Joshua_G said:
Plus tube gear designed with power amplification in mind, natural reverberation, right placement of properly selected microphones to preserve sound of real instruments in real reverberating hall, no compression, no other popular plugins for ProTools and similar software.
I can find you six people who don't know one another and will swear that Virgos are all anal retentive. With evidence just as good.
Groovy, man, groovy.
Joshua_G said:
No, it is the art of design, recording, and mastering.
Modern designers were not taught about power. They think of voltage amplifications and current amplifications separately as if they are free and don't coexist in each and every place.
Edit: yes, almost lost in general professional applications. Engineers use gates and compressors routinely, and don't think about capturing of an essence of the certain place where musicians play expressing their soul movements, unique in each and every session.
john curl said:
Curious enough, when six qualified engineers are telling you there's no ******* proven audible difference between SACD and CD, you formally dismiss these results.
But go ahead, this is your weekend 🙂 If you need more proof, read this:
Part1: http://www.enjoythemusic.com/diy/0708/capacitor1.htm
Part2: http://www.enjoythemusic.com/diy/1108/capacitor1.htm
Across the site you'll find more writings authored by some well known DIYAudio members, attempting to spread their religion across the hordes of infidels.
syn08 said:
I must be missing a point.
What being a qualified engineer has to do with appreciation of sound reproduction?
Does one need an academic degree to listen and trust ones' ears?
Joshua_G said:
If a candy differently packed tastes the same specialists can tell you for sure there is no degustatoriable differences in content of each other.
Unfortunately, negatives don't prove anything, especially when I can hear the differences, myself.
Just to fan the flames - at the dawn of the digital age - remember - "perfect sound forever" Glenn Gould made his second recording of the Goldberg Variations. At the time of the recording they used two different digital recorders and the engineers were astounded when Gould could reliably and repeatedly identify which recorder had made the recording. The engineers couldn't hear a difference. Now digital has come a long way since then and many of the original problems have been identified and solved but that is a long way from saying that all of the problems have been solved. Instead of insisting that the world is flat why not INVESTIGATE some of the claims people make and look for an underlying scientific basis for them rather than insisting they are not there. I guess Gould couldn't hear anything in your world either.
I also miss the wonders of recording in the 50's and 60's, fortunately there were many great artists at that time who have left us some amazing recordings. I wonder what Kenneth Wilkinson would think of modern recording techniques.
Charlie
I also miss the wonders of recording in the 50's and 60's, fortunately there were many great artists at that time who have left us some amazing recordings. I wonder what Kenneth Wilkinson would think of modern recording techniques.
Charlie
Charlie,
for me investigations mean experimenting and gathering of other information all around that can fit in results of experiments and predict their results; it is a contrary different thing to collecting of opinions of experts without knowing details: when, where, and why they are applicable.
for me investigations mean experimenting and gathering of other information all around that can fit in results of experiments and predict their results; it is a contrary different thing to collecting of opinions of experts without knowing details: when, where, and why they are applicable.
SY said:
Yes a little humor, I suppose you could trim it by unrolling a little at a time? I'll bet most people don't know that it's actually a lubricant and not sealant.
I refrain from commenting these "listening" impressions. Over on the Ariel thread someone dug up a published DBT where only 4 of 145 recording professionals and musicians could tell DCD from ordinary PCM 75% of the time. I have yet to see a single instance of the results the other way around. http://sdg-master.com/lesestoff/gesamtarbeitneu.pdf
At best the Gould experience is totally uncontrolled, there is an enormous amount of signal processing in the way on any pro recorder.
The info came from the album cover - maybe I shouldn't believe it but why would they have bothered putting it there if it wasn't true. It was just a discussion of the recording session and this "wonderful" new recording technique.
Wavebourn - what I was trying to say was that if a difference was reliably and repeatedly heard it should be investigated. We can then do experiments to find out what aspect of the sound was different and why. Unfortunately Mr. Gould is no longer with us so we can't use his ears as a testing device.
I once read an article in Stereophile where they conducted a blind listening experiment at some audio show. They decided that there was NO difference between the cables or whatever they were listening to. However they noted in passing that there was one gentleman in the audience who got the answer right each and every time. Apparently he was just sitting there not seeming to pay much attention to the goings on but he got the device under test correct each time. I would have come to a different conclusion - if one person gets it right every time there is something different about the devices - which one might be better is a whole different issue.
Charlie
Wavebourn - what I was trying to say was that if a difference was reliably and repeatedly heard it should be investigated. We can then do experiments to find out what aspect of the sound was different and why. Unfortunately Mr. Gould is no longer with us so we can't use his ears as a testing device.
I once read an article in Stereophile where they conducted a blind listening experiment at some audio show. They decided that there was NO difference between the cables or whatever they were listening to. However they noted in passing that there was one gentleman in the audience who got the answer right each and every time. Apparently he was just sitting there not seeming to pay much attention to the goings on but he got the device under test correct each time. I would have come to a different conclusion - if one person gets it right every time there is something different about the devices - which one might be better is a whole different issue.
Charlie
audio845 said:
Been there, did it myself and didn't even have to listen to the music. The A/B vs B/A transient was obvious. Not to say that was in play here but if not eliminated the test is invalid.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.