I've just installed a new phono cartridge (Ortofon OM20) in an older
turntable (Harmon Kardon T-45) attached to the phono stage of an NAD
AV-713 reciever. The turntable has a "capacitance trim" setting, and
I'm not clear about what this does or how to set it. I have found a
capacitance range fro the cartridge, but no such stat for the receiver.
Any clarification would be appreciated.

bt wrote:
I've just installed a new phono cartridge (Ortofon OM20) in an older
turntable (Harmon Kardon T-45) attached to the phono stage of an NAD
AV-713 reciever. The turntable has a "capacitance trim" setting, and
I'm not clear about what this does or how to set it. I have found a
capacitance range fro the cartridge, but no such stat for the receiver.
Any clarification would be appreciated.

For technical explanations, others will have to help you, but why not
just set it where it sounds best on a variety of recordings?

Jenn wrote:
bt wrote:
I've just installed a new phono cartridge (Ortofon OM20) in an older
turntable (Harmon Kardon T-45) attached to the phono stage of an NAD
AV-713 reciever. The turntable has a "capacitance trim" setting, and
I'm not clear about what this does or how to set it. I have found a
capacitance range fro the cartridge, but no such stat for the receiver.
Any clarification would be appreciated.

For technical explanations, others will have to help you, but why not
just set it where it sounds best on a variety of recordings?

So, Jennifer, you think that High Fidelity is point "...where
it sounds best on a variety of recordings ..." ?

I bet, you are inviting noticeable amounts of distortion doing
it thisa way. Of course if it is pleasing to your ears, it must be
hi-fi :-)

vova

vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
bt wrote:
I've just installed a new phono cartridge (Ortofon OM20) in an older
turntable (Harmon Kardon T-45) attached to the phono stage of an NAD
AV-713 reciever. The turntable has a "capacitance trim" setting, and
I'm not clear about what this does or how to set it. I have found a
capacitance range fro the cartridge, but no such stat for the receiver.
Any clarification would be appreciated.

For technical explanations, others will have to help you, but why not
just set it where it sounds best on a variety of recordings?

So, Jennifer, you think that High Fidelity is point "...where
it sounds best on a variety of recordings ..." ?

No, I think that the enjoyment of listening to music in my home is
where it sounds best on a variety of recordings.


I bet, you are inviting noticeable amounts of distortion doing
it thisa way. Of course if it is pleasing to your ears, it must be
hi-fi :-)

Why would I listen to something that is less than how it sounds best to
my ears?

Jenn said:

I bet, you are inviting noticeable amounts of distortion doing
it thisa way. Of course if it is pleasing to your ears, it must be
hi-fi :-)

Why would I listen to something that is less than how it sounds best to
my ears?

I'll bet you flunked your religion classes in grade school.




--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:

. . .

For technical explanations, others will have to help you, but why not
just set it where it sounds best on a variety of recordings?

So, Jennifer, you think that High Fidelity is point "...where
it sounds best on a variety of recordings ..." ?

No, I think that the enjoyment of listening to music in my home is
where it sounds best on a variety of recordings.


I bet, you are inviting noticeable amounts of distortion doing
it thisa way. Of course if it is pleasing to your ears, it must be
hi-fi :-)

Why would I listen to something that is less than how it sounds best to
my ears?

The definition of high fidelity system in my book is to be as close to
the original sound as possible. It seems to me that your definition is
to have pleasing sound in your home, even if it means noticeable
distortion of the sound.

Am I right about this?

vova

"vlad" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jenn wrote:
bt wrote:
I've just installed a new phono cartridge (Ortofon OM20) in an older
turntable (Harmon Kardon T-45) attached to the phono stage of an NAD
AV-713 reciever. The turntable has a "capacitance trim" setting, and
I'm not clear about what this does or how to set it. I have found a
capacitance range fro the cartridge, but no such stat for the receiver.
Any clarification would be appreciated.

For technical explanations, others will have to help you, but why not
just set it where it sounds best on a variety of recordings?

So, Jennifer, you think that High Fidelity is point "...where
it sounds best on a variety of recordings ..." ?

I bet, you are inviting noticeable amounts of distortion doing
it thisa way. Of course if it is pleasing to your ears, it must be
hi-fi :-)

That's the way I judge hi-fi... that little thread on RAHE
on what is high end was interesting in how many were willing to
go beyond sound in determining high end.

ScottW

vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:

. . .

For technical explanations, others will have to help you, but why not
just set it where it sounds best on a variety of recordings?

So, Jennifer, you think that High Fidelity is point "...where
it sounds best on a variety of recordings ..." ?

No, I think that the enjoyment of listening to music in my home is
where it sounds best on a variety of recordings.


I bet, you are inviting noticeable amounts of distortion doing
it thisa way. Of course if it is pleasing to your ears, it must be
hi-fi :-)

Why would I listen to something that is less than how it sounds best to
my ears?

The definition of high fidelity system in my book is to be as close to
the original sound as possible. It seems to me that your definition is
to have pleasing sound in your home, even if it means noticeable
distortion of the sound.

Am I right about this?

My goal is to hear, as closely as is possible, the sound of actual
acoustic instruments and voices performing in an actual space. If the
best presentation of that is on the medium, whether that be a CD, a LP,
or whatever, that's great. If it means introducing distortion to get
closer to that, that's fine with me. The goal is the best sound, to my
ears, to do justice to the music/composer, performers.

George M. Middius wrote:
Jenn said:

I bet, you are inviting noticeable amounts of distortion doing
it thisa way. Of course if it is pleasing to your ears, it must be
hi-fi :-)

Why would I listen to something that is less than how it sounds best to
my ears?

I'll bet you flunked your religion classes in grade school.

LOL
Actually though, my undergrad minor is in religion.

Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:

. . .

For technical explanations, others will have to help you, but why not
just set it where it sounds best on a variety of recordings?

So, Jennifer, you think that High Fidelity is point "...where
it sounds best on a variety of recordings ..." ?

No, I think that the enjoyment of listening to music in my home is
where it sounds best on a variety of recordings.


I bet, you are inviting noticeable amounts of distortion doing
it thisa way. Of course if it is pleasing to your ears, it must be
hi-fi :-)

Why would I listen to something that is less than how it sounds best to
my ears?

The definition of high fidelity system in my book is to be as close to
the original sound as possible. It seems to me that your definition is
to have pleasing sound in your home, even if it means noticeable
distortion of the sound.

Am I right about this?

My goal is to hear, as closely as is possible, the sound of actual
acoustic instruments and voices performing in an actual space. If the
best presentation of that is on the medium, whether that be a CD, a LP,
or whatever, that's great. If it means introducing distortion to get
closer to that, that's fine with me.

Eventually you did admit that fidelity of the sound does not matter to
you.

Thx

vova

The goal is the best sound, to my
ears, to do justice to the music/composer, performers.

vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:

. . .

For technical explanations, others will have to help you, but why not
just set it where it sounds best on a variety of recordings?

So, Jennifer, you think that High Fidelity is point "...where
it sounds best on a variety of recordings ..." ?

No, I think that the enjoyment of listening to music in my home is
where it sounds best on a variety of recordings.


I bet, you are inviting noticeable amounts of distortion doing
it thisa way. Of course if it is pleasing to your ears, it must be
hi-fi :-)

Why would I listen to something that is less than how it sounds best to
my ears?

The definition of high fidelity system in my book is to be as close to
the original sound as possible. It seems to me that your definition is
to have pleasing sound in your home, even if it means noticeable
distortion of the sound.

Am I right about this?

My goal is to hear, as closely as is possible, the sound of actual
acoustic instruments and voices performing in an actual space. If the
best presentation of that is on the medium, whether that be a CD, a LP,
or whatever, that's great. If it means introducing distortion to get
closer to that, that's fine with me.

Eventually you did admit that fidelity of the sound does not matter to
you.

Thx

Yes, in one brief paragraph, I explained my views, which are quite easy
to understand.

"Fidelity of the sound" is VITAL to me; that is, "fidelity to the
sound" of music. If something else is more important to you, that's
fine. Different strokes and all.

In article .com,
"Jenn" wrote:

For technical explanations, others will have to help you, but why not
just set it where it sounds best on a variety of recordings?

An eminently reasonable suggestion, thanks, and I'm experimenting with
that now.

"bt" wrote in message
news:bt-6FC3E7.18573923062006@localhost

I've just installed a new phono cartridge (Ortofon OM20)
in an older turntable (Harmon Kardon T-45) attached to
the phono stage of an NAD AV-713 reciever. The turntable
has a "capacitance trim" setting, and I'm not clear about
what this does or how to set it. I have found a
capacitance range fro the cartridge, but no such stat for
the receiver. Any clarification would be appreciated.

Moving magnet cartridges tend to have high frequency response (above 3 KHz)
that varies with load capacitance. The load capacitance is mostly due to the
tone arm wiring but the phono preamp and wiring in the receiver can play a
minor role.

Some moving magnet cartrdiges are pretty insensitive to variations in
capacitive load (example: Grados) and others are pretty sensitive (example:
Shures). I suspect that the Ortofon is on the less-sensitive end of the
range of cartridges, but this is just a guess. It is speced for use with
capacitance in the 200-400 pf, which is on the high end of the range.
http://www.decibelhifi.com.au/prod72.htm

The first question is then "Does the capacitance trim even matter?" Set it
for the two most extreme adjustments and listen with a recording with lots
of high frequency sound such as brushed cymbals, and compare the results as
closely as you can.

If load capacitance matters to your cartridge, the two extremes may turn out
to be dull-sounding when the capacitance is too small, and harsh and bright
and maybe even pinched-sounding if the load capacitance is too high.

If you really want to get this right, you set the load capacitance with a
test record and a meter and a scope. You adjust it for the flattest
frequency response in the 7-11 KHz range.

If you don't have the necessary test equipment, then you are obliged to set
it by ear. When in total doubt, pick a setting near the middle of the
available range.

Figure that tone arm wiring has capacitance on the order of 30 pf per foot
including the wiring inside the arm. The input of the phono preamp is
probably on the order of 30 pf or less. Add capacitance as required to match
the specs for the cartridge.

"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com

My goal is to hear, as closely as is possible, the sound
of actual acoustic instruments and voices performing in
an actual space.


Then set your turntable aside and listen to the best available digital
recordings.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..


The first question is then "Does the capacitance trim even matter?" Set
it for the two most extreme adjustments and listen with a recording with
lots of high frequency sound such as brushed cymbals, and compare the
results as closely as you can.

If load capacitance matters to your cartridge, the two extremes may turn
out to be dull-sounding when the capacitance is too small, and harsh and
bright and maybe even pinched-sounding if the load capacitance is too
high.


Completely invalid, required
DBT rituals have been completely ignored.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com

My goal is to hear, as closely as is possible, the sound
of actual acoustic instruments and voices performing in
an actual space.


Then set your turntable aside and listen to the best available digital
recordings.

Thanks for the suggestion, but since my experience tells me that this
would be counter-productive, no.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


Moving magnet cartridges tend to have high frequency response (above 3 KHz)
that varies with load capacitance. The load capacitance is mostly due to the
tone arm wiring but the phono preamp and wiring in the receiver can play a
minor role...

Thanks!

Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:

. . .

For technical explanations, others will have to help you, but why not
just set it where it sounds best on a variety of recordings?

So, Jennifer, you think that High Fidelity is point "...where
it sounds best on a variety of recordings ..." ?

No, I think that the enjoyment of listening to music in my home is
where it sounds best on a variety of recordings.


I bet, you are inviting noticeable amounts of distortion doing
it thisa way. Of course if it is pleasing to your ears, it must be
hi-fi :-)

Why would I listen to something that is less than how it sounds best to
my ears?

The definition of high fidelity system in my book is to be as close to
the original sound as possible. It seems to me that your definition is
to have pleasing sound in your home, even if it means noticeable
distortion of the sound.

Am I right about this?

My goal is to hear, as closely as is possible, the sound of actual
acoustic instruments and voices performing in an actual space. If the
best presentation of that is on the medium, whether that be a CD, a LP,
or whatever, that's great. If it means introducing distortion to get
closer to that, that's fine with me.

Eventually you did admit that fidelity of the sound does not matter to
you.

Thx

Yes, in one brief paragraph, I explained my views, which are quite easy
to understand.

"Fidelity of the sound" is VITAL to me; that is, "fidelity to the
sound" of music. If something else is more important to you, that's
fine. Different strokes and all.


So, you are not concerned with the original sound being recorded? If I
understand you correctly, you are concerned with your liking of the
sound more then with accuracy (in technical terms) of the recording.

I will give you an example. Let's assume that because of hall's
acoustic clarinets sounded like cardboard boxes (your expression). Do
you expect them to sound on LP as cardboard boxes or you are willing to
tolerate gross distortion of their sound to make it more pleasing for
you?

vova

"vlad" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:

. . .

For technical explanations, others will have to help you, but
why not
just set it where it sounds best on a variety of recordings?

So, Jennifer, you think that High Fidelity is point
"...where
it sounds best on a variety of recordings ..." ?

No, I think that the enjoyment of listening to music in my home
is
where it sounds best on a variety of recordings.


I bet, you are inviting noticeable amounts of
distortion doing
it thisa way. Of course if it is pleasing to your ears, it must
be
hi-fi :-)

Why would I listen to something that is less than how it sounds
best to
my ears?

The definition of high fidelity system in my book is to be as close
to
the original sound as possible. It seems to me that your definition
is
to have pleasing sound in your home, even if it means noticeable
distortion of the sound.

Am I right about this?

My goal is to hear, as closely as is possible, the sound of actual
acoustic instruments and voices performing in an actual space. If
the
best presentation of that is on the medium, whether that be a CD, a
LP,
or whatever, that's great. If it means introducing distortion to get
closer to that, that's fine with me.

Eventually you did admit that fidelity of the sound does not matter to
you.

Thx

Yes, in one brief paragraph, I explained my views, which are quite easy
to understand.

"Fidelity of the sound" is VITAL to me; that is, "fidelity to the
sound" of music. If something else is more important to you, that's
fine. Different strokes and all.


So, you are not concerned with the original sound being recorded? If I
understand you correctly, you are concerned with your liking of the
sound more then with accuracy (in technical terms) of the recording.


We don't know what it originally sounded like.


I will give you an example. Let's assume that because of hall's
acoustic clarinets sounded like cardboard boxes (your expression). Do
you expect them to sound on LP as cardboard boxes or you are willing to
tolerate gross distortion of their sound to make it more pleasing for
you?


I expect pleasing cardboard boxes vs harsh cardboard boxes.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:

. . .

For technical explanations, others will have to help you, but
why not
just set it where it sounds best on a variety of recordings?

So, Jennifer, you think that High Fidelity is point
"...where
it sounds best on a variety of recordings ..." ?

No, I think that the enjoyment of listening to music in my home is
where it sounds best on a variety of recordings.


I bet, you are inviting noticeable amounts of distortion
doing
it thisa way. Of course if it is pleasing to your ears, it must
be
hi-fi :-)

Why would I listen to something that is less than how it sounds
best to
my ears?

The definition of high fidelity system in my book is to be as close
to
the original sound as possible. It seems to me that your definition
is
to have pleasing sound in your home, even if it means noticeable
distortion of the sound.

Am I right about this?

My goal is to hear, as closely as is possible, the sound of actual
acoustic instruments and voices performing in an actual space. If the
best presentation of that is on the medium, whether that be a CD, a LP,
or whatever, that's great. If it means introducing distortion to get
closer to that, that's fine with me.

Eventually you did admit that fidelity of the sound does not matter to
you.

Thx

Yes, in one brief paragraph, I explained my views, which are quite easy
to understand.

"Fidelity of the sound" is VITAL to me; that is, "fidelity to the
sound" of music. If something else is more important to you, that's
fine. Different strokes and all.


So, you are not concerned with the original sound being recorded? If I
understand you correctly, you are concerned with your liking of the
sound more then with accuracy (in technical terms) of the recording.

Correct.


I will give you an example. Let's assume that because of hall's
acoustic clarinets sounded like cardboard boxes (your expression).

Well, I believe that I said cardboard, not boxes, but a minor detail...

Do
you expect them to sound on LP

or CD

as cardboard boxes or you are willing to
tolerate gross distortion of their sound to make it more pleasing for
you?

vova

Yes, that's about it, if by "pleasing" you mean "sound like real
clarinets." I don't mean to be picky about that language, but not all
music is "pleasing" sounding, even if it sounds real. But yes, you
pretty much understand my POV. Perhaps a question for you will clarify:
Why on earth would I chose to listen to clarinets that sound like
cardboard if I can listen to them sounding more like actual clarinets,
if the music is the most important thing for me?

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:

. . .

For technical explanations, others will have to help you, but
why not
just set it where it sounds best on a variety of recordings?

So, Jennifer, you think that High Fidelity is point
"...where
it sounds best on a variety of recordings ..." ?

No, I think that the enjoyment of listening to music in my home is
where it sounds best on a variety of recordings.


I bet, you are inviting noticeable amounts of distortion
doing
it thisa way. Of course if it is pleasing to your ears, it must
be
hi-fi :-)

Why would I listen to something that is less than how it sounds
best to
my ears?

The definition of high fidelity system in my book is to be as close
to
the original sound as possible. It seems to me that your definition
is
to have pleasing sound in your home, even if it means noticeable
distortion of the sound.

Am I right about this?

My goal is to hear, as closely as is possible, the sound of actual
acoustic instruments and voices performing in an actual space. If the
best presentation of that is on the medium, whether that be a CD, a LP,
or whatever, that's great. If it means introducing distortion to get
closer to that, that's fine with me.

Eventually you did admit that fidelity of the sound does not matter to
you.

Thx

Yes, in one brief paragraph, I explained my views, which are quite easy
to understand.

"Fidelity of the sound" is VITAL to me; that is, "fidelity to the
sound" of music. If something else is more important to you, that's
fine. Different strokes and all.


So, you are not concerned with the original sound being recorded? If I
understand you correctly, you are concerned with your liking of the
sound more then with accuracy (in technical terms) of the recording.

Correct.


I will give you an example. Let's assume that because of hall's
acoustic clarinets sounded like cardboard boxes (your expression).

Well, I believe that I said cardboard, not boxes, but a minor detail...

Do
you expect them to sound on LP

or CD

as cardboard boxes or you are willing to
tolerate gross distortion of their sound to make it more pleasing for
you?

vova

Yes, that's about it, if by "pleasing" you mean "sound like real
clarinets." I don't mean to be picky about that language, but not all
music is "pleasing" sounding, even if it sounds real. But yes, you
pretty much understand my POV. Perhaps a question for you will clarify:
Why on earth would I chose to listen to clarinets that sound like
cardboard if I can listen to them sounding more like actual clarinets,
if the music is the most important thing for me?

Jennifer,

I cannot answer this question. I am not in a position to tell you what
your preference are or should be.

Still I do not understand your POV. If at the moment of the recording
clarinets sounded like cardboards, do you expect them at the point of
reproduction sound like cardboards or like "real" (in your
definition) clarinets. If the answer is 'yes' then it seems to me
that you not only willing to tolerate gross distortion in a
reproduction chain, but you actually expect it from your system. So, is
it yes or no?

vova

In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:

. . .

For technical explanations, others will have to help you,
but
why not
just set it where it sounds best on a variety of
recordings?

So, Jennifer, you think that High Fidelity is point
"...where
it sounds best on a variety of recordings ..." ?

No, I think that the enjoyment of listening to music in my home
is
where it sounds best on a variety of recordings.


I bet, you are inviting noticeable amounts of
distortion
doing
it thisa way. Of course if it is pleasing to your ears, it
must
be
hi-fi :-)

Why would I listen to something that is less than how it sounds
best to
my ears?

The definition of high fidelity system in my book is to be as
close
to
the original sound as possible. It seems to me that your
definition
is
to have pleasing sound in your home, even if it means noticeable
distortion of the sound.

Am I right about this?

My goal is to hear, as closely as is possible, the sound of actual
acoustic instruments and voices performing in an actual space. If
the
best presentation of that is on the medium, whether that be a CD, a
LP,
or whatever, that's great. If it means introducing distortion to
get
closer to that, that's fine with me.

Eventually you did admit that fidelity of the sound does not matter
to
you.

Thx

Yes, in one brief paragraph, I explained my views, which are quite easy
to understand.

"Fidelity of the sound" is VITAL to me; that is, "fidelity to the
sound" of music. If something else is more important to you, that's
fine. Different strokes and all.


So, you are not concerned with the original sound being recorded? If I
understand you correctly, you are concerned with your liking of the
sound more then with accuracy (in technical terms) of the recording.

Correct.


I will give you an example. Let's assume that because of hall's
acoustic clarinets sounded like cardboard boxes (your expression).

Well, I believe that I said cardboard, not boxes, but a minor detail...

Do
you expect them to sound on LP

or CD

as cardboard boxes or you are willing to
tolerate gross distortion of their sound to make it more pleasing for
you?

vova

Yes, that's about it, if by "pleasing" you mean "sound like real
clarinets." I don't mean to be picky about that language, but not all
music is "pleasing" sounding, even if it sounds real. But yes, you
pretty much understand my POV. Perhaps a question for you will clarify:
Why on earth would I chose to listen to clarinets that sound like
cardboard if I can listen to them sounding more like actual clarinets,
if the music is the most important thing for me?

Jennifer,

I cannot answer this question. I am not in a position to tell you what
your preference are or should be.

I think that there is only one answer possible, given the stated
parameters. If the sound of music is the most important thing, why
would anyone prefer to listen to the sound of cardboard sounding
clarinets if they can hear something resembling clarinets instead?

Still I do not understand your POV. If at the moment of the recording
clarinets sounded like cardboards, do you expect them at the point of
reproduction sound like cardboards or like "real" (in your
definition) clarinets. If the answer is 'yes' then it seems to me
that you not only willing to tolerate gross distortion in a
reproduction chain, but you actually expect it from your system. So, is
it yes or no?

vova

If it's possible to make those clarinets sound more like clarinets in my
system, then the answer is yes. Again, if the goal is the sound of
actual instruments, nothing else makes sense.

Consider the alternative: A person's goal for audio in the home is to
experience as closely as is possible, the actual experience of real
instruments/voices. He can chose to have a system where the sounds on a
given recording sound like something other than any actual instrument,
or he can have a system where the same recording sounds like something
that actually resembles that instrument. The person choses the first
system. Has he served his stated goals?

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:

. . .

For technical explanations, others will have to help you,
but
why not
just set it where it sounds best on a variety of
recordings?

So, Jennifer, you think that High Fidelity is point
"...where
it sounds best on a variety of recordings ..." ?

No, I think that the enjoyment of listening to music in my home
is
where it sounds best on a variety of recordings.


I bet, you are inviting noticeable amounts of
distortion
doing
it thisa way. Of course if it is pleasing to your ears, it
must
be
hi-fi :-)

Why would I listen to something that is less than how it sounds
best to
my ears?

The definition of high fidelity system in my book is to be as
close
to
the original sound as possible. It seems to me that your
definition
is
to have pleasing sound in your home, even if it means noticeable
distortion of the sound.

Am I right about this?

My goal is to hear, as closely as is possible, the sound of actual
acoustic instruments and voices performing in an actual space. If
the
best presentation of that is on the medium, whether that be a CD, a
LP,
or whatever, that's great. If it means introducing distortion to
get
closer to that, that's fine with me.

Eventually you did admit that fidelity of the sound does not matter
to
you.

Thx

Yes, in one brief paragraph, I explained my views, which are quite easy
to understand.

"Fidelity of the sound" is VITAL to me; that is, "fidelity to the
sound" of music. If something else is more important to you, that's
fine. Different strokes and all.


So, you are not concerned with the original sound being recorded? If I
understand you correctly, you are concerned with your liking of the
sound more then with accuracy (in technical terms) of the recording.

Correct.


I will give you an example. Let's assume that because of hall's
acoustic clarinets sounded like cardboard boxes (your expression).

Well, I believe that I said cardboard, not boxes, but a minor detail...

Do
you expect them to sound on LP

or CD

as cardboard boxes or you are willing to
tolerate gross distortion of their sound to make it more pleasing for
you?

vova

Yes, that's about it, if by "pleasing" you mean "sound like real
clarinets." I don't mean to be picky about that language, but not all
music is "pleasing" sounding, even if it sounds real. But yes, you
pretty much understand my POV. Perhaps a question for you will clarify:
Why on earth would I chose to listen to clarinets that sound like
cardboard if I can listen to them sounding more like actual clarinets,
if the music is the most important thing for me?

Jennifer,

I cannot answer this question. I am not in a position to tell you what
your preference are or should be.

I think that there is only one answer possible, given the stated
parameters. If the sound of music is the most important thing, why
would anyone prefer to listen to the sound of cardboard sounding
clarinets if they can hear something resembling clarinets instead?

Still I do not understand your POV. If at the moment of the recording
clarinets sounded like cardboards, do you expect them at the point of
reproduction sound like cardboards or like "real" (in your
definition) clarinets. If the answer is 'yes' then it seems to me
that you not only willing to tolerate gross distortion in a
reproduction chain, but you actually expect it from your system. So, is
it yes or no?

vova

If it's possible to make those clarinets sound more like clarinets in my
system, then the answer is yes. Again, if the goal is the sound of
actual instruments, nothing else makes sense.

So, Jennifer, am I right concluding that you prefer system with
colorations (oups! distortions) of the sound if these coloration are to
your liking?

Simple yes or no, please.





Consider the alternative: A person's goal for audio in the home is to
experience as closely as is possible, the actual experience of real
instruments/voices. He can chose to have a system where the sounds on a
given recording sound like something other than any actual instrument,
or he can have a system where the same recording sounds like something
that actually resembles that instrument. The person choses the first
system. Has he served his stated goals?


You are distorting my question as usual. Again let's assume that
clarinets did sound like cardboards in a real event. I would expect
that on my SOTA system they sound close to the real event, therefore
like cardboards. In you case you will look for ways to improve the
sound by adding gross distortions.

My goal is to reproduce real event.

Your goal seems to me is to have "sweet" sound, does not matter
what it was in reality.

Did I explain myself clear?

vova

vladborg said:

My goal is to reproduce real event.

Attaining that goal is completely hopeless, you deluded little metron.



--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:

. . .

For technical explanations, others will have to help
you,
but
why not
just set it where it sounds best on a variety of
recordings?

So, Jennifer, you think that High Fidelity is
point
"...where
it sounds best on a variety of recordings ..." ?

No, I think that the enjoyment of listening to music in my
home
is
where it sounds best on a variety of recordings.


I bet, you are inviting noticeable amounts of
distortion
doing
it thisa way. Of course if it is pleasing to your ears,
it
must
be
hi-fi :-)

Why would I listen to something that is less than how it
sounds
best to
my ears?

The definition of high fidelity system in my book is to be as
close
to
the original sound as possible. It seems to me that your
definition
is
to have pleasing sound in your home, even if it means
noticeable
distortion of the sound.

Am I right about this?

My goal is to hear, as closely as is possible, the sound of
actual
acoustic instruments and voices performing in an actual space.
If
the
best presentation of that is on the medium, whether that be a
CD, a
LP,
or whatever, that's great. If it means introducing distortion
to
get
closer to that, that's fine with me.

Eventually you did admit that fidelity of the sound does not
matter
to
you.

Thx

Yes, in one brief paragraph, I explained my views, which are quite
easy
to understand.

"Fidelity of the sound" is VITAL to me; that is, "fidelity to the
sound" of music. If something else is more important to you,
that's
fine. Different strokes and all.


So, you are not concerned with the original sound being recorded? If
I
understand you correctly, you are concerned with your liking of the
sound more then with accuracy (in technical terms) of the recording.

Correct.


I will give you an example. Let's assume that because of hall's
acoustic clarinets sounded like cardboard boxes (your expression).

Well, I believe that I said cardboard, not boxes, but a minor detail...

Do
you expect them to sound on LP

or CD

as cardboard boxes or you are willing to
tolerate gross distortion of their sound to make it more pleasing for
you?

vova

Yes, that's about it, if by "pleasing" you mean "sound like real
clarinets." I don't mean to be picky about that language, but not all
music is "pleasing" sounding, even if it sounds real. But yes, you
pretty much understand my POV. Perhaps a question for you will
clarify:
Why on earth would I chose to listen to clarinets that sound like
cardboard if I can listen to them sounding more like actual clarinets,
if the music is the most important thing for me?

Jennifer,

I cannot answer this question. I am not in a position to tell you what
your preference are or should be.

I think that there is only one answer possible, given the stated
parameters. If the sound of music is the most important thing, why
would anyone prefer to listen to the sound of cardboard sounding
clarinets if they can hear something resembling clarinets instead?

Still I do not understand your POV. If at the moment of the recording
clarinets sounded like cardboards, do you expect them at the point of
reproduction sound like cardboards or like "real" (in your
definition) clarinets. If the answer is 'yes' then it seems to me
that you not only willing to tolerate gross distortion in a
reproduction chain, but you actually expect it from your system. So, is
it yes or no?

vova

If it's possible to make those clarinets sound more like clarinets in my
system, then the answer is yes. Again, if the goal is the sound of
actual instruments, nothing else makes sense.

So, Jennifer, am I right concluding that you prefer system with
colorations (oups! distortions) of the sound if these coloration are to
your liking?

Simple yes or no, please.

Yes, of course. I'm the one who listens to my system. If the
colorations sound more like live music, why shouldn't I?






Consider the alternative: A person's goal for audio in the home is to
experience as closely as is possible, the actual experience of real
instruments/voices. He can chose to have a system where the sounds on a
given recording sound like something other than any actual instrument,
or he can have a system where the same recording sounds like something
that actually resembles that instrument. The person choses the first
system. Has he served his stated goals?


You are distorting my question as usual.

No, I'm not.

Again let's assume that
clarinets did sound like cardboards in a real event. I would expect
that on my SOTA system they sound close to the real event, therefore
like cardboards. In you case you will look for ways to improve the
sound by adding gross distortions.

Sure, since I prefer not to listen to cardboard-like clarinets.


My goal is to reproduce real event.

Your goal seems to me is to have "sweet" sound, does not matter
what it was in reality.

Not really. "Sweet" sound has a distinct connotation. A real clarinet
can sound "sweet" or harsh, or dry, or "wet", but it sounds like a real
clarinet. If it takes coloration to make an unreal sound sound like a
real one, fine. My only goal is realistic sounding music.


Did I explain myself clear?

Yes, you "explained yourself clear", as did I.

vova

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:38:55 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



vladborg said:

My goal is to reproduce real event.

you deluded little metron.

I thought he was an impaler.

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 21:23:37 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:

. . .

For technical explanations, others will have to help
you,
but
why not
just set it where it sounds best on a variety of
recordings?

So, Jennifer, you think that High Fidelity is
point
"...where
it sounds best on a variety of recordings ..." ?

No, I think that the enjoyment of listening to music in my
home
is
where it sounds best on a variety of recordings.


I bet, you are inviting noticeable amounts of
distortion
doing
it thisa way. Of course if it is pleasing to your ears,
it
must
be
hi-fi :-)

Why would I listen to something that is less than how it
sounds
best to
my ears?

The definition of high fidelity system in my book is to be as
close
to
the original sound as possible. It seems to me that your
definition
is
to have pleasing sound in your home, even if it means
noticeable
distortion of the sound.

Am I right about this?

My goal is to hear, as closely as is possible, the sound of
actual
acoustic instruments and voices performing in an actual space.
If
the
best presentation of that is on the medium, whether that be a
CD, a
LP,
or whatever, that's great. If it means introducing distortion
to
get
closer to that, that's fine with me.

Eventually you did admit that fidelity of the sound does not
matter
to
you.

Thx

Yes, in one brief paragraph, I explained my views, which are quite
easy
to understand.

"Fidelity of the sound" is VITAL to me; that is, "fidelity to the
sound" of music. If something else is more important to you,
that's
fine. Different strokes and all.


So, you are not concerned with the original sound being recorded? If
I
understand you correctly, you are concerned with your liking of the
sound more then with accuracy (in technical terms) of the recording.

Correct.


I will give you an example. Let's assume that because of hall's
acoustic clarinets sounded like cardboard boxes (your expression).

Well, I believe that I said cardboard, not boxes, but a minor detail...

Do
you expect them to sound on LP

or CD

as cardboard boxes or you are willing to
tolerate gross distortion of their sound to make it more pleasing for
you?

vova

Yes, that's about it, if by "pleasing" you mean "sound like real
clarinets." I don't mean to be picky about that language, but not all
music is "pleasing" sounding, even if it sounds real. But yes, you
pretty much understand my POV. Perhaps a question for you will
clarify:
Why on earth would I chose to listen to clarinets that sound like
cardboard if I can listen to them sounding more like actual clarinets,
if the music is the most important thing for me?

Jennifer,

I cannot answer this question. I am not in a position to tell you what
your preference are or should be.

I think that there is only one answer possible, given the stated
parameters. If the sound of music is the most important thing, why
would anyone prefer to listen to the sound of cardboard sounding
clarinets if they can hear something resembling clarinets instead?

Still I do not understand your POV. If at the moment of the recording
clarinets sounded like cardboards, do you expect them at the point of
reproduction sound like cardboards or like "real" (in your
definition) clarinets. If the answer is 'yes' then it seems to me
that you not only willing to tolerate gross distortion in a
reproduction chain, but you actually expect it from your system. So, is
it yes or no?

vova

If it's possible to make those clarinets sound more like clarinets in my
system, then the answer is yes. Again, if the goal is the sound of
actual instruments, nothing else makes sense.

So, Jennifer, am I right concluding that you prefer system with
colorations (oups! distortions) of the sound if these coloration are to
your liking?

Simple yes or no, please.

Yes, of course. I'm the one who listens to my system. If the
colorations sound more like live music, why shouldn't I?

There's an interesting point here. The objectivists assume that the
goal of hi-fi is the reproduction of what's on the CD with minimum
added distortion. Yet we all know that even with the best
equipment--and of course only George has that--CDs do NOT sound like
live music---let's admit that straight up. So if reproduction with
minimum distortion does not produce the desired effect, what is wrong
with accepting distortion that gives a better ILLUSION of the real
event? For instance, someone elsewhere (Howard?) cites the high
distortion of tube amps, but does not mention that much of that
distortion is the "sweet" sounding second harmonic, rather than
typical 3rd harmonic of SS amps. Since so many audiophiles prefer tube
amps, it stands to reason something is being added to the sound that
provides a better illusion of the live performance (since we know tube
amps are not REMOVING something that is present in SS amps). Perhaps a
similar analogy exists with LPs v. CDs. So is the goal of hi-fi the
mathematically correct reproduction of the CD, or a reproduction,
albeit with distortion added, that somehow better renders the illusion
of a live performance? (And let's face it, the whole reproductive
process is ILLUSORY).

Answers on the back of a crumpled envelope and addressed to "Paul in
OZ.", with as much money enclosed as you can afford. :-)

In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 21:23:37 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:
vlad wrote:
Jenn wrote:

. . .

For technical explanations, others will have to help
you,
but
why not
just set it where it sounds best on a variety of
recordings?

So, Jennifer, you think that High Fidelity is
point
"...where
it sounds best on a variety of recordings ..." ?

No, I think that the enjoyment of listening to music in
my
home
is
where it sounds best on a variety of recordings.


I bet, you are inviting noticeable amounts of
distortion
doing
it thisa way. Of course if it is pleasing to your
ears,
it
must
be
hi-fi :-)

Why would I listen to something that is less than how it
sounds
best to
my ears?

The definition of high fidelity system in my book is to be
as
close
to
the original sound as possible. It seems to me that your
definition
is
to have pleasing sound in your home, even if it means
noticeable
distortion of the sound.

Am I right about this?

My goal is to hear, as closely as is possible, the sound of
actual
acoustic instruments and voices performing in an actual
space.
If
the
best presentation of that is on the medium, whether that be
a
CD, a
LP,
or whatever, that's great. If it means introducing
distortion
to
get
closer to that, that's fine with me.

Eventually you did admit that fidelity of the sound does not
matter
to
you.

Thx

Yes, in one brief paragraph, I explained my views, which are
quite
easy
to understand.

"Fidelity of the sound" is VITAL to me; that is, "fidelity to
the
sound" of music. If something else is more important to you,
that's
fine. Different strokes and all.


So, you are not concerned with the original sound being recorded?
If
I
understand you correctly, you are concerned with your liking of
the
sound more then with accuracy (in technical terms) of the
recording.

Correct.


I will give you an example. Let's assume that because of hall's
acoustic clarinets sounded like cardboard boxes (your expression).

Well, I believe that I said cardboard, not boxes, but a minor
detail...

Do
you expect them to sound on LP

or CD

as cardboard boxes or you are willing to
tolerate gross distortion of their sound to make it more pleasing
for
you?

vova

Yes, that's about it, if by "pleasing" you mean "sound like real
clarinets." I don't mean to be picky about that language, but not
all
music is "pleasing" sounding, even if it sounds real. But yes, you
pretty much understand my POV. Perhaps a question for you will
clarify:
Why on earth would I chose to listen to clarinets that sound like
cardboard if I can listen to them sounding more like actual
clarinets,
if the music is the most important thing for me?

Jennifer,

I cannot answer this question. I am not in a position to tell you what
your preference are or should be.

I think that there is only one answer possible, given the stated
parameters. If the sound of music is the most important thing, why
would anyone prefer to listen to the sound of cardboard sounding
clarinets if they can hear something resembling clarinets instead?

Still I do not understand your POV. If at the moment of the recording
clarinets sounded like cardboards, do you expect them at the point of
reproduction sound like cardboards or like "real" (in your
definition) clarinets. If the answer is 'yes' then it seems to me
that you not only willing to tolerate gross distortion in a
reproduction chain, but you actually expect it from your system. So,
is
it yes or no?

vova

If it's possible to make those clarinets sound more like clarinets in my
system, then the answer is yes. Again, if the goal is the sound of
actual instruments, nothing else makes sense.

So, Jennifer, am I right concluding that you prefer system with
colorations (oups! distortions) of the sound if these coloration are to
your liking?

Simple yes or no, please.

Yes, of course. I'm the one who listens to my system. If the
colorations sound more like live music, why shouldn't I?

There's an interesting point here. The objectivists assume that the
goal of hi-fi is the reproduction of what's on the CD with minimum
added distortion. Yet we all know that even with the best
equipment--and of course only George has that--CDs do NOT sound like
live music---let's admit that straight up. So if reproduction with
minimum distortion does not produce the desired effect, what is wrong
with accepting distortion that gives a better ILLUSION of the real
event? For instance, someone elsewhere (Howard?) cites the high
distortion of tube amps, but does not mention that much of that
distortion is the "sweet" sounding second harmonic, rather than
typical 3rd harmonic of SS amps. Since so many audiophiles prefer tube
amps, it stands to reason something is being added to the sound that
provides a better illusion of the live performance (since we know tube
amps are not REMOVING something that is present in SS amps). Perhaps a
similar analogy exists with LPs v. CDs. So is the goal of hi-fi the
mathematically correct reproduction of the CD, or a reproduction,
albeit with distortion added, that somehow better renders the illusion
of a live performance? (And let's face it, the whole reproductive
process is ILLUSORY).

And that's exactly my point. My system's job (and the job of the
software) is to please me, and me alone. How my system can please me is
to give the best representation of acoustic music possible. If a
recording is bad, what good does it do me if that bad sound is
reproduced with "accuracy" in my hope? I want that recording to sound
as good as it can.

If it turns other people on to have the highest degree of accuracy to
the original recording possible, that's good for those people, and I can
understand that aspect of the hobby; I just don't happen to share that
goal if it's to the detriment of the music. Also, I want to point out
that all of this is a matter of degree and of compromises. Let's use a
metaphor of our sense of sight as an example. I recently saw a photo of
my elderly aunt Rose Marie. The photo was nice, and I was present when
it was taken a month or so ago. But the color of her hair was off. I
could tell that it was supposed to be her hair, but the color was
obviously different from her hair color, and everyone seeing the picture
agrees with that. Similarly, in the case of the clarinets, I've never
heard a recording where the clarinets sound so atypical that I thought
they were trumpets. But I often hear recorded clarinet sounds that are
so off in fundamental ways that it's jarring when I hear them. THAT'S
what bothers me. I'm jarred in that way with the vast majority of CDs
of violins playing above about C6, for example.




Answers on the back of a crumpled envelope and addressed to "Paul in
OZ.", with as much money enclosed as you can afford. :-)

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 02:32:47 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


Yes, of course. I'm the one who listens to my system. If the
colorations sound more like live music, why shouldn't I?

There's an interesting point here. The objectivists assume that the
goal of hi-fi is the reproduction of what's on the CD with minimum
added distortion. Yet we all know that even with the best
equipment--and of course only George has that--CDs do NOT sound like
live music---let's admit that straight up. So if reproduction with
minimum distortion does not produce the desired effect, what is wrong
with accepting distortion that gives a better ILLUSION of the real
event? For instance, someone elsewhere (Howard?) cites the high
distortion of tube amps, but does not mention that much of that
distortion is the "sweet" sounding second harmonic, rather than
typical 3rd harmonic of SS amps. Since so many audiophiles prefer tube
amps, it stands to reason something is being added to the sound that
provides a better illusion of the live performance (since we know tube
amps are not REMOVING something that is present in SS amps). Perhaps a
similar analogy exists with LPs v. CDs. So is the goal of hi-fi the
mathematically correct reproduction of the CD, or a reproduction,
albeit with distortion added, that somehow better renders the illusion
of a live performance? (And let's face it, the whole reproductive
process is ILLUSORY).

Incidentally, lest anyone think we're discussing biology, that should
probably be "process of sound reproduction".

And that's exactly my point. My system's job (and the job of the
software) is to please me, and me alone.

Very narcissistically put, Jenn.

How my system can please me is
to give the best representation of acoustic music possible. If a
recording is bad, what good does it do me if that bad sound is
reproduced with "accuracy" in my hope?

Not sure what the last three words mean.

I want that recording to sound as good as it can.

The problem is. so many CDs are the result of what some hack engineer
thinks a symphony orchestra sounds like. Many add reverb to make the
recording venue sound larger, which muddies and harshens the sound.
But what does a symphony orchestra sound like anyway? I've heard many,
and they all sound different even in the same hall. And of course all
halls sound different. So you're not after "the sound of a symphony
orchestra" as a fixed parameter, you're after the ILLUSION of a
symphony orchestra, and anything that aids in the creation of that
illusion, that increases the "musicality" of the sound, will increase
your success in getting pleasure from your hobby. And of course if you
don't get pleasure from it, what's the point? You may as well be like
Arnie and sit watching a multimeter all day (Hi, Arnie!).

If it turns other people on to have the highest degree of accuracy to
the original recording possible, that's good for those people, and I can
understand that aspect of the hobby; I just don't happen to share that
goal if it's to the detriment of the music. Also, I want to point out
that all of this is a matter of degree and of compromises. Let's use a
metaphor of our sense of sight as an example. I recently saw a photo of
my elderly aunt Rose Marie. The photo was nice, and I was present when
it was taken a month or so ago. But the color of her hair was off. I
could tell that it was supposed to be her hair, but the color was
obviously different from her hair color, and everyone seeing the picture
agrees with that. Similarly, in the case of the clarinets, I've never
heard a recording where the clarinets sound so atypical that I thought
they were trumpets. But I often hear recorded clarinet sounds that are
so off in fundamental ways that it's jarring when I hear them. THAT'S
what bothers me. I'm jarred in that way with the vast majority of CDs
of violins playing above about C6, for example.

Answers on the back of a crumpled envelope and addressed to "Paul in
OZ.", with as much money enclosed as you can afford. :-)

I see you haven't addressed yourself to the mercenary coda of my post.
Does this mean I shouldn't expect a contribution from you any time
soon?

In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 02:32:47 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


Yes, of course. I'm the one who listens to my system. If the
colorations sound more like live music, why shouldn't I?

There's an interesting point here. The objectivists assume that the
goal of hi-fi is the reproduction of what's on the CD with minimum
added distortion. Yet we all know that even with the best
equipment--and of course only George has that--CDs do NOT sound like
live music---let's admit that straight up. So if reproduction with
minimum distortion does not produce the desired effect, what is wrong
with accepting distortion that gives a better ILLUSION of the real
event? For instance, someone elsewhere (Howard?) cites the high
distortion of tube amps, but does not mention that much of that
distortion is the "sweet" sounding second harmonic, rather than
typical 3rd harmonic of SS amps. Since so many audiophiles prefer tube
amps, it stands to reason something is being added to the sound that
provides a better illusion of the live performance (since we know tube
amps are not REMOVING something that is present in SS amps). Perhaps a
similar analogy exists with LPs v. CDs. So is the goal of hi-fi the
mathematically correct reproduction of the CD, or a reproduction,
albeit with distortion added, that somehow better renders the illusion
of a live performance? (And let's face it, the whole reproductive
process is ILLUSORY).

Incidentally, lest anyone think we're discussing biology, that should
probably be "process of sound reproduction".

And that's exactly my point. My system's job (and the job of the
software) is to please me, and me alone.

Very narcissistically put, Jenn.

LOL Guilty.


How my system can please me is
to give the best representation of acoustic music possible. If a
recording is bad, what good does it do me if that bad sound is
reproduced with "accuracy" in my hope?

Not sure what the last three words mean.

The last word should be "home".


I want that recording to sound as good as it can.

The problem is. so many CDs are the result of what some hack engineer
thinks a symphony orchestra sounds like. Many add reverb to make the
recording venue sound larger, which muddies and harshens the sound.
But what does a symphony orchestra sound like anyway? I've heard many,
and they all sound different even in the same hall. And of course all
halls sound different. So you're not after "the sound of a symphony
orchestra" as a fixed parameter, you're after the ILLUSION of a
symphony orchestra, and anything that aids in the creation of that
illusion, that increases the "musicality" of the sound, will increase
your success in getting pleasure from your hobby.

Exactly right. As you stated, orchestras (for example) sound very
different one from another, every hall sounds different, etc. Heck,
every clarinet sounds different, every REED of every clarinet sounds
different, etc. But one looks for at least a FEASIBLE sound for
clarinets. Chocolate comes in several flavors, but none of them sound
taste like prime rib!

And of course if you
don't get pleasure from it, what's the point? You may as well be like
Arnie and sit watching a multimeter all day (Hi, Arnie!).

If it turns other people on to have the highest degree of accuracy to
the original recording possible, that's good for those people, and I can
understand that aspect of the hobby; I just don't happen to share that
goal if it's to the detriment of the music. Also, I want to point out
that all of this is a matter of degree and of compromises. Let's use a
metaphor of our sense of sight as an example. I recently saw a photo of
my elderly aunt Rose Marie. The photo was nice, and I was present when
it was taken a month or so ago. But the color of her hair was off. I
could tell that it was supposed to be her hair, but the color was
obviously different from her hair color, and everyone seeing the picture
agrees with that. Similarly, in the case of the clarinets, I've never
heard a recording where the clarinets sound so atypical that I thought
they were trumpets. But I often hear recorded clarinet sounds that are
so off in fundamental ways that it's jarring when I hear them. THAT'S
what bothers me. I'm jarred in that way with the vast majority of CDs
of violins playing above about C6, for example.

Answers on the back of a crumpled envelope and addressed to "Paul in
OZ.", with as much money enclosed as you can afford. :-)

I see you haven't addressed yourself to the mercenary coda of my post.
Does this mean I shouldn't expect a contribution from you any time
soon?

The check's in the mail! ;-)

(paul packer) said:


So if reproduction with
minimum distortion does not produce the desired effect, what is wrong
with accepting distortion that gives a better ILLUSION of the real
event? For instance, someone elsewhere (Howard?) cites the high
distortion of tube amps, but does not mention that much of that
distortion is the "sweet" sounding second harmonic, rather than
typical 3rd harmonic of SS amps.


While this is true to some degree, please bear in mind that relatively
huge even harmonics distortion also rises IMD, which is definitely NOT
something you'd want.
If an amplifier has vanishing THD, there are probably mechanisms at
work that will have undesirable effects elsewhere.
Somewhere inbetween is where I would want an amplifier to be.
I'd say 0.5 % of second harmonics is about what's tolerable to me.
Much depends on the circuit.
I try to design my amps for odd order harmonics as low as possible,
the trade-off may be somewhat higher even harmonics in the spectrum.

Of course, all this is valid only before clipping.
Near or at clipping, anything goes, and we should try to avoid that
point.
I am convinced that we don't need 1200 watts/ch amplifiers to achieve
this in the house, BTW.
Something the "pro-audio guys" laugh about.

Pro-audio guys tend to forget that filling a large hall with sound
under specified angles is something different than reproducing music
in a domestic environment.


Since so many audiophiles prefer tube
amps, it stands to reason something is being added to the sound that
provides a better illusion of the live performance (since we know tube
amps are not REMOVING something that is present in SS amps). Perhaps a
similar analogy exists with LPs v. CDs. So is the goal of hi-fi the
mathematically correct reproduction of the CD, or a reproduction,
albeit with distortion added, that somehow better renders the illusion
of a live performance? (And let's face it, the whole reproductive
process is ILLUSORY).


Indeed.
Hence the futility of "accuracy" .


Answers on the back of a crumpled envelope and addressed to "Paul in
OZ.", with as much money enclosed as you can afford. :-)


Certainly not.
I expect Phil A. to snatch it away from the mailman before you get it.

--
"All amps sound alike, but some sound more alike than others".

Jenn said:


Exactly right. As you stated, orchestras (for example) sound very
different one from another, every hall sounds different, etc. Heck,
every clarinet sounds different, every REED of every clarinet sounds
different, etc. But one looks for at least a FEASIBLE sound for
clarinets. Chocolate comes in several flavors, but none of them sound
taste like prime rib!


Prove it.
Unless properly DBT'd, all clarinets sound the same, namely like wet
cardboard boxes.

LOt:'s ;-)

--
"All amps sound alike, but some sound more alike than others".

In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote:

Jenn said:


Exactly right. As you stated, orchestras (for example) sound very
different one from another, every hall sounds different, etc. Heck,
every clarinet sounds different, every REED of every clarinet sounds
different, etc. But one looks for at least a FEASIBLE sound for
clarinets. Chocolate comes in several flavors, but none of them
taste like prime rib!


Prove it.
Unless properly DBT'd, all clarinets sound the same, namely like wet
cardboard boxes.

LOt:'s ;-)

Been there, done that. I've DBT'd every clarinet, with every reed, with
every player, in every space extant.

;-)

Jenn said:


Exactly right. As you stated, orchestras (for example) sound very
different one from another, every hall sounds different, etc. Heck,
every clarinet sounds different, every REED of every clarinet sounds
different, etc. But one looks for at least a FEASIBLE sound for
clarinets. Chocolate comes in several flavors, but none of them
taste like prime rib!


Prove it.
Unless properly DBT'd, all clarinets sound the same, namely like wet
cardboard boxes.

LOt:'s ;-)


Been there, done that. I've DBT'd every clarinet, with every reed, with
every player, in every space extant.

;-)


Jenn, its like you can lead a truck full of Red Herrings to water, but
you can't make them swim Jenn or whatever you're name is today ;-(

--
"All amps sound alike, but some sound more alike than others".

In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote:

Jenn said:


Exactly right. As you stated, orchestras (for example) sound very
different one from another, every hall sounds different, etc. Heck,
every clarinet sounds different, every REED of every clarinet sounds
different, etc. But one looks for at least a FEASIBLE sound for
clarinets. Chocolate comes in several flavors, but none of them
taste like prime rib!


Prove it.
Unless properly DBT'd, all clarinets sound the same, namely like wet
cardboard boxes.

LOt:'s ;-)


Been there, done that. I've DBT'd every clarinet, with every reed, with
every player, in every space extant.

;-)


Jenn, its like you can lead a truck full of Red Herrings to water, but
you can't make them swim Jenn or whatever you're name is today ;-(

Noted!

Jenn said:

Been there, done that. I've DBT'd every clarinet, with every reed, with
every player, in every space extant.

Thank's Jen for admitting Jnnen that clarient's are impossible to
distinguish from dog whistels Jann. Its like the sympohney you claim to
conduct Jenn is isolated in a, room with lot's of vinyl's and the dogs are
barking in the snow Jena.

;-)

This is obviously the product of FAS. Didn't your mother know any better?




--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Jenn said:

I bet, you are inviting noticeable amounts of distortion doing
it thisa way. Of course if it is pleasing to your ears, it must be
hi-fi :-)

Why would I listen to something that is less than how it sounds best to
my ears?

I'll bet you flunked your religion classes in grade school.

I'll bet *you* flunked EVERYTHING !

Graham

The IKYABWAI donkey brayed:

I'll bet you flunked your religion classes in grade school.

I'll bet *you* flunked EVERYTHING !

Poopie, I have a question for you: When you clump to the mirror before
leaving your hovel, does the sight of your bedraggled visage send you into a
funky mood, so that you feel as if a noxious miasma from hell itself has
suffused your existence? I only ask because you're always as nasty as
Pierced Dick, as unoriginal as Arnii Krooborg, and (nearly, but not
completely) as inarticulate as Mikey Bug Eater.

I wish I had some words of encouragement for you, but the only constructive
suggestion I can offer is to keep the door to the outside world firmly
closed. You would render a beneficence to the human race if you did not
inflict your dreary, droopy self on any poor souls who have a chance at a
reasonably upbeat day, if only they are spared a chance encounter with the
Grey Cloud Of Poopieness.




--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

"George M. Middius" wrote:

The IKYABWAI donkey brayed:

I'll bet you flunked your religion classes in grade school.

I'll bet *you* flunked EVERYTHING !

Poopie, I have a question for you: When you clump to the mirror before
leaving your hovel, does the sight of your bedraggled visage send you into a
funky mood, so that you feel as if a noxious miasma from hell itself has
suffused your existence? I only ask because you're always as nasty as
Pierced Dick, as unoriginal as Arnii Krooborg, and (nearly, but not
completely) as inarticulate as Mikey Bug Eater.

I wish I had some words of encouragement for you, but the only constructive
suggestion I can offer is to keep the door to the outside world firmly
closed. You would render a beneficence to the human race if you did not
inflict your dreary, droopy self on any poor souls who have a chance at a
reasonably upbeat day, if only they are spared a chance encounter with the
Grey Cloud Of Poopieness.

Middius, I have a question for you: When did you last get laid by a hot chick ?

I suspect NEVER !

Graham

The mindless donkey of tedium brayed:

Poopie, I have a question for you: When you clump to the mirror before
leaving your hovel, does the sight of your bedraggled visage send you into a
funky mood, so that you feel as if a noxious miasma from hell itself has
suffused your existence? I only ask because you're always as nasty as
Pierced Dick, as unoriginal as Arnii Krooborg, and (nearly, but not
completely) as inarticulate as Mikey Bug Eater.

I wish I had some words of encouragement for you, but the only constructive
suggestion I can offer is to keep the door to the outside world firmly
closed. You would render a beneficence to the human race if you did not
inflict your dreary, droopy self on any poor souls who have a chance at a
reasonably upbeat day, if only they are spared a chance encounter with the
Grey Cloud Of Poopieness.

Middius, I have a question for you:

Inability to understand my trenchant analysis noted.

When did you last get laid by a hot chick ?
I suspect NEVER !

You are correct. When did you last get laid by a hot bloke?




--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.