Which digital source did you like, which music?In the Gryphon room at the Southern California show earlier this summer, I enjoyed the digital source as much as I enjoyed the analog source. This was a first-time experience for me.
Which digital source did you like, which music?In the Gryphon room at the Southern California show earlier this summer, I enjoyed the digital source as much as I enjoyed the analog source. This was a first-time experience for me.
In the Gryphon room at the Southern California show earlier this summer, I enjoyed the digital source as much as I enjoyed the analog source. This was a first-time experience for me.
This is the crux of the matter with the absolute sound concept. I like to hear the answer to your question from all those in pursuit of this goal.
…and as Woody Allen said,The Mind: our most powerful audio component.
+1This is what forums are for, to share thoughts and opinions.
Please excuse my ignorance but after I read your explanations of what you do with your mastering equipment in the thread "There is a smarter way", I was left with the impression you use your mastering equipment to shape the performance of your sound equipment, regardless of what commercially-obtained pre-mastered 2-channel recording you play through it. This was so you could get off of the constant equipment upgrade cycle associated with "the absolute sound"; whereas I thought that Bernie Grundman and perhaps the rest of those sound engineers listed above use mastering equipment to convert (usually) several channels of taped (digital or analogue) sound/music into the "master" that will be copied multiple times and sold as the commercial product? Would you kindly clarify?I’m using the same techniques and tools as Bob Ludwig, Ted Jensen, Greg Calbi, Steve Hoffman, Bernie Grundman, Bob Katz, and other mastering engineers. The recordings that you listen to have already undergone the process. Think about that for a minute.
Why do you insist on foisting your DSP opinions on those who have no interest? Why not just enjoy your “system” .
I am in pursuit of that goal, and I have followed a manufacturer who is also in pursuit of that goal, using a "minimalistic" approach, using the least components in the chain. I don't think you will find a system that has so few components in the signal path (basically a resistor ) - but it only works using a digital source (toslink). The results are very interesting and surprising, but the devil is in the detail, and there are some further adjustments that need to be made (ongoing). I also think this approach will show, ultimately, that traditional measurements are not sufficient to assess the transparency of a system (because improvements below "auditability" levels are audible and very significant!).
Please excuse my ignorance but after I read your explanations of what you do with your mastering equipment in the thread "There is a smarter way", I was left with the impression you use your mastering equipment to shape the performance of your sound equipment, regardless of what commercially-obtained pre-mastered 2-channel recording you play through it. This was so you could get off of the constant equipment upgrade cycle associated with "the absolute sound"; whereas I thought that Bernie Grundman and perhaps the rest of those sound engineers listed above use mastering equipment to convert (usually) several channels of taped (digital or analogue) sound/music into the "master" that will be copied multiple times and sold as the commercial product? Would you kindly clarify?
Some are compelled to reinvent the wheel. It is not seeking perfection, it borders on a disorder.
Paul does not design digital. my local friend Ted Smith does his digital designs. which are nice. they are PS Audio branded products.
Paul is a well known speaker designer. and his company sells lots of different products. he likes to engage his customers personally. which i agree is admirable. but i don't see that he has any credentials as a state of the art level format comparer. none the less those who follow him take his opinions seriously. which in this case, i happen to disagree with strongly.
he is welcome to make his case.
just like Pro Audio guys, access to and time spent with top level vinyl is not a given.
If you constantly have to DSP recordings, in my view there is something wrong with your system.
Certainly when it comes to classical and jazz recordings, adjustments should be rarely needed. On rock and pop it might be a different story, but also there you shouldn't have to adjust all the time.
My Octave preamp has a remarkably transparent tone control, but I rarely use it. It is routinely in bypass mode. Sure, sometimes it comes in handy, for example when giving the famously anemic sounding Led Zep Physical Graffiti CD remaster some juice in the bass (I can make that CD set actually sound quite great, with good bass guitar and heavy drums). But other than with those rare exceptions, my tone control is inactive.
Some of us work in innovation, development and problem solving for a living and we don’t leave that at the door when we come home. It is in my blood to see a concept such as the audiophile process, which is terribly flawed, and think of ideas and ways to fix it, at least for myself and anyone willing to break free from the dogma. (...)
I think you are misunderstanding Carlos method - all his recordings are played with the same parameters. They are personnel, but IMO should be considered part of the system. The same way the dCS or the mysterious Wadax processing are.
The fact that we accept avoiding individual fine equalization is due to our laziness, lack of time or lack of expertise. When I owned the Cello Audio Pallette I could improve most recordings individually - but it took a long time and lots of systematic listening. Recoding engineers use very different sounding speakers and studio acoustics to master recordings.
Can we know how many people have broken free from the dogma with your help?
You spend more time and effort criticizing the "audiophile process" than giving details about your process, that stays nebulous for most readers.
Certainly, an argument can be made that even under the latter premise we may still be able to improve individual recordings, but it may be a slippery slope from there to merely adjusting to our tastes.
I have not done any installation of the remastering system for others thus far but I have been approached about if by a few interested parties.
In my “There is a smarter way” thread I share the details of what I have done with my Wisdom Audio Adrenaline Rush based system. My implementation of the “Remastering” process will certainly be different depending on their system and their needs, in terms of adjustments to the system’s presentation.
Providing further details would be misleading as what worked on my system would not necessarily be the same tools and sequenced loops that I would implement in someone else’s system.
Is there something in particular that you are after that I have not already disclosed in that thread?
I found the thread was very unclear and confusing and unfortunately you always had a perfect excuse to avoid answering the few direct questions of posters. It became a particular discussion about a "They Were All Out of Step But Jim" type system.