Saturday 5 November 2022

The studio production: The Audiophile Society & Chesky's Mega Dimensional Sound; Revolver Remix. Is there an "absolute sound"?

Above, you see some recently added albums on my Roon server. I thought it might be fun to focus this week on the music instead of hardware and discuss a little more on this so-called "absolute sound" (the concept, not the name of the Harry Pearson-founded magazine) some audiophiles are supposedly going for (touched on this somewhat years ago). 

I don't know if Pearson described his concept of the "absolute sound" with much greater depth beyond the oft-quoted, vague quality of "the sound of actual acoustic instruments playing in a real space" which may or may not be hard to achieve these days depending on one's threshold of what sounds "real". Let me know if you've come across any other articles on this that defines the concept with greater detail. To be honest, I don't think I've met any audiophiles who still believe that there is a single "absolute" subjective sound we should all be striving for, but it's good to be clear about it and maybe lay it to rest.

When it comes to music, I have rather eclectic tastes. As I mentioned last time, I've been checking out some electronica, hence the amane + 曇った空 (Kumottasora) album 彷徨 (Wandering) (DR7, 2017) off BandCamp on the list. You can have a listen to track 2 "~ Discontinuity ~" on YouTube. It's an atmospheric piece of work that's very much at home in the Blade Runner universe I can play in the background without getting distracted; in fact, excellent background music when doing medical charting on the computer - the bane of the medical professional's existence these days. ;-)

To the right, we see a couple versions of David Chesky's The Great European Songbook (DR13, 2022). As you can see, I've labelled the cover image for easy identification; we have both a "Headphone Mix" and "Speaker Mix".

Recently, I was contact by The Audiophile Society in promotion for the new label and this album; here are relevant bits of the announcement:
"... I’d like to inform you about The Audiophile Society and our innovations in 2 channel 3D-Binaural audio. As you are aware, most music is mixed and mastered for a neutrality of listening medium with the primary concern being that it will sound the same when heard on a car stereo or in headphones despite physical constraints and properties of each environment. But how much of the potential listener experience is sacrificed by a dynamic where laptop and iPhone speakers are given the same importance as dedicated high-end Hi Fi systems? How much further could the listener experience be enhanced if one rejects the limitations of this one-size-fits-all approach and instead aims to make the recording sound the best that it can in each individual environment?

As an answer to these questions The Audiophile Society, a new label founded by world renowned composer and audiophile David Chesky, is proud to present Mega Dimensional Sound: an innovative audio production process which boasts a wider and deeper soundstage, aurally placing the listener right in the room with the performer and allowing listeners to appreciate recordings like never before! Through this new audio process the Audiophile Society is bringing 3D recordings from emerging artists working in a multitude of genres to market by creating binaural recordings that can be played on existing 2-channel audio systems. Each release is also given an individualized 3 dimensional headphone mix. In the label’s latest release, The Great European Songbook, David Chesky demonstrates his versatility by boldly deconstructing many of the classical repertoire’s most celebrated melodies and using them to deliver virtuosic jazz performances.
 
Like all releases from The Audiophile Society, European Songbook will be available in a choice of two audio packages: The Hi-Res PCM Package (which includes a 192/24 speaker mix, a 96/24 headphone mix, & a DSD speaker mix) or The DSD & 48/24 Package (DSD speaker mix, DSD headphone mix, a 48/24 speaker mix, and a 48/24 headphone mix). On European Songbook, listeners can enjoy even the most minute details in Chesky’s transcendental performances, treading from Bach to Beethoven, the album features a three piece band composed of Billy Drummond and Peter Washington, previous collaborators from Chesky’s critically acclaimed Jazz in The New Harmonic projects. 
Together, David Chesky and the Audiophile Society provide an auricular adventure sure to delight even the most stringent Classical and Jazz connoisseurs alike."
I see that David Chesky made this video introducing the new label from a few months back:


Kudos to Mr. Chesky for working to improve the sound quality of recordings. I have no ties to the music content creation world but I can imagine how difficult it must be these days with a plethora of albums and labels already out there for listeners to choose from (lots of recorded music already as discussed here).

Also, it's great to see that right from the start with these recordings, they're specifically addressing listening systems with different mixes - "speaker" and "headphone"; clearly these are significantly different physical means of playback, so optimization with remixing is logical. Over the years, we have already come across binaural recordings from Chesky meant for headphone listening. You can hear the differences yourself with the free The Audiophile Society Sampler.

Artistic appreciation is obviously very much a subjective enterprise and we're all free to agree or disagree with music "critics", ultimately we judge music for ourselves. For example, The Great European Songbook consists of a jazz trio (David Chesky piano, Peter Washington bass, and Billy Drummond percussion) playing re-imagined well-known classical pieces from the likes of Bach, Beethoven, Strauss, etc. Already that might or might not be interesting for you as a music lover even if the recording quality can be used as demo material for one's audio system.

While the majority of what I enjoy tend to be of the rock/pop genre, I can appreciate what Chesky does here with his trio and the familiarity of the classical pieces chosen would be accessible to most listeners. When I listen to the mixes on my system, indeed the speaker mix has a very large "mega dimensional" soundstage with piano wide left, drum kit center, and bass wide right. I found that broad panorama to be an enjoyable experience that envelops the listener in the music. The high-quality production with such a wide soundstage shared between 3 instruments allows the listener to peer "into" that virtual space and determine things like precision of instrument placement, "quietness" of the noise level in the space between the instruments, and a sense of timbral accuracy as one can easily isolate each member in the trio. Beautiful sense of depth and room ambience can be heard for example in the percussion work on "Fuga No. 2" (Bach). As usual, once we're done with critical listening for resolution and making technical judgments, make sure to flip the mental switch and just allow yourself to be in the midst of the music, experienced holistically!

I agree that while the very wide "speaker mix" is great in a soundroom, it's not natural when listening over headphones. With my Sennheiser HD800 & Drop+THX AAA 789 headphone amp, it sounds like my head is sandwiched between the extremes of the piano and bass on either side with limited depth. The "headphone mix" is clearly much better with cans as it applies some crossfeeding and binaural processing into the mix which pushes the instruments forward in virtual space as would happen in an actual room since the sound of each speaker will also be heard in the contralateral ear along with appropriate timing cues to impart a sense of distance between speakers and the ears.

One criticism of playing with a generic crossfeed DSP/plugin (there are many of these, such as this one for Foobar) is that we typically have to try out different settings to find an optimal amount for each recording. With The Audiophile Society providing their headphone mix, we get to hear the official intended version from the studio, while still be able to play the "speaker mix" and try our own crossfeed DSP customizations if we want.

Similar, but not the same.

While the waveforms above cannot tell us exactly how something sounds subjectively, clearly we can see the similarities and differences between the two mixes.

This idea of having multiple mixes is not new of course. Mark Waldrep and AIX Records had been doing this with the multichannel "stage" and "audience" mixes on DVD-A and BluRay for more than a decade. I also think having multiple mixes/masterings to differentiate "standard" and hi-res "advanced" resolution versions of albums could add value to the typically higher cost of hi-res purchases.

Again, download the demo tracks and have a listen for yourself and decide what you think about the music and those mixes. In the announcement above we also see that there are options for PCM vs. DSD packages which is good news for those who prefer new DSD material.

All the best to David Chesky and The Audiophile Society in continuing to expand the studio techniques and recording great talent in forthcoming releases!

--------------------


On a technical note, from what I can tell, listening to The Great European Songbook and in my discussions with the representative from the label, in order to create these mixes, they're using a multitrack recording of the piano, drums, bass, and room ambiance. Studio magic does the rest in creating that "mega dimensional sound" and likewise for the headphone version. Whether the 3 artists actually sat in the same room during the recording sessions and played together on those finalized tracks on May 12, 2022 might actually not matter. Or whether the headphone mix represents the "actual sound" of the trio playing in the studio likewise could just as well be completely the result of the engineering process.

The data in the audio files are just representations of a version of what the trio could sound like based on the tastes of the folks in the studio, typically with input from the artists (if it isn't the artists themselves riding the controls) based on intention and taste. Presumably a multichannel mix or Atmos version could also be done if they wanted to.

When we play the data back, a good "high-fidelity" system will maintain the correct frequencies, dynamics, and temporal characteristics represented within the digital data. However, even if from computer to DAC to amp to speakers/headphones, and everything is accurate, the actual sound quality unless certain standards are dictated will still be different depending on variables like speaker setup, room acoustics, and likewise the headphone transducer-ear interface.

While I can appreciate the idea of an "absolute" sound - for example, how an acoustic classical symphony performance might be experienced sitting in Carnegie Hall, Parquet Center section, Row F, Seat 107, this is simply unrealistic and not even something anyone might want. Who actually cares if one's sound system actually reproduces that or any other potentially ideal seat in a "real space" with absolute realism? Do the artists care? So long as the artistic content is good, sound qualities like tonality, soundstage, spatial cues, and resolution are enjoyable with artistic intent expressed in the audio mix, that's all that matters.

While we can readily measure the fidelity of audio components in a hi-fi system to a very high degree, as I've expressed before, art is not objective and ultimately enjoyment of music is a psychoacoustic and cognitive event. In the big picture, we can all still emotionally engage with the music coming out of less-than-ideal AM radios, even if we know technically a modern hi-res DAC playing bit-perfect data to excellent amps and speakers in an acoustically controlled room, on a quiet night, would achieve a much better illusion of being "there".

--------------------


Speaking of different mixes, contemporaneously, we also have the release of the Beatles' Revolver (2022 Remix, average album DR8) just last week. I love Revolver (1966) since it and Rubber Soul (1965) were the two albums from the Beatles discography I first heard in their entirety in my teenage years. I would hate to do any rankings of their albums but these two have a special place in my memories from that time in life. Stylistically, they also represent the importance of innovation that endearing artists need to show lyrically and musically across a career; these 2 albums bridging early Beatles pop and their later psychedelic and technical explorations.

[Here's a cool video on the change in the bass line after the 1965 Beatles' tour of the US before Rubber Soul came out as part of the influence on their evolution.]

As I'm sure you already know, Revolver 2022 Remix was done by Giles Martin, son of the late Beatles producer George Martin. Does that matter? I don't think so... As humans, we do tend to be drawn to our "heroes and villains", attached by name or bloodlines. It's certainly possible and likely that the junior Martin has excellent insights into doing a good Beatles remix on account of his previous work experience and maybe relationships with dad and the artists helped, but let's make sure to not lean too much on the "Martin" name.

Talking about sound differences only, if you compare the latest remix/master with the original stereo mix, the differences are quite obvious. The 2022 remix has a cleaner background noise level (you'll notice the lack of the left channel hum in "Taxman" within seconds), there's more of a modern soundstage without the hard panning of R/L sounds (eg. bass and drums right from the start of "Taxman", solo vocal in "Elanor Rigby", very noticeable in "For No One"), bass frequencies seem to have been boosted here and there, clearer vocal separation (like "Here, There and Everywhere"), and guitars sound more prominent and at times clearer, maybe a little more "crunchy", again in line with a modern sound (eg. "She Said She Said").

Supposedly to achieve the feat of extracting instruments out of the combined tracks, special de-mix software developed by Peter Jackson's Wingnut Films was used and the result IMO is excellent.

We can do a visual comparison looking at the various remastering/remixing efforts - let's have a look at "Yellow Submarine" normalized to 100% peaks:

The 1987 CD and 2009 Remaster are the same mix. Notice that in 2009, they made things louder already. The 2022 Remix is clearly a visually (and audibly) different beast!

While I like the new 2022 mix for the definite improvements and probably will listen to this one more than the old mix going forward, the audiophile in me would have wished that Mr. Martin junior pulled back on the dynamic compression a little to allow the peaks to extend more (as we can see from the 1987/2009 versions).

I appreciate that pop/rock is not supposed to sound like a "natural" highly dynamic classical recording (where DR12+ is common), but as a rule of thumb, can we get masters that target maybe around DR10-11 average in pop/rock? Even +2dB on an average crest factor DR measurement has a significant effect on the emotional impact on the listener. Based on experience with albums over the years, DR10-11 seems to be a nice compromise between modern "loud enough" sound but at the same time allows for lower-level nuances to exist when played using good equipment in a quiet room. Doing so also sounds better across streaming services with volume normalization applied (loud recordings would just result in limp-sounding attenuation).

[For example, the recent House of the Dragon Season 1 soundtrack has an average DR10 and sounds good. "Aemond Rides Vhagar" is a really cool scene if you've seen the show. I also really like the majestic "The Crown of Jaeharys".]

My other issue as an audiophile about this remix: Where's the lossless multichannel DTS-HD Master Audio or TrueHD-Atmos mixes?! I love multichannel and it has been the availability of those mixes that most excited me about previous Beatles releases. I guess they've made a deal to only offer the lossy "Spatial Audio" version with streaming companies rather than proper lossless BluRay tracks. Most unfortunate, but I can see why they would do this from a financial perspective; monthly streaming subscriptions are where much of the music dollars are made these days. I hope at some point the exclusivity period runs out and maybe we can get a lossless multichannel release (and extract more $$$ again). Yes, to a certain extent, reissues are a cash grab but one can only do this for so long. [Here's a guy's take on "BluRay Gate".]

There's some good stuff in the Revolver 5-CD special edition for Beatles fans. For example, I really like the raw "Here, There and Everywhere (take 6)" on CD3 featuring the frail vocals of a 24-year old Paul McCartney without the studio double-tracking effect or backing vocals applied. As usual, unless you're a big fan, I would not consider the 5-CD version essential; sort of like the documentary Get Back isn't essential viewing unless you're a fan. For the more casual Beatles listener who just wants a little more, I think the 2-CD edition with a few of the highlights including "Here, There and Everywhere (take 6)" is enough.

Oh yeah, there's also the mono mix on CD4. It sounds clean, and I believe the mono aficionados are giving this a thumbs up. Not having been born yet when the album originally came out, I don't have any special connection to mono playback. Back in the day, the artists and George Martin would have focused much of their energies on the quality of the mono release, so there's at least something to be said about that historically.

--------------------


So audiophiles, is there such a thing as an "absolute sound" of Revolver? Of course not; that's a meaningless question. There was never a physical instantiation of the sound because the recording is a product of the studio, not some live performance. Save for maybe untouched live recordings (using stereo mic setups) where the audio engineer might want to lay claim to the sound as being a close facsimile of the acoustic performance, the sound of every other recording is an amalgam of the artistic vision and the technologies used to produce the final product.

The best our gear can do is reproduce the audio data as closely as possible to what was encoded in the CD or digital file, with analogue technology further behind fidelity-wise. That accuracy of reproduction - fidelity - to the audio data is the only verifiable "absolute" any of us can reasonably aim for from the components in the playback chain. As I mentioned earlier, what speakers were used in the studio, the layout, and room acoustics cannot be fully accounted for so there's no way to make claims that we're hearing the exact sound in the studio (never mind that there was never any "live" final performance most of the time).

Realize that achieving high fidelity playback will not ensure that one would like the sound. For that, feel free to reach for "euphonic" adjustments (eg. EQ) and sometimes lower fidelity gear (eg. products with higher distortions) can sound preferable. There is nothing wrong with having such preferences or choosing gear that achieves the sound we like.

Notice that in my Roon screen at the very top, we can see the cover for Thelma Houston & Pressure Cooker's I've Got The Music In Me (Sheffield Lab, DR13, 1975). This is an example of a "direct to disc" recording from back in the day. This audiophile album is said to have sold >250k copies and sounds fantastic today. Even with all the band members and vocalists in the studio, this was a live-mixed 32-channel recording with Thelma and singers in vocal booths, not all together in a room creating a definitive performance with an audience in front of them.

The sound reference is the album whether in physical grooves, electromagnetic tracks, or as data - each reproduction is a unique performance and need not be compared "absolutely" to any other performance. There is no reference "studio sound" blessed by the engineers or artists we need concern ourselves with in our homes or presented to our ears.

There are no absolutes - the recording stands for itself - make sure we monitor for and let go of any preoccupations or obsessions we still harbor beyond this.


One last thing... Among audiophiles, as we read forum posts and engage in discussions around the new Revolver Remix, don't forget that for the masses, it's Taylor Swift's Midnights (DR6, 2022) that's burning up the charts with record number of streams, and more than a million units sold already! It's actually quite good if you like modern pop and worth a listen to keep up to date with contemporary content. ("High Infidelity" might have something to do with the neglected wives/girlfriends of rich audiophiles. ;-)


While there's a tendency to focus on audio hardware for us "hardware audiophiles", make sure to balance this with the characteristics of the recordings you're listening to. I don't think we tend to give enough credit to the "software" side when thinking about all those audiophile terms like "soundstage", "timbre", etc. More often than not, it is the software/recording that's defining the quality of those characteristics, way more so than the hardware upgrades and tweaks we make. As usual, it's important to find balance psychologically.

Enjoy the music, dear audiophiles...


Addendum - November 10, 2022:
Hey everyone, I just watched this excellent YouTube video about the "best" sounding version of The Beatles' Abbey Road. Really good historical stuff there about the switch to a transistor mixing desk (EMI TG12345, with evolution over the years also used for Dark Side Of The Moon) for this album as opposed to their others using vacuum tubes. Also there's comparison with the old MFSL LP which added the "smiley curve" EQ.

No surprise, the 1983 Toshiba Black Triangle CD (don't forget to deal with pre-emphasis) with a flat master tape transfer ranked near the top.


I guess no "absolute sound" version of Abbey Road either. ;-)

15 comments:

  1. Ok Arch, you've opened the can o' worms, and here comes one now...:-)...

    PT 1:

    I agree with much of what you wrote. When it comes down the the question "What's the point of high end audio?" you have given voice to a very common response to the problem of The Absolute Sound - that such a goal is essentially hopeless (and you've also included Floyd Toole's "Circle Of Confusion"), so the only practical goal is an accurate reproduction of the musical signal.

    That is very sensible stance to take. At the very least, it offers the possibility of using objective tools and verification (e.g. measurements for how a signal may be diverging from the original or not), so it isn't left entirely mired in subjectivity.

    But, life being messy, it is still a sort of band-aid solution over some fundamental questions.

    No matter what goal you choose, we can still ask "what is the point?"

    So what is the point of striving for accuracy to the recorded signal? To answer that "it's at least a more practical goal" doesn't really tell you why it should, or would be anyone's goal in the first place. Why care about whether you've achieved accuracy? Are stereo systems simply science experiments? Used for to satisfy some abstract goal simply because it's tractable? Surely the underlying goal virtually all of us share is that our systems at least have the potential to produce "good sound" and that we enjoy music through the system. What is "good sound?" Well, if you define it in some purely technical terms, e.g. "perfect accuracy to the signal" then: 1. You are back to the arbitrariness problem. Why does anyone care about accuracy again? And: 2. We know that we do not in fact tend to estimate "good sound" in terms of pure accuracy to the recorded signal. If that were the case, we would never be able to subjectively evaluate sound at all. But "good sound" and "fidelity" are clearly separable - we would agree that if you play a "poor quality recording" on a system that reproduces that signal with perfect accuracy, what you should hear is a "poor quality recording - poor sound quality." If "accuracy" was not separable from "sound quality" this way, my job in sound post production wouldn't make sense. We are constantly evaluating dialogue and other tracks through accurate systems FOR their variation in "sound quality," distinguishing when we need to improve the sound quality.

    So at bottom, the underlying goal that makes sense is caring about "sound quality" per se. Accuracy can be a means to that end, but is not an end itself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Vaal,
      Thanks for the detailed "Part I" :-).

      I totally agree. The desire for "high fidelity", "objectively accurate" reproduction of the music signal on one's LP, tapes, CD, and files is an arbitrary one.

      It's a philosophical stance which is my argument for the question of "measuring emotional connections to music" presented by Rafe Arnott and Vinnie Rossi back in the dying days of InnerFidelity in 2018 after Tyll left:
      http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/07/musings-zen-and-art-of-high-fidelity.html

      My belief is that if I am to purchase good equipment designed through science and engineering, what is "good" can be defined by the technical ideals. As such, I see audiophilia as high fidelity as a CHOICE which we all can make. Whether I see myself as an "objective" audiophile who seeks "high fidelity", or decide to go the route of "euphonophilia" and seeks something that "sounds good" to me is an act of free will. ;-)

      I actually do not mind at all if audio friends prefer their vinyl gear, tube amps, tube DACs, etc... If it all sounds better to them. Heck, I acknowledge that I sometimes prefer non-flat EQ when listening as well.

      My main concern occurs when magazines and companies insist that their gear is somehow technically better, insinuating "high fidelity" goals when much of these are clearly not. Or worse, "snake oil" type stuff that makes no difference (or even deteriorates performance), but again, a company or representative insists that it's better.

      [MQA is a great example of the latter, co-opting clearly established technical terms like "lossless", or claiming to represent some kind of exact "studio sound" with their blue LED when it obviously cannot.]

      Delete
    2. You wrote:
      "...we would agree that if you play a "poor quality recording" on a system that reproduces that signal with perfect accuracy, what you should hear is a "poor quality recording - poor sound quality."

      This is exactly what happens on a great stereo system. Badly recorded/mixed/engineered recordings do sound bad, but great recordings on the other hand, can sound very very good. And I'd like to add, even LP's or 16/44 CD's can sound totally perfect. One of my best recordings out of some 3000 albums, is a 1977 LP from Gregg Allman Band. Its sounds better and more natural than my DVD's, BluRay's, CD's and flac files.

      Delete
  2. PT 2:

    The thing is, if our ultimate goal is to enjoy music through our system , we have to acknowledge that most people over the history of recorded music have connected deeply to music played on all manner of "poorer quality" playback systems. Everything from that teenage girl's crappy record player, to the transistor radio on the beach in the 60's, etc. Most of us can connect deeply to music on less-than-audiophiles systems. I can find myself swooning to harmonies on some of my favorite music, just through my iphone's speakers!

    Which invites the question: If I don't need a "high end " or "accurate" system in order to enjoy music, what is it I'm getting out of my high end system? What then is the goal?

    For me it's a recognition that beyond the musical information itself, the sheer sensuousness of sound itself is an attraction. The clarity, richness of timbre, spaciousness, dynamics etc produced by my high end system just isn't found in our kitchen smart speaker or laptop or whatever. So my high end system isn't necessary for musical enjoyment, but it is like a "music +" experience - it adds the sensuousness of "good sound" to the listening experience, which sometimes melds with the musical experience, sometimes is enjoyed in of itself.

    I care about things like accuracy and low distortion to the extend it has the potential for "better sound" as I perceive it. Which is why my system is generally more accurate than what most people use to listen to music. However, since "accuracy is a means to that end, not the end itself" if I find a bit of coloration "sounds better" and "makes me enjoy listening to music on my system that much more" then I'm happy to add it. Per the circle of confusion, I'll never be able to recreate the sound exactly as all the recording artists heard it. What they, and I likely care about most, is that I enjoy the experience of listening to that music - that I've given myself the best chance to enjoy the music. (Just as one modulates the sound by whether one prefers closer seats at the symphony where instrumental timbre is more vivid, or seats further back to enjoy a more mixed-with-the-hall presentation).

    Does this mean The Absolute Sound plays no role at all for me? Actually, it does play a role. I like when a system can sound more like the real thing. Because I find myself engrossed in the sensuousness of the sound of real voices and instruments, and insofar as a system can come even closer to reproducing, or even "faking" those qualities, I find I enjoy the sound that much more. So to some degree real sounds are a North Star - a goal one never reaches, but which nevertheless can be a guide of a sort. I also find that some of the very qualities I seek when comparing live vs reproduced sound - for instance I like when a system reproduces more of the density of real sounds, like the acoustic force and presence of a snare drum, or the timbral nuances of a clarinet - those qualities carry over to my enjoyment of purely artificial recordings too. I'm a huge fan of electronica, and if a natural recording of a jazz snare drum has a convincing sense of density, so too will a drum machine, or that synth pad or syncopated sequencer rhythm will have a more satisfying "happening right there in fronts of me" sensation, which makes that type of music more enjoyable too.

    Just some musings...:-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for "Part II", Vaal!

      Again, I can't disagree with your logic although let me add some variation to the ideas. I like how you use the term "sheer sensuousness" of sound as something we can certainly strive for beyond mere "accuracy" or "fidelity". It is a choice one can make.

      As for "The Absolute Sound", as a concept that only applies to oneself, I think this is fine although I'm not sure why we should use the word "absolute" at all!

      The "The Best Personal Sound" for me, given my life experiences and hearing ability, likely will be somewhat if even just subtly different from you, or the artist recording in the studio, or the guy mixing, or the guy creating the master/remaster if we were to all go into a mixing booth and tweak the same piece of music to our tastes for what reality or sensuousness sounds to us. Needless to say, a sensuous sound need not be reality, just as we can imagine perhaps wanting to add salt/sugar/spices to food for accentuated taste.

      As a result, I fully accept that an "accurate" reproduction can certainly be far from the most pleasing effect we might be able to achieve! But because of subjective preferences, accuracy is the only "North Star" we can all see (ie. objective, and doesn't just apply to any one person). As such, if music lovers can agree on achieving accurate playback, and studios likewise use the same North Star, then I would hope artists and production folks would then aim for the most "sensuous", or "real" sound they want to achieve.

      Since the quality of audio productions are not all uniformly excellent, I think we must accept that an accurate reproduction system will show off the deficits of certain recordings; warts and all, which a system always leaning towards sensuousness might hide, like mascara over blemishes.

      As for the idea of "happening right in front of me", well, this is why I like multichannel and feel it's a shame Revolver didn't follow that BluRay route of the other Beatles remixes. :-(

      Even back in the early 2000's, when I first heard The Eagles' Hell Freezes Over as a DTS 5.1 on a good surround system, that was the most natural, "real" sounding version I had heard compared to any 2-channel mastering then and since. This is why I have always maintained a multichannel set-up here at home. Regardless of the claims of the 2-channel audiophile purists, if I want a "more real" sounding experience, especially of acoustic live recordings, I check if the multichannel version was done well.

      Obviously, even with this last point about multichannel, not all audiophiles will agree. And that's alright... We all hear what we hear. But science does tell us a thing or two about what's accurate beyond personal preferences, and when in doubt, I think deciding to go with the North Star we can all see is probably wiser than most other options we can dream of. ;-)

      Delete
    2. Thanks Arch.

      You've added many of the caveats that were running through my mind as I was typing my post, but if I'd added them it would have been even more obnoxiously long! So thanks.

      So one caveat that you sort of touched on is that, yes we care about sound quality in a basic sense, but that doesn't mean demanding everything sound the same or "of the same quality" to enjoy it. My music collection comprises a truly wacky variety of recording/production (I have a big collection of old Library/Production music for instance) and part of the pleasure is the variation in the recordings themselves! One may have the drums sounding huge, rich, punchy, front and center, "realistic," the next track may have the sound of the drums thinned out and shoved way in the back corner, in a zany closet of heavy reverb, and a generally thinner brighter presentation to the sparse instruments in the track.

      A track like that isn't the one I'd choose to demo what my system can do, but I can enjoy it much like I do the other tracks.

      So to argue that the pursuit of "good sound" as one sees it is the underlying motivation for audiophiles and audiophile gear doesn't entail that any audiophile can only enjoy "The Best Possible Sound Quality." And that we can't enjoy lower sound quality recordings. It's a lot more complex.

      However, if ALL I listened to was very undemanding, very low quality tracks (e.g. thin, muffled etc) then the money I've spent on my system, which can accommodate a range of quality, would make less sense. I can enjoy poorer recordings, but I still want that capability to be wowed and luxuriate in great sound quality as well.

      Good point about the North Star we can all see! That's a good metaphor for objective methods of evaluation.

      Delete
  3. A very interesting exchange of views, thank you both

    I have often asked myself why I don't particularly like DACs that are 'objectively correct', when they are obviously the gold standard that cannot be bettered. You cannot be more correct that correct.

    Archimago points out what is probably the answer. Studios operate within a number of constraints when they produce. Their monitoring equipment may not be 'objectively correct', they have to produce the recording, so it sounds good on lesser equipment, and finally there are personal tastes of the producer. This asymmetry of the production and the reproduction side leads to the situation where albums often do not sound pleasing on 'objectively correct' reproduction chains.

    What to do about this? Some people use 'non objectively correct' gear for its more pleasing sound signature. R2R or BB chipset based DACS or tube amplifiers come to mind.

    As an engineer I think this is a possible solution to the asymmetry mentioned above, but it is certainly not optimal. It would be interesting to identify the reproduction parameters that make reproduction pleasing, although not necessarily accurate. Using an accurate DAC for solid reference, these parameters could be integrated as switchable DSP modules in the reproduction chain. ESS and AKM based DACs usually provide the stock filters of the chipsets, but they are nowhere near what would be needed here.

    There is good research on what makes a tube amp different re. harmonics and which of these are pleasing. I guess research would be needed to identify the corresponding parameters of NOS and BB DACs. Unfortunately, I have seen little unemotional discussion on this in forums. Try to raise the subject on AudioScienceReview and you are in for a rough ride. It seems a pity to me that the laudable quest for accurate reproduction is often viewed with almost religious fervor, when it is clear that tastes differ. I would welcome some unemotional discussion about what reproduction parameters are pleasing to the ear (much like the rigorous research Sean Olive done has for headphones and speakers). While I applaud Amir's quest for accurate reproduction, which has led to a generation of DACs with never seen accuracy at affordable prices, this should not be taken that everyone prefers the accurate reproduction of music, given it was not produced to sound its best via accurate reproduction equipment.

    Why should I eat yoghurt without sugar, if I like my yoghurt with a sweet touch? Just because it is more accurate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi jacobacci,
      Well said and I think very true about the fact that studios, especially when we're talking about popular music productions likely use suboptimal gear for monitoring. Sort of like back in the day, the "classic" studio monitor was the old Yamaha NS-10:
      https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/yamaha-ns10-story

      Despite recognition that this is not a particularly good sounding device, it still played a role in studio productions perhaps because it was also good at revealing deficiencies, so achieving a "good enough" sound on could be all that was needed.

      Perhaps these days the "target" might be that the music sounds good on a pair of Apple AirPods. Often when I see discussions with pro audio people, we see nearfield speakers from the likes of Mackie, ADAM, KRK, Presonus which in the audiophile world are relatively unknown. That's not to say they're bad, but I think a $500 pair of KRK studio bookshelves might have a different kind of tonality and distortion profile compared to what audiophiles prefer at home.

      As for the artists, you wonder what speakers or headphones Taylor Swift used to listen to Midnights in the production process...

      I agree. There is no need to treat the quest for "accuracy" / "high fidelity" with religious fervor. I can get "emotional" about the craziness of snake oil in the audiophile hobby but when it comes to the rights of each of us to use whatever, I don't think it matters. I'm happy enough to test for myself what I have/use and share it with all of you, correlating where I can with the sound I hear. To me, it has come to the point where accurate DACs are already more than good enough and basically indistinguishable between high quality devices.

      A few months ago for example, I tested the Cayin RU6 DAC:
      http://archimago.blogspot.com/2022/01/review-measurements-cayin-ru6-r-2r-usb.html

      Clearly this is not an accurate DAC that is capable of high resolution. But I can admit that with some music, it does "bloom" and that's enjoyable. It's certainly not a "sterile" DAC ;-). If you read user reviews around the net, clearly many people enjoy it. And that's fine as well!

      Just like the semi-religious snake oil believer who thinks Synergistic "quantum" cables/tweaks can impart amazing magical sound, we must find the middle ground with what's good enough on the objective end. Otherwise, we'll become stuck in another form of unhealthy caricature of what it means to be an audiophile - the legalistic zealot who measures gear rather than enjoy the music.

      This is why all these years, I've called myself a "more objective" audiophile. IMO, as humans we cannot become "all objective" because doing so I think will unnecessarily extract some of the joys in being free to seek pleasure which is not a scientific pursuit. So long as we're still tethered to reality testing, it's all good. ;-)

      As for already-perfect DACs, yeah, I think companies like Topping are coming around to the idea of "intentional imperfections" such as the availability of the "sound simulation" modes in the new firmwares for the Topping D90SE/LE models with intentional low-order harmonic distortions added for those who want the "tube sound" for example.

      Indeed, straight unflavored yoghurt would not be my preference either. ;-)

      Delete
  4. Hi Arch. Congrats for your 500+ articles by the way!

    I can say that Revolver sounds very good streamed in Atmos on Amazon Music Unlimited. Giles Martin had a lot of fun moving around those "steampunk" sounds on Yellow Submarine. Looking forward to Rubber Soul that is a favorite of mine.

    If you like electronic music, I can recommend the recent Atmos version of Oxymore by Jean-Michel Jarre. It gives quite a workout to all your speakers, and makes very nice use of vertical space I find. Just got a new Sonos Sub Mini and it was really worth it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Gilles!
      Appreciate the music recommendations and I'll have a listen to Revolver and check out J-M Jarre!

      I'm also keeping my fingers crossed that a good remix of Rubber Soul can be done... Hopefully with lossless multichannel + Atmos BluRay as well with any luck. ;-)

      Delete
  5. "I fully accept that an "accurate" reproduction can certainly be far from the most pleasing effect we might be able to achieve! But because of subjective preferences, accuracy is the only "North Star" we can all see (ie. objective, and doesn't just apply to any one person). As such, if music lovers can agree on achieving accurate playback, and studios likewise use the same North Star, then I would hope artists and production folks would then aim for the most "sensuous", or "real" sound they want to achieve." This matches my viewpoint too. I can't listen through the artist / mastering engineer's ears or signal path but I can, and desire, to choose gear that will not add additional variables. If I want to deviate then there are plenty of DSP tools that can get me there. Trying exhaustively search for just the right flavor of distortion seems like a path to madness to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Trying exhaustively search for just the right flavor of distortion seems like a path to madness to me."

      Not necessarily. I found the (slight) coloration I liked a long time ago when I put CJ tube amps in to my system in the late 90's. They've stayed as my amplification ever since. I ain't mad; I'm very happy :-)

      Delete
    2. Ahhh Vaal,
      I think the reason why you were able to find the coloration you liked and stuck with it is because you're a reasonable guy who is willing to understand the effect of the gear and commit!

      A number of the audiophiles I've come across are not cut from that cloth, man... So many seem to be unclear about their "North Star", easily swayed by what this guy or that salesman claims. Enthusiastically nod their heads to claimed sound quality in audio show demos when the salesman claims: "Now I'll put in our $10,000 speaker cables - in a moment you'll hear how luscious Diana Krall's vocals have become!!!"

      Those alas, are the "neurotics". They appear to be anxious people, willing to chase the FOMO, trying desperately to control the uncertainty with obsessive and compulsive traits resulting in trying every cable brand under the sun (regardless of how insane the MSRP) or switching out speakers and amps every 3 months, apparently never satisfied. I suspect these are the people Doug is referring to.

      I bet "high end" audio dealers love this cohort. In comparison they made no money from you after that CJ sale over the decades since the '90s!

      Delete
  6. Having worn four different hats relating to this discussion: performer, audio engineer, snobby audiophile, and listener in the audience, I've come to a conclusion not dissimilar from yours. My goal for my sound system at home is to reproduce, as precisely as possible, what was intended by the recording engineer when mixdown was done. This is sometimes a much bigger challenge than others.

    Played-back recordings of live material can be compared to the experience of being there in the audience, but even then you have to ask the question: how relevant is the live audience experience to the people days/weeks/years/decades later listening to a recording?

    I certainly have preferences in pop music mixes, and, like you, am not fond of the ever-greater flattening of dynamic range to make it all louder. Dynamics is part of music too, and taking that away from a recording where it was initially expected doesn't usually make it better.

    As an artist, I can safely report that I can listen to a recording of a performance I did of music I know well and hear things I didn't expect to be there along with things I did expect. And, after remixing, I'll hear different things I also didn't expect to be there. Music is an art form. Every performance (studio or live) is unique. Mixing and EQ is part of the performance too, unless it's unamplified live music, and even then there are acoustic things you can do to accentuate this or de-emphasize that.

    My artist's questions are usually, 'did the audience get out of it what I was hoping they would?,' and also 'what else did they get out of it that I didn't know was there or wasn't there for me?' My engineer's questions are 'did I do this performance justice and present/highlight the best of what was there?' All of this is entirely subjective. Chacun a son gout. The playback machinery can only hope to reduce a layer of difference from these goals at best.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very nice Seinen - not too happy about the "Senile" part ;-).

      I appreciate the comment from someone who has collected many hats along the way!

      Great that you're highlighting the different questions and desires that the artist asks compared to that of the engineer. I would not have imagined it any other way given that even though the end result is music, the needs of the live audience going to see you in person along with the social milieu of the friends and others at the venue is a powerful experience clearly different from the intent of the recorded album. Even if it's the same piece of music, each is a different art form and requires a different set of discipline applied...

      Hope you apply some pressure on the audio engineers you know to help re-expand that dynamic range again! I grieve over how many otherwise excellent recordings have become far short of great-sounding on account of the years (decades) of such unfortunate production decisions. :-(

      Delete