Testing audiophile claims and myths

[solid12345]

It's interesting that you despise hard compressed loud mixes yet seem to hold Rubin in high regard. Rubin is well known and often critisised in the audiophile world for producing such music.

I never said I held him in high regard I just used him as an example of a world famous producer who owns a tube amp in his home. Why is it so controversial to assume you’d find valve ownership among the whose who of the music industry? Anyone with such disposable income and a devotee of music is more than likely to own multiple systems of many types from SS to tubes and vinyl to CDs and reel-to-reel, especially if they’re wealthy enough to own multiple homes.

 

[old tech]

I never said I held him in high regard I just used him as an example of a world famous producer who owns a tube amp in his home. Why is it so controversial to assume you’d find valve ownership among the whose who of the music industry? Anyone with such disposable income and a devotee of music is more than likely to own multiple systems of many types from SS to tubes and vinyl to CDs and reel-to-reel, especially if they’re wealthy enough to own multiple homes.

I haven't said anything about anyone owning a tube amp.

 

[solid12345]

I haven't said anything about anyone owning a tube amp.

No but I posted the Rubin bit as a rebuttal to gregario’s assertion you won’t find valves in famous musicians or producer’s home setups except “old timers” (which is a silly goalpost move as you usually don’t get to the top of the game or a higher tax bracket without a little bit of age in you. And what defines an old timer? 50, 60, 70?)

 

[Not so fat head]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, you can trace compressed music to car radio..
Once everyone moved to listen in our cars during commutes (probably where a majority of folks listen to music), compression became a must. Even today it’s frustrating listening to a piano concerto in my 4Runner, if it has wide dynamic range. Just too much road noise on these horrible California roads..

 

[gregorio]

That’s a rather bigoted view, and one that suggests to me you lack real world experience of actually having used some of the wonderful (albeit audibly distorting) options available via tube.

Then perhaps you need to re-evaluate what statements “suggest to you”!

Someone with a little experience would at least offer a more balanced view and acceptance of why these tube amps can bring joy to music listeners, regardless of whether or not that aligned to your own personal listening preferences.

I know and accept why “these tube amps can bring joy to music listeners”. Some actually like the lower fidelity that adding excessive distortion results in, due to the additional euphonic distortion tube amps can add. Others just buy them for the pretty lights and marketing, which can affect the listeners’ perception (via cognitive biases). “Someone with a little experience” may not know this and falsely believe tube amps are actually better/higher fidelity (due primarily to marketing).

You don’t have to take any duffers word for it, tens of thousands of albums have been cataloged on the loudness wars database and the sound waves recorded to find their dynamic range, so many are absolutely atrocious.

The DR Database doesn’t measure “atrociousness”, it only measures dynamic range and only a “duffer” would think that a low dynamic range is necessarily worse than a higher DR.

I thought we’re all about measurements here?

But we can’t measure how atrocious something is, that is a purely subjective opinion, not an audio property (such as fidelity).

Professionalism is actually doing what your superiors tell you and if they tell you to crank the volume up and kill the dynamics, they’ll do it.

Two points: Firstly, in the world of audio engineering that isn’t only the definition of “professionalism”, it’s also taking the initiative and adding (or at least suggesting) one’s own creative decisions/opinions. However, an engineer is expected to do what is required by their clients (effectively superiors) the problem with your assertion is that you seem to think the only superiors that the engineers have is the record label but I’ve been an engineer for nearly 30 years, I’ve worked for many labels and never once in that time has any exec from the label ever required such a thing, the producers/musicians are the clients (immediate superiors) and whenever I’ve been required to “crank the volume” higher than I’ve mixed, it’s only ever been at the behest of a musician or producer.

Corporate studios want to sell records by grabbing distracted customer’s attentions by making everything louder, not win brownie points for making a solidly crafted album.

No, they don’t. The musicians, producer, studio and label want to sell more recordings and the loudness war is not a consequence of “grabbing distracted customer’s attentions”, it’s a consequence of trying to avoid sounding weaker, quieter and poorer quality than other releases.

Why is it so controversial to assume you’d find valve ownership among the whose who of the music industry?

You mean apart from the fact that they’re both more expensive AND lower fidelity? Those in the music industry tend to want to hear what’s actually on the recording, not distortion added by a consumer amp. Of course professionally, we often own valve equipment and/or software that emulates it but that’s not for listening (IE. In the monitoring “B” chain) it’s for actually adding to the recording itself.

Again, rather than just being defensive and making false assertions about my experience, the loudness wars, about who the clients/superiors actually are, etc., try asking and getting your facts right first.

G

 

[gregorio]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, you can trace compressed music to car radio..

Not really, although radios and car radios did have an impact later. To start with, compression was a required tool for rock and roll/pop music. Then the loudness war effectively started in the 1950’s, when it was noticed that record sales were being influenced by the loudness of a recording relative to other recordings in Juke Boxes. Radio play had an effect later, when radio stations themselves added more compression (broadcast limiters), as louder music radio stations also statistically outperformed quieter ones.

G

 

[solid12345]

You mean apart from the fact that they’re both more expensive AND lower fidelity? Those in the music industry tend to want to hear what’s actually on the recording, not distortion added by a consumer amp. Of course professionally, we often own valve equipment and/or software that emulates it but that’s not for listening (IE. In the monitoring “B” chain) it’s for actually adding to the recording itself.

You’re distorting, pun intended, what I said. I never said tube amps are widely found in the studios, I’m saying if you went to the personal HOMES of musicians you are more than likely to find a tube amp. Because they love music first and aren’t so caught up in this measurement piss war like forum nerds are. The musicians are artists primarily and not scientists or engineers, hence why I brought up how many can’t even read sheet music. If they can’t read sheet music, most couldn’t read a measurement graph either. Hell a lot of them are even high school dropouts. Go show Ozzy Osbourne some ASR threads and he’d find it all a bunch of gobbedlygook crying “Sharrrron!”

My original point from the beginning is why I find the “artist intent” narrative bunk because many of the artists themselves aren't even listening to their own stuff or colleagues “as intended.” When they leave the studio they become the consumer like you or I and are the kinds of people to go drop 100 grand on an expensive sound system that probably measures like crap.

 

[FunkyBassMan]

And once again proving “artistic intent” is just a big wash if there are multiple variants out there, many times re-mixed by people who had *nothing* to do with the original album. If I can pick which master I like then by all means I’m entitled to throw whatever effects or gear output I want in there without looking like some goddamn traitor to some meaningless dogma of “listen as you’re supposed to”.

Exactly.

Just be aware that this subforum is infested with people who think they know better than you how you should listen to music. Because of how they steer the discussions and punish anyone who disagrees with their faith, the forum should be renamed sound religion.

 

[FunkyBassMan]

You’re distorting, pun intended, what I said. I never said tube amps are widely found in the studios, I’m saying if you went to the personal HOMES of musicians you are more than likely to find a tube amp. Because they love music first and aren’t so caught up in this measurement piss war like forum nerds are. The musicians are artists primarily and not scientists or engineers, hence why I brought up how many can’t even read sheet music. If they can’t read sheet music, most couldn’t read a measurement graph either. Hell a lot of them are even high school dropouts. Go show Ozzy Osbourne some ASR threads and he’d find it all a bunch of gobbedlygook crying “Sharrrron!”

My original point from the beginning is why I find the “artist intent” narrative bunk because many of the artists themselves aren't even listening to their own stuff or colleagues “as intended.” When they leave the studio they become the consumer like you or I and are the kinds of people to go drop 100 grand on an expensive sound system that probably measures like crap.

Perfectly said.

And even the ones making the music are -- while making it -- music consumers, because at the end of the day, there's no other way to do it well.

I learned this very early. When I was a wee lad starting out in the recording business, I had the good fortune to be tutored by Geoff Emerick at his place in Montserrat (pre the horrific volcano). I'd read everything I could find on music production, and at that point the most mysterious part of recording was the mix, because there were so many ways to approach it, and each book pushed a different one. Start with the drums; add bass, etc.... Or go through every track and eq it to sound as good as you can. Or start with the vocal and find the elements that support it...bla bla bla.

I asked Geoff how he mixed the Beatles, eagerly awaiting some godlike objective approach that I could imitate.

His response?

"I just push up the faders and try to make it sound as good as I can."

The point? Objectivism in music is nonsense.

 

[bigshot]

I think the crux of the problem is that some folks don’t know the difference between sound recording and mixing and sound reproduction. Recording and mixing is a creative process. Sound reproduction isn’t creative. It’s all about fidelity. Either it sounds the way it was intended or it doesn’t. Thankfully modern solid state electronics has solved the problem of high fidelity. They’re almost always audibly transparent. That is the baseline for all sound reproduction. It’s fine to color your sound on your own system if you want to. EQ with warm rolloffs, use a compressor, add reverb, distort it to your heart’s content. But if you want it to sound the way it was intended, you go with fidelity.

 

[bigshot]

Compression isn’t just about mastering. It can also be a creative part of the mix. Vocals are almost always compressed, and more dynamic recent reworkings of The Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin have only served to make the music sound wimpier. Some music should be loud and in your face.

 

[71 dB]

Good "voice of reason" -type of posts lately bigshot!

Recording and mixing is a creative process. Sound reproduction isn’t creative. It’s all about fidelity. Either it sounds the way it was intended or it doesn’t. Thankfully modern solid state electronics has solved the problem of high fidelity. They’re almost always audibly transparent. That is the baseline for all sound reproduction. It’s fine to color your sound on your own system if you want to. EQ with warm rolloffs, use a compressor, add reverb, distort it to your heart’s content. But if you want it to sound the way it was intended, you go with fidelity.

I want to bring up that the problem of sound reproduction is in its weakest parts: Speakers+room acoustics+speaker/listener positioning (or headphones of course). However, at least many parts in the sound reproduction chain has been made audibly transparent or at least almost transparent. 100 % fidelity would require building a replica of the studio where the recording was mixed/mastered. I can't do that. I do what I can and it takes me close enough to perfect fidelity I hope...

 

[bigshot]

Yes, that’s why it’s wasted effort to chase down an extra zero behind the decimal point in electronics specs when there are larger issues to deal with in other areas. People spend money on all the wrong things.

 

[gregorio]

I never said tube amps are widely found in the studios, I’m saying if you went to the personal HOMES of musicians you are more than likely to find a tube amp. …
My original point from the beginning is why I find the “artist intent” narrative bunk because many of the artists themselves aren't even listening to their own stuff or colleagues “as intended.” When they leave the studio they become the consumer like you or I and are the kinds of people to go drop 100 grand on an expensive sound system that probably measures like crap.

That doesn’t make any sense. Where do you think the “artist intent” on the recording is created, when they’re in the studio or when “they leave the studio and become a consumer like you or I”? Sure, many artists and producers will listen to a rough mix in their car or at home and sometimes have some suggestions based on that, but what it sounds like in the studio is the final arbiter. And, why do you seem to think that musicians “more than likely” have a tube amp in their home system, you think musicians are not interested in fidelity?

Just be aware that this subforum is infested with people who think they know better than you how you should listen to music.

Again, just making up yet another false strawman. Don’t you ever get bored of making up and posting BS?

G

 

[castleofargh]

We all have different gear, rooms, hearing, music, taste, and of course we should listen to music however we please.
But Floyd Toole seemed to suggest that what most people prefer is clean flat sound. It better be when you consider it was someone’s job to prepare the album so most people would enjoy it more. If the playback preference didn’t tend to point at the sound engineer’s choice of sound, we would need to seriously reconsider that part of their job.
So at large it just makes sense to me to aim for fidelity as a way to achieve enjoyable audio. And yet, that comes with serious problems like audio’s circle of confusion, or headphones and their consequences.
So I don’t find it surprising when someone goes with his own solution. It is most likely not the most enjoyable he could get, but he might not know or have the means to achieve what’s best for him.

I often think about that with vinyls. It’s objectively such a bad medium, that I nearly choke anytime someone argues it’s superior to CD. But of all the things it does poorly, the subjective result can often be nice and even aleviate other perceptual issues. And of course there is a strong added value of ritual and nostalgia that has to play a role too.