"Rubbish" is too strong a term, IMO - "flawed" is a preferable description ... at high performance levels the distance between enthralling, and intolerable, can be tiny in real terms - a single flaw can be all that separates the two states ... the 'magic' is knowing that the flaw is there, and being able to resolve it.
about two weeks of listening to just about any sound system (as long as it doesn't hurt your ears) it will eventually sound perfect and normal, only when your desire to achieve something sounding better or when your OCD streak starts to kick in will your never ending search begin.............
Well,
the presentation of the music beyond measured limitations..ie the interaction of the components such as speaker type and system combination.
The individual components can all be measurable as being perfect.
So theoretically when put together in any combination they should produce the perfect output.
However most will say there are to many variables..and they would be correct. One being the listener who is evolving.
Regards
M. Gregg
There is a point where it becomes "convincing" - either a person has experienced this, or they haven't - if they haven't, then they never really understand what you're talking about; if they have, then they never stop pursuing it, there is no other point to hifi then achieving such consistently.
It's "better" because it sounds like the real deal - normal hifi from then on always sounds like "rubbish" in comparison, it's kitchen radio standard, so to speak ...
It's "better" because it sounds like the real deal - normal hifi from then on always sounds like "rubbish" in comparison, it's kitchen radio standard, so to speak ...
..The problem is the same system moved to a different location is then flawed again. The problem is recordings are so variable as well. All factors beyond your control. Where does transparency and presentation meet?<<this is the other end of the scale many give up and think I can't live with it!
Regards
M. Gregg
Not wanting to dampen our enthusiasm for the medium, but just about every recording we listen to has nothing at all do to with how it was performed in the original space, but how it was recorded and mixed by the guy behind the desk and that sort of nullifies almost any semblance of what was originally played by the players, we are just consumers of a product
I agree,
However there is a point at which most of what is listened to sounds real!
Its irrelevant that its a construction..ie a piano should sound like a piano..a guitar like a guitar..even if its been place by the recording studio sound mixer.
It should be possible to "construct" or fabricate a false image similar to what it sounds like on headphones.
If the construct is fabricated or a direct miked session..you should be able to visualise what was meant to be put across like a painting.
Ie its art in another form. It should involve you and "move" you emotionally.
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
The constant remastering of sources requires the use of old source tapes to digitize.
Tapes are made of oxide and binder and plastic. Oxide decays over time, and so does the tape and the sound on the tape. Even with restorations and proper storage, handling and treatment to avoid delamination and sticky-shedding.
So on the one hand you would have, as an example, an early pressing of Freak Out! or von Karajan's Beethoven cycle, LP's that would have been cut from a master tape or 1st generation copy safety master, when the original tapes were a few weeks old, on an early use stamper with low pressing run counts on the album stamper, created and physically made within weeks of the source tape being mastered for production.
It is logical to assume that such a physical source would have captured and retained more of the sound and performance, and digital rips of early run vinyl, early pressings, and promo pressings, bear this assumption out.
Compare this to most current releases on any digital format. They have, hypothetically, huge advantages over analogue oxide tape. No degradation of the SQ at all, wider FR, infiinite abilty to copy with no loss of data, and so on.
Yet those new recordings sound terrible. The instruments have no air around them and are 2D cutouts - and the fact that these traits are endemic to digital but were NOT an issue with a SS or Valve chain, indicates that the digital chain has flaws in both technology, the standard, as well as causing frequent system issues with human interaction increasing the frequency of human mistakes. These constant human mistakes were NOT an issue with SS or Valves. Claming it is the mastering process, for 35 years, is simply unacceptable.
If you design a system and it is 10X more error prone than the previous system, then the new system is flawed, faulty and inferior. It does not matter how much more ''advanced'' it is.
I can take a pencil made in 1890 (19th C.), sharpen it, and write with it today on a piece of paper.
That digital is so fragile in an engineering sense reveals that it is inferior to what it has replaced.
If it causes more human errors, then that is not progress. 35 years to work out the kinks is a completely unacceptable statement from an engineering pov.
Lest any of you think I am trying to convince you, rest easy. This forum is obviously by and for science-is-all, measurements-are-everything, engineers, and divergence from that opinion is barely tolerated and rebuffed en mass as seen here. Engineers are incapable of admitting fault, and are always right (I used to manage engineers - they cannot admit they are wrong. Ever.).
I post this because those who agree are nodding their heads in silent agreement, and perhaps those with similar opinions will read these arguments and have something to say the next time a measurements-only person brow beats them.
Maybe one of you measurements obsessives will reconsider and use measurements as a starting point, acknowledging that we don't know it all and can hear what we cannot measure.
But I won't hold my breath...
Tapes are made of oxide and binder and plastic. Oxide decays over time, and so does the tape and the sound on the tape. Even with restorations and proper storage, handling and treatment to avoid delamination and sticky-shedding.
So on the one hand you would have, as an example, an early pressing of Freak Out! or von Karajan's Beethoven cycle, LP's that would have been cut from a master tape or 1st generation copy safety master, when the original tapes were a few weeks old, on an early use stamper with low pressing run counts on the album stamper, created and physically made within weeks of the source tape being mastered for production.
It is logical to assume that such a physical source would have captured and retained more of the sound and performance, and digital rips of early run vinyl, early pressings, and promo pressings, bear this assumption out.
Compare this to most current releases on any digital format. They have, hypothetically, huge advantages over analogue oxide tape. No degradation of the SQ at all, wider FR, infiinite abilty to copy with no loss of data, and so on.
Yet those new recordings sound terrible. The instruments have no air around them and are 2D cutouts - and the fact that these traits are endemic to digital but were NOT an issue with a SS or Valve chain, indicates that the digital chain has flaws in both technology, the standard, as well as causing frequent system issues with human interaction increasing the frequency of human mistakes. These constant human mistakes were NOT an issue with SS or Valves. Claming it is the mastering process, for 35 years, is simply unacceptable.
If you design a system and it is 10X more error prone than the previous system, then the new system is flawed, faulty and inferior. It does not matter how much more ''advanced'' it is.
I can take a pencil made in 1890 (19th C.), sharpen it, and write with it today on a piece of paper.
That digital is so fragile in an engineering sense reveals that it is inferior to what it has replaced.
If it causes more human errors, then that is not progress. 35 years to work out the kinks is a completely unacceptable statement from an engineering pov.
Lest any of you think I am trying to convince you, rest easy. This forum is obviously by and for science-is-all, measurements-are-everything, engineers, and divergence from that opinion is barely tolerated and rebuffed en mass as seen here. Engineers are incapable of admitting fault, and are always right (I used to manage engineers - they cannot admit they are wrong. Ever.).
I post this because those who agree are nodding their heads in silent agreement, and perhaps those with similar opinions will read these arguments and have something to say the next time a measurements-only person brow beats them.
Maybe one of you measurements obsessives will reconsider and use measurements as a starting point, acknowledging that we don't know it all and can hear what we cannot measure.
But I won't hold my breath...
Last edited:
For me, It's all about exposing the Recording accurately.. This is why I can't handle diffraction from 1khz and above, where the accurate detail can be masked , hiding the recorded spatial information and presenting a less than ideal 3 dimensional image..
Of course, the source and amp comes in to play and it gets more tricky..
In the end when all is wonderful, then all recordings sound amazing and I'm transported to the Recorded Event, a clear window into the recording space, mix and intended effects.. - Not the Live Event-
The instruments can sound real, recording style dependent.
Some listeners can evolve to improve their Level of Awareness, Hence improve on their perception of , What is Good..
Maybe I'm wrong.. Seems like some enjoy some type of effects boxes , even after hearing the more accurate system, but cost is a factor as well..
Of course, the source and amp comes in to play and it gets more tricky..
In the end when all is wonderful, then all recordings sound amazing and I'm transported to the Recorded Event, a clear window into the recording space, mix and intended effects.. - Not the Live Event-
The instruments can sound real, recording style dependent.
Some listeners can evolve to improve their Level of Awareness, Hence improve on their perception of , What is Good..
Maybe I'm wrong.. Seems like some enjoy some type of effects boxes , even after hearing the more accurate system, but cost is a factor as well..
Last edited:
"Yet those new recordings sound terrible. The instruments have no air around them and are 2D cutouts - and the fact that these traits are endemic to digital but were NOT an issue with a SS or Valve chain, indicates that the digital chain has flaws in both technology"
Do I agree with this..
I was at the Audio show Taves Yesterday.. The first thing that is noticed while walking, from room to room, is how flat and 2 dimensional the sound was with Digital sources playing, but all systems running with old records playing was 3 dimensional and full of air and detail..
Do I agree with this..
I was at the Audio show Taves Yesterday.. The first thing that is noticed while walking, from room to room, is how flat and 2 dimensional the sound was with Digital sources playing, but all systems running with old records playing was 3 dimensional and full of air and detail..
The same old recording on LP and now on CD, does not have a different, general characteristic to the air signature. Its built into the recording.. on Lp it's simply more exposed..
Pops and Tics are a byproduct that can be easily ignored with well maintained and cleaned Lp's..
Early CD promoters claimed dynamic range of red book standard was 15db higher than lp because they subtracted 15db of LP noise floor.. You can hear into the noise floor so subtracting 15 was just a good way to promote CD with false claims..
I'm not against Digital.. I think something needs improving.. I listen to 192khz sample of 1960's Monk recording.. It was amazing, more like lp dimensionality with proper, in studio depth and placement.. This fits with statement below, since the recording was made in the early sixties with old equipment..
"These constant human mistakes were NOT an issue with SS or Valves"
My latest evaluation of audiophiles,
1) indicates that some latch on to a technology and setup based on various reasons, other than obtaining the most accurate way possible, to expose the recorded music..
Ie, "Cd's are convenient and music servers more so", "This brand of speaker I can sell if I don't like it, even though this other, unknown brand is better" etc etc etc..
2) then there is others that will do whatever it takes for the love of Recorded music,to open that window into the recording space of their favorite music.. ie) dedicated room with appropriate acoustic treatment, proper positioning , Lp rig.. etc,etc, etc..
Does Hi Fidelity have to die? Seems like some manufactures are killing it.. Selling a product without concerns about whether products have improvements or not.. Selling Products, Period!
Right on the money, Joel. This is my goal, and it is truly a magical place to go to - the good news is that there appears almost no limit to how "good it can get". The two corollaries are that the "worst of the worst" recordings can be made to succumb to this process, and that the volume of replay can be raised to huge levels - deafening by normal standards - with zero subjective downsides.
Agreed, the grossly over-processed, recent recordings can be the most difficult challenge to make "work" - but it is possible: hard work, quite frustrating at time - but, very doable. Strangely, some of the more disturbing recordings for me these days are very recent classical efforts - what appears to be happening is that the recording engineers are getting somewhat sloppy, casual about their approach. Which translates to obvious tonal changes between successive tracks, separate takes that are spliced in - in classical pieces, this does not work in the listening ...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.