Nope. There is more work to do on speakers perhaps than other kit ...
That certainly is a very big proviso when recording live performances. Huge loss of information in attempting to capture that performance.
dave
That depends on the definition of hi-fi, no?
Tube amps liked by many on this forum is lo-fi amps per standard English definition. Those fans swear by it on how natural sounding, life like and ...etc praises, so there you have it.
Nope.
Good tube amps are good, poor ones aren't. You can replace tube with solid state and the sentence is still valid.
dave
I'm not sure what you mean by that. What aspect of sound are they loosing hugely with current digital recording technology, percussion notes, high pitch notes or something?
As soon as you sample a live performance with a mic you are loosing large amounts of the information in the performance.
dave
dave
What do you mean, no? You've demonstrated with your own posts on previous page regarding what hi-fi is.
Not when you look at the measurements of consumer market tube and solid state amps.
I think you are still talking about speaker technology. I'm not denying the loss of information in the recording process but what you are referring to as "huge" comes from listening the recorded sound which will have to come through those (still lagging far behind DACs and amps) audio transducers.
So you have made the subjective decision that objective measures correlate to the sonics of a device? The evidence is that that is wrong. Until we have well executed blind tests that correlate measures to what the ear/brain perceives they are subjective. They can rule out the junk (usually) but beyond that…
There are tube amps that measure every bit as good as SS amps, one in particular sounds like crap.
And there are not great measuring SS amps that sound quite good (for instance the ACA amps i currently have in my system).
You are kidding yourself if you think you can measure the difference between a good amp & a great amp. I could probably get away with saying mediocre amp & good amp even… i've seen many amps that measure good that sound mediocre.
Measurements are improtant tools of the trade, but we still have lots to learn, and extending them to say what is best is an illusion that might make you feel good, but does not reflect the sonics of a DUT.
dave
Well sort of. Mics work on the same principals as speakers but the usual purpose is to turn acoustic to electrical and are designed to do that as well as they can.
You do know that you can use a speaker as a mic? A poor one mind you.
dave
That's not what I meant. Amp's degree of transparency can be shown with graphs by comparing input signal and output signal.
Did you find those out through well executed blind tests?
What category of measurements are you referring to? Also, how does great amp get picked out of... say, this year's release?
Did you find that out through well executed blind tests?
What sound people can hear that cannot be measured with the current audio measuring technology? I've seen this brought up elsewhere but haven't seen the answer so I'm very curious.
To what resolution? And how do you tell how bad the differences are?
Some. Sometimes it is just obvious.
Most of the ones that are published. And the tests that remain only scratch the surface -- literally.
Unfortunately one has to use ear/brains to pick the good ones.
Lots. For instance show me a measure that shows how well a DUT is doing 40-50 dB down in the presence of 0 dB (and not with a sin wave). How about a measure that shows how well a system images (or even a test that says anything about imaging). A well-trained ear can pick those up pretty easy.
dave
Why do you care? Pro grade analyzer like AP has adequate enough of resolution to fill your curiosity. Audio Precision : High Performance Audio Analyzer & Audio Test Instruments
If you are short on money and still want to tell the differences by comparing, Virtins Multi-Instrument Pro or True RTA will suffice.
Multi-Instrument, a powerful multi-function virtual instrument software - Virtins Technology
https://www.trueaudio.com/rta_faq1.htm
I would like to read about those well executed blind tests. To what decibel was the level matched, what was used and how? How was the switching done and what were those different sounding amps?
Published by whom? You mean magazines like The Absolute Sound?
So, great amps are determined by how they sound? OK, so there is an amp that's said to be great, and other amps turned out to be sounding like it, then those other amps would be great too, right?
Lots of sound people can hear but cannot be measured by current audio measuring technology? I'm asking to make sure you meant that.
That's a strange reply. I was expecting you to show a list of sound people can hear but cannot be measured. 😕
Imaging change between components (mainly speakers) can be shown easily with frequency response change. Simple stuff.
Anything else?
Specs published by the manufacturer.
You are confused about stuff 40-50 dB down?
Imaging is more about timing, phase relations, and low level information. FR is low on the list of importance wrt this.
dave
Funny thing software.
For some time since they began using software to record some argued that different DAWs (ProTools, Digital Performer, Logic, Cubase, Fruity Loops etc) sound different.
Turns out they all sound the same as long as they did the same. Heard differences came down to different panning laws being used as default. Once they are set to the same all software sounded identical.
The 'musical performance' of most studio recordings is an artificial product that only comes together at the mixing stage since chances are that few or none of the instruments were played at the same time as in a traditional musical performance.
To recreate that you would have to recreate the control room system used for that particular record. Practically none of those use tube amps.
Can you clarify for those of who are not au fait with modern studio techniques. Is the control room where you capture the tracks or where someone munges them into a mix? If one believed what was written in interviews with pop types then its all tubed nuemann mikes and special tube stages to get the 'sound' with the whole mix bounced via a vintage studer at the last minute.
Sure.
The usual procedure would be the band comes in and the rhythm section (incl. rhythm guitar and vocalist) lay down rough and ready scratch tracks.
Then one by one the individual musicians record their part playing along to the scratch tracks. The drummer would do this in the live room while the bass player as often as not might be in the control room (most bass is DI'd ie not run through a bass amp), the vocalist would do his part in a vocal booth but probably much later on.
Then follows a round of punch ins during which each just fix any perceived mistakes rather than recording the whole track again.
Vocals and lead guitar are usually the last parts to be recorded.
At this point everything has been recorded at ideal levels without any eq and little compression (or none but vox and bass are usually recorded with mild compression as it is very hard for those to be level enough without).
Of the stuff that makes it to the final product nearly none has been recorded with the other musicians playing or even present.
The 'performance' we eventually hear is created during mixing when EQ, compression and other stuff (reverb, delays etc) is added.
That was the normal process if recording to tape. Since the arrival of DAWs it got even worse, people just play a few bars repeatedly and afterwards one picks the best few bars and loops them.
Snare hits may be replaced with ones from a sample library and individual drum hits may be shifted in time to fit the grid to achieve perfect timing.
And that is disregarding Autotune or Beat Detective with its groove templates.
This is fairly simplified (lack of space and I hate typing ;-) ) but either way what we hear is a performance that has never existed in real life.
And yeah they use a lot of tube gear but in all cases that is because the euphonic qualities of tubes as part of the artistic process.
The replay (monitoring) system practically never uses tube gear, just clean speakers with a flat(ish) response and hulking big transistor amps.
Hope this helps and there are bands who record more closely to a live performance but those are few and far between.
Hayseed Dixie record as live and don't even use eq and from what I read the Rolling Stones tended to be very close to live although the vocals were only recorded later during the mix process. Funnily enough Jagger also frequently recorded Keiths backing vocals. He appears to be a master at sounding like Keef if he wants to!
In the end though if you want to hear what the artists, producers and engineers heard and signed off on build yourself a control room and use studio monitors.
But you said, "Unfortunately one has to use ear/brains to pick the good ones." 😕
I asked you what sound people can hear that cannot be measured with the current audio measuring technology. Then you replied, "show me a measure that shows how well a DUT is doing 40-50 dB down in the presence of 0 dB (and not with a sin wave)". I was asking you to show me a list of sound that people can hear but cannot be measured. It should be easy for you to show since you said there are "Lots".
So you do acknowledge that sound imaging is measurable. By the way, audio timing, phase relations, and low level information are measurable with existing measuring devices far better than human hearing can.
I've had the ODAC RevB from JDS Labs in my system for a few days now, and as far as a USB DAC only is concerned, this little unit is very nice!. I've listened to everything from Audiophile recordings to Classic Rock, Jazz, Pop, Folk, Electro music etc you name it.. This little unit has lived up to it's reputation in spades.. Everything already sounded very nice and now it's like you've just cleaned your glasses.. Very clear and detailed, solid lows, beautiful mid band, and crystal clear highs.. I'd recommend this against some of the big dollar USB DAC's if only just to compare or have an extra one about. This unit is a no brainer at under $200 shipped.. The company was really easy to deal with and fast with their responses and shipping.. 5 stars all the way for me 🙂
My pics are not the best.. One pic compares the ODAC to a deck of cards for size and scale. And the small print under JDS Labs says: OBJECTIVEDAC
Edit: After several attempts, re-sizing etc I can't get any pics to show. DIY has got to be about the worst place to post pics, grr! Kijiji no problem, here not so much lol..
My pics are not the best.. One pic compares the ODAC to a deck of cards for size and scale. And the small print under JDS Labs says: OBJECTIVEDAC
Edit: After several attempts, re-sizing etc I can't get any pics to show. DIY has got to be about the worst place to post pics, grr! Kijiji no problem, here not so much lol..
Last edited:
Ah, that explains where I was confused. The musical boxes are used everywhere EXCEPT monitoring 🙂
Love their stuff.
I have a fondness for the larger ATC monitors ever since I heard the SCM50 back in about 1990. Couldn't afford them then, can't now. Nearly got a pair of SCM10 for my first flat. One day maybe...
I bought a $120 HiFiDIY ESS9023 based DAC on ebay.
It is very compact, and very nicely put together IMV for the asking price. Its powered from the mains.
I plugged it into my preamp and used the TOSLINK output from my OPPO103D to feed the DAC. This way, I could switch directly between the OPPO103D analog output, and HiFiDIY DAC output to compare them.
Shock of all shocks: could not tell the difference between the two.
Yes, I know the reason why: I have a crappy, low resolution system and the OPPO103D is a third rate CD player.
It is very compact, and very nicely put together IMV for the asking price. Its powered from the mains.
I plugged it into my preamp and used the TOSLINK output from my OPPO103D to feed the DAC. This way, I could switch directly between the OPPO103D analog output, and HiFiDIY DAC output to compare them.
Shock of all shocks: could not tell the difference between the two.
Yes, I know the reason why: I have a crappy, low resolution system and the OPPO103D is a third rate CD player.