# The Distortion of Sound



## JBrax

Rather long but a must watch if you like music.


----------



## JBrax

Nobody found this to be a good watch?


----------



## AudiocRaver

Interesting video and topic. There are many angles to the topic.

When it comes to choosing between lo-fi ahd hi-fi, be it electronics, speakers, or media quality, it seems like there are three groups that people fall into:

Those who really cannot tell the difference.
Those who can hear the difference and like the higher quality, but do not miss it and easily go back to the low quality version for convenience.
Those who can hear the difference and like the higher quality, and upon discovering it want better sound quality and pursue it:
Buy better equipment.
Insist on lossless media.

It can be argued that most people are auditorially trainable to some degree, and upon repeated exposure to better quality listening experiences would grow to appreciate it and perhaps even insist upon it more and more.


----------



## Peter Loeser

I do find it interesting that almost everyone is instantly impressed by better picture quality, but so many don't notice or don't care about better audio quality.


----------



## JBrax

Peter Loeser said:


> I do find it interesting that almost everyone is instantly impressed by better picture quality, but so many don't notice or don't care about better audio quality.


 I couldn't have said it any better myself! I think part of that is the amount of work and in cases where one doesn't settle for a soundbar the amount of room required. It's much easier to obtain the better picture//video aspect because we purchase the display and that job is done. The financial commitment and the placing of speakers around the room isn't so easy. In the end the integration of both provides a much better experience and to me is well worth it.


----------



## tonyvdb

As someone who has been running front of house sound in a larger church here in my home city for 30 years plus doing some studio engineering. I find the quality of sound to be the most important thing and then video comes second. 
Todays generation is so fixed on fast streaming low quality compressed files the art of sound has truly been lost to most. Distortion to me is all to common even in some of the best audio mixes on movies. (the latest Spider man comes to mind) I wonder how many people noticed that?


----------



## phreak

AudiocRaver said:


> It can be argued that most people are auditorially trainable to some degree, and upon repeated exposure to better quality listening experiences would grow to appreciate it and perhaps even insist upon it more and more.


My wife couldn't tell the difference between high fidelity and tv speakers when I started down this path. She has since come a long way. When we visit different churches she is quick to comment on the sound quality, easily differentiating between good and bad and starting to pick up on the technical lingo. We have been without a HT now for almost 2 years (maybe that's why I haven't been as active here) and she is almost as desperate for a dedicated room as I am. 3.0 and 42" in an open area doesn't cut it anymore, even for her. Audio has taken her a long time but video happened overnight. She couldn't see the difference between 480i up converted by the TV and a native 1080i. The next day she couldn't believe the difference. Yep, laser eye surgery works.


----------



## JBrax

phreak said:


> My wife couldn't tell the difference between high fidelity and tv speakers when I started down this path. She has since come a long way. When we visit different churches she is quick to comment on the sound quality, easily differentiating between good and bad and starting to pick up on the technical lingo. We have been without a HT now for almost 2 years (maybe that's why I haven't been as active here) and she is almost as desperate for a dedicated room as I am. 3.0 and 42" in an open area doesn't cut it anymore, even for her. Audio has taken her a long time but video happened overnight. She couldn't see the difference between 480i up converted by the TV and a native 1080i. The next day she couldn't believe the difference. Yep, laser eye surgery works.


 That's eerily similar to my wife. I've owned every center channel in the Klipsch Reference lineup and each time she's like "sounds the same to me". That was until she heard the rc-42 II at a Best Buy recently and quickly said "you're right I hear the difference". Whenever we go to someone's house (sports related watch parties) she'll always comment on the lack of sound.


----------



## GCG

I just found this film independently of this topic. It was while searching for info on FLAC compression. 

I recently replaced my front speakers in my Xterra and while getting them installed I had the chance to check the Kenwood KMM-100U head unit I had installed. I was looking for possible clipping. It was terrible. The volume went to 35 and the unit clipped beginning at 27. When asked why I picked that head unit I told them that it played FLAC files and I wouldn't have to rip my CDs twice. None of the young installers even knew what FLAC compression was or why it might be important. SAD.

I'm now in the market for a new head unit that plays FLAC and has pre-outs. With any luck even if the main speaker outs clip perhaps the pre-outs won't and I'll be able to run an amp. Top of the very short list - Pioneer DEH-X8700BS


----------



## AudiocRaver

GCG said:


> The volume went to 35 and the unit clipped beginning at 27.


This simply means that there is enough gain to reach the power level where clipping begins before the volume control gets to its max value. There is nothing bad about it, it actually seems about right. With a quieter track you would have a little more boost available if you wanted it.

The bigger question is about listening volume. Was the test track at a desirable listening volume before you reached the clipping level? Ideal would be that you reach desired listening volume with no clipping, then you increase the volume another 1 to 3 dB before it starts to clip (this will barely sound any louder).



> None of the young installers even knew what FLAC compression was or why it might be important. SAD.


No surprise, but yes it is sad.


----------



## chashint

JBrax said:


> That's eerily similar to my wife. I've owned every center channel in the Klipsch Reference lineup and each time she's like "sounds the same to me". That was until she heard the rc-42 II at a Best Buy recently and quickly said "you're right I hear the difference". Whenever we go to someone's house (sports related watch parties) she'll always comment on the lack of sound.


She prefers the RC-42II over the RC-52/62/64II ??? ....incredible.


----------



## GCG

AudiocRaver said:


> This simply means that there is enough gain to reach the power level where clipping begins before the volume control gets to its max value. There is nothing bad about it, it actually seems about right. With a quieter track you would have a little more boost available if you wanted it.
> 
> The bigger question is about listening volume. Was the test track at a desirable listening volume before you reached the clipping level? Ideal would be that you reach desired listening volume with no clipping, then you increase the volume another 1 to 3 dB before it starts to clip (this will barely sound any louder).
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise, but yes it is sad.


I'm sure it's a standard practice but it just doesn't seem right. A 1kHz/0dB (that I downloaded *HERE* as a WAV file) reference signal was clipping and sending very nasty sounding harmonics to the dash mounted tweeters. Normal listening level is 18-22 down from 20-24 (the OEM speakers were 2Ω) although I've pushed it to the limit (just to 27-28) and the resulting distortion is intolerable, at least to me. I'll be replacing the rears in a week or so and I am pretty sure I'll put a separate amp in.


----------



## AudiocRaver

GCG said:


> I'm sure it's a standard practice but it just doesn't seem right. A 1kHz/0dB (that I downloaded *HERE* as a WAV file) reference signal was clipping and sending very nasty sounding harmonics to the dash mounted tweeters. Normal listening level is 18-22 down from 20-24 (the OEM speakers were 2Ω) although I've pushed it to the limit (just to 27-28) and the resulting distortion is intolerable, at least to me. I'll be replacing the rears in a week or so and I am pretty sure I'll put a separate amp in.


Not arguing with you. Volume of a sine wave is VERY difficult to relate to regular program material. A 0 dB sine wave can drive ANY amp to clip with enough gain, so you end up back to the volume question, was it loud enough, and what signal best helps you determine that.

You seem headed down the _more power is better_ path, hard to argue against if you have the $$$$, and many have followed it for peace of mind, self included. Simply pointing out how it all fits together.


----------



## JBrax

chashint said:


> She prefers the RC-42II over the RC-52/62/64II ??? ....incredible.


 No, with each incremental upgrade she would not hear the difference or "much difference" in her words. After living with the RC-64 II for awhile now and again hearing the RC-42 II she definitely heard a difference.


----------



## chashint

JBrax said:


> No, with each incremental upgrade she would not hear the difference or "much difference" in her words. After living with the RC-64 II for awhile now and again hearing the RC-42 II she definitely heard a difference.


Thank you.
That makes much more sense.
Sorry I missed the intent in the original reply.


----------



## JBrax

chashint said:


> Thank you. That makes much more sense. Sorry I missed the intent in the original reply.


 All good but the jump from 62 to 64 wasn't as much as I expected.


----------



## vanderschel

JBrax said:


> Nobody found this to be a good watch?


It was interesting, but interviewing musicians about why they're frustrated w/ lossy compression techniques is similar to interviewing audio engineers about the challenges of creative musical composition. The title was misleading, too. I was expecting a video explaining why CDs are more accurate than vinyl. 

Seriously, I can't tolerate listening to MP3s. I have 60+ year old ears, a steady decline in hearing above 10KHz, and I can hear the difference.


----------



## Talley

I have many friends that says the HTIB setups sound fine that I'm wasting my money on doing all the acoustical treatment, krell amps, and eventually high end speakers etc....

I can hear a difference. and to me this is all that matters.

I'm sure my wife after I'm setup and running and her listening to movies for a year will become use to the good sound then have issues when not hearing the goodness.


----------



## JBrax

Bmxer241 said:


> I have many friends that says the HTIB setups sound fine that I'm wasting my money on doing all the acoustical treatment, krell amps, and eventually high end speakers etc.... I can hear a difference. and to me this is all that matters. I'm sure my wife after I'm setup and running and her listening to movies for a year will become use to the good sound then have issues when not hearing the goodness.


 It's very strange watching tv somewhere other than home. I'm sure most wives acclimated to good surround sound notice the difference.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Bmxer241 said:


> I can hear a difference. and to me this is all that matters..


Let them scoff. You are focusing on areas that can make a big difference, on speakers, setup, and room treatment. Some will appreciate it, some will not. Follow your ears and enjoy!


----------



## vanderschel

Bmxer241 said:


> I'm sure my wife after I'm setup and running and her listening to movies for a year will become use to the good sound then have issues when not hearing the goodness.


I always have chocolate and flowers presented before I have the wife audition a new piece of equipment. She's usually the highest impedance factor in the system. She may be the most objective, so I don't discount her opinion.


----------



## AudiocRaver

vanderschel said:


> It was interesting, but interviewing musicians about why they're frustrated w/ lossy compression techniques is similar to interviewing audio engineers about the challenges of creative musical composition. The title was misleading, too. I was expecting a video explaining why CDs are more accurate than vinyl.
> 
> Seriously, I can't tolerate listening to MP3s. I have 60+ year old ears, a steady decline in hearing above 10KHz, and I can hear the difference.


I watched the linked video a second time. It does contain some misinformation. With the main topic being the MP3 format, they talk a lot about compression, and end up confusing different kinds of compression.

Dynamic Compression - reducing the dynamic range of a recording.
Digital Compression - reducing the amount of data it takes to reproduce a recording, by way of
Dynamic Compression
Removal of high-frequency information leading to HF tonal reduction
Removal of high-frequency information leading to HF dynamic distortion

In the video, when they discuss the effects of Digital Compression in MP3s, they demonstrate _extreme_ amounts of Dynamic Compression. Dynamic Compression is found very little in MP3 encoding. It is used in varying degrees in recording as a creative tool and as a way to even out an instrument's or track's volume, and sometimes in the mastering process (usually beyond the involvement or approval of the artist) and can, but often does not, "squeeze the life out of the music." Again, that does not happen in MP3 encoding.

What does occur in MP3 encoding is reduction of HF information, leading to both HF tonal reduction and an increase of HF dynamic distortion - distortion which occurs on signal transients. This is more complicated to describe and to demonstrate, so they resorted to demonstrating Dynamic Compression instead.

Not saying it is a bad video, just that part of it was not totally truthful.


----------



## GCG

What isn't misleading is that there is a loss in audio quality. I don't have the best hearing (the Navy sonar tech test proved that to me years before my mild tinnitus began setting in) but I can hear it. There is an answer. 

FLAC 

FLAC is compressed but lossless. It could be part of the basic download menu of choices. It has the containers needed to carry the metadata for title, artist, album, and cover art and such. With the higher capacities of newer digital storage it's easy to match the same basic song for song capacity of just a few years ago. All my CDs are ripped to FLAC. If the major audio manufacturers and artists would make more noise about it and convince the newer consumers that it mattered it could turn things around. Really, if you grew up thinking frozen fish sticks were the end all of seafood and then were exposed to fresh shrimp, crab, and lobster - hey, even catfish - it would make you wonder what else you might be missing. 

The hookup between the artists on the film and Harman is a good first step but the rest of the manufacturers and artists need to jump on the wagon. The artists could start pushing for the download services to offer their work in the FLAC format. It's definitely in the best interest of the manufacturers. When the current generation of consumers is gone they are the ones that will suffer from the loss in demand. When the "Macdonald's generation of audio consumers" is all that's left will there be a demand for the likes of Onkyo, Denon, Yamaha, or Pioneer let alone the upper end like McIntosh and Krell?


----------



## AudiocRaver

Totally agree that:

FLAC is the way to go.
MP3, at best (320k) is barely tolerable, and with more compression becomes less so very quickly. I rip to FLAC but have old rips that are MP3 that I listen to occasionally. The return to FLAC is always obvious and refreshing.
Most listeners can hear the difference. Some simply don't care. Unfortunately, that makes it harder to demand the option.


----------



## vanderschel

AudiocRaver said:


> Totally agree that:
> 
> FLAC is the way to go.
> MP3, at best (320k) is barely tolerable, and with more compression becomes less so very quickly. I rip to FLAC but have old rips that are MP3 that I listen to occasionally. The return to FLAC is always obvious and refreshing.
> Most listeners can hear the difference. Some simply don't care. Unfortunately, that makes it harder to demand the option.


I agree, but I rip to *.wav files w/ EAC, since digital storage is cheap these days. Is there a reason to rip to FLAC besides smaller file size?


----------



## AudiocRaver

vanderschel said:


> I agree, but I rip to *.wav files w/ EAC, since digital storage is cheap these days. Is there a reason to rip to FLAC besides smaller file size?


Absolutely none. I am actually gravitating toward .wav as well, using EAC.


----------



## GCG

vanderschel said:


> I agree, but I rip to *.wav files w/ EAC, since digital storage is cheap these days. Is there a reason to rip to FLAC besides smaller file size?


Data tagging is the only thing I can think of.


----------



## AudiocRaver

GCG said:


> Data tagging is the only thing I can think of.


Good point. I tend to organize and navigate by folder structure, so don't think about tags very much. To many, it is a big deal.


----------



## Lumen

AudiocRaver said:


> Absolutely none. I am actually gravitating toward .wav as well, using EAC.





GCG said:


> Data tagging is the only thing I can think of.


Exact Audio Cop (EAC)? I thought I was a wierdo for caring about the rip :devil:


----------



## AudiocRaver

BlueRockinLou said:


> Exact Audio Cop (EAC)? I thought I was a wierdo for caring about the rip :devil:


This is one of those cases where going overboard is as easy as the normal route, costs nothing more, has no downside, so why not?

The reason that some will give to use EAC is to prevent errors that regular rippers might miss that could subtly change the sound. I have ripped a hundred or so CDs with EAC and it has caught errors only two times. In both cases, the error was too severe to be "played through" by a normal drive or ripping program. So I think the whole thing is overblown.

But it is free and easy, so why not?


----------

