rostain (11/01/82)
There is no such thing as a "certified" audiophile. There are certified
audio consultants, but anyone can call him/herself an audiophile.
What I would like to say, though is that I am disappointed with digital
recording, not because it isn't accurate, but because it sinply isn't suited
for most listening, even "audiophile" listing. Let me state one problem
in particular. Suppose I am listening to the 1812 overture. The dynamic range
is so good, that the soft portions are 3000 times softer than the bursts from
the canons. In order to avoid destroying my eardrums I set my volume control
quite low. The effect of this is to set the quieter portions so low that I have to strain to listen to them. The problem is that while there are times that I appreciate the increased dynamic range, it happens just as often that I
appreciate some sort of steadiness in loudness. Eventually, dynamic range
expanders should be versatile enough (and cheap enough) to handle this problem
effectively. Until then, though, I will continue to avoid digital recordings.
No system is perfect. The louder music sounds, the better it sounds.
Obviously, some dynamic range is necessary. I prefer to listen to a piece of
music at a reasonably high level, so that at any point in time, since an
instrument sounds loud, it sounds more real. I really think that generaly,
this is better than having to listen to a 5 minute portion softly for the
sake of appreciating the difference. You see, dynamic range is great during
loud portions, and enhances the music's reality. However, too often, in order
to enphasize increased dynamic range, digital recording companies choose pieces
with great contrast in loudness between portions of the recording. I don't
like it. I wou;d really like to now other's opinion on the matter. For those
of you who have managed to read this through, I apoligize for the sloppiness
of my style. It is uncharacteristic of me. Anyway, please respond.burris (11/01/82)
#R:yale-com:-18100:ihlpb:4000012: 0:920 ihlpb!burris Nov 1 0:54:00 1982 OK, here's my response. A dymamic range as stated, i.e. cannons = 3000 times greater than the other passages. 10 times = 10 db. 100 times = 20 db. 1000 times = 30 db. 3000 times = approx. 34.77121 db. Even analog recordings from 15-20 years ago can exceed this dynamic range by quite a bit. The capabibility of the human ear to distinguish differences in level ranges from the threshold of hearing (approx. 0 db.) to the threshold of pain (approx. 123 db.) depending on how deaf you already are. This equates to a level difference >1X10e12 or 1,000,000,000,000. For those of you who have ever been in the same room with a snare drum, what do you suppose the level difference is between quiet and someone pounding on the drum? Many rock groups play at the excessive volume of 110-115 db. I could go on and on but the point is made. Another case of opinion without facts! Dave Burris ihlpb!burris BTL - Naperville
jcw (11/01/82)
To add to Dave's info that the human ear can distinguish differences in level from 0 to 123 db: I recall (from where I have forgotten) that the level must change at least 3 db before the human ear can distinguish the change. And the best description of what that really means is: when you ask (tell?) your child to turn down the volume on the TV, he/she turns it down one db.
shauns (11/02/82)
With regards to the `listenability' of digital recording- I think you need to define just exactly what you mean by `digital recording'. The earliest examples of digitally mastered recordings (from Telarc, Denon, et al) were carefully chosen to emphatically demonstrate the capabilities of the medium. They sound great in the audio store listening room. They were never meant for casual listening-indeed, I listen to such recordings rarely, and only when I feel in need of adrenalin or my downstairs neighbor's ire. Most of the time I can't stand the overemotional readings these pieces are often given. It appears to me that the author's comments referred to this type of recording. Digital recording has been out long enough for the pop/Jazz segment of the record industry to begin using it, and the most recent efforts on this medium show none of the bombastic qualities of the Telarc clan. Instead, there is a sensation of effortless realism. Listen to, for instance, `Passages' by William Ackerman on the Windam Hill label, or some of the new ECM stuff by Keith Jarrett. Here the overall volume level is relatively constant, but the intimacy and technical nature of the music demands the utmost in recording quality. There is no need here to prove that the recording medium has a S/N of 70dB (below the average signal level, guys) but the lack of that capacity would be very obvious in the listening. These recordings, interestingly, can be played casually at background levels but also will not disappoint (or strain the ears) if auditioned at critical volumes, i.e., LOUD. I guess what I'm trying to say is that to denegrate a recording simply because it is digitally mastered is to miss the point. The record producers are still playing with their new toy-flexing their technical muscles. Moderation is bound to suffer. Once normal musical sensibilities reassert themselves (and digital studio time costs come down) the digitally mastered product becomes what it was intended to be-a better way of accomplishing the same task. I'd also like to take issue with the author's complaint about earstrain and the contention that music sounds more real the louder it is. Music sounds real when its played back at the actual recorded level. For rock music, the louder it is, the more real it is. But if you've been to a classical concert and have seats anywhere behind front row center, the average level is dang low. It's very easy for the soft passages to get lost in the audience's coughing. Close miking techniques and the studio recording environment play tricks with our perception of the orchestra. If you're sitting in the first trumpet's lap, Those crescendos are painful! But they certainly DON'T reflect what the audience experiences. Finally, I find that I enjoy music more when it is played at soft levels, because then I can concentrate on hearing the MUSIC instead of shutting out the NOISE that overloud music is. Comments? Not afraid to be overlong, Shaun Simpkins tekcad!shauns Tektronix, Beaverton, OR.