"Things that cannot be measured"

[mansr]

I like this term:”My-Fi”

 

[Inner Space]

You have re-described, in part, Floyd Toole's "Circle of Confusion" for which, afaik, there is no solution. What is your solution?

With respect to you and Dr. Toole, the solution is to understand that the circle of confusion never existed. The notion implies that engineers create a recording that sounds perfect in their pro rooms, with the expectation that it will sound equally good in consumers' rooms, with subsequent puzzlement when it doesn't.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I have been making records since 1977, and have never, ever seen anyone work like that. Even back then, and certainly more and more now, the task is to make an educated guess in order to aim at a moving target, in terms of a huge variety of domestic equipment, and ever-shifting use cases and listener preferences. Very often the recording sounds pretty bad in the pro room, but the hope is it will sound good in most homes, most of the time, on most devices currently marketed, and mostly the result is successful.

There are failures too, of course, but to blame them on the circle of confusion is far too simplistic. Every engineer knows full well no one will be listening on gear similar to their own. They take a shot in the dark, with experience, expertise and instinct, and they mostly hit the target, or get pretty close to it. It's also important to remember that the target itself is nowhere near what folks on sites like these care about. In the old days it was about suitcase record players and AM radio, and now it's about soundbars and home pods and earbuds. An engineer who produced exclusively for Mr. A.S.R. Member with Genelecs in his treated room would be fired after his first release.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Well respected mastering engineers are pretty consistent in the quality they deliver. It's their area of expertise.

Agreed but is the delivered product "pretty consistent" among respected mastering engineers? I suspect not.

With respect to you and Dr. Toole, the solution is to understand that the circle of confusion never existed. The notion implies that engineers create a recording that sounds perfect in their pro rooms, with the expectation that it will sound equally good in consumers' rooms, with subsequent puzzlement when it doesn't.

Nope. What I understand is that most do the best they can (and I respect them for that) but the "Circle of Confusion" says that the result will never sound the same (under the present circumstances) anywhere else but in the original mastering studio. The corollary of that is that (under present circumstances) we cannot do anything in the home to hear through to the original performance. All we can try to do is not add more confusion/distortion/noise to the signal chain with poorly performing equipment and/or incompetent setup.

Of course, all that has nothing to do with personal taste and one is certainly free to cater to that, if one chooses.

 

[Inner Space]

Nope. What I understand is that most do the best they can (and I respect them for that) but the "Circle of Confusion" says that the result will never sound the same (under the present circumstances) anywhere else but in the original mastering studio.

My point was that the result isn't supposed to sound the same anywhere else. What leaves the mastering studio is a functional best-guess amalgam that is supposed to sound satisfactory on a vast array of potential consumer choices. No engineer expects anyone to hear the same as what leaves the desk. Not in their wildest dreams. Hence the "circle of confusion" is a customer invention, not a reality.

The corollary of that is that (under present circumstances) we cannot do anything in the home to hear through to the original performance.

We need to give up this fantasy of hearing through to the original performance. It has never happened and never will. Recording and replay is hopelessly compromised, even at its best, and it's a minor miracle that the result can be as pleasant as it often is. That it can be pleasant on both earbuds and serious ASR-style systems is a major miracle, and a testament to the talent and ingenuity in the industry.

 

[ahofer]

In the old days it was about suitcase record players and AM radio, and now it's about soundbars and home pods and earbuds. An engineer who produced exclusively for Mr. A.S.R. Member with Genelecs in his treated room would be fired after his first release.

More’s the pity. Now that music can be distributed on-line, one hopes they might release this sort of stuff in MP3, and a higher dynamic-range recording in redbook/hi-res. You can see from the Tidal/Amazon tiering that people will pay for it.

I wonder if the advent of noise-cancelling headphones changes the calculus at all?

 

[Axo1989]

My point was that the result isn't supposed to sound the same anywhere else. What leaves the mastering studio is a functional best-guess amalgam that is supposed to sound satisfactory on a vast array of potential consumer choices. No engineer expects anyone to hear the same as what leaves the desk. Not in their wildest dreams. Hence the "circle of confusion" is a customer invention, not a reality.

We need to give up this fantasy of hearing through to the original performance. It has never happened and never will. Recording and replay is hopelessly compromised, even at its best, and it's a minor miracle that the result can be as pleasant as it often is. That it can be pleasant on both earbuds and serious ASR-style systems is a major miracle, and a testament to the talent and ingenuity in the industry.

I tend to skip ahead to the next paragraph/post when the circle is invoked. I get the point but don't need it belaboured. For Mr Rubinson and others in the give me classical or give me death crew, there usually is a performance to compare to (or a mental model to invoke based on audio memory of similar performances). I imagine that's where the obsession originates. There are choices between on-stage, front row, mid-hall etc sonics even there. I often prefer close-miked sound but I'm not a classical enthusiast in any case.

For music I do like, there is quite often no overall performance to speak of, just an assembly process. I think musical taste and equipment evolve together in several ways. Certain electronic pieces sound pretty ordinary on ubiquitous soundbars and stand-alone bluetooth devices, but fascinating on a good stereo system. We tend to select music that sounds good on our systems, and acquire systems that suit the music we like. Headphones would be the best systems most people experience, I imagine they are the usual target (various capabilities there too, of course).

 

[Kal Rubinson]

My point was that the result isn't supposed to sound the same anywhere else. What leaves the mastering studio is a functional best-guess amalgam that is supposed to sound satisfactory on a vast array of potential consumer choices. No engineer expects anyone to hear the same as what leaves the desk. Not in their wildest dreams. Hence the "circle of confusion" is a customer invention, not a reality.

If you are implying that such recordings are compromised to sound mediocre on all systems in order not to sound really bad on any, that is not my experience. The vast majority of what I like to listen to sounds better on better systems and is unlistenable on mediocre players. They cannot handle the dynamic range with low level detail disappearing, high levels distorting and tonal balance awry. Yes, there are some that sound poorly on a wide range of playback systems (due to unusual performance or production constraint or, imply, because of their antiquity) but which I easily tolerate because of their unique musical content.

Please ..... please tell me: why I should care what the result sounded like in the original master studio? I'm serious.

Because we, excuse me, I want to get as close to the live experience as possible and the sound on the released product has been passed through the mastering studio and, usually, for good reason. Of course, if you listen to music for which there is no live event, the only goal is subjective and personal satisfaction. I can enjoy those, too, but I tend to listen differently.

That it can be pleasant on both earbuds and serious ASR-style systems is a major miracle,

Ah. Now you have caught me out. IMHO, nothing sounds pleasant to me on earbuds.

 

[ahofer]

Gauguin looked at Tahiti, and then he painted. Everyone says those paintings are masterpieces. No one says that we should be able to "look through" the painting to see the original subjects.

I don’t really get this. If someone made a reproduction of a Gauguin, you’d want it to be like the original. Isn’t the performance the Gauguin, or the Ansel Adams photograph, in our analogies here?

 

[Axo1989]

I don’t really get this. If someone made a reproduction of a Gauguin, you’d want it to be like the original. Isn’t the performance the Gauguin, or the Ansel Adams photograph, in our analogies here?

Yes. And if we colourised the Ansel Adams, or rendered the Gaugin in black & white, that would be a re-mix.

 

[Blumlein 88]

No. The Gauguin painting and the Adams photo are what we call "the recording". The performance is what Gauguin and Adams originally saw. Those are irretrievably lost to us. Of course, we should not fret; they were irretrievably lost to Gauguin and Adams, too. The recording is, however, a feat in its own right, as are the Gauguin and the Adams. And they are all quite enjoyable to many of us. As imperfect as they may (or may not) be, would not the world be a poorer place without them?

The same goes with recordings. Jim

NO, a big NO!

Adams and Gauguin were artists. The product is them showing you something thru their personal lens which is the art of it. Gauguin and Adams are not recording.

Some record producers may be or consider themselves artists especially if they do music for which there is no original acoustic event. Like say Pink Floyd. With good classic recordings or chamber music or many other acoustic events, the art is in the music and the musician and the recording people are trying to do a good job of rendering that in a way the art gets through to the consumer buying the recording. At least that seems to be the case with the best of recordings.

 

[ahofer]

No. The Gauguin painting and the Adams photo are what we call "the recording". The performance is what Gauguin and Adams originally saw. Those are irretrievably lost to us. Of course, we should not fret; they were irretrievably lost to Gauguin and Adams, too. The recording is, however, a feat in its own right, as are the Gauguin and the Adams. And they are all quite enjoyable to many of us. As imperfect as they may (or may not) be, would not the world be a poorer place without them?

The same goes with recordings. Jim

Thanks for clarifying. I disagree energetically. An artist creates an original work based on his impressions (of something he sees or feels, or a combination thereof). That artist is Ansel Adams or Gauguin, not God creating human form or the land. That *work* is what we seek to reproduce with audio reproduction technology, not artistic tools, Nobody is creating original works of art with their DAC.

Beethoven’s and Mahler’s feelings of impending mortality in their 9th symphonies are not ours, they are “irretrievably lost”. But the composition, and Bernstein’s conducted performance thereof, are there to be accurately reproduced, to the extent possible, by DACs, Speakers, and amps. Re-mixing is the job of other technologies.

In this world you describe, we‘re all DJ/rappers sampling, scratching, and talking over someone else’s performance.

 

[Chrispy]

Thanks for clarifying. I disagree energetically. An artist creates an original work based on his impressions (of something he sees or feels, or a combination thereof). That artist is Ansel Adams or Gauguin, not God creating human form or the land. That *work* is what we seek to reproduce with audio reproduction technology, not artistic tools, Nobody is creating original works of art with their DAC.

Beethoven’s and Mahler’s feelings of impending mortality in their 9th symphonies are not ours, they are “irretrievably lost”. But the composition, and Bernstein’s conducted performance thereof, are there to be accurately reproduced, to the extent possible, by DACs, Speakers, and amps. Re-mixing is the job of other technologies.

In this world you describe, we‘re all DJ/rappers sampling, scratching, and talking over someone else’s performance.

Then again some "artists" only slightly change someone else's art and call it their own....

 

[maverickronin]

...and we've collapsed into an analogy singularity again...

 

[maverickronin]

Yeah. Maybe it would be best if I just went back and deleted everything that I posted. That way, someone reading this part of the thread won't get bogged down in the mess. Watcha think? Jim

I was about to jump in too and start defining some kind of spectrum aligning various styles of the visual arts with genres of music.

Then I remembered all the previous times I'd done something similar on a forum and ended up having to "defend" points I considered ancillary, irrelevant, or just not considered because no analogy is perfect.

 

[Axo1989]

I was about to jump in too and start defining some kind of spectrum aligning various styles of the visual arts with genres of music.

Then I remembered all the previous times I'd done something similar on a forum and ended up having to "defend" points I considered ancillary, irrelevant, or just not considered because no analogy is perfect.

Visual art doesn't have the temporal aspect that music cannot really avoid, so analogies (to performance, recording etc) often break down. I'd compare visual art to studio work rather than live performance, for example. You can use descriptors common to visual art movements and styles with some success. Music can be expressionist, constructivist, minimalist and so on (somewhat tangential to the discussion here).

 

[MattHooper]

What the various engineers may or may not have heard is completely immaterial. the only artefact is the record, all I want to do is reproduce that file as accurately as possible.
Keith

Why?

 

[MattHooper]

(My replies are, like the posts I've quoted, taking it as "granted for the sake of this argument" that someone is adding audible distortion in his system)

Trying to add salt and pepper by buying kit that distorts in a way we like is a recipe for failure.

Not necessarily. I think that may be to firmly from your perspective, as it seems a great many audiophiles have derived great satisfaction from adding what you might consider "kit that distorts" (e.g. tube amps, vinyl, maybe non-neutral speakers, or whatever you might have in mind).
I've owned my tube amps for 23 years - they have been a recipe for satisfaction. I've never needed any EQ to fiddle with.

Just today I was listening to my friend's high end system, all driven by solid state and it sounded very impressive in many ways. But I sure was glad to get back to my system at home which was much more tuned to my taste (my combo of speakers/amps etc).

I don’t understand why spending an enormous amount of money to add exactly the same amount of salt to every dish every time is better than a little money to season each dish to taste.

Certainly a reasonable question. I'm not sure exactly what would be an "enormous amount of money" or what precisely you are referring to. But I could have found a cheaper solid state amp than my Conrad Johnson tube monoblock amps. So if we just take for sake of argument that with the tube amps (which to me sound different from the solid state amps I've used) I've gone and added "the same amount of salt to every dish" in your analogy: I find they add a character that I like on all music. I never not want it in the system. It completely saved me from ever fiddling with EQ. I had a Z-Systems RDP-1 equalizer in my system for almost as long and never felt the need to use it. I don't want to fiddle with EQ per song, I like the set-and-forget solution I find in my tube amps (and I personally was not able to re-create the exact tube amp sound with the parametric EQ).

But when I buy equipment that has distortions of whatever sort baked in, what damage does it do to the exceptionally clean recording next to the example CD on my shelf? Maybe I think that is better, too, because 1.) I’ve never actually heard that clean recording in all its transparency because I’ve always played it through my preferred distortions, and 2.) I’ve lost touch with what “clean” actually sounds like.

Your view and approach on this (like many others here) seems perfectly reasonable to me!

But just to address the portion quoted, from my perspective: I have indeed heard a great many "exceptionally clean recordings" on my system using both solid state gear (e.g. Bryston and Benchmark) and tube amplification, and I have still overall preferred what I felt the tube amplification added to the sound. (Not in absolutely every case, but in by far the most cases. And again, given the question is "why would anyone want to add audible distortion?" let's assume for the sake of argument I'm hearing audible distortion with my tube gear).).

For instance, recently I have brought a Benchmark LA4 pre-amp in to my system which has taken the place of my CJ tube preamp.
Just like when I substituted a Bryston amp for my CJ tube amps, I perceive the Benchmark preamp as cleaner, more neutral, more precise than my CJ preamp. Instrumental timbre is a teeny bit less generalized, more nuanced, same with the finest details of reverbs/acoustics, etc.

So why in the world would I still even consider the CJ preamp? Because even though it does seem "additive," even though there is a teeny bit more generalization, the overall effect to my ears is "more natural, vivid, life-like." Singers sound more present, more filled out, more solid, a bit more human, saxes and trumpets have that illusive "vivid" yet "relaxed" quality, and on and on. It's just damned engaging, to me. But, as I've said before, it leaves all the elements of the music, production, effects, mixing intact. The distortion added is so teeny relative to the vast amount of sonic information that differentiates each recording. Having gone back and forth many times between the SS and tube amplification, it's all there with the tubes as well. So for me it's close to the best of both worlds: I'm adding a tiny bit of flavor that has a substantial subjective impact in my listening satisfaction, but without the penalty of "making everything sound the same." Not by a long shot. Just like most here, my system still reveals far more of the nature of recordings than the "average joe's" sound system.

(BTW I haven't yet decided which pre-amp is staying in my system, but I am really enjoying the Benchmark!)

 

[Purité Audio]

Why?

Fidelity ‘the degree of exactness with which something is copied or reproduced.’
Thought that might be obvious.
Keith

 

[Geert]

Why?

Because you can't fix the circle of confusion with adding more confusion.

 

[Axo1989]

What the various engineers may or may not have heard is completely immaterial. the only artefact is the record, all I want to do is reproduce that file as accurately as possible.

Because you can't fix the circle of confusion with adding more confusion.

If all you have is the recording you can’t break the circle.