Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Recording vs Listening Qualities (Read 14166 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Recording vs Listening Qualities

Quote from: Ethan Winer on
Quote from: Woodinville on
Especially at the source end, my position (which was said somewhere) is that you use what you want to get the sound you want. To the extent euphony is part of the desired target, it's simply part of the art, and arguing with personal taste is pointless.

That's my position too. My point with "high fidelity" from a recording perspective is you do whatever is needed to get the sound you want. Maybe you'll stick a microphone under the radiator, or run a singer's voice through an old tube guitar amp. Doesn't matter. But once you have the sound you want, then accuracy is what matters most, to preserve that sound intact. I make this point all the time in audio forums. I'll be talking about fidelity only, and some clown will say he likes the distorted sound he gets from pushing his preamp. Fine, but that's not what I was talking about!

--Ethan


Since we as audiophiles don't get to make the recordings we really don't get to do any of the things you are talking about in getting the sound "we" want. So your axiom "once we have have the sound we want" does not exist with many recordings and simply has to be something that takes place in the playback chain. Therefore fidelity to a signal (the encoded one on a CD, LP or SACD etc.) may or may not serve an audiophile's particular aesthetic values. One can not accept euphonic colorations or be tolorant of personal taste and be dogmatic about "fidelity" to the source signal. After all, you are the one calling the guy a clown because of his taste for euphonic distortions in preamps. That does not seem like a "do whatever you need to get the sound you want" attitude to me.

Recording vs Listening Qualities

Reply #1 –
Fine, but that's not what he was talking about! 

Recording vs Listening Qualities

Reply #2 –
Quote from: analog scott link=msg=0 date=
One can not accept euphonic colorations or be tolorant of personal taste and be dogmatic about "fidelity" to the source signal. After all, you are the one calling the guy a clown because of his taste for euphonic distortions in preamps. That does not seem like a "do whatever you need to get the sound you want" attitude to me.


It is an engineer's job to be dogmatic about fidelity.  Otherwise, we have no way of hearing what the artist+producer+masterer intended.  This is not the same situation as YOU deciding that you want a tube power amp in the playback chain, which is perfectly reasonable if you like its coloration.  Those 1's and 0's darn better be the same that came off the CD, or you have a problem.  Now if the engineer is responsible for the entire playback chain, then again his/her goal is fidelity, this time all the way down to what comes out the speakers.  If the graphic equalizer is flat, again those 1's and 0's darn better be the same that came off the CD, or you have a problem.  If you CHOOSE to change the EQ, then the more power to you.

Keep in mind that a big part of Ethan's point is to save people money on "features" that do nothing and/or are not perceivable at normal listening levels.

Recording vs Listening Qualities

Reply #3 –
Quote from: analog scott on
After all, you are the one calling the guy a clown because of his taste for euphonic distortions in preamps.

Reading comprehension goes right out the window.

He's calling the guy a clown because he wasn't following the discussion.  It's kind of like what you're doing right now.

Recording vs Listening Qualities

Reply #4 –
Quote from: hellokeith on
Quote from: analog scott link=msg=0 date=
One can not accept euphonic colorations or be tolorant of personal taste and be dogmatic about "fidelity" to the source signal. After all, you are the one calling the guy a clown because of his taste for euphonic distortions in preamps. That does not seem like a "do whatever you need to get the sound you want" attitude to me.


It is an engineer's job to be dogmatic about fidelity.  Otherwise, we have no way of hearing what the artist+producer+masterer intended.  This is not the same situation as YOU deciding that you want a tube power amp in the playback chain, which is perfectly reasonable if you like its coloration.  Those 1's and 0's darn better be the same that came off the CD, or you have a problem.  Now if the engineer is responsible for the entire playback chain, then again his/her goal is fidelity, this time all the way down to what comes out the speakers.  If the graphic equalizer is flat, again those 1's and 0's darn better be the same that came off the CD, or you have a problem.  If you CHOOSE to change the EQ, then the more power to you.

Keep in mind that a big part of Ethan's point is to save people money on "features" that do nothing and/or are not perceivable at normal listening levels.



Which engineer are you refering to? Recording engineer? Mastering engineer? Recording equipment designers? Playback equipment designers?


We have no way of knowing what "artist+producer+master intended." Not to mention that they may not have agreed in whole on what each wanted nor did they neccessarily like what they got. On top of that their intentions are not above revision. Most of us feel quite free to be critical of artists' and producers' intention when it comes to content. Why would intent of sound be held as untouchable?

IMO the issue of audibility and the issue of euphonic distortions are mutually inderpendent.

Recording vs Listening Qualities

Reply #5 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: analog scott on
After all, you are the one calling the guy a clown because of his taste for euphonic distortions in preamps.

Reading comprehension goes right out the window.

He's calling the guy a clown because he wasn't following the discussion.  It's kind of like what you're doing right now.



I understood that. But it seems to me it isn't quite that simple. The tricky thing with some euphonic distortions is that they don't exactly sound "distorted." That can be misleading. If a piece of equipment is adding a euphonic coloration that consistantly makes the playback sound more real over a wide variety of recordings then it is kind of intuitive to believe it is actually more accurate. This is a common jump made by audiophiles. That does not make an audiophile a "clown." There is just nothing constructive about calling people names over such things. I understand the value in being aware of euphonic distortions and being aware that they may make playback sound prettier and even more realistic but they are, in the end, distortions. The problem is I don't think one becomes open to the idea when the conversation starts off with "listen clown......" It's not that the "clown" isn't following the discussion (nor is it that I am not following it either) it's that the "clown" believes that more realistic sound logically is the result of greater accuracy. Again, I understand having a problem with such a claim. I  just see no value to the antagonism that comes with name calling.

Recording vs Listening Qualities

Reply #6 –
Quote from: analog scott on
I understood that.

Clearly you didn't and apparently you still don't.  It's obvious that his "I'll be talking about fidelity only" was completely lost on you.

EDIT: No matter; your latest attempt to derail a conversation has been split.

Recording vs Listening Qualities

Reply #7 –
analog scott, you're completely missing the point, which in Ethan's original point is ironically about someone completely missing the point. There are decisions that are made during recording. At some point, however, the recordings get handed off to be mastered/engineered. You're dragging this completely off-topic by involving concerns about playback techniques. As such, I have split it, because you seem determined to belabour the points you're making, which continue to miss the point.

Let's draw a parallel to painting. An artist takes a canvas and modifies it in some way with colour and paint and so on. Any choice he makes is legitimate; he's the artist. Then some collector takes that painting and loves it so much he wants to preserve it perfectly. What Ethan is talking about in the post you responded to is about the preservation step, not about the creation step. Anything goes in the creation step, but in the preservation step, you want to preserve as much of what makes that painting "good" as possible. This is inherently moderately subjective, but no one's going to buy a painting and completely paint over it. That would defeat the purpose.

Edit: As an aside, I hate the title that I chose for this split and welcome other suggestions.

Recording vs Listening Qualities

Reply #8 –
Quote from: hellokeith on
…a tube power amp in the playback chain… if you like its coloration.

To my experience, REALLY high quality power amps, be it tube or “solid state”, do not introduce any “coloration”. “Coloration” by an amp means to me “audible distortions”: non-linear distortions, spectral defects (peaks or dips), dynamic range high values clipping etc. etc.

Recording vs Listening Qualities

Reply #9 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: analog scott on
I understood that.

Clearly you didn't and apparently you still don't.  It's obvious that his "I'll be talking about fidelity only" was completely lost on you.

EDIT: No matter; your latest attempt to derail a conversation has been split.



I addressed that point and connected it to the position of the audiophile who not only likes euphonic distortions but presumes they are actually more accurate because of the greater illusion of realism that can result from euphonic distortions. It was not an attempt to derail the conversation. It was a response to Ethan's post about euphonic distortions and his position on them. Disagreement is not the same as failure to understand what is being said.

Recording vs Listening Qualities

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Canar on
analog scott, you're completely missing the point, which in Ethan's original point is ironically about someone completely missing the point. There are decisions that are made during recording. At some point, however, the recordings get handed off to be mastered/engineered. You're dragging this completely off-topic by involving concerns about playback techniques. As such, I have split it, because you seem determined to belabour the points you're making, which continue to miss the point.

Let's draw a parallel to painting. An artist takes a canvas and modifies it in some way with colour and paint and so on. Any choice he makes is legitimate; he's the artist. Then some collector takes that painting and loves it so much he wants to preserve it perfectly. What Ethan is talking about in the post you responded to is about the preservation step, not about the creation step. Anything goes in the creation step, but in the preservation step, you want to preserve as much of what makes that painting "good" as possible. This is inherently moderately subjective, but no one's going to buy a painting and completely paint over it. That would defeat the purpose.

Edit: As an aside, I hate the title that I chose for this split and welcome other suggestions.



The problem with your analogy is that a painting is what it is, a unique, singular finished product. There is no transcription process that involves limited encoding and playback. In music, if you want the actual "painting" you go to a live concert. Any recording and playback of the concert is no longer the "painting" but a transcription. If you want to make a better analogy I think photography is a better one. That involves the recording (photographing) and playback (printing) of an original event (object). It also illustrates all the real world ambiguities of accuracy that exist in both media. There is no discussion of accuracy with fine art. The art itself is what it is. There are no degrees of fidelity to even discuss much less the merits of fidelity to consider.

Recording vs Listening Qualities

Reply #11 –
Quote from: analog scott on
Since we as audiophiles don't get to make the recordings we really don't get to do any of the things you are talking about in getting the sound "we" want. So your axiom "once we have have the sound we want" does not exist with many recordings and simply has to be something that takes place in the playback chain.
This is where you're completely missing the point. Add all the euphonic colouration you want, if that's what you want to hear. From that point on, you want to accurately reproduce that euphony that you like so much. The "once we have the sound we want" axiom is with regards to recording, but you're deliberately confusing it with playback in order to trot out your euphonic agenda. It assumes that there is some artist who's out there, making a recording, finally gets a take that they like (with whatever euphony they desire integrated into the performance), and decides that "Hey, this take is the one that's going on the CD." From that point, you don't want to lose any aspect of what has been recorded.

This has nothing to do with playback!

Recording vs Listening Qualities

Reply #12 –
Quote from: analog scott on
It was a response to Ethan's post about euphonic distortions and his position on them.

It isn't clear to me that you actually know his position on euphonic distortion.

Did you hear the part where he asks, "Euphonic distortion can be useful as glue but there's no need for magic [...] do we really need to spend thousands of dollars on boutique gear to get these effects? Are there other more practical and affordable ways to get the same or similar results?"?

Did you actually watch the video?

Recording vs Listening Qualities

Reply #13 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: analog scott on
It was a response to Ethan's post about euphonic distortions and his position on them.

It isn't clear to me that you actually know his position on euphonic distortion.

Did you hear the part where he asks, "Euphonic distortion can be useful as glue but there's no need for magic [...] do we really need to spend thousands of dollars on boutique gear to get these effects? Are there other more practical and affordable ways to get the same or similar results?"?

Did you actually watch the video?



Actually this is what always blows my mind about discussions like this. Without going into philosophical discussions on whether we should or should not strive for accuracy in reproduction, is it not obvious that paying several thousand for an amplifier with particular distortion properties is a waste of money and the same can be done with digital filters and an accurate set of loudspeakers?

of course the easiest answer here is "prove it", which is as reasonable as saying "prove it" if I claim that any manipulation of images that may be done with analog systems, such as lenses, gratings etc, can also be done with programs, and just as difficult to actually prove to someone who has no experience with manipulating time series using programs. which probably is why such discussions can go on for ever and ever. another reason of course is willingly misinterpreting what is being said: for instance "no, not all analog manipulations of images can be reproduced with digital means, since the captured digital image has a finite number of pixels while etc etc".

I guess I could have a lot of fun creating two aliases of myself and publicly arguing on public forums

Recording vs Listening Qualities

Reply #14 –
The thing is that you will not find Ethan saying people shouldn't use what they want to get the sound they want, whether it be in the studio or on their couch at home.  He simply cautions people to put more effort into altering the things that have the greatest influence over the sound.

The only argument to be had here is whether analog scott is even paying attention to what's going on as opposed to trying to turn the discussion into something that it never was for whatever motivation.  He tried this bait and switch with the discussion over whether 16/44 is an adequate delivery format in order to justify his preference for vinyl.  He likes the way his select vinyl titles are mastered and sound on his system over the same titles on CD; we get it.  So what?  I can capture the output of his turntable or turntable/preamp, burn it to CD and play it back for him.  Do you think he'll think it doesn't sound as good if he doesn't know it's from CD?  I don't.

Recording vs Listening Qualities

Reply #15 –
Quote from: analog scott on
If you want to make a better analogy I think photography is a better one. That involves the recording (photographing) and playback (printing) of an original event (object). It also illustrates all the real world ambiguities of accuracy that exist in both media. There is no discussion of accuracy with fine art. The art itself is what it is. There are no degrees of fidelity to even discuss much less the merits of fidelity to consider.

I don't know what is so complicated. The photographer (a.k.a. "artist") will take the pic and tweak colors, composition, etc to her/his liking. When you buy a photograph or look at it, do you want a faithful copy of the original (or the original), or do you want some third-party photoshopper "improving" it for you? You can do whatever you want to it if it makes you feel better once you have it.

Recording vs Listening Qualities

Reply #16 –
Quote from: Fedot L on
Quote from: hellokeith on
…a tube power amp in the playback chain… if you like its coloration.

To my experience, REALLY high quality power amps, be it tube or “solid state”, do not introduce any “coloration”. “Coloration” by an amp means to me “audible distortions”: non-linear distortions, spectral defects (peaks or dips), dynamic range high values clipping etc. etc.


I cannot think of any reason to use a tube power amp, unless one is purposely wanting to color or flavor the sound.  If you want fidelity and reliability, go with solid state.  I have only ever used solid state power amps.

I do use tube pre-amp for my guitar distortion, because I like the chaos and prefer distortion to be chaotic.

Recording vs Listening Qualities

Reply #17 –
Quote from: hellokeith on
Quote from: Fedot L on
Quote from: hellokeith on
…a tube power amp in the playback chain… if you like its coloration.

To my experience, REALLY high quality power amps, be it tube or “solid state”, do not introduce any “coloration”. “Coloration” by an amp means to me “audible distortions”: non-linear distortions, spectral defects (peaks or dips), dynamic range high values clipping etc. etc.


I cannot think of any reason to use a tube power amp, unless one is purposely wanting to color or flavor the sound.  If you want fidelity and reliability, go with solid state.  I have only ever used solid state power amps.

I do use tube pre-amp for my guitar distortion, because I like the chaos and prefer distortion to be chaotic.

How much do you think .1% distortion or less and a frequency resposne within .5dB of flat will "color and flavor the sound"? Here's just such an amp from over 60 years ago http://44bx.com/leak/PointOne2.html.

I don't think you can judge all amplifiers by the standards of guitar amps.

Recording vs Listening Qualities

Reply #18 –
Quote from: botface on
How much do you think .1% distortion or less and a frequency resposne within .5dB of flat will "color and flavor the sound"? Here's just such an amp from over 60 years ago


It's amazing what a negative loopback can do.
It's even more amazing to know that nowadays you can get similar or even superior performance from a single silicon chip of some square millimeters in size!

Now, speaking of euphonics and whatnot. Of course it's not the problem if you like some (possibly obviously non-accurate) equipment better than other. The problem is, that on majority of audio-related forums one may find statements like "the equipment A is definitely better than equipment B", while what is implied in reality is "I find equipment A more pleasant to me, and maybe not even for actual audio performance reasons, but for the exterior design, brand name etc". It wouldn't be a problem if people actually said what they mean. But of course in that case their posts would not look like the authority opinion.

The audiophile forums (magazines, web sites, whatever) tend to form the comparison scale based on authority opinion instead of it being based on numbers obtained from properly conducted experiments. Such scale may be an amusing entertainment to observe, but it's practical value is close to zero. Simply because the fact that someone likes something does not mean in any way possible that you, as a reader, will also like it. It's the wrong notion of "better" is what is wrong with audiophile community, not the "wrong personal tastes".
 

Recording vs Listening Qualities

Reply #19 –
Quote from: hellokeith on
Quote from: Fedot L on
Quote from: hellokeith on
…a tube power amp in the playback chain… if you like its coloration.

To my experience, REALLY high quality power amps, be it tube or “solid state”, do not introduce any “coloration”. “Coloration” by an amp means to me “audible distortions”: non-linear distortions, spectral defects (peaks or dips), dynamic range high values clipping etc. etc.


I cannot think of any reason to use a tube power amp, unless one is purposely wanting to color or flavor the sound.  If you want fidelity and reliability, go with solid state.  I have only ever used solid state power amps.

Maybe we do not understand each other. I spoke not about amplifiers designed to distort sound (equipped with “fuzz” distorters or other distorting modules, or simply used in deep clipping modes etc.), but about high quality amps for amplifying high quality natural sound sources.

I used to listen both to tube and “solid state” high quality studio control power amps, and REALLY high quality power amps, be it tube or “solid state”, do not introduce any “coloration”.
Quote from: botface on
How much do you think .1% distortion or less and a frequency response within .5dB of flat will "color and flavor the sound"? Here's just such an amp from over 60 years ago http://44bx.com/leak/PointOne2.html.

That’s one of excellent power amps of the tube “golden era”, like, by the way, most “Leak” power amps of the 50’s and 60’s! Excellent qualities. Very low THD (one of the best for tube power amps), great S/N ratio and damping factor. But requiring very high sensitivity loudspeaker systems to reproduce very loud volumes (10 W nominal power). And later “Leak” designed and manufactured other models of much higher power at the same quality level.

Recording vs Listening Qualities

Reply #20 –
Quote from: andy o on
I don't know what is so complicated. The photographer (a.k.a. "artist") will take the pic and tweak colors, composition, etc to her/his liking. When you buy a photograph or look at it, do you want a faithful copy of the original (or the original), or do you want some third-party photoshopper "improving" it for you? You can do whatever you want to it if it makes you feel better once you have it.

You would not change the actual photo or canvas but you will want to select a nice frame for it an pick a nice place to hang it. If you were going for accurate, you'd want to see the art in the artist's studio or through the photographer's viewfinder. But I hope everyone can agree that's not the best way for most people to experience art. There is art in the presentation and appreciation of art. Good art is emotional and therefore a bit of a rogue with respect to economics and science. People who understand that and enjoy that will get ruffled when you apply these rational disciplines to art.

Recording vs Listening Qualities

Reply #21 –
Quote from: Notat on
You would not change the actual photo or canvas but you will want to select a nice frame for it an pick a nice place to hang it.

But it takes a bold man to reframe and remat a photo as delivered by the artist.  THAT is the point.  If we can not trust the framed and matted photo as delivered by the artist (the CD in this analogy) to be as the artist intended why the hell are we valuing the artist?
Creature of habit.

Recording vs Listening Qualities

Reply #22 –
Quote from: Soap on
But it takes a bold man to reframe and remat a photo as delivered by the artist.  THAT is the point.  If we can not trust the framed and matted photo as delivered by the artist (the CD in this analogy) to be as the artist intended why the hell are we valuing the artist?

Most artists do not deliver framed work - the galleries, museums and sometimes collectors are responsible for that. Artist cannot successfully dictate where you hang their art or how you light it. Good art is not a one-way street. The collector is not just a consumer but also a participant. For example, to Leonardo, the Mona Lisa was a portrait. It is now an icon. That was not Leo's doing.

The audience and other intermediaries do have various means to improve or at least increase the pleasure derived from art. Some of those means may be non-scientific, irrational or manipulative. We need to remember that the audience is not the test equipment, the audience is human.

Recording vs Listening Qualities

Reply #23 –
Quote from: Notat on
Most artists do not deliver framed work -

You are absolutely right.  But that is the flaw in your analogy, I ran with as best of a fit as I saw.

A CD is more analogous to a framed portrait than to an unmatted work.
Creature of habit.

Recording vs Listening Qualities

Reply #24 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: analog scott on
It was a response to Ethan's post about euphonic distortions and his position on them.

It isn't clear to me that you actually know his position on euphonic distortion.

Did you hear the part where he asks, "Euphonic distortion can be useful as glue but there's no need for magic [...] do we really need to spend thousands of dollars on boutique gear to get these effects? Are there other more practical and affordable ways to get the same or similar results?"?

Did you actually watch the video?


I think I know Ethan's position on euphonic colorations pretty well since I have actually had some pretty good discussions with *him* on the subject. I think what is missing here is context. JJ made the statement that there was a lack of agreement on euphonic colorations and that he is not against them because you can't argue taste. Clearly (and if you think I don't know what JJ was saying as well just ask JJ) JJ was refering to euphonic colorations in the playback chain that are prefered by some audiophiles such as myself. Ethan chimed in and said he was not opposed to euphonic colorations but he was specifically refering to that which happens in the recording end. So he wasn't really agreeing with JJ. I pointed that out. He talked about euphonic colorations in recording. I pointed out that we have no control over what happens on the recording end of things but we do have some control over things in the playback. Ethan is opposed to euphonic colorations in playback. Don't think so? Ask him. That is really the long and short of it. I do understand Ethan's position on euphonic colorations. He has made them quite clear to me in our discussions about them.  I also understand JJ's position. JJ is not opposed to euphonic colorations in playback. Ethan is. Hence they don't really agree. Well, that is what JJ said is it not? JJ said there is disagreement on euphonic colorations.