A whole lot of which recording would be preferred depends on the playback gear.
And the room that it is in.
Listener fatigue and then after subsequent presentation, listener expectation might also play a role...
...so what was the playback gear & room - any pix?
What about my suggestion to encode your recording and compare the "analog" to the "digital encoding"??
(this stuff is rather OT... best in a different thread...)
_-_-
And the room that it is in.
Listener fatigue and then after subsequent presentation, listener expectation might also play a role...
...so what was the playback gear & room - any pix?
What about my suggestion to encode your recording and compare the "analog" to the "digital encoding"??
(this stuff is rather OT... best in a different thread...)
_-_-
So if a few fools armed with oscilloscopes can't measure it, it has to be dismissed, and then all efforts shall be directed towards what the fools can actually measure? Didn't this already produce the "emperor has no clothes" reaction against the "purist" systems? Isn't this the "if you have a hammer everything looks like a nail" approach? With oscilloscopes of course?
If all they have is scopes, then they are fools and NOT people testing systems. Luckily most people who measure things actually have some test equipment to hand.
Please name the measuring / test equipment that could have accurately predicted the winner(s) in Jan's contest.
I would venture to guess the entries bore little resemblance to each other in terms of frequency balance/imaging, etc. to well over a dB or more at some points (different for each recording). Once you let "euphonics" in the door I don't see much point in these discussions, everyone has a personal preference.
Accurate to the input, I thought that was evident from the context the last few pages.
Reference/goal: output = input.
Jan
You really don't get it, do you? Why do you think this is measurable?? That's daft!
Jan
Jeez the signal going in to the signal going out, we are talking music reproduction system from a source, be it LP, tape or digital, the output signal should match the input signal exactly except the amplitude should be larger...
Don't really understand what you are trying to say, your involved in this business, you must understand what hi-fidelity means. I know you go for the more esoteric beliefs in this game, but basic facts are reproduction as near to the input source as possible.
What do you do as a job, because your constant insulting of people who measure is getting tedious beyond belief, you really aught to find out how electronics are designed, cos this is just a sub-section of electronics. Stop trying to confuse the issue, true fidelity is nothing added to a signal just add some gain, its simple to understand... and measurements are what are required not just sighted listening and anecdotes about how it sounded, its science after all...
Again you are confusing two different things, accurate music reproduction and personal preference, I would go re-read the last page or two again, it seems to have gone completely over your head or you just want to sprout the same shi** to keep a pointless argument going.
There were 50+ people partaking in the test. Each brings his own experience/interest/preference as to what 'sounds good'. Some have a background in ultra-linear amps, others in SETs, yet others in hybrid open loop. They listen to a pair of musical excerpts and vote based on what they prefer. How can anyone 'measure' anything here??
I know how these processes work, and I carefully selected musical excerpts and presented them in such a way that I thought would maximize impact. And it seemed to work.
I did know that Scotts mike pre was very low noise. Running the Nagra at 15ips meant very short recording time with the 5inch wheels, but also, again, very low noise.
That way I was able to under-modulate a bit so as to avoid any limiting or clipping even with a high dynamic range live concert, preserving dynamic range almost unchanged.
The horn was somewhat dominating I thought, so during the break I very slightly changed mike direction away from the horn, which at the same time allowed the violin to come out a bit more placed. I was also carefull to include a short (15 secs) piano 'solo' to let the audience pinpoint the piano position better, again reinforcing the idea of very good soundstage.
These are the factors that impact how people judge music.
Jan
I know how these processes work, and I carefully selected musical excerpts and presented them in such a way that I thought would maximize impact. And it seemed to work.
I did know that Scotts mike pre was very low noise. Running the Nagra at 15ips meant very short recording time with the 5inch wheels, but also, again, very low noise.
That way I was able to under-modulate a bit so as to avoid any limiting or clipping even with a high dynamic range live concert, preserving dynamic range almost unchanged.
The horn was somewhat dominating I thought, so during the break I very slightly changed mike direction away from the horn, which at the same time allowed the violin to come out a bit more placed. I was also carefull to include a short (15 secs) piano 'solo' to let the audience pinpoint the piano position better, again reinforcing the idea of very good soundstage.
These are the factors that impact how people judge music.
Jan
You're still avoiding the question, albeit in a different way.
Please state what the input and the output are.
So...
-what was the system?
- how large was the room?
- no pix??
- and why won't you try to compare a digitized version of your tape with the orginal tape? I'd expect that they would measure the same? No? Will they sound the same? Let's find out??
And again, this is entirely OT to "opamps"... if it's worth discussing, make a new thread, please.
-what was the system?
- how large was the room?
- no pix??
- and why won't you try to compare a digitized version of your tape with the orginal tape? I'd expect that they would measure the same? No? Will they sound the same? Let's find out??
And again, this is entirely OT to "opamps"... if it's worth discussing, make a new thread, please.
How does it sound if you stand in different places in a room where a concert is being held? As stated the input was tinkered with by moving a mike position to get a better balance... The underlying electronics have to try and reproduce what the transducers pick up with uttermost accuracy, this is not only in audio but in many systems where transducers are used to provide an input to an electrical system.
Input to the system is effectively the output of the various transducers, the output is the signal sent to the tape... This would then become the input for a sound reproduction system...
It seems that only some feel insulted. i.e. those that don't get it that the testing/measurement instruments are there just to check whether the prototype / product meets some of the design goals and doesn't have any unforeseen gremlins such as oscillations.
What the design goals are is a completely different discussion, and those that insisted that "the best" goal is to maximize a few measurable parameters such as "flat frequency response" have contributed to the public perception of "Hi Fi" as being an expensive joke.
Look, if your goal is "the most technically accurate recording of sound pressure at row G seat 14" then go ahead, but don't expect that that's what the customers at large are looking for.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.