If anything gets an audiophiles blood pressure up is thoughts about the
quality of wire -- especially in his interconnects and speaker cables. Sort
of an electronic version of penis envy.

Now, lets back up a bit and consider a fundamental truth. Performer(s)
stand in front of one or more microphones and perform. The sound is
converted into analog electrical signals that are send down a wire to,
usually a mixer, and thence on to a storage device (usually a tape
recorder). What goes onto that final storage device will never get better,
and is, in part, a byproduct of the microphone cables, mixer internal
wiring, and storage device internal wiring. And I can assure that they are
not using $400 a foot cables.

Now take playback: it also can never be better than what was put into
the storage device -- just the same or worse. And now think about all the
sundry wire, resistor and capacitor leads, and circuit board copper strips
that the signal has to pass through. Face it these signals are moving along
at a rate of about a foot for each and every billionth of a second.

OK, there is "bad" wire and "good" wire, but I suspect strongly that the
differences aren't as great as the cable makers would like you to believe.
I can buy stranded copper wire with each strand silver plated, and the whole
thing insulated with Teflon(TM) for way less than 20 cents a foot. But just
as true, I can buy the same cable (Canare) that was probably used in the
recording studio to play back through my system and you can trust me, it's
cheap. The sound is as transparant, as any cable should be.

So the next time you're thing of paying up to $1,500 for a few feet of
speaker cables think about the above.

Well, Jim now I know who to ask any questions I have about
audio period. The man must be you.

Do have one nit to pick.

Now take playback: it also can never be better than what was put into
the storage device -- just the same or worse.

So suppose a simple one microphone recording was made. And it
say was equalized, lets just say it had the treble rolled off. And
you know this, and decided to roll on the treble just the right amount.
The result would seem to be better than what is on the storage device
in terms of fidelity. Or wouldn't you agree?

Dennis

Jim wrote:

Now take playback: it also can never be better than what was put into
the storage device -- just the same or worse.

But someone can LIKE it better, even of it is objectively worse.

Imagine that...........

Jim wrote:
If anything gets an audiophiles blood pressure up is thoughts about
the
quality of wire -- especially in his interconnects and speaker
cables. Sort
of an electronic version of penis envy.

Now, lets back up a bit and consider a fundamental truth.
Performer(s)
stand in front of one or more microphones and perform. The sound is
converted into analog electrical signals that are send down a wire
to,
usually a mixer, and thence on to a storage device (usually a tape
recorder). What goes onto that final storage device will never get
better,
and is, in part, a byproduct of the microphone cables, mixer internal

wiring, and storage device internal wiring. And I can assure that
they are
not using $400 a foot cables.


I agree that it is the product of the performance and all the equipment
used to capture that performance. I don't agree that the raw recording
*can not ever* be improved upon.




Now take playback: it also can never be better than what was put
into
the storage device -- just the same or worse.


I don't agree that this is always true.



And now think about all the
sundry wire, resistor and capacitor leads, and circuit board copper
strips
that the signal has to pass through. Face it these signals are
moving along
at a rate of about a foot for each and every billionth of a second.

OK, there is "bad" wire and "good" wire, but I suspect strongly
that the
differences aren't as great as the cable makers would like you to
believe.


I suspect that even the most hard core wire enthusiasts would agree
with this claim. That is the nature of marketing to exagerate
importance and need.




I can buy stranded copper wire with each strand silver plated, and
the whole
thing insulated with Teflon(TM) for way less than 20 cents a foot.
But just
as true, I can buy the same cable (Canare) that was probably used in
the
recording studio to play back through my system and you can trust me,
it's
cheap. The sound is as transparant, as any cable should be.


Whether or not you are right, nothing you have said really supports it.







So the next time you're thing of paying up to $1,500 for a few
feet of
speaker cables think about the above.




Why?




Scott Wheeler

Dennis Moore wrote:
So suppose a simple one microphone recording was made. And it
say was equalized, lets just say it had the treble rolled off. And
you know this, and decided to roll on the treble just the right
amount.
The result would seem to be better than what is on the storage device
in terms of fidelity.

The intuition pump in this arguement is that deceptively simple
sentence where you write "And you know this..."

Unless you were present at the recording session you can't know this
for an absolute fact. Unless you were present at the recording session
and were paying painstakingly close attention you can't know exactly
how to compensate for any equalization via a reciprocal curve.

And besides, you'd also be "rolling on" any high freuquency artifacts
and/or noise introduced by your playback equipment, artifacts that most
definitely are not part of the recorded medium.

wrote:


I agree that it is the product of the performance and all the
equipment
used to capture that performance. I don't agree that the raw
recording
*can not ever* be improved upon.




This comes down to what ones personal definition of "high fidelity" is:

If one believes that the ultimate goal of an audio playback system is
to invisibly reproduce the source medium as neutrally & objectively as
possible...i.e., to completely get out of the way so you can hear that
disc's (or tape's, or record's) exact content and only that content,
then the raw recording *cannot* ever be improved upon, because any
"improvement" would by definition be distortion of the actual content
of the medium.

If however one believes that the ultimate goal of an audio playback
system is to reproduce the *original musical performance* as it existed
in a room with the musicians (before all the recording paraphenalia was
introduced to capture that performance), then in theory at least a
recording *could* be improved upon, because your playback system could
compensate for any aberrations introduced by the recording process and
bring the resultant sound in your listening room closer to that of the
original recording space

....except that since we can't ever know what that original sound was
(unless we were present at the original performance...and even then,
audio memory is demonstrably fleeting, hence suspect), we can't know
for certain that our compensations are accurate. We can make things
sound DIFFERENT from the raw recording, and we may *like* the way that
difference sounds better than the raw recording. But to claim that this
particular type of distortion is an "improvement" over the raw
recording is myopically self-centered; it's ones personal subjective
taste/opinion, & can never be anything more.

Buster Mudd wrote:
wrote:


I agree that it is the product of the performance and all the
equipment
used to capture that performance. I don't agree that the raw
recording
*can not ever* be improved upon.




This comes down to what ones personal definition of "high fidelity" is:

If one believes that the ultimate goal of an audio playback system is
to invisibly reproduce the source medium as neutrally & objectively as
possible...i.e., to completely get out of the way so you can hear that
disc's (or tape's, or record's) exact content and only that content,
then the raw recording *cannot* ever be improved upon, because any
"improvement" would by definition be distortion of the actual content
of the medium.

If however one believes that the ultimate goal of an audio playback
system is to reproduce the *original musical performance* as it existed
in a room with the musicians (before all the recording paraphenalia was
introduced to capture that performance), then in theory at least a
recording *could* be improved upon, because your playback system could
compensate for any aberrations introduced by the recording process and
bring the resultant sound in your listening room closer to that of the
original recording space

However, the recording/mastering engineer is in a much better position
to compensate for those aberrations introduced in the recording process,
particularly in the case of digital recordings. For instance, if there
is a frequency response error in a microphone, the recording/mastering
engineer can compensate by equalizing the output of that microphone.

And much more importantly, as you allude to later, the recording
engineer has a much better chance of knowing what the live music sounded
like. So, the only meaningful definition of high fidelity is fidelity
towards what was put on the medium, be it CD, SACD, or whatever. Of
course, there is nothing wrong with introducing euphonic distortion by
the end user, because it is a personal preference, but we shouldn't
confuse that with fidelity.

At this point, I would like to paste what Siegfried Linkwitz said:

"Minimal alteration of the original should be the goal of sound
reproduction since anything else is a falsification. For many pieces of
recorded material it may not matter, because the performance is so
highly processed and the listener shares no common sonic reference.
Also, a listener may be so used to amplified music that the
characteristic sound of certain types of loudspeakers becomes the
reference. However, ultimately only a system with minimal distortion
can hope to achieve the reproduction of an original and, in particular,
of a familiar live sonic event such as a choral performance, a solo male
voice, or a car driving by. My motto is: True to the Original ..."

You can read it he

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/reproduction.htm




...except that since we can't ever know what that original sound was
(unless we were present at the original performance...and even then,
audio memory is demonstrably fleeting, hence suspect), we can't know
for certain that our compensations are accurate. We can make things
sound DIFFERENT from the raw recording, and we may *like* the way that
difference sounds better than the raw recording. But to claim that this
particular type of distortion is an "improvement" over the raw
recording is myopically self-centered; it's ones personal subjective
taste/opinion, & can never be anything more.

Buster Mudd wrote:

...except that since we can't ever know what that original sound was
[...] we can't know
for certain that our compensations are accurate. We can make things
sound DIFFERENT from the raw recording, and we may *like* the way that
difference sounds better than the raw recording. But to claim that this
particular type of distortion is an "improvement" over the raw
recording is myopically self-centered; it's ones personal subjective
taste/opinion, & can never be anything more.

Or less. I suppose a hi-fi system is not a scientific
instrument for lunar rocket guidance; rather, an entertainment
device. So to meet one's own taste could be among the greatest
goals, not the least.

In the frame of classical music, many of us DO know what
instruments sound like (and maybe even the hall and orchestra
in the recording), and when equipment provides the possibility
of tonal correction, we can make many recordings sound more
realistic.

Which is NOT to say that a constant tonal bias introduced by
colored equipment or trick cables is desirable -- just the
opposite! Only that some degree of available tonal correction
is a useful attribute for equipment falling under the category
"high fidelity."


Mike Prager
North Carolina, USA

Mike Prager wrote:

In the frame of classical music, many of us DO know what
instruments sound like (and maybe even the hall and orchestra
in the recording), and when equipment provides the possibility
of tonal correction, we can make many recordings sound more
realistic.



As a recording engineer for the past 30 some years, I find that
statement rather brazen.

I certainly pride myself on knowing what an idealized instrument sounds
like, and I like to think I can recall clearly and palapably how a
particular instrument sounded during a particular performance. Plus
there are some concert halls whose acoustic signature I am so familiar
with I feel like I could pick them out in a listening test. (Spent way
too many nights in Jordan Hall to miss that!)

And yet, unless I am recording a concert on location and able to
directly compare the live event to the recording in process, I would
never have the audaciousness to pretend I know what those instruments
or that concert hall were supposed to sound like. You just can't know;
there are too many variables, including which particular instrument was
used, the temperature in the hall, what the performer had to eat, what
the lady sitting in front of you was wearing, etc. And despite my
aforementioned professional pride/confidence/experience, my audio
recollection still suffers from the same inexactness that defines human
memory.

I might feel I can make changes that would improve the realism of a
recording based on my experience and memory of what a performance did
or should have sounded like. But it would be sheer folly of me to
pretend that these changes were bringing the product closer to a more
acurate recreation of what really took place.

Bob Ross wrote:

Mike Prager wrote:
In the frame of classical music, many of us DO know what
instruments sound like (and maybe even the hall and orchestra
in the recording), and when equipment provides the possibility
of tonal correction, we can make many recordings sound more
realistic.

As a recording engineer for the past 30 some years, I find that
statement rather brazen. [...]

I might feel I can make changes that would improve the realism of a
recording based on my experience and memory of what a performance did
or should have sounded like.

You are agreeing with me. What the heck makes my statement
"brazen"?

But it would be sheer folly of me to
pretend that these changes were bringing the product closer to a more
acurate recreation of what really took place.

That last part has nothing to do with what I wrote. You are
free to characterize your follies as you wish, but please
don't cast them, brazenly, as responses to my posts.

Have you never heard a recording with poor tonal balance? A
muddy one? One with no bass? With one-note bass? Those
anomalies can be corrected to some degree, and the result can
sound more like real music.


Mike Prager
North Carolina, USA

Mike Prager wrote:


Have you never heard a recording with poor tonal balance? A
muddy one? One with no bass? With one-note bass? Those
anomalies can be corrected to some degree, and the result can
sound more like real music.



I have, indeed. And who am I to say that at the time of the actual
performance there actually wasn't a poor tonal balance in the room? Or
a muddy tonal balance, in the concert hall at the time of the actual
performance, for all to hear? If I wasn't there, I'm only hoping. If I
was there, I'm only trying (mightily) to remember.

Identifying those qualities as anomalies is simply expressing a
personal preference anyway. Correcting them can indeed make the result
sound more like the listener may want music to sound, but claiming it
will sound more like "real" music implies that that listener's
perception of reality is omniscient.

Identifying those qualities as anomalies is simply expressing a
personal preference anyway. Correcting them can indeed make the result
sound more like the listener may want music to sound, but claiming it
will sound more like "real" music implies that that listener's
perception of reality is omniscient.

Not "the" real music, just real music -- by which I might
better have said, "real music, well recorded in a good
acoustic venue." All of this that subjective!

Faithful presentation of what's on the medium is where good
music reproduction begins -- necessary, but not always
sufficient. Then, changes can be made according to one's
taste. I'd rather do it through defeatable and controllable
electronics than by moving speakers, changing cables, and all
the other activities that hifi is prone to.


Mike Prager
North Carolina, USA

Mike Prager wrote:
Identifying those qualities as anomalies is simply expressing a
personal preference anyway. Correcting them can indeed make the
result
sound more like the listener may want music to sound, but claiming
it
will sound mor e like "real" music implies that that listener's
perception of reality is omniscient.

Not "the" real music, just real music -- by which I might
better have said, "real music, well recorded in a good
acoustic venue." All of this that subjectiv e!

Faithful presentation of what's on the medium is where good
music reproduction begins -- necessary, but not always
sufficient. Then, changes can be made according to one's
taste. I'd rather do it through defeatable and controllable
electronics than by moving speakers, changing cables, and all
the other activities that hifi is prone to.


So it sounds like you're agreeing with me: It's not that "we can make
many recordings sound more realistic" but rather that we can makes many
recordings sound more idealistic.=CB=87

Bob Ross wrote:

So it sounds like you're agreeing with me: It's not that "we can make
many recordings sound more realistic" but rather that we can makes many
recordings sound more idealistic.?

I'm going to make one more response, then sign off this
interesting discussion.

I think we do agree that some recordings can be made to sound
more like real (or ideal) music in actual space by application
of equalization or other signal processing. We also agree that
unless one was at the performance, one can't say with
certainty that the result is closer to the sound heard by
those who were.

It seems that you object to my using "more realistic" in such
cases. I think that in looking at, say, two photos, one can
usefully call one more "realistic" than the other even in the
absence of first-hand knowledge of the subject. The same goes
for recordings. Some colorations are characterizable as such
by experienced listeners, even in the absence of first-hand
knowledge of the event. I don't think that in that context,
"realistic" makes a claim of absolute certainty; it may just
imply closer correspondence to one's experiences.

The subject of the absurdist plays of Ionesco was the
uncertainty in all of life. None of us knows for SURE whether
gravity will be in effect tomorrow, nor whether mushrooms
might grow from corpses on the living-room carpet. That
doesn't stop us from usefully generalizing our past
experiences.


Mike Prager
North Carolina, USA

Mike Prager wrote:

I think we do agree that some recordings can be made to sound
more like real (or ideal) music in actual space by application
of equalization or other signal processing.

If you're seeing those two cases as equivalent you've missed my point:
I agree that some recordings can be made to sound more Idealistic; i've
been vehemently disagreeing that recordings can be made to sound more
Realistic in any meaningful sense of that word.


We also agree t hat
unless one was at the performance, one can't say with
certainty that the result is closer to the sound heard by
those who were.

Yes, exactly.


It seems that you object to my using "more realistic" in such
cases. I think that in looking at, say, two phot os, one can
usefully call one more "realistic" than the other even in the
absence of first-hand knowledge of the subject. The same goes
for recordings. Some colorations are characterizable as such
by experienced listeners, even in the absence of f irst-hand
knowledge of the event. I don't think that in that context,
"realistic" makes a claim of absolute certainty; it may just
imply closer correspondence to one's experiences.

All the above seems to corroborate my point; that these are subjective
responses based on an individual's *idealized* interpretation of their
own unique reality. I'm not suggesting that we as humans have access to
any other type of Reality, just that the terms "real" and "reality"
carry an implication of objectivity that just cannot be reconciled with
your goal to "improve" upon extant recordings.


That
doesn't stop us from usefully generalizing our past
experiences.

But it ought to cause us to recognize that our past experiences are
unique to ourselves (by definition), and that generalizations based on
them are not universal.