That's why audiophiles often buy free cables in addition to very expensive break-in post-hypnotic suggestions.
That's exactly the question I've asked over and over. The answer is certainly not compression and gobs of distortion.
How have you determined that it's the 16/44 system as opposed to the usual run of lousy engineering? Certainly the Eargle recordings, Keith Johnson's wonderful work, and CDs from Pierre Sprey don't have any problems in this respect, at least when I listen to them over my own high dynamic range system.
Good question.
For me the audio setup is solely to let me enjoy better reproduced music. However for a designer measurements are indispensable tool.
I consider myself an audiophile, however, as far as I can tell, I'm not given to post-hypnotic suggestions.
Hi,
Some nails are well hit on the head here.
Ask yourself, where does it go wrong?
Too much interference at the recording venue? Lack of power of the SET amp? Speakers not efficient enough?
Music being produced or just recorded?
Maybe one day we'all realise that less can be more?
Cheers, 😉
Some nails are well hit on the head here.
Ask yourself, where does it go wrong?
Too much interference at the recording venue? Lack of power of the SET amp? Speakers not efficient enough?
Music being produced or just recorded?
Maybe one day we'all realise that less can be more?
Cheers, 😉
It is more than a music. Like, first flight was not a commute, it was a magic: "Wow! I Can Fly!"
The same here: "Wow! It is magic! It sounds real!
Hi,
Serial poster at work here....
Exactly.
To my mind and I've been convinced about this for at least thirty years, is to keep it (it being the recording/reproduction process) as simple as possibly can be.
The problem is a social one, not a technical one. Power, distortion, ego...that kind of thing.
I do empathize with those that long for SET amps and high efficiency horns, distortion be dammed. At least they'll get something right but not everything.
The everything is probalby a large part of the "produced" music.
Back to square one...
Cheers, 😉
Serial poster at work here....
Exactly.
To my mind and I've been convinced about this for at least thirty years, is to keep it (it being the recording/reproduction process) as simple as possibly can be.
The problem is a social one, not a technical one. Power, distortion, ego...that kind of thing.
I do empathize with those that long for SET amps and high efficiency horns, distortion be dammed. At least they'll get something right but not everything.
The everything is probalby a large part of the "produced" music.
Back to square one...
Cheers, 😉
Hey All,
Let me add up some of the conversation. Triodes are not linear. The peak of the wave form is higher on one half the cycle than the other, thinking about it that is the definition of 2nd order distortion. As we push the envelope a bit both peaks tend to round a bit, we call it compression. The lower level lower amplitude stuff in between retains its detail. Think a bit more, this is the definition of 3rd order distortion. I do think that compression/dynamic range and linearity or lack of it can define micro-dynamics. I do think the sonic signature (a screen shot of the amplifier’s FFT) may be a big step towards the technical definition of micro-dynamics as experienced with SET’s . Yes a topic prominent in this thread.
DT
All just for fun!
Let me add up some of the conversation. Triodes are not linear. The peak of the wave form is higher on one half the cycle than the other, thinking about it that is the definition of 2nd order distortion. As we push the envelope a bit both peaks tend to round a bit, we call it compression. The lower level lower amplitude stuff in between retains its detail. Think a bit more, this is the definition of 3rd order distortion. I do think that compression/dynamic range and linearity or lack of it can define micro-dynamics. I do think the sonic signature (a screen shot of the amplifier’s FFT) may be a big step towards the technical definition of micro-dynamics as experienced with SET’s . Yes a topic prominent in this thread.
DT
All just for fun!
It is exactly what we were doing with SY analyzing what to tweak in my Pyramid-V: changing signal level and observing products of distortions on computer's screen. Dynamic matters. Half of power... 2'nd harmonic grew up to -80 dB... going up... The 3'rd one appeared... 4'th one.... more... Grass! First stage needs to be adjusted!
There are two separate issues here.
One is the quality of the recording - mixing - mastering, which many times is disappointing.
The other is the quality of the audio reproduction gear.
To enjoy better the better recordings, it takes high quality audio reproduction gear – even when better reproduction gear exposes more the shortcomings of the not-so-good recordings.
To my taste, masking the shortcomings of certain recordings, while at the same time degrading the reproduction quality of the better recordings – is out of question.
One is the quality of the recording - mixing - mastering, which many times is disappointing.
The other is the quality of the audio reproduction gear.
To enjoy better the better recordings, it takes high quality audio reproduction gear – even when better reproduction gear exposes more the shortcomings of the not-so-good recordings.
To my taste, masking the shortcomings of certain recordings, while at the same time degrading the reproduction quality of the better recordings – is out of question.
It is extremely hard to make it "appointing" such a way. Select hall with needed acoustic, place musicians and singers properly, put microphones (2 or 3, no more), and record at once. No mixing, no mastering. Mixing-matrixing and recording, that's it. It is the easiest way to make high-end sound.
sorry Joshua, but I can say no to all of it 😛
its a deception derived from crappy highend gear, like MarkLevinson etc
I agree with your description of how a good recording should be made.
The point is that it's extremely difficult to make a really good recording with only 2 or 3 microphones.
Anyhow, be it easy or difficult, regrettably, most recordings aren't being done this way.
But it is possible. If it is not done such a way, it can't be a high-end recording.
By the way, thanks to SY I've found some good recordings today, and already ordered CDs.
Some of us have golden ears, and others of us have ears of tin.
In addition to having ears which have suffered near 60 years of abuse and are none the better for it, I find that for me the setting up of proper unbiased and objective listening tests is time consuming and difficult to do properly.
Listening tests are indispensable at some point in the design of an amp, but measurements with instruments can speed the design process by allowing us to eliminate some undesirable characteristics early on.
My goal is to understand the relationship between harmonic distortion and other measurable parameters, and the correlation of these measurable parameters to acceptable and unacceptable sound reproduction.
Besides, I like playing with toys.
Yes, it's possible.
Yes, it's top-end recording.
Regrettably, there aren't very many such recordings.
Thankyou Anatoly for contributing one of the most insightful, dogma free posts on this thread.
That's exactly why I own and build SE AND PP amps. Which one I choose depends on mood, music and environment.
Screw them. Marketoid measurements. Observe behavior in dynamics, see laws of changes, and extrapolate what to expect beyond thresholds of measurements. That's it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.