Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[MaxwellsEq]

https://journals.aps.org/prxlife/pdf/10.1103/PRXLife.3.013001

Thank you!

 

[Galliardist]

The accuracy of the recording, of course. That is all you have.

I made recordings for decades and agree that microphone and placement have an important influence on the recording, I also don't own any recordings as realistic as my own since mine have not been compressed or mixed - just time spent positioning the microphones before the performance. Picking up background noise is the downside.

OTOH whilst things like stereo image and frequency response are effected the musicality of the musicians and the music itself is not.

Technically historic recordings of great performances of fabulous music fully maintain the musicianship even if the recording is noisy, poor speed stability and limited frequency response. The sound may be awful but the music and musicianship is unaffected.

A HiFi should reproduce the recording as accurately as possible, that is all.

I'd suggest that the musicians' dynamics may be modified in the recording/editing/playback process compared either to how they would play the music for an audience rather than a recording, or to the actual dynamics they played. Everything else sounds intact to me, at least in relative terms.

There is a literature examining performance on old recordings, and I did some preliminary listening to some older guitar recordings myself in this context, though a professional academic/performer then published a far better examination which I was happy to defer to.

 

[Mulder]

Pedant here:
I understand people who have different tastes or English isn't their language but HiFi in English is short for High Fidelity which means matching the recording as closely as possible so actually means "Accurate", so if you are looking for something non-accurate that pleases your particular taste better to call it a "home sound generator" or something, not HiFi.

HiFi in this sense is really only a theoretical definition. And possibly as an ideal, but the latter is more questionable. In practice, a HiFi system will largely more or less always be a “home sound generator”. Because even though the electronics today can be transparent, i.e. complete signal fidelity can now be achieved, the speakers and the listening room will practically never be “identical to what the artist heard in the mixing room”.

When the definition of HiFi is reduced to accuracy compared to a recording, it becomes uninteresting except from a purely technical point of view. I have several vinyl records that sound better than later digital remasters of the same music. In a technical sense, it is possible to achieve higher accuracy when playing the latter than is the case with the original vinyl. This illustrates how uninteresting the HiFi concept can be as a measure of the quality of sound reproduction. The recording itself, and the mixing and mastering of a recording, are at least as important for the sound quality as we experience it, and the recording itself is not covered by the HiFi concept, in the sense defined here, since only the actual playback of the recording is covered. Another way to define HiFi is to relate it to the degree of perceived realism when listening to a music recording.

 

[Jim Taylor]

HiFi in this sense is really only a theoretical definition. And possibly as an ideal, but the latter is more questionable. In practice, a HiFi system will largely more or less always be a “home sound generator”. Because even though the electronics today can be transparent, i.e. complete signal fidelity can now be achieved, the speakers and the listening room will practically never be “identical to what the artist heard in the mixing room”.

This is largely a strawman argument.
The fact that we cannot be absolutely certain that we hear "what the artist heard in the mixing room" does not in any way detract from the validity of a recording as a product of commerce.
The reason is that "what the artist heard in the mixing room" is not what the artist heard in production. Do you think that a recording of a piano sounds the same as what the artist heard while at the actual instrument? Does the harp sound similar to the harpist as it does to the audience? What about the drumkit? Does a recording sound the same as what the drummer heard while performing?
Take the case of a violinist playing for a group of listeners. Do you think that the violinist, with the instrument tucked under their chin and the strings vibrating only inches from their ear, hears anything remotely like what the audience hears?
Of course not. But the violinist bravely plays on, secure in the knowledge that the group for which they are playing is hearing something enjoyable.
How do they know this? Because the group of listeners tells them so. If the listeners tell them that the vibrato in a certain passage was magnificent, then they will play that passage with that sort of vibrato the next time, because the violinist is there to garner successful accolades, not dour criticism.

The same degree of disconnect exists in the mixing room. The playback of the recording in the mixing room will never sound like the performance in the sound booth, but the artist knows that. What they are doing is similar to what the violinist is doing ... they are sculpting a product for listeners.
When we play that recording in our rooms, we are giving feedback to the artist just the way the listeners are giving feedback to the violinist. The group listening to the violinist gave indication that they enjoyed the performance with applause and "bravos", and our purchases give the modern artist indication that we enjoyed their product.


If an artist listened to a recording and said, "That's what I'm trying to convey! That's an accurate recording!" and the public won't buy it, the smart artist doesn't argue.

Even buskers count the hat at the end of the day.

 

[Chr1]

Question : Should "voiced" speakers be viewed in the same way as "voiced" anything else in the signal chain?

 

[voodooless]

Question : Should "voiced" speakers to be viewed the same way as "voiced" anything else in the signal chain?

How do you view them?

 

[Chr1]

The same.

Looking for other people's opinions...

I use a mixture of voiced and neutral equipment. What I find curious is that there seems to be a certain reverence for lots of very expensive voiced speakers here on ASR, yet voiced anything else is generally frowned upon. Curious why.

My feeling is that it is most likely down to the view that, in the analogue domain, it's seen as OK to EQ your system via speakers. Anything else, not so much.
Perhaps I am wrong here though.

 

[Mulder]

This is largely a strawman argument.
The fact that we cannot be absolutely certain that we hear "what the artist heard in the mixing room" does not in any way detract from the validity of a recording as a product of commerce.
The reason is that "what the artist heard in the mixing room" is not what the artist heard in production. Do you think that a recording of a piano sounds the same as what the artist heard while at the actual instrument? Does the harp sound similar to the harpist as it does to the audience? What about the drumkit? Does a recording sound the same as what the drummer heard while performing?
Take the case of a violinist playing for a group of listeners. Do you think that the violinist, with the instrument tucked under their chin and the strings vibrating only inches from their ear, hears anything remotely like what the audience hears?
Of course not. But the violinist bravely plays on, secure in the knowledge that the group for which they are playing is hearing something enjoyable.
How do they know this? Because the group of listeners tells them so. If the listeners tell them that the vibrato in a certain passage was magnificent, then they will play that passage with that sort of vibrato the next time, because the violinist is there to garner successful accolades, not dour criticism.

The same degree of disconnect exists in the mixing room. The playback of the recording in the mixing room will never sound like the performance in the sound booth, but the artist knows that. What they are doing is similar to what the violinist is doing ... they are sculpting a product for listeners.
When we play that recording in our rooms, we are giving feedback to the artist just the way the listeners are giving feedback to the violinist. The group listening to the violinist gave indication that they enjoyed the performance with applause and "bravos", and our purchases give the modern artist indication that we enjoyed their product.


If an artist listened to a recording and said, "That's what I'm trying to convey! That's an accurate recording!" and the public won't buy it, the smart artist doesn't argue.

Even buskers count the hat at the end of the day.

Now, initially my post was not about what you write but about definitions of HiFi. Then perhaps you missed the quotation marks in my text, which of course refers to how this way of expressing fidelity to the original often occurs and sometimes seems to be considered a definition of HiFi. Then, how a violinist hears a violin is not the same thing as how a violinist hears a recording of a violin, which actually has nothing to do with what I write. The quote of course refers to how the violinist wants the violin to sound on the recording (I am ignoring here that many, perhaps most, artists have non-existent opportunities to influence the end result.) It is recordings that I am referring to all the time. Of course, no sensible person believes that a recording played in a HiFi system is anything other than an illusion of a real piece of music.

 

[voodooless]

I use a mixture of voiced and neutral equipment. What I find curious is that there seems to be a certain reverence for lots of very expensive voiced speakers here on ASR yet voiced anything else is generally frowned upon. Curious why.

It’s frowned upon because in many cases, any apparent “voicing” isn’t validated against reality.

 

[Chr1]

It’s frowned upon because in many cases, any apparent “voicing” isn’t validated against reality.

I don't think that you understood my initial question. I am curious as to why voiced speakers seem to be viewed differently.

 

[voodooless]

I don't think that you understood my initial question. I am curious as to why voiced speakers seem to be viewed differently.

Well, I told you why I'm very well aware of the meaning of your question

There are more reasons. For instance, you cannot change only the off-axis response of a speaker with EQ, but you can by choosing a different speaker. So eventually, a speaker gives you much more influence on how something sounds in your room, than anything else (except the room itself).

Another reason why it's frowned upon is that it's simply a very inefficient way of doing things, except, of course, applying to voice by EQ, because that is actually useful and grounded in real objective changes.

 

[Chr1]

Yes, this makes sense. Thank you.
As it happens, my less neutral speakers are large pro audio Tannoys, which I very much like for their off-axis response.
I wouldn't say that they are voiced per se, but their natural FR is slightly ragged. I don't think this is of huge importance anymore. With a bit of EQ, they can be made to sound rather nice.
They also cost a tenth of what I had to pay for my naturally neutral Neumanns.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Now, initially my post was not about what you write but about definitions of HiFi. Then perhaps you missed the quotation marks in my text, which of course refers to how this way of expressing fidelity to the original often occurs and sometimes seems to be considered a definition of HiFi. Then, how a violinist hears a violin is not the same thing as how a violinist hears a recording of a violin, which actually has nothing to do with what I write. The quote of course refers to how the violinist wants the violin to sound on the recording (I am ignoring here that many, perhaps most, artists have non-existent opportunities to influence the end result.) It is recordings that I am referring to all the time. Of course, no sensible person believes that a recording played in a HiFi system is anything other than an illusion of a real piece of music.

In your post, you used this phrase:

the electronics today can be transparent, i.e. complete signal fidelity can now be achieved,

In my mind, that constitutes the only standard of "fidelity", as in "Hi-Fi".
I wanted to show that the artist's opinion is conditional and not always important, so it does not necessarily bear upon the idea of "fidelity". I also wanted to show that the original performance does not bear upon the idea of "fidelity". The reason I did this is because some people advance the idea that the only fidelity possible is to be seated in the orchestra or onstage with the band at the time they perform. I wanted to show that this idea is ridiculous; the sound would be horrible and unbalanced compared to what the audience likes.

The point you made about the room is, of course, valid. There is an effort to advance technology that would make it less valid (such as wall cancellation and Ambisonics), but the public has not accepted that technology ..... yet. And in the end, public approval defines everything.

 

[solderdude]

Question : Should "voiced" speakers be viewed in the same way as "voiced" anything else in the signal chain?

'Voicing' speakers is playing with countless of variables and even those are room dependent. Variations of many dB and heaps of distortion is common.

'Voicing' of electronics only comes down to frequency response variations (roll-off mainly) and the amount and type of distortion which usually are minute amounts.
Most of the 'electronics voicing' isn't even audible (at best measurable) where any small change in transducers is very audible and measurable.

In both cases some people like to use the word 'voicing' as it sounds intentional and beneficial.
It is a silly word for electronics, less so for transducers.

 

[Purité Audio]

The same.

Looking for other people's opinions...

I use a mixture of voiced and neutral equipment. What I find curious is that there seems to be a certain reverence for lots of very expensive voiced speakers here on ASR, yet voiced anything else is generally frowned upon. Curious why.

My feeling is that it is most likely down to the view that, in the analogue domain, it's seen as OK to EQ your system via speakers. Anything else, not so much.
Perhaps I am wrong here though.

Usually ‘voiced’ means ‘poorly designed’.
Keith

 

[Theta]

Usually ‘voiced’ means ‘poorly designed’.
Keith

Voicing speakers can be a good thing. Your logic seems to be the same for every room and every size speaker, if you are a retailer who advises customers, that's a problem.

 

[Purité Audio]

Supporting good design is a bad thing?
Keith

 

[Frank Dernie]

HiFi in this sense is really only a theoretical definition. And possibly as an ideal, but the latter is more questionable. In practice, a HiFi system will largely more or less always be a “home sound generator”. Because even though the electronics today can be transparent, i.e. complete signal fidelity can now be achieved, the speakers and the listening room will practically never be “identical to what the artist heard in the mixing room”.

When the definition of HiFi is reduced to accuracy compared to a recording, it becomes uninteresting except from a purely technical point of view. I have several vinyl records that sound better than later digital remasters of the same music. In a technical sense, it is possible to achieve higher accuracy when playing the latter than is the case with the original vinyl. This illustrates how uninteresting the HiFi concept can be as a measure of the quality of sound reproduction. The recording itself, and the mixing and mastering of a recording, are at least as important for the sound quality as we experience it, and the recording itself is not covered by the HiFi concept, in the sense defined here, since only the actual playback of the recording is covered. Another way to define HiFi is to relate it to the degree of perceived realism when listening to a music recording.

Yes but since all the recordings you buy will have been produced and mixed by different companies they themselves will differ and the nearest you can get to a reasonable reproduction of ALL of them is to seek accuracy.
Certainly if you aren't able to arrange your room to suit you have no chance so yes, most home music systems won't be very accurate but one might as well try as to give up.

I have 4 record players, they all sound different but now I only have one of them connected. Yes a lot of re-masters have poor sound but you won't fix that by making your hifi bad.

 

[Mart68]

Yes, this makes sense. Thank you.
As it happens, my less neutral speakers are large pro audio Tannoys, which I very much like for their off-axis response.
I wouldn't say that they are voiced per se, but their natural FR is slightly ragged. I don't think this is of huge importance anymore. With a bit of EQ, they can be made to sound rather nice.
They also cost a tenth of what I had to pay for my naturally neutral Neumanns.

You're absolutely right of course. We can only get in the ballpark of accuracy but that's really all that's needed.

Outside that ballpark some recordings will be rendered very badly, inside it all recordings should be at least listenable, and the vast majority will be good to excellent.

 

[Mulder]

Yes a lot of re-masters have poor sound but you won't fix that by making your hifi bad.

Yes, but you can also turn it around and say that good HiFi can't fix masters that sound bad. My point that I was trying to make was that a less accurate media, such as for example vinyl or reel to reel, can be preferred to a more accurate media, such as CD, because the mastering in the former case simply makes it sound better. One could then of course say that in HiFi terms the latter, i.e. CD, is by definition better HiFi , but then it also means that the HiFi concept itself does not necessarily say much about audio quality. In a way you could say that sometimes Lower Fidelity sounds better than Higher Fidelity.

In my first post I wrote that HiFi defined as accuracy is a theoretical definition. On reflection, that was probably not very well-formulated. It would have been more correct i think to say that it is a technical definition.