[bufferoverflow]

@ Wizz :
The thread never left it's original track, until someone came along and claimed golden ears can hear something that he has a cure for -
And demanding that we jsut take his word for it .

 

[analogsurviver]

   
I am not going to disagree with you on those 85dB - It's what most decent workplace security legislation stipulates as the maximum acceptable 'safe' average exposure ..
However, peaks of 110dB in high dynamic content music ain't exactly troublefree - Do it for to long time and your ears WILL try to protect themselves from excessive volume .
 
@ analogsurvivor : I STILL don't have a clue what you are actually talking about - In a 'sound-science' context .. Except the fact that you have self-proclaimed financial interests ?

OK - I am talking about most of this thread talking about some references, which may well be correct in themselves, but they do not reflect the reality as it is. Live sound is different. Time and time again my audiophile friends get shocked by the sheer loudness of acoustic music; there are peaks above 110 dB, sometimes even above 120 dB - and all the way down to the noise floor of any given recording venue.  And no, this music does NOT sound loud at all - because the duration of those peaks is so short.  I have long ago given up on musician's opinion how "loud" is any given piece on the programme - because they will invariably miss that short peak, noting the passage of lower absolute amplitude and longer overall duration as the loudest. There is one single exception to this rule I had the pleasure of working so far with; he knew EXACTLY where in the composition is the highest peak, playing it 2-3 seconds after me asking him - confirming my recording from the "pre-rehearsal" done in the morning. But that is one out of hundreds...
 
There have been many references to mastering - one of the premium culprits is the compression. Very quickly can classical music get limited in dynamic range to 45 dB or less - peaks above 105 (110) dB are not desired in most home environment, noise floor of most modern buildings can well exceed 50 dB  - leaving you with maximum dynamic range possible in the above example of 60 dB - and usually being limited to a great deal less than that.
 
One can limit dynamic range, frequency range - until it finally does fit into the CD redbook. And can insist on ABX ad nuseaum no matter what. 
 
And then young students of music complain that music heard live does not sound as good as CD - after being bombarded by so many CDs or nowadays even worse, MP3 (or similar) on Youtube. Listened to over laptops or  iphones and the original earbuds that came with it. They could have just as well start using cheapo plastic toy instruments instead...
 
There are about couple of Thousands of pages related to the problem a correctly designed cable could solve - on head fi alone. Without even being mentioned in most cases. Make no mistake, the problem is real and can be measured by anyone in possession of the equipment and knowledge required; yet make no mistake, I am not naive enough to give the idea on the silver platter for free - in the name of the "science". I am not like people in recent video, where - staged or not - interviewer got computer password out of a subject in a matter of minute or so...

 

[bufferoverflow]

Thank You 'analogsurvivor', now I may have a better understanding of where you come from .
I especially like your mentioning of 'music students' complaining that live music does not sound 'as good' as a recording, however I don't believe that has anything to do with 'cables' ..
But they are somewhat right, often a recording actually 'sounds better' than a live performance ..
 
You say : "There are about a couple of Thousands of pages related to the problem a correctly designed cable could solve.
Make no mistake, the problem is real and can be measured by anyone in possession of the equipment and knowledge required; "
 
OK .. Then please point us to these measurements .
Note that no 'objectivist' claims wires don't matter at all - What we say is that a wire, correctly constructed of materials 'in spec', does not have a sound AT ALL !
As opposed to 'subjectivists' who claim silver-wires 'sound' colder than gold-plated copper wires .
DBT's have proven this beyond even unreasonable doubt, so I would REALLY like to see the measurements you have implying otherwise ...
 
(I'm really trying here - Could say a lot about "One can limit dynamic range, frequency range - until it finally does fit into the CD redbook." and your talk about 120dB peaks - however, I like to be able to hear ..But, the limitations in redbook of frequency-range are only relevant to bats and dogs and quite frankly : I do not want to subject my hearing to a true 120dB dynamic range - Time is hard enough on the hearing all by itself  )

 

[RRod]

Part of the issue is that he's often talking about recording, which is a different monster than end-user delivery. No one in their right mind would record dynamic content at 16bits rather than 24, because yes, you can get the leveling wrong and mess up the peaks, and you'll want to do post-processing. But 120dB - 96dB = 24dB which is as quiet as any venue I know of, and then you add dither to the mix. So I still don't see how 16bits is insufficient for home delivery. Same thing with cables. If you're running hundreds of feet in cables, that's a different monster than my 5' headphone cable. The pros doing the recording need good stuff so that problems don't add up in the chain. Users are at the end of the chain, and thus can live with 16bits, 44100Hz, and normal cables.

 

[cjl]

  Ahhhh - @cjl - and others - do you guys EVER work under real world conditions ?
 
This post of yours REALLY pissed me off - because in real life, it took me having to record in that hall WITH hum "one sunday not so many full moons ago" - because there was no way to get to the floor above due to keys/clearence/etc - Mission Impossible. Then I had to arrange meeting with the director of that floor during working week in order to get the permission to be given the key and access to that floor on Sunday. No way on earth I could have learned of the din that soft drink machine is causing during normal week activities in that building - there are at least two dancing schools in addition to this music hall in the building, working almost round the clock from 08:00 till 22:00 hours - in between it is closed.  I could have only learned of this machine's very existance the hard way. It is immortalized on a CD.
 
Me and my producer had to re-arrange the chairs for the musicians and microphone to the exactly same condition as the previous evening rehearsal - AFTER it has been re-arranged for a practice of baroque chamber orchestra in the morning. It took us more than half close to three quarters of an hour to get it all back to the original condition - and those 10 or so minutes of silence in loneliness, since he had to pick up an instrumentalist from the train station, was a godsend I am usually never blessed with. After musicians start arriving, tuning their instruments, singers "singing in" - you can FORGET any silence, and most certainly any ABXing.
 
If I did not get rid of that hum before musicians arrived, I would have heard it only later during a very quiet passage in music.  If and when music is loud enough, that hum is not directly audible - but does colour the sound nonetheless trough intermodulation with mains frequency and its harmonics. 
 
Why, do you ask, did we not book another hall with fewer problems? Answer is a straightforward one - money. Do you have any idea how much does it cost to have a piano at a hall that does not have a permanent good piano (although we did not need it this time)? How much does it cost to rent a hall? How much does it cost to....? Straighforward answer - TOO MUCH for means at our disposal. 
 
In theory, that ABX of yours would work really fine. If I told some 30 musicians who arrive at their own expense, leave children at home with babysitters or if older unattended, in order to record something best possible under given conditions because they love music making that much, that they have to be distracted from concentration on their own work and further delayed because of some ABX - you have only one guess what the response would have been. 

But at the end of the day, the fact remains that you could use an ABX test to prove whether something was a problem or not. You keep trying to argue against the ABX as a good form of testing, and stating that it is impractical in some circumstances does not change the fact that it is the gold standard for determining whether a difference is discernible or not. You're absolutely correct that in some circumstances, ABXing everything isn't possible or practical. That's a very different statement than "ABX is useless" though.

 

[castleofargh]

 

  Direct A/B switching is the easiest way to discern between two similar sounds. If you can't hear a difference when you can put one right next to the other, you sure aren't going to hear it when you have been listening for ten minutes and...[...]

 
Yes. This is basic knowledge among sound engineers, mastering engineers, music producers etc. People trained to hear minute details and minuscule differences, and spending lots of time practising critical listening. We KNOW that without A/B we can make unsound decisions (though we sometimes have to...) because we may be hearing what we expect, instead of what is.
 
The mere questioning of this, is one of my basic baloney alerts.
 
Anyone claiming that some (actual) sonic differences cannot be heard through a careful A/B setup but only through some sloppy methods including extended listening periods not directly correlated to each other and not even matching volumes, I consider automatically as a charlatan (if cynical) or a fool (if sincere). Until proven wrong of course. But I've been waiting for 30+ years now... still waiting... waiting...

not 2 days go by on headfi without someone saying that rapid A/B switching is not a good subjective test to hear minute differences, and that he believes in long sessions more...
I really don't understand how anybody pretending to be interested in audio testing can believe that crap. the same with people who pretend like volume matching doesn't matter much. those guys obviously never even tried a single proper test else they should know how much nonsense goes into those claims.
and as those are the very starting point of making a subjective comparison between 2 sounds, it tells a lot about the nonsense that is going on in audio forums. it's both amazing and distressful.
many of the strange claims have been known to be false and proved false by science and experiments for many many years. but audiophiles are unequivocally the best at repeating old claims over and over again reassuring each others in some kind of mass hysteria, refusing to grow up and refusing to learn.
a good thing manufacturers don't stay stuck in the past with us. but of course most developers actually know what they are talking about. that's all the difference.
 
 
talking about antiquated concepts that never die, I just saw 12monkeys the series ep2 and the silly girl in it makes some lame reference to red and blue being primary colors(I think ok cool) and then she says "give me yellow I can paint you the world!" ... sure silly girl go ahead. it shows how far something false can reach if repeated long enough to people who never question anything. the RYB idea has been accepted for centuries as primaries, any guy painting anything knew he couldn't actually get away with only those colors, but still even today they're called primary colors in many art courses. additive RGB, or subtractive yellow magenta cyan? who cares about those sciency crap, let me set my computer screen and my printer to RYB like an artist to get the "true colors of the masters". damn I can't seem to find the profile, maybe my screen isn't expensive enough?(apply this to any weird audio idea for true sound).

 

[analogsurviver]

  But at the end of the day, the fact remains that you could use an ABX test to prove whether something was a problem or not. You keep trying to argue against the ABX as a good form of testing, and stating that it is impractical in some circumstances does not change the fact that it is the gold standard for determining whether a difference is discernible or not. You're absolutely correct that in some circumstances, ABXing everything isn't possible or practical. That's a very different statement than "ABX is useless" though.

I have never said ABX is useless. Unless the difference is so big that performing ABX would be nothing else but wasting time. IF the difference is big enough for the musicians intentionally left in the dark regarding what they are listening to light up with smile upon hearing it - what else do you need? OK, ABX, stats, etc, I get it - but necessary it is not.
 
But it is impractical as hell in case of DSD and a single person trying to perform it - because current hardware and software do not allow switching from PCM to DSD and vice versa without making sounds that give away at least the fact that such a swich is taking place. Foobar2000 is incapable of ABX of PCM and DSD played natively - it will convert DSD to PCM in order to be able to do the ABX - effectively sabotaging the test before it began.
 
At this level, software and hardware CAN have more of effect on the sonic outcome than DSD or PCM alone. Which means it is perfectly possible that using same test files listener A may come up with the exactly opposite result than listener B - and using their respective equipment, BOTH can be correct. 
 
Now be fair and confess how many of you on this thread do possess native DSD playback capability. With YES or NO.
 
At least I am not talking about something I have not heard and object to based on whatever but listening.

 

[bigshot]

If an engineer is doing things that make the musicians upset, they need to find a better engineer!

 

[analogsurviver]

  If an engineer is doing things that make the musicians upset, they need to find a better engineer!

Oh, have you never witnessed to a musical event that is so intense - for whatever reason - that ANY request from the engineer is unwelcome ? That they may well hold it against you even if only trying to position microphone better ?
 
Although rare, there are musicians whose  impresarios etc will do ANYTHING to "protect" their protege - including preventing any conversation with the musician before and during the rehearsal. The musicians themselves are usually quite approachable and friendly - but not everybody and not always.
 
It all boils down to common sense - if the same musicians I know well are obviously in good mood, I might even squeeze in some ABX - but if I can see they are struggling with something ( like having to re-arrange singing roles within the choir because some singer is out with flu - an info old some 15 minutes, arrived well after the beginning of the recording - he or she was hoping to get well enough to perform to the last moment ... ) - than me disapearing into next-to-inexistence is the best policy.
 
It is all case by case based - musicians are humans, they do not work with an off/on switch... - and part of the engineer's job is to cater to these human requirements in order to produce the best recording under given circumstances. 

 

[analogsurviver]

  Thank You 'analogsurvivor', now I may have a better understanding of where you come from .
I especially like your mentioning of 'music students' complaining that live music does not sound 'as good' as a recording, however I don't believe that has anything to do with 'cables' ..
But they are somewhat right, often a recording actually 'sounds better' than a live performance ..
 
You say : "There are about a couple of Thousands of pages related to the problem a correctly designed cable could solve.
Make no mistake, the problem is real and can be measured by anyone in possession of the equipment and knowledge required; "
 
OK .. Then please point us to these measurements .
Note that no 'objectivist' claims wires don't matter at all - What we say is that a wire, correctly constructed of materials 'in spec', does not have a sound AT ALL !
As opposed to 'subjectivists' who claim silver-wires 'sound' colder than gold-plated copper wires .
DBT's have proven this beyond even unreasonable doubt, so I would REALLY like to see the measurements you have implying otherwise ...
 
(I'm really trying here - Could say a lot about "One can limit dynamic range, frequency range - until it finally does fit into the CD redbook." and your talk about 120dB peaks - however, I like to be able to hear ..But, the limitations in redbook of frequency-range are only relevant to bats and dogs and quite frankly : I do not want to subject my hearing to a true 120dB dynamic range - Time is hard enough on the hearing all by itself  )

Measurements regarding cables for the said application are quite simple - at least in this application. But the answer is still no - if all manufacturers and users of their products have not been able to figure it out ...  In this case, it is NOT about conductor material, it is about electrical properties ( LRC) of the cable.
 
This is head-fi ; therefore, recordings meant to be listened over headphones need not to be limited in dynamic range, since there are no room limitations or neighbour related concerns. To see - better said hear - what I mean, try to listen to say piano from a relatively close position, say 5 metres or less; or drum kit, or harp, or ANYTHING - but all of these LIVE, not canned and shaped to fit a CD according to whatever record companies see fit to further limit what could have been provided.
 
The dynamic range in real world is limited by the room noise - concert halls have heating/cooling, air conditioning, lighting - ALL of which can be quite loud, particularly in the bass below 50 Hz.  If 110 dB peak is assumed max SPL, it takes a hall with 30 dB self noise in order to allow for a 80 dB dynamic range. That is better than average, a single bulb/lamp/whatever gone bad is going to diminish this figure further.
 
The loudest sound heard so far by me was Suchoi Su 27 fighter plane during demo flight display. It is louder (and bigger...) than most western planes from "afar" -  but it literally hits you how powerful its two engines are when you are directly behind the exhausts, within cone of say one, maybe two degree of on dead-on-axis blast; the plane was at several occasions in this position, whether it was 1000 feet or 2, 3,5 thousand feet up in the air - did not matter much. Trying to reproduce this sound with headphones would most probably require some orthodynamics ( see SPL specs for Audez'e...) - one can certainly forget electrostatics.
 
But, this is an extreme , unrelated to music listening. I am glad to have experienced it, but do not crave for repetition.

 

[Wizz]

Sigh, he's not listening to his recordings instead of posting here.
 
Why don't you go write a blog or a book, AnalogSurviver?
You obviously have lots of spare time considering all these walls of texts you're throwing at us.
 
I only have one question though: can I listen to your work?
 
I'd really like to check that:
 
- you're and actual sound guy, not just some internet troll making things up as he goes (sorry that's just the way you sound)
- your work is any good (in my book of course).

 

[Ruben123]

Analogsurvivor is a well known and one of the few professional members here and I think he doesnt need to prove you that. He is actually very experienced.
 
Back on topic now.

 

[Wizz]

  Analogsurvivor is a well known and one of the few professional members here and I think he doesnt need to prove you that. He is actually very experienced.
 
Back on topic now.

Unless you're a mod, or some authority around, why should I believe you or even consider your opinion on the matter?
 
The proof is in the pudding.
People talk, talk, talk, but when challenged to present real-world evidence, they suddenly become very shy.
 
My own audio work is easy to find: one just has to look for it on the web.
Here's a little help: Wizz's dirty little audio portfolio
As a musician, a mixing and mastering engineer, I see no reason not to make my work available for people to listen to it.
 
Anyone claiming to be a sound guy should be able to do the same.
Since when is it NOT legit, outside of religion matters, to challenge people to provide evidence of what they claim?

 

[RRod]

In analogsurvivor's defense, he may not be at leisure to just post samples willy-nilly. Still, though, it's not unreasonable to ask for a summary of experience.
 
As far as the "does anyone have DSD" question: yes, I own an SACD player and have heard my fair share of DSD content on it. I find no real benefit to it. Sonically the differences are non-existent, and it loses pathetically in terms of usability to PCM, whatever the sampling rate. Of course I'm sure someone will say "no you need the new super-er kinds of DSD with more megasamples!", but really, honestly, there is no need on the user end. On the recording end, I still haven't seen any good case for recording in DSD rather than PCM, besides typical "it's more like analog" drivel.

 

[analogsurviver]

  In analogsurvivor's defense, he may not be at leisure to just post samples willy-nilly. Still, though, it's not unreasonable to ask for a summary of experience.
 
As far as the "does anyone have DSD" question: yes, I own an SACD player and have heard my fair share of DSD content on it. I find no real benefit to it. Sonically the differences are non-existent, and it loses pathetically in terms of usability to PCM, whatever the sampling rate. Of course I'm sure someone will say "no you need the new super-er kinds of DSD with more megasamples!", but really, honestly, there is no need on the user end. On the recording end, I still haven't seen any good case for recording in DSD rather than PCM, besides typical "it's more like analog" drivel.

I am a free lance recording engineer. And although I do get to keep the masters, I no longer keep any rights (except moral). 
 
Save for some super rare occasion, original DSD recordings get mastered in PCM - in my case, 192 32bit floating to be exact (economy reasons related, there are better tools to edit DSD if $ ).  If the last hole on the least important most faintly audible instrument plays a wrong note, that player can block publishing the whole recording - and I can not do absolutely nothing about it. There is around 90 players in a typical symphonic orchestra...
 
Sometimes, after a "certain" amount of time, some of the players who did make mistakes that are more or less uncorrectable , do thaw and allow publishing an otherwise good recording. Sometimes, they do not. Beyond my control. If not available on Youtube, Vimeo, etc, etc publicly, I have to ask permission if I want to post any sample(s).
 
I can only hope to finally see the green light for a recording of one of the top opera voices today - more than preparing the master for CD  and giving it to the singer in question at first convenient opportunity is something beyond anybody's capability. Specially as the recording was limited to a single evening session (said singer knows the schedule for the next three years in advance ), meaning the singing also can not be up to aspirations of the singer ( NO feedback - after three years ! ) - and it is well possible to clash with the singer's exclusive contract for recording with another recording organization.  Yet this recording is FAR closer to the real voice of the singer in question than anything commercially available.
I do not think you would enjoy it in this case in my shoes ... Best one can do is to be "politely annoying/pushy" - HOW much - that is a million dollar question.
 
As regards DSD : SACD is DSD64, and it was WRONG to be allowed out in the open. The first DSD that is "useful" is DSD128 - and by the time DSD512 is reached, there should be low enough distortion, high enough signal to noise ratio INCLUDING out of audio band noise, etc, etc. - but economic reality says I will have to satisfy myself with DSD128 for some time to come.
 
DSD is best used for "direct to ..." recordings that are not meant to be mastered at all (except markers/tracks/eventual fade in/out) - IF the musicians are up to the task and can survive publishing the amount of imperfections played. To those who would rather die than not make edit every half second I can see DSD looking like a joke.
Still, although DSD to PCM and vice versa is NOT lossless process, DSD can be converted to any PCM and then edited as usual.