January 13th, 2018, 2:15 pm
January 20th, 2018, 10:52 am
January 20th, 2018, 11:22 am
Pelliott321 wrote:I have always found that live music (no sound reenforcement) does have less HF energy than most commercial audio gear. So the question to me is why do manufacturers do this?
Where did this over emphasized tizzzies come from?
January 20th, 2018, 11:52 am
So the question to me is why do manufacturers do this?
Where did this over emphasized tizzzies come from?
accurately (Hopefully) reproduce the material on the disc/file/record/tape/whatever. If the recording is good and mastered well the playback system should be faithful to the original.
January 20th, 2018, 11:55 am
DaveR wrote:Pelliott321 wrote:I have always found that live music (no sound reenforcement) does have less HF energy than most commercial audio gear. So the question to me is why do manufacturers do this?
Where did this over emphasized tizzzies come from?
To accurately (Hopefully) reproduce the material on the disc/file/record/tape/whatever. If the recording is good and mastered well the playback system should be faithful to the original.
January 20th, 2018, 1:08 pm
J-ROB wrote:So the question to me is why do manufacturers do this?
Where did this over emphasized tizzzies come from?
The fact that very few people are talking about this gives you the answer, in part.
Hifi sound has always been "it's own thing" while practitioners go on about how their goal is to reproduce the exact experience of live music. Blah, blah, Blah...
Yeah, it sounds good on paper. So does 20-20 response.
Although a problem for all of my audio career, back to the 80s, it is even worse than ever now, probably due to the proliferation of cheap dome and ribbon tweeters that can play bat songs.
However, the core of the issue is cultural...tizz has been absorbed into the audiophile aesthetic as a desirable thing, and then marketing does its thing.
The sad fact is that if you are demoing two speakers, cables, whatever for customers, the one that sounds brighter and more "detailed" will win most of the time. That's one reason to be wary of A-B tests that set up a testing situation removed from any external references. More bass or more highs is easily confused with better bass and highs. More highs will increase the apparent detail until you have 10x more detail than music itself, thanks also to close mic techniques for that. And the spatial illusion created by microphone artifacts will be enhanced by a nice HF boost.
I deprogrammed myself by listening to older gear and systems. To me, a high grade system with what would be considered "subdued" treble can sound more natural and realistic to my ear.
Bell labs decided through human experimentation in the 30s that 13k is the required HF extension to properly reproduce orchestral music, gets the first few harmonics of most instruments.
I think that greater extension is OK but it is useful, in the quest for a natural perspective, to have a gradual falling response from 5-8k to wherever the tweeter runs out. Try it! You will find that the music is not in your face as much and maybe not as exciting, but you will be forced to listen more actively, like you do at a live performance, and maybe a little more deeply to pick out the details that modern systems spit out at you. I find that I have to "listen harder" at a live show than I do to a hifi rig. This changes the whole dynamic of music listening.
And even if I listen real hard, with great intent, I'm just not hearing the highs and detail that goes with the territory in high-end audio, which I like to call that because there is too much high end!
And then if a fool like me makes this kind of argument, scientists will come out of the woodwork to protest.
Well, it's like this: The spectrum analyzer and music listening ear are from two different worlds, with different goals and attitudes.
You can't judge one game using the rules of another.accurately (Hopefully) reproduce the material on the disc/file/record/tape/whatever. If the recording is good and mastered well the playback system should be faithful to the original.
An then you will hear unassailable statements like the above. How do we know if the playback system is faithful to the original when the "original" has no sound without a playback system?
And who says the "original" really mirrors the actual recorded event, which these days usually isn't even an actual historical event.
Although way more slippery and hard to define, I'm looking for a system that makes me feel like I am listening to real music, which I do a lot.
The best solution to this deep philosophical/technical dilemma, is to just listen to what you like. This is still legal, for now. Might already be illegal in the EU...
January 20th, 2018, 1:35 pm
January 20th, 2018, 2:16 pm
January 20th, 2018, 3:10 pm
January 21st, 2018, 9:05 am