Euphonic versus accurate

[Wylie Williams]

John La Grou of Millennia Media, Inc. wrote
(p.s., I also found it amusing that an engineer looking for a
"natural" sound selected a "warm" micamp. Not that the end result
wasn't musically rich and beautiful, but "euphonic" and "accurate" are
usually mutually exclusive audio ideas.)

I have heard essentially that statement so many times from so many sources.
What is the conflict with euphonic (sounding good) and accurate, anyway?
What is our definition of "accurate" that makes it conflict with
"enjoyable"??

Wylie Williams

[S888Wheel]

Well. I suspect the difference is euphonic by itself is just an adjective. If
you attach it to a noun such as coloration then you have something specific. A
euphonic coloration is a deviation from accuracy by the fact that it is a
coloration. In the end all playback is colored. There is no such thing as
perfect accuracy in audio playback. So the question I think worth asking is;
when a euphonic coloration makes the end result seem to have more of the
intrinsic beauty of live music that is inevitably lost in most playback what is
wrong with that?

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 27 Aug 2003 23:16:36 GMT, "Wylie Williams" >
wrote:

>I have heard essentially that statement so many times from so many sources.
>What is the conflict with euphonic (sounding good) and accurate, anyway?
>What is our definition of "accurate" that makes it conflict with
>"enjoyable"??

Agreed. Euphonic simply means good-sounding. To me, that also means
accurate.

However, since no reproduction system I've found (yet) is perfectly
accurate, the choice one faces is to choose among the various
failings. This choice is personal and, for each individual, can be
defined as choosing the more 'euphonic' from among the possibilities.
Of course, what's euphonic to one is harsh, muffled, glaring, dead,
etc. to another.

Kal

[Dennis Moore]

Well accurate means accurate. Warts and all.
Euphonic by necessarily being less accurate must color or
alter the signal. Often this covers up some of the less than
beautiful aspects of recordings. Accurate and euphonic
are therefore by definition different. Euphonic necessarily
being inaccurate. And the inaccuracies chosen to sound
better according to someone's preference.

For instance if the preference is for warm, round sound.
Then a less warm, less round accurate sound will be found
less desirable by those with a preference for warm sound.

Dennis

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message
...
> John La Grou of Millennia Media, Inc. wrote
> (p.s., I also found it amusing that an engineer looking for a
> "natural" sound selected a "warm" micamp. Not that the end result
> wasn't musically rich and beautiful, but "euphonic" and "accurate" are
> usually mutually exclusive audio ideas.)
>
> I have heard essentially that statement so many times from so many
sources.
> What is the conflict with euphonic (sounding good) and accurate, anyway?
> What is our definition of "accurate" that makes it conflict with
> "enjoyable"??
>
> Wylie Williams
>

[John La Grou]

On 27 Aug 2003 23:16:36 GMT, "Wylie Williams" >
wrote:

>John La Grou of Millennia Media, Inc. wrote
>(p.s., I also found it amusing that an engineer looking for a
>"natural" sound selected a "warm" micamp. Not that the end result
>wasn't musically rich and beautiful, but "euphonic" and "accurate" are
>usually mutually exclusive audio ideas.)
>
>I have heard essentially that statement so many times from so many sources.
>What is the conflict with euphonic (sounding good) and accurate, anyway?
>What is our definition of "accurate" that makes it conflict with
>"enjoyable"??
>
>Wylie Williams


Wylie,

I don't see a conflict -- it's entirely dependent upon the producer's
artistic goals. For most classical music recording, the goal is to
"document" a performance, with minimal electrical artifacts. For this
goal, one usually selects a relatively flat, dynamically stable
recording path known to produce relatively neutral recordings.
Microphones that "lean towards accuracy" would include many models
from Schoeps, Sennheiser, DPA, Josephson, et al.

The pop recording world is a different animal. Often, a pop producer
seeks "bigger than life" sonic performance. A flat, accurate,
dynamically stable signal path may sound "anemic" when compared with
electronics that offer thick electrical artifacts (distortions /
non-linearities) which are sometimes characterized as "warm, rich,
silky, breathy, sparkling, punchy, cutting" and so forth. Some
examples of equipment which "leans towards euphony" would include old
Neve recording console modules, API recording modules, Helios
recording modules, Telefunken console modules, certain Neumann tube
mics, and so much more. Audio transformers, by the way, are often (not
always) a primary source of such coloration.

That said, there are a number of classical music recording engineers
who in fact prefer certain euphonic mics and signal path - you find
some in film scoring and record work. On a good system, you can
sometimes tell the engineer's work by the personality of their
recordings. Conversely, a number of pop engineers often reach for
"flat, accurate" electronics to achieve their goals.

Bottom Line: this is art. One person's "accurate" is another person's
"sterile." One person's "color" is another person's "grunge." As Bruce
Swedien told me once - "nobody ever left the record store humming the
recording path." If a piece of recorded music inspires you, it has
done its job - regardless of the technology used to achieve it.

Best wishes,
JL
http://www.mil-media.com

[Bruce Abrams]

Take a really dry recording of a piano and play it back on a "vintage tube"
based system, say Scott or Marantz stuff driving, oh maybe a pair of
Vandersteen 2C speakers. What you'll hear is a far more lush and
reverberant sounding piano than what was put down on the tape by the
engineer. Will it be pleasant sounding? Absolutely. Will it be accurate?
Absolutely not.

You're certainly entitled to prefer the euphonic system, but stating such a
preference would by definition, be contrary to the definition of accurate
music reproduction, which is one of the cornerstones of "high-end" audio by
all definitions.

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message
...
> John La Grou of Millennia Media, Inc. wrote
> (p.s., I also found it amusing that an engineer looking for a
> "natural" sound selected a "warm" micamp. Not that the end result
> wasn't musically rich and beautiful, but "euphonic" and "accurate" are
> usually mutually exclusive audio ideas.)
>
> I have heard essentially that statement so many times from so many
sources.
> What is the conflict with euphonic (sounding good) and accurate, anyway?
> What is our definition of "accurate" that makes it conflict with
> "enjoyable"??
>
> Wylie Williams

[Richard D Pierce]

In article <bpd3b.214034$cF.68012@rwcrnsc53>,
Dennis Moore > wrote:
>Well accurate means accurate. Warts and all.
>Euphonic by necessarily being less accurate must color or
>alter the signal.

No, it most assuredly does not.

The dictionary definition of the term is:

eu phon ic adj. [F euphonique, fr. Gk euphonos: sweet-voiced.
musical] 1: pleasing- or sweet-sounding; ...

>Often this covers up some of the less than
>beautiful aspects of recordings. Accurate and euphonic
>are therefore by definition different. Euphonic necessarily
>being inaccurate.

Sorry, but this is simply not true. Again, consider the
definition:

eu phon ic adj. [F euphonique, fr. Gk euphonos: sweet-voiced.
musical] 1: pleasing- or sweet-sounding; ...

A "euphonic" system or a "euphonic" reproduction is simply
pleasing or sweet sounding. It is NO judgement whatsoever about
accuracy.

However, there ARE "euphonic distortions," those spurious
signals that were not present in the original signal that may
by "pleasing or sweet sounding." That's a different issue
altogether.

But let's not corrupt the well-understood meaning o fthe word,
please.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

[Bob Marcus]

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message >...
> John La Grou of Millennia Media, Inc. wrote
> (p.s., I also found it amusing that an engineer looking for a
> "natural" sound selected a "warm" micamp. Not that the end result
> wasn't musically rich and beautiful, but "euphonic" and "accurate" are
> usually mutually exclusive audio ideas.)
>
> I have heard essentially that statement so many times from so many sources.
> What is the conflict with euphonic (sounding good) and accurate, anyway?
> What is our definition of "accurate" that makes it conflict with
> "enjoyable"??
>
Great question. "Accurate," as it is generally used by the more
technical types here, means accurate to what's on the disk. Whether
this "sounds like live acoustic music in real space" depends on how
good a job the recording engineer did. And, as you know, that can
vary. A lot.

There's also the matter of taste, as some others have pointed out.
Anybody who thinks euphonic and accurate are mutually exclusive
probably has a preference for a certain kind of sound. Some people
think violins, reproduced accurately, are screechy. Turning down the
treble sounds more pleasant to them. Euphonic, but not accurate.

From an engineering standpoint, I'd like equipment to be as accurate
as possible, so that when I get a really good recording, I can enjoy
it exactly as it was made. But occasionally I'll give the tone
controls a tweak, and others own equalizers to give them even more
control over the final sound.

So there's no inherent conflict. They're two goals, which for each
individual sometimes coincide and other times conflict.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message


> John La Grou of Millennia Media, Inc. wrote
> (p.s., I also found it amusing that an engineer looking for a
> "natural" sound selected a "warm" micamp. Not that the end result
> wasn't musically rich and beautiful, but "euphonic" and "accurate" are
> usually mutually exclusive audio ideas.)

John La Grou works in an audio production context. Audio production involves
a great many components that exist to change the sound quality of music and
voice to achieve artistic goals.

> I have heard essentially that statement so many times from so many
> sources. What is the conflict with euphonic (sounding good) and
> accurate, anyway? What is our definition of "accurate" that makes it
> conflict with "enjoyable"??

When it comes to speakers and microphones, nothing is truely sonically
accurate. This is especially apparent in an audio production context because
of the ready access to the live sound.

As always, things can become very confusing when production and reproduction
are confused with each other.

[Mkuller]

> (Graeme Nattress) wrote:>
>But what if the original sound was warm, but the recording of it
>sounded too bright. Adding some fake warmth will bring you closer to
>the original sound.
>
>What it really comes down to is what you prefer - an enjoyable, but
>not necessarily accurate sound, or a closer to accurate sound that
>might be not as enjoyable. It's a continuum of choices that you can
>seriously bias by your choice of hifi equipment.
>

The question is "accurate compared to what?" Live music always sounds
euphonic. Those who are trying to reproduce the sound of live, unamplified
music as close as possible to the sound they remember hearing will chose a
sound as "accurate" that is euphonic (pleasing to the ears as is live music).
The same may be true of those making the recordings.

Those who define 'accuracy' differently will most likely chose something else.
Is it 'accurate' to sound of the master tape? Is the output signal 'accurate'
to the input signal?
Regards,
Mike

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 20:09:30 GMT, (Graeme Nattress)
wrote:

>"Dennis Moore" > wrote in message news:<bpd3b.214034$cF.68012@rwcrnsc53>...
>> Well accurate means accurate. Warts and all.
>
>Who wants to listen to warts? A painting can never be accurate to an
>original scene, and in many cases the original scene may not exist. Do
>we criticise the painting for not being accurate, or do we enjoy it's
>euphonic beauty?

This analogy is not appropriate to the issue under discussion. A
painting is an original since, in many cases, there is no original
scene for reference. A more apt analogy would be to ask if a
reproduction of the painting should be accurate or pleasing. I leave
you to to draw your own conclusion.

Kal

[Richard D Pierce]

In article <cOv3b.222632$Oz4.59493@rwcrnsc54>,
Kalman Rubinson > wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 20:09:30 GMT, (Graeme Nattress)
>wrote:
>
>>"Dennis Moore" > wrote in message
>news:<bpd3b.214034$cF.68012@rwcrnsc53>...
>>> Well accurate means accurate. Warts and all.
>>
>>Who wants to listen to warts? A painting can never be accurate to an
>>original scene, and in many cases the original scene may not exist. Do
>>we criticise the painting for not being accurate, or do we enjoy it's
>>euphonic beauty?
>
>This analogy is not appropriate to the issue under discussion. A
>painting is an original since, in many cases, there is no original
>scene for reference. A more apt analogy would be to ask if a
>reproduction of the painting should be accurate or pleasing. I leave
>you to to draw your own conclusion.

Kalman is quite correct in saying that the analogy is flawed.
Let's take the corrected analogy. Let's say you buy a
REPRODUCTION of a da Vinci painting that has a slight cyan cast
to it. It can be corrected by looking through an equivalent red
filter. So, you now have your eyeglasses permanently colored
red. Your new eyeglasses now result in a "pleasing looking" da
Vinci.

Great, so now you go out and get a reproduction of a Rembrandt
that does NOT have the same cyan cast. With your eyeglasses, the
same red cast is applied and now it has a red cast. Is it now
"pleasing looking?" No, not is, by your definition, "pleasing"
is "looks like the original. Now, EVERYTHING will have the same
red cast, whether it needs it or not.

Now, if you like red, fine. But to apply the SAME medicine to
EVERY painting doesn't make sense if only a few of the paintings
suffer from the same disease.

Gee, one might suggest the use of tunable color filters to
adjust individually for the differing errors in each. That means
that not only can you adjust to get close to the original, you
can even adjust to give any deviation from that original that
you want, just as along as it is "pleasing looking" to you by
whatever definition suits YOU.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

[[email protected]]

Mkuller > wrote:

> Live music always sounds euphonic.

It is astonishing that someone would seriously say this. There are unpleasant
sounding instruments, concert halls, performances, etc. People may differ on
what is and isn't, but that's a different subject.

[Richard D Pierce]

Mkuller > wrote:
> Live music always sounds euphonic.

Really? What an extraordinary claim!

I once attended a harpsichord recital given by Igor Kipnis. It
included works by Bach, Couperin, Scarlatti, Handel and
Krzysztof Penderecki. All was fine, very pleasant sounding, very
sweet, until the Penderecki. Then it was most sour, most
unpleasant. Not euphonic in the least. Indeed, a RECORDING of
the concert would have been preferably, since I could have
simply skipped the Penderecki. That one piece made what would
have been an otherwise enjoyable concert most sour.

I attended a live Chieftains concert where the sound was utterly
dreadful.

I attended an organ recital where the entire reed chorus was
systematically about a eighth of a tone sharp. Not fun at all.

If "euphonia" is in the ears of the beholder, making a grand
seeping statement like "live music always sounds euphonic" means
that there IS accounting for taste, that live music must, by
your definition, always be esthetically and technically
flawless.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

[Dennis Moore]

Well given the state of most recorded music.
An accurate system will accurately portray the commonly
non euphonic sounding recordings. A pleasing sweet sounding
system will make some borderline recordings more pleasing
and sweet. And sweeten further those recording that are
already pleasing.

Dennis

"Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
...
> In article <bpd3b.214034$cF.68012@rwcrnsc53>,
> Dennis Moore > wrote:
> >Well accurate means accurate. Warts and all.
> >Euphonic by necessarily being less accurate must color or
> >alter the signal.
>
> No, it most assuredly does not.
>
> The dictionary definition of the term is:
>
> eu phon ic adj. [F euphonique, fr. Gk euphonos: sweet-voiced.
> musical] 1: pleasing- or sweet-sounding; ...
>
> >Often this covers up some of the less than
> >beautiful aspects of recordings. Accurate and euphonic
> >are therefore by definition different. Euphonic necessarily
> >being inaccurate.
>
> Sorry, but this is simply not true. Again, consider the
> definition:
>
> eu phon ic adj. [F euphonique, fr. Gk euphonos: sweet-voiced.
> musical] 1: pleasing- or sweet-sounding; ...
>
> A "euphonic" system or a "euphonic" reproduction is simply
> pleasing or sweet sounding. It is NO judgement whatsoever about
> accuracy.
>
> However, there ARE "euphonic distortions," those spurious
> signals that were not present in the original signal that may
> by "pleasing or sweet sounding." That's a different issue
> altogether.
>
> But let's not corrupt the well-understood meaning o fthe word,
> please.
>
> --
> | Dick Pierce |
> | Professional Audio Development |
> | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
> | |
>

[chung]

Mkuller wrote:
>> (Graeme Nattress) wrote:>
>>But what if the original sound was warm, but the recording of it
>>sounded too bright. Adding some fake warmth will bring you closer to
>>the original sound.
>>
>>What it really comes down to is what you prefer - an enjoyable, but
>>not necessarily accurate sound, or a closer to accurate sound that
>>might be not as enjoyable. It's a continuum of choices that you can
>>seriously bias by your choice of hifi equipment.
>>
>
> The question is "accurate compared to what?" Live music always sounds
> euphonic. Those who are trying to reproduce the sound of live, unamplified
> music as close as possible to the sound they remember hearing will chose a
> sound as "accurate" that is euphonic (pleasing to the ears as is live music).
> The same may be true of those making the recordings.
>
> Those who define 'accuracy' differently will most likely chose something else.
> Is it 'accurate' to sound of the master tape? Is the output signal 'accurate'
> to the input signal?
> Regards,
> Mike

I'll repeat here what Siegfried Linkwitz wrote on his website:

My motto is "True to the original", which
means true to what has been placed on the storage medium be it CD, DAT
or whatever.

For those who may not be familiar with Dr. Linkwitz, he and Dr. Russ
Riley patented the Linkwitz-Riley crossover network for speakers. Both
were engineers at HP, and very serious audio hobbyists.

[Graeme Nattress]

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message >...
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 20:09:30 GMT, (Graeme Nattress)
> wrote:

> >
> >Not if the original sound is euphonic. If the reproduction is accurate
> >it will also be euphonic.
>
> True, but if it sounded bad in the first place, do you want to
> *conceal* that fact?

Sure - if it makes the recording more listenable or enjoyable.
>
> >But what if the original sound was warm, but the recording of it
> >sounded too bright. Adding some fake warmth will bring you closer to
> >the original sound.
>
> Fine, but the next album you play was recorded accurately. Now you
> have *added* warmth. How do you choose?

Err on the side of caution - a little added warmth to everything is
preferable (to me) to having some music unlistenable because it's too
sharp and headache inducing.

>
> >I like a warm but dynamic sound so I have tubes and horns. That's my
> >choice, and it helps me enjoy music. Who'd buy a hifi that hindered
> >their enjoyment of music???
>
> No one. OTOH, who'd buy a 'hi fi' that addded a warm wash to *all*
> their recordings?

Me obviously. But that's the choice you make - "warts and all" or
"euphonic colourations". It's not wrong to choose either way as long
as you know that that's the choice you're making. That's why tone
controls are not necessarily bad if they help you enjoy more music.

Total accuracy in the music reproduction chain is a worth goal, but I
don't think it's the only goal woth pursuing.

Graeme

[Howard Ferstler]

"Dennis Moore" > wrote in message >...
> Well given the state of most recorded music.
> An accurate system will accurately portray the commonly
> non euphonic sounding recordings. A pleasing sweet sounding
> system will make some borderline recordings more pleasing
> and sweet. And sweeten further those recording that are
> already pleasing.

But some music is not meant to be sweet sounding. I think that another
thread Dick Pierce delivered a sensational analogy with his painting
examples. You might have a reprint of a given artist's work and it
might have a slight color cast that would need to be view filtered in
order to make the picture look proper. Now, this view-filter color
cast could be compared to the sweetening artifacts you note with some
audio systems, and with a given, slightly sub-par recording that
sweetening might make things sound OK.

However, if we assume a fixed coloration or sweetener being
*permanently* applied to either a viewing filter or to an audio
component (say, an amplifier), then whenever we look at a proper
picture or listen to a superbly recorded recording, the permanent
coloration will screw things up.

Applying any kind of non-adjustable coloration to audio equipment is a
non starter for me.

Howard Ferstler

> Dennis
>
> "Richard D Pierce" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <bpd3b.214034$cF.68012@rwcrnsc53>,
> > Dennis Moore > wrote:
> > >Well accurate means accurate. Warts and all.
> > >Euphonic by necessarily being less accurate must color or
> > >alter the signal.
> >
> > No, it most assuredly does not.
> >
> > The dictionary definition of the term is:
> >
> > eu phon ic adj. [F euphonique, fr. Gk euphonos: sweet-voiced.
> > musical] 1: pleasing- or sweet-sounding; ...
> >
> > >Often this covers up some of the less than
> > >beautiful aspects of recordings. Accurate and euphonic
> > >are therefore by definition different. Euphonic necessarily
> > >being inaccurate.
> >
> > Sorry, but this is simply not true. Again, consider the
> > definition:
> >
> > eu phon ic adj. [F euphonique, fr. Gk euphonos: sweet-voiced.
> > musical] 1: pleasing- or sweet-sounding; ...
> >
> > A "euphonic" system or a "euphonic" reproduction is simply
> > pleasing or sweet sounding. It is NO judgement whatsoever about
> > accuracy.
> >
> > However, there ARE "euphonic distortions," those spurious
> > signals that were not present in the original signal that may
> > by "pleasing or sweet sounding." That's a different issue
> > altogether.
> >
> > But let's not corrupt the well-understood meaning o fthe word,
> > please.
> >
> > --
> > | Dick Pierce |
> > | Professional Audio Development |
> > | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
> > | |
> >

[Jack Giefer]

>John La Grou wrote
"For most classical music recording, the goal is to
"document" a performance, with minimal electrical artifacts. For this
goal, one usually selects a relatively flat, dynamically stable
recording path known to produce relatively neutral recordings."

My point is that documenting a performance is an impossible recording
goal because the engineer will play what he has over his studio
monitors and modify the recording to adjust out what he doesn't like.
When he is satisfied with his product, we cannot hear what he heard
because our listening rooms are different from the engineer's studio,
not only in dimentions, but also in furnishings. The best recording
will be balanced to give a seemingly realistic reproduction in a large
variety of listening rooms.

A few years ago, I was with a couple of friends whom I hadn't seen in
over 20 years. We were discussing audio equipment. I expressed
pleasure with modern transisterized electronics. My friends were
still using their valved McIntosh equipment from the mid 1950s. I
said that CDs pleased me more than LPs and I found the sound of
transistorized electronics superior to tubes. I heard breath being
sharply drawn, I spied a McIntosh preamp on a shelf and realized that
I was in the Hall of the Old Believers.

Yes accurate sound is in the ear of the listener.

Jack Giefer

[Nousaine]

(Richard D Pierce) wrote:

>
>Mkuller > wrote:
>> Live music always sounds euphonic.
>
>Really? What an extraordinary claim!
>
>I once attended a harpsichord recital given by Igor Kipnis. It
>included works by Bach, Couperin, Scarlatti, Handel and
>Krzysztof Penderecki. All was fine, very pleasant sounding, very
>sweet, until the Penderecki. Then it was most sour, most
>unpleasant. Not euphonic in the least. Indeed, a RECORDING of
>the concert would have been preferably, since I could have
>simply skipped the Penderecki. That one piece made what would
>have been an otherwise enjoyable concert most sour.
>
>I attended a live Chieftains concert where the sound was utterly
>dreadful.
>
>I attended an organ recital where the entire reed chorus was
>systematically about a eighth of a tone sharp. Not fun at all.
>
>If "euphonia" is in the ears of the beholder, making a grand
>seeping statement like "live music always sounds euphonic" means
>that there IS accounting for taste, that live music must, by
>your definition, always be esthetically and technically
>flawless.
>
>--
>| Dick Pierce |
>| Professional Audio Development |
>| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
>| |

Agreed. I think there's one area along this thread where the film sound guys
are a step ahead of many music recording engineers. They often 'manufacture'
sound that was never captured on location, recognizing that the recording
doesn't have to a recreation of the 'real' sound (which may have never existed)
it only has to to sound "real" enough to get suspension of disbelief.

IOW I don't need to be taken to the 'real' Orchestra Hall if Foley Hall sounds
real enough.

[Mkuller]

(Richard D Pierce) wrote:>
>Gee, one might suggest the use of tunable color filters to
>adjust individually for the differing errors in each. That means
>that not only can you adjust to get close to the original, you
>can even adjust to give any deviation from that original that
>you want, just as along as it is "pleasing looking" to you by
>whatever definition suits YOU.
>

You mean, like tone controls on a preamp or an equilizer? What a concept.
Regards,
Mike

[Richard D Pierce]

In article <0gM3b.226488$Oz4.61902@rwcrnsc54>,
Graeme Nattress > wrote:
(Richard D Pierce) wrote in message
>>
>> Gee, one might suggest the use of tunable color filters to
>> adjust individually for the differing errors in each. That means
>> that not only can you adjust to get close to the original, you
>> can even adjust to give any deviation from that original that
>> you want, just as along as it is "pleasing looking" to you by
>> whatever definition suits YOU.
>
>Yes - decent tone controls are great, aren't they!

Yup, it an idiotic notion that somehow a unit is better WITHOUT
someway of correcting the variable frequency balance issues
found on many recordings.

>And I much prefer
>the way the world looks through my sun glasses.

Even at night, looking at the starry sky?

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

[Richard D Pierce]

In article >, Mkuller > wrote:
(Richard D Pierce) wrote:>
>>Gee, one might suggest the use of tunable color filters to
>>adjust individually for the differing errors in each. That means
>>that not only can you adjust to get close to the original, you
>>can even adjust to give any deviation from that original that
>>you want, just as along as it is "pleasing looking" to you by
>>whatever definition suits YOU.
>>
>
>You mean, like tone controls on a preamp or an equilizer?

MOre along the lines of good, well though out tone controls or
the "tilt" controls sometimes seen. MOst "equalizers" of the
graphic variety are abominations.

>What a concept.

Yeah, what a concept.

What an idiot notion it was to eliminate them as some sort of
"evil" from high-end equipment. Another example of the
irrational, rabid "ideas" the high-end spewed forth.
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

[John La Grou]

On 29 Aug 2003 15:42:36 GMT, (Jack Giefer) wrote:

>>John La Grou wrote
>"For most classical music recording, the goal is to
>"document" a performance, with minimal electrical artifacts. For this
>goal, one usually selects a relatively flat, dynamically stable
>recording path known to produce relatively neutral recordings."
>
>My point is that documenting a performance is an impossible recording
>goal because the engineer will play what he has over his studio
>monitors and modify the recording to adjust out what he doesn't like.
>When he is satisfied with his product, we cannot hear what he heard
>because our listening rooms are different from the engineer's studio,
>not only in dimentions, but also in furnishings.

Jack,

This is one reason why I used the word "relatively" twice in the same
paragraph. Relative to a strongly "colored" pop recording, good
classical music engineering is quite accurate. Are we "there" yet? Of
course not. We're simply well meaning forgers of the live experience.

JL

[Bob-Stanton]

"Wylie Williams"

> ... What is the conflict with euphonic (sounding good) and accurate, anyway?
> What is our definition of "accurate" that makes it conflict with
> "enjoyable"??
>

There have been many amplifiers in the past that had very good
specifications, yet didn't sound very good. People assumed that the
amplifier with good specifications was "accurate", and the one that
sounded good (but had less good specifications) was more "euphonic".

In the audio industry, equipment is tested using methods that go back
to the 1940's. With these old test methods, such as "THD", etc, it is
possible to have equipment that has very good specifications, yet in
reality it is not very accurate.

Until the audio industry updates the way equipment (amplifiers, CD
players, CD systems) is tested, don't put much stock in the published
numbers. If an amplifier or CD system (such as SACD) sounds better, it
probably is better (more accurate). The equipment you considered more
euphonic, may have in fact been simply more accurate.

Bob Stanton

[ludovic mirabel]

(Richard D Pierce) wrote in message >...
> Mkuller > wrote:
> > Live music always sounds euphonic.
>
> Really? What an extraordinary claim!
>
> I once attended a harpsichord recital given by Igor Kipnis. It
> included works by Bach, Couperin, Scarlatti, Handel and
> Krzysztof Penderecki. All was fine, very pleasant sounding, very
> sweet, until the Penderecki. Then it was most sour, most
> unpleasant. Not euphonic in the least. Indeed, a RECORDING of
> the concert would have been preferably, since I could have
> simply skipped the Penderecki. That one piece made what would
> have been an otherwise enjoyable concert most sour.
>
> I attended a live Chieftains concert where the sound was utterly
> dreadful.
>
> I attended an organ recital where the entire reed chorus was
> systematically about a eighth of a tone sharp. Not fun at all.
>
> If "euphonia" is in the ears of the beholder, making a grand
> seeping statement like "live music always sounds euphonic" means
> that there IS accounting for taste, that live music must, by
> your definition, always be esthetically and technically
> flawless.

I must defend Penderecki lest you deprive yourself and others of
hearing a near masterpiece of his. I'm talking of St. Luke's Passion,
an early composition of his, a most moving and impressive work that
stands out (in my opinion etc. etc) amongst the "postmodern" music.
I don't know what you heard and I'll concede that none of his
,later compositions, spoke to me near as powerfully. I heard St.
Luke's on two LP. versions by Philips and RCA-Victrola. I preferred
the Philips.
On the unrelated topic of tone controls I agree that they are better
than nothing. The notion that fidelity to the particular microphone
setup and to the creation of an audio enginner surrounded by his
eletronic gear in his little room with his little monitor speaker is
what hi-fi is all about always struck me as ridiculous. Incidentally
you blame high-end for it- perhaps rightly , but off=hand it sounds
very much like the creation of audio engs. themselves. No matter.
My problem was that I never encountered tone controls that performed
well. The ones I knew boosted or suppressed wide ranges of
frequencies. I owned several Quad amps and didn't think their " tilt
controls" were all that much better.
I agree also that graphic equalisers were a failure. I had quite a few
and even the best ones like Orban had unmanageable, overlapping Qs and
could be "heard". Getting them out of the system was a defeat and a
relief all at the same time.
Being keen on fidelity not to the industrial product but to my
idea of live sound I eventually constructed my own parametric
equaliser based on the Double AmP. Bypass (DABP) filter design with a
lot of parametric bands, which I described in the Audio Amateur.
It was more to my taste than anything I had before but being an
inept technician I never managed to get rid of hum.
Finally Roger Sanders of "Inner Ear" put me onto Behringer digital
equaliser which I think at its present price is about the best buy in
electronics. It is silent, has extremely narrow Q, a pink noise
generator for automatic room equalisation (that can be adjusted to
taste) and I can not "hear" it in the system.
In an impossible listening room like mine it is a gift.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Steven Sullivan]

Mkuller > wrote:
> > (Graeme Nattress) wrote:>
> >But what if the original sound was warm, but the recording of it
> >sounded too bright. Adding some fake warmth will bring you closer to
> >the original sound.
> >
> >What it really comes down to is what you prefer - an enjoyable, but
> >not necessarily accurate sound, or a closer to accurate sound that
> >might be not as enjoyable. It's a continuum of choices that you can
> >seriously bias by your choice of hifi equipment.
> >

> The question is "accurate compared to what?" Live music always sounds
> euphonic.

Hardly. A concert at Avery Fisher Hall has always been a crapshoot,
sound-wise.

--
-S.