John, as I see it, your experience was positive overall, if in no othaer way then at least that it alerted you the fact that digital has come some way in evlution since the time you looked at it last. If you remember, I suggested you do that several times, progress is slow, but (I hope) inevitable.
I had my wake-up call two years ago when I stumbled onto the NAD C565BEE CD only player, which to me was something of a revelation. Admittedly, in part because it was made by NAD, a company which never surprised me from way back mode 3020 integrated amp in the late 70ies. Here again, it was no revelation, but it did manage to do WAY better than was expected of it, and in fact, to the best of my knowledge, better than anything else in its price class. In comparison with what I already had (from Denon (with 6 Burr-Brown DACs), Philips, Yamaha and an Aussie real time DAC (in fact 8 Philips DACs in parallel)). It wasn't so much a grand step forward, but it was a fair step in the right direction. Very high detail resolution, lots of spatial information, then new Wolfson DAC surrounded by a slew of TI x234 op amps, you could say all FET environment.
Now, that's a $500 CD player (by local prices), so one would hope that better models should also make similar steps forward.
You should go out more, I know you are handicapped with heakth issues, and so am I (I have serious problems with walking, despite my operation), so we both need to make some special efforts.
I had my wake-up call two years ago when I stumbled onto the NAD C565BEE CD only player, which to me was something of a revelation. Admittedly, in part because it was made by NAD, a company which never surprised me from way back mode 3020 integrated amp in the late 70ies. Here again, it was no revelation, but it did manage to do WAY better than was expected of it, and in fact, to the best of my knowledge, better than anything else in its price class. In comparison with what I already had (from Denon (with 6 Burr-Brown DACs), Philips, Yamaha and an Aussie real time DAC (in fact 8 Philips DACs in parallel)). It wasn't so much a grand step forward, but it was a fair step in the right direction. Very high detail resolution, lots of spatial information, then new Wolfson DAC surrounded by a slew of TI x234 op amps, you could say all FET environment.
Now, that's a $500 CD player (by local prices), so one would hope that better models should also make similar steps forward.
You should go out more, I know you are handicapped with heakth issues, and so am I (I have serious problems with walking, despite my operation), so we both need to make some special efforts.
DVV, I do note progress in digital reproduction, but then again, I was listening to two excellent examples of digital playback and found them with a digital 'signature' or 'lacking something', sort of like a ride in a nice average passenger car compared with a hi end vehicle. Competent to get you to the store and back, but no 'wow' factor.
Sure. But, most live acoustical music doesn't have all that much wow factor.
The actual sounds are for the most part not especially different than what could be found in a good music store. In other words, a top of the line Taylor guitar sounds like it always does when a string is plucked in a particular way. Depending on who is doing the plucking, good music may result, but the instrument still sounds like a top of the line Taylor plucked in a particular way. Same type of thing for most other instruments.
Also, a lot of what makes the best instruments sound so nice close up and in person are vibrations coming not just from the top, but vibrations from the sides and back. All the vibrations from the instrument reverberate in the local environment, which can sound great.
But mics don't exactly pick that up. A typical mic sounds more like sticking a finger in one hear and holding the other, open ear 12" or so away from the front of the instrument. If tried, one finds a lot of the magic goes away in that very limited field mono listening. Since with recordings we are always hearing what a mic picks up, already there is some loss.
Therefore, I have to wonder exactly where the wow is coming from, not that I object to how nice it sounds.
Could LP playback have euphonic elements that make it sound "better" as in more pleasing that pure digital? I know that a high quality 4K digital video well lit does not have the visual magic that lower resolution grainy film with its less than perfect registration can have. Perhaps the "magic" of LP's and analog magnetic tape comes from the same place.
Once you disconnect "accuracy" from the final artistic experience there may be a lot more freedom to add "tuning" to the reproduction chain. (Like different lighting of a painting.) But then you need to be honest that 'perfect accuracy" is not the end goal. it also opens a different direction for criticism that is less combative, much like music and theater reviewing- who gave the best performance for a given reviewer is not about the most accuract notes but the composite emotional experiece. Unfortunately the best emotional experiece for hip-hop reproduction won't necessarily coincide with that for Haydn or Philip Glass.
If you spend time with the best recording engineers you find they are more focused on getting the experience than perfect capture of a specific sound field. There is a lot of artistic interpretation when recording music successfully.
Once you disconnect "accuracy" from the final artistic experience there may be a lot more freedom to add "tuning" to the reproduction chain. (Like different lighting of a painting.) But then you need to be honest that 'perfect accuracy" is not the end goal. it also opens a different direction for criticism that is less combative, much like music and theater reviewing- who gave the best performance for a given reviewer is not about the most accuract notes but the composite emotional experiece. Unfortunately the best emotional experiece for hip-hop reproduction won't necessarily coincide with that for Haydn or Philip Glass.
If you spend time with the best recording engineers you find they are more focused on getting the experience than perfect capture of a specific sound field. There is a lot of artistic interpretation when recording music successfully.
Last night I had dinner with keith Johnson. We discussed recording techniques some and he touched on a pet gripe- the "Monoculture" of modern recording where every instrument has a mono mike on it and they are assembled in a DAW using essentially presets that make a "pleasant" sound. He and the other engineers doing projects at that level are using stereo pairs on every element they record and then work very hard to get them to actually blend and have a sense or space. This is not common practice.
Yes most definitely.
In my experiments I can induce 'vinyl' sound into my rig, such that digital 'accuracy' is removed and replaced with an altogether different 'vibe' or experience.
With this 'filtering' long term listening to digital pb and radio streaming is most pleasant and non fatiguing.
My very good 'clean digital' could be said to be more 'accurate', but I have to admit that the 'vinylised' version can have that 'something' that makes for more pleasant long term listening experience.
One takeaway from my experiments is that different vinyl formulations sound different and some are not pleasing, remember those K-Tel Hit Records of the eighties etc.....the bad sound in not just in the transfers and mastering.
Good point.
A few months back, friends of mine recorded as a four piece acoustic group in a Hamburg downstairs bunker room playing live and arranged as they do on stage, with mics and DI straight into multi channel sound card and multitracking to Hard Drive.
The multitracks were then 'in the box' mixed down to two channels with not much processing and one small overdub.
The result of this 'DIY' recording is to my ear spectacularly pleasing, engaging and fun listening, and unlike so many familiar commercial releases the vibe and feel of the band has been captured artfully.
Their next recording in their guise as 3 piece hard rock/blues outfit is entirely different having been recorded differently in a 'professional' studio, and then 'mastered' by some industry 'guru'.
The result is an 'in your face' album that does not particularly capture their live stage sound/presence but does grab attention and could be said to be another example of the 'art'.
Dan.
Okay, but the "what" is not the same as "how it actually works deep down inside." Just having a lot of speakers in different places could give different kinds of results, some good, some bad. There must be more to the story.
Last edited:
I normally ignore name droppers, but in this case I will say that I am jealous. Next time you see him can you ask why he still releases in HDCD when almost no one can play it back after microsoft sc****d over pacific microsonics.
Oh I do have lots of extra special. It's called my family. They help keep my perspective. Another one due in June.
Right. The operative word is "typical". Just like the typical EE's I harped about on the op amp thread. Have you ever heard a 1920's Martin acoustic guitar? It is something to behold; big time "wow" factor in the finer acoustic aspects. John is referring to systems that are analogies to the vintage Martin.
Nope, not a 1920's Martin, that I know of anyway. But I have heard old, aged, thin-walled, very resonant, acoustic instruments like violins. And other fine guitars. Some sound very nice indeed.
What I am missing is not that experience so much, but rather an understanding of the exact technology one can use to capture and reproduce such an experience.
I don't doubt its possible to make something similar to that experience, or maybe even better than the original experience. But exactly the same?
What I am missing is not that experience so much, but rather an understanding of the exact technology one can use to capture and reproduce such an experience.
I don't doubt its possible to make something similar to that experience, or maybe even better than the original experience. But exactly the same?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.