Hi Joe,

In article , Joe
wrote:

muffbuster wrote in
:

Hi Joe,

I have to disagree with you here...

I'm not exactly a purist, but I am fussy about reproducing what's on
the recording.

And that's what you're actually buying... the recording. Your system
doesn't care about the mics, the room, or the recording equipment.
It only cares about what it's being fed... that is, the sound of the
recording.

OK, but I think we have different reference points as to what "flat"
is. I'm comparing the original live performance to what you'll hear
over your system. I think you're comparing the original _recording_
to what you'll hear over your system.

I don't think that's a valid comparison... mostly because few of us
(certainly not me) have sat in a studio and listened to the sessions,
then gone out and bought the CD.

Again... I think we're on the same idea here, but what all of us are
buying when we get a CD *is* the recording.


The artist has the control over everything that goes into
the CD and they should do their best to "capture" the essence of the
performance.

Depending on the artist's contract, that may or may not be true. Some
artists have very little input as to what the final recording will
sound like. It's really up to the producer and management team.

Again... agreed.


I'm far more interested in making sure that the recording sounds as
good as it can... based on making my system as close as possible to
the proverbial "straight wire with gain." Since speakers are not
capable of reproducing *exactly* what they are fed- especially in a
car with its problems with speaker location, eq is a "crutch" that
brings us closer to reproducing the recording...

Just my 4 cents worth.

smiles,
Jamie

Jamie, I generally agree with you, but I've heard recordings that
absolutely suck in terms of tonal balance, eq, etc. If these
recordings were played on a truly flat system, they'd sound horrible.
So sometimes it's desirable to be able to _not_ reproduce that
straight wire and effect it to your taste.

Also agreed. However, who are we to talk about tonal balance, eq or
anything else if we didn't sit in on the sessions and speak to the
artist and engineers? Maybe they did it for a reason ("it's the
ambiance, I'm telling you." "But it sucks!" "So... it's *my* ART!!!"
hah hah) I know I'm being a little empirical here, but the reality is
that when we buy a recording, we're buying what's on the CD. If you
choose to tweek it, so be it. That doesn't change the validity of
accurately reproducing what is on the CD...

muffbuster


In article , Joe
wrote:

True. Everything's colored, especially with today's synthesized
mixes and productions. The concept of "flat" really goes back to
reproducing a live sound without coloration.

Consider a trio - a drum set, an acoustic piano, and an upright
bass. The idea of "flat" is being able to reproduce the same sound
from a recording that you heard when the trio played live. This
can only happen if the microphones used for recording had an
absolutely flat response, the room acoustics were perfect, the
position of the perfect microphones was perfect, and the recording
equipment itself had no tonal effect on the recording. A virtually
impossible environment. So much for the purist's "true flat".

Also agreed. However, who are we to talk about tonal balance, eq or
anything else if we didn't sit in on the sessions and speak to the
artist and engineers? Maybe they did it for a reason ("it's the
ambiance, I'm telling you." "But it sucks!" "So... it's *my* ART!!!"
hah hah) I know I'm being a little empirical here, but the reality is
that when we buy a recording, we're buying what's on the CD. If you
choose to tweek it, so be it. That doesn't change the validity of
accurately reproducing what is on the CD...

Well, that is assuming what we're listening to came from a CD. In this day
and age, this is not necessarily true. Also, the case for many bands,
particularly those signed to a major deal, is that the recording is NOT
their art - rather it's the record company's art. Startup bands do what
they're told. And even if it is their art, who's to say that the right
level of EQing won't give YOU the listener the better experience, much like
the effects of lighting on visual art. And finally, we all have different
preferences in sound. There's not only a brain factor involved - there's an
ear factor as well!

The basic fundamental FACT is that EQing is one way to tailor the sound to
OUR preferences. Screw flat.

"Mark Zarella" seesigfile says...


Ummm ... I already cut my door panels ... are you suggesting that I
actually move the tweeters somewhere else?

This is why you always test before cutting!

I read that, but *HOW* do you test before cutting? Duct tape the
tweeters to the would-be position?

I would need access to some to test.

Circuit City and Best Buy both have 30 day return policies.

Thats true ... and is exactly how I repaired my video card yesterday ...
the 'ol swap and return works wonders.

I am using the Diamond Audio M661 component speakers.

That would explain it. If you're sensitive to highs like I am, I hope you
don't have those things on-axis...

no, I have the crossovers set to the (-) jumper ... if that's what you
are referring to.

They still hurt sometimes. When I adjust the 4k slider down to -18 or
so, they are more tolerable, but then the music suffers in other areas.

I am not opposed to selling these on ebay for whatever I can get, and
purchasing a different set. Since you are sensitive to these
frequencies like I am, what do you recommend?

Joe wrote:

....large snips....


Jamie, I generally agree with you, but I've heard recordings that
absolutely suck in terms of tonal balance, eq, etc. If these
recordings were played on a truly flat system, they'd sound
horrible. So sometimes it's desirable to be able to _not_
reproduce that straight wire and effect it to your taste.

Also agreed. However, who are we to talk about tonal balance, eq or
anything else if we didn't sit in on the sessions and speak to the
artist and engineers?

That's true; but if your playback system has perfectly transparent through-put
then you needn't worry about that. And, if you want to hear 'something else'
that's perfectly OK but why not know what was intended?


We are _listeners_! As listeners, we have every right to make it
sound the way we want to. The concept of listening to the "flat"
sound is really meaningless, simply because the original recording
wasn't "flat" to begin with.

But there was an acoustical intent. And if it was a live recording in an
acoustical space there is a reference as to what the original sound really
'was.'


Although there are general
"recommendations" (the good ol' "U" curve on the 16-band), listening
and sound is quite subjective.

Maybe they did it for a reason ("it's the
ambiance, I'm telling you." "But it sucks!" "So... it's *my* ART!!!"
hah hah) I know I'm being a little empirical here, but the reality
is that when we buy a recording, we're buying what's on the CD. If
you choose to tweek it, so be it. That doesn't change the validity
of accurately reproducing what is on the CD...

muffbuster

True. All I'm saying is that the tonal spectrum of what's on the CD
doesn't have to be (and shouldn't be) untouchable. In fact, I redo a
lot of what I buy/download. I'll make wave files out of the source,
effect them in my wave editor, then re-make the MP3s or CDs from my
"enhanced" files. This way I can basically leave my system alone
because the source now has the soundstage I prefer.

Regards,
Joe

I agree fully with the end-user doing whatever he/she wants to make things
better for them. But, we really should also note that a truly transparent
system would transport the sound on the recording to the ear with no
modification.

If you aren't capable of making a realistic reproduction of the original sound
then you may be missing ways to make the system more transparent and offering
you even more ways to jack things around according to your preference.

(Nousaine) wrote:



That's true; but if your playback system has perfectly transparent
through-put
then you needn't worry about that. And, if you want to hear 'something else'
that's perfectly OK but why not know what was intended?


We are _listeners_! As listeners, we have every right to make it
sound the way we want to. The concept of listening to the "flat"
sound is really meaningless, simply because the original recording
wasn't "flat" to begin with.

But there was an acoustical intent. And if it was a live recording in an
acoustical space there is a reference as to what the original sound really
'was.'


Although there are general
"recommendations" (the good ol' "U" curve on the 16-band), listening
and sound is quite subjective.

Maybe they did it for a reason ("it's the
ambiance, I'm telling you." "But it sucks!" "So... it's *my* ART!!!"
hah hah) I know I'm being a little empirical here, but the reality
is that when we buy a recording, we're buying what's on the CD. If
you choose to tweek it, so be it. That doesn't change the validity
of accurately reproducing what is on the CD...

muffbuster

True. All I'm saying is that the tonal spectrum of what's on the CD
doesn't have to be (and shouldn't be) untouchable. In fact, I redo a
lot of what I buy/download. I'll make wave files out of the source,
effect them in my wave editor, then re-make the MP3s or CDs from my
"enhanced" files. This way I can basically leave my system alone
because the source now has the soundstage I prefer.

Regards,
Joe

I agree fully with the end-user doing whatever he/she wants to make things
better for them. But, we really should also note that a truly transparent
system would transport the sound on the recording to the ear with no
modification.

If you aren't capable of making a realistic reproduction of the original
sound
then you may be missing ways to make the system more transparent and offering
you even more ways to jack things around according to your preference.

But let's not forget what "flat" really means. If you have a loudspeaker system
that measures perfectly 'flat' in the near-field or in an anechoic chamber when
you measure it in the far-field you'll find a generally downsloping
characteristic ( 1.5 dB per octave in your listening room; or 3-dB per octave
in your car) at the listening position.

Trying to equalize the far-field position to 'flat' without accounting for this
characteristic will make for a bright, shrill presentation.

That's true; but if your playback system has perfectly transparent
through-put
then you needn't worry about that. And, if you want to hear 'something
else'
that's perfectly OK but why not know what was intended?

Who cares how it was intended? I have several hundred cds and tons of live
recordings, and out of them all, I only strive for "how it was intended" on
3 of the cds.

Ummm ... I already cut my door panels ... are you suggesting that I
actually move the tweeters somewhere else?

This is why you always test before cutting!

I read that, but *HOW* do you test before cutting? Duct tape the
tweeters to the would-be position?

You may laugh, but that's EXACTLY what you do! (though you may find that
velcro works a little better)

I am using the Diamond Audio M661 component speakers.

That would explain it. If you're sensitive to highs like I am, I hope
you
don't have those things on-axis...

no, I have the crossovers set to the (-) jumper ... if that's what you
are referring to.

No, I'm referring to the physical orientation and location of them in the
automobile.


They still hurt sometimes. When I adjust the 4k slider down to -18 or
so, they are more tolerable, but then the music suffers in other areas.

I am not opposed to selling these on ebay for whatever I can get, and
purchasing a different set. Since you are sensitive to these
frequencies like I am, what do you recommend?

Well, I recommend you play with the tweeter aim a little first. That may
solve your problem. The speakers I own are actually a little bright, but
slightly off-axis is wonderful.

If you still have no luck, then it's time for new ones.

"Mark Zarella" seesigfile wrote:

....snips.....

I read that, but *HOW* do you test before cutting? Duct tape the
tweeters to the would-be position?

You may laugh, but that's EXACTLY what you do! (though you may find that
velcro works a little better)

Velcro is good. I've found that re-usable poster adhesive is great too. I've
been using a brand called Fun-Tac found in grocery stores for years. Some time
ago there was a high-end product called Blu-Tak that was 10 times more
expensive but was exactly the same stuff (confirmed by the Blu-Tak people at a
CES show.)

Anyway it works fine and can be re-used infinitely until the gob gets
contaminated with dirt.

Hi Mark,

Based on one of Joe's previous replies, I guess audiophiles do.

Audiophiles are generally idiots.

Hi, Mark
True audiophiles have good ears. Does having good ears make idiot?
If you over do anything, you border on the idiocy but don't call
genuine ones idiots. I am not an audiophile but been playing music for
almost 50 years. I have some ears for good sound. Hope I am not an
idiot.
Tony

Mark Zarella wrote:
Hi Mark,

Based on one of Joe's previous replies, I guess audiophiles do.


Audiophiles are generally idiots.

muffbuster wrote in news:310720030940285262%
:

Hi Joe,

You're correct that we have every right to make changes to the
sound.
However, you're dead wrong when you say that the concept of
listening
to the flat sound doesn't matter because the original recording is
not
flat to begin with.

Well, let's see...

Let's try a test using test tones. I record 3 tones at 20 Hz, 1 KHz
and
15 KHz onto a CD at the same level. I play the CD back on a system
that
is set up to be flat. The output of the three tones is the same.

If I play the same CD on a system that has the bass and treble boost
that would be incurred by the U curve on the eq, the tones would
play
back at different levels. The output would *not* be the same as the
input.

Obviously. However, with said test tones, you know exactly what they
should sound like - there's a reference. With performance recordings,
there's no such thing because the listener has no idea what the
original performance sounded like.

I record the same three tones with the 20 Hz tone at a +6 level.
When I
play that back on a flat system, the 20 Hz level is 6 dB higher than
the other bands. The U curve system also would not be the same as
the
input.

Indeed.

Again, I have no argument against those who choose to modify the
sound
of their recordings through EQ or whatever. Heck, I use eq in my
system
to make it sound better. However, that does not change the validity
of
a flat system for those that choose to reproduce exactly what was on
the original CD...

muffbuster

True, but so what? If the original CD sounds like crap, why would you
want to exactly reproduce it?

Regards,
Joe

Perhaps it's better to say that audiophiles are fanatics?

Regards,
Joe


Tony Hwang wrote in news:_WlWa.573428$ro6.13015113
@news2.calgary.shaw.ca:

Hi, Mark
True audiophiles have good ears. Does having good ears make idiot?
If you over do anything, you border on the idiocy but don't call
genuine ones idiots. I am not an audiophile but been playing music
for
almost 50 years. I have some ears for good sound. Hope I am not an
idiot.
Tony

Mark Zarella wrote:
Hi Mark,

Based on one of Joe's previous replies, I guess audiophiles do.


Audiophiles are generally idiots.

I stand by my initial statement. Note the use of the word "generally".

--
Mark Zarella
zarellam at upstate dot edu


"Joe" wrote in message
...
Perhaps it's better to say that audiophiles are fanatics?

Regards,
Joe


Tony Hwang wrote in news:_WlWa.573428$ro6.13015113
@news2.calgary.shaw.ca:

Hi, Mark
True audiophiles have good ears. Does having good ears make idiot?
If you over do anything, you border on the idiocy but don't call
genuine ones idiots. I am not an audiophile but been playing music
for
almost 50 years. I have some ears for good sound. Hope I am not an
idiot.
Tony

Mark Zarella wrote:
Hi Mark,

Based on one of Joe's previous replies, I guess audiophiles do.


Audiophiles are generally idiots.

"Mark Zarella" seesigfile says...

No, I'm referring to the physical orientation and location of them in the
automobile.


They still hurt sometimes. When I adjust the 4k slider down to -18 or
so, they are more tolerable, but then the music suffers in other areas.

I am not opposed to selling these on ebay for whatever I can get, and
purchasing a different set. Since you are sensitive to these
frequencies like I am, what do you recommend?

Well, I recommend you play with the tweeter aim a little first. That may
solve your problem. The speakers I own are actually a little bright, but
slightly off-axis is wonderful.

If you still have no luck, then it's time for new ones.

I pointed them towards eachother (as opposed to pointing them at me),
and I clicked the head unit treble down two notches, and brought the 4k
slider down to about 10% from the bottom, and it is now tolerable ... in
fact, it sounds pretty good. Thanks for the recommendation

Still want a parametric EQ ... any suggestions?

Joe wrote:

In fact, I redo a
lot of what I buy/download. I'll make wave files out of the source,
effect them in my wave editor, then re-make the MP3s or CDs from my
"enhanced" files.

I hope you then don't dump back the "enhanced" files on file sharing
networks!

--
Eric (Dero) Desrochers

Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95

"Mark Zarella" seesigfile says...
Hi Mark,

Based on one of Joe's previous replies, I guess audiophiles do.

Audiophiles are generally idiots.

Whats the difference between an audiophile and someone who really,
REALLY likes good, clean music?

says...

I hope you then don't dump back the "enhanced" files on file sharing
networks!

This is the very reason I don't use those networks. I would venture to
bet that 99% of everyone who encodes MP3s have no earthly idea on how to
create a quality MP3. The result? Almost everything downloaded sounds
like crap. I don't know why the recording industry is all in a huff
over this ... true fans will continue to purchase the CDs no matter
what. They never did demonstrate a loss in sales either. Matter of
fact, sales have always gone up for the RIAA ... and the annual
increases have always been right in line with the economy. IOW, Napster
and those who have followed them have done ZERO to hurt the recording
industry. I always make a note of the artists who publicly oppose MP3s
(like Metallica), because once they do so, I refuse to buy any more of
their CDs. I also get disgusted when they play them on the radio ... I
turn the channel now.

All of them are a bunch of greedy A.H.'s

Hi Mark,

Based on one of Joe's previous replies, I guess audiophiles do.

Audiophiles are generally idiots.

Whats the difference between an audiophile and someone who really,
REALLY likes good, clean music?


Quite a bit. Self-proclaimed "audiophiles" usually claim they spend the
money to try to achieve "good clean music". However, they're usually in it
because they want to listen to the equipment, not the music (the difference
is significant).

Self-proclaimed "audiophiles" tend to pay 10-100 times more than they should
in order to achieve the results they CLAIM they're after. They scoff at
those who pay less (who often get the same results - that really irks them).
Then they turn what they initially claimed to be a quest for good sound into
a "hobby", competing with others to see whose sound system looks better on
an oscilloscope. All the while utterly ignoring the music.

When it's all said and done, the self-proclaimed "audiophiles" beat their
chest and gloat, as if they were anything more than simply the pigeons of
commisioned salesmen. They take pride in designing and building something
they didn't design or build.

As I said, they're generally idiots.

says...

Which networks are you referring to? I only use three sources -
IMesh, WinMX, and the newsgroups. Although I can usually find the
song I'm looking for on IMesh, it's probably going to be 128k. The
newsgroups and WinMX are usually good quality.

They're all a waste of time as far as I'm concerned. I found a web site
that sells used cds for anywhere from $4 to $8 a disc. The cds have
never once been scratched, and I can use them to make the best MP3s
possible.

there are alot of idiots Mark...
I like to call them TWEEKS....

They may or may not be audiophiles by my defintion...

My defintion is the appreciation of SOUND! (not music specificly)
AND the reproduction of that sound...

Its OK, for audiophiles to enjoy the equipment! But IMO they
are not audiophiles unless they have the appreciation for the
ORIGINAL and REPRODUCED sounds...

The ORIGINAL REAL sounds are such an important part (IMO)
because if you just listen to RECORDED vocals all your life how
can you appreciate how real they sound unless you spend some time
listening to the REAL DEAL...???

Also, (IMO) too many self proclaimed audiophiles dont ever criticly
listen to real life, they just buy expensive stuff and NEVER KNOW
what it is supposed to sound like....

prolly the same thing your saying Mark, Im just puttin my spin to it.

Eddie Runner

Mark Zarella wrote:

Hi Mark,

Based on one of Joe's previous replies, I guess audiophiles do.

Audiophiles are generally idiots.

Whats the difference between an audiophile and someone who really,
REALLY likes good, clean music?


Quite a bit. Self-proclaimed "audiophiles" usually claim they spend the
money to try to achieve "good clean music". However, they're usually in it
because they want to listen to the equipment, not the music (the difference
is significant).

Self-proclaimed "audiophiles" tend to pay 10-100 times more than they should
in order to achieve the results they CLAIM they're after. They scoff at
those who pay less (who often get the same results - that really irks them).
Then they turn what they initially claimed to be a quest for good sound into
a "hobby", competing with others to see whose sound system looks better on
an oscilloscope. All the while utterly ignoring the music.

When it's all said and done, the self-proclaimed "audiophiles" beat their
chest and gloat, as if they were anything more than simply the pigeons of
commisioned salesmen. They take pride in designing and building something
they didn't design or build.

As I said, they're generally idiots.

Which networks are you referring to? I only use three sources -
IMesh, WinMX, and the newsgroups. Although I can usually find the
song I'm looking for on IMesh, it's probably going to be 128k. The
newsgroups and WinMX are usually good quality.

They're all a waste of time as far as I'm concerned. I found a web site
that sells used cds for anywhere from $4 to $8 a disc. The cds have
never once been scratched, and I can use them to make the best MP3s
possible.

There are many things not available on cd, and for that the filesharing
networks are a blessing. Also, "trying before you buy" is a practical use
as well.

There are many things not available on cd, and for that the filesharing
networks are a blessing. Also, "trying before you buy" is a practical use
as well.

True on both accounts. Some albums just are not made anymore, or for new music
for bands that cant afford to put out a record.
Although I use filesharing for the try before you buy I am not sure how many
people actually do.

Les

"Mark Zarella" seesigfile says...


There are many things not available on cd, and for that the filesharing
networks are a blessing.

True.

Also, "trying before you buy" is a practical use as well.

www.buymusic.com should be good for this ... but if you must listen to
the entire CD for a while before you buy it, I guess your right. I pay
$9 a month for the Sony Rhapsody service ... you can listen to anything
in its entirety, as many times as you want ... you just can't download
it unless you pay $.99 a track.

www.buymusic.com should be good for this ...

Couldn't find any bands whose albums I bought in the last year on there.

but if you must listen to
the entire CD for a while before you buy it, I guess your right. I pay
$9 a month for the Sony Rhapsody service ... you can listen to anything
in its entirety, as many times as you want ... you just can't download
it unless you pay $.99 a track.


I prefer free to $9.

"Mark Zarella" seesigfile says...


but if you must listen to
the entire CD for a while before you buy it, I guess your right. I pay
$9 a month for the Sony Rhapsody service ... you can listen to anything
in its entirety, as many times as you want ... you just can't download
it unless you pay $.99 a track.


I prefer free to $9.

Yes, but how much time do you spend looking for music? I can find the
entire CD I want to listen to in less than 5 seconds.

If it's on the website you mentioned, then you can find it on kazaa in less
time than it takes to find it on the website.

--
Mark Zarella
zarellam at upstate dot edu


"Mike Sims" wrote in message
...
"Mark Zarella" seesigfile says...


but if you must listen to
the entire CD for a while before you buy it, I guess your right. I
pay
$9 a month for the Sony Rhapsody service ... you can listen to
anything
in its entirety, as many times as you want ... you just can't download
it unless you pay $.99 a track.


I prefer free to $9.

Yes, but how much time do you spend looking for music? I can find the
entire CD I want to listen to in less than 5 seconds.

Hi Joe,

Thanks for making my point... My question is why would you want to
*buy* it if it sounds like crap?

smiles,
Jamie


In article , Joe
wrote:

Again, I have no argument against those who choose to modify the
sound
of their recordings through EQ or whatever. Heck, I use eq in my
system
to make it sound better. However, that does not change the validity
of
a flat system for those that choose to reproduce exactly what was on
the original CD...

muffbuster

True, but so what? If the original CD sounds like crap, why would you
want to exactly reproduce it?

Regards,
Joe

Mark makes an excellent point here... in fact, I used work at an
"audiophile" shop where customers continuously complained about the
sound of their equipment not being "right." Huh? Since when do people
buy equipment that changes the sound of whatever passes through it.

Reminds me of way back... when Bob Carver did the .t series of
amplifiers and copied the transfer function of some pretty expensive
amplifiers. Essentially, the mod was a eq with a curve to match the
high dollar equipment... and was easy to replicate.

heh heh.

muffbuster


In article , Mark Zarella wrote:

Hi Mark,

Based on one of Joe's previous replies, I guess audiophiles do.

Audiophiles are generally idiots.

Whats the difference between an audiophile and someone who really,
REALLY likes good, clean music?


Quite a bit. Self-proclaimed "audiophiles" usually claim they spend the
money to try to achieve "good clean music". However, they're usually in it
because they want to listen to the equipment, not the music (the difference
is significant).

Self-proclaimed "audiophiles" tend to pay 10-100 times more than they should
in order to achieve the results they CLAIM they're after. They scoff at
those who pay less (who often get the same results - that really irks them).
Then they turn what they initially claimed to be a quest for good sound into
a "hobby", competing with others to see whose sound system looks better on
an oscilloscope. All the while utterly ignoring the music.

When it's all said and done, the self-proclaimed "audiophiles" beat their
chest and gloat, as if they were anything more than simply the pigeons of
commisioned salesmen. They take pride in designing and building something
they didn't design or build.

As I said, they're generally idiots.

How about content?

Regards,
Joe


muffbuster wrote in
:

Hi Joe,

Thanks for making my point... My question is why would you want to
*buy* it if it sounds like crap?

smiles,
Jamie


In article , Joe
wrote:

Again, I have no argument against those who choose to modify the
sound
of their recordings through EQ or whatever. Heck, I use eq in my
system
to make it sound better. However, that does not change the
validity
of
a flat system for those that choose to reproduce exactly what was
on the original CD...

muffbuster

True, but so what? If the original CD sounds like crap, why would
you want to exactly reproduce it?

Regards,
Joe

Correction, muff: Flat _for the sake of flat_ is pointless.

Regards,
Joe


muffbuster wrote in news:110820031959173022%
:

Hi Mark,

I have to agree with you... there is so much voodoo out there that
it's
hard to imagine.

My point was that Joe had previously used the audiophile argument to
support his idea that "flat" is a bad thing.

muffbuster

In article , Mark Zarella wrote:

Hi Mark,

Based on one of Joe's previous replies, I guess audiophiles do.

Audiophiles are generally idiots.