Objectives of High-End Audio in Stereophile Letters to the Editor 1999

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,017
13,346
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
Going through some old physical file folders I unearthed some Letters to the Editor correspondence in Stereophile from 1999.

I see that my focus on the alternative objectives of high-end audio goes way back! :D


3D186340-7609-40E0-942E-AA0333F264D9.jpeg



6014D2BE-B598-4B5B-B735-76D63D2A1DEC.jpeg



88F3B9C3-1A57-486B-A9E2-65D78BB4C148.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
12,467
11,363
4,410
that letter would fit right into what we currently talk about.......

and that is taking at face value that the vinyl playback chain used to draw that conclusion was optimal. i have more of an issue with that side of the equation compared to the legitimacy of tape being the reference. especially if we rely on any pro audio sources for this information. they pretty much have no clue as to what vinyl can or cannot do.

i do see tape as the reference (or any native recording format for that matter). of course; who's tape playback chain are we then using for that side?

comparing these formats is what i like to do. but not with tape until 2007.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ron Resnick

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
318
565
BiggestLittleCity
1999....things have definitely improved in 20 years. I think the largest gain has been made on the playback side. I no longer worry about the degree of faithfulness to the original recording or the master tape vs vinyl or digital.
I enjoy improving my system to deliver more power,weight, and emotion. It is interesting how my understanding and needs have changed. For me it is all about being involved with the music. That has improved considerably, which is nice to experience.
 

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,017
13,346
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
1999....things have definitely improved in 20 years. I think the largest gain has been made on the playback side. I no longer worry about the degree of faithfulness to the original recording or the master tape vs vinyl or digital.
I enjoy improving my system to deliver more power,weight, and emotion. It is interesting how my understanding and needs have changed. For me it is all about being involved with the music. That has improved considerably, which is nice to experience.

Dear Roger,

You wrote that you improve your system to “deliver more power, weight and emotion.” Do you simply seek more of these subjective attributes in your system, untethered from the benchmark of your memory of live music?

On our list of objectives of high-end audio, I would categorize your objective as Objective 3) “create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile.” Would you agree?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RogerD

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
318
565
BiggestLittleCity
Dear Roger,

You wrote that you improve your system to “deliver more power, weight and emotion.” Do you simply seek more of these subjective attributes in your system, untethered from the benchmark of your memory of live music?

On our list of objectives of high-end audio, I would categorize your objective as Objective 3) “create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile.” Would you agree?
Hi Ron.
I have put together a large system to best reproduce the music I listen to mostly. These recordings would be classical, big jazz bands,pipe organs, opera, and film soundtracks. My goal was to push a lot of air effortlessly with out playing at a high decibel level. All this type of music tends to be very dynamic which requires lots of headroom and to reproduce with great clarity requires a very well implemented system.
I guess you could say it is subjectively pleasing, yes. I say it is designed to fit the music I listen to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron Resnick

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,017
13,346
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
Pushing a lot of air effortlessly is a very important goal for both classical music and rock music, I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RogerD

accwai

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2012
276
175
948
Been playing with OCR lately. Here are the letters in text form :)

New accuracy
Editor:

That the 24/96 digital format is superior to analog playback because the resulting DAD sounds more like the analog master tape than does the resulting LP is a proposition that adopts, without examination, a critical assumption on which rests the conclusion that 24/96 is, therefore, better than analog playback. The critical assumption is that the goal of high-end audio is to reproduce as closely as possible the sound of the master tape.

I believe the goal of high-end audio is to reproduce as closely as possible the sound of the original musical event. The answer to the question of which format gets you closer to the master tape is not necessarily the same as the answer to the question of which format gets you closer to the original musical event. (I have in mind classical or chamber music, because pop music recorded in multitrack does not constitute an original musical event to which a reproduction may be faithful.)

I have heard to my satisfaction that 24/96 does indeed get us closer than LP does to the sound of the master tape. However, despite the distortions in the analog recording and LP manufacturing processes, we have to evaluate whether LP nonetheless, somehow, is more consonant with the original musical event than is the sound resulting from a DAD. In the end, we will have to decide for ourselves whether LP is more or less pleasurable to listen to than 24/96, a question separate from the question of which format gets us closer to the master tape.

Ron Resnick
New York, NY

New or old accuracy?
Editor:

In response to Ron Resnick's letter (“New Accuracy,” 1999, p.19), I'd have to disagree completely with his arguments. He says that “the goal of high-end audio is to reproduce as closely as possible the sound of the original musical event,” and goes on to explain how LPs and 24/96 media need to be compared on that basis, not on how well they reproduce the master tapes.

It’s clear to me that while the goal of the entire recording/playback chain is to reproduce the original musical event faithfully, the goal of high-end audio (ie, the playback-only part of the chain) is only to reproduce the master as faithfully as possible. It is the responsibility of the recording/mastering studios to reproduce the event faithfully on the master tape.

Does the writer mean to imply that it may be desirable for a playback mechanism to exhibit reverse-errors to make up for errors in the master tape, thereby coming closer to the original event than the master? Isn’t it more logical to demand strict standards of accuracy in playback, regardless of whether that flatters or shows faults in the master tapes, and, when it shows faults, to demand more from the master tapes?

Is it me, or is there something I’m missing?

Agim Perolli
perolli@worldnet.att.net

It's about realism
Editor:

In reply to Agim Perolli’s thoughtful response (“New or old accuracy?,” March 1999, p.14) to my letter (“New Accuracy,” January 1999, p.19), I believe that we have distilled a legitimate difference of opinion as to the goal of high-end audio. Agim agrees with me that “the goal of the entire recording/playback chain is to reproduce the original musical event faithfully,” but believes that the “playback-only part of the chain” (ie, high-end audio) should have a different objective — that of reproducing the master as faithfully as possible. I understand the theoretical notion that it is the responsibility of the recording system to imbue the master tape with the original musical event, and the responsibility of the playback system simply to retrieve that event from our vinyl or digital discs. Were it only so easy! Unfortunately, this pleasant ideal does not accord with the reality of the vinyl and digital discs we have to play.

Agim’s supposition about the logical extension of my view that the goal of high-end audio is to reproduce as closely as possible the sound of the original musical event is correct: if a playback mechanism could reverse errors in the master and thereby re-create more realistically the original musical event, then I believe the playback mechanism should do so. I would support whatever is required to re-create in our homes as realistically as possible the original musical event, regardless of whether we should have to make such adjustments.

Ron Resnick
New York, NY
ronr@hemny.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: bonzo75

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,017
13,346
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
Thank you!
 

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
318
565
BiggestLittleCity
Ron,
I was listening to a JVC remastering of a Bill Evans classic Riverside recording “Everybody digs Bill Evans” earlier tonight.
This was recorded at Reeves Sound in NYC and is a great recording in my opinion.
What stands out to me is the way the drum combo was recorded. The clarity is as good as I have heard with plenty of impact and the position in the studio is rendered very well. Reminds me of Brubeck’s Take Five recording as far as the percussion is concerned. I really get drawn into the music as the tempo is easily heard.
A interesting thing is most cuts have tape hiss from the master. One or two do not.
The engineers at Reeves were some of the best and it shows.
Do I hear everything on the master...I believe I do. Is the actual event captured faithfully? Well it depends on if you think the percussion was captured like you were there in the studio. I think
we both know the answer to that. But musically it is very appealing and the musicians intent is conveyed very nicely.
A little of topic, but if I added two inboard subs that were inside of my satellites and on the same plain as my two large outboard subs would the power,speed,and slam add to the drum kit the realism of this recording? Would this great jazz recording be rendered like the original event? I personally think the bass is the foundation of the music in most recordings.
Maybe most of us are very close...we just have to think what part of the music we listen to brings in the emotional response.
Good topic...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ron Resnick

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,017
13,346
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
How did your system sound after you added the two inboard subs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RogerD

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
318
565
BiggestLittleCity
How did your system sound after you added the two inboard subs?
I haven’t yet.....projects of long standing need to finished.....but i’m Listening to take five and I think it will fill a gap. Two SVS SB 4000’s would fit perfectly and I would run them low or so they disappear mostly except when slam or energy is produced. I never run my preamp gain past 10 o’clock and there is plenty of power transferring to me except in the lower l & r Middle quadrants.
I think it is a worthy experiment. Thanks
P.s.
Ron this would give me about 86 inches of diameter in my bass drivers, not counting the 8 6” mid bass in the satellites.
Just looking at the system I think it will fill two holes in the energy wall.
 
Last edited:

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing