[LisaShayBrown]

please, i dont need a crappy study to know that a unknowledge chess player would be more convenient in playing bad plays... more BS... but i guess its some more BS that can be pointed to

@Ghoostknight

bigshot's latest stroke of genius is talking about noise gates on mic pre's.
gregorio literally said audio processing is not to make audio sound better.

tells you all you need to know.

 

[bigshot]

The noise gates are separate from the mic pres. Gregorio misread what I said there. What I was told is that the high end tube amps suit the processing better. But that's just what I'm told, and it may just apply to voice over work. Pro audio equipment isn't an area where I have a lot of experience. I know more about home audio, which is what we discuss here most of the time.

 

[gregorio]

bigshot's latest stroke of genius is talking about noise gates on mic pre's.

Noise gates are commonly used after mic pres, so he wasn’t entirely wrong, only about noise gates being built-in to mic pres.

gregorio literally said audio processing is not to make audio sound better.

Duh! There are numerous lo-fi/bit crusher, saturation, vinyl, tube and many other types of plugins that allow all manner of distortions to be applied, as well as numerous hardware units specifically chosen for their distortion that are commonly used during both mixing and mastering. Why do you think there are so many of these types of plugins, even made by commercial companies/developers, if no one ever uses them?

It’s bad enough you mock the actual facts when you are clearly ignorant of them yourself but even more ridiculous that you keep repeating the same nonsense even after it’s been explained/demonstrated to you and you therefore no longer have ignorance as your excuse!

tells you all you need to know.

As you apparently ONLY ever support nonsense/false assertions and do so purely on the basis of wilful ignorance, then your post does indeed “tells us all we need to know”. Namely, that you’re a troll and the assertion/s you’re supporting is almost certainly nonsense. Well done!

G

 

[71 dB]

Sound quality (objective) is a different thing as something sounding better (subjective).

Sometimes sound quality and sounding better do correlate, for example a modern digitally made recording of a symphony probably sounds better and has higher sound quality than an 100 years old acoustic recording of the exact same symphony.

Sometimes sound quality and sounding better don't correlate, for example some people prefer using audio gear that lowers sound quality, but make the music sound better for them and I use crossfeed with headphones which lowers objective sound quality, but makes the sound subjectively better for me. The question is, at which point in the preproduction chain do we declare sound quality? Before or after a non-linear tube amp has distorted it? Before or after crossfeed?

 

[bigshot]

Sound quality (objective) is a different thing as something sounding better (subjective).

Absolutely true. A better word than "quality" would be "fidelity" though. "Quality" still infers some subjectivity, because quality can be judged. "Fidelity" is objective. "Better" is subjective as you say.

 

[gregorio]

The question is, at which point in the preproduction chain do we declare sound quality? Before or after a non-linear tube amp has distorted it? Before or after crossfeed?

As it’s a reproduction chain, then obviously “after”, as obviously it’s job is to reproduce not to produce. So at a fundamental level, we can take the input signal and define the sound quality/fidelity of particular parts of the reproduction chain (or the whole chain) by how closely the output matches the input. However, there are some potential exceptions, for example room correction/EQ, where the output of the corrective EQ is significantly different to the input but only in order for the input at the listing position to be more closely matched to the input of the corrective EQ. In other words, the sound quality of corrective EQ cannot be measured on it’s own, only in conjunction with the HPs or speakers + room.

Adding for example additional bass, tube, NOS or some other distortion is not sound quality (or rather, it’s lower sound quality/fidelity) it’s a preference. And this is the mistake so commonly made by audiophiles, if they prefer it they’ll typically call it “better sound quality” even though it’s actually worse! Crossfeed and HRTF + room convolution and head-tracking is a special case. In some regards it can be viewed similarly to corrective EQ, EG. The output will not match the input but at the listening position (say ear drum in the case of HPs) could match the intended reproduction. However, it’s as much or more about perception as it is about what actually hits your ear drums (particularly in the case of crossfeed) and there’s also virtually always at least some degree of preference, so it’s not as clear cut as it is with say a DAC or amp and we can’t measure/compare an input signal with an output.

G

 

[71 dB]

Absolutely true. A better word than "quality" would be "fidelity" though. "Quality" still infers some subjectivity, because quality can be judged. "Fidelity" is objective. "Better" is subjective as you say.

Fidelity is a good term, especially since "High-Fidelity" is so well established in our language in the form Hi-Fi. Quality is both subjective and objective. Air quality for example is an objectively measurable thing, but you also have your own subjective opinion about the air quality in your living room.

 

[bigshot]

you also have your own subjective opinion about the air quality in your living room.

Especially when the dog is particularly gassy!

 

[bigshot]

The question is, at which point in the preproduction chain do we declare sound quality? Before or after a non-linear tube amp has distorted it? Before or after crossfeed?

Signal processing is like the salt and pepper shakers on the dinner table. The cook creates the meal perfectly to their ability, and then just before you eat, you taste it and add salt and pepper if you want it. It's the same with sound fidelity... Perfect fidelity should be maintained up to the last step, the amping for sending out to the transducers. If you apply signal processing to the source, every source will end up sounding different. You want to apply the processing evenly across all the sources at the very end of the chain.