Sound perceptions
Aug. 2nd, 2010 02:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
altivoOddly enough, the same topic has come up twice today. First it was on the QRP-L mailing list, a discussion among amateur radio operators, and then again on Twitter in an utterly independent and unrelated thread.
My response in both cases is pretty much the same. Audiophiles, musicians, and, believe it or not, radio operators, are very much concerned with the quality of sound reproduction and as a result, endless discussions of digital vs. analog, transistors vs. vacuum tubes, and so forth do result. In the end, it's pretty subjective, since every individual has different ears and each has different expectations, shaped by their experience in the past and their understanding or goals in terms of the material to which they listen. (I won't even mention hearing damage, so common today among those who have listened to very loud music over fairly long periods of time. Oops, I just mentioned it, didn't I?) Anyway, my thoughts on the subject, as first offered in the radio discussion, are under the cut.
The difference in reactions is one part psychological, one part differences in individual hearing response, and one part familiarity, long before you ever get to real physical differences in the sound, I think.
I remember when audio CDs were still new I heard any number of people complaining that they "didn't sound real." In particular, I knew one person who was vehement that recordings of solo piano didn't sound like a piano.
My own reaction when I first heard those early CDs was just the opposite. Why? Because I have played keyboard instruments for many years. Eventually they engineered a lot of it away, but the early digital recordings were so accurate that you could hear the mechanism inside the piano. The hammers dropping against the felt backboard, for instance, or the very soft thump of the action lever when a key is struck. Someone with normal hearing who actually plays the piano is used to hearing those sounds. Someone who only listens in a concert hall or to traditionally engineered recordings never hears them. To me the CD was a marvel of realism, a recording where I could actually hear everything. But to this other guy, who was only accustomed to FM radio and vinyl recordings, the sound was full of "artifacts." Who was right? Both of us, and neither of us, I'd say.
It's true that vacuum tube amps have a different sound. Those who grew up with it may be so accustomed to it that to them it is "better" and hence the descriptions saying it is "warm" or "mellow" or whatever. For my ear, digital reproduction is more realistic most of the time, but I agree it isn't the same as what we've listened to from oh, say World War II until the beginning of the CD era. I wouldn't describe digital sound reproduction as "harsh" the way some do. Properly done, to me it is more accurate than analog recording, but with the understanding that it captures many things the analog system does not. Analog seems to have enough response lag that it smooths out tiny incidentals in the sound stream, where digital will capture them along with the rest.
I feel the same way about radio receivers. I love the glow of those vacuum tubes, and enjoy operating old style equipment as much as anyone. After all, I grew up with that stuff. Nonetheless, DSP and other digital methods are producing clearer, better reception in my opinion. I can't deny that. I like to think I'm fairly good at picking a weaker signal out from under a loud one, just using my ears. But some of the newer digital filter designs make it so much easier that there seems little question but what they are an improvement.
On other subjects, yes, I did complete the seven entries for the county fair. I like to keep promises, and I had promised to submit as many as possible if they let me off judging this year. Someone else is judging, so...
The last finishing work (a bit sloppy, but good enough for now) was done on my lunch break. No little mice appeared to help, nor chipmunks either.
My response in both cases is pretty much the same. Audiophiles, musicians, and, believe it or not, radio operators, are very much concerned with the quality of sound reproduction and as a result, endless discussions of digital vs. analog, transistors vs. vacuum tubes, and so forth do result. In the end, it's pretty subjective, since every individual has different ears and each has different expectations, shaped by their experience in the past and their understanding or goals in terms of the material to which they listen. (I won't even mention hearing damage, so common today among those who have listened to very loud music over fairly long periods of time. Oops, I just mentioned it, didn't I?) Anyway, my thoughts on the subject, as first offered in the radio discussion, are under the cut.
The difference in reactions is one part psychological, one part differences in individual hearing response, and one part familiarity, long before you ever get to real physical differences in the sound, I think.
I remember when audio CDs were still new I heard any number of people complaining that they "didn't sound real." In particular, I knew one person who was vehement that recordings of solo piano didn't sound like a piano.
My own reaction when I first heard those early CDs was just the opposite. Why? Because I have played keyboard instruments for many years. Eventually they engineered a lot of it away, but the early digital recordings were so accurate that you could hear the mechanism inside the piano. The hammers dropping against the felt backboard, for instance, or the very soft thump of the action lever when a key is struck. Someone with normal hearing who actually plays the piano is used to hearing those sounds. Someone who only listens in a concert hall or to traditionally engineered recordings never hears them. To me the CD was a marvel of realism, a recording where I could actually hear everything. But to this other guy, who was only accustomed to FM radio and vinyl recordings, the sound was full of "artifacts." Who was right? Both of us, and neither of us, I'd say.
It's true that vacuum tube amps have a different sound. Those who grew up with it may be so accustomed to it that to them it is "better" and hence the descriptions saying it is "warm" or "mellow" or whatever. For my ear, digital reproduction is more realistic most of the time, but I agree it isn't the same as what we've listened to from oh, say World War II until the beginning of the CD era. I wouldn't describe digital sound reproduction as "harsh" the way some do. Properly done, to me it is more accurate than analog recording, but with the understanding that it captures many things the analog system does not. Analog seems to have enough response lag that it smooths out tiny incidentals in the sound stream, where digital will capture them along with the rest.
I feel the same way about radio receivers. I love the glow of those vacuum tubes, and enjoy operating old style equipment as much as anyone. After all, I grew up with that stuff. Nonetheless, DSP and other digital methods are producing clearer, better reception in my opinion. I can't deny that. I like to think I'm fairly good at picking a weaker signal out from under a loud one, just using my ears. But some of the newer digital filter designs make it so much easier that there seems little question but what they are an improvement.
On other subjects, yes, I did complete the seven entries for the county fair. I like to keep promises, and I had promised to submit as many as possible if they let me off judging this year. Someone else is judging, so...
The last finishing work (a bit sloppy, but good enough for now) was done on my lunch break. No little mice appeared to help, nor chipmunks either.
