AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

Hello Mike, and okay... I'll bite on this topic

wrote:
In a way, all audio is a distortion.

Only when regarding "audio reproduction" is all audio a distortion in a
way. We need to have a source that is the original audio event, or a
reference to compare with before we can begin to assess how impure, or
distorted the reproduction is from the source, or the reference signal.

At the moment, we don't reproduce
a wavefront exactly..

The "wavefront" description and surrounding verbage is a little
oblique. I will take the liberty to assume that you are saying that
we are unable to reproduce an original audio event in a lossless, exact
manner.

and microphones and speakers have a lot of
distortion. Sitting in your listening room, you are hearing a distorted
version of the concert.

Microphones and speakers are the "usual suspects" when considering
possible impurities or omissions to the source audio event.

Yes, when we listen to a reproduced audio event, we are also bearing
witness to every addition, subtraction, modification, colouration... or
distortion impurity that was introduced.

Digital audio has very little measured distortion... from the output of
the microphone to the input to the speakers. But in the end you still
have a distorted perspective.

The end result is that you are listening to a distorted reproduction of
an audio event. "Perspective" is a poor choice of wording, as it leads
to "viewpoint", "belief", etc... This can lead to the topic
degeneratting to a rabble or an arguement.

Analog has more measured distortion from the mic out to the speaker in.

One distorted version versus another.

Yes, but it is really "one distorted version COMPARED with another".
Then the whole concept becomes meaningless unless there is some
comparison with the actual audio event.

If analog distortion somehow compensates for distortion in microphones
and speakers, *relative to the significant patterns for a given
listener*, then the analog version will be closer to the original
experience, *relative to that listener*.

Beg to differ on this assumption. Analogue distortions caused by an
analogue audio reproduction system do not uniformly, or magically
compensate for impurities caused from microphones and speakers.

Careful selection of the components in the analogue reproduction signal
chain CAN be complementary, and help in preserving or restoring
accuracy to the reproduction. This is not a "one choice fits all"
solution. Each recording is subject to the particular microphones
chosen, and the microphone deployment and positioning techniques. The
particular microphone preamps used and the associated level settings.
The particular filtering and equalization used. The mix itself. The
near field monitors and the personal/professional preferences of the
recording engineer, producer, and artist. Mastering preferences and
techniques have distinct character as well.

To make allowances within one's home system to best compensate for
possible variables, one must first have familiarity with the source
material in it's live, acoustic form. Otherwise we are merely
adjusting our system for our personal preferences with no reference to
reality. Similar to a teenager turning up the bass tone control
because they like it that way. Nothing wrong with this, but it is not
to be confused with any type of consideration for accuracy, fidelity or
reducing perceived sonic impurities.

Some people find that using digital audio best captures the original
experience. Don't you think that, in the end, they are making a
judgment call?.. seeing as they are listening to a distorted version
anyway (thanks to mics and speakers).

It is all about preference.

You can conform to the best scientific measured reproduction, or the
best personally measured reproduction, or anything in between. Even
basic personal bias and predispostions. Or the teenager cranking up
the bass.

I would be curious to know how exactly analog distortion compensates,
if that is indeed what is happening.

Each analogue component has it's own frequency response, phase
characteristics, transient response, predispositions to resonance or
oscillation, sensitivity and signal headroom, clipping
characteristics, etc...

I have no doubt that different combinations of analogue components can
improve an audio event's realism and accuracy, or render a very impure,
inaccurate result as well. This is why I swap components in and out of
my systems to suit certain types of recordings. It works. Especially
with tonearms/catridges, turntables, preamps, tape decks and speakers.
To a lesser but appreciable degree, the CD decks, and amplifier types
as well.

How exactly? This is not important to me in all cases. The most
important aspect for me, is being able to reliably and accurately
discern improvements, or drawbacks to individual components and the
results from interactions and combinations. If I can reliably and
accurately sense a difference then it matters. If I can't, then it is
of no consequence.

Best regards,
Phil Simpson.