Can You Trust Your Ears? By Tom Nousaine

[svart-hvitt]

Anyone know how Peter is doing? He's 92-93 now and haven't heard anything since his Goodbye post dated midsummer 2015.

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?"

He died earlier this year, at 91:

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/mcall/obituary.aspx?pid=185898962

 

[fas42]

One question I just gotta ask all the folks that are absolutely convinced that any and all distortions of the signal that comes off the master tape will lead to subjectively inferior sound based on the research by Toole and Olive what about cross talk? Added cross talk is a distortion is it not? Is that also always a bad thing in any form after the signal leaves the tape and begins it's journey to our ears? How about compression or dynamic expansion? These are distortions. Are they always bad once the signal starts it's way from the source recording?

"Classic" distortions like the ones you mention are less 'evil' then signal dependent, low level distortion or noise artifacts - the latter are much harder to deal with, normally; and are the reason that sound replay typically always sounds 'fake'.

Nearly all power amplifiers 'compress' at higher volumes - and this is bad ... it takes hearing a unit that doesn't have this weakness to appreciate what all the rest get wrong ...

 

[fas42]

This makes no sense.

A sound that is harsh in the original recording should sound harsh when played back.

Systems that make everything sound nice may be pleasing (and popular with audiophiles), but that doesn't mean they're high fidelity or high quality.

But how do you know that it was "harsh in the original recording"? I presume you've listened to it via some playback mechanism, and judged it to be so - so, how did you allocate the harshness contributions of recording vs. playback chains: say, 100%, 0% or 50%, 50% or 0%, 100%?

Decades ago, I used to believe that there were "bad" recordings - but the more I worked at it the more I realised that the key faults always lay on the reproduction side - if I could elevate the standard of playback to the highest level, then any perceived harshness in the sound would evaporate.

Recordings all sound different - it's not that they sound "nice" on a competent system, it's that they are fully convincing as a capture of real people, and instruments - and the illusion completely sustains.

I was just reminded of a compilation of Ike and Tina Turner tracks I have, some live in a club, dubbed onto a cheap tape recorder - you want harsh? The sound of these will sandblast the glass of the windows into translucent, on a conventional rig - and that's how it sounds to me also, if my setup is not optimised. But a 'miracle' happens when the system is good enough - it no longer slices my ears to shreds, but becomes an intense, 'raw', sweaty, power packed, emotional roller coaster .. the very reason for that type of music to be in existence.

 

[watchnerd]

Decades ago, I used to believe that there were "bad" recordings - but the more I worked at it the more I realised that the key faults always lay on the reproduction side

Sorry, but this is just ridiculous.

Anyone has done mixing knows that bad recordings exist. And, in fact, most mixes start off bad until they're massaged.

You yourself admitted that some Led Zeppelin masterings were poor.

 

[fas42]

Listening.


Makes perfect sense. I tend to seek out variations on masterings on various media when possible. Two different ways of finding a less accurate but more pleasing sound quality.

IMO, bad move. With a competent system, masterings designed to be more "pleasing on ordinary systems" are ordinary - they are quite boring to listen to, as if most of the spark and vitality has been drained from them - even "little old ladies" wouldn't be offended by them.

Sorry, I listen to music because it represents life - hospital food versions of it don't do for me ...

 

[fas42]

Sorry, but this is just ridiculous.

Anyone has done mixing knows that bad recordings exist. And, in fact, most mixes start off bad until they're massaged.

You yourself admitted that some Led Zeppelin masterings were poor.

Technically bad recordings exist, in vast numbers - subjectively unsatisfying recordings are almost impossible to find - there's a difference in the angle of looking at the situation.

If one has absolutely no idea that more technically competent versions exist, as masterings or otherwise, then one can be happy with what one has. It's if one has experienced a technically superior version, but then you can only access a much lesser one, from then on - then, yes, you would be disturbed.

Some time ago I heard a very recent remastering of ABBA hits - grotesque is the only word that came to mind ... young listeners would be happy with the latest; but I have the original album, so know how much 'technical damage' was done in the recent release.

 

[Analog Scott]

Anyone know how Peter is doing? He's 92-93 now and haven't heard anything since his Goodbye post dated midsummer 2015.

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?"

Not well.

 

[Analog Scott]

IMO, bad move. With a competent system, masterings designed to be more "pleasing on ordinary systems" are ordinary - they are quite boring to listen to, as if most of the spark and vitality has been drained from them - even "little old ladies" wouldn't be offended by them.

Sorry, I listen to music because it represents life - hospital food versions of it don't do for me ...

I don't really know which masterings are "designed to be more pleasing on ordinary systems." I just listen to different masterings on my system, compare and choose the ones that sound best to me on my system. Not exactly sure what you mean about music representing life. Nor do I quite get your reference to hospital food.

 

[Analog Scott]

Sorry, but this is just ridiculous.

Anyone has done mixing knows that bad recordings exist. And, in fact, most mixes start off bad until they're massaged.

You yourself admitted that some Led Zeppelin masterings were poor.

Ear bleed would be a better word for the BBC sessions that were supervised by Jimmy Page. Bad masterings abound. Weeding them out requires some sort of audio weed wacker. BUT... very much thanks to the audiophile market all kinds of good masterings have been coming out over the past 20 -30 years or so on a variety of media. If nothing else we do have more options than ever before.

 

[fas42]

I don't really know which masterings are "designed to be more pleasing on ordinary systems." I just listen to different masterings on my system, compare and choose the ones that sound best to me on my system. Not exactly sure what you mean about music representing life. Nor do I quite get your reference to hospital food.

The Led Zep masterings by Page were done to be more pleasing. But lost all the grandeur of the originals. Remasterings of Yes albums were done to be more pleasing. But lost the complexity and depth to the visions being explored in the originals. Heard side by side, the remasterings are like baby food - the texture, variety and individuality of all the component sounds in the original has been mashed up, turned into a type of easy to digest pulp - suitable for people with "delicate" stomaches.

 

[Analog Scott]

The Led Zep masterings by Page were done to be more pleasing. But lost all the grandeur of the originals. Remasterings of Yes albums were done to be more pleasing. But lost the complexity and depth to the visions being explored in the originals. Heard side by side, the remasterings are like baby food - the texture, variety and individuality of all the component sounds in the original has been mashed up, turned into a type of easy to digest pulp - suitable for people with "delicate" stomaches.

How do you know they were done to be "more pleasing?" You had a discussion with Jimmy Page? Not sure how massive compression and severe brightness are supposed to be "more pleasing." I think it's simply the result of a person with severe hearing damage calling the shots.
Oh and I think you are simply dead wrong about Yes remasterings. Of course it all depends on which ones you are refering to. There are many versions with many different flavors of sound.

 

[fas42]

How do you know they were done to be "more pleasing?" You had a discussion with Jimmy Page? Not sure how massive compression and severe brightness are supposed to be "more pleasing." I think it's simply the result of a person with severe hearing damage calling the shots.
Oh and I think you are simply dead wrong about Yes remasterings. Of course it all depends on which ones you are refering to. There are many versions with many different flavors of sound.

Well, they were more pleasing - to Jimmy Page! The company apparently thought it was a reasonable approach - the money wouldn't have been spent money otherwise, to release them.

An audio friend down the road is the Yes fan - this group didn't register with me at the time they were big ... so I had "clear ears" at the time when I was listening to the different versions, on his system; the songs were as new experiences for me. He had gone very enthusiastically after the remasterings, over some years - but he had also been steadily been tweaking his playback in the interim; it's at a pretty decent level now. And the presentation of the original releases of the albums had so much more going for them - I wouldn't have any idea which remasters he had - he did say he ignored the ones that were largely condemned, by the fans. The generic sense of all the newer takes is that they were simplified, turned more into "nice", but flatter examples - far less interesting to listen to ... they had been sandpapered too much.

 

[March Audio]

You do understand that the acoustical waveform one has in their listening room is a three dimensional waveform but the recording signal wave form is actually two seperate time aligned one dimensional wave forms? You do understand that there is no possible way a three dimensional waveform can literally look anything like two time aligned one dimensional waveforms? Not even Escher could pull that one off.

I'm sorry but you are still under the impression that myself and others are trying to recreate the sound field as would be heard by an individual if they were in the performance space. WE ARE NOT.

Fidelity is in reference to the RECORDED sound. The recorded sound is the art and there is nothing wrong with Tooles premise. You are misinterpreting it.

 

[March Audio]

does this apply to cross talk, dynamic compression and dynamic expansion? I have asked about these distortions a number of times and it seems like no one wants to touch the question.

Because no one sees the relevance.

 

[Analog Scott]

I'm sorry but you are still under the impression that myself and others are trying to recreate the sound field as would be heard by an individual if they were in the performance space. WE ARE NOT.

Fidelity is in reference to the RECORDED sound. The recorded sound is the art and there is nothing wrong with Tooles premise. You are misinterpreting it.

You asked the question I gave the answer. Is the answer wrong or is it right? (Hint, it's right.)

 

[Analog Scott]

Because no one sees the relevance.

You speak for everyone?

So you don't see the relevance of added distortion in the form of altered dynamics or added cross talk to the playback of recordings. How do you reconcile the notion that these distortions are not relevant to your previous assertions?

"If you add unquantified distortions at replay you only worsen fidelity."

"If an applied fixed replay distortion is unquantified ref the original, then the end result is random."

"No one is arguing the variabilities of the recording part of the process. One of my criticisms is the lack of conformance to a standard for monitoring in studios. However, randomly adding further distortions at replay does nothing to improve the situation, it exacerbates it. Whatever flavour you choose to add for one recording will be wrong for another.
Not to mention the Toole research shows that people still prefer playback neutral systems regardless of recording. Im not sure as to why this is contentious for some."

Added crosstalk and changes in dynamics injected into an audio system that are not present in the original source signal are distortions. They are abberations from "Neutrality" of the playback system. Given your clearly stated assertions about the universally detrimental nature of any added distortions how is it that added distortions in the form of cross talk and alterations of the dynamics are irrelevant?

 

[March Audio]

I'm afraid you are still missing the point.

Whatever processes are performed as part of the recording process they are part of the "art".

Again, it's,not a comparison to the sound field in the performance space.

I can't speak for your replay system but mine does not add the distortions you mention. My listening room is has been quantified and major aberrations have been mitigated as far as is reasonably practicable.

 

[March Audio]

You asked the question I gave the answer. Is the answer wrong or is it right? (Hint, it's right.)

Sorry you have lost me.

This,is actually becoming a bit painful. Until such time as you present some cogent argument against the research of Toole et al, I'm not sure the conversation is really going to go anywhere. You obviously want to believe what you want to believe.

 

[Analog Scott]

I'm afraid you are still missing the point.

That is not an answer to the question I am asking you.

Whatever processes are performed as part of the recording process they are part of the "art".

My question does not involve processes on the recording side of the chain. In fact I specifically limited the question to the playback part of the audio chain.

Again, it's,not a comparison to the sound field in the performance space.

Again, never said it was and again this is not an answer to my question.

I can't speak for your replay system but mine does not add the distortions you mention. My listening room is has been quantified and major aberrations have been mitigated as far as is reasonably practicable.

Really? Your replay system has no added cross talk? How did you manage to prevent any of the sound coming from the left speaker from entering your right ear and any of the sound from the right speaker from entering your left ear? You must be listening on headphones then. Because I am pretty sure that no loudspeaker system/playback room completely prevents this sort of cross talk. Only headphones do that.

 

[Analog Scott]

Sorry you have lost me.

Sorry, I was assuming you were following our conversation. It's all here in the thread if you are curious as to what question you asked and what answer I gave.

This,is actually becoming a bit painful. Until such time as you present some cogent argument against the research of Toole et al, I'm not sure the conversation is really going to go anywhere.

I believe I did. And in doing so a number of other members of the forum accused me of pointing out what everyone on this forum already knows.

You obviously want to believe what you want to believe.

I am impressed by your mind reading abilities. Maybe you should give randi a call and make a million bucks. Or is it ten million? I forget.