Of course not. You can enjoy music via an Iphone speaker. But the point here is the intention of respect towards artistic creation when choosing the equipment. In this regard some tube and vinyl lovers seem to favor their own pleasure instead of original creativity.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Has DSP turned us into audio neurotics? [rant]
- Thread starter klettermann
- Start date
What a nonsense comment - do you think John Coltrane (rest his soul) could care less about somebody using a tube amplifier to hear his message and his music.
Go talk to some musicians and composers and make your point to them - that people who buy vinyl and tube gear don't respect their creative process or art - I imagine they will look utterly baffled or just laugh.
I think you are headed into the realms of zealotry here.
jayapple
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2022
- Messages
- 127
- Likes
- 59
Modern DSP tuning software is based on algorithms to correct sound. Of course, there are some people with golden ears who have listened to the sound to adjust, in fact, it is very difficult.
Especially in multi-channel, human ear listening ability is limited, through advanced algorithms can improve the listening environment to a certain extent.
In fact, it is better to calibrate and adjust the DSP in a room with the correct sound insulation design.
Especially in multi-channel, human ear listening ability is limited, through advanced algorithms can improve the listening environment to a certain extent.
In fact, it is better to calibrate and adjust the DSP in a room with the correct sound insulation design.
I think it’s a myth that a system with a little different representation tonality-wise would somehow automatically color all the sound in a way that would lead to any kind of “sameness” from album to album, as the most military-like objectivists would like to put it.
The thing is that the tonality differences already are “in-printed” in the way the albums were recorded, mixed, and mastered, so any differences will be heard about as equally much even if the overall tonality may differ from system to system. Who knows which system comes closer to the sound the artists heard in the studio?
If that tube amplifier makes the music sound more real to you it doesn't mean that you care less about the work of the artist. Who knows, you may even care more about what sounds more real to you than what sounds more real to the artists themselves, and maybe they would also find that your tube amplifier adds that little extra that makes their music sound more real to them as well. Every outcome is possible.
Coloured speakers add that colour to every track of every album , you can argue of course that within a very short period one becomes accustomed until of course you experience an uncoloured design.
Keith
Keith
The point that the musicians could care less if you listen to their work on a 6 transistor radio or a $10k HiFi is irrelevant. The fact that the science of High Fidelity music recreation in the home is the intended product of the recording engineers and the people who have worked tirelessly to improve the breed for over 100 years now.
To be clear I am not advocating the use of coloured gear to create a house sound (vs DSP) as it is inherently self-limiting in its application.
My point was in response to specific comments made that the intent of a musical artist is somehow subverted because the listener has a tube amp. That is nonsense.
If your assertion is correct and the raison d'etre for recording engineers is to make a high fidelity product for a small number of enthusiasts with high quality gear the loudness wars could never have happened - could they?
Last edited:
mhardy6647
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 12,979
- Likes
- 28,747
Probably not -- but his recordings sound pretty darned stunning when so reproduced.
(Marky dons Nomex overalls and furtively shuffles into the background)
R2R
Member
I don't reply much, but I think it's important to say that this community is built on a desire for an ideal; without the chase of perfectionism, this community would struggle to exist. With that said, we should at least appreciate where this has brought us.
(excuse the cheesiness )
- R2R
(excuse the cheesiness )
- R2R
Last edited:
Especially the Atlantic mono recordingsProbably not -- but his recordings sound pretty darned stunning when so reproduced.
(Marky dons Nomex overalls and furtively shuffles into the background)
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2024
- Messages
- 754
- Likes
- 2,471
To a certain extent, I see these two comments as being contradictory. Allow me to explain:
From the '60s to the '80s, there were loudspeakers systems that delivered a remarkably different sound to the consumer. Early ESLs, horn systems, loudspeakers with crossovers that were highly problematic, loudspeakers that had very affected frequency responses .... they were all there on the market for us to hear.
Time and time again, I witnessed consumers (and some musicians) spinning an LP on a system different than the one that they themselves owned, and saying things like, "Wow! I never knew that was in there!" and "Are you sure that's the same recording that I have?" and "That sounds great on my system, but it sounds like sh*t on this system!" (and in some cases, the exact opposite).
Some of those reactions were due to the fact that listeners become accustomed to the "sound" of the systems that they had at home. But some of those reactions are also due to the listeners actually hearing something in the signal that they had not heard before. After all, there was a much greater variance in equipment than nowadays. The graphic equalizers of the day seemed to make matters worse, not better.
In those days, arguments were based 100% on whether 1) the listener liked the "sound", or 2) whether the listener could hear more details in the recording. The point about hearing "what the artist heard in the studio" had not yet developed ... at least not among the people I hung with.
Today, I think we have come full circle .... although for different reasons than those of the '60s and '70s. Today, we have tube amplifier designs that I consider substandard compared to the '60s and '70s. Many are designed for an affected "sound". Conversely, the vast majority of speaker designs that I see nowadays are designed for voltage-source solid-state amplifiers. Combining those speaker designs with tube amplifiers deliberately designed to have an affected sound, and you have a recipe for disastrous reproduction of any given recording.
Are the differences as obvious as they were 50-60 years ago? Have we descended to that level again? You'll have to answer that for yourself, but I think the answer might be a definite "Yes!".
Jim
Last edited:
Robin L
Master Contributor
Yeah, I think you misinterpreted my Post. Phil Spector wanted a sound that would have maximum impact on AM radio, car radios in particular. Spector wasn't hiding a bad recording technique; he was ahead of the curve as regards such things as brickwalling. His "Wall of Sound" productions purposefully sound better on inferior gear, the kind that's rolled off on top, pumped up in the lower midrange. The Auratone monitors are designed to demonstrate the sound of a recording via AM radio, they have been in use in recording studios for many years for that reason.
Perhaps a little caution should be applied when tossing about terms such as "the artist's intent." There appears to be quite a bit of implied scope creep.
Let's also clearly define the "artist." In my mind, the only artists are the musicians. Everyone else involved at the production end is a technician or an engineer, with the possible exception of the album cover artist, who is not involved with production of the music.
How many here have had conversations with various musicians about what they consider important aspects of their performances? Would those of you who have please share whatever insights you may have gained from those exchanges? And to the musicians among us, what do YOU consider important aspects?
Let's also clearly define the "artist." In my mind, the only artists are the musicians. Everyone else involved at the production end is a technician or an engineer, with the possible exception of the album cover artist, who is not involved with production of the music.
How many here have had conversations with various musicians about what they consider important aspects of their performances? Would those of you who have please share whatever insights you may have gained from those exchanges? And to the musicians among us, what do YOU consider important aspects?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,238
- Likes
- 1,112
I would suggest that in a lot of modern music the producer is also one of the "artists". Electronic music being an example. Modern production is extremely complex.
If you are talking about folk, jazz, old school rock, classical, and simply recording instruments, maybe not so much. My 2c.
If you are talking about folk, jazz, old school rock, classical, and simply recording instruments, maybe not so much. My 2c.
With regards to artists, I think they will be all over the spectrum. You will have everything from the one hit wonder who doesn't give a crap as long as they get paid, to people like hans zimmer who are likely to be very particular.
Hmmm - so under your definition Sir George Martin was just a technician. Would the Beatles have had the same sound with a different producer? He was clearly part of the creative process - part of the band. Just using this as an example of why lines are difficult to draw.
Waxx
Major Contributor
You say Lee Perry or King Tubby (the inventors of dub music) are no artists or even musicians because their instrument is the mixing board and sound effects? They were remixing recordings (that they mostly made themselves) of other (reggae) musicians, but were transforming the song to something new and were so creating new music. The same with electronic artists like Aphex Twin or Venetian Snares, who program their music largely. Their instruments are computers and software (certainly today), but they make new music with it and are musicians to me. Musician can be a lot, it's not only the classical sense of the word anymore.
All very true!
And we all know that tube amps can and have been built that are as transparent (or nearly so) as a Benchmark AHB2.
But that is not the direction or intention of much of the high end audio market today.
Let me once more post links to the current pride of the high end media where you'll hear the usual BS about "yea it measures bad but sounds SOOO good.
It's not the tubes that are the bad guys here, but the BS snake-oil media that have so many audiophiles believing in the above statements.
This is so far away from the direction that our community of design EE's and recording engineers have worked so hard to bring us.
If a bunch of harmonic distortion and surface noise is the sound you want to add to your system, be my guest.
One thing I'm sure of, Sir George Martin would be thrilled to hear his creations thru a modern Digital SS system of todays SOTA designs.
PrimaLuna Dialogue Seven Tube Amp Review
This is a review, listening test and detailed measurements of the PriamLUna Dialogue Seven tube monoblock power amplifier. It is on kind loan from a member and cost $2,747 when it came out in late 2000s. Fit and finish seems excellent. My back unfortunately is not so situated and burdened...
www.audiosciencereview.com
Carver Raven 350 Review (Tube Amp)
This is a review and detailed measurements of the Carver Raven 350 tube monoblock amplifier. It is on kind loan from a member and (I think) costs US $4,750. The 350 is not a bad looking amp. It has the same "orange peel" paint job of the previous Carver 275 amplifier I reviewed. At 42 pounds...
www.audiosciencereview.com
