Forgiving or resolving?

[dallasjustice]

Forgiving AND resolving. They are the same thing; not mutually exclusive. The more resolving a system gets, the more natural, pleasant and "forgiving" it will be.

 

[thedudeabides]

I'm with Myles. Musicality is the key and is by nature, a subjective judgement, which is consistent with the personal nature of this hobby and the wide range of products available on the market.

GG

 

[bdiament]

Hi microstrip,

...I listen mainly to classical music, and the performers I usually prefer were recorded using close microphone multitrack recordings, most of the time in studios. These tracks are usually mixed and engineered adding artificial effects to create a natural acoustic, recreating a live event. I do not want a system that dissects the recording, showing all the tricks and techniques, but a system that pre processes all this information and presents it in a way that allows me to recreate the illusion of the live event. I do not need to have something permanently telling me there was a sound engineer in the team - I prefer just reading it in the album liner notes before or after listening.

I would submit that what you describe is a function of the recording and not the playback system.
If the recording successfully captured a performance, that is what the system (any system) will reveal.
If the recording is smeared by engineering "fingerprints", then *that* is what the system (any system) will reveal.

A fine recording is identifiable as such, even when converted to mp3 and played on a cheap automobile system (on the highway, with the windows open). ;-}
I've found the same to be true of not-so-fine recordings.

A system can't hide the engineering. If the engineering is to get out of the way, this must occur during all processes involved in creating the recording. In my experience, the most important determination of this has already been "locked in" by the time the signals are leaving the microphones. By this time, the engineer has either gotten out of the way or gotten *in* the way.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

[microstrip]

Hi microstrip,



I would submit that what you describe is a function of the recording and not the playback system.
If the recording successfully captured a performance, that is what the system (any system) will reveal.
If the recording is smeared by engineering "fingerprints", then *that* is what the system (any system) will reveal.

A fine recording is identifiable as such, even when converted to mp3 and played on a cheap automobile system (on the highway, with the windows open). ;-}
I've found the same to be true of not-so-fine recordings.

A system can't hide the engineering. If the engineering is to get out of the way, this must occur during all processes involved in creating the recording. In my experience, the most important determination of this has already been "locked in" by the time the signals are leaving the microphones. By this time, the engineer has either gotten out of the way or gotten *in* the way.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

Barry,

I would agree with you long ago, but once I got good enough systems I found that the engineering was becoming much more transparent, and recordings I (and many others) would consider poor, filled with fingerprints, were in reality very good sounding. This was particularly observed with many digital recordings. I know that sound engineers usually disagree on this perspective, considering the playback system as accessory. But I am happy high-end manufacturers go on perfecting our systems and music is becoming more enjoyable, increasing the number of recordings I can listen with great pleasure. All in my non-expert opinion!

 

[Al M.]

Music is not supposed to always sound 'nice', and 'forgiving' is not necessarily 'musical'. I have noticed many times how hard sounding (as opposed to harsh sounding, which most of the time is an artifact) live music really is, especially when it comes to brass. This is the case in all but the smoothest sounding venues. I personally find it gratifying and important that my system (even while including a tube amp) is able to realistically reproduce this natural hardness of music, and I don't like softened up, 'forgiving' sound. In that respect I also think CD has an advantage over older sources, as long as you properly eliminate artificial harshness from CD playback and listening room wall reflections by a good DAC and acoustic treatment, respectively.

 

[microstrip]

Music is not supposed to always sound 'nice', and 'forgiving' is not necessarily 'musical'. I have noticed many times how hard sounding (as opposed to harsh sounding, which most of the time is an artifact) live music really is, especially when it comes to brass, in all but the smoothest sounding venues. I personally find it gratifying and important that my system (even while including a tube amp) is able to realistically reproduce this natural hardness of music, and I don't like softened up, 'forgiving' sound. In that respect I also think CD has an advantage over older sources, as long as you properly eliminate artificial harshness from CD playback and listening room wall reflections by a good DAC and acoustic treatment, respectively.

Surely - no one wants the brass of the Leningrad Philharmonic Orchestra playing the Tchaikovsky no 4 conducted by Mravinsky to sound smooth or mellow. But when reproduced adequately I found it very nice sounding.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Music is not supposed to always sound 'nice', and 'forgiving' is not necessarily 'musical'. I have noticed many times how hard sounding (as opposed to harsh sounding, which most of the time is an artifact) live music really is, especially when it comes to brass. This is the case in all but the smoothest sounding venues. I personally find it gratifying and important that my system (even while including a tube amp) is able to realistically reproduce this natural hardness of music, and I don't like softened up, 'forgiving' sound. In that respect I also think CD has an advantage over older sources, as long as you properly eliminate artificial harshness from CD playback and listening room wall reflections by a good DAC and acoustic treatment, respectively.

Out of curiosity, to which analog sources are you referring? I don't have that issue.

 

[puroagave]

Ill take resolving. "forgiving" sounds like a euphemism for dull or amorphus sounding.

 

[Al M.]

Out of curiosity, to which analog sources are you referring? I don't have that issue.

I have rarely heard vinyl playback that can reproduce this aspect of music accurately -- I am not saying that it's a priori impossible, so perhaps in your system it's just fine.

 

[bdiament]

Hi microstrip,

Barry,

I would agree with you long ago, but once I got good enough systems I found that the engineering was becoming much more transparent, and recordings I (and many others) would consider poor, filled with fingerprints, were in reality very good sounding. This was particularly observed with many digital recordings. I know that sound engineers usually disagree on this perspective, considering the playback system as accessory. But I am happy high-end manufacturers go on perfecting our systems and music is becoming more enjoyable, increasing the number of recordings I can listen with great pleasure. All in my non-expert opinion!

Perhaps you took my post to suggest the recording is important and the system is not. If so, then I apologize for not being more clear. I would never consider the playback system an "accessory". Without it, there would be no point in the recording system or the recording.

I believe the fingerprints you heard before were those of the designers of the system components and not of engineers of the recording. As you said, those artifacts didn't seem to be an issue with better gear. But component artifacts (or fingerprints) don't sound the same as the types of fingerprints one finds on all too many recordings. Those in the recording remain, regardless of the system.

There are many sources contributing to the colorations the listener hears at home. Ideally, we can reduce or remove the contribution of as many as possible.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

[MylesBAstor]

Ill take resolving. "forgiving" sounds like a euphemism for dull or amorphus sounding.

Euphonic?

 

[puroagave]

I have rarely heard vinyl playback that can reproduce this aspect of music accurately -- I am not saying that it's a priori impossible, so perhaps in your system it's just fine.

i've thought the same about digital.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I have rarely heard vinyl playback that can reproduce this aspect of music accurately -- I am not saying that it's a priori impossible, so perhaps in your system it's just fine.

Ok so knowing what we know about red book and digital filters, how can CDs do brass correctly? Especially when you hear hi-Rez!

 

[Al M.]

i've thought the same about digital.

As you may notice I made the distinction between natural hardness of sound and artificial harshness. While it is true that it takes a lot of effort to remove artificial digital harshness from CD (and in the early days it did not seem possible at all), when it is done well it leaves the door open to correct reproduction of natural hardness of sound.

 

[Al M.]

Ok so knowing what we know about red book and digital filters, how can CDs do brass correctly? Especially when you hear hi-Rez!

First, I made no claims about reproduction of brass timbre in all its details, but about reproduction of the natural hardness of its sound. Second, where is your proof that redbook is not capable of correct brass timbre?

 

[MylesBAstor]

First, I made no claims about reproduction of brass timbre in all its details, but about reproduction of the natural hardness of its sound. Second, where is your proof that redbook is not capable of correct brass timbre?

What type of proof are you looking for considering the OP? The bottom line is you stated digital reproduces brass better than analog and you refused to disclose what table or tape machine (s) you used to reach that conclusion.

Otherwise all you need to do is look at the numerous articles on how digital filters affect red book digital.

 

[Al M.]

What type of proof are you looking for considering the OP? The bottom line is you stated digital reproduces brass better than analog and you refused to disclose what table or tape machine (s) you used to reach that conclusion.

Otherwise all you need to do is look at the numerous articles on how digital filters affect red book digital.

I do not like being constantly misread. Where did I claim that digital reproduces brass better than analog in all aspects? I was discussing only one aspect, the natural hardness of sound. And as I said, if you believe your analog rig is capable of reproducing this aspect just fine, I'll have nothing to say to the contrary since I have not heard your system myself. I can only talk about my experiences, not yours.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim ,

Those audiophile words have a meaning for those who want to understand and debate them - many people did it much better and with great depth than us, we are not discovering anything, just debating old ideas. You are surely free to ignore or criticize it's use. And IMHO the main question is not only how much is revealed, but how it is revealed.

I will add an example of what I meant by "inner processing" . I listen mainly to classical music, and the performers I usually prefer were recorded using close microphone multitrack recordings, most of the time in studios. These tracks are usually mixed and engineered adding artificial effects to create a natural acoustic, recreating a live event. I do not want a system that dissects the recording, showing all the tricks and techniques, but a system that pre processes all this information and presents it in a way that allows me to recreate the illusion of the live event. I do not need to have something permanently telling me there was a sound engineer in the team - I prefer just reading it in the album liner notes before or after listening.

Ah well...it gives us something to talk about. It's all good. I still can't imagine, or hear, in my mind's ear, what you're talking about. Can you give me an example of an artifical effect that can be revealed by one system and not another? Can you give me an example, that is not lossy, of how a system could "pre-process" studio effects to blend them into something other (better?) than the recording?

Tim