Some of enjoy very old recordings that were recorded way before protools. They somehow sound real and wonderful. I'll keep my equipment.
If you were serious about sound you would...
If your audiophile quest is to get the best sound then buy the best equipment used to make the recordings originally. One of the few things nearly every audiophile agrees about is that you can't make the signal better than the original. So:
Solid State Logic 2 channels preamp 5k$
Meyer Sound Bluehorn powered speakers 2x 140K$
Pro Tools MTRX system 10k$
Mac Studio Computer 8k$
Total about 170k$
How is it possible to get better sound than the best recording studio gear?
107 responses Add your response
I totally agree with your analysis i just quoted under , this is precisely why i listen music , classical and jazz mostly and world music , music coming from an era where the recording engineer was a craftmanship work...No commercial or pop or anything else...I dont like unnatural acoustic programmed effects and electronic sounds... ( i only make few exceptions for musical reason ) I dont listen to "commercial industrialized product" at all... It is so unnatural that i put them in a trashbin so to speak... Then i dont need to be "serious about sound" and buying the mixing engineer pieces of gear i guess to listen to such manufactured products 😁... I use basic good gear well embedded electrically, mechanically and acoustically... I dont need any upgrade and my sound is already more than good... ( my only future upgrade will de BACCH filters) I dont understand what you speak about by "being serious about sound " .... I am serious about music and recorded acoustic instrument and natural human voices and chorus... What is exactly your point ? If your point is criticizing audiophiles for their upgraditis and lack of acoustic understanding i am ok with that...It is evident ... Otherwise my position is clear ... Psycho-physico Acoustic define sound experience not the gear price tag and specs which are only tools for acoustics and for acoustic experience...
|
@jtcf If you come across a post like "if you had to pick 3 songs for the rest of your life...." it seems like everyone (including me) pick songs they love that are from a younger time in their life probably at least 3 decades old. I think the reason for that is because music is emotional and even when we wear the audiophile hat it's not about sound it's about music. We may love old songs but we are fooling ourselves if we think those recordings can compare with new recordings.
|
| Post removed |
Sound can be an abstraction....Or a tool... As Fourier analysis is an abstraction tool working in a linear way , out of the time domain of natural sounds where there is a a temporal duration order which define speech perception and all perception of sound in nature , which are highly non linear, as evolution train our body to perceive for survival... Music and speech are concrete qualitative experience for a trained body... https://physicsworld.com/a/human-hearing-is-highly-nonlinear/
|
@mahgister After reading your article I remembered I used Fourier transforms when I was working for an acoustics company and in college doing some of the first sound raytracing programs. I had a crazy smart professor who helped me out, I still feel bad about not giving him some credit for those algorithms. One of the first things you learn as a sound man is that microphones are stupid, meaning they do not sound the same as you hear things with your ears looking at something else, it's called cocktail effect. Our brains can filter out the sounds of many people at a party and we can focus in on one conversation across the room, AI will figure that out someday but for not there are no digital filters that can do that. it used to be that we had to be so careful about one frequency covering another now there are programs that can lift frequencies that overlap other like frequencies. |
You are right and i think it is already here... A.I. is a real threat... All tools could be a threat but A.I. we are not socially ready for that... Corporate power will control it not democracies which anyway exist no more..
|
If you want to hear some great but eclectic music with no reverb, multiple tracks, filters, delays and silly old EQ, recorded in 16bit with only two mikes, then look no further than any of Tony Minasians CDs and then get back to me. Talk about needing to wear some hip waders in here. All I see and hear in this post is an appeal to authority with an agenda that's not above board in an audiophile forum. More like a party crasher. There are recording engineers, and then there are recording engineers. The first group should not be confused with the second. All the best, |
This is thread is a fun read. donavabdear- Even with experienced ears which you have, it's hopeless debating "audiophiles." Everyone's an "expert" even without recording studio experience. Your setup looks fun. I'd be spending more time improving my Classical/Jazz chops on the keys. The only thing I see missing is a proper rekkid player machine. I've heard BHK based setups sound pretty convincing.
|
@tablejockey Thanks for the kind words, I do have a unique perspective in audio I've been a professional working at the highest levels of the movie industry for a long time but I do like audiophiles because they love music and equipment and don't get paid for it. I was always the sound guy with the best equipment and that was an advantage for me. Starting out I worked for many successful sound mixers that weren't very good but had great personalities and got top projects that part of the sound profession was alway strange and it meant to me that professional sound jobs are not objective but ultimately emotional. There are enough different people working on the different aspects of a movie project that they can cover any single persons shortcomings. |
@nonoise Thanks for the note about Tony Minasians, I remember when I was starting out I did some really great recordings by accident just using 1 stereo mic. They were recordings of choirs using a Neumann 190i mic it was a special mic because it was M/S and you could change the polar patterns after the original recording was done. Since then I generally used many microphones sometimes hundreds but I'm not sure they were any better using a single mic. Crazy to look back at your career and make a statement like that. How do you find recordings that are not mainstream?
|
So you finally get a chance to produce your first album. You use a great studio with top mixers and you hire musicians you can't really afford, you go through problems with temp vocals drummers and bass players not understanding what the songs are all about, you have scheduling problems with musicians availability, some don't like the food you have in the green room next to the studio, your wife doesn't understand why you mortgaged the house your families future to do this project. Then after the extra loan from the bank and the emergency credit cards, you finished tracking, you cut extra parts you ended up not using (dear god why did I do that), editing, mixing buying extra time at the studio then mastering you invite your closest friends to listen to your dreams in the control room. You are at a moment of complete vulnerability you push the play button on the mixer. Then slowly you notice the slow smiles and even a tear coming from your crusty oldest friend. This story is common and and is why music is so emotionally moving people give their all for projects like albums and movies. The only way you are ensured that your audience will see what your best work is to see it in the room you mixed it. I can't tell you how many times a director has been distraught about satellite compression or out of spec theater equipment. If you had studio equipment in your home you could see and hear the artists and directors vision. If you have a playback system at home that is built on personal preferences you have no way of knowing if what you are listening to or watching is even close to the effort the artist or film maker put into the project. If you were serious about sound you would use professional equipment for playback. |
Thanks for your interesting story...It is moving and well written... I dont get it though if we speak about jazz and classical... I am serious about sound... But i have read about acoustic and i experimented with it... You want to make your work known as a studio sound designer and i understand that...😊 But listening japan koto, or religious russian music or Bach organ i dont need professional mix engineer equipment at all...Neither for jazz.. Basic good gear well embedded mechanically electrically and acoustically is enough for any music serious appreciation .. Am i wrong because i dont buy the gear suggested to listen to some designer creation ? What about the other designer creations on completely different gear in their own studio ? 😊 I dont understand your thread it seems...Nor irony... I am french speaking and dont always catch the implicit humor in meaning and the implicit meaning behind humor ... |
@donavabdear I apologize for my earlier post. I should have looked at your system before writing for you are clearly a serious music/equipment person. That said, I don't think most audiophiles are looking to recreate what is heard by the artist at final mixdown or at the mastering stage. You can argue that should be their goal, but unless you were in the room at the time you really don't know what it's supposed to sound like. As a practical matter the best most can do is make the majority of their music collection sound good to them. It's imperfect, but can work out quite well for most experienced audiophiles. |
Your theory makes no sense even after all of your explanations, because there are many different brands of speakers and amps etc. used in studios, and of course they will all sound different, therefore, the music when played back in the home will sound no more accurate when played back on studio gear unless it’s the exact same gear used to make that particular recording, and even then, I’m not convinced of the validity of your idea. Since you make recordings, you obviously have a bias in favor of studio gear, and that’s fine, but t’s just another version of sound, not the most correct. |
@mahgister Jazz is some of the most heavily processed music, well modern jazz is real jazz was done before about 1970, that surprises many people but listen to new jazz or smooth jazz it is consistently the best recorded music there is the people who make it are the best musicians producers and engineers another genera of music that always sound super polished is new country if smooth jazz or new country wasn't recorded well it wouldn't match the rest of the music and wouldn't be popular. There are a boat load of awful classical recordings awful blues and bluegrass recordings they have the advantage of sounding however the producer wants with smooth jazz for instance the songs are very expensive because polish is not cheep. |
@donavabdear wrote:
I don't know if there really is any such agreement among many audiophiles. It seems it's mostly about harboring whatever satisfies individual goals from an outset of different aspirations, references, budgets, approaches, levels of experience, domestic possibilities, etc. It's a fallacy however thinking the more experienced audiophile with less limited financial means will necessarily strive for, and achieve a more natural sound as the one found at live acoustic events and what otherwise a closer replicate of the recorded material; I've heard my share of highly expensive setups in overdamped rooms, with garden hose thick and crazy expensive cables, filtering galore, exclusive brands, decoupling and this 'n that, and while they in different ways proved capable at certain aspects in sound reproduction they rarely if ever really sounded natural and coherent to my ears. Those setups were often about an "impressiveness" of something, an effect almost, but natural? No. In any case, for such a variety of outsets there's often a striking resilience against a range of approaches, not least of which are those represented by the Meyer Sound Bluehorn system with its relatively large size, pro origins brand and look, active configuration and intricately executed DSP section. Add to that their price: $140k/pair, and you have a bunch of fuming audiophiles gathering at the bonfire with pitchforks to see their "antagonist" go up in flames. I'll say the price is steep, but do you see the same vitriol aimed at the typical, passively configured "high-end" speakers segment in the same price range? No, conversely they're more readily revered, and yet sans amps and any means by which the same level of integration and realization of potential can be achieved by a plethora of users. But we know, or should know what that's about: contrary to the Bluehorns and similar, they fit the narrative - the audiophile narrative. One of the important takeaways with the Bluehorn system in a home would be approximating, quite accurately, how it sounds with music/movie soundtracks compared to that mixed on the same setup, as well as offering a degree of transparency, accuracy, dynamics, spatial acuity and tonal authenticity that, not least as a combination of parameters, is rarely found elsewhere, and which will therefore be beneficial in a broader context. The interesting part, and for this to emulate an actual "copy/paste" experience of how it was recorded on this setup, apart from the equipment used, is the DSP-calibration of the active Meyer Sound Bluehorns to their specific environment in regards to phase behavior in particular, which seems to have a precisely outlined procedure linked to it to properly accommodate the eventual integration for an expected, and intended outcome. This way what's heard in your home can actually be said to be a fairly accurate facsimile of a specific recording environment, where the same strict calibration procedure (over the same gear) has been applied. Should you intend to acquire the Bluehorn system + gear, kudos. Regardless of your premise and how it'll apply here, and what others may tell you, you'll have yourself a unique piece of hardware equipment and integration means that in its sonic outcome is likely to rival, and even exceed most anything "high-end" out there regardless of price. The Bluehorns surely do come with a hefty price tag, but blaming them compared to the competition at least seems unfair. |
It should be titled '....System(s)', as I really can't see you running everything all at once...*g* Just a wilding thought... Caught the irony, yes...and a degree of cynicism. I'm reasonably assured that the majority of your readers here have 'live music experiences', of all manner and types of venues and players. But on a more regular basis, we've spent the bulk of our time listening to playbacks...subject to the very wide degree of processing to offer a credible sonic ....'portrayal' of the 'event'. A soloist via one methodology; duo's, trio's, quartet's....symphonies, orchestras... All of these can be 'live' or studio'd; the latter really leading into the 'heavier processing', whereas the former? A little 'sweetening', perhaps... ;) Beyond that.... It's very much The Art of the Artifice.... Your 'office', arcticians' @ work. Which hits the borders of the Art of Noise; not only the group, but the 'product Itself... Music and the voices in front, beside, and behind...at your control and call. .................. A little movie, seen long ago, has ever since effected and affected my enjoyment of music and the people within: The Phantom of the Paradise... First window of clips, top first 'page', left @ bottom; play entire.... Nearly 50 years later, whenever I hear or listen to music of Any genre'.... ...in the back of my mind and ears, I recall That series of scenes 'n shots.... And know and trust you and your fellows.....;) *s* "You betta, you bet..." *L* (...and Yes, the 'studio' isn't quite right, but one gets the concept....😏....) |
I do think you are missing the point. Yes, we all agree with the above statement, to expect 'better' is folly. OK you have your studio original and now want to listen to that at home. Now I'm sure you will agree, if playback is from your computer using a Chinese $99 DAC via a small pair of cheap speakers it will not provide a rewarding emotional experience, therefore components that do less damage are required, and so the quest continues. Try it yourself: take a copy of your work to a high-end outlet and listen to it on their best money no object system in an acoustically treated room and compare that to what you hear in your studio! A difference I think. The comment made that PS Audio gear is mid-fi holds true, meaning better is available and easily heard. With the millions you have spent would it not make sense to install some absorption panels, you know, like a real studio? |
@donavabdear "my main system is wonderful and I love the way it sounds but my professional system in the same room 90 degrees apart is much more accurate and it's not nearly as enjoyable I don't listen to it half as much," If your professional system isn't nearly enjoyable and you don't listen to it much why are you pushing everyone to go down this route? Why would I or anyone else invest money into a system that creates call it whatever you want , "sound" , "music sound" that isn't enjoyable to listen to. What am I missing? |
@phusis Great post! I also appreciate the thought about room calibration on such a "no flavorings" speaker like the Bluehorn. Honestly I didn't consider that in my thoughts and I should have never the less the reason I chose the Bluehorn as an example of studio speakers is because they are internally powered and the amps are designed for the speaker drivers individually there is no way to get to that level of accuracy buying amps and speakers that are not designed for each other. Also the speakers in a system that is trying to be accurate and not musical is spongy your brain will fill in the gaps of the music especially when you have more experience, most people have a few songs very well they know how that song sounds on different systems so when it sounds different on system A or B the experienced listener can very accurately note the differences compared to his reference, and if you listen for many many years you will also have a reference of where your reference system is accounting for it's particular deficiencies. Once again our brains are the listeners not our ears. Speakers don't have to be spongy they can be accurate simply turning the electrical signal into acoustic information. This is why there must be a baseline Wilson, Magico and the like are not flat they sound great but aren't flat, this is why you rarely see speakers with full range polar pattern test patterns like pro microphones come with. Professional speakers do come with these patters but not full frequency, even limited frequency polar patters are all over the place that's just the nature of the beast. Room acoustics are secondary meaning other than using deep learning / AI in the near future to see the acoustic environment there is no standard because of that it isn't in the tool chest of audiophiles who are going for accurate stems to expect baseline acoustics from the manufactures built in DSP systems that is on the post playback side of the equation. Also yes the price is very steep on the Bullhorns but the technology is so ahead of everything else that it was the right choice for looking at a system that was reference not economic. SSL and Pro Tools are very standard, SSL, Neive, Harrison are all very good names in mixers/ preamps but SSL is probably what most high end studios use. Of course there are boutique studios not unlike audiophile playback system and recording systems that are over the top crystal clear in every facet of the recording and playback but since the standard high end recording studio doesn't have that equipment it's like having 2x the headroom in a recording and not knowing how that will sound. This exact thing happened to cassette tape manufactures in the 80s, hi end companies make cassette playback machines that made all the prerecorded cassettes sound unlistenable because they revealed information that wasn't available in standard high end cassette tape recorders. |
If absolute accuracy was the goal, then this would be a simple engineering exercise. Users would go to Consumers Reports for the "best buy" based on SINAD and price. No reviewers, forums or print. A lot of people may find that to be their preference. They want to skip the audiophile game and just listen to music. I want to find what cues fool my biased lying brain to make me believe it is musical so I listen to the music, not the playback system. If you want perfect, then a Benchmark stack ( for the rich) or a Topping stack (for mere mortals) would do for the electronics. All speakers are terrible so that is tougher. There would be no tube equipment left. No R2R DACs. No snake oil. So others subjective views along with objective measures can narrow our search. Not for sound perfection, but for hearing perfection. Sound is real. Hearing is our opinion and our opinions differ. Audiophile is finding what sounds right to you. Mostly with the goal to listen to the music. Audiofool is belief things that are not real but expensive leads to perfection because they can pay for it. Often for bragging rights. Funny. I was in a store and noticed a Macintosh turn table. I have never known them for tables. Salesman admitted, they only sell them to people who want to claim they have one and never use it. Audiofools. It may be a great table and some may use them. Don't have a clue as I gave up vinyl as I prefer to play music rather than play with music. Modern processed recordings may be more "perfect" but they lose some musicality. Pitch-box, 2 bar splice together, compressed, and processed may be technically better, but I prefer the human musicality of the entire performance. It makes a difference when the band is actually playing together taking cues from each other. Even a lot of "live performances" are spliced together and processed. . I liked the old direct to disk where they did the full side, the whole band, mixer to lathe. Flawed but musical. Harry James could really "swing" I don't miss the WOW and flutter, tape his, crosstalk and next groove bleed of vinyl. Perfection or music. Take your pick. Your choice. |
i dont trust anyone who speak about good sound and cannot improve a lot any speakers room performance... I dont trust people who propose branded name instead of acoustical, electrical and mechanical solutions... purchasing an upgrade is useless if we dont understand how to improve to his optimum what we already own...
|
@facten Good question why would I say If you were serious about sound you would.... When I enjoy my music tube amps and big speaker system much more. That is because of the fact that audiophiles are living is a world of contradictions. Have you ever seen a magazine article or YouTube review about a pice of 200k audio equipment that sounds wow but has nothing to do with the accuracy of the music and they say as much. They say their equipment will bring you to the the live sound experience, well concerts usually sound awful and modern recordings have lots of post processing on them even acoustic recordings, pop, jazz, country, etc.... recordings aren't made at the same time and use close miking techniques that are not the same as live recordings and you don't listen to the clarinet section 2 feet away from their instruments in a concert. I did a movie in Prague and they love classical music there, they often had wonderful musicians play in museums or churches and you would sit wherever you wanted, one of the performances has a trio playing in the middle of the stairs and it sounded wonderful. If I had done a recording it would've only been valid for where I was sitting it wouldn't have been an accurate representation of how those performers sounded as when you record a real album. If you as an audiophile say accuracy be damned I'm going to create an experience, perhaps 6x subs and 12x speakers all around your listen position without a system to give you some standardization like Dolby Atmos for instance you may have an incredible listening experience for a few songs or movies but when someone who comes in and knows how that song is supposed to sound or how the movies space ships are suppose to move around the room you may not have it right at all. That is a hollow and quickly fading experience. If we are to keep music alive and away from MP3 and cheep earbuds we need as audiophiles to start to agree on some baseline definitions of what playback systems should be. Right now the marketing departments of overly expensive equipment are using rich audiophiles as useful idiots and no one is making a fuss. |
Acoustics unlike digital audio is not defined by bits ACCURACY alone .... Acoustic accuracy include many parameters which cannot be reducible to a playback system specs ... We need a room to measure these parameters and more than that we nead two ears with a head and the parameters which are associated with them... Then the gear choices, when they are relatively well chosen to begin with , matter less than their acoustics embeddings ... Then yes we need to pick a good playback system and it is not the one you will recommend for everyone and for all needs.. What we need is defining the basic acoustical, mechanical and electrical embeddings controls for ANY playback system.. For example, because of the acoustic revolution created by Dr, Choueiri, his BACCH filters must be included in any TOP acoustic embeddings list of controls... They will work with ANY basic good playback system choices... Any other embeddings controls will do the same... It is useless to choose a playback system with no knowledge about his optimal embeddings controls...
|
@mahgister It won't be long, my guess in 1.5 years that AI will completely changes the home audio world. Some smart company will use a group like the AES/EBU and record companies to agree on a baseline standard for acoustics. I believe that surround sound will be the norm and there will be an objective baseline in small room acoustics. AI will change everything because the most important aspect of good playback is acoustics, I'm bias because I started in acoustics but if you look at experiments with acoustic devices (passive not DSP) they can make even cheep speakers sound amazing. When this happens great systems will still be great and produce the emotions that we connect with in music and movies but there will be a standard and people will understand that expensive huge playback systems are a train without tracks. |
I totally concur with your post... I think we are on the same communication level about the importance of acoustics then... Thanks for your precision...
|
Are you aware of the fact that many years ago, when the Armor all craze was popular, reviewer Ken Kessler got in a lot of hot water for endorsing the practice when it was found to be harmful to CD’s? If you want to use a surface treatment on your CD's there are better and safer alternatives, such as Auric Illuminator. |
I also use that method . I've been Armour- Alling all my 500 cd collection since 1989 and only enhanced the sound , never did one penny of damage...if "damaging" Enhances soundstage...nullifies sibilance, tightens base, brings out fine details, and just Improves the sound of my system.....Then that so called "damage" is welcome......And you're smart enough to know Why the talking heads poo- poo ed this idea...... |
@mbmi Ok this is going to sound weird but why would you do anything to change the sound of your CDs, here’s what I’m saying, imaging being wider doesn’t mean it right and imaging is really a phasing principle that makes the sound hit your ears at different times, you could introduce a digital delay that hold the signal and then enhances right and left "imagining" easy, you don’t want to change your music you want to get everything out of it you can. Now note how many people on this forum say imaging, tighter bass and such does that mean it is correct, there is no way to know unless you use standardized equipment. You probably didn’t mean to but you showed a good point in my argument. Best |
OK....Time for some schooling : A cd has information on the disc that is READ by the laser and then it is fed back into the Receiver in the cd player that takes that information and turns it into music...THE PROBLEM with cd’s is that they are mass produced and under a microscope their surface is extremely PITTED....Still with me?.......The Armour- All fills in the crevices and pits and make a smooth shinny surface so when the info on the disc (Music) comes back up to the READER , It’s NOT diffused and scattered ....You’re only getting 85-90% of the info back to the reader......Fill in the PITS and the laser is clean and direct and receive 97-100% of the information (Music) that’s on the disc.....Just try it and you’ll agree......It’s a beautiful scientific and Musical thing and Armour-All will PRESERVE , not destroy you’re discs. It’s not a widely published Fact because there’s NO $$$ in it for the reviewers or companies.....Don’t knock something that works until you’ve tried it !!!!!!!!!!! |
@mbmi Love that idea, here is why digital is cool. the handshake between the sender and receiver is either a 1 or a 0 so there’s really no room for error that is the power of digital. Of course there are other errors in the system like timing issues and such but the 1 or 0 is always there in digital. This is why we used to mass copy reel to reel tapes backwards because the waveform was easier to copy from the fade out to the transient start so you copy backwards. With digital the copy is perfect that’s why copy write protection didn’t kick in until digital because analog has it’s own degradation built in. You can’t get 85% of a digital to play after a transfer. Even if a recording was made at 48kHz then played back at 48.048kHz it will sputter and pop and that number isn’t even close to 85% of each other. Am I misunderstanding your point? |
@mbmi No, I don't want to belabor this but I've set up many many digital recording setups (scars to prove it) and if the 1s and 0 are not exactly shaking hands the system will not work. This tells you many things for instance digital cables if they work they work perfectly and that 1k$ digital cable that they said gave you more imaging and tighter bass was not exactly accurate.
|
@inna There is no way to add sonic information to the recording, it's not a matter of easier or harder to record or playback. With that in mind you can't get any value out of equipment that is significantly better than what was used originally. For instance if you used a 5k $ preamp to record the song a 100k $ preamp to playback the song isn't going to add any quality, it will get you close maybe if it is synergistic with the original preamp, the only way to get the vision of the original recording that the musician producer and engineers wanted would be to use the exact same equipment on the playback system as they did. Since that is impractical If you really cared about playback you would buy studio playback equipment not audiophile equipment. Hope that's clear. I guess the best argument against this idea is that the very expensive audiophile preamp for example is more transparent than even the original preamp and that is probably true but the problem with that is what you are hearing is not part of the music. At Skywalker sound they have a button that adds the air conditioner noise of a typical movie theater so they have a good idea of what the mix sounds like in a typical movie theater, all that extra headroom that the boutique preamp gives you is not the information that is being mixed, it's just information your expensive preamp reads that is not part of the vision. Kinda like a car that is never designed to go over 50 mph and your drive it 100 mph from 50 to 100 you have no idea how it will act or what it will do. |
That is very cynical "chronology" and stereotype that will never find it’s ground about jazz or "real jazz" meaning. Yes mainstream was moving towards popularized jazz and towards more and more simplified versions, but that didn’t mean that at the very later times the number of released "real jazz" titles were a lot larger than you might know. In addition to that a HUGE variety of different new jazz directions had been evolving LARGE outside of the mainstream. I’ve been a member of BMG and Columbia House WAAAAY before even entering USA and was ordering records through my uncle. As you may know they would add freebies for you as well if you order certain quantities and the shipping was extremely low or even free in certain cases. Reading articles, researching and thereafter continuing membership I was finding more and more jazz releases that are SUBSTANTIALLY more interesting than Gerry Mulligan or even Stan Getz and every decade those titles increased. After all it's not by far about jazz. It is about music and for me there are interesting artifacts and scores in every genre you can ever imagine All Music Mattress. Sorry for using different word for the meaning that can be flagged for the removal here |
@czarivey Your right I shouldn't have made such a blanket statement, I'm a saxophone player for 50 years I love all types of Jazz, my point is how very well recorded modern jazz is. Jazz recordings today along with modern classical are probably the best recorded music technically and it's expected in those general. As far as music I would say great songs just like great movies don't have to be perfectly recorded or perfectly shot it's the melody and the story that is important. That being said having both should be the goal. I couldn't agree with you more. Also very interesting about finding hidden gems of music, where did you find them?
|
You would not use a Mac computer Waay to much noise with programs in the back ground , your active speakers No thanks far better quality sound from a dedicated amplifier , you want a great reference dac , and SS drive, and dedicated Server . Plus the cables they use in studios are subpar vs good audio. having owned a Audio store the quality they use in a studio especially cables , I tried using these name brand cables in Audio it just restricts the presentation . for amplifiers,preamp Bricasti has been doing pro audio for 20 years and night and day better then any class D amp stuffed in a speaker Many Top studios use Bricasti also a vacuum tube mixing council like Manley much more natural and just like Tube amps used for guitarists they just sound more natural , All this is necessary if you want an analog type recording , many new pressing they are bright and just thrown together ,thsts why many older recordings had more life, Care went into the mixing , that’s just my observation ,and opinion . |
The source is not the digital or analog encoded information as such , but what is encoded by it : the recordings microphones types and location trade-off choices of the recording engineer, an acoustic space and atmosphere ...The way the dac or the vinyl choices through the gear system will CONVEY and TRANSLATE it to an acoustic environment which is the controlled or uncontrolled listener room depend of acoustics and psycho-acoustics controls of the listener room first and last ... The source is the acoustic capture by micros of the live event recorded in a room which will be translated in the listener room by a system dac or turntable /speakers embedded in it ... The main factors determining the S.Q. will not be what most people called the source which is only the encoding system (digital or /and analog) but the acoustics controls in the recording process making possible the translation of the encoded spatial information in the listener room ... The source is the recording process not the dac ... The source is an acoustic take not a language, digital or analog which ONLY CONVEY the acoustic space chosen perspective from the lived source ... Then what most audiophiles called the source result from a confusion between the acoustic spatial information and the gear conveyor itself and his language , analog or digital turntable or dac ... It is so true that unbeknownst to most audiophiles the spatial information about the sound are lost and spoiled by the effect of any two speakers system on the ears/brain by the negative impact of the crosstalk on the brain interpretation ...As say Dr. Choueiri : «There’s a problem, Choueiri and many others maintain, with the way that stereo recordings have been played back for the last 70 years or so. “If you go out in the forest and you hear a bird singing, it’s not because there are two birds singing,” Choueiri explained with his characteristic intensity. “There’s one bird singing.” Stereo only creates the illusion of localized sound by manufacturing a phantom image “and your brain doesn’t believe it.” In life, a sound is precisely localized because of a slight difference in the arrival time at the right and left ears, as well as slight differences in amplitude and tonality that are attributable to the physical presence of the listener’s head and the shape of his or her ears. With reproduced sounds emanating from two loudspeakers, these relationships are considerably degraded, especially if the listening environment introduces reflections. Each ear isn’t hearing what it’s supposed to—inter-aural crosstalk is spoiling the party.»
Then the translation of the spatial information coming from the acoustic recorded space to the listener space is spoiled for ever without using proper filters to recreate this recorded lost spatial information in a listener room ... The source is not a piece of gear , it is the spatial properties captured by the recording engineer, and any dac and any turntable at any price will translate it more or less correctly because for doing so we need first a dedicated acoustically controlled room and we need the filters as the BACCH filters to neutralize the destructive effect of any stereo system by crosstalk (or from any multi speakers system) the destructive effect on the spatial information takes coming from the recording engineer choices ... Psycho-acoustics and acoustics rule the gear not the reverse ... |
with large budgets, why not hire musicians to play in your room to get an idea of the real thing? smaller name pro artists work for very little and would likely take even less for a quick private show with the amount of funds some people drop on this hobby, you could bring in a nice rotation for less than the cost of one high end component
|
Not at all ... It just that most audiophiles confuse gear and acoustic condition and information , They dont read about acoustics and think that when someone talk about acoustics he means merely some panels on a wall ... I am not a gear fetichist... For me the source is acoustics information multiple trade-off in a room coming first from microphones types and location of the recording engineer choices then the source is the relatively good or bad translation by the system/room for the ears/brain of the listener location in a controlled or uncontrolled room .. The source is not the dac or the turntable by themselves because they are only the conveyor of this timbre/spatial acoustic information already determined by the recording process but untranslated yet in your room acoustic and for your specific ears/brain .. The fact that we own high end costly gear may help but dont solve acoustic problems especially if we do not understand them to begin with ... |
