Truth and Tonality: can they co-exist?

fas42 · Jan 30, 2011

we must recognize that one copy can differ from another in sometimes great ways. The mediums alone already contain distortions. By the time these things get into our hands, from the OP's point of view it can be said that the deviations from the "event" may be to such an extent that truth has been lost.

Yes, some of the truth of the original event certainly has been lost. So at least part of this discussion is about whether it is reasonable, or whatever words you wish to describe it with, to alter the reproduction even further to enhance its acceptability or ability to be enjoyed.

Frank

JackD201 · Jan 30, 2011

I think for anything to be enjoyed, it first must be audible and that applies to the silences too. A lot of the talk about fidelity jumps straight to the qualitative aspects. As such I take a more liberal approach to "colorations" as Tim would group alterations to the signals or "distortions" as you would. In the cases of EQ or other processing, speaker positioning, equipment selection, room construction or treatment et al. My motto is "Hear Every Note". So lowering distortion is certainly a part of it but not even the bulk of it. Given how imperfect reproduction is, I find it ok to alter the output to that end. Um what do I mean? Even if I'm not after flat, I won't tolerate peaks and dips. Dips mean you lose notes and parts of notes due to amplitude, peaks can mask lower level events spinning the mix out of equilibrium.

Let me put it this way. Given all the pieces of gear including loudspeakers are pretty flat in frequency response, as mine are, my speaker and room interface is not. It is not by design for the simple reason that taste wise, I'm still an average joe meaning I like a gently sloping room curve that's higher in the bass than in the treble. Right now, because my rugs aren't in yet, I'm a bit too flat at 3kHz. Is it a matter of taste? Yes. Does it sound better to me to have a sloping response? Yes. Is it because I find it more realistic? Here it gets tricky.

On one level, that being looking at the stereo image as a whole, yes because of the relative scale I keep talking about. As Tony points out "louder" doesn't just mean more intense, it also impacts image size and positional prominence (forward or back). For a system to maintain relative scale of one instrument vis-a-vis the other instruments, the whole stereo image has to grow or shrink accordingly.

On another level, and that would be focusing on one instrument at a time, the slope employed to help keep everything balanced at various levels sweetens the rough stuff, too often too much to be called comparable to say a real crashing cymbal 15 feet away to be realistic.

fas42 · Jan 30, 2011

I like a gently sloping room curve that's higher in the bass than in the treble.

So have you actually used a measurement mic to help you engineer that slope to quite a degree of accuracy at the listening position? Would you have an actual, even approximate figure as to how much the treble has dropped off compared to the bass in dB's? Because, I am wondering whether what Robert has done is effectively creating a treble fall off as well ...

Frank

Phelonious Ponk · Jan 30, 2011

fas42 said:
Tom, this is in the context of trying to determine what criteria should be used to saying that a component is neutral, or truthful. Tim stated:

... which was a largely flat frequency response. I asked and he agreed that distortion measurements are also part of the equation, so in that context I am seeking to reach some sort of agreement as to what is an acceptable distortion level for a component or system, for it to be truthful, in this context of a dialectic of truth versus tonality.

Frank

No Frank, it wasn't "largely frequency response," I just didn't cut and paste it all for you. Follow the link. Scroll down to the bottom. Click on the last link, the one that says "measurements."

Then for the others who don't believe measurements can indicate sound, go back to the original link in the post above. Read the subjective reviews. See how closely they correlate to the measurements. What we have here is just one example - and there would be many more if comprehensive, independent measurements hadn't become so rare in this age of audio subjectivism - of a fairly complex component - DAC, preamp, headphone amp, multiple input and output stages, that appears, for all practical purposes, to be measurably and audibly transparent.

And it costs less than what some of you guys pay for a pair of interconnects.

Tim

Phelonious Ponk · Jan 30, 2011

JackD201 said:
I think for anything to be enjoyed, it first must be audible and that applies to the silences too. A lot of the talk about fidelity jumps straight to the qualitative aspects. As such I take a more liberal approach to "colorations" as Tim would group alterations to the signals or "distortions" as you would. In the cases of EQ or other processing, speaker positioning, equipment selection, room construction or treatment et al. My motto is "Hear Every Note". So lowering distortion is certainly a part of it but not even the bulk of it. Given how imperfect reproduction is, I find it ok to alter the output to that end. Um what do I mean? Even if I'm not after flat, I won't tolerate peaks and dips. Dips mean you lose notes and parts of notes due to amplitude, peaks can mask lower level events spinning the mix out of equilibrium.

Let me put it this way. Given all the pieces of gear including loudspeakers are pretty flat in frequency response, as mine are, my speaker and room interface is not. It is not by design for the simple reason that taste wise, I'm still an average joe meaning I like a gently sloping room curve that's higher in the bass than in the treble. Right now, because my rugs aren't in yet, I'm a bit too flat at 3kHz. Is it a matter of taste? Yes. Does it sound better to me to have a sloping response? Yes. Is it because I find it more realistic? Here it gets tricky.

On one level, that being looking at the stereo image as a whole, yes because of the relative scale I keep talking about. As Tony points out "louder" doesn't just mean more intense, it also impacts image size and positional prominence (forward or back). For a system to maintain relative scale of one instrument vis-a-vis the other instruments, the whole stereo image has to grow or shrink accordingly.

On another level, and that would be focusing on one instrument at a time, the slope employed to help keep everything balanced at various levels sweetens the rough stuff, too often too much to be called comparable to say a real crashing cymbal 15 feet away to be realistic.

What happens if the gently sloping downward curve is engineered into the mastering of the recording? If you also have it engineered into your system/room, do you not then double the slope, resulting in dull instead of smooth? I'm basically of the same philosophy - get everything as clean and flat as possible, then color to taste. I don't do it often. I usually just listen to the recordings "as is." So when I do add color, I color with a brush that can be bypassed with the push of a button.

Tim

fas42 · Jan 30, 2011

I just didn't cut and paste it all for you. Follow the link.

Sorry, Tim, at least for me the link got mangled, all I found was one image. With a bit of digging I found the link I think I should have got from you, which is http://www.stereophile.com/content/fifth-element-18-measurements. Am I correct?

Assuming it is, it does show excellent normal performance characteristics ...

Frank

fas42 · Jan 30, 2011

I color with a brush that can be bypassed with the push of a button.

So what brush are you talking of?

Frank

Phelonious Ponk · Jan 30, 2011

fas42 said:
Sorry, Tim, at least for me the link got mangled, all I found was one image. With a bit of digging I found the link I think I should have got from you, which is http://www.stereophile.com/content/fifth-element-18-measurements. Am I correct?

Assuming it is, it does show excellent normal performance characteristics ...

Frank

That's the link. The missing link. The transparent component. Read some of the subjective reviews if you have time. It's amazing how the measured results predict the impressions of the most subjective listeners. There are more, I'm sure, but my Google skills aren't up to the task. I suspect full, independent measurements of the HK 990 and the Cambridge Audio Azur 840A would reveal similar results.

Tim

Phelonious Ponk · Jan 30, 2011

fas42 said:
So what brush are you talking of?

Frank

Digital EQ. I don't use it much, but as an example I find Bruce Springsteen's "Magic" to be a good collection of songs rendered almost unlistenable by compression and "exciting" eq. I can't do anything about the compression, but i find that a 3 - 6 db dip at 2 - 4k makes it much more pleasant to listen to.

Tim

Orb · Jan 30, 2011

amirm said:
I disagree but not for the obvious reason . Unless the recording engineer fully mixed the music with headphones, for us to hear what he heard, we must duplicate his room with all of its distortions! Otherwise, we are hearing yet another interpretation of the music.

Imagine if I record something with perfect mics but mix it to my liking using $50 plastic speakers. Do you think you will hear the same sound I heard with a different set up? I think not!

This is why we don't try to have flat response in our rooms because doing so means we will have less room gain potentially than what was used in the studio.

In general, I think the science of audio is totally broken. There is no standard to comply with. Who is to say a vocal is supposed to come out at 1:00 o'clock and not 12:50? What should its depth be? What should its tonal quality be? Why isn't there metadata in every recording to tell us that?

So at the end of the day, we wind up with subjective interpretations of what is good audio in our homes. We will never know for all recordings what the "right" sound or "truth" really is.

This is also compounded by the speakers/their positioning/ and engineer's position in relation to the speakers, this is not always ideally setup or the ideal position-location/height in relation to the speakers for the engineers listening.

As an example for the recent Beatles remasters, the engineers spent time taking the work to another studio room in Abbey Road Studios and listened again on the system they knew very well; that being their 802d setup.
So they relied upon multiple studio rooms in Abbey Road just to remaster to the best of their ability, that gave them a reference point for comparison.

Cheers
Orb

fas42 · Jan 30, 2011

So the Benchmark DAC1, at first glance, appears to be a neutral, accurate or truthful component, the very item that Robert was querying about. Robert, have you looked at this component, do you any thoughts on it?

And anybody else who has decent exposure to it: would you agree that it is neutral, etc, and if not, why not? I have seen comments along the lines that it is very analytical, is that the same as being truthful?

The people who don't find the Benchmark worthwhile, is it because it lacks "tonality", or something else?

As a reference point, would the Benchmark be capable of this:

Low distortion CAN provide a big, realistic, all-encompassing sound, and this includes invisible speakers and excellent to outstanding sound from all recordings. This is the you-are-there perspective, 30 feet from a stage that is about 60 feet wide and 25 feet deep, in an auditorium that sits about 1200 and has 40 foot ceilings. You can hear an occasional cough to your side, and applause comes from around you. This is a very impressive and overwhelming sound that makes your jaw drop, the hair stand-up on your neck, and leaves one scratching their head. Amazing, realistic, impressive are the adjectives used here.

... from Robert' s OP.

Frank

Phelonious Ponk · Jan 30, 2011

fas42 said:
So the Benchmark DAC1, at first glance, appears to be a neutral, accurate or truthful component, the very item that Robert was querying about. Robert, have you looked at this component, do you any thoughts on it?

And anybody else who has decent exposure to it: would you agree that it is neutral, etc, and if not, why not? I have seen comments along the lines that it is very analytical, is that the same as being truthful?

The people who don't find the Benchmark worthwhile, is it because it lacks "tonality", or something else?

As a reference point, would the Benchmark be capable of this:

... from Robert' s OP.

Frank

Just for the record, I offer the Benchmark as an example of a neutral component, not as an example of a component that will meet Robert's very specific and utterly unrealistic criteria as stated in the OP. How can any system, any component create excellent sound from any recording? (answer: It can't.). Why would you want any system, any component to present exactly the same sound stage with every recording (you wouldn't). But a wire, even a multi-stage component that can avoid coloring the signal at the cost of a wire? Done.

Tim

JackD201 · Jan 30, 2011

@Frank - I'm 2dB down at 3kHz from 20Hz ref slow weighted at 85dB. I'd like another dB off to just take some heat off on bad recordings. I'm hoping the carpets will do the job.

@Tim - I've never heard a recording with a target room response built into it, at least on purpose. I've heard some dull recordings but it's difficult to speculate why they are so. It could be anything from an engineer using a hot monitoring rig or just plain intent. They are extremely rare though since dubs are tried out on many rigs not just the primaries including dubs being taken into cars. Anyway, these dull-o's are so few and far between that should one come out that contains music I really like, I have no qualms about doing some basic reworking on Protools LE. If anything I come across recordings that are too hot way more times than the opposite.

So why 3kHz? Well, I have mild ringing in my right ear. Blame it on unprotected firearms target practice in my youth. It corresponds to 3kHz. This makes me very susceptible to this frequency. It's something that can't be healed so I've got to run with it. It's not the only reason. I find perfectly flat not only to be fatiguing, I also find that 20Hz flat with 20kHz lacks that subjective feeling of air being excited evenly. Like I said, it's a psychoacoustic thing and I'm smack in the middle of the pack according to statistics. After all, it's common knowledge that what is perceived as balanced (flat) is different from what measures flat. Some like it flat as measured, some like it flat as perceived, some like humps and dips. My ears bleed at measured flat and drop me 5dB at 3kHz and I might as well take an Ambien. It's a cheaper way to fall asleep than Hi-Fi.

Phelonious Ponk · Jan 30, 2011

@Tim - I've never heard a recording with a target room response built into it, at least on purpose. I've heard some dull recordings but it's difficult to speculate why they are so. It could be anything from an engineer using a hot monitoring rig or just plain intent.

Frank, I didn't mean to imply that an engineer had mastered a recording with a room response. Intent is my bet, and I've heard a few that did seem to be deliberately rolled off or dipped, all "audiophile" recordings. Their numbers are small compared to the recordings mastered with the opposite emphasis on treble excitement, though, so I suspect your curve serves you well, ringing ear or not. Still, I prefer to be able to easily defeat it.

Tim

JackD201 · Jan 30, 2011

Hey! Why'd you call me Frank?

Some Linn re-issues are offenders in this regard. Unnaturally plumped up and rolled off as if they were meant for bright little monitors. Ugh.

Some "audiophile" recordings are the equivalent of TVs at a big box store. Meant to impress. Exaggerated room tone and leveled up reverb. Ugh as well.

Phelonious Ponk · Jan 30, 2011

Hey! Why'd you call me Frank?

Sorry, Jack. Too many one-syllable names in a thread. Too few functioning brain cells remaining.

Tim

Gregadd · Jan 30, 2011

To try and explain things here consider the lowly mirror. Take us to he carnival of funhouse mirrors.We start with a baisc mirror. It presents with a two dimensional image of ourself. No matter how imperfect we are the mirror does not distort. As we progress down the line we have mirrors that make us appear tall; make us appear short; make us appear skinny; make us appear fat; or even make us appear wavy. Of course the mirror inverts phase.

The mirror is of course always imperfect because it is only has two dimensions.
The thing that has the least affect on the mirror is the image itself. It is what it is.
Many thangs can effect the mirror. Available light proximity to the mirror. Size of the mirror.

Human perception causes different people to be affected by different things. The suspension of disbeleif may be accomplished (or compromised by their absence)be the presence of certain. For example How can anyone reconcile Flat Frequency Response with Feltcher -Muson Curves? Would we not have to a system the presents a mirro image of those curvers to make it truly flat?

Relax you are not deluding yourself ori ndulging preferences. It's not hopless. I have heard some systems that convey a spooky realism.

mep · Jan 30, 2011

amirm said:
Pretty impressive indeed. On crosstalk though, as expected it doesn't hold a candle to digital.

Amir-Is anyone really plagued by crosstalk problems from their LPs? I'm not. It never enters my mind or my ears when I listen to LPs.

amirm · Jan 30, 2011

mep said:
Amir-Is anyone really plagued by crosstalk problems from their LPs? I'm not. It never enters my mind or my ears when I listen to LPs.

Without a point of reference, I wouldn't expect it to bother you.

Do an A/B with a CD. Put aside everything other than channel separation. I suspect you will notice a difference. I have not compared LP to CD but have compared FM radio which also suffers from poor channel separation. There is a noticeable difference and one that I would not want to be without, all else being equal.

Do you think the guy who mixed the music had such low channel separation and heard what you are hearing?

If we want to justify leaving fidelity on the table that is so clearly measurable and audible, then we should expect every recoding format as being just fine regardless of what they do to sound

.

mep · Jan 30, 2011

I do have a point of reference Amir. Remember, I can play any digital format up to 24bit/192kHz. For me, crosstalk is a non-issue. I have never played a record and thought "gee, I wish the crosstalk measurements were better." I have been around this hobby for a long time and I just don't remember any heated discussions or teeth nashing over the crosstalk issue. I would like for other LP owners to chime in here and tell us if crosstalk is something that enters your mind when you are listening to music.

Out of all the measurements that people who love measurements use to discredit analog over their precious digital, there is only one that I will concede that makes a real meaningful difference and that is noise. Digital is dead quiet and I do like that and I wish LPs and tape were stone-cold quiet, but their not. For all the talk about the vaunted dynamic range on CDs vs. LPs, where is it? I find the dynamic range on well recorded LPs to be stunning. A cruel twist of fate has many modern recordings made so the vu meter is pegged at 0VU so there is no dynamic range to be heard. My table turns at the correct speed so I don't have pitch/speed issues that Ron Party was worried about in his post to Gary. Do I wish my noise floor was lower? Sure I do. Do I fret over some crosstalk measurement and believe I have a problem where there is none? Nope.

Truth and Tonality: can they co-exist?

Addicted To Best

WBF Founding Member

Addicted To Best

New Member

New Member

Addicted To Best

Addicted To Best

New Member

New Member

New Member

Addicted To Best

New Member

WBF Founding Member

New Member

WBF Founding Member

New Member

WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Banned

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Similar threads