How close are you to the finish line

[GaryProtein]

The weakest link is the recording/master/disk/lp, tape, whatever the medium is, itself. If the recording doesn't capture the essence of the performance, the best system can't reproduce it.

The really good systems can reproduce whatever is on the recording.

I enjoy popular music, but would never consider going to a live concert because I don't want my ears blown out, they sound lousy at best and they sound different in every venue the concert is performed--so what is real? Popular music, to me sounds best on studio recordings despite their inadequacies and the foibles and often flawed preferences of the recording engineers.

Classical unamplified concerts are very hard to record. Do you record how it sounds from the conductor's podium, the fifth row, twentieth row, someplace else? Do you mix in close miked and far miked sound? All this has to be considered when making the recording and that is why the recording is the weakest link. Some are spectacular, many to most are mediocre at best.

I am at or very close to the finish line. If something new and interesting comes to market, I may entertain it.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I also agree with previous posters about the source being the limiting factor for high quality systems.
If maybe the leading musicindustry giants would get back into magnetic tape and reinvent tape /tapedecks/heads to higher standards that would be cool, but that will never happen

 

[Groucho]

If maybe the leading musicindustry giants would get back into magnetic tape and reinvent tape /tapedecks/heads to higher standards that would be cool, but that will never happen

Because they got as far as they could with it. They really did think very hard about it, but there are natural limits, which gave the motivation for going digital in the first place.

Nippon Columbia, known outside of Japan primarily by its Denon brand, was both a major music-recording company and an equipment manufacturer. Its record company by the late 1960s was investigating how to improve LP sound quality, and criticism centered on distortions caused by analog tape recorders. Denon was a pioneer in the revival of direct-to-disc recording, and Denon engineers visited and collaborated with NHK's PCM pioneers. Denon's stated purpose: "To produce recordings that were not compromised by the weaknesses of magnetic tape recorder."

[ARSC Journal Volume 39, No. 1]

Apart from digital, they even came up with VCR hi fi audio based on frequency modulating the audio onto a carrier and recording it on video tape. It gives higher performance than linear tape recording (it really is analogous to an FM vs. AM radio comparison), and might interest you because it ticks the 'analogue' box. Maybe you should get onto eBay and buy some old VCRs

By increasing the head-to-tape speed and recording the signal using an FM carrier, all of the deficiencies inherent to linearly recorded audio are eliminated. ... By modulating an FM carrier with the audio signal, the signal-to-noise ratio, frequency response, and distortion are greatly improved. This is precisely what is done in VCR HiFi Stereo. In fact, this method produces results that compare closely with audio CDs.

www.broadcaststore.com/pdf/model/793700/TT190 - 4626.pdf

 

[ack]

Or alternatively, most audiophiles don't go to live concerts (of unamplified music) and simply deceive themselves into thinking that the reference systems that they own are the real thing -- 'because it sounds so good' and because it compares favorably with other reference systems they have heard.

I am starting to suspect as such.

 

[FrantzM]

Or alternatively, most audiophiles don't go to live concerts (of unamplified music) and simply deceive themselves into thinking that the reference systems that they own are the real thing -- 'because it sounds so good' and because it compares favorably with other reference systems they have heard.

By the way, I didn't vote, the categories didn't satisfy me.

I am starting to suspect as such.

I have suspected such for a while. I believe it now strongly.

 

[JackD201]

So, what about those that do?

We have to remember that perspectives differ. A musician used to being in the middle of everything will have a different sense of what sounds realistic as compared to a regular patron who sits in the audience. The difference in ratio between direct and reflected sound will see to that.

 

[NorthStar]

Anyway, a live classical music concert in a hall played by a full orchestra has the scale and power and emotional directness.

At home, from a great room, and a great stereo sound system and loudspeakers, of extreme high-end caliber; it's different.
But it does offer sound quality superiority from many live events. ...If everything under the right and equal positioning perspective, and if you know what I mean, and I know you do.

There is not a single drop of doubt in my mind that an ultra high-end system is a unique sound experience in itself. ...And to not be deconstructed from a live concert event, venue.

The live concert experience is one, the sound reproduction at home is another, and the listener (you, me, him, her, them & all) is the final touch; the judgement by which everything makes sense in its own place (proportional scale).

And I don't even mention Surround Sound experience at home!

This is all deja vu; we've touched those parallels before.

There is simply no way that you can exactly reproduce a piano to the extent of being fooled (by careful active listening). ...Or can it be possible?
Even an opera (alto, tenor, ...) voice with all the 'emotional flames' attached to it is impossible to fully reproduced accurately. ...Or can it?
Drums; what about the uses of multiple large woofers with subwoofers to substitute for those kicks? ...The decay, the tremendous impact at the hitting very moment!
What about the cymbals, the triangles, the gongs, ... what type of tweeters, midranges, and low-bass drivers can realistically mimic them? ...Made of what?

Food for higher thoughts...

______________

Speakers are enclosures, and by this very fact acoustical unreality. ...They cannot reproduce an acoustic musical instrument.
...Horns, stats, ... better at this worst at that. ...Magico high-end speakers? ...I'm reading...
MBL speakers (Peter)? ...

 

[mep]

I also agree with previous posters about the source being the limiting factor for high quality systems.
If maybe the leading musicindustry giants would get back into magnetic tape and reinvent tape /tapedecks/heads to higher standards that would be cool, but that will never happen

Frankly, I'm quite happy with how damn good 15 ips 2 track professional decks sound. I just wish the source material was cheaper to purchase. Regardless of what the analog naysayers say, I would rather listen to tape than any commercially available digital music. I do think DSD is a game-changer for digital though. Why? Because it sounds more like analog to these ears.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Frankly, I'm quite happy with how damn good 15 ips 2 track professional decks sound. I just wish the source material was cheaper to purchase. Regardless of what the analog naysayers say, I would rather listen to tape than any commercially available digital music. I do think DSD is a game-changer for digital though. Why? Because it sounds more like analog to these ears.

+1

 

[rbbert]

But I think it's pretty clear it's not the recording medium itself that is the limiting factor for nearly all of today's commercial recordings, it's the miking technique and subsequent mastering practices, and perhaps whatever that "something" might be that often seems to come between "final" mastering and the product that reaches our listening rooms.

 

[ack]

So, what about those that do?

The only thing that really matters is what you think of your own system. Some of us will just remain skeptical.

 

[mep]

But I think it's pretty clear it's not the recording medium itself that is the limiting factor for nearly all of today's commercial recordings, it's the miking technique and subsequent mastering practices, and perhaps whatever that "something" might be that often seems to come between "final" mastering and the product that reaches our listening rooms.

Tell that to the analog bashers who love their digital files that were mastered from analog tapes.

 

[JackD201]

But I think it's pretty clear it's not the recording medium itself that is the limiting factor for nearly all of today's commercial recordings, it's the miking technique and subsequent mastering practices, and perhaps whatever that "something" might be that often seems to come between "final" mastering and the product that reaches our listening rooms.

There's so much weight given to mastering. Too much I think. Even the best mastering engineers can only do so much with the recording handed to them particularly when there are relative level problems in mixing. I've worked with thousands of direct mic feeds. Most people would be shocked at what has to be done to these for them to sound "realistic". Gunshots are perhaps the most extreme example and voices the most delicate. Microphones are very, very limited devices and it takes work to get the really good results. Ad to that that any processing will add some unintended consequences along with the intended and these are cumulative.

 

[rbbert]

That's why I put milking technique first. Obviously (?) the better the original recording and the less processing that is done (or needed) there is greater potential for a realistic and good sounding mastering.

 

[JackD201]

Milking technique?

 

[NorthStar]

Good one; a cow or a sheep?

 

[rbbert]

Oops, missed the iPad auto-correct

And of the "analog bashers" I'm pretty sure tomelex would agree with this sentiment.

 

[Groucho]

Tell that to the analog bashers who love their digital files that were mastered from analog tapes.

I see no inconsistency between being a digital fan and loving music originally recorded on analog tape. Compared to a lot of modern stuff, the recordings from the 70s - listened to on modern digital equipment - are gorgeous. It's even possible that the analog equipment of the time added some desirable sonic characteristics (=distortions) that fed back into the artists' performances, or that modern techniques have yet to re-create. The great thing is, that I can listen to these lovely recordings without fear of damaging them every time I play them, with the analog playback machine's professional setup and maintenance forever 'frozen' in the digital file. Even a cheap DAC will surpass the accuracy of a tape machine, so as the listener I don't need to make a shrine to a huge clanking assembly of motors, gears, brake bands and rollers, demagnetisers, alcohol and cotton buds in my house.

 

[FrantzM]

Milking technique?

lol

You have an x-rated mind Jack

 

[microstrip]

I see no inconsistency between being a digital fan and loving music originally recorded on analog tape. Compared to a lot of modern stuff, the recordings from the 70s - listened to on modern digital equipment - are gorgeous. It's even possible that the analog equipment of the time added some desirable sonic characteristics (=distortions) that fed back into the artists' performances, or that modern techniques have yet to re-create. (...)

So we must believe that after more than 30 years of digital, the "digital sound engineers", even with the support of experts in digital signal processing and very powerful computers and software, enormous bit rates and diverse encoding techniques, did not yet manage to adapt their top technology to the objectives of sound reproduction in a way that can compete with the great analog experts of the 60's and 7'0's?