In a way, all audio is a distortion. At the moment, we don't reproduce
a wavefront exactly.. and microphones and speakers have a lot of
distortion. Sitting in your listening room, you are hearing a distorted
version of the concert.

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.

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

One distorted version versus another.

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*.

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).

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

Mike

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.

Hello Mike,

I believe that using any kind of current technology, that there is no
absolutely accurate reproduction of an audio event. The microphones
and speakers are potentially the weakest link in the signal chain,
closely followed by the phonograph cartridge/stylus.

There are also some underlying liabilities in the methods of recording,
mixing, mastering that would disqualify accuracy even if the obvious
electro-mechanical interfaces were "perfect".

The best source material that I have managed to muster is mainly my own
recordings of live, acoustic music, and various nature and other
outdoor sounds. How I manage this is by immediately auditioning the
recorded result with my reference listening rig. This is practical for
most of my recording, as it keeps everything under one roof. For the
outdoor and nature sounds, I use a set of Stax headphones that I am
very familiar with and I can mentally compensate for the differences
between the "cans" and my reference listening rig. Hundreds of hours
of comparison doesn't make it perfect, but surprisingly accurate most
of the time.

I believe that in a casual listening environment, when the mind is not
totally focused upon analysing the performance, that most humans can be
fooled by fairly inaccurate audio reproduction. And really, this is
how most of our listening to audio happens. I listen critically from 4
to 10 hours per week. The rest of the time I am listening, but not
without distractions and lack of focus. Mostly we listen for
entertainment, or recreation, and the premise is not demanding.

Getting back to the creation of most of the recordings that we listen
to... These are creations from a vision, or formula... a professional
or personal preference that is being compiled by the recording
engineers, producers, and artists. Not usually even close to reality
at all. These recordings are being formatted to fit whatever sonic
template that the technical and marketing people believe is "what
people want to hear", or "how people would like to hear". So there is
no basis in reality for the great majority of recorded music.
Attempting to figure whether something is accurate to whatever recipe
of levels, effects, multitracking, overdubbing, compression, expansion,
etc... is not worthy of much effort on my part. There is no motivation
for me to attempt higher fidelity in these cases because there is no
known reference to a real sonic event.

This doesn't mean that the results are not enjoyable. But now we get
into the level of personal preferences, flavours, and such. Nothing
wrong with that either, I love listening to processed performances at
times. The surreal qualities of sound can be very powerful. You can
colour and flavour this to whatever taste and hue you prefer... it's
all good. I maintain a "party rig" in our family room that consists of
the best, top quality PA reinforcement gear that I can afford. The
visceral power, dynamic range, and general clarity of this system makes
for a very entertaining evening of cocktails, beer, poker, hooting and
hollering, and of course, dancing. This is only a caricature of
reality... but it is good fun and an exhileratiing experience. Like
riding a roller coaster, it is simply good fun.

Now for the "piece de resistance" that may help understanding of
analogue audio reproduction. A totally analogue signal chain generally
will exhibit more measurable distortions and such. However, the type
of distortion, impurities, colourations are GENERALLY complementary to
recordings of acoustic music performances. (Not universally for all
sonic events, and some combinations do sound foul!)

Good quality cartridges can track with effortless smoothness, and
coupled with a sutable tonearm and precision turntable can reproduce
good transcriptions with clarity and musicality. There are impurities
of sorts, but not detrimental to the listening experience in MOST
cases. It could be argued that engineers of the analogue era may have
likely compensated their mixes for this type of playback in some cases.
But that would just be an arguement.

Tube electronics do have a sonic character that is usually
complementary to acoustic music reproduction as well. Especially when
driven close to clipping, there is a natural compression that tubes
exibit that sounds sweet and musical to me. These are types of
impurities, but desirable and complementary impurities from a "musical
enjoyment" point of view.

Ribbon-planer dipole speakers can carry this type of "musical
preference" to its subjective, enjoyable conclusion. These speakers
are a bit of a contradiction, partly truth, and partly fiction... but
again, they impart a spacious, open sounding, detailed, and engaging
acoustic music complement.

So... after over 30 years of searching for truly accurate sound
reproduction; it is still a long way out of reach. The lack of
measured distortions in a digital A/D signal chain is much less than
analogue can manage. Is this really important? I don't think so
because the bulk of recordings that we listen to are not even close to
being a reference to a real sonic event. The source is overwhelmingly
impure, and coloured to start with.

Unless one searches out the minority of rare recordings that can be
compared favourably with a live audio event. Or one goes about
carefully learning to create their own reference quality recordings, it
is rather meaningless to be attempting to split hairs with Occam's
razor, when you can see that we are working on Kojak's bald head.

Best regards,
Phil Simpson.