Integer is King? - the challenge

[JonasNorberg]

I love threads like this.

On a serious note. Does anyone have a dictionary of all the hi-fi terms like "punchy", "open", "having great depth", "clear", "tight bass", "3 dimensional".

Sometimes I think they have a real meaning that maybe "hi-fi" people know about but "scientific" people don't know.

Maybe "punchy" means pronounced transients.

Or maybe we're all being trolled...

[camsr]

I know what all those words mean. Unfortunately

[bmanic]

I love threads like this.

On a serious note. Does anyone have a dictionary of all the hi-fi terms like "punchy", "open", "having great depth", "clear", "tight bass", "3 dimensional".

Sometimes I think they have a real meaning that maybe "hi-fi" people know about but "scientific" people don't know.

Maybe "punchy" means pronounced transients.

Or maybe we're all being trolled...

They mean different things to everybody of course but there are certain things that engineers have used for decades just because words are needed to describe certain situations. For instance, "boxy", "tinny","nasal","hollow" etc. all point to certain frequency areas. I would say "punchy", "flat", "spiky", "lifeless" all mostly describe transients or a combination of both.

The thing is, in the end, science and exact measured patterns/distortion/whatnot is irrelevant as the human ear/brain connection is obviously subjective and is still quite a mystery.

Also emotion and "memory" of what sounds "good" is playing a large part. Just like food cultures. If you have grown up eating a certain dish then you will probably end up liking it very much at older age due to nostalgia and fond memories playing a huge role. Same goes for music and sound. Some older engineers say that the quality of audio engineering has gone drastically down since the 70's, personally I think it is utter bullshit. There are plenty of extremely well recorded modern records but these do not wake the nostalgic, warm, fuzzy feelings in the old engineer (there we go.. more magic words ). Same with the hardware creations. There has never been so many so high quality analogue/digital effects boxes as now. That desire for the vintage monster is completely unreasonable. Heck, I'd take an Elysia Alpha compressor any day over a vintage fairchild.. well, no, not really. I'd take the fairchild, sell it for some ridiculous sum and buy myself 2 or 3 Alpha compressors.

Cheers!
bManic

[aciddose]

"I would say "punchy", "flat", "spiky", "lifeless" all mostly describe transients or a combination of both."

i'd say actually that these describe the distortion characteristics of a system most of the time. it is funny that most people do not draw the connection that hifi == flat, lifeless. hifi has actually taken on the opposite meaning "punchy, fat".

[JCJR]

I like bmanic's explanation. Aciddose may make good points that distortion could have something to do with it.

By way of analogy, some judge famously claimed that pornography is difficult to define, but you know it when you see it. Unfortunately, going by that standard, the tweakier judges might rule against footwear catalogs or hamster books...

Anyway, Tight Bass might mean something real? Golden Ears are not a pre-requisite to hear 'woofy overhang' in for instance big old-style bass-reflex speakers driven by high-output-impedance tube amps. And it does sound perceptibly tighter in other cab designs driven by high-damping-factor amps. Theoretically it gets even better with servo-controlled woofers, but I've not heard many of those.

If that is what Tight Bass means, it would be easily measurable. But maybe Tight Bass means something else. Dunno.

Many listeners could subjectively agree on Punchy? It is confusing because sometimes a track gets MORE punchy by adding compression, but other tracks become LESS punchy if you add compression.

Perhaps a numerical measurement of 'punchy' would assign the highest numerical score to some 'sweet spot' of peak-vs-rms? Then the 'punch score' would decline on either side of that sweet spot? Just a dumb speculation.

[living sounds]

Part of it may have to do with listening habits, but I bet there is an inherently genetic component to it. In the real world, the nearer a source of sound is to the ear, the better are frequency and transient response, the lower is the diffuse portion. So in order for a recording to sound "in-your-face" or even "larger than life" these factors have to be considererd. Phase seems to have a lot do do with this as well, we tend to like certain things for example an analog EQ does to the phase.

The other point is that we like complexity. A beautiful landscape, a galactic nebula, a piece of art is enjoyable because of it's diversity and detailed structure (opposed to randomness). The nonlinearities of an analog process may work more into this direction.


As for the older-stuff-sounds-better thing: Well, I definetly prefer many 70s recordings to many of todays all-digital productions (and I'm only 27). Listen to "Fire And Rain" by James Taylor. A recording cannot get much better IMHO.

Oh, and "Dark Side Of The Moon" is certainly not the best sounding album of all time. "The Division Bell" sounds great though.

As for the SSL sound, that's not the pinnacle of audio engineering. It's fine if you want 'that' sound (of audio going to a lot of 5532s). I've got an SSL master bus compressor, but it mostly getting used for single tracks. I don't like the squashed transients on the whole drum bus, let alone the master bus.

To get on topic again: Why does the hardware FM synth sound better still ?

[camsr]

punch is dynamic usually in the 120hz region and below. at least thats how i define it. tight bass i would say is a bass sound that has overtones but is also limited in its bandwidth, maybe by a lowpass filter, so when the bass notes goes high there are less overtones and bass goes low there are more

[Kingston]

Oh, and "Dark Side Of The Moon" is certainly not the best sounding album of all time. "The Division Bell" sounds great though.

I think DSOTM is right up there in top5 and that division bell has that cold early nineties fatiquing "super engineer" sound. (I think it unforgivable what bob clearmountain has done to overall production styles)

Do you finally see the problem with your sweeping subjective statements?

Phase seems to have a lot do do with this as well, we tend to like certain things for example an analog EQ does to the phase.

have any idea at all just how many world class developers are taking part in this discussion, and just hopelessly silly just about everything you say looks like? give it a rest will you.

To get on topic again: Why does the hardware FM synth sound better still ?

that's not the topic. that's your personal endless imaginary subjective tirade. and it's gotten old.

[living sounds]

Kingston once again on the attack.
Well, all the "world class developers" code their stuff in order to be used by the people making the music. After all we're the ones to buy your products if it fits our needs. IF you can address the points I consider crucial to the sound stated earlier you're probably going to sell a lot more copys.
But childish arrogance won't do any good, so leave it. I haven't spotted the people from Acusticaudio - who created a marvelous plugin that finally gets VST sonically into the hardware realm - carrying out silly aggression the way you're doing. If you want to make a difference sit down and start working.

[bmanic]

"I would say "punchy", "flat", "spiky", "lifeless" all mostly describe transients or a combination of both."

i'd say actually that these describe the distortion characteristics of a system most of the time. it is funny that most people do not draw the connection that hifi == flat, lifeless. hifi has actually taken on the opposite meaning "punchy, fat".

Ah yes.. true. At least "spiky" (that ear piercing sound that makes each closed hihat sound like hell) and "lifeless" can definitely be due to distortion.

Cheers!
bManic

[Kingston]

IF you can address the points I consider crucial to the sound stated earlier you're probably going to sell a lot more copys.

...to a small group of people with more vivid imagination than the rest, ie. you and the rest of the gearslutz. I realise it's all in the marketing, but no thanks. everybody else is already happy.

you're truly on your own here.

can you at least back up why DSOTM is not one of the best sounding albums of all time, because your comments from the ivory tower don't quite reach me?

oh wait, you can't.

[bmanic]

Kingston, a pill of humility might really do you more good than harm. Why not try to understand what living sounds is saying instead of nit picking and trying to stomp him to the ground? He is writing (unless he has a trained monkey that does it for him) so it doesn't take a genius to understand that it is his subjective opinion, no matter how he puts it. Now CHILL dude.. please.

- bManic

[Kingston]

it doesn't take a genius to understand that it is his opinion and his opinion alone.

It's been clear from the beginning. he himself fails to realise this, and tries to convince a board of brilliant developers that they're wrong and science has failed. I mean just look at some of the people in this thread and realise who they are and what they've done.

[JonHodgson]

Kingston once again on the attack.
Well, all the "world class developers" code their stuff in order to be used by the people making the music. After all we're the ones to buy your products if it fits our needs. IF you can address the points I consider crucial to the sound stated earlier you're probably going to sell a lot more copys.
But childish arrogance won't do any good, so leave it. I haven't spotted the people from Acusticaudio - who created a marvelous plugin that finally gets VST sonically into the hardware realm - carrying out silly aggression the way you're doing. If you want to make a difference sit down and start working.

What I think Kingston is trying to say is that coming our with "great insights" like the one about phase on this forum is like trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

[nollock]

As for the older-stuff-sounds-better thing: Well, I definetly prefer many 70s recordings to many of todays all-digital productions (and I'm only 27). Listen to "Fire And Rain" by James Taylor. A recording cannot get much better IMHO.

See that typifies the problem with almost every argument you make. You say that you prefer X over Y, and then imply that it is because Y is all digital. When in fact you have no evidence to support that the difference is in fact because it is digital.

For example, what has changed most since the 70s is actualy production techniques. Recordings have more bass because they dont need to worry about needles jumping the groove. A lot is over compressed and over processed in general. Lots of stuff is multitracked up, layered. Performance has been lost in the quest for perfection.

Imo the difference is not down to digital, it's down to a change in production techniques. The ocd turd polishers have taken over.

Dont get me wrong, i'm sure some analog processors do have somthing over their digital counterparts, but there is just as likely many things that are better done in digital.

Oh, and "Dark Side Of The Moon" is certainly not the best sounding album of all time. "The Division Bell" sounds great though.

So you prefer the one recorded in 1994 over the 70s one?

LOL.

Tbh I agree with Kingston that TDB sounds cold and overproduced. But then i like music that has a *live* dynamic, sounds like it's a band all playing together, in the groove, rather than airbrushed ocd perfect.

To get on topic again: Why does the hardware FM synth sound better still ?

80s digital has always been better than 00s digital. Just is mate, they doped the silicon differently back then, transistors were bigger, and all the backcombed hairspayed 80s mops used to help break up the rf interference. Rsulted in a sharper / rounder / more liquid sound.

ect..