Bruno Putzeys ‘Life on the edge’

[sigbergaudio]

Actually today’s music with DR4 will not benefit from SOTA gear. It will sound even worse on Magicos than through Airpods. So why spend on anything better than Youtube streaming Soundbar?

There are many topics where I and @Bjorn see things quite differently, but on this topic I wholeheartedly agree. If you have a high-end system where modern music or "poor recordings" sound worse than through airpods, then there's something wrong with your system, not the music.

In general, the better the system, the better all music (even the less than stellar recordings) will sound. If they sound worse, more harsh or less enjoyable, then there's something wrong.

There's also a second layer of misconception in your statement, and that is that low dynamic range in a recording means it has to sound bad. Low DR only means there's not a huge difference between the softest and loudest passages in the track. There is no direct correlation between perceived sound quality and dynamic range.

 

[AnalogSteph]

Listen your records with a electrostatic headphone then you hear instantly which are bad records. Doing it on my system via loudspeakers the differences are also readable but maybe not so much.

But isn't that exactly proving what @Bjorn was talking about? 'stats tend to have some very specific frequency response quirks that make them more revealing than something tuned strictly neutral by defeating auditory masking. This is similar to how some people with very specific forms of hearing loss (who have lost entire bands) are always able to tell lossy audio codecs apart even at high bitrates, just because that breaks the assumptions about masking that the codecs' psymodel is making.

 

[SSS]

But isn't that exactly proving what @Bjorn was talking about? 'stats tend to have some very specific frequency response quirks that make them more revealing than something tuned strictly neutral by defeating auditory masking. This is similar to how some people with very specific forms of hearing loss (who have lost entire bands) are always able to tell lossy audio codecs apart even at high bitrates, just because that breaks the assumptions about masking that the codecs' psymodel is making.

My STAX electrostats may enhance upper frequencies which in turn will emit probably more of the distortions of a poor recording. But this just shows the poor recording better recognizable but still is a poor thing. If a strictly linear tuned system does not show that much of the distortions makes the recording not better but perhaps a little more bearable.

 

[jhaider]

Also quite often there is some bonus content on the disc, not available on Apple Music.

Content is a different issue from sound quality. IME, based on A-B comparisons with disks I own, the difference in sound quality between streaming Atmos music through an AppleTV and playing the disk today is basically nothing.

 

[pma]

In general, the better the system, the better all music (even the less than stellar recordings) will sound. If they sound worse, more harsh or less enjoyable, then there's something wrong.

There's also a second layer of misconception in your statement, and that is that low dynamic range in a recording means it has to sound bad. Low DR only means there's not a huge difference between the softest and loudest passages in the track. There is no direct correlation between perceived sound quality and dynamic range.

I do not agree.

1) The better system does not automatically mean better sound from poor or historical recordings. You are hearing more scratches, clicks and hiss form the SOTA system than from historical system. Shellacs records do not sound better through Purifi than through a vintage tube amplifier.

2)

. Low DR only means there's not a huge difference between the softest and loudest passages in the track. There is no direct correlation between perceived sound quality and dynamic range.

No. Dynamic compression adds distortion an clipping. There is a direct correlation. Only inexperienced listeners do not hear it.

 

[SSS]

I do not agree.

1) The better system does not automatically mean better sound from poor or historical recordings. You are hearing more scratches, clicks and hiss form the SOTA system than from historical system. Shellacs records do not sound better through Purifi than through a vintage tube amplifier.

2)

No. Dynamic compression adds distortion an clipping. There is a direct correlation. Only inexperienced listeners do not hear it.

2) If dynamic compression was done after a mix or in mic channels during the take then distortions may created. If the original music itself had not much dynamic then I think no additional distortion is created?

 

[Fidji]

There are many topics where I and @Bjorn see things quite differently, but on this topic I wholeheartedly agree. If you have a high-end system where modern music or "poor recordings" sound worse than through airpods, then there's something wrong with your system, not the music.

In general, the better the system, the better all music (even the less than stellar recordings) will sound. If they sound worse, more harsh or less enjoyable, then there's something wrong.

There's also a second layer of misconception in your statement, and that is that low dynamic range in a recording means it has to sound bad. Low DR only means there's not a huge difference between the softest and loudest passages in the track. There is no direct correlation between perceived sound quality and dynamic range.

There is some minimum threshold where excess of compression and very low DR will make record sound bad. While I get, that nobody who enjoys deathcore music needs high DR, also nobody would pick said deathcore as sonic reference. If you know any records with DR4, that you consider sonically excellent, please point me to them. Nothing beyond DR7 sounds really good in my opinion.

And it can be lot of fun to blast such music through bluetooth boombox, but it will be unbearable in good setup.

There is also another layer - if you are used to average setup, you do not have mental reference of “how good can sound be” as there is not SUCH difference between Taylor Swift and Mass in B Minor, as you are limited by limits of your gear. On some absolute scale Swift will be at 15 and Bach at 25 (assuming 25 is upper limit of your system capabilities). Then you move to really great system in excellent acoustic conditions - Swift will be 20, so yes better, but Bach will be 100. Because the content will be limiting factor, not the gear now. So Swift will sound much worse relatively to well recorded music.

And most of the content will be much more audible on better gear. And for most of today;s Top40 Airpods are just about adequate to,match the content with the gear..

 

[totti1965]

The great thing is that Class D is continuing to improve and reduces in price - which other technology in audio is doing that?

Class AB and class B amplification.
E.g. Topping LA90 Discrete and Topping B200 (Class AB) or Topping B100 (Class B).
All of them learned from Bruno and took negative Feedback to the very extreme!
All of them have 1.5 x the bandwith / slew rate of (extremely good!) Purify or Eigentakt amps.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I do not agree.

1) The better system does not automatically mean better sound from poor or historical recordings. You are hearing more scratches, clicks and hiss form the SOTA system than from historical system. Shellacs records do not sound better through Purifi than through a vintage tube amplifier.

2)

No. Dynamic compression adds distortion an clipping. There is a direct correlation. Only inexperienced listeners do not hear it.

1) So your definition of poor sound is vinyl artifacts?

2) We are calling names now? Great talk.

 

[Fidji]

Content is a different issue from sound quality. IME, based on A-B comparisons with disks I own, the difference in sound quality between streaming Atmos music through an AppleTV and playing the disk today is basically nothing.

yes, for sonically simple music, like rock/pop I can agree, that there is not much difference, if any. Comfort is more important than potentially minuscule differences.

On complex symphonic recordings 8x compression vs BluRay Audio is clearly audible. Similar to Netflix vs Kaleidascape

 

[sigbergaudio]

There is some minimum threshold where excess of compression and very low DR will make record sound bad. While I get, that nobody who enjoys deathcore music needs high DR, also nobody would pick said deathcore as sonic reference. If you know any records with DR4, that you consider sonically excellent, please point me to them. Nothing beyond DR7 sounds really good in my opinion.

And it can be lot of fun to blast such music through bluetooth boombox, but it will be unbearable in good setup.

There is also another layer - if you are used to average setup, you do not have mental reference of “how good can sound be” as there is not SUCH difference between Taylor Swift and Mass in B Minor, as you are limited by limits of your gear. On some absolute scale Swift will be at 15 and Bach at 25 (assuming 25 is upper limit of your system capabilities). Then you move to really great system in excellent acoustic conditions - Swift will be 20, so yes better, but Bach will be 100. Because the content will be limiting factor, not the gear now. So Swift will sound much worse relatively to well recorded music.

And most of the content will be much more audible on better gear. And for most of today;s Top40 Airpods are just about adequate to,match the content with the gear..

Well, I do not have an average setup.

And now the claim is that the difference between poor and good recordings increase on a good setup? Your previous statement was that the poor records will sound worse on a better setup. Now you are saying the opposite. Which is it?

 

[pma]

One needs to have experience with sound of live unamplified music like symphonic orchestra. Period.

 

[Chr1]

I definitely think that bad recordings sound worse on a very revealing system. The lack of sound quality becomes more obvious. If you take it to extremes, I'd bet you wouldn't even be able to distinguish between the same track recorded both well and badly, listening on a very cheap radio/mobile phone speaker.

 

[mns3dhm]

There are many topics where I and @Bjorn see things quite differently, but on this topic I wholeheartedly agree. If you have a high-end system where modern music or "poor recordings" sound worse than through airpods, then there's something wrong with your system, not the music.

In general, the better the system, the better all music (even the less than stellar recordings) will sound. If they sound worse, more harsh or less enjoyable, then there's something wrong.

There's also a second layer of misconception in your statement, and that is that low dynamic range in a recording means it has to sound bad. Low DR only means there's not a huge difference between the softest and loudest passages in the track. There is no direct correlation between perceived sound quality and dynamic range.

Your take on this makes sense to me. I think what people really mean when they say something like this is better audio playback systems sometimes reveal problems with music recordings wherein the recording itself was not well made and or preserved.

 

[sigbergaudio]

One needs to have experience with sound of live unamplified music like symphonic orchestra. Period.

To do what? Our entire design philosophy is grounded on building systems with high dynamic capacity / range, so you're preaching to the (unamplified) choir here.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Your take on this makes sense to me. I think what people really mean when they say something like this is better audio playback systems sometimes reveal problems with music recordings wherein the recording itself was not well made and or preserved.

Yes, but about 80% of the time (studies show) when people say that their system (or the speakers they manufacture) "reveal bad recordings", it's either because the system has uneven frequency response or elevated highs, not because the speakers are good.

Good systems aren't supposed to make your music sound bad. What on earth would the point of that be?

"This sounds terrible!"
"Yes, but it's high end, don't you get it?"
"..."

 

[Axo1989]

There is some minimum threshold where excess of compression and very low DR will make record sound bad. While I get, that nobody who enjoys deathcore music needs high DR, also nobody would pick said deathcore as sonic reference. If you know any records with DR4, that you consider sonically excellent, please point me to them. Nothing beyond DR7 sounds really good in my opinion.

And it can be lot of fun to blast such music through bluetooth boombox, but it will be unbearable in good setup.

There is also another layer - if you are used to average setup, you do not have mental reference of “how good can sound be” as there is not SUCH difference between Taylor Swift and Mass in B Minor, as you are limited by limits of your gear. On some absolute scale Swift will be at 15 and Bach at 25 (assuming 25 is upper limit of your system capabilities). Then you move to really great system in excellent acoustic conditions - Swift will be 20, so yes better, but Bach will be 100. Because the content will be limiting factor, not the gear now. So Swift will sound much worse relatively to well recorded music.

And most of the content will be much more audible on better gear. And for most of today;s Top40 Airpods are just about adequate to,match the content with the gear..

Well, I include a metalcore/mathcore track from BMTH The Comedown in my usual speaker test playlist. It sounded entirely as imagined via Focal Grand Utopia, but very disappointing on JBL K2 S9500 (even though the latter can reach very high levels). We need very good bass extension as well as high dynamic capability and (ironically) lack of loudspeaker compression at high output levels to get the most from such music. Sadly I haven't heard Manta plus subs, not yet anyway.

Generalising from DR scores is a fairly unsatisfactory way to characterise sonics, and infrequent (or short duration) but large dynamic shifts are missed entirely. We are familiar with tracks that are badly crushed overall, but note also that compression on certain sonic elements in a mix are characteristics deliberately employed, quite separate from overall "quality" of recordings.

For the rest of the discussion, are we really positing a genre hierarchy? We've seen Toole et al suggest that classical isn't necessarily the best choice for loudspeaker testing. And personally, I find much new music certainly ok via AirPods Pro, but much more fun on some other systems.

 

[Sokel]

Poor recordings sound poor.By definition alone.
One can hear that clearly in a studio and can also hear it when it gets better.

Don;t know much about other genres,but classical can be unlistenable both with a bad recording and with gear that cannot follow it's high crest factor.
And I suspect that this difficulty is proportional with the popularity of the genre.

I wrote it before,I was not allowed to play my music at an audio show the moment "Richard Strauss" appeared at the display.
Dealer probably knew that this ridiculous Audio Notes could fall apart with it the same time it sounded heavenly at the big Wilsons.

One has to also define what poor means.
It's one thing to have recording artifacts or venue noises and another if the whole highs area for example are an indistinguishable soup.

 

[sigbergaudio]

There is some minimum threshold where excess of compression and very low DR will make record sound bad. While I get, that nobody who enjoys deathcore music needs high DR, also nobody would pick said deathcore as sonic reference. If you know any records with DR4, that you consider sonically excellent, please point me to them. Nothing beyond DR7 sounds really good in my opinion.

I think you changed the goal post here. I did not say that DR4 records would necessarily sound "sonically excellent". I was commenting on the statement that low DR would not only sound bad, it would sound worse on a good system, which is not true.

I dug up a fun band from Nevada for you. I suspect they won't vote for the same presidental candidate that I would have done if I lived in the USA (which I don't), but luckily that's not what this discussion is about. Five Finger Death Punch: War is The Answer. The 2018 reissue that I took a screenshot of below is available for instance on Spotify.

The first track is pretty heavy, so perhaps check out the relatively soft tracks "Bad Company" (DR5) and "Far from home" (DR6) before venturing to other tracks. This album sounds just fine, and it without a doubt sounds better on a better system.

Interestingly there's loads of expensive systems that makes stuff like this sound pretty bad. Common features about those systems are:

• Lack of low end
• Lack of energy in the mid bass
• Uneven response in the 1-4khz area
• Elevated highs.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I think you changed the goal post here. I did not say that DR4 records would necessarily sound "sonically excellent". I was commenting on the statement that low DR would not only sound bad, it would sound worse on a good system, which is not true.

I dug up a fun band from Texas for you. I suspect they won't vote for the same presidental candidate that I would have done if I lived in the USA (which I don't), but luckily that's not what this discussion is about. Five Finger Death Punch: War is The Answer. The 2018 reissue that I took a screenshot of below is available for instance on Spotify.

The first track is pretty heavy, so perhaps check out the relatively soft tracks "Bad Company" (DR5) and "Far from home" (DR6) before venturing to other tracks. This album sounds just fine, and it without a doubt sounds better on a better system.

Interestingly there's loads of expensive systems that makes stuff like this sound pretty bad. Common features about those systems are:

• Lack of low end
• Lack of energy in the mid bass
• Uneven response in the 1-4khz area
• Elevated highs.

View attachment 402061

Maybe they should be 5DR death punch.

I like the band and music btw.