Do you agree or disagree with this statement

[NorthStar]

I really appreciate the kind remarks. The music-playing activity has cranked up a notch, and I bought another guitar, driving me to a different kind of discussion board. Meet Margret:

View attachment 7971

Sorry if she's sideways. I haven't figured out how to make the iPhone stop doing that. Oh well, I seem to have attached two photos. Technologically challenged this evening. The other is Black Dog.

Tim

They are gorgeous Tim. ...My second guitar (age 16) was a semi-hollow body like yours, but burned red & wood. ...Electric (acoustic/electric) as well (same vibrato hand).

* I recognize the dark blue night Telecaster (attached image). ...Anyway, as it appears from my angle.

And yes, your presence here is highly appreciated.
I like your style, I like you as a person, and I just like all of you (the audio critic, the musician, the poet, the music lover, the sensitive human being, the artist).

 

[Gregadd]

Piano and drum solo are played on guitar.

 

[jazdoc]

I really appreciate the kind remarks. The music-playing activity has cranked up a notch, and I bought another guitar, driving me to a different kind of discussion board. Meet Margret:

View attachment 7971

Sorry if she's sideways. I haven't figured out how to make the iPhone stop doing that. Oh well, I seem to have attached two photos. Technologically challenged this evening. The other is Black Dog.

Tim

Wow! Those are gorgeous and I can't play a lick!

Question for you: How do you choose which guitar to purchase/play? I ask because there seems to be some potential crossover to audio equipment purchasing. I know when we auditioned pianos, each Steinway sounds different but all of them sound like a Steinway....

 

[DaveyF]

Wow! Those are gorgeous and I can't play a lick!

Question for you: How do you choose which guitar to purchase/play? I ask because there seems to be some potential crossover to audio equipment purchasing. I know when we auditioned pianos, each Steinway sounds different but all of them sound like a Steinway....

I'm not going to answer for Tim, but I know how I get there...and BTW your question is an excellent one, IMO.

I play as many instruments as I have to, until I find one that basically 'speaks' to me....sounds kind of weird, but that's how I do it. With my current Taylor, I played about ten different Taylor's until the one I ended up with. This one was able to give me the tone I was looking for, had the playability I was seeking and worked with my style of playing. ( in other words she spoke to me..).

OTOH, when I buy a piece of audio gear, the main thing I'm looking for is how it makes my system sound...does it improve on what I already have or does it bring me closer to my expected or hoped for quest for the "absolute sound".
Yes, I guess I really like that term.

BTW, Tim, that Gretsch is real pretty...like your Tele also, but looks a bit like a "bitter"...a little bit of this and a little bit of that

 

[Bill Hart]

I really appreciate the kind remarks. The music-playing activity has cranked up a notch, and I bought another guitar, driving me to a different kind of discussion board. Meet Margret:

View attachment 7971

Sorry if she's sideways. I haven't figured out how to make the iPhone stop doing that. Oh well, I seem to have attached two photos. Technologically challenged this evening. The other is Black Dog.

Tim

The Gretch is beautiful. Looks like you hot-rodded the Tele, no?

 

[jazdoc]

I'm not going to answer for Tim, but I know how I get there...and BTW your question is an excellent one, IMO.

I play as many instruments as I have to, until I find one that basically 'speaks' to me....sounds kind of weird, but that's how I do it. With my current Taylor, I played about ten different Taylor's until the one I ended up with. This one was able to give me the tone I was looking for, had the playability I was seeking and worked with my style of playing. ( in other words she spoke to me..).

OTOH, when I buy a piece of audio gear, the main thing I'm looking for is how it makes my system sound...does it improve on what I already have or does it bring me closer to my expected or hoped for quest for the "absolute sound".
Yes, I guess I really like that term.

BTW, Tim, that Gretsch is real pretty...like your Tele also, but looks a bit like a "bitter"...a little bit of this and a little bit of that

That's a very interesting response because that's kinda how I choose a piece of audio gear. It would be nice to be more objective but perhaps it's best that matters such as art and love are more ethereal...

 

[garylkoh]

That's a very interesting response because that's kinda how I choose a piece of audio gear. It would be nice to be more subjective but perhaps it's best that matters such as art and love are more ethereal...

I think that you meant "more objective" in the context.

That's also how I design - I work towards something that "sings to my soul". There is no way that I'll produce something that all audiophiles want, or to produce something that even a subset of them want. I just have to produce something that moves my heart and soul, and hope that there are enough potential customers out there who will be moved the same way.

Just like DaveyF and his Taylors, there are some systems/products that you choose (or choose you). Fortunately, with hifi equipment, you don't have to listen to 10 instances of the same thing (well.... may be except for some really esoteric Japanese tube amplifiers). Our problem is that we have to assemble the system.

Can you imagine picking a guitar by listening to fingerboards, fret materials, strings, bridges, saddles, backs, etc. separately and then interpolating what it will sound like when you get home and assemble it?

 

[jazdoc]

I think that you meant "more objective" in the context.

That's also how I design - I work towards something that "sings to my soul". There is no way that I'll produce something that all audiophiles want, or to produce something that even a subset of them want. I just have to produce something that moves my heart and soul, and hope that there are enough potential customers out there who will be moved the same way.

Just like DaveyF and his Taylors, there are some systems/products that you choose (or choose you). Fortunately, with hifi equipment, you don't have to listen to 10 instances of the same thing (well.... may be except for some really esoteric Japanese tube amplifiers). Our problem is that we have to assemble the system.

Can you imagine picking a guitar by listening to fingerboards, fret materials, strings, bridges, saddles, backs, etc. separately and then interpolating what it will sound like when you get home and assemble it?

Great observations Gary. Sorry about the confusing typo!

 

[NorthStar]

-- This thread has taken a path for the best... :b ...a musical path.

Thanx Tim!

 

[garylkoh]

JATP was stereo 2-track to Nagra IV-S with Dolby A, and according to the liner notes from the SACD that's all that was done (i.e. Dolby decode and DSD encode).

You are right. Here's the JATP master tape. Equalization is Nagra Master!!

I believe that this is significant as IEC (typically used in Europe) does not employ LF boost/cut. If the master tape was played back as IEC, there would be an added "richness" - it would be +3dB by around 50Hz. Curve 35uS seem to indicate that at least in the high frequency, it is IEC. It's 50uS for NAB, so played back on NAB, the tape would have added "sparkle" - +2dB at 10kHz.

I'm sure Ki Choi or one of the other tape experts will chime in here, but AFAIK there are FIVE different equalizations. This may account for all of the differences in the various JATP re-issues I have.

 

[DaveyF]

.

Can you imagine picking a guitar by listening to fingerboards, fret materials, strings, bridges, saddles, backs, etc. separately and then interpolating what it will sound like when you get home and assemble it?

Gary, are you trying to give me nightmares, LOL. OTOH, You would be amazed at the difference that strings, fingerboards and saddles can bring. It never ceases to amaze me that lots of people change their strings either upon breakage or maybe every few years. The difference in sound from a new set of strings to even a set that is just a couple of months old is profound, IMO. Never mind the type of string or the gauge etc., I could go on...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Acoustic guitars are organic. No two sound exactly alike, yet Taylors sound like Taylors, etc. Yet, within that variability, builders do exactly what Gary said -- the pick a top wood, a bridge material, and more importantly, design/construction ideas and conventions that they will build with, understanding the affect those choices will have on sound, predicting what they will get. Which is, of course, the only reason why, in spite of all the organic materials, a Taylor sounds like a Taylor. And for the most part, there are no significant user mods to be made on acoustic guitars.

Electrics are very different. Most of them, even the big hollow-bodied Gretsch, are designed to minimize the impact of the organic material on the sound. See the solid bar of steel on the top of the Gretsch's bridge? Mass. Density. It prevents the vibrations of the strings from transferring to the top (which is heavily braced plywood designed to further prevent vibration). It keeps the energy in the string, for greater sustain and more effective transfer to what matters -- the pickups. There are mods you can make to electrics that have huge impact on the sound, but nothing as huge as the two made on that Gretsch: The pickups and that steel bar bridge.

The black guitar, Black Dog, is a mutt. A Jazzmaster body with a Telecaster bridge/pickup combination. It had a Gibson-style pickup in the neck position, but it was too dark for my tastes and I recently changed it to the Gretsch-style that's in there now. I like it a lot better. It has better synergy with the bridge pickup .

I'm perfectly comfortable with this approach in guitars and find it inappropriate in audio systems. Why? Because the guitars are musical instruments, they are producers of music. In my view, an audio system exists to reproduce the sound of musical instruments as captured on recordings, as accurately as possible. The extent to which it does that is the extent to which it succeeds at its purpose. You may see another purpose, and approach differently. Enjoy.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

As accurately where Tim?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I already answered that question, Jack:

In my view, an audio system exists to reproduce the sound of musical instruments as captured on recordings, as accurately as possible.

Your answer my vary.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

I meant physically "where" not the carrier medium.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I meant physically "where" not the carrier medium.

Yeah, I got you. Most of the time, the recording, and you listening room, are the only "where." Or are we having a philosophical discussion?

Tim

 

[microstrip]

(...) Or are we having a philosophical discussion?

Tim

Tim,
Yes, you are. You had it before with me. Anyway people can read page5-8 of the "Sound Reproduction" Section 1.1 A Philosophical Perspective for free .

http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Acoustics-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers/dp/0240520092

 

[JackD201]

Yeah, I got you. Most of the time, the recording, and you listening room, are the only "where." Or are we having a philosophical discussion?

Tim

Nah, not really. Everytime I ask people what exactly they mean by accurate a philosophical answer is what I get. As in what goes in "should" come out. Yes it "should" but does it? How does one make the determination that the reproduction really is accurate? We don't even know what SPLs the guys who made the recording were monitoring at. Of course we'll end up with the ol' all bets are off position when we get to rooms and loudspeakers or even headphone FR curves. Unfortunately that's the way we actually listen, no other.

 

[garylkoh]

Nah, not really. Everytime I ask people what exactly they mean by accurate a philosophical answer is what I get. As in what goes in "should" come out. Yes it "should" but does it? How does one make the determination that the reproduction really is accurate? We don't even know what SPLs the guys who made the recording were monitoring at. Of course we'll end up with the ol' all bets are off position when we get to rooms and loudspeakers or even headphone FR curves. Unfortunately that's the way we actually listen, no other.

Exactly. Unless you are the recording engineer (and sometimes not even), there is no way to know what "should" be on the recording.

That was the point I was trying to make with the JATP master tape above. Even if you were at the Stampen on the night it was recorded, how would you know that the LP/SACD/DXD/etc. "sounds like live" if you don't even know what equalization the mastering lab used. If they had an Ampex or Studer machine, did they have a modified Nagra Master equalization board?

I like my first pressing of the LP - it sounds "rich and natural" but may be that's because the bass is boosted because IEC curve was used. There's also a Japanese re-issue that I like on CD for a totally different reason - because it's immediate and lively. May be because NAB was used and the highs are boosted.

Then, as you noted, the room and the loudspeakers have all sorts of FR emphasis and de-emphasis.

Enjoy the music. You can enjoy the gear as well. It's just two separate hobbies that we seem to keep banging our heads together on.

 

[microstrip]

IMHO, what most people consider accuracy is just behaving according to an establish standard and ignoring a lot else, because the "else" is not deterministically univocal or well understood. I accepted it as a philosophy debate because it is the essence in not considering important the envelopment and ambiance that can not be verified versus the original.
My personnel point is that since the cues are responsible for the envelopment and ambiance that help me recreate the perception of live are in the recording better having them, even if the process of showing them is not 100% accurate.