Are you Euphonophile?

[andreasmaaan]

As I said before: if, in the 'science', the system deviates from neutral before the distortion is applied, then preference for distortion of the signal is not being tested. If all the tests were done with Kii Threes or D&D 8C I might be persuaded that it was attempting to be more scientific, but even they are not completely neutral.

And then there are other human factors: who chooses the musical examples; at what volume; how do you know people are not just responding to novelty, etc. This isn't science, but just casting around randomly without any theoretical justification. You may as well try scrambling the signal, distorting that, and then descrambling it. Or do sum-and-difference on the stereo, distort those, and then restore the L-R channels. Digitise the signals and pass them through a magic lookup table with 'golden ratio' properties. Etc.

Well all systems deviate from neutrality. And the problems you list to do with experimental choices apply to any listening test. Does this make any listening test absolutely futile then? What's special about testing for distortion preference as opposed to testing for any other preference? Do you believe there's no place for science when it comes to determining listener preferences?

Also, do you guys who are so against it ever mix or produce music? Maybe the idea that a listener might prefer added distortion makes a lot more intuitive sense to me because so many times I've added compression, EQ, saturation, harmonic distortion etc. etc. to a mix and heard the subjective improvement.

Or perhaps because doing this makes one aware of how much deliberate distortion is added to almost every recorded signal that's ever gone through your stereo system in the first place.

 

[Wombat]

Well all systems deviate from neutrality. And the problems you list to do with experimental choices apply to any listening test. Does this make any listening test absolutely futile then? What's special about testing for distortion preference as opposed to testing for any other preference? Do you believe there's no place for science when it comes to determining listener preferences?

Also, do you guys who are so against it ever mix or produce music? Maybe the idea that a listener might prefer added distortion makes a lot more intuitive sense to me because so many times I've added compression, EQ, saturation, harmonic distortion etc. etc. to a mix and heard the subjective improvement.

Or perhaps because doing this makes one aware of how much deliberate distortion is added to almost every recorded signal that's ever gone through your stereo system in the first place.

Maybe that is why I prefer 'live' music and 'live' soundboard recordings to sterile studio manipulated stuff.

 

[watchnerd]

When listening to vinyl, with a transducer at each end of the chain (cartridge, speakers), and the derth of cartridge measurements in the world, I find it incredibly hard to define a reference and objective standards for what is good.

 

[Wombat]

If you weren't there how can you compare? If you were there how can you accurately remember the circumstance? Then, can it be accurately reproduced for the HiFi listener in their own environment. Not as well as many seem to expect. But it feeds endless audio opinions on forums. The search for the holy home audio grail is alive, even if it doesn't exist.

 

[svart-hvitt]

If you weren't there how can you compare? If you were there how can you accurately remember the circumstance? Then can it be accurately reproduced for the HiFi listener in their own environment. Not well, but it feeds endless audio opinions on forums. The search for the holy home audio grail is alive even if it doesn't exist. View attachment 14938

It exists. Don’t you see it?

 

[Wombat]

It exists. Don’t you see it?

Nope.

 

[Cosmik]

Well all systems deviate from neutrality.

Hmm. The best you can do? All components, including memory chips and digital cables probably make tiny, tiny, tiny differences in a system, but the general idea is above that low level consideration.

And the problems you list to do with experimental choices apply to any listening test. Does this make any listening test absolutely futile then? What's special about testing for distortion preference as opposed to testing for any other preference? Do you believe there's no place for science when it comes to determining listener preferences?

What I learned about science in the other thread is that, at the top of the discussion, "Science is the jewel of The Enlightenment", "the only way of understanding the world", "the most important of man's achievements" etc. etc. But as I drill down with awkward examples of where science appears to be drawing objective conclusions from subjective claims, then science turns into a game of cleverly worded conclusions that allow the reader to read into them what they feel like reading into them. In the end, as I recall, we came down to "It's science if you do an experiment and report it". So what if a claim that people prefer distorted waveforms might just be to do with familiarity or novelty, or a rubbish audio system to start with? We did an experiment, people voted with a slight preference for 'mild fuzzbox', and we reported those results accurately. It is up to the reader to draw wider conclusions. But in the meantime, we will be happy if our experiment appears in magazines with the headline "SETs sound better than solid state" because people will notice us.

Also, do you guys who are so against it ever mix or produce music? Maybe the idea that a listener might prefer added distortion makes a lot more intuitive sense to me because so many times I've added compression, EQ, saturation, harmonic distortion etc. etc. to a mix and heard the subjective improvement.

Yes, but that's a creative, deliberate decision, not a wish for a magic box to automatically imbue recordings with magic. Also, you probably have access to the individual tracks, feeds, 'stems' and can be selective about where and when the distortion is added.

Or perhaps because doing this makes one aware of how much deliberate distortion is added to almost every recorded signal that's ever gone through your stereo system in the first place.

So why aren't you happy with it and want to add more?

 

[Cosmik]

Also, do you guys who are so against it ever mix or produce music? Maybe the idea that a listener might prefer added distortion makes a lot more intuitive sense to me because so many times I've added compression, EQ, saturation, harmonic distortion etc. etc. to a mix and heard the subjective improvement.

Could be worth a thread on its own. I do sometimes wonder at the seemingly unlimited interest in processing audio in studios. As a musician, if I feel the music needs some emphasis in the bass at a particular moment, I'll play the bass notes a bit harder. As a result they're louder, but also sound different and are timed differently.

As a producer, (a) why would I think the bass notes need emphasising? Am I 'qualified'? (b) Can I emphasise them in a musically meaningful way by distorting the signal? (c) Is the processing bleeding into other areas of the recording? (d) The moment has gone. Is it possible to inject 'emotion' into a performance after it has happened, using a plug-in?

Is the result confusion for the listener and a breaking of the 'integrity' of the music? I think so. A friend of mine routinely sends his recordings to freelance producers to have magic dust sprinkled on them and, to be honest, while they sound super-slick and sophisticated, I prefer his rough mixes before he sends them away.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Hmm. The best you can do? All components, including memory chips and digital cables probably make tiny, tiny, tiny differences in a system, but the general idea is above that low level consideration.

It’s not “the best I can do” as you know from reading my other posts. What’s important is not whether the test system departs from neutrality, but whether it is transparent. If your point is that in a particular experiment the test system is not transparent, then that would be a legitimate criticism.

What I learned about science in the other thread is that, at the top of the discussion, "Science is the jewel of The Enlightenment", "the only way of understanding the world", "the most important of man's achievements" etc. etc. But as I drill down with awkward examples of where science appears to be drawing objective conclusions from subjective claims, then science turns into a game of cleverly worded conclusions that allow the reader to read into them what they feel like reading into them. In the end, as I recall, we came down to "It's science if you do an experiment and report it". So what if a claim that people prefer distorted waveforms might just be to do with familiarity or novelty, or a rubbish audio system to start with? We did an experiment, people voted with a slight preference for 'mild fuzzbox', and we reported those results accurately. It is up to the reader to draw wider conclusions. But in the meantime, we will be happy if our experiment appears in magazines with the headline "SETs sound better than solid state" because people will notice us.

It’s not science if you merely do an experiment and report it. It is science if it tests a falsifiable hypothesis under properly controlled conditions (and is repeatable).

And the science at least suggests that most listeners prefer types and levels of distortion greater than that present on a range of recorded music signals. The question why hasn’t been attempted to be answered experimentally AFAIK, but it would be an interesting line of research IMO.

Yes, but that's a creative, deliberate decision, not a wish for a magic box to automatically imbue recordings with magic. Also, you probably have access to the individual tracks, feeds, 'stems' and can be selective about where and when the distortion is added.

So why aren't you happy with it and want to add more?

This isn’t about what i want and it isn’t about magic. It’s about pretty legitimate evidence that more distortion than that present in recordings is a widespread preference. That’s all.

 

[Wombat]

It’s not “the best I can do” as you know from reading my other posts. What’s important is not whether the test system departs from neutrality, but whether it is transparent. If your point is that in a particular experiment the test system is not transparent, then that would be a legitimate criticism.



It’s not science if you merely do an experiment and report it. It is science if it tests a falsifiable hypothesis under properly controlled conditions (and is repeatable).

And the science at least suggests that most listeners prefer types and levels of distortion greater than that present on a range of recorded music signals. The question why hasn’t been attempted to be answered experimentally AFAIK, but it would be an interesting line of research IMO.



This isn’t about what i want and it isn’t about magic. It’s about pretty legitimate evidence that more distortion than that present in recordings is a widespread preference. That’s all.

Maybe it is a certain amount of distortion over 'clean' that is preferred by some, rather than in addition to what is present in recordings.

Do listeners of dark metal prefer added distortion or is there enough present?

 

[andreasmaaan]

Could be worth a thread on its own. I do sometimes wonder at the seemingly unlimited interest in processing audio in studios. As a musician, if I feel the music needs some emphasis in the bass at a particular moment, I'll play the bass notes a bit harder. As a result they're louder, but also sound different and are timed differently.

As a producer, (a) why would I think the bass notes need emphasising? Am I 'qualified'? (b) Can I emphasise them in a musically meaningful way by distorting the signal? (c) Is the processing bleeding into other areas of the recording? (d) The moment has gone. Is it possible to inject 'emotion' into a performance after it has happened, using a plug-in?

Is the result confusion for the listener and a breaking of the 'integrity' of the music? I think so. A friend of mine routinely sends his recordings to freelance producers to have magic dust sprinkled on them and, to be honest, while they sound super-slick and sophisticated, I prefer his rough mixes before he sends them away.

The sound of your bass note as it’s captured by the microphone(s) is not the same as the sound you hear through your two ears when you play it. Processing the recorded note (ie distorting the signal) does not necessarily take it closer to or further away from the acoustic event you intended to create in playing it.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Maybe it is a certain amount of distortion over 'clean' that is preferred by some, rather than in addition to what is present in recordings.

Do listeners of dark metal prefer added distortion or is there enough present?

Don’t know about dark metal listeners in particular But agree with your general point.

 

[maverickronin]

Maybe it is a certain amount of distortion over 'clean' that is preferred by some, rather than in addition to what is present in recordings.

Do listeners of dark metal prefer added distortion or is there enough present?

I don't like death metal on those kinds of systems. It's already very harmonically "busy" as is with all the guitar effects. Adding more usually makes it soupy and indistinct.

 

[Cosmik]

The sound of your bass note as it’s captured by the microphone(s) is not the same as the sound you hear through your two ears when you play it. Processing the recorded note (ie distorting the signal) does not necessarily take it closer to or further away from the acoustic event you intended to create in playing it.

But whatever is captured and replayed is consistent with what went before and what follows. If I shift seat at a performance, the sound at my ears changes compared to the other seat, but it becomes a new, consistent baseline against which I judge the performance. If I have a haircut before the performance it will change my HRTF compared to last time. Humid air will attenuate frequencies differently from dry air. And for sure, no system is neutral, no system is transparent, no recording captures everything perfectly - can't we just assume that implicitly?

But, against a stable 'baseline' that's as close as we can get to hearing the performance, if I introduce another factor, not present at the time of the recording, such as notes getting louder even though their timing hasn't changed, we have a new, disconnected aspect to the 'performance'. That change isn't relevant, and in the case of an automatic effects box no human was directly involved in it. We are listening to the autonomous musical performance abilities of a machine - albeit a very crude, primitive machine in the case of a boutique amplifier. I'd rather just listen to the performer with minimum intervention.

 

[sonci]

why I see this?

 

[Cosmik]

If the euphonicists were to say something like: "We think that the addition of extra harmonics as volume increases stimulates the brain into thinking that the sound has got louder" (I think someone said something like this earlier), then they might go on to suggest why people need that extra perception of loudness - but always being aware that they are indulging subjective audiophiles and their superstitions and people maybe don't really need any such thing.

Some possible reasons:
Because traditional boutique audiophile systems are weak, EQ'ed strangely, with weird phase and timing, and compress when asked to play loudly, etc.
Because ported speakers smear transients and have unnaturally rapid bass roll-off.
Because most speakers have uneven dispersion.
Because people can't listen at realistic levels at home.
Because recordings are often limited with compression.

In each case, the real culprit could be investigated (or simply circumvented by pre-emptively correcting the issue). If a genuine issue existed then a 'box' or algorithm could be created to at least attempt to do the thing scientifically e.g. with an effect that varies with volume level in a plausible manner or some such.

A "Listen to some random amps or boxes and write up a scientific-sounding report" approach would miss out all those possible factors and more, instead producing rigorous statistics on a minuscule corner of the vast multidimensional experimental space that the finger-in-the-air approach is forced to rattle around in.

Alternatively, as is shown in reviews of 'straight' speakers designed to be neutral in the first place, the perception is that the system is already transparent.

 

[andreasmaaan]

But whatever is captured and replayed is consistent with what went before and what follows. If I shift seat at a performance, the sound at my ears changes compared to the other seat, but it becomes a new, consistent baseline against which I judge the performance. If I have a haircut before the performance it will change my HRTF compared to last time. Humid air will attenuate frequencies differently from dry air. And for sure, no system is neutral, no system is transparent, no recording captures everything perfectly - can't we just assume that implicitly?

But, against a stable 'baseline' that's as close as we can get to hearing the performance, if I introduce another factor, not present at the time of the recording, such as notes getting louder even though their timing hasn't changed, we have a new, disconnected aspect to the 'performance'. That change isn't relevant, and in the case of an automatic effects box no human was directly involved in it. We are listening to the autonomous musical performance abilities of a machine - albeit a very crude, primitive machine in the case of a boutique amplifier. I'd rather just listen to the performer with minimum intervention.

I think we’re at cross-purposes here. The post of yours I was responding to was about mixing and mastering. I was arguing that the addition of distortion at the mixing/mastering phase is not necessarily an enemy of fidelity to the original acoustic event (which is not something that can be measured against any baseline).


I agree that the addition of distortion at the reproduction phase is contra fidelity to the recording. My only point, from the beginning, has been that many listeners seem to prefer such distortion (and that these listeners are not simply mistaken as to what their preferences are, which appears to be what you’re saying?).

EDIT: *may not be mistaken

 

[Cosmik]

I think we’re at cross-purposes here. The post of yours I was responding to was about mixing and mastering. I was arguing that the addition of distortion at the mixing/mastering phase is not necessarily an enemy of fidelity to the original acoustic event (which is not something that can be measured against any baseline).


I agree that the addition of distortion at the reproduction phase is contra fidelity to the recording. My only point, from the beginning, has been that many listeners seem to prefer such distortion (and that these listeners are not simply mistaken as to what their preferences are, which appears to be what you’re saying?).

EDIT: *may not be mistaken

Of course it's possible for humans to prefer anything - for a while at any rate because of the novelty, or permanently after they get the audio equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome. It's even repeatable in scientific experiments I imagine.

The point I was making earlier was that 'effects' - including 'euphony' - are 'zombie' modifiers of music, especially if left switched on all the time without human discrimination. If I had an effect that was tuned to boost the middle C of the piano, I would have changed the apparent performance - for no musical reason whatsoever. It would sound like a really bad piano player, or an idiot who loved that key so much he just had to bash it every time he played it. But it wouldn't even be that good: the boosting of the note would have side effects, and wouldn't duplicate the true sound of playing the key harder. It wouldn't change the timing of the note to replicate how a player might do it, for example.

As soon as we start overdoing the effects in the studio - even something as innocent as a parametric EQ - we may be losing the integrity of the music. 'Euphonic distortion' is just another one of these zombie effects it seems to me. It was claimed earlier that it increases perceived dynamics, for example. But what if there is no reason for increased dynamics in that recording? What if it's musically irrelevant? It's just another weird artefact that the listener must learn to compensate for.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Maybe it is a certain amount of distortion over 'clean' that is preferred by some, rather than in addition to what is present in recordings.

Do listeners of dark metal prefer added distortion or is there enough present?

The question is how does anyone actually know from the recording? Maybe the engineers do, but the rest of us are only guessing.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Of course it's possible for humans to prefer anything - for a while at any rate because of the novelty, or permanently after they get the audio equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome. It's even repeatable in scientific experiments I imagine.

The point I was making earlier was that 'effects' - including 'euphony' - are 'zombie' modifiers of music, especially if left switched on all the time without human discrimination. If I had an effect that was tuned to boost the middle C of the piano, I would have changed the apparent performance - for no musical reason whatsoever. It would sound like a really bad piano player, or an idiot who loved that key so much he just had to bash it every time he played it. But it wouldn't even be that good: the boosting of the note would have side effects, and wouldn't duplicate the true sound of playing the key harder. It wouldn't change the timing of the note to replicate how a player might do it, for example.

As soon as we start overdoing the effects in the studio - even something as innocent as a parametric EQ - we may be losing the integrity of the music. 'Euphonic distortion' is just another one of these zombie effects it seems to me. It was claimed earlier that it increases perceived dynamics, for example. But what if there is no reason for increased dynamics in that recording? What if it's musically irrelevant? It's just another weird artefact that the listener must learn to compensate for.

I agree with you to an extent. You're using very emotive language with words like "zombie modifier" and "Stockholm syndrome" etc. And you're assuming that the only two possible reasons could be novelty or familiarity, which is not something that has been adequately investigated, and which I am therefore far more hesitant to draw conclusions about, especially given there are some other hypotheses that are plausible.

You're also relying on the slippery idea of the "integrity of the music", which is an entirely subjective concept.

The fact that these effects are used at all in studios shows that many people, including those who are professionals in the field, think they have a pleasing or enhancing effect and/or that they can, when used in particular ways, enhance the "integrity of the music".

What they can never do - and I agree with you 100% on this - is enhance the integrity (fidelity) of the recording.