What sort of gear? I could understand if someone could tell a Neumann u47 from a protools emulation or the signature of a particular compressor. Likewise I would like to think those experienced in the art could tell a Neve from an SSL just listening to a recording.
Hi Jakob2,
I am using PSB Stratus Gold (original) speakers - just for a point of comparison. They aren't perfect, but are realistic sounding compared to the real instruments used for the song in this case. There are plenty of speakers out there that are worse, and Floyd Toole did help create this design through the NRC where Paul Barton did some work (an outside customer).
Since I have heard the real instruments, and the real mixes, and have a copy of the mix on CD, I can tell that my system does a pretty credible job of reproducing what the engineers heard and intended. The near field monitors were NS-10 with tissue paper over the tweeters. I don't think they ever used the NS-10M.
-Chris
I have to disagree with you on your "highly distorted" comment firstly. As I said, I have listened to some sessions and have the mix on CD. Their intention translated to something very close to what I heard in the studio. From this alone, I know that my sound system reproduces the mix sufficiently close to what actually was heard. My system sounds more realistic on items with some high frequency energy because the main monitors were JBL 412's or something along those lines. But a triangle sounds like the real thing. So I can say that while my system does sound very accurate as far as real sounds are heard, it doesn't reproduce the session exactly. I would need the same speakers for that that were used in the control room. I would rather not have those.
I am using PSB Stratus Gold (original) speakers - just for a point of comparison. They aren't perfect, but are realistic sounding compared to the real instruments used for the song in this case. There are plenty of speakers out there that are worse, and Floyd Toole did help create this design through the NRC where Paul Barton did some work (an outside customer).
Since I have heard the real instruments, and the real mixes, and have a copy of the mix on CD, I can tell that my system does a pretty credible job of reproducing what the engineers heard and intended. The near field monitors were NS-10 with tissue paper over the tweeters. I don't think they ever used the NS-10M.
-Chris
@anatech,
It was meant as a description from a physical/technical comparison of the "real thing" which means the original acoustical soundfield and the soundfield created during the reproduction.
It is still surprising that our hearing apparatus in combination with our brain is able to construct a perception that is similar to such a degree to the original sound event.
But the individual response to the same reproduction might nevertheless be quite different depending on experiences with real acoustical events and different kinds of reproduction systems.
And you would need most likely their room acoustic as well.
I have no doubt; i think we all choose (beside those rare occasions where costs are no object and real talents are at work, so the weak points were literally eliminated) systems where the strength of the system corresponds to the kind of records (or recording styles we favour) and vice versa.
It was meant as a description from a physical/technical comparison of the "real thing" which means the original acoustical soundfield and the soundfield created during the reproduction.
It is still surprising that our hearing apparatus in combination with our brain is able to construct a perception that is similar to such a degree to the original sound event.
But the individual response to the same reproduction might nevertheless be quite different depending on experiences with real acoustical events and different kinds of reproduction systems.
And you would need most likely their room acoustic as well.
I have no doubt; i think we all choose (beside those rare occasions where costs are no object and real talents are at work, so the weak points were literally eliminated) systems where the strength of the system corresponds to the kind of records (or recording styles we favour) and vice versa.
Things that have stood out include Scully tape decks, Shure SM58 microphones, AKG 451 microphones, Tascam everything...
But it doesn't in this case. It's very obvious it isn't tone. It really isn't hard to hear around tone changes.
"Truth"? You mean something totally independent of subjective preference that mirrors subjectivity in which music is at the heart and soul of?
How much do these books talk about how speakers work? You're not paying attention.
No. I'm saying only people that know how to set their autism and ego's aside make successful audio gear that people want to listen to - really listen to, not just "enjoy" because they know it's got -126db noise floor. And sadly that isn't the average EE type person. Again, Pass gets it (and that other guy who posted saying he does, as he must like Pass projects). John Curl is willing to forgo his logical brain and say he likes things, too. The list never ends for people whom bend to what pleasure the ear, into consideration. Your solution would be something like if we are at 0.001% distortion we need to get to 0.000001% distortion. Why isn't this solving our issues? Again, first it starts with how speakers work, my original point. It's something you need to hear.
We all know there is some feedback, otherwise you wouldn't have amp, you'd have a buffer. And there's local vs global, too. The adjustable kind if in the global; and while it might read 0% who knows what the actual percentage is when set to 0%. None of that changes how important of a learning lesson there is here.
Yes, I bought the book, of course.
In general, i found that the direction I have gone ... towards low nfb and inherently linear topology is what i have been doing and talking about a lot for a long time. Just nice to see it all compiled into a single book. Could save someone a lot of time in ferreting it all out themselves like I did (and others).
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Hi Richard,
Your direction makes perfect sense to me. Why would there be any question on this?
Hi Jakob2,
The best thing I can say about this system is that it is accurate and easy to listen to for long periods of time. I would be hard pressed to do better beyond either a Marantz 500 amplifier or the current Bryston 4B cubed.
-Chris
Your direction makes perfect sense to me. Why would there be any question on this?
Hi Jakob2,
Completely agree. Something else I wouldn't really want.
Well, I couldn't afford them new, but I did get them "for services rendered". The same for everything else I own. I have been either extremely lucky, or I had to repair it. I did enhance every piece I own and have ended up with a system "that punches well above its weight". For interest sake, the rest of the system is Marantz, a 3650 preamp, 300 DC amplifier and a Revox tuner, B-261 I think. The TT is a Thorens TD-126 MKII and Ortofon 540 MKII cartridge. The CD is a Denon DCD-S10. While not extremely expensive compared to what many other people own, it is expensive enough and performs really well. The only item I haven't worked on is the cartridge. I just installed it a couple months ago, bought new.
The best thing I can say about this system is that it is accurate and easy to listen to for long periods of time. I would be hard pressed to do better beyond either a Marantz 500 amplifier or the current Bryston 4B cubed.
-Chris
What kind of music was recorded at these sessions? Combo stuff? It’s not that hard to get “pretty credible” with a quartet or sextet or some sort. It is hard to get something scary good. And if the source is something like a big orchestra then it gets nearly impossible to get scary good.
The MetalWorks is a pop / rock studio mostly. I have "big orchestra" recorded works and they sound great. Vinyl or CD. I have heard this music live as well. I used to do lighting for performances covering everything from plays, religious events and orchestra music. Solo acts as well. The lighting booth was an excellent place to listen to what was going on. Nothing in between me and the stage and pit. The ceiling was acoustically treated too.
-Chris
-Chris
No can do. Copywrite Just listen to some work done at The MetalWorks recording studio. Triumph (the band) owned the studio and recorded everything they did there. I think Gill is still running it. They now do a recording school thing there too.
-Chris
-Chris
Didn't you just commission Damir's amplifiers? Which are both quite complex and high feedback?
Bruno Putzeys wrote a nice article discussing feedback and distortion products a long time ago. It seems to get ignored by many in favor of whatever aligns with their existing philosophy. 🙁
Yeah, I don't know exactly when, but at least 5 years ago at this point.
https://linearaudio.net/sites/linearaudio.net/files/volume1bp.pdf
- Status
- Not open for further replies.