Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › How is "tube sound" even audible in modern headphone amps?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How is "tube sound" even audible in modern headphone amps? - Page 7

post #91 of 366
I completely agree with the general paradigm of this thread. You can only imagine what happens to somebody who gets a resolving rig together and all it does is show how every recording is different, with very very few exceptional?

Science has to conquest farther to this paradigm in the study of audio. We can just look at mankind as super cool for recording his musical out-put for the last 95 years, but too bad there was no audio standard consistency apart from the RCA Living Stereo Series.

This is all just our trials and tribulations, learning to first bang wood together for drums. Excuse my allegories, we are starting to see dynamic range recordings for sale so there is a hope.

I just think that recording a concert and actually replaying a grand musical event is still in it's infancy. Yes, we are able to get the emotion to a point packaged then replayed but it is far from sounding totally real. Just put on any live recording to hear that. In the studio where there is more control, I feel maybe only a single instrument can be recorded then replayed to sound convincing that there is a live human playing guitar behind the curtain in the Land of Oz.
Edited by Redcarmoose - 6/15/14 at 6:26pm
post #92 of 366

Speaking of instruments, musicians, etc., here's a story about a blind study that was conducted comparing 2 Stradavarius, 1 Guarneri, and 3  modern violins: NPR story on blind study with trained musicians and violins

 

Quote:
 Dale Purves, a professor of neuroscience at Duke University, says the research "makes the point that things that people think are 'special' are not so special after all when knowledge of the origin is taken away."

 

This study was published in PNAS---a very highly regard scientific journal, I assure you.

 

Cheers


Edited by ab initio - 6/15/14 at 8:56pm
post #93 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redcarmoose View Post

:
:
Science has to conquest farther to this paradigm in the study of audio. We can just look at mankind as super cool for recording his musical out-put for the last 95 years, but too bad there was no audio standard consistency apart from the RCA Living Stereo Series.
:

Science, in this context, has gone much further than the lay person's ability to either understand or hear. We're not talking string theory or 42. This is not so difficult as most people around here are willing to accept or even understand. People will argue against the same technology that gives them the amps and DACs they listen to and endlessly argue about. I just feel bad about how all of the hyperbole affects the uninitiated and when one speaks up they get flamed.

post #94 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by ab initio View Post

Speaking of instruments, musicians, etc., here's a story about a blind study that was conducted comparing 2 Stradavarius, 1 Guarneri, and 3  modern violins: NPR story on blind study with trained musicians and violins


This study was published in PNAS---a very highly regard scientific journal, I assure you.

Cheers


Human perception is truly faulty at times. Even my own experience with guitars and their particular sound color is confusing to me. I have owned a variety of guitars starting in 1977. One time I woke up and started playing a guitar and could not stand the tone. I traded it in that week. This has nothing to do with intonation, or a faulty guitar set -up. It's the mental perception of sound. It could have something to do with humidity? But to all of a sudden decide that the tone sucks is strange.

I recently sold an old Les Paul and purchased a semi-cheap South Korean Les Paul copy. There is a fit and finish that really takes Gibson guitars farther. The perception of quality of sound due to the visual cues can't be passed over.



I have total respect for science in regards to our advancement in the sound reproduction sector. It also amazes me that we can have so many technology based US companies like Schiit Audio, JDS Labs and Ray Samuels. These US companies are doing ideas that most of the world only watches and wonders about. Still my favorite amp is based on 1930s technology.

Call me a Luddite but part of me always wonders how far we have really come in audio. I agree it changes but I have an affinity for the level it reached in the 50s and 60s.
Edited by Redcarmoose - 6/16/14 at 4:04am
post #95 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by StanD View Post

Science, in this context, has gone much further than the lay person's ability to either understand or hear. We're not talking string theory or 42. This is not so difficult as most people around here are willing to accept or even understand. People will argue against the same technology that gives them the amps and DACs they listen to and endlessly argue about. I just feel bad about how all of the hyperbole affects the uninitiated and when one speaks up they get flamed.


I have no electronics education but have experienced things only from a consumer level. I have faith that new improvements will usher in a new golden age. Hearing new 24/96 files was a taste for me. I hope I don't sound like I'm contradicting myself?
post #96 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redcarmoose View Post


I have no electronics education but have experienced things only from a consumer level. I have faith that new improvements will usher in a new golden age. Hearing new 24/96 files was a taste for me. I hope I don't sound like I'm contradicting myself?


Well, you do sound like you are contradicting yourself.  No one has shown in rigorous blind testing that you can hear 24/96 as better.  Just for starters, were the 24/96 the same masters, or did you compare to lower levels of resolution.  The old common trick is releasing a hirez remastered version.  Sound different?  Sure it does, maybe even better because it isn't the same master. Try taking your 24/96 and down sampling to 44/16 or 44/24 and see if you can really hear a difference.  That way you would be using the same master.

post #97 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redcarmoose View Post

I completely agree with the general paradigm of this thread. You can only imagine what happens to somebody who gets a resolving rig together and all it does is show how every recording is different, with very very few exceptional?

Science has to conquest farther to this paradigm in the study of audio. We can just look at mankind as super cool for recording his musical out-put for the last 95 years, but too bad there was no audio standard consistency apart from the RCA Living Stereo Series.

This is all just our trials and tribulations, learning to first bang wood together for drums. Excuse my allegories, we are starting to see dynamic range recordings for sale so there is a hope.

I just think that recording a concert and actually replaying a grand musical event is still in it's infancy. Yes, we are able to get the emotion to a point packaged then replayed but it is far from sounding totally real. Just put on any live recording to hear that. In the studio where there is more control, I feel maybe only a single instrument can be recorded then replayed to sound convincing that there is a live human playing guitar behind the curtain in the Land of Oz.

 

I believe you blame science for human parameters.

the lack of consistency has nothing to do with science, same for realism.

the guy in the studio will probably use several mics for one instrument and decide how to mix them all together by himself.

the imaging is also made up from scratch(except for some binaural albums).

you can't ask something built only to add gain, to magically recreate something that was never there to Begin with. an amp is an amp.

when you look at a picture, it would look a good deal more realistic if the light bulb in the room was in the same axis as the sun when the shot was made. nobody bothers with that, and in a studio they will use several light sources making realism impossible when looking at the shot. it's just not made with that purpose because realism would result in a big deal less information for us(too much contrast,burned parts or disgraceful shadows, weird shapes ...). same for audio, a real live performance actually doesn't sound very good to me. the dynamic is huge, the voice goes from not heard to loud, at some points an instrument will trample the others. we can be fans of live performances as a spectacle, but I for one don't look forward to hear that on my albums at home.

-because I would need to listen too loud to get the most of each songs.

-because a studio recording will usually save bad singers (did you try madonna live?).

-because the public cheers bother me

-because I mostly use headphones and any soundstage done in the master will be stretched and ruined to 180°(crossfeed doesn't totally make up for that).

 

and even if you take a binaural head, recording the entire band at once, the space will be good(if your own head is the same size as the dummy) but then each instrument could probably be recorded better with several mics or at least closer ones(trebles lost in the air).

 

most of those stuff will not progress much with time or science, because any 3D system will work perfectly only at a given position for 1 given human. if our heads are larger or smaller, it will not be perfect and thus, not natural. and also because it is not the first purpose of most studios to make binaural sound, most don't even try and focus on other factors. nothing to do with science in my opinion. (maybe we should go to the opera with 2mics in our ears and pray that our neighbors will keep quiet ^_^)

I would love to have a few albums recorded like that, but surely not most of them.

 

I think we accept that 2 bands will never play the same song exactly the same because they are artists(and not machines). the sound engineers IMO should count as members of that band. some are better than others, some have their own style, some have no creativity, and we don't have to love them all.

post #98 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post
 


Well, you do sound like you are contradicting yourself.  No one has shown in rigorous blind testing that you can hear 24/96 as better.  Just for starters, were the 24/96 the same masters, or did you compare to lower levels of resolution.  The old common trick is releasing a hirez remastered version.  Sound different?  Sure it does, maybe even better because it isn't the same master. Try taking your 24/96 and down sampling to 44/16 or 44/24 and see if you can really hear a difference.  That way you would be using the same master.

I was referencing the new HD tracks Led Zeppelin 1 in 24bit/96 kHz.Yes a complete remix maybe? Sounds like it.

post #99 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redcarmoose View Post
 

I was referencing the new HD tracks Led Zeppelin 1 in 24bit/96 kHz.Yes a complete remix maybe? Sounds like it.


Yes, it says it is remastered.  24/96 remastered from 24/192 transfers from the original analogue tapes.  Of course one wonders why it isn't available as 24/192?

 

http://www.hdtracks.com/led-zeppelin-remastered

 

Now the question is would the same remaster done 24/48 or even 16/44 sound any different?  You can down-sample your copy and see. 

post #100 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post


Yes, it says it is remastered.  24/96 remastered from 24/192 transfers from the original analogue tapes.  Of course one wonders why it isn't available as 24/192?

http://www.hdtracks.com/led-zeppelin-remastered

Now the question is would the same remaster done 24/48 or even 16/44 sound any different?  You can down-sample your copy and see. 



I have actually heard the music in MP3 320kps and it was different to my ears. Still maybe getting this thread off track if it was ever on one. Haha.


I do agree that 16/44.1 if done right it is all you need. It seems to me this HD music can have sound improvements for less than perfect systems like mobile audio. Also Jimmy Page really seemed to pull out some detail from the master tapes. I have heard things I never heard before? A little in the MP3 of the album and a lot in the HiRez. IMO
But we do live in exciting times for the audio sciences, seems like new cool products every six months here at Head-Fi. If anything stuff is now miniature compared to even 2008.
Edited by Redcarmoose - 6/16/14 at 1:33am
post #101 of 366
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post
 

Yes, it says it is remastered.  24/96 remastered from 24/192 transfers from the original analogue tapes.  Of course one wonders why it isn't available as 24/192?

 

Same reason why many people claim vinyl is superior to CD, when in fact it's not. They're usually comparing two different masters - something quiet, with full dynamic range and gentle treble roll-off for vinyl and compressed, bloated, clipping mess they put on CDs nowadays. Which isn't media's fault. Red Book recording, when properly made, is running circles around vinyl. Same with Hi-Res - the difference we're hearing is from better mastering, that's not to say that all Hi-Res tracks were properly remastered - many of them are still "compressed, bloated, clipping mess", but I like the direction.


Edited by madwolfa - 6/16/14 at 5:16am
post #102 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by madwolfa View Post
 

 

Same reason why many people claim vinyl is superior to CD, when in fact it's not. They're usually comparing two different masters - something quiet, with full dynamic range and gentle treble roll-off for vinyl and compressed, bloated, clipping mess they put on CDs nowadays. Which isn't media's fault. Red Book recording, when properly made, is running circles around vinyl. Same with Hi-Res - the difference we're hearing is from better mastering, that's not to say that all Hi-Res tracks were properly remastered - many of them are still "compressed, bloated, clipping mess", but I like the direction.

Not to mention what happens to vinyl after playing it a number of times. A small number.

post #103 of 366
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by StanD View Post
 

Not to mention what happens to vinyl after playing it a number of times. A small number.

 

Well, don't get me wrong - I like vinyl and will get myself a turntable sooner or later out of nostalgia, but not for alleged superiority.

Same goes with tubes..

post #104 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by madwolfa View Post
 

 

Well, don't get me wrong - I like vinyl and will get myself a turntable sooner or later out of nostalgia, but not for alleged superiority.

Same goes with tubes..

Speaking of nostalgia, recently my wife pointed to a swath of Vinyl and said, "You never listen to them, ditch them." I said no.

post #105 of 366

Funny because out of curiosity I bought this "remastered" Led Zep album (II).

 

I find the original to sound alot better. Grittier, and just as detailed. This new one clearly saw some Protools use, bloomy DSPs all over the place, guitars lost their grit, bass is more prominent but unrealistic, Plant's voice is recessed. Another waste of money. Seems to me they took the old master, added effects here and there, and that was it.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › How is "tube sound" even audible in modern headphone amps?