headphones
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
The worst thing about much of the early digital stuff was that
it lacked audible distortion, particularly the euphonic distortions
whose management many had built their careers on.
Some months back I pulled out a pile of audiophile direct-disk LPs and
decided that, though most were at least euphonic, in terms of accuracy
(to
my perception of what comprises "live" sound) they simply weren't as
good
as the best digital recordings -- especially SACDs.
At the risk of being predictable, I'm going to reference my usual
reservations about audiophile perceptions of live sound, and also suggest
that since the SACD format has no known audible benefits all by itself,
it
was the nth remastering or merely your prejudices that made the
differences
you perceived.
All too predictable, Arny.
You really enjoy attacking someone who agrees
with you, don't you?
No, I'm wary of people who reach the right conclusions for false reasons.
What do you mean by "reservations about audiophile perceptions of live
sound"?
I mean that few if any audiophiles have a lot of relevant experience with
live musical sound. Many times one sees people pontificating volumnously,
hot and cold, based on a concert they listened to weeks, months and
sometimes even years ago.
If anything, audiophiles should have a more-perceptive appreciation
of the superiority of live sound to recorded.
Depends whether they spend more time listening to live music or recorded
music, among other things.
Whether DSD is a more-accurate method of recording than PCM is debatable.
*
Only among the poorly-informed. If you know the relevant facts, and
particularly if you have experienced them, then the debate is mercifully
short.
But the fact is that many (if not most) SACDs have significantly better --
more-realistic -- sound than CDs. Why is another matter.
I'll attack that claim at the source. Practially speaking almost no
audiophiles extant have ever heard the very live performance that is
packaged up on the media that they listen to. The only people who routinely
hear the live performances that are recorded on media that they have before
them are recordists. Often, there are still strong asymmetries between what
is on that media and what even recordists have ever heard.
The proper way to judge a media format as being degrading is to make
before-and-after comparisons under the most ideal circumstances possible.
For those who have actually done so, (again a tiny almost vanishing minority
of individuals) virtually every mainstream digital format since the red book
CD is more than good enough for practical purposes, both production and
delivery.
Part of the difference is unquestionably the use of ambience channels.
Shutting them off produces an immediate degradation in sound quality. It
isn't just the loss of hall sound -- the front channels sound less
natural.
(This effect also occurs when using a hall synthesizer with stereo
recordings.)
Now you are talking way past your experience as you have recounted it.
* One could set up a bypass test with live mic feeds. But as they don't
permit an exactly repeatable stimulus, it would be difficult to get
meaningful results. Along the same lines... remember when Julian Hirsch
visited Shure, and duly reported that the output of a V15 III pickup
playing
an LP was indistinguishable from the master tape that produced the LP?
Julian Hirsch's involvement would be required to defend Julian Hirsch's
words. I understan that this is impossible. Next!
I've ays believed that the LP format had enough audible flaws that it was
a major detriment to the enjoyment of recorded music, and nothing that
has
come out of the scientific research of the past 30 years has changed that
one iota.
The real marvel about it was that we were able to enjoy it as much
as we did, all things considered. The enjoyment was mostly due to the
lack
of a superior alternative, which we have now had for about 30 years.
You'll note that I referred to audiophile recordings, which weren't
anywhere
nearly as bad as most commercial recordings. I don't know why you seem to
be
so upset about my describing them as "euphonic" -- because they are.
Though LPs are clearly inferior to CDs and SACDs, simply by "virtue" of
being beset by all kinds of mechanical colorations, my view is that a good
chunk of the audible differences among recordings of any type are due to
the
choice / quantity / positioning of the mics, and the amount of electronic
equipment between the mics and the recorder. Make bad choices, and they'll
wipe out the superiority of digital recording.
Of course. There is no limit to the human ability to screw up.
|