Does Everything Make a Difference?

[Analog Scott]

Unless they record separately or are wearing IEMs (in which case they are hearing a mix).

Studio musicians often monitored through head phones. Pretty sure that’s not quite the sound of live instruments playing in an acoustic space. Definitely not what any of us are hearing unless we are also using headphones.

 

[Analog Scott]

Of course every small scale manufacturer wanted to get reviewed in either TAS or Stereophile. And when they did they held their breath and hoped they got a good review. That’s businesses. Doesn’t change anything about his or the magazine’s promotion of ignorance and mythology

Please give us your background since you seem to be an expert in all things audio.
Who is Harry's so called mentor? and where is this information?
I was only there and on the listening panel and spent numerous hours with the staff and other Industry people.
So if you were part of this then please let us know the facts .
All i see is a bunch of hearsay and innuendos.
So if YOU dont agree with something its ignorance and mythology is that the ticket?

My back ground is irrelevant. Google is your friend. This is well documented. J Gordon Holt founder of Stereophile was Harry’s “so called mentor “ How do I know this? By reading what HP actually wrote in TAS. HP was your friend and you didn’t know this? Really?

Harry Pearson Remembers Stereophile Founder J. Gordon Holt - The Absolute Sound

Harry Pearson Remembers Stereophile Founder J. Gordon Holt -

www.theabsolutesound.com

“Gordon wasn’t a conventional man. He followed some inner star known only to himself, and in so doing managed to shine a light for others to follow, including me.”

“In those days, ardent audiophiles, such as one Harry Pearson and his great audio buddy, John W. Cooledge, perused, nay, parsed every review in the Big Magazines, in a search for a closer approximation to the truth of music than components then usually afforded. We were at the mercy of the reviewers who, all, save J. Gordon, relied on measurements rather descriptive opinions based on careful listening.”

“Gordon’s early Stereophile issues were like manna for those of us who knew and loved live music. His approach was a combination of descriptive and experientially based analyses (entirely “subjective,” said the mainstream press). He expanded and refined the descriptive terms he had been using before, thus laying the foundation for the work that I would do later.”

“Thus Gordon Holt was the beginning of our history. The rock from which future streams of component design would flow.”

 

[hopkins]

When I read about jazz musicians from the golden age, it is interesting how few were interested in the recording. They were in the studio to fulfill contractual obligations. Live performances were where they perfected their craft and interacted with their audience. Back then, few of the influential (in the development of their art) live performances were recorded.

Different times. Jazz was "popular" music back then, so there were more musicians, more clubs and dance halls. Some famous artists practically never recorded, and "studio" musicians who made money from recordings were mostly white, the music world being still segregated with a few exceptions. So the socio-economic environment was very different.

 

[sbnx]

I am still trying to figure out how this thread ended up down this path. I had not followed it in a while and I even went back several pages but...

 

[Analog Scott]

of course its irrelevant .
I love having discussions with people that want to hide yet claim they are experts and know everything.
Ignore button PUSH

Did you bother to read what your friend actually wrote in TAS about his mentor JGH?

By the way, I’m not hiding. Nor am I claiming expertise. Doesn’t take anonymity nor expertise to read what Harry Pearson wrote about J Gordon Holt. It was printed in the magazine!

Really? You were his friend and this is all new to you? OK…..

 

[PYP]

I am still trying to figure out how this thread ended up down this path. I had not followed it in a while and I even went back several pages but...

does everything make a difference? We are trying (collectively) to get to everything: sound, music, the sound of music, personal philosophy, the recording process, some gear we have never heard but have an opinion anyway, some people we have never met, personal invective and recrimination, the sport of parry and thrust, death, life, life after death. That kind of thing. That cannot be done in less than 625 posts, we now know.

 

[Kingrex]

I am still trying to figure out how this thread ended up down this path. I had not followed it in a while and I even went back several pages but...

I'm not brave enough to look. I doubt the chatter is about tweaks and tips that assist others in finding new performance levels.
Just a guess. Le me know if I'm wrong.

 

[the sound of Tao]

I am still trying to figure out how this thread ended up down this path. I had not followed it in a while and I even went back several pages but...

It’s a function of posters starting out saying on point stuff and after a few hundred posts of increasingly chest puffy stuff and attached familiar distortions and then in running out of the same ole arguments switching over into tit for tat cut and paste responding only to point to where others are wrong rather than trying to come to any kind of new increased understanding instead.

So that it won’t end it then creates an audio forum Groundhog Day audiophile AI möbius loop that now recalls and reassembles all previous posting stances and responses from every other similar thread that’s ever been read before… the course of which becomes increasingly emotionally widening content loops to act out the tired senescence of the argument and mirror the standard answers in the death spiral of the (insert title here) ritual audiophile debate dance and the inevitable increasing hurtling response speed and indignity of the responses.

Spoiler alert. Early debate civility and rationality spirals out eventually crashing into an ugly melodrama of ad hominemania and thread closure… pause… system reset. We’re not there yet.

 

[tima]

Didn't Jimi Hendrix tell someone he played the (electric) amplifier, not the (electric) guitar?

And between the guitar and amplifier it was not unusual to find a fuzz box and/or a waa-waa pedal.

 

[tima]

agreed. What I meant to say is that during the recording in a studio, there is the interaction of the instruments with the recording space. The engineer makes adjustments to mics, etc. to get the "right" sound, meaning what sounds right to him/her, that captures the "event" not just the sound as heard in the recording room (at least this is the method I've read about in two autobiographies of well-known recording engineers). Those adjustments are made within the context of the studio playback system as telling those listening to the playback whether the recording was successful.

So, even if your system were hypothetically perfect (transparent with no distortion - i.e., impossible) and matched to the one in the studio, you aren't hearing what the live event sounded like, you are hearing the one that was "produced." And, of course, mastering adds another layer. [is it good when your setup informs you the various songs on the album were mastered at different studios or is that annoying?]

Just trying to make the point that when we talk about trying to approximate the live event recorded in a studio (as many are), we are layers away from what actually happened. Only the musicians in the room heard the "original."

Sure. I think I can agree with that.

I start with live acoustic music. I tend to really enjoy large scale orchestral music, which I'll hear in decent sized concert halls. I also have music performance in my background. Over time I use my accumulated experience of how live acoustic music sounds to evaluate how well a reproduction measures up to that.

I make no pretense of trying to approximate any particular performance. I ask 'does the recording+system sound realistic, is it believable?' While we rarely confuse reproduction and reality (thanks in part to many of the factors you mention), some systems sound more believable than others. I could use the 'n' word but certain people would p*ss on the floor. ;->

 

[tima]

It’s a function of posters starting out saying on point stuff and after a few hundred posts of increasingly chest puffy stuff and attached familiar distortions and then in running out of the same ole arguments switching over into tit for tat cut and paste responding only to point to where others are wrong rather than trying to come to any kind of new increased understanding instead.

Is it possible to acquire "a new increased understanding" from clickbait threads designed to induce multiple multi-message spin cycles?

 

[Analog Scott]

Is it possible to acquire "a new increased understanding" from clickbait threads designed to induce multiple multi-message spin cycles?

It’s possible…

 

[Analog Scott]

I don't say they didn't find anything useful. But as you pointed out, commercial considerations were probably a large driving factor for their "scientific" conclusions, which uncritical thinkers tend to take as the loudspeaker design gospel because it was done under "careful controlled conditions".

Actually tubes and transistors are both pretty inaccurate as amplification devices. Triode Tubes exhibit a 3/2 order transfer function, Mosfets roughly a quadratic relationship and bipolar transistors are some other higher exponential function. So, as a purely amplification device, triodes are in fact the most linear amplification device ever invented. That is just a scientific fact. How they are used is a different discussion. Using a bipolar transistor like a SET, for example probably won't end up working or sounding very good. FETs do better but then their transfer function is closer to a triodes than a bipolar transistor. As tube amps and transistor amps are designed though, typically a transistor amp has lower objective distortion, although the transistor amps that don't use feedback start having distortion levels approaching non-feedback tube amps. The question then becomes what sounds better to a human listener? Objectively the lower THD and IMD amp should be it and then done. In reality, it is the distortion pattern and level with SPL that matters much more. Geddes demonstrated that THD and IMD are non-predictive of sound quality and some of the lowest levels had the most objectionable sound to the review panel.

You can call it euphonic if you want, and in extreme cases it is clear coloration, but I would say it is not euphony but the absence of AUDIBLE distortion. Distortion of the right character and level is not euphonic it is invisible. The design itself has consequences on the pattern produced and thus it's audibility.

We definitely disagree about amps. Most modern SS amps when operating within their true power are audibly transparent.

Tube amps vary but unlike most SS gear they don’t go into hard clipping at a single point in their output. OTLs and SETs are champions at going into audible levels of distortion at levels way below there ::cough:: rated power.

 

[Analog Scott]

What herd mentality? THere is no pressure on people to conform...it is happening organically...

The herd mentality was to follow the measurements to "perfect" hifi. That was in effect with the advent of the transistor until maybe 20 years ago.

One of the elements that makes herd mentality work is that those folks who are in it don’t see it. Even when it’s pointed out to them

What herd mentality? THere is no pressure on people to conform...it is happening organically...

The herd mentality was to follow the measurements to "perfect" hifi. That was in effect with the advent of the transistor until maybe 20 years ago.

Everything You Should Know About Herd Mentality

Herd mentality influences human behavior and decision making. Learn about its signs and causes, its positive and negative effects, and real-world examples of its impact.

www.verywellmind.com

Look at the sections “group polarization” and “suppression of dissent “

Looks to me like text book audiophile tribalism.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Is it possible to acquire "a new increased understanding" from clickbait threads designed to induce multiple multi-message spin cycles?

It’s probably more of a challenge if we are a long way down a very deeply rutted path I guess… some questions seem to carry with them an almost automatic current of expectation about where they might flow and how they might end (or if ever).

The authenticity of the thought contributes to the potential of where the thought may head I guess. Do more authentic questions deserve more authentic answers… that’d be nice.

Breaking out of cyclic thought traps is more possible if we are willing when necessary to let go of owning a position just because it’s where we started… and that may be easier said than done and some seem more caught up within their own mythologies which is something any of us can be at times.

Perhaps the new understanding acquired however may just be a realisation that (whoops) this way we pass again.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Didn't Jimi Hendrix tell someone he played the (electric) amplifier, not the (electric) guitar?

I like electric guitar also, especially Grant Green, Kenny Burrell, Eric Clapton and Tony Iommi. I find it more difficult to tune my system (set up the cartridge and speaker position) to that instrument knowing the sound can vary by quite a bit. I still know it is an electric guitar though. Great stuff. It is easier to do so with Laurindo Almeida's acoustic guitar. Joe Pass with hollow body electric guitar is interesting.

While we’re talking about a love for things unnatural I also rather be liking the Hammond B3… there’s a synthetic sound completely full of spirit and soul.

 

[hopkins]

Didn't Jimi Hendrix tell someone he played the (electric) amplifier, not the (electric) guitar?

I like electric guitar also, especially Grant Green, Kenny Burrell, Eric Clapton and Tony Iommi. I find it more difficult to tune my system (set up the cartridge and speaker position) to that instrument knowing the sound can vary by quite a bit. I still know it is an electric guitar though. Great stuff. It is easier to do so with Laurindo Almeida's acoustic guitar. Joe Pass with hollow body electric guitar is interesting.

You, and others, may be interested in this recent documentary on Eddie Durham, who was the first to play electric guitar in the 1930s:

His legacy goes beyond his electric guitar playing. I mentioned the documentary it in my thread, but am posting it here as well.

Here is a famous example from 1938:

And practically 40 years later, in 1974, on twelve string guitar:

 

[tima]

Breaking out of cyclic thought traps is more possible if we are willing when necessary to let go of owning a position just because it’s where we started… and that may be easier said than done and some seem more caught up within their own mythologies which is something any of us can be at times.

Or choosing not to accede to the trap in the first place.

Perhaps the new understanding acquired however may just be a realisation that (whoops) this way we pass again.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Or choosing not to accede to the trap in the first place.

Yes there is that as well… plan A.

 

[tima]

While we’re talking about a love for things unnatural I also rather be liking the Hammond B3… there’s a synthetic sound completely full of spirit and soul.

I love the Hammond B3 with rotating Lesile speakers. It wasn't mine but I had the chance to play one with one of the rock bands I was in. The whole lot is pita to transport, setup and take down. I used to keep track of all the keyboard players.

Hammond
Jimmy Smith - One Mint Julip
Matthew Fisher - Procol Harum - A Whiter Shade of Pale
Felix Cavaliere - The Young Rascals - Good Loving
Mark Stein - Vanilla Fudge - You Keep Me Hanging On
Jon Lord - Deep Purple - Hush
Gregg Allman - The Allman Brothers Band - Midnight Rider
Ray Manzarek - The Doors - LA Woman, but mostly played a Vox
Gregg Role - Santana - Evil Ways
Booker T. Jones
James Brown
... and lots more.

Okay some of those guys played a C3, but still Hammond sound.