What is audio meant to do?

[andreasmaaan]

I don't think it is flawed as that: stereo imaging from speakers doesn't float around dependent on the frequency content. You might try to make a case that the brain 'latches on' to some content and from then on places the source from that point, but I don't think it is as fragile as that - you will always hear it from the same place wherever in the recording you start.

That's true so long as your brain perceives the combination of frequencies as a unified "voice". But where the content of a "voice" is primarily in the lower frequencies and does not contain a transient (e.g. low voices, low bowed strings, bass synthesis etc.), our localisation of them may not follow the same principles as with a transient that contains high frequency content - or at least, there's good reason to believe it might not.

The thing about Blumlein-style stereo (e.g. pan pot) over speakers - which I intend to investigate further - is that the crosstalk combined with the direct sound for each ear combines to give an actual, physical time-of-arrival difference that is far stronger in effect than a vague volume difference....

It is not saying that a volume difference is interpreted as a direction, but that the volume difference creates an actual, physical time-of-arrival difference at the listener's ears. The icing on the cake would be if that difference was more-or-less stable with head movement and/or the listener getting up and walking around - in the right way i.e. the source seeming to stay at a fixed place in space even when the listener turns their head.

This is correct, but the same effect is present in any recording method involving stereo, and is more pronounced in the methods other than Blumlein which add an additional phase difference between the two channels (i.e. additional to that created by the path length difference between the listeners' ears and each speaker, which is all that Blumlein relies on insofar as phase is concerned).

So I mostly agree with your arguments, but still believe that there are aspects of stereo localisation that may be enabled better by other recording methods, and that this experiment did not investigate these adequately to draw conclusions (apart from the in the case of transients containing HF content, which accounts for most percussion, and can probably be extrapolated to instruments that consist of a strong attack followed by sustain and/or long decay given that transients - when present - tend to dominate in terms of our localisation of a sound).

The authors inadvertently acknowledge this limitation by stating in their beginning assumptions that transients predominate in localisation (so what of sounds - human voices, bowed strings etc - that do not contain transients?) and by limiting their experiment to transients on the basis of this assumption.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

No read my post carefully, and I make sure it is clear I am not saying audio is meant to become most popular. I am saying some level of popularity will heavily influence what is available even in niches. And the most popular approaches influence that the most.

Well, yes. But, as I said, I submit that Mch as delivered by the Home Theater equipment segment is extremely popular and persistent. I doubt we have accurate marketing data to confirm it, but I think "quality" stereo only, music only audio, including the struggling hi end niche, compare in overall popularity in sales or even revenues. My anecdotal evidence was that of mass retailers and of my limited sample of local hi end stores. Even so, whether or not Mch is bigger, it is still very big in the popular marketplace. (See note). So, it ain't going away any time soon.

You made the point earlier about people favoring certain niches being somewhat myopic. Yes, very true. But, does that not also apply to stereo-centric, music-only fans as well?

But, yes, the market is very small in terms of Mch for music, though we have no marketing data one way or the other. SACD sales are typically lumped with CD sales data, and many SACD buyers play them only in stereo. So, it is inconclusive. But, that does not phase me. I still get plenty of new Mch classical releases, making me very happy.

Meanwhile, I have no HT equipment in my system, other than an 8 channel DAC, if you wish to count that as HT, plus an Oppo 103, used only for SACD ripping, never for playing. Plus, of course, my HDTV and the JRiver, Dirac and Silicon Dust PC/network tools to enable it.

Note: particulary in bricks/mortar stores, shelf space/placements are an important indicator in elementary marketing of where expected sales are coming from. So, if a dealer allocates more demo space to HT and less to HiFi, he is telling you something. Same goes for product catalogs on Internet web pages. Same goes for mass consumer manufacturers. If Sony, Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, etc. make far more Mch HT items than stereos, it says a lot about expected demand in mass market popularity.

 

[Sal1950]

Meanwhile, I have no HT equipment in my system, other than an 8 channel DAC,

Plus of course, Plus of course, Plus of course, Plus of course,
Sounds like you have quite a bit of HT gear in your system.
Besides if you have a complete multich surrourd system set up, what else is it besides a HT rig.
Only difference is the source material.
BTW do you have a video screen in that room?
But don't worry, we won't look down on you.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Plus of course, Plus of course, Plus of course, Plus of course,
Sounds like you have quite a bit of HT gear in your system.
Besides if you have a complete multich surrourd system set up, what else is it besides a HT rig.
Only difference is the source material.
BTW do you have a video screen in that room?
But don't worry, we won't look down on you.

Yes, sure. There is a 70" TV. I always wanted a multi-media, hybrid HT plus music system that plays video from TV and BD/DVD as well as music in mono, stereo or Mch. It's used > 90% for music, and most music I prefer listening to is in discrete Mch. Some of that music comes from concert, opera and ballet videos. Call it an HT system if you want, and it is terrific that way, but its primary use is for music.

My point was in terms of physical gear, the playback system, aside from occasional use of the TV, consists of an ordinary PC with optical disc drives, an 8-channel DAC, amps and speakers including a sub, with input from a network, including a NAS and a CableCard TV tuner. It is Mch- and HT-enabled principally by PC software, not by HT hardware. The JRiver PC software I use comes off the shelf as stereo, Mch and HT-capable. Only for Dirac Live PC software did I have to purchase the upgraded Mch version.

None of the speakers, stereo and mono amps or PC/Networking gear is explicitly listed or sold as HT or Mch. And, some people use Mch DACs for stereo with active xovers, not just for HT. So, only two items on the component list are even specifically necessary for Mch - the DAC and the Dirac software. But, of course, I use 7 speaker/amp channels plus a sub. By hindsight, a 5.1 system would have been just as good.

Of course, it is simpler to use an HT processor - AVR or AVPrepro - together with a universal disc player and cable box. I formerly did that. But, there are downsides. I get much better sound and excellent video my way without those, and I am relatively free from the constant equipment obsolescence that unfortunately goes with most true HT equipment.

Plus, I did it all myself with no help, recycling main front speakers and amps from my former stereo. I sold all my old stereo-only gear, recoping most of my investment in Mch. But, not bad for an old man, eh?

Edit: it just dawned on me that I omitted one important component in this HT/non-HT categorization. My center channel speaker - a Martin Logan Stage - is a horizontal speaker intended for use with a video display. So, yes, that is an HT component, unlike the other 3 different sized pairs of Martin Logans in my system. But, it blends so well for music, I just don't pay much attention to it. I note that Floyd Toole also uses a matched Revel horizontal center in his multimedia HT/Music system under his TV display.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Plus of course, Plus of course, Plus of course, Plus of course,
Sounds like you have quite a bit of HT gear in your system.
Besides if you have a complete multich surrourd system set up, what else is it besides a HT rig.
Only difference is the source material.
BTW do you have a video screen in that room?
But don't worry, we won't look down on you.

My equipment setup parallels what Carl has and, no, I do not have a video screen in the room (aside from a small PC monitor behind the listening position). So, even if I play a BD, it is a multichannel surround system and not HT.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Personally I don't expect spatial accuracy from reproduction of any sound recording in my room but timbral accuracy and broad frequency response are important to me.
Also I would rather listen to a modest or historic recording of a performance I like that a modern high fidelity recording of a performance I don't much enjoy.
Maybe I am easily pleased and/or not a real hifi enthusiast.

 

[Thomas savage]

It’s important to remain objective, when comparing your live music experiences with listening at home it’s vital you level match your inebriation levels.

 

[Ron Texas]

It’s important to remain objective, when comparing your live music experiences with listening at home it’s vital you level match your inebriation levels.

LOL!! Yeah, and the quality of music is proportional to the quality of the intoxicants.

 

[cjfrbw]

It’s important to remain objective, when comparing your live music experiences with listening at home it’s vital you level match your inebriation levels.

Yes. Inebriation matching is very important. It has been objectively determined that even 10 percent greater inebriation results in a false impression of superior performance. 3db of inebriation offset invalidates all conclusions.

I await the day when Cal Tech comes up with audio inebriation compensation curves, since audio critics routinely toke and tipple while reviewing the latest jewelries.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

My equipment setup parallels what Carl has and, no, I do not have a video screen in the room (aside from a small PC monitor behind the listening position). So, even if I play a BD, it is a multichannel surround system and not HT.

Yeah, HT, not-HT may be important to some. They are just somewhat arbitrary marketing categories to me within the larger category of home entertainment media, in which audio is always vitally important. But, many audiophiles and the hi end press do look down on HT and Mch as some kind of inferior, second rate enemy.

As the great Negro League and, briefly, Major League pitcher, Satchel Paige once said, "don't look back. Something might be gainin' on ya".

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Also I would rather listen to a modest or historic recording of a performance I like that a modern high fidelity recording of a performance I don't much enjoy.

Sure but those are not our only options.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Sure but those are not our only options.

Oh I understand that, there are some great performances with modern high fidelity recording quality nowadays, and I find that it is less and less often that I end up going back to a loved old recording after being disappointed by a new one!
But still, in my listening to music, the height of the recording fidelity is not often the governing factor in my choice of listening, though it can be, and of course differences in recording quality are usually much, much greater than the differences between 2 bits of competently engineered hifi kit.

 

[Guermantes]

I've just this weekend rather cursorily watched "Karajan: The Second Life". I know he is a divisive figure nowadays but it's difficult to deny his status as a recording icon. I'd like to watch it more attentively again because what interested me was talk about engineering the conductor's recordings. There are interviews with engineers, producers, musicians and even a neuroscientist who worked with Karajan.

Karajan himself states at one point that the recording offers a more "transparent" version of the performance of the work, something better than the live experience which is always compromised by the listener's physical position in the hall. He seemed concerned that any recording should communicate the "spirit" of the work as he has interpreted it as part of the wider noosphere (he mentions Teilhard de Chardin). The shortcomings of the live experience contrast with the ideal of the recorded version. Interestingly, one of the interviewees gives the opposite opinion, saying that it is the experience of the live performance where that spirit is ideally shared communally and giving a 1980s concert of Mahler's Ninth Symphony conducted by the maestro as an example.

This last comment about the communal spirit of the performance reminded me of something Alain Badiou says in his book on Wagner. He talks about the meaning of the opera Parsifal as being the possibility of a new ceremony and draws on Stéphane Mallarmé's quest to find some social ritual that replaces the old religions:

. . . Mallarmé examined various figures of ritual or ceremony . . . The first thing he looked at were concert overtures, about which he said: "Music declares itself to be the last and most complete human religion." That was certainly the case then. Now, however, music has become a solitary religion. At big rock concerts the yearning for ceremony is blatant. You feel it intensely when you see how young people of all stripes share this deep yearning for ceremony. Except that it is a parody; it never manages . . . to get beyond parody, yet that is clearly what it is attempting to do. Music was once the "last and most complete human religion", but it has turned out to be a human religion in as sorry a state as the Brotherhood of Knights in Act 1 of Parsifal. It has ended up being about having headphones in your ears -- portable music players! Obviously nothing could be further removed from a ceremony than a portable music player. The ceremony is a meeting in a specific place; it is the constitution of a place, whereas the portable music player is music devoid of place. (Five Lessons on Wagner, p148)​

​

So do audio recordings ultimately fall short of communicating this sacral aspect of music? Are we impoverishing our experience of music by not engaging in it communally and sitting alone in our listening rooms or listening on our DAPs -- a "music devoid of place"?

Or is Karajan right: that the recording can give the listener a more transparent access to the spirit of the work?

 

[RayDunzl]

What is audio meant to do?

For me, inform and entertain, I suppose.

 

[cjfrbw]

For me, inform and entertain, I suppose.

KISS? There are no invalid experiences, only different experiences.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I've just this weekend rather cursorily watched "Karajan: The Second Life". I know he is a divisive figure nowadays but it's difficult to deny his status as a recording icon. I'd like to watch it more attentively again because what interested me was talk about engineering the conductor's recordings. There are interviews with engineers, producers, musicians and even a neuroscientist who worked with Karajan.

Karajan himself states at one point that the recording offers a more "transparent" version of the performance of the work, something better than the live experience which is always compromised by the listener's physical position in the hall. He seemed concerned that any recording should communicate the "spirit" of the work as he has interpreted it as part of the wider noosphere (he mentions Teilhard de Chardin). The shortcomings of the live experience contrast with the ideal of the recorded version. Interestingly, one of the interviewees gives the opposite opinion, saying that it is the experience of the live performance where that spirit is ideally shared communally and giving a 1980s concert of Mahler's Ninth Symphony conducted by the maestro as an example.

This last comment about the communal spirit of the performance reminded me of something Alain Badiou says in his book on Wagner. He talks about the meaning of the opera Parsifal as being the possibility of a new ceremony and draws on Stéphane Mallarmé's quest to find some social ritual that replaces the old religions:

. . . Mallarmé examined various figures of ritual or ceremony . . . The first thing he looked at were concert overtures, about which he said: "Music declares itself to be the last and most complete human religion." That was certainly the case then. Now, however, music has become a solitary religion. At big rock concerts the yearning for ceremony is blatant. You feel it intensely when you see how young people of all stripes share this deep yearning for ceremony. Except that it is a parody; it never manages . . . to get beyond parody, yet that is clearly what it is attempting to do. Music was once the "last and most complete human religion", but it has turned out to be a human religion in as sorry a state as the Brotherhood of Knights in Act 1 of Parsifal. It has ended up being about having headphones in your ears -- portable music players! Obviously nothing could be further removed from a ceremony than a portable music player. The ceremony is a meeting in a specific place; it is the constitution of a place, whereas the portable music player is music devoid of place. (Five Lessons on Wagner, p148)​

​

So do audio recordings ultimately fall short of communicating this sacral aspect of music? Are we impoverishing our experience of music by not engaging in it communally and sitting alone in our listening rooms or listening on our DAPs -- a "music devoid of place"?

Or is Karajan right: that the recording can give the listener a more transparent access to the spirit of the work?

Fascinating questions.

I think the interesting thing about Badiou's perspective is the assumption that seems to be underlying it that music was once only a communal experience, a spiritual force, a ritual/ceremonial practice.

There is a lot of evidence that music did of course (and does) fulfil this role in societies without writing (this is my attempt to avoid the word "civilised"). But does Badiou imagine that, even in these societies, there was no irreverence in music? That no-one took a flute or a pair of sticks and created melodies or rhythms that we not intended for the group, that did not convey the spiritual or the profound? This seems highly unlikely to me.

IME, it's much more likely that music has always and in all places been capable of performing non-communal, non-sacral roles. Capable of being the vehicle for humour, satire, nonsense and fun. Capable of being enjoyed and performed not only for the benefit of the community, but also the individual (of course, back then you had to make it if you wanted to hear it).

Karajan's comments are interesting to me for a different reason, since they seem to begin from the far more modern Western - and almost opposite - assumption that an individual artist expresses themselves (not the communal or the sacral) through a musical work. If this is the case, of course the recording may provide a superior medium of expression than the live performance. Once art becomes about individual expression and not about ceremony, the ideal medium is the medium that the artist chooses.

 

[Wombat]

'Audio' takes a signal from a sound recording and makes it audible to those who can hear. Beyond that it is up for grabs.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

'Audio' takes a signal from a sound recording and makes it audible to those who can hear. Beyond that it is up for grabs. View attachment 14715

'Audio' takes a signal from a sound recording and makes it audible to those who can hear at another time or place.

 

[Sal1950]

My equipment setup parallels what Carl has and, no, I do not have a video screen in the room (aside from a small PC monitor behind the listening position). So, even if I play a BD, it is a multichannel surround system and not HT.

Is that the rig with the Marantz AV8500 at the healm?
Kal are you also a lawyer, or maybe you were a lawyer in another life?

 

[Sal1950]

Oh I understand that, there are some great performances with modern high fidelity recording quality nowadays, and I find that it is less and less often that I end up going back to a loved old recording after being disappointed by a new one!
But still, in my listening to music, the height of the recording fidelity is not often the governing factor in my choice of listening, though it can be, and of course differences in recording quality are usually much, much greater than the differences between 2 bits of competently engineered hifi kit.

Sadly and just IMHO, sound quality and music quality has been on an inverse curve over the last 30+ years of so, that is at least speaking in my listening preference of the popular veins of music. The very best of rock, country and blues was being cut from roughly 1950-1990. With the real introduction of digital media to the masses being about 1990, just as recording and playback quality got really good, the music started to decline. JMHO of course. LOL