proftournesol Posted August 29, 2014 Author Share Posted August 29, 2014 A photographer uses a calibrated monitor and printer so that the saturation, luminance, dynamic range etc are all reproduced consistently. Rather than changing printers till they find a result they like the photographer (the artist) adjusts the image till they have a result they're satisfied with. They absolutely do care if someone judges their art on something other than a calibrated reproduction of their image. I agree, but what a photographer isn't fixated on is the Platonic ideal of reproducing an image exactly as the human eye sees it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest myrantz Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Continuing with that analogy (and I'm very much of the audio system as a calibrated printer brigade), you might train that photographer to mimic the shots taken by another, but he is unable to adapt to the styles of other photographers, so all his pictures end up looking stylistically similar. The calibrated printer will reproduce all photographers art as they intended. Colours will be faithfully rendered, sharp images will appear sharp, bokeh will look like bokeh etc. I was once in that "printer brigade" too.. That sounds really good in theory, but don't you think it's more idealist than practical? How do you faithfully render something when you have no real references as to what that "faithfully" really means? How do you faithfully reproduce that Girl From Ipanena atmosphere when nobody remember what it was? Are you imagining the second artist as being a photographer going back to the location later or leaning over the shoulder of the first guy?It depends.. With photography, it may be to relive the journey on location, or it can be something else entirely (re-enactment). What's the purpose of the first photographer? How does the second photographer know what happened in the production room/computer after the event?If you think that's difficult, why would you find recreating a recording so easy? What's in music that's so easy to do, but so difficult with pictures? The art is done when the first photographer says that's what I want to show the world and presents the print/tape/file of their work. Why would you then take a photo of that and enjoy that in its place? The concept of a second photographer is scarily akin to standing at a concert taking photos/video with a camera phone rather than enjoying the musician's work!Why, because it's easier. We all know some iconic photographs - guy against an army of tank, monroe with her skirt. etc. You can print the original photograph, or you can use the ideas and recreate the image (either a mirror, or a different interpretation in your own way).... Is that so bad? Consider this, netural vs coloured, you can't tell me in exact terms where things are on a scale.. Take my earlier question, if you played a recording of marshal amps on a neutral system. Is it overall a neutral system, or a coloured system? And if as Paul said coloured gets into the way of emotionally feeling the music, why would people make marshalls in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcusHix Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Neutrality...what's right with it? I don't mind a bit of colour in my system! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest myrantz Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 (edited) You guys mustn't be that busy at work today ?I'm on holidays . And not enough sleep and a lot of food = my thoughts can't be put exactly into good words... Apologies if I couldn't get the idea across I agree, but what a photographer isn't fixated on is the Platonic ideal of reproducing an image exactly as the human eye sees it.But prof got it. Think of a audio system as a photographer (rather than a printer), and coloured vs neutral (and others) have less meaning. At the end of the day, is that so bad? So what if a marshal amp recording sound less like a marshal on a coloured system. Is there nothing else good about the system? Instead on focusing on the negatives, why not focus on the good points instead? As a photographer you'd be aligned to do that anyway? Not just capture an accurate picture, more to capture points of interest. Edited August 29, 2014 by myrantz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hochopeper Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 I agree, but what a photographer isn't fixated on is the Platonic ideal of reproducing an image exactly as the human eye sees it. The art galleries and photography exhibits displaying photos / art should each get different colour light bulbs to reinterpret the prints they are displaying? The cinema should adjust their contrast/saturation to their own taste rather than to calibrated standards? Then they should say it isn't a bug but now its a feature and it helps you enjoy the image/film more? A photographer submits an image to a magazine and they have a print and digital version ... The printer disregards the calibration and adjusts it dramatically, people are going to be scratching their head why it looks different in print to their digital copy. The publisher and the photographer would both be fuming and potentially start looking for a new print company. A musician approves final studio master but the CD printing company EQs half of the CDs without telling anyone to remove high freq, you'd return the faulty CD. When the EQ is a quirk in your DAC that rolls off the high freq in the same manner however, then its okay? Let's be clear though - You can enjoy music in a system that is coloured. It might not be exactly as recorded but that doesn't stop you having fun! The emotional connection to a specific passage of music can mean that you enjoy it still. That is psychological and part of the reason we don't all like the same music - we have no connection to it. If the music is less enjoyable on one system the difference shouldn't be attributed solely to the system without more thought. In some systems the room / environment can lead you to listen to the system and not the music which is biased to the enjoyment/connection with certain types of music. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proftournesol Posted August 29, 2014 Author Share Posted August 29, 2014 hocho, doesn't your analogy exactly describe the situation that we do have in audio reproduction today? Hands up who has heard a totally uncoloured accurate reproduction system? Despite that we all enjoy listening to music as you say. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hochopeper Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 hocho, doesn't your analogy exactly describe the situation that we do have in audio reproduction today? Hands up who has heard a totally uncoloured accurate reproduction system? Despite that we all enjoy listening to music as you say. Yes. Absolutely no one has perfection in an audio system. Every study I've read and the quiet majority has found that the preference when using an audio stimulus only the less coloured system is the one that is preferred. So I continue on the wheel of minimising colourations and getting closer to what is given on the recording. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freedom Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 How do you know if your system is adding colouration ? After all you weren't in the studio when the track was recorded or mastered. That is exactly the point here! It's ALL perception! Period! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest myrantz Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 (edited) Can you describe your process of identifying colourisation, and how you minimize it away? Maybe that is possible. If I understand your process maybe I'd understand what closer to the original music is. That idea is very abstract to me, and I wonder if my idea of closer to the music will be abstract to them? edit: Do you analyse square waves or something else entirely? Edited August 29, 2014 by myrantz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davewantsmoore Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 I agree, but what a photographer isn't fixated on is the Platonic ideal of reproducing an image exactly as the human eye sees it. Indeed... but the printer is focussed on getting on the paper, exactly what the photographer created. Photographer is an artists. Printer is a reproducer. Recording artists make the music .... playback systems reproduce it. Again... there seems to be some wide spread notion that we don't want to "accurately" reproduce what is on the record..... because it won't sound very good. That isn't an experience I can relate to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proftournesol Posted August 29, 2014 Author Share Posted August 29, 2014 I think that my system is relatively neutral now and it has good resolution. There are plenty of instances where I can accurately reproduce what is on the record and it doesn't sound good! Surely though a recording has been mastered to a particular sound in a particular audio on particular equipment including particular speakers. Who knows how accurate and free from coloration this is? Reproducing to on my own equipment os only going to be an approximation, a good one most of the time, but will always be different. It is amazing how good The Beatles sounded when I heard copies of original master tapes played through a reassembled original studio sound system in the actual studio! It doesn't mean that I don't enjoy my coloured approximation at home though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davewantsmoore Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Hands up who has heard a totally uncoloured accurate reproduction system? Ah, this is the crux. Defining this is not very easy. When using the common definitions of what constitutes high performance playback .... I have found universally that "increasing accuracy" increases enjoyment. Can you describe your process of identifying colourisation Take measurements of the device to quantify how much it distorts the signal. Optimize the various types of distortion in the system so they all fall below acceptable levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proftournesol Posted August 29, 2014 Author Share Posted August 29, 2014 I agree that increasing accuracy increases enjoyment, but I still enjoyed my original system of a Pioneer PL-15, a Sony 14W/Ch amp and Warfedale speakers, far more coloured than what I have now. Actually I think that its specifically increasing resolution that increases enjoyment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LHC Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Yes.... because reduced distortion = more enjoyment .... it's often quite dramatic. While this statement sounds very intuitive and plausible, has it been proven through controlled testing? Simple logic tells you that low distortion reproduction of terrible music is still terrible music. But some distortion added to terrible music may make it tolerable in some circumstances for some people (therefore arguably more enjoyment). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davewantsmoore Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Surely though a recording has been mastered to a particular sound in a particular audio on particular equipment including particular speakers. Unless it is a recording which is not 'mastered', or at least not heavily altered based on what was heard through a set of speakers..... then yes, and it can be quite a problem... but is a problem dealt with all the time. I think it's fair to say that a lot of modern recording have over played the post production / mastering hand too far, and fallen into this trap, where they attempt to pull things out of the recording in post production .... which then on more capable speaker, sound overdone. "Colouration" (distortion) is fine .... but I have found that attempting to minimise it increases enjoyment. People at large have been mislead by "distortion", and that is understandable because quantifying the performance of a playback system is quite complex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davewantsmoore Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 I agree that increasing accuracy increases enjoyment, but I still enjoyed my original system I enjoy my clock radio. Music is awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davewantsmoore Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 While this statement sounds very intuitive and plausible, has it been proven through controlled testing? Absolutely. It has been well demonstrated that audible distortion is bad, and non-audible distortion is not audible. The whole concept "pleasant distortion" is a complete myth. Harmonic distortion, for example.... is at best inaudible for regular (reasonably complex) music signals. Where people get the wrong idea is that harmonic distortion added to single tones, can be pleasant as it can give "body" or character (pure tones are quite affronting on their own) ..... however when talking about music signals, the extra harmonic tones added give rise to infinite amounts of sum and difference tones, which are not harmonically related. This manifests like an increased noise floor making the music sound flat and congested. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fez Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 This is where I would love to have the skill, knowledge and experience to be a DIYer. I could then design, and build my own system exactly how I like, be that more or less distortion (colour). Generally keeping to simple designs, and circuits. You could use different designs and parts that result in different "flavours" to accomodate all sorts of music genres. ---- Happy days! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davewantsmoore Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 But some distortion added to terrible music may make it tolerable in some circumstances for some people (therefore arguably more enjoyment). The only time when this does work is where you purposefully and specifically distort the playback to improve a very bad recording. You have now become the artist.... you are remastering the recording because you know better. We can all think of an example of this, and there's nothing wrong with it. Minimising colouration is only good if you want to hear what is on the recording. I've made recordings and I've made speakers, and like I said (probably a few times) already .... I think that the whole "added colourations to make my system play better or how I want things to sound" .... is an unfortunate furfie. We need to keep an eye on reality and realise the most speakers are HORRIBLY distorted. Measure you're playback. Do you get plus or minus 1.5dB (most don't go close). 3dB is double. You have double the energy coming out at some frequencies than others (when they all should be the same). Not real good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proftournesol Posted August 29, 2014 Author Share Posted August 29, 2014 Listen to this temporal distortion of Jolene and try to tell me that it isn't an amazing improvement! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LHC Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Absolutely. It has been well demonstrated that audible distortion is bad, and non-audible distortion is not audible. The whole concept "pleasant distortion" is a complete myth. Harmonic distortion, for example.... is at best inaudible for regular (reasonably complex) music signals. Where people get the wrong idea is that harmonic distortion added to single tones, can be pleasant as it can give "body" or character (pure tones are quite affronting on their own) ..... however when talking about music signals, the extra harmonic tones added give rise to infinite amounts of sum and difference tones, which are not harmonically related. This manifests like an increased noise floor making the music sound flat and congested. Hang on, but isn't this what a sound engineer does in a live concert through their mixing console to get the best sound for an event? He is mixing and adding distortion in real time for the audience's enjoyment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMM Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 (edited) Having a permanently 'coloured' system is like having sunglasses permanently attached to your head when visiting an art gallery. What you are 'seeing' isn't what the artist visioned. I'm not saying that it is 'wrong' to add colour, just that i think it is more versatile to have a transparent system and rely on DSP/EQ to add colour if the sound engineer's interpretation is misaligned with how you expected it to sound. Hang on, but isn't this what a sound engineer does in a live concert through their mixing console to get the best sound for an event? He is mixing and adding distortion in real time for the audience's enjoyment.This is different because they are adding distortion to individual mics and instruments. Non-linear distortion applied to a single instrument (e.g. guitar pedals) can be euphoric. Non-linear distortion applied to the final mix introduces intermodulation distortion between all the instruments and typically sounds terrible. That is why a system with a lot of non-linear distortion may be pleasing when listening to music which does not have a lot of complexity (e.g. acoustic music) while sounding terrible with music that has a lot of instruments and complexity. Edited August 29, 2014 by TMM 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davewantsmoore Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Hang on, but isn't this what a sound engineer does in a live concert through their mixing console to get the best sound for an event? He is mixing and adding distortion in real time for the audience's enjoyment. You wouldn't imagine he's adding harmonic distortion .... but he could be. He can be as much "the artist", as the guys standing on the stage.... part of the creative process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betty boop Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Hang on, but isn't this what a sound engineer does in a live concert through their mixing console to get the best sound for an event? He is mixing and adding distortion in real time for the audience's enjoyment. reminds me of a performance went to at the arts centre in melbourne. support act came on sounded rubbish. hugh masekella and band came on straight after and sounded superb. what was the difference ? well the system was setup for hugh and band and their instruments obviously. not enough for hugh though, he constantly through out the performance would signal to the guy at hte desk to tweak and adjust various things. amazing the differnece a mixing desk can make and no doubt the sound/mixing engineer behind it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicprObe Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 You know, people have tried setting up instruments and having the playback play them roboiticly?(I seem to remember it wasn't a great success......but technology is getting better, it might be the answer!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts