There is nothing holy about the signal

[tmuikku]

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

Hi, yeah it's quite simply explained by Toole I think, that there is no gold standard for sound reproduction and since sound in studios vary, hearing of the personnel vary some, room acoustics, loudspeakers, how everything is tuned vary, so it's impossible to replicate at home as they had it there, where ever it was. If you think about it for a second it is impossible to know what exactly they perceived, unless you were there as well, and that's it, why agonize over it?

I'm quite sure though, that every musician and sound person that were involved with your favorite recordings, or at least vast majority of them, did as good work as they possibly could and made everything sound just like they wanted, which is likely as good as they possibly could at the moment. Yes, we cannot exactly reproduce that but why not make sure it sounds as good as it possibly can to you, that's what they would have wanted. Some recordings are likely mixed so that they would sound as good as possible with different systems. They didn't have access to your playback room either, or any of the listeners, so all they could is to make it sound as good as possible. Why not respect that and just enjoy what we have at home and make it sound as good as possible? If we can improve our systems and the sound of any recording by little tweaks I think we should. Especially when it's something sensible, like going bit closer to speakers, or bit further, if you like it there better. This is for audiophiles as well, you didn't alter the sound of the recording by changinf the playback system, but sound of your own auditory system

I don't know any of your others playback systems and how they sound like, but I'm very happy how mine sounds, most recordings are just fabulous. If they had it better, good for them, if I can make it even better good for me although I have no clue about absolute quality, or how close it is for any of the recordings I listen to. My system gets better with my listening skills as I don't know any other way to asses sound than with my own perception of sound as I cannot perceive with anyone elses auditory system but my own. Using my own auditory system has helped me tune my own playback system for both listening distances, and capture more of variance in the recordings. And, before someone comments it's not possible to tune system just by ear, it isn't, everything is tuned by mic, then by ear, then iterate as much as possible to learn more listening skill, how various aspects of the system relates to perception in order to understand better what I hear to weed out issues if any. Since there is no gold standard for playback system, any system can be only as good as someone made it sound like, which includes any studio and any systems at home.

 

[Sal1950]

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).

What makes you so sure that your idea of that tonal balance change is "better" than what the artists-engineers intended?
You are perfectly welcome to remaster a recording in any way you like, but it's only "better" in your mind, not anyone else, specially the production team. That isn't the road to High Fidelity

 

[gnarly]

Unless you treat the signal path up to the speaker-room interface as "holy", all will be lost before it begins.

I can't see how that logic holds water.
Whether the signal is 100% unadulterated pure or not before it hits the speaker, once it hits the speaker it gets adulterated.....
...either via a passive, active analog, or active digital xover/EQ/delay network.
Even full-ranger's without crossovers require some form of EQ. Signal is no longer virgin.

So to me, it is the system that counts. The acoustic output.

Frankly, I cut ties with idea of system including after the speaker. Rooms are too varied and a total crap shoot.
No system should be evaluated when including a room, imo.

But, all that said, my idea of a "holy" (haha) system is simple....signal vs speaker's acoustic output = flat frequency magnitude and phase response (anechoic)
Everything else is esoteric, over thinking, or combining variables that can't be logically combined to extend past their particular application (such as adding in a room)......
and pretty much BS, imho.

 

[Balle Clorin]

The signal integrity is lost as soon as it reaches the loudspeaker / room , adjusting it with loudness, tone control or DSP is a good thing..

 

[Miguelón]

The signal integrity is lost as soon as it reaches the loudspeaker / room , adjusting it with loudness, tone control or DSP is a good thing..

DSP treatment doesn’t affect phase? Is possible to equalize sound without altering time accuracy?

 

[Andysu]

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.

BTW, your question about my RTR deck got me thinking back.
Neither were Quad capable, one was Stereo and the other Mono only.
View attachment 377519
View attachment 377520

i was thinking of diameter of the tape width , like CC can be used to record 4 track mag sound in one direction only on tascam qua

 

[Andysu]

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.

BTW, your question about my RTR deck got me thinking back.
Neither were Quad capable, one was Stereo and the other Mono only.
View attachment 377519
View attachment 377520

i was thinking of tape width like CC can be used on tascam 4 track records in one direction for 4 mag tracks

 

[Sal1950]

I can't see how that logic holds water.
Whether the signal is 100% unadulterated pure or not before it hits the speaker, once it hits the speaker it gets adulterated.....
...either via a passive, active analog, or active digital xover/EQ/delay network.

That's not the point and 2+2 still =4
You can't modify the source in the signal path and ever expect to then hear what it was originally as a end result,, period.
What part of that can't you understand.
Ideally we are today using DRC to CORRECT the wild fluctuations in response created by the room modes and speaker interface and hopefully get the response at the listening seat back close to something like the source response and more.
YMMV

 

[MattHooper]

Nice post.

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.

As someone who does care about how my system sounds with respect to “reality” - I don’t actually care much about how the recording was created in terms of its assessment against “real sound.” The fact is a great many recordings present to me very compelling aspects of hearing “live musicians playing” and a great many of those were never created with that specific goal, that illusion in mind. Certainly there are the “audiophile purist” recordings that are going for that such as Chesky, etc. And that’s fine. But I often find the music in those recordings pretty boring. Plenty of completely artificially made recordings can come together and on the right system produce a nice sensation of “musicians playing in front of me.” Even listening to old Rush records for instance, sometimes there’s a real intriguing sense of hearing right through the recording to Neil Peart drumming in the studio in front of me.

I’ve set up my system to try to elicit those qualities as often as possible. And to my ears, it’s been successful. A while back I got an 70s record of all vocal/harmony tracks. It was of course multi tracked , and it wasn’t trying to be Chesky, it was just a library music album where people use the music for movies, documentaries, etc. if they wanted.
But I’ll be darned if my system and that recording didn’t produce the most wonderful sensation of human voices singing in free space in front of me, reminiscent of the real thing.

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 ...

Your last paragraph gives away for me. My common sense tells me that the musical message in most music comes through loud and clear, and has been coming through loud and clear for ages, via a hugely variable range of playback systems - everything from teenagers turntable or transistor radio in the 60s and 70s, to all the car stereos we would blast in our youth, to people listening through a laptop or earbuds today and everything in between. All the important choices that go into the creation of the music generally translate well over any number of devices. Just imagine the variety of sound systems which managed to translate Taylor Swift’s music and garner her so many fanatical fans!

So my common sense tells me not to worry much about “the artistic message of the music.” Simply because it’s not hard to “get.” And one can hear it through a colored systems or an accurate system.

Therefore, in my system, I concern myself with what aspects of sound quality I enjoy, and which enhances my enjoyment of listening to music through the system.

 

[Doodski]

Your last paragraph gives away for me. My common sense tells me that the musical message in most music comes through loud and clear, and has been coming through loud and clear, via a hugely variable range of playback systems - everything from teenagers turntable or transistor radio in the 60s and 70s, to all the car stereos, we would blast in our youth, to people listening through a laptop or earbuds today and everything in between. All the important choices that go into the creation of the music generally translate well over any number of devices. Just imagine the variety of sound systems which managed to translate Taylor Swift’s musical, and garner her so many fanatical fans!

Maybe the sound quality of the gear has improved and that goes for the cheap stuff too. That being said then the sound engineers/technicians have a much more predictable range of the customers' playback devices to chose from?

 

[gnarly]

You can't modify the source in the signal path and ever expect to then hear what it was originally as a end result,, period.
What part of that can't you understand.

What I can't understand is two things: why you think the original signal can be possibly realized after going thru a speaker (as per my previous post)
And secondly, newly, why you think the original signal has any great integrity.

What makes you so sure that your idea of that tonal balance change is "better" than what the artists-engineers intended?

Cause it's easy to hear and see the imbalances in the engineers' "intended".
All you have to do is have a flat system, and listen....
If a recording is bass deficient on a flat sytem, mastering had too much bass in the room.
If a recording is overly bright, their speakers lacked high end.

The recording's tonal imbalances reflect what the artist-engineers were hearing...in their imbalanced rooms/speakers.
They adjusted the recording to sound good to them..
On their imbalanced setup.
It's pretty simple...why deny...???

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Maybe the sound quality of the gear has improved and that goes for the cheap stuff too. That being said then the sound engineers/technicians have a much more predictable range of the customers' playback devices to chose from?

I don’t think so.cheap portable audio is always going to be miles away from world class home audio.

 

[MattHooper]

What I can't understand is two things: why you think the original signal can be possibly realized after going thru a speaker (as per my previous post)
And secondly, newly, why you think the original signal has any great integrity.


Cause it's easy to hear and see the imbalances in the engineers' "intended".
All you have to do is have a flat system, and listen....
If a recording is bass deficient on a flat sytem, mastering had too much bass in the room.
If a recording is overly bright, their speakers lacked high end.

The recording's tonal imbalances reflect what the artist-engineers were hearing...in their imbalanced rooms/speakers.
They adjusted the recording to sound good to them..
On their imbalanced setup.
It's pretty simple...why deny...???

Do you really feel that confident to infer how a studio system sounded just based on the balance in a mix? I get your general reasoning, but I’m suspicious that the inference could be that strong or reliable to really get around the circle of confusion.

On that note: I set up my system to sound as good to me as possible with everything I play through it. Although I do enjoy playing with acoustics now and then to achieve different presentations once in a while, my general approach is that I don’t want to have to think about fiddling with tone controls or any such things. I actually quite enjoy the variability between recordings in terms of production and general character. So aside from the very subtle colouration coming from my tube amps, I’m not altering the sound at all per recording. A recording has no bass or just sounds really odd, I’m fine with that. No fiddling.

In that respect, when I hear people who have chosen absolutely every component based on the highest accuracy they can achieve and also talk about playing with tone controls for “bad recordings” and up mixing stereo to surround for more spaciousness - sometimes I suspect they may be more into altering the sound than I am!

(and in any case, we are basically going on our own taste as to how we listen to one recording over another)

 

[Sal1950]

What I can't understand is two things: why you think the original signal can be possibly realized after going thru a speaker (as per my previous post)
And secondly, newly, why you think the original signal has any great integrity.

The recording's tonal imbalances reflect what the artist-engineers were hearing...in their imbalanced rooms/speakers.
They adjusted the recording to sound good to them..
On their imbalanced setup.
It's pretty simple...why deny...???

That's not a "tonal imbalance" its the sound of the artists production.
Sorry you don't like it.
And it's perfectly fine for you to adjust it to your taste but don't call it better, it's now something else, not their product.
Oh brother, you think you know better than the producers what their product should sound like.

High fidelity (often shortened to Hi-Fi or HiFi) is the high-quality reproduction of sound.[1] It is popular with audiophiles and home audio enthusiasts. Ideally, high-fidelity equipment has inaudible noise and distortion, and a flat (neutral, uncolored) frequency response within the human hearing range.[2]

High fidelity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[restorer-john]

And it's perfectly fine for you to adjust it to your taste but don't call it better, it's now something else, not their product.
Oh brother, you think you know better than the producers what their product should sound like.

Everyone thinks they are a producer these days, Sal- didn't you know?

Give them a few plugins and PEQ and they become Quincy Jones in their mom's basement.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

That's not a "tonal imbalance" its the sound of the artists production.
Sorry you don't like it.
And it's perfectly fine for you to adjust it to your taste but don't call it better, it's now something else, not their product.

Sure it is. “Their product” is a recording. Period. Commercial recordings are made with the understanding that they will be listened to on all sorts of playback systems and devices.

Oh brother, you think you know better than the producers what their product should sound like.

We just don’t think *you* or anyone else actually knows what they think it should sound like. And in many cases such as the common case when they compress the shit out of their recordings for commercial purposes I do in fact think I know better than them what would sound better.

High fidelity (often shortened to Hi-Fi or HiFi) is the high-quality reproduction of sound.[1] It is popular with audiophiles and home audio enthusiasts. Ideally, high-fidelity equipment has inaudible noise and distortion, and a flat (neutral, uncolored) frequency response within the human hearing range.[2]

High fidelity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We get that you idolize the term high fidelity. Accuracy for the sake of accuracy is meter reader mast****tion

 

[restorer-john]

Sure it is. “Their product” is a recording. Period. Commercial recordings are made with the understanding that they will be listened to on all sorts of playback systems and devices.

We just don’t think *you* or anyone else actually knows what they think it should sound like. And in many cases such as the common case when they compress the shit out of their recordings for commercial purposes I do in fact think I know better than them what would sound better.

We get that you idolize the term high fidelity. Accuracy for the sake of accuracy is meter reader mast****tion

Waveform fidelity is what high fidelity is all about. Is is all about being true to the source. The source being the recording. Not sure why that is so hard for you to understand.

The second you tweak any tone/eq whatever control, waveform integrity is destroyed.

Feed a complex waveform through your system and view it in real time on a 'scope at the speaker terminals. The better your system, in terms described above, the truer that waveform will be to the source. Start with a clipped sine or a square wave.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Waveform fidelity is what high fidelity is all about. Is is all about being true to the source. The source being the recording. Not sure why that is so hard for you to understand.

I understand it. I just don’t worship it.

But also…. Let’s talk about that “source.” The source from the consumer end is the recording. Not some unicorn known as “what the recording engineer/producer/artist heard or intended.” We don’t have that.

And of course we often get multiple versions of a given recording. Different masterings, different media, even different mixes.

So which one is *the* source in those very common cases?

So accuracy may be what “high fidelity” is all about. But, as the OP asks, it ain’t holy.

The objective reasons have been thoroughly explained in this thread

The second you tweak any tone/eq whatever control, waveform integrity is destroyed.

Yeah right. A bit melodramatic? So is the mastering engineer destroying the waveform when they apply EQ?

Feed a complex waveform through your system and view it in real time on a 'scope at the speaker terminals. The better your system, in terms described above, the truer that waveform will be to the source. Start with a clipped sine or a square wave.

Nope. Not even close.

 

[restorer-john]

Nope. Not even close.

You got nothing have you?

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

You got nothing have you?

I got BACCH4Mac. Completely disproves your assertion. Just like many other signal processors. Like I said, accuracy for the sake of accuracy is meter reader jerking off.

The sacred waveform dies at the microphone