[old tech]

I can understand that some gear can sound more "musical" to some subjective ears if it accentuates or suppresses certain frequencies. However, that would mean the gear is not transparent. These differences in transparency are far more likely due to speakers and room acoustics than DACs, Amps (or cables and so on).

 

[craiglester]

Back on the original topic, the more I think about it, the more this sounds like an issue with perception, rather than the recording quality. I mean the op is saying he used to like the recordings of these artists, but doesn't now. Seems to me the recording didn't change, but the listener did.

I'm no audiologist but as was the op, I was a teen in the 1980s and I'm pretty sure my hearing is not what it was back then, so actual physical aging seems a possible factor to be considered.
From what I've found online, it's harder for older persons to 'decode' or interpret complex sound than it is for younger persons to do so, generally speaking.

I found an interesting study on age related auditory perception, but it was a little inconclusive.. they ended up suggesting the results varied from individual to individual.

Here

Also want to say I appreciate the technical discussions here, entertaining as always. I appreciate all of the good intent and effort put into the posts. Thanks!

 

[old tech]

Back on the original topic, the more I think about it, the more this sounds like an issue with perception, rather than the recording quality. I mean the op is saying he used to like the recordings of these artists, but doesn't now. Seems to me the recording didn't change, but the listener did.

I'm no audiologist but as was the op, I was a teen in the 1980s and I'm pretty sure my hearing is not what it was back then, so actual physical aging seems a possible factor to be considered.
From what I've found online, it's harder for older persons to 'decode' or interpret complex sound than it is for younger persons to do so, generally speaking.

I found an interesting study on age related auditory perception, but it was a little inconclusive.. they ended up suggesting the results varied from individual to individual.

Here

Also want to say I appreciate the technical discussions here, entertaining as always. I appreciate all of the good intent and effort put into the posts. Thanks!

Good points. Most people focus on frequencies when it comes to age related hearing loss but ignore the ability to decode complex sounds as you put it. We generally don't notice this loss as we age except under certain environments when the 'cocktail party effect" is pronounced, such clearly hearing voice over music when watching tv or a keeping up with a conversation with loud background noise. But it is real and even with healthy hearing, we don't hear the finer details of music at 60 years of age compared age 20.

Same with vision, most focus on the the decline in reading or focusing fine print rather than the general loss of acuity.

 

[jagwap]

If so, that would depend on the type of speakers? Mine have 6th order Linkwitz crossovers but they are only required to handle line level power before amplification.

Ah, very different for active speakers, where protection limiters can stop any problems.

 

[jagwap]

I can understand that some gear can sound more "musical" to some subjective ears if it accentuates or suppresses certain frequencies. However, that would mean the gear is not transparent. These differences in transparency are far more likely due to speakers and room acoustics than DACs, Amps (or cables and so on).

I do not mean that. I have tried to make that clear.

 

[jagwap]

What "bigger effect" do you mean? And what do you mean by sorting first?

I mean the speakers should have great ported behaviour, or be infinite baffle/sealed.

The thought of small phase shifts elsewhere in the system not making a difference stops people trying it. The effect is more noticeable than even experts expect, until they hear it.

Well, yeah, in the 21st century we have music everywhere, but our hearing is a result of millions of years of evolution and for example 20.000 years ago the ability to hear group delay in music wasn't very relevant for survival. In fact it isn't any more today unless you are a sound engineer and your income depends on your ability to have analytic hearing.

I dispute that. I imagine the caveman or woman who can bash the hollowed out tree trunks best, probably gets more chance of procration, just like good musicians today.

The reason why we hear difference in bass response is because speakers can create huge phase distortion depending on how they are designed and what kind of compromises have been made. Again speakers! Other parts of audio chain are unlike to even cumulatively create audible level of phase distortion. That's why you can have your "fast" or "slow" or whatever you call them bass by changing your speakers.

Indeed. I know producers who use this to alter the pace in pop music in the studio.

Phase distortion is something that can be audible, but it is also measurable! In fact, it isn't difficult to PREDICT mathematically the amount of phase distortion by calculating the electric, mechanical and acoustic properties of audio gear. So, often measurements are merely for verification of the estimated properties. If you are after audible things that can't be measured, phase distortion is not that.

Yes. But almost no one does. It also screws up null tests, so gets thrown out as a difference.

Yes, audible phase distortion should be audible in DBT. What is the mystery here?

None, except it isn't common knowledge in the industry.

What is this circuit you switch in and out? if it causes audible phase distortion then of course experienced listeners should hear the effect of it.

I replace the one with group delay and replace it with none or nearly none.

I am not denying audible distortions. My claim is that those are mostly generated by speakers (and headphones) while the other parts of an audio chain are nowadays often very transparent and probably under the threshold of audibility.

That claim is why so few have checked it out.

 

[71 dB]

I mean the speakers should have great ported behaviour, or be infinite baffle/sealed.

The usage of the speakers tells us what properties it should have. What is the speaker used for and by who? Is it a PA speaker for raves or is it a speaker to replace the anemic sound of a TV? Or is it a studio monitor? Is it intented for large or small rooms? Whatever the situation is, the laws of physics give the limits of how good things can be (within a certain price level, at least). Typically improving one property make another properties worse and vice versa.

So, tell me for what the speaker is for and what are the priorities of performance. Then we can start to talk about what is the best way to "get there." If one box type was superior in every kind of situations, all speakers in the world would use it, of course, but that is not the case. Do you really think phase response means anything in for example car audio scene where getting as close to 180 dB as possible is everything?

The thought of small phase shifts elsewhere in the system not making a difference stops people trying it. The effect is more noticeable than even experts expect, until they hear it.

If these phase shifts where that detrimental to the sound quality, we would have digital phase shifters to compensate for the phase shift in the system.

How do you suggest people "try it"? Use magic (or a soldering iron) to turn their audio gear DC-coupled? I am happy with how my audio gear sounds. Music is enjoyable. So, why should I worry about the phase shift at 5 Hz? On the contrary, I am happy the garbage below 10 Hz or so is filtered away.

I dispute that. I imagine the caveman or woman who can bash the hollowed out tree trunks best, probably gets more chance of procration, just like good musicians today.

I don't know how much expertise you have about cave people, but my knowledge is so non-existence that I don't argue about this topic. However, I can tell you the hollowed out tree trunks of cave people are not my primary source of inspiration when deciding the relevant properties of audio gear.

Yes. But almost no one does. It also screws up null tests, so gets thrown out as a difference.

I'm sure people do measure phase, but it is perhaps not published so often.

None, except it isn't common knowledge in the industry.

It isn't common knowledge in the industry that audible things should be audible in DBT? What?

I replace the one with group delay and replace it with none or nearly none.

Okay. Maybe you should tell your test set-up then? Your clearly want to tell the World something. What kind of filter do you use to create group delay?

That claim is why so few have checked it out.

Maybe. Maybe the music we enjoy sounds actually crap and it is all placebo based on the assumption that group delay is not a problem. Well, I am happy as I am so maybe it is best to not check this out, because what can be done? Use soldering iron to make everything DC-coupled and hope not massive problems arise from that?

 

[Death_Block]

Back on the original topic, the more I think about it, the more this sounds like an issue with perception, rather than the recording quality. I mean the op is saying he used to like the recordings of these artists, but doesn't now. Seems to me the recording didn't change, but the listener did.

I'm no audiologist but as was the op, I was a teen in the 1980s and I'm pretty sure my hearing is not what it was back then, so actual physical aging seems a possible factor to be considered.
From what I've found online, it's harder for older persons to 'decode' or interpret complex sound than it is for younger persons to do so, generally speaking.

I found an interesting study on age related auditory perception, but it was a little inconclusive.. they ended up suggesting the results varied from individual to individual.

Here

Also want to say I appreciate the technical discussions here, entertaining as always. I appreciate all of the good intent and effort put into the posts. Thanks!

I think it's the perception of listening, it's simply age. Younger and or teenage me never occurred to me about recording quality and sound. I just wanted rebellious and fun music. As the brain matures, and enthusiasm in music reproduction becoming more of interest, original ideas and impressions change.
It doesn't stop in music. Food is another prime example. Young and teenage years I wanted sweets and booze. Now I prefer a fine dine. It's maturity of the brain to pay more attention to things around you. All this music science sound talk is interesting opinions, but is the opposite folk of the OP's topic.

 

[gregorio]

I am saying that is how it manifests itself. Like rolled off HF sounds dull.

So that’s a “no” then, you cannot provide evidence that say a rolled-off HF (or other audible distortion) specifically affects music and doesn’t also roll-off HF and “sounds dull” with sound/s other than music.

This equipment has one job, to the majority of the public: Play music. There is a part of music that makes it fun: rhythm. The interplay of rhythm, it's subtleties, and the emotional effect. If some equipment makes that more open to how it was played then others, I have stated that it is more musically transparent. If the equipment is less so, then it is less audibly transparent. Agreed?

Of course I don’t agree!

Firstly, to the majority of the public, audio equipment obviously does NOT have only one job of reproducing music, they use it to listen to: Podcasts, game audio, YouTube vids, phone/video communications, TV/films and Radio (and even music channels commonly include speech/a presenter).

If you’re talking about the majority of audiophiles then maybe many of them do use their audiophile equipment exclusively for reproducing music but I doubt they all do and of course, audiophiles are a very tiny percentage of the public, not a majority.

Secondly, the majority of the public have very little knowledge of how audio equipment works or audio terminology and what they do know is often just plain wrong or an oversimplification which is somewhat wrong.

Thirdly, even if we are only talking about music reproduction, some music is partially or even entirely based on sounds/noises rather than on “musical instruments”: Musique Concrete and other modern classical genres as well as occasional, individual examples from more popular artists for example. Also, some music isn’t supposed to be “fun” and has little (or in rare cases no) rhythmic interplay. So, you are not even including all music!

And lastly, audio equipment doesn’t suddenly cease to function if you feed it audio that is not music. Even if someone does use certain audio equipment only for music reproduction, it is still capable of reproducing other audio content and these audible distortions you’re talking about will manifest with this other audio content and therefore are NOT specifically “musical” distortions or lack of them (“musical” transparency).

It is a myth in your world because you will not believe it.

That doesn’t make sense. Even if I were to believe in a myth, that doesn’t stop it from being a myth. Until there is some reliable supporting evidence, there’s no grounds to even question that it is a myth. And, this isn’t “my world”, it’s the world of rational thought, critical thinking and science.

It is a repeatable fact in mine.

If it really is a repeatable fact then you must be able to provide some reliable evidence, which you so far haven’t. Both of your examples so far (group delay and HF roll-off) apply to audio in general, not specifically music. If it’s only a repeatable fact in your world, then it’s no more of a repeatable fact than the audiophile world’s “fact” of night and day audible differences between cables, which many audiophiles have repeatedly experienced.

You like tearing people down for not having the same world view as you. I don't.

This is the Sound Science subforum, so I refute a “world view” based on myth and audiophile marketing. If you don’t, that’s up to you of course, but this isn’t the subforum to promote or argue for that view.

I am an engineer, so I do not believe dragons and fairies. I'm not an antivaxer.

Firstly, there are several engineers/equipment designers here on head-fi who may or may not believe in audiophile myths but they certainly promote them!

Secondly, “musicality” and “musical” are not engineering terms and there’s no reason an engineer (apart from possibly a music recording, mixing or mastering engineer) would have a better understanding of these terms than say a member of the public or an audiophile.

But I also do not believe we know everything yet.

That’s both a non-sequitur and irrelevant! I do not believe we know everything yet and have detailed that more than once and so far you have not detailed anything we don’t know about.

I was lucky to work with people who discovered this and I didn't put my head in the sand, or my fingers in my ears.

If the “people who discovered this” have no reliable evidence, then as an engineer you should have put your head in the sand and your fingers in your ears! If you don’t, how can you design anything if you believe any old nonsense audiophile claim/“discovery”. If there is reliable evidence, then present it.

You are replying to another point here. I was talking about the title of the instrument of "musical saw". You are losing you threads here.

No I’m not, I am replying to the use of the term/description “musical”, be that a musical saw, musical transparency or musical audiophile equipment.

Is there even the possible thought in your mind that there is something new you hadn't thought of or experienced yet?

Asked and answered more than once! You’re not just grasping at a straw but a straw that I’ve already answered. Again, there are undoubtedly things in development I haven’t thought of or experienced yet and obviously there are things in the past and present I haven’t thought of or experienced. I obviously haven’t heard every piece of audio gear or every audio recording for example and I definitely would never have thought of a green marker pen improving the sound of CDs! To consider the possibility of some audible distortion that is unmeasurable and/or only affects music, all you have to do is present some reliable (and obviously relevant) evidence. So far you haven’t, despite claiming otherwise!

G

 

[The Jester]

I think it's the perception of listening, it's simply age. Younger and or teenage me never occurred to me about recording quality and sound. I just wanted rebellious and fun music. As the brain matures, and enthusiasm in music reproduction becoming more of interest, original ideas and impressions change.
It doesn't stop in music. Food is another prime example. Young and teenage years I wanted sweets and booze. Now I prefer a fine dine. It's maturity of the brain to pay more attention to things around you. All this music science sound talk is interesting opinions, but is the opposite folk of the OP's topic.

Being lazy I’ve been playing music from my server via iPad and “basic quality” headphones (AKG K240) and found a good example to listen to on YouTube … search Goanna .., Borderline and you’ll find someone has done a Vinyl rip of the 1982 original, then using the little arrow in the bottom right corner there’s a link to the 2003 remastered version,
Have both CD versions on the server (remaster was also an expanded edition with extra live tracks) and also the original LP stored away and I always slightly preferred the original CD version with the old AAD icon on the disc to the LP version,
Need a little level matching but no need to demand ABX testing to hear the remaster is fuller in bass, duller in the top end and flat as a pancake dynamically compared to that LP version.

 

[gregorio]

Yes. But almost no one does. It also screws up null tests, so gets thrown out as a difference.

That is not true. Loads of people do and, we do not throw out the differences in a null test, it’s the differences we’re usually interested in. There would be almost no point to a null test if we threw out the differences because there’s only one very specific set of conditions under which we do not get a difference.

None, except it isn't common knowledge in the industry.

Again, that’s completely untrue! Phase and it’s audible effects is fundamental/basic knowledge for all sound/music engineers. We regularly use phase meters to measure it and have numerous tools and parameters to alter/manipulate it.

That claim is why so few have checked it out.

What “so few”? Sound/Music/Mastering engineers spend a large percentage of their time identifying and addressing audible (and barely audible) distortions and a fair portion of that time is on phase distortion, for example, between microphones, in processing chains and even with individual processors and bits of kit. That’s many tens or even hundreds of thousands of sound/music engineers over the course of many decades, how is that “so few”?

There’s even good awareness of the specific phase issue you’ve mentioned, group delay in speakers, as demonstrated by this 2008 article in the most widely read music engineering publication.

All the above just appears to be variation on another common audiophile falsehood: “We don’t really know very much about it” or “it hasn’t really been studied” and “it’s only recently been identified as a problem”, etc. I’ve typically seen this falsehood used in arguments about jitter being an audible issue rather than in supposedly unmeasurable phase distortion and it seems to originate from false marketing posted/published by audiophile design engineers, then parroted by reviewers and finally believed and quoted by audiophiles.

G

 

[jagwap]

So that’s a “no” then, you cannot provide evidence that say a rolled-off HF (or other audible distortion) specifically affects music and doesn’t also roll-off HF and “sounds dull” with sound/s other than music.

Now you are answering statements I didn't make.

Of course I don’t agree!

Firstly, to the majority of the public, audio equipment obviously does NOT have only one job of reproducing music, they use it to listen to: Podcasts, game audio, YouTube vids, phone/video communications, TV/films and Radio (and even music channels commonly include speech/a presenter).

If you’re talking about the majority of audiophiles then maybe many of them do use their audiophile equipment exclusively for reproducing music but I doubt they all do and of course, audiophiles are a very tiny percentage of the public, not a majority.

Secondly, the majority of the public have very little knowledge of how audio equipment works or audio terminology and what they do know is often just plain wrong or an oversimplification which is somewhat wrong.

Thirdly, even if we are only talking about music reproduction, some music is partially or even entirely based on sounds/noises rather than on “musical instruments”: Musique Concrete and other modern classical genres as well as occasional, individual examples from more popular artists for example. Also, some music isn’t supposed to be “fun” and has little (or in rare cases no) rhythmic interplay. So, you are not even including all music!

And lastly, audio equipment doesn’t suddenly cease to function if you feed it audio that is not music. Even if someone does use certain audio equipment only for music reproduction, it is still capable of reproducing other audio content and these audible distortions you’re talking about will manifest with this other audio content and therefore are NOT specifically “musical” distortions or lack of them (“musical” transparency).

How does any of that make a relevant discussion on this subject. It is a lot of words to nit pic my statement "This equipment has one job, to the majority of the public: Play music. " Did you enjoy that?

That doesn’t make sense. Even if I were to believe in a myth, that doesn’t stop it from being a myth. Until there is some reliable supporting evidence, there’s no grounds to even question that it is a myth. And, this isn’t “my world”, it’s the world of rational thought, critical thinking and science.

But your belief of what is a myth doesn't mean it is one. I am sure I read people thought the duck-billed platypus was a myth when first presented with a stuffed one at the Royal Institute. They were intelligent people, but overly skeptical in this case.

If it really is a repeatable fact then you must be able to provide some reliable evidence, which you so far haven’t. Both of your examples so far (group delay and HF roll-off) apply to audio in general, not specifically music. If it’s only a repeatable fact in your world, then it’s no more of a repeatable fact than the audiophile world’s “fact” of night and day audible differences between cables, which many audiophiles have repeatedly experienced.

I have provided reliable and repeatable evidence, in a listening environment with DBT. At one job we had one of the early ABX boxes. Very useful in the days before Foobar etc. But it is less easy to provide in this medium, to a die-hard skeptic.

This is the Sound Science subforum, so I refute a “world view” based on myth and audiophile marketing. If you don’t, that’s up to you of course, but this isn’t the subforum to promote or argue for that view.

All I said was that the '80s music will sound better and less fatiguing on the right gear. Look where that has got us. You are welcome to refute myth, but as I don't see it as myth, I am free to argue back. I am not in marketing and have nothing to sell as I have stated before.

Firstly, there are several engineers/equipment designers here on head-fi who may or may not believe in audiophile myths but they certainly promote them!

Again, in your opinion. But you are not the only voice here. You continually state things as facts, just because you believe them.

Secondly, “musicality” and “musical” are not engineering terms and there’s no reason an engineer (apart from possibly a music recording, mixing or mastering engineer) would have a better understanding of these terms than say a member of the public or an audiophile.

I don't claim anyone needs any better understanding of the terms, you do.

I know music producers to alter the phase to affect the "musical" pace of a track. Using that distortion to change the perceived rhythm interplay. So it has an effect. Removing the distortion will be closer to accurate in more cases.

That’s both a non-sequitur and irrelevant! I do not believe we know everything yet and have detailed that more than once and so far you have not detailed anything we don’t know about.

If the “people who discovered this” have no reliable evidence, then as an engineer you should have put your head in the sand and your fingers in your ears! If you don’t, how can you design anything if you believe any old nonsense audiophile claim/“discovery”. If there is reliable evidence, then present it.

Yes they did, and you were not there. As I said DBT. Please stop these assumptions if you are to continue as someone perceived as a trustworthy expert here.

No I’m not, I am replying to the use of the term/description “musical”, be that a musical saw, musical transparency or musical audiophile equipment.

Here you are replying to the wrong sense of the statement, and now insisting you are not by changing the discussion. If you cannot stay consistent, please disengage.

Asked and answered more than once! You’re not just grasping at a straw but a straw that I’ve already answered. Again, there are undoubtedly things in development I haven’t thought of or experienced yet and obviously there are things in the past and present I haven’t thought of or experienced. I obviously haven’t heard every piece of audio gear or every audio recording for example and I definitely would never have thought of a green marker pen improving the sound of CDs! To consider the possibility of some audible distortion that is unmeasurable and/or only affects music, all you have to do is present some reliable (and obviously relevant) evidence. So far you haven’t, despite claiming otherwise!

Then why not this idea also?

(Did you try the green pen? The way you worded it, it sounds like you think it improves the sound. Perhaps you are laying traps to keep this nonsense going. So in the spirit of that, I have tried the green pen on CDs. A good friend bought me one as a joke present. We did blind testing on it. Not fully DBT, because of the circumstances, and also because it was just a bit of fun. I was infuriating, because we found a difference. However it turned out to be a difference in the provenance of the CDs not the pen)

G

For a sound engineer you do seem to have a lot of spare time to argue. I dated a sound engineer, and I spent a lot of the relationship waiting for her to come home at 3-4 in the morning, after a 72 hour week. Is this really how you want to spend your life?

 

[jagwap]

The usage of the speakers tells us what properties it should have. What is the speaker used for and by who? Is it a PA speaker for raves or is it a speaker to replace the anemic sound of a TV? Or is it a studio monitor? Is it intented for large or small rooms? Whatever the situation is, the laws of physics give the limits of how good things can be (within a certain price level, at least). Typically improving one property make another properties worse and vice versa.

True. Different cases have different priorities. But when designed to reproduce music, I prefer to minimise this issue.

I have worked on line arrays, portable PA, cinema and home AV systems, and all of them, the hardest task is to reproduce music well. Cinema needs huge LFE headroom for the deep stuff, but music is still vitally important as it often carries the emotional content of the programme.

So, tell me for what the speaker is for and what are the priorities of performance. Then we can start to talk about what is the best way to "get there." If one box type was superior in every kind of situations, all speakers in the world would use it, of course, but that is not the case. Do you really think phase response means anything in for example car audio scene where getting as close to 180 dB as possible is everything?

Car audio is not my area. I have been to a few talks on it, and it is hugely complex what they are working on these days. Which is great, as for most people it is the most expensive music system they own. But it cannot beat a good listing room yet.

If these phase shifts where that detrimental to the sound quality, we would have digital phase shifters to compensate for the phase shift in the system.

There are. You don't remembe BBE?

How do you suggest people "try it"? Use magic (or a soldering iron) to turn their audio gear DC-coupled? I am happy with how my audio gear sounds. Music is enjoyable. So, why should I worry about the phase shift at 5 Hz? On the contrary, I am happy the garbage below 10 Hz or so is filtered away.

Good. Happy for you.

By the way, a high pass filter at 10Hz has phase shifts way into the audio pass band. Again, this generally doesn't enter into the designer's thoughts.

I don't know how much expertise you have about cave people, but my knowledge is so non-existence that I don't argue about this topic. However, I can tell you the hollowed out tree trunks of cave people are not my primary source of inspiration when deciding the relevant properties of audio gear.

Sure. But my point was to counter your assumption that rhythm has not featured in our evolution. I think it probably has.

I'm sure people do measure phase, but it is perhaps not published so often.

They really don't unless advised to. I work in the industry.

It isn't common knowledge in the industry that audible things should be audible in DBT? What?

Not what I was saying.

Okay. Maybe you should tell your test set-up then? Your clearly want to tell the World something. What kind of filter do you use to create group delay?

I'm trying to reduce it.

Maybe. Maybe the music we enjoy sounds actually crap and it is all placebo based on the assumption that group delay is not a problem. Well, I am happy as I am so maybe it is best to not check this out, because what can be done? Use soldering iron to make everything DC-coupled and hope not massive problems arise from that?

Meridian Audio is DC coupled last time I looked. They are a science based audio company.

 

[sander99]

All I said was that the '80s music will sound better and less fatiguing on the right gear. Look where that has got us.

No, you claimed there is equipment that is audibly transparent but not musically transparent (which is of course utter nonsense)...

 

[bigshot]

I'm going to list some rock albums from the 80s I think are great. Lots of these artists had other great albums in the 80s too. I could spend more time thinking about it, but this is good for now.

The Pretenders
Dire Straits: Brothers In Arms
Tom Waits: Rain Dogs
Talking Heads: Remain In Light
Prince: Purple Rain
Bruce Springsteen: Born In The USA
Peter Gabriel: Melt
The Cars: Heartbeat City
Ambrosia: One Eighty
Devo: Freedom Of Choice
Clash: London Calling
Roy Orbison: In Dreams
REM: Murmur
Brian Eno & David Byrne: My Life In The Bush Of Ghosts
Police: Zenyatta Mondatta
Frank Zappa: You Are What You Is
David Bowie: Let's Dance
Cyndi Lauper: She's So Unusual
Travelling Wilburys
Roxy Music: Avalon
Elvis Costello: Get Happy
XTC: Black Sea
Tears For Fears: Songs From The Big Chair
Pixies: Doolittle
Malcolm McLaren: Duck Rock