[Sonnova]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 09:36:12 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 17, 5:35 pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:06:44 -0800, wrote
Doesn't all this assume perfect behavior of a D/A system?

Given the known fundamental resolution of the human
auditory periphery, "perfect" is simply irrelevant. "Practically
perfect" is achievable.

Seems to me that the question of "perfection" is mostly
irrelevant here.

Exactly.

The human auditory sense notwithstanding,

Uhm, last time anyone checked, the human auditory
PERIPHERY (please do not change the words: they
have a very specific and well-understood meaning)
is very germaine to the topic.

most people can instantly tell the difference between
"live" music (with no sound reinforcement) and canned,

Yes, and the reason has absolutely NOTHING to do with
the current discussion.

No commercially available sound reproduction system
comes even remotely close to being able to duplicating
the sound field present in a live venue.

Preceisly my point.

Whether the D/A
is "perfect" in a theoretical sense or practical sense,
you've solved 1%, maybe, of the difference between a live
and reproduced image of a live event. The remaining
99% is unsolved.

No disagreement here.

Many people feel that a well recorded, well mastered
LP conveys to the listener, more of the psychological
impact of live music than does a CD or any other digital
medium.

And, for LOTS of people, it does not.

If this is, indeed the case, (and say what you will, but
for lots of people this is true)

Say what YOU will, for lots is does not.

then obviously "accuracy" is not that important.

You bandy about the term "accuracy" as if it has a
universally agreed-upon definition. Tell me, why
would not one such definition be "fidelity to the
original listening experience?"

Because I'm making a very specific point. The point is (as I have said)
given that LP is fraught with problems, both mechanical and electrical, how
come the medium can often elicit positive emotional responses from
listeners, while the CD of the same performance does not? Obviously the CD is
more accurate - in every way- than is the LP, but the LP sounds more alive,
more palpably THERE than the CD. Not that this is always the case, but it is
the case often enough to raise in my mind the question of the importance of
"accuracy" in the recording an playback of music. If we assume that the CD is
more accurate, but the LP -with all of it's flaws- SOUNDS better, then which
approach is better? Anecdotal evidence isn't worth much, but I'll give you an
example, anyway - just to show where I'm coming from with this line of
thinking.

I have two copies of the Mercury Living Presence recording of Stravinsky's
"Firebird" ballet with Antal Dorati and the Minneapolis Symphony. One is the
CD mastered by the recording's original producers Wilma Cozert Fine, and
Robert Eberenz. It sounds OK. Then, several years ago, I purchased the
Classic Records re-mastering of the same work on vinyl. Now this isn't just
any vinyl, this is 200 gram virgin vinyl mastered at 45 RPM and pressed on
ONE SIDE of the record only. It took three 12'' discs to hold what a normal
LP can fit on one. The first time I played it, I got goosebumps. By the time
the piece was over, I was standing in the middle of the room cheering. I've
never heard my system sound so RIGHT, so life-like and real. This is what I
got into Hi-Fi for in the first place. I then played my CD. It's nice, but
the magic isn't there. Wilma Fine says that the CD masters she made sounded
exactly like the (analog) master tapes. If so, then the LP sounds BETTER than
the original master tapes, and if that is true, then the LP must be wildly
inaccurate. The second time I palyed the LP, I made sure that I cut a CD of
the LP using my trusty TASCAM CDRW-7000 pro- CD recording deck. I listen to
that now and it mostly captured the LP inaccuracies and distortions that make
the LP sound so much better than the CD release.

Of course, this isn't always the case. Many CDs that I have sound far better
than the same release on vinyl, but still, there's always that exception.

Whether one assigns the word "accuracy" to that
or not, whether it's LP or CD or Edison cylinder,
EVERYTHING falls FAR short of that goal. At which
which time, it becomes more an issue of a personal
preference of which bad reproduction is most preferable.

Agreed.

Be that all as it may, you have used the thread as a means
of launching into an irrelevant discussion. If you want to
about LP vs CD, go start yet another pointless, interminable
and unresolved thread on that topic and have at it.

That's not my point. We are talking about the importance of accuracy over
euphonic coloration in the recording/playback chain, and the LP vs CD bit is
merely an illustration

The immediate point is that in THIS particular thread, a
number of specific technical assertions have been made,
many of them are just simply wrong, culminating to the
reference to the Consonance Linear 120, which is an
unfortunate but all-to-real existence proof of the high-end
audio worlds ability to sell total pig sh*t as caviar.

Threads usually wander after initial points are made. I don't apologize for
that. If staying on the subject of the Consonance Linear 120 was that
important, I would think that one or more of our moderators would steered us
back on track.

But as to you point about the high-end audio industry selling pig droppings
for caviar, I quite agree. BTW have you purchased your ceramic Cable
Elevators yet to raise your fire-hose sized speaker cables up off the floor?
Better hurry! :-