Simpletons Vs. Audiophiles

[stevetoney]

I've spent all my time on the Hi-MD forum, so I'm posting this thread here. I'm not sure if this thread is appropriate for this forum. If not, moderators please feel free to move it.

***

I've been at this live music recording thing for quite number of years now. I've watched as audio-tekkies debate issues endlessly with simpletons, and in the end neither convinces the other of anything. Since I'm new to this forum, I spent some time catching up on some of the technical threads and, not surprisingly, these types of technical debates predominate here as well.

My definition of the two is probably obvious. The audio-teckkies love discussing the technical details...they like looking at graphs and data. The simpleton just likes to listen to great sounding music.

What I wanted to point out is that, while the basic goal for both is the same, good quality recordings, the goals diverge from there. The important thing to remember though is that both classes of live music recordists have equal merit. The goals of one camp are no more or less valid that the goals of the other. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the beholder is the only one that can satisfy himself.

For the audiophiles, their goal is to capture a great performance, but they also want a great recording with technical excellence, bit perfect renderings of an audio performance. The music needs to appeal to their ears, but the quality of the data also must appeal to their eyes and technical brains...technical details matter to the audio-tekkie just as much as the final audio result.

For the simpleton, their goal is also to capture a great performance, but they basically consider the quality of the recording a function of what they hear and what is performed. Basically, that's where it ends for them.

I'm not averse to debates, nor am I attempting to preclude any debating over this forum because I simply can't stand it when people post to say 'can't we all just get along' when all that people are doing is intelligently debating an issue.

But I am suggesting that, if might help the debaters if they remember and realize that, when you are debating technical issues with a member of the opposite camp, your should just remember that your 'excellence' measures are not the same.

An audio-teckkie will never convince a simpleton on technical merit alone and conversely, a simpleton will never convince an audio-teckie on sound quality alone.

Another point is that, for me personally, I'd LOVE to know before I read a technical feedback thread which camp that person comes from. An audio tekkie may say...Hi-MD is garbage and here are some reasons why. That input may have 100% merit to another audio-tekkie, but have absolutely no value to the simpleton...and vice versa.

In future 'review' type posts, I may even declare myself to be a simpleton at the beginning of the post. That way, the audio-teckkies will understand where I am coming from and might feel more or less inclined to comment based on an understanding of which camp of person they are talking to...again and vice versa.

In most cases, from the post it's probably fairly obvious which camp a person comes from. However, lots of threads don't have the detail. They just say make concluding statements, such as the most basic 'Hi-MD sucks' statements that don't give enough detail.

Wondering what others think about these thoughts.

[aeriyn]

Moving to correct forum...

Not all audiophiles are interested in the engineering side of the spectrum. I consider myself an audiophile because of the definition of the word.

audiophile - one expressing an ardent interest in high-quality, high-fidelity audio and audio recordings

Now I'm not big on the recording side... I recorded a few live shows, made a few bucks. It was okay. Mostly, music's just part of my life. Listening to it that is. I don't care about graphs or charts or statistics. If the music sounds good, whether or not it's bit-perfect to the original PCM source, that's what I'm concerned with.

Fidelity is not a major concern with me as it is with most audiophiles. I don't care if the music sounds like itself; I care if it sounds GOOD. Signal processing, amplification, EQ and tonal adjustments are all fine with me, especially if they make the music sound better.

I'm really sort of a wanna-be audiophile; as I don't have nearly enough money to support my hobby. :grin: Sheesh, I'm struggling along to build a PIMETA headphone amp, which parts will only run me about 160USD. So yeah, I'm a little too poor to be a "true" audiophile.

As I write this, I'm sitting down listening to an SP mode recording of Aikawa Nanase's "midnight blue" on my Sharp MD-DS8. It sounds really nice; I don't stress out because it's not bit-accurate to the original CD. Who cares? It's transparent enough for my purposes. Although, I'd have liked it better if it was recorded with an MD deck rather than a portable...

But you get the point. Not all audiophiles are concerned about fidelity, and not all regular folk are concerned with sound quality. In fact, most people I know who are definitely not audio-nerds honestly believe that 128kbps MP3 is CD-transparent. :laugh:

So you see, there's something of a middle run; those who want the best sounding stuff they can get, but don't really care much about how they get it.

By the way, I think Hi-MD sucks, too. That's why I'm still with my "old" standard-MD DS8. Hi-MD, while offering many new useful features for recordists... most of these new features are crippled by restrictions and DRM that make them close to useless.

Sony = the Japanese word for shortsightedness.

[Hyena]

Interesting thoughts, although most audiophiles do not care about "caputing a great performance", but more or less to recreate a great performance, using their playback equipment.

As for "Hi-MD sucks" statements, it's all personal opinion really. It depends on what you want to use it for. I doubt it really excels at a playback device, however as a recording medium it holds it's ground. (Despite the fact of the DRM in place etc.)

Although, I'd have liked it better if it was recorded with an MD deck rather than a portable....

O/T, I don't understand your reasoning for this. The encoder chip present in a JB920 is the same that's in any Type-S portable. The only real differences are the ADC and DAC's in the deck, which are obviously better than any portable, however if you're doing digital dubs, there is no need for either one, so it's moot.

[aeriyn]

there's a difference in the recording quality of decks vs. portable, namely the Wide Bit Stream capability and possibly by virtue of the fact that they are running on uninterrupted AC power while my portable recorder was on batteries.

also, the N505 is not the most sterling example of a MD recorder. I doubt that its recordings are just as good as a deck with comparable ATRAC version (4.5R) but higher-quality components.

[Hyena]

there's a difference in the recording quality of decks vs. portable, namely the Wide Bit Stream capability and possibly by virtue of the fact that they are running on uninterrupted AC power while my portable recorder was on batteries.

also, the N505 is not the most sterling example of a MD recorder. I doubt that its recordings are just as good as a deck with comparable ATRAC version (4.5R) but higher-quality components.

Hm. Well despite the fact that there are no proper ABX tests done between the two, if you ask Sony for their definition of WBS (Wide Bit Stream), they'll tell you: "The input circuit, the output circuit and their peripheral circuits operate on the 20-bit audio data so that the maximum performance of the ATRAC IC which operates on 20-bit and higher can be fully utilized."

Hmmmm.... let's take a look at Sony's online glossary of WBS:

"Conventional MiniDisc playback is done with 16-bit signal processing, WBS technology increases the rate to 18-bit or higher. This results in more accurate playback of even subtle sound signals, and greatly improves the signal to noise ratio."

HmmMMMMmm.... well, assuming that they do mean playback on other MD devices, such as MD players you'd need to look at the definition of WBS processing:

"Refinements to the ATRAC processor of the MiniDisc format have enabled signal resolution to match 20 bit processing, increasing the ability to express subtle, low level details that would otherwise be lost. "Block Floating" processing elevates these signals above the cut-off threshold and returns them to their original level upon playback."

...so, MD players that do not posses WBS processing as well as "Block Floating processing" are still able to "elevate [the] signals above the cut-off threshold and [return] them to their orignal level upon playback"?

Hm. Oh yes, the fact that they run on uninterrupted AC. Too bad portable MD recorders don't come with some sort of AC jack on them to make use of an adaptor.... :laugh:

[aeriyn]

:laugh:

I was speaking of my N505 in particular. I've misplaced the wall wart that came with it and I'm too lazy to buy a new 3v adapter. :grin:

I wasn't talking in general, but your point is well taken.

I'm still buying an MD deck. :whatever:

[Hyena]

:laugh:  

I was speaking of my N505 in particular. I've misplaced the wall wart that came with it and I'm too lazy to buy a new 3v adapter.  :grin:  

I wasn't talking in general, but your point is well taken.

I'm still buying an MD deck.  :whatever:

I know, I was just being a jack ass. :happy:

I'm not saying that it's worthless to buy a deck, however I'm just stating that the improvements of deck recording vs. portable isn't that great.

I've been trying to find a deck myself, but like... they all suck. Maybe if the MDS-JE480 had a Control-A1 jack...

Bleh. One day I swear I shall own a ES MD deck. >__<

[aeriyn]

I'm just trying to find any old 4.5R deck...

Maybe if I can make off with a JE330 for under 75USD... :laugh:

I'm jealous of Skyther's PC1.

[skyther]

I have 3 A1 jacks. *flaunt*

[aeriyn]

I have 3 A1 jacks. *flaunt*

Do you USE them? :laugh:

Hasn't the PC1 been powered off for a month?

Hey skyth, would it be crazynuts to put a DAC in my amp? :laugh: :laugh:

[skyther]

Use it for MD Editor sometimes, but the PC1 has been in a peaceful slumber.

If you're going to build a DAC, why don't you build a seperate one? Combining analog + digital components on a single power supply = bad.

[bhangraman]

I can be fairly uncritical most of the time. Some of my most entertaining recent listening has come due to relatively (relatively to what I have that is) lo-fi reproduction of the kit I happened to be using at the time.

However I can just as easily slip into ultra anally retentive audiophile mode. I can be actually staggered by the 'poor sound' of PCM reproduction on Hi-MD (it's not actually poor, but when I put on my audiophile hat it is surprisingly bad given Sony's previous track record). You can sneak a new potentiometer for the volume control on an amp and I'll notice it immediately. I highly suspect that the anal retentive audiophile is my 'natural self'.

However it is nice and useful to be able to put yourself in different 'shoes' in this regard. Being an audiophile all the time would be boring, not to mention impractical.

[dex Otaku]

I tend to be somewhat more moderate than bhangraman, having mostly done sound for tiny concerts in tiny venues. The sound systems in those situations tend to be well-mated equipment but not of the highest quality.

Compromise in how I hear is practically a daily requerement. I think that my natural self is likely the audiophile snob who hears the difference between a diamond and sapphire stylus, notices that one of your tweeters is wired out of phase, &c.

However - I am most accustomed to having to deal with people for whom the only criterion that make up "sound quality" is basically "can I hear it? If I can hear it, does it hurt?"

Which honestly.. because of my hearing damage tends to force me to be far more moderate in amplifying things on stage, for instance, than most others are. I am known for leaving the master slider of a mixer that is otherwise all set with channels to peak between 0 and +6dB at -10db.. meaning I'm running the PA about 2.5X quieter than anyone else who runs it.. and yet, the guy that owns the equipment pats me on the shoulder and tells me it sounds great, and laughs his ass off when he notices the mains at -10.

Um. Yeah.

I have many pairs of shoes for audio. The one constant between all of them is trying to avoid two things: pain [since I have a low pain-threshod of hearing] and overstimulation [since I can actually self-induce hallucinations, synaesthesia, when exposed to loud music].

[KJ_Palmer]

I'm of the school that says, if it sounds all right it is all right (more or less). If that makes me a Simpleton (I'm sure it does), than I'll proudly wear my dunce hat...

I've been to many concerts (primarily chamber or small orchestral classical music) where the sound reaching my wears has been less than perfect. Such is the nature of things - hall accoustics, the person next to me coughing into my ear, the odd bum note. I wouldn't want all that reproduced 'perfectly'.

It's impossible anyway, and endlessly tweaking would distract from the musical enjoyment, which for me is what it's all about. It just annoys me that an audiophiler would criticise me for not caring about sound quality - I do, but not in the same way perhaps...

[Christopher]

However it is nice and useful to be able to put yourself in different 'shoes' in this regard. Being an audiophile all the time would be boring, not to mention impractical.

Bhang, thank you for saying that. I really hope that alot of the people who indulge in high fidelity audio carry such a mentality, but unfortunately, I know they don't. I'm glad that you've got a level head. :happy: