Has DSP turned us into audio neurotics? [rant]

[Robin L]

Have members here made the same type of bogus accusations ... not about equipment, but about music? Maybe I've missed something.

Jim

I've managed to restrain myself so far.

 

[pablolie]

Character should be in the recordings, not the system.

I personally subscribe to that. But there are music lovers out there that collect pre1960 classical recordings that benefit from some help. Those may have different preferences.

 

[Robin L]

... and you've been admirably successful!

Jim

I got 66 classical CDs for $20 this weekend. But seriously - who cares?

 

[Descartes]

I am a member of the Porsche Club of Victoria. I notice there are 3 types of members: (1) rich wankers (2) motorsport enthusiasts (3) classic car enthusiasts. They are easy to spot, just look at their cars. The conversation is also very different. The motorsport guys like talking about how to tackle a track, where to brake, etc. The classic car guys are generally older and like talking about rust and paint and where to get some ancient spare part. And the rich wankers talk about country clubs, exclusive restaurants, holidays to the South of France ...

So which one are you?

 

[MattHooper]

Have members here made the same type of bogus accusations ... not about equipment, but about music? Maybe I've missed something.

Jim

I was talking about that an ASR member can look at a classic subjectivist audiophile Who is spent lots of time and money on dubious products, all sort of expensive wires, tweaking, etc. and opine “ that person seems more about the equipment than the music.”

There’s actually been plenty of that viewpoint stated on ASR. It’s even shown up on this thread

(and I don’t mean to pick on that member, it’s an understandable viewpoint)

You also have ASR members making the same type of arguments against other ASR members,

For instance , in this ridiculous screed in which those of us who play records are depicted as less pure in our appreciation of music, versus the more virtuous audiophile who chooses only digital sources. (Skip the last paragraph for the punchline.)
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...lain-the-vinyl-renaissance.32420/post-2044050

 

[Sal1950]

However, I strongly feel that changing equipment to get different sound out of recordings is a backwards way to go about it. From my experience, a system with it's own very characteristic sound tend to make all recordings similar, masking the character of the actual recording.

AMEN, that's the "sounds good to me" approach that I rant against quite often here.

A true "High Fidelity" system has the ability to play back a recording in a transparent manner, adding ZERO new tonal or other information of it's own, unless later desired such as DSP.

Have members here made the same type of bogus accusations ... not about equipment, but about music? Maybe I've missed something.

Jim, points have been made that if your interest is truly focused on the "music" , you will want to hear what the microphones or engineers/artists heard in the most transparent manner possible. That's the premise that the High Fidelity passion was built for/on.

OTOH there are many who's passion is more finely focused on the "gear" and playing with it's particular "sound", thus mod'ing all recordings to reflect their own personal taste in sound. That's the "sounds good to me" school of thought and IMHO diverts the true passion of High Fidelity Music Reproduction.

 

[Robin L]

Me! I'm envious!

Jim

p.s. - any Asger Hamerik?

p.p.s. - sorry for the veering O.T. After all, nothing to do with EQ or DSP. Possibly something to do with neurotic behavior, but what's new?

Is Asger Hamerik some sort of neurological disorder?

This divergence from the main theme of the thread is in no way "off topic". Someone who is interested in music is probably less involved in the various neurosis of audio tweakers and more interested in musical content, even if the recording they're listening to is less than state of the art. Just about anything recorded before 1956 is going to be sonically compromised one way or another. There is a wealth of musically valuable recordings before stereo. Some are airchecks. Some are from 78s. A "music first" mindset has to allow for less-than-ideal recording quality.

 

[UprightCitizen]

It’s hard not to judge, but I do my best not to do these days.

A lot of audiophiles make a big deal about how “ it’s all about the music.” And whenever I see that I always think about my visit to a very dedicated but very wealthy audiophile’s loft.
He had extremely expensive speakers, extremely expensive amplifiers, expensive DAC and transport, and all sorts of tweaks, including python sized speaker cables snaking along the floor held up, of course, by cable lifters. After giving me a tour of the system, he said “ but I’m not like so many other audiophiles. I’m just all about the music.”

And I thought “ sure you are.”

I still think he was wrong. It was quite clear that it wasn’t “ all about the music” for him, given the enormous amount of time and attention he gave to audio gear.

But the thing is that doesn’t matter. The fact that he was that enthusiastic about various aspects of audio gear doesn’t for a moment mean he wasn’t as into music as any other music lover. He took me out to some New York clubs to watch live jazz, and he was clearly as swept up into the music as anybody could be.

And I think that’s a false dichotomy that has run through the audiophile community for a long time: it can’t be both. If you look like you were too much into the gear you risk not passing the purity test of “ not being about the music and losing sight of the music.”

So that’s the thing I like to keep in mind. People can walk and chew gum at the same time. You can be really interested in audio gear, and simultaneously be a huge music fan. They are not mutually exclusive.

It can surely be both, and that's a nice story.

 

[UprightCitizen]

I was talking about that an ASR member can look at a classic subjectivist audiophile Who is spent lots of time and money on dubious products, all sort of expensive wires, tweaking, etc. and opine “ that person seems more about the equipment than the music.”

There’s actually been plenty of that viewpoint stated on ASR. It’s even shown up on this thread

(and I don’t mean to pick on that member, it’s an understandable viewpoint)

You also have ASR members making the same type of arguments against other ASR members,

For instance , in this ridiculous screed in which those of us who play records are depicted as less pure in our appreciation of music, versus the more virtuous audiophile who chooses only digital sources. (Skip the last paragraph for the punchline.)
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...lain-the-vinyl-renaissance.32420/post-2044050

Just to be clear; what I wrote was based on what I've seen people write about music, not that they are so obsessed with the gear that they can't have love for music. And I again would like to point out, I think it's totally fine if someone loves audio electronics even if that someone has no interrest in music.

 

[Sokel]

I personally subscribe to that. But there are music lovers out there that collect pre1960 classical recordings that benefit from some help. Those may have different preferences.

I'm one of them,an obsessed one.
I can report as loud as I can that these recordings need no "added" character.
Some of them can put in shame even today's recordings,I have said it time and time again,people like Lew Layton are amongst my heroes.

The more neutral and dynamic gear is used,the better.

 

[CapMan]

I'm one of them,an obsessed one.
I can report as loud as I can that these recordings need no "added" character.
Some of them can put in shame even today's recordings,I have said it time and time again,people like Lew Layton are amongst my heroes.

The more neutral and dynamic gear is used,the better.

Same with jazz albums of that period which I also love.

 

[Snarfie]

Leerde q3pw 11

A cacaphony of thoughts (it's late) :

1) I stay out of the vinyl argument. I no longer have LPs, and I was glad to see them go. Surface noise, inner groove distortion, mistracking .... all those things were an annoyance. By the same token, I am not attracted to log homes, wood-burning fireplaces, kerosene stoves, flathead engines, draft horses, outhouses, black-and-white TVs, wool union suits and tube amplifiers. Those things are in the past, and have been replaced by more modern merchandise.

That doesn't mean that some people don't follow after those things in a nostalgic manner ... they do. And they have every right to do so. After all, people can spend their money any way they want.
But there is a legitimate problem when out-of-date technology is touted as being "better". Many fans of LPs push them as "better". Many fans of tube gear push them as "better". The music itself doesn't seem to be the target of the arguments, whether it's jazz or classical or piano music. Instead, the arguments seem to focus on the technology.

I have some digital copies of music from the 1920s and 1930s. I love the performances ... recordings of Robert Johnson, for example. But my goodness, the actual technology is lamentably primitive, the sound has no bass, and there seems to be more noise than music. Same with recordings of Furtwangler. The performances are magnificent, but the technology raises its ugly head throughout the recording.

So when I say that I love the MUSIC, I mean exactly that. Under no circumstances will I defend the technology or the recording quality. And I mean that very specifically; if I had the original lacquers of Johnson or Furtwangler, I would not play them for enjoyment. I would transcribe them to digital, and play the digital. Yes, I realize that the two would sound the same .... once. But the wear of mechanical systems on historical recordings causes me profound despair. That was not true before the advent of digital, because I had nothing better, but it's true now. So ... the recordings that are mastered in a unique way can still have all that "uniqueness" preserved .... and not wear.
In fact, any unique quality of non-digital recordings, archival or current, can be preserved digitally.

Therefore, my conclusions are twofold:

1) Although the information contained in archaic technologies (that is, the music) may be "better", the so-called "container", or form factor, is not. If we so wish, digital copies of original Sinatra recordings or the Andrews Sisters will sound EXACTLY the same as an LP, and involve no wear or potential damage to the medium. MoFi proved that. So I don't see some of these remarks as being anti-music, I see them as being anti-archaic-technology.

2) People post opinions on the Web. They post many opinions, about many subjects other than audio or music. For every person who offers their opinion in favor of something, there is another (or several) who offer their opinion that is NOT in favor. That is the nature of the discourse on the web, and for every person who feels they have a right to express one opinion, others feel they have a right to express another.
I don't see that this nasty process should be squelched. I believe that it should be moderated, but that's all. I believe that all points of view should be aired. BUT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES DOES THIS MEAN THAT I BELIEVE ALL POINTS OF VIEW HAVE EQUAL VALIDITY. After all, every race has a winner .... and a loser.
So yes, you will have arguments. Some of those arguments will be acrimonious, with emotions running high on both sides. There will be hurt feelings, and there will be bitterness. One side or the other will unavoidably consider themselves deprived of the respect to which they feel entitled. There will be self-righteous indignation, and repudiation and ill-will. Some remarks will be intelligent, and some will be stupid.

That's life.

I do NOT say that to justify such an imbroglio, simply to stress that it is most frequently unavoidable. We are, after all, only human. (If you don't believe so, ask AI. )

Jim

+1
Get the impression that the Mofi lawsuite says it all between digital an analog. https://pitchfork.com/news/mofi-wins-approval-for-settlement-over-analog-vinyl-fraud-lawsuit/

 

[GGroch]

[rant]
....Fast forward to now. DSP now allows us to tweak to a degree previously unimaginable.
[/rant]

To this baby boomer audiophile this seems not at all true.

To the contrary, for me the introduction of "Perfect Sound Forever" Compact Discs in the 1980s marked the end of the seemingly endless tweaks that made Stereos so much fun. One of the 1st things that struck me about CD players was how little you could do to improve their performance. Turntables provided hundreds of adjustments. Free tweaks included tracking angle, stylus force, anti skate. Cheap tweaks could include leveling, acoustic feet, stylus and cartridge upgrades, cleaning and de-stat devices, various tone-arm/cartridge synergy tweaks as well as software tweaks from audiophile pressings to direct to disk and upgrade sleeves and storage.

Not only did CD players have few or no adjustments (a major failing)...but when you start with what was billed as perfect sound forever there was little left for actual or cognitive bias improvements.

Today DSP thankfully provides some additional tweaking potential, but even then downloading a headphone EQ curve (or measuring your room response a few times) can "solve" the issue without much expense or the cognitive desire for continuous improvement.

 

[DLS79]

Maybe it's because I do a little sound work myself, but I have never understood the desire to alter the sound the musician/artist/creator produced. Thus my goal has always been to get rid of all the coloration caused by the gear and the room (within my budgetary constraints)!

 

[MattHooper]

Maybe it's because I do a little sound work myself, but I have never understood the desire to alter the sound the musician/artist/creator produced. Thus my goal has always been to get rid of all the coloration caused by the gear and the room (within my budgetary constraints)!

Which is of course fine. Other people select their Soundsystem based on whatever they find makes their music sound most compelling, whether it turns out to have some colorations or not. Different ways to skin a cat.

It’s my viewpoint that the musically relevant information transfers just fine across a wide range of playback devices. That’s why people have swooned to their favourite music artists whether they were in the 60s listening to Quad ESL 57s, AR-3s, or transistor radios on the beach, or cheap turntables in a Beatles fan teenagers bedroom. Or whether they were listening to car stereos or Walkman’s in the 70s/80s etc. I think type of colorations we are often talking about in high-end audio gear - a frequency bump here, a frequency dip there, some dispersion anomaly - those are utterly swamped by the amount of recorded information that nonetheless comes through the loudspeakers. I’ve had a wide range of loudspeakers, from very neutral to somewhat coloured, and the Sonic information in the recordings were easily discerned among all of them.

 

[Purité Audio]

I don’t think I have ever heard a pair of loudspeakers where I couldn’t recognise the song although a pair of Zu’s and Linn Kan’s came pretty close.
Keith

 

[Leporello]

Wich is of course fine. Other people select their Soundsystem based on whatever they find makes their music sound most compelling, whether it turns out to have some colorations or not. Different ways to skin a cat.

It is a different cat altogether. Some people respect the original work of art while others do not.

 

[MattHooper]

It is a different cat altogether. Some people respect the original work of art while others do not.

The Circle Of Confusion says “Hi.”

So only those with a 20hz to 20k playback system, fully room corrected, really care about “ The original work of the artist” whereas music fans and musicians down the ages didn’t really care about the work of the musical artist?

I don’t think you really want to go down that slippery slope.

 

[Timcognito]

Some people respect the original work of art while others do not.

And some look at it as engineering and acoustic science as close to the sound it was recorded/released and leave the art to the composition and performance hoping to have an at the studio/venue experience in their home. I will say the music, performance and recording quality completely dominate the experience over idiosyncrasies of most modern systems.

 

[MattHooper]

I will say the music, performance and recording quality completely dominate the experience over idiosyncrasies of most modern systems.

Exactly. Essential characteristics of the music and production come through on any number of sound systems.

The rest often involves audiophile virtue signalling.

I’ve been reading a book on how ABBA created the recordings of many of their famous songs. Early on they became infatuated with the Phil Spector sound and tried to replicate it. Did they only hear the Phil Spector sound through The Most Advanced And Accurate equipment of the time? Of course not. They heard it on their radio. At the beach. In the car. Spinning records at home. Just like everybody else.
And they said “ we want to sound just like that !”

Nobody needed state of the art equipment to hear what Phil Spector was trying to get across . The distinctive music and production techniques in music has always translate through many different playback scenarios.