Are you Euphonophile?

[welder]

I think if you start out with accurate, neutral equipment then it gives you options, one of which is to retain an accurate, neutral sound. If you want to play with EQ then the options are endless.

But to name youself audophile You must alter/screw sound with even pricey equipment, not peasant EQ!

 

[andreasmaaan]

It seems that a few people are confusing euphony with EQ here.

EQ affects frequency response, i.e. it applies or corrects linear distortion, while euphony is the addition of musically related - usually just second order - harmonic distortion, i.e. the addition of nonlinear distortion.

 

[Cosmik]

...the addition of musically related - usually just second order - harmonic distortion

But "musically related harmonic" only applies to a single tone. Unless you can break a complex recording down into its constituent monophonic elements (impossible without DSP, and even then still impossible) your distortion generator (i.e. bent transfer function) produces non-musically related intermodulation distortion.

 

[andreasmaaan]

But "musically related harmonic" only applies to a single tone. Unless you can break a complex recording down into its constituent monophonic elements (impossible without DSP, and even then still impossible) your distortion generator (i.e. bent transfer function) produces non-musically related intermodulation distortion.

Yes and no. By adding euphonic distortion, you can't avoid also adding musically-unrelated intermodulation distortion. But you are still adding musically-related euphonic distortion.

 

[andreasmaaan]

@Cosmik your point is an important one though.

Anyway, my aim was to point out the apparent confusion between linear and nonlinear distortion.

 

[Cosmik]

Yes and no. By adding euphonic distortion, you can't avoid also adding musically-unrelated intermodulation distortion. But you are still adding musically-related euphonic distortion.

But if the IMD applied to a complex recording produces frequencies that are discordant with *all* the elements, then it cannot be said to be musically related. It is 'related' but not musically.

At best, Intermodulation Distortion leads to dull-, veiled-, or lifeless-sounding music. At worst, everything sounds harsh and/or grossly distorted.

https://www.lifewire.com/intermodulation-distortion-explained-3134703

 

[andreasmaaan]

But if the IMD applied to a complex recording produces frequencies that are discordant with *all* the elements, then it cannot be said to be musically related. It is 'related' but not musically.

https://www.lifewire.com/intermodulation-distortion-explained-3134703

Ok, but you're treating the addition of euphonic distortion as though it adds only IM distortion. That's not the case. Musically-related harmonic distortion increases, and IM distortion increases.

Sure, it is not possible to add only euphonic distortion (except to a single tone, as you point out), since there will always be a resultant increase in IM distortion. But the fact that IM distortion also increases does not mean that musically-related distortion has not been added.

 

[Cosmik]

Ok, but you're treating the addition of euphonic distortion as though it adds only IM distortion.

'Harmonic' is meaningless on a complex signal unless you can break it into monophonic tones and apply harmonic distortion to each tone individually, so the term is meaningless when a harmonic distortion effects box is applied to a complex, changing, composite signal. What is really meant is 'bent transfer function'.

Sure it can be fantasised about as a musical frequency domain process, but in reality it is simply what you get when you warp a complex signal with a dumb curve in the time domain. Clearly, the difference between linear and 'bent' is wholly dependent on the interaction between the signal elements so it really is all intermodulation distortion on everything but very specific signals.

In the studio, where the producers have access to the individual elements, then application of distortion to a monophonic source may be an interesting creative effect. The consumer with his valve amplifier only has access to the composite recording, however.

Perhaps this effect may be one of the main reasons for systems that are supposedly 'good' at pop but 'bad' at classical, etc. Varying degrees of offensiveness dependent on signal complexity and content.

As you can tell, I'm sceptical about 'euphony'!

 

[andreasmaaan]

'Harmonic' is meaningless on a complex signal unless you can break it into monophonic tones and apply harmonic distortion to each tone individually, so the term is meaningless when a harmonic distortion effects box is applied to a complex, changing, composite signal. What is really meant is 'bent transfer function'.

Sure it can be fantasised about as a musical frequency domain process, but in reality it is simply what you get when you warp a complex signal with a dumb curve in the time domain. Clearly, the difference between linear and 'bent' is wholly dependent on the interaction between the signal elements so it really is all intermodulation distortion on everything but very specific signals.

In the studio, where the producers have access to the individual elements, then application of distortion to a monophonic source may be an interesting creative effect. The consumer with his valve amplifier only has access to the composite recording, however.

Perhaps this effect may be one of the main reasons for systems that are supposedly 'good' at pop but 'bad' at classical, etc. Varying degrees of offensiveness dependent on signal complexity and content.

A recorded monophonic source is absolutely not monotonic, so if an engineer chooses to apply nonlinear distortion to an individual element, IM distortion results in the same way it would if applied to the master as a whole.

Are you suggesting that a system with high levels of euphonic distortion would be supposedly better at pop or at classical? I know your personal answer is neither, but I want to understand what you're saying other people think.

 

[Cosmik]

Are you suggesting that a system with high levels of euphonic distortion would be supposedly better at pop or at classical? I know your personal answer is neither, but I want to understand what you're saying other people think.

IMD is a complex effect that varies with signal content, so it is quite possible that audiophiles seek out the recordings that give less offensive IMD on their idiosyncratic systems. Maybe they notice that they get less offensive distortion within certain genres in their personal music collections and learn to associate this as 'good' performance on rock, etc.

 

[Blumlein 88]

'Harmonic' is meaningless on a complex signal unless you can break it into monophonic tones and apply harmonic distortion to each tone individually, so the term is meaningless when a harmonic distortion effects box is applied to a complex, changing, composite signal. What is really meant is 'bent transfer function'.

Sure it can be fantasised about as a musical frequency domain process, but in reality it is simply what you get when you warp a complex signal with a dumb curve in the time domain. Clearly, the difference between linear and 'bent' is wholly dependent on the interaction between the signal elements so it really is all intermodulation distortion on everything but very specific signals.

In the studio, where the producers have access to the individual elements, then application of distortion to a monophonic source may be an interesting creative effect. The consumer with his valve amplifier only has access to the composite recording, however.

Perhaps this effect may be one of the main reasons for systems that are supposedly 'good' at pop but 'bad' at classical, etc. Varying degrees of offensiveness dependent on signal complexity and content.

As you can tell, I'm sceptical about 'euphony'!

Listening to a euphonic system (and yes they generally are tuned for particular genre's of music) would tell us you've missed something in your theory here.

Yes it is a bent transfer function. The ones that work typically have a slowly bending with level transfer function. They don't stay linear, and then break. It is about a preponderance of 2nd and 3rd order harmonics. And remember IMD will have odd order clustered around the original tones which probably masks most of it until the level is quite high. With most power in music being at lower frequencies the even order difference tones probably lie at a low frequency which either isn't reproduced or heard well or is covered up by typical issues in the low end of most rooms. The higher IMD effects are what may seem to give extra texture to the music. In such systems as the levels get too high or distortion becomes much I find they turn glassy sounding. They can sound richer and more dynamic before that and seem to have more space. It isn't too hard to imagine when the extra tones come and go with level it might be false dynamics vs a clean presentation. Nor that many spurious lower level tones from all the complex intermodulation might sound like the air or space instead of distortion. It will be related to the main signal as the level will cause these effects to come and go as the level comes and goes. As it gets louder and such effects are noticeable the result is probably complex enough our hearing isn't so discerning of individual parts at that point. Part of the sense of richness which actually isn't cleanly detailed.

 

[andreasmaaan]

IMD is a complex effect that varies with signal content, so it is quite possible that audiophiles seek out the recordings that give less offensive IMD on their idiosyncratic systems. Maybe they notice that they get less offensive distortion within certain genres in their personal music collections and learn to associate this as 'good' performance on rock, etc.

Certainly possible, although I suspect most rock recordings rock with their generally greater signal complexity would produce higher levels of IMD through a given transfer function than most classical recordings.

 

[Cosmik]

Where does the idea come from that the application of crude, bent transfer functions to a composite recorded signal should, in any way, create new meaning in it, or add musical content to it, or change the performance, or change the recording venue? It is like claiming that an algorithm consisting of two lines of code has been developed that can automatically process poetry to make it better.

People who are seduced by this fantasy are clearly starting from systems that are deficient, and casting around for a magic bullet to do something, anything, to jazz up a lacklustre sound. The recent reviews of the Kii Three (just as an example), express the opposite view: that when the system is straight and lacking distortion, all such ideas evaporate.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Where does the idea come from that the application of crude, bent transfer functions to a composite recorded signal should, in any way, create new meaning in it, or add musical content to it, or change the performance, or change the recording venue? It is like claiming that an algorithm consisting of two lines of code has been developed that can automatically process poetry to make it better.

People who are seduced by this fantasy are clearly starting from systems that are deficient, and casting around for a magic bullet to do something, anything, to jazz up a lacklustre sound. The recent reviews of the Kii Three (just as an example), express the opposite view: that when the system is straight and lacking distortion, all such ideas evaporate.

Who's claiming that a bent transfer function can "add musical content... change the performance, or change the recording venue"?

The claim is that euphonic distortion can make the music better sounding and/or more enjoyable.

EDIT: and I don't think this claim should be very controversial, as it is entirely individual and subjective, and moreover because some double blind studies have found that a significant number (but of course not all) listeners prefer certain kinds of audible distortion.

 

[maverickronin]

Where does the idea come from that the application of crude, bent transfer functions to a composite recorded signal should, in any way, create new meaning in it, or add musical content to it, or change the performance, or change the recording venue

It doesn't really do that, but some people seem to interpret it that way.

People who are seduced by this fantasy are clearly starting from systems that are deficient, and casting around for a magic bullet to do something, anything, to jazz up a lacklustre sound. The recent reviews of the Kii Three (just as an example), express the opposite view: that when the system is straight and lacking distortion, all such ideas evaporate.

As another example, the way some people rave about SET amps I think they just want something that sounds "different".

 

[Cosmik]

Who's claiming that a bent transfer function can "add musical content... change the performance, or change the recording venue"?

It apparently adds more richness, dynamics and space.

...some double blind studies have found that a significant number (but of course not all) listeners prefer certain kinds of audible distortion.

But starting with what sort of system? The lacklustre, deficient one I mentioned above, I should think...

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Ok, but you're treating the addition of euphonic distortion as though it adds only IM distortion. That's not the case. Musically-related harmonic distortion increases, and IM distortion increases.

Sure, it is not possible to add only euphonic distortion (except to a single tone, as you point out), since there will always be a resultant increase in IM distortion. But the fact that IM distortion also increases does not mean that musically-related distortion has not been added.

I think for what I find to be euphonics, there is more than THD and IM. I am thinking of the old JBL Century L100's, which were of course long before Toole arrived on the scene. They may have had their THD and IM, but they also seemed to have deliberate, broad lumps in reproducing some bass frequencies. In other words, their euphonics were more about fundamental frequency nonlinearities rather than other distortion products. They were considered great rock speakers and were hugely popular.

Another example might be the famous BBC LS3/5A, which had a deliberate bass hump around 100 Hz to disguise the fact that it did not go down very low. People loved it.

Another example might be the famous BBC dip around 2.5k Hz, a common crossover point. This was and still is a workaround for the sudden directivity change from a larger woofer or mid driver to a smaller tweeter.

So, sometimes the distortion is just frequency nonlinearity. And, in general, I think the "voicing" of just frequency response is perhaps still the main type of euphonic distortion deliberately introduced by makers, rather than THD, IM, etc.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I think for what I find to be euphonics, there is more than THD and IM. I am thinking of the old JBL Century L100's, which were of course long before Toole arrived on the scene. They may have had their THD and IM, but they also seemed to have deliberate, broad lumps in reproducing some bass frequencies. In other words, their euphonics were more about fundamental frequency nonlinearities rather than other distortion products. They were considered great rock speakers and were hugely popular.

Another example might be the famous BBC LS3/5A, which had a deliberate bass hump around 100 Hz to disguise the fact that it did not go down very low. People loved it.

Another example might be the famous BBC dip around 2.5k Hz, a common crossover point. This was and still is a workaround for the sudden directivity change from a larger woofer or mid driver to a smaller tweeter.

So, sometimes the distortion is just frequency nonlinearity. And, in general, I think the "voicing" of just frequency response is perhaps still the main type of euphonic distortion deliberately introduced by makers, rather than THD, IM, etc.

I agree that these other factors can certainly create audible differences in amplifiers or other equipment, which may be preferred by some.

I think our difference of opinion comes down to our definition of euphonic. As I understand this term to commonly be used and understood when applied to audio reproduction, it relates only to the nonlinear domain, which rules out linear distortion (e.g. non-flat frequency response) of the types you describe.

For example: Euphonic Distortion: Naughty but Nice?

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I agree that these other factors can certainly create audible differences in amplifiers or other equipment, which may be preferred by some.

I think our difference of opinion comes down to our definition of euphonic. As I understand this term to commonly be used and understood when applied to audio reproduction, it relates only to the nonlinear domain, which rules out linear distortion (e.g. non-flat frequency response) of the types you describe.

For example: Euphonic Distortion: Naughty but Nice?

It depends on how you define distortion. Jean Hiraga or some old Stereophile guy are not the arbiters.

To me, distortion of the fundamental frequency response is the most basic form of distortion, though it is not typically called distortion. It is distortion, but it is usually just called frequency response. It might have been called frequency response distortion, and perhaps it once was. But, any deviation of output vs. input signal levels, aside from signal level amplification in volts and/or amperes, to me fits any classic definition of distortion.

 

[Cosmik]

It's the assumption that the audiophile or the 'designer' of a resistor/diode/transistor signal mangler knows all about 'the signal' and that with three components and a bit of Veroboard they make an improvement on a performance captured in a million dollar studio.

The stereo imaging contained within the relationship between the left and right signals is sacrificed in the process, because the IMD destroys the correspondence between the channels - but something tells me that the basic system before this 'enhancement' is probably doing that already.

It's the implication that the signal is like soup or astronaut's meal-in-a-tube; just paste to be modified by the addition of various chemicals or powders.

Clearly some people listen through their systems (owners of the Kii Three/D&D 8C for example), and some people listen to their systems, using the signal as a basic paste to which they add fistfuls of flavouring compound.