There is nothing holy about the signal

[Sal1950]

Finally got round to hanging 3 acoustic panels behind my L/C/R speakers as it's my least well behaved surface.

I see you've got an older VTL amp there.
What channels does it handle, model, etc.
Just curious, I was a big fan of VTL at one time.

Humm, I’m irrationally against EQ speaking about the holy signal: if I could avoid completely reflections from the wall I could do it.
But I think this will be a very expensive cost in materials, and my girlfriend will put me out of home

Not that expensive really when compared to other sound quality upgrades.

Opted for 4" deep as I had space...

I really had almost zero available space for panel treatment.
Since I don't have a OL to complain, the windows had to go.

 

[Miguelón]

I see you've got an older VTL amp there.
What channels does it handle, model, etc.
Just curious, I was a big fan of VTL at one time.


Not that expensive really when compared to other sound quality upgrades.

I really had almost zero available space for panel treatment.
Since I don't have a OL to complain, the windows had to go.
View attachment 377327

You can install absorbing curtains in this wall, you were speaking about that when saying “windows had to go”? Or they are acoustic panels over the windows? How do you breath?

Fortunately one of my bass issues had gone when turning dip switches from -4dB to -6dB which is that Genelec advise to near a corner placement. Before I was adapting to the speaker and quite reluctant to reduce bass. Now they sound way better.

 

[Chr1]

I see you've got an older VTL amp there.
What channels does it handle, model, etc.
Just curious, I was a big fan of VTL at one time.


Not that expensive really when compared to other sound quality upgrades.

I really had almost zero available space for panel treatment.
Since I don't have a OL to complain, the windows had to go.
View attachment 377327

It's a 2003 VTL ST-85. It powers the two L/R Tannoy V12s. They are pretty sensitive and only play >70 Hz, so don't need much power. I love the sound with a bit of EQ.

The VTL and the Neumann KH310s were purchased courtesy of a long awaited RTA insurance payout. Both of which make the ache and plentiful titanium in my right leg seem worthwhile!

 

[Miguelón]

It's a VTL ST-85. It powers the two L/R Tannoy V12s. They are pretty sensitive and only play >70 Hz, so don't need much power. I love the sound with a bit of EQ.

The VTL and the Neumann KH310s were purchased courtesy of a long awaited RTA insurance payout. Both of which make the ache and plentiful titanium in my leg seem worthwhile!

As a physiotherapist I can hold the therapeutic value of a good pair of monitors. Hope your leg will improve with time!

 

[Chr1]

Thanks. Aye, music therapy works too!

 

[Sal1950]

It's a 2003 VTL ST-85. It powers the two L/R Tannoy V12s. They are pretty sensitive and only play >70 Hz, so don't need much power.

Kool, thanks for the response, enjoy.

 

[Newman]

I thought I might repeat the core points from my first post in this thread over 6 months ago, I hope this is tolerable. It’s just that excessively verbose nihilistic relativism arguments, such as this thread has experienced lately, can make the essence of a topic disappear in a blaze of whataboutisms and pointscoring nonsense.

Here we go:

In terms of high fidelity, what we want to have integrity to, is the sonic and musical 'art package' that the musicians and sound engineers created for us to enjoy in our homes, and that they heard in their studios. If all sound studios were identical and unchanging (an idea with its own problems), then we could replicate it in our homes and 'job done', integrity is preserved.

The gap between the studio(s) and our homes is inevitable and Toole labels it the Circle of Confusion, as many have pointed out. But Toole didn't do that in order to conclude that 'all is lost'; far from it. He has dedicated a long career to identifying ways to minimise, in perceptual terms, the impact of the CoC. It turns out that human perception doesn't need the exact same sound field in the home as in the studio, to create a perception very much like the studio. Instead of thinking in black-and-white 'it's perfect or it's useless, so give up and just fiddle to taste', Toole concluded that some "signal corruptions" are unimportant to the end experience, some are 'mission critical', and yet some more are manageable by one means or another to the point where, while still 'corrupted', they won't stop us getting high fidelity to the studio experience. And there are a limited number of areas where it is appropriate to adjust certain "signal corruptions" to taste. It's fairly complex and that's why his books are 500-600 pages long. But importantly, in the end, I think Toole's message is that the perceptual impact of the CoC can be largely circumvented with the right approach, and we can experience high fidelity to the studio creation in our homes.

As per Toole, there are several areas where signal manipulation has a role:

1. After optimising the bass all the way up to the transition frequency of your room, using a competent bass optimisation regime, one should vary the level (only the level) of the bass below about 150 Hz, to taste. Do it with reference grade recordings, so that #2 (below) makes more sense.
2. Use (good) tone controls to compensate (however roughly) for substandard recordings. That’s different to using them to mess with a flat direct sound FR when listening to high quality recordings.
3. Consider upmixing of stereo sources. Not all algorithms for this are well executed, but the good ones bring perceptual benefits.

cheers

 

[MattHooper]

I thought I might repeat the core points from my first post in this thread over 6 months ago, I hope this is tolerable. It’s just that excessively verbose nihilistic relativism arguments, such as this thread has experienced lately, can make the essence of a topic disappear in a blaze of whataboutisms and pointscoring nonsense.

Here we go:

In terms of high fidelity, what we want to have integrity to, is the sonic and musical 'art package' that the musicians and sound engineers created for us to enjoy in our homes, and that they heard in their studios. If all sound studios were identical and unchanging (an idea with its own problems), then we could replicate it in our homes and 'job done', integrity is preserved.

The gap between the studio(s) and our homes is inevitable and Toole labels it the Circle of Confusion, as you have pointed out. But Toole didn't do that in order to conclude that 'all is lost'; far from it. He has dedicated a long career to identifying ways to minimise, in perceptual terms, the impact of the CoC. It turns out that human perception doesn't need the exact same sound field in the home as in the studio, to create a perception very much like the studio. Instead of thinking in black-and-white 'it's perfect or it's useless, so give up and just fiddle to taste', Toole concluded that some "signal corruptions" are unimportant to the end experience, some are 'mission critical', and yet some more are manageable by one means or another to the point where, while still 'corrupted', they won't stop us getting high fidelity to the studio experience. And there are limited areas where it is appropriate to adjust certain "signal corruptions" to taste. It's fairly complex and that's why his books are 500-600 pages long. But importantly, in the end, I think Toole's message is that the perceptual impact of the CoC can be largely circumvented with the right approach, and we can experience high fidelity to the studio creation in our homes.

As per Toole, there are several areas where signal manipulation has a role:

1. After optimising the bass all the way up to the transition frequency of your room, using a competent bass optimisation regime, one should vary the level (only the level) of the bass below about 150 Hz, to taste. Do it with reference grade recordings, so that #2 (below) makes more sense.
2. Use (good) tone controls to compensate (however roughly) for substandard recordings. That’s different to using them to mess with a flat direct sound FR when listening to high quality recordings.
3. Consider upmixing of stereo sources. Not all algorithms for this are well executed, but the good ones bring perceptual benefits.

cheers

Excellent post Newman! A fine take on the subject of the thread.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I thought I might repeat the core points from my first post in this thread over 6 months ago, I hope this is tolerable. It’s just that excessively verbose nihilistic relativism arguments, such as this thread has experienced lately, can make the essence of a topic disappear in a blaze of whataboutisms and pointscoring nonsense.

Here we go:

In terms of high fidelity, what we want to have integrity to, is the sonic and musical 'art package' that the musicians and sound engineers created for us to enjoy in our homes, and that they heard in their studios.

This isn’t nihlism or what aboutisms. There are hard cold inarguable facts that make this an unattainable goal and for some of us an undesirable goal.

1. As has been stated over and over again. What was heard by the artists/producers/recording engineers is unobtainium. Period. If you reject this fact take the argument to JJ. Watch his video on accuracy. He is clear as a bell. In ANY measure for accuracy you NEED a singular, objective, ACCESSIBLE reference.
Game
Over

2. Even if we know what they heard we don’t know they got what they wanted.

3. This point seems to fly in under the radar. What they heard in the vast majority of recordings is subjectively inferior to what most of us can get at home. So it creates an unnecessary ceiling for excellence.

I have used this example numerous times to make the point. Take the RVG early stereo Blue Note recordings. We actually do have a good idea what Rudy heard when monitoring those recordings. And it wasn’t good. I don’t want to listen to those wonderful stereo recordings in mono played back on a single Altec 604b shoved in a ceiling corner in a small untreated room. That would suck. That’s what RVG heard

What I get with the audiophile stereo reissues on my modern stereo system is a remarkable semblance of live musicians playing in a real space. What I hear is better by orders of magnitude than what RVG was hearing in the control room. I am not going to put that ceiling of excellence over my head.

4. Control rooms are analytical tools not used for listening pleasure. The classical recordings I have sat in on were monitored on headphones. Not what I want to hear.

5. Technology improves over time. It leaves us behind if we make dated antiquated technology a standard.

 

[MattHooper]

3. This point seems to fly in under the radar. What they heard in the vast majority of recordings is subjectively inferior to what most of us can get at home. So it creates an unnecessary ceiling for excellence.

Another good point! Yeah, one can assemble a truly impressive system that creates scale and impact and likely detail beyond what plenty creators had. So you won’t be hearing exactly what they heard, one may say you’ll be hearing something much better, in sonic terms.

In fact, I’ve had several indie musicians over the years bring their masters over (or completed albums) to listen at my place, and they often are completely blown away, vs the modest studio monitors they were using to make their music.

Personally, I’m not chasing any ideal of what they heard in the studio for that reason among others. I just want my system to sound wonderful to me, and elevate the musical experience for me. And like you, I have an ear out for how my system compares in some ways to real sound.

 

[Sal1950]

I thought I might repeat the core points from my first post in this thread over 6 months ago, I hope this is tolerable. It’s just that excessively verbose nihilistic relativism arguments, such as this thread has experienced lately, can make the essence of a topic disappear in a blaze of whataboutisms and pointscoring nonsense.

As in your first post you hit the bulleye again.
The circle of confusion is the devil we all have to accept, at least for the time being.
But still, High Fidelity is a self described discipline.
Unless you treat the signal path up to the speaker-room interface as "holy", all will be lost before it begins.
You can't put back music that gets lost or distorted after the fact.

 

[tmuikku]

The circle of confusion is the devil we all have to accept, at least for the time being.

Yes and no, it's there, but you can do something about it!

If you feel, as consumer, that the frequency response of a recording is off you can balance yours if you want to, or just live with it. But there is more, changing listening distance from typical "far field" at home where early reflections have huge impact on perceived sound to a shorter "near field" where local room has much less effect on perceived sound has also tremendous impact how stereo recordings sound like.

Some recordings sound better listened further away, where local room helps to create pleasant space if the recording lacks it, and compensates for wild panning for example which would make one vomit listened closely, makes the sound more relaxing in general, less focused and attention grabbing. On some records closer listening is just beautiful though, where local room doesn't mess up spatial cues on the recording and one gets immersed into the soundscape. The fact that these very different perceptions happen in same room and with same gear but preference could vary by recording logically means to me that the people working with the recording optimized the sound for either short or long listening distance, or perhaps for both, or neither This is one part of circle of confusion in my opinion and is not talked about that much. Difference between these two listening distances (effect of local room to perception) is how our own auditory system pays attention to the sound on the recording, it either does or doesn't, and one can change perception at will by changing listening distance a bit by moving your listening chair. Or if the chair is about at the transition between the two, then lean forward for focus or lean back for relaxed sound. What this means there is no single main listening position, but two, or it's more a sliding concept. Having only one main listening postion and never exploring around would keep you confused. See David Griesinger work on Auditory Proximity and Limit of Localization Distance.

If you do this, understand that you can affect quite a lot to the sound you perceive, there is very little circle of confusion left as you are in control. Basically, listening skill can remove the confusion as you know what you perceive and what to do about it if it needs something to be done with. It's you who's listening and it's your responsibility to make best out of it if you want it, no one will come into your place and make it better for you (or perhaps someone will if you hire one After all this is acoustics and also how our auditory systems work, and we can do nothing about it other than to learn how they work and just adapt. It's time to stop whining on forums about this and replace the confusion with knowledge, we are way past year 2000 and should know better, right?

I voted "no it isn't", because sound IS holy to me I want to listen with good sound if it is possible, and I can, just by adapting my system according what I hear, to make it "better". Or, just leave it what it is and enjoy the moment. With more understanding there is less reasons to agonize over the sound.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

As in your first post you hit the bulleye again.
The circle of confusion is the devil we all have to accept, at least for the time being.
But still, High Fidelity is a self described discipline.
Unless you treat the signal path up to the speaker-room interface as "holy", all will be lost before it begins.
You can't put back music that gets lost or distorted after the fact.

So with any DSP “all is lost.” It kind of reminds me of the all analog audio chain purists.

When you prioritize audio philosophy over sound quality it follows that you sacrifice sound quality.

 

[Doodski]

When you prioritize audio philosophy over sound quality it follows that you sacrifice sound quality.

A cliché is a cliché is a cliché.

So with any DSP “all is lost.” It kind of reminds me of the all analog audio chain purists.

Do new releases of DSP surround sound come with stereo mode included in case one wants to run stereo and not surround sound. Everything I have tried does this.

 

[Sal1950]

Everything I have tried does this.

Of course, absolutely.

Do new releases of DSP surround sound

What is DSP surround? If you mean Atmos, I guess you could call it that but it's a stretch.

Quad and 5.1 are simply that many discrete wav or flac channels,

 

[Doodski]

What is DSP surround?

Digital signal processing. Where the techy stuff happens.

 

[Sal1950]

Yes and no, it's there, but you can do something about it!

Maybe you don't understand the circle of confusion?
But nothing you posted here will help to close that circle in any way.
You have simply adjusted the playback to your personal preferences and have no way
of knowing what the production team actually heard while sitting at the mixing console.

Digital signal processing. Where the techy stuff happens.

LOL. OK

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

A cliché is a cliché is a cliché.

And a fact is a fact is a fact

Do new releases of DSP surround sound come with stereo mode included in case one wants to run stereo and not surround sound. Everything I have tried does this.

Don’t know. I am strictly 2 channel stereo

 

[Davide]

It is well established that the gap between the desired/conceived sound and the one that reaches our brain cannot be practically filled 100%.
But the desired/conceived sound, even where it can ideally reach our brain, can be interpreted subjectively, and arouse perceptions/emotions other than the desired/conceived ones, assuming that there are any.
Most of the time, from my point of view, songs try to convey a message rather than a sound. Our brain just needs to grasp the words, the sound of an instrument, the rhythm and the melody to correctly process the message intended by the artist.
The way the song sounds, such as tonal balance or otherwise, is more something shaped by the technician to make the experience more pleasant and euphonic.
In certain songs there is however a search for realism, especially when it is a live event, but there is still mastering by a technician based on his perception. Rarely is a live event captured as-is, and even where it is, there is no one recording point that is universally valid and representative of reality.

In short, all this discussion should determine the fact that altering the signal in such a way as to make the final reproduction subjectively "better", regardless of the method and medium, is sensible and even necessary for several aspects (FR especially).

But this raises a problem.
To what extent can it be considered sensible to alter reproduction?

This comes dangerously close to the audiophile sphere.

Since the question cannot be freed from subjectivity, the only valid answer should be the one dictated by common sense.

Common sense should say that as long as you preserve the artist's message, as long as you aim to obtain in broad terms what was the desired/conceived sound, as long as you pursue an improvement in personal perception, as long as you do not introduce grossly unwanted effects and, above all, as long as you don't spend unjustified amounts in the name of this, then it's fine.

Sometimes I get angry when I hear a song about Echo Dot and it involves me ... because I think about how much it costs compared to my main system ...

It is clear that the whole issue cannot be black or white, but an infinite shade of colours, which each of us is here to represent with our own ideas.

Personally I don't see any other way to see the audio world.

 

[Sal1950]

You can install absorbing curtains in this wall, you were speaking about that when saying “windows had to go”? Or they are acoustic panels over the windows? How do you breath?

Rare are the days here that many windows will get opened but I do have a couple large sliding doors front and rear to open on those days. Mainly the AC or Heat systems control indoor temps.

did it or could it have 4 track quad stereo capability

BTW, your question about my RTR deck got me thinking back.
Neither were Quad capable, one was Stereo and the other Mono only.