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.
Hi Ron.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?
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
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.How did your system sound after you added the two inboard subs?
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |