Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[modelmaker]

 -As mentioned in anther thread (Sound Quality Battles), I spent 30 years as a Tech-Rep in the audio/video buisness. It was my hobby starting in 1967 and getting a degree in elctronics became my profession in 1974.(I also had my fist experience with a computer in 1970: an IBM 360 - it was as big as a house! and you could only talk to it in fortran and cobalt and some other obscure computer languages).

For you experienced audiofiles the following are some of my thoughts and experiences and meant as general information and opinion and a basis for discussion.

For the audio novices a little audio history/info/opinion to get the ball rolling:

>The  Goal: Reproducing music (live and studio) acurately.

>the source: the vinyl LP/45 read by a stylus(needle) following a squiggely grove(a mechanical representation of the anolog signal). This is converted to an electronic analog signal then amplified and passed on to the speakers. With a high quality stylus/cartridge the LP was capable of reproducing a frequency response range far exceeding the audible range of the human ear (+/- 50Hz-16KHz), typically 5Hz to 45kHz and more. However, we don't just HEAR sound we also FEEL sound. Frequency response also affects the tonal quality of the sound we do hear. The wider the freq. response, the more harmonics are reprodused and the more accurate the signal is that is delivered to the speakers. LPs disadvantages: wear and tear due to dust and repeated playings.

The source: The CD. Due the technological limitations of the time (mid to late '70s) frequ
ency response was set at 20 - 20kHz with a sample rate of 44 100 sam/sec. This limitation in frequency response and hence the limitatation of reproducable harmonics is the reason many of us "old timers" still prefer the sound of LPs. Most people that have had the opportunity to do A/B comparisons between LPs and CDs thru a high end system agree that the LP has a more full and lifelike sound and the CD (a flat/a more lifeless sound).There are some CDs produced at double the standard sampling rate that overcome this - double the sampling rate and you double the frequency response and you decrease the harmonic distortion.
The CD of course has other distinct advantages: much wider dynamic range(the difference between quietest point and the loundest point) which in turn gives you a better signal to noise ratio, most scratches are in-audible(error corrected), they don't wear out - older LPs were recut every time the diamond stylus passed thru the groove, later vinyl compounds were more flexible and would deform and recover to a certain extent.

>This is one of the most important rules in audio: Your audio system is only as good as the weakest link.

>The Weakest Link , The Speakers. Theoretically the ideal sound source is a single point source. Only a few speaker manufactures have ever come close to this ideal: two  Brit comanies, Tanoy produced the original true co-axial speaker, Quad with their ELS electrostatic speakers and in the US Magnaplaner's 6ft plus elctrostatics also come to mind.There are others. Today's satalite speaker systems come close to the ideal, but due to their size have other limitations,  suwoofers overcome some of them. Full range/ full size systems compensate for the lack of being single source  in other ways. One thing all speaker systems have in common; distortion. levels vary from 2 -3% (high end / audiophile) to 10 - 15 %(middle/low end/large paper woofers).The smaller and stiffer the woofer the lower the distortion. Multiple 8" or 10" woofers are generally better, tighter and lower in distortion than one big 15".Larger voice coils with flat wound wire increase your power handling capability and lower the frequency range the woofer has to reproduce - no sense in making a woofer reproduce midrange when it doesn't need to.

And then there's the human factor! Very few humans have a flat frequency response curve and our ears can be very fickle. They have no memory. Our brains store an impression of what sounds good to us. There are a lot of factors that go into finding your ideal speakers, showroom environment vs your environment, musical taste, etc...

Environments are a crucial facter. Live classical music as performed in a concert hall has cold or hard surfaces surrounding the performers on 3 sides and open to the audience on the 4th. this promotes reflectivity and makes the sound more lively. Bose speakers using the direct/reflect principle emulated this by rear firing some speakers & forward firing one or more. The result: you get the direct sound and milliseconds later you get the reflected sound as in the concert hall environment, assuming the listening room is built the way the concert hall is with hard surfaces surounding the speakers.

Older audiophiles will be rolling their eyes as they remember the top of the line Bose 901 which fired eight 4"  drivers to the rear and 1-4" driver in the front. In order to get full range sound tho you had to use their equalizer which to the purist added an additional device and inherent noise and distortion to the signal path.

Rock music generally tends to overpower it''s envirronment, lliteraly and therefore can live in a wider range of home environments.

Jazz is usually somewhere in between, some jazz lovers prefer the concert hall (loose/lively)others prefer a small club type sound (tight/warmer).

>What I'm trying to show about speakers is that it's the most SUBJECTIVE component of an audio system.There is no "best" or they're all the"best", it's your choice.

Here's a few shopping tips: Speakers should be 1/3 to 1/2 of your total system budget. Pick 4 or 5 speakers to audition but compare only 2 at a time , ex: A/B, A/C, A/D etc,then B/A, B/C, B/D etc. If you try A/B/C/D/E, once you get to E your ear/brain can't remember A. Start eliminating a speaker at a time. Bring your music with you -  at least 4 or 5 selections. Don't bring a friend! They tend to influnce you to buy what they like, they don't have to live with them - you do.

That's it for this chapter. I hope didn't drone on and  bore you all too much, I jumped around a bit too. If this was of interest, I'll drone on about amplifiers and other stuff in "audio 102".Feel free to chime in - maybe we should start a new thread for discussion? Also feel free to eml directly with any specific question.

[Charlemagne 8]

Will there be more? Today?

CVIII

[Wobbley]

Yes, yes please share more of your knowledge.  I'd love for you, if and when you have time, to explain as much as you know about all of this...be as technical as you'd like...

Wobbley

[Charlemagne 8]

Will there be more? Today?

CVIII

7/07/03

Thanks. More please.

[nameless]

Speaker-selection advice is very welcome.  I've always detested the task.  Listening in a showroom?  I'm too self conscious and just plain nervous to feel comfortable enough to not rush.  But right now, someone else has asked me to help they choose a set of speakers.  Oh, please!  I know not where to start.  (I loved the "compare A/B, not A/B/C/D/E" advice.  Goofballs like me need obvious tips like that.)

[gkerber]

A lot of good information, and quite a bit of opinon.

[modelmaker]

gkerber: I did mention at the biginning that these were some of my thoughts and info to promote discussion (and hopefully the sharing of information). The opinions are based on my experiences and are worth what you paid for them. What are yours?

[nameless]

I value opinion very much, so long as it is presented as such (rather than as fact), and as long as it is worded well enough for me to understand and decide if it makes sense to me, and thus if I agree with it.

[gkerber]

gkerber: I did mention at the biginning that these were some of my thoughts and info to promote discussion (and hopefully the sharing of information). The opinions are based on my experiences and are worth what you paid for them. What are yours?

I was reading this post when I saw that we both have icons of something walking, but we're walking in opposite directions....  that got me laughing....

I consider myself a pragmatic sort of audiophile, or at least I used to be an audophile in my younger days.  I knew all the technical stuff when I sold audio equipment in the late seventies ( still keep up pretty well with the technology).  And I also found that all the great sounding stuff in the glossy literature from the manufacturers was mostly techno mumbo jumbo - listening was the best way to know what was "best"
(to the person).  I guess I belong more to the Julian Hirch school of audiophile over the "Stereophile" philophosy.

When you say you like the sound of lp's better than cd's, I take that to mean you like the sound of the particular cartridge and the mix of the lp over the neutral playback of the cd and the mix of the cd.  Like speakers, cartridges imposed quite a bit of color to the audio (not AS much), whereas cd players have much less effect on the over all sound as cartridges did.  Your statement that lp's sound better due to the wider frequency response while maybe "sound" in theory, requires that the cartridge have a frequence response beyond 20k and at a meaningful "flat" level compared to the 20-20k response.  Very few had response much higher than 20k (excluding the RCA quad cartridges - was it CD4?) and it was many db down from the level at 18-20k.  And does the amp reproduce those frequencies and the speakers?   No they don't, not at meaningful levels.  In the final analysis, all devices, active or inactive impart some color to the music, and an A/B test between lp's and cartridges have very many other factors included as part of the test, change cartriges and your opinion about which sound better to you may change.

Rock music generally tends to overpower it''s envirronment, lliteraly and therefore can live in a wider range of home environments.

This statement is too general.  Rock music is created, not played (like pure acoustic music), so there is no generally accepted "accurate" sound quality for it.  But I think "overpower" is the wrong word entirerly and demeaning to the genre.

Older audiophiles will be rolling their eyes as they remember the top of the line Bose 901 which fired eight 4"  drivers to the rear and 1-4" driver in the front. In order to get full range sound tho you had to use their equalizer which to the purist added an additional device and inherent noise and distortion to the signal path.  

The 901's sure did have thier own sound (which I didn't like) and that equalizer sure was inefficient in the earlier generations.... But we had customers that swore by them, loved them and therefore, they were the best speakers for them.

I just wanted to point out that some of what you were saying was opinion while other parts were black and white clear facts.  Not that your opinions were good or bad, but that they were opinions.

I see you're from Lake George, New York.  I grew up in Clifton Park, NY.  I have so many great memories of Lake George, boating and camping.  The last time I was there was in the mid-90's while doing "time" in NJ for my job (AT&T) for a few years.

I remember growing up and 'hating' the people from NJ coming up and taking "our" campsites (I was young and wrong), so it was very funny to me that when I lived in NJ for a few years in the mid-ninties, that I came up to Lake George and took some our "their" campsites.  I'm in Denver Colorado now.

[Bartabedian]

Some extended info:

Most humans would be lucky if they could hear above 18Khz or below 50hz. Women are more likely to hear over 20k, conversely men more likely to hear below 40.

The human body resonates at certain frequencies based on height, weight, density of bone/tissue and muscle vs fat ratios. The exact frequency for each human is completely based on the individual, and it is called a "resonate frequency". This is not limited to humans as all objects around us have their own unique resonate frequency. This all greatly affects our listening experience, as does temperature, humidity, elevation, etc.

Secondly, in my 25 plus years in audio engineering spanning thousands, even tens of thousands of sessions, I have never once heard a pop, click or crackle in my recordings (or at least not unintentional noises). I never heard a vinyl reproduction and thought "gee, I guess they wanted that sibilance, that rumble, that rice crispy symphony marring their hours, days, weeks, months of work."

True, harmonic frequencies abound on analog repro's where digital falls short. But trade-offs exist, perfection is futile and todays recording environment has tools and toys to help "control" the end result, the listening experience. Do 96k recordings offer us that much closer to analog? Yes, the idea being that more sampling "points" creates more harmonic detail, but it will always be a digital repro, simulating the real, and will never be able to capture a full spectrum of analog quality.

And then the question is raised, if humans can barely hear a frequency at 20k, how can we truly understand the difference between 44.1 and 96k? It's not really audible as much "feeling", and I can tell the difference on my Meyer HD1's but on my desktop setup through my JBL control 1's, hardly. It's there, and as a professional I should proudly proclaim "I hear it", but I don't.

In the end, my advice to the listener is, does it sound good to you? Are you enjoying yourself? I can tell you this, that's what most of the musicians who record the music you listen to care about.

WP

[Wobbley]

Firstly, and as has already been stated, he did preface his remarks with:

For you experienced audiofiles the following are some of my thoughts and experiences and meant as general information and opinion and a basis for discussion.

Now, I am not an audiophile, although I own (what I consider to be mid-range) audiophile equipment (i.e Lexicon Pre-amp & Amplifier & DSP, Paradigm spkrs, 8 million dollar interconnect cables, etc.).  And while I agree that it is truly and ultimately the listener's decision regarding what sounds "good", there is some benefit provided to all when someone takes the (appreciated) time to express facts, fact-based opinions, and pure opinions.  It gets the mind working, it might actually benefit other, less knowledgable individuals, and it promotes healthy discussion.  I myself found modelmakers post interesting to read, and I actually learned something about vinyl versus CD that I didn't know.

Lastly, I once had a pair of Snells that cost me around $900 in the early 90's that I swore sounded better than a friend's pair of Klipschhorn, which I think at the time cosst him $3,500/pair.  He liked the horn, I didn't.  My favorite speakers so far (price:sound quality) have been a pair of Paradigm series 3 speakers.  They set me back a whopping $399 for the pair, I've had them for 8 years, and they sound even better than they did after their burn-in period...

Just my thoughts...

Wobbley

[Mike Noe]

http://www.transcendentsound.com/audioreality.htm

[Wobbley]

What's the link for, so we can buy a book?  Or is it for us to click the "conveniently" malfunctioning link for the first chapter?

[scott_r]

I'm not an audiophile by a long shot, but I do like my music not to suck, and there's something thats been on my mind for a while...

So, speaking of the whole 96kHz thing, I recently purchased an Onkyo 5.1 receiver and a set of Wharfedale Valdus speakers. It's great for DVD's, but I decided to hook up my computer to one of the digital inputs, feeding it with my SoundBlaster Live! Value OEM. Now, this card, according to the specs, is 16bit/48Khz. So I play music (MP3 128 and APE) through it, via the digital output on the card, and it sounds alright, playing with the different DSP and ProLogicII settings on the reciever.
I am wondering, seeing as the receiver "features" 24bit/96kHz DAC's, whether it would make a huge difference to the sound quality by upgrading to something like a SoundBlaster Audigy (which has 24bit/96kHz) when playing MP3 and APE files.

I'm just hoping I havent just made a total fool of myself

Cheers for the help,

Scott.

[Mike Noe]

For some, the book might be suitable.  Read the description, Bruce is a straight up, no BS guy.  This is a very rare thing in the world of so-called hi-fi.   He is one of the few component and kit suppliers focused on providing high quality products at reasonable prices.

I didn't realize the Chap 1 link was bad, it's been a while since I've been there.

My point in posting was to provide some info for folks who might be interested in facts about the world of audio equipment and might also lean toward the DIY side of things.

[loraan]

Some extended info:
True, harmonic frequencies abound on analog repro's where digital falls short. But trade-offs exist, perfection is futile and todays recording environment has tools and toys to help "control" the end result, the listening experience. Do 96k recordings offer us that much closer to analog? Yes, the idea being that more sampling "points" creates more harmonic detail, but it will always be a digital repro, simulating the real, and will never be able to capture a full spectrum of analog quality.

But, let's face it, even a very good analog reproduction of a signal isn't a perfect reproduction of the original signal. Like every measuring/reproducing device, an analog recording contains abberations or discrepancies from the original.

At the very least, analog processes always have to fight the signal/noise ratio battle--every piece of equipment that you add to the processing chain adds just that little bit more hiss, even though at pro-audio quality levels, it's very little. Pure digital processing, on the other hand, adds no background hiss at all to the signal, and that's nothing to sneeze at.

One can certainly argue that they prefer analog to digital or vice versa, but arguing that one is more accurate than the other misses the point, IMO. Think of all the processing, mixing, and mastering that goes into producing a recording. All the reverb, equalizer, etc.. The point is that nobody wants to hear exactly, accurately, what the instrument laid down. We want to hear something that is pleasing.

One other thing on the Digital vs. Analog "debate": let's not forget the effect that digital has had on the music production process. That effect is much less obvious to the listener's perspective, but it's HUGE. At the "amateur/home recorder" level, digital recording and processing has opened up possibilities that used to be only available in million-dollar studios. Using Cakewalk Sonar, CuBase VST, or something like that, and less than $2000 in equipment (mics, a computer, a good soundcard, and a preamp for the mics), I can do 24-track (or more) recording, mix down, apply very high-quality effects that rival thousand-dollar analog counterparts in some cases, master, and burn to CD all on one computer.

At all levels, both pro and home audio, digital processing gives more freedom to the artist and engineer. The artist can do as many takes as he/she wants because there's no worry about wasting tape. The engineer can sample different effects... if he doesn't like it--Ctrl-Z! Digital equalizers, which use mathematics to separate out the frequency components of the signal, are much more precise and flexible than their analog counterparts--in some cases, you can set the center frequency and Q-factor exactly where you want them for as many bands as you like.

And then the question is raised, if humans can barely hear a frequency at 20k, how can we truly understand the difference between 44.1 and 96k? It's not really audible as much "feeling", and I can tell the difference on my Meyer HD1's but on my desktop setup through my JBL control 1's, hardly. It's there, and as a professional I should proudly proclaim "I hear it", but I don't.

I've got to ask if you've ever confirmed that with a double-blind A/B listening test. I ask because I used to be sure that I could hear the difference between a 16/44.1 WAV and a 128 Kbps WMA. And when I knew which one was which, I could! I could pick things out that were definitely different between them! Then I found some software that let me do a real double-blind test... turns out I can't tell the difference, even when I playback through my EDIROL soundcard (24/44.1, >100 dB S/N) and my best set of headphones.

[Bartabedian]

I'm not an audiophile by a long shot, but I do like my music not to suck, and there's something thats been on my mind for a while...

So, speaking of the whole 96kHz thing, I recently purchased an Onkyo 5.1 receiver and a set of Wharfedale Valdus speakers. It's great for DVD's, but I decided to hook up my computer to one of the digital inputs, feeding it with my SoundBlaster Live! Value OEM. Now, this card, according to the specs, is 16bit/48Khz. So I play music (MP3 128 and APE) through it, via the digital output on the card, and it sounds alright, playing with the different DSP and ProLogicII settings on the reciever.
I am wondering, seeing as the receiver "features" 24bit/96kHz DAC's, whether it would make a huge difference to the sound quality by upgrading to something like a SoundBlaster Audigy (which has 24bit/96kHz) when playing MP3 and APE files.

I'm just hoping I havent just made a total fool of myself

Cheers for the help,

Scott.

Never foolish to be inquisitive...the answer is, maybe...mostly what you'll get is a slightly better repro of your already compressed files, which you originated from 16/44 files to begin with. To truly hear a difference, find a source file at 24/96 and the difference should be quite obvious.

To Loraan,

I'm not choosing sides in the D vs A debate. I started in this business when digital recording was a mere abstract concept. Now, I do about 90% of my work in the digital realm. I know the pro-cons of each quite well and some of the most successful recordings have been a marriage of the two. In the last 3 years, every 2 inch session I've done eventually ended up in my dumping the tracks to pro-tools for editing.

Me, I prefer to record in digital for some basic reasons:

1. It is the end result, it's what your audience hears, a 16/44 CD. I like to put my tracks into the digital realm immediately, no conversion questions remain other than 24/44 or 24/96 down to 16/44. I use a host of tube pre'e and mics to get a warm signal path at the point of contact, right from the get go.

2. It's cheaper, plain and simple. Sure, major labels will throw down a bundle on some mass market phenom, but those acts comprise maybe 5% of the recording business. My clients don't want to spend $150 for 15 minutes of tape.

3. It's efficient and creative. A one-two punch, you just can't beat how quickly you can create. re-create, spin, move, alter, etc. I did a project with a song writer in which we re-wrote half his songs in the recording process, moving bridge's to chorus's, verses to bridge's, outro's become intro's, absolute madness. Try doing that with analog.

Lastly, in the sound-quality debate, i'll say this:

It's all up to you, the listener. I've worked with some of the top "ears" in the business, and we all debate endlessly about what we like, what we don't. Some swear by their Genelecs, I hate 'em. Some love their NS-10's with the tissue trick, some don't tissue, I again hate them either way. I'm not right, neither are they. Which one of us is "closer" to true hi-fi sound or realism? Only each one of us as individuals can make that distinction for ourselves. Don't go running out and buying Phase\Linear Amps or Tannoy speakers just because an "audiophile" suggested it. Just ask yourself, what sounds good to you?

WP

[loraan]

Sounds like we're thinking along the same lines. I agree that you can't beat digital for flexibility in recording and editing. Way back when, some people thought electric guitars were sh*t too. Any new technology can be used artistically and creatively. I really liked your description of selectively using tube preamps and analog mics into digital recording equipment. That kind of sums up my thoughts on good ways to combine analog and digital for the best sound.

Of course, the "dark side" of digital is the temptation to lay down a crap recording and then "fix it" in the computer. Ugh. I'm not saying there isn't a place for digital improvement of a mistake, but at a certain point, you start substituting digital tomfoolery for talent!

My favorite "digital" stories:

On one song, I had a very good take of a certain verse, but I sang it so "laid back" that I dropped the end of several words--e.g. "wash" without an effectively inaudible "sh" at the end. Rather than re-record the entire verse, I found another place in the song where a word ended in "sh", very carefully cut out that sound, and then very carefully layered it in at the end of the other word. Nobody but me can tell that I didn't sing it right the first time!

On another song, I was playing a difficult (for me) guitar solo. I wanted to hold one note in between verses and then very quickly jump to another note that started the next phrase of the solo. But there was always too much of a pause between the two notes because my hands weren't fast enough. Finally, I got a great take, except for that one little pause. I digitally "expanded" the note between the verses so that it flowed nicely into the next phrase.

If you're curious about my recordings, check out:

http://www.mindspring.com/~bardwell

See the "Music From Me" links.

[loraan]

Apologies to those who tried my home page and got errors. I just realized that I moved those files and forgot to update the URL. It should be working now :-)

At least, it works for me...

[Wobbley]

Loraan,

Any chance you're from around the Athens, GA area?

Wobbley

[loraan]

Sorry--Kennesaw.

[escaflo]

I'm not an audiophile by a long shot, but I do like my music not to suck, and there's something thats been on my mind for a while...

So, speaking of the whole 96kHz thing, I recently purchased an Onkyo 5.1 receiver and a set of Wharfedale Valdus speakers. It's great for DVD's, but I decided to hook up my computer to one of the digital inputs, feeding it with my SoundBlaster Live! Value OEM. Now, this card, according to the specs, is 16bit/48Khz. So I play music (MP3 128 and APE) through it, via the digital output on the card, and it sounds alright, playing with the different DSP and ProLogicII settings on the reciever.
I am wondering, seeing as the receiver "features" 24bit/96kHz DAC's, whether it would make a huge difference to the sound quality by upgrading to something like a SoundBlaster Audigy (which has 24bit/96kHz) when playing MP3 and APE files.

I'm just hoping I havent just made a total fool of myself

Cheers for the help,

Scott.

I am no Audiophile too but as far as I know, Audigy don't have a true 24bit/96khz output. All the internal processing is still done at 16bit/48khz and what Audigy does is upsample the source at the DAC.

So basically what you are hearing is still 16bit/48khz sound. The only difference between Audigy and Live is that Audigy have a better DAC for their front output then Live. Live rear ouput have a better DAC than their front (one of the reason why KX Drivers swap them) and the DAC is the same one being use by Audigy for both the front and the back. Of course there's also the slight difference on the EMU101k processor but it is only for some EAX support I believe.

[Cmagic]

A good 10 years old thread and the debate on audio perception quality is still vivid!

Since the original post, my hearing has probably lost a few dBs in some freq channels and I'm afraid it will lose even more in the next few years.
But anyway as long as I can enjoy music (even on a crappy cassette desk), dance a bit and have a drink, life's good!

Have a nice week-end,

C.