[Joe Bloggs]

Whoa bigshot is alive! How O.O

 

[Strangelove424]

Glad Mr. Eddy can get back in. His input was always very helpful and technical. One of the few cable designers that didn't rely on baloney to pitch their wares.

Agreed. He always seemed informative and respectful to me. Some of these bans really left a bad taste in my mouth, and I avoided Head Fi for a while. Maybe that doesn’t matter so much for the powers that be, but little by little things add up to a lot.

1. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here but this seems to be a completely false statement as there's been numerous DSP tube simulations, starting about 20 or so years ago. Admittedly the early plugins were a bit rough but over the last 10 years or so they've improved to the point where even many of the most die hard engineers gave up their beloved vintage outboard gear and switched to plugins. BTW, it's not just tube emulations, all the other analogue artefacts have been modelled as well; tape saturation, etc. And, we're not talking about extremely rare/esoteric use here, tube and other analogue artefact plugins are routinely used in a number of music genres.

2. No, sorry, I absolutely cannot agree with that! Non-euphonic distortion is a fairly commonly applied effect and has been for decades. It's a particular feature in the performances of Jimi Hendrix, as an obvious early example. In fact, we can go back way earlier still; the classical music term "cuivre" is an instruction to brass players to force the sound, to exceed the usual, acceptable limits and force air through the instrument in such a way as to cause the tonal break-up of the sound. In musical parlance this would be referred to as "over-blowing" but in audio engineering terms what's happening is that the instrument is being pushed into distortion and is producing a far higher balance of odd ("non-euphonic") harmonics. Brass players train to avoid this (as it sounds nasty/harsh) but "cuivre" is an instruction written in the score specifically to achieve this relatively severe "non-euphonic" distortion. Although rare, the cuivre instruction was used on occasion well over a century ago by composers such as Debussy, Ravel, Dukas, Stravinsky and others. I often see in the audiophile community a concept of distortion which has been so over-simplified into a black and white issue that it no longer bares any resemblance to reality!

G

Jimi Hendrix was a genius, but I don’t want my system to sound anything like him. I can’t think of a more purposeful use of distortion than his US anthem, which was one of the most emotional and truth-telling moments in American music… but a horrible model to build a hifi system around. It’s vital to separate decisions made for artistic reasons in performance to convey meaning or emotion from those made pragmatically during playback to sound pleasing.

Can you recommend any tube simulations that can be used effectively in Foobar or similar? I am aware of tube simulation for live music but not for consumer level playback. I’d like something that functions like a filter with an on/off switch and multiple parameters on sliders to get exactly the sound I want, but right within Foobar. I haven’t been able to find it yet. Software plugins have not been as ubiquitous as I thought they would have been upon searching.

 

[StanD]

People that enjoy Jimi Hendrix would say that his use of distortion and effects were euphonic, "pleasing to the ear."

Then they would essentially be incorrect: They would be confusing an overall opinion/perception of the end result with the actual tonal characteristics. While non-euphonic distortion is unpleasant ("not pleasing to the ear"), it can be used to create an overall perception which is enjoyable. This basic principle is well known and used throughout art/entertainment, for example, horror films are essentially predicated entirely on this principle. By definition, horror films are horrific and yet in the context of entertainment they can be perceived as enjoyable. It would be incorrect to say that because a horror film is enjoyable it is therefore not a horror film. In other words, it would be more accurate to say that Jimi Hendrix's use of non-euphonic distortion can be perceived as euphonic, rather than saying/implying that he didn't use non-euphonic distortion because his performances were enjoyable.

This is essentially a different issue, it's not an issue of whether or not Hendrix (as an example) ever used non-euphonic distortion but a question of how he used it. This is part of a broader issue which goes back many more centuries than the 150 or so year use of non-euphonic distortion. Namely, the issue of consonance and dissonance, of which non-euphonic distortion is a form of dissonance. Bach was using dissonance 400 years ago and he was by no means the first and in fact we can look at the whole history of classical music evolution from the renaissance through to the mid-C20th purely in terms of a progressive exploration of dissonance. This brings me back to my previous post, non-euphonic distortion (and any other type of dissonance) is inherently unpleasant but NOT inherently good or bad, it can be either or even both at the same time, depending entirely on context and it certainly isn't the simple black and white issue many audiophiles make it out to be. Turning the argument on it's head, if we consider non-euphonic distortion as bad and therefore eliminate it, we're going to loose a significant chunk of popular music genres/sub-genres and if we do that with dissonance in general, we loose pretty much all western classical music and probably the majority of popular music!
G

Pleasing to the ear is IMO for the most part subjective. Hendrix employed a wide variety of distortion and sound effects. Most often very different from the buzzy sharp edged hard clipped sounds that have scoped (depressed) mids that might be employed by some metal types but more of the smoother overdriven tube amp sounds. Tube distortion, not to be confused with the tube myths of audiophiles. There are many other rock and jazz fusion guitarists that followed similar tonal paradigms. A double bend that a blues, jazz or rock guitarist executes may be somewhat dissonant but is not necessarily unpleasant unless intentional or the musician is lacking.

 

[bigshot]

Or a RT DSP for the Mac. I'd be interested in playing with something like that too. I have lots of filters in my sound app, but they aren't real time

 

[U-3C]

Headphone variation at it's finest? Or maybe just a lack of a universal measuring standard?

https://www.head-fi.org/f/threads/t...e-from-ifa-2016.818846/page-691#post-13547603

Either way, interesting that headphones may sound completely different, yet people still swear by their own ears on what they hear, claim it is how the model of headphones actually sound and write it in reviews as facts to guide others with their purchases.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Jimi Hendrix was a genius, but I don’t want my system to sound anything like him.
[2] It’s vital to separate decisions made for artistic reasons in performance to convey meaning or emotion from those made pragmatically during playback to sound pleasing.
[3] Can you recommend any tube simulations that can be used effectively in Foobar or similar?

1. That's your choice of course but personally, I want my system to sound exactly like him because if it can't then it also isn't going to sound anything like any of the other musicians who employ the same/similar types of distortion and that rules out entire music genres/sub genres!
2. In addition to sounding like Jimi Hendrix, I also want my system to sound like the LSO, a folk band, a jazz band, a gemelan orch and many more besides, so what I'm after is a transparent system, a system which will reproduce as faithfully as possible the exact sound on the recording and that's why I avoid tubes in the reproduction chain!
3. With the exception of some modelled tube guitar amps, I don't use tube simulations and I also don't use VST plugins, so sorry, I can't recommend anything.

[1] Pleasing to the ear is IMO for the most part subjective.
[2] Hendrix employed a wide variety of distortion and sound effects.

1. Well, this is where it gets interesting! It's also where another pair of invented, black and white audiophile terms are shown to be nonsense: objective and subjective. They are not black and white opposites, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, my job is essentially almost entirely about being both at the same time. Especially when it comes to music, almost everything we think is real, is actually a perception. There are no notes, there are no chords, there is no dissonance or consonance, there is in fact no music, there is also no stereo image and loudness does not exist, along with various other perceptions commonly attributed to physical properties of sound. The logical black hole many audiophiles get themselves into is because they have little/no understanding of perception or even of it's existence and therefore what they hear is unquestionably real. Virtually everyone can hear musical notes, stereo, loudness and everyone can tell the difference between say a Beethoven sonata and a building site, therefore it's patently all real and the few dissenters to these obvious facts of life must be nutters. The fundamental education they're lacking is that it can be both an obvious, unquestionable fact of life and not real at the same time. We all function in broadly the same way, we are all human beings and we therefore share various perceptions which are common to all the "normal" members of our species. That does not mean those shared perceptions are real but it does mean that in many walks of life we can ignore the fact they're not real and treat them as if they were. We can therefore make objective determinations about something which only exists as a perception! We can therefore have a broad objective definition of what dissonance is, of what non-euphonic distortion is but the limitation of objective determinations of perception is always context! What we can't generally have is an objective determination of whether the use of dissonance or non-euphonic distortion is good or bad in a particular context, typically we can only make a subjective determination. So, it's not a subjective determination of whether Hendrix used dissonance and non-euphonic distortion. He did and that's an objective determination but whether you enjoyed it/found it pleasing, that would be a subjective determination.

2. Agreed and among them was both non-euphonic distortion and dissonance and that was my point, Hendrix obviously invalidates bigshot's statement that "everyone agrees" applying deliberate distortion in a studio environment makes no sense and non-euphonic distortion should be avoided. Of course, Hendrix is just one of countless examples and distortion is routinely applied during studio mixing.

G

 

[sonitus mirus]

Hmmm...what if my receiver had Concert Hall, Auditorium, Large Room, Jazz Club, and a Hendrix setting? Give everything a bit of a wild feedback sound. Moody Blues on acid. Well, even more acid.

 

[castleofargh]

Hmmm...what if my receiver had Concert Hall, Auditorium, Large Room, Jazz Club, and a Hendrix setting? Give everything a bit of a wild feedback sound. Moody Blues on acid. Well, even more acid.

is the Hendrix setting the one that sets the receiver on fire?

 

[bigshot]

Headphone variation at it's finest? Or maybe just a lack of a universal measuring standard? Either way, interesting that headphones may sound completely different, yet people still swear by their own ears on what they hear, claim it is how the model of headphones actually sound and write it in reviews as facts to guide others with their purchases.

I looked at that post, but I don't understand the point. He talks about a treble peak, but there is no treble peak. There's a slope downwards from 200Hz to 10kHz that suddenly comes back to zero again at 10kHz. That is up at the last octave of audible sound, and probably the least important octave for sound quality. The gradual slope is the problem, not the peak, and 10kHz is definitely not treble. It's above the treble region. I think people look at wiggles on papers and judge without having a clue what those wiggles mean.

I want a Hendrix button on my AVR now. Where can I get one? I want to play Verdi operas through it.

 

[U-3C]

is the Hendrix setting the one that sets the receiver on fire?

I want a Hendrix button on my AVR now. Where can I get one? I want to play Verdi operas through it.

I wanna see the receiver BUUUUUURRNNNNNN!!!!!

 

[sonitus mirus]

I wanna see the receiver BUUUUUURRNNNNNN!!!!!

How else would it add warmth?

 

[U-3C]

How else would it add warmth?

Strap it to your headphone.

Then watch it burn.

 

[StanD]

1. Well, this is where it gets interesting! It's also where another pair of invented, black and white audiophile terms are shown to be nonsense: objective and subjective. They are not black and white opposites, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, my job is essentially almost entirely about being both at the same time. Especially when it comes to music, almost everything we think is real, is actually a perception. There are no notes, there are no chords, there is no dissonance or consonance, there is in fact no music, there is also no stereo image and loudness does not exist, along with various other perceptions commonly attributed to physical properties of sound. The logical black hole many audiophiles get themselves into is because they have little/no understanding of perception or even of it's existence and therefore what they hear is unquestionably real. Virtually everyone can hear musical notes, stereo, loudness and everyone can tell the difference between say a Beethoven sonata and a building site, therefore it's patently all real and the few dissenters to these obvious facts of life must be nutters. The fundamental education they're lacking is that it can be both an obvious, unquestionable fact of life and not real at the same time. We all function in broadly the same way, we are all human beings and we therefore share various perceptions which are common to all the "normal" members of our species. That does not mean those shared perceptions are real but it does mean that in many walks of life we can ignore the fact they're not real and treat them as if they were. We can therefore make objective determinations about something which only exists as a perception! We can therefore have a broad objective definition of what dissonance is, of what non-euphonic distortion is but the limitation of objective determinations of perception is always context! What we can't generally have is an objective determination of whether the use of dissonance or non-euphonic distortion is good or bad in a particular context, typically we can only make a subjective determination. So, it's not a subjective determination of whether Hendrix used dissonance and non-euphonic distortion. He did and that's an objective determination but whether you enjoyed it/found it pleasing, that would be a subjective determination.

2. Agreed and among them was both non-euphonic distortion and dissonance and that was my point, Hendrix obviously invalidates bigshot's statement that "everyone agrees" applying deliberate distortion in a studio environment makes no sense and non-euphonic distortion should be avoided. Of course, Hendrix is just one of countless examples and distortion is routinely applied during studio mixing.

G

1. Until we can probe one's mind and know how it works, enjoyment is subjective. I wouldn't say that they (Objective/Subjective) are black and white opposites and I'm not about to set my guitar on fire, although some of our thread friends seem to have a match in hand.
Why do audiophiles invent what I would think are silly names for what they can't understand?

 

[castleofargh]

we have objective ways to make you enjoy music! resistance is futile, you will enjoy!

I must once again act as a moderator and ask you all to stop using artists' names as if you listened to them. we wouldn't want people outside of sound science to think that we actually listen to music. that would be too confusing.
thank you.

 

[gregorio]

1. Until we can probe one's mind and know how it works, enjoyment is subjective.
[2] Why do audiophiles invent what I would think are silly names for what they can't understand?

1. Yep, that's what I'm saying. The only thing I'm adding to that statement is that we can objectively determine dissonance (or non-euphonic distortion) but not whether it's ultimately enjoyable in any context, that would require a subjective determination.

2. Isn't that question it's own answer? Because they don't know or understand what "it" is, they have to invent a silly name in order to discuss it. The better solution IMHO, would be to gain some understanding and as far as I can tell, that's the difference between objectivists and subjectivists: Subjectivists have a lot more silly names to cope with the fact they have a lot less understanding and it's actually nothing to do with subjectivity or objectivity, or am I missing something?

G