There is nothing holy about the signal

[Miguelón]

They wear leather -- and apparently do so without the least compunction.
I am just sayin'.

Hummm, interesting… It opens the possibility of a future thread on the topic: “Are the cows holly?”

 

[mhardy6647]

Hummm, interesting… It opens the possibility of a future thread on the topic: “Are the cows holly?”

As it is said: You are what you eat.

Holly Cow, Batman!

EDIT: Good old The Internet...

On the bright side, I think we have our holiday card design for this winter.

 

[egellings]

They wear leather -- and apparently do so without the least compunction.
I am just sayin'.

It's not leather until it's tanned. It's skin, as far as the cow sees it.

 

[Miguelón]

As it is said: You are what you eat

In this case, I’m a lot of vegetables, fish, rice and some chicken: but this week…

… this week is the Champion Burger food truck festival in my town: 19 of the best national restaurants trying to win the best burger creation.

Hope I will survive to the championship

 

[mhardy6647]

… this week is the Champion Burger food truck festival in my town: 19 of the best national restaurants trying to win the best burger creation.

So, per my earlier post, be sure to look for Jessy!

 

[Miguelón]

I don’t know if it has to do with this thread, but yesterday I was playing with the room correction of my WiiM Ultra.

I “noticed” how the EQ changed the holly signal, and immediately I found it artificial and unnatural.

Today when returning home I was listening an excellent recording by Mikhail Pletnev on Scarlatti Sonatas, and sounded to me absolutely gorgeous: my speakers never gave me such a pleasant and clear sound.

After finishing my listening I realized that the automatic room correction was “on” and not as I use to leave it “off”.

I returned then to the holly signal and immediately the nasty node at 70 Hz and other issues that found the algorithm (quite basic) came to life and realized how nice were the music with a (semi) proper EQ correction.

So I changed my vote from “yes” to “no”. I’m now on the religion of the “holly PEQ”

 

[Sal1950]

I returned then to the holly signal and immediately the nasty node at 70 Hz and other issues that found the algorithm (quite basic) came to life and realized how nice were the music with a (semi) proper EQ correction.

I think you mis-understand the accuracy path.
It doesn't mean totally without any alteration.
When the application of a good DRC improves the frequency response of your speakers and their room interface, helping to remove that 70hz node (distortion) of the source, you've just got closer to the holly signal, not further from it.

 

[Miguelón]

I think you mis-understand the accuracy path.
It doesn't mean totally without any alteration.
When the application of a good DRC improves the frequency response of your speakers and their room interface, helping to remove that 70hz node (distortion) of the source, you've just got closer to the holly signal, not further from it.

So what is a case in which the signal is not treated as “holly”?

 

[Roland68]

I don’t know if it has to do with this thread, but yesterday I was playing with the room correction of my WiiM Ultra.

I “noticed” how the EQ changed the holly signal, and immediately I found it artificial and unnatural.

Today when returning home I was listening an excellent recording by Mikhail Pletnev on Scarlatti Sonatas, and sounded to me absolutely gorgeous: my speakers never gave me such a pleasant and clear sound.

After finishing my listening I realized that the automatic room correction was “on” and not as I use to leave it “off”.

I returned then to the holly signal and immediately the nasty node at 70 Hz and other issues that found the algorithm (quite basic) came to life and realized how nice were the music with a (semi) proper EQ correction.

So I changed my vote from “yes” to “no”. I’m now on the religion of the “holly PEQ”

The actual definition of audiophile means:
"Sound fidelity refers to the ability of an ideal electro-acoustic transmission system to reproduce the recorded sound in such a way that there is no audible difference between the original and the playback through the loudspeakers. A corresponding music production/reproduction is called audiophile."

It's just a matter of achieving the playback fidelity, whether with PEQ or other means is irrelevant.
It seems like you are an audiophile now

 

[Sal1950]

So what is a case in which the signal is not treated as “holly”?

The ideal of a "straight wire with gain" from source to ear, a very accurate reproduction is the goal.

Today we have very transparent electronics in the path that have made this an easy task.
NOT treating them as holy is using something like a SET tube amp that adds a bunch of distortion.

Speaker or headphone listening is a completely different story, none of them produce a flat, very low distortion output.
With speakers we then add into the heard result the interaction between the speaker and rooms dimensions (modes).
Anything you can do to improve that situation is good, like using accurate measuring speakers and headphones, to well chosen room treatments like rugs and furniture, acoustic panels, bass traps, etc: are all good. Then adding on a digital room correction like Audyssey, Dirac. ARC can help tremendously to flatten response at the listening chair, specially in the bass range.
NOT using accurate speakers/phones, or any of the above approaches to improve the difficult situation that speakers present would be "unholy" LOL

 

[Snarfie]

The ideal of a "straight wire with gain" from source to ear, a very accurate reproduction is the goal.

Today we have very transparent electronics in the path that have made this an easy task.
NOT treating them as holy is using something like a SET tube amp that adds a bunch of distortion.

Speaker or headphone listening is a completely different story, none of them produce a flat, very low distortion output.
With speakers we then add into the heard result the interaction between the speaker and rooms dimensions (modes).
Anything you can do to improve that situation is good, like using accurate measuring speakers and headphones, to well chosen room treatments like rugs and furniture, acoustic panels, bass traps, etc: are all good. Then adding on a digital room correction like Audyssey, Dirac. ARC can help tremendously to flatten response at the listening chair, specially in the bass range.
NOT using accurate speakers/phones, or any of the above approaches to improve the difficult situation that speakers present would be "unholy" LOL

+1
The fact that proffesional controll rooms spend around a ratio of 30/70 % on 30% gear an 70% on room treathment says enough to get an acceptable reverb time an mostly linear/neutral FR. Guess what that is the material thats on your cd, stream, Vinyl whatever the so called Holy signal/sound. If that is not the (original) signal/sound you want or like fine but forget the Holy signal/sound.

In studio control rooms, a reverberation time of about 0.15 to 0.3 seconds is considered ideal. In recording rooms, the reverberation time rarely exceeds 0.5 seconds.

Average living/listening room is close to or probably above 1 second not so good to reproduce the Holy signal.

REVERBERATION - t.akustik

The reverberation time in a room is an important criteria for its sound. Generally speaking, the larger the room and the more reflective its surfaces, the longer it takes for the reverberation to decay.

takustik.com

 

[egellings]

So what is a case in which the signal is not treated as “holly”?

Maybe when it is modified by use of tone controls.

 

[Cbdb2]

Maybe when it is modified by use of tone controls.

If those tone controls fix problems, like your room or your speakers, is that still true?

 

[Mart68]

 

[egellings]

If those tone controls fix problems, like your room or your speakers, is that still true?

Yes. By using tone controls, the signal has been modified, even if the mod improves the sound. The grail was the original signal, warts and all.

 

[Sal1950]

Yes. By using tone controls, the signal has been modified, even if the mod improves the sound. The grail was the original signal, warts and all.

Ah, I would disagree with that in the sense that DRC is nothing more than glorified tone controls combined with accurate room measurements.
If either get the total system response into a "closer to flat" condition at the listening chair, an end improvement has been gained.
Before we had computer run apps like Dirac or Aud, folks used a 10 band equalizer, a spl level meter, and a freq response sweep on LP or CD.
Somewhat crude but better than nothing IF done right.

But in 99% of the cases, tone controls are twisted simply make a subjective improvement according to a listener preference, that could be +10
at 70hz boom, boom, boom, boom. LOL

 

[Tell]

Yes. By using tone controls, the signal has been modified, even if the mod improves the sound. The grail was the original signal, warts and all.

But shouldn't we compare the original signal with what's actually hitting the eardrum, so what happens along the way is not really relevant in that sense?

 

[Miguelón]

Ah, I would disagree with that in the sense that DRC is nothing more than glorified tone controls combined with accurate room measurements.
If either get the total system response into a "closer to flat" condition at the listening chair, an end improvement has been gained.
Before we had computer run apps like Dirac or Aud, folks used a 10 band equalizer, a spl level meter, and a freq response sweep on LP or CD.
Somewhat crude but better than nothing IF done right.

But in 99% of the cases, tone controls are twisted simply make a subjective improvement according to a listener preference, that could be +10
at 70hz boom, boom, boom, boom. LOL

Ok, thanks, I remember that the question was clarified time ago by the OP or something else.

As other readers, I thought that “signal” only goes from the source to the speakers and didn’t take to account room interaction as part of it.

In that sense, EQ modifications may be considered an alteration of the “signal” and only non sacrilege method could be audio treatment of the room.

On the sense of what you tell, EQ modifications are considered orthodox because the signal is considered now from the source to the ears, including room interaction.

This let open the question (in the second case) if ludic modification of the signal as adding distortions or using odd material is somehow “inmoral”

Even in that case my vote goes to “no” because adding distortion or playing with the EQ, or using tube amplifiers maybe fun or enjoyable to people. And maybe some compositors would consider this as an aggression to their work, but still think than many great musicians of all time played with the music of others or did arrangements just for their pleasure or taste.

So I consider legitime to play an ultra boomy subwoofer on a car which SPL can destroy a small town, always in the hypothesis that they play it far from me and other potential victims…

 

[Sal1950]

This let open the question (in the second case) if ludic modification of the signal as adding distortions or using odd material is somehow “inmoral”

Largest issues become, everything I love in life is either,
Illegal, Immoral, or Fattening.

 

[Miguelón]

everything I love in life is either,
Illegal, Immoral, or Fattening

I’m more generalistc: evereytinhg I love in life is vegetal, mineral or animal. But still understand your point of view…