|
|
Post by audiosyndrome on Feb 25, 2023 12:24:38 GMT -5
The purpose of a DAC is to ACCURATELY reproduce the file sent to it. Nothing more, nothing less. Wether it sounds like a live performance (or not), wether it sends you to heaven (or hell) is a function of a thousand things, least of which may be the DAC. Of course IMO. 😇
Russ
|
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Feb 25, 2023 15:21:42 GMT -5
I prefer my sound system sounding more like an studio console room than a live performance. Except for classical music and such. That would be the appropriate benchmark ... because on the other side of the glass, there was no "there" there. But curiously, when we talk about EQ/Dirac the benchmark seems to be the studio .. plus 4, 6, 8, even 10db+ below 100Hz. Odd. |
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Feb 25, 2023 22:57:43 GMT -5
WOW - fbczar ! This is a GREAT post - one of the best I've EVER read on the Lounge. Is "accuracy" truth to the original acoustic performance? Is it truth to the original, unmastered recording tape? Is it truth to the commercial recording release? Or is it truth to what makes the recording sound most like live music in YOUR room and to YOUR ears? There are WORLDS of potential in the different options. And one can be a "purist" to ANY of the choices with arguable justification. Like you, I think that I fall primarily into the group of "true believers" that support the last option This is why I'm perfectly willing to listen to (and in many cases, prefer) my audio amigo's "remastering" of music in his library. Are his choices superior to those made by the commercial mastering engineer? For his room, and to his ears, they ARE! Thanks again for your thoughtful and beautifully stated question. As an audio writer, I'm green with envy. Glenn Young + fbczar Okay you guys went down the rabbit hole, not me ... but I'm following!  #1 ... was the recording made all at once in a space that was acoustically appropriate for live performance and recorded in such away that the performance was captured (i.e. not close-miked and remixes in a studio; not a recording of totally amplified music ... acoustic instruments only)? If so, then you have a chance to evaluate whether it sounds like a live performance in your room. Otherwise, add another dozen variables to Glenn's list. I listened to this yesterday and it solidly passes the test ... and that was with the 5.1 version ... I would love to get the Bluray with Atmos. Notice how Morten Lindberg does his live Atmos recording. View AttachmentView AttachmentView AttachmentView Attachmentp.s. with a good recording, listening in my room sounds better than 90% of live performances that I've been to. I look forward to listening. Just like stereo and multichannel systems the production of live music varies as well. The venue alone can limit the fidelity of any live performance. However, I do think it is a good idea to listen to as much live music as you can just to have a point of reference. By the way, have you been investigating multi-channel sound vs stereo? It could be all the justification you need for more Magnepan speakers. |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Feb 26, 2023 4:33:26 GMT -5
Yeah 7 of my 11 channels are Magnepan, including MC1 for side surround and MMGW for top front ... specifically because I listen to a LOT of multichannel music. I've been collecting 5.1 versions of whatever music I find that has that available, and now that Apple Music includes a lot of Atmos versions I listen to those also. I just invested in an upgrade to the MC1 having them rebuilt with foil instead of wire, though the results are to be determined by listening and measuring when I get them back next week ... Mick said he didn't think they ever did a foil upgrade on the MC1 before. I'm hoping to get back some bass response that for some unknown reason has waned over the years, and also hopefully some overall clarity. Depending on how it goes - and due to the bass management problem introduced when Dirac released 3.4.4 - I may end up hanging my LRS as side surrounds and move the MC1 to the bedroom.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 28, 2023 11:03:41 GMT -5
Now THAT is an interesting question... To me it means that we reproduce the recording as accurately as possible - without editorializing on it in any way. (Since I have no way of knowing anything for sure before that point in time I'm inclined to accept the recording as being the closest thing we have to the original.) Let me clarify that a bit. We have a recording that we assume is "what the mastering engineer wanted it to sound like". And, for better or worse, that's ALL we have. Unless we were actually at the performance featured in the recording we cannot know what it sounded like. Saying that something sounds like "a live recording" is really not a valid claim - since many live performances sound quite different from each other. Do you want that recording to sound like you were listening from the front row in Carnegie Hall...? Or would you prefer how it would sound from the center row in Winchester Cathedral...? Or would you prefer how it would sound from the couch closest to that intimate jazz ensemble...? And, to be quite blunt, I've been to a few live performances that sounded downright awful. Not to mention the fact that, these days, many studio recordings are "completely artificial" and there is no original performance to compare to at all. (And, with the right software, I could record something in a phone booth, and "drop in" the ambiance of "front row center at Winchester Cathedral" later.) So, in fact, what you're really saying is that "you want it to sound like you imagine it would sound like if it was a good recording of a good quality live performance". To me there are two choices: 1. Trust, or at least "go with", the judgment of the recording engineer - and aim to reproduce the recording as accurately as possible... 2. Make your own guess about what you think the recording "should have sounded like" - and aim for that... I am personally quite convinced that the second option is the reason many people like the sound of certain tube equipment that is known to have a lot of distortion. Modern "close mike" recordings tend to "sound dry" and lack ambience... the second harmonic distortion created by tubes tends to make audio, and especially voices, sound "more present and alive". You absolutely are not getting a more accurate rendition of what you have in the recording... But what you are getting is "something that probably sounds more like what it might have sounded like if you were actually there"... (But the obvious catch is that there are several unknowns there - and, to horribly mix metaphors, you end up listening to everything "through the same rose-colored glasses" .) I'm going to offer my favorite visual example here: You are tasked with setting up the lighting on a newly discovered Rembrandt painting in a museum. Do you: 1. Light the painting with accurate lighting - so everyone can see it in its actual colors. 2. Light the painting with lighting that simulates torches and candlelight - because that's what Rembrandt actually had in his studio when he painted it. 3. Light the painting with simulated "North light" - because that was "how Rembrandt intended it to be seen". (because you know, from his notes, that Rembrandt knew that was what the lighting would be in the client's home). 4. (We could even consider lighting it with standard home lamps... so people can "experience what it would look like in their own living room".) And do you prefer to display the painting "as it looks now" or "have it cleaned so it looks as it did when it was painted"? The answer to your final question depends on your answers to these questions. If you prefer to hear a recording itself "reproduced as accurately as possible" then there is no question. Regardless of what DAC, or other gear, that you use - a bit-perfect reproduction is the most accurate reproduction of the recording itself (by definition). If, instead, you prefer to allow the software to change the bits... In an attempt to achieve "fidelity to some other standard of accuracy"... then the answer is less clear and far more subjective. (We have no way of knowing how it may have been altered during recording and production... so no chance of "magically restoring it to its original sound".) Just as, with that Rembrandt, some people are more concerned with the colors, some with the brush strokes, and others with the perspective. (And, once you forego absolute accuracy, there is no "absolute right or wrong", and so it's simply a matter of preference.) And, just for the record, as many of you already know, MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE would be to light that Rembrandt with accurate lighting... And I'd paint the walls of the display room a neutral color to avoid altering the colors of the painting too. (And, if I really liked Rembrandt, I'd be sure to leave my colored sunglasses outside when I went to look at the painting.)  ................................. How does accuracy sound? To me the closer a live recording sounds to a live concert the more accurate it is and my goal has always been to put together a system that sounds “real” when playing acoustic music. Of course, there are many many reasons systems cannot be perfectly accurate including the source. In my experience Audirvana and HQPlayer sound better than Roon. That is to say I like the sound better. Who knows which software is the most accurate. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 28, 2023 11:14:38 GMT -5
My sentiments exactly... I don't listen to much classical music... mostly rock and pop. And, for that sort of music, most of the "recordings" only really "exist" in the mixing console. They are assembled out of separate tracks... Often recorded and processed separately... (Sometimes recorded not only separately, but at different times, and even in different studios.) And, even when a single performance is recorded, each instrument and singer is usually recorded individually, often using multiple microphones... So the closest thing that exists to "the original performance" really is the output of the mixing console. And, to be quite blunt, of the several live performances that I've been to recently... None sounded anywhere near as good as the audio system I have in my living room... So I have no desire whatsoever to reproduce them accurately... (And I really hope that, when that "live album" is released, it will sound a lot better than what I heard at the actual performance.) The upshot of all this is that my goal is to reproduce what the mixing engineer heard at his or her mixing console. (I generally have no illusions about wanting to, or being able to, reproduce "a live original performance" beyond that point.) I prefer my sound system sounding more like an studio console room than a live performance. Except for classical music and such. |
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Feb 28, 2023 11:18:44 GMT -5
The live performance is for the good time, and magic that live brings. You want it technically right, it was done in the studio. Ohhh, I am sure the can of worms has been opened.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 28, 2023 11:54:51 GMT -5
I’d agree with Mr KeithL - so far as his argument goes. But using his philosophy, there should be no such thing as room processing. Why? Because that’s NOT what is in the commercial recording (and that recording IS what the mastering engineer intended)! So, if we allow some room-correction algorithm to “customize the sound to our individual rooms,” why should we NOT remaster as we choose to achieve the same goal? No - I don’t want the intermediate electronics coloring the sound - but once that recording is in my hot little hands, it’s MINE (bought and paid for)! If I want to hear it with room correction - if I want to hear it with equalization - if I want to hear it with the “loudness” button on - that recording is mine to modify to my heart’s content. If I bought a Rembrandt print and wanted to put a mustache on it - it’s mine to do! The modifications I make may not suit anyone else, but I have carte blanche to optimize my own satisfaction. Boom |
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs 
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 5,032
|
Post by cawgijoe on Feb 28, 2023 12:06:50 GMT -5
My sentiments exactly... I don't listen to much classical music... mostly rock and pop. And, for that sort of music, most of the "recordings" only really "exist" in the mixing console. They are assembled out of separate tracks... Often recorded and processed separately... (Sometimes recorded not only separately, but at different times, and even in different studios.) And, even when a single performance is recorded, each instrument and singer is usually recorded individually, often using multiple microphones... So the closest thing that exists to "the original performance" really is the output of the mixing console. And, to be quite blunt, of the several live performances that I've been to recently... None sounded anywhere near as good as the audio system I have in my living room... So I have no desire whatsoever to reproduce them accurately... (And I really hope that, when that "live album" is released, it will sound a lot better than what I heard at the actual performance.) The upshot of all this is that my goal is to reproduce what the mixing engineer heard at his or her mixing console. (I generally have no illusions about wanting to, or being able to, reproduce "a live original performance" beyond that point.) I prefer my sound system sounding more like an studio console room than a live performance. Except for classical music and such. I also find Live performances to be way too loud for the most part. I've been to concerts where you could hear the distortion in the speakers. I guess the louder it is, the better it is?! |
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,950
|
Post by hemster on Feb 28, 2023 12:09:11 GMT -5
I’d agree with Mr KeithL - so far as his argument goes. But using his philosophy, there should be no such thing as room processing. Why? Because that’s NOT what is in the commercial recording (and that recording IS what the mastering engineer intended)! So, if we allow some room-correction algorithm to “customize the sound to our individual rooms,” why should we NOT remaster as we choose to achieve the same goal? No - I don’t want the intermediate electronics coloring the sound - but once that recording is in my hot little hands, it’s MINE (bought and paid for)! If I want to hear it with room correction - if I want to hear it with equalization - if I want to hear it with the “loudness” button on - that recording is mine to modify to my heart’s content. If I bought a Rembrandt print and wanted to put a mustache on it - it’s mine to do! The modifications I make may not suit anyone else, but I have carte blanche to optimize my own satisfaction. Boom Sure. Ultimately it is your gear, your recording media (bought and paid for) so you can listen to Milli Vanilli with tone controls jacked up if you want.  |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 28, 2023 12:17:33 GMT -5
Probably the ONLY way to listen to Milli Vanilli! LOL
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 28, 2023 12:59:29 GMT -5
I disagree with your first statement entirely. I prefer to have the recording reproduced as accurately as possible. And part of that is NOT having the way it sounds altered by the sound of my room. The general goal of room correction is NOT "to customize the sound of our room" (at least not for me). The goal of room correction is usually to ELIMINATE the sound of your room and your speakers. (More accurately, since you cannot eliminate the room, to "neutralize" the sound of the room to minimize the effect it has on what you're listening to.) When you show video using a projector you use a white screen in order to see the output of the projector accurately. If you tried projecting the image onto a wall that was covered in patterned wallpaper that pattern would alter the image. Room correction is the equivalent of "removing the wallpaper" (at least as much as possible). And, while room correction can't "make the wall white", it can "make it a nice smooth grey with no remaining pattern to interfere with the picture". (And I'm sure we can both agree that "painting the wall a nice sunny shade of yellow" is not going to make your movies look more true to the original.) So, yes, I would expect room correction to enable me to reproduce the recording more accurately, by minimizing the contribution of the room. (And, yes, there is a tradeoff between "making a neutral room" and "completely eliminating the room and leaving a gap where the room should be".) You seem to be arguing for both sides here... or perhaps blurring what I see as a relatively sharp line. If you "put a moustache on the painting" you obviously ARE "coloring it"... And, if your favorite tube amplifier "makes the music sound more like a live recording" then it is ALSO coloring it. (So it IS "remastering" rather than "making more accurate".) And, as I've said many times, you absolutely have a right to remaster things any way you find pleasing... But, most of the time, I prefer not to remaster things... And, when I do, I prefer to be in complete control of all the details (and certainly at least be informed of all of those details). I definitely DO NOT want my intermediate equipment making those judgments for me... I don't want my equipment adding coloration "without telling me" any more than I want an assistant who "puts nice moustaches on all my paintings for me". If any moustaches are going to be added... I want to be in complete control of how and when. I’d agree with Mr KeithL - so far as his argument goes. But using his philosophy, there should be no such thing as room processing. Why? Because that’s NOT what is in the commercial recording (and that recording IS what the mastering engineer intended)! So, if we allow some room-correction algorithm to “customize the sound to our individual rooms,” why should we NOT remaster as we choose to achieve the same goal? No - I don’t want the intermediate electronics coloring the sound - but once that recording is in my hot little hands, it’s MINE (bought and paid for)! If I want to hear it with room correction - if I want to hear it with equalization - if I want to hear it with the “loudness” button on - that recording is mine to modify to my heart’s content. If I bought a Rembrandt print and wanted to put a mustache on it - it’s mine to do! The modifications I make may not suit anyone else, but I have carte blanche to optimize my own satisfaction. Boom |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 28, 2023 13:32:51 GMT -5
When a tree falls in a forest, and there's nobody around to hear it, does it really make a sound? And, no matter what you adjust, or what you set things to, can you ever be said to have heard "the real Milli Vanilli"? I’d agree with Mr KeithL - so far as his argument goes. But using his philosophy, there should be no such thing as room processing. Why? Because that’s NOT what is in the commercial recording (and that recording IS what the mastering engineer intended)! So, if we allow some room-correction algorithm to “customize the sound to our individual rooms,” why should we NOT remaster as we choose to achieve the same goal? No - I don’t want the intermediate electronics coloring the sound - but once that recording is in my hot little hands, it’s MINE (bought and paid for)! If I want to hear it with room correction - if I want to hear it with equalization - if I want to hear it with the “loudness” button on - that recording is mine to modify to my heart’s content. If I bought a Rembrandt print and wanted to put a mustache on it - it’s mine to do! The modifications I make may not suit anyone else, but I have carte blanche to optimize my own satisfaction. Boom Sure. Ultimately it is your gear, your recording media (bought and paid for) so you can listen to Milli Vanilli with tone controls jacked up if you want. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 28, 2023 13:42:40 GMT -5
I disagree with your first statement entirely. I prefer to have the recording reproduced as accurately as possible. And part of that is NOT having the way it sounds altered by the sound of my room. The general goal of room correction is NOT "to customize the sound of our room" (at least not for me). The goal of room correction is usually to ELIMINATE the sound of your room and your speakers. (More accurately, since you cannot eliminate the room, to "neutralize" the sound of the room to minimize the effect it has on what you're listening to.) When you show video using a projector you use a white screen in order to see the output of the projector accurately. If you tried projecting the image onto a wall that was covered in patterned wallpaper that pattern would alter the image. Room correction is the equivalent of "removing the wallpaper" (at least as much as possible). And, while room correction can't "make the wall white", it can "make it a nice smooth grey with no remaining pattern to interfere with the picture". (And I'm sure we can both agree that "painting the wall a nice sunny shade of yellow" is not going to make your movies look more true to the original.) So, yes, I would expect room correction to enable me to reproduce the recording more accurately, by minimizing the contribution of the room. (And, yes, there is a tradeoff between "making a neutral room" and "completely eliminating the room and leaving a gap where the room should be".) You seem to be arguing for both sides here... or perhaps blurring what I see as a relatively sharp line. If you "put a moustache on the painting" you obviously ARE "coloring it"... And, if your favorite tube amplifier "makes the music sound more like a live recording" then it is ALSO coloring it. (So it IS "remastering" rather than "making more accurate".) And, as I've said many times, you absolutely have a right to remaster things any way you find pleasing... But, most of the time, I prefer not to remaster things... And, when I do, I prefer to be in complete control of all the details (and certainly at least be informed of all of those details). I definitely DO NOT want my intermediate equipment making those judgments for me... I don't want my equipment adding coloration "without telling me" any more than I want an assistant who "puts nice moustaches on all my paintings for me". If any moustaches are going to be added... I want to be in complete control of how and when. We agree (mostly) - we're just saying it differently. Whether we're using room correction or manual equalization to get closer to what's on the recording - we're MODIFYING the signal on the recording. Now since we don't actually KNOW what the recording is supposed to sound like, we're either allowing some algorithm to try to neutralize the sound of our room / speakers or we're trying to do it ourselves. My question is, I guess, do we really want what's on the recording? Some mastering engineer might have mixed that old song to sound good on Altec Voice of the Theaters with equalization for AM radio... Is that really what we want to "get back to?" I contend that we may be able to do better. No, we don't need to "Milli Vanelli" the mix, but we just might want to try improving what's on the recording. Or not - If you're happy with the sound, don't worry - be happy. |
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Feb 28, 2023 20:18:16 GMT -5
Now THAT is an interesting question... To me it means that we reproduce the recording as accurately as possible - without editorializing on it in any way. (Since I have no way of knowing anything for sure before that point in time I'm inclined to accept the recording as being the closest thing we have to the original.) Let me clarify that a bit. We have a recording that we assume is "what the mastering engineer wanted it to sound like". And, for better or worse, that's ALL we have. Unless we were actually at the performance featured in the recording we cannot know what it sounded like. Saying that something sounds like "a live recording" is really not a valid claim - since many live performances sound quite different from each other. Do you want that recording to sound like you were listening from the front row in Carnegie Hall...? Or would you prefer how it would sound from the center row in Winchester Cathedral...? Or would you prefer how it would sound from the couch closest to that intimate jazz ensemble...? And, to be quite blunt, I've been to a few live performances that sounded downright awful. Not to mention the fact that, these days, many studio recordings are "completely artificial" and there is no original performance to compare to at all. (And, with the right software, I could record something in a phone booth, and "drop in" the ambiance of "front row center at Winchester Cathedral" later.) So, in fact, what you're really saying is that "you want it to sound like you imagine it would sound like if it was a good recording of a good quality live performance". To me there are two choices: 1. Trust, or at least "go with", the judgment of the recording engineer - and aim to reproduce the recording as accurately as possible... 2. Make your own guess about what you think the recording "should have sounded like" - and aim for that... I am personally quite convinced that the second option is the reason many people like the sound of certain tube equipment that is known to have a lot of distortion. Modern "close mike" recordings tend to "sound dry" and lack ambience... the second harmonic distortion created by tubes tends to make audio, and especially voices, sound "more present and alive". You absolutely are not getting a more accurate rendition of what you have in the recording... But what you are getting is "something that probably sounds more like what it might have sounded like if you were actually there"... (But the obvious catch is that there are several unknowns there - and, to horribly mix metaphors, you end up listening to everything "through the same rose-colored glasses" .) I'm going to offer my favorite visual example here: You are tasked with setting up the lighting on a newly discovered Rembrandt painting in a museum. Do you: 1. Light the painting with accurate lighting - so everyone can see it in its actual colors. 2. Light the painting with lighting that simulates torches and candlelight - because that's what Rembrandt actually had in his studio when he painted it. 3. Light the painting with simulated "North light" - because that was "how Rembrandt intended it to be seen". (because you know, from his notes, that Rembrandt knew that was what the lighting would be in the client's home). 4. (We could even consider lighting it with standard home lamps... so people can "experience what it would look like in their own living room".) And do you prefer to display the painting "as it looks now" or "have it cleaned so it looks as it did when it was painted"? The answer to your final question depends on your answers to these questions. If you prefer to hear a recording itself "reproduced as accurately as possible" then there is no question. Regardless of what DAC, or other gear, that you use - a bit-perfect reproduction is the most accurate reproduction of the recording itself (by definition). If, instead, you prefer to allow the software to change the bits... In an attempt to achieve "fidelity to some other standard of accuracy"... then the answer is less clear and far more subjective. (We have no way of knowing how it may have been altered during recording and production... so no chance of "magically restoring it to its original sound".) Just as, with that Rembrandt, some people are more concerned with the colors, some with the brush strokes, and others with the perspective. (And, once you forego absolute accuracy, there is no "absolute right or wrong", and so it's simply a matter of preference.) And, just for the record, as many of you already know, MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE would be to light that Rembrandt with accurate lighting... And I'd paint the walls of the display room a neutral color to avoid altering the colors of the painting too. (And, if I really liked Rembrandt, I'd be sure to leave my colored sunglasses outside when I went to look at the painting.) How does accuracy sound? To me the closer a live recording sounds to a live concert the more accurate it is and my goal has always been to put together a system that sounds “real” when playing acoustic music. Of course, there are many many reasons systems cannot be perfectly accurate including the source. In my experience Audirvana and HQPlayer sound better than Roon. That is to say I like the sound better. Who knows which software is the most accurate. What I said was: “To me the closer a live recording sounds to a live concert the more accurate it is.” I could not care less “what the recording engineer wanted it to sound like.” Accuracy sounds like reality. Any deviation from reality is not accurate. There MUST be a reference. Acoustic instruments and human vocals are clearly the only remotely consistently repeatable references. Steve Guttenberg often speaks about albums he likes and says, “I was at the studio when the album was being recorded.” Sadly, we cannot all attend studio recording sessions, but It is not an impossibility to go to a live concert, listen to the artist and then compare what you heard in person to what you hear in your music room. I own several recordings of concerts I attended in person. If I can get my system to sound close to how I remember those concerts sounding I am happy. If you set your system up so that your live recordings sound close to live concerts you have heard it makes sense that those recordings are being reproduced as well as they can be. It also follows that if your system reproduces several live recordings, you are personally familiar with, in a way that sounds real to you that it is likely every live recording you play is probably being replayed as well as it can be. Live music is the ultimate reference. Setting up a system to match anything other than live music cannot possibly be the way to go. Who on earth knows how something like “Tubular Bells” actually sounds, no matter what the recording engineer wanted. |
|
|
|
Post by selind40 on Feb 28, 2023 20:48:25 GMT -5
I’ve been following and reading this thread since the beginning. I gotta say, it makes me feel inadequate with knowledge of music 🎼. I’m now questioning everything I thought I knew and liked about just slapping an album on my I guess underwhelming system, cracking a beverage and smiling about what I hear. To my embarrassment, I still don’t really understand what a DAC is, was, or what might have been. Is my ERC-3 or Music Hall CD 25..2 CD player really garbage compared to buying a DAC.? Will my vinyl sound better through a DAC as opposed to my XSP-1 or Carver C-1? Does Makers Mark really need filtered ice in my rocks glass, or is the garden hose adequate? Many questions, few answers. I’m going to ask the magic 8 ball after a few good shakes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 28, 2023 22:35:51 GMT -5
I’ve been following and reading this thread since the beginning. I gotta say, it makes me feel inadequate with knowledge of music 🎼. I’m now questioning everything I thought I knew and liked about just slapping an album on my I guess underwhelming system, cracking a beverage and smiling about what I hear. To my embarrassment, I still don’t really understand what a DAC is, was, or what might have been. Is my ERC-3 or Music Hall CD 25..2 CD player really garbage compared to buying a DAC.? Will my vinyl sound better through a DAC as opposed to my XSP-1 or Carver C-1? Does Makers Mark really need filtered ice in my rocks glass, or is the garden hose adequate? Many questions, few answers. I’m going to ask the magic 8 ball after a few good shakes. This is easy, selind40 - Do you like what you’re hearing from your system? Does it give you the pleasure of hearing music? Are you, at least occasionally, stunned by the beauty and majesty of what you’re hearing? If so, then you’ve got what you need! My wife says that even though she likes the sound of our stereo, she was just as moved by the music as when she was a student listening to a transistor radio. And I enjoyed the music back in the day when I had to listen on a crystal radio that I built, despite the limited fidelity. In fact, my own pursuit of ever-better sound reproduction is quickly slowing. Once you reach a certain point, things may become different without necessarily becoming better. I’ve found that regardless of how much I spend, the stuff I’ve already got sounds just as good. So I’m about at the point where I may still try something new occasionally, but I don’t expect any miracles. Boom |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Mar 1, 2023 6:26:41 GMT -5
I find that when my toe is tapping, I've found good sound!
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Mar 1, 2023 6:48:18 GMT -5
LOL - When garbulky comes by and starts "chair dancing" to the music, I know it sounds good to him. Since he does a lot of live recording, he KNOWS what live music sounds like. |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Mar 1, 2023 7:45:38 GMT -5
Now THAT is an interesting question... To me it means that we reproduce the recording as accurately as possible - without editorializing on it in any way. (Since I have no way of knowing anything for sure before that point in time I'm inclined to accept the recording as being the closest thing we have to the original.) Let me clarify that a bit. We have a recording that we assume is "what the mastering engineer wanted it to sound like". And, for better or worse, that's ALL we have. Unless we were actually at the performance featured in the recording we cannot know what it sounded like. Saying that something sounds like "a live recording" is really not a valid claim - since many live performances sound quite different from each other. Do you want that recording to sound like you were listening from the front row in Carnegie Hall...? Or would you prefer how it would sound from the center row in Winchester Cathedral...? Or would you prefer how it would sound from the couch closest to that intimate jazz ensemble...? And, to be quite blunt, I've been to a few live performances that sounded downright awful. Not to mention the fact that, these days, many studio recordings are "completely artificial" and there is no original performance to compare to at all. (And, with the right software, I could record something in a phone booth, and "drop in" the ambiance of "front row center at Winchester Cathedral" later.) So, in fact, what you're really saying is that "you want it to sound like you imagine it would sound like if it was a good recording of a good quality live performance". To me there are two choices: 1. Trust, or at least "go with", the judgment of the recording engineer - and aim to reproduce the recording as accurately as possible... 2. Make your own guess about what you think the recording "should have sounded like" - and aim for that... I am personally quite convinced that the second option is the reason many people like the sound of certain tube equipment that is known to have a lot of distortion. Modern "close mike" recordings tend to "sound dry" and lack ambience... the second harmonic distortion created by tubes tends to make audio, and especially voices, sound "more present and alive". You absolutely are not getting a more accurate rendition of what you have in the recording... But what you are getting is "something that probably sounds more like what it might have sounded like if you were actually there"... (But the obvious catch is that there are several unknowns there - and, to horribly mix metaphors, you end up listening to everything "through the same rose-colored glasses" .) I'm going to offer my favorite visual example here: You are tasked with setting up the lighting on a newly discovered Rembrandt painting in a museum. Do you: 1. Light the painting with accurate lighting - so everyone can see it in its actual colors. 2. Light the painting with lighting that simulates torches and candlelight - because that's what Rembrandt actually had in his studio when he painted it. 3. Light the painting with simulated "North light" - because that was "how Rembrandt intended it to be seen". (because you know, from his notes, that Rembrandt knew that was what the lighting would be in the client's home). 4. (We could even consider lighting it with standard home lamps... so people can "experience what it would look like in their own living room".) And do you prefer to display the painting "as it looks now" or "have it cleaned so it looks as it did when it was painted"? The answer to your final question depends on your answers to these questions. If you prefer to hear a recording itself "reproduced as accurately as possible" then there is no question. Regardless of what DAC, or other gear, that you use - a bit-perfect reproduction is the most accurate reproduction of the recording itself (by definition). If, instead, you prefer to allow the software to change the bits... In an attempt to achieve "fidelity to some other standard of accuracy"... then the answer is less clear and far more subjective. (We have no way of knowing how it may have been altered during recording and production... so no chance of "magically restoring it to its original sound".) Just as, with that Rembrandt, some people are more concerned with the colors, some with the brush strokes, and others with the perspective. (And, once you forego absolute accuracy, there is no "absolute right or wrong", and so it's simply a matter of preference.) And, just for the record, as many of you already know, MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE would be to light that Rembrandt with accurate lighting... And I'd paint the walls of the display room a neutral color to avoid altering the colors of the painting too. (And, if I really liked Rembrandt, I'd be sure to leave my colored sunglasses outside when I went to look at the painting.) What I said was: “To me the closer a live recording sounds to a live concert the more accurate it is.” I could not care less “what the recording engineer wanted it to sound like.” Accuracy sounds like reality. Any deviation from reality is not accurate. There MUST be a reference. Acoustic instruments and human vocals are clearly the only remotely consistently repeatable references. Steve Guttenberg often speaks about albums he likes and says, “I was at the studio when the album was being recorded.” Sadly, we cannot all attend studio recording sessions, but It is not an impossibility to go to a live concert, listen to the artist and then compare what you heard in person to what you hear in your music room. I own several recordings of concerts I attended in person. If I can get my system to sound close to how I remember those concerts sounding I am happy. If you set your system up so that your live recordings sound close to live concerts you have heard it makes sense that those recordings are being reproduced as well as they can be. It also follows that if your system reproduces several live recordings, you are personally familiar with, in a way that sounds real to you that it is likely every live recording you play is probably being replayed as well as it can be. Live music is the ultimate reference. Setting up a system to match anything other than live music cannot possibly be the way to go. Who on earth knows how something like “Tubular Bells” actually sounds, no matter what the recording engineer wanted. Having a reference is such an obvious important part of critical listening, of course. But it's so difficult. Toole has lamented his version of "Circle of Confusion" because recording studios have no standard for room response, engineers mix using speakers in rooms that aren't standardized, and then we use the recordings in different rooms with different speakers to evaluate other components. As for live reference, I agree acoustic instruments and voice are the best reference. In addition to having a couple recordings of performances that I attended, I also have recordings that I made while performing ... I know what every drum and cymbal sounded like. Yesterday I listened to a drum recording I made in my old bedroom 41 years ago ... it sounded so clear and dynamic ... every transient and nuance of the instruments. But in the end ... personal preference prevails ... |
|
