Am I wrong? It seems like there's one significant thing left that could improve audio playback for everyone

[Hatto]

I think we are perhaps talking past one another? You’re talking about reproduction vs. production. I would agree with everything you say in the reproduction vain. I am talking about production and listening to electronically produced music live vs acoustic music live. Timbre becomes problematic if we are talking about a synthesizer. And then we have physically modeled software instruments, and even with something as “normal” as an electric guitar, we need to at a minimum include the amp/cabinet as part of the instrument (and really all the stomp boxes) all of which are essential user configurable timbre. With modern PA systems the limits are human hearing damage more than anything, so I don’t see acoustic having a DR edge there. Masking may or may not be an issue depending on the source, but that is dependent on space and not the production. Often enough, in contemporary music, one can think of the PA as the instrument and the “instruments” as ways of playing the PA. Amazing music can be produced both acoustically and electronically. Acoustic just isn’t always the source and electronic isn’t just reproduction.

I mean music played with acoustic instruments when I say "live". Electric guitars, synthesizers are out of context for what I've said. One still needs to hear acoustic instruments in multiple acoustic venues to have the baseline I've mentioned.

 

[IPunchCholla]

I mean music played with acoustic instruments when I say "live". Electric guitars, synthesizers are out of context for what I've said. One still needs to hear acoustic instruments in multiple acoustic venues to have the baseline I've mentioned.

Again, why?

 

[Hatto]

Again, why?

Because, any distortion is measured through subtracting the "source" signal from the reproduced signal. The definition of hifi is "high fidelity to the source". Live acoustic music is the purest form of "source" sound.

In contrast to acoust music, you can't isolate electronic distortions from electronically produced music. You just live with it.

 

[IPunchCholla]

Because, any distortion is measured through subtracting the "source" signal from the reproduced signal. The definition of hifi is "high fidelity to the source". Live acoustic music is the purest form of "source" sound.

In contrast to acoust music, you can't isolate electronic distortions from electronically produced music. You just live with it.

Or, you know, do the same exact thing regardless of the source and minimize them past the point of human hearing, so whatever the source, one simply doesn’t worry about it so you can focus on where things actually matter more, which is room speaker interaction, since the biggest difference will always be the sound field you are listening in.

The purest source would be a sine tone with no timbre. It is easiest to produce that electronically. Just train yourself on sine tones at varying hZ.

BTW I am VERY Leary of notions of purity. They almost always end up being some arbitrary thing backed by pseudo science and are used to disenfranchise the other.

 

[Hatto]

Or, you know, do the same exact thing regardless of the source and minimize them past the point of human hearing, so whatever the source, one simply doesn’t worry about it so you can focus on where things actually matter more, which is room speaker interaction, since the biggest difference will always be the sound field you are listening in.

I really don't know how to make someone who resists understanding so hard to understand it.

The purest source would be a sine tone with no timbre. It is easiest to produce that electronically. Just train yourself on sine tones at varying hZ

That's pure strawman. Timbre exists and it is part of music. We're talking about music, not sounds. Again, see above.

 

[IPunchCholla]

I really don't know how to make someone who resists understanding so hard to understand it.

That's SOOO besides the point timbre exists and it is part of music. We're talking about music, not sounds. Again, see above.

Please don’t claim I don’t understand. I understand. I disagree. I didn’t say timbre doesn’t exist. We are talking about sounds (the physics of waves in a medium), which include music. You are claiming that one sound source is the best for training your hearing so that you can then use your ears to test for fidelity. I am asking you 1. To substantiate your claim, and 2. Disagreeing that hearing is a good way to test fidelity.

 

[thecheapseats]

A fellow "Hamilton" fan?

not really - live sound is hard... )

 

[MattHooper]

Like any audiophile I appreciate good quality recordings (rich, clear, smooth, dynamic etc). However, as my collection/tastes encompass a wide variety of styles, which can include a lot of old wonky recordings, I aim for a system that will make the majority of recordings an enjoyable experience.

 

[Hatto]

Please don’t claim I don’t understand. I understand. I disagree. I didn’t say timbre doesn’t exist. We are talking about sounds (the physics of waves in a medium), which include music. You are claiming that one sound source is the best for training your hearing so that you can then use your ears to test for fidelity. I am asking you 1. To substantiate your claim, and 2. Disagreeing that hearing is a good way to test fidelity.

You obviously resist understanding. I'm not saying it's best. I'm saying: If you haven't heard what instruments sounds like in live acoustic music, you really can't judge the effects of harmonic distortions added/removed/masked by electronics. Whether you like live or added harmonics, whichever sounds best to you is not up for discussion. Any electronic instruments are out of scope of this discussion as well.

 

[IPunchCholla]

You obviously resist understanding. I'm not saying it's best. I'm saying: If you haven't heard what instruments sounds like in live acoustic music, you really can't judge the effects of harmonic distortions added/removed/masked by electronics. Whether you like live or added harmonics, whichever sounds best to you is not up for discussion. Any electronic instruments are out of scope of this discussion as well.

Again, I understand. I disagree. You are making a claim that the hearing live acoustic instruments (earlier you had in venues) is the only way to hear (“can’t judge” if you don’t) harmonic distortions added/removed/masked by electronics. This a statement that requires proof. You haven’t supplied any. It’s apparently just the truth?

Why can’t i judge the effects of electronically induced distortion by hearing the same electric guitar plugged into the same amp, presented in various venues? What makes acoustic timbre special? Given the inherent variability for every player/instrument of timber, wouldn’t a known signal (sine wave generator), not susceptible to those variations be better at distinguishing what is caused by the electronic reproduction chain? And wouldn’t it be better to not introduce sighted bias, auditory memory, and human variability by using measurements? In fact if we do that, we don’t even need to listen to know what effects are being caused by the reproduction chain. Hmmm, we could even null out the source signal and listen to nothing but the distortions without having to try and listen through a timbre we don’t even know. Could be a good way to distinguish good reproduction from bad. Maybe someone should make a website that does that.

 

[Hatto]

Again, I understand. I disagree. You are making a claim that the hearing live acoustic instruments (earlier you had in venues) is the only way to hear (“can’t judge” if you don’t) harmonic distortions added/removed/masked by electronics. This a statement that requires proof. You haven’t supplied any. It’s apparently just the truth?

Why can’t i judge the effects of electronically induced distortion by hearing the same electric guitar plugged into the same amp, presented in various venues?

And what did I just say?

Hatto said:
...
Any electronic instruments are out of scope of this discussion as well.

You claim to understand, can't even comprehend a basic sentence as above and still try to provide examples through electronically produced music.

What makes acoustic timbre special?

Really? Still? As I told in every single one of my messages: Absolute lack of harmonic and intermodulation distortions caused by electronics. Proof: THERE IS NO ELECTRONICS.

Given the inherent variability for every player/instrument of timber, wouldn’t a known signal (sine wave generator), not susceptible to those variations be better at distinguishing what is caused by the electronic reproduction chain?

No, because acoustic instruments still have natural, analog harmonics of their own (separate from those and intermodulation distortions introduced by electronics). Those of which may or may not be captured by the recording system, furthermore may or may not be replicated with high fidelity by the playback system.

Please stop confusing objective facts with opinions.

 

[movehome]

Dynamic masters exist for almost all of the music I listen to, including new stuff. Usually it's just a vinyl mastering but at least someone will usually do a good rip of it and post it online. For example the recent Soen Atlantis album - great sounding vinyl master but the cd mastering is DR7.

 

[IPunchCholla]

One last time. I replied to robdpwx:

Listen to more live music, ideally acoustic, and ideally in a good hall. That is the baseline.

The baseline for what? What does distortion have to do with dynamic range? Have you used a modern compressor? Given the tools in a modern DAW and now semi-standard LUFS targets, you can use compressors to increase DR.

As was pointed out up thread. DR as it is commonly used is not a very good measure of dynamic range. Its is in essence biased towards classical as you are comparing the overall volume (RMS) to the loudest peak. With many pieces composers are using long stretches of pianissimo against short bursts of forte. So yeah. The measure well under that system.

I can watch the second by second the DR of any piece of music. If we measure it that way, the difference between modern recordings of acoustic and electronic disappear, in my own casual observation.

You replied to my reply to robdpwx:

The baseline for what?

Dynamic range, timbre, absolute lack of harmonic and intermodulation distortion.

The context is robdpwx’s claim that the baseline for (apparently all) critical listening to music (he didn’t specify just acoustic) is to listen to live acoustic music in many venues, so I took your statement about DR, timbre, absolute lack of HD and IMD, to be a statement that understanding those things is only possible by listening to live acoustic music. Is that not your claim?

If it is your claim, fine. I disagree. Clearly I would enjoy debating it, but we should probably take it to DMs.
If it is not, then fine, I misunderstood your point. I would be happy to discuss via DMs.

 

[Hatto]

One last time. I replied to robdpwx:


The baseline for what? What does distortion have to do with dynamic range? Have you used a modern compressor? Given the tools in a modern DAW and now semi-standard LUFS targets, you can use compressors to increase DR.

As was pointed out up thread. DR as it is commonly used is not a very good measure of dynamic range. Its is in essence biased towards classical as you are comparing the overall volume (RMS) to the loudest peak. With many pieces composers are using long stretches of pianissimo against short bursts of forte. So yeah. The measure well under that system.

I can watch the second by second the DR of any piece of music. If we measure it that way, the difference between modern recordings of acoustic and electronic disappear, in my own casual observation.

You replied to my reply to robdpwx:


Dynamic range, timbre, absolute lack of harmonic and intermodulation distortion.

The context is robdpwx’s claim that the baseline for (apparently all) critical listening to music (he didn’t specify just acoustic) is to listen to live acoustic music in many venues, so I took your statement about DR, timbre, absolute lack of HD and IMD, to be a statement that understanding those things is only possible by listening to live acoustic music. Is that not your claim?

If it is your claim, fine. I disagree. Clearly I would enjoy debating it, but we should probably take it to DMs.
If it is not, then fine, I misunderstood your point. I would be happy to discuss via DMs.

There are certain things that one must learn and experience before having an opinion. Opinion without relevant knowledge and experience is worthless.

 

[IPunchCholla]

There are certain things that one must learn and experience before having an opinion. Opinion without relevant knowledge and experience is worthless.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about me, without ever asking me anything about my perspectives. You quote aphorisms and make accusations without support.

It makes me sad, since you clearly have experience and a viewpoint. Unfortunately, you seem to be looking at this as an opportunity to “win” an argument rather than have a reasonable discussion. You haven’t answered my questions even as to your basic position is, much less provided any kind of evidence. I don’t know that I am right about any of this. I view debate as a way of better understanding the world, not something do be win or lost. I am a real person and you have given me direct or backhanded insults throughout our interaction here. You have made my day worse. So goodbye.

 

[Hatto]

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about me, without ever asking me anything about my perspectives. You quote aphorisms and make accusations without support.

I'm not making any assumptions. I'm merely providing knowledge and information that you are rejecting because you mistake them as opinions (as you have put it yourself).

It makes me sad, since you clearly have experience and a viewpoint. Unfortunately, you seem to be looking at this as an opportunity to “win” an argument rather than have a reasonable discussion. You haven’t answered my questions even as to your basic position is, much less provided any kind of evidence.

I provided BOTH in my previous response. Example:
Acoustic music lacks harmonic and intermodulation distortions caused by electronics. Proof: THERE IS NO ELECTRONICS.
It's really that simple, I really don't understand the basis of your resistance or confusion.
Without experiencing something with your own bare senses, you can't possibly pretend to understand the difference when something is added to or removed from it. It's like trying to describe the difference between pink and red to a person who's born blind.

I don’t know that I am right about any of this. I view debate as a way of better understanding the world, not something do be win or lost. I am a real person and you have given me direct or backhanded insults throughout our interaction here. You have made my day worse. So goodbye.

Debate requires reading and understanding what the other side is saying, which you have demonstrated lack thereof in more than one occasion. It's never been my intention to insult you, sorry if I made you feel that way. Just take this as an opportunity to improve your reading and comprehension skills.

 

[pseudoid]

Me? I'm forfeiting my audiophile membership card until there's media that incentivises me to join the club again. I'll stay on the forums tho, that's still fun.

Who does this exactly punish?

I think you need a dictionary.

I'd be willing to forfeit an "audiophile membership card" but I'd refuse to stop listening to music, until they take my ears away!

 

[Snoopy]

?

To those who actually enjoy "audiophile music" and audiophile recordings exclusively: I envy you.



.

View attachment 266987

I have to admit I got the last couple of years more and more into audiophile music.. mostly jazz but plenty of well recorded 60/70s music .. stuff that I didn't really care for before when I was younger.. I kinda always enjoyed piano music here and there but since my early thirties it's mostly jazz.. especially well recorded Japanese Jazz. But also classical music.

But this kinda went hand in hand with good gear (especially headphones and EQ).

 

[egellings]

You know what? You’re right.

Musicians: you’re on notice!

The way AI's are going, we soon won't need people anymore.

 

[Sal1950]

Contrary to the OP's feelings, the last couple years have been an answer to the prayer for those interested
in multich music. The explosion in popularity of Atmos recordings has brought some of the best engineers in
the business (Steven Wilson, James Guthrie, Giles Martin, Sam Okell) back to the console to remaster many of
the most loved and famous popular recordings in history. Replacing the garbage done during the height of the loudness
wars, these new masters, many both in 5.1, Atmos, and stereo have been done with an eye towards bringing out the best sound
quality possible from these older recordings.
There's a revolution going on, be there or be square. LOL