Before you consider "which measurement," you have to establish that the phenomenon is real (from the standpoint of the electronics chain- transducers are a different pot of piscines) and under what circumstances it happens, if any. That's the only way you can rationally propose a measurement that correlates to audibility. Otherwise, you can spend all day coming up with more and more exotic measurements which give no particular insight into actual sound quality but generate lots of pretty graphs.
Real music has that quality. At Carnegy Hall, you can clearly hear a single tiny bell being struck from the furthest balcony while the orch plays. Its quit amazing to hear this but HiFi needs to be as good [without being recorded with a 'spot' mic on the bell.]
Indeed.
It seems that for small signal amps, it is easier and less costly to make a power supply, regulated, very quiet and with low Z out, than to make an exceptionally good amp with very good PSRR.
This is the path that John Curl and some others chose.
What I was highlighting is a components ability to sort out the subilties in the music regardless of the complexities or dynamics. This is what allows a system to sound musical, or to my ear right. We've all heard components that sound great, for example, on simple music, or ones that need to be turned up to clear up, or still others that breeze through the most complex music with ease. Why is this?
Franks comments touched on this ability and I felt they warranted more discussion. Especially if the underlying focus here is to understand what differentiates quality audio after the fundamental quality engineering practices are put into a design.
From a measurement standpoint I was more or less just pondering... Wondering what sort of test would sort this out.
Mike
Yes it does. I´ve never been to Carnegy Hall yet, but to Avery Fisher hall last november and to Vienna´s Musikverein regularely (once a month) and from the first fraction of a second I can distiguish the "real" sound from any kind of reproduced sound. Highly subjective, I know, but rather obvious for anyone (!) who tries it. But: This leads to the questions:
Does it make sense to thow extreme amounts of money on the playback chain on recordings that are made with (supposedly) inferior technolygy ?
Should there not be a connection of what is regarded as "state of the art" between those who record and those who listen then ?
Just to get the point in an exagerrated way: Sound engeneer listening to DSP equalized Genelec speakers (while doing the final mix) and the custoumer to some esoteric triode amp driving a "highly regarded" speaker from the 50` ?
Should we not have: Perfect reproducion follows perfect recording ?
Does it make sense to thow extreme amounts of money on the playback chain on recordings that are made with (supposedly) inferior technolygy ?
Should there not be a connection of what is regarded as "state of the art" between those who record and those who listen then ?
Just to get the point in an exagerrated way: Sound engeneer listening to DSP equalized Genelec speakers (while doing the final mix) and the custoumer to some esoteric triode amp driving a "highly regarded" speaker from the 50` ?
Should we not have: Perfect reproducion follows perfect recording ?
Most of the acclaimed recordings used few microphones in a simple stereo pattern with sometimes with omni mic ambient fill. The DELOS Engineer's Choice by John Eargle is a fine example. However, if we could move past that and get a lot more of the acoustic sound via a soundfield mic setup, we will have made a real adavancement. JC said he has schematic -- discrete or IC, I dont care -- copy it and sell it with inexpensive mics to garage bands and all others.... leave the highest-end mic and best electronics be an option.
This is the very front end that could be better to start with. And, with readily available recievers of 2 to 7.1 channels, would allow for those who want to go the extra mile, a leap forward in realism in the home system.
Next would be the recording equipment. A tuned analog recorder can be in the 0.1% thd levels at average music signal levels. For digital recorders, the low level detail (distortion) needs to get better across the board... and I am sure it will continue to do so.
A direct 1:1 copy download of these recordings is a plus for the digital format. Thx - RNM
Last edited:
Yes. But it doesn't require extreme money, rather the key is extreme effort. Which sometimes translates to money, meaning you, the listener, have to spend it wisely. From my POV you're vastly better off getting a reasonable cost device and having it tweaked to the n'th degree by someone who really knows what's going on, vs. just buying a very expensive component.
As regards inferior recordings, I've found that, subjectively, there ain't any such animal! We humans are remarkably lucky in that we have an ear/brain mechanism that's very forgiving, and if we present it with recordings that are nominally very lo fi, replayed on a system that doesn't add further distortions of a different nature then the mind can soak it up easily, with enjoyment, without fatigue. I always test with CDs that are the most abysmal by most people's standards, because they highlight significant improvements so clearly ...
Frank
Many thanks for the information, did not know about delos so far, I´ll try that (looks good to me 
). "soundfield mic setup" is there more information about that ? and "7.1" - should we go that direction (I´m still 2 channel and of course 7.1 could lead consumers to have 7 cheap speakers instead of two decent ones while they still listening to 99% plain stereo recordings.
). "soundfield mic setup" is there more information about that ? and "7.1" - should we go that direction (I´m still 2 channel and of course 7.1 could lead consumers to have 7 cheap speakers instead of two decent ones while they still listening to 99% plain stereo recordings.
In terms of electronics that are not being clipped or designed to distort (e.g., SET), no, this is not something I've heard. But it's pretty easy to avoid the SET sound, which to my ears goes to pieces when the music gets loud and/or complex, by simply designing a competent, low distortion amp of adequate power- not a difficult task in this century.
I see it this way -- we have DVD and we offer upgrades like HD BluRay and we have HD-3D et al. Let the buyer choose what level they want to spend --- I'd hate to be stilll using VHS and CRT's. I like the upgraded images as they are more life like - more like the real thing.
Similar with audio. Keep the 2 channel but offer upgrades in the source material and its hardware. Like JC, I am not here about the status quo - rather talk about the more real sound which recording upgrades will bring. -RNM
Similar with audio. Keep the 2 channel but offer upgrades in the source material and its hardware. Like JC, I am not here about the status quo - rather talk about the more real sound which recording upgrades will bring. -RNM
Last edited:
We have a glorious heritage of recorded music to date, a 100 years of it. Unless one is going to apply heavy duty DSP to all of this, to "adjust" it to sound better on the typical systems of today, then the best other option is to improve playback in every way possible, with inspired engineering practices, to extract the best from what is already there ...
Frank
That only makes sense to me if the upgraded recording methods totally displaced and were not legacy compatible or you could not play the old recording style. But, of course you could so - Not to Worry
Of course you can have both. And, we are all aware how brilliantly superior current recording techniques are, especially in the area of popular music,That only makes sense to me if the upgraded recording methods totally displaced and were not legacy compatible or you could not play the old recording style. But, of course you could so - Not to Worry
...Frank
'Great source material' initially launched the hi end audio interest in the 1970's. Sheffield, Crystal Clear, and a number of audio firms made direct to disk recordings that have rarely been surpassed, to this day. This gave us something to use as a 'reference' as we worked to improve the overall sonic quality of our reproducing equipment. At the same time, we discovered some relatively old recordings, often made with 35mm film magnetic tape, that also sounded wonderful on our playback systems.
Then things changed, digital (early digital) came in to supplant all-analog techniques. Some people seemed immune to digital, but others were strongly affected in a bad way.
Then CD came in that made much recorded music all digital. The original quality sources dried up, because their early recordings were sold out and could not be reproduced to the same standard, and CD took over analog playback.
And that's where were are, today. Still there is a significant number of 'holdouts', people who found the promise of digital, incomplete, and they went back to trying analog playback, first with vinyl records and recently with master quality analog recordings. If you go to a dedicated audio show, today, you will find many phono playback and some tape playback systems used to demo their products in the best light.
Then things changed, digital (early digital) came in to supplant all-analog techniques. Some people seemed immune to digital, but others were strongly affected in a bad way.
Then CD came in that made much recorded music all digital. The original quality sources dried up, because their early recordings were sold out and could not be reproduced to the same standard, and CD took over analog playback.
And that's where were are, today. Still there is a significant number of 'holdouts', people who found the promise of digital, incomplete, and they went back to trying analog playback, first with vinyl records and recently with master quality analog recordings. If you go to a dedicated audio show, today, you will find many phono playback and some tape playback systems used to demo their products in the best light.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.