Can You Trust Your Ears? By Tom Nousaine

[tomelex]

I've no objection to tone controls per se. If you want to adjust to personal taste and for wayward recordings then fine. A fixed tuned system to a sound, no.

The thing I found is that the more neutral my speakers have become, the less I have felt the need to bugger around with things like tone controls. Less recordings sound objectionable.

Yep, if you seek detail as an audible result of a linear system (as I do) then linear is the way to go, then salt and pepper to taste. The more different recordings from different artists etc sound different on your system the more detail and resolving it is, the more they sound similar the more colored your system is, in general. Nether one is correct for everybody as I think we can all agree here. One is more linear though, and in general you can't go too wrong with a linear system over time. A colored one tends to make folks keep searching for new colors.

Oh yeah, just remembering my days with the parametric equalizer and the smiley face setting. And how more often than not, as a young dude with particulariy keen HF hearing, cranking in some negative db on the treble control so I could stand to listen to the damn recording screeching away like a banshee. Oh yeah, and on those early CDs, they were awful screechy in the HF, but hey, bass and midrange to die for compared to turntables. You know, they should have added some HF emphasis on the recording side of the redbook standard, and some HF deemphasis on the playback side, thus able to record those lower level high frequencies with enough bits activated to reduce those distortions and maybe not need hardly any dithering, maybe none. Hindsight, how sweet it is.....nobody every asked me though!

 

[Don Hills]

HF pre-emphasis was part of the CD standard. It was rarely used though.

 

[j_j]

HF pre-emphasis was part of the CD standard. It was rarely used though.

Yes, but players were supposed to undo that. It was basically a form of very lightweight noise shaping.

 

[Blumlein 88]

 

[j_j]

to reduce those distortions and maybe not need hardly any dithering, maybe none.

Dither is required. It is not optional, and the amount of dither is very precise. This has nothing to do with noise shaping, which is what pre-emphasis/de-emphasis is.

Dither makes quantization into a linear process. Not an option. Not now, not ever, at least at 16 bits, and it's good practice at 24 bits.

With the dynamic range of CD's, coupled with the human sensitivity level at frequencies above 5kHz, there really isn't any issue there.

 

[Cosmik]

Disclaimer, not afraid to use tone controls, audio enhancers of all kinds, as add ins, when the mood suits me, but I want as clean a signal path I can get before I start playing as the mix and master engineer.

Audiophiles would never tolerate it. I think that they need to believe that if there are impurities in the playback, they are there because Steinway-grade artisanship has put them there for the reason of 'fleshing out' the overly clean, clinical recording.

And of course you can't really play mix and master engineer when you only have the composite recording. If the vocals are too screechy, you can't modify them without also modifying the guitar, piano, violins, etc. It's the audio soup idea: Of course you can season to taste if you don't mind everything being seasoned the same way.

 

[watchnerd]

Audiophiles would never tolerate it.

I dunno about that -- a huge number of McIntosh products have tone controls, often multiples.

 

[Frank Dernie]

McIntosh hasn't been considered audiophile equipment on this side of the pond in the last few decades.

 

[watchnerd]

McIntosh hasn't been considered audiophile equipment on this side of the pond in the last few decades.

I think of McIntosh the same way I think of Rolex.

To the outside world / newly moneyed, they're both "go to" upscale brands in their respective areas, but to the hair-shirted purists and insiders, they're considered mass market.

 

[amirm]

HF pre-emphasis was part of the CD standard. It was rarely used though.

I remember that indicator lighting up in one of my CDs way back in early 1980s when I bought my first CD player. I don't think I ever saw any other.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I think of McIntosh the same way I think of Rolex.

To the outside world / newly moneyed, they're both "go to" upscale brands in their respective areas, but to the hair-shirted purists and insiders, they're considered mass market.

I like your analogy, he said enjoying watching the tourbillon going round

 

[fas42]

And of course you can't really play mix and master engineer when you only have the composite recording. If the vocals are too screechy, you can't modify them without also modifying the guitar, piano, violins, etc. It's the audio soup idea: Of course you can season to taste if you don't mind everything being seasoned the same way.

Screechy vocals are an 'easy' fix - if that's the way they come across, it means that you're hearing playback distortions. You see, that's why you don't need measuring instruments to provide numbers - your ears are giving you plenty of useful information, already.

I was asked how to know when I have high enough quality - easy, peasy ... no screechy vocals, ever ...

 

[tomelex]

Dither is required. It is not optional, and the amount of dither is very precise. This has nothing to do with noise shaping, which is what pre-emphasis/de-emphasis is.

Dither makes quantization into a linear process. Not an option. Not now, not ever, at least at 16 bits, and it's good practice at 24 bits.

With the dynamic range of CD's, coupled with the human sensitivity level at frequencies above 5kHz, there really isn't any issue there.

Yes of course you are correct, I got carried away thinking I had come up with something new. aawh well, shux. Increasing the highs relative to the lows (like in vinyl) would decrease quantization error and therefore increase HF purity (which are generally smaller signals and so by digitals natural character more affected by bit depth) and by doing pre-emphasis you get a cleaner HF signal in the d to a process. etc as a result of that HF preemphasis you can interpolate it to get less quantization error at those HF, blah blah

 

[j_j]

Increasing the highs relative to the lows (like in vinyl) would decrease quantization error and therefore increase HF purity (which are generally smaller signals and so by digitals natural character more affected by bit depth) and by doing pre-emphasis you get a cleaner HF signal in the d to a process. etc as a result of that HF preemphasis you can interpolate it to get less quantization error at those HF, blah blah

The preemphasis changes the noise floor, is all, but the cost, of course, is that you can't get the same HF levels out of the recording. This can bite you very strongly with the wrong kind of percussion.

That may be one of the reasons that the preemphasis is rarely used, but more, I think, is the fact it doesn't actually matter with 96dB dynamic range.

 

[Analog Scott]

I have HF loss, probably always have. I blame Mother's genes or some unknown early life event.

I don't adjust the highs to compensate.

Why?

I suppose the stereo is intended to imitate 'real', and 'real' doesn't get a boost, so, measurably flat is what I go with. Sounds right to me.

Depends on the "real." And this is my beef with the idea that "real" or "the absolute sound" is a meaningful reference. "Real" most certainly does get a boost in some halls and a roll off in others. "Real" can be offensively bright or dull. Real can sound wonderful and it can sound aweful and everything in between. And not everyone likes the same flavors of "real."

 

[Analog Scott]

? You are not tuning it to flat, you are achieving fidelity to the input signal. A good speaker does this. Would you buy a CD player with a skewed non flat frequency response? No you wouldnt. Why are you so keen to have a speaker with a non flat / smooth on axis response (and certainly worse off axis) ? I am very intrigued as to why you obviously think that a neutral speaker with a flat on axis and smooth off axis response response would sound bad?

Regarding hearing loss compensation see the comments above from Ray etc. BTW I am a qualified noise officer (occupational health), so know a little about it.

Have you watched the video that I linked to of Floyd Toole lecture? It really is worth an hour of your time. I'm not going to spend any more time arguing with your dogma because you arent going to take on board what I say. The information is there if you so choose to partake of it. Floyds book which I also linked to is also essential reading.

I have ordered the book. I have watched about 5 minutes of the video. I found a lot of the first 5 minutes very problematic. This premise that he states has a huge problem.
“Sound production: the performance is the objective.” “Sound Reproduction: reconstructing a captured performance. The goal is to do so with minimal change thereby preserving the art”
There is no sound "reproduction" in stereo recording and playback. It is not reproduction. It is an attempt at an aural illusion of reproduction from a chosen perspective. There no attempt to literally recreate the original waveform in another space. And to make that kind of a snafu assumption as the premise of one's audio philosophy is IMO a huge red flag. I would also like to know how they feel it is possible to compare speakers in mono from the same exact position in one room given the diversity of speaker designs out there and the wide array of radiation patterns from various designs. Is it reasonable to assume that all radiation patterns work equally well in all envirements?

By the way, not sure why you are saying I am "so keen to have a speaker that is non flat." Never said that. I have simply expressed skepticism in regards to the idea that greater measured accuary in all forms is so universally prefered even regardless of source material which is almost always pretty colored to begin with. I have never said "a neutral speaker with a flat on axis and smooth off axis response response would sound bad." If you are going to try to represent my ideas I suggest you use quotes and context from which they are taken. For the sake of "accuracy"

 

[Analog Scott]

Doing that may make something sound the way you heard it when you were 20, if you can remember, but nothing like your every day experience, since you hear real life events with your actual hearing as it is now.

We can't remember how we heard things a few hours ago much less how we did a few decades ago.

If you want a hifi to sound something like you listen to live any attempt to correct for hearing loss since an earlier age will guarantee that it does not.

I think this is where audiophiles go into the forrest and only see the trees. I want my audio playback to sound good. The better it sounds the better it is. I am not worried about whether or not it sounds like I hear live or not. "Live" comes in many flavors and when it comes to live I want the same thing as I do from playback. I want them both to sound good. This whole idea of trying to get audio to sound like live with no discussion about the quality of live music should tell you something. I don't see any reason to judge playback any differently than the way I judge live music in terms of pure sound quality. And I don't need any reference to judge the sound quality of live music. I can judge it on it's own aesthetic qualities. And I can do the same for audio.

 

[Sal1950]

I think this is where audiophiles go into the forrest and only see the trees. I want my audio playback to sound good. The better it sounds the better it is. I am not worried about whether or not it sounds like I hear live or not. "Live" comes in many flavors and when it comes to live I want the same thing as I do from playback. I want them both to sound good. This whole idea of trying to get audio to sound like live with no discussion about the quality of live music should tell you something. I don't see any reason to judge playback any differently than the way I judge live music in terms of pure sound quality. And I don't need any reference to judge the sound quality of live music. I can judge it on it's own aesthetic qualities. And I can do the same for audio.

That's all well and good, but it might not be, and probably isn't, High Fidelity.
Wither a system has the ability to sound "live" or not depends more on the recording than anything. But if the recording was done in a manner that the clues to sounding real have been captured, then the most accurate system will have the best chance of reproducing that live event and any "tuning" to make the kit sound "good" can only subtract from the end result.

 

[Cosmik]

There is no sound "reproduction" in stereo recording and playback. It is not reproduction. It is an attempt at an aural illusion of reproduction from a chosen perspective. There no attempt to literally recreate the original waveform in another space.

So if a piece of music comprises someone 'playing' a sine wave generator (perhaps it comes from the BBC's Radiophonic Workshop ) would you say that it's quite important that the system doesn't turn the sine wave into a square wave - if the intention of the piece is to come through intact?

 

[Analog Scott]

That's all well and good, but it might not be, and probably isn't, High Fidelity.
Wither a system has the ability to sound "live" or not depends more on the recording than anything. But if the recording was done in a manner that the clues to sounding real have been captured, then the most accurate system will have the best chance of reproducing that live event and any "tuning" to make the kit sound "good" can only subtract from the end result.

1. I don't care if someone else thinks it's hig fidelity or not.
2. I'm not so worried about a recording sounding "live" or not.
3. I'm quite certain that no system "reproduces" that live event because that isn't what stereo recording and playback does or is designed to do.
4. I am just as certain that if any recording and playback system were capable of creating an aural illusion that was absolutely accurate to what one would have heard from a particular seat at a live event that it would not always even be a good thing much less ideal.
5. "Addition" to or "subtraction" from the end result is still a matter of personal preference. One may very well prefer the most "accurate" system but it is still preference

One question I just gotta ask all the folks that are absolutely convinced that any and all distortions of the signal that comes off the master tape will lead to subjectively inferior sound based on the research by Toole and Olive what about cross talk? Added cross talk is a distortion is it not? Is that also always a bad thing in any form after the signal leaves the tape and begins it's journey to our ears? How about compression or dynamic expansion? These are distortions. Are they always bad once the signal starts it's way from the source recording?