Pure gobbledygoop. An accidental admission that the whole thing is so much in your head that you can even imagine that your system has actually discerned the artist's intentions and emphasized elements of the recording appropriately, followed by a stream of gobbledygoop. You are revealed to all but yourself; though I'm sure you still imagine yourself to be clothed.
An objectivist's highly technical term, I'm sure of that, I wonder where I can buy an instrument that measures with an accuracy of 1% the gobbledygoop level, costing less than $100K ...
At least, thank God for that, real instruments and orchestras and jazz trios, etc, etc, etc, know exactly how to emphasise the qualities of the sound produced, and bouncing off their environment in myriad ways, and mingling with all the other background noise, in exactly the least offensive manner so that we can vaguely enjoy the results of their efforts in a live setting ...
My point about a high performing system is that it "shifts" the sound of irrelevant elements in the playback to another plane, or area of sound, that makes it easy for the mind to disregard it. This could the clicks and pops in vinyl, the hiss in tape, the fingernails and mechanical actions of instruments, scraping of feet on ther floor, and finally, musically unrelated distortion created in the playback process itself ...
Tim, this is how the mind works with normal sound, in a live situation. If you want a reasonably extreme situation, try a busker working in a noisy street, I've used this one before here. If the musician is on the money, people will be entranced by the quality of his music making, being able to comfortably tune out the large, even huge levels of distortion, being contributed by everything happening around the person.
Now get somebody to record this, from the perspective of a spectator, using decent quality professional equipment, no fancy close miking or anything. Play this back on a conventional system, and it will sound dreadful, be an absolute cacophany! But, up the standard of replay, bit by bit by bit, and lo and behold, there will come a moment when it will strike a listener listening to the replay, who happened to be there at the time of that recording, that it is now recreating the sense of the occasion, bringing out the intensity of the music making. The illusion of what happened at that time is recreated, in spite of the high levels of "natural distortion": the ear/brain has shifted what was irrelevant to the music to one side.
Of course, this all assumes reasonably good hearing too; many people suffer from ear damage to some degree at various times of their lives and that can make it harder to separate two streams of sound which contradict or are not in harmony with each other ...
A related afterthought: one downside of having a system working well is that you tend to leave the volume at too high a level for too long; the HT setup is humming quite nicely now, and I'm having to be careful now: my ears are warning me that they're getting a bit too much, so I leave it for a day or so before running it strongly again ...
The recording won't sound as "good" as a very well recorded one, but it will be convincing! And that's the key difference: I have a number of very "good" jazz recordings, and they sound extremely impressive, the classic reach out and touch them sense about it. But I also have quite a number of very poorly recorded old blues albums, you can hear how primitive the recording technique was, but the sense, the feeling of the performer still comes through. I listen to the quality of the singer's voice, does it grab me in the same way as a real person's voice does, can I feel the emotion in his voice? I once listened to a Sinatra album on a half million dollar setup, straight after an extremely dynamic percussion workout; it felt like listening to a kitchen radio in comparison ...
I always thought most reference recordings were in fact "reference recordings" and if the "RR" didn't sound 100 pct it had to be some part of the system,ie. speakers,electronics,room,ect. at fault. Not necessarily true, the technical side of the recording,what was done to make it is the deciding factor. This is especially true for digital recordings,but they can bridge the gap if originally recorded in analog.
So all this chasing tail, out of 1500 Cd's in my collection 2 are worthy of being technically superlative,IMHO. Do I still listen to the other 1498 you bet,but only after I get tired of listening to the rare 2 I have. The technology is there, as always the human part is what matters.
Sorry, Roger, that doesn't ring quite right to me: once something is digital it is digital in every sense, whether it got to that point from a microphone feed, or from an analogue tape playback, it is still an analogue feed going into an ADC. It sounds to me that the analogue tape did a bit of tonal modifying, subtle compression, added "colour" in various forms.
In my experience, the "problem" with digital is that it is "too" good, there is less nice rounding of the edges that occurs with the normal passing through analogue circuitry of say, a professional tape deck. So in a digital recording you're getting the raw microphone feed, which may end up being a very intense sound, especially if the performance was closely miked. A pure digital recording can be quite shocking in its dynamics and bite, and any slight lacking in the system capabilities are ruthlessly exposed.
I'm sorry, Frank, did you say something? I was still laughing at last night's round...
A very good analogy is the discussion in the Accuracy thread, where the point at the moment is about hearing finger nails in the background of the playing. Now, one can choose to tune into that completely extraneous sound, and have it "ruin" your enjoyment of the music and performance, by allowing your mind to focus on that "distortion". And if the system is not working as well as it could, perhaps the sound of the fingernails will become so irritating that you stop listening to the track.
My point about a high performing system is that it "shifts" the sound of irrelevant elements in the playback to another plane, or area of sound, that makes it easy for the mind to disregard it. This could the clicks and pops in vinyl, the hiss in tape, the fingernails and mechanical actions of instruments, scraping of feet on ther floor, and finally, musically unrelated distortion created in the playback process itself ...
Remember? The one where you said a good system - by which you mean a HTIB dripping with solder and blu-tak - could decide what was relevant on a recording, and re-prioritize it for us? I don't care who you are, Frank, that was some funny stuff right there. Thanks for the memories.
(...) My point about a high performing system is that it "shifts" the sound of irrelevant elements in the playback to another plane, or area of sound, that makes it easy for the mind to disregard it. This could the clicks and pops in vinyl, the hiss in tape, the fingernails and mechanical actions of instruments, scraping of feet on ther floor, and finally, musically unrelated distortion created in the playback process itself ...
Although I do not agree with some of your "extreme" theories, they are one of the reasons I read WBF - to learn about the positions of visionary people. Stereo is an individual experience and we should respect it.
But your sentence can be particularly true, and although its meaning can be easily misinterpreted or distorted because of the content in which was inserted or difficulties of expression, is of great interest. I have experienced it, and find it described in many system reviews. IMHO, it is system property, not something you can attribute to a single component.
Sorry, Roger, that doesn't ring quite right to me: once something is digital it is digital in every sense, whether it got to that point from a microphone feed, or from an analogue tape playback, it is still an analogue feed going into an ADC. It sounds to me that the analogue tape did a bit of tonal modifying, subtle compression, added "colour" in various forms.
In my experience, the "problem" with digital is that it is "too" good, there is less nice rounding of the edges that occurs with the normal passing through analogue circuitry of say, a professional tape deck. So in a digital recording you're getting the raw microphone feed, which may end up being a very intense sound, especially if the performance was closely miked. A pure digital recording can be quite shocking in its dynamics and bite, and any slight lacking in the system capabilities are ruthlessly exposed.
These 2 CD's are my example. Any two people can hear music differently,but I think these recordings are the best CD's I have ever heard. They were mastered on a Ampex MR70 and then converted to digital. There are a few newer tracks that are all digital and I will find out which ones they are. I have never heard the full natural bloom of live recordings captured so well.
So all this chasing tail, out of 1500 Cd's in my collection 2 are worthy of being technically superlative,IMHO. Do I still listen to the other 1498 you bet,but only after I get tired of listening to the rare 2 I have.
A striking statement. For me, enjoying recorded music audio is central and good sound just makes it more enjoyable . I could not imagine listening to the same 2 CDs endlessly to the exclusion of other recordings.
> Is digital audio intrinsically "broken"?
No. Digital audio is a fact of life and on balance, it has been beneficial to the music industry and to almost all consumers. Count me in that majority. On average, the sound quality of CDs in my collection is better than that of the LPs I owned.
There is a practical question though. As downloads continue to replace physical CDs as a distribution medium, will full CD quality or something even better be available for almost all music rather than a few audiophile releases?
A striking statement. For me, enjoying recorded music audio is central and good sound just makes it more enjoyable . I could not imagine listening to the same 2 CDs endlessly to the exclusion of other recordings.
> Is digital audio intrinsically "broken"?
No. Digital audio is a fact of life and on balance, it has been beneficial to the music industry and to almost all consumers. Count me in that majority. On average, the sound quality of CDs in my collection is better than that of the LPs I owned.
There is a practical question though. As downloads continue to replace physical CDs as a distribution medium, will full CD quality or something even better be available for almost all music rather than a few audiophile releases?
Bill
I have between 2500 and 300 CDs worth of music on a hard drive and I listen
These 2 CD's are about 10 days old and there are 2 discs in each set. I will always listen to my digitaL,vinyl,and tapes. When you by chance come across such great music,music that has flown under the radar,it is like a new toy and it takes my system to a new level too.
Isn't *convincing* in the mind, body and soul of the beholder? How do we apply an objective litmus test to *convincing* such that it no longer is subject to personal evaluation but instead is false-ifiable?
I am 100,000,000,000 % with you on this Ron. To me the best asset a music lover can have is the ability to swith the critical mode of thinking off at will, anytime, anywhere. While politically I am a centrist, when it comes to all things audio I'm a dyed in the wall liberal.
These 2 CD's are my example. Any two people can hear music differently,but I think these recordings are the best CD's I have ever heard. They were mastered on a Ampex MR70 and then converted to digital. There are a few newer tracks that are all digital and I will find out which ones they are. I have never heard the full natural bloom of live recordings captured so well.
Usually this type of situation indicates a "resonance" between your system and these recordings. Everything seems tuned to enhance the good thinks of the recording. But sometimes it is a dangerous game - is not your "tuning " jeopardizing the other 1498 recordings?
I had a similar experience using B&W recordings with the Silver Signature B&W speakers - the CDs mastered using these speakers sounded superlative - the same natural bloom you refer. The B&W remasters of Decca recordings of the Academy of the Ancient Music played through the big active Nautilus speakers were also an unforgettable experience. But when I asked the demonstrator to play my CD he politely apologized it would not be possible in a public session.
A good friend of mine really likes my Soundlabs. There is a special recording that sounds unique through them - Gregorio Paniagua "Tarentule Tarentelle". Everytime he listens to it in in my system he immediately says that he will not play it again in his system for at less one month.And he owns a great system.
Usually this type of situation indicates a "resonance" between your system and these recordings. Everything seems tuned to enhance the good thinks of the recording. But sometimes it is a dangerous game - is not your "tuning " jeopardizing the other 1498 recordings?
I had a similar experience using B&W recordings with the Silver Signature B&W speakers - the CDs mastered using these speakers sounded superlative - the same natural bloom you refer. The B&W remasters of Decca recordings of the Academy of the Ancient Music played through the big active Nautilus speakers were also an unforgettable experience. But when I asked the demonstrator to play my CD he politely apologized it would not be possible in a public session.
A good friend of mine really likes my Soundlabs. There is a special recording that sounds unique through them - Gregorio Paniagua "Tarentule Tarentelle". Everytime he listens to it in in my system he immediately says that he will not play it again in his system for at less one month.And he owns a great system.
I emailed Charlie about the all digital tracks on his recordings. I will give a listen tonight.
This was his response:
"On Annapolis Sounds CD 4, tracks 13 and 14 are digital. I also had better microphones for those tracks. I still like the older analog tracks better.
By the way, Eternal Father Volume 11 New Edition just came in the other day, and I set a copy aside for you when all these things get shipped out.
It is very fine and remarkable sounding for a 35 year old recording. I just do things until I like what I hear, so its basically one's ears and one's judgement."
Sounds good, Roger, I can imagine how brilliant they would sound: the "trouble", so to speak, with many commercial recordings is that they have been so doctored in the recording studio and mastering, in their efforts to have them sound good on normal audio setups that a lot of the life has been drained out of them; equivalent to going through a number of generations of tape copying. A completely "natural" recording, by contrast, can sound quite extraordinary, witness that contribution by Mark (Basspig) a couple of days ago.
I have a couple of CDs set aside, to put on when I feel the system is totally on the mark that I would feel are similar in what they would achieve. These are big brass band recordings, and most of us know the tremendous dynamics and intensity of sound that are generated by a collection of such instruments in the flesh. A good challenge for an ambitious system! Something to dip into, now and again, there can indeed be too much of a good thing ...
And, micro, thanks very much for your supportive response ...
