All the effort of producing a good recording is wasted when used in a "forget electronics" system.
All the effort of producing a good recording is wasted when used in a "forget electronics" system.
That is not true Andre. Even on a reasonable good system, not extremely hifi, the recording is what makes the difference.
Most are not even aware of this: when people report on their latest and greatest, there is almost never a single word spend on the recording they used to listen to it. No indication that they are even aware that the recording makes the differnce.
That's another reason that many are sceptical about that 'latest and greatest' .
jd
Interesting comment. That does seem counter-intuitive. When you say the non-linearities "don't matter" are you saying they are below audibility? Or are you saying (I guess) that its about what happens when transducers are put into boxes / baffles, not the inherent quality of the transducer? Or something else again?
I would have thought that for any given combination of transducer / box / baffle design that a higher performing transducer (up to the limit of dead flat frequency response and amp like distortion) would sound better than a transducer with non-linear frequency response and higher levels of distortion.
All the effort of producing a good recording is wasted when used in a "forget electronics" system.
honestly andre, are you serious??
I will admit that without a cdp (for example) any quality recording will be wasted, but somehow I doubt that is what you meant.
In a thread like this we do often end up defending ridiculous premises that would not normally arise, but did you mean this or was it just a symptom of how silly this thread has become.
Soooo, is it your contention that the (extreme) differences we can find between recordings in terms of quality are less than the differences we get between electronics/???
here is the article I spoke of earlier
6moons audio reviews: Fragile Souls
you will either larf all over your keyboard, or vomit. hopefully not both. what really struck me was the indignation he managed to muster when it was proposed that the biggest drawback to great sound now was the recording quality itself.
I simply cannot believe that anyone would question that.
so, are you serious andre?? how are the photos and graphs of your room treatment going, looking forward to them. It pleases me that you acknowledge the importance of it, and that you have covered that aspect before you chased the diminishing returns of cables.
excellent, hope the details come soon.
Hi Terry,
The studio I worked in had professional accoustic treatment, so i know their importance!
I would agree that the quality of the recording counts the most, and the follow up production - mixing mastering is also important. The best recordings (stereo) for me were done in the late 50s and early 60s when microphone placement was an art and the recording path was simple.
I don't agree that you can use $200 with $10,000 worth of speakers to get a great sound. Everything in the chain is important in my experience.
Cheers
David
that's better, I prefer using names than sign-on labels. thanks david.
200, that IS a pretty low figure for a full electronic chain, but I think I get your point. Not saying I agree mind!! haha. it might work better if we use percentages??
to that end, and it is a bit 'hairy' to calculate with mine..tho we in diy land have very different breakdowns than normal '''''audiophiles''''', I'd guess my percentage would be 80% speaker/room treatment and 20% everything else.
and mine is tri amped.
Funnily enough I use a phase linear 700B on my bass drivers, a friend is kinda 'ooh, I'd love a classic amp like that' and I say 'OK, get me a behringer replacement of sufficient power and it is yours'.
'Oh I couldn't do that to you'.
He just simply cannot get it thru his head that I am serious, I do not care what amp I use as long as it has enough power. Do not care.
He's still stuck on him somehow ripping me off.
200, that IS a pretty low figure for a full electronic chain, but I think I get your point. Not saying I agree mind!! haha. it might work better if we use percentages??
to that end, and it is a bit 'hairy' to calculate with mine..tho we in diy land have very different breakdowns than normal '''''audiophiles''''', I'd guess my percentage would be 80% speaker/room treatment and 20% everything else.
and mine is tri amped.
Funnily enough I use a phase linear 700B on my bass drivers, a friend is kinda 'ooh, I'd love a classic amp like that' and I say 'OK, get me a behringer replacement of sufficient power and it is yours'.
'Oh I couldn't do that to you'.
He just simply cannot get it thru his head that I am serious, I do not care what amp I use as long as it has enough power. Do not care.
He's still stuck on him somehow ripping me off.
Only because studios use room treatment doesn't mean it is important. Important is what those treatments do to the indirect sound field. That's the key. Nobody here speaks about that. It's probably easier and more rewarding to talk about brand and price.
I think proper microphone placement is still an art. The recording path can be even simpler nowadays. Directly record into 192/24, no losses after that.
You can get a great AVR for 300 bucks but you can't buy a great speaker for 300. It's just about how these devices are produced.
Best, Markus
Hi Terry,
Well i was using the $50 a component from above.
Well I think every part in the chain is important, and my system is only as good as the weakest link. My system (CD player, pre, and power amp and cables) cost me no more than $6000 total. I am currently spending about $12000 building my speakers, so I guess in spending terms we kind of agree.
However I don't think that money is the issue, only the quality of the circuit and it's implementation. With speakers, price goes up with size, power, and bass. I have very happily lived with a pair of high quality 2 ways (6.5' mid and 1" tweeter in a 12 lt ported box) for the past 4 years that cost me no more than $500.
Sure the new speakers are going to go louder, deeper, and will likely be better in some other aspects, but never $11,500 better.
I am not into mainstream hi-fi brands at all. Sure a few of them make product that is better than average, but the prices for these can be rediculous.
I don't really think you discover audio properly until you build your own (just my conceited opinion).
Cheers
David
Well i was using the $50 a component from above.
Well I think every part in the chain is important, and my system is only as good as the weakest link. My system (CD player, pre, and power amp and cables) cost me no more than $6000 total. I am currently spending about $12000 building my speakers, so I guess in spending terms we kind of agree
.However I don't think that money is the issue, only the quality of the circuit and it's implementation. With speakers, price goes up with size, power, and bass. I have very happily lived with a pair of high quality 2 ways (6.5' mid and 1" tweeter in a 12 lt ported box) for the past 4 years that cost me no more than $500.
Sure the new speakers are going to go louder, deeper, and will likely be better in some other aspects, but never $11,500 better
.I am not into mainstream hi-fi brands at all. Sure a few of them make product that is better than average, but the prices for these can be rediculous.
I don't really think you discover audio properly until you build your own (just my conceited opinion
). Cheers
David
You have it pretty much correct - they are not audible. There has been a lot of work done on this, its not new. And yes, it is counter intuitive, I used to believe the opposite as well, but I could not hold that belief in the face of the massive amounts of data that said other wise.
You should read my website more if you are not clear on these comments. It's all well documented there. And that's just what I've done. Lots of people have confirmed this as well. Its only the audiophool press that chooses to ignore it.
Hi Markus,
Well I know how good that room was, and I know how big a difference the treatment made.
There can be lots of losses after that, it depends on what they do.
I personally have not heard a modern recording that competes (for me) with the best from the late 50s and early 60s.
I agree that the $300 AVR is more proficient at doing it's job than a $300 speaker. That doesn't mean that there are not a lot better amps for the job.
Cheers
David
Well I know how good that room was, and I know how big a difference the treatment made.
There can be lots of losses after that, it depends on what they do.
I personally have not heard a modern recording that competes (for me) with the best from the late 50s and early 60s.
I agree that the $300 AVR is more proficient at doing it's job than a $300 speaker. That doesn't mean that there are not a lot better amps for the job.
Cheers
David
Of course it will make a big difference. But does different equal better? In audio history not many tried to answer that in an objectively meaningful way. For example, the typical RFZ control room is not born out of a deep understanding of room acoustics but out of advances in measuring techniques.
The point was that there is the chance to have less losses today than ever possible with analog equipment in the past. Incompetent people did and do produce bad recordings but that's not a problem of the technology.
That's probably more a matter of preference and not of production methods.
A product with a defined set of properties has a certain price. Of course you can spend more but it would not be reasonable to do so. Audiophiles remind me of yacht owners that place their boat in the pool of their backyard.
Best, Markus
Markus
Mostly agreed, but I would take strong exception to dcathro comment on modern recordings. I find the older ones the disappointing ones since the limitations of the technology of that time is all too apparent on a good system. The newere recordings are a vast improvement in quality, of that I have no doubt. When I hear people make those kinds of statements about "past" recordings all I can think is that its the performance that they liked so much, not the recording. I find this to be very true - that older performances were better, but NOT the recordings.
Mostly agreed, but I would take strong exception to dcathro comment on modern recordings. I find the older ones the disappointing ones since the limitations of the technology of that time is all too apparent on a good system. The newere recordings are a vast improvement in quality, of that I have no doubt. When I hear people make those kinds of statements about "past" recordings all I can think is that its the performance that they liked so much, not the recording. I find this to be very true - that older performances were better, but NOT the recordings.
Good god man, are you really trying to get away with a claim that mags like Stereophile and TAS are proponents of best measurements? That's like your earlier statement that they proclaim everything 'the best', both statements so demonstrably false for a $6 expenditure it's in everyone's best interest to just stop.
It's like the notion 'audiophools' don't care about recordings. Of course, when discussing audiophile music labels all they care about is sound and not the music. See the pattern? Understand why any claim that such a world view represents science is laughable, and that much what happens in this thread is more social science than audio science?
Beg to differ Earl. In my experience, many modern releases (say, CD's after 2000) are so compressed and 'improved' that the sound quality suffers big time.
I once did a presentation for Burning Amp (must have been 2008) where I compared a track from Paul Simons' Graceland that subsequently was released on a number of 'best of' and 'collections' type releases, and with every later release there was more compression, less dynamics, and less enjoyable sound.
I happened to have a CD and LP version of the original master (only 1 difference in the serial number) which sounded remarkably the same, but later releases sounded progressively worse - worse even than the LP.
In my view, technology (CD) gets often blamed for a decrease in sound quality that in reality should be blamed on mixing/mastering - not because those recording engineers don't know what they are doing, they do very well, but because they are forced to produce something that gets the public's attention by being louder and more in-your-face, not by sounding 'better'.
I've heard this from many a sound engineer. Some of the best can work around that - George Massenburg, Keith Johnson to name just a few.
My bottom line is that we can improve our music vastly by no longer accepting mediocre, compressed releases. Or going to download our music from places like HDTracks, and to hell with CD pressings.
Sorry about the rant, but this is dear to my heart.
jd
I would say they could. Truth is that the majority of all recordings are victims of the loudness war. One could argue that compressions is used as an effect (like a flanger or a chorus) that is distinctive for a certain genre and I would agree. But the recordings that aim at realism loose because the loudness war does not allow for realistic dynamics.
Except that I said nothing that disagrees with what you said. You said "many" and I agree. Many, if not most modern recordings are junk because they are so heavily compressed, clipped, whatever. But good ones DO exist and the good modern recordings are vastly better than anything of old.
That 90% of the recordings released are junk has been true ever since I have listened to music. But when we listen to recordings of the past we only listen to the best of the best, the rest have all disappeared - thank God! So comparing the best of the best from the old days to the best of the best today and today wins hands down.
Thank you, it perfectly represents your continued lack of technical contribution.
What technical contribution are you waiting for? All relevant technical info on "cable sound" is out there. Do I need to repeat it here? People that believe in cable sound will never accept the technical facts. They even don't accept the fact that they might be wrong or why don't we see any double blind tests?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.