Interesting WBF discussion on Transparency vs Euphony

[wisnon]

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...-Symphonic-coloration-quot-in-modern-DAC-gear

From Blizzard:

Transparency vs "Symphonic coloration" in modern DAC gear.

Hi Guys,

The topic for this thread was inspired by a debate that started over on the Lampizator measurement thread.

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showth...730#post347730



As a designer of audio gear, there's 2 paths you can go down:

1: Design the equipment to be as transparent as possible. Straight wire with gain. No additional colorations added to the music.

2: Purposely design coloration into the equipment because it can make music more enjoyable to listen to.


Most highend audio companies go down path #2. Why is that? Well simply because it's much easier to sell products that sprinkle a little fairy dust on the recordings. It's no different than Samsung having a special setting for TV's at Bestbuy to artificially make the colours pop. Another reason is it makes the components more forgiving of either poor quality components in the chain, or poor quality recordings. ...


Here is a balanced Dr Geddes interview that tackles measument vs subjective listening:
http://www.dagogo.com/an-interview-with-dr-earl-geddes-of-gedlee-llc​

 

[Mike]

This obsession for transparency/ absolute neutrality reminds me of the Buckley's commercial "it tastes awful, but it works". Why would I want to endure something that sounds the most neutral just to say I can do it?

In our pursuit for absolute neutrality, it sounds like to me that we are stretching out the top and the bottom and sacrificing the middle. The magic is in the midrange.

Give me a little warmth and a little sweetness any day of the week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[joeinid]

I agree with Mike. For better or worse, I don't like the absolute truth in my music. I error on the side of sweetness and maybe a little softer top end. I don't go overboard but full, rich vocals and a midrange to die for gets me every time.

 

[wisnon]

This obsession for transparency/ absolute neutrality reminds me of the Buckley's commercial "it tastes awful, but it works". Why would I want to endure something that sounds the most neutral just to say I can do it?

In our pursuit for absolute neutrality, it sounds like to me that we are stretching out the top and the bottom and sacrificing the middle. The magic is in the midrange.

Give me a little warmth and a little sweetness any day of the week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Blizz seems to think that we will soon have affordable software that can reintroduce voicing (colouration) that can make this neutral system sound like anything. Of course, many people have objections on many levels.

 

[Mike]

If you love the Lampi (warm) or Berkley (sweet), you probably won't care for something like the EMM Labs DAC2X or Meitner MA-1 and visa versa.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[the professor]

That would be an awesome thing. I have my doubts that it could ever be done, but would love it if it can someday.

Blizz seems to think that we will soon have affordable software that can reintroduce voicing (colouration) that can make this neutral system sound like anything. Of course, many people have objections on many levels.

 

[CPP]

I agree with Mike. For better or worse, I don't like the absolute truth in my music. I error on the side of sweetness and maybe a little softer top end. I don't go overboard but full, rich vocals and a midrange to die for gets me every time.

BINGO

Just provide me music that makes my foot start to move, my head starts to sway my finger starts tapping on the chair regardless of the audio terms..

 

[Mike]

This is definitely an interesting topic. I guess I would have to ask what the point of reference is? Is it the actual sounds of the instruments or is it the original recording with all the ambiences of the recording studio?

What if absolute neutrality/transparency actually resulted in LESS information of the original recorded event? What if in the pursuit of transparency, we stripped away the tonality, timbre, etc. of what made that recording special?

Last but not least, and back to the original question, do we know if DAC manufacturers purposely design their equipment to be "colored"? I think there are some design choices (use of specific materials, tubes for example) that RESULT in a certain flavor to the DAC, but I think this flavoring/coloring actually makes the recording MORE authentic, not less by returning or better yet, not stripping away the seasoning which originally existed in their full glory.

I would be curious about this: how many people jumping up and down searching for absolute neutrality/transparency are actually musicians? I would doubt very few.

As a musician (Sax and Guitar), I can tell you that everything you do with the instrument matters. A silver sax sounds vastly different than a brass sax. A metal sax mouthpiece sounds vastly different than a rubber mouthpiece. Even saxophone reeds can produce different sounds. And of course, different brands of saxophones sound very different. A selmer sounds very different than a yanigasawa.

When it comes to guitars, the sky is the limit for different sounds. My Martin N-20 sounds vastly different than my Robert Johnson Gibson or my Fender Strat. Aren't guitar tube amps the preference for most guitarists? Hmmm...

 

[still-one]

I want it to sound like I am hearing live music whether that music is in a bar, a concert hall, a performing arts auditorium etc. Seldom are any of those warm.

 

[bonzo]

The problem with that thread (and another similar one) was he was contending that all those who listened to GG, listened to it only because they liked distortion, and this was generalized to any valve component. Then, that his software could recreate the sound of any dac or TT by recreating the frequency sweep.

 

[DaveC]

If you love the Lampi (warm) or Berkley (sweet), you probably won't care for something like the EMM Labs DAC2X or Meitner MA-1 and visa versa.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have found people generally fall into two camps, those who are after high fidelity in the literal sense and those who want the music to sound a certain way according to their preferences. Both groups are after the same thing, an increased emotional connection and enjoyment of the music but the factors that produce the desired result are a bit different.

A big issue I see is no measurement or metric for timbral fidelity, or how close a system can come to reproducing realistic timbre of various instruments like cymbols, brass, string instruments, etc... and whether they err on the warm or cold side of some agreed on definition of accurate. This search for timbral fidelity seems to be the drive for people to want to voice their system on the warm side. Some people want a little added warmth, others a good bit more. Very few people actually want dead neutral or cold/bright so there's no doubt some beneficial distortion is a good thing. The question is how to get it without losing too much resolution and clarity. It is possible to achieve a good combination of timbral fidelity/warmth and resolution/clarity, but it's not easy. Those two factors are my top design priorities as well.

 

[DaveC]

The problem with that thread (and another similar one) was he was contending that all those who listened to GG, listened to it only because they liked distortion, and this was generalized to any valve component. Then, that his software could recreate the sound of any dac or TT by recreating the frequency sweep.

IMO, there are some things tubes do that are more accurate vs a perfectly measuring SS device, we just haven't defined it completely. Added harmonic distortion can aid in achieving timbral fidelity, so the large 2nd order distortion may be a good thing but there's more to it... the beauty of tubes isn't that simple. The dimensionality, quality of fine detail, and realistic timbre are not all contained in THD, IMD, etc.. I admire the attempt by Blizzard to define and reproduce this digitally though.

 

[bonzo]

IMO, there are some things tubes do that are more accurate vs a perfectly measuring SS device, we just haven't defined it completely. Added harmonic distortion can aid in achieving timbral fidelity, so the large 2nd order distortion may be a good thing but there's more to it... the beauty of tubes isn't that simple. The dimensionality, quality of fine detail, and realistic timbre are not all contained in THD, IMD, etc.. I admire the attempt by Blizzard to define and reproduce this digitally though.

I admire that attempt - but not the attempt by him to hijack all threads with his measurement spam

 

[rbbert]

It seems to me that the biggest problem with the original proposition is one that has already been alluded to; there is no truly "transparent" audio reproduction system. So given that some coloration is inevitable, why not make that coloration as enjoyable as possible? That doesn't mean transparency (or accuracy) isn't a goal to be sought, but until (if) we are there...

 

[jdandy]

The chain of components from the live event to your ears at home is a long and complicated one. While folks often want to focus on their home audio gear and how it impacts the purity and transparency of a reproduced performance, it goes much deeper than that. The coloration begins at the microphone that converts the live performance to its very first electrical signal. Just like speakers, the microphone is a physical apparatus subject to the laws of physics and the influences of mechanical design and materials. Just like speakers, this physical mechanism imparts its limitations and colorations on the signal it generates. Turning physical energy into electrical energy at the microphone, then reversing this process by turning electrical energy back into physical energy at the speakers represents two of the biggest challenges in audio reproduction. In addition, microphones are purpose built depending on their intended application. Selecting the wrong microphone for a particular application can dramatically alter the end results. In reproduced music the transition of physical sound waves to electrical wave forms all begin life in a microphone and embody the characteristic coloration, a euphonic word for distortion, of that physical transducer, a generator so to speak. This is only the start because that freshly generated electrical wave form now has to pass through multiple connectors and cables before arriving at microphone preamps, either solid state or tube that are outboard of a mixer and patched in or internal to a mixer. From there the electrical signal will often pass through a compressor/noise gate, an effects processor, equalizer (digital or analog), then be captured on magnetic tape or converted to digital and recorded to a hard drive. Each circuit, every cable and patch board connection our fresh from the microphone signal passes through has influence on the reality of the signal as compared to the live performance. Keep in mind, we are only speaking of a single microphone. Typical live and studio performances use 10 or more microphones in addition to some electric instruments feeding directly into mixers. So the coloration of the various microphones, preamps, cables, effects channels, patchbays, and so forth are compounded by the use of multiple microphones. Now focus on the fact that this is only the beginning of life for the electrical wave forms generated, manipulated, and recorded. Furthermore, none of this is controllable by anything home audio enthusiasts can do with their equipment, speakers, etc.

Now our precious electrical wave forms head to another group of electrical components as the separate microphone signals are mixed, adjusted, equalized, normalized, compressed or expanded, and finally transferred to the mastering engineer. This final mastering stage usually means the recording is once again subjected to different mix boards, cables, and components as the mastering engineer puts the final adjustments he chooses on our once pristine electrical wave forms. Then the final master is off to the pressing plants, digital or analog, and once again the electrical waves of the performance are routed through more components, amplifiers that drive cutting heads on lathes, or digital convertors that generate the dots and dashes on a compact disc master stamper. It is impossible to think that our original signal directly from the microphone, colored immediately as its life began, is not further adulterated in one way or another as it speeds its way through all of the various electronics and human interventions necessary to develop the final product we reproduce on our sound systems. Then, as audio enthusiasts tend to do, we want to believe what we are hearing is a true and honest facsimile of the original event while passing judgments on how our various home audio components are enhancing or detracting from the transparency and resolution of the actual performance. It's humorous how some fret about the influences sound systems impart on a recording without considering the multitude of transgressions to the original event that proceeded playback at home.

 

[the professor]

I find it fascinating that people will argue - not this thread - about a stereo system sounding like its live or "real" or better or worse. When on two different nights with the same band sometimes even at the same venue - it will sound totally different tonally, but both are amazingly toe taping fantastic enjoyable nights, and most of the time you can't even say if there was a preference to which one is better.

 

[bonzo]

I find it fascinating that people will argue - not this thread - about a stereo system sounding like its live or "real" or better or worse. When on two different nights with the same band sometimes even at the same venue - it will sound totally different tonally, but both are amazingly toe taping fantastic enjoyable nights, and most of the time you can't even say if there was a preference to which one is better.

yes but there is a range for that band. That band will never, on anyday or at any venue, sound extremely fake like some systems do. Point is some systems are out of that range, totally.

 

[annapolis Raider]

I find it fascinating that people will argue - not this thread - about a stereo system sounding like its live or "real" or better or worse. When on two different nights with the same band sometimes even at the same venue - it will sound totally different tonally, but both are amazingly toe taping fantastic enjoyable nights, and most of the time you can't even say if there was a preference to which one is better.

+1

 

[Mike]

I find it fascinating that people will argue - not this thread - about a stereo system sounding like its live or "real" or better or worse. When on two different nights with the same band sometimes even at the same venue - it will sound totally different tonally, but both are amazingly toe taping fantastic enjoyable nights, and most of the time you can't even say if there was a preference to which one is better.

Ahhhh.....but the real question is: which performance measured better?

[emoji14]

 

[jdandy]

yes but there is a range for that band. That band will never, on anyday or at any venue, sound extremely fake like some systems do. Point is some systems are out of that range, totally.

bonzo.......All sound systems sound fake to one degree or another. If its not a live performance, it's fake. An analogy might be a diamond compared to cubic zirconium. The CZ can be made to look like the diamond but none the less it is fake. A recording is a copy, not the real thing, so by all intents and purposes it is fake and when reproduced on a home audio system it causes that system to sound fake. Granted, some systems are more flawed than others, consequently the fakeness factor would naturally be elevated on those sound systems. Just saying.......