| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Euphonic versus accurate
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 |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Euphonic versus accurate
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? |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Euphonic versus accurate
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 |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Euphonic versus accurate
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 |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Euphonic versus accurate
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 |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Euphonic versus accurate
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 |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Euphonic versus accurate
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 | | | |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Euphonic versus accurate
"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 |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Euphonic versus accurate
"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. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Euphonic versus accurate
|
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Euphonic versus accurate
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 | | | |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Euphonic versus accurate
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. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Euphonic versus accurate
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 | | | |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Euphonic versus accurate
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 | | | |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Euphonic versus accurate
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. |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Euphonic versus accurate
"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 | | | |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Euphonic versus accurate
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 |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Euphonic versus accurate
(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. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Euphonic versus accurate
(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 |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Euphonic versus accurate
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 | | | |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Euphonic versus accurate
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 | | | |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Euphonic versus accurate
|
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Euphonic versus accurate
"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 |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Euphonic versus accurate
|
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Euphonic versus accurate
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. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Neutrik PowerOn Connectors versus IEC | Audio Opinions | |||
| 2-volt versus 4-volt wires | Car Audio | |||
| MD portable versus MP3 for live recording | Audio Opinions | |||
| 1/4" versus 1/8" jacks | General | |||
| AIFF versus WAV - What's the difference? | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
