|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
99.243.240.84
In Reply to: RE: Very True "some factors objectively/measurably affect we hear, many don't:" posted by Jonesy on April 26, 2024 at 14:20:58
Yes, I remember when THD was the be-all, end-all ... I remember Julian Hirsch too. But today criticism of THD is as "straw-man" and "beating a dead horse".
For a couple of reasons:- While 0.05% was considered great in the '60s, best measuring components today are more like 0.0005% ... uhm, that's two orders of magnitude, -40 dB better
- There is an awareness that the constituents of the "total" harmonic distortion are critical. 2nd & 3rd order distortion are pleasant sound but higher order harmonics so harsh. Solid state components of the '60s and '70s had relatively low 2nd/3rd and high high-order harmonics. Todays best performers have 2nd/3rd order below -120 dB and unmeasurable higher-order.
Perhaps it's time to have another look at measurements ... just sayin'.
Don't be silly: today's ABX involves human ear comparisons. Someday maybe AI could be used applying Geddes' mumbo-jumbo math to make the comparisons -- that would make morricab happy.
Dmitri Shostakovich
Follow Ups:
Definitely amazing spec numbers with some of the latest technogies.
Admittedly skeptical though because from what I've been reading, the same old arguments still exist. I suppose one doesn't know for sure until they actually listen to it.
But for what its worth, I'm thinking because decades of recording masters were tweaked during process relevant to harmonic distortions present in studio playback systems, you have to be wary of your end goal.
Removing these distortions now in modern equipment, though accurate, no longer replicates what the recording engineer heard through speakers/headphones at that time. Even to the point of sounding unpleasant. Perhaps this is one of the aspects contributing to the criticism of low THD by some.
I see a trend lately where tone controls and other voicing devices are being embraced in systems using ultra low distortion equipment. Somewhat ironic going to war for low distortion on one hand for accuracy, then messing with it on the other.
At some point I suppose low distortion accuracy will eventually show up both in recording and home systems. The balancing act will likely still be there. But hopefully easier so that we can just sit back and enjoy.
Jonesy
"I know just enough to get into trouble. But not enough to get out of it."
Jonsey: " Removing these distortions now in modern equipment, though accurate, no longer replicates what the recording engineer heard through speakers/headphones at that time. Even to the point of sounding unpleasant. Perhaps this is one of the aspects contributing to the criticism of low THD by some. "
It's certainly true that recording/mastering engineers of yesteryear used less perfect equipment than is available today. But I whether modern equipment reproduces what those engineers heard -- i.e. recorded -- any less well the the playback equipment of yesteryear.
When listening to what they recorded the imperfections their playback equipment would, presumably, have been compensated for in the eventual recording. The imperfections of the record buyer's equipment would "layer on" more distortion -- and this might or might not be any where close to the record producer's.
One thing's for sure and that is that more accurate playback equipment will more accurately reproduce what is actually on the recording. That's my personal, basic definition of "accuracy".
I'll concede that I personally find more contemporary recordings to sound better, in general, than the older ones for whatever reason.
Dmitri Shostakovich
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: