Aim for Realistic, not transparent sound

[kemmler3D]

Of course I got attacked here for asking a similar question - what is going to be the relevance of a high-end audio product in a world where every DAC easily breaks the 120dB SINAD barrier and there's nothing for a reviewer to do but test and approve yet another conventional product? And yet there have been many recordings that I wished I could re-master myself, or even re-record to remove audible clipping and restore dynamic range. When fidelity in the signal chain is a trivial achievement, but rooms, speakers, and headphones remain imperfect, why even pay any attention to the DAC or the amp used? An enthusiast might well begin to experiment with deliberately added coloration and effect processing to try to improve upon perfection. This led to much pearl-clutching about how such approaches are not "high fidelity" - maybe to the signal, but not to real life if it is the listener's judgment that such a process increases realism (not reality itself, but real-ism.)

This comes up a lot, and the summary of the discussion always boils down to:

- This is technically lower fidelity, but if you like how it sounds, knock yourself out.
- Don't claim it's technically superior because it sounds more real to you.
- Don't start thinking you've found a crack in the science because you hear something unexpected from a certain piece of gear, it's just cognitive bias.
- Don't claim chasing fidelity is worse than chasing coloration, it's a matter of opinion.
- Try software DSP before you start spending money on hardware that does what the DSP does. The music production world has produced decades worth of software designed to color the sound if that's what you want.

 

[AdVis]

I have always maintained that the absolute best you can do is replicate the sound as it was in the mastering room. That sound represents the final product artistically and technically however it may be and there is no way you can ever improve on that. Of course in order to do that, you'll need to replicate the whole mastering room including all equipment exactly and that's a little tricky if only because there is no One Mastering Room. So you'll need to compromise and you can adjust for taste.

Plus everything @kemmler3D said above.

 

[fws]

Indeed. If you want colouration, then why not go all in and do what music producers do, and use the usual ubiquitous "soundgoodizer" effects?

I still have no idea what my "Psycho Acoustic Processor" does, but it looks cool and became pricey over the years

 

[Chr1]

Process psychos acoustically?

 

[sergeauckland]

It's endorsed by the Department Of Defense, so must be good!

S.

 

[mhardy6647]

It's endorsed by the Department Of Defense, so must be good!

S.

Dude. You beat me to it!
I am sure it was one of those skunkworks projects... cost billions and billions (in a Carl Sagan voice, no less)!

 

[fws]

You found me out, we actually put those in guitarist's chain to "process" people during rock concerts, so they would follow our commands

 

[OldHvyMec]

It's one of the reasons they used to have tone control on everything. Then in the 60-70s the Graphic EQ. Then the push for LS preamps, then
the push to get rid of preamps altogether.

HOGWASH. I'll keep the tone controls. As for transparency, it's WAY overrated. I have met countless people who limit their listening numbers because
they refuse to accept that a preamp with tone control could let them enjoy most of the music they can't change or tolerate because their only option
is to turn the volume up or down.

Give me speaker L-Pads and Mcintosh tone control any day over 90% of the setups today. If it wasn't for bass management and L-Pads I would have
given away a Cary SLP-05, Just sayin'

I understand distortion to be anything ADDED to the signal chain that varies from the source. What about gear that removes the information on a
disk, LP, cassette, RtR, or any other form of media? What do you call that? As I recall it's called a filter, but if you ADD to the chain it's called distortion
or coloration. Seems a bit unfair, to the person who just wants to hear a flippin' song.

I was listening to Tami Neilson, Love the Girl, but she almost blew the windows out of my listening room, thank God for the bass management that I use
on a Cary preamp I use.

to try to improve upon perfection.

That's the rub it's NOT perfect. When people say perfect they seem to forget the OTHER 99.99999999% of the population.

Regards

 

[Chr1]

You found me out, we actually put those in guitarist's chain to "process" people during rock concerts, so they would follow our commands

Psycho acoustic processing.

Possibly a good option for keeping wayward roadies in check (and fit for post-gig teardown.)

I believe Lemmy was once a roadie for Hendrix.

Reckon Jimi would've needed several of these in the signal path to process Mr Kilmister. My 2c.

 

[Purité Audio]

I have always maintained that the absolute best you can do is replicate the sound as it was in the mastering room. That sound represents the final product artistically and technically however it may be and there is no way you can ever improve on that. Of course in order to do that, you'll need to replicate the whole mastering room including all equipment exactly and that's a little tricky if only because there is no One Mastering Room. So you'll need to compromise and you can adjust for taste.

Plus everything @kemmler3D said above.

No you just need to reproduce the file, the only artefact we have as accurately as possible.
Keith

 

[kemmler3D]

why not go all in and do what music producers do, and use the usual ubiquitous "soundgoodizer" effects?

I don't know if you were referencing it, but image line/ FL Studio actually has a plug-in called that.

It's basically a multi band compressor that also adds a bit of distortion.

It kind of lives up to its name, but not really. It makes stuff louder and warmer, but it's like putting Doritos seasoning on all of your food.

 

[AcousticTheory]

It's one of the reasons they used to have tone control on everything. Then in the 60-70s the Graphic EQ. Then the push for LS preamps, then
the push to get rid of preamps altogether.

HOGWASH. I'll keep the tone controls. As for transparency, it's WAY overrated. I have met countless people who limit their listening numbers because
they refuse to accept that a preamp with tone control could let them enjoy most of the music they can't change or tolerate because their only option
is to turn the volume up or down.

Give me speaker L-Pads and Mcintosh tone control any day over 90% of the setups today. If it wasn't for bass management and L-Pads I would have
given away a Cary SLP-05, Just sayin'

I understand distortion to be anything ADDED to the signal chain that varies from the source. What about gear that removes the information on a
disk, LP, cassette, RtR, or any other form of media? What do you call that? As I recall it's called a filter, but if you ADD to the chain it's called distortion
or coloration. Seems a bit unfair, to the person who just wants to hear a flippin' song.

I was listening to Tami Neilson, Love the Girl, but she almost blew the windows out of my listening room, thank God for the bass management that I use
on a Cary preamp I use.

That's the rub it's NOT perfect. When people say perfect they seem to forget the OTHER 99.99999999% of the population.

Regards

The other part of the population doesn't matter when you press the play button. You are the observer that matters. If you prefer your own editorialization on the recorded material, or even someone else's, that is no one else's business.

As someone else noted, the mastering room is lost once the recording is distributed. We hope they made a shot at technical perfection but it's not assured. We can perfectly pass a flawed signal, congratulations, but when your own preferences enter the room everything else leaves.

 

[AdVis]

No you just need to reproduce the file, the only artefact we have as accurately as possible.
Keith

That's what I mean is not true. That file only represents what the artists and engineers THOUGHT they had made based on that file as reproduced in THAT mastering room. It may contain artefacts that were not noticable in the circumstances at the time of mastering, even ones you may want to correct for. Aside from personal taste.

Replicating the circumstances is impossible and you can never know what really was in the artist's head so best you can do is have it sound good to YOU, in YOUR listening room. I'd rate a system as good if it manages to do that most of the time.

 

[OldHvyMec]

but when your own preferences enter the room everything else leaves.

It's pretty simple in my listening room, "right after me, you're next"

Regards

 

[Purité Audio]

That's what I mean is not true. That file only represents what the artists and engineers THOUGHT they had made based on that file as reproduced in THAT mastering room. It may contain artefacts that were not noticable in the circumstances at the time of mastering, even ones you may want to correct for. Aside from personal taste.

Replicating the circumstances is impossible and you can never know what really was in the artist's head so best you can do is have it sound good to YOU, in YOUR listening room. I'd rate a system as good if it manages to do that most of the time.

It doesn’t matter what the artist thought or what colour socks they were wearing the only artefact is the record.
High-Fidelity literally means, ‘the degree of exactness with which something is copied or reproduced’.
Keith