Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 21 Oct 2005 05:54:57 GMT, wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 19 Oct 2005 02:29:12 GMT, wrote:
Not only have the objectivists never proposed a distortion mechanism
that would more accurately convey musical intentions, they have never
even been able to repeat back this simple description of analog.
More to the point, they have never agreed with your insistence that
vinyl sounds more natural.
Which is kind of silly given that it is to some degree a subjective
matter.
'Objectivist' is merely a convenient nametag, not an actual
description. Personally, I prefer 'reliabel and repeatable
subjectivist'.
I have no problm with your preference although for the sake of clarity
I think i will stick with the understood tags. Either way your point is
totally irrelevant to my point that naturalness is fairly subjective
and it is silly to disagree with another person's impression of what is
more natural to them.
ABX is a *listening* test, remember?
Yes. also amazingly irrelevant but I do rememeber.
More natural than what?
Than their CD counterparts.
The original tape?
In xome cases according to some of the best mastering engineers in the
world. Neither of us would know though since we haven't had the
privilidge of making those comparisons.
The original mic feed?
Same answer as above.
The original performance?
Never. that is the ultimate reference.
Ah well, now that's where my alarm bell rings. It's my impression that
those well-known euphonic artifacts of both vinyl and analogue tape
(remember that Iain has confirmed that many musos ask for an 'analogue
pass-through' of a *digital* recording) provide an *enhanced* version
of reality that does, as I previously mentioned. look 'whiter than
white' to people like Michael, Jenn and yourself.
your impression completely ignores that when all is said and done we
are talking about a whole picture that involves a complete chain of
recording and playback. That is never more natural than the real thing
or as you say whiter than white. The bottom line is we are claiming
that the whole picture when it comes to recording and playback is often
more white when it involves LPs rather than CDs. Nothing more nothing
less. IMO white is as white as white can get and the real thing is as
real as real can get. It alarms me that this alarms you.
What remains true is that you can make a digital recording of an LP
which is audibly indistinguishable from the original LP.
You can also make one that is not.
There is no tachnology which cannot be badly implemented - this is
hardly a decent rebuttal.
Sure it is. Talking about theoretical limits rather than the reality of
practical implimentations is pretty hollow for people who actually are
going to be dealing more with the later. that would be actual
audiophiles who purchace commercial LPs and CDs.
This is
pretty much definite proof that digital audio can be totally
transparent, and that your preference is based on artifacts *added* by
vinyl.
While that may be true to a degree it is not a fact that all or even
many commercial CDs sound exactly like the master tapes from which they
were made nor is it alay o even often desirable for that to happen.
And that is supported by testimony of many of the best recording and
mastering engineers in the business.
I think you'll find that many musicians would be pretty upset to think
that a mastering engineer would *deliberately* change the sound of the
final mixdown master!
Really? Can ou cite any musicians complaining about the mastering jobs
of the likes of Steve Hoffman, Kevin Grey, Stan Ricker, Bernie
Grundman, George Pyros, "Porky" Peckam or any of the masters over at
Decca? If so please do so.
That you *think* they sound more natural, in a 'whiter than
white' kind of way, doesn't make it so.
Actually it does. It is a matter of opinion and opinions other than
yours count as well.
No, it's not a matter of opinion.
It certainly is a matter of opinion as to what sounds more natural. the
whiter than hite nonsense is an artifact of your imagination and not
what we are saying about natural sound.
Which version you *prefer* is a
matter of opinion, but which is really closer to the original sound is
not.
yes it is. The choice often involves different sensitivities to
different colorations which vary from person to person.
Same applies to Jenn.
Heaven forbid anyone should listen to the opinions of what sounds more
natural in playback from someone who lives and works wit live music.
Heaven forbid that anyone should think that gives her opinion more
weight than that of someone who has spent decades trying to improve
the sound of reproduced music in their home - when not concert-going.
i don't give her opinion more wieght than mine but thanks for looking
out for guys like me who have spent decades trying to improve the sound
of reproduced music in my home. OTOH to ignore the opinions of such
people is often a missed opportunity to actually move forward in the
attempt to improve the sound of reproduced music in one's own home.
Scott