Hi,
Targets? Don't you mean sources?
Whether the source is accurate or not, that's really not the point.
Too late for acttion and out of reach anyway.
For as long as you're not adding even more inaccuracies...
Assuming that what you want is to faithfully amplify your "source" that is. No?
Why would you need even more filters to accurately reproduce what's been filtered out already?
Conversely, if you'd want to undo the initial filtering, how on earth would you know what's been filtered and how?
Me no get it....
Cheers,😉
Targets? Don't you mean sources?
Whether the source is accurate or not, that's really not the point.
Too late for acttion and out of reach anyway.
For as long as you're not adding even more inaccuracies...
Assuming that what you want is to faithfully amplify your "source" that is. No?
Why would you need even more filters to accurately reproduce what's been filtered out already?
Conversely, if you'd want to undo the initial filtering, how on earth would you know what's been filtered and how?
Me no get it....
Cheers,😉
fdegrove said:
Certainly.
Ok, but what are you defining as the "original message"? The original event? The pits or grooves of the recording? The sound in the recording studio at the time the recording was made?
Well no, the recording is a fixed entity barring remastering by the end user.
Well we're not really talking about literal equalization here. But rather the "filtering" imposed by the less-than-objectively-perfect playback equipment and acoustic environment.
But there's another way of looking at it which I tried to get across previously but it doesn't seem to have got across too well.
Let me try again.
All recordings made to date have been made while listening through some combination of "filters," from the microphones to the loudspeakers.
Which means that the decisoins made in such recordings are based on those "filters." Which further means that as far as "accuracy" goes, the pits and grooves of the recording are meaningful only with respect to those "filters."
Let me try an analogy.
You hire a painter to paint a scene from the real world. His goal is to make the painting look as close as possible to the actual scene.
However, he can only see his canvas through a filter. Let's say it's a funhouse mirror.
So he paints the scene on his canvas while looking through the funhouse mirror and when looking through the funhouse mirror, the painting looks exactly like the real scene.
But look at the canvas without looking through the funhouse mirror and you'll see something that's distorted with respect to the real scene.
What I'm trying to get across is that the less-than-objectively-perfect recording equipment is the equivalent of the funhouse mirror. And further, most every recording out there as made using a somewhat different funhouse mirror. And finally, if you listen to these reocordings with an objectively perfect system, i.e. without the funhouse mirror, what you get is ultimately a distorted version of what was intended.
So now let's take this back to your cable example.
If a recording was made using say less neutral speaker cables, playing back that recording through more neutral speaker cables is ultimately a distortion in itself, all else being equal and if your goal is to reproduce the result intended by the one who made the recording in the first place.
se
fdegrove said:
I mean targets. Of if you will, the reference one uses to gauge accuracy.
You seem to still miss my point.
If you don't add any inaccuracies, i.e. you use an objectively perfect system to reproduce the recording, the result you get is ultimately an inaccuracy in itself. If your reference is what was heard in the recording studio when the recording was made.
Because what's in the pits and grooves of the recording is actually the INVERSE of all the "filters" that were involved in the recording chain (which includes playback by the way).
Just as the grooves on an LP contain the INVERSE of the filter in your phono preamp, to use a more literal example.
That's the catch. You don't know.
The only thing you do know is that there was filtering and that playing the recording back with an objectively perfect system will give you something other than what was intended.
Me no get it....
Hang in there, Frank. 🙂
se
I WANT TO PAINT IT BLACK....
Hi,
The recording on a medium as you'd buy it from the shops.
Geezzzzzzz......
You can do your own "post-mastering" to your heart's content but then you're basically just "freewheeling".
What would the basis for your adjustments be?
Just do whatever you like?
Without standards where do you end? Nihilism? Total chaos?
Ah....Rock 'n Roll perhaps? 😉
Oh, now it's the equipment and the room acoustics too?
Either way, you'll still be needing some standard for that as well or you'll never stop fiddling with those knobs either.
I would say to that that some recordings are less "filtered" than others. Still that filtering's just plain inevitable.
Even the best recording equipment, ideal venue and/or ideal musicians etc. are likely to pass some kind of filtering before ending up being put on medium for the simple reason that it's not technically/economically possible to do otherwise.
However_and that's MY point 😉 _I think it's wise to start out with a reproduction chain that at least CAN (technically speaking) reproduce that original recording correctly.
If you want to tune the FR of your room for a certain deviation of the truth, use the loudness button all the time and boost the mids because you like it that way, then that's perfectly fine by me.
It's just that I wouldn't rush to the hi-fi emporium downtown to buy myself a system that has that kind of treat by it's very nature. Would you?
Well, we may hold different opinions on this but it is my strong belief that it's the musician's job to do the painting.*
The recording engineer's job (and for that matter the entire recording industry's) is to deliver us a picture of that event that's as realistic as is technically possible.
*Modern "produced" recordings notwithstanding.
Sorry master but you're really painting with a very broad brush here...
I'll say it again, there's little point in trying to undo the "funhouse mirror" for each and every recording: you have no way of knowing the lenses.
Once you want to play that game you may want to buy yourself a tool a la Chello AudioPalette or something similar.
Nonethelesss, even Mark Levinson would start with a clean Palette, not one with left-overs from yesterday's session, I suppose.
What you seem to be proposing is even worse: you want to reuse the old colours over and over again and never clean the palette with terpentine. In fact, the palette and colours would be mixed right from the outset.
Not a good place to start IMHO.
ROTFLMAO....
Something's either neutral or it isn't. Ask Switzerland.
If a recording was made using those, say less neutral speaker cables (somewhat coloured?), playing back that recording through more neutral speaker cables (less coloured) is ultimately better than running the same stuff through the same colouration again, won't you say?
So, using neutral gear, using neutral cables etc. is not going to colour the original more than it already was.
What's the effect on FR of n identical slope filters cascaded, Steve?
OR
- + - = +?
Cheers,😉
Hi,
The recording on a medium as you'd buy it from the shops.
Geezzzzzzz......
You can do your own "post-mastering" to your heart's content but then you're basically just "freewheeling".
What would the basis for your adjustments be?
Just do whatever you like?
Without standards where do you end? Nihilism? Total chaos?
Ah....Rock 'n Roll perhaps? 😉
Oh, now it's the equipment and the room acoustics too?
Either way, you'll still be needing some standard for that as well or you'll never stop fiddling with those knobs either.
I would say to that that some recordings are less "filtered" than others. Still that filtering's just plain inevitable.
Even the best recording equipment, ideal venue and/or ideal musicians etc. are likely to pass some kind of filtering before ending up being put on medium for the simple reason that it's not technically/economically possible to do otherwise.
However_and that's MY point 😉 _I think it's wise to start out with a reproduction chain that at least CAN (technically speaking) reproduce that original recording correctly.
If you want to tune the FR of your room for a certain deviation of the truth, use the loudness button all the time and boost the mids because you like it that way, then that's perfectly fine by me.
It's just that I wouldn't rush to the hi-fi emporium downtown to buy myself a system that has that kind of treat by it's very nature. Would you?
Well, we may hold different opinions on this but it is my strong belief that it's the musician's job to do the painting.*
The recording engineer's job (and for that matter the entire recording industry's) is to deliver us a picture of that event that's as realistic as is technically possible.
*Modern "produced" recordings notwithstanding.
Sorry master but you're really painting with a very broad brush here...
I'll say it again, there's little point in trying to undo the "funhouse mirror" for each and every recording: you have no way of knowing the lenses.
Once you want to play that game you may want to buy yourself a tool a la Chello AudioPalette or something similar.
Nonethelesss, even Mark Levinson would start with a clean Palette, not one with left-overs from yesterday's session, I suppose.
What you seem to be proposing is even worse: you want to reuse the old colours over and over again and never clean the palette with terpentine. In fact, the palette and colours would be mixed right from the outset.
Not a good place to start IMHO.
ROTFLMAO....
Something's either neutral or it isn't. Ask Switzerland.
If a recording was made using those, say less neutral speaker cables (somewhat coloured?), playing back that recording through more neutral speaker cables (less coloured) is ultimately better than running the same stuff through the same colouration again, won't you say?
So, using neutral gear, using neutral cables etc. is not going to colour the original more than it already was.
What's the effect on FR of n identical slope filters cascaded, Steve?
OR
- + - = +?
Cheers,😉
You're putting yourself in her place with the knowledge of an audiophile. She was anything but so saying "crisper" is about the best to be expected. Nor do I know she was aware a change was made, I did my best to not draw attention to it. And I certainly didn't prompt for a response. The test wasn't 'perfect', but it had unique aspects. The test you describe wasn't either, the subject was under stress to perform and justify a belief system. The employer relationship also contributed to making it not the best enviroment for making subtle distinctions. I do think the two make interesting counterpoints.
For the record 2, I consider cables to make a difference in about the same degree salt does to a meal. Not overwhelming but significant with the potential for bad taste. Also, people (not you in particular) are too quick to give status the predominant role in cable preference: expensive cables are good because they cost a lot. In my case, the worse 'audiophile' cables I've ever used were very expensive van den Hull silver phono interconnects. Through multiple sysatem changes they never stayed in long. My favourites right now are home made tape-types using two strands of a heavier gauge version of the Litz from the test I described. I have no explanation why (the passive 'pre' likes the low low pF capacitance?) but there it is.
Did I make 70?
fdegrove said:
Now that is the voice of experience and a lesson I always try to keep in the back of my mind when reading accounts of the audible effects of changes to a system. It does raise the question of how one tells if a change improved a system's accuracy or hid a flaw, but the server's already straining under this topic. Best just back away slowly....
Re: I WANT TO PAINT IT BLACK....
Ok. But as I said, the recording itself is effectively encoded with the inverse of the filters listened through during the recording process and doesn't truly represent the "original message" as intended by the producer of the recording.
What do you mean without standards? My standard is my own pleasure. I don't listen to music for any other reason. And my pleasure doesn't derive simply from the knowledge that I'm reproducing a recording more objectively accurately.
My pleasure comes from many indefinable elements which together make up the gestalt of my experience.
And not being a piece of objective test equipment but rather a subjective human being, my greatest pleasure doesn't always coincide with the most objectively accurate reproduction.
Well yeah. There's no way to experience a recording directly. We can only experience it after it having passed through some number of electronic components, loudspeakers while listening in some acoustical environment, save for headphone listening.
Again, the standard is my own pleasure. And who says you have to stop fiddling? If it results in greater pleasure, I say, fiddle away, Nero.
Yes. And there's not just more or less filtering, but a wide variety of different filtering.
Yes.
And MY point is that due to the filtering occuring in the recording proces, the only reproduction chain that CAN (technically speaking) reproduce the original recording correctly, is the one use when it was made.
Well, unless you were in the acousical environment in which the recording was made, how do you know what "the truth" is? And which recording's "truth" do you tune your room to?
Well, if a system from the hi-fi emporium with a loudness button gave me greater pleasure than one without, I'd be down at the hi-fi emporium buying one in a heartbeat.
That may be how you'd like it to be. But it's rarely if ever the case.
Typically it's the musician who creates the scene and the recording engineer who paints it.
Heheh. Fair enough.
Though even when minimalist recording techniques are used, I typically see the microphones placed where no ears are ever likely to be during the performance.
Exactly.
Which is why I think the end user should just create their own mirror which gives them the most pleasure at the end of the day.
Sure.
Though really the main context here is cables and the like.
Why should I give a crap what Mark Levinson would do?
I'm not really proposing anything. I'm simply pointing out that the actual recording isn't an entirely true representation of either the original event or the intent of the person who produced the recording.
It represents the inverse of the filtering the person who made the recording listened through when making it.
By neutral I mean more objectively perfect.
But who says you're adding the same coloratoin again?
You still don't seem to be getting the gist of this.
If you're trying to make a recording that's as true to a live event as possible, and you're using a system which has certain inherent colorations, then you'll end up trying to compensate for the limitations of the system you're making the recording with.
If the system is say a bit thin in the midrange, and you compensate for it by beefing up the midrange in the recording a bit, then what you get on the recording itself is a recording which would be too beefy in the midrange if it were played back on a system which wasn't thin in the midrange.
In other words, the thin midrange of the recording system is a "filter" and after compenating for it, what ends up on the recording itself is the INVERSE of that "filter."
Sure, if the "original" is the recording itself.
But as I've said, the recording itself is neither entirely true to the original event or the intent of the person making the recording.
Wrong context.
It's what is the effect of your phono preamp's RIAA filter on the inverse RIAA filtering encoded on your LP?
se
fdegrove said:
Ok. But as I said, the recording itself is effectively encoded with the inverse of the filters listened through during the recording process and doesn't truly represent the "original message" as intended by the producer of the recording.
What do you mean without standards? My standard is my own pleasure. I don't listen to music for any other reason. And my pleasure doesn't derive simply from the knowledge that I'm reproducing a recording more objectively accurately.
My pleasure comes from many indefinable elements which together make up the gestalt of my experience.
And not being a piece of objective test equipment but rather a subjective human being, my greatest pleasure doesn't always coincide with the most objectively accurate reproduction.
Well yeah. There's no way to experience a recording directly. We can only experience it after it having passed through some number of electronic components, loudspeakers while listening in some acoustical environment, save for headphone listening.
Again, the standard is my own pleasure. And who says you have to stop fiddling? If it results in greater pleasure, I say, fiddle away, Nero.
Yes. And there's not just more or less filtering, but a wide variety of different filtering.
Yes.
And MY point is that due to the filtering occuring in the recording proces, the only reproduction chain that CAN (technically speaking) reproduce the original recording correctly, is the one use when it was made.
Well, unless you were in the acousical environment in which the recording was made, how do you know what "the truth" is? And which recording's "truth" do you tune your room to?
Well, if a system from the hi-fi emporium with a loudness button gave me greater pleasure than one without, I'd be down at the hi-fi emporium buying one in a heartbeat.
That may be how you'd like it to be. But it's rarely if ever the case.
Typically it's the musician who creates the scene and the recording engineer who paints it.
Heheh. Fair enough.
Though even when minimalist recording techniques are used, I typically see the microphones placed where no ears are ever likely to be during the performance.
Exactly.
Which is why I think the end user should just create their own mirror which gives them the most pleasure at the end of the day.
Sure.
Though really the main context here is cables and the like.
Why should I give a crap what Mark Levinson would do?
I'm not really proposing anything. I'm simply pointing out that the actual recording isn't an entirely true representation of either the original event or the intent of the person who produced the recording.
It represents the inverse of the filtering the person who made the recording listened through when making it.
By neutral I mean more objectively perfect.
But who says you're adding the same coloratoin again?
You still don't seem to be getting the gist of this.
If you're trying to make a recording that's as true to a live event as possible, and you're using a system which has certain inherent colorations, then you'll end up trying to compensate for the limitations of the system you're making the recording with.
If the system is say a bit thin in the midrange, and you compensate for it by beefing up the midrange in the recording a bit, then what you get on the recording itself is a recording which would be too beefy in the midrange if it were played back on a system which wasn't thin in the midrange.
In other words, the thin midrange of the recording system is a "filter" and after compenating for it, what ends up on the recording itself is the INVERSE of that "filter."
Sure, if the "original" is the recording itself.
But as I've said, the recording itself is neither entirely true to the original event or the intent of the person making the recording.
Wrong context.
It's what is the effect of your phono preamp's RIAA filter on the inverse RIAA filtering encoded on your LP?
se
fdegrove said:
I really thought that with your experience with LPs and their RIAA equalization you'd understand this.
se
rcavictim said:
Indeed, because it illustrates the fact that people like you REFUSE TO THINK!
Carlos is right about his "filter" statement. What he and you don't get is that it is completely speculation, unfounded, to conclude that "because it is a filter, it is audible". As I said, hogwash.
Maybe you should try to get your own basic thinking in order before thrying to speculate how other people do it.
Jan Didden
art
bit late with this reply,
to me music is artistic in its nature,
picasso, monet , motorhead etc
also paint manufacturer, pa designer, sound engineer and fun house mirror maker.
if i go to art gallery the interesting bit is all the artist distortions and impressions of hard physical reality.
however i fell the impressions are more easily and clearly understood if my glasses are clean and well adjusted.
how much fun would it be to plug straight into a deaf Bethofen head and compare his concept of the music to a state of the art sound reproduction at home.
good conections are important.
bit late with this reply,
to me music is artistic in its nature,
picasso, monet , motorhead etc
also paint manufacturer, pa designer, sound engineer and fun house mirror maker.
if i go to art gallery the interesting bit is all the artist distortions and impressions of hard physical reality.
however i fell the impressions are more easily and clearly understood if my glasses are clean and well adjusted.
how much fun would it be to plug straight into a deaf Bethofen head and compare his concept of the music to a state of the art sound reproduction at home.
good conections are important.
pico farads
oh forgot to say,
my pet opamps get upset by capacitance as low as 5pf
as for 22pf with ne5534 compensation, ooof
these interconnects cause loads of reactive problems. i've got one beauty with about 700 of these
oh forgot to say,
my pet opamps get upset by capacitance as low as 5pf
as for 22pf with ne5534 compensation, ooof
these interconnects cause loads of reactive problems. i've got one beauty with about 700 of these
Re: pico farads
Look at it from the bright side. At least you can claim that it *sounds* differently😀
Jan Didden
pxr5 said:
Look at it from the bright side. At least you can claim that it *sounds* differently😀
Jan Didden
janneman said:
Jan...
When testing amps, I sometimes change speaker cables because it's more practical.
The Kimber 4TC cables I have are passing behind the furniture.
I sometimes run Supra 2.5 (which I have for tests) by the floor direct to the Epos 11 speakers.
Everytime I do that some midband and treble detail goes away.
Even the bass has more dynamics on the Kimbers.
The worse pair of cables I tried (worse than cheap electrical cable), at a friend's home, was Supra Ply 3.4S.
These, when connected to a Rega Mira amp and Rega Ela speakers (in place of Kimber 4 TCs) made the sound so muted and clearly at a much lower volume that the effect was unbelievable.
I trust my ears, and I find it unbelievable that you guys are still discussing if cables make difference?!😱
Maby they make me drunk and it's all in my head?
Note: Supra 3.4S cables have good reviews by the press.😎
"I trust my ears, and I find it unbelievable that you guys are still discussing if cables make difference?! "
You can say that again... and again.. and a.. 🙂
I have used supraply 2.0 and most solid core cables I have compared them to have been superior.
Solid core.. flat or round, with air or cotton, PTFE or whatever.. just give me solid core!
I have been thinking on which person is most insane...
the one who knows that there is clear differences in cables and trying to explain that fact to naysayers.. or..
the naysayer who is clueless and try to teach people who know better.. 😉 Guess I´ll drop out of these discussions soon before I loose it all, it´s just really silly this whole thing.
It´s like trying to explain kisses and hugs to a child who is discussed by the opposite sex. Finally after adolescens and when it has been experienced they know what they all were talking about earlier... in the meantime they just think adults are plain crazy.. 🙂
/Peter
You can say that again... and again.. and a.. 🙂
I have used supraply 2.0 and most solid core cables I have compared them to have been superior.
Solid core.. flat or round, with air or cotton, PTFE or whatever.. just give me solid core!
I have been thinking on which person is most insane...
the one who knows that there is clear differences in cables and trying to explain that fact to naysayers.. or..
the naysayer who is clueless and try to teach people who know better.. 😉 Guess I´ll drop out of these discussions soon before I loose it all, it´s just really silly this whole thing.
It´s like trying to explain kisses and hugs to a child who is discussed by the opposite sex. Finally after adolescens and when it has been experienced they know what they all were talking about earlier... in the meantime they just think adults are plain crazy.. 🙂
/Peter
connectors
i think a lot of differences in cables is to do with the connections
certainly all problems i've had are to do with bad phono plugs, din plugs and banana plugs/binding posts. bad channel balance/dulled treble, blown speakers, oscillating amps(psu earth).5mm outside diameter give more solid cable grip for signal and soldered/hardwire is so much better for heavy speaker connection. as for the actual electrical properties of cables, i can't notice much difference in 10m of cheapo plastic plug twin screen and diy supercable/foil screen etc 5inches long.certainly i've only measured -0.75db at 20000hz with long/capacitive cables and 20kohms source impedance.
i think a lot of differences in cables is to do with the connections
certainly all problems i've had are to do with bad phono plugs, din plugs and banana plugs/binding posts. bad channel balance/dulled treble, blown speakers, oscillating amps(psu earth).5mm outside diameter give more solid cable grip for signal and soldered/hardwire is so much better for heavy speaker connection. as for the actual electrical properties of cables, i can't notice much difference in 10m of cheapo plastic plug twin screen and diy supercable/foil screen etc 5inches long.certainly i've only measured -0.75db at 20000hz with long/capacitive cables and 20kohms source impedance.
Hmm, I`m only usin thick solid copper, nothing else does it. (-and i mean real thick; one set for each driver) Or; everything else ruins the signal. That includes massive powercords too😉
carlosfm said:
Really? Don't you find it amazing that many cable manufacturers are so incompetent that they cannot make cables that are transparent, regardsless of the price, and are getting away with it big time!
Jan Didden
solid core mains
and,
how do you connect that stuff, tried solid core 15a mains cable once after reading in some hifi mag it was good and cheap.
convinced myself the sound became smoother, but i just couldn't live with it. kept snapping joints, no sound atall every other day
and,
how do you connect that stuff, tried solid core 15a mains cable once after reading in some hifi mag it was good and cheap.
convinced myself the sound became smoother, but i just couldn't live with it. kept snapping joints, no sound atall every other day
- Status
- Not open for further replies.