Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › The highest genius of hi-fi salesman: "audio speak"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The highest genius of hi-fi salesman: "audio speak" - Page 3  

post #31 of 78
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post

 

It's important that you understand that such colorful audiophile terminology is not necessarily always used by the audiophile salesman. Oftentimes, such terminology used among friends to describe and communicate qualities of sound 

 

 

Audio salesmen are not just the guys in the store. They're the guys in marketing and the people in journalism who rely on the ads placed by marketing departments for their wages. 

post #32 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by scuttle View Post

 

Audio salesmen are not just the guys in the store. They're the guys in marketing and the people in journalism who rely on the ads placed by marketing departments for their wages. 

They could be your friends, your family, anyone!

 

You could even be one yourself and not even know it!

post #33 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by scuttle View Post

 You have mistaken a graph that has been simplified for easy use ...

 

Isn't that what I said? It's not for marketing use, it's actually established lingo among recording engineers. You just take it for what it is despite it being technically incorrect. What matters is that it's shared common lingo among recording engineers.


Edited by purrin - 2/8/13 at 1:58pm
post #34 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by scuttle View Post

 

Audio salesmen are not just the guys in the store. They're the guys in marketing and the people in journalism who rely on the ads placed by marketing departments for their wages. 

 

Rather than be indignant, just don't listen to them. I happen to think Robert Harley of TAS is usually full of ****. I also think George Cardas is full of **** whenever he speaks (although I happen like some of his cables for special applications.) But that's just my opinion. It's not like Robert Harley or George Cardas are running around pointing a guns at people telling them that they have to listen to them.

 

So basically using your logic, I wouldn't call my friends LFF or Analmort to tell them that I think a headphone sounds "bright" or "has too much energy in the presence region" or "sounds steely" just because marketing people use such imprecise terms for their evil purposes to mislead?

 

Also, has it not occurred to you that most folks by in large listen to stuff and compare, particularly expensive "audiophool" stuff before they buy it, rather than rely on the evil suspect words of Stereophile, TAS, or even the manufacturers themselves? What are you going to do? Save rich audiophiles from themselves? I think they can afford it. Their $10,000 is your $1.

 

I mean, are you the self-appointed Jesus Christ of audiophildom, trying to save all the lost fools?


Edited by purrin - 2/8/13 at 2:10pm
post #35 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by scuttle View Post

 

That's so weird an idea that it never occurred to me. Upon a moment's reflection I can see why people think that it be a good idea to add such sounds, but also why it is not:

 

1. The ratio of such harmonics to the fundamental is a characteristic of the instrument and the way in which it is played; if you try to add such harmonics then you will force different recordings to sound alike and, generally, wrong

 

2. The system never has access to individual waveforms for each instrument, instead it is adding harmonics to their momentary superpositions - this is even more wrong! At least in general - such technology does arguably have a role in improving low br recordings in lossy formats.

 

I believe that most quality audio reproduction systems are designed with the goal of not adding non-linear harmonic distortion intentionally. However, AFAIK 100% linear real world systems are very difficult (if not impossible) to attain. IMO the best audio reproduction systems available approach linear behavior with their products better than their peers.

 

It is possible to see both megabuck and el-cheapo audio systems introducing failure levels of distortion (megabuck ones sometimes argue this is done intentionally so blink.gif), but generally it is my understanding that most manufacturers strive to avoid such issues.

post #36 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by scuttle View Post

That's so weird an idea that it never occurred to me. Upon a moment's reflection I can see why people think that it be a good idea to add such sounds, but also why it is not:

1. The ratio of such harmonics to the fundamental is a characteristic of the instrument and the way in which it is played; if you try to add such harmonics then you will force different recordings to sound alike and, generally, wrong

2. The system never has access to individual waveforms for each instrument, instead it is adding harmonics to their momentary superpositions - this is even more wrong! At least in general - such technology does arguably have a role in improving low br recordings in lossy formats.

Ever heard if this? It does things that shouldn't be good; phase shift and even order harmonics. But used judicially it can present a subjective improvement. They keys: even order harmonics, and judicial use.

http://www.aphex.com/aphex-products/exciter/

Not exactly a recent development either.
post #37 of 78
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post

 

Isn't that what I said? 

 

No. You said it was over-simplified. But you had been totally, completely, utterly mis-led and were talking absolute nonsense. Different. Very!


Edited by scuttle - 2/8/13 at 2:27pm
post #38 of 78
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post


Ever heard if this? It does things that shouldn't be good; phase shift and even order harmonics. But used judicially it can present a subjective improvement. They keys: even order harmonics, and judicial use.

http://www.aphex.com/aphex-products/exciter/

Not exactly a recent development either.

 

When you say "subjective improvement" do you mean one that passes a blind test? And improvement in what circumstances? Given the wide range of tastes in the world, almost anything can be a subjective improvement to *someone.* (Ahem: autotune, Dr Dre Beats, the loudness wars..) Ok: I'm being awkward - but these are the sort of questions one should always ask.

 

I'm not against this sort of thing per se - I use Cowon's BBE occasionally. (There's one live Replacements album made from a tape confiscated at a concert that the Cowon transforms into listenability - although you'd have thought that the record company could have done a better when the remastered - but, hey, it's The Replacements, so who knows what was going on.)  What I am against is language that facilitates deceptive marketing - so you have a market of, well, victims, who have been conditioned to say no to eq because it "distorts" the sound - and who are then being suckered into attempting the most primitive and least efficient eq-ing possible through buying over-priced amplifiers, etc. Specialist language should be there to help you realize what it really is you want clearly and how to get it, not to provide a false cognitive model leading to the inefficient spending of money.


Edited by scuttle - 2/8/13 at 2:27pm
post #39 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post

Nearly all of the above have been used in high-end audio reviews.  The ones that haven't are dwarves. 

Best laugh I had all day.
post #40 of 78
Thread Starter 

Jaddie -

 

Thanks again for the Exciter reference. You might be interested in this:

 

 

Quote:

 

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1995_articles/feb95/exciters.html

 

 

Aphex was the first company to market enhancers, and they claim that their Aural Exciter was discovered quite by accident, when a stereo valve amplifier kit was wrongly assembled. One channel worked properly, but the other produced only a thin, distorted sound. To their surprise, adding the two channels together produced a result that sounded cleaner and brighter than the original. After they had spent considerable time figuring out why this was, they formed a company to exploit the discovery. The first commercial Aphex processor was shrouded in secrecy, and anyone wanting to use it on record had to hire the unit from Aphex and pay a royalty based on the length of the recording. Today, Aphex exciters may be bought and used just like any other processor.

Most of what comes out of the output of an Aphex exciter is exactly the same as what goes in at the input, but some of the input signal is diverted, via a side-chain and a high-pass filter, into a harmonics-generating circuit. The high-pass filter is necessary to remove unwanted low frequencies which, after processing, might result in a muddy or discordant sound. The filtered signal is then processed dynamically to add phase shift and to create synthesised harmonics which are musically related to the original signal. A small amount of this signal is then added into the output, which has the effect of reinforcing and emphasising transient detail without significantly increasing the signal level.

Though the Aphex principle is patented, a number of companies have produced enhancers that work by similar means and produce similar subjective results. Aside from routine track or mix processing, this type of processor is useful for restoring high-frequency detail that has been lost after processing with a single-ended noise reduction system, or for producing master tapes for cassette duplication, where some high end is invariably lost in the duplication process itself. The Aphex process is also effective for creating an intimate vocal sound, because the enhancement process simulates the way a sound is perceived when the source is in close proximity to the listener.

 

BBE is one company that took a different route from Aphex in developing an enhancer; the BBE Sonic Maximizer works not by adding harmonics, but by introducing phase changes and dynamic equalisation, which just redistribute those harmonics already present. The process works by first splitting the audio signal into three frequency bands and applying different time delays to each band by means of passive and active filters. Frequencies below 150Hz are delayed by around 2.5mS, while those between 150Hz and 1200Hz are delayed by around 0.5mS. Frequencies above 1200Hz are not delayed, but are subjected to dynamic level control, which can take the form of compression or expansion, depending on the control settings and the nature of the input signal. The BBE process is also is able to influence the low-frequency end of the spectrum by means of a Lo-Contour control, allowing the sub-200Hz band to be cut or boosted by -12dB to +10dB.

In a typical BBE unit, the Lo-Contour control is used to bring up the bass, while the Definition control to brings in the high-end enhancement. The subjective result is quite different to that produced by the Aphex unit, as new harmonics are not being added; the level of the existing ones is being modified. The result is very smooth-sounding, but on material that is seriously lacking in top end in the first place, the process seems incapable of restoring it to the same extent that the Aphex process can. However, where the original material is of good quality, the BBE process can enhance it considerably without making it sound harsh or aggressive. On most material, the overall sense of brightness is definitely increased, and some improvement in subjective transparency is achieved. The dynamic nature of the process is also an advantage when dealing with noisy material, as little or no boost seems to be applied to low-level signals; this helps maintain a good signal-to-noise ratio.

 
 

 

 

 

 

post #41 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by scuttle View Post

 

No. You said it was over-simplified. But you had been totally, completely, utterly mis-led and were talking absolute nonsense. Different. Very!

 

I think what you misunderstood that that I was saying that's how the recording engineers use the term harmonics among themselves. A simplified way - very. I do understand that they are technically using it improperly.

post #42 of 78
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by anetode View Post

 

Are you still talking about the audio sales conspirators or philosophy or linguistics or logic or technical jargon? Your usage of the language of computer science to criticize human language is a false equivalence: yes, there is recursion in the definitions of the linked lexicon; no, this does not invalidate it because specialist languages have different standards for what constitutes valid usage based on their specialization.

 

Ok: it is nice that you have heard of computer science, but no, my condemnation of phrases defined in terms of each other does not come from there. This is a basic requirement of any system that purports to convey meaning - i.e. it comes from philosophy, logic and mathematics. And, no, specialist languages are not exempt from logic. Logically, if (A is defined in terms of B) and (B is defined in terms of A) then (neither A or B has a clear meaning.) Most people find this result intuitively obvious...

post #43 of 78

Quote:
Originally Posted by scuttle View Post

Jaddie -

 

Thanks again for the Exciter reference. You might be interested in this:

 

 


 

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1995_articles/feb95/exciters.html

 

Aphex was the first company to market enhancers, and they claim that their Aural Exciter was discovered quite by accident, when a stereo valve amplifier kit was wrongly assembled. One channel worked properly, but the other produced only a thin, distorted sound. To their surprise, adding the two channels together produced a result that sounded cleaner and brighter than the original. After they had spent considerable time figuring out why this was, they formed a company to exploit the discovery. The first commercial Aphex processor was shrouded in secrecy, and anyone wanting to use it on record had to hire the unit from Aphex and pay a royalty based on the length of the recording. Today, Aphex exciters may be bought and used just like any other processor.

Most of what comes out of the output of an Aphex exciter is exactly the same as what goes in at the input, but some of the input signal is diverted, via a side-chain and a high-pass filter, into a harmonics-generating circuit. The high-pass filter is necessary to remove unwanted low frequencies which, after processing, might result in a muddy or discordant sound. The filtered signal is then processed dynamically to add phase shift and to create synthesised harmonics which are musically related to the original signal. A small amount of this signal is then added into the output, which has the effect of reinforcing and emphasising transient detail without significantly increasing the signal level.

Though the Aphex principle is patented, a number of companies have produced enhancers that work by similar means and produce similar subjective results. Aside from routine track or mix processing, this type of processor is useful for restoring high-frequency detail that has been lost after processing with a single-ended noise reduction system, or for producing master tapes for cassette duplication, where some high end is invariably lost in the duplication process itself. The Aphex process is also effective for creating an intimate vocal sound, because the enhancement process simulates the way a sound is perceived when the source is in close proximity to the listener.

 

BBE is one company that took a different route from Aphex in developing an enhancer; the BBE Sonic Maximizer works not by adding harmonics, but by introducing phase changes and dynamic equalisation, which just redistribute those harmonics already present. The process works by first splitting the audio signal into three frequency bands and applying different time delays to each band by means of passive and active filters. Frequencies below 150Hz are delayed by around 2.5mS, while those between 150Hz and 1200Hz are delayed by around 0.5mS. Frequencies above 1200Hz are not delayed, but are subjected to dynamic level control, which can take the form of compression or expansion, depending on the control settings and the nature of the input signal. The BBE process is also is able to influence the low-frequency end of the spectrum by means of a Lo-Contour control, allowing the sub-200Hz band to be cut or boosted by -12dB to +10dB.

In a typical BBE unit, the Lo-Contour control is used to bring up the bass, while the Definition control to brings in the high-end enhancement. The subjective result is quite different to that produced by the Aphex unit, as new harmonics are not being added; the level of the existing ones is being modified. The result is very smooth-sounding, but on material that is seriously lacking in top end in the first place, the process seems incapable of restoring it to the same extent that the Aphex process can. However, where the original material is of good quality, the BBE process can enhance it considerably without making it sound harsh or aggressive. On most material, the overall sense of brightness is definitely increased, and some improvement in subjective transparency is achieved. The dynamic nature of the process is also an advantage when dealing with noisy material, as little or no boost seems to be applied to low-level signals; this helps maintain a good signal-to-noise ratio.

 

 

 

So scuttle, you do actually think that most people are stupid enough to read that stuff and swallow it up? (LOL, I didn't even read it: tl;dr)

 

I think there's more to complain about when Ford says "Quality is Job One"

 

You never answered my question:

 

So basically using your logic, I wouldn't call my friends LFF or Analmort to tell them that I think a headphone sounds "bright" or "has too much energy in the presence region" or "sounds steely" just because marketing people use such imprecise terms for their evil purposes to mislead?


Edited by purrin - 2/8/13 at 2:49pm
post #44 of 78
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post

 

I think what you misunderstood that that I was saying that's how the recording engineers use the term harmonics among themselves. A simplified way - very. I do understand that they are technically using it improperly.

 

No. I understood what you said and it was wrong. I'll dumb this down as far as possible for: virtually all the significant harmonics exist inside what you call "the fundamental region". It would, in fact, be harder for you to be more wrong, and I amazed that you still can't understand this with the aid of those two diagrams. This may or may not have something to do with what I sense is an inability for you to get laid in a satisfactory fashion - that you don't understand high school physics probably isn't that big a turn off for chicks in itself, otoh the correlates are probably pretty significant. 

post #45 of 78

Yes. What I was said wrong. What I was trying to say is that I did not intend to mean it that way. What I meant was that recording engineers often use the term in that improper way in terms of their craft, and thus explaining why the poor definition of bright came about in the first place.


See what I wrote below in the same post #27 to follow up:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post

Again, calling the yellow bars harmonics is not technically correct because the harmonic regions do extend lower into the red fundamental regions. It's simply a convenient use of the term in "working" system. Also, as I've said, the definition was not very precise in the first place. However, I do think you need loosen up a bit, maybe get laid, and not assume that the definition was expressly and intentionally written for the evil purposes of marketing and selling snake-oil to "fools" and "weak-minded" people who haven't read 1984 such as yourself.

 

You still haven't answered my question:

 

So basically using your logic, I wouldn't call my friends LFF or Analmort to tell them that I think a headphone sounds "bright" or "has too much energy in the presence region" or "sounds steely" just because marketing people use such imprecise terms for their evil purposes to mislead?

 

P.S.

 

I don't necessary disagree with your points. I don't know if you know this, but I am playing devils' advocate with you. I've measured a few headphones in my time and I rather like measurements because subjective impressions, while useful as additional data points, can be imprecise

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › The highest genius of hi-fi salesman: "audio speak"