How audible is distortion?

[Thomas savage]

In terms of normal EQ via DSP, sure, lots doing it.

But I don't anyone who is running a 'make it sound like a SET' or other effects overlays.

My phone has ‘ tube’ mode and a few other ‘ make it weird’ settings . I’m sure folks use them

 

[Cosmik]

Yet on TVs you never find "CRT mode" or "Baird mode". People don't pay extra for the 10" screen version.

 

[restorer-john]

The long standing problem to me has been audiophiles confusing preference for fidelity.

How different is that to DSP'ing for a ruler flat response and then applying a 'house curve' over the top? Fidelity goes out the window again.

 

[Cosmik]

How different is that to DSP'ing for a ruler flat response and then applying a 'house curve' over the top? Fidelity goes out the window again.

Both are wrong, in fact...

 

[Wombat]

Yet on TVs you never find "CRT mode" or "Baird mode". People don't pay extra for the 10" screen version.

 

[Sal1950]

Both are wrong, in fact...

But I don't think the guys doing that sophisticated tuning would ever claim it was more "accurate" after his house curve was inserted. That in difference to the believer that thinks his SET rig is more transparent or hears deeper into the music.

 

[bennetng]

Yet on TVs you never find "CRT mode" or "Baird mode". People don't pay extra for the 10" screen version.

I don't think I can for example, differentiate a real vinyl playback from a digitized vinyl rip, but I can certainly differentiate a real CRT from a CRT mode on LCD displays.

CRT mode is pretty popular in classic video game emulators.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mame+crt+scanline&t=ffsb&iax=images&ia=images

On the other hand some people like to take advantage of the higher resolution on modern displays and invented some sort of interpolation methods to smooth out the pixelation without blurring and ringing, like the xBRZ algorithm:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=xbrz&t=ffsb&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images

These modes are all optional and can be applied based on personal taste, nothing controversial.

 

[Jakob1863]

<snip>

It's 100 years later, and we are still finding that a listening-test free approach is the best way to make an audio system e.g. D&D 8C speakers are not 'voiced'; they meet a simple, objective specification.

Usually "modern" development in the audio field relied in every time on the listening tests done before "that" time and during that time.
That it is sometimes difficult to get agreement is illustrated by the discussion around the linearity a loudspeaker measurement should show at the listening position, obviously there are quite diverging theories existent and which way should that be resolved if not by meaningful experiments?

Furthermore without listening tests we most likely wouldn´t have stereophonic reproduction.

 

[Jakob1863]

<snip>
If correct, all I need is a DSP algorithm to apply the same distortion effects to digital.

That might help, but more likely the biggest impact had the different mastering that is applied for cutting vinyl. My hypothesis is still that - fortunately due to the restrictions of vinyl - because you can´t cut vinyl with the "anything goes approach" of digital, that a lot of mixed/processed "sillyness" is at least attenuated in the vinyl process while it remains often mainly unaltered in the digital process.

The philosophical paradox isn´t one imo.
Any usual recording is a quite lossy version of reality - so anything but neutral by definition - and furthermore without listening to the recorded content, you don´t know about the degree of degradation perceptionswise. Our perception is strongly based on learned patterns i.e. experience.

By arbitrarliy defining a specific type of reproduction system as "neutral" you might be able to get a more consistent evaluation process, but it is all related to this "standard" .
If your reproduction system is sufficiently different from the production systen and/or your indivial learned patterns/experience sufficiently different from the production team, then you most likely will not get what you are looking for.

If you alter the reproduction system to get more from the "real thing" is it really less neutral at the end?

The predefined "standard" is mainly based on technical terms in comparison to the mentioned arbitrarily choosen reference point while your perception is based on your experience of the "real thing" .
Therefore imo anything that evokes a perception that is more similar to the perception of the real events is "more" neutral, although it might be less linear.
And of course it will be most likely a different alteration due to different recording environments/styles.

 

[Cosmik]

Usually "modern" development in the audio field relied in every time on the listening tests done before "that" time and during that time.
That it is sometimes difficult to get agreement is illustrated by the discussion around the linearity a loudspeaker measurement should show at the listening position, obviously there are quite diverging theories existent and which way should that be resolved if not by meaningful experiments?

Furthermore without listening tests we most likely wouldn´t have stereophonic reproduction.

Maybe people periodically forget and re-discover things as fashions change. The old speaker designers knew that anechoic measurements were the important thing, and they even built anechoic chambers at vast expense. In the 1970s they were fully aware of the importance of uniform dispersion (if not 1956) and in 1952 some pioneers were even building active crossovers. To the best of their abilities they were producing a neutral system.

The advent of the laptop, FFT and microphone has changed the way people think about the problem rather than just being a useful tool. People no longer build a neutral system as far as the speakers, but attempt to incorporate the room as part of the system, resulting in a non-neutral system as far as the speakers and a misguided attempt to 'game' human hearing with pretty dumb EQ - as though a human can't sense more than just frequency response with their hearing. This is a fundamental difference. And, I would contend, wrong.

It seems entirely possible to me that the brightest brains in the business are busily wrecking the future of hi-fi! The in-room frequency response idea could become universal for listeners and recording studios, virtually never producing the right result.

The results of listening tests are 'erratic', and people can only give their preferences etc. on the material which they are provided with. The chances of arriving at 'neutral' without aiming for it very specifically are virtually nonexistent. Audio could be about to wander off into the wilderness, being based on dodgy listening tests and faulty ideas about in-room frequency responses rather than the simple - but very specific and virtually impossible to reach other than by calculation and design - straight line.

 

[Krunok]

Yet on TVs you never find "CRT mode" or "Baird mode". People don't pay extra for the 10" screen version.

LOOL

 

[Krunok]

Maybe people periodically forget and re-discover things as fashions change. The old speaker designers knew that anechoic measurements were the important thing, and they even built anechoic chambers at vast expense. In the 1970s they were fully aware of the importance of uniform dispersion (if not 1956) and in 1952 some pioneers were even building active crossovers. To the best of their abilities they were producing a neutral system.

The advent of the laptop, FFT and microphone has changed the way people think about the problem rather than just being a useful tool. People no longer build a neutral system as far as the speakers, but attempt to incorporate the room as part of the system, resulting in a non-neutral system as far as the speakers and a misguided attempt to 'game' human hearing with pretty dumb EQ - as though a human can't sense more than just frequency response with their hearing. This is a fundamental difference. And, I would contend, wrong.

It seems entirely possible to me that the brightest brains in the business are busily wrecking the future of hi-fi! The in-room frequency response idea could become universal for listeners and recording studios, virtually never producing the right result.

The results of listening tests are 'erratic', and people can only give their preferences etc. on the material which they are provided with. The chances of arriving at 'neutral' without aiming for it very specifically are virtually nonexistent. Audio could be about to wander off into the wilderness, being based on dodgy listening tests and faulty ideas about in-room frequency responses rather than the simple - but very specific and virtually impossible to reach other than by calculation and design - straight line.

After reading "loudness wars" topic I'm asking myself why would we need "neutrality" at the first place? To better hear loudness compression?

 

[Don Hills]

Yet on TVs you never find "CRT mode" or "Baird mode". People don't pay extra for the 10" screen version.

At least the Baird system was progressive scan. 405 line was a step backwards to interlaced...

 

[Cosmik]

At least the Baird system was progressive scan. 405 line was a step backwards to interlaced...

I think interlacing is judged unfairly. In effect it was the first lossy compression system for video: slow moving elements were effectively shown at full resolution while fast-moving elements were at half resolution. Not a bad system at all.

 

[sergeauckland]

The advent of the laptop, FFT and microphone has changed the way people think about the problem rather than just being a useful tool. People no longer build a neutral system as far as the speakers, but attempt to incorporate the room as part of the system, resulting in a non-neutral system as far as the speakers and a misguided attempt to 'game' human hearing with pretty dumb EQ - as though a human can't sense more than just frequency response with their hearing. This is a fundamental difference. And, I would contend, wrong.

It seems entirely possible to me that the brightest brains in the business are busily wrecking the future of hi-fi! The in-room frequency response idea could become universal for listeners and recording studios, virtually never producing the right result.

I think that's right. As listeners, we are capable of listening 'through' the room, so unless the room has really gross problems, a loudspeaker that's anechoically flat on-axis and has a decent polar diagram, will sound 'right' in any decent room. The 'house' curve naturally results from a flat loudspeaker and the normal sort of absorption and diffusion one gets in normal domestic rooms. Yes, if one's listening room has bare hard tiled floors, bare walls and no upholstered seating, then the 'house' curve won't be ideal, but then the room will sound horrible for normal domestic purposes.

I can understand recording and broadcasting studios wanting a standard house curve, to minimise the acclimatisation time staff need when going from one room to another, but that doesn't generally apply to home listening. However, even in studios, a generally good house curve naturally results from flat loudspeakers and good acoustics, but it may need a small amount of tweaking to achieve a standard curve. If the room needs more than a small amount of tweaking, then clearly, the acoustics are wrong or the loudspeakers are not flat. I used regularly to visit radio studios which were built to BBC internal standards or the old UK IBA Code-of-Practice, and they all sounded very similar, but since those standards were abandoned and studios could be built in whatever way the station fancied, (there was a fashion for a lot of chrome and glass) there were all sorts of different acoustics, none of them as good as the old BBC/IBA CoP studios.

S

 

[svart-hvitt]

I think that's right. As listeners, we are capable of listening 'through' the room, so unless the room has really gross problems, a loudspeaker that's anechoically flat on-axis and has a decent polar diagram, will sound 'right' in any decent room. The 'house' curve naturally results from a flat loudspeaker and the normal sort of absorption and diffusion one gets in normal domestic rooms. Yes, if one's listening room has bare hard tiled floors, bare walls and no upholstered seating, then the 'house' curve won't be ideal, but then the room will sound horrible for normal domestic purposes.

I can understand recording and broadcasting studios wanting a standard house curve, to minimise the acclimatisation time staff need when going from one room to another, but that doesn't generally apply to home listening. However, even in studios, a generally good house curve naturally results from flat loudspeakers and good acoustics, but it may need a small amount of tweaking to achieve a standard curve. If the room needs more than a small amount of tweaking, then clearly, the acoustics are wrong or the loudspeakers are not flat. I used regularly to visit radio studios which were built to BBC internal standards or the old UK IBA Code-of-Practice, and they all sounded very similar, but since those standards were abandoned and studios could be built in whatever way the station fancied, (there was a fashion for a lot of chrome and glass) there were all sorts of different acoustics, none of them as good as the old BBC/IBA CoP studios.

S

So you and @Cosmik are unconditionally "against" room compensation, even below transition/Schroeder?

I know Cosmik is, just trying to put people in boxes and camps here

 

[Frank Dernie]

So you and @Cosmik are unconditionally "against" room compensation, even below transition/Schroeder?

I know Cosmik is, just trying to put people in boxes and camps here

Unconditionally is a strong word.
Personally I have experimented with bass correction in my room and do not prefer it to an unbastardised signal, but my room is good and I do believe we hear through the room. I often have musicians playing their instruments in here and I have never had a glimmer of an indication that the instrument's sound needed tuning to suit the room or sounded wrong in any way.
OTOH our Steinway Model "B" was voiced to our music room when they installed it. The guy had a mallet with spikes on to soften some of the hammers, but I have no idea if that had anything to do with bass or just general reflections etc..
On balance I think I have a good room with carefully positioned speakers so the effect of a DSPeaker Anti-mode 2.0 was not an improvement in my opinion.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Unconditionally is a strong word.
Personally I have experimented with bass correction in my room and do not prefer it to an unbastardised signal, but my room is good and I do believe we hear through the room. I often have musicians playing their instruments in here and I have never had a glimmer of an indication that the instrument's sound needed tuning to suit the room or sounded wrong in any way.
OTOH our Steinway Model "B" was voiced to our music room when they installed it. The guy had a mallet with spikes on to soften some of the hammers, but I have no idea if that had anything to do with bass or just general reflections etc..
On balance I think I have a good room with carefully positioned speakers so the effect of a DSPeaker Anti-mode 2.0 was not an improvement in my opinion.

So not "unconditionally against", then. Just "against"?

 

[Purité Audio]

Pair of speakers, real live musicians playing instruments, quite different in terms of propagation.
Keith

 

[Blumlein 88]

Remember room curves are to compensate for the fact measured in room is different than in anechoic conditions. Flat anechoicly will measure with a sloping downward curve in room.