The secrete to having the perfect passive attenuator without losing or adding anything to the sound of the source (being true to the source)
1: Is to make sure the sources ouput impedance is 5 x or less the attenuators input impedance.
2: To make sure the power amps input impedance is 5 x or more the attenuators output impedance.
This then will give you the sound that you would get if you pluged the source directly into the power amp, yet with control over the volume.
Cheers George |
I agree with Charles1dad, yes in theory ... I bought a LSA for the summer. Use 1 week when new and 4 days 2 weeks ago and back in the box it goes. Miss my active, LSA is good but just doesn't pull me into the music, not by a long shot. |
Just to make my earlier post more clear, I meant that I believe that with active line stages, a well-designed, well-implemented power supply is a VERY important element. I am told (no knowledge in this area) the actual circuit can be very simple. Assuming that is the case, then I think that the power supply becomes the critical variable. |
First, thank you Swampwalker for the kind remarks.
An example of what the OP may have intended is the
Conrad-Johnson Classic Preamp. No frills, no remote, just a good product for two channel. Being sold at a reasonable(according to audiophile standards) price.
So yes it can be done, simplicity whether in audio or life never comes easy. |
Charles1dad,
Well said and spot on based on my experience. Fact is a great active is the heart and soul and often times the difference maker or "magic" in my past systems.
Give me the "dinosaur" as it just sound sounds right! Modern sound (high end)to my ears is becoming far to threadbare sounding and lacking in body and weight. Details are fired at us often times forcing me away rather then drawing me into the music. |
Grannyring,
Regarding the direction of some "modern" components your comments are astute. When I attend live performances(unamplified jazz groups) they consistently sound rather,full,rich,round toned and yes warm. Even when they play very fast tempo music it`s still very full bodied and preserves a sense of ease and density(same is true of classical music programs). What ever turn high end audio made toward the lean,clinical and thin tonality destination in the name of accuracy(their version of it, I guess). Well I`ll travel a different highway.Thanks, but no thanks. |
My preference is for an active preamp but done as simple as possible. I chose CJ's ART and ACT 2.2 for my pres "first" because I like the way they sounded and "second" because of their design: Class A, only one gain stage, no negative feedback, and no cathode follower. For an active tube pre, that's pretty simple.
So here's a case where a pre is simple and expensive. I wondered if it was because they were the companies statement product and, in the ART's case, because only a limited production was made. I'm sure that's part of it but finding that, in the ART 3's case, it uses 32 Teflon caps at a cost of about 300 each. That alone works out to 9000 in just those parts. Does it need all those to work? No. But that was CJ's decision. Do I need to pay that much for a pre? No. But that's my decision.
Hypothetically: If someone was to invent a raw driver that outperforms every other driver in the world and cost 100 in parts....If he puts that into the perfect box that cost him 100 in materials....and if it takes him an hour to assemble it (we'll give him a 100 per hour rate)....Can he charge 300 for it? Can he charge 30,000? Yes and yes. First yes: If he's a Saint. Second yes: If there are people that will buy it at that price. In the latter case, I'm sure some people will wonder why he charges so much. The short answer is, "because he can". A better answer is: "It took years and a lot of money to develop this and I have a family and a business with overhead I have to take care of". |
While I understand that passive pres are more system dependent than active pres, I find it interesting that some would suggest that simpler is better and yet choose a system that doesn't maximize the potential for a passive pre. |
"08-22-11: "Unsound
While I understand that passive pres are more system dependent than active pres, I find it interesting that some would suggest that simpler is better and yet choose a system that doesn't maximize the potential for a passive pre.Unsound"
You can try this experiment yourself, put your cd straight into your poweramp and play a known quiet starting disc, so you can stop it before it gets too loud.
This is the purest way you will hear that disc, any active pre in the system will sound different to this as no active pre is a straight wire with gain, they all have a signature to their sound, call it coloured, or distortion they all sound different, none sound like the direct conection between the source and poweramp. The passive pre will if implemented right sound the closest and the truest to the source. You may not like that purity of sound, you may wish to introduce an active preamp that gives you the colouration your seeking to counteract a problem elsewhere in the system, but this is an expensive band-aid fix
Cheers George |
George you are correct that each active pre brings it's own sound to the stage but let's take it to the next step! Every amp, speaker, cable, line conditioner, room treatment and so on moves one system differently so by going with an active pre vs. a passive is just a different flavor of ice cream. You might like chocolate while I like coffee. As I stated personally I have found passive pre's to sound wonderful but they do have their faults and now use an active pre and have never looked back. Maybe some day I'll have the good fortune to try yours, would love to hear it.
Steve
SOS |
The really wonderful aspect of this hobby is the ability to put things to the test.If you trust your ears, you can judge/test the theories and listen to what happens.You can say a good passive is truer to the source and that active devices simply add "colorations"(pleasing or not). You could certainly conclude also that the passive units are`nt passing the"complte" signal,thus there`s some degree of subtraction of musical information.What one person would say is a clean and pure(uncolored) signal is in reality just an incomplete one and thus sounds leaner,flatten,thin and lacks dynamics and vitality. The active unit may just do a superior job of preserving the original signal(less degradation) so that tone and dynamics are`nt as comprrimised. This would explain(at least to me) why the really good active linestages sound more real and involving rather than stripped down and less involving. |
Charles1dad, I have made that same point in a different thread as it seems very reasonable and reality based on my experience with systems well matched for a passive.
Let's just say several on that thread left no room for such reasoning and maintain a passive under ideal circumstances is the gold standard - period. No room to think different. My involement in that thread was not fun and I simply went home with my ball. Hope we don't see that happen again here. I like this topic and would love more open minded discussion. |
Let's just say several on that thread left no room for such reasoning and maintain a passive under ideal circumstances is the gold standard - period. No room to think different. I think you're being a bit unreasonable with this statement Bill. Sure your opinions were questioned and judgements refuted. That happens in these forums. IIRC there was a robust discussion of the philosophical meaning of "true to the source" and it was clear your definition was different than than majority, but there were others in your camp as well. I'd venture to say that all of us on the thread you referenced have started out our audiophile lives with active preamps. Some of us have had many come in and out of our systems. That some of us now prefer passive preamps for their simplicity and sound comes from our own comparisons and formulation of opinions. Our convictions were just as passionate in regards to what we prefer (and what is our gold standard) as are yours when it comes to discussing your Dude preamp, your preferences, and your gold standard. When you spoke of no room for reasoning, if that is truly what you felt then I'd say it cut both ways. As you stated yourself, you took your ball home, nobody forced you too. Getting back to this topic, Unsound said it best. If you believe in simplicity one might consider building their system to maximize the potential to use a passive preamp. It's really not that hard to do and certainly cheap enough to try. Whether its the sound your prefer is another matter altogether. |
Grannyring: "I like this topic and would love more open minded discussion."
Me too. So far so good. Start a power cord thread and I've seen more peace and harmony in an Oakland Raiders parking lot after a game. :-)
I've had this comparison in my head for a long time: Music in your home will never be like the real thing. A photograph will never be like the real thing. If I can do something to the photograph that will make it seem more real or, bottom line, something that makes me like it more....done deal.
I've heard critism of SETs that say that their 2nd harmonics are adding distortion to the sound. Well, when the music is stripped during the recording and playback process, I wouldn't mind "adding" something back as long as it were pleasant to my ears (more consonant, less dissonant). I actually think it would be more accurate overall. I don't care that a scope says, "this amps (or preamps) output signal more resembles the input signal". I do care if my ears like what they hear. |
Good thoughts Onemug, This is why I don`t get emotional or upset on these threads. I accept the fact we all hear differently,have different perceptions and priorities etc. If Clio09 feels passive is better, why sould I care that`s his choice. I just know what sounds better to"me" and we both can be very pleased individuality. I just don`t like when people take a religious like zeal to convince others what`s superior, and then become very defensive in their stance. It`s not that serious. |
I have never seen the merits of arguing the virtues of passive versus active line stages and have had many of each. Presently, I have a BMC DAC! PRE which is the BMC dac with a passive insert to use as a line stage. It has two RCA inputs and one balanced input and only a balanced output. This all works with their amps to allows what they call Current Injection Analog Signal Processing.
All that I can really say is that this passive unit in this innovative circuit sounds great. I hear no compressed dynamics nor none of the purity of sound both of which I associate with passive units. All that I can say is that the total system sound exceeds any that I have had heretofore. |
A line stage has 4 functions:
1) control volume
2) select input
3) add any needed gain
4) control the interconnect cable at its output
Of these, it is the the last that is the least understood. Audiophiles are very used to auditioning interconnects, and so do not think about what the benefit would be if the interconnect's artifact is eliminated.
You cannot eliminate this artifact with a passive; in fact you cannot *avoid* cable artifacts if a passive is in use. This has nothing to do with the quality of the passive control nor the quality of the cable. It has to do with the capacitive and resistive interactions of the source, the control, the capacitance of the cable and in the input impedance of the amplifier being driven.
The lower the source impedance, the lower the volume control impedance and the lower the amplifier input impedance, the less artifact the cable will have. However this set of parameters is almost impossible to meet due to the low impedances that are actually needed.
This is why a *quality* line stage will often be considerably more neutral when compared to a passive control, regardless of the quality of the passive.
Now I realize that this statement may be controversial to some, if this is the case for you I exhort you to examine the emphasis on the word 'quality' above. |
. Onemug Start a power cord thread and I've seen more peace and harmony in an Oakland Raiders parking lot after a game. :-) Hilarious!! That quote goes in the Audiogon hall of fame. . |
Atmasphere, could you perhaps comment on the original post. I notice that your top linestage retails for around $12k and weighs slightly less than 50lbs (a two box design no less). This is more or less in line price and weight wise with products being offered by VTL, Pass, EMM or EAR. As a thought exercise, what would your top linestage feature if you built it to a $35k price point? |
"Charles1dadYou could certainly conclude also that the passive units are`nt passing the"complte" signal,thus there`s some degree of subtraction of musical information.Charles1dad"
This statement is not correct and only valid if one has not implemented the passive correctly.
As I've stated in my 2nd post on the 08-22-11, if followed then you will get it "all" as the source wanted you to hear it, even more than any actives preamps.
Once again here is the impementation that's needed to make a passive become electricly transparent to the source.
1: Is to make sure the sources ouput impedance is 5 x or less the attenuators input impedance.
2: To make sure the power amps input impedance is 5 x or more the attenuators output impedance.
Cheers George |
George,that would imply that the source passes the signal perfectly, I don`t believe that`s the case. The source itself may be incapable of preserving/passing the signal as well as a premium quality active linestage(just because source to amp is direct does`nt mean the signal is transmitted "fully" intact) Again it really is ultimately determined by the final sound result. No matter how you state your pro passive opinion, as I`ve said before I know what sounds best to me. We`ll just have to respectfully disagree. |
No that implies that a correctly implemented passive will be true to the source, just like a direct source to poweramp connection is the best you can get.
It's up to you to get the best source you can. Then if you have to spend $15,000 -$35,000 on an active preamp to change the sound of the source, then you are colouring/distorting what the source gives, and all you are doing is an expensive bandaid fix of the source.
Cheers George |
Atmasphere, we want to see a $35k preamp from you. And $70k power amps. Can you do it? And retubing of either should not cost less than $5k, preferably more. |
A preamp is often times the one component that brings a total system together and just makes it sing. Active or passive, a preamp is just one part of a stereo system intended to create music.
True to the source means true to the first link in the stereo system chain - the digital front end for instance. All front ends are flawed and what George is missing is fidelity to the particular digital source does not make one particular preamp the gold standard.
A stereo must have all of its sub-parts working together to create what sounds most like the instrument and voices it strives to recreate. An active pre in my experience can deliver this end system result with as much fidelity to the voice and instrument as a passive mated with ideal companion components.
A CD player direct to an amp in not the gold standard of fidelity to the human voice or instrument. It is however possibly the gold standard of assuring the signal gets to the amp exactly as it left the CD player.
The two have nothing to do with each other. It's all about the total system result. |
Grannyring,
Beautifully said. |
Onhwy61, if you want my opinion, keeping in mind that our preamps have a patented direct-coupled balanced output...
We solved a major problem facing tube preamps with that patent. It means that we can build a tube preamp that is flat to 1 Hz and can drive 32 ohm headphones directly, without additional circuitry for the headphones (other than the connector). So its my opinion that when you get into preamps that have that sort of price tag, you a paying for eye candy- really nicely machined, nicely finished and often very thick metal work to house a circuit that otherwise might be found in a preamp that costs 1/2 or 1/3 as much.
However such a budget does allow for more ornate switching schemes for the volume control and inputs and perhaps a few other things...
Now in our case we are already using custom materials for our circuit boards (to reduce dielectric effects of the board material) which is also extra thick (for the same reason). We have custom-built resistors, V-Cap Teflon caps, custom-built wire, proprietary regulators, the whole thing is balanced differential from phono input to line stage output with only 3 stages of gain in that path. In fact we set up the standards for how you connect a phono cartridge (which is a naturally balanced source) to a balanced input. We figured out how to do differential equalization and deal with a host of other issues, simply because no-one had done anything like this before we did. And that patented output does allow such cable control that if you set things up right, you will not be able to hear the difference between a cheap cable and a very expensive one (and it can drive over 100 feet of cable with no problem)! Overall its a pretty tweaked out preamp that has been refined over a 22-year period. So I don't think I could do your question justice with a casual answer. |
Grannyring you go on that a good active preamp can mystically make a system sound "better", yet you deny the fact here and in other posts that it will be coloured or adding distortions to change this sound for the "better" You cannot have it both ways Grannyring.
The prefect preamp has be always touted as being a "straight wire with gain" this says no colourations and no distortions and to be "true to the source". A properly implemented passive comes closest to this, and direct connection from source to poweramp is a "straight wire but with no gain" as it is not needed.
If you think your source "sucks" then change it for the better, don't try to band-aid fix it with a $30k preamp.
The best quote in audio history was made by Ivor Tifenburm of Linn Sondek fame, "the most important part of a system to get right first is the source".
Cheers George
|
Georgelofi, Why would you say, "A properly implemented passive comes closest to this," I don't know how you would ever prove this. The only proof that I can imagine would be for music going into passive and active units compared with that coming out and an assessment of differences.
I might also note that you imply generic differences but you add "properly implemented." How would we ever know this? I have had six passive units now over about a 30 year period. I only once had two at the same time and they sounded in many ways different. In fact I strongly believe that until my present BMC unit, those earlier unit shared only a sense of purity and a lack of dynamics or pace. Which was properly implemented? One was only a silver transformer with multiple taps.
Similarly, I have had many, many active units and have never hear two that sounded alike. Some manufacturers have gone to extremes in pursuit of "proper implimentation." Some sounded better than others, but generically none were as smooth as passive units and all were more dynamic. |
TBG back a few posts
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1313773451&openfrom&51&4#51
is the way one would make sure he/she has properly implemented a passive.
Cheers George |
George, I like your passion and I do see things differently it seems.
A $30,000 digital source front end is also not perfect and is flawed. All gear is flawed falling short of absolute fidelity because they attempt to recreate the real and natural thing.
A passive that is true to the $30,000 source in front of it may or may not be part of a complete audio system that sounds more like the actual voice or instrument.The resulting sound of the complete system is all that we can compare to the real thing.
The combined strenghts and character of each stereo component come together to deliver the resulting sound. Since every single part or component in the system is flawed, fidelity can only be judged by the sum result of the parts. The sum result will also be flawed-always.However, some systems will deliver more fidelity to the instrument or voice compared to others.
My point is all components are flawed and have limitations. An active preamp that improves the resulting fidelity of a system is not so much coloured as it is needed. A passive may be truer to the front end source, but in the end, passes on the particular personality of that source with it's flaws and the flaws of the passive. Yes, I think passives have some flaws.
Saying an active is more coloured etc... is pointless to me when in fact all components are flawed.
It is possible for both actives and passives to be part of total systems that deliver the best fidelity possible in today's systems. My experiece suggests that goal is more easily achieved with actives, but that is only my experience.
I happen to think actives help a total system recreate the power, impact,dynamics and nuances of the real thing and don't see these things.as colourations, but as needed ingredients to the finished high fidelity soup. |
Grannyring: George, I like your passion and I do see things differently it seems :Grannyring
Nope, no passion here with this, it just Ohms Law, Kirchoffs Law, and the maths that goes with it.
The passion comes as a result of listening to the music through the purest most transparent form of controling volume there is, and there's no voodoo at all involved.
Cheers George |
Atmasphere, thanks for taking a try at my question. I realize it is not a trivial inquiry. I find it refreshing that while you design what I consider a very expensive expensive linestage that you don't see any technical or sonic need to come out with an ultra expensive product.
On another note -- I find the argument that a linestage is needed to correct for the source component's imperfections a very un-audiophile like line of reasoning. For if the source requires correction, then why stop at a linestage? Why not insert a device with graphic/parametric EQ, phase compensation, reverb, compression, harmonic overtone generator, etc.? And you can't use the old signal purity argument since you've already argued that a multi-gain stage device with signal switching and volume control is required anyway. |
It does not correct rather it complements.Big difference and you assume the souce component is perfect and that it is not the case. |
Grannyring,
You make a very clear and rational arguement for the benefit and advantages for good quality active linestages. The notion that the sorce-amplifier is the ideal signal pathway is nice theory but as others have found out is not the case often in actual comparisons at home. The point I`ve come to realize is that ears trump theory and measurements. What sounds best to a particular listner is the whole and entire point. To say, well if you prefer the active linestage means you prefer coloration is a weak platform to stand on.I believe the direct and or passive approach is`nt fully accurate as it`s not capable of passing all the information within the signal passage. Oh well... |
I believe the direct and or passive approach is`nt fully accurate as it`s not capable of passing all the information within the signal passage. How so? |
08-25-11: Onhwy61
Atmasphere, thanks for taking a try at my question. I realize it is not a trivial inquiry. I find it refreshing that while you design what I consider a very expensive expensive linestage that you don't see any technical or sonic need to come out with an ultra expensive product. It's actually a very trivial question. A manufacturer will charge whatever the market will bear. It has nothing to do with design, manufacturer cost ... as long as there is demand for whatever reason. I remember when Mazda Miata was introduced, there was very high demand. There were HUGE dealer mark up, people were trading in their BMW convertibles ... Is the Miata manufacturer cost higher than BMW?, probably NOT, a better car than BMW, IMO a big NOT ... just a bunch of suckers got caught up in the hype and willing to pay big $$. |
Georgelofi, what you say in posting #51 does not prove the superiority of passive line stages.
I do not believe for one moment that EE laws are all there is to know. This is just another stage of the argument that ultimately can not be resolved. Without a test such as I propose, there is no resolution to this, other than for you to enjoy your passive device and for me to go with whatever sounds best to me. |
The perfect linestage can be imagined as simply a wire with gain. If you do not need gain a passive preamp will do. So, you ask what about matching impedances? Well a simple buffer can be used. Enter the First Watt B1, a passive volume control with buffer. The buffer makes the passive preamp more versatile because the impedance issue is handled by the buffer. Expensive? Not in the least and very good sounding. Here is Nelson Pass's thoughts:
http://www.firstwatt.com/pdf/art_b1_man.pdf
Getting back to the wire with gain. That will be the B3 and that will be coming soon. If you have a look at the pdf above, note how simplistic his designs are. Well designed and great sounding line stages do not have to be complex or cost a fortune.
I am not a dealer and have no affiliation with Pass Labs or Nelson Pass. |
Yes, if I take Grannyring's line of reasoning, he is talking about using synergistic effects to make a system work.
Its my opinion that its a Bad Idea to use synergies, for example using a dark preamp to go with a bright source. What you wind up with is additional distortions and you can't get it to sound like real music.
You also wind up flushing huge amounts of $$$ down the loo.
I prefer instead to have each component stand on its own strengths and not need synergistic effects to make it work. The system will thus editorialize less, will be more transparent and the system will allow you to listen all day and all night.
However I'm not buying George's approach either, although I do think that as PVCs go his is one of the best. I've just never found a passive that did not suffer from colorations depending on the volume control position, and I've not found the quality of the passive to be able to affect that. |
We use this phrase "a straight wire with gain" and say a passive is very close. Despite this no two straight (why straight I have no idea) sound the same. So what we need is no wire with gain or an attenuator with no sound of its own. |
Its my opinion that its a Bad Idea to use synergies, for example using a dark preamp to go with a bright source. What you wind up with is additional distortions and you can't get it to sound like real music.
You also wind up flushing huge amounts of $$$ down the loo. Thanks Ralph, I wish I could have expressed my thoughts as coherently as you just did. |
08-25-11: Clio09
Its my opinion that its a Bad Idea to use synergies, for example using a dark preamp to go with a bright source. What you wind up with is additional distortions and you can't get it to sound like real music.
You also wind up flushing huge amounts of $$$ down the loo.
Thanks Ralph, I wish I could have expressed my thoughts as coherently as you just did.
Clio09 (System | Reviews | Threads | Answers | This Thread) IMO, the conclusion is TRUE only when there is a consensus what is correct, desireable ... another words, a BEST. What one perceive is dark could be open to another. What is neutral? No 2 components sound the same. This is the reason there are more than ONE manufacturer of any component and each claim they are the BEST / correct. |
Knghifi, you should take a course in basic microeconomic theory. They are available at any community college. Pay particular attention to when the prof talks about market equilibrium. You might even want to ask a question about the phrase "in the long run". With your new found knowledge you'll understand why your Mazda comment is not particularly insightful.
Grannyring, I never said the source was perfect and your distinction between complement/correct would be very hard to define. After all, a 1.5dB boost at 275Hz with a half octave bandwidth coupled with a dynamically triggered 2nd harmonic overtone generator might both complement and correct and correct a cool sounding digitally sourced signal. |
Onhwy61, Not unexpected. Didn't think you would understand. Thanks for the advice. |
Atmasphere. I understand the point you are making and sure understand how hard it is to put together a well matched system.
I am however, not talking about taking a bright this + a dull that + plus a soft this and an agressive that to come up with a finished system. That is an endless circle of fustration and $$$ spent.
My point is simple; All gear editorializes and has its own particular flaw(s). No exceptions to this rule is the premise we need to agree on to go any further here. If one believes a source is perfect and just needs the signal to be feed into the speakers EXACTLY the same way it left the source , without any "improvement" for filedity to the voice or instrument, then yes you ONLY want gear that is true and unwavering in fidelity to the one thing that matters to you - the front end source. If you think that, then fine - have at it! I understand many an audiophile and Aphile editor/reviewer thinks this way. At least they write this way.
I don't. As I have said, the end result of the total system matters, not fidelity to the source component. The source component is not the object or goal of fidelity, rather the goal is fidelity the natural, real sound of the voice and instrument. The source component is flawed and simply an electronic attempt to recreate the real thing - so I would not try to pledge all of my eforts to being true to it only!Heck, the CD or digital medium is also flawed - the dang CD itself (before the source component) is flawed.
So yes, putting together a system that recreates the reality of voice and instrument is hard work and often times done through trial and error. Dealers and fellow audiophiles with great experience can be a great help as they have tried many combinations. Some of us learn on our own and that is also great fun. I enjoy the process, not all do.
Actives and passives can be part of the final music making system result. I just accept all gear is flawed and system matching is critical to recreating the real thing. No source component is the real thing. The master tape is not the real thing. Every single step from the recording studio to our stereo systems is an effort to recreate the real thing. Every step is flawed in one way or another. Yes, it is the combination of a complete system that strives towards fidelity. To serve the source component as master assures you of one thing only - fidelity to the flawed ONE electronic component.
What's particularly fun is the fact that one need not spend $100,000 to arrive at fidelity to voice and instrument. More money is not the only means to this end. So the fun continues in our quest as audiophiles. |
And now what started as a debate with sensible questions and responses turns to posters taking pot shots.
Do you think this happens with forums for other hobbyists ??
Here, it seems if you have a different opinion even on something subjective you are branded an idiot.
At the risk of being one ,I firmly am in the camp with Knghifi,Charles1dad,Onemug and a few others.
Naturally I haven't heard every preamp,no one has.in my 40 years of high end listening I have never heard a passive that I liked better then the preamp I owned at that time.
Today my preamp retails in excess of 20K.
It really is something I cant afford but it also gives my more enjoyment when listening to music then I have ever experienced so how does one equate $$$ to enjoyment??
In the end it doesn't matter which component is better or why.
What matters is what it sounds like to you. |
Onhwy61,
Hi, I must say I`m a bit surprised you did`nt get the obvious point Knghifi was making. |
Goldeneraguy,
The strange thing is the pro active lightstage posters don`t belittle the those who prefer the passive or direct route at all. I`ts just a choice based on what sounds better to you. The passive advocates insist theirs is the purer,more accurate, thus the right way. Many who have tried both approaches have simply found that is`nt the case often. |
Grannyring, years ago we had to face the issue of 'what is reference?' To that end we came to the conclusion that no media could be trusted as it all has flaws as you mention.
So we used direct microphone feeds. What we found with microphones running direct is that they can be so real that you can be easily fooled by the result of playing them, as long as the speakers are not in the same room as the mic!
We found that the media (tape, LP, CD and other digital formats) is source of the greatest degradation. Nevertheless I have found that it is very useful to have an LP of a recording that I have made and that I was there for, so when I hear the playback I have some idea of how it was really supposed to sound. At any rate its been my experience over the years to keep the processing of the playback as minimalist as possible, so long as that minimalism does not compromise the playback.
Its a tricky path to follow. But I have found that by doing that and also avoiding synergistic effects that I have the most success approaching the original- and mind you, it is not possible to get to the original music no matter how hard we can try, but OTOH getting to the original **recording** of that event is much more within our collective grasp.
To that end I have found a good line stage to be indispensable if you want to capture all the nuance in the recording. This allows the signal to arrive at the amplifiers without any contribution or editorial from the interconnect cables. |
Atma,
Yes, I so understand your post. Yes, it seems the digital medium may in fact be a great source of lost fidelity. There are different roads to the same end and perhaps different experiences based on each of our own perceptions of what fidelity really sounds like. |
