What audio system do you have, or plan on getting?

[AnotherSpin]

What sounds "great" is a subjective thing. Wax cylinders have very bad sound quality, but someone can subjectively find their sound "great", "warm", etc.

CDs sound flat to people simply because they don't have the distortions introduced by analog formats that make the sound "warm" to people. Sometimes masters made for vinyl were used.

Technical objective sound quality is not the same thing as subjective impression of sound. There was maybe sense of realism, but it was an illusion. There is a lot to learn from the old analog days. I use effects in my own music that make the sound more analog and warm. That's having the best of both worlds. Digital accuracy and transparency with analog warmth.

Yes, you are right, in the manifested world all things are illusory, including our impressions. If only because they are changeable, as nothing remains the same even for a single moment of time.

As for audio, in the end it all comes down to whether we like what we hear or not. Often what we like does not correspond to someone's measurements. You don't like the way Carly Simon's early albums sound. Try listening to LPs of those albums and compare your impressions.

[71 dB]

As for audio, in the end it all comes down to whether we like what we hear or not. Often what we like does not correspond to someone's measurements. You don't like the way Carly Simon's early albums sound. Try listening to LPs of those albums and compare your impressions.

Carly Simon's early albums are "fine" for their age listened on speakers, but headphones reveal the problems more closely, mostly the spatial problems. Starting from "No Secrets" the sound is good enough. The Carpenters has the same issue. The first few albums have crappy sound and then it gets better.

I don't own TT and I don't do LPs anymore. What a hideous format. I own about 100 vinyl records and I am glad it is all in the past.

[AnotherSpin]

Carly Simon's early albums are "fine" for their age listened on speakers, but headphones reveal the problems more closely, mostly the spatial problems. Starting from "No Secrets" the sound is good enough. The Carpenters has the same issue. The first few albums have crappy sound and then it gets better.

I don't own TT and I don't do LPs anymore. What a hideous format. I own about 100 vinyl records and I am glad it is all in the past.

You might want to try a different pair of headphones.

I no longer keep any LPs or CDs, and my setup is rather simpler these days than it used to be. Still, I do think that valves and vinyl had a naturalness to them that pure digital tends to lack.

[71 dB]

You might want to try a different pair of headphones.

It is not the headphones. It is unsuitable spatiality for headphone use. Crossfeed of course helps a lot with this.

[StudioGuy]

Weren't great tape recordings made long before the late seventies? For example, the RCA Living Stereo series, Frank Sinatra's albums in the 1950s, Dave Brubeck's Time Out, Miles Davis's Kind of Blue and others. Some of the most admired recordings in history were created in the 1950s and 1960s on tube tape machines and early multitrack systems. They already had warmth, depth, tonal detail, clarity, dynamic range and a sense of realism. Artistic and sound quality was flourishing decades earlier, and in some ways they remain unsurpassed no matter how recording technology has developed in the following decades.

It's a real shame you can't take your own advice regarding being unclear and in addition, continue to make assertions about the "finer technical details" despite admitting you don't have a grasp of them.

Artistic and sound quality have been flourishing for many centuries (not just decades) but our ability to record and reproduce it is relatively recent. Even wax cylinders were capable of all the items you mentioned; "warmth, depth, tonal detail, clarity, dynamic range and a sense of realism" but they had far worse performance than the tape recordings created in the 1950's and '60s. Likewise, tape recording in the '70s had far greater performance than that of the 50's, 71 dB was correct. In turn, digital recording was a further step up in performance from the best analogue. In the 1950's, the tape machines used for the Living Stereo recordings for example, had a dynamic range of about 50dB, up to about 55dB in ideal conditions (freshly cleaned and calibrated, etc.) while in the '70s the tape recorders could manage 60-70dB and 16bit digital had over 90dB, roughly 100 times more dynamic range than 1950's recorders. Microprocessor controlled studio tape recorders in the late '70s (Studer A800) greatly improved the wow, flutter and tape stretch suffered by earlier machines, so tonal detail/accuracy was far better and of course digital eliminated these issues entirely and achieves tonal detail/accuracy more than an order of magnitude better than even the best studio tape recorders. Likewise, better tape formulations and Dolby A noise reduction by the '70s significantly improved clarity over 1950s tape recorders and again, digital eliminated tape noise entirely.

As for audio, in the end it all comes down to whether we like what we hear or not. Often what we like does not correspond to someone's measurements.

It only takes a few seconds to check the facts, to go to say Wikipedia and look up what audio (audio signals) actually are: "An audio signal is a representation of sound, typically using either a changing level of electrical voltage for analog signals or a series of binary numbers for digital signals." - So audio signals have nothing whatsoever to do with "whether we like what we hear or not" but everything to do with the "a changing electrical voltage" and a series of discrete measurements of it stored as binary numbers (digital audio).

So, if someone sets up an array of mics, in front of say the Vienna Phil, plugged into an ADC and makes a great recording of say a Mozart symphony, then we have "someone's measurements" (a digital audio recording) but it wouldn't be a good recording if a listener doesn't like it because they're not into classical music?

Audio is a signal invented by scientists/engineers, it is a PURELY objective/measurable quantity! Whether someone/anyone likes the sound that's reproduced from an audio signal is an entirely different issue, that's a subjective function of their human brain, not an inherent property of audio signals.

[AnotherSpin]

Devices of this sort, humble chanting boxes, have become an inseparable part of India's soundscape. Their outward simplicity is rather misleading, for within lies an entire universe of mantras, hymns and chants, all available at the push of a button. Ordinarily they are switched on by hand at some unholy hour such as half past four or five in the morning, and then may continue without pause for the rest of the day. They are found not only in shrines but also in ordinary homes or even out in the street. People perch one on a windowsill, set it at the threshold, or fasten it to a tree so that its sound drifts through the neighbourhood. For greater reach, the little box can be connected to a larger speaker with nothing more elaborate than a standard lead.

The contents of these rudimentary players, stored in files of the most basic quality, vary according to where they were obtained. The one in the picture, for example, I acquired at Anand Ashram in North Kerala, founded by Swami Ramdas, a remarkable Indian master of the mid-twentieth century. As one might expect, its recordings are closely tied to Ramdas himself, including a mantra recited by the Swami in person. I paid 600 rupees for it, a sum noticeably higher than the usual price, but the difference went towards a modest donation to the ashram, whose hospitality and meals are provided entirely free of charge. A more typical chanting box costs between 100 and 200 rupees.

Such a simple contraption is in itself a living illustration of the Indian paradox: the plainer the device, the deeper its tie with the eternal. The chanting box is not really a gadget at all but a modern prayer, a way of carrying ancient wisdom into everyday life. It asks nothing of you, it clamours for no attention; it simply continues to sound, like the village breathing, or perhaps, if one is inclined to be generous, like the breath of God.

[Brian]

So, if someone sets up an array of mics, in front of say the Vienna Phil, plugged into an ADC and makes a great recording of say a Mozart symphony, then we have "someone's measurements" (a digital audio recording) but it wouldn't be a good recording if a listener doesn't like it because they're not into classical music?

Audio is a signal invented by scientists/engineers, it is a PURELY objective/measurable quantity! Whether someone/anyone likes the sound that's reproduced from an audio signal is an entirely different issue, that's a subjective function of their human brain, not an inherent property of audio signals.

Here I think you are overinterpreting the point made by 71 dB and then by AS, that "what sounds 'great' is subjective." While there is a degree to which an engineer could identify "the best" recordings, there's always going to be that final subjective element of the listener's ears. I know my new BIS SACDs have extraordinary dynamic range and clarity, and I am astonished at the ability to hear 150 instrumentalists all at once. But I also have a soft spot for the old Mercury Living Presence three-mic setup, and a more controversial love for the antiquated sound of 1950s Supraphon early stereo as preserved on recordings of Ancerl, Chalabala, etc. conducting the Czech Philharmonic. I know it is not "right" but I love it nonetheless. I wouldn't try to argue that it is superior, warmer, more musical, etc. - just that there is a human element on the other side of the audio signal. Supraphon engineering wasn't great, but it was great to me. Really, since you say this at the end of your post, you are agreeing with 71 dB and AS on the point. You just had to talk yourself into it. 

[Todd]

Audio is a signal invented by scientists/engineers, it is a PURELY objective/measurable quantity! Whether someone/anyone likes the sound that's reproduced from an audio signal is an entirely different issue, that's a subjective function of their human brain, not an inherent property of audio signals.

It is useful to contrast audiophilia with photography.  Cameras and lenses of all vintages were designed to the best of the designers' ability at the time, and users of the equipment all readily acknowledge that.  The Modulation Transfer Function is the Modulation Transfer Function.  A circle of confusion is a circle of confusion.  Pixel size is pixel size.  Users will select specific gear, especially lenses, to achieve a certain look.  Some designs have fantastic center image sharpness with sharp falloff (eg, classic Leitz designs) while some have basically flawless edge-to-edge sharpness (eg, modern top end Sony designs).  They are often used specifically for those characteristics.  Likewise, color science varies between makers.  Everyone knows this.  No one can refute it because everyone can see the differences, even accounting for differences in visual acuity and color sensitivity.  It's perfectly possible and reasonable to opt for, say, a TTArtisan 75 F1.5 to achieve a certain look for a photograph over a Sony 85 F1.4 GM II.  It happens all the time. 

The fundamental difference between photography and audiophilia is that some/many audiophiles rely on pseudoscientific or pseudospiritual explanations for differences that they claim they can hear.  There is no way to actually verify what they hear.  Rather than acknowledging that they prefer certain types of harmonic distortion or demonstrably inaccurate frequency responses, audiophiles just make stuff up.  It is inherent in the language many use to describe what they hear.  The "veil being lifted" trope is an example.  It's perfectly fine to like the distortion and compromised playback capabilities of LP, for instance.  It's fine and quite humorous when people claim that sampling rates of 192 kHz make an audible difference when of course the human ear can't physically detect any theoretical differences such high sampling rates may offer.  Similarly, claims of the superiority of 24 bit or 32 bit or whatever in anything other than editing are false but amusing because of the physical limitations of both playback gear, including almost all actual professional gear, and human hearing. 

Audiophilia is belief-based, and believers will believe.  Flim-flam men will exploit that.

As stated previously, if regulators mandated objective evidence to support audiophile claims, the companies reliant on such claims would be forced out of business.

[StudioGuy]

Here I think you are overinterpreting the point made by 71 dB and then by AS, that "what sounds 'great' is subjective." While there is a degree to which an engineer could identify "the best" recordings, there's always going to be that final subjective element of the listener's ears. I know my new BIS SACDs have extraordinary dynamic range and clarity, and I am astonished at the ability to hear 150 instrumentalists all at once. But I also have a soft spot for the old Mercury Living Presence three-mic setup, and a more controversial love for the antiquated sound of 1950s Supraphon early stereo as preserved on recordings of Ancerl, Chalabala, etc. conducting the Czech Philharmonic. I know it is not "right" but I love it nonetheless. I wouldn't try to argue that it is superior, warmer, more musical, etc. - just that there is a human element on the other side of the audio signal.

Why is that "not right"? I have some recordings of Caruso, from before the time of electro-acoustic recordings, I love them too, along with quite a few recordings from the late 1950's and 60's, but that's a different issue. I'm a music/sound engineer and while I have to understand and comply with quite complex technical audio specifications, probably 90% of the countless professional decisions I make everyday are purely subjective. And, prior to being an engineer I was a formally trained professional orchestral musician. So I'm absolutely not dismissing the subjective aspect of sound/music, on the contrary my livelihood has always depended on it, on the human response to my subjective decisions.

However, this is a different issue, the "human element on the other side of the audio signal" as you put it. Technically, the other side of the audio signal is the sound transduced by your speakers and after the room acoustics is when the "human element" comes into play, but I get what you mean. If you would like a conversation about psychoacoustics and human preferences (the human element) I'm certainly up for it but the claims made were not about the "other side of the audio signal" they were made about "this side", the audio signals themselves. A studio tape recorder from the 1950's is an electro-mechanical device, entirely dependent on scientific and engineering measurements/tolerances, it doesn't have any subjective impressions, preferences or "human element". Common sense should dictate that a tape recorder from a few years after they were first introduced is not going to be as good/accurate as a tape recorder 20 years later, technology moves forwards. 71dB was correct, studio tape recorders reached their peak in the late '70s, in EVERY respect they were far superior to the recorders from the '50s. AnotherSpin's assertion of the sound quality of 50s/60s tape recorders; "sound quality ... in some ways remains unsurpassed no matter how recording technology has developed in the following decades." is not only false but the exact opposite of the verifiable facts/history!

Again, this has got nothing to do with the preferences/the human element, it's the objective historical facts. Does a 1950's Ford perform better than a current Ferrari because some people prefer old classic cars, do Rolex market their superseded mechanical technology as more accurate than say an Apple Watch, were acoustically recorded wax cylinders better than the best tape or digital recordings because I prefer Caruso's performances to modern tenors? Of course not, who wouldn't consider that to be ridiculous? The inability or unwillingness  to understand the fundamental fact that audio performance and the human response to it are two entirely different things is staggering.

[Todd]

AnotherSpin's assertion of the sound quality of 50s/60s tape recorders; "sound quality ... in some ways remains unsurpassed no matter how recording technology has developed in the following decades." is not only false but the exact opposite of the verifiable facts/history!

In addition to the obvious, verifiable fact that late tape recorders are superior to earlier ones, it is my understanding that the same thing applies to every element in the recording chain.  I have read from what I deem to be reliable sources that some microphones used in some famous "Golden Era" recordings from the 50s were limited bandwidth, with high frequency cutoffs in the 15-18 kHz range.  That would render modern high resolution transfers basically irrelevant since redbook already exceeded the recorded material limitations.  Sure, new masterings can sound better, but that is due to the engineer, not the sampling rate, or the bit depth.  I could be wrong, of course.

[StudioGuy]

In addition to the obvious, verifiable fact that late tape recorders are superior to earlier ones, it is my understanding that the same thing applies to every element in the recording chain.  I have read from what I deem to be reliable sources that some microphones used in some famous "Golden Era" recordings from the 50s were limited bandwidth, with high frequency cutoffs in the 15-18 kHz range.  That would render modern high resolution transfers basically irrelevant since redbook already exceeded the recorded material limitations.  Sure, new masterings can sound better, but that is due to the engineer, not the sampling rate, or the bit depth.  I could be wrong, of course.

That is true. The Neumann U47 was probably the most used mic for orchestral recordings in the 1950s, it had a frequency response of 40Hz-16kHz. The M50s, made famous by the "Decca Tree", was specified up to only 14kHz. Of course, they wouldn't just cut out beyond that freq but they would significantly roll-off, enough to make measuring the FR beyond that freq pointless. When I started in the recording industry in the early 1990's, there were no studio recording mics specified beyond 20kHz and that was high quality condenser mics, the ubiquitous dynamic mics were fairly useless beyond about 12kHz. They only started making mics with freq responses up to 40kHz-60kHz to satisfy the audiophile market conned into believing high sample rates were somehow better but even now, most studio mics are only specced to 20kHz or lower.

You're also right that everything else in the chain improved dramatically, especially from the early '60s when solid state replaced tubes but it continued all the way through until the 1990's. Neve mixing desks had distortion in the 0.01% range in the early 1980's, well beyond audibility and a phenomenal achievement considering all the circuitry (EQ, compressors, attenuators, routing, etc.) but they did cost over half a million.

These days some of the vintage limiters, compressors and a few other processors from the late '50/60s can be quite sought after, because their distortion can be desirable for some/many music genres but the modelling plugins are so good now that even engineers who've been using that kit for decades can't tell the difference.

[AnotherSpin]

In addition to the obvious, verifiable fact that late tape recorders are superior to earlier ones, it is my understanding that the same thing applies to every element in the recording chain.  I have read from what I deem to be reliable sources that some microphones used in some famous "Golden Era" recordings from the 50s were limited bandwidth, with high frequency cutoffs in the 15-18 kHz range.  That would render modern high resolution transfers basically irrelevant since redbook already exceeded the recorded material limitations.  Sure, new masterings can sound better, but that is due to the engineer, not the sampling rate, or the bit depth.  I could be wrong, of course.

To judge the quality of equipment by the frequency response would be delightfully naïve. One might even imagine that tonal texture, impulse precision and a handful of other inconvenient subtleties simply do not exist.

Added: According to reports on the internet, certain recording companies still persist in using ancient Neumann microphones such as the U 47, U 48/U 67 and M 49. Names like Abbey Road Studios, Capitol Studios, Ocean Way Recording, Sunset Sound, TACET Musikproduktion, Hansa Tonstudio and Real World Studios are mentioned. Quite appalling, wouldn't you say? If this is indeed the case, and all evidence suggests that it is, then what precisely are we witnessing? Honest music lovers, parting with their hard-earned pounds, dollars and euros, are being offered recordings produced with equipment that ought to be in a museum, complete with its prehistoric frequency response. Surely someone must blow the whistle on this audiophile conspiracy and insist that such antiquated relics be replaced forthwith by gleaming modern components from China, certified to deliver the proper specifications.

[StudioGuy]

To judge the quality of equipment by the frequency response would be delightfully naïve. One might even imagine that tonal texture, impulse precision and a handful of other inconvenient subtleties simply do not exist.

You don't have "a grasp of the finer technical details" by your own admission but here you are making (false) assertions about the finer technical details yet again! What else do you think microphones respond to, apart from acoustic frequencies? And, what do you think tonal texture and impulses are made of, if not frequencies?
[

Added: According to reports on the internet, certain recording companies still persist in using ancient Neumann microphones such as the U 47, U 48/U 67 and M 49. Names like Abbey Road Studios, Capitol Studios, Ocean Way Recording, Sunset Sound, TACET Musikproduktion, Hansa Tonstudio and Real World Studios are mentioned. Quite appalling, wouldn't you say?

I've worked at two of the studios you listed and visited another but why on earth would occasionally using vintage mics for certain tasks apparently be "quite appalling"? If you don't know how mics work and don't know why or how they are selected or used, why would you make assertions about them?

[71 dB]

To judge the quality of equipment by the frequency response would be delightfully naïve. One might even imagine that tonal texture, impulse precision and a handful of other inconvenient subtleties simply do not exist.

Impulse response describes a LTI-system completely. Frequency response is the magnitude of the Fourier transformation of the impulse response and has lost phase related information of the system, but then again, frequency responses are not used for phase information, phase responses are. Anyone with engineering degree doing impulse response measurements knows this. Knowing a car is red and has the top speed of 184 km/h, but nothing else doesn't make you naïve. At least you know two things about the car instead of nothing.

Sure, there are no true LTI system in the World, but in practise a lot of system are close enough to be considered LTI systems (distortion is below audible level and the system changes so slowly/little it doesn't matter).

Added: According to reports on the internet, certain recording companies still persist in using ancient Neumann microphones such as the U 47, U 48/U 67 and M 49. Names like Abbey Road Studios, Capitol Studios, Ocean Way Recording, Sunset Sound, TACET Musikproduktion, Hansa Tonstudio and Real World Studios are mentioned. Quite appalling, wouldn't you say? If this is indeed the case, and all evidence suggests that it is, then what precisely are we witnessing? Honest music lovers, parting with their hard-earned pounds, dollars and euros, are being offered recordings produced with equipment that ought to be in a museum, complete with its prehistoric frequency response. Surely someone must blow the whistle on this audiophile conspiracy and insist that such antiquated relics be replaced forthwith by gleaming modern components from China, certified to deliver the proper specifications.

Those ancient mics are used on purpose to achieve a certain sound signature. Studios have many of these mics so that they can carefully select the mic which has the wanted sonic characteristics. The biggest studios have the money to do this and it gives them the ability to market their productions to people this way. Smaller studios/bedroom producers may instead use mic modeling plugins in their DAW to achieve similar results.

[Todd]

To judge the quality of equipment by the frequency response would be delightfully naïve.

Incorrect.

[Todd]

If you don't know how mics work and don't know why or how they are selected or used, why would you make assertions about them?

Because he conflated subjects. 

[AnotherSpin]

Impulse response describes a LTI-system completely. Frequency response is the magnitude of the Fourier transformation of the impulse response and has lost phase related information of the system, but then again, frequency responses are not used for phase information, phase responses are. Anyone with engineering degree doing impulse response measurements knows this. Knowing a car is red and has the top speed of 184 km/h, but nothing else doesn't make you naïve. At least you know two things about the car instead of nothing.

Sure, there are no true LTI system in the World, but in practise a lot of system are close enough to be considered LTI systems (distortion is below audible level and the system changes so slowly/little it doesn't matter).

Those ancient mics are used on purpose to achieve a certain sound signature. Studios have many of these mics so that they can carefully select the mic which has the wanted sonic characteristics. The biggest studios have the money to do this and it gives them the ability to market their productions to people this way. Smaller studios/bedroom producers may instead use mic modeling plugins in their DAW to achieve similar results.

Surely you wouldn't insist that two cars from different manufacturers are identical simply because both are red and both can manage 184 km/h? Or, to put it another way, if one red car tops out at 184 km/h and the other at 194 km/h, is that really enough to conclude, with solemn authority, that the latter is the better machine?

Of course, the big studios own racks of equipment of various kind. But if, alongside the very latest toys, they still wheel out something like the Neumann M 49, however sparingly, that ought to tell us something, don't you think?

Some of the smaller companies, TACET for example, make a point of parading their affection for Neumann microphones on their website. Here's what they say:

In our constant search for new ways of optimal presentation, we had the idea to try it with pure tube technology, using the 'historical' microphones and equipment that were used in studios at the time of the invention of the LP. The result was called 'Tube Only' and was praised equally by experts and customers. Listeners describe the sound as warmer without losing brilliance. Others call it 'more homogeneous,' whatever that means. Everyone should listen to the Tube-Only recordings and experience something special. But even the pure joy of this slightly nostalgic top-notch technology can be reason enough to love such productions [...] The term 'Tube Only' is used when the entire recording apparatus is completely based on tube technology, entirely without transistors. For "Tube Only" LPs, even the transfer to lacquer is done with historical tube equipment. For 'Tube Only' CDs, the A/D converters are exempt from this, as there is no tube A/D converter.

And let's not forget, TACET isn't just some modest little shop. It's a studio responsible for some truly fine recordings, such as the Haydn string quartet cycle by the Auryn Quartet, which has more than a few admirers here on the forum.

[Todd]

It is charming to see people take ad copy literally.

[AnotherSpin]

Incorrect.

A remarkable precise observation. And, more importantly, a well-founded one.

[AnotherSpin]

It is charming to see people take ad copy literally.

Sorry for you, Todd. Surrounded by liars, aren't you. But don't give up. Keep exposing them, again and again