[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.