Disparity In Audio/Sonic Opinions. How can we calibrate?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Khorn, Apr 6, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    Steve, this is precisely what I hear! Oh yeah!:thumbsup: The drums sound three dimensional in the back! Perhaps this means what i've always suspected all along, that the collective components in my CD playback stand up to more expensive rigs!
     
  2. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    I think more of us are in "Sonic Sync" than we realize with our varying systems.

    Remember, the heart and soul of the music is in the midrange. Everything else is just window dressing!
     
  3. dwmann

    dwmann Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Houston TX
    I think this is a great idea, and you can count me in. I also think that while we are doing this, everyone should comment on the way they listened to music as they were growing up. I think that one of the main reasons that there is a disparity of ideas here is the fact that some of us grew up listening to mono tube systems, some of us grew up on stereo LPs, and some of us grew up listening to digital. Also, some probably grew up listening to components, while others may have had radios or boomboxes, and some grew up with speakers while others mainly listened to headphones. The result: Everyone listens for different things in eack recording. Even if all our systems were exactly alike, and we listened to the same discs, I think there would still be differences of opinion due to differences in expectations.

    To me, a great system should come as close as possible to duplicating the best qualities of what a great LP sounded like through a mono tube setup in 1962, and a great disc should come as close as possible to duplicating the best qualities of a great LP. This is because I grew up listening to a Hoffmann mono tube hi-fi that belonged to my mother, and got used to a high-quality (for the time) liquid kind of sound. I like McIntosh amps because of the tube-like quality of the sound, but someone else may prefer another brand because of greater (solid-state sounding) resolution. I prefer the sound of LPs (usually) although I seldom listen to them, because I grew up with analog.

    When I listen to music CRITICALLY today, my judgements are colored by what I thought of as good sound when I was young. I can tolerate surface noise and tape hiss, but I can't tolerate ear-bleed treble boosts, because it sounds unnatural to me. There was no such thing as ear bleed treble on a Hoffmann mono tube hi-fi. So to me, this kind of sound seems very unnatural. To someone who grew up with digital, unless you're listening on multi- megabucks worth of equipment, LPs probably sound blah and colored.

    I don't think it is JUST a matter of taste, or JUST a matter of equipment, or JUST a matter of knowing what to listen for. Part of what we bring to any critical review of a disc are the preferences we developed when we were young. For example, I prefer the MFSL Dark Side to the 2 channel SACD version. Why? Is the MFSL BETTER? No. It isn't nearly as clean and there is not nearly as much detail. So perhaps I should prefer the SACD? No. It sounds dry and clinical, although it probably sounds closer to the sound of the original masters played through the solid state equipment of the 70s.

    I prefer the MFSL Dark Side to the 2 channel SACD version because it sounds more like the LP probably would have sounded through a Hoffmann mono tube hi-fi, not because it's better or worse than the SACD.

    The point is, since there is no such thing as perfect (or even identical) sound, each of us forms our own idea of a platonic ideal of what perfect sound WOULD be if it existed, and we do this based on what we hear when we first start REALLY LISTENING to music. So I think if we start cross-referencing the responses here to what people grew up listening to, we might get an idea of what the ideal is that people are listening FOR, and perhaps some of the differences of opinion will be clearer.
     
  4. MMM

    MMM Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    Lodi, New Jersey
    So what's it going to be? Revolver? Abbey Road?

    I like this idea.
     
  5. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    Excellent!

    For me:

    1962 (birth)-1972:
    listened to soul, jazz, and classical mono 45s, mono/stereo LPs on Sony componant system, speakers and amp unknown, Motgomery Wards stereo console w/AM-FM radio using vaccum tubes; 7" reel-to-reel on Sony deck, mono Philco transistor phono w/AM radio; pop music on Chevorlet Impala AM radio

    1972-1976:
    funky little transistor BSR mono phono;. various portable cassette players

    1976-1981:
    various portable cassette and 8-track players, Sears (BSR) stereo w/AM-FM and 8-track I had my second taste of higher-end Sansui/Technics componants via sister's boyfriends

    1981-1992:
    various Japanese-made transistor analog and digital stereo componants using audiophille interconnects and speaker cable Radio Shack Optimus tower speakers with bass reflectors During this time I took the equallizer out of my system!

    1992-:
    upgraded from my Nikko 40W recciever

    2001-present:
    Polk audio RT-55 bookshelf speakers
     
  6. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    I vote for the Capitol Abbey Road or the Steely Dan Decade gold (last reissue on MCA IS the gold version, if it is done by Glenn Meadows).
     
  7. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    I think back to when I read on ICE, when a member said that the new Chicago remasters sound closer to the stock vinyl. I intend to get a couple of Chicago LPs to compare. IF this hold true for me, I can't fault someone for preferring the remastered CDs, for they bring a person closer to their initial experience. I do think the Gastwirt CDs sound very clean and analytical, but I have no LPs to compare to, just a couple of 45s left in my collection.
     
  8. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host


    A compilation CD, different engineers for each song, different years, studios, etc. You get the idea.

    Song one sounds---this way
    Song two sounds----that way


    You get the idea.
     
  9. Dave

    Dave Esoteric Audio Research Specialist™

    Location:
    B.C.
    I can honestly say I'm hearing these exact details Steve. The echo almost sounds like a splash rolling off of the snare hits in Fortunate Son.

    Does the single note that sustains get harsh near the end of its ring before the bass notes come in (bass melody) I feel Fine on your system as well Steve? I do hear the edge on Johns voice.
     
  10. ybe

    ybe The Lawnmower Man

    My headphones are surprisingly close, but I do get some low bass too. But my speakers are a mess... Thanks, Steve (I guess).;)
     
  11. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    bump
     
  12. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    That's correct. You are hearing what I am hearing.
     
  13. Kyhl

    Kyhl On break

    Location:
    Savage
    I want to try this tonight but I don't have the DCC Willy:cry: .
    Would it be safe to assume it sounds the same on the recent SACD and LP versions?

    Thanks for the insights from all of you. I'm already learning a lot and it hasn't even started yet.
    This should be fun.
     
  14. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host



    Of course, use the Analogue Productions LP or SACD for "Fortunate Son". It will work wonderfully well.
     
  15. Ken_McAlinden

    Ken_McAlinden MichiGort Staff

    Location:
    Livonia, MI
    I also believe that one way to approach the "ear-calibration" issue is to solve the "semantic calibration" issue first. I can't think of an example from the forum off of the top of my head, but I was just reading a review of a DVD release with a mono soundtrack at another website, and they referred to a "generally warm dynamic range". I have no idea what they are talking about.

    I like Steve's attempt at providing examples of "smoothness" and "midrange correctness". It seems a lot more practical than soliciting a bunch of simultaneous reviews of the same item. Others picking titles that are likely well known to forum members and looking for "perfect examples of...{NR artifacts, digital limiting/compression/"hotness", analog compression, "air", ...etc.} and allowing for some give and take would help greatly. Actually, a glossary with descriptions of some of these terms and lists of generally consensed examples of them would be a pretty cool addition to the FAQ. The potential downside would be that offering up specific examples of negative characteristics (such as NR artifacts) could come off as a bit ungracious in a forum FAQ unless worded diplomatically.

    Regards,
     
  16. Gardo

    Gardo Audio Epistemologist

    Location:
    Virginia
    This is great.:thumbsup::thumbsup:

    I hear what you hear on "I Feel Fine," Steve. I also hear a subtle "boxed in" or slightly "constricted" quality that I associate with close-miked instruments. I'd say there's not much top-octave action (what many people call "air") either, though I do hear a very smooth, slightly recessed midrange (mostly in the upper mids on my system). The bass sounds exactly as you describe, as does John's vocal. When the harmony vocals come in on the "I'm so glad" part, I hear still more grit on the top end.

    Are we still in sync?

    I'll try the CCR test next. Keep 'em coming!
     
  17. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    Totally in sync.
     
  18. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    And of course, the age old mastering problem with a song like the stereo mix of "I Feel Fine". The music is too dull and the vocals could get too peaky and shrill if the music was "remastered" to sound correct. What's an engineer to do?

    LEAVE IT!
     
  19. Gardo

    Gardo Audio Epistemologist

    Location:
    Virginia
    Amen.

    The song as it's mastered on "Past Masters" sounds like a perfectly judged set of tradeoffs given the quality of the original recording. (I understand it's a flat transfer in this case.) Any "improvement" would not be worth the cost, especially since in this case it's John and company's voices I *most* want to hear.
     
  20. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    If I was mastering that song (which of course, I'm not), I would first of all play it back on a tube machine, to capture some of the midrange that seems to be sucked out on the dry solid state playback deck.

    Then, I would fix the bass a bit, probably reducing the energy around 150 cycles by about 1 db only, and adding some reinforcement around 40 cycles. That would do it!
     
  21. Monsieur Gadbois

    Monsieur Gadbois Senior Member

    Location:
    Hotel California
    Let me know when you guys are ready for vinyl pressing test.
     
  22. ybe

    ybe The Lawnmower Man

    For you tweakers out there;

    Warning: Listening to "I Feel Fine" 100 times in a row can make you go nuts! Same goes for "Fortunate Son"!
     
  23. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    Welcome to my world.
     
  24. ybe

    ybe The Lawnmower Man

    Hmm...If 100 "I Feel Fine"s feels like this, I wonder what 100 times of "Damage, Inc" did to ya.

    Maybe some Metallica for the vinyl pressing test? ;)
     
  25. Gardo

    Gardo Audio Epistemologist

    Location:
    Virginia
    Would you do anything to 10Khz and above? Or would that be better left alone?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine