[Sean[_6_]]

On Nov 4, 5:19=A0am, Sonnova wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 19:02:23 -0800, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):





On Nov 3, 7:51=3DA0pm, wrote:

The audio industry is now in a place to get beyond subjective listenin=
g
and to discover what is really relevant using listening alone and to d=
o s=3D
o
on a repeated basis for loudspeakers and rooms.

With respect, that horse is thoroughly dead. The Audio Industry as a
whole cannot afford any sort of serious dose of reality. Should that
ever happen the Naked Emperor would be illuminated in all his gory,
um, err, glory. There is one truism within the Audio Industry that has
prevailed in the 40+ years that I have been peripheral to it: There is
nothing new under the sun.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Quite true. "Reality" is a matter of perception and opinion anyway. There=
are
almost as many versions of it as there are musicians, producers, recordin=
g
engineers and listeners. It is possible to find very 'realistic' sounding
recordings - depending, of course, what your personal definition of
'realistic' is. And that's just the point. You pays your money and you ta=
kes
your chances, as they say.

The point of breaking the circle of confusion is to allow consumers to
experience the recording as it was heard by the artist in the studio.
Films are made over calibrated video monitors, and we can watch those
films at home using similar calibrated monitors. So why can't we do
the same with sound?

It has nothing to do with imposing artistic constraints on the
musician ad recording producer or helping them make more "realistic"
recordings. As you point out, reality is in the eye or ear of the
beholder. As a musician, how can I begin to communicate to you my
version of reality if you aren't even hearing the same sounds as me?
This is pretty simple stuff that the other arts (video, photography,
film) have already figured out long ago. The audio industry is still
in the dark ages.

[Scott[_6_]]

On 23 Nov, 20:57, Sean wrote:
On Nov 4, 5:19=3DA0am, Sonnova wrote:





On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 19:02:23 -0800, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 3, 7:51=3D3DA0pm, wrote:

The audio industry is now in a place to get beyond subjective listen=
in=3D
g
and to discover what is really relevant using listening alone and to=
d=3D
o s=3D3D
o
on a repeated basis for loudspeakers and rooms.

With respect, that horse is thoroughly dead. The Audio Industry as a
whole cannot afford any sort of serious dose of reality. Should that
ever happen the Naked Emperor would be illuminated in all his gory,
um, err, glory. There is one truism within the Audio Industry that ha=
s
prevailed in the 40+ years that I have been peripheral to it: There i=
s
nothing new under the sun.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Quite true. "Reality" is a matter of perception and opinion anyway. The=
re=3D
=A0are
almost as many versions of it as there are musicians, producers, record=
in=3D
g
engineers and listeners. It is possible to find very 'realistic' soundi=
ng
recordings - depending, of course, what your personal definition of
'realistic' is. And that's just the point. You pays your money and you =
ta=3D
kes
your chances, as they say.

The point of breaking the circle of confusion is to allow consumers to
experience the recording as it was heard by the artist in the studio.
Films are made over calibrated video monitors, and we can watch those
films at home using similar calibrated monitors. So why =A0can't we do
the same with sound?

I don't know where people get this idea. Films are not made over
calibrated monitors. Video sometimes is but not film. Can't calibrate
a monitor to match film. But when we shoot digital the monitor is not
calibrated for an aesthetic judgement. It's calibrated to assure that
we see digital clipping. The image on a monitor while shooting digital
or film is not used to judge the image quality. I can assure you that
what we see on our monitors while shooting bears very little
resemblence to the final broadcast (if TV) or projection (if a movie)


It has nothing to do with imposing artistic constraints on the
musician ad recording producer or helping them make more "realistic"
recordings. =A0As you point out, reality is in the eye or ear of the
beholder. As a musician, how can I begin to communicate to you my
version of reality if you aren't even hearing the same sounds as me?
This is pretty simple stuff that the other arts (video, photography,
film) have already figured out long ago. The audio industry is still
in the dark ages

What exactly have they figured out again? What is standardized in
film? As for video.... not even close. Every monitor has it's own look
as does every camera. What you see on set, in post and in broadcast
are all different. It is a royal crap shoot. and yet it does work.

The real trick though with this "circle of confusion" is the end
user. How are you going to "standardize" their equipment? Maybe we
should have all the studios and home speakers be Bose 901s? No of
course not. They suck. Hmmm maybe Top of the line Martin Logans? Maybe
they should set the standard. I like my Soundlabs. Maybe they should
be the standard. If we are going to have the consumers hear the same
thing as the musicians in the studio.....gotta be the same speakers
and same room no? Whose speakers should be the standard????? Sean, you
got any suggestions?

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:57:40 -0800, Sean wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 4, 5:19=A0am, Sonnova wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 19:02:23 -0800, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):





On Nov 3, 7:51=3DA0pm, wrote:

The audio industry is now in a place to get beyond subjective listenin=
g
and to discover what is really relevant using listening alone and to d=
o s=3D
o
on a repeated basis for loudspeakers and rooms.

With respect, that horse is thoroughly dead. The Audio Industry as a
whole cannot afford any sort of serious dose of reality. Should that
ever happen the Naked Emperor would be illuminated in all his gory,
um, err, glory. There is one truism within the Audio Industry that has
prevailed in the 40+ years that I have been peripheral to it: There is
nothing new under the sun.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Quite true. "Reality" is a matter of perception and opinion anyway. There=
are
almost as many versions of it as there are musicians, producers, recordin=
g
engineers and listeners. It is possible to find very 'realistic' sounding
recordings - depending, of course, what your personal definition of
'realistic' is. And that's just the point. You pays your money and you ta=
kes
your chances, as they say.

The point of breaking the circle of confusion is to allow consumers to
experience the recording as it was heard by the artist in the studio.
Films are made over calibrated video monitors, and we can watch those
films at home using similar calibrated monitors. So why can't we do
the same with sound?

For one thing, sight and sound are very different. For instance, when a red
car is on the screens of a wall full of TVs at the local appliance emporium,
you will likely notice that there are almost as many shades of red for that
car as there are TVs on that display wall. . Which one is right? We have no
way to know - unless the car is right there in front of us for comparison. We
can look at the car and look at the screens at the same time and pick the one
that's closest to the real color. BUT, we can't listen to a real oboe and a
dozen reproductions of that oboe simultaneously and pick which one is the
most real, because we can't separate sounds in our minds the way we can
separate the individual visual representations of the REAL red car. Also,
human memory of sound is not accurate enough for us to directly compare the
sound of the live oboe with one of dozens of reproduced oboes. This is
certainly bourn-out by the ease with which live vs recorded demonstrations
have been "fooling" listeners since the days of acoustic recordings.

It has nothing to do with imposing artistic constraints on the
musician ad recording producer or helping them make more "realistic"
recordings. As you point out, reality is in the eye or ear of the
beholder. As a musician, how can I begin to communicate to you my
version of reality if you aren't even hearing the same sounds as me?
This is pretty simple stuff that the other arts (video, photography,
film) have already figured out long ago. The audio industry is still
in the dark ages.

My point is that because of the nature of sound, there is nothing TO figure
out. When you, as a musician, are playing your instrument, you are in a close
proximity to that instrument, that I, as a listener will never experience.
That alone makes what you hear and what I hear different. Also, as a
musician, you and I, the listener, are probably listening to and for vastly
different things. This makes a commonality of expectations unlikely. Add to
that the varying tastes in individual listeners (I might focus on soundstage
and imaging, another listener might prefer big bass and bright highs, while
still another might find the accurate reproduction of the midrange to be the
end-all and be-all of the listening experience). Add to these characteristics
the known inaccuracies of transducers at both ends of the
recording/reproduction chain, added to the room interactions, again, at both
ends of the chain, and the variables are simply too many to quantify in any
meaningful way. And even if you could, you would have so many opinions as to
which of those various quantizations are the CORRECT quantizations that any
such attempt would end up being meaningless. You might as well standardize
recipes and ingredient qualities in cooking. That's the closest analogy I can
come up with. There are dozens of different ways to prepare most dishes, and
as many opinions about which is THE right way to prepare a given dish. In
many cases, most of the recipes will yield results which are palatable, even
though individual diners might strongly prefer one recipe over another, and
many would not agree on which was the best. In this case, standardizing
recipes would not only be futile, but it would ruin any diversity in the
process. IOW, if all spaghetti sauces were the same, the only Italian
restaurant the world would need would be Olive Garden. And what a dull world
that would be!

[Sean[_6_]]

On Nov 24, 5:23=A0am, Scott wrote:
On 23 Nov, 20:57, Sean wrote:





On Nov 4, 5:19=3DA0am, Sonnova wrote:

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 19:02:23 -0800, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 3, 7:51=3D3DA0pm, wrote:

The audio industry is now in a place to get beyond subjective list=
enin=3D
g
and to discover what is really relevant using listening alone and =
to d=3D
o s=3D3D
o
on a repeated basis for loudspeakers and rooms.

With respect, that horse is thoroughly dead. The Audio Industry as =
a
whole cannot afford any sort of serious dose of reality. Should tha=
t
ever happen the Naked Emperor would be illuminated in all his gory,
um, err, glory. There is one truism within the Audio Industry that =
has
prevailed in the 40+ years that I have been peripheral to it: There=
is
nothing new under the sun.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Quite true. "Reality" is a matter of perception and opinion anyway. T=
here=3D
=A0are
almost as many versions of it as there are musicians, producers, reco=
rdin=3D
g
engineers and listeners. It is possible to find very 'realistic' soun=
ding
recordings - depending, of course, what your personal definition of
'realistic' is. And that's just the point. You pays your money and yo=
u ta=3D
kes
your chances, as they say.

The point of breaking the circle of confusion is to allow consumers to
experience the recording as it was heard by the artist in the studio.
Films are made over calibrated video monitors, and we can watch those
films at home using similar calibrated monitors. So why =A0can't we do
the same with sound?


=A0The real trick though with this "circle of confusion" is the end
user. How are you going to "standardize" their equipment? Maybe we
should have all the studios and home speakers be Bose 901s? No of
course not. They suck. Hmmm maybe Top of the line Martin Logans? Maybe
they should set the standard. I like my Soundlabs. Maybe they should
be the standard. If we are going to have the consumers hear the same
thing as the musicians in the studio.....gotta be the same speakers
and same room no? Whose speakers should be the standard????? Sean, you
got any suggestions?

The loudspeakers can be made by any of those companies you mention as
long as their products meet the specification defined by the industry.

[Scott[_6_]]

On 24 Nov, 07:33, Sean wrote:
On Nov 24, 5:23=3DA0am, Scott wrote:

On 23 Nov, 20:57, Sean wrote:

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

The point of breaking the circle of confusion is to allow consumers to
experience the recording as it was heard by the artist in the studio.
Films are made over calibrated video monitors, and we can watch those
films at home using similar calibrated monitors. So why can't we do
the same with sound?

The real trick though with this "circle of confusion" is the end
user. How are you going to "standardize" their equipment? Maybe we
should have all the studios and home speakers be Bose 901s? No of
course not. They suck. Hmmm maybe Top of the line Martin Logans? Maybe
they should set the standard. I like my Soundlabs. Maybe they should
be the standard. If we are going to have the consumers hear the same
thing as the musicians in the studio.....gotta be the same speakers
and same room no? Whose speakers should be the standard????? Sean, you
got any suggestions?

The loudspeakers can be made by any of those companies you mention as
long as their products meet the specification defined by the industry

So are you prepared at HK to make your speakers to the standards set
by Martin Logan? I'm guessing not. I'd love to be a fly on the wall
when you and Gayle Sanders hash out the standards along with every
other player in the business.

Seriously, this does sound a lot like THX. Which has devolved into one
company issuing a licence for a fee so you can have a rather
meaningless trade mark on your equipment.

The probelm with standardization is either speaker manufacturers all
make the same exact loudspeaker which is a horrible idea for many
reasons or the standards have to be loose enough for meaningful
variety in which case they loose their standardization. That leaves us
with a new brand name, a new licencing fee and no real progress. You
simply can't have this standardization and continue to have any
meaningful variety. That leads to loss of choice as a consumer. The
speakers either all gotta be the same or there is no standardization.

Now lets consider this circle of confusion and how it applies to the
real world music already in existance that consumers actually listen
to.
1. How is it that if I switch from my Soundlabs to this proposed
standardized loudspeaker am I going to get something closer to what
those artists heard in the studio?
2, Why should I, as a consumer, actually want that?

I am very much against using such a standard for the simple reason
that I think it is inherently aesthically inferior to that which I
already use as a standard, premium live acoustic music.
I can give you a classic specific example of my standard being better
than yours. I am a huge fan of the Blue Note catalog of classic jazz
recorded by Rudy Van Gelder in the 50s and 60s. Ther has been two
reissue series on 45 rpm LPs mastered by Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray,
Those LPs played back on my system offer an extraordinary illusion of
live musicians palying in a real sound space. Of course these were
"studio" recordings and no such configuration as I hear on these LPs
ever existed in the studio. Rudy Van Gelder monitored these recordings
on IMO a vastly inferior system in mono. So if the prescribed standard
is what RVG heard in the control room then I am missing by a country
mile and yet I am quite confident that what I am hearing with these
reissues on my non standardized speakers through a turntable no less
(the horrors) is vastly superior in so far as it sounds much more like
live musicians playing in a good sound space. This is not a unique
situation.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:40:35 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On 24 Nov, 07:33, Sean wrote:
On Nov 24, 5:23=3DA0am, Scott wrote:

On 23 Nov, 20:57, Sean wrote:

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

The point of breaking the circle of confusion is to allow consumers to
experience the recording as it was heard by the artist in the studio.
Films are made over calibrated video monitors, and we can watch those
films at home using similar calibrated monitors. So why can't we do
the same with sound?

The real trick though with this "circle of confusion" is the end
user. How are you going to "standardize" their equipment? Maybe we
should have all the studios and home speakers be Bose 901s? No of
course not. They suck. Hmmm maybe Top of the line Martin Logans? Maybe
they should set the standard. I like my Soundlabs. Maybe they should
be the standard. If we are going to have the consumers hear the same
thing as the musicians in the studio.....gotta be the same speakers
and same room no? Whose speakers should be the standard????? Sean, you
got any suggestions?

The loudspeakers can be made by any of those companies you mention as
long as their products meet the specification defined by the industry

So are you prepared at HK to make your speakers to the standards set
by Martin Logan? I'm guessing not. I'd love to be a fly on the wall
when you and Gayle Sanders hash out the standards along with every
other player in the business.

Seriously, this does sound a lot like THX. Which has devolved into one
company issuing a licence for a fee so you can have a rather
meaningless trade mark on your equipment.

The probelm with standardization is either speaker manufacturers all
make the same exact loudspeaker which is a horrible idea for many
reasons or the standards have to be loose enough for meaningful
variety in which case they loose their standardization. That leaves us
with a new brand name, a new licencing fee and no real progress. You
simply can't have this standardization and continue to have any
meaningful variety. That leads to loss of choice as a consumer. The
speakers either all gotta be the same or there is no standardization.

Now lets consider this circle of confusion and how it applies to the
real world music already in existance that consumers actually listen
to.
1. How is it that if I switch from my Soundlabs to this proposed
standardized loudspeaker am I going to get something closer to what
those artists heard in the studio?
2, Why should I, as a consumer, actually want that?

I am very much against using such a standard for the simple reason
that I think it is inherently aesthically inferior to that which I
already use as a standard, premium live acoustic music.
I can give you a classic specific example of my standard being better
than yours. I am a huge fan of the Blue Note catalog of classic jazz
recorded by Rudy Van Gelder in the 50s and 60s. Ther has been two
reissue series on 45 rpm LPs mastered by Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray,
Those LPs played back on my system offer an extraordinary illusion of
live musicians palying in a real sound space. Of course these were
"studio" recordings and no such configuration as I hear on these LPs
ever existed in the studio. Rudy Van Gelder monitored these recordings
on IMO a vastly inferior system in mono. So if the prescribed standard
is what RVG heard in the control room then I am missing by a country
mile and yet I am quite confident that what I am hearing with these
reissues on my non standardized speakers through a turntable no less
(the horrors) is vastly superior in so far as it sounds much more like
live musicians playing in a good sound space. This is not a unique
situation.


I agree. Rudy Van Gelder's jazz recordings from the 50's and 60's were simply
made on equipment, that as you point out, would be considered quite primitive
by today's standards. Other examples would be the the Lewis Leyton classical
stereo recordings for RCA and the C. Robert Fine classical stereo recordings
for Mercury. Some of these sound so convincing and life-like that it almost
makes one wonder what real progress has taken place in the art and science of
recording in the last 50-or-so years. Certainly, the monitoring equipment
used for those recordings is downright laughable compared top what is
available today. I used to know a guy (he's long since passed on)who had the
exact same same speakers that Lewis Leyton used to monitor the early RCA Red
Seal "Living Stereo" recordings of the 1950's. Designed by the famous Harry
Olson at the RCA Labs near Camden New Jersey (my friend used to work for
Olson), this speaker system consisted of two eight-inch speakers mounted in a
long box about 30 inches long so that they are 28 degrees from the back panel
of the box and firing into metal wave-guides that exit at an angle of 40
degrees out the ends of the box. Olson did tests that suggested that the
virtual sound sources appeared to be 3-inches beyond the ends of the
enclosure giving an overall separation of 36 inches. This was fine for the
interior of RCA's sound truck that they used to record the likes of the
Chicago Symphony in their own hall, or the Boston Pops in Boston's Symphony
hall. But for a large room wouldn't have worked. The speakers rolled-off
sharply below a hundred hertz and were more than 10 dB down at 40 Hz with a
slight hump at 50. They were also down about 5 dB at 15 KHz and not too flat
over the rest of the spectrum. They sound very mediocre by today's standards.
Any inexpensive pair of modern nearfield monitors such as Edirol's MA15Ds (at
less than $250/pair) will perform rings around them. Yet Leyton (and other
RCA recording engineers) obtained recordings that, even by today's standards,
are often startlingly real and of the highest-fi!

Good recording engineers and producers, learn to "listen around" the
shortcomings in their monitoring equipment and manage to produce the product
that they are striving for in spite of any such shortcomings. They know their
microphones, they know their recording desk and their DAW tools They know
that their digital recording equipment is flat in frequency response and low
in distortion. When they used analog magnetic tape, they spent hours
calibrating the tape path to make sure that the heads were properly aligned
and they calibrated the round-trip record/playback performance to insure that
the frequency response of the tape recorders was flat within reason
(generally pro machines, running at 15 or 30 ips were calibrated to be dead
flat at zero Vu from 50 to 15,000 Hz. Although these recorders had response
below and above those limits, due to a phenomenon called head fringing on the
low end, and self-erasure on top, analog tape decks were usually not held to
any calibration standard above or below the frequencies indicated.). The
bottom line is that the type of standards setting that has been suggested in
this thread is not only unnecessary, it is, for the most part unwanted
because of the limitations it places upon engineers and producers who
already, for the most part, know what they want in a finished product and
know how to get it. The fact that you or I might not agree with their tastes
or "sonic vision", is, well... that's what makes ball games, isn't it?

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

Suppose it were possible to purchase a system that was guaranteed to
produce, in your home, exactly what the recording engineer hears in
his studio? Why would one not purchase such a system in preference to
any that had no such guarantee?

All Sean seems to be claiming is that it is likely possible to produce
such a system today, or will in the near future. He may be wrong or
right, but given that he is right, what possible reason is there to
buy something else?

If it is possible to produce a specification which, if followed by
anyone, will allow anyone to manufacture a system that is guaranteed
to reproduce in the home an exact sonic replica of what the engineer
hears in the studio, why would any manufacturer not want to follow
that specification given reasonable costs? I can't see any reason not
to, myself.

I think it is probably possible to produce such a specification today
or, if not today, is likely to be in the near future, and at
reasonable cost. If I knew of a system which, at reasonable cost, was
able to do this, I would choose it over any system at more or less
equal cost that couldn't.

[Scott[_6_]]

On 26 Nov, 07:43, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
Suppose it were possible to purchase a system that was guaranteed to
produce, in your home, exactly what the recording engineer hears in
his studio? =A0Why would one not purchase such a system in preference to
any that had no such guarantee?

All Sean seems to be claiming is that it is likely possible to produce
such a system today, or will in the near future. =A0He may be wrong or
right, but given that he is right, what possible reason is there to
buy something else?

If it is possible to produce a specification which, if followed by
anyone, will allow anyone to manufacture a system that is guaranteed
to reproduce in the home an exact sonic replica of what the engineer
hears in the studio, why would any manufacturer not want to follow
that specification given reasonable costs?

The last time I heard a pitch like this it went something like this.
"Perfect sound forever."

=A0I can't see any reason not
to, myself.

I think my example using the Rudy Van Gelder Blue Note catalog pretty
much offers an excellent reason.



I think it is probably possible to produce such a specification today
or, if not today, is likely to be in the near future, and at
reasonable cost. =A0If I knew of a system which, at reasonable cost, was
able to do this, I would choose it over any system at more or less
equal cost that couldn't.


Why would you set the standard for audio at the level of modest
speakers? Do you believe that such a system could ever create a
convincing illusion of a live orchestra? A live Jazz ensemble? If not
you just set a glass ceiling for your own aesthetic goals in audio. I
would avoid such a system like the plague. It's hard to think of a
worse idea than using mediocre equipment as the reference for ideal
sound.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Nov 26, 9:43=A0am, Scott wrote:

The last time I heard a pitch like this it went something like this.
"Perfect sound forever."

This, like the rest of your response here, sounds to me like mere name
calling, and so not in the least convincing.

Why would you set the standard for audio at the level of modest
speakers?

Aside from the fact that this is clearly just more name calling, what
evidence do you have that studios rely on "modest" loudspeakers? You
certainly supply none here. Actually if the magazine articles on the
subject I have read are not a pack of lies, many of them have very
high end speakers indeed.

Of course many of the most expensive "high end" speakers actually are
observably much less accurate than so-called "modest" systems.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:43:15 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

Suppose it were possible to purchase a system that was guaranteed to
produce, in your home, exactly what the recording engineer hears in
his studio? Why would one not purchase such a system in preference to
any that had no such guarantee?

Knowing what I do about how most studio monitoring environments sound, I'd
have to say NO, absolutely not.

All Sean seems to be claiming is that it is likely possible to produce
such a system today, or will in the near future. He may be wrong or
right, but given that he is right, what possible reason is there to
buy something else?

Because my tastes in what sounds "right" might not coincide with the
recording engineer's version of "right" or with the results he obtains from
the tools he's forced to work with.

If it is possible to produce a specification which, if followed by
anyone, will allow anyone to manufacture a system that is guaranteed
to reproduce in the home an exact sonic replica of what the engineer
hears in the studio, why would any manufacturer not want to follow
that specification given reasonable costs? I can't see any reason not
to, myself.

Yes, I know you can't. If you did understand, you wouldn't be posting this
now. What you seem to fail to realize is that what you find a very important
result (sounding exactly like what was heard in the studio playback) is
really not all that important or even desirable. Most people don't listen at
the SPLs that are common in a studio, for one thing. and secondly, many
studio monitors lack deep bass and much of the studio monitoring is done
near-field, and that's not how most people listen to music.

I think it is probably possible to produce such a specification today
or, if not today, is likely to be in the near future, and at
reasonable cost. If I knew of a system which, at reasonable cost, was
able to do this, I would choose it over any system at more or less
equal cost that couldn't.

To each his own. But what would anyone WANT to do that? Isn't the goal of a
hi-fi system to replicate the sound of music rather than the sound of
somebody else's taste in loudspeakers? I can't speak for others, but I want
a system that sounds like MUSIC, not one that sounds like a pair of studio
monitors that can be anything from a pair of inexpensive near-field monitors
to huge 20-30 year old JBLs or Weslakes or even sound reinforcement speakers.
IOW, there's no consistency in any studio, so, how can there be any
consistency on the listening end? For instance, let's say that I could buy
the same speakers that the Beatles used at Abby Road to mix their stuff, what
happens when I put on a recording of, say, the Beach Boys? The speakers that
their stuff was mixed on was either whatever they had in their home studio of
whatever Capitol had at their Hollywood studios, and whichever those were,
they are not likely to be the same make or model as the Beatles used. I was
at a famous studio in San Francisco a few years back listening to a new mix
of Ravel's "Daphnis et Chloe" originally recorded in the 1970's with
Skrowaczewski and the Minnesota Orchestra by Aubourt and Nikernz for
Vox/Turnabout. This "Quadraphonic" recording was about to be re-released on
Mobile Fidelity. At the studio, I heard the final mix-down from the original
8-track master to two track and 4-track DSD. I thought the playback sounded
terrible with screechy highs and little real bass. Later, when Mo-Fi sent me
the finished SACD, I thought it sounded GREAT on my own system, much better
than Vox's own CD re-release of the same material and miles ahead of the
playback I heard in the studio. So, tell me again, why I want this sound in
my home?

And whatever the various studios use, how are you, the listener, or for that
matter, this magic system that you envision going to know how the original
playback sounded? There are thousands of combinations of equipment used daily
to record music all over the world. Some of the monitoring environments are
commercially available and some are purely custom. Assuming for a moment that
it were possible to characterize that sound, encode some DSP setting into the
recording somewhere so that a smart playback system could adjust parameters
to equal that sound, how could that be done for recording venues that have
been altered since the recording was made or no longer exist at all? How do
you go back and program this smart playback system to replicate THOSE
situations? The whole notion is not only wrongheaded and impractical, it
isn't even what most listeners would want.

[Malcolm Lee]

On 2009-11-26, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
Suppose it were possible to purchase a system that was guaranteed to
produce, in your home, exactly what the recording engineer hears in
his studio? Why would one not purchase such a system in preference to
any that had no such guarantee?


a) Because one may not like what "the recording engineer" has heard.
b) Because all recording engineers will hear sound differently.
c) Because all individuals will hear sound differently to any give
recording engineer.

All Sean seems to be claiming is that it is likely possible to produce
such a system today, or will in the near future. He may be wrong or
right, but given that he is right, what possible reason is there to
buy something else?


It is not at all likely. In fact, it is impossible. No one can know
exactly what any other human being hears.

If it is possible to produce a specification which, if followed by
anyone, will allow anyone to manufacture a system that is guaranteed
to reproduce in the home an exact sonic replica of what the engineer
hears in the studio, why would any manufacturer not want to follow
that specification given reasonable costs? I can't see any reason not
to, myself.


Again, this is impossible. To reproduce the exact pattern of sound waves
that existed in the studio would need an exact replica of that studio
in each home that played that recording. That in itself is total
fantasy, let alone the fact that everyone would need a separate
listening room for every recording they owned.

I think it is probably possible to produce such a specification today
or, if not today, is likely to be in the near future, and at
reasonable cost. If I knew of a system which, at reasonable cost, was
able to do this, I would choose it over any system at more or less
equal cost that couldn't.

You're living in dreamland, I'm afraid.

You seem to be totally unaware that audio is a psychoacoustic
phenomenon. Each individual listener listening to a given sound source
will have their own perception of that source. If you have proof that
all those perceptions are identical, please let us know.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:46:20 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 26, 9:43=A0am, Scott wrote:

The last time I heard a pitch like this it went something like this.
"Perfect sound forever."

This, like the rest of your response here, sounds to me like mere name
calling, and so not in the least convincing.

He's not name calling at all. He's merely pointing out his belief that what
you propose won't give the results you think it will.

Why would you set the standard for audio at the level of modest
speakers?

Aside from the fact that this is clearly just more name calling, what
evidence do you have that studios rely on "modest" loudspeakers?

You err again by believing that that the recording engineer and producer are
listening for the same things in their mixing sessions that you would be
listening for at home. While some monitoring speakers MIGHT be highly
accurate, and might even be expensive, they aren't there for the engineer's
or producer's listening pleasure. They are there to confirm that the
recording has picked-up the sounds that they want picked-up and that they are
present in the proper relationships to other sounds and locations. Like I
said in another post, most people wouldn't want to listen to a recording
studio's monitoring environment for pleasure and for a variety of reasons.

You certainly supply none here. Actually if the magazine articles on the
subject I have read are not a pack of lies, many of them have very
high end speakers indeed.

No doubt that some are very expensive, but some aren't. Some are very
ordinary or even less than ordinary. If you had actually done recording in a
studio you would understand that this "monitoring room" sound that you have
been going on about is simply not very applicable to the home listening
experience and ultimately has little or no meaning to the average listener.
Of course many of the most expensive "high end" speakers actually are
observably much less accurate than so-called "modest" systems.

That's neither here nor there. As I pointed out in another post (and again,
above), hearing exactly what the engineer and producer heard in the studio is
largely irrelevant to the home listening environment and most people wouldn't
want to listen that way. At the very least, it's making the listener's
playback choices for him and most of us wouldn't like that either.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Nov 26, 12:43=A0pm, Scott wrote:
On 26 Nov, 07:43, Ed Seedhouse wrote:

Suppose it were possible to purchase a system that was guaranteed to
produce, in your home, exactly what the recording engineer hears in
his studio? =3DA0Why would one not purchase such a system in preference=
to
any that had no such guarantee?

All Sean seems to be claiming is that it is likely possible to produce
such a system today, or will in the near future. =3DA0He may be wrong o=
r
right, but given that he is right, what possible reason is there to
buy something else?

If it is possible to produce a specification which, if followed by
anyone, will allow anyone to manufacture a system that is guaranteed
to reproduce in the home an exact sonic replica of what the engineer
hears in the studio, why would any manufacturer not want to follow
that specification given reasonable costs?

The last time I heard a pitch like this it went something like this.
"Perfect sound forever."

And something like that is silly being neither a put-down of CD nor
the pitch. It correctly stated (as most will recognize) that if
handled as suggested, a CD would sound "perfect forever", meaning
sounding as perfectly as it did after the millionth play as it did
during for the first play. I don't think anyone would suggest that a
poorly engineered recording would sound "perfect", be it on any
medium, 30 IPS O/R tape, CD or SACD... (so I'd suggest to stop
repeating it in this reference).
Norman

[Scott[_6_]]

On 26 Nov, 13:46, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Nov 26, 9:43=3DA0am, Scott wrote:

The last time I heard a pitch like this it went something like this.
"Perfect sound forever."

This, like the rest of your response here, sounds to me like mere name
calling, and so not in the least convincing.

Why would you set the standard for audio at the level of modest
speakers?

Aside from the fact that this is clearly just more name calling,

What name calling? who have I called names? I'm a bad guy because I
know the smell of a sales pitch?

what
evidence do you have that studios rely on "modest" loudspeakers?

I never said they did. I am basically arguing against your assertion.
Your words

"=A0If it is possible to produce a specification which, if followed by
anyone, will allow anyone to manufacture a system that is guaranteed
to reproduce in the home an exact sonic replica of what the engineer
hears in the studio, why would any manufacturer not want to follow
that specification given reasonable costs?"

IME "reasonable costs" result in "modest" loudspeakers. I suspect Sean
Olive himself would not argue against this given the price tag and the
flagship Revel loudspeakers.

You
certainly supply none here.

I certainly can supply your assertions.

=A0Actually if the magazine articles on the
subject I have read are not a pack of lies, many of them have =A0very
high end speakers indeed.

I'm sure they do. But I'm not the one trying to change what they have
to some standard that as you say can be made at "reasonable cost."


Of course many of the most expensive "high end" speakers actually are
observably much less accurate than so-called "modest" systems.

Accurate to what?

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Nov 26, 8:39=A0pm, Malcolm Lee wrote:

=A0You're living in dreamland, I'm afraid.

One of us may be, but probably we will disagree as to which of us, if
either, it is.

=A0You seem to be totally unaware that audio is a psychoacoustic
phenomenon. Each individual listener listening to a given sound source
will have their own perception of that source. If you have proof that
all those perceptions are identical, please let us know.

Well, you have, it seems to me, just defined away high quality sound
reproduction, so we may as well go back to the thorn needle directly
driving a horn, like we had in the 1930's (actually at my house we
still had one in the 1950's, but it was already out of date). But by
your definition it wouldn't be, it seems to me, and one wonders why,
believing as you say you do, you would be posting in a supposedly
"high end" forum dedicated to the realistic reproduction of sound,
which you have above defined as being impossible anyway.

Whatever happened to "reproduction"? That, I thought, is what we were
attempting to do. What are we to reproduce? An ability to reproduce
the sound created by the recording engineer would take us a lot closer
than we are now to reproducing the original performance than we were
before, it seems to me. Assuming I can be assured that at least I am
hearing a good facsimile of what the engineer put on the record, then
the problem resolves down to getting sound engineers to put that real
event on the record in the first place.

If you can't even be assured that you are hearing what the engineer
put on the record why would you spend megabucks on a system that then
produces an essentially random sound? Seems odd to me. And believing
that this megabuck system will somehow reproduce "realistic" sound
without any standard to live up to, well, that seems to me rather like
being in that "dreamland" you referred to.

[Scott[_6_]]

On 26 Nov, 20:40, " wrote:
On Nov 26, 12:43=A0pm, Scott wrote:



On 26 Nov, 07:43, Ed Seedhouse wrote:

Suppose it were possible to purchase a system that was guaranteed to
produce, in your home, exactly what the recording engineer hears in
his studio? =3DA0Why would one not purchase such a system in preferen=
ce to
any that had no such guarantee?

All Sean seems to be claiming is that it is likely possible to produc=
e
such a system today, or will in the near future. =3DA0He may be wrong=
or
right, but given that he is right, what possible reason is there to
buy something else?

If it is possible to produce a specification which, if followed by
anyone, will allow anyone to manufacture a system that is guaranteed
to reproduce in the home an exact sonic replica of what the engineer
hears in the studio, why would any manufacturer not want to follow
that specification given reasonable costs?

The last time I heard a pitch like this it went something like this.
"Perfect sound forever."

And something like that is silly being neither a put-down of CD nor
the pitch.

Actually it was very much a put down of the pitch. The pitch was a
false promise since one did not get sound that was perfect.

It correctly stated (as most will recognize) that if
handled as suggested, a CD would sound "perfect forever", meaning
sounding as perfectly as it did after the millionth play as it did
during for the first play.

which would have been imperfect each of those million times. It was a
common understanding that perfect meant transparent to the original
recording. That simply was not happening at the time. Now we have a
similar pitch. "Hear exactly what the recording engineer heard."
Similar pitch with a likely similar failure to meet the promise.


I don't think anyone would suggest that a
poorly engineered recording would sound "perfect", be it on any
medium, 30 IPS O/R tape, CD or SACD... (so I'd suggest to stop
repeating it in this reference).


I didn't suggest it either. But I think the similarites in both
pitches are uncanny. Sorry if you don't see it.

[Scott[_6_]]

On 27 Nov, 07:38, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Nov 26, 8:39=A0pm, Malcolm Lee wrote:

=A0You're living in dreamland, I'm afraid.

One of us may be, but probably we will disagree as to which of us, if
either, it is.

=A0You seem to be totally unaware that audio is a psychoacoustic
phenomenon. Each individual listener listening to a given sound source
will have their own perception of that source. If you have proof that
all those perceptions are identical, please let us know.

Well, you have, it seems to me, =A0just defined away high quality sound
reproduction, so we may as well go back to the thorn needle directly
driving a horn, like we had in the 1930's (actually at my house we
still had one in the 1950's, but it was already out of date).

It seems to me he simply stated a reality that has to be delt with. I
don't see how throwing in the towel is the correct approach to dealing
with that reality.

=A0But by
your definition it wouldn't be, it seems to me, and one wonders why,
believing as you say you do, you would be posting in a supposedly
"high end" forum dedicated to the realistic reproduction of sound,
which you have above defined as being impossible anyway.

1. It is not a definition, it is a circumstance that we face in audio.
2. if one is interested in an illusion of realism then why on earth
would one use studio playback as a reference?!? That is what you are
proposing.



Whatever happened to "reproduction"?


It was never the actual goal since th invention of stereo. The goal is
an *illusion* of reproduction of the original acoustic event. So I
would ask you, what happened to the "original acoustic event" if one
uses the sound in the control room as their reference?


=A0That, I thought, is what we were
attempting to do. =A0What are we to reproduce?

In my home the goal is best aesthetic experience. Not what someone may
have heard in some control room.


=A0An ability to reproduce
the sound created by the recording engineer would take us a lot closer
than we are now to reproducing the original performance than we were
before, it seems to me.

Nope. again see my comments on the Blue Note recordings and RVG's
monitoring of those recordings.


=A0Assuming I can be assured that at least I am
hearing a good facsimile of what the engineer put on the record, then
the problem resolves down to getting sound engineers to put that real
event on the record in the first place.

What the engineer puts down on record is an electrical signal. what he
hears in the control room is not. You can't casually switch those two.
they are entirely different entities.



If you can't even be assured that you are hearing what the engineer
put on the record why would you spend megabucks on a system that then
produces an essentially random sound?

No one can hear what was put on record because it was an electrical
signal with no intrinsic sound of it's own.


=A0Seems odd to me. =A0And believing
that this megabuck system will somehow reproduce "realistic" sound
without any standard to live up to, well, that seems to me rather like
being in that "dreamland" you referred to.

The belief is based on actual experience. The point you are ignoring
is that many of us actually own such systems and get an amazing
illusion of live acoustic music from them regardless of the lack of
standardization of speakers and the lack of similarity to the sound
that was heard while monitoring these recordings.

[Malcolm Lee]

On 2009-11-27, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Nov 26, 8:39=C2=A0pm, Malcolm Lee wrot=
e:

=C2=A0You're living in dreamland, I'm afraid.

One of us may be, but probably we will disagree as to which of us, if
either, it is.

=C2=A0You seem to be totally unaware that audio is a psychoacoustic
phenomenon. Each individual listener listening to a given sound source
will have their own perception of that source. If you have proof that
all those perceptions are identical, please let us know.

Well, you have, it seems to me, just defined away high quality sound
reproduction, so we may as well go back to the thorn needle directly
driving a horn, like we had in the 1930's (actually at my house we
still had one in the 1950's, but it was already out of date). But by
your definition it wouldn't be, it seems to me, and one wonders why,
believing as you say you do, you would be posting in a supposedly
"high end" forum dedicated to the realistic reproduction of sound,
which you have above defined as being impossible anyway.

Whatever happened to "reproduction"? That, I thought, is what we were
attempting to do. What are we to reproduce? An ability to reproduce
the sound created by the recording engineer would take us a lot closer
than we are now to reproducing the original performance than we were
before, it seems to me. Assuming I can be assured that at least I am
hearing a good facsimile of what the engineer put on the record, then
the problem resolves down to getting sound engineers to put that real
event on the record in the first place.

If you can't even be assured that you are hearing what the engineer
put on the record why would you spend megabucks on a system that then
produces an essentially random sound? Seems odd to me. And believing
that this megabuck system will somehow reproduce "realistic" sound
without any standard to live up to, well, that seems to me rather like
being in that "dreamland" you referred to.

All the above has nothing whatsoever to do with your original point -
which was:

"Suppose it were possible to purchase a system that was guaranteed to
produce, in your home, exactly what the recording engineer hears in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ =20
his studio?"

As I pointed out - this is impossible - no-one can know exactly
how the engineer "hears" (perceives) the sound. In fact, everyone
will perceive the sound of the same record differently on different
occasions. I don't think it's an original statement to say that the
cheapest way to improve your hi-fi system is to drink a few glasses
of scotch/beer before listening.

You are now talking about "what the engineer put on the record" - as
opposed to what he "heard". The former is potentially measurable and
reproducible - the latter is not. If you wish to argue the point of
standards relating to the reproduction of what is "on the record"
then I'm sure others may want to debate with you. However standards
relating to reproducing "what the recording engineer hears" are a=20
chimera. =20

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:38:19 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 26, 8:39=A0pm, Malcolm Lee wrote:

=A0You're living in dreamland, I'm afraid.

One of us may be, but probably we will disagree as to which of us, if
either, it is.

=A0You seem to be totally unaware that audio is a psychoacoustic
phenomenon. Each individual listener listening to a given sound source
will have their own perception of that source. If you have proof that
all those perceptions are identical, please let us know.

Well, you have, it seems to me, just defined away high quality sound
reproduction, so we may as well go back to the thorn needle directly
driving a horn, like we had in the 1930's (actually at my house we
still had one in the 1950's, but it was already out of date). But by
your definition it wouldn't be, it seems to me, and one wonders why,
believing as you say you do, you would be posting in a supposedly
"high end" forum dedicated to the realistic reproduction of sound,
which you have above defined as being impossible anyway.

Whatever happened to "reproduction"? That, I thought, is what we were
attempting to do. What are we to reproduce? An ability to reproduce
the sound created by the recording engineer would take us a lot closer
than we are now to reproducing the original performance than we were
before, it seems to me. Assuming I can be assured that at least I am
hearing a good facsimile of what the engineer put on the record, then
the problem resolves down to getting sound engineers to put that real
event on the record in the first place.

We are attempting reproduction of the music (or at least, most of us are),
not the monitoring environment of the studio.

If you can't even be assured that you are hearing what the engineer
put on the record why would you spend megabucks on a system that then
produces an essentially random sound?

To a greater or lesser extent (depending on your equipment and your listening
room), you ARE hearing what the recording engineer put on the recording.
Believe me, what the recording engineer put on the record is NOT the result
of what he heard on the monitor speakers. It's the result of him knowing his
equipment such as knowing which microphones to use where.

Seems odd to me.

Because you believe that the recording engineer makes his decisions about the
overall sound of the recording from what he hears from his monitors, and that
only that exact same reproduction chain will allow the listener at home to
hear the music the way it was "meant" to be heard and this is a false
assumption. Even if it wasn't a false assumption, you aren't allowing for the
listener's own taste in this equation.

And believing
that this megabuck system will somehow reproduce "realistic" sound
without any standard to live up to, well, that seems to me rather like
being in that "dreamland" you referred to.

There is a standard, its called the sound of live music performed in a real
space. But even that definition of a standard is somewhat restrictive. Most
people who are interested in audio reproduction have their own ideas about
what sounds good. They buy the speakers that they like and wish to live with
day-in and day-out. You are the only person I've ever encountered who wants
to abrogate their tastes and subjugate them to the arbitrary whim of some
studio personnel. That's fine. You have that right, surely, but you need to
realize that you are proceeding from an incorrect assumption.

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:36:24 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On 27 Nov, 07:38, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Nov 26, 8:39=A0pm, Malcolm Lee wrote:

=A0You're living in dreamland, I'm afraid.

One of us may be, but probably we will disagree as to which of us, if
either, it is.

=A0You seem to be totally unaware that audio is a psychoacoustic
phenomenon. Each individual listener listening to a given sound source
will have their own perception of that source. If you have proof that
all those perceptions are identical, please let us know.

Well, you have, it seems to me, =A0just defined away high quality sound
reproduction, so we may as well go back to the thorn needle directly
driving a horn, like we had in the 1930's (actually at my house we
still had one in the 1950's, but it was already out of date).

It seems to me he simply stated a reality that has to be delt with. I
don't see how throwing in the towel is the correct approach to dealing
with that reality.

=A0But by
your definition it wouldn't be, it seems to me, and one wonders why,
believing as you say you do, you would be posting in a supposedly
"high end" forum dedicated to the realistic reproduction of sound,
which you have above defined as being impossible anyway.

1. It is not a definition, it is a circumstance that we face in audio.
2. if one is interested in an illusion of realism then why on earth
would one use studio playback as a reference?!? That is what you are
proposing.



Whatever happened to "reproduction"?


It was never the actual goal since th invention of stereo. The goal is
an *illusion* of reproduction of the original acoustic event. So I
would ask you, what happened to the "original acoustic event" if one
uses the sound in the control room as their reference?


=A0That, I thought, is what we were
attempting to do. =A0What are we to reproduce?

In my home the goal is best aesthetic experience. Not what someone may
have heard in some control room.


=A0An ability to reproduce
the sound created by the recording engineer would take us a lot closer
than we are now to reproducing the original performance than we were
before, it seems to me.

Nope. again see my comments on the Blue Note recordings and RVG's
monitoring of those recordings.


=A0Assuming I can be assured that at least I am
hearing a good facsimile of what the engineer put on the record, then
the problem resolves down to getting sound engineers to put that real
event on the record in the first place.

What the engineer puts down on record is an electrical signal. what he
hears in the control room is not. You can't casually switch those two.
they are entirely different entities.



If you can't even be assured that you are hearing what the engineer
put on the record why would you spend megabucks on a system that then
produces an essentially random sound?

No one can hear what was put on record because it was an electrical
signal with no intrinsic sound of it's own.

I agree with most of what you say here, but this above statement is not
strictly correct. The sound on the "record' is a result of the conversion
from acoustic energy to electrical energy as performed by the microphones
used. However, you are correct in saying that the monitor sound, in the
control room, has no DIRECT effect upon the captured sound on the "record."
Also, I might point out that whether we're talking about vinyl or CD sound
here, what the recording engineer captures is NOT the final arbiter of how
the commercial release will sound. Another engineer, post recording, will
largely determine that aspect of the sound when he masters the release
version. So then, the question becomes, which set of monitor speakers do we
emulate to get Mr. Seedhouse's vision of audio utopia? The recording studio
monitoring environment or the mastering engineer's studio monitoring
environment?

=A0Seems odd to me. =A0And believing
that this megabuck system will somehow reproduce "realistic" sound
without any standard to live up to, well, that seems to me rather like
being in that "dreamland" you referred to.

The belief is based on actual experience. The point you are ignoring
is that many of us actually own such systems and get an amazing
illusion of live acoustic music from them regardless of the lack of
standardization of speakers and the lack of similarity to the sound
that was heard while monitoring these recordings.

Absolutely. And, Mr. Seedhouse seems sufficiently unfamiliar with the
recording process not to understand that what the recording engineer puts
down on the recording media, is a result of his experience, not what he hears
in the monitor speakers. Mr. Seedhouse seems to not realize that that this
experience means that the engineer knows his equipment. He knows what his
microphones sound like, he knows that his recording console or DAW desk is
quiet, has low distortion, and is flat in frequency response from at least 20
Hz to 20 KHz. He also knows the limitations of his monitoring speakers and
rarely ever mixes so that the recording sounds optimum on THEM. Most
recording engineers rely on headphones to do the actual mix anyway. They also
capture the performance using microphones that the know are ideal for the
task at hand, I.E., this microphone is best for the drum cymbals, another for
the kick drum, still another to capture the vocals, and yet another on the
saxophone or lead guitar (whatever). The result is that the experienced
engineer knows what the instruments will sound like when recorded before the
first note is played. He captures each instrument (or group of instruments)
to separate tracks, then he goes back and pan-pots them to the proper
location across the soundstage (perhaps) and sets the levels of each track to
make-up the whole performance. He might do this on monitor speakers, but he's
just as apt to use headphones. I know that many of the better studios these
days rely on Stax electrostatic headphones or other reference-quality phones
for this work. Any EQ employed is, again, a result of experience rather than
an absolute reliance on what he hears from the monitor speakers. Most
recording engineers will tell you that they listen "around" their monitoring
equipment rather than listening "to" it for the simple reason that all
speakers are colored in some way and none tell the absolute truth.

The bottom line, is, of course, that assuming that all speakers are flawed,
My idea of what the music sounds like in my living room is just as valid as
that which the engineer heard in the studio. So why should I subjugate my
judgement and personal tastes to his? The recording is what it is. I either
like it's sound or I don't. On my end, it's up to me to play-back the
recording in a manner which pleases me. If I don't like what the
engineer/producer has wrought, I don't listen to that recording at all and
I'm sure that hearing it through the engineers monitoring equipment won't
change that opinion one iota.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Nov 27, 8:45=A0pm, Malcolm Lee wrote:

=A0As I pointed out - this is impossible - no-one can know exactly
how the engineer "hears" (perceives) the sound. In fact, everyone
will perceive the sound of the same record differently on different
occasions. I don't think it's an original statement to say that the
cheapest way to improve your hi-fi system is to drink a few glasses
of scotch/beer before listening.

Well, we can hear the closest possible approach to what he heard if we
go to his studio and play his masters on the same equipment. That's
as close as we can come, but it's close enough. If he made a master
that sounds like real music playing in real space, that's pretty much
what we will hear ourselves. If he failed to do that we won't. But
at least we will hear what he put on the tape the way he heard it, as
closely as it may be approached.

And it is becoming possible with modern electronics and digital
processing, to bring this sound into the home pretty accurately. Not
perfectly accurately, but pretty darned accurately. If we can now
make it not merely possible, but fairly cheap and reliable, then we
have taken a giant step forward, it seems to me.

It's true we are working toward an ideal we will likely never reach,
but at least we have a target to shoot at, and if we don't hit it we
will at least be able to tell how much we missed by, within reason,
and take steps to get closer. There's not much point in having a
shooting competition without a target.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Nov 27, 8:49=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:
=A0
Also, I might point out that whether we're talking about vinyl or CD soun=
d
here, what the recording engineer captures is NOT the final arbiter of ho=
w
the commercial release will sound.

Ah well, but if we're talking vinyl, we're not talking "accurate" or
"realistic" anymore, are we? We're talking "pleasing" sound, which is
not what I see real "high end" as being about.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Nov 27, 8:46=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:

We are attempting reproduction of the music (or at least, most of us are)=
,
not the monitoring environment of the studio.

Well, but if the recording engineer has no put the music on the tape,
we'll never be able to reproduce it at home, will we? And if he has,
then that's what we want to reproduce.


Because you believe that the recording engineer makes his decisions about=
the
overall sound of the recording from what he hears from his monitors, and =
that
only that exact same reproduction chain will allow the listener at home t=
o
hear the music the way it was "meant" to be heard

No, I don't believe that, and if you think I do you haven't been
reading attentively, in my opinion.

and this is a false
assumption.

Not one which I made, though, but merely a red herring you are raising
for some reason.

Even if it wasn't a false assumption, you aren't allowing for the
listener's own taste in this equation.

This is also false. I am happy to let the user adjust the tonality if
that's what he wants. I often do myself, and so I adjust it to my
liking. But at least I would have something to start with that was
accurate and that I could go back to. This belongs, though, in the
control electronics, not the basic amplification or the speakers.

The point is to give the listener real control, not the facsimile that
passes for it so often these days.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Nov 27, 10:36=A0am, Scott wrote:
It seems to me he simply stated a reality that has to be delt with.
I
don't see how throwing in the towel is the correct approach to dealing
with that reality.

It seems to me that it is not a reality at all, and you're defining it
that way is precisely throwing in the towel, it seems to me.

Sound, of course, is purely physical. And it is what we try to
reproduce with audio equipment, not music, merely sound. And, since
music is the reaction of the human brain to certain sounds,
reproducing the sound will also reproduce the music.

The minute we try to make our systems "more musical" we have lost the
thread. If we make the reproduction of the actual sound of the
performance accurate, then we, ipso facto, reproduce the musical
event. No mystical mumbo jumbo about "musicality" is required.

Now of course perfect reproduction of sound is in practice
unattainable, but at least it is a clear direction to move in.
Reproduction of music cannot be measured with instruments, but
reproduction of sound can be. So at least we have something to work
on. And we have, actually, over the last hundred years or so, done
amazingly well.

But we have done well, when we have, by applying science to sound.

[Scott[_6_]]

On 29 Nov, 19:31, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Nov 27, 8:49=3DA0pm, Sonnova wrote:
=A0=3DA0

Also, I might point out that whether we're talking about vinyl or CD so=
un=3D
d
here, what the recording engineer captures is NOT the final arbiter of =
ho=3D
w
the commercial release will sound.

Ah well, but if we're talking vinyl, we're not talking "accurate" or
"realistic" anymore, are we?

If one wants absolute accuracy to the source one can come extremely
close with vinyl.If that is what you want. If we are talking about an
illusion of live music vinyl still sets the standard in two channel
playback.

=A0We're talking "pleasing" sound, which is
not what I see real "high end" as being about.

I can not relate to the idea that high end is not about pleasing
sound. If, in the end, what you hear is not pleasing then what was the
point?

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message
...

If one wants absolute accuracy to the source one can come extremely
close with vinyl.

Depends what you call "extremely close". To me, "extremely close" is what
you find in a comparison that is a challenging ABX test.

Back in the days of vinyl, some of the people associated with our audio club
were also senior techs or technical consultants to local recording studios.

Therefore, we had opportunities to compare tapes were related to commercial
LPs and lacquers to the highest quality LP playback that was available.
These would be final masters not cutting masters, so their quality was what
the producers wanted the public to hear under ideal conditions.

I've never heard a case where a comparison between vinyl and the final
master tape related to it would even make an interesting ABX test. Until
you've heard how vinyl technology inherently limits dynamic range in
increases distortion, some may find this hard to believe.

In comparison, a comparison between a CD prepared from the same tape, and
the tape itself is an extremely challenging listening test, to say the
least.

[Scott[_6_]]

On 30 Nov, 03:22, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Nov 27, 10:36=3DA0am, Scott wrote:
=A0 It seems to me he simply stated a reality that has to be delt with.
I

don't see how throwing in the towel is the correct approach to dealing
with that reality.

It seems to me that it is not a reality at all, and you're defining it
that way is precisely throwing in the towel, it seems to me.

Sound, of course, is purely physical. =A0And it is what we try to
reproduce with audio equipment, not music, merely sound. =A0And, since
music is the reaction of the human brain to certain sounds,
reproducing the sound will also reproduce the music.

The minute we try to make our systems "more musical" we have lost the
thread. =A0If we make the reproduction of the actual sound of the
performance accurate, then we, ipso facto, reproduce the musical
event. =A0No mystical mumbo jumbo about "musicality" is required.

Now of course perfect reproduction of sound is in practice
unattainable, but at least it is a clear direction to move in.
Reproduction of music cannot be measured with instruments, but
reproduction of sound can be. =A0So at least we have something to work
on. =A0 And we have, actually, over the last hundred years or so, done
amazingly well.

But we have done well, when we have, by applying science to sound.

Your entire position is based on a false premise that stereo recording
and playback is an attempt to literally reproduce the original
soundfield of the live music. "Sound, of course, is purely physical.
And it is what we try to reproduce with audio equipment," That simply
is not what we are doing with home audio. The soundfield in the
control room bears no resemblence to the soundfield in the room where
the mics are nor should it. Unless an audiophile truly understands
this basic fact they have already lost the thread as you say before
taking their first step. Once one truly understands this basic fact
about audio they understand the absurdity of the quest for absolute
accuracy. Then one is free to persue better sound through high end
audio.

[Scott[_6_]]

On 30 Nov, 06:43, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

...

If one wants absolute accuracy to the source one can come extremely
close with vinyl.

Depends what you call "extremely close". To me, "extremely close" is what
you find in a comparison that is a challenging ABX test.

I would agree that difficulty in hearing a difference between the
source and a copy under blind conditions can constitute "extremely
close."



Back in the days of vinyl, some of the people associated with our audio club
were also senior techs or technical consultants to local recording studios.

Therefore, we had opportunities to compare tapes were related to commercial
LPs and lacquers to the highest quality LP playback that was available.
These would be final masters not cutting masters, so their quality was what
the producers wanted the public to hear under ideal conditions.

Perhaps we would be better served to talk about such a comparison done
on modern state of the art equipment now that we are in the golden age
of high end vinyl.


I've never heard a case where a comparison between vinyl and the final
master tape related to it would even make an interesting ABX test. Until
you've heard how vinyl technology inherently limits dynamic range in
increases distortion, some may find this hard to believe.

"There are more things in heaven and earth"
Must be you have never heard of this particular case that has become
well known in audiophile circles.

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...ighlight=blind

Steve Hoffman

"First, let me say that I love records, compact discs and SACDs; I
have a bunch of all three formats. Nothing that I discovered below
changed that one bit.

I did these comparisons a few years ago. Since I spilled the beans to
an interviewer on mic last year I continually get quoted and misquoted
about this subject. I'll try to set the "record" straight in this
thread. Please note I'm typing on a whacked out computer not my own
with a tiny monitor and no spell check.... There could be a (gasp)
typo or two...

A few years ago, mainly out of curiosity (and nothing else) I got the
chance at AcousTech Mastering to compare an actual master tape to the
playback of a record lacquer and digital playback. Also did the same
test using DSD (SACD) playback as well later on in the day. The
results were interesting. The below is just my opinion. Note that we
cut the record at 45 because the lathe was set for that speed. A
similar test we did using the 33 1/3 speed yielded the same result.

FIRST COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE LACQUER AT 45 RPM with
DIGITAL PACIFIC MICROSONICS CAPTURE.

We had the master tape of the Riverside stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/
WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to do this little comparison.
Since the actual master needs a bunch of "mastering" to make it sound
the best, I set the title track up as if it was going to be mastered
(which in a sense it was, being cut on to an acetate record).

We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to
the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.

Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels.
Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I
listened. (We took turns switching and listening). First thing I
noticed:

The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the same. We couldn't tell one
from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the
tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The
acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the
SAE arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in
so many pictures posted here of AcousTech).

The flat digital playback of my mastering sounded different. NOT BAD,
just different. The decay on the piano was different, the plucks of
Scott's bass were different, the reverb trail was noticeably truncated
due to a loss of resolution. Non unpleasant, just not like the actual
master tape. This is slightly frustrating to me because it confirmed
the fact that when mastering in digital one has to compensate for the
change (which I do with my usual "tricks"). The record however, gave
back exactly what we put in to it. Exactly. This reinforced my opinion
that AcousTech Mastering has the best cutting chain in the world."


In comparison, a comparison between a CD prepared from the same tape, and
the tape itself is an extremely challenging listening test, to say the
least.

No doubt, And yet in the Hoffman/Gray comparisons it was actually less
transparent than the laquer. Go figure.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message
...
On 30 Nov, 06:43, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

...

If one wants absolute accuracy to the source one can come extremely
close with vinyl.

Depends what you call "extremely close". To me, "extremely close" is what
you find in a comparison that is a challenging ABX test.

I would agree that difficulty in hearing a difference between the
source and a copy under blind conditions can constitute "extremely
close."



Back in the days of vinyl, some of the people associated with our audio
club
were also senior techs or technical consultants to local recording
studios.

Therefore, we had opportunities to compare tapes were related to
commercial
LPs and lacquers to the highest quality LP playback that was available.
These would be final masters not cutting masters, so their quality was
what
the producers wanted the public to hear under ideal conditions.

Perhaps we would be better served to talk about such a comparison done
on modern state of the art equipment now that we are in the golden age
of high end vinyl.

I see zero scientific evidence to support the contention that vinyl playback
performance has improved signficantly since then. All I see is a lot of
vendor hype and enthusiast's anecdotes. I've personally investigated these
claims over the years by visiting enthusiast's homes and listened to their
vinyl playback systems and also by visiting vendor displays at high end
audio shows and had private demonstrations. No joy!

I've never heard a case where a comparison between vinyl and the final
master tape related to it would even make an interesting ABX test. Until
you've heard how vinyl technology inherently limits dynamic range in
increases distortion, some may find this hard to believe.

"There are more things in heaven and earth"
Must be you have never heard of this particular case that has become
well known in audiophile circles.

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...ighlight=blind

[ Excessive quoting deleted -- dsr ]

The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the same. We couldn't tell one
from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the
tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The
acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the
SAE arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in
so many pictures posted here of AcousTech).

Interesting given that I've had numerous LP enthusiasts denigrate my years
of personal experience with a number of Shure V15s in SME arms.

The flat digital playback of my mastering sounded different. NOT BAD,
just different. The decay on the piano was different, the plucks of
Scott's bass were different, the reverb trail was noticeably truncated
due to a loss of resolution. Non unpleasant, just not like the actual
master tape. This is slightly frustrating to me because it confirmed
the fact that when mastering in digital one has to compensate for the
change (which I do with my usual "tricks"). The record however, gave
back exactly what we put in to it. Exactly. This reinforced my opinion
that AcousTech Mastering has the best cutting chain in the world."


In comparison, a comparison between a CD prepared from the same tape, and
the tape itself is an extremely challenging listening test, to say the
least.

No doubt, And yet in the Hoffman/Gray comparisons it was actually less
transparent than the lacquer. Go figure.

Seems like just another enthusiast's anecdote....

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Scott" wrote in message
...

snip

I see zero scientific evidence to support the contention that vinyl
playback
performance has improved signficantly since then. All I see is a lot of
vendor hype and enthusiast's anecdotes. I've personally investigated these
claims over the years by visiting enthusiast's homes and listened to their
vinyl playback systems and also by visiting vendor displays at high end
audio shows and had private demonstrations. No joy!


And you believe you do not have biases that might lead you to this
conclusion, no?

snip


No doubt, And yet in the Hoffman/Gray comparisons it was actually less
transparent than the lacquer. Go figure.

Seems like just another enthusiast's anecdote....


I see. All enthusiasts are experience mastering engineers, using
state-of-the-art studio equipment with direct access to the master tape? I
think most folks would give Steve Hoffman a bit more credibility than "just
another enthusiast".

[Harry Lavo]

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
I think most folks would give Steve Hoffman a bit more
credibility than "just another enthusiast".

The following link:

http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm

provides one data point in Mr. Hoffman's credibility curve.


I'm sure I don't have to tell you, Dick, that one point doesn't form a
straight line, much less a trend. Who knows, perhaps he is a friend of the
inventor; perhaps he got paid to endorse it. It doesn't help his
credibility, but the mastering he has done has established much more
credibility than this one "data point" can diminish.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:40:00 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 26, 8:38=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:43:15 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

Suppose it were possible to purchase a system that was guaranteed to
produce, in your home, exactly what the recording engineer hears in
his studio? =A0Why would one not purchase such a system in preference t=
o
any that had no such guarantee?

Knowing what I do about how most studio monitoring environments sound, I'=
d
have to say NO, absolutely not.

All Sean seems to be claiming is that it is likely possible to produce
such a system today, or will in the near future. =A0He may be wrong or
right, but given that he is right, what possible reason is there to
buy something else?

Because my tastes in what sounds "right" might not coincide with the
recording engineer's version of "right" or with the results he obtains fr=
om
the tools he's forced to work with.

Forced?

Yeah, you know, as in: "I work for this studio, they have this equipment.
It's not my choice of equipment, but it's what my employer has provided, and
I have to use it." seems like a simple enough concept to me.

I think one should consider the possibility that given a
standard there might be another limitation in mixing/mastering lifted.
I suspect nearfield monitoring would still be used to create the
soundstage balance
and imagery in similar fashion as today.
But rather than relying on the engineers experience and ability to
translate that poor sound into something suitable for home listening,
I think a standard might provide a better tool to accomplish that.
You've pointed out how some engineers have achieved fantastic results
with the use of limited tools, but I must also point out that many
more fall woefully short of those results.

Certainly, some recordings simply sound bad. But my suspicion (having made
recordings in a studio environment before) is that most bad-sounding
recordings are the result of choices made by the studio's customer, I.E., the
artist(s) and/or their producers rather than the engineering staff at that
facility. Basically, there is little that an engineer can do to screw-up the
capture of a performance. It's all multitrack, it's all captured "raw". The
opportunity for "screwing-up" comes "in the mix" as it were. Relative levels
of vocals to instrumental balance, relative balances of one instrument or
instrumental ensemble to another, The eq added (if any) to a track or even
overall, the amount or reverb or other "special effects" added; these are
pretty much the limits of what can be done in the mix. None of these is
particularly monitor sensitive - with the possible exception of post-capture
eq. Even then, there are practical considerations as well as artistic ones to
consider. Modern pop recordings are laid-down pretty hot and there is not a
lot of headroom left on top of the capture level to add much boost to
anything. That's the practical aspect to the subject. But again, we are
assuming here that the experienced recoding engineers KNOWS his equipment -
and this is key - he knows when a microphone chosen, let's say, for the
cymbals, needs "sweetening" to get that exact, correct result. He doesn't
need to hear it in the monitor speakers, he's heard that result on other
recordings he's made countless times in countless different environments. It
might sound one way over his monitoring equipment (speakers or headphones),
but he knows what result is actually being recorded. In other words what is
recorded is one thing, and what comes through the monitor speakers is
another. And most importantly, what comes through the monitor speakers does
not need to be accurate to what is actually recorded in order for the
engineer to get his (or the client's) desired result. Those things over which
the studio can exhibit control can be heard satisfactorily over anything from
a modern near field monitor to a huge pair of 30 year-old Weslakes or JBLs.


If it is possible to produce a specification which, if followed by
anyone, will allow anyone to manufacture a system that is guaranteed
to reproduce in the home an exact sonic replica of what the engineer
hears in the studio, why would any manufacturer not want to follow
that specification given reasonable costs? =A0I can't see any reason no=
t
to, myself.

Yes, I know you can't. If you did understand, you wouldn't be posting thi=
s
now. What you seem to fail to realize is that what you find a very import=
ant
result (sounding exactly like what was heard in the studio playback) is
really not all that important or even desirable. Most people don't listen=
at
the SPLs that are common in a studio, for one thing. and secondly, many
studio monitors lack deep bass and much of the studio monitoring is done
near-field, and that's not how most people listen to music. =A0

Perhaps you should consider that the development of a standard may
not leave
current studio practices unaffected.

I consider that such a change will likely have zero effect on the sound
turned out by any given studio or engineering team, for the simple reason
that experienced recording engineers listen around the limits of their
monitoring equipment. Think of it this way, a standard in this regard will do
nothing but present the engineer with a different set of monitoring
limitations that he has to learn to listen around. Other than that, it will
change nothing. And consider this, if studios thought that this type of
standardization would improve their product, the industry would have gotten
together and implemented such a standard long ago.

I can envision an additional evaluation step on the standard compliant
room/system to assure the results expected on the near field monitors with
poor
bass etc, are in fact achieved.

But it's not necessary or even desirable to do that. Most listeners listen on
equipment as disparate as a table radio, to a car radio, to a pair of
$100,000 Wilson Audio Grand-Slams. And what do you think the majority of
buyers of any given piece of music are going be listening on. The mix must be
made to sound decent on the lowest common denominator. The poor bass is part
and parcel of the the procedure to mix for that table radio or boom-box. We
audiophiles, naturally, want the best sound that we can get. We want
thunderous lows and silken highs, but we aren't the audience for these
recordings. Not by a long shot. A modern pop recording engineer has to take
into account the reality that these tracks will mostly be listened to via MP3
files on "ear-buds" or on cheap boom-boxes or other portable systems and in
cars. These recordings need to sound reasonable through these limited systems
and that's the goal. At some point, before a mix is finalized, it's even got
to be phase-checked to make sure that when played in mono on an AM or a
mono-FM table or car radio, that nothing cancels out.


I think it is probably possible to produce such a specification today
or, if not today, is likely to be in the near future, and at
reasonable cost. =A0If I knew of a system which, at reasonable cost, wa=
s
able to do this, I would choose it over any system at more or less
equal cost that couldn't.

To each his own. But what would anyone WANT to do that? Isn't the goal of=
a
hi-fi system to replicate the sound of music rather than the sound of
somebody else's taste in loudspeakers? I can't speak for others, =A0but I=
want
a system that sounds like MUSIC, not one that sounds like a pair of studi=
o
monitors that can be anything from a pair of inexpensive near-field monit=
ors
to huge 20-30 year old JBLs or Weslakes or even sound reinforcement speak=
ers.
IOW, there's no consistency in any studio, so, how can there be any
consistency on the listening end? For instance, let's say that I could bu=
y
the same speakers that the Beatles used at Abby Road to mix their stuff, =
what
happens when I put on a recording of, say, the Beach Boys?

I agree that we don't want to replicate in our listening rooms the
sound of currently used monitoring equipment. But the problem you
pose exists today with no
apparent solution.

Just the opposite of "posing a problem", my attempt here is to demonstrate
that there is no problem. The sound heard in the studio is not, by any means,
the final arbiter of the ultimate sound of any commercial recordings. Were
that the case, the industry would have standardized on some specific "sound"
ages ago. They haven't because the sound of the monitoring equipment simply
isn't that important.

A standard established for home reponse systems
gives the stuido an opportunity to improve their mixing mastering for
optimal performance on systems compliant with that standard.

And we've all seen how successful and how important THAT is (a clue - all THX
certification has done is to gain licensing fees for LucasFilm. In the "home
theater "environment, it means less than NOTHING)!

Since none exists, none bother and do their best depending on the
genre and their
perceived target audience and their listening venues which range from
car thumpers, to ipods, to high end audio.

My point is that none is needed no is any desirable. except, perhaps, to
those who don't really understand the process of studio pop/jazz recording.

I would absolutely not expect current mastering practices to remain
unaffected by the adoption of a standard as discussed here. If that
was the case, the standard would fail.

Believe me, they would be unaffected by the adoption of such a "standard" as
I explained above.

[Malcolm Lee]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:36:36 +0000, Ed Seedhouse wrote:

On Nov 27, 8:45=3DA0pm, Malcolm Lee wrote=
:
=20
=3DA0As I pointed out - this is impossible - no-one can know exactly h=
ow
the engineer "hears" (perceives) the sound. In fact, everyone will
perceive the sound of the same record differently on different
occasions. I don't think it's an original statement to say that the
cheapest way to improve your hi-fi system is to drink a few glasses of
scotch/beer before listening.
=20
Well, we can hear the closest possible approach to what he heard if we
go to his studio and play his masters on the same equipment. That's as
close as we can come, but it's close enough. If he made a master that
sounds like real music playing in real space, that's pretty much what w=
e
will hear ourselves. If he failed to do that we won't. But at least w=
e
will hear what he put on the tape the way he heard it, as closely as it
may be approached.
=20

No, we will *not* "hear what he put on the tape the way he heard it".

You are conflating sound with human aural perception. They are totally
different beasts. Play the same piece of music on the same system to
N different people and you will get N different perceptions of that
sound. Some may think the bass light, others OK. Some may think the
soundstage is well defined, others not. Some may think the music
has great rhythm - others not. Some may think it "sounds like real music
playing in real space", others not. So where's your "standard" now?

It is utterly irrelevant "what the engineer heard". Sonnava put it well
in his post of 28th Nov - so I'll merely repeat what he said he

"My idea of what the music sounds like in my living room is just as valid=
as=20
that which the engineer heard in the studio. So why should I subjugate my=
=20
judgement and personal tastes to his? The recording is what it is. I eith=
er=20
like it's sound or I don't. On my end, it's up to me to play-back the=20
recording in a manner which pleases me. If I don't like what the=20
engineer/producer has wrought, I don't listen to that recording at all an=
d=20
I'm sure that hearing it through the engineers monitoring equipment won't=
=20
change that opinion one iota."

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:25:25 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On 30 Nov, 06:43, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

...

If one wants absolute accuracy to the source one can come extremely
close with vinyl.

Depends what you call "extremely close". To me, "extremely close" is what
you find in a comparison that is a challenging ABX test.

I would agree that difficulty in hearing a difference between the
source and a copy under blind conditions can constitute "extremely
close."



Back in the days of vinyl, some of the people associated with our audio club
were also senior techs or technical consultants to local recording studios.

Therefore, we had opportunities to compare tapes were related to commercial
LPs and lacquers to the highest quality LP playback that was available.
These would be final masters not cutting masters, so their quality was what
the producers wanted the public to hear under ideal conditions.

Perhaps we would be better served to talk about such a comparison done
on modern state of the art equipment now that we are in the golden age
of high end vinyl.


I've never heard a case where a comparison between vinyl and the final
master tape related to it would even make an interesting ABX test. Until
you've heard how vinyl technology inherently limits dynamic range in
increases distortion, some may find this hard to believe.

"There are more things in heaven and earth"
Must be you have never heard of this particular case that has become
well known in audiophile circles.

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...ighlight=blind

Steve Hoffman

"First, let me say that I love records, compact discs and SACDs; I
have a bunch of all three formats. Nothing that I discovered below
changed that one bit.

I did these comparisons a few years ago. Since I spilled the beans to
an interviewer on mic last year I continually get quoted and misquoted
about this subject. I'll try to set the "record" straight in this
thread. Please note I'm typing on a whacked out computer not my own
with a tiny monitor and no spell check.... There could be a (gasp)
typo or two...

A few years ago, mainly out of curiosity (and nothing else) I got the
chance at AcousTech Mastering to compare an actual master tape to the
playback of a record lacquer and digital playback. Also did the same
test using DSD (SACD) playback as well later on in the day. The
results were interesting. The below is just my opinion. Note that we
cut the record at 45 because the lathe was set for that speed. A
similar test we did using the 33 1/3 speed yielded the same result.

FIRST COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE LACQUER AT 45 RPM with
DIGITAL PACIFIC MICROSONICS CAPTURE.

We had the master tape of the Riverside stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/
WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to do this little comparison.
Since the actual master needs a bunch of "mastering" to make it sound
the best, I set the title track up as if it was going to be mastered
(which in a sense it was, being cut on to an acetate record).

We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to
the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.

Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels.
Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I
listened. (We took turns switching and listening). First thing I
noticed:

The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the same. We couldn't tell one
from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the
tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The
acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the
SAE arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in
so many pictures posted here of AcousTech).

The flat digital playback of my mastering sounded different. NOT BAD,
just different. The decay on the piano was different, the plucks of
Scott's bass were different, the reverb trail was noticeably truncated
due to a loss of resolution. Non unpleasant, just not like the actual
master tape. This is slightly frustrating to me because it confirmed
the fact that when mastering in digital one has to compensate for the
change (which I do with my usual "tricks"). The record however, gave
back exactly what we put in to it. Exactly. This reinforced my opinion
that AcousTech Mastering has the best cutting chain in the world."


In comparison, a comparison between a CD prepared from the same tape, and
the tape itself is an extremely challenging listening test, to say the
least.

No doubt, And yet in the Hoffman/Gray comparisons it was actually less
transparent than the laquer. Go figure.


This above anecdote reflects my experiences as well when I worked at the old
Century Records (they were a nation-wide franchise which provided
record-producing services for local bands and symphony orchestras, vanity and
demo recordings for individuals, etc.) . I had the master tape and I had the
test cuttings and the test pressings later-on. I also had digital copies of
the master tapes recorded via a Sony 1620 and a U-Matic VCR. I always found
the LP to sound closer to the master tape, more palpably real, that I found
the digital copy. I realize that some of this (maybe even a lot of it) was
due to the fact that the Sony 1610, 1620, and 1630 range of digital
processors were lousy sounding devices, so, I would be less than honest in
this post if I didn't point that out.

It's as I have been saying all along, LP along with both analog and digital
tape, as well as CD, Hi-Rez digital downloads, SACD and 24/96 DVDA are ALL
viable musical sources. While they are all different, to be sure, there is
musical pleasure to be found in each and anyone who cuts one or another
source off on some theoretical technical grounds is merely depriving himself
or herself of a rewarding musical experience. That' the individual's choice,
of course, but it certainly seems limiting to me, and it's certainly NOT my
choice (I'm not fond of MP3 because I can hear the compression artifacts. But
that doesn't mean that I don't listen to them. I listen to streaming Inetrnet
radio over my Apple TV box all the time. As long as I don't listen with
headphones, the streaming radio can be quite listenable).

An aside, here. Last night I pulled out a fancy harpsichord record (Rafael
Puyana "Italian Harpsichord Music" , Philips 802-898-LY) that I bought back
in 1971 (You ought to see the cover-work and liner notes booklet that this
record came in. BEEEYOOTIFUL - and something else that CD can't replicate)
and popped it on the turntable (J.A. Michelle "Orb" with electronic speed
control, AudioQuest PT-9 arm, Grado Statement "Master 1" cartridge, "Revolver
2" Phono preamp). I was amazed at the quality of the sound. The
harpsichord(s) were right there in the room. Transient attack, decay, timbre,
were all, spot-on and it wasn't long before I found myself completely lost in
the music, and after all, isn't that the point of a home audio system? When a
program source can give me THAT much listening pleasure, then all the
theorizing, all the "numbers" that tell me that the medium is inferior, pale
into meaninglessness.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 03:22:41 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 27, 10:36=A0am, Scott wrote:
It seems to me he simply stated a reality that has to be delt with.
I
don't see how throwing in the towel is the correct approach to dealing
with that reality.

It seems to me that it is not a reality at all, and you're defining it
that way is precisely throwing in the towel, it seems to me.

Sound, of course, is purely physical. And it is what we try to
reproduce with audio equipment, not music, merely sound. And, since
music is the reaction of the human brain to certain sounds,
reproducing the sound will also reproduce the music.

The minute we try to make our systems "more musical" we have lost the
thread. If we make the reproduction of the actual sound of the
performance accurate, then we, ipso facto, reproduce the musical
event. No mystical mumbo jumbo about "musicality" is required.

No one will argue that point - if accuracy is one's goal. The only argument
here is that what you are proposing won't advance your goal one iota.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 03:22:28 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 27, 8:46=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:

We are attempting reproduction of the music (or at least, most of us are)=
,
not the monitoring environment of the studio.

Well, but if the recording engineer has no put the music on the tape,
we'll never be able to reproduce it at home, will we? And if he has,
then that's what we want to reproduce.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but if it's what I think you mean, then you
are exactly right. We are interested in reproducing what the engineer PUT ON
"TAPE" (or some other recording medium), not what he hears in his studio
listening environment, and make no mistake, they are NOT the same thing.


Because you believe that the recording engineer makes his decisions about=
the
overall sound of the recording from what he hears from his monitors, and =
that
only that exact same reproduction chain will allow the listener at home t=
o
hear the music the way it was "meant" to be heard

No, I don't believe that, and if you think I do you haven't been
reading attentively, in my opinion.

and this is a false
assumption.

Not one which I made, though, but merely a red herring you are raising
for some reason.

Not a red herring. It is honestly my assessment of what you are proposing. If
I am wrong, then I humbly apologize, but it does bring up an interesting
point. To wit: either I'm incorrectly reading what you are writing, or you
aren't writing what I am reading. In either case, we seem to not be
communicating on this issue. I might add that several other responders to
your posts seem to have read your intended meaning in a similar fashion to
the way I read it. Perhaps if you re-stated your position a bit more clearly
for the rest of us?

Even if it wasn't a false assumption, you aren't allowing for the
listener's own taste in this equation.

This is also false. I am happy to let the user adjust the tonality if
that's what he wants. I often do myself, and so I adjust it to my
liking. But at least I would have something to start with that was
accurate and that I could go back to. This belongs, though, in the
control electronics, not the basic amplification or the speakers.

The point is to give the listener real control, not the facsimile that
passes for it so often these days.

My whole point is that what I think you are proposing, is not only not
feasible, but even if it were, it would not move the-state-of-the-art at all
in the direction that I believe you think it will .

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Scott" wrote in message
...

snip

I see zero scientific evidence to support the contention that vinyl
playback
performance has improved signficantly since then. All I see is a lot of
vendor hype and enthusiast's anecdotes. I've personally investigated
these
claims over the years by visiting enthusiast's homes and listened to
their
vinyl playback systems and also by visiting vendor displays at high end
audio shows and had private demonstrations. No joy!

And you believe you do not have biases that might lead you to this
conclusion, no?

Any personal biases I might have would be instantly overcome by reliable
evidence.

For example, I have in my possession technical tests using recently cut LP
test recordings and recent LP playback equipment, some very expensive. They
show the usual relatively degraded performance that we've come to expect
over the years. This should be no surprise to anybody who understands how LP
technology works at a reasonably detailed level. Its technical limitations
are due to its geometry and materials, and they have not changed.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:09:26 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

Harry Lavo wrote:
I think most folks would give Steve Hoffman a bit more
credibility than "just another enthusiast".

The following link:

http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm

provides one data point in Mr. Hoffman's credibility curve.



Wow, it certainly does put a chink in Mr. Hoffman's credibility as a
listener! The Hallographs are just mouse-milk, they do NOTHING at all. (I
mean, just look at them. What COULD they do?) They're right up there with
myrtlewood blocks and cable "elevators". If this guy thinks that they work
(unless, of course, he was paid to "think" that - in which case that casts
doubts on his honesty and sincerity), he obviously has no "ear" at all!

[Scott[_6_]]

On 30 Nov, 11:07, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I see zero scientific evidence to support the contention that vinyl playback
performance has improved signficantly since then.

I haven't seen Russia. Fortunately neither of our personal
observations are the standard by which we determine reality.


All I see is a lot of
vendor hype and enthusiast's anecdotes.

But all you offered was an anecdote. Why the double standard? If
anecdotes are unacceptable why do you use them?


I've personally investigated these
claims over the years by visiting enthusiast's homes and listened to their
vinyl playback systems and also by visiting vendor displays at high end
audio shows and had private demonstrations. No joy!

That is just an anecdote! Kinda ironic after making an issue about
anecdotes,

Interesting given that I've had numerous LP enthusiasts denigrate my years
of personal experience with a number of Shure V15s in SME arms.

Not my favorite cartridge either but we were talking accuracy not
preference.

Seems like just another enthusiast's anecdote

Kind of like your anecdote only Steve Hoffman is an actual top notch
mastering engineer who used an actual master tape as his reference on
state of the art equipment. His anecdote had some very specific
information which makes his tests repeatable. His tests were level
matched and time synced. Your anecdote OTOH had none of that. No way
to varify your story. IOW his anecdote really is better than your
anecdote.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:49:19 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On 30 Nov, 11:07, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I see zero scientific evidence to support the contention that vinyl playback
performance has improved signficantly since then.

I haven't seen Russia. Fortunately neither of our personal
observations are the standard by which we determine reality.


All I see is a lot of
vendor hype and enthusiast's anecdotes.

But all you offered was an anecdote. Why the double standard? If
anecdotes are unacceptable why do you use them?


I've personally investigated these
claims over the years by visiting enthusiast's homes and listened to their
vinyl playback systems and also by visiting vendor displays at high end
audio shows and had private demonstrations. No joy!

That is just an anecdote! Kinda ironic after making an issue about
anecdotes,

Interesting given that I've had numerous LP enthusiasts denigrate my years
of personal experience with a number of Shure V15s in SME arms.

Not my favorite cartridge either but we were talking accuracy not
preference.

Seems like just another enthusiast's anecdote

Kind of like your anecdote only Steve Hoffman is an actual top notch
mastering engineer who used an actual master tape as his reference on
state of the art equipment. His anecdote had some very specific
information which makes his tests repeatable. His tests were level
matched and time synced. Your anecdote OTOH had none of that. No way
to varify your story. IOW his anecdote really is better than your
anecdote.


I don't think that even the most dyed-in-the-wool vinylphile would try to
argue that LP is more accurate than CD (I certainly wouldn't, but then, I'm
not a dyed-in-the-wool vinylphile. either) but I will say that in many, many
cases, I find vinyl more musically satisfying, and really, that's all I care
about.