How close to the real thing?

I wish that I could understand by what measure you guys are able to quantify realness. Is it information? IMO, realness is more than that. A high resolution photograph can yield all the empirical information of a direct viewing, but it's not the same, is it? We can go back and forth between the photo and the object and never be able articulate anything lacking in the photo. But still, it's less to me. I'm not saying that I've never been momentarily fooled by a sound coming from a speaker, especially when it comes from outside the plane, but to me, that's not nearly enough to make a case for realness. I suspect a system will alway's be limited, if only by the differences in the way that instruments and a speakers excite a room response.

I would like to hear the MBLs, but have never had the opportunity. Perhaps that fortunate, because I probably can't afford them, my room probably won't support them, and they are so ugly even my understanding spouse would have to call foul.

The step response you speak of, which is really a time-domain impulse test, is interesting, but I don't think anyone has ever shown a correlation between good sound and a perfect impulse test. As I recently posted in another thread, and just my personal opinion, I consider the use of first-order crossovers, necessary to achieve the perfect time domain performance the CS5's demonstrate, are just a marketing gimmick, and lead to more problems than benefits.

The Soundlabs achieve linear phase response because they are a single driver, have no crossover, so naturally they are good in the time domain, but does that really contribute to their great sound? I don't know, but I doubt it.

I was very tempted by the Soundlabs, but their trade-offs didn't quite suit me. And they're huge. But when the A1s are good, like on stringed instruments, they are most engaging speaker I've ever heard.

Live performances have a different dimensionality based on seating, hall ambiance, and all the little nuances that make it "real" to some. You can't catch it all in a recording. A guy that trips up the stairs, or a couple giggling a few rows back. These things make it "live" for us.

I think of it as analogous to watching a well done movie of a plane flying through Grand Canyon. If you watch it on your 20 inch Sony you are getting 10% of the experience, but if you watch it at Imax, closer to say 80%.

I've heard huge Rockport's or Verity's nicely set up that bring you very close to to live. I'm going with 80%

"If you watch it on your 20 inch Sony you are getting 10% of the experience, but if you watch it at Imax, closer to say 80%."

I like your Grand Canyon analogy Bjesien. But do you really mean to say "experience" or would "information" be more precise? . At what resolution does one start to feel the "take your breath away" experience of actually being there in a really effective way? It would seem that there should be real and unreal - simple. But maybe this thread proves that there are many subjective perceptions of reality.

I have flown through the Gand Canyon in a helicopter, and I have seen Imax. I have also tried memory experiments and read books about how recall works. The texture of simulation is far removed from real sensory experience and memory is but a type of simulation.
What all simulations share is distortion and lack of information. One day we might achieve near perfect reproduction of a recording, but no chance ever of reproducing the "experience". I imagine a time when a person's reaction to an event can be recorded and "played back" through direct brain stimulation, but the rules would still apply.
Finally there is the novelty phenomenon. An ad for an early Edison record player shows an Opera singer listening to a recording of another singer with his eyes closed. He witnesses that he cannot tell any difference from hearing her live. We chuckle, but I expect he really was thrilled and enchanted with the novelty, so he was easily fooled.

I've seen a few say that they play in bands... I don't play in bands, but I have done sound for a half dozen and still do sound regularly in churchs. My experience is that amplified live venues or music that goes through a mixing board really shouldn't count toward this discussion or at least be discounted. Not just the quality of the mics are in play, but the mix is changed to sound correctly in the venue being played, the snakes are typically over very long runs and mixing boards vary just as much as preamps to the recording. I clearly understand that this is nearly impossible to filter out, but the very best recordings for imaging are two channels mixed with the best of microphones. Anything with a mixer will throw more instruments into a false center stage.... Good Listening,Tim

I agree 95% with:

11-23-10: Lrsky
Assigning an actual percentage would be an exercise in intellectual futility and meaningless as nobody would agree...it's enough to say that I've not heard reproduced sound, sound anything like the real thing, EVER.

The 5% difference is I would say reproduced sound does sound something like the real thing, yet it is recognizable as recorded, and always distinguishable from the real thing. The difference in % terms? No idea how one would assess that meaningfully, but I always know it is Memorex.

For those comparing a theater movie to audio might get a different view if they see a good 3D movie done nowadays. It's been to long for me,but this is what I was told.They said you could see the audience jump or duck from an action seen in 3D.Our stereo does a good 3D illusion if you close your eyes.Pilots have come out of Flight Simulators sweating.

You always know it's Memorex? No wonder nothing sounds real to you! If you're old enough to remember those commercials you can't hear anything over 12KHz anyway! [Big Grin]

Memorex had the most hiss of all the tapes too.Maybe that's what broke the glass.

You are right about the 12Khz:( missing in action (more or less)and yet "live" and recordings remain distinctly their own sonically.

P.S. I used TDK, when I wasn't on the Thorens.....

This has been a very interesting discussion to follow!

I have come to think about these issues less in terms of some "absolute sound" and more as "is the system giving me as much of what the recording engineer intended as possible." As in, "Oh, so THAT'S what Paul Simon, Tchad Blake and Brian Eno wanted me to experience on that cut from "Surprise." My own rig has come progressively closer to this goal as I've tweaked and upgraded it, I think, although it's hardly take no prisoners/state of the art.

As for acoustic music, if a tweak to the system makes it more moving or involving, I'm pleased.

YMMV, of course!

I notice that the people who are claiming current technology is close to capturing and reproducing the sound of a real musical event are severely limiting the conditions where they have experienced this phenomena. It only happens on a few records, only when I'm listening on headphones, only for small groups or solo instruments or only when I have a studio quality tape recorder playing back a tape I made in my own house. So am I to believe that 99% of the time it doesn't sound that real, but all the other times it does?

I think some of you are confusing the fact that you like the sound of your system better than live sound. That's a very different issue than whether your system can so accurately recreate a recorded event such that you cannot distinguish it from the original.

Good point Onhwy61, or distinction. I often prefer listening to my home system to live while recongnizing there are aspects of live performance that are simply not present in a recording and I think the issue of compression mentioned by Shadorne is a very significant part of the difference between recorded and live music.

In my experience the difference between system and real thing does not speak to what might be more enjoyable in the listening - being different doesn't speak to what might be prefered, at least not necessarily. For example, live music rarely has the soundstaging and imaging of my system, and illusion and distortion I quite enjoy even if mostly an artifact of the recording process and better, more resolving equipment.

Shadorne has hit the nail on the head- commercial recordings are the primary barrier to making it sound real.

If you were to take a set of good studio microphones and put them in a different room, away from your system, you might be quite surprised to find out how lifelike the system can be if the mics are set up right. Nothing (so far) compares to a direct mic feed...

"I have a studio quality tape recorder playing back a tape I made in my own house. So am I to believe that 99% of the time it doesn't sound that real, but all the other times it does?"

No. It means that some of us believe you can recreate a pretty good facsimile of "live" when the sound sources being reproduced are well recorded, played back using some of the finest equipment available, and the sources are in reasonable proportion to the size of the room the audio system is in, and the system has the power to recreate the output of the source instrument.

A rhetorical question for Atmashpere -- if the U67 is such a good mic how come they never came at with a U67 Signature or U67 Reference MkII?

Pro audio companies just don't get it!

don't forget revisions A,B,C.... of the Signaturre Reference Ultimate MK2.17

The more I read this thread, the more it becomes clear to me just how much this topic has in common with the myriad threads on "tubes vs solid state" (Now I know why you've given this thread a pass Tvad). A common theme of those threads is whether or not solid state can sound like tubes. The answers always seems to narrow down to: yes to some and no to others, depending on ones personal values. I'm no expert but it seems to me that we hear with our brains, and the brain is pretty good at filtering out what it deems unimportant. Sure a home system can approach the real thing if the difference isn't that important to you. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, as with tubes, some will always hear a difference because there is one, and it's meaningful to them, while others will not because of the slight value the place on that difference.

You may be right, but to me it seems like more than just a matter of opinion in that sense that I find it hard to believe that anyone one accustomed to unamplified, acosutic music would ever be fooled by a stereo system into thinking it is real instruments in a real acoustic venue. As much as I would love to believe that my system, and other far more expensive systems I have heard, sound real, it just doesn't, though I do place a slight value on that difference. Has a recorded saxaphone, trumpet, or drum set ever sounded real to you, where you could not tell the difference (assuming you have heard the real thing)? Really? I want your system. I do agree that one person's 5% is another's 95%, but either way, somehow it is obviously never 100%, nor can it ever be IMHO. This just seems like a clearer divide to me than the tube/ss debates.

You're treading on dangerous turf, Phaelon, he says rolling his eyes. :-) Tube amps sound different from solid state amps for measureable, predictable, understandable reasons that can usually be explained by effective differences in the amp-speaker combination frequency response. The only way to tell if someone thinks a sound is "live" is by using a blind test and seeing if he or she can repeatedly correctly differentiate. I've never seen a metric for determining "live" has been achieved.

5% is a bit harsh , i would give the very best 45% of the real deal and figure on that system using at least 2-3 kw of power to get to that 45% figure...

Onhwy61, that may be so. When I got the U67s nearly 30 years ago, I knew they were great mics, but had no idea how really great they actually are.

As our equipment for recording and playback has improved, I've really come to realize that microphone technology may well be one of the areas that was well advanced beyond the rest of audio world by several decades. That simple fact is, if you have mics of this quality, you don't need 'signature' or 'reference' as descriptors :) They just work.

One time I did an on-location recording with a pair of RCA ribbon mics. I had a couple of audiophile friends with me that wanted to see it being done. At one point, I had to move the mics a couple of feet. One of my friends was wearing headphones, listening to the live mic feed. Since ribbons can be fairly sensitive, when I got to the mic stand, I said 'I'm going to move the mics now' so he would be prepared for some noise.

When I was done and got backstage again, he was in a state of shock. He had seen me go through the stage door, and then a few seconds later, he heard me *behind* him (at the point where I was ready to move the mic stand). On wheeling around, wondering how I got back behind him without him knowing it, he saw I was not there!!

Now this was a jaundiced audiophile, and training to be a conductor (currently conducting in Moscow) and *knew* that audio equipment could never sound that real. I'm telling you, he nearly had a heart attack.

"You're treading on dangerous turf, Phaelon"

Thanks for the warning Irvrobinson.

You're not being fair. Are we talking about measurements or listening? You can't talk measurements on the "does it sound like a tube debate" and then switch to listening on the "does it sound real" debate.

You're not suggesting that there are perfect components that add or take away nothing, are you? If not, then a difference can be measured. And if a difference can be measured, then you have to give it the same weight as you did to tubes. Ha! :-)

"You're not being fair. Are we talking about measurements or listening? You can't talk measurements on the "does it sound like a tube debate" and then switch to listening on the "does it sound real" debate."

Actually, that's exactly my point. We *know* why tube amps can sound different, but the *opinion* that the playback of a recording sounds real is only measureable by measuring the individual human - in other words, can they tell the difference in a blind test? Perhaps it was you that confused me in your comparing this thread with the tube versus solid state threads.

Nonetheless, are you saying the blind comparison test would be an invalid measurement strategy?

All we need is five guys, earplugs, blindfold and a big box, like a Wilson crate, and a hand-truck. Also a Budget rental truck or even a pickup would work fine.

We lug the guy around to few different venues over the coarse of a couple nights. We uncrate and crate him up again after the venue. Maybe he gets a few cheese sticks and some water too. The guy takes notes and reveals them at the end of the experiment. Piece of cake. I'm good with a hand-truck.

Irvrobinson, blind listening test while fastidious are only valid and relevant to the small group(s) participating..

The Subjective nature of Audio is well .............

"are you saying the blind comparison test would be an invalid measurement strategy?"

I can't rationalize this, but I've never been sure that blind testing is the be-all end-all. I should also admit that, with the exception of impedance matching and similar good sense, I probably don't put as much thought into measurements as most.

You might have misinterpreted my earlier post suggesting that I might need to get out more as sarcasm. It wasn't. I haven't heard what you guys are listening to, so I have to keep an open mind. If you guys have systems that sound real to you, that's great. I don't and I'm jealous!

"All we need is five guys, earplugs, blindfold and a big box, like a Wilson crate, and a hand-truck. Also a Budget rental truck or even a pickup would work fine."

No, all you need is a musician, an audio system, and a blindfold.

Notice how Irvrobinson says all you need is a musician. A single musician? Talk about stacking the deck! Your system may sound "real" with a single musician softly playing a celesta, but can it handle a jazz big band or a full orchestra and choir?

"Notice how Irvrobinson says all you need is a musician. A single musician? Talk about stacking the deck! Your system may sound "real" with a single musician softly playing a celesta, but can it handle a jazz big band or a full orchestra and choir?"

Of course not! We've already discussed this earlier in the thread. If the group of instruments won't fit your room, how could your audio system possibly make it sound real? Yes, a lot of systems can image beyond the walls of the room, but a facsimile of reality requires loudness, accurate loudness, and it can't be done in a small space. Or to put it in "you win" terms that Onhwy61 is looking for, I agree that an orchestra can't be reproduced in a small room in a way that can fool anyone it is real musicians.

This has been a fascinating thread. It seems to me that it has raised three related questions:

(1) How real does a state-of-the-art system sound? (The OP’s question)

(2) What are the factors that limit how real a system sounds?

(3) Why do estimates about how real a state-of-the-art system sounds vary so much?

I will take a shot at the OP’s question last. About the other two…

(2) What are the factors that limit how real a system sounds?

Atmasphere, Shadorne, and others have already said much of what needs to be said. I would only add that, to my ears, the three principal characteristics that limit how real most systems sounds are: Dynamic range, spatial cues, and harmonic content.

My suspicion is that dynamic range, spatial cues, and harmonic content are themselves chiefly limited by recordings, rooms, and equipment, respectively. Dynamic range is limited both by the inherent informational limits of recording media and by the elective use of compression during mixing. Spatial cues are limited by acoustically under-treated rooms, which obscure spatial cues, or by acoustically over-treated rooms, which limit the directionality of spatial cues. And harmonic content is limited by various kinds of equipment-induced distortion, whether harmonic distortion, IMD, TIM, etc.. This is of course an oversimplification, but the general point is that, IMO, the chief factors that limit how real most systems sound are dynamic range, spatial cues, and harmonic content (probably in that order).

(3) Why do estimates about how real a state-of-the-art system sounds vary so much?

It seems to me that estimates vary so much for both objective and subjective reasons…

Some OBJECTIVE REASONS:

-People have been exposed to different systems, including different “state of the art” systems. The better the systems, the higher your estimate.

-People listen to different types of music. The smaller the scale of the music you tend to listen to, the higher your estimate.

-People have different libraries of recordings. The higher the “average” recording quality from your personal library, the higher your estimate.

Some SUBJECTIVE REASONS:

-People have different capacities for aural perception. It’s no secret that musicians perceive things in music that most other listeners do not. Audiophiles have their own form of enhanced perception, though they are probably sensitive to different things. The point is that the greater your aural perception, the greater the potential for perceived differences between real musical events and recorded ones, and so the lower your estimate.

-People have different capacities for aural memory. The better your aural memory, the more rigorously you will be able to compare recorded musical events with recalled musical events. And the more rigorous the comparison, the more you will perceive what is wrong with recorded playback, and so the lower your estimate.

-People have different capacities for aural imagination. The greater your imagination, the easier it is to fill in what’s missing during recorded playback, and so the higher your estimate.

-People have different capacities for selective attention. The greater your selective attention and the better you can control it, the easier it is to ignore what’s wrong with a recording or a system, and the higher your estimate.

-People have different mental “standards” for judging what’s real. For some people, it’s dynamics. For others, it’s instrument timbres. For others, it’s PRaT. The point is that people don’t use the same information for judging the verisimilitude of a recorded musical event. The more you use standards in which recorded playback usually suffers (e.g., dynamic range), the lower your estimate.

All of these subjective considerations point to the fact that, in order to answer the OP’s question, a person must take into consideration many of his own psychological characteristics (perception, memory, imagination, etc.), and since these characteristics vary widely, answers to the OP’s question vary widely. Which brings me to…

(1) How real does a state-of-the-art system sound? (The OP’s question)

This question could be interpreted in terms of the total amount of musical information at the listening position during the real musical event vs. the total amount of musical information at the listening position during the recorded playback of that same event. If that is how the OP’s question is interpreted, then my answer is: I have no idea, but someone could probably figure this out, within some limited range of accuracy.

Alternatively, the OP’s question could be interpreted in terms of how real a system sounds to people. If that is how the OP’s question in interpreted, then my answer is: There is no single valid answer. There are many possible answers, each valid to an individual or to a group of similar individuals. Generally, I don't like to conclude something so subjectivist, but that is how I see it.

Bryon

Hello Byron ,

Great response and agree with a lot of it ..

Personally , i have been around SOTA type systems for the better part of 35 yrs and have yet to hear one that would be mistaken for real.

I will fully agree the recorded medium is a big part. Those who use direct recorded RR tapes for playback , get the closest IMO. I was first exposed to such in 1979 by Mark Levinson and his HQD system. Those Demonstrations were done using Peter McGrath's personal demo tapes.

It was astonishing then as it is now for those doing the RR thing again today....

Best of Hi-FI IMO, yes very much so.. But still a Memorex moment...

Very, very nice post Bryon - as erudite as I've seen.

Definitely more than 5% (Caveat: In a well set up non-hifi, musical sounding ref system, regardless of price) less than 95%, and at times, depending upon type of music and recording quality, it may approach 95% at times. 100% is 'never' going to be possible!

Somewhere in the miasma of the OP's question is another beguiling paradox, namely:

What percent of the time has live, unamplified music ever been mistaken by anyone as being other than "real"?

If the answer to this question is close to "zero" (as in "zero" percent of the time I have mistaken live music for being recorded ) then, how is it or, rather IS it possible for the OP's question to be other than the reciprocal?

If OP's friend is right, then it just might be that 5% sound pretty darn good, but I suspect "5%" is just hyperbole.

I only disagree with the 5% part. I think that should be more like 90% and mostly constrained by the room size. A properly set up system in an auditorium could get much closer to the real thing.

As a trumpeter, I've seldom felt that I heard a recorded trumpet sound as live. There were a few direct-to-disk exceptions in the analog days and some reel-to-reel recordings got close, but most lacked some key overtones and dynamic range. Now, with DSD and other hi-rez recording techniques, I'm hearing the real thing more and more.

Interesting thread. I agree with Mapman, Atmasphere, Shadorne, and Bryon. Certainly anyone who thinks that they could possibly reproduce the sound of a full symphony orchestra in their room and have it sound remotely close to how it does live is fooling themselves. Though I know he doesn't particularly care for concluding it, Bryon is correct in saying that there is no single answer to any of these questions.

One interesting thing, Bryon - you mention that "The greater your imagination, the easier it is to fill in what’s missing during recorded playback". This does not necessarily even require imagination - if one was present at the live event that one is listening to a recording of, for instance. I frequently listen to the archival recordings made by my orchestra (I am on the broadcast committee), and I am constantly surprised by what is NOT picked up by the mikes, much more so than I am at what is picked up.

I do know what you mean, though. In fact, this imagination can be a liability for musicians that are trying to judge recordings they have made of themselves for audition purposes, for example. Also, sometimes it is difficult to tell when listening to such a recording whether the sound you don't like is your fault or the fault of the recording (for example, you think your sound is too bright). This just happened to a colleague of mine, who had to come to me to ask my opinion - this issue can cloud one's judgement very easily, messing with your head for no reason sometimes.

So far JAX2 has been the closest as the correct answer is...... 65%. Still lots of room for improvement.
So, lets keep at it.

Weseixas and Phaelon - Thanks for those kind words.

Learsfool - As I see it, aural imagination allows the listener to compare how something sounds with how it MIGHT sound. In my view, that is both an asset and a liability for an audiophile (and probably for a musician).

Aural imagination is an asset, insofar as it helps the listener identify what is wrong with a system's presentation. But it can also be a liability, since it can distract the listener from what a system is doing right, when he is just trying to enjoy himself.

So, IMO, aural imagination is beneficial, provided you can turn it off. The same thing can probably be said about other kinds of imagination.

Bryon

Thank you for the many and varied responses. The thread answered some questions which I was not aware I had asked. Having listened to many recordings of piano and other music on LP on my system since I started this thread and I have concluded that much depends on the quality of the recording, as some have mentioned.

In a few instances, to my ears, my system does indeed approach the sound of real, live, unamplified music. And so do the best of other systems that I have heard. In other cases, it is not really close. I do think we have made progress, as the systems I listened to as a child and then in college only hinted at the sound of my current system. And my system is not even close to the best that is out there.

I also think we have a long way to go and may never reach the point where one could be fooled while blindfolded 100% of the time. But that really is not the point. I asked the original question because it seems in some instances, in some rooms on great systems, we are closer than the 5% that Edseas2 suggested.

To Edseas2, moniker for my friend whose comment prompted this thread originally: thank you for joining the discussion. I'm sorry, but I don't smell a wiff of miasma in my question or implied by it. And I simply don't understand your question about my question's reciprocal.

When my piano tuner and musician friend (bass and piano) finished tuning my kids' piano after a lesson one afternoon, I invited him to stick around and to listen to some Ellington and Ray Brown. I put on a 45 RPM of "This One's for Blanton." He listen to all of side one without saying a word. He then shook his head, didn't move and quietly said, "Wow, I didn't think a stereo could do that". I know what he meant.

To Peterayer -

You won't like this citation much from Bob Katz - for anyone who doesn't know who he is he's one of the best recording engineers alive today - here's a link to his bio:

http://www.digido.com/images/00495-Bob_Katz_Bio.pdf

As Peter should know by now, I am fond of saying something that, on the surface, seems implausible yet, under closer scrutiny, may have a lot of merit. Old style conversation, if you will.

Here's the citation (from monoandstereo.com):

MI: Do you think that it is possible to archive the same experience as live acts on recorded media like playback systems? Have you ever heard any recordings that stunned you?

BK: Yes. I've heard great recordings that stun me. But every time I go to hear the group live in front of me with no amplification, I think that we are so far away from the live experience that we will never have that experience.

Sorry Peterayer.

While I certainly believe that someone who has never heard a SOTA system such as yours may say that he didn't know what such a system was capable of reproducing, do I believe that it approaches live, unamplified music sound wise?

No WAY Jose!

Neither does Katz.

Ed

For anyone saying that our hearing memory is short term, don't bother turning around when you hear a familiar voice.After all,it must be our imagination.

I definitively agree with the ones saying the recording limits our system.If you listen to jazz,pick up a copy of "Jazz At The Pawn Shop".It gives a nice illusion.

I do hear instruments on recordings,that we just can't hear unless,we get just the right seat.How often does that happen?

Jazz At The Pawn Shop,is a good example of what can be heard in a recording.There are also good vintage recordings that can be heard on "Rca Living Stereo" albums.If it was done back then,it can be done now.Again,you do need to start with a good recording.

bottes ugg
chaussures ugg
bottes ugg classic
UGG Amelie Bottes 1688
Ugg Bailey Button bottes 5803
UGG Bailey Button Triplet 1873
Ugg Classic Argyle Knit 5879
Ugg classic Cardy bottes 5819
Ugg Classic Mini bottes 5854
Ugg Classic Short bottes 5825
Ugg Classic Tall bottes 5815
UGG Classic Tall Romantic rose
wholesale jewelry findings
Bottes Ugg Bailey
bottes uggs
ugg australia bottes
ugg bottes cuir
ugg bottes pas cher
2010 Bottes Ugg
2010 Nouvelle Bottes Ugg Metallic
Bottes Hiver
Bottes Ugg 2010
Bottes Ugg Loisirs
Ugg Bottes 2010
Bottes UGG en Peau de Mouton Australien Real
Bottes UGG Pas Cher pour France
ugg bottes enfant
Authentique Bottes Ugg
Bottes Ugg Claasic Style
Bottes Ugg France
Bottes Ugg Italie
Bottes Ugg Paris
wholesale jewelry findings
Chic Bottes Ugg
Bottes Ugg Pas Cher
Bottes UGG tous en Soldes
Forum des bottes ugg convenir
les bottes ugg neuf
Vente en ligne de bottes UGG Australia
Acheter Chaussures Ugg
bottes ugg camel

5.
Bottes ugg Hiver vendre moins cher
Bottes ugg Paris moins cher
Ugg Metallic bottes ugg
acheter bottes ugg
bottes cow boy boutique en ligne
Ubottes talon haut
Bottes ugg Neige en Soldes ugg bottes bottines
ugg bottes style ugg
acheter bottes ugg fourrees ugg
acheter bottes neige discount
bottes ugg cuir homme
bottes ugg kickers
bottes ugg neige bebe
Recherche bottes ugg style Ugg beige clair
bottes ugg franges
Femmes bottes ugg Classic Mini Roses Fleurs
vente chaussures ugg
Bottes bottines
Bottes style ugg
Bottes UGG Pas Cher pour france
Ugg pas chere
Bottes le chameau ugg
Des bottes style UGG
Ugg australia boots
Ugg Femmes Kensington
Chaussure Femmes
Tes biker
UGG Femmes Coquette
UGG Jimmy Choo Sora
Botte moto pas cher
Bottines homme UGG en ligne
Ugg Jimmy Choo Sora 3045
Ugg Jimmy Choo Starlit 3044
Ugg Ultra Short bottes 5225
UGG Women's Dakota 5131
Ugg Nightfall bottes 5359
Ugg Ultra Tall bottes 5245
Femmes Sundance II beige 5325
Ugg Metallic bottes 5812
UGG Women's Coquette 5125
Ugg Erin bottes 5202

Doudoune moncler duvet
Doudoune moncler duvet
Doudoune pas chere
Doudoune moncler pour homme
Doudoune pas cher Ingres
Doudoune sans manche moncler
Moncler pas chere
Veste moncler pas cher
Doudoune moncler brillante
Doudoune moncler sans manche
Doudoune Moncler Menuire Sport
Doudoune Moncler Menuire Sport
doudoune moncler femme pas cher
doudoune moncler enfant
doudoune moncler enfant
acheter doudoune moncler
acheter doudoune moncler
achat doudoune moncler occasion
achat doudoune moncler
2010 nouvelle doudoune Moncler
2010 Moncler Branson Doudoune Homme
Doudoune Moncler Homme Mode Brillant
Doudoune Moncler Hommes Fashion
Doudoune Moncler Hommes Shiny
doudoune moncler pas cher
doudoune moncler pas cher
doudoune moncler prix
doudoune moncler sans manche
Doudoune Moncler homme foncé
doudoune moncler solde
Doudoune Moncler Himalaya brillante
Doudoune Moncler Vêtements
doudounes Moncler Hommes Gilets Minuit
Manteaux doudoune Moncler
Moncler Clairy Doudoune
Moncler Angers belted quilt Doudoune
Moncler angers
Moncler Bady quilted hooded
Moncler Clairy Doudoune
moncler doudoune
Moncler pas cher Vestes
veste moncler homme
vente doudoune moncler occasion
prix doudoune moncler
prêt à porter doudoune moncler
2010 Doudoune Moncler Gueran
2010 Femme Nouveau moncler Doudoune
2010 haute qualite moncler Femme Doudoune
2010 Mode Moncler Daytona Femme Doudounes
2010 nouvelle doudoune Moncler
Achat doudoune moncler occasion
achat Veste Homme Moncler
Acheter doudoune moncler
Blousons Moncler Branson Marine
Blousons Moncler Branson Marine
Blousons Moncler
Doudoune homme Moncler pas cher
Doudoune Moncler Alpes
Doudoune Moncler Alpes Femme
Doudoune Moncler
Doudoune moncler enfant
doudoune moncler femme pas cher
Doudoune Moncler Homme Mode Vestet
Doudoune Moncler karak
Doudoune Moncler modèle Lucie Doré
Doudoune Moncler moka
Doudoune moncler pas cher

What's with the hot brands of 2002? Take some dramamine.

Bob Katz? You're quoting a mastering engineer for pop music, who's mostly concerned with mixing, compression, synthesizers, electric guitars, and drum machines, and his comment (taken out of context) about us not being able to reproduce "live" is relevant? How?

I agree with Katz, actually, my home system is waaay far away from reproducing a stack of JBL PA systems.

Bob Katz and Pop Music - you're kidding right?

Ever hear of Chesky Records?

The notion that we don't have the ability to "reproduce "live" music" is taken out of context?

Guess you didn't read the OP's original question.

Sounds par for the course with you, you didn't read Katz' bio either.