in cars and that was about it for me.
I just prefer to leave the signal alone, and 'tune' (where necessary) the room to achieve 'good*' sound which I'm happy with.
*good = the sound I like.
that depends a lot on your (own & personal) definition of "better". Yours seems to be close to "better fidelity". Quite popular around here that definition ... but not necessarily anyone else's.
Pretty much every distortion study out there 'claims' exactly that: people often prefer extra HD/THD/SINAD and many call it "better" or "more musical" or "an audible improvement" (or whatever their definition of "better" is). It's just preference and de gustibus.
And IMO, we should not have "an issue" ..
Last edited:
The signal is holy and audibility is divine. Put scientifically validated audibility bands (20 - 60 yr old) on every graph where it is valid and stop the nonsense of things you cannot hear being important.
an excellent summary of ... all my looong posts
Just a small addition: that's also my definition of "better"
