Aim for Realistic, not transparent sound

[Lupin]

tl;dr: Recordings are not perfect, and information is lost. You need components that adds distortion to "regain" that lost information and make it realistic again.

 

[Rja4000]

Where is the LOL icon ?

In the music production process, maybe (although it's like salt and pepper: a matter of taste, and you don't want tooooo much)

But for music reproduction, I beg to differ.
Or you want to be able to really control when and how much you add...

 

[JeremyFife]

So ... you need a system that analyses every single recording that you play to determine what is missing and then add it back in ... on a case by case basis (because it will be different for each recording)

What a load of nonsense

 

[storing]

> on a case by case basis

Great idea for the next audiophile snake oil product: the Missing Information Detector and Re-Adder 1.0.
20k$ seems like a reasonable price.

 

[sergeauckland]

Why do people take so much trouble to post such utter nonsense? Don't they have more important things to do, like tidying up their sock drawer?

S.

 

[Ropeburn]

> on a case by case basis

Great idea for the next audiophile snake oil product: the Missing Information Detector and Re-Adder 1.0.
20k$ seems like a reasonable price.

What's inside the re-adder:

 

[Rednaxela]

Thanks for the TLDR. Saved me 20 minutes of my life.

Three of which I spent on asking GPT-4o to summarize the transcript. I got a short version and a somewhat longer one.

Spoiler: Short Summary

1. Transparency vs. Realism – Transparency in audio does not always mean realistic sound. Pursuing it blindly can make music sound less natural.
2. Recordings Are Imperfect – The recording process (microphones, mixing, ADCs) alters the original sound, making true realism impossible.
3. Aluminum Foil Analogy – Just as a wrinkled foil can’t be fully smoothed out, no system can perfectly restore recorded sound to its live state.
4. The Limits of Transparency – A highly transparent system may expose imperfections without enhancing musical enjoyment.
5. Enhancing Realism – Tubes, capacitors, and algorithms (e.g., Daniel Hertz) can subtly smooth and enrich sound for a more natural feel.
6. Balance Over Perfection – Instead of absolute transparency, slight enhancements can make music more lifelike and emotionally engaging.
7. Beauty Analogy – Like well-applied makeup, tasteful audio modifications can enhance realism without sounding artificial.
8. Final Thought – Strive for a mix of clarity and musicality, not just pure transparency.

Spoiler: Extended Summary

• Introduction
  • The speaker takes a break from product reviews to discuss an idea: Transparency vs. Realism in audio systems.
  • Invites viewers to share their thoughts on the topic.
• Transparency vs. Realism in Sound
  • Transparency and realism are not necessarily the same thing.
  • Absolute transparency does not always result in a realistic or natural sound.
  • Pursuing transparency alone can sometimes make music sound less natural.
• The Nature of Recordings
  • All audio playback starts with a recording, which is an imperfect copy of reality.
  • Microphones, preamps, ADCs, mixing, and mastering all introduce colorations and changes.
  • Even high-resolution lossless files cannot fully capture the experience of hearing live music.
• The Aluminium Foil Analogy
  • A smooth piece of aluminum foil represents an original, live sound.
  • The recording process wrinkles the foil, distorting the original sound.
  • No amount of transparency can fully restore the original smoothness.
• The Limitation of Transparency
  • A highly transparent system will reveal all imperfections of a recording.
  • Engineers might need transparency for remastering, but music lovers seek a pleasing sound, not just an analytical one.
  • Perfect transparency may not be the best goal for musical enjoyment.
• Techniques to Improve Realism
  • Tubes in DACs or preamps can add natural harmonics and smoothness.
  • Devices like Decware RCA "pills" introduce capacitors to smooth out harshness.
  • Some high-end brands (e.g., Daniel Hertz) use algorithms to improve time coherence, effectively adding a subtle reverb effect.
• Finding the Right Balance
  • Transparency is important up to a point, but excessive detail can highlight unwanted imperfections.
  • After achieving a clean sound, adding subtle enhancements can make music feel more natural and enjoyable.
• Analogy to "Natural" Beauty
  • Just as people prefer well-groomed natural beauty over excessive makeup, audio benefits from tasteful enhancements rather than pure transparency.
  • Slight manipulation can make music sound more lifelike and emotionally engaging.
• Conclusion
  • Listeners should aim for a balance between transparency and realism.
  • Encourages discussion on the topic.

Disclaimer: I am not entirely sure if this violates our YouTube transcript rule. If so, happy to delete.

 

[Berwhale]

So ... you need a system that analyses every single recording that you play to determine what is missing and then add it back in ... on a case by case basis (because it will be different for each recording)

What a load of nonsense

I think there's money to be made here. If you have a copy of the 'master' recording, you could charge people to compare the output from their system with the 'master' and then charge them again for supplying the 'difference' and then charge them again for a system that can apply the 'difference' to their system

 

[kharan]

So ... you need a system that analyses every single recording that you play to determine what is missing and then add it back in ... on a case by case basis (because it will be different for each recording)

What a load of nonsense

We have a name for that, it's called a mastering engineer.

 

[Saponetto]

Meh.
Transparency is OK, personal tastes are OK, Srboljub reviews/rants are also OK but imho, at the very end of the day what really matter is: "how much do you enjoy listening music through your well-earned rigs?"
And subsequently: "how much are you aimed at spend to just add another step to your ladder of gullibility?"

 

[Thomas Savage]

tl;dr: Recordings are not perfect, and information is lost. You need components that adds distortion to "regain" that lost information and make it realistic again.

That's what beer is for ..

 

[Valvetubehead]

I thought this was an advert for Radio Shack (a Tandy corporation) gear…

 

[threni]

Why do people take so much trouble to post such utter nonsense? Don't they have more important things to do, like tidying up their sock drawer?

Back when the internet was started the idea was all about facilitating the efficient transfer of information, but somewhere along the way it's become just another way of monetizing ignorance.

 

[Ropeburn]

Back when the internet was started the idea was all about facilitating the efficient transfer of information, but somewhere along the way it's become just another way of monetizing ignorance.

Just human nature, I guess. Homo Sapiens means "the reasonable human", but turns out we're merely capable of reason and rationale. Most of the time we're on 100% emotional-instinctual autopilot. These YouTubers are but yet another modern equivalent of the good old ancient snake oil salesman capitalising on it with their charme and personality. As such, the average snake oil salesman and con artist is more rational than average.

 

[ZolaIII]

Can I have an illegal immigrant at home who does that for me for every track I want to listen to, on the fly? I'm willing to pay babysitter wages, and I don't require a receipt...

Are there AI processing apps for audio?

Ozone is not a plug, it's DAW in it.

audiosciencereview.com

Even I carefully shaved butom it still impacted harmonics and needed some reverb to get it back.
Chose your masters best you can! This doesn't mean he is right. You need good speakers with very good FR and that they don't compress and can follow true peeks in material which is easier said than done. Low bass peaks are down to mid 30's Hz and main drum one's are in main and up to beginning of male vocal range. As long as they can follow it, it will be considered transparent no matter how is source done.
Would chill out regarding such comments if I where you.

 

[BeeKay]

Back when the internet was started the idea was all about facilitating the efficient transfer of information, but somewhere along the way it's become just another way of monetizing ignorance.

Spoiler: and of course there is …

Estimates vary, but pornographic content has historically accounted for a significant portion of global internet traffic. Various studies and reports suggest that:


• Between 10% and 20% of total internet traffic is adult content.


• In 2018, Sandvine (a network intelligence company) reported that porn accounted for ~4% of global internet traffic, but this number may be higher if indirect traffic (such as embedded videos) is included.


• In 2021, some reports suggested that Pornhub alone received more traffic than Netflix, Amazon, or Twitter in certain regions.


The percentage fluctuates due to streaming services, social media, and gaming taking up increasing bandwidth, but adult content remains a major driver of internet traffic.

 

[DVDdoug]

I'm not going to watch the video...

We have a name for that, it's called a mastering engineer.

I'd say it's up to the whole production team (performers, producer recording engineer, mixing engineer, mastering engineer, etc.) to create a realistic production, if that's what they want. Then it's up to the playback system to accurately-transparently reproduce the recording, if that's what the listen wants.

But "realism" doesn't apply to most modern recordings. They are not trying to reproduce a live concert performance. It's an artificial studio production, usually with some similarity to a real performance. Honestly, I wouldn't want a rock band or full orchestra playing in my living room or car, even if they would fit! But I do enjoy live video concerts with surround sound, playing at slightly-less than realistic levels.

 

[Ropeburn]

I'm not going to watch the video...


I'd say it's up to the whole production team (performers, producer recording engineer, mixing engineer, mastering engineer, etc.) to create a realistic production, if that's what they want. Then it's up to the playback system to accurately-transparently reproduce the recording, if that's what the listen wants.

But "realism" doesn't apply to most modern recordings. They are not trying to reproduce a live concert performance. It's an artificial studio production, usually with some similarity to a real performance. Honestly, I wouldn't want a rock band or full orchestra playing in my living room or car, even if they would fit! But I do enjoy live video concerts with surround sound, playing at slightly-less than realistic levels.

This is partly why I preferred electronic music since my teen years. It doesn't even try to reproduce anything "real", instead it's... just music in its pure, primal essence. Patterns of sound that appeal to the listener. Completely artificial - and let's make no mistake, all music is entirely artificial by nature, including any purposefully created instruments, whether they be "acoustic" or "electronic".

Music is a human creation from the ground up, ever since the first proto-human made people dance by beating a stick on a hollow log, one million years ago. We should never forget that whenever faced with a "natural vs artificial" or "acoustic vs electronic" argument.

The root of artificial is art. This is music.

 

[kemmler3D]

Realism in recordings is only really desirable for live recordings made in good spaces.

For most pop / rock recordings, actual realism would be pretty grim.

Have you ever been in a vocal booth while someone was recording? It's not some magical epic experience you need to import to your living room. It's more like being too close to someone singing in a well stuffed closet.

Also, the premise of this video doesn't even make sense. All the distortion in the recording and mixing process removes realism, but you can get it back by... Adding more of the same kind of distortion?

Typical audiophile logic...

 

[mhardy6647]

Realistic sound?
It's been done.





FWIW, Radio Shack put the ic in Realistic... for a reason!

Why Radio Shack Equipment Was "Realistic"

I always thought that Realistic was an unfortunate brand name because of the connotation of being "realistic" instead of "real", but if I'm so smart why ain't I rich? However, the reason they used Realistic was due to a small magazine published in the 1950s and 60s, The Realist. It was popular...

audiokarma.org

In 1954, Radio Shack began to sell their private-label products under the brand name Realist®. However, the company was later sued by a camera company for trademark infringement over their "Stereo Realist" camera. As a result, Radio Shack changed their brand name to Realistic®.

The History of Radio Shack / Tandy Corporation

Radio Shack company started in 1921 by two brothers, Theodore and Milton Deutschmann, who wanted to provide equipment for the field of amateur, or ham radio. The brothers opened a one-store retail and mail-order operation in downtown Boston at 46 Brattle Street. Charles Tandy bought Radio Shack...

www.radioshackcatalogs.com

not my Realist tuner -- source: https://hifihaven.org/index.php?thr...ly-have-a-thing-about-tuners.7303/post-300157

EDIT: Full disclosure -- the tuner above, sold by Radio Shack as Realist (and later branded Realistic) was in fact a harman/kardon OEM product.