-
Quote:
Originally Posted by markw
I'll see your call and raise you a...
Several posts later, I can see how my point was missed. Originally, you said:
I think I can pretty well state with confidence that the original recording was done with solid state equipment. At least those done within the last 30 years or so.
To which theaudiohobby replied:
I thought my orginal post on the quality of recorded performances vs live went down like a leaded balloon. markw you say the amplifiers were SS, now that is interesting, I wonder what the tube brigade have to say to that.
"Original recordings" as you put it are NOT engineered with power amps in the signal path. The fact that power amps are used downstream of the process is irrelevant to answer theaudiohobby's charge.
rw
-
"original recording" in this case...
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Several posts later, I can see how my point was missed. Originally, you said:
I think I can pretty well state with confidence that the original recording was done with solid state equipment. At least those done within the last 30 years or so.
To which theaudiohobby replied:
I thought my orginal post on the quality of recorded performances vs live went down like a leaded balloon. markw you say the amplifiers were SS, now that is interesting, I wonder what the tube brigade have to say to that.
"Original recordings" as you put it are NOT engineered with power amps in the signal path. The fact that power amps are used downstream of the process is irrelevant to answer theaudiohobby's charge.
rw
... was done the day before by that very same group in that very same room, using three microphones going into a small (solid state) mixing console directly into the TCD-310. The power amps used in the playback were solid state.
Basically what this points out is simply that a "live" recording" works best when played back in the same environment in which it was recorded. As Herman so wisely pointed ourt (Blessed are the peacemakers) is there is no (may HP forgive me) "absolute" sound. One may come close to what one believes is his own personal interpertation of the perfect sound but, all in all, it's just a grand illusion.
Or. for some (not I) it might be tens of grand illusions. ;)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by markw
The power amps used in the playback were solid state.
What do the power amps used in post # 31 (and not used in the recording) have to do with your comments from post #27?
Quote:
Originally Posted by markw
Basically what this points out is simply that a "live" recording" works best when played back in the same environment in which it was recorded.
Agreed. I assisted in a minor way one of the Telarc recordings of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra. I understand the concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markw
As Herman so wisely pointed ourt (Blessed are the peacemakers) is there is no (may HP forgive me) "absolute" sound.
Harry finds it amazing that so many folks completely miss his point. Obviously, the performance venue affects the final acoustics. It does not, however, fundamentally change the sonic character of instruments. After talking with him about that topic a month or so back, he agreed to respond to a couple of similar comments voiced on AA. I'll let you know when that occurs.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamule1
The only thing better than a tube preamp is no preamp.
Electrons flying through a vacuum do better than trying to get through a solid semi-conductor.
Wow ... what startling revelations these are! Truly profound ....... NOT!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
It must indeed by (be?) those 70 years... or something!
Of course it's the 70 years that makes all of the difference - no question about it. There's simply no substitute for experience. I learned that basic truth early on in my life (in the 1940s) when I had to make a career change. I was a professional musician during that decade, but after World War II ended, the music business went directly into the toilet. Since I was recently married and an expectatnt father, I needed a new career and in a hurry. So, I enrolled in a school to learn enough about electronics to service television sets. I'd been "playing around" with audio for a number of years before then, but there was no such thing as a career to be found there. I quickly learned (to my dismay) that my TV schooling hadn't really taught me enough ... I had to plunge in and "learn by doing" - which I did for the next 50 some years.
Quote:
That close to perfection? To date, you are the one and only person I've encountered, either in person, via the media or via the internet, that has made such a claim. This includes objective as well as subjective listeners, musicians and scientists, anyone! However, none of them have 70 years of experience, either.
Obviously, because they lack the perspective that those 70 years put "on the table" is reason enough for them to not see things in the same way as I do. In order to better understand my perspective on this, it's necessary to include relativity in the equation. Everything is relative, and life itself is duality-based ... up and down ... left and right ... hot or cold ... sweet or sour ... light or heavy ... black or white ... loud or soft ... tall or short ... on or off ... in or out ... the list goes on, seemingly forever. It takes one of the two in order to give meaning to its opposite. In order to fully appreciate just how far we've come in audio technology, one needs to have been a participant in the evolution as it progressed.
Quote:
Which audio components are within that eyelash of perfection? All of them? If only some of them, which some? Can you be specific, please?
Now we come to the most important part of the discussion ... which is perception. With all things being relative, it's no stretch at all to find vast discrepancies in the perceptions that different people report. Even if there was no such thing as "relative" and there was an actual sonic "truth" regarding how something performs, you'd still get the broad variety of perceptions! How could this be? The answer is simple. It's the individual's ABEs that accounts for all of the difference. The magic in all of this lies in the discovery that by merely changing one's Attitude(s), which then alter your Beliefs, you can experience far greater amounts of joy and appreciation for just how good and wonderful audio reproduction can be (and really is).
To answer this question about "which components" - the most accurate answer I can offer is: most of them (excluding loudspeakers of course).
Quote:
Please include examples of perfect speakers as well. I've been searching for just such a component for a long time and I'm very interested in putting upgrades behind me for good. Thanks in advance.
Speakers are the one component that has yet to reach anything resembling flat frequency response, which is the major attribute that would constitute "perfection". Fortunately, (or unfortunately) human hearing comes up a bit short in this criteria as well. This makes the choosing of speakers such an individual proposition - and controversial to boot. So, sorry ... I cannot offer you a magic bullet to put your speaker upgrading behind you for good. I can offer you this however ... the Attitudes and Beliefs that you choose (yes, we DO choose those for ourselves) can go a long, long way towards giving you the enjoyment that we all say we're looking for,
Hope this helps you
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodman
Hope this helps you
Actually, it does. I'm not sure I completely agree with all your points but I don't necessarily disagree, either. Food for thought, that much is clear.
Thanks for a well thought out and intelligent post.
-
Talk about a classic non-sequiter
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
What do the power amps used in post # 31 (and not used in the recording) have to do with your comments from post #27?
Quick answer... Not a dang thing.
Long answer? You are simply intertwining two distinctly different conversations into one that you are taking totally out of context.
Let’s have a mini recap, shall we?
# 26, “musicoverall” makes the statement ”The problem with it is that when my system was SS, some of the engineers skill was missing.”
# 27, my response was to him was. “I think I can pretty well state with confidence that the original recording was done with solid state equipment. At least those done within the last 30 years or so.”
I’ll stand by that from what I recall from those times. As far as I recall, solid state mixers, efx and tape recorders were pretty standard in most recording studios at that time. Those that didn’t convert yet were champing at the bit to do so.
That pretty much ends that thought train, at least as far as my participation went.
# 31. I move on to introduce the Tandberg experiment. I don’t see any reference to power amps, either SS or otherwise here. Do you?
# 32, You try to extrapolate the chamber group into a symphony orchestra and say it wouldn’t work.
# 33. I dispute that and will admit I throw in that the playback chain was ss, just to dig ya a little. ;)
# 35. Now, “theaudiohobby” throws the ss/gs gauntlet down, clearly in reference to the Tandberg experiment and my response to you in # 33.
I think this is where you start to lose it.
# 36 You respond about cutting heads being the only users of “power amps”?
# 38. I question your logic on that here
# 41 Now, here it seems that you’re combining two separate thoughts into one.
Your first statement refers to my response (in # 27) to the statement by “musicoverall” and his com,mplaint about ss not conveying the engineer’s intent.to which I responded “I think I can pretty well state with confidence that the original recording was done with solid state equipment. At least those done within the last 30 years or so.”
Now, you try to tie that to “theaudiohobby”s post # 35 to link the two subjects together and you respond
In the second part of this post, you try to use “theaudiohobby” statement from # 35.
Please note that his reference to SS in # 35 was directly in response to my # 33 theTandberg experiment.
…and you respond with a statement that power amps are not used in the “original recording” process. I do agree, but this was not a subject under discussion and I can’t recall anyone saying they were.
#42 I explain that the “original recording” That I thought you were refering to was the one from the Tandberg experiment. Since the quote you used as the basis for your post was part of that train, I responsed as such.
And this brings us to ths post that I’m responding to.
I hope this clears up the little multi-tasking that has been going on here a little. It can get confusing when you're taking on comers form all sides.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by markw
Please note that his reference to SS in # 35 was directly in response to my # 33 theTandberg experiment.
Ah. That reference was not as clear to me given your multiple comments regarding SS use. BTW, the original AR live vs. recorded tests used Dyna MKIIIs.
rw
-
no problemo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Ah. That reference was not as clear to me given your multiple comments regarding SS use. BTW, the original AR live vs. recorded tests used Dyna MKIIIs.
I don't remember making too many references to ss but, in any case, Sometimes we all lose the beat. Ya gotta follow the flow and keep in step when there are multiple conversations going on.
Oh, my throw away reference to ss amps in # 33, my reply to your chamber/symphony scenario was in relation to the Tandberg tests since that was my subject. I had no input on the AR tests. That was your baby. Perhaps that was unclear?
I believe the AR tests in the early/mid 60's predated the Tandberg tests, at least this one, by at least 12 or more years. A lot of new tech took place over that time. A cassette deck in the mid 60's was unheard of, much less a solid state one that could stand up to a test such as this was still in the realm of sci fi.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erukian
And here's the truth in audio:
--
1. The speakers represent about 90% of the quality of sound you will get from your audio system.
--A speaker takes an electrical signal, moves air to convert it to sound, and then sounds like a real person. Incredibly hard to do well.
2. The source component (CD or LP) is the next most important piece of equipment.
--It takes a piece of plastic with pits in it and converts it to an electrical signal capable of making a speaker produce music.
3. The preamp (or preamp stage of an integrated amp) is next in importance.
--It takes components of varying impedances, voltages, and levels; uses switches and attenuators, and has an amplification stage of its own.
4. The amplifier is the least important part of a system.
--It takes a signal and makes it bigger.
--There are only 3 types of amps: good ones, bad ones, and 'boutique' ones (ones that alter the sound).
--If you're spending more than $500 on your amplifier....you're wasting your money.
5. Fancy cables are the 'snake oil' of modern life.
--Most are designed to have a sound of their own...to alter the signal. This is not the role a cable should play.
--16 gauge multistranded copper speaker wire (quality 'extension' cord) is all you need for resonably efficient speakers.
--Gold plated interconnects from Radio Shack will give you sound as good as any expensive cable.
You know for the most part, this guy seems to nail it.
Common sense would indicate that the proper order of importance is
1. Source first, be it tuner, CD, or turntable (the best IMO) if you don't get the signal off or out of the device whatever you do to it after is simply playing with a defective signal.
2. Amplification, the signal sent from the source must be properly treated by the amplification in order to send a proper signal to the third part of the sysem. The amplifier itself must also be able to control the speaker, starting and stopping it precisely and allowing the speaker to track the music signal. Very few sub $500.00 amps that I have heard can do this with decent speaker at all frequencies.
3. Loudspeakers, these are no better than the signal they receive. If I believed the above post I would spend $3000 on some fine speakers, $1000.00 on a CD player, and than connect them all to a Sansewer (oops, Sansui, receiver). I do agree that the job of the speaker is difficult to do well, reproducing a frequency range fromm 20 to 20,000 hz is no easy chore, add in a dynamic range of 50 to 60 db, and maintaining the proper phase relationships in the signal and you have a devilishly difficult job.
4. The best thing about this hobby is that if you don't hear a difference between components, cables or any other part of a system you are free to save your money. Luckily for me I can hear the differences between components and cables and so I strive to build systems that incrementally approach the sound of unamplified live music.
It is a good thing for all of the cable manufacturers out their that some of us can hear
the differences between cables, both in the signal path and outside of it.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by risabet
Luckily for me I can hear the differences between components and cables and so I strive to build systems that incrementally approach the sound of unamplified live music. .
Luckily??? I consider the people who feel all components sound the same to be lucky! They can save their money and the choices are simpler! :)
As for the "order of importance", I don't disagree with your assessment but I feel the bulk of expenditure for a system should be speakers, simply because they don't do their job as well. CD source components and amplification components do a better job and, whereas they are important, it doesn't require a ton of money to do those jobs basically correctly. I'd much prefer to hear a system with modest front end and amplification components with good speakers than the opposite. It's easier to find speakers to totally muck up a signal than it is to find a CD player to muck it up, IMHO.
-
Start from both ends and meet in the middle.
First off. if the source media is poor, nothing, I repeat, NOTHING will improve it to any great extent. I've got some recordings of roots rock done in the 50's and tome controls can smooth outa little of the roughness but they still suck. Ah... but that music. ;)
But, drop on some good recordings (Mapleshade, Reference Recordings, some RCA Living Stereo or some Columbia/Legacy stuff, etc...) and you're in heaven.
Now, on to he other side. The speakers. Get what moves you. Then, get an amp with enough clean oomph to drive them to levels sufficient to reach that hidden nerve that makes your mouth turn up at the ends and your foot tap and you're in business.
The rest kinda falls into place.
-
Yep, speakers and source are of equal importance
markw you, good :D, yep thats it, the speakers and the source are of equal importance if either sucks, you are not going to get good music, as simple as that. In the digital age, speakers show much greater variability and there is no universal best, so choose what works best for your ears and pocket ;). Then look for a good amplifier, forget about tubes, ss, digital and all such hoopla, choose what does the job i.e. drives your speakers best and you are up and away with good music.:D
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by markw
First off. if the source media is poor, nothing, I repeat, NOTHING will improve it to any great extent. I've got some recordings of roots rock done in the 50's and tome controls can smooth outa little of the roughness but they still suck. Ah... but that music. ;)
But, drop on some good recordings (Mapleshade, Reference Recordings, some RCA Living Stereo or some Columbia/Legacy stuff, etc...) and you're in heaven.
Now, on to he other side. The speakers. Get what moves you. Then, get an amp with enough clean oomph to drive them to levels sufficient to reach that hidden nerve that makes your mouth turn up at the ends and your foot tap and you're in business.
The rest kinda falls into place.
Ditto to all of that!
rw
-
"...differences..."
...there's the word...rendering all else meaningless, anecdotal, opinion...
jimHJJ(...difference does not equate to higher-fi...)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamule1
Electrons flying through a vacuum do better than trying to get through a solid semi-conductor.
HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA! OMG that's funny!
:p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p
-Bruce
(Just completely wrong)
-
True, the amplification chain has the "easiest" job to do and thus it is easiest to find competent electronics, the problem arises when one then starts the process of upgrading the speakers. Better speakers tend to present more complex loads with greater reactance, lower impedance, especially at high frequencies, etc. Here is where buying better electronics at the start is a benefit, you can go through 2-3 ugrade cycles with the speakers before you need to upgrade the amps.
On the subject of tubes, yeah, they treat the electrons better, especially at line level. The sound of tubes, and most early tube gear does have a sound of its own, is more consonant with the sound of live music. Modern tube gear is much more neutral sounding and the best is wickedly revealing of changes in source components, cables and imaging.
If you can deal with the heat and regular minor maintenace of tubes go for it. I compromise with a hybrid tube pre and a SS amp.
-
I can hear more of a difference in amps than in cd players. I do agree about the $500 thing.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by risabet
On the subject of tubes, yeah, they treat the electrons better, especially at line level. The sound of tubes, and most early tube gear does have a sound of its own, is more consonant with the sound of live music.
treat electrons better :eek: grrrr.... :( maybe we should return to the days of the alchemists, the alchemists probably had more plausible explanations :D .
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by risabet
On the subject of tubes, yeah, they treat the electrons better, especially at line level. The sound of tubes, and most early tube gear does have a sound of its own, is more consonant with the sound of live music. Modern tube gear is much more neutral sounding and the best is wickedly revealing of changes in source components, cables and imaging.
.
Well, I can't comment on how tubes treat electrons! A little politeness is good, though! :)
The rest of this paragraph mirrors my experience perfectly. I've found that solid state tends to blur the transients and the decay of notes... one of my problems with digital sound is that the decay of notes is actually an instant death! Very un-lifelike... and tubes are so revealing and "live" sounding. I was very skeptical at first until I listened. And my amps look like a cross between something out of Star Trek and something from the documentary of Thomas Edison! Buggardly looking things! :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
I've found that solid state tends to blur the transients and the decay of notes... one of my problems with digital sound is that the decay of notes is actually an instant death! Very un-lifelike... and tubes are so revealing and "live" sounding. I was very skeptical at first until I listened. And my amps look like a cross between something out of Star Trek and something from the documentary of Thomas Edison! Buggardly looking things! :)
We went through this corner a few posts ago :) :) , didn't we? when markw said
Quote:
Originally Posted by markw
...(the recording) was done the day before by that very same group in that very same room, using three microphones going into a small (solid state) mixing console directly into the TCD-310. The power amps used in the playback were solid state.
How much more life-like can tube amplifiers be if the audience was unable to distinguish a recording from an actual performance ;) , and the power amps for the playback in this case were solid state :eek: .
-
Thanks Woodman, you really sent me back a few grades on that one!
My head is still spinning :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodman
No, you're not "with me" at all. Not until you come to accept the basic truth that auditory perceptions are created by each listener as a direct result of his/her personal ABEs. They function totally independently and with no regard whatever for any scientific facts or "truth"!
Oh, I'm totally in agreement with that. I haven't heard any system that can make polka sound good. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodman
I can't help but wonder if you're not factoring in the "excitement factor" of a live performance (which is undeniable) into your evaluation of the sonics of the performance venue?
This is an excellent point, one I often use myself in such discussions. At a live venue, I dare say sight, sound, touch, and even smelling senses are used, often with some adrenaline pumping, etc...less so at home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodman
My personal preference in music listening is for the reproduction of it rather than the live performance (with rare exceptions).
Really? I suppose there are numerous benefits, specifically control of conditions, that support your preference. Interesting take.
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodman
Finally, your statement that ..... "At present time, nothing even comes close." throws you solidly into the negativity camp of those that I call CONEs - a position that does a disservice to those that fall victim to it, IMO. It strikes me as more than a bit curious and bizarre why anyone would choose to go through their life looking intently for everything that's "not good enough" when the opposite attitude is available to put smiles on your face to replace the frowns.
I think my emotional response has been misinterpreted, my fault. I am by no means a negative person, nor do I approach this hobby as a a pessimist. I spend about an equal amount of time listening to music on my system and live in person. I do admit I prefer live music, and, having not heard every possible component combination, I inaccurately said that reproduction does not sound as good as live performance. I should have said in my biased opinion, my system (and almost every other one I've heard) does not sound as good to me. But acheiving the "live sound" if this state exists, has never, ever been my goal when buying audio equipment. Making my favorite albums sound as good to me as possible, withing my budget has.
I think fundamentally, much recorded music does sound different than live music, as it has many luxuries (over-dubbing, effects, post-equalization, etc) live performances do not. At least many of the recordings I listen to certainly do. In many ways, this makes the recording a superior listen (both technically from a musician's take, and sonically).
Trying to force this into some semblance of a live event may be considered "alteration" in many cases, and might be desireable for some, but not for me. If it's meant to sound live, or was recorded at a live show, it should be reflected in the recording, no? Maybe it depends on the fundamental definition of what "live music" sounds like. I imagine everyone's definition is a bit different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodman
Besides the psychological aspects of it, the statement itself is also patently wrong!. The simple fact of the matter is, that the technologies of sound reproduction today have matured and progressed in a remarkable fashion to the point where they are within an eyelash or two of "perfection". Perhaps it's because I've been intimately involved with audio for nearly 70 years(!) that I'm much more aware of the progress that's been made than most others seem to be.
You are correct, Woodman, I do not have even 1/4 of the experience you do, and just because I haven't heard anything close to "perfection" (whatever that is), does not mean that it isn't out there. That being said, I'm happy enough with what I have now that other than my amateur speaker building and future SS amp projects, which are as much exercises in relaxation as the pursuit of audio perfection, I'm not in any mad search to find audio Mecca.
Just curious Woodman..If you could build one dream system, what would it be?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
My head is still spinning :)
Oh, I'm totally in agreement with that. I haven't heard any system that can make polka sound good. :)
Oh, I'm totally in agreement with that ... I'd only add that bagpipes are an even greater challenge!
Quote:
Really? I suppose there are numerous benefits, specifically control of conditions, that support your preference. Interesting take.
Being present at an "event" as it's taking place does not rank very high on my personal list of priorities - due to the fact that there can be (and usually are) so many negative attributes involved. I'm a huge baseball fan, but I get far greater enjoyment from watching a game on television than I do from being there in person. Similarly, I (usually) appreciate a music performance more when "crowd noise" and the almost inevitable acoustic anomalies that are present nearly everywhere are removed from the equation, and nothing but the pure music remains. Perhaps my personal experiences when playing professionally over the years has contributed more than a little bit to this perspective.
Quote:
I think my emotional response has been misinterpreted, my fault. I am by no means a negative person, nor do I approach this hobby as a a pessimist. I spend about an equal amount of time listening to music on my system and live in person. I do admit I prefer live music, and, having not heard every possible component combination, I inaccurately said that reproduction does not sound as good as live performance. I should have said in my biased opinion, my system (and almost every other one I've heard) does not sound as good to me. But acheiving the "live sound" if this state exists, has never, ever been my goal when buying audio equipment. Making my favorite albums sound as good to me as possible, withing my budget has.
Now you're changing your tune Ken. If you had stated your preference for live music over recorded in those words, I never would've "misinterpreted" you. But you didn't. You said (and I quote) - "At the present time, nothing even comes close". If that were even remotely true, the experimental "tests" where an entire audience was fooled as to whether they were listening to the musicians on stage in front of them playing, or it was reproduced sound they were hearing, could not have happened. And that was 30 years ago or so. A lot of further progress in sound reproduction has taken place since then.
Quote:
I think fundamentally, much recorded music does sound different than live music, as it has many luxuries (over-dubbing, effects, post-equalization, etc) live performances do not. At least many of the recordings I listen to certainly do. In many ways, this makes the recording a superior listen (both technically from a musician's take, and sonically).
Amen.
Quote:
You are correct, Woodman, I do not have even 1/4 of the experience you do, and just because I haven't heard anything close to "perfection" (whatever that is), does not mean that it isn't out there. That being said, I'm happy enough with what I have now that other than my amateur speaker building and future SS amp projects, which are as much exercises in relaxation as the pursuit of audio perfection, I'm not in any mad search to find audio Mecca.
Here's where your wheels slip off the track again, Ken. When you state that you haven't heard "anything CLOSE to perfection (whatever that is)" you are once again contradicting yourself. Earlier in this post you said that you listen about equally to live music and reproduced music at home, and that you prefer "live" over what you hear at home. Fine. No problemo. No argument. No debate. However, IF the music that you hear at home didn't even come close to sounding like "real" music, you couldn't stand to listen to it, IMO. It would have to be "live music" or none at all. Instead, you state that you're "... happy enough with what I (you) have now (in audio gear)". I suggest that you drop the " ... nothing even comes close" comment altogether. First, it's patently untrue, and second - it exposes your personal ABEs for all the world to see.
Quote:
Just curious Woodman..If you could build one dream system, what would it be?
I just have to pass on that one. The whole concept of "one dream system" is alien to my thinking. I could be (and would be) thrilled right out of my socks with any one of about 15,873 different systems that I could assemble of components from dozens and dozens of different manufacturers.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodman
Now you're changing your tune Ken.
Yeah, I guess I am flip-flopping a bit. I wouldn't be the first person to backtrack a bit - nothing wrong with that. Now I remain optimistic, but still as yet unconvinced that a stereo system can fool me into believing I'm hearing a real, live orchestra (though I'll admit, amplified music is probably easy enought do). The "nothing even comes close" tag has been dropped. Please replace it with "show me the money".
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodman
Here's where your wheels slip off the track again, Ken. When you state that you haven't heard "anything CLOSE to perfection (whatever that is)" you are once again contradicting yourself. Earlier in this post you said that you listen about equally to live music and reproduced music at home, and that you prefer "live" over what you hear at home. Fine. No problemo. No argument. No debate. However, IF the music that you hear at home didn't even come close to sounding like "real" music, you couldn't stand to listen to it, IMO. It would have to be "live music" or none at all. Instead, you state that you're "... happy enough with what I (you) have now (in audio gear)". I suggest that you drop the " ... nothing even comes close" comment altogether. First, it's patently untrue, and second - it exposes your personal ABEs for all the world to see.
Sorry, Woodman, but that's an absolutely incorrect statement on your part...
"IF the music that you hear at home didn't even come close to sounding like "real" music, you couldn't stand to listen to it, IMO"...I'm not sure on what grounds you base this statement on OTHER THAN your biased opinion.
Given the option between not being able to listen to any music at all vs, a cheap, mono clock radio, I would prefer a mono clock-radio. Given another choice, I'd prefer my stereo system...given yet another choice, I'd prefer the live event. I enjoy all three to varying levels...I can have my cake and eat it too! This doesn't necessarily mean that I perceive these as being equivalent, or even "close".
Surely you aren't emplying a mono clock radio sounds "close" to a live musical performance? Unless you're going to pull out some loose definition of "close" on me. :)
I don't understand why you would suggest I wouldn't listen to home music at all if that's all I had to listen to?
I do enjoy both, just one more than the other. I prefer a larger TV to the one I own, but I couldn't afford anything bigger...doesn't mean I'm not happy with my purchase. I don't own my own concert hall though and couldn't afford to book acts on a whim at my leisure, so there's a need to own my stereo. And I, like you, prefer to listen in solitude at times as well, justifying my use of my stereo.
Hope this clears things up...Thanks again Woodman.
-
[QUOTE=theaudiohobby How much more life-like can tube amplifiers be if the audience was unable to distinguish a recording from an actual performance ;) , and the power amps for the playback in this case were solid state :eek: .[/QUOTE]
I wasn't there so I can't answer. There are too many unknowns. I also have no idea how a different set of cables can sound different from another. I can only comment on my own experiences rather than relay a set of absolute truths.
I find it interesting that this thread is about the "truth" in audio and there are so many different "truths" posted, nearly one different "truth" per post. That must be what makes this hobby so much fun - each of us pursuing our own sonic and musical truths.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
treat electrons better :eek: grrrr.... :( maybe we should return to the days of the alchemists, the alchemists probably had more plausible explanations :D .
What I meant was that IMO, tube electronics treat the music with less alteration than does SS. :rolleyes:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodman
The whole concept of "one dream system" is alien to my thinking.
I agree. What is not alien to my thinking is simply reporting the one that I have found to be the most pleasing. If there are multiple equals, pick any one. Can you answer that question?
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by risabet
What I meant was that IMO, tube electronics treat the music with less alteration than does SS. :rolleyes:
good for you risabet, that why the market has a large variety of products, SS, Tubes and hybrids, pick the one which suits your tastes and you are up and away, various products satisfying a variety of opinions. :p :p :p, is everybody's opinion correct? now that is another matter entirely :) :) :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
I find it interesting that this thread is about the "truth" in audio and there are so many different "truths" posted, nearly one different "truth" per post. That must be what makes this hobby so much fun - each of us pursuing our own sonic and musical truths.
The most interesting thing in this post and others is that we haven't even gone past step number one, "The Big Truth". And that one is: "Does cable A perform audibly differently than cable B?"
Once that truth is known, then we can argue to our hearts content which one sounds better, whether the price difference is worth it, which systems enhance or diminish the difference, etc.
Until then, audio cables fall into the same category as all the other products that have no scientific proof nor professional backing and rely only on "testamonials" for market penetration. And that's a truth whether we like it or not.
If you ask me, a lot of people are in so deep whether it is money invested or statements claimed in public that they cannot turn back. Very few audiophiles have gone from believing in cable sonics to dismissing that belief and it is my opinion that the reason for that has more to due with human nature than any "truth".
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
The most interesting thing in this post and others is that we haven't even gone past step number one, "The Big Truth". And that one is: "Does cable A perform audibly differently than cable B?"
Once that truth is known, then we can argue to our hearts content which one sounds better, whether the price difference is worth it, which systems enhance or diminish the difference, etc.
Until then, audio cables fall into the same category as all the other products that have no scientific proof nor professional backing and rely only on "testamonials" for market penetration. And that's a truth whether we like it or not.
If you ask me, a lot of people are in so deep whether it is money invested or statements claimed in public that they cannot turn back. Very few audiophiles have gone from believing in cable sonics to dismissing that belief and it is my opinion that the reason for that has more to due with human nature than any "truth".
As I mentioned to another poster with a smiliar point of view, you and I disagree on the subject of cable sonics. I have no problem with that. Why does it seem to bother you so?
Why do you argue a subject that by your own admission is inconsequential to the point of invisibility? Just curious.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
I find it interesting that this thread is about the "truth" in audio and there are so many different "truths" posted, nearly one different "truth" per post.
Not many "truths", but a lot of opinions though :p :) :) :) :) :) :p
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
Not many "truths", but a lot of opinions though :p :) :) :) :) :) :p
My opinion IS the truth! LOL!
You're right, of course. I shall herewith take my opinions on cables where they belong - to the Cable board. I have no lab results to share. :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
The most interesting thing in this post and others is that we haven't even gone past step number one, "The Big Truth".
Indeed. The author of the article referenced merely presents his preferences for system weighting for which there is no single truth.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
As I mentioned to another poster with a smiliar point of view, you and I disagree on the subject of cable sonics. I have no problem with that. Why does it seem to bother you so?
Why do you argue a subject that by your own admission is inconsequential to the point of invisibility? Just curious.
The reason why people argue about points like these is that some people hate the promotion and promulgation of false information. Take, for example, the promotion of some beliefs by a certain population: the belief is that by legalizing same sex marriage that society is encouraging and enticing the youth of today into a homosexual lifestyle. Repeated enough times in print and by talking heads, you'd almost think that belief to be true. I realize that a short audio post isn't enough to even remotely convey all that there is about this subject, but I think that you get the idea.
Cable yeasayers have been saying for the longest time that they can hear differences in quality of cables but have yet to demonstrate this ability with a blind test. I will hold one truth to be paramount in the world of audio. When comparing two separate pieces of gear whether they be cables, amps, or whatnot, without a blind test the results are merely useless and trite anecdotes. I know FOR FACT that the human mind can be tricked easily by the mere mention or sight of label. There is no mystique about the audio industry that can mitigate this TRUTH. I've posted several times before to E-Stat how without blind testing, unbiased determinations of whether one piece of gear is better than another ARE IMPOSSIBLE.
There is an easy suggestion once made by markw to test cables or wire or power cords. He had a friend come over every day. This friend would either change the cables or would leave them alone. markw then tried to be able to discern whether any difference could be heard. He couldn't. I tried a similar blind test with my wife where she switched inputs for me. I listened and couldn't tell any difference. Before the test I would have sworn to you that I could hear significant difference between the cables, but afterwards I was extremely surprised at the results.
Why don't you try the above suggestion and come back and let us know what the results are?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by magictooth
I've posted several times before to E-Stat how without blind testing, unbiased determinations of whether one piece of gear is better than another ARE IMPOSSIBLE.
whao...from one extreme to another.. :) :) , where shall the twain meet ;) ?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by magictooth
The reason why people argue about points like these is that some people hate the promotion and promulgation of false information. Take, for example, the promotion of some beliefs by a certain population: the belief is that by legalizing same sex marriage that society is encouraging and enticing the youth of today into a homosexual lifestyle. Repeated enough times in print and by talking heads, you'd almost think that belief to be true. I realize that a short audio post isn't enough to even remotely convey all that there is about this subject, but I think that you get the idea.
Cable yeasayers have been saying for the longest time that they can hear differences in quality of cables but have yet to demonstrate this ability with a blind test. I will hold one truth to be paramount in the world of audio. When comparing two separate pieces of gear whether they be cables, amps, or whatnot, without a blind test the results are merely useless and trite anecdotes. I know FOR FACT that the human mind can be tricked easily by the mere mention or sight of label. There is no mystique about the audio industry that can mitigate this TRUTH. I've posted several times before to E-Stat how without blind testing, unbiased determinations of whether one piece of gear is better than another ARE IMPOSSIBLE.
There is an easy suggestion once made by markw to test cables or wire or power cords. He had a friend come over every day. This friend would either change the cables or would leave them alone. markw then tried to be able to discern whether any difference could be heard. He couldn't. I tried a similar blind test with my wife where she switched inputs for me. I listened and couldn't tell any difference. Before the test I would have sworn to you that I could hear significant difference between the cables, but afterwards I was extremely surprised at the results.
Why don't you try the above suggestion and come back and let us know what the results are?
Sorry, but I don't know the trick of putting quotes in those cool brackets in order to make each of my points coincide with each of yours. So I apologize if my reply is tougher to follow than I'd like.
The promotion and promulgation of false information is indeed disconcerting. How do you know the varying sounds of cables is false information? Because you and a few others tried it once and failed? Sorry, there are too many variables in your tests that aren't necessarily replicated with every other person in the world.
The human mind most likely can be tricked. So you're suggesting that it's tricked each and every time on every single individual??? That is too outrageous. What you're asking me to believe is that no one can ever trust their own senses.
I do not and cannot suggest that cable sonics are true for every individual. I can only report what I hear, personally. If others do not hear the same thing, I have no problem with that. I'm not sure why the opposite should be a problem for you.
As for blind testing, let me just ask you a few questions. Do you perform blind tests on peanut butters? Colas? Fabric softeners? Dog barks? Flower smells? Anything regarding your sensory perceptions? Why or why not? When do you trust your senses and when do you not? That's not to say that I won't try your experiment. But I'm curious as to what you will say if I pass with flying colors! You will likely blame something about the test, will you not? And yet, you'd like me to trust it completely! ;)
-
We are within a whisker or two of perfection
folks,
I re-installed my manufacturer upgraded speakers back into my system this afternoon, fullrange floorstanders, I feel it is necessary to reiterate what woodman said earlier, we are within a few whiskers of perfection :D :D . The SS vs Tubes debate, digital vs. analog are red herrings ;) :) ;) , the technology to recreate accurate sound (wrt to live) is alive and well :D :D :D and available to buy to those interested.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
[/i]The promotion and promulgation of false information is indeed disconcerting. How do you know the varying sounds of cables is false information?
Simply because no one has ever been able to demonstrate when "blind" that the premise has any validity to it at all - that's how one can know. This is not to say that there is positively, absolutely no sonic difference whatsoever between different cables ... only that whatever differences that might exist are likely to be so minimal - so subtle - so inconsequential - that being able to detect them in a "blind test" is all but impossible.
Quote:
The human mind most likely can be tricked. So you're suggesting that it's tricked each and every time on every single individual??? That is too outrageous. What you're asking me to believe is that no one can ever trust their own senses.
Yes, I not only "suggest" it, I will go so far as to state it as an incontrovertible FACT that what our 5 senses provide us are under the direct influence and control of the Attitudes and Beliefs that an individual holds. Of course you can "trust" your senses ... to provide you with a sensory perception - but, you cannot trust any of your senses to also tell you what is true and "real" and what is only an illusion. An illusion that you yourself are responsible for the creation of.
Quote:
I do not and cannot suggest that cable sonics are true for every individual. I can only report what I hear, personally.
Why not? If the phenomenon of "cable sonics" were indeed "real", how does it stand to reason that only a small minority of humans are able to detect them? And when those that report "hearing" such things can only do so when "sighted" listening is involved, and when listening "blind" they fail to be able to "hear" quite as clearly, doesn't that raise a warning flag of suspicion up the ol' flagpole?
Quote:
As for blind testing, let me just ask you a few questions. Do you perform blind tests on peanut butters?
No, not unless someone was trying to sell me a jar of peanut butter for $200 with the promise that it would enrich my life in countless ways and make me cherish the day that I discovered such a wonderful product ... then, I might. Then again, on second thought, I'd probably just grab a shotgun and chase his unscrupulous BS ass out of my house!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodman
Simply because no one has ever been able to demonstrate when "blind" that the premise has any validity to it at all - that's how one can know. This is not to say that there is positively, absolutely no sonic difference whatsoever between different cables ... only that whatever differences that might exist are likely to be so minimal - so subtle - so inconsequential - that being able to detect them in a "blind test" is all but impossible.
Yes, I not only "suggest" it, I will go so far as to state it as an incontrovertible FACT that what our 5 senses provide us are under the direct influence and control of the Attitudes and Beliefs that an individual holds. Of course you can "trust" your senses ... to provide you with a sensory perception - but, you cannot trust any of your senses to also tell you what is true and "real" and what is only an illusion. An illusion that you yourself are responsible for the creation of.
Why not? If the phenomenon of "cable sonics" were indeed "real", how does it stand to reason that only a small minority of humans are able to detect them? And when those that report "hearing" such things can only do so when "sighted" listening is involved, and when listening "blind" they fail to be able to "hear" quite as clearly, doesn't that raise a warning flag of suspicion up the ol' flagpole?
No, not unless someone was trying to sell me a jar of peanut butter for $200 with the promise that it would enrich my life in countless ways and make me cherish the day that I discovered such a wonderful product ... then, I might. Then again, on second thought, I'd probably just grab a shotgun and chase his unscrupulous BS ass out of my house!
As usual, your post makes a lot of sense - a LOT of sense. However, if I might...
I pulled out one of my CD's without looking at it, one of the new CD's I just bought. I'm quite certain it's David Shea, a "new music" (classical, I guess) composer. My hearing tells me it is indeed Mr Shea. In fact, I'm so comfortable with that fact that I don't even need to look at the jewel case. But I will anyway... lo and behold, it IS David Shea!!!!! My senses score again! No blind tests needed.
I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that cables will enrich your life and fill you with joy. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything!!!! All I can say is that different cables sound different to me... not all of them, but some of them. To my ears - mine alone. If that makes it an illusion... well... it's an "illusion" that makes me just as happy as Skippy peanut butter, Diet Pepsi and the smell of leaves in the fall, all perhaps illusions as well.
So now that leaves me with just one question... how good of a shot are you with that shotgun??? :D
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
whao...from one extreme to another.. :) :) , where shall the twain meet ;) ?
I know what you're getting at, but I will stand by my position that sighted = bias = not accurate. From my personal experiences dealing with patients every working day, I will hold this to be a 100% incontrovertible truth. The twain shall meet if ever there is somebody who can demonstrate in a blind test the ability to determine which cable is playing with any sort of statistical significance. Like I said in a different post, I was a believer in cables and other whatnots until I did my own surprising blind test. It's amazing how your own mind can play such tricks on you.
|