[Arny Krueger]

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message

Audio Empire wrote:
Your rebuttal falls on deaf ears

Now THAT's revealing....

because my opinion is fixed.

As is this.

Seems like we shouldn't waste our breath on trying to sway him with facts or
reason.

[Andrew Barss[_2_]]

Audio Empire wrote:
: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:43:09 -0800, Scott wrote
: (in article ):

: Where? Don't you mean Who?

: That doesn't make any sense. "... I don't know WHO they get those
: "songs"..."????

What? Why?

:
: The "awful" screaming is acoustic though. Ya gotta concede that fact.

: Is it? Never could get past the screaming to notice.

Who's Next? Whence came the CSI:Miami theme.

-- Andy Barss

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:54:02 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message

Audio Empire wrote:
Your rebuttal falls on deaf ears

Now THAT's revealing....

because my opinion is fixed.

As is this.

Seems like we shouldn't waste our breath on trying to sway him with facts or
reason.



I'm sorry if your idea of "facts and reason" differs from mine, because I
haven't seen either from anybody here. There are things that I simply cannot
abide. I don't like brussels sprouts, and never will. I don't think Sarah
Jessica Parker is beautiful, and I never will no matter how often the media
tells me that she is. I don't like Will Farrell - either his "acting" of his
"comedy" and I hate rock-n-roll. These are tastes and most have nothing to do
with logic or reason. I'm sure that all of us have met people, tasted things
and heard things that we don't like and we all try to keep those things out
of our lives. Why anyone would think that a person's likes and dislikes are
capricious and arbitrary enough to be easily changed, I don't know.

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Kele wrote:
Thank you for replies. You are all sound experts in my eyes. Being
without the technical knowledge, my hope is that you can interpret my
simplistic conveyance of my opinion.

When I walk into the mall and hear music playing, I=92ll focus on it and
know if it=92s live =96 sight unseen. As I progress toward the sound (the
central atrium), I become more sure of my guess. Then as I peer down
to the first floor, I see the band playing with PV house speakers.
I=92m hearing amplified (processed) music, but it=92s not as if I were
listening to a recording regardless that I had ever heard the band or
song(s) before. I never heard Floyd live, but Live=92s unique
properties hasn=92t been conveyed by any recording I=92ve heard, to
include all the audio test CD=92s & jazz samplers I=92ve collected via
magazine subscriptions. Maybe my stereo is the weakest link.

Where I live there are numerous sidewalk minstrels of varying talent.
It=92s open air and I=92m able to be arms length from musicians playing
their instruments, even violinists. I=92ve even recorded myself playing
an acoustic guitar. I=92m just saying that we can always get out Live
memory reinforced. I understand what you=92re saying about un-amplified
music as the truest form of live, but either way, I can=92t think of a
time I=92ve been fooled into thinking a recording played back is Live.

If you're talking about live unamplified instruments then OK. But in
case if aplified music -- many "preformers" use full playback. Are you
sure you've never been fooled?


In the studio, when you can=92t see whether it=92s live or a recording
being played back, you can=92t tell? I would love to experience that.

My brother, who is a professional musician says, he experienced it once
in some specially equipped experimental studio (full 3D sound setup from
i don't know how many speakers (~10) in specially prepared room). That
was with live instruments.
In case of some liveaplified music -- it's not a problem at all.

I would have to follow that recording through the process (to market)
to identify when and where the change occurs. By change I mean when
the recording no longer fools me into thinking it=92s live. I=92d have to
pitch a fit wherever that transition occurs, intentional or not.
That=92s what I=92m trying to ask of you. I know the post-processing
plays a big part. I=92m thinking that each pass through another board
of electronics impacts the sound thus reducing its =93Liveliness=94 =96 eve=
n
in the digital domain.

This has been proven to be false. There were tests where sound was
passed via components about 20 times and listener was not able to tell
the difference.

There must be specific culprits that can be
addressed to help eliminate the recorded sound. Does the industry
share the same equipment? Maybe there is bad-actor sound gear that is
most influential at squashing realism.

Sounds like a light tracking record groove idea has already been made
into reality=85 I didn=92t know. Nor did I know that materials other than
vinyl have been tried. With all the nano-technology being developed,
it seemed a good time to ask the question. Since the audiophile
approved CDs do sound better than most, it does stand to reason that
the major problems are upstream. It would probably be more beneficial
to address those first, or the next medium will continue to suffer.


It's Audio Emire's main point, that the problem is upstream. Addidg to
that there is obvious fact that stereo system itself is simply not
capable of full realism.

rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 23, 12:53=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in message



Let me put this another way. Did you not say in an
earlier post that you hated opera?

I wonder how Scott feels about "Tommy"?

I think it is brilliant and while considered to be a rock opera it
isn't opera in the classical sense of opera. If we are going to use
the broader definition being any sort of staged narrative that is
played out purely in lyrical form then there are a few "operas" I
quite like. When I say I hate opera I am using the more narrow
understanding. I'm talking Verdi, Rossini, Wagner, Mozart etc.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 03:54:57 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):

Kele wrote:
Thank you for replies. You are all sound experts in my eyes. Being
without the technical knowledge, my hope is that you can interpret my
simplistic conveyance of my opinion.

When I walk into the mall and hear music playing, I=92ll focus on it and
know if it=92s live =96 sight unseen.

I think most humans can do that.


As I progress toward the sound (the
central atrium), I become more sure of my guess. Then as I peer down
to the first floor, I see the band playing with PV house speakers.
I=92m hearing amplified (processed) music, but it=92s not as if I were
listening to a recording regardless that I had ever heard the band or
song(s) before. I never heard Floyd live, but Live=92s unique
properties hasn=92t been conveyed by any recording I=92ve heard, to
include all the audio test CD=92s & jazz samplers I=92ve collected via
magazine subscriptions. Maybe my stereo is the weakest link.

Where I live there are numerous sidewalk minstrels of varying talent.
It=92s open air and I=92m able to be arms length from musicians playing
their instruments, even violinists. I=92ve even recorded myself playing
an acoustic guitar. I=92m just saying that we can always get out Live
memory reinforced. I understand what you=92re saying about un-amplified
music as the truest form of live, but either way, I can=92t think of a
time I=92ve been fooled into thinking a recording played back is Live.

It certainly isn't, and I can well believe you. But even if a band playing in
a mall atrium is using sound reinforcement, any live, acoustic instruments in
that group (like the drum kit or a trumpet of a sax) are going to be heard
BOTH from the loudspeakers of the reinforcement system, and directly from the
instrument to your ears because acoustic instruments can play loudly. But in
a concert situation, unless you are up front, near the stage, you'll be
getting pretty much everything you hear via speakers. So that's a somewhat
different animal.

If you're talking about live unamplified instruments then OK. But in
case if aplified music -- many "preformers" use full playback. Are you
sure you've never been fooled?


In the studio, when you can=92t see whether it=92s live or a recording
being played back, you can=92t tell? I would love to experience that.

My brother, who is a professional musician says, he experienced it once
in some specially equipped experimental studio (full 3D sound setup from
i don't know how many speakers (~10) in specially prepared room). That
was with live instruments.
In case of some liveaplified music -- it's not a problem at all.

I would have to follow that recording through the process (to market)
to identify when and where the change occurs. By change I mean when
the recording no longer fools me into thinking it=92s live. I=92d have to
pitch a fit wherever that transition occurs, intentional or not.
That=92s what I=92m trying to ask of you. I know the post-processing
plays a big part. I=92m thinking that each pass through another board
of electronics impacts the sound thus reducing its =93Liveliness=94 =96 eve=
n
in the digital domain.

Microphones, even very good ones, are not perfect (after all, they're
transducers, just like speakers and phonograph cartridges), mixers aren't
perfect, and the analog to digital process is not perfect. And that's just on
the "capture" side of the equation. Usually, the record producer and the mix
engineer can't resist making it sound "better" with EQ and compression and
that adds another layer of abstraction. On the playback side, the already
flawed CD goes through digital to analog conversion. then the amplification
is not perfect and certainly one's speakers are far from perfect as is the
listening room. The fact that we can get any semblance of music from such a
lash-up is more of a miracle than it is anything else. 8^)

This has been proven to be false. There were tests where sound was
passed via components about 20 times and listener was not able to tell
the difference.

Depends upon what kind of processing you're talking about. Analog? I doubt
it, but an A/D - D/A loop? That's possible,

There must be specific culprits that can be
addressed to help eliminate the recorded sound. Does the industry
share the same equipment? Maybe there is bad-actor sound gear that is
most influential at squashing realism.

On the record side, microphones are probably the biggest variable along with
venue and post-capture manipulation. And no there really aren't any standards
for those things.

Sounds like a light tracking record groove idea has already been made
into reality=85 I didn=92t know. Nor did I know that materials other than
vinyl have been tried. With all the nano-technology being developed,
it seemed a good time to ask the question. Since the audiophile
approved CDs do sound better than most, it does stand to reason that
the major problems are upstream. It would probably be more beneficial
to address those first, or the next medium will continue to suffer.


It's Audio Emire's main point, that the problem is upstream. Addidg to
that there is obvious fact that stereo system itself is simply not
capable of full realism.

Yes, that's very true.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


Microphones, even very good ones, are not perfect (after
all, they're transducers, just like speakers and
phonograph cartridges), mixers aren't perfect, and the
analog to digital process is not perfect.

Wrong on 2 counts. Mixers and converters are often sonically transparent.
Comparing the sonic purity of phono cartrdiges to good converters is like
comparing mud to milk.

And that's just on the "capture" side of the equation. Usually, the
record producer and the mix engineer can't resist making
it sound "better" with EQ and compression and that adds
another layer of abstraction.

Those are artistic choices that may or may not be done. Railing against
equalization is "The Audiophile thing to do" but shows ignorance. When you
equalize to overcome losses in other parts of the recording chain, you can
easily be stepping in the direction of greater sonic accuracy.

On the playback side, the
already flawed CD goes through digital to analog
conversion.

Again, absolutely nothing to worry about in modern times with modern
equipment.

When the amplification is not perfect

But it is again, often sonically transparent especially if you stay away
from tubes...

and certainly one's speakers are far from perfect as is the
listening room.

But again, they can work well enough.

The fact that we can get any semblance of
music from such a lash-up is more of a miracle than it is
anything else. 8^)

These are all hits on technology. Yet in current days the worst sonic damage
is done by people for artistic reasons.

This has been proven to be false. There were tests where
sound was passed via components about 20 times and
listener was not able to tell the difference.

Depends upon what kind of processing you're talking
about. Analog?

If you define analog as tubes then audible flaws are likely.

I doubt it, but an A/D - D/A loop? That's possible,

That's a given, and not even requiring the best available components.

There must be specific culprits that can be
addressed to help eliminate the recorded sound. Does
the industry
share the same equipment? Maybe there is bad-actor
sound gear that is
most influential at squashing realism.

On the record side, microphones are probably the biggest
variable along with venue and post-capture manipulation.

Difrerences among microphones pale in comparison to differences in
microphone technique.


And no there really aren't any standards for those things.

Just the ears and the experience of the recording staff.

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Scott wrote:
On Feb 16, 5:20=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message
On Feb 15, 5:31=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

Actually, I've heard the clocks sound very real (my
grandparents had a house full of wind-ups...I've head at
least eight of various sizes go off at once) to sounding
very unreal. =3DA0Using the SACD version. =3DA0And the
culprit....the preamp. =3DA0 Audio Research SP6B vs. Onkyo
P301. =3DA0So much for big-box store electronics.
I own a weight-driven grandfather clock with chime
movement, so I know exactly what one sounds like. I can
move it in my listening room and list=3D en to it chime,
if I want the true live experience.
Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like it is entirely
possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics and
speakers that are well-configured for the room.
The DSOTM recording was miced incredibly close, so any
claims that close-micing bodes poorly for fidelity is
brought into question by the hi=3D gh end audiophile
comments on this thread.-
Do you have any pictures or first hand accounts of the
mic positions for the recording of the clocks on DSOTM?
No experienced recording engineer would need such a thing to reach the
conclusion that I've provided.

Hmmm. That may very well be true. But the fact is *you* reached
completely eroneous conclusions.


Well, I don't see those conclusions being erroneous at all.

Perhaps you should steer clear of
Dark Side of the Moon as a reference.

Perhaps you should concentrate on the core of the matters discussed.


If you've miced different instruments in different rooms different ways, =
a
recording paints a fairly detailed sonic picture of how the recording was
miced. If you've worked the room, then mic locations can be estimated fai=
rly
well.

What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio or studios,
which are generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead. =A0It is co=
mmon
to mic close and add the sonic perspective electronically during the mix.
Done right, this can fool most listeners.

And so based on the false assumption that the clocks were recorded in
an acoustically dead studio room with your experienced ears as a
recording engineer you concluded that the clocks were recorded in a
dead studio room and were close miced. Yikes. Arny, the album was
recorded at Abby Road studios. The recording spaces are hardly dead
there.

Wchich one?

Kind of funny that we have this interesting article from one
Jon Atkinson on this recording.
http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/
" since I recorded an album at Abbey Road Studio at the same time that
the Floyd were there making DSotM, I always thought the album did an
excellent job of preserving the characteristic sound of the studio
with which I had become so familiar. Yet when I first listened to the
CD layer of the reissue, it didn't sound like Abbey Road at all. The
sonic subtleties that identify the recording venue and its unique
reverb chamber had been eliminated or smoothed over. They were there
on the SACD, so some investigation was called for."

But what has echo chamber to studio itself begin dead or not? Echo
chamber is part of the audio processing chain. Instruments are not
played there -- miked or prerecorded track is played via speaker(s) in
the chamber and picked up by mike(s) there.

BTW. As a sidenote, the SF article (quoted part in fact) contains real
audiophilic gem. Mr. Atkinson claims to remeber, after 30 years, subtle
details of characteristic sound of studio and (especially) "unique" echo
chamber. Funily enough echo chamber could be (and is) easily adjusted to
particular needs of recording being produced.

And yet you conclusions direactly above based on your expertise as a
recordist was "DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, which are
generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead." ooops......

Arny's conslusions are generally right. Oooooops...

Oh and by the way....The clocks weren't recorded in the studio. They
were recorded in various clock shops individually. Do you know of any
clock shops that are acoustically dead?

Yes, most are oooooops.

Again let's look at your
assertions as quoted from above. "Getting the DSOTM clock to sound
like it is entirely possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics
and speakers that are well-configured for the room." "What is known
for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, which are
generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead." " No experienced
recording engineer would need such a thing (a photo of the mic
configuration from the actual recording session) to reach the
conclusion that I've provided."

Nothing strange or wrong with that.

Let's take an example you should know more than audio engineering. Lets
take an example of photography. When a layman looks at an image, (s)he
sees just a pretty (or on) picture. But a photographer could determine
such things like lighting, type of lens use (wide/normal/tele,
rectilinear/fisheye), tilt and shift etc, even such things like type of
film.


Maybe the CD you have used as a reference is the one with the one
being examined by Jon Atkinson with the screwed up CD layer? that
might explain how one could listen to the recording and draw such
eroneous conclusions

The lackings of the recording, as described in Mr. Atkinson's article,
will not hide such things like type miking used.

about the recording venues given your assertions
about the listening skills of "experienced recording engineers" such
as yourself. But we don't know which version of DSOTM you listen to. I
did ask after you posted that terribly inadequate list of variaious
masterings. You never answered.

Desnt matter if the recording was the same.


mastering does matter. doing your homework does help in chosing the
better masterings.

Doing your homework does help understand the matters discussed, like how
echo chambers are utilised, for example.


DSOTM has not been a very good reference for you so far on this
thread.

You're trying to turn the discussion in irrelevant side matters, like
how many remasters of DSotM are there.

rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:53:09 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


Microphones, even very good ones, are not perfect (after
all, they're transducers, just like speakers and
phonograph cartridges), mixers aren't perfect, and the
analog to digital process is not perfect.

Wrong on 2 counts. Mixers and converters are often sonically transparent.
Comparing the sonic purity of phono cartrdiges to good converters is like
comparing mud to milk.

Talk about wrong! Nothing made by man is perfect, including audio
electronics. If you think so, then you are either 1) very naive, 2) have some
hearing deficiency, or 3) an extreme technophile with absolutely no hint of
reality with regard to this subject. While these electronic devices are as
good as modern technology can make them, they are far from perfect. If they
were, their would be no difference between the recording and the live event
and there most certainly IS a difference!

Also go back and read what I said once again. I didn't compare microphones to
speakers or phonograph cartridges, I said that microphones were TRANSDUCERS
as are phonograph cartridges and speakers. Are you now going to contentiously
argue that microphones are NOT transducers? If you are, you're the only
person in audio who holds that belief.

And that's just on the "capture" side of the equation. Usually, the
record producer and the mix engineer can't resist making
it sound "better" with EQ and compression and that adds
another layer of abstraction.

Those are artistic choices that may or may not be done. Railing against
equalization is "The Audiophile thing to do" but shows ignorance. When you
equalize to overcome losses in other parts of the recording chain, you can
easily be stepping in the direction of greater sonic accuracy.

And, that they are artistic choices changes the fact that they represent
another layer of abstraction between the performance and the listener, how?
You need to stay more on the topic here. As usual, you seem more interested
in making others look less knowledgeable and experienced than you are rather
than actually discussing the issue. That attitude has been noticed, and not
just by me.

On the playback side, the
already flawed CD goes through digital to analog
conversion.

Again, absolutely nothing to worry about in modern times with modern
equipment.

Says you. Again, if this stuff were as Pollyanna perfect as you paint it, a
CD would sound exactly like a live performance, and it can't. You're fooling
no one.

When the amplification is not perfect

But it is again, often sonically transparent especially if you stay away
from tubes...

Again, you're wrong. and again, if all amps were as perfect as you seem to
think they are, they'd all sound the same - or rather, they'd all have NO
sound and that is simply not the case. Not only is it not the case, but there
is no science that says that they will or that they should. And to show you
how out of touch you are with what's going on in the real world of audio, a
good, modern solid-state and a good, modern tube amp sound more alike than
different these days. In fact in a recent double blind test between several
modern 225 W/channel amps, one of which was a tube amp and the other two
being solid-state, the differences were quite small, and after the test all
the participants agreed that they could happily live with any of the three of
them. So your characterization of tube amps is obviously based on older
designs like Dynacos and old 60's through the 80's era Marantzes, McIntoshes,
and Audio Research products. Few (if any) of the modern amps sound
particularly "tubey'" these days.

and certainly one's speakers are far from perfect as is the
listening room.

But again, they can work well enough.

What's your definition of "well enough"? We're not talking about "well
enough" in this post, we're talking about why recordings don't sound perfect.
That was OP's actual question and the one that I attempted to answer.

The fact that we can get any semblance of
music from such a lash-up is more of a miracle than it is
anything else. 8^)

These are all hits on technology. Yet in current days the worst sonic damage
is done by people for artistic reasons.

Well, at last you have said something that is correct. A well engineered,
modern recording can sound remarkably good, but even without the "artistic
license" afforded many so-called artists, their producers, and engineers, a
great modern recording still falls woefully short of the live sound of
musicians playing acoustic instruments in real space. I don't know about you,
but the pursuit of that sound is, initially, the reason I got into audio and
knowing that it's an impossible goal, worth pursuing, is what has kept me
interested all these years. Indeed, it's the reason the high-fidelity
industry was started in the first place.

This has been proven to be false. There were tests where
sound was passed via components about 20 times and
listener was not able to tell the difference.

Depends upon what kind of processing you're talking
about. Analog?

If you define analog as tubes then audible flaws are likely.

No offense meant, but, again, you don't seem to know what you're talking
about with regard to modern tube circuitry and practice.

I doubt it, but an A/D - D/A loop? That's possible,

That's a given, and not even requiring the best available components.

Given your seemingly (based on what you've posted here since I've been
following this group), mediocre standards, that remains to be proven for many
of us,

There must be specific culprits that can be
addressed to help eliminate the recorded sound. Does
the industry
share the same equipment? Maybe there is bad-actor
sound gear that is
most influential at squashing realism.

On the record side, microphones are probably the biggest
variable along with venue and post-capture manipulation.

Difrerences among microphones pale in comparison to differences in
microphone technique.

I didn't make the distinction between the two. But since you raise the point,
yes, there are a lot of different ways to mike an ensemble. Some are better
than others, and they're all situation dependent. That translates to lots of
room for error.

And no there really aren't any standards for those things.

Just the ears and the experience of the recording staff.

Personal taste, is hardly a "standard" in any subject, no matter how
experienced or refined that taste might be.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Feb 25, 9:27=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:53:09 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


Microphones, even very good ones, are not perfect (after
all, they're transducers, just like speakers and
phonograph cartridges), mixers aren't perfect, and the
analog to digital process is not perfect.

Wrong on 2 counts. Mixers and converters are often sonically transparen=
t.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 25, 6:32=A0am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Feb 16, 5:20=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message
On Feb 15, 5:31=3D3DA0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

Actually, I've heard the clocks sound very real (my
grandparents had a house full of wind-ups...I've head at
least eight of various sizes go off at once) to sounding
very unreal. =3D3DA0Using the SACD version. =3D3DA0And the
culprit....the preamp. =3D3DA0 Audio Research SP6B vs. Onkyo
P301. =3D3DA0So much for big-box store electronics.
I own a weight-driven grandfather clock with chime
movement, so I know exactly what one sounds like. I can
move it in my listening room and list=3D3D en to it chime,
if I want the true live experience.
Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like it is entirely
possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics and
speakers that are well-configured for the room.
The DSOTM recording was miced incredibly close, so any
claims that close-micing bodes poorly for fidelity is
brought into question by the hi=3D3D gh end audiophile
comments on this thread.-
Do you have any pictures or first hand accounts of the
mic positions for the recording of the clocks on DSOTM?
No experienced recording engineer would need such a thing to reach the
conclusion that I've provided.

Hmmm. That may very well be true. But the fact is *you* reached
completely eroneous conclusions.

Well, I don't see those conclusions being erroneous at all.

Interesting consclusion given the fact that they are eroneous. The
primary conclusion in question was that the clocks on DSOTM were
recorded in a dead studio space but the fact is they were recorded
individually in various clock stores.


Perhaps you should steer clear of
Dark Side of the Moon as a reference.

Perhaps you should concentrate on the core of the matters discussed.

Kind of an ironic assertion givn that you just jumped into this side
topic.




If you've miced different instruments in different rooms different way=
s, =3D
a
recording paints a fairly detailed sonic picture of how the recording =
was
miced. If you've worked the room, then mic locations can be estimated =
fai=3D
rly
well.

What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio or studio=
s,
which are generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead. =3DA0It =
is co=3D
mmon
to mic close and add the sonic perspective electronically during the m=
ix.
Done right, this can fool most listeners.

And so based on the false assumption that the clocks were recorded in
an acoustically dead studio room with your experienced ears as a
recording engineer you concluded that the clocks were recorded in a
dead studio room and were close miced. Yikes. Arny, the album was
recorded at Abby Road studios. The recording spaces are hardly dead
there.

Wchich one?

I said spaces which is a plural. Why are you asking which one which is
singular?



Kind of funny that we have this interesting article from one
Jon Atkinson on this recording.
http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/
" since I recorded an album at Abbey Road Studio at the same time that
the Floyd were there making DSotM, I always thought the album did an
excellent job of preserving the characteristic sound of the studio
with which I had become so familiar. Yet when I first listened to the
CD layer of the reissue, it didn't sound like Abbey Road at all. The
sonic subtleties that identify the recording venue and its unique
reverb chamber had been eliminated or smoothed over. They were there
on the SACD, so some investigation was called for."

But what has echo chamber to studio itself begin dead or not? Echo
chamber is part of the audio processing chain. Instruments are not
played there -- miked or prerecorded track is played via speaker(s) in
the chamber and picked up by mike(s) there.

We are talkng specifically about the use of the echo chamber on DSOTM.
That is not an acurate description of how the echo chamber was used on
that recording.



BTW. As a sidenote, the SF article (quoted part in fact) contains real
audiophilic gem. Mr. Atkinson claims to remeber, after 30 years, subtle
details of characteristic sound of studio and (especially) "unique" echo
chamber. Funily enough echo chamber could be (and is) easily adjusted to
particular needs of recording being produced.

So you are personally familiar enough with Abby Road studios that you
can speak from experience about th eroneous nature of Atkinson's
claims?


And yet you conclusions direactly above based on your expertise as a
recordist was "DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, which are
generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead." =A0 =A0 ooops.....=
..

Arny's conslusions are generally right. Oooooops...

No they are consistantly wrong as shown by actual facts about the
recording of DSOTM.



Oh and by the way....The clocks weren't recorded in the studio. They
were recorded in various clock shops individually. Do you know of any
clock shops that are acoustically dead?

Yes, most are oooooops.

Not even close. Feel free to show us an example. Tell us what clock
shop has so much absorbtive material on the walls that the space is
actually a dead acoustic space. Dead acoustic spaces generally cost
lots of money to build (anechoic chambers and the like) so do tell us
how they haphazardly happen more often than not in clock shops of all
things. all the clock shops I've been in (and I have actual been in
one in London no less) have fairly reflective walls that they use to
hang clocks which themselves have fairly reflective surfaces. so do
tell us about these acoustically dead clock shops that are more common
than not. I think you are making a pretty wild claim here that ignores
the basics of room acoustics.



Again let's look at your
assertions as quoted from above. "Getting the DSOTM clock to sound
like it is entirely =A0possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics
and speakers that are well-configured for the room." "What is known
for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, which are
generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead." " No experienced
recording engineer would need such a thing (a photo of the mic
configuration from the actual recording session) to reach the
conclusion that I've provided."

Nothing strange or wrong with that.

Other than the fact that the conclusion reached was painfully
incorrect?


Let's take an example you should know more than audio engineering. Lets
take an example of photography.

Let's stick with audio.


Maybe the CD you have used as a reference is the one with the one
being examined by Jon Atkinson with the screwed up CD layer? that
might explain how one could listen to the recording and draw such
eroneous conclusions

The lackings of the recording, as described in Mr. Atkinson's article,
will not hide such things like type miking used.

I suggest you reread the article. Mr. Atkinson did not describe any
lackings in the recording. understanding this fact is paramount in
understanding this thread.



about the recording venues given your assertions
about the listening skills of "experienced recording engineers" such
as yourself. But we don't know which version of DSOTM you listen to. I
did ask after you posted that terribly inadequate list of variaious
masterings. You never answered.

Desnt matter if the recording was the same.

So you don't understand or simply deny that mastering affects the
sound of recordings?



mastering does matter. doing your homework does help in chosing the
better masterings.

Doing your homework does help understand the matters discussed, like how
echo chambers are utilised, for example.

That is a fine example and had you done your homework you would have
known better than to post information about it that was irrelevant to
how the echo chamber was actually used in the recording of DSOTM.





DSOTM has not been a very good reference for you so far on this
thread.

You're trying to turn the discussion in irrelevant side matters, like
how many remasters of DSotM are there.

No I am responding to and correcting misinformation. Much like I am
doing in this post with the misinformation you have added to the
thread.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:08:14 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 25, 9:27=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:53:09 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


Microphones, even very good ones, are not perfect (after
all, they're transducers, just like speakers and
phonograph cartridges), mixers aren't perfect, and the
analog to digital process is not perfect.

Wrong on 2 counts. Mixers and converters are often sonically transparen=
t.
Comparing the sonic purity of phono cartrdiges to good converters is li=
ke
comparing mud to milk.

Arny neither said nor implied that any sonic device is "perfect", but
rather that some subset of them are "transparent". The two words do
not mean the same thing and your whole tirade in this post, so far as
I can see, relies on conflating two things that are different.

There is no perfect audio or electronic device. There are many
transparent audio devices whose flaws are inaudible, even after many
iterations, and cannot be heard by human ears which are also, let us
not forget, imperfect. To deny these things is, to my mind, to deny
the straightforward facts of the matter. Which it is of course,
you're perfect right to do but not, to my my mind at least, very
helpful or productive in this particular context.

Ed


Then I'm not the one doing the conflating. The OP wanted to know why modern
recording/playback fail to capture the sound of real music. I attempted to
answer that question. In order for flawless capture and reproduction to
occur, the chain must be perfect. Nothing less will do. That was my answer.
What Arny's use of "transparent" has to do with that, other than to obfuscate
the reality of the situation, I don't know.

[Andrew Haley]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:08:14 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

There is no perfect audio or electronic device. There are many
transparent audio devices whose flaws are inaudible, even after many
iterations, and cannot be heard by human ears which are also, let us
not forget, imperfect. To deny these things is, to my mind, to deny
the straightforward facts of the matter. Which it is of course,
you're perfect right to do but not, to my my mind at least, very
helpful or productive in this particular context.

Then I'm not the one doing the conflating. The OP wanted to know why
modern recording/playback fail to capture the sound of real music. I
attempted to answer that question. In order for flawless capture and
reproduction to occur, the chain must be perfect.

That's a peculiar definition of "flawless". The gemmological root of
the word is a diamond so perfect that even under 10x magnification no
flaw is visible to the most skilled grader. Surely an ADC/DAC that
can be looped through 20 times with no audble deterioration is
flawless in the same way.

Andrew.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 26, 7:39=A0am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:08:14 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

There is no perfect audio or electronic device. =A0There are many
transparent audio devices whose flaws are inaudible, even after many
iterations, and cannot be heard by human ears which are also, let us
not forget, imperfect. =A0To deny these things is, to my mind, to deny
the straightforward facts of the matter. =A0Which it is of course,
you're perfect right to do but not, to my my mind at least, very
helpful or productive in this particular context.

Then I'm not the one doing the conflating. The OP wanted to know why
modern recording/playback fail to capture the sound of real music. I
attempted to answer that question. In order for flawless capture and
reproduction to occur, the chain must be perfect.

That's a peculiar definition of "flawless".

Not really. http://education.yahoo.com/reference...entry/flawless

=A0The gemmological root of
the word is a diamond so perfect that even under 10x magnification no
flaw is visible to the most skilled grader.


It is the user of the word that gets to decide which legitimate
definition applies to his or her particular usage of that word.
Pulling a different meaning is in effect a misrepresentation of the
OPs intent. This is obfusecation at it's most sublime.

=A0Surely an ADC/DAC that
can be looped through 20 times with no audble deterioration is
flawless in the same way.



Hardly. All it takes is one brick wall filter that is audibly
degrading the original analog signal to shoot this theory out of the
water.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:48:06 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 26, 7:39=A0am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:08:14 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

There is no perfect audio or electronic device. =A0There are many
transparent audio devices whose flaws are inaudible, even after many
iterations, and cannot be heard by human ears which are also, let us
not forget, imperfect. =A0To deny these things is, to my mind, to deny
the straightforward facts of the matter. =A0Which it is of course,
you're perfect right to do but not, to my my mind at least, very
helpful or productive in this particular context.

Then I'm not the one doing the conflating. The OP wanted to know why
modern recording/playback fail to capture the sound of real music. I
attempted to answer that question. In order for flawless capture and
reproduction to occur, the chain must be perfect.

That's a peculiar definition of "flawless".

Not really. http://education.yahoo.com/reference...entry/flawless

=A0The gemmological root of
the word is a diamond so perfect that even under 10x magnification no
flaw is visible to the most skilled grader.


It is the user of the word that gets to decide which legitimate
definition applies to his or her particular usage of that word.
Pulling a different meaning is in effect a misrepresentation of the
OPs intent. This is obfusecation at it's most sublime.

=A0Surely an ADC/DAC that
can be looped through 20 times with no audble deterioration is
flawless in the same way.



Hardly. All it takes is one brick wall filter that is audibly
degrading the original analog signal to shoot this theory out of the
water.


All of this speaks to my oft-expressed belief that there are people who post
on this NG who would argue the point that the night is dark and the day is
bright.

This really quite simple. If the recording and playback chain were truly
"transparent", then a state-of-the-art home stereo would be able to reproduce
music in a manner which was indistinguishable from the real event. It
doesn't. It can't, and it never will be able to achieve this, the Holy Grail
of audio.

I know that I can count on the "usual suspects" to come back and tell me that
I'm wrong with this statement, but I'm not.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Feb 26, 3:17=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

This really quite simple. If the recording and playback chain were truly
"transparent", then a state-of-the-art home stereo would be able to repro=
duce
music in a manner which was indistinguishable from the real event. It
doesn't. It can't, and it never will be able to achieve this, the Holy Gr=
ail
of audio.

But no one has made such a claim here. Once again you are beating on
that straw man.

Certain parts of the chain of components can be shown to be
effectively transparent, but the chain itself is not and no one says
it is. A chain is made up of links, and is only as strong as it's
weakest link, and there are certain links in the audio chain that we
don't know (yet) how to make perfect. Then it would behoove us, if
perfecting the whole chain is our goal, to work on those weak links
until we can bring them up to the standard the other, already
transparent, links have achieved and not worry about the ones we have
already gotten right.

Or we could keep looking for the key under the lamp post because
that's where the light is, of course. Some here seem sometimes to
want to keep doing that, or such is the impression I sometimes get.

I know that I can count on the "usual suspects" to come back and tell
me that I'm wrong with this statement, but I'm not.

It's not that you are "wrong" or "right", but that you seem to so
utterly miss the whole point. To quote a physicist, very often, as
above, it seems that you are "not even wrong".

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:53:09 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message

Microphones, even very good ones, are not perfect (after
all, they're transducers, just like speakers and
phonograph cartridges), mixers aren't perfect, and the
analog to digital process is not perfect.

Wrong on 2 counts. Mixers and converters are often
sonically transparent. Comparing the sonic purity of
phono cartrdiges to good converters is like comparing
mud to milk.

Talk about wrong! Nothing made by man is perfect,
including audio electronics.

I did not say that audio electronics were perfect. I said that they are
often "sonically transparent", which means that signals representing music
can pass through them without reliably noticable audible alternations.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


On Feb 26, 7:39=A0am, Andrew Haley
wrote:

Surely an ADC/DAC that
can be looped through 20 times with no audble
deterioration is flawless in the same way.

Hardly. All it takes is one brick wall filter that is
audibly degrading the original analog signal to shoot this theory
out of the water.

False. The existance of just one filter that is audibly degrading does not
mean that they are all audibly degrading. This is very poor logic. It like
saying that since the cat before us is black, all cats are black.

Your cat may be black, but mine is brown and white. Therefore, not all cats
are black and not all brick wall filters degrade musical sounds.

There is actually no problem finding brick wall filters with corner
frequencies @ 22.05 KHz that are *not* audibly degrading. The more serious
problem is finding audiophiles that have actually taken part in proper
listening tests.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Feb 25, 6:32=A0am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Feb 16, 5:20=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I own a weight-driven grandfather clock with chime
movement, so I know exactly what one sounds like. I
can move it in my listening room and listen to
it chime, if I want the true live experience.

Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like it is entirely
possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics and
speakers that are well-configured for the room.

The DSOTM recording was miced incredibly close, so
any claims that close-micing bodes poorly for
fidelity is brought into question by the high
end audiophile comments on this thread.-

Do you have any pictures or first hand accounts of the
mic positions for the recording of the clocks on
DSOTM?

No experienced recording engineer would need such a
thing to reach the conclusion that I've provided.

Hmmm. That may very well be true. But the fact is *you*
reached completely eroneous conclusions.

In fact there were no erroenous conclusions except perhaps on Scott's part
which follows:

Interesting consclusion given the fact that they are
eroneous. The primary conclusion in question was that the
clocks on DSOTM were recorded in a dead studio space but
the fact is they were recorded individually in various
clock stores.

Just another example of how some people change established facts to suit
their agenda that they are right and everybody else is wrong.

Move up the thread and you'll see that I *actually* said:

"The DSOTM recording was miced incredibly close, so any claims that
close-micing bodes poorly for fidelity is brought into question by the high
end audiophile comments on this thread."

I said it was miced close. No studio was ever mentioned! Scott's inclusion
of a studio was entirely his own fabrication.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


The OP wanted
to know why modern recording/playback fail to capture the
sound of real music.

The reasons are many, but the total absence of sonically transparent
electronics is not one of them.

I attempted to answer that question.
In order for flawless capture and reproduction to occur,
the chain must be perfect.

That would be a false claim, since it is well known that equipment that
measures out to have imperfect perforamance can be sonically transparent.
The ear is a fairly insensitive device by modern standards.

Right now we have op amps that have 0.00003% THD while we know that THD has
to be only about 0.05% to be unnoticable.

http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LM4562.html

THD+N (AV = 1, VOUT = 3VRMS, fIN = 1kHz)

RL = 2k? 0.00003% (typ)
RL = 600? 0.00003% (typ)


Nothing less will do.

Sure it will.

That was my answer. What Arny's use of "transparent" has to do
with that, other than to obfuscate the reality of the
situation, I don't know.

My use of the word transparent was the word I chose to use to describe the
sitaution that set off your tirade. Thus it is quite surely relevant.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


This really quite simple. If the recording and playback
chain were truly "transparent", then a state-of-the-art
home stereo would be able to reproduce music in a manner
which was indistinguishable from the real event. It
doesn't. It can't, and it never will be able to achieve
this, the Holy Grail of audio.

The discusison had beencentering on the electronics in audio systems, more
specifically converters and brick wall filters.

It is well known that the problem with reproduced music not being
indistinguishable from the real event is due to transducers and rooms, not
audio electronics.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 27, 5:16=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







On Feb 25, 6:32=3DA0am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Feb 16, 5:20=3D3DA0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
I own a weight-driven grandfather clock with chime
movement, so I know exactly what one sounds like. I
can move it in my listening room and listen to
it chime, if I want the true live experience.
Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like it is entirely
possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics and
speakers that are well-configured for the room.
The DSOTM recording was miced incredibly close, so
any claims that close-micing bodes poorly for
fidelity is brought into question by the high
end audiophile comments on this thread.-
Do you have any pictures or first hand accounts of the
mic positions for the recording of the clocks on
DSOTM?
No experienced recording engineer would need such a
thing to reach the conclusion that I've provided.
Hmmm. That may very well be true. But the fact is *you*
reached completely eroneous conclusions.

In fact there were no erroenous conclusions except perhaps on Scott's par=
t
which follows:

What world do you live in Arny where varifiable facts are eroneous
conclusions. It is a varifiable fact that Alan Parsons recorded the
clocks individually at various clock shops. It is a varifiable fact
from your post in this thread #403
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...d/thread/f209=
ffca5467e3e1/1bb2b6eda86054bf
That you stated the following about the recording fo the clocks.
"No experienced recording engineer would need such a thing to reach
the
conclusion that I've provided. If you've miced different instruments
in different rooms different ways, a
recording paints a fairly detailed sonic picture of how the recording
was
miced. If you've worked the room, then mic locations can be estimated
fairly
well. What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio or
studios,
which are generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead. It is
common
to mic close and add the sonic perspective electronically during the
mix.
Done right, this can fool most listeners."
Everything you claimed about the DSOTM recording was filled with
errors. We were talking about the clocks specifically and you claimed
it was well known that they were in effect recorded in an acoustically
dead studio space when they were recorded individually in various
clock shops so that was completely wrong. You claimed the studio
spaces in general used for recording DSOTM were acoustically dead
which is completely wrong. the three studio spaces in Abby Road
studios are certainly not acoustcially dead.
In post #446 of this thread
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...d/thread/f209=
ffca5467e3e1/1bb2b6eda86054bf
You say "Scott you just skewered yourself. If all of the spaces at
Abbey Road were so
reverberent, why did they need to add artifical reverb from a reverb
chamber
to some of the recordings?"
This one sentence has three eroneous claims in it.
1. They used an echo chamber not a reverb chamber whatever that is.
2. The reverb that was captured in the echo chamber was not
"artficial"
3. Artificial reverb was not added to the recording of DSOTM.
It's kind of amazing how one can fit so much eroneous information in
such a brief assertion.






Interesting consclusion given the fact that they are
eroneous. The primary conclusion in question was that the
clocks on DSOTM were recorded in a dead studio space but
the fact is they were recorded individually in various
clock stores.

Just another example of how some people change established facts to suit
their agenda that they are right and everybody else is wrong.

That is a false claim. I have changed no established facts. I have
cited facts and provided varifiable sources for them. Please offer an
example of me changing a fact by quoting me and then showing the
original fact that clearly has been *changed* with varification of
that fact. This kind of claim that infers i am changing facts to suit
some agenda is getting old and quite offensive. it questions my
honesty. Clearly I have supported my assertions with varifiable
references.


Move up the thread and you'll see that I *actually* said:

"The DSOTM recording was miced incredibly close, so any claims that
close-micing bodes poorly for fidelity is brought into question by the hi=
gh
end audiophile comments on this thread."

I said it was miced close. No studio was ever mentioned! Scott's inclusio=
n
of a studio was entirely his own fabrication

Here is the quote in whole from the post #403 in it's whole, unaltered
and unedited.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...d/thread/f209=
ffca5467e3e1/1bb2b6eda86054bf

"No experienced recording engineer would need such a thing to reach
the
conclusion that I've provided.

If you've miced different instruments in different rooms different
ways, a
recording paints a fairly detailed sonic picture of how the recording
was
miced. If you've worked the room, then mic locations can be estimated
fairly
well.

What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio or
studios,
which are generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead. It is
common
to mic close and add the sonic perspective electronically during the
mix.
Done right, this can fool most listeners."

Clearly I "fabricated" nothing. the mention of studios by Arny is
clear and unambiguous. It should be quite clear at this point who has
the facts on their side and who is doing the "fabricating."


[ This thread is headed over the edge. Please bring it back
around to directly audio-related topics. -- dsr ]

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:16:34 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


The OP wanted
to know why modern recording/playback fail to capture the
sound of real music.

The reasons are many, but the total absence of sonically transparent
electronics is not one of them.

I might agree if such a thing as "sonically transparent" electronics existed,
but the don't.

I attempted to answer that question.
In order for flawless capture and reproduction to occur,
the chain must be perfect.

That would be a false claim, since it is well known that equipment that
measures out to have imperfect perforamance can be sonically transparent.
The ear is a fairly insensitive device by modern standards.

You are just wrong here. If your level of sonic transparency were enough to
guarantee that recorded music sounded exactly like the original, then we
would be there already. We aren't even close.

Right now we have op amps that have 0.00003% THD while we know that THD has
to be only about 0.05% to be unnoticable.

If all electronic devices sounded the same , I'd tend to agree with you. But,
no two amps, no two mixers, no two D/As or A/Ds, etc. sound the same. They
CAN BE very close, these days, but they are not identical. So, if all of
these devices are sonically transparent, how come they sound different? Until
they do, they are not perfect.

http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LM4562.html

THD+N (AV = 1, VOUT = 3VRMS, fIN = 1kHz)

RL = 2k? 0.00003% (typ)
RL = 600? 0.00003% (typ)

I know this op-amp family well. In fact, I replaced the B-B OPA134s in my DAC
with LM49710NA's which are the same die packaged as one op-amp in a mini-DIP.



Nothing less will do.

Sure it will.

Then why doesn't reproduced audio (ANY reproduced audio) sound like real
music???????????!!!!!!!!

That was my answer. What Arny's use of "transparent" has to do
with that, other than to obfuscate the reality of the
situation, I don't know.

My use of the word transparent was the word I chose to use to describe the
sitaution that set off your tirade. Thus it is quite surely relevant.

So my response was a tirade but your obfuscation and opinions are somehow
golden gospel? You often come across as putting forth your opinions as facts,
Mr. Kruger, and often, they are simply your opinions.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 27, 5:14=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Feb 26, 7:39=3DA0am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Surely an ADC/DAC that
can be looped through 20 times with no audble
deterioration is flawless in the same way.
Hardly. All it takes is one brick wall filter that is
audibly =A0degrading the original analog signal to shoot this theory
out of the water.

False.

No it is true, If the filter degrades the sound of a particular ADC it
does not matter how many times you loop the signal through the ADC/DAC
with zero degradation. The system that system will degrade any
original analog signal. The claim that the transparancy of the loop
proves transparancy of the system is fatally flawed for this reason.

The existance of just one filter that is audibly degrading does not
mean that they are all audibly degrading.

I never said anything of the sort and that has no relevance to my
point.

=A0This is very poor logic.


There was no logic involved Arny. An assertion was made and I showed a
clear flaw in it.It is a fact that if the filter of an ADC is colored
the ADC/DAC conversion of an analog signl will also be colored no
matter how many times you can run that signal through a loop without
degradation. End of story.

It like
saying that since the cat before us is black, all cats are black.

It's like *you* saying that. Nothing I have said is anything like
that.



Your cat may be black, but mine is brown and white. Therefore, not all ca=
ts
are black and not all brick wall filters degrade musical sounds.

an utterly irrelevant point since I never made any such claim.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:13:57 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:53:09 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message

Microphones, even very good ones, are not perfect (after
all, they're transducers, just like speakers and
phonograph cartridges), mixers aren't perfect, and the
analog to digital process is not perfect.

Wrong on 2 counts. Mixers and converters are often
sonically transparent. Comparing the sonic purity of
phono cartrdiges to good converters is like comparing
mud to milk.

Talk about wrong! Nothing made by man is perfect,
including audio electronics.

I did not say that audio electronics were perfect. I said that they are
often "sonically transparent", which means that signals representing music
can pass through them without reliably noticable audible alternations.



That's just as wrong as saying they were perfect. If they had no audible
affect on signals representing music, then they would all sound the same.
Clearly they don't. I've had that proven to me in a number of DBTs involving
amplifiers.

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Scott wrote:
On Feb 18, 6:30=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







On Feb 16, 5:20=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

On Feb 15, 5:31=3D3DA0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

Actually, I've heard the clocks sound very real (my
grandparents had a house full of wind-ups...I've head
at least eight of various sizes go off at once) to
sounding very unreal. =3D3DA0Using the SACD version.
=3D3DA0And the culprit....the preamp. =3D3DA0 Audio
Research SP6B vs. Onkyo P301. =3D3DA0So much for
big-box store electronics.
I own a weight-driven grandfather clock with chime
movement, so I know exactly what one sounds like. I can
move it in my listening room and list=3D3D en to it
chime, if I want the true live experience.
Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like it is entirely
possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics and
speakers that are well-configured for the room.
The DSOTM recording was miced incredibly close, so any
claims that close-micing bodes poorly for fidelity is
brought into question by the hi=3D3D gh end audiophile
comments on this thread.-
Do you have any pictures or first hand accounts of the
mic positions for the recording of the clocks on DSOTM?
No experienced recording engineer would need such a
thing to reach the conclusion that I've provided.
Hmmm. That may very well be true. But the fact is *you*
reached completely eroneous conclusions.
Only in your opinion. =A0Now, you're overreaching your position and
prete=
nding
to be a cosmic authority.

No Arny not in my opinion. You see (or maybe you don't) DSOTM is a
very popular album and there actually is a great deal of fact based
inofrmation on how it was recorded out there for anyone to read up on
or even watch on DVD. Your eroneous conclusions are not a matter of
opinion. They are a matter of varifiable fact. Just because you didn't
do your homework on the subject of how DSOTM was recorded doesn't mean
it is a mystery to all and subject purely to opinion. one does not
need to be a cosmic authority just basically educated on the subject.
Clearly I am and you are not.

It might be clear to you, but not necesaritly to others. More below.




Perhaps you should steer clear of Dark Side of the Moon as a
reference.
Perhaps you should remember that you don't rule the universe. Proof by
assertion is no proof at all. If you've got evidence, then offer it.
If y=
ou
have something to say but OSAF , I'm sure we'd be all glad to hear
it fro=
m
you.



I see no point in trying to "prove" things that are well documented
and easily accessed by anyone willing to do their homework. What next?

Next thing should be supporting your asseriotns by evidence. See below.

Will you ask me to "prove" Pink Floyd was an actual band? One does not
have to rule the universe to catch you making gross errors in fact on
this subjeect Arny. One just needs to know a litle bit about what
actually went into the making of DSOTM.

As I worte in other post, I don't see gross errors in what Arny wrote.




If you've miced different instruments in different rooms
different ways, =3D a recording paints a fairly detailed
sonic picture of how the recording was miced. If you've
worked the room, then mic locations can be estimated
fai=3D rly well.
What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created in a
studio or studios, which are generally (with a few
exceptions) acousticaly dead. =3DA0It is co=3D mmon to mic
close and add the sonic perspective electronically
during the mix. Done right, this can fool most
listeners.
And so based on the false assumption that the clocks were
recorded in an acoustically dead studio room with your
experienced ears as a recording engineer you concluded
that the clocks were recorded in a dead studio room and
were close miced.
No such thing!

Wow, wow, Arny, really? You really wanted to post this? Abby Road
Studios dude! Were talking specifically about Abby Road studios.
http://www.abbeyroad.com/studios/studio1/
"Studio One is the world?s largest purpose-built recording studio. The
space can easily accommodate a 110-piece orchestra and 100-piece choir
simultaneously. Studio One?s acoustic is as famous as the location,
offering a supremely warm and clear sound, perfect for numerous types
of recording, from solo piano to large orchestras and film scores. The
live area also has two spacious isolation booths. A Steinway D concert
grand and a celeste are also available
The size of Studio One also makes it a very attractive venue for live
music events."

So? How that describes that as acustuically vivid hall? And what it
tells it was 40 years ago? Concert halls and studios do get changed.
Later in your post you imply thayt one part of the Abbe Studios did not
exits 40 years ago, you you use the very same descriptions (picket from
Abbey web page) to infer conclusions about how that stuio was arranged
40 years ago). Sorry but, decide on something.

I know cocncert hall which has been modernized, and during that
modernization it's acustics were changed. Hall became more vivid and
better balanced.

So what does thing mean Arny? according to you "only a person who has
never been in a real world recording studio and has no clue about how
recording is done in studios could make these claims.(The recording
spaces are hardly dead there (abbt Road Studios))

That's your (mostly unisubstatntiated) assertion. Please, dont present
your asserions as facts.

does this mean that
the people at Abby Road studios making claims about the acoustics of
their own studio have in fact never been inside their own studio?
Could it mean that at Abby Road studio when you record an orchestra
you do so in a dead acoustic envirement? So what next? demands that I
prove that Studio One at Abby Road Studio is actually an acoustically
reverberant studio?

Yes, you should. As thats what you essentially claim.

Note: acustically dead does not automatically mean anechoic.

You should have quit when you were just way
behind Arny.



Yikes. Arny, the album was recorded at
Abby Road studios. The recording spaces are hardly dead there.
Scott, only a person who has never been in a real world recording
studio =
and
has no clue about how recording is done in studios could make these
claim=
s.

Including some very lively spaces Arny. Something you think only a
person who has never been in an actual recording studio would claim.As
you point out Abby Road Studios has many differnt rooms but your claim
was that "What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio
or studios, which are generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly
dead." So 1. what was actually well known but apparently not to you
was that DSOTM was mostly recored in *Abby Road Studios* and you claim
the rooms are generally, with *few* exceptions acoustically dead.

Thats right?

Clearly studio 1 is anything but dead.

Clearly? I know some large studios (with large scenes and few hundred
sits for public) and, guess, they are pretty dead (esp compared to other
concert venues). But I admit, I newere were in Abbey Srudio 1. But did you?

But then, did they really used studio big enough for symphonic orchestra
and capable of sitting significant public?

but lets look at the other
studios to see just how generally dead with "few"exceptions the
studios at Abby Road really are.
http://www.abbeyroad.com/studios/studio2/
"Studio Two is probably the most famous studio in the world. It has a
unique design, acoustic and an unparalleled history of recording. The
studio can comfortably accommodate up to 55 musicians for film scores
and overdubs, as well as providing the perfect tracking room for
bands. Available with the studio are a variety of upright pianos and a
Steinway Model D concert grand." definitely not dead.

Definiatyely? How did you come to that conclusion?

You are 0 for 2

I don't see that.

http://www.abbeyroad.com/studios/studio3/
"Studio ThreeStudio Three is an incredibly versatile facility with a
history of pioneering projects including Pink Floyd?s ?Wish You Were
Here? and some of the very first 5.1 surround mixes for the Beatles
Anthology, U2 and Coldplay. The recording space was designed to have a
natural and flexible acoustic," 0 for 3 ooh ouch.

LMAO! How one would come to your conslusions based on the above quoted
text is ways beyond me.

That's it.

Ideed.

Once
again you should have done your homework. None of the sudio spaces at
abby Road are actually dead spaces. None. What did I say? Oh yeah "
Yikes. Arny, the album was recorded at Abby Road studios. The
recording spaces are hardly dead there. And what did you say? oh yeah
"Scott, only a person who has never been in a real world recording
studio and has no clue about how recording is done in studios could
make these claims." Ooooooooops.

Recording studios the size of Abbey Road are composed of multiple highly
dissimilar rooms.

The spaces in a real-world recording studio vary all over the map,
and th=
ey
can be modified at will for a given tracking session using portable
sound
proofing panels or ad hoc sound absorbing materials such as shipping
blankets.

Arny give it up. We are talking about DSOTM which was recorded mostly
at Abby Road Studios. You apparently didn't even know that was where
DSOTM was recorded. The spaces clearly are anything but dead despite
your claims based on your apparent listening skills as a recordist.

Nope.

ooooooops. again

Ooooops?


Studio three's description says it all: "The recording space was
designed=
to
have a natural and flexible acoustic, with multiple isolation booths." =
=A0Hmm,
what do they do with the isolation booths? I'll bet they record in
them! =
;-)

It would appear that you have just now learned about studios having
dedicated isolation *booths* so you are betting on yet another
uniformed guess. But we weren't talking about isolation booths Arny
*You* made statements about studios. That being "What is known for
sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, which are
generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead."

And that statement is generally right

Clearly the three
studios at Abby Road Studios where the recording was mostly made are
anything but dead.

Clearly? Not at all.

Now you discovered they have isolation booths and
you present that as an out for your gross misrepresentation of the
sudios at Abby Road. Are you sure the isolation booths are
acoustically dead at Abby Road Studios? are you sure the one youi
cited even existed when DSOTM was recorded?

So Arny? Is that a bet you want to take in regards to DSOTM? When I
asked you for photos of the mic configuration way back in regards to
the recording of the clocks you said Getting the DSOTM clock to sound
like it is entirely possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics
and speakers that are well-configured for the room. The DSOTM
recording was miced incredibly close, so any claims that close-micing
bodes poorly for fidelity is brought into question by the hi=3D3D gh end
audiophile comments on this thread." when asked if you had any
pictures you said "No experienced recording engineer would need such a
thing to reach the conclusion that I've provided." now combine that
with these quotes (all quotes here are from above) "If you've miced
different instruments in different rooms different ways, =3D a recording
paints a fairly detailed sonic picture of how the recording was miced.
If you've worked the room, then mic locations can be estimated fai=3D
rly well. What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio
or studios, which are generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly
dead" we essentially have you claiming that by your expertise as a
recordist you were able to listen to DSOTM and determine that the
clocks were were recorded with a close mic in a dead studio room when
in fact they were recorded individually at various clock shops. so do
you really want to make any bets as to how any of the other elements
on DSOTM were recorded Arny? Don't you want to do your homwowrk first?

Do you really not understand what Arny is writing about or you're just
pretending?

You have gotten everything so terribly wrong so far. and apparently,
according to you, based on your experience as a recordist. Maybe, just
maybe recording your church group in a highschool auditorium did not
really inform you about how major studio multitrack recordings such as
DSOTM were done back in the day.

Now, this is ugly personal attack, and even worse based on falsehood.


Scott, in contrast to =A0your apparent claim there isn't just one
studio =
at
Abbey Road. There are three major studios whose size and basic
layout and
construction varies considerably, and at least one very small one.

Where did I say Abby Road Studios "has just one studio?" I didn't. If
you are going to build an argument based on something I allegedly said
at least quote me in context so we can know you are getting my claims
right. I do that for you. It is called Abby Road studios (plural) Here
is what I said from above "Yikes. Arny, the album was recorded at Abby
Road studios. The recording spaces are hardly dead there." Arny,
"spaces" is a plural of space. Plural meaning more than one.

But it doesn't matter if even some are not dead (yet, you didnt
demonstrate even that) if those actually used are (or rather were nearly
40 yers ago).


Furthermore there is considerable evidence that the acoustics of
these ro=
oms
is modified to suit for each recording session and also for different
instruments in the same recording session. We have a clear record
that th=
ere
are many isolation booths which are typically very dead little rooms.

show me the evidence that this was done with the recording of DSOTM.
That is what we are talking about. You said you can determine these
things due to your expertise as a recordist. Clearly your alleged
expertise as failed you and you have made many gross errors in fact in
regards to the recording of DSOTM.

So, please describe those errors. Point them clearly, please.

So please show me some evidence
that supports your assertions that the sessions were recorded in
acoiustically dead studios. We know the studios at Abby Road are
anything but dead.

We know no such thing...

Those spaces would be pretty hard to make
acouscally dead.

Especially the smaller ones...

show that they did so in recording DSOTM. Good luck.
here is a hint. It didn't happen.

Your source?

But, please, not from specialists on cable sound (I.e. stereophile), and
maybe also something more reliable than hagiographic DVD for fans, If
you would...


Also, there are inherent variations in the acoustics of a given room
base=
d
on how many musicans are working at any particular time. Move 210
musican=
s
into a room the size of Studio One or 55 into Studio Two, and its
acousti=
cs
change dramatically from the same room when it is nearly empty. =A0Both
configurations can make sense depending on what outcome is desired.

That's nice but your claim was " What is known for sure is that DSOTM
was created in a
studio or studios, which are generally (with a few exceptions)
acousticaly dead. =3DA0It is co=3D mmon to mic close and add the sonic
perspective electronically during the mix.


Note that the page for the "Penthouse" =A0mentions the following:

Are you sure The Penthouse even existed when they recorded DSOTM?
Might want to check on these things when discussing the recording of
DSOTM at Abby Road Studios. Oooooooooooops.=A0

So why you're using current description picked from Abbey web page to
draw conclusions on how things were about 40 years ago? And, besides,
you're doing the very same thing you're accusing your opponent of...


=A0 Without detailed documentation of each recording
session you have no idea what actually happened.

What happened to this claim of yours from above when I asked for such
documentation? " No experienced recording engineer would need such a
thing to reach the conclusion that I've provided." ooops again. Feel
free to argue with yourself as much as you want. LOL

I dont's see this like that at all. "You" in Arnys post refers to you,
an implied layman. For a layman it's rather hard to get to know such
details like miking by listening to the recording. For a specialist it
might well be quite easy.


Of course Scott in your apparent state of ignorance, inexperience
and wit=
h
an overwhelming desire for a rush to judgement, you show zero
awareness o=
f
any of the practical exingencies of working in a real world recording
studio.

Funny that this ignorant guy is the one cleaning up all your gross
errors of fact in regards to the recording of DSOTM.

I see no such gross errors. I see misocnceptions about such things as
echo chamer use, I see false accustations and I also see a lots of
attempts to derail dicussion into side tracks. I see increasing verbal
aggresion and false denigerating of the opponent. And all those are on
your side, Scott...


Call me ignorant
all you like Arny. The proof of who is actually educated on the
subject should be pretty clear for anyone with the endurance to read
this thread.

Ideed...


Kind of funny that we have this interesting
article from one Jon Atkinson on this recording.
http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/" since I recorded
an album at Abbey Road Studio at the same time that the
Floyd were there making DSotM, I always thought the album
did an excellent job of preserving the characteristic
sound of the studio with which I had become so familiar.
Yet when I first listened to the CD layer of the reissue,
it didn't sound like Abbey Road at all. The sonic
subtleties that identify the recording venue and its
unique reverb chamber had been eliminated or smoothed
over. They were there on the SACD, so some investigation
was called for."
Scott you just skewered yourself. If all of the spaces at Abbey Road
were=
so
reverberent, why did they need to add artifical reverb from a reverb
cham=
ber
to some of the recordings?

First off the *echo chamber* (never heard of a reverb chamber)

Yet, the very term appearred in a SF text you directly quoted. Hmmmm...

doesn't
add "artificial" reverb.

Of course it does. It's not real reverb of the space where instrument
was played.

It's real reverb from an actual existing
chamber.

But it's added as a part of audio processing chain. It could be (and
often is) added not during recording but afterwards. Instruments are not
miked in a chamber. A sound, either picked up from instruments or just
earleir recorded track, is played back in the chamber and there picked
up and recorded (or further processed).

I would think one as so knowledgable on all things recording
would know this basic fact.

Please don't teach other about things you have, apparently, little
knowledge.

secondly you might want to actually give
DSOTM an actual listen to gain a basic understanding of the actual use
of the echo chamber in the recording of DSOTM. You might then
understand how asking the question shows gross ignorance of the
recording in question.

Please don't spin. I don't see at all how all of this is related to
"gross ignornance of the recording in question".

Maybe if you were a regular reader of
Stereophile you wouldn't have made so many gross errors of fact in
regards to the recording.

I see no gross errors in Arny's description. First, echo chambers has
little to do how recording session was miked. And second, if you treat
Stereophile (with their funny stuff about remebbering fine details of
"unique" sound of echo chamber after 30 years, the sound which is widely
adjustable) as a source of factual information, I've a bridge to sell
you in one big city.


And yet you conclusions direactly above based on your
expertise as a recordist was "DSOTM was created in a
studio or studios, which are generally (with a few
exceptions) acousticaly dead." =A0 =A0 ooops......
No oops. Real world experience.

Now you are arguing with yourself again Arny. quote from above "
Without detailed documentation of each recording session you have no
idea what actually happened."

Again... I dont's see this like that at all. "You" in Arnys post refers
to you, an implied layman. For a layman it's rather hard to get to know
such details like miking by listening to the recording. For a specialist
it might well be quite easy.



Oh and by the way....The clocks weren't recorded in the
studio. They were recorded in various clock shops
individually. Do you know of any clock shops that are
acoustically dead?
Any store or workshop can be quite acoustically dead when the
machines an=
d
the displays break up the spaces and add diffusion and absorbtion.

But you concluded that they were recorded in an acoustically dead
studio space. Please show me an example of a clock shop being made
acoustically dead. better yet show that this is what Alan Parsons
actually did.
[...]

I certainly do notice it when I visit fabric shops. Never when
visiting clock shops in London. The walls are covered in clocks. Not
sound absorbing fabric.

Fabric absorbs mainly higher frequencies. Clocks make irreguraly
corrugated wall, full of mini corners, pits, etc -- this helps to dampen
reflections rather well. Plus typical shops contain other furniture, all
that resulting in quite damped space.

I considers spaces like typical library room, densely furnitured and
carpeted living room, and likes as pretty dead. I don't equare
accustically dead with anechoic.


Again let's look at your assertions as
quoted from above. "Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like
it is entirely =A0possible with the CD version, mid-fi
electronics and speakers that are well-configured for the
room." "What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created
in a studio or studios, which are generally (with a few
exceptions) acousticaly dead." " No experienced recording
engineer would need such a thing (a photo of the mic
configuration from the actual recording session) to reach
the conclusion that I've provided."
I'll stick by my statements, Scott.

You go right ahead and do so. Your gun, your foot.

=A0You've just treated us to an exposition
of your lack of awareness of what you hear when you visit the same
places=
we
all go to every day. =A0You seem to have just conflated a large
complex l=
ike
Abbey Road into just one room, and then claimed that its acoustics are
always the same when we have photographic evidence and experiential
evide=
nce
that the acoustics of those rooms can vary all over the map.

Please quote me in context before representing my positions from here
on out. You got all of the above completely wrong. It's getting old.


I thought you worked in the motion picture business, Scott. Haven't you
noticed that making motion pictures involves recording sound as well as
moving pictures and stills?

No Arny, Never noticed. Granted a lot of those guys are now old
friends of mine but I never noticed them recording sound. All those
times they called roll sound I just didn't notice. weird no?

=A0Ever take a look at how they do that? =A0How many
recording spaces are at the studios you work for? How many absorbtive
panels? How many isolation booths? How many gobos?

LOL none Arny. There are no isolation booths on a film set nor are
there any absorbtive panels. clearly you haven't been on an actual
working film set. ooooooooops

Yes, all the sound (and I'm not talking about scoring music) is recorder
in the very same setting... Oh really.

Now if you want to talk about the space in which they actually score
the music, i frequently visited that during my seven years on Star
Trek Voyager. No isloations booths used in that either Arny. But at
least you learned about the existance of isolation booths when yo
visited the Abby Road Studios webpage.


See above.

rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Audio Empire wrote:
Then why doesn't reproduced audio (ANY reproduced audio) sound like real
music???????????!!!!!!!!

Because Stereo pair doesn't reproduce original sound field[*]. PERDIOD.
All the electronics and all the transducers might be perfect (not only
transparent) and it still would not help, as the soundfield reproduced
from stereo pair (or even 5.1 or 7.2 system) is different from original
sound field[**].
[*] even artificial head recordings played via transparent headphones
(if such beas existed) do not sound like a real music just from 2 reasons:
1. They miss the effect of "feeling the sound in your guts" (this point
migh be improved by using additional LFE channel(s) played by subwoofers
concurently with listening via headphones
2. All the magic (and it sounds like magic till this point!) is broken
when one turns his/her head and all the scene turns with that.

But I must admit short pieces do sound so convincing that people for
example turn around to 'kill with their sight' that one damn listener
two rows behind whispering to his neighbour. They turn to find out
there's noone, and that damn guy's whispers just got onto the recording.


[**] Some knowledgable people claim that 12 track 3D recording, propely
processed and played in properly prepared room sounds convincing. But...
1. I've never experienced that myself, so I couldn't verify.
2. Such playback setup is too impractical for home use.
3. I don't know how practical recording itself is.

rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:14:54 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
Then why doesn't reproduced audio (ANY reproduced audio) sound like real
music???????????!!!!!!!!

Because Stereo pair doesn't reproduce original sound field[*]. PERDIOD.
All the electronics and all the transducers might be perfect (not only
transparent) and it still would not help, as the soundfield reproduced
from stereo pair (or even 5.1 or 7.2 system) is different from original
sound field[**].

Well, there are more reasons than just that, but it is certainly one of them.
others are that loudspeakers are incapable of pressurizing a room like real
acoustic instruments can. Not only can they not move enough air, but the
propagation of speakers is fixed, while musical instruments are varied. Also,
there is speed of starting and overhang to deal with, there is the fact that
they say that the ideal speaker would be a pulsating sphere that is
infinitely small, neither of which is possible today, and even if it were,
there's that little problem of moving the amount of air...

[*] even artificial head recordings played via transparent headphones
(if such beas existed) do not sound like a real music just from 2 reasons:
1. They miss the effect of "feeling the sound in your guts" (this point
migh be improved by using additional LFE channel(s) played by subwoofers
concurently with listening via headphones

Well, a pair of Stax electrostatics are probably the most accurate playback
transducers in the world and a binaural recording does sound pretty
spectacular over a pair of them. You're right about the visceral effect of
music on one's body, BUT, its not just the bass. Yes, the bass hits you in
the gut, but higher frequencies also add to the experience as you feel them
on all exposed parts of your body. I've listened to binaural recordings PLUS
subwoofer(s) and it is very pleasurable, but no cigar. One problem is that
while binaural can sound uncanny (in both senses of the term 8^), there's
still the problem of binaural's inability to parse sounds from the direct
front or the direct rear. I have experienced this, but I don't know why it
happens.

2. All the magic (and it sounds like magic till this point!) is broken
when one turns his/her head and all the scene turns with that.


That too is true. A number of years ago, at a hi-fi show, some company was
demonstrating a type of recliner chair with wings (like an old colonial
wing-chair) The wings had speakers in them and they played back binaural
recordings. Not convincing, because even though the image didn't move when
you moved your head, the perspective didn't change either, and it surely
would if you were listening to live musicians playing in the same room with
you. So, again, moving one's head, broke the spell. I don't know if the
company went into production with that particular chair design or not.

But I must admit short pieces do sound so convincing that people for
example turn around to 'kill with their sight' that one damn listener
two rows behind whispering to his neighbour. They turn to find out
there's noone, and that damn guy's whispers just got onto the recording.


[**] Some knowledgable people claim that 12 track 3D recording, propely
processed and played in properly prepared room sounds convincing. But...
1. I've never experienced that myself, so I couldn't verify.
2. Such playback setup is too impractical for home use.
3. I don't know how practical recording itself is.

The story is oft told that when Bell Labs was doing their stereo tests back
in the middle 1930's that they started with 12 channels and soon realizing
how impractical such a setup was, started reducing the number of channels
with the idea of stopping when the stereo effect was no longer realistic.
They stopped at two, which is supposedly why all home stereo has been based
on two channels ever since. Could be apocryphal.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Feb 27, 5:14 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Feb 26, 7:39=A0am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Surely an ADC/DAC that
can be looped through 20 times with no audble
deterioration is flawless in the same way.
Hardly. All it takes is one brick wall filter that is
audibly degrading the original analog signal to shoot
this theory out of the water.

False.

No it is true, If the filter degrades the sound of a
particular ADC it does not matter how many times you loop
the signal through the ADC/DAC with zero degradation.

In modern times the brick wall filter is an integral part of the converter.
Please read up on sigma-delta converters as that is the technology that
describes how about 99.99% of all modern converters work.

[Rockinghorse Winner[_6_]]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Audio Empire wrote:

2. All the magic (and it sounds like magic till this point!) is broken
when one turns his/her head and all the scene turns with that.


That too is true. A number of years ago, at a hi-fi show, some company was
demonstrating a type of recliner chair with wings (like an old colonial
wing-chair) The wings had speakers in them and they played back binaural
recordings. Not convincing, because even though the image didn't move when
you moved your head, the perspective didn't change either, and it surely
would if you were listening to live musicians playing in the same room with
you. So, again, moving one's head, broke the spell. I don't know if the
company went into production with that particular chair design or not.


I had a friend who would listen to live symphony concerts with his head
turned to one side - he claimed he preferred the acoustics that way! It did
make some of the nearby concert goers uncomfortable, at first.

*R* *H*
--
Powered by Linux |/ 2.6.32.26-175 Fedora 12
"No spyware. No viruses. No nags." |/ 2.6.31.12-0.2 OpenSUSE 11.2
http://www.jamendo.com |/
"Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words." St. Francis

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:16:34 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message

The OP wanted
to know why modern recording/playback fail to capture
the sound of real music.

The reasons are many, but the total absence of sonically
transparent electronics is not one of them.

I might agree if such a thing as "sonically transparent"
electronics existed, but the don't.

I attempted to answer that question.
In order for flawless capture and reproduction to occur,
the chain must be perfect.

That would be a false claim, since it is well known that
equipment that measures out to have imperfect
perforamance can be sonically transparent. The ear is a
fairly insensitive device by modern standards.

You are just wrong here. If your level of sonic
transparency were enough to guarantee that recorded music
sounded exactly like the original, then we would be there
already. We aren't even close.

The tough problems with recordings are about transducers and rooms, not
electronics


Right now we have op amps that have 0.00003% THD while
we know that THD has to be only about 0.05% to be
unnoticable.

If all electronic devices sounded the same , I'd tend to
agree with you.

Lack of experience with proper listening tests noted.

But, no two amps, no two mixers, no two
D/As or A/Ds, etc. sound the same.

This assertion has been disproven so many times that it is practically dead.

They CAN BE very
close, these days, but they are not identical.

All you have to do is some proper listening tests. Match levels, blind them
to personal biases, synch the music.

So, if all
of these devices are sonically transparent, how come they
sound different? Until they do, they are not perfect.

That's just it, everybody who does proper blind tests says pretty much the
same thing - Wow! so many things sound the same!


http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LM4562.html

THD+N (AV = 1, VOUT = 3VRMS, fIN = 1kHz)

RL = 2k? 0.00003% (typ)
RL = 600? 0.00003% (typ)

I know this op-amp family well. In fact, I replaced the
B-B OPA134s in my DAC with LM49710NA's which are the same
die packaged as one op-amp in a mini-DIP.

Nothing less will do.

Sure it will.

Then why doesn't reproduced audio (ANY reproduced audio)
sound like real music???????????!!!!!!!!

The tough problems with recordings are about transducers and rooms, not
electronics.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:06:26 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:16:34 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message

The OP wanted
to know why modern recording/playback fail to capture
the sound of real music.

The reasons are many, but the total absence of sonically
transparent electronics is not one of them.

I might agree if such a thing as "sonically transparent"
electronics existed, but the don't.

I attempted to answer that question.
In order for flawless capture and reproduction to occur,
the chain must be perfect.

That would be a false claim, since it is well known that
equipment that measures out to have imperfect
perforamance can be sonically transparent. The ear is a
fairly insensitive device by modern standards.

You are just wrong here. If your level of sonic
transparency were enough to guarantee that recorded music
sounded exactly like the original, then we would be there
already. We aren't even close.

The tough problems with recordings are about transducers and rooms, not
electronics


Right now we have op amps that have 0.00003% THD while
we know that THD has to be only about 0.05% to be
unnoticable.

If all electronic devices sounded the same , I'd tend to
agree with you.

Lack of experience with proper listening tests noted.

Don't you mean "Lack of experience with proper listening tests PRESUMED"? You
can't note anything concerning people with whom you are unacquainted.

But, no two amps, no two mixers, no two
D/As or A/Ds, etc. sound the same.

This assertion has been disproven so many times that it is practically dead.

You assume that a null result in a DBT means that there is no difference.
Well, in science there is an axiom: Absence of proof is NOT proof of absence.
If the DBT were based on some physics that predicted a null outcome, you
might have a point. But there isn't and there are lots of people who have
participated in DBTs that HAVE returned statistically meaningful positive
results for differences. I should know, I'm one of them.

They CAN BE very
close, these days, but they are not identical.

All you have to do is some proper listening tests. Match levels, blind them
to personal biases, synch the music.

Been there, done that and differences still exist. You're wrong.

So, if all
of these devices are sonically transparent, how come they
sound different? Until they do, they are not perfect.

That's just it, everybody who does proper blind tests says pretty much the
same thing - Wow! so many things sound the same!

And so many things don't.

http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LM4562.html

THD+N (AV = 1, VOUT = 3VRMS, fIN = 1kHz)

RL = 2k? 0.00003% (typ)
RL = 600? 0.00003% (typ)

I know this op-amp family well. In fact, I replaced the
B-B OPA134s in my DAC with LM49710NA's which are the same
die packaged as one op-amp in a mini-DIP.

Nothing less will do.

Sure it will.

Then why doesn't reproduced audio (ANY reproduced audio)
sound like real music???????????!!!!!!!!

The tough problems with recordings are about transducers and rooms, not
electronics.

Yet when I mentioned microphones and speakers as being the MAJOR culprit in
an earlier post, you said that *I* was wrong! Make up your mind PLEASE!

[bob]

On Feb 28, 7:52=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:06:26 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Lack of experience with proper listening tests noted.

Don't you mean "Lack of experience with proper listening tests PRESUMED"?=
You
can't note anything concerning people with whom you are unacquainted.

Actually, it's a fairly safe assumption. If you do an experiment and
get a result that contradicts all previous results, the odds are
overwhelming that you screwed up the test.

snip

You assume that a null result in a DBT means that there is no difference.
Well, in science there is an axiom: Absence of proof is NOT proof of abse=
nce.
If the DBT were based on some physics that predicted a null outcome, you
might have a point. But there isn't and there are lots of people who have
participated in DBTs that HAVE returned statistically meaningful positive
results for differences. I should know, I'm one of them.

You may sincerely believe that you have done so. But the fact remains
that no one has been able to demonstrate a consistent ability to
distinguish between, say, two competently designed and properly
functioning DACs. Unless you are a freak of nature, you haven't
either.

bob

[VilliamRobat]

Actually, it's a fairly safe assumption. If you do an experiment and get a result that contradicts all previous results, the odds are overwhelming that you screwed up the test.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:42:56 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 28, 7:52=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:06:26 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Lack of experience with proper listening tests noted.

Don't you mean "Lack of experience with proper listening tests PRESUMED"?=
You
can't note anything concerning people with whom you are unacquainted.

Actually, it's a fairly safe assumption. If you do an experiment and
get a result that contradicts all previous results, the odds are
overwhelming that you screwed up the test.

I didn't do the experiments (notice the "s"), I was merely a participant. But
the tests were scrupulously set up and everything was done right.

snip

You assume that a null result in a DBT means that there is no difference.
Well, in science there is an axiom: Absence of proof is NOT proof of abse=
nce.
If the DBT were based on some physics that predicted a null outcome, you
might have a point. But there isn't and there are lots of people who have
participated in DBTs that HAVE returned statistically meaningful positive
results for differences. I should know, I'm one of them.

You may sincerely believe that you have done so. But the fact remains
that no one has been able to demonstrate a consistent ability to
distinguish between, say, two competently designed and properly
functioning DACs. Unless you are a freak of nature, you haven't
either.

I can't answer that except to say again, that there is no reason to expect
that any two DACs would sound the same. The analog stages are different, the
pre-D/A data handling is different (as in simple and cursory in cheap DACs,
and very sophisticated in expensive ones). Anybody who can't hear the
difference between a Benchmark, an Antelope, and a DCS Scarlatti DAC/Master
clock combo, simply isn't paying attention.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:42:56 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 28, 7:52=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:06:26 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Lack of experience with proper listening tests noted.

Don't you mean "Lack of experience with proper listening tests PRESUMED"?=
You
can't note anything concerning people with whom you are unacquainted.

Actually, it's a fairly safe assumption. If you do an experiment and
get a result that contradicts all previous results, the odds are
overwhelming that you screwed up the test.

I didn't do the experiments (notice the "s"), I was merely a participant. But
the tests were scrupulously set up and everything was done right.

snip

You assume that a null result in a DBT means that there is no difference.
Well, in science there is an axiom: Absence of proof is NOT proof of abse=
nce.
If the DBT were based on some physics that predicted a null outcome, you
might have a point. But there isn't and there are lots of people who have
participated in DBTs that HAVE returned statistically meaningful positive
results for differences. I should know, I'm one of them.

You may sincerely believe that you have done so. But the fact remains
that no one has been able to demonstrate a consistent ability to
distinguish between, say, two competently designed and properly
functioning DACs. Unless you are a freak of nature, you haven't
either.

I can't answer that except to say again, that there is no reason to expect
that any two DACs would sound the same. The analog stages are different, the
pre-D/A data handling is different (as in simple and cursory in cheap DACs,
and very sophisticated in expensive ones). Anybody who can't hear the
difference between a Benchmark, an Antelope, and a DCS Scarlatti DAC/Master
clock combo, simply isn't paying attention.

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Scott wrote:
On Feb 27, 5:14 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Feb 26, 7:39=A0am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Surely an ADC/DAC that
can be looped through 20 times with no audble
deterioration is flawless in the same way.
Hardly. All it takes is one brick wall filter that is
audibly degrading the original analog signal to shoot this theory
out of the water.
False.

No it is true, If the filter degrades the sound of a particular ADC it
does not matter how many times you loop the signal through the ADC/DAC
with zero degradation.

There is no zero degradation. There is inaudible degradation. Just since
sinc filter (ideal brickwall filter with 0 phase) is unrealisable (it
would require infinite delay) every iteration adds to sound degradation.
All phase nonlinearities will add, all not ideal brickwall effects will
add as well.

The system that system will degrade any
original analog signal.

And it will degrade it on each iteration.

The claim that the transparancy of the loop
proves transparancy of the system is fatally flawed for this reason.

It's not. Signal passes antialias and reconstruction filters on each
iteration, not once.

[...]
This is very poor logic.


There was no logic involved Arny. An assertion was made and I showed a
clear flaw in it.

You showed no flaw. Apparently you just misunderstand how DAC/ADC works.
Filter is an integral part of DAC as well as ADC component. When signal
runs through ADC/DAC chain many times it runs through antialiasing and
reconstruction filter the same number of times as well. All the signal
degradation accumulates as well.

It is a fact that if the filter of an ADC is colored
the ADC/DAC conversion of an analog signl will also be colored no
matter how many times you can run that signal through a loop without
degradation.

And in each iteration those colorations *will* accumulate.

End of story.

Nope.


rgds
\SK

--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


I can't answer that except to say again, that there is no
reason to expect that any two DACs would sound the same.

Seems very unscientific. Appears to totally reject the well-known and widely
accepted belief that the ear has thresholds for perception of noise and
distortion.

Many examples in the scientific literature where even very dissimilar DACs
and ADCs were compared without positive results.

The analog stages are different,

So what? I can build a 100 different analog buffers that can't be
distinguished from each other in a proper listening test.

the pre-D/A data handling is different (as in simple and cursory in cheap
DACs, and very sophisticated in expensive ones).

Wrong on several counts.

One is that the industry standard chips for doing this sort of thing are few
in number, and the more popular ones appear in both very inexpensive and
very expensive equipment.

Anybody who can't hear the difference between a Benchmark, an
Antelope, and a DCS Scarlatti DAC/Master clock combo,
simply isn't paying attention.

No, they're simply doing good bias-controlled listening tests.

Here's a link to a JAES paper that makes many relevant points:

http://hlloyge.hl.funpic.de/wp-conte...p-inserted.pdf

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:42:56 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 28, 7:52=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:06:26 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):
Lack of experience with proper listening tests noted.
Don't you mean "Lack of experience with proper listening tests PRESUMED"?=
You
can't note anything concerning people with whom you are unacquainted.
Actually, it's a fairly safe assumption. If you do an experiment and
get a result that contradicts all previous results, the odds are
overwhelming that you screwed up the test.

I didn't do the experiments (notice the "s"), I was merely a participant. But
the tests were scrupulously set up and everything was done right.
snip

You assume that a null result in a DBT means that there is no difference.
Well, in science there is an axiom: Absence of proof is NOT proof of abse=
nce.
If the DBT were based on some physics that predicted a null outcome, you
might have a point. But there isn't and there are lots of people who have
participated in DBTs that HAVE returned statistically meaningful positive
results for differences. I should know, I'm one of them.
You may sincerely believe that you have done so. But the fact remains
that no one has been able to demonstrate a consistent ability to
distinguish between, say, two competently designed and properly
functioning DACs. Unless you are a freak of nature, you haven't
either.

I can't answer that except to say again, that there is no reason to expect
that any two DACs would sound the same. The analog stages are different, the
pre-D/A data handling is different (as in simple and cursory in cheap DACs,
and very sophisticated in expensive ones). Anybody who can't hear the
difference between a Benchmark, an Antelope, and a DCS Scarlatti DAC/Master
clock combo, simply isn't paying attention.


In case of DCS Scarlatti it's little wonder it might sound different --
thing is made from discrete components, so a good reason tu suspect some
nonlinearity as well some troubles with repeatable results.

rgds
\SK

--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[bob]

On Mar 1, 11:40=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

I can't answer that except to say again, that there is no reason to expec=
t
that any two DACs would sound the same. The analog stages are different, =
the
pre-D/A data handling is different =A0(as in simple and cursory in cheap =
DACs,
and very sophisticated in expensive ones).

There's no reason necessarily to expect otherwise, either. You can't
just look at the design of two units and determine whether there are
audible differences between them. You need either appropriate
measurements or objective listening tests. And when we conduct
listening tests with proper controls documented, we discover that,
defects and outre designs aside, humans can't tell DACs apart by sound
quality alone. As I've said, this is so basic a fact that you can find
it in standard college textbooks.

Anybody who can't hear the
difference between a Benchmark, an Antelope, and a DCS Scarlatti DAC/Mast=
er
clock combo, simply isn't paying attention.

Well here's a test comparing a Benchmark to a Behringer unit costing a
quarter the price. Care to guess the result? No peeking!
http://snipurl.com/261ucd

Not familiar enough with Antelope. I believe the DCS contains numerous
filters, some of which may alter the frequency response of the unit
sufficiently to be audible. A DAC with a switchable equalizer attached
will indeed sound different than a DAC without an equalizer. Alert the
media.

bob