Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

In the fields of science, engineering, industry and statistics, the accuracy[1] of a measurement system is the degree of closeness of measurements of a quantity to that quantity's actual (true) value. The precision[1] of a measurement system, also called reproducibility or repeatability, is the degree to which repeated measurements under unchanged conditions show the same results.[2] Although the two words reproducibility and repeatability can be synonymous in colloquial use, they are deliberately contrasted in the context of the scientific method.
Accuracy indicates proximity of measurement results to the true value, precision to the repeatability or reproducibility of the measurement

A measurement system can be accurate but not precise, precise but not accurate, neither, or both. For example, if an experiment contains a systematic error, then increasing the sample size generally increases precision but does not improve accuracy. The end result would be a consistent yet inaccurate string of results from the flawed experiment. Eliminating the systematic error improves accuracy but does not change precision.

A measurement system is designated valid if it is both accurate and precise. Related terms include bias (non-random or directed effects caused by a factor or factors unrelated to the independent variable) and error (random variability).

The terminology is also applied to indirect measurements—that is, values obtained by a computational procedure from observed data.

In addition to accuracy and precision, measurements may also have a measurement resolution, which is the smallest change in the underlying physical quantity that produces a response in the measurement.

In the case of full reproducibility, such as when rounding a number to a representable floating point number, the word precision has a meaning not related to reproducibility. For example, in the IEEE 754-2008 standard it means the number of bits in the significand, so it is used as a measure for the relative accuracy with which an arbitrary number can be represented.

RE***Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?****

How many roads must a man walk down before you call him a man?

How many chucks must a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

RE***What are some examples of music that does not sound like music?***

There aren't any because if its "music" then it sounds like music!

The are many examples of noises that try to fool you into thinking its music though! (but ultimately cant and doesnt)

It's a great cliche and true..."a superlative system will make the gear disappear."

Our systems can be very good approximation's of the real recorded musical event. That's the good news.

Remember the police's album..."the ghost in the machine"?

Open up the top of your amp or cd player. Can you see the music there amongst the capacitors and wires? Where is the music and what is it? What makes it come?

The whole point of being an audiophile is ..."to be moved by a piece of music"

A piece of music, is something ineffable. this might be bad news but you can be moved by a piece of music heard over a used $5 dollar am radio you bought at the salvation army!

A good song transcends fidelity because songs are more than that.

bob dylan has listened to music via cassettes on a getto blaster to explore music.

Songs have a life of their own because of the words and the melody. Hi fidelity is just "getting a kick out of trying to reproduce real life instruments through gear as you hear them in real life"

"Which is more accurate?" There is no definitive answer. I suppose some are deriving pleasure from asking the question and that's ok. But we need to let go and enjoy. Perhaps i'm preaching to the choir but maybe not for some...

Sound reproduction is as varied as cooking. No two apple pies are identical and each must be compared to another on a case by case basis.

There are a plethora of contingencies involved in each form of playback, in each individual case that meaningful discussion becomes futile.

Both formats are hit and miss. But i still feel persuaded to say, that the BEST playback i have ever heard, when the planets align, was vinyl.

So, if the question was...""when the planets align", which is the most accurate format:digital or vinyl?" (and by "accurate" you mean as a virtue "best sounding so as to move you" ...I would answer by saying..."vinyl is more accurate".

Also...

RE***More accurate, mind you, not better sounding. ***

This makes no sense to me. So therefore "more accurate" necessarily must equal worse sounding??!!

No.

"Accurate" necessarily must be understood as a sonic virtue, therefore "accurate" necessarily should equal "better sounding".

Its a contradiction to say something is more accurate but NOT better sounding.

Accurate should be understood as a sonic virtue and not a sonic vice.

Impeccable "Accuracy" should lead to emotional involvement with zero negative effects, at least that is how i define and understand "accuracy".

The best accuracy i have ever heard was with vinyl, though that level of accuracy sometimes eludes me because of several factors but when everything is right, its like "wow!"

Sadly because vinyl playback involves physical/mechanical parameters to be optimal ...it is more work and more difficult to realize and acheive these optimal conditions but with that said...i argue when those optimal conditions are realized it IS the BEST.

So, with all this said, I will answer the question as i see it.

Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

When everything is right and it relatively, rarely is...

Vinyl... is more accurate than digital.

(and..."a good song" transcends "the hair splitting" of anal retentive "hi-fidelity" audiophiles.)

A good song has a life of its own that doesn't depend on hi-fidelity to enjoy its life.

95 percent of its value can be hear on a 500 dollar system the last 5 percent... is made manifest on a 25,000 plus system.

*

If we can all agree to the standard by which to measure whether or not a sound reproduced by a stereo is accurate or not then we can begin to judge whether or not that reproduced sound is in fact accurate.

But just saying "live" music will be the standard by which we measure accuracy by.... is...i think...insufficient... since even "live" music is not a precise enough definition.

Distinctions need to be made.

If we were to agree that our standard will be unamplified instruments like violins, guitars, flutes, drums. Then we have a standard. A ruler is a standard by which we measure whether or not a line is straight. If we put the ruler up against the line we can then see and judge.

Where things become complicated is when acoustic instruments become AMPLIFIED THEN RECORDED. This adds a secondary manipulation to the natural timbre of an acoustic instrument.

Now the judging becomes more difficult, since you have instrument plus quality of amplifying gear plus quality of recording gear plus the transfer gear used to put to the destination format, ie vinyl, digital, 8 track!

What is the timbre of a PA or a particular amp isolated from the instrument? Who really knows? All we know is the different degrees of quality with their synergies, ie when the flute is amplified by the pa but not recorded.

What the hell am i trying to say? I guess...that because recordings are made with gear which is either unknown to us or unfamiliar we are going to have a hard time judging whether or not the line is straight? If the only kind of music that was recorded was unamplified acoustic instruments we could have some hope in really knowing whether or not our systems are up to snuff but that is not the reality, there are thousands of different guitar amps and PA systems.

So in my opinion it is ultimately a exercise in futility to try and attain perfection across the board, everytime and all the time.

So the question "which is more accurate" is a sharp hook and people are foolish to bite onto the question at all! (smile)(hence my cocky first posting)(forgive me)

So, to me its not a vinyl or digital issue. I think we should be unprejudiced to format.

I like to enter someones room "blindfolded" let the person play their system back to me , i listen for a while and ask?

Ok, what's this person got going on in his system, is it good, is it bad, is it ok? do i like it or not? I dont care necessarily if he is using a line conditioner or not, if he is using vinyl or not, what i care about is...is it good or not...thats it. I dont even make a distinction between live or recorded music. Same response...am i enjoying myself or not?

Frogman, I totally agree with you in regard to "time and rhythm" giving music its vibrancy.

If i may...I would like to say the same thing but in different wording...that music at its most primal level is received and appreciated by its "beat". If we don't feel the "beat" we start to yawn.

It is only in the last 6 months or so that the light is coming on for me (so ta speak) about the primacy of macro dynamics, macro transient speed without blurring and "weight".

One powerful example is Nirvanas "come as you are". The song starts off relatively quiet and stays that way til "the turn". The change happens when dave grohl "pounds" the drums twice, signifying that the song is going to be taken somewhere else. This turning moment is a great test for a system's, macro dynamic transient speed/weight without blurring...at this moment things should just EXPLODE!(i don't know of any other recorded moment like this one) and you should be moved by the moment ...if you're not... better shop for a better power cable or speaker or amp...something isn't quite right.

At this point in my ...exxuse the expression "audiophile journey" i have come to a place where i believe the two primary essential non negotiable elements on which hi end stereo systems stand or fall are...

Yes...1. Macro dynamic transient speed without blurring/weight "the beat"

and...

2. Timbre (often overlooked and consistently neglected)

Get these two right and you are 90 percent of the way there!

After 6 years and thousands and thousands of dollars later i am still in pursuit of these attributes.

It took me about that long for the light to come on about their primacy. Its amazing how hard it is to find what you dont know what youre looking for. If someone knows and understands this...i think they are in a great position to become a satisfied audiophile.

Ever been 5 feet away from a single violin as it plays? Take that emotional response away with you and that is the value of correct timbre! Now if its stereo playback speed is too slow, too fast, ie hyped up or blurred (assuming the timbre is impeccably reproduced) you still lose something there. (now i am talking about #1 (the dynamics) get both right and if the song is good you are in for a good trip!

Switching gears...

RE***"But just saying "live" music will be the standard by which we measure accuracy by.... is...i think...insufficient... since even "live" music is not a precise enough definition."***

To labour the point further...How many times have you heard audiophiles say "i go to hear live music and that is the standard by which i measure the quality of my stereo playback"?

Thats fine if you are in the 5th row of a all acoustic unamplified orchestra or jazzz band but what about seeing U2, Guns'n roses, Taylor swift, in a "live" amplified, noisy stadium? That's live too! but should that be useful for measuring "accuracy of timbre" for your home system? The natural timbres of those acoustic instruments are now amplified and PA'd.

So judging acoustic unamplified instrumental timbres and small amplified jazz or large concert hall rock shows must be distinguished from one another in regards to using "live music" as my standard. They are two very different categories when it comes to timbre fidelity. Some live music is the most distorted, noisy, inaudible stuff you can listen to! Give me my studio recorded album's kybosh live!

One is acoustic jazz/classical/folk...the other category is electric rock!

But to be fair...I do think i have a pretty good idea if bob dylan's ELECTRIC highway 61's album sounds timbrally right through my speakers or not. I have heard it done right and sound amazing and i have heard it done not so right and fall a bit flat. So, maybe a case can still be made even for the accuracy of amplified music too.

I guess the bottom line is...whatever the genre...when it sounds like music ...its hard to define...but when you hear it...you just know...regardless of genre...it sounds like music and your connecting with it. Maybe that should be the standard and forget all the debate. Thanks...

.

I know this is veering off the topic of the thread kind of...but one thing i think that is often or always overlooked is that when you listen to music live, you are having both a sonic reference to the experience but also a live visual reference/experience!

Take a moment to consider just how good listening to live music blind folded would be? This makes it a more fair comparison with our stereo systems.

That is...i think people tout the live event [the holy grail refernce/standard] as being so much better than our stereo's because of the visual aspect AND the physical aspect of being at the event!

I have never seen this addressed on any forums anywhere! but i think it applies to the discussion and topic.

You've heard of blind comparisons right? What are they for? So, that you are not biased/manipulated by what you see but are left only to discern with your ears alone. Its about quality control of test results/conclusions.

So, when people compare live music to their systems they should compare both blindfolded or they should at least take note of the fact that they are getting visual stimulus from the live event along with musical info.

In a live venue you can turn your head around and see the room, the people behind you, someone steps on your foot when you are on the concert floor, how can 2 speakers compete against all these extra senses being triggered and adding to the "experience of the "music""?

I would venture to guess that some very good system's are as good as or extremely close to the live event to the point where the differences are negligible. [blindfolded]

Is that audiophile heresy? (smile)

I can confirm some of the stuff i'm saying by giving an example.

Ever watched/listened to Nirvana unplugged with the lights low in your room and through your hifi?

This is a very well recorded dvd and when you combine great audio playback ALONG WITH VISUAL CUES (and in low lighting so where you are ..."gets blurred")...i have been BLOWN AWAY with the feeling Kurt cobain is still alive and singing right there before me! The audio recording of that event is just superb in my opinion. Anyways...if while watching the show, the tv suddenly died, the "powerful illusion" that i am there gets diminished because you lose the visual contributions to your "suspension of reality".

So, in defense of our systems, being at a live musical event is in someways an unfair comparison especially if you don't take into account the degree to which visual cues are adding to your degree of pleasure while at the event.

Comparing both blind is a higher quality comparison since you should be judging sonics with sonics NOT Sonics plus visual with just sonics.

I am not suggesting people need to go to live events blindfolded, i'm just stating ....whether they know it or not ...that its to some degree an unfair comparison. Not TOTALLY unfair but to some degree, AT LEAST... it is.

.

RE ***It will be even easier to tell the difference blindfolded, as your sense of hearing will be heightened. A great many of the people in concert halls with their eyes closed are not sleeping - they are listening better. ****

Who said anything to the contrary? I don't even address that topic at all. Forgive me but , I think you misunderstood the whole point of my previous post. I won't go over it again.

RE***there is no way a recording could ever be mistaken for live music, unless one has very bad ears indeed. If one cannot hear the difference, that is a problem, and your ears should be checked.****

I think i have a pretty acute ear, and have heard a few systems, and have been able to pinpoint their strengths and their faults and the same goes for my own system. I have heard alot of bad systems and a few really good ones. In retrospect i realize i have lived with alot of bad systems posing as hifi. Also i own an acoustic guitar that is made of all real hardwoods and real bone nut and bridges, not plastic and laminates, so i have some understanding of what "real tone" sounds like.

Live events have sound problems too! just like home systems and i can pinpoint problems at live events.

I went to see dylan in 2008. The sound was atrocious and dylans frog voice (now in its 70's) wasn't much better (that is if your expecting to understand the words).

You know what i got out of that event? It was not the sound bit it was the visual that gave me the rush! and the knowledge that dylan was 20 feet away from me. It was not the sound. It was seeing him in person. If the sound of that night had been recorded from the perspective of someone standing on the floor and pressed onto a record, i'm sure my system could reproduce with great fidelity , how terrible it sounded! (smile)(laughing)

Some of the pinpointing of sound problems i can articulate and some of it i just know something is wrong but can't quite express in words what the sonic problem is. It takes time i think to develop an astute ear and having an astute ear as you know, is not simply about how well you score on a hearing test, though of course that is very important.

Anyways, my hearing is within normal range. I do have a slight loss on the top end frequencies (a little more so in the left ear) but again it is within normal range.

RE***If one cannot hear the difference, that is a problem, and your ears should be checked.****

Maybe what needs to be checked is SOMEONE'S SYSTEM.... if they feel the disparity between blind listening at a live musical event and blind listening at home are not even close or as pleasurable? If your system distorts, or the noise floor is too high, if it is too warm or too clinical, if timbres and dynamics are suffering in high degree, than my claim, naturally will seem to be absurd but...i stand by my conviction that really great system's, at certain moments are just as good or very close to live [maybe even better! because they are produced and polished further from the individual tracks that are laid down].

The technology has come along way and with careful system matching, exotic materials, etc, the sound is approaching ..."fantastic"

Learsfool...

Thank you very much for the book recommendation! I will seek it out at my local library. It sounds very interesting. Either way, I have enjoyed/am enjoying our discussion. RE ***I sincerely wish you joy in your listening. *** thank you. The same to you.

Atmasphere, Hi! The correct context of that question is this...Can the way a person PLAYS an instrument change that instrumentsTIMBRE? My answer to that would be an unequivocal ...No! Here's why...The materials and how they are executed in that instrument set the boundaries and limitations of the variable ways it can potentially sound but no player can ever play outside of those boundaries. I understand the concept that different musician's have different styles that wasn't the problem i had, the problem i have is if someone claims "musicianship can alter an acoustic instruments timbre"! One might think it sounds like (emphasis on "like") a different instrument but the reality is...it is the same instrument and therefore the same timbre of that instrument. What you are hearing when it sounds different is a new variable within that instruments limitations compared to your previous understanding of those boundaries but nevertheless that potential was always available just not realized. So, the truth is...the musician is the source of the change and not the instruments timbre. In other words musicians change but not the timbre of that instrument.If players could make a harmonica sound like a piano, or a trumpet sound like a tuba because of their playing style then i would reject what i just said as being untrue. But, yes, i know what you are saying...its LIKE its a different instrument!

Hi Lacee...

RE***I have a decent stereo, in fact I've had several cutting edge systems since the mid 80's,and I have a friend with a system that is not just as expensive as a couple of new homes, but also sounds very realitsic,but the owner ,an avid concert goer, says that even this is nothing close to what he hears in a live event.***

Because i have never heard that system i really can't comment on how good it sounds or doesn't sound. It would be very telling... to play back "sittin' on top of the world" Bob dylan good as i been to you LP (often used as my reference for Hohner marine band harmonica timbre) on his system, then i could comment on how it compares to my playback of the same song in my rig. First i would like to say, that i would love the opportunity to be able to experiment with a scarletti cd player! and that for me too...this is way out of my budget. The other thing that came to mind as i read your post was it has been my experience and you will probably agree, that there isn't always a direct correlation between big buck rigs and stellar hi fidelity. I also don't equate expensive rig owners with people who have heard everything that is possible from hifi. (re read that last statement) This is often a mistake made in audiophile circles. So, while i have argued in the past that the state of the art of hifi systems today is not what it was 5 years ago (and expensive is kinda the way you need to go), i want to qualify that statement by saying there is another factor/other factors that i believe to be equally or more important and that factor is... synergy. The third factor...(the hifi trinity for stereo system building? (haha) is...being a discerning listener.

The interesting thing about synergy is nobody in all of hifidom can guarantee you where you will find it! WE! have to find it ourselves. Synergy is "dollar signs blind" (if you will) Finding synergy takes alot of work. Well, i should say, finding the LEVEL of synergy so as to make your stereo playback of a Hohner marine band harmonica sound absolutely real will take alot of work. It's not turn key at all and the bad news is...you might spend years trying to dial in, nail, timbres so they are spot on. You might never find it even. Or someone out there might get lucky and have just the right mix of cables and components in a short amount of time. What am i saying? I'm saying that if you are trying to say that the timbre playback of my marine band harmonica can't sound real because your friend has a rig expensive as houses and his doesn't sound real then therefore neither can mine...then i would have to disagree with you for the above named reasons. Since there are other contingencies that account for good or bad playback. If i read between the lines wrong , i apologize in advance.

I once heard a rig that, new, would have retailed for between 200 and 300 thousand dollars. I feel like my rig of about 20,000 used sounds better? Go figure. I want to qualify that i am not saying my system is perfect, or that it always sounds real. I am not saying it can reproduce perfectly the dynamics of every instrument out there flawlessy every single time. I am not saying my system plays below 25hz. I am not saying my system can produce the perfect timbre of a vocal passage, piano and stand up bass all at the same time, all the time and with every recording. Just the opposite. What i am saying is there are certain tracks, of certain instruments, of certain vocals, of a certain type of recording where something stunning happens and it mimics a real vocal or a real harmonica. I can't say i have ever heard my system reproduce the timbre of a piano to where i cannot distinguish it from real. Same goes for stand up bass, loud drum sets, violin, and a plethora of other instruments. What i am saying is...if all attributes of an instruments timbre are faithfully reproduced and are present and present all at the same time then it sounds real. I'm saying the potential is out there and that its possible but only with the conditions i've mentioned above.

If and when my system sounds real its usually vocals, harmonicas and brass instruments.(if the recording is "right" and on a few recordings)

This to me is farther then i've ever progressed and i would say i am working on trying to get ALL facets to be right on a consistent basis. I'll try but without consistently better recording methods i am skeptical as to the degree to which i will succeed. Direct to disc live recordings hold alot of promise, i think but unfortunately alot of past music wasn't recorded that way. It's not a big deal to me really, as i said before, live, recorded its not that big a deal to me. As long as i get a kick out of trying to make it sound real then i'll keep going and i can enjoy poorly played back songs too.

True, Phaelon.

RE***There has never been now or in the past a hifi system that can even recreate all the dynamics and overtones of a cymbal crash, let alone a whole drum set and orchestra.
****

Have you ever heard a koetsu coralstone cartridge or an allaerts formual one? I haven't heard either of those but when i went from a denon 103 to a Jan allaerts mc1b mk2 the latter was a revelation/paradigm shift in my mind in regards to what is possible. The 'poorer'(older)your gear the harder it is to believe what is possible since you have a certain reference point from which you measure and naturally you remain skeptical. These carts are examples of "extreme audio". A combination of exotic materials , ie , solid gold transmission lines(in the allaerts)and exotic engineering designs. Do some research into some of the thought put into these cartridges and you will see how much effort and passion has gone into these designs.

RE***Think about the foolishness of someone closing their eyes,listening to a pair of Ls3/5A(No slightintended)and being foolish enough to say that, yes the whole Duke Ellington band appeared in front of me.****

Yes, that would be foolish since the ls3 is a minimonitor but how does that have anything to do with our discussion?

RE***Talk about imaginations running wild!
And people laugh at folks who claim to hear power cord differences?***

I do hear differences between power cords and those people can laugh all they want. I believe...the people who can't tell those kinds of difference.... don't really care for the differences, that is... they are not connoisseur's of sound. Some people think every bottle of wine taste's pretty much the same too but if you have an appreciation and a passion for wine your ability to discern goes up too, since with passion comes commitment and with commitment comes all the work of tasting and looking for fine differences between different wines. This transfers over to cables and audio gear in general.

RE***You just cannot get anywhere near the sonic wave attack of live instruments with any home system, no matter how tight you close your eyes****

If you mean to say that i believe how tightly you close your eyes directly effects the quality of ones sound system then you've misunderstood my previous posts about valid blind comparison's between live music and stereo reproduction.

What i was saying/trying to say in my previous post, was in regard to how the combination of both VISUAL and SONIC information at a live event is erroneously a unfair comparison with home systems BECAUSE...home systems don't have the advantage of a "VISUAL feast" of the musical event to boost your satisfaction level. AND that if you strip away that "visual feast" you level the playing field and are making a more fair comparison. There are other factors that make it an unfair comparison too, like , mic placement and quality.

RE***Also when a live band is playing, the whole room resonates,and not just from volume,we can play soft.
But even at soft ,low volume there is still a lot of air being charged and moved by the sonic waves from the instruments, and let's not forget about how everything in the room including the audience all contribute to fine tuning the wave launch.****

When i play the "nirvana unplugged" dvd through my system i set the volume just right so it 'loads' the room just so, that it does in fact feel very much like a live event. Playing loud notes or soft notes at the same time is a system's ability to play in a ...'wide dynamic range', so that soft notes don't lose their character and loud , fast notes don't lose their character at the same time as well. I hear the gentle tapping of dave's sticks on the brass cymbals in all their gentle glory. I hear wood i hear brass. I hear the skin and springs of his snare drum, while chris's bass lines are clear controlled, the air is crisp,clear, charged[i hear and 'feel' the air???!!][if that makes sense][which adds to the spell], the noise floor is low and things are individuated but somehow coherent at the same time.[hearing is believing]

I have amps that are very fast, clean, clear and toneful. I have heavy gauge speaker cables that can carry heft and weight. My speakers have very similar characteristics to my amp and utilize neodymium magnets. If you buy two neodymium n50 disc magnets they come with warnings about how to handle them. They are the size of smarties but can cut you if they catch your skin while they come together...FAST!.

Neodymium magnets executed in a good design [Based on my experience with them] take transient speed response and clarity, through the stratosphere.[things become more transparent, mimicking reality].

My allaerts cart contains them too, so transient response on the vinyl side shows up my digital system. My amp with kr845 tubes recreates the ambience of "charged air" like that in a small concert room ...just right. Some previous solidstate designs i owned made the air cold and flatfield, not alive like in reality! Perhaps its the stripped down, sparse versions(not hard, congested, distorted versions) of these nirvana songs that make my system able to make it so believable. Like it sounds so good i don't how i could improve the sound? It is that enjoyable, that satisfying, that intimate. The sound is ripe, supple, dynamic, tuneful, quiet, clear, powerful or gentle, cymbals have amazing sheen and good decay, ambient.

RE***Live music is an experience involving all the senses.
Listening to reproduced music involves one maybe two at best.

So how can reproduced music ever be called accurate?***

By that definition you're right it can never be called accurate but if you define it live music differently, it changes the ball game.

So with that said...it can be called accurate when we can say that how we heard it and understood it with our eyes closed LIVE is mimicked in our HOME STEREOS with our eyes closed.[THIS is the correct standard to judge by]

RE***I can tell you that when I play bass and stand next to the drummer,I don't have to close my eyes to get the full measure of what he is doing.****

No you don't, but to understand my point, you should!

Its also an unfair comparison, since the position of your ears and their distance from your bass and the drum kit are naturally going to sound different from a mic that is recording possibly from a very different location and is receiving info probably coming from a different angle from the source of the sound. A recording made from this mic will have a different perspective than yours, so it would be an unfair comparison, since all things are not equal.

But...make a recording where all things are equal from your perspective(ie, your ears/the mics... are both 2ft from the bass and 5 ft from the drums and directionally the same)and play it back on a system with great tone, heft, speed, no blurring of transient, plays low(so not a ls3/5)(or with a myriad of other brands that are colored and distorted)(not with a myriad of colored, muddy, slow cables, cartridges, amps, etc)but gear with superb timbres and i say the differences between how you heard it while you were standing there playing it and how the playback is...the difference would be negligible. Or to the point where the differences are vanishingly low and unimportant.

With all this said, i will grant that perhaps i overestimate how good the nirvana dvd sounds in my place, and a few other selections.... overestimate in the sense that because i wasn't actually their in the audience that night i have no reference to judge by but... you know how if someone asks you how a speaker you owned a few years back... sounds? you can't really remember in totality how it sounded because your memory fades/is fuzzy? this is true also of our memory of just how reality sounds! We recharge our memories by going to live music... well... i would say some of my belief that the nirvana dvd sounds identical to reality is because of this condition, ie. it sounds just like how i remember they should... BUT... even if that's not the case , the great thing is... that it doesn't matter! because obviously i still retain some memory of how live music sounds and if it sounds so good that i have to strain to find a point at which it differs, then it must be sounding so good that at this point , it doesn't really matter.

Maybe in your systems its easy, in mine, at certain moments, its difficult. Maybe if i heard your system's i would understand where you're coming from.

These days, my system sounds 'great' with more regularity regardless of format or quality of recording. On the few spectacular recordings though, with certain tracks, my systems sound is a amazing.[imho]

As i alluded to earlier, if you've never heard how good something can sound til you've heard your last 'reference'... bettered, you will naturally mock any such claims.

If you read some of my other posts in other places you will see how i have been quite critical of the whole hi end audio industry in terms of its promises and the actual delivery of those promises. It wasn't until i shelled out waay more carefully spent money that i actually felt i was getting "hifi" so when i say at certain moments i can't distinguish my stereo playback from real instruments, it comes from a person who has been frustrated with 'hifi' for over 5 years and from a person who only in the last year or so, is starting to feel much better and different about that. That difference can be explained by the increase of quality of the gear in my system.

RE*** I stand by my statement that if someone cannot distinguish between live and recorded music, then they have a hearing problem of some kind. ****

We are both obviously looking/listening to two different things. So, actually we are both right! Is it possible that your system cannot mimick reality to the degree that mine can? As bob dylan sings " you are right from your side and i am right from mine..."

RE*** if I misunderstood part of your post, I apologize. I am often reading and typing on here late at night when I am tired after a heavy concert, as I was last night and again now. ***

No problem, I do something like that too...ie,post in a certain frame of mind.

As, i think about it further...when i said my systems sound is like the live event i did not mean to say, nor did i ever think that my system was able to reproduce Nirvana's drummer, David Grohl's drum set in its totality during a very congested fast musical moment like i was standing 3 feet from his kit[though if i had a well miked recording from that position,,,who knows!] rather what i meant to say and had in mind was that at certain moments, with simpler musical passages, with sparse instruments, in my system, they have fooled my mind into thinking i am listening to the real thing to the point of straining for differences. [Please note those qualifications.]Especially vocals and timbre[see jan allaerts cartridge]. A good example of this is Norah Jones's last track on the lp..."Turn me on"

I know i'm not alone on this and i wouldn't have understood it til a year ago. But now i know and understand what people mean when they say the playback becomes so good its...

"spooky"

Well, this is what i am trying to articulate...when i play that dvd or the song "turn me on" its so real...its "spooky"

When it sounds that Good that means that EVERYTHING in the system is synergizing. This is so fragile and i've experienced this myself...change one interconnect or one cable, or plug something in in another place, one little change and the spell is broken! and it sounds like a stereo again. Those same recordings! I am talking very fine nuances being preserved or lost! [these kinds of subtle cues and nuances, this level of playback artisanship imho can only be found on upper level products and even only in well synergized combinations of those same products]

If you're not experiencing 'spooky' from time to time, where recorded music sounds like 'nothing'and 'spooky real'... check both your ears and .... your system's.

I never believed it either til i heard it myself. I don't feel my system is finished. Nor am i always completely satisfied but as my ear continues to develop, as i experience new levels of paradigm shifts in regard to what is possible from 'gear', as the technology moves forward, i am building a system that is more consistently pushing the boundaries of what i believed possible.

Lacee,

I really liked what you said in your last post. And if i have correctly understood what you are try to say...I agree with you.

I adopt Robert Harley's attitude...and i read this in his book as a fledgling audiophile and transfer it to all approaches of gear design and to each audiophiles system..."the perfect solid state amp and the perfect tube amp sound exactly the same because they are both perfect"

I like that. So, i am open and skeptical at the same time and try to learn and admit when an old prejudice has been overturned by a new experience or by new evidence and continue on the path.

Like, all good chefs say...cook with the best ingredients, fresh and in season! so too, i will argue with gear, synergize with the highest quality gear [as you understand it] to get the highest quality results.

You can't make as good a pasta sauce, [all other things being equal]with regular tomatoes as with organic tomatoes. The differences are fine but perceptible, at least to the connoisseur, who cares! So, too, i think, with cooking with gear.

I dont care if someone is solid state or tube,if his system is ridiculously expensive or cheaper ,etc,etc, etc,etc...the way i judge or try to judge is...how does it sound? Period. But we are human and we are subject to our human bias's and weaknesses so we try to remain as objective as we can...

RE***And yes, I still say that if you really cannot hear the HUGE differences between the live and the recorded in your own above example, or you truly think they are negligible and unimportant, then I truly pity you, as you are clearly missing a very great deal of what the musicians are trying to communicate to you. ***

You shouldn't pity me, you should say, wow, he must have a well put together system!

Also, i'm not intimidated by your credentials as to why you think you can hear better than me. And i'm quite confident you THINK can hear BETTER than me... OR ...that you can LISTEN better than i can. Hogwash.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist(or a professional musician(i've heard this a thousand times)) to know what a unamplified....harmonica, acoustic guitar, trumpet, trombone or violin sound like...played alone in a quiet room. It's immediately self apparent when you are.

The argument goes...i'm a professional musician, i'm a recording engineer, i go to live concerts twice a week THEREFORE because you don't have the same degree of exposure you can't know what real instruments sound like, therefore your experience must be rejected. Hogwash.

The sound of the above name instruments heard alone/live in a quiet room is easily discernible and their attributes/characteristics are self evident.

For the last 6 years i have been vigorously LISTENING and comparing systems, both my own and other audiophiles systems[this in itself has been a kind of training], previous to that i have lived in this world for many more decades and have heard and have played instruments all my life so if you would be so kind, please do not tell me i don't know how to listen or that your ear is better than mine cause you're a pro!

While i attest that the differences between the live event of the nirvana unplugged concert and the norah jones track i mentioned in a previous post and my stereo playback are negligible i also now attest, that for past 5 years i have ALMOST never or extremely rarely have heard a system sound like the actual event. Therefore, i DO have the ear/discernment to reject stereo reproduction that does not mimic or encapsulate the actual event.

If i didn't, how could i say all those years and to almost all the systems i have heard, own included..."this sounds fake"..."this parameter is wrong or that parameter is wrong?"

And...i can attest to the fact that 95 percent of my home playback does not mimic reality, nor have 99 percent of the systems i have heard. One other system i did hear it mimic reality on a couple tracks too. It was the tape of the 'star wars' theme.

I am a timbre and dynamics 'freak'. That is, timbre...(an instruments inherent signature pertaining to ...what the materials utilized in its construction and how those materials vibrate/sound as they push air when played)are my highest audiophile value with dynamics as it's close handmaiden.

So, if the timbres during my stereo playback or anybodies stereo's playback are off, to my mind, the music...in this respect loses its ability to fool you into thinking you are listening to a live instrument.

Also, you can go and hear and be exposed to many system's which you think are the best that is possible but still take away the experience that it did not imitate the live event, regardless of whether the system was ultra extreme expensive.

Dollars spent ...doesn't always translate to..."this is the best possible".

There are alot of expensive systems that have something amiss but tired audiophiles don't know where to go from there or don't know how to pinpoint the problem, except to throw more money at the problem.

What i'm trying to say is...while it is possible these great systems you have been exposed to had limited synergy between the components so that there was some parameter that could not fool you into thinking this sounds like live instruments therefore you believe it impossible that it can be so. I really want to labour this point since, i have been sorely disappointed by hifi dealers rooms and other audiophiles systems, over and over and over. I'm pretty picky and fussy and i keep it to myself but some of these hifi dealers rooms sound poor.

Secondly,

RE***I truly pity you, as you are clearly missing a very great deal of what the musicians are trying to communicate to you. ***

No, i'm not.

I'm getting alot of what they are trying to communicate with my system, ESPECIALLY on the specific musical pieces i've named already several times ....because my system can mimic the fabric that makes music music.

RE***I truly pity you, as you are clearly missing a very great deal of what the musicians are trying to communicate to you. ***

Do you know what i'd get out of seeing patti smith live unplugged? Do you know what i'd get hearing patti smith on my stereo? Will i 'get' the deep emotion she is trying to communicate because i hear her voice live and her guitar live?

No i wont, cause i'm not interested in patti smith. So, i don't get much emotion from patti recorded OR live. Which is to say...that music is MORE than whether or not you hear timbres reproduced accurately or not. I guess what i'm saying is that there are other things, other than just dynamics and correct timbres that evoke a emotional response in music.

for example...the words, the arrangements, how loud, or how soft something is played, how fast or slow, how a person uses their voice, how it all sounds when its happening together...other things too i'm sure.

I love music and timbres produced by a stereo that mimicks reality on SOME DAYS is just a luxury, not a necessity.

ON SOME DAYS...i'm just as content listening to my favorite music on my 12 dollar getto blaster that plays, radio, tape and cd all in one unit!!! as much as i would on my 40,000 dollar system because music is more than just timbre and dynamic response.

Emotions can be evoked by a memory we attach to a song, by the words, all kinds of things. Timbre is not the single channel alone to emotional connection. As i said patti smith 'LIVE!'even with the genuine clash of a real cymbal is just ho hum for me i won't get what she is trying to convey SIMPLY BECAUSE it is live.

So, if someone thinks 100 percent accurate timbre and dynamics is a necessary prerequisite to connecting emotionally and that 55.2 percent correct timbre is insufficient to convey musical emotion then i would have to disagree with them. There is so much more going on between a piece of music and the listener irregardless of whether not it is faithfully reproduced.

Many times the HIGHEST percentage of emotional connection is made APART from either dynamics or correct timbres and can be attributed to some other parameter. Other things are going in the human psyche that while listening to music we are unaware of.

Anyways...I have a good ear, i know what real instruments sound like, i am just as good a listener out there as anyone, i am picky about timbres, i have not heard correct reproduced timbres for years and was able to discern that they were in fact 'off' and all i can share is my experience ,whether people want to believe them or not, When my system has warmed for at least an hour and a half , with certain well recorded tracks and certain recorded sparse live musical events recorded on dvd, watching and listening to those and distinguishing those from actual live events (from a sonic perspective only)becomes extremely difficult.

RE***I still say that if you really cannot hear the HUGE differences between the live and the recorded in your own above example....****

Learsfool, I have to say...if you still hear a HUGE difference between well recorded music and your stereo, you should take a second look at your system.

Kind regards,

.

I felt that i really needed to respond to your comments only because you seemed absolute/dogmatic about your statements. Also, that based upon my most recent experiences, i felt that the disparity you perceive between live music and what is possible with some new esoteric/cottage industry audio products and a carefully put together system(highly tweaked)(with some luck too!) was too great. I was hoping to convey that between live music and stereo playback it was my sincere belief that that gap has narrowed, especially with the products only available in the last 10 years . We are talking about some of the best people on the planet working with genuine passion trying to make really special products. It did hurt my feelings a bit when you said that you pitied me? I thought maybe that was going a bit too far and wasn't very charming of you? As the posts progressed i tried to qualify my statements trying to bridge the gap between our perceived differences by adding some qualifiers,hoping that would help.

For example, to repeat earlier qualifications , the times I've experienc recorded music sounding like live is very rare, for example 95 percent of the systems(i speculate), never come close and of the ones that do only 5 percent of the time, on 5 (maybe less) percent of an entire catalog does it come close to mimicing reality. I never said, nor meant to say that i have ever heard large scale orchestral music playback mimick live music. (though someone might have done it???) This is a more difficult challenge (in my mind) than sparse music (like, one voice, a guitar, a harmonica (nothing else). While sparse music is still a great challenge it is a LESSER challenge, i think than many different instruments , playing at once (with different/unique timbre/playback demands)(trying to get them all correct with one kind of speaker, cartridge etc etc) is going to be a tough challenge. (sometimes for example one cart is more suited for rock while another cart for orchestral(as you know)

I can understand how some thought it an absurd/arrogant statement, especially when it has become the norm/popular even to say that nothing can sound like live music and for someone to come along and ask the question "is it heresy to say that reproduced music can sound just like live"?

Yesterday, I played, bob dylan , "good as i been to you" american pressing lp, "sitting on top of the world" track. So, you should make a mental note that this is sparse music with only two instruments and a not very produced album. That means the amount of manipulation between the laying down of the tracks and the final mastering is small or non existent. So you have a very high fidelity record.(read... (great potential for sounding live)

The track contains, bob, his guitar, his harmonica. (I hear no effects added.) So i listen to the harmonica playback and then blow my own marine band harmonica. I did this back and forth several times and feel that if i were to grade my harmonica as a 100 points, i'd have to give the stereo played harmonica, i dont know, 96-100?

I think much of the credit must go to the allaerts cart as reeling in most of the timbral magic of the vocals and isntruments. Gold is a "weird" electrical conductor that imparts something lush, organic, and holographic to metal instruments. I've heard metal reproduced wrong many ways, that don't match reality, but this cart does something unprecedented (so far as my experience goes). The best analogy i can use to give a hint/to try and convey that quality is when you see a mirage created by heat off the road. You see something there, that really isn't but somehow it exists.

With it, in my minds eye i perceive the woodfibre and metals vibrating like the real instrument... the harmonica plays with a halo of no other artifacts surrounding it as it is reproduced by the stereo, just like when i blow it with my mouth. In other words, the noise floor around it is non existent, nothing else is added or subracted and its timbres are reproduced impeccably. The wood part is right, the metal part is right, its speed is right, the resolution is right...all these things together plus more are part of its "timbre"

If some people are spooked (on occasion) by stereo playback that means they are experiencing the emotion of 'fear'.

Why fear? Its just a stereo???That's odd.

But not really, i surmise the reason they are experiencing fear is because they feel something unnatural or ....supernatural is happening. Why? Because they are having an experience that their mind and previous experience has told them should not be possible! It's like seeing a ghost!

This would be my argument that stereo's today, have the potential to mimic reality and it seems reasonable to think, things will only get better in the next ten years!

It is quite rare when all the contingencies are perfect (i won't list how many there can be...(alot!)(nor do i think we know what they all are) that i hear reproduced music sound like live but i have to say that i have had/have that rare experience on the terms stated in all my above posts.

"Recorded music sounds like live music for me in my system"

Does it for 95 percent of my playback? No...less than that and on a few recordings/formats. Sometimes within one track, the voice is perfect but not the piano, etc.

Mapman says... The solution: keep tweaking until you get it right......

Amen.

On some days...i really get into it! I will spend an afternoon just tinkering with repeated tiny 20 degree turns of both my allaerts cart mounting bolts, recuing and relistening to the same song , listening , over and over and over, to see if this is the best this cart can sound. Then i will go to vtf and then back again to the mounting bolts! It is incredible how narrow the ideal and optimal setting for this cartridge is and though i don't know if i have nailed its optimal range yet i have seen how "resonant" signatures can effect how my cart sounds.

Lacee,

I don't know if i misunderstood you or not but i would not necessarily look to studio's as a reference for hi fidelity. I don't mean this as a blanket statement but i think it's fair to say that the goals of studio systems and home systems are slightly or greatly different. Isn't the goal of their speaker set up more as "monitors" to dissect the music to facilitate the recording process whereas home systems try to... you know, reproduce a musically satisfying sound?

Don't some studios set up speakers up high, behind mixing consoles and in positions that would be considered poor to audiophiles?

Lacee, i hear what you are saying about the "paradox of high resolution". I understand and know what you mean.

High resolution in systems CAN BE a paradox but it doesn't necessarily HAVE TO BE a paradox and certain cases isn't.

It is only when high resolution renders instruments timbres with artificial attributes that one experiences this paradox but what if the resolution goes way up but artifacts go way down at the same time?

Take for example that dylan harmonica track. First, i will mention that solid gold in the allaerts mc 1b mk2 cart creates this rich, lush, dense, tonal shading to certain instrumental timbres that you have to hear to understand.(this thing gives me a better chance/headstart at achieving the goal imho) Now what i have done and what i continue to do (when i'm up for it(not irritated by all the tweaking) is... i play back the track and try and pinpoint the unnatural artifact in the harmonica, if i note one then i try and adjust vta and vtf or cartridge torques. When i change one of those three paramaters then, naturally the others are effected and therefore a whole new range of possibilities is introduced again.(this is good news and bad news at the same time)(bad in that it increases the potential but bad because it means more tweaking!) It's a bit like looking for a needle in a haystack. I try to get things sounding as best as i can with those contingencies but if the harmonica still doesn't sound real, then i go to moving cables around or interconnects, play the track and again try to pin point an artificial attribute in the timbre. Sometimes a change will introduce the attribute that is missing, like say, its correct timbral weight but in doing so i lose its resolution , in that the resolution now sounds mechanical. Ok no good...keep going! In retrospect, components that i felt weren't going to take me closer to the goal leave the system and others are introduced...so i guess it went something like this...

Years x many components x sourcing exotic components with exotic materials and designs x tweaking til the cows come home x failing x hundreds of listens x crossing my fingers x thinking...

Eventually you can dial in all the timbral attributes present in a harmonica and remove all the attributes that don't pertain to a harmonica.

How many attributes does the timbre of a harmonica have? 10, 20, 50, 100, ?

If one by one you topple each attribute and present them all at the same time what do you get? the sound of a real harmonica.

Anyways...as i am sure you will agree? resolution isn't in itself a bad thing. The question becomes of what order is the resolution? Is it mechanical, hashy, cold, clinical, like information not an instrument?

Or is it clear, neutral, uncolored, rich, natural?

Recently i discovered synergistic research cable company. The designer impressed me because he does not claim his most expensive cable is "what will do the trick" No, he grants that one of his cheaper cables "might do the trick" "better". I assume it is because he understands tweaking is necessary to find synergy and synergy is blind to dollars spent and even to materials utilized and the quantities in which they are present.

Anyways...once the harmonica is dialed in...i play a different record or genre and then poof, no more magic. Waaah!

I want to recommend to people to try solid pure gold as one of many materials to dial in good sound. Especially if you like classical, jazz,folk and vocals. These are the allaerts forte.

If...and its a big if...but it still might be true...if in order to reproduce timbres like reality a solid gold conductor is a necessary ingredient then even if a 50,000 dollar cd player wired in copper is utilized it still won't be able to reproduce reality irregardless of its price tag.

I think putting together a good system is an art as well as a "science". But...tell you guys something you didn't know!!!

.

Hi guys...

RE***I like your part about tweaking the cartridge and about how subtle changes in tightening the mounting bolts affects the sound.

That implies to me how much you can veer one way or the other from accuracy with just a few twists of the wrist.
How will you know you when have it perfect?

You won't.***

How will i know? Honestly?

I just want to say that what is happening in regard to nirvana unplugged, norah jones, bob dylan and his harmonica and how it sounds can never be articulated through words. (for good or bad) So in light of that ...as sincere as we all may be, ultimately our discussion to some degree is an exercise in futility. Futility in that, we will "argue" because we are in ignorance of where each person is coming from. All i wish to say is that these rare tracks and concert dvd's thrill me! I am thrilled and absolutely satisfied. With the other recordings, i have the pleasure to try and progress and to try to reel in their sound to a place that brings me great pleasure. It is a work in progress.

For one. I don't expect studio to sound live. I don't want them too! Most studio recordings do not have that goal!!! And we need to note this and forget about trying to deconstruct what the producer did and foolishly try to make it sound live! You wouldn't want it too ...is my point!

More heresy!...

I very much like ...."produced album's" and don't want live!!!!or even a live show...

Why?

Because a producer and the studio are like an extra member of the band! Bringing his vision and his talent to the table. Ultimately a record is a collaboration between artist and the studio and the producer...and that's a great thing. I like a polished sound that is given a certain vision/direction.

What would joy division's album's be without the industrial/space rock sound effects added by their producer. He took those album's to another level!!! Thank God for studio's and producers and manipulated live sounds!

What would the joshua tree be without daniel lanois and brian eno? Just another bare bones live recording.(Yawn)(well, it still might be ok but just different)

Heresy!

Live...Recorded...its all good!...

But back to how will i know when the harmonica is perfect...

Ultimately...you are right...i won't know. But...I do know that bob is a fan of the humble "marine band" harmonica and if i blow through my own marine band harmonica's i can make a comparison between how IT sounds "live" and how HIS marine band harmonica is reproduced by my stereo. If those two sound close to identical...I think that's progress!(and they do sound close to identical!(not all things but this is one of)...the rest of the splitting of hairs doesn't matter. (to me anyways.) This is more than sufficient.

Re***Then again let's talk about the harmonica's you both own.
Even if they are the identical brand, and age of manufacture, they won't have been played the same so the rate of reed and metal fatigue will differ.You will both blow it differently.
Also is your living room where you listen to music identical to the recording studio?***

I don't know if the room is the same but a harmonica is an instrument that pushes very little air and since it pushes very little air, how it interfaces with the room is probably negligable. If it was an extremely live room (which if you listen to the recording is doubtful) it might produce alot of "flutter and echo" but instead it seems to come out of a "quite dead" room and what is recorded seems to be taken very close to the harmonica so much so that the room doesn't have a chance to contribute anything before the track is laid down. Even if there is some room effect you are getting what seems to be a very immediate direct (closely mic'd) stripped down recording of the harmonica.

re***the rate of reed and metal fatigue will differ.*** usually new strings and harmonica's are taken into the recording studio so instruments sound fresh and alive. Nobody goes into studio with a tired harmonica and tired strings. My harmonica is fresh too.

Am i missing something but isn't the bottom line this...that what is emanating from the speakers and what i hear from my live harmonica are negligible? (qualifier: the harmonica in my mouth has a different directional point of view since it is inches from my ears.)(but the timbres are negligible)(believe it or not... i don't care)

(now if i could only get nirvana "bleach"! to sound sensational!)(i am....working on it!)(check back in 2 years)(smile)

I just upgraded from 2 vh audio flavour 4 cables, to 2 airsine pc cords. And i switched some cables around. The differences have to be carefully assessed. I might now have lost the magic of the parameters i was getting with nirvana unplugged...it might now sound..."reproduced" which gets at what i am failing but trying to express..."great sound is hard work and a bit of "luck" and..."there is no clearly defined understanding of how or where you'll find ..."synergy""...You just have to find it... and find it with your ears...

This means that...expensive doesn't necessarily equal good. (good news for those with less) Nor does it mean that...VERY expensive will equal good. I'm skeptical that cheap can equal superlative...but tinkering with good products, plus some know how, plus some hard work, plus some luck, plus some tweaking, Plus learning from some failures leads to good sound.

RE***On a superior system YOU should be able to hear the differences.****

Still, how would you know since even if you have a "superior system" you are ignorant of the parameters that you mention.Therefore you still have no standard to measure against. Ultimately, we are all sculpting a sound that pleases relative to our understanding of what real timbres sound like and that is progressive and that's good enough!

On a funny note...there is a joke..."My system is so good/reference..it shows up 95 percent of my catalog as unlistenable!!!"(smile)

RE***I think vertigo has conveyed himself very well***

Thanks....

There's some things my system lacks...it doesn't play low enough (yet...)and at present i am trying to dial in my interconnect/pc/receptacle combo with the rest of the system. I am trying to dial in the cables by trying them in different places/combo's so that things sound identical to real instruments. It might take some time but the failures are as important as the successes.

Brilliant sound might be a cable change away and it is unpredictable, the only way to get that last fine nuance that you want , that imitates live sparse recordings/timbres ...is to experiment and listen. With every change ...other areas might need re-addressing to accommodate that change.

I have all my gear sitting suspended above slate with certain footers. I recently asked my friend to cut me some mdf which i plan to marry with the slate. Either alone not being as good as the combo glued together is my logic. Once i make this change all other parameters (in my world) need to be re tweaked to accommodate this change since the change is interfacing with the rest of what is going on in the system. Maybe nothing will need to be changed but maybe it will. It is my hope that the slate/mdf combo will neither be too dead or ring too much but will be "just right"(that is my hope)...and bring greater resolution, clarity, dynamics and timbral fidelity.

I don't expect my stereo to sound like 'live'(except if its playing something back RECORDED live(and recorded ...WELL! (at that).

I do want my stereo to reproduce timbres well and dynamics well. I expect it to play well recorded live music back well, poorly recorded music back poorly and "studio' recorded music back well too but i realize the limitations of studio (relative to live)(not better or worse, just a different animal) and expect no more or less than what the producers intentions were but i or no one, i think ...should mistakenly expect studio to be 'made' to become...live? That is a mistake, unfair and unreasonable and a category error. Studio is good and so are live recordings, i don't think people should discriminate between the two but should enjoy each for what they are and are not.

.

RE***Vertigo wrote: "a harmonica is an instrument that pushes very little air and since it pushes very little air, how it interfaces with the room is probably negligable."

This is incorrect. As any musician will tell you, every room has a very significant effect on your tone, no matter what the instrument.****

OK, I stand corrected. The harmonica pushes a ton of air so much so it excites the room to such a degree that its TIMBRES will become unrecognizable/totally different from room to room!

RE***One thing that needs to be added here, assuming that you are playing the harmonica, is that the sound you hear will be quite a bit different from the sound anyone else in the same room is hearing, for the simple reason that you, as the player of the harmonica, are also hearing the sound INSIDE your head. Again, this is by no means insignificant.****

Absolutely, they are not even going to be close! Totally absolutely different! I provided a poor argument and example! To some the harmonica might sound like a trumpet!

Sorry, The marine band harmonica i play and the marine band harmonica my friend plays from 5 feet away in regards to its inherent TIMBRE are identical.

RE***But it's an individual thing,does Clapton buy a brand new fresh from the factory guitar everytime he records?***

I have no idea what this statement has to do with musicians who generally not wanting to use tired, oxidized strings when they go into a recording studio have them changed or what it has to do with my original point in this regard? You are setting up a straw man argument... unintentionally or on purpose i don't know?

RE***I play in a band with a blues harp player.He has several harps, and plays in several scales, and he has several blowing techniques.
Not once have I ever thought that his harp(even a cheap Marine band) sounded anything remotely like Dylans.***

This is totally irrelevant. Since I did NOT SAY.... My harmonica ...PLAYING... is like dylan's! If the harp player in your band uses hohner marine band harmonica's.... it unequivocally should sound identical to mine of the same brand and dylan's of the same brand in regard to its ...TIMBRE!

Line up a thousand different people and have each of them blow this brand harmonica and a thousand times it's timbre is identical,not once does it change... therefore I DO have a reference for judging the timbre of bob's harmonica emanating from my speakers. You can try and escape that all you want but its not going to happen. (smile)

In order to have meaningful dialog you guys will need to understand the distinction between playing STYLES and the timbre of a hohner marine band harmonica.

The second distinction is that whether a honer marine band harmonica is played by myself or by someone 5 feet away...playing ...TO me...does not change an instruments TIMBRE, either.

Therefore, in this regard i again put forward that a hohner marine band harmonica of which, bob dylan on many occasion's prefers to use and my and my friend's marine band harmonica, standing 5 feet away and the sound emanating from my speakers has inherently the same sonic envelope , ie , Timbre, with slight allowances (which i have already CLEARLY granted)... for direction, distance,micing, room (if any at all). None of the latter allowances can change the hohner marine band harmonica's inherent timbre.

RE***Have someone stand in front of you when you blow your harmonica(Or horn or any live instrument)and ask them if they feel the air striking their face.The sonic impact, the pressure, the visceral whole body experience.

Then play a similar recording of Dylan and ask them if they physically feel any of the above.

The differences between live and recorded are still vast.***

Not in my world. My shirt never flutters from an instrument playing in front of me unless its a big drum or something. I have heard speakers that are lean and light and therefore lack "weight" but a speaker and system that produces believable weight is one of many important , contributing factors that cast the spell of the sense of hearing a live instrument. My harmonica reproduction has that real life weight.

If they only involve a few of their senses. As stated the impact of a symphony at full blast, exactly recreated in a listening room isn't going to happen is it?
Then why say that it did?

Especially through small mini monitors!!!!

Learsfool,

You say "Say 10 professional musicians who are very proficient pick up the exact same harmonica and play the same simple folk tune on it (no question of different styles coming into it) - you should be able to identify basic differences in each of their individual timbres that they produce on that same harmonica, even playing exactly the same thing. I do not of course suggest that you should be able to then identify each separate person again in separate hearing, this type of what some might call "critical" listening needs much training, but you should be able to tell the basic difference when a different person picks up that same harmonica.

To give another example - if I play the exact same thing on ten different horns, you should still be able to tell that it is me playing all ten of them, even if I chose the ten most different sounding models I could. My personal timbre (again, this is a separate thing from style) will come through, no matter which instrument I am playing on, despite the difference in the timbres of each individual horn. "

I sincerely don't get you when you say...

"My personal timbre (again, this is a separate thing from style) will come through, no matter which instrument I am playing on, despite the difference in the timbres of each individual horn. " ????

Can you elaborate on this by defining the terms you use and therefore show me how they are different, since , to my knowledge and understanding of these terms you are blurring their definitions, one over the other and "making distinctions without a difference"

That is...i don't see how "personal playing style" and "personal timbre" are two mutually exclusive things, which according to your statement above you obviously say they are not the same thing. You even speak of a third category which is the timbre of instruments.

So with that said how would you define:

1.Personal timbre
2.A persons playing style
3.Timbre(for instruments)

For me..."timbre" as i have used it in this example... to say that... (paraphrasing) "dylans recorded harmonica(played back through my stereo) and mine( played live)" (as a reference by which i measure the quality of my stereo)... sound identical! is me essentially saying...the quality of my stereo playback is of such a kind of quality as to render the timbres of these identical brands indistinguishable. This excites me because my system is able to reproduce the timbre of a hohner marine band harmonica. And ...i say it is a acceptable test because my comparison is between two identical brand instruments.

For me...a musicians style is one thing and instrumental timbres another.

I will give my definition of timbre again(as i have learned it in audiophile circles and in my own words):

How the materials, their execution in the design of the instrument... excite air.

So, for example a harmonica with a plastic comb will sound different from a harmonica with a real wood comb.

Or...

A guitar with a real spruce top and sides, bonded together with hot hide glue and real bone nut will have a different timbre from a synthetic guitar, with epoxy glue and plastic nut.

So, timbre is an objective thing. It is not relative. How the two above guitars differ in their sonic signature is the differences between their TIMBRES. So, an astute ear can measure his sound system's reproduction of the above instruments and say on a sliding scale whether or not a systems timbre reproduction is way off, pretty ok, very good, excellent, superb or astonishing.

Thats what i do and naturally, a good test is the sound of a live marine band harmonica with a recorded marine band harmonica.

I define a acoustic "musicians style" as :

How the musician creates emotional articulation by technique. ie, how hard/soft/fast/slow/which notes he hits , their arrangement, whether he bends, them or not, how he moves the instrument around, etc, etc

None of these personal playing style EFFECTS... AFFECTS! the objective timbre of an instrument!

I have no definition for "personal timbre" that is distinguishable from "personal playing style."

I think the problem has been that we have two different definitions of timbre in our minds or someone has a misunderstanding of what timbre is.

For example i cant understand how you could ever say this statement:

"I play in a band with a blues harp player.He has several harps, and plays in several scales, and he has several blowing techniques.
Not once have I ever thought that his harp(even a cheap Marine band) sounded anything remotely like Dylans."

???

I was trying to say my live marine band harmonicas timbre is identical to bob's marine band harmonica and you replied with the above statement. But i wasn't talking about style...i was talking about the timbre of a marine band harmonica!, which is an objective thing APART from style!. So, if the playback and live of the same instrument sound identical then my system is achieving my desired goal! What's the problem? Isn't that good? It obviously IS a good thing! and a GOOD test to use to measure progress.

RE***Not once have I ever thought that his harp(even a cheap Marine band) sounded anything remotely like Dylans."***

Why because your bandmate has a different playing style? Even if he does have a different playing style, can his playing style change the timbre of his marine band harmonica into a lee oskar harmonica? If not...then why didn't his marine band harmonica sound like a marine band harmonica when he was USING one?

.

Hi Lacee,

RE***does Clapton buy a brand new fresh from the factory guitar everytime he records?***

Cut and paste where i did say ...or imply , that he did or would? You missed my point and you missed the context.

Let me try and add some clarity.

When i said (paraphrasing) "musicians will change their strings/use new harmonicas and not go into studio with tired old strings/harmonica's"...to reiterate the point...

I only said this as a RESPONSE to one of your previous statements which was an attempt to "discredit" my "reference" for measuring the quality of my stereo playback. ie, a live marine band harmonica.

In other words basicly you were saying that i can't know if my marine band harmonica has the same timbre as bob's because his might have 10,000 hrs on it (spit, oxidation, metal fatigue etc etc) and mine might have only 200 hrs and you are saying (or a host of other contingencies)...THEREFORE... your contention is that the playback and live harmonica comparison is invalidated and therefore not admissible!

And hence my response...

Which was to say that bob would not go into recording with a harmonica with 10,000 hrs on it! Generally speaking ...and maybe its even standard procedure for electric guitarists, acoustic guitarists and harmonica players to not use dirty oxidized metal parts which are crucial to the integrity of their sound. Most electric guitarists have a schedule based upon how much they play as to when its time to restring. Is this not true? do i really have to waste this much energy to defend this? (smile)

Why do you have to ask me if clapton buy's a new guitar each time he goes into studio? I don't see how or where your logic could follow from my initial statements for you to make such a silly statement.?

So with that said...i say... that my comparison need not be "thrown out". That is too extreme and goes too far!

Ever watch dylans rock movie "don't look back".? There is a scene where dylan is frustrated by the fact that he is minutes from going on stage but has to go up there with "tired harmonicas" he says...(after his buddy attempted to revive it by soaking it in water)(bob blows into it to re check it)

and says...

"it's passable, i'll use it (sounding irritated) its just a drag i dont have a new one"

Also...When i was talking "trumpets and harmonicas" i'm not sure if you got it or not but i was trying to "demolish" your argument by another form of argument called... "reducing it to the absurd"

You said i was (i'm going to paraphrase).... "incorrect... the timbre of a harmonica can be effected by the room" (if you kindly will, in the future , to facilitate the discussion, please only use the word timbre not tone when discussing instruments, since i claim the timbres of my harmonica and my stereo playback are indistinguishable)(timbre is more ideal to hifi discussions)

RE "incorrect... the timbre of a harmonica can be effected by the room" (which is to essentially say therefore again its faulty or inadmissible proof)

In response i would say that i have to disagree with you.

The harmonica's TIMBRE will not change as a consequence of whether the room is "dead, live, or in the middle". These effects will only affect WHAT IS A CAPTURED BY THE MIC (degrees of liveliness or deadness), it can not make the timbre of a hohner marine band harmonica sound like the timbre of a trumpet, can it? No, it cannot. Or would you like to argue that it can? Therefore...

Since it cannot, and since both my room and the ambience of the room that i perceive on the record are negligable (no hall reverb) to compare my live hohner to the hohner in the playback i submit is a high quality test by which to measure the degree to which my system can play back the TIMBRE of a hohner harmonica and should not be rejected on a claim that room changes an instruments timbre and especially to THE DEGREE to which you seem to imply it can!

So, my statement saying that the room effects are negligible are justified. (maybe the correct thing to say is it has NO effect! on an instruments timbre) A live room recorded down to the track at best might only obscure my ability / make it more of a challenge... to hear "past" the recording to the instruments timbre, as i judge its merits but it does not obliterate its timbre at all. These are two mutually exclusive things.

True...bob's harmonica might have 15 hrs and mine might have 100 , true...i cant know if the "liveliness" of my room compared with the recording room was within tolerances of less than 0.005-25 percent, true...the mic's directional p/u might be different from me playing it in my own mouth, true...no, i dont know which speakers it was mixed with , true i don't know which brand mic he used, true...i don't know how good the quality of their recording gear was...etc etc, on and on you can go...

but the point is...

1.I do have a live hohner harmonica!
2.I do have a stereo sound to judge and compare
3.All the rest is irrelevant!

The key is...Points 1-3 !!! read again.

EVERYTHING else...in the final analysis i will leave up to you to analyze (humpty dumpty or not), i like to keep it simple.

I play my hi end stereo composed of extremely fine parts, I play the recording of the harmonica track, i play the same brand live at home and ask....

How identical do they sound? I constantly compare them and continue to compare and build my system around how close i am getting to that goal.

Why does it sound real when it shouldn't according to you? I don't know, you tell me?

I suspect you are either less exposed to REALLY good sounding system's and what is both possible both from a recording perspective to pass on to a playback chain and naturally the scope of your belief is narrower as to what is possible.

Certain parameters of my system at moments mimic reality, mimic timbres and voices (here i just have to give another plug for the allaerts cart, its a cartridge of a different "order" "kind" from all the rest (at least the ones i've heard, it just performs a miracle?)

It's like all the other cartridges are "numbers" when it comes to timbre, but this cart is a "letter" its "doing something "other"" by contrast to them and to try and explain that is ineffable.

So, i give up!

I still can't believe that one person in india can talk to another person in australia without a wire? Well, i believe it but its just amazing!

I have been as narrow as to say in the past, reproduced music will never sound like live but i am more open to that possibility today than ever. Old poor recordings don't stand a chance but new recordings, with better technology, with more attention paid to how they will sound on new modern systems, for the future stand a chance.

RE the weight of real instruments compared to stereo playback weight of real instruments.

If i were to blind fold you and put headphones on ...that could overcome the sound from a real instrument in the room and you had to raise you arm whenever the instrument was played by feeling it on your body but not knowing if and when it played , how well could you do that? and for which instrument? Could you identify the instrument from a plethora of others? which ones do you think you could pick out? or not pick out based on the experiment described? If your life depended on it could you?

How does a lone harmonica feel? trumpet? kick drum? cymbal? violin? Now change the distance between the instrument and you...now can you do it? How much pleasure do you derive from music from this one parameter to the exclusion of the others? then how important does it make it in the big picture of reproduction? (i'm not assuming the answers)

I do feel i understand where you are coming from and i do think instruments weights can and are mimicked by systems to a higher degree than you seem to. It's one important parameter to address but i don't think systems are as bad as you think they are in this area and i think its an important area but i think timbres and matching db's to how the event was recorded is to be more fair to our systems when we judge them. We form conclusion at least to some degree, maybe alot...on unfair comparisons.

If i want to compare a trumpet or nirvana's "nevermind" it is important to crank it as loud as if nirvana were playing live BEFORE I judge. They probably play at between 95-100 db, if i did play my system back this loud i am one parameter, one step closer to imitating them and one step closer to being "fair to my system"!...next would be to close my eyes at both events(this is only rarely possible)...that would be another step closer to being "fair"...what about this..and that...How many other ways do we fail to recognize how unfair we are to our systems? How often do these parameters get overlooked? How often have people concluded it doesn't sound live but don't think to consider they are playing at only 73db? Lots....Lots.

System's today with quality recordings can mimic certain parameters of the live event and they will only get better!

If you never heard "better" you will naturally remain skeptical and maintain your position.

Hearing is believing.

.

Lacee...

This is good...

"This makes more sense,have someone blow a trumpet in your room, full tilt.

Did you cover your ears?
I am saying you would, the sound of the trumpet all on it's lonesome will blow you out of the room.

Now play any trumpet recordings you have, Miles, Mangione, Terry,does the recording overload the room?

Not like the sound of the real thing is it?
You can get loud and distorted and use a couple thousand watts, you can get the volume levels loud enough, but,does it sound anything like the real thing?"

I need to think about this...and i would like to respond.

If and when i find time....(other priorities exist)

I'd like to do this question justice...

(The question hasn't fallen by the wayside...not yet)

I know what you're getting at and i think it valuable to address this question.

Frogman...

RE i feel dizzy.

me too! ...and sometimes i wouldn't have it any other way!

Sometimes reality has too many heads.

Sometimes to get your bearings you need to let go of all points of reference if you want to "arrive"?

(friendly smile)

*

Phaelon, Frogman. Some really great points there! I like how you "tweaked" the definition of timbre, adding to it a new nuance.

So,essentially a harmonica HAS NO timbre!...that is...til it's played! (smile)

Agreed, but now there is the boundaries and limits of the degree of variation between the bodies that play it. There are alot of differences but imho the differences are not vast. We all basically know what a x brand trumpet sounds like or can learn what x brand trumpet sounds like if we wanted to and tried.

I just did a google search and i did discover what personal timbre is...

In regard to the human voice it is the unique way in which each persons vocal chords are uniquely structured/distinct and how the air uniquely resonates IN that person.

.

Orignally there was a disagreement as to whether the playing of a live hohner marine band harmonica in one's home is acceptable to use as a reference for determining the quality of a systems playback of the same instrument. Basically it was argued that it couldn't be used because Bob dylan playing his and one playing there's alters the timbre because of a couple of things.

1. Each man/ women has a different body structure their "personal timbre"
2. playing style or "tone" is different

Now, i think it becomes important to ask..."how much can 1 and 2 alter the timbre of a marine band harmonica?"

That is...To what DEGREE is it changed? to what DEGREE can it be changed by 1 and 2 ?

Very little . Every time i have heard another player using this brand harmonica live, it has always sounded exactly the same. Using ones "ear" one can distinguish the players style and then using ones 'ear' you can listen for the timbre of that instrument.(the attributes of that brand harmonica that make it distinct both from other harmonicas and other instruments in general)

Imagine you have a 1000 litres of pure water and add 1 drop of chlorine to it and mix. You taste the water "before and after". As the drop of water is to changing 1000 litres of pure water into something else so is a person's "personal timbre" to changing the timbre of the harmonica. Whatever IS the true ratio, (2 drops, 10 drops of water?) who knows, but the point is...whatever it is...its negligible.

So, though we have it seems generally agreed a persons 'personal timbre' does in fact have some influence we need to be CAREFUL we don't go TOO FAR in our understanding of just how much it can change the inherent timbre of a hohner harmonica.

Personal timbre in regard to "human voice" can vary in vast degrees (that's a different story) but the difference between 10 different men playing the same hohner will be minuscule and indistinguishable. (again, i am not talking about playing styles.)(playing styles obviously can vary to massive degrees!)

I love what was said about differing guitar tones because i am familiar with all those things mentioned. I am a proud owner of a '86 reissue of a '57 fender stratocaster built in corona california. Which replaced a japanese 72 reissue telecaster. These two have their similarities and their differences in tone.

As i think the story goes at some point fender changed hands and the plant was move from fullerton to corona or vice versa . The '84 '57 fullerton reissue is the one that gets alot/more... of attention but when i once asked a guy if the tone would be different from mine, he said... no. Well, no two guitars in reality are identical simply because they are not the same guitar.

This begs the question..."will all hohner marine band harmonica's made in the same plant with the same parts, with the same pool of "shift workers" , in the same month/year sound the same?" Yes and no.

Yes, in that there are quality control measures put in place to assure that before a harmonica leaves for market it represents a certain set of standards the company champions. No, in the sense that the odd one might slip through quality control with some kind of problem and no in the sense that if you had the right instruments to measure and identify certain parameters you could distinguish from among them. I would say that there is more consistency in regard to timbre between marine band harmonicas then fender guitars probably because the fender uses much more wood and that wood plays a pretty big part in imparting the final sound of a fender. Of course there are more factors then just its choice of woods, for example, guitars have more parts than a harmonica and therefore this introduces more potential for variability of tone.

So, if someone should choose to use a brand of harmonica as a reference test he can have great confidence in this kind of testing because there is a high degree of manufacturing consistency from one harmonica to the next within the same brand and production run and the differences between those never makes that brand harmonica indistinguishable from other brands.

Switching gears.

In regard to resolution....

I have strived to build a system that will reproduce timbres PERFECTLY. That is my goal. Since as i mentioned.... it is one of my highest audiophile values. (second being dynamics/speed).

If some want TOO, to make this their goal they will realize that at some point he will need to make a decision. Do you want most of your records and cds to sound generally pretty darn good? or do you want to REALLY go for PERFECT timbre(resolving the extremely fine nuances of timbre) and therefore drop the percentages of the former so that now only 4 percent sound STELLAR , many sound ok and some sound terrible/poor?

RE***The deeper you get in resolution, the more you can recognize real from recorded, which doesn't takeaway any of the fun of listening to music.***

Yes AND no! In my experience...the higher the resolution the more you CANT recognize real from recorded which adds to the emotional experience and stuns/shocks you. So, yes the high resolution does this to poor recordings but with some recordings hifidelity and "resolution" is doing its job making things sound more and more real!"

The goal should be to look for components that are high resolution and make no sacrifice in regard to timbrel fidelity. And...that...in some instances is a realistic and achievable goal. Some playback should in fact sound real. The percentages and instances when it occurs should be going up NOT down even if the instances are rare. There was a time when NO aspect of my playback sounded REAL, now it happens in some cases.

How can someone say..."i have the best/highest resolution but nothing sounds real???" Whoever is having this experience...i must conclude...DOESN'T in fact HAVE the best resolution?

I agree with the joke.... "my system is so good, so resolving all my records are unlistenable!" Which implies the person has somewhere somehow started to head the wrong direction and needs to re asses things.

RE***Like I said it's a paradox,we were all brainwashed into thinking it should sound like the real thing in real time and space, when in reality, if it sounds like that in your system, it can't be real.****

Why not? Do you KNOW it can't sound real or do you BELIEVE it can sound real?

RE***If a system has the resolution to let you hear the clues and studio artifacts, then you are that much closer to recreating the way the music was recorded at the time and in that space.
You are getting a better reproduction of the reproduction, warts and all.****

Agreed and that is good but only so long as the "warts" sound real since warts in our natural environment have a natural character all their own but if a system produces those warts WITH artifacts attached to them then that needs to be addressed. I have no qualms with warts so long as they sound real.

There's something i'd like to put out there for people to discuss if they should choose to do so. It is about "cooking up" a sound so as to mimic real instruments. Here's my hypothesis.

It is possible to ADD! attributes to your stereo playback of an instruments timbrel character (after the fact) that:

1. Were unable, failed... to be captured for whatever reason by the "recording system"
and that
2.Despite no. 1 it is possible to REINTRODUCE that fine attribute by the "art of system building"
so that
3. The timbre of an instrument can sound indistinguishable in (some cases)from real.

To use the analogy of "cooking". Suppose you are making a tomato sauce with non organic tomatoes but you buy and taste a organic tomato and that is your reference for what a natural organic tomato tastes like. Now, the non organic tomato is missing some of the organic tomatoes attributes but they do in fact share many similarities in other aspects of what constitutes the taste of an organic tomato. There are other attributes in an organic tomato but one of the most consistent faults of regular tomatoes is the lack of that sunshine sweetness that occurs from proper ripening. I noticed if i use white sugar it doesn't fool me into thinking i used organic tomatoes in my sauce but if i use a teaspoon of honey... it does. Now, when i use honey i am getting closer to a real organic tomato taste but even with that ingredient i can make the error of not using enough or too much honey it is then that the tomatoes "timbre" (smile) will be "inaccurate and "not true"".

Analogies at some point always break down but i think it's still a valuable analogy. If i know and can source the sound of a real instrument and i can use it along with exotic materials and designs at our disposal in hifidom perhaps i can push and pull the timbres to "lock in" on the sound of trumpet or harmonica during my stereo playback of those instruments, irregardless of the failures of the initial recording process.

For example, What if the image size of the performers vocals had become too large and unnatural (not like real life) because of something in the chain from "recording to pressing" ....can't i control image size in a whole list of different ways available to me by system building? Yes, i would argue, you can.

What if a hohner was recorded too thin (or comes across as sounding too thin)? What if it comes across as sounding like it has tin reeds instead of the shiny smooth stainless steel reeds? or like a rubber comb harmonica instead of a plastic comb harmonica? What if the harmonica comes across as being 1foot wide instead of a few inches wide? I argue this can be fixed to sound as a real harmonica sounds in every single regard.

Of course in low resolution, highly distorted, colored, slow systems they won't stand a chance in imitating a real harmonica. What about in class A where the entire signal is amplified (less manipulation), in short simple circuits using good silver conductors, in quiet, neutral, low distortion speakers that use fast powerful neo magnets and no crossover, carts that use neo magnets and solid gold, etc, etc, then, there stands a much better chance to realize the goal of impeccable timbres.

Synergy. There is no clearly defined standard by which all audiophile use to guarantee synergy. There is a general understanding of what generally will work and generally we are right about it and get general results but no one knows where synergy will be found at least at the level at which i am talking about it. If i am looking for "a little of this but not too much of that" can i ever know if x wire or Z component will deliver in the quantity and quality that i am looking to it for, with nothing more or nothing less added or subtracted? For the most part audiophiles are clueless in regard to the outcome as to how exactly the fine details of one component will mix with another and what that change will bring. All they can do is try it and see and then they will know. I think i will be waiting for a long time to see a 40 page book titled "Synergy: Where and how to find it" So,with this qualifier, it is in this sense that i say with regard to synergy "it's better to be lucky than good". The person who plays the big lotteries alot still never wins but it might happen that the person who plays rarely just happens to win the jackpot.

It is because of this that i often wonder just exactly how some peoples systems sound since there are so many out there that are very different and we are all quite isolated from them and ignorant as to how they sound and what is possible and what is not .

.

.

(i left two posts today)

High resolution and timbre.

Between High resolution and portrayal of instrumental timbres.

You can have any one of these combos

1.Low resolution, very good timbre
2.low resoution, poor timbre
3,high resolution, poor timbre
4,high resolution, very good timbre

It does not follow in every case that high resolution necessarily must equal poor portrayal of timbre.

It is a question not just of how high the resolution (the amount of info it can read) but just as important, is HOW that info is portrayed in RELATION to a live instruments timbre.

Play any fine instrument live. This is the embodiment of "lots of info and faithfulness to timbre" (well, there's nothing to be faithful to since it the real thing)

It is wrong, i think if anyone should argue that.... as resolution goes up portrayal of timbres must go down and therefore things necessarily must sound less real.

As long as a systems high "information" retrieval is FAITHFUL to "timbre" at the same time... there is no paradox necessary or at least there is no paradox on CERTAIN recordings that find synergy with what the rest of the system is doing.

What i suspect is happening then in systems that are pushing state of the art in resolution is...that they are operating within a narrower and narrower "range" ...increasing the demand on recordings that aren't "sympathetic" to that narrow range and when the unique signature of how that system was put together finds the right synergy with a recording that has a certain "bent" to it, shazaam, wow, this sounds amazing! But the double edged sword is (with that very narrowed range it is operating in) it has now "alienated" many other records in the collection from sounding good because there are so many variables between different "recordings."

Hmm? Maybe i'll have to become one of those guys who goes back to 'midfi' or vintage because of this. There's a very compelling argument that could be made to justify doing so.

Maybe i should have kept my marantz 2270 and 2325's and just be done with it. What's so great about great timbre? Is it really worth all that money just to acquire it on a few recordings? How many times do we keep walking when we pass a live street busker, or i've seen people fall asleep at live classical music events? (haha) (just thinking aloud)

Maybe the best is to find some middle ground.

Which is better? 1.to have a few things in your collection sound sublime and the rest sound mediocre OR 2.to just have most sounding pretty darn good?

If i did go back to midfi i know that i would be going from... SOME things sound real ...to... nothing ever sounds indistinguishable from real.

But maybe that would be ok to me, since as i've stated before music is much more than JUST having perfect instrument timbre.

.

Lacee, my 60's dylan first pressings are some of the most impressive recordings i have in my small collection. I have heard many "incarnations" of the playback of these same lps... change... as my system goes through it's changes. I have a record in my head of the several different ways i have these lps sound and can compare them with each other. Some were more romantic and colored and some were more neutral and clinical.

RE***I once had a debate on this forum with someone who flat out told me I didn't know what I was talking about, because I said that early 50's and 60's jazz lps sounded more "real" than most of todays recordings did.
He said we have progressed and a lot of advancements have been made.***

I'm not surprised. From the little experience i have in this area i would probably take your side and agree with what you have said. It seems today everything is overproduced and over processed? I'd like to see a return to simple analog tape recordings, with sparse tracks and limited manipulation.

I think at the heart of the problem of "hifi" is the myriad of variables that exist both from a recording standpoint and from a playback standpoint.

That is...you can't build a system that will play all the types of recordings that exist out there equally well? You can dial in your system for certain types of recordings but then once you've done that you fail to serve the other types of recordings.In other words, just when you've set the ball up and are ready to kick, you look up and the goal posts have been moved! So basically, it seems that "hifidelity" is a futile exercise in so far as if one sets their goal to have all their software sound perfect.

When i started out, i was very naive, romantic and idealistic.

Lately, as i have reflected, i have almost come to the conclusion that the term "hi fidelity" was probably a term originally coined simply to sell the "snake oil" of "great sound". Which essentially means that they have hung the billboard of "hifidelity"... when the stuff in the bottle has no power to heal! And we all bought some! (I laugh)

Sorry if my outlook is a bit bleak but it only comes on the heals of that romantic idealist that was full of hopes of an attainable ideal and who has become to some degree disappointed! Where i have arrived and where i set out to go are not the same thing.

But...I can't complain. Some of the promises of hifi are being delivered, i guess, i just need to lower my expectations.

Maybe the ideal is to build the system that is between midfi plus and below state of the art.

I think i might put together a system that is just a glorified getto blaster. (smile)

.

RE***Don't give up Vertigo,and please don't regress.***

Appreciate the encouragement. Thanks, fellow audiophile sojourner...

I liked your "school grades" analogy.

I appreciate your response but i wonder if you have really understood my points? The reason why i wonder if you have understood my points is because i am having trouble understanding why you would encourage me not to regress or give up since the reality is....that the goal is unattainable?

So, it is not that i am a pessimist, rather it is that i am a realist! I like to think that i am able to see things as they are.

I haven't reached a definitive conclusion on the question but i have to ask myself ...why strive for an impossible goal if striving FOR that goal only leads to the displeasure of frustration? I thought the goal of hi fidelity was pleasure and satisfaction? (i smile) The other questions i have to ask are... what's the goal? Deriving pleasure from "FIDELITY" that is only available to a select number of recordings on a system that has been specifically dialed in for those recordings or deriving pleasure from a broad number of recordings on which the focus is "catching the value of tune" and actually achieving that!!?

What really is the truth about the relationship between pleasure and "hi fidelity"?

(for me) It depends on the day... Some days i am deriving pleasure from the PURSUIT of attaining fidelity and some days i am not, some days it has the opposite effect. Some days, i just want to listen to all kinds of music and recordings that are simply euphonic and that's just fine with me cause euphonic equals pleasure. (but i know to those who are seeking hi fidelity "euphonic" can be a dirty word!)(smile)

re***It's is a bit of a shock when you hear a really superb system and discovering how great all the music sounds,but that the system is revealing all the flaws as well.***

In light of the above statement and some of your previous posts how would you reconcile your "paradox of high resolution systems" with your above statement that (paraphrasing) "the superb system makes "all" the music sound great"?

My guess would be that you still are able to derive pleasure from "poor sounding recordings"?

It is difficult for me to make blanket statements about "poor sounding recordings" since i prefer to comment on a case by case basis but generally i feel the "warts" detract from "the original point of the song" on a "hi performance system" that has been dialed in with a certain bent toward certain recordings and therefore i suspect in some cases a midfi system(or a system with a different "bent") would serve certain types of recordings better and serve the "songs" better.

This brings me to a point i alluded to in my previous post but perhaps i failed to clearly communicate.

It was the "moving goal post" analogy.

Make adjustments to your system so that recordings of certain well regarded recordings sound sublime then play other perceived "lesser" recordings and the system shows up the lesser recordings for supposedly what they are ("poor recordings") relative to the better recordings BUT if you were to focus your system adjustments for some time on those so called "poor recordings" i argue you can make those sound better than you believed they could. Once you succeed at making those lesser recordings sound better than you thought now try those well regarded recordings, now they sound worse than how you remembered they could sound.

See how you can't win? This is what i mean by "the goal posts are constantly moving and shifting" Which is the part of "hi fidelity" that i perceive is absurd and a exercise in "expensive futility".

So, what i mean to say is that to some degree it is an oversimplification to say recordings are objectively better or worse in regard to "serving the music" because there is no standard by which to measure this. ?? Alot of how a recording will sound has to do with how you've dialed in your system.

One might mistakenly CONCLUDE a record is a poor recording but is it in fact a poor recording simply because it sounds bad on your system compared to a "better recording" because your system has been dialed in for that kind of a recording? Those with midfi system's might not understand the level of the kind of nuances i am talking about which can compliment a certain type of recording to the alienation of many others(unfairly so). As you "go up" in hifi the double edged sword gets sharper and sharper.

If you tried that "poor record" on a system that was considered great in the 80's you might really enjoy that record the way it was INTENDED for that time and that period and change your opinion about the quality of that recording.

So, with this context added and if all this is true then i hope folks can i understand me when i say that at the very least, to some degree ..."hi fidelity" is an exercise in futility and "snake oil" since the myriad of contingencies keep the goal posts constantly moving. Once we make the "good recordings" sound great by dialing in the system for those, now the perceived "poor recordings" sound worse then they really should. Once we've made the "poor recordings" sound much better than we thought they could, now the perceived "good recordings" sound only mediocre or poor.

I'm not saying i'm right...I'm saying...i think i'm right...this is how i see it.

Remember sisyphus in greek mythology and his boulder(not the amp, no ...the rock)?

I remember the sound of one of my previous systems it was...systemdek turntable with humble profile arm, with denon 103, manley stingray, lehmann audio black cube, nautilus 805's , cardas golden reference interconnect.

Hey, this was a very musical system! its worth about 5 grand used. Now, just the arm i own is worth just about as much as that whole system.

Does the system i have now sound better than that one? From my memory of the two sounds i would have to answer sometimes yes ...and...sometimes ,no and maybe some times..."different".Some 80's and 90,s stuff, i think, in a general way could maybe bring more pleasure on the old system because the resolution was lower and because that old system found better synergy with those types of records. That old system has no where near the clarity,neutrality,timbrel fidelity and transparency of my current system but from my fuzzy memory i remember some recordings "serving the music better" than they currently do on my system even though it can be said in a certain sense my present system should sound better.

That old system could sound bright,colored and grainy but it was a toe tapper. Overall i think i much prefer the virtues of my present system, things sound real, but that other system could be alot of fun too! The old system was like a fun toy my present system is more like a sophisticated instrument? Its all very interesting.

I guess deciding to regress or not will come down to which way i finally, prefer to listen to music.

RE***Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?***

It has to be decided on a case by case basis, from track to track, from system to system, from quality of set up to quality of set up, from player to player, from cartridge to cartridge, on and on the list can go.

.



.

RE***The intense lighting in a hospital operating room will be more revealing than the light emanating from a fireplace, but I will always prefer to gaze at, even the most flawlessly beautiful woman, by firelight. It’s not less truthful, it’s just another aspect of the truth.***

I like that.

Did anyone get the point i was trying to make with the "moving goal post analogy" and the "inherent futility of seeking... quote unquote... "hi fidelity" across a BROAD range of recordings?

Am i alone and crazy on this point or what? Yay or nay? (smile)

While i can appreciate how moving up to more exotic gear (so called "higher fidelity"(yes and no)) can improve the sound of SOME recordings ...I don't appreciate what it does to OTHER recordings. These other recordings, i would argue are not necessarily "poor" recordings. SOME of these just APPEAR to be poor. The problem is...that the system is too revealing so as to not compliment certain BRANDS of recordings.

Take for example... "tape hiss". If a state of the art system reveals tape hiss but a lesser system does not and therefore does not let that aspect interfere with the music...How can it be said that the state of the art system is categorically better? Isn't a system that doesn't reveal the tape hiss but still keeps the music in tact, isn't it actually "better" since being able to hear the "tape hiss" wasn't the goal or intention of either the producers or the artists as part of the playback? That is they would not want or expect a system to playback the "hiss" ALONG with THEIR MUSIC and have it be called a good playback system.

It doesn't mean they had a "weak system" with which they recorded since they couldn't spot the hiss when they were in the studio mixing room. For that time it might very well be they had a very good studio system.

So, say you are sincere about your quest for hi fidelity and want to make no compromises in any area!...how are you going to get it across a broad range of music? ..."hi fidelity" (hi fidelity my foot!)

It seems we would need to own several system's to accommodate each era of recording quality and "type". Now, if you don't want to do that (i certainly don't)...you're basically stuck? How do you achieve your goal of hi fidelity? You don't. You ultimately have to compromise. But "hi fidelity" and "compromise" ...to me... is a contradiction in terms? That's my beef with "hifi". (I mean, i am happy and content with hifi in some areas but in others i am not)

Some recordings are in fact not poor (as some highly resolving system would seem to tell), they are just DIFFERENT and are better served on a different kind of system belonging to that period.

Their will of course be exceptions and it should be understood this is true in degrees.

Take for example the 80's ? song "never surrender" by cory hart.

Why can it be said that on my lesser system years back, i concluded it to be a "great sounding recording" and with my new system i conclude it to be a "good sounding recording"?

The former was more pleasurable than the latter. What criteria or test do we determine the truth of whether or not it is a good recording? The new system?.... that reveals "a tape hiss" or ...the older system?... that does not?

Which is "hi fidelity" in this one specific example and which is not?

On a different recording you may have a different winner.

***The intense lighting in a hospital operating room will be more revealing than the light emanating from a fireplace, but I will always prefer to gaze at, even the most flawlessly beautiful woman, by firelight. It’s not less truthful, it’s just another aspect of the truth.***

Beauty or truth?

Maybe the best way to determine whether or not one has a "hi fidelity" system is to ask oneself "how MUSICAL is this system...how much do i enjoy listening to ALL my collection?"(irregardless of ANYTHING else...) and when you can say it is in fact very musical! then you have in fact found YOUR brand of "hi fidelity".

.

RE***Ever heard the term,"the devil is in the details"?***

RE***Which brings up another old saying, "you don't know what you are missing".***

In a friendly manner, all i can say is..."you are preaching to the choir" and perhaps you have not understood the points I/WE are trying to make.

Nobody here is strictly preaching AGAINST a system that is superbly/highly resolving.

You seem to believe that it is possible to have state of the art resolution and AT THE SAME TIME have all recordings in one's collection sound wonderfully musical. Perhaps that has been your experience. It has not been mine.(i do not consider my system "state of the art") Perhaps, we are different kinds of listeners and have different preferences and therefore we are defending two different things.

On norah jones's debut lp and a few other lps, I like you have done everything i know how to "resolve the devils in the details" and guess what? i think i have succeeded at that masterfully. Fine and ok. But what about my other lp's? Why doesn't the amazing sound i've acheived with those recordings translate over to the rest of my collection?

You might answer...well, those lps weren't up to snuff and that's fine with you because you are ok with listening with warts and all. And i can partly understand and accept that too. I think i know what you mean here.

But...

I just feel and know from experience that it would be possible to make those other lps to sound better than they do then when the system is dialed in for those few select recordings already mentioned(norah jones, etc). How? Through subtle or major system changes.

This will make the DETAILS in THOSE lps sound more right, more musical but NOT necessarily at the expense of resolution but rather in regard to HOW those details are RENDERED.

Now, if i make those other lps sound as good as is possible through long hours of listening and tweaking and i can finally say , yes, they sound great , they sound musical, the details are there but then i go a put back on the norah jones lp it now is no longer sounding as good as it did before!

I care just as much as you about the rendering of fine details in a recording but have found as soon as you have achieved that on certain lps you lose some of it on others and vice versa.

My European mother and father you to say " you can't have your butt on two chairs at the same time" In other words, you have to choose one or the other. (smiling)

There is the possibility that without knowing it your system is actually one of the systems that pulls back from extreme resolution and is making a majority of albums sound great to you. Or maybe you really haven't achieved perfect timbres, which by the way is a extremely narrow window to operate and move in and therefore your system is more broad and forgiving. I'm not saying it is...i'm saying...maybe.

But if you were to try and push the envelope, REALLY push it! you would find the same problem?

At the same time it is also possible that MY system has some kind of character or attribute that makes some lps sound stellar but others a bit off. Perhaps i can make the majority of the different types of recordings all sound as good as a select number of lps by some kind of change. I don't know what that change would be and i confess i am skeptical about achieving the goal of being able to render timbres (high resolution) perfectly across most lps, most of the time.

I guess some would argue that in light of all this (this huge obstacle/challenge) perhaps it is better to sacrifice A LITTLE BIT of resolution to make more lps, more satisfying. NO, we are not saying go to zero resolution or wear one pant legged pants but perhaps it makes sense to take a few degrees off in the resolution department to make more lps enjoyable, the way the artist and producers would have wanted.

If norah jones sounds great and the playbacks resolution is wonderfull who can tell me i need to change something? If i've acheived the goals you subscribe to why is there still a problem? How do i proceed to make my other lps sound like this one without changing anything in the system, since if i do, norah jones won't have great resolution anymore if i do?

The sun is a good thing and helps us to see but staring into the sun for too long could ultimately leave us blind. Between seeing and going blind there are many graduations in between and we argue it is important to strike a kind of optimal balance and that sometimes it is possible to go too far one way so that what was once perceived as progress, actually is not?

.

RE**Why would you use the Nora Jones lp as a benchmark?***

Because it is received in the general audio community as a well recorded album. Because it is very quiet. Because it contains uncongested music which makes it easier to focus on how minute changes are manifesting themselves. This is not a 200gm / 120 gm issue. I don't discriminate against thinner records and nothing i said implied that. This is one record i like to go back to amongst others...like...

Police synchronicity "every breathe you take" or " king of pain" 125g
Dire straits "sultans of swing" 125g
Fleetwood mac rumours "dreams" 125g
Bob dylan good as i been to you "canadee i o" "jim jones" "sittin on top of the world" 125g
Nirvana bleach "about a girl" "love buzz" "negative creep"130g
Glenn Gould the goldberg variations 125g
Miles davis kind of blue 200g reissue

RE***I wouldn't, and as such I don't adjust the sound of my system to enhance one lp over the other.***

I know...as i said in my previous post... where your system is at present, probably homogenizes more than you would like to think? and yet at the same time don't you swear, as a musician, by how important it is to render timbres correctly and don't you swear by how important it is for you to have high resolution in order to really enjoy music? I feel like your statements contradict each other, like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth?

You probably are not. I think the way to reconcile this is to understand when you use the word "resolution" and "timbre" and when i use those same words, ultimately they mean different things to each of us based on our reference point, which are...our systems. We understand those terms in the degrees in which we are able to present them (and have heard them in our systems) without flaw... compared to live instruments. So with that said...This is why when i say there are moments that things sound real, you kinda have to scoff at that? But in my world that has been my goal and i have used a few select recordings, 125g or not, as a reference to strive for the attainment of that goal. I would argue, you don't have that same goal to the same degree that i pursue it, but if you chose to, i submit that your experience would be the same as mine. That is...if you tweaked to the point of trying to make at least some of your lps sound REAL you would automatically be going down the road of alienating others since the task of making ALL YOUR LPS sound real AT THE SAME TIME is going to be impossible and unrealistic you therefore have to by default try and make some sound real.

Which is a more realistic goal? Making a few lps sound real or all your lps sound real? I would say the former, though still a challenge, is a more realistic goal than the latter.

In order for YOU to attain the KIND and LEVEL of timbrel fidelity and resolution (which you so strongly champion)that I HAVE of a marine band harmonica (for example), i argue you NECESSARILY will HAVE TO alienate other recordings AS A CONSEQUENCE of the pursuit of perfection. There is no other way around it. The ALTERNATIVE is to make all recordings sound pretty ok or excellent but then it could never be said ANY have perfect timbre.

It seems the difference between me and you is, you don't strive for actual perfect timbrel fidelity at any cost rather you settle for goal of timbres that appeal to a broad number of lp's or cd's. My goal is to take anything in my collection that i think has the chance of sounding real and pushing THOSE to the limit! As i understand it, in order to go for extreme timbres, i NEED to focus on those viable candidates since they are my best hope for achieving that goal.(this is my logic) As i pursued this goal i noticed the closer i got to real with these candidates, the further left behind other non candidate lps were left as a by product of this process. It is my understanding then based on personal experience that if one seeks THIS goal (the goal of making SOMETHING sound real)... alienating other lps will be a automatic "necessary evil" But if one never tries to make SOMETHING sound real they will by default be making a degree of "general compromise".

I mention the norah jones lp for the sake of simplifying the discussion but there are quite a few i use and then from there i go and listen anywhere in the collection.

RE***What do you do if one cd is brighter than the other?
Go out and swap cables and amps etc for each disc?

I wouldn't go down that road.
And yet some folks do.****

The answer depends on how faithfully you want to render timbres?(timbres and resolution are inseparable)

The point i've been trying to make and actually you are helping me make it...is...that if you want 100 out of a 100 type quality of timbres, Yes, in fact, you might have to change amps and cables for each cd/lp but if you want 75 out of a 100 type quality timbres, no, you don't. Just spin any record or any cd and you're ok.

Just as a backdrop to the discussion, remember midfi system's distinguish between "good" and "bad" recordings, just as state of the art systems do. Even low fi can. So, just because one is discerning between good and bad timbres or good and bad recordings or hearing warts and all it doesn't necessarily follow that one is not dabbling to some degree in mediocrity since mediocrity between systems will be a relative term.

One persons "impeccable" timbres, is not another persons "impeccable" timbres.

RE***I wouldn't go down that road.
And yet some folks do.***

The folks who DO are striving for the goals of a certain type and degree of timbrel fidelity. They are striving for the kind of timbrel fidelity and resolution of degrees that you do not strive for and it is at this point that i find it ironic.

It's ironic you won't go down that road but say things like:

"When you know that nothing sounds the same, why try to make it all sound the same?

To do so is just mediocrity.

No more great sounding lps or cds just a lot of OK sounding ones."

It seems you are guilty of what you despise/condemn since you won't strive for perfect timbres if it means only doing so for some recorded music. Therefore by default in reality, though you'll disagree, most of your lps and cds play in a general sort of way.

RE***That's how it works for me.
I am not trying to improve just the best performances, but when they sound even better then I know that the less well recorded music will also be improved.

One is not at the expense of the other as you seem to imply.

The greater the resolve, the greater the resolve on good and poor recordings in all formats.****

Yes and no. There are some things of a general nature, of which it can be said "one is not at the expense of the other" but in some things, like the finest of nuances and subtleties "one IS in fact at the expense of others"

For example...If you want your system's forte (what it's going to excel at) to be classical music and there are speakers more suited for rock and some more suited for classical aren't you forced to choose one type of speaker over another if you want to achieve your goal? or can you get a rock speaker and still have your system's forte be classical?

So, too if you don't want to compromise in ANY AREA AT ALL in regards to timbres you will have to sacrifice some recordings for others in order to flesh out those last few nuances/attributes that complete somethings timbrel envelope to the destruction of others or as i have said before you do in fact have a compromised system (at least in the sense that i define "compromised system")and are catering to watered down timbres that appeal to a larger section of your lp's.

Are you still using the Fidelity Research FR-1 MK3 ?

At what level does this cart reproduce timbres and resolution? Does it compromise them or not/to what degree if any? Where does it fit in the hierarchy of other cartridges out there in this regard? Is it "midfi "no compromise"" or "hi end mediocrity"? and how does your answer to those questions relate to how we both understand the words we use like...resolution and timbre and to the degree to which we can have meaningful/effective communication about those terms?

.

Lacee, You've almost got it. Re read my posts and then i think everything will finally crystallize.

You seem to think there is an objective truth about what is the constitution of "a good recording". In the final analysis every recording and every playback of a recording is a interpretation or rendition of "the truth". If you seek to actually mimic reality you need to use live instruments as your litmus test and then manipulate the flaws/inherent limitations of recordings into something else to turn out something that sounds absolutely real but if you choose to do THIS you will find you walk a razors edge of fine tuning, so much so that only a few recordings can be made to sound practically real. If this isn't your goal... one, by DEFAULT is making everything sound generally better but nothing close to real. You have to leave the shore of generalizations in order to reach the shore of practically real. And i mean this not at a class C level but at a Class AAA level. None of this will really mean anything to you or applies to you when you are using only a Exact 2 cart.

.

***Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?****

Good question.
Fun question.
Misplaced question?

My vinyl front end sounds more musical and is more satisfying than my digital set up. The answer to this question is a personal one each of us has to make. My advice is to be an artist as you set up your front end. Digital or vinyl. That is...set it up with passion and follow what pleases you. Most of don't have unlimited financial resources and their are extremely musical systems to be created at all prices levels irregardless of format. This will sound weird but instinctively it comes to me as being true. The sound of plastic, ie vinyl, imparts a beautiful tone to the music recorded onto it. Because materials have to do with resonances and real instruments are materials vibrating, i believe it to have a inherent sonic advantage because of this and possible downfall if pops and ticks drive you crazy. For the most part and i know they're are always exceptions, vinyl sounds just a little bit more "human" to me than does digital. Therefore in a democratic audiophile world i would vote that vinyl is "more accurate". I might be wrong about this but this is where my journey has led me thus far.

Cheers...