Generational reproduction. An audiophile discussion.

treitz3

Ok, I'm not talking about what generation of music you grew up with.

What I am talking about and what I would like to discuss and narrow down is this.........What is the minimum amount of generations of reproduction one can have in order to listen to the reproduction of a musical performance on your home 2 channel rig?

I had this rather interesting discussion a while back when I was in college and it went on for two straight days and kept popping up frequently for further discussion throughout the semester. It was not an argument or people trying to show that they knew more than someone else, it was just a pleasant discussion that got the ol' mind thinking about why some of our favorite recordings may not sound the way you would think they should.

For example; One generation would be what the microphone would do to change/alter all aspects of the performance reproduction. Another generation would be how a particular amplifier would alter the performance reproduction. The final generation would be one of two things, depending on your stance in the discussion. That being either the speakers that produce said performance reproduction or your ears, since not all ears hear the same reproduction of the performance equally.

To make the discussion a little easier, we can break it up into 2 areas. The first area being from the microphones to the medium of playback. The second area would be from the medium to one of the two possibilities [depending on your stance] of the final reproductive generation.

Discuss this please as to what your thoughts may be. What is the minimum amount of generations you can have for a particular performance?

treitz3

Not a live performance either. This is a reproductive performance in your own living room.

Ricardo

Tom, stop smoking that stuff.....

treitz3

That could be construed as another generation [depending on your stance] but I don't have any.

vc69

treitz3 wrote: »

Not a live performance either. This is a reproductive performance in your own living room.

A reproductive performance in my own living room IS a live performance.

everpress

see reason below....

steveinaz

It's an interesting topic, the twists and turns that the music goes through during production, then all of the subjective pieces of the puzzle. Imagine the variables; everything from mic placement, equipment used, multi-layering/mixing of vocals and instruments, etc. Imagine the miles of electronics the music went through to get to the final medium.

treitz3

That's why the discussion went on for so long. It was enlightening to see just how many variables there are when it comes to the end result as to what actually hits your ears.

steveinaz

Sure, you could start with the AC supplied to the studio; is it filtered, optimized? What about the quality of cabling used in all the consoles? How many years has it been in place, connections never cleaned, etc. Do they painstakingly seperate analog audio channels from ac from digital in reference to cabling? What of the miles of wire in a single mixing console? All of these questions, and we haven't even flipped a switch yet.

It amazes me how good recorded music can sound, considering what is happening; and that in the end, a vibrating diaphragm can make it seem so real.

vc69

This is an interesting topic for sure. But I must say that as far as the term "generation" is concerned, I seem to be confused. I have always considered a generation like this:

Multi-track - 1st gen

*any bounces (old school) can be considered 2nd gen

Mixdown - 2nd (*or third or fourth... depending on bounces but it is almost never done these days.) gen

Mastering process - 3rd gen

Final pressing (test pressings - test CD's included) 4th gen

Game over. What happens to it after that is the "reproductive" process and varies widely based on all the things you mentioned. However, the source never changes again until a remastering or remix occurs. Thus it is the last "generation". AFAIK, this process is mostly set in stone. The exceptions would be live recording to 2 track (Cowboy Junkies - Trinity Sessions) where the mixdown generation is moot, and so on. There are exceptions, but those are the rules.

Second pressings are known to be less desirable than first run pressings due to many things (plate wear and deterioration of the magnetic media mostly) but those have been mitigated by digital archive and storage method so second run stuff is usually exactly the same as first run.

What did I miss?

treitz3

We can discuss it in terms of a CDP or LP player being one generation if you want. Even though on a TT, a cartridge may be considered by some to be another generation, or on a tubed CDP the tubes may be considered a generation. Just as in like the mixing board, you have caps, sliders, EQ's and so forth that could also be considered a generation within themselves. So to keep the discussion a little bit easier, the mixing board could be considered one generation as well.

It's interesting that just in the second area of reproduction [medium to speakers] just how many generations you have sitting in your living room.

vc69

treitz3 wrote: »

We can discuss it in terms of a CDP or LP player being one generation if you want. Even though on a TT, a cartridge may be considered by some to be another generation, or on a tubed CDP the tubes may be considered a generation. Just as in like the mixing board, you have caps, sliders, EQ's and so forth that could also be considered a generation within themselves. So to keep the discussion a little bit easier, the mixing board could be considered one generation as well.

It's interesting that just in the second area of reproduction [medium to speakers] just how many generations you have sitting in your living room.

Ok, I see what you are driving at. I consider that "signal manipulation" and not a "generation". Semantics really, but important to this discussion. Signal processing is just that, a manipulation of a given signal. But, and I'm just putting this out there, it is still a signal that originates at a source and winds up transduced into energy (sound). Along that path, much processing happens, but the signal never stops (delayed perhaps, sampled and held perhaps) until it is radiated by your speakers.

For the purpose of this discussion, perhaps we should refer to that stuff as processing points or something. Just a thought. I'm totally into the subject

treitz3

The signal manipulation within a certain unit [mixing board, EQ or Sonic Holography unit for example] would be considered one generation. Here's an example......

......if you go direct from CDP to your amplifier, bypassing the pre/prepro, you have just just eliminated one generation of the reproductive performance. Thus, one less chance for any signal manipulation/degradation or sonic signature alterations/changes from the pre/prepro.

jm1

treitz3 wrote: »

The signal manipulation within a certain unit [mixing board, EQ or Sonic Holography unit for example] would be considered one generation. Here's an example......

......if you go direct from CDP to your amplifier, bypassing the pre/prepro, you have just just eliminated one generation of the reproductive performance. Thus, one less chance for any signal manipulation/degradation or sonic signature alterations/changes from the pre/prepro.

The following quote is from The Tape Project "Why Tape" page.

Q: How are the tapes made?
A: Our duplication process begins with the actual analog master tape. From that we make analog running masters on one inch two-track format. The one inch tape format transfer results in a extremely low loss of information, which we consider more like 1/2 generation than one full generation. These running masters are copied in real time to a bank of finely tweaked Ampex ATR-100 decks, yielding a "1-1/2 generation" copy. You just aren't going to get any closer to the original master, short of buying a record label or two.

A generation of a recording is created as you move along the mix/master/public release process as VC69 posted.

You are referring to the signal path which may include any after market signal processors while listening to the music. You are not making a copy of the source. Please refer to "Generation loss" in Wikipedia.

Personally, labels should be releasing uncompressed material in all instances from the lowest generation possible. You should be able add compression on the playback unit to hear all the source content based on the noise level of your listening environment. Kind of like movies where you can limit dynamics for late night viewing.

treitz3

Interesting. So I take it that the master tape be considered a generation as well?

JM1, you actually brought up something that I had never thought about before. That being the listening environment. Unless you have an anechoic room, should this also be considered as part of the generational equation?

Face

My head hurts.

LessisNevermore

treitz3 wrote: »

Interesting. So I take it that the master tape be considered a generation as well?

JM1, you actually brought up something that I had never thought about before. That being the listening environment. Unless you have an anechoic room, should this also be considered as part of the generational equation?

I agree with vc69, that for clarity's sake, a 'generation' occurs, when the signal is transferred to the next medium. For those that know the recording process, referring to processing as a 'generation', becomes confusing-because that terminology is not correct.

Very good topic though.....

vc69

treitz3 wrote: »

Interesting. So I take it that the master tape be considered a generation as well?

JM1, you actually brought up something that I had never thought about before. That being the listening environment. Unless you have an anechoic room, should this also be considered as part of the generational equation?

Yeah, again Treitz, we are having a communication breakdown. Signal processing, and listening environment are NOT generations. They certainly affect the perceived sound of any signal, but by definition aren't generations. We have to establish some ground rule terminology in order to have this discussion. I don't think the title of the thread is accurate in describing what you really want to discuss. Signal processing and generational loss are really two very distinct and different discussions.

steveinaz

You must be an engineer, huh?

vc69

steveinaz wrote: »

You must be an engineer, huh?

Yeah. I no longer make a living at it, but I did for years.

LessisNevermore

treitz3 wrote: »

This is a reproductive performance in your own living room.

Pay per view, $3.99/showing.:D:D:p

treitz3

vc69 wrote: »

Signal processing, and listening environment are NOT generations.

Ok, I can conceded to this.

vc69 wrote: »

They certainly affect the perceived sound of any signal, but by definition aren't generations. We have to establish some ground rule terminology in order to have this discussion. I don't think the title of the thread is accurate in describing what you really want to discuss. Signal processing and generational loss are really two very distinct and different discussions.

So, should we consider a CDP as a generation? Many moons ago during this discussion in college they were. What would you consider them? What about a microphone that starts the chain?

skrol

LessisNevermore wrote: »

Pay per view, $3.99/showing.:D:D:p

I was thinking the same thing and was glad to see that this was a G-Rated thread.

LessisNevermore

treitz3 wrote: »

Ok, I can conceded to this.

So, should we consider a CDP as a generation? Many moons ago during this discussion in college they were. What would you consider them? What about a microphone that starts the chain?

A CD yes, a CDP-no. A generation involves a physical medium (a copy) Everything in between is part of the signal chain, starting at the microphone.

The chain ends at your brain.

treitz3

By the way, don't knock my professor. He was teaching electrical engineering and not audio reproduction. It was just a discussion that seemed to hit a lot of interest with our class.

LessisNevermore wrote: »

The chain ends at your brain.

That was discussed as well, though many opposed that thought.

LessisNevermore

So what you are really asking, is "What is the minimum number of components that can be used in a signal chain?", yes?

treitz3

So what exactly is the correct word or phrase when going from, let's say the microphone to the mixing board?

BlueFox

This appears to be a version of the "How many angels can fit on the head of a pin" discussion.

LessisNevermore

treitz3 wrote: »

So what exactly is the correct word or phrase when going from, let's say the microphone to the mixing board?

Signal path, or signal chain.

edit:
Not intending to bust your chops on this, just trying to get our lingo on the same page.

jimmydep

Part of this is how we as people listen to our music....at first we had vinyl, where we had a stereo set up in our home, with large speakers and good electronics. The sound engineers who mixed the music were taking this into consideration........

Now the consumer needed to go mobile so next is the 8 track and cassettes, all of the sudden we can take our music with us....car stereo's and boom boxes are now becoming popular, and let's not forget the Sony walkman, it was small, compact, and sounded like crap, but the masses loved them........

Now comes the digital era, magnetic media and vinyl are obsolete, and CD's are in, clean sounding, compact and easy to use and store, the new and improved generation of musical media....the masses fell in love again, no more pops and scratches, no more eaten tapes, the ability to play random tracks or just access a track instantly....Life was grand.......

Present day....the digital music file era, or better known as the "I-pod generation"......here we go, 1000's of mp3 files your entire music collection, on a device no bigger than a credit card. You now can easily connect to your home stereo, computer, car, or boom box. You can share your entire music collection with friends, no need to go to a store for your music, just download the SONG that you like, you don't even need a computer anymore, just a cell phone.

So what's next????? Has the quality of the recordings gotten better through the years, stayed the same, or gotten worse. It certainly has gotten easier to manage our music libraries.

But is all change for the better......


Jimmy

heiney9

Face wrote: »

My head hurts.

I agree.