True Audiophile

[Dr.Bass]

Again, I say, you like the vinyl sound and the vinyl experience: that is entirely valid, but it does not indicate that vinyl is a truer or better reproduction of the performance.

It is the exact indication I need to validate whether a medium is a truer/better reproduction of the performance. The only problem with this approach is it takes a lot of listening.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Truer? But you would have to have been at the recording.

Better? According to your personal taste, once we leave aside practical details of the reproduction.

I cannot and do not argue with your personal taste!

 

[anuragn]

It may be a bit OT, but this deserves a mention.
Yesterday, my kids were watching Doremon (the animation series) on TV. The rich kid (Suniyo) takes all his friends to his house, shows them a Vinyl and brags about his (father's) high end system. He tells that digital can never equal the quality of a record and then plays it...

 

[Dr.Bass]

Truer? But you would have to have been at the recording.

Then why do we eliminate cassettes from this competition ? Who knows they might be even closer to the recording.

 

[Dr.Bass]

It may be a bit OT, but this deserves a mention.
Yesterday, my kids were watching Doremon (the animation series) on TV. The rich kid (Suniyo) takes all his friends to his house, shows them a Vinyl and brags about his (father's) high end system. He tells that digital can never equal the quality of a record and then plays it...

Didnt you feel like throwing your oppo :lol:

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Then why do we eliminate cassettes from this competition ? Who knows they might be even closer to the recording.

Why do you bring them into the "competition"? Until this day, I have never heard them rated as an audio source that could match up, not even by those with Nakamichi decks!

The most we could do with cassette was make the best of it for its convenience. There may well be a case that vinyl does not deserve to be dead and buried? But cassettes? Good riddance.

I have already mentioned how easy it is to demonstrate that cassette's dynamic range comes nowhere near that of vinyl (listen to the scratches); you believe vinyl to be the ultimate ... so where does that leave cassette by your logic?

Or, perhaps, among those "flavours of sound" that you like, you include tape hiss?

 

[gobble]

Even today I have some well recorded cassettes which are much better than their CD equivalent. You can blame it on HMV or digital or whatever

Yeah the best listening was on CrO2 tapes in purple packaging (from TDK or Philips I think) or something like that - very low noise floor and we teens did not know words like Dynamics

Cheers

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

... we teens did not know words like Dynamics

Just listening to the music, instead of arguing about it?

There's an idea! :lol:

 

[Dr.Bass]

Why do you bring them into the "competition"? Until this day, I have never heard them rated as an audio source that could match up, not even by those with Nakamichi decks!

The most we could do with cassette was make the best of it for its convenience. There may well be a case that vinyl does not deserve to be dead and buried? But cassettes? Good riddance.

I have already mentioned how easy it is to demonstrate that cassette's dynamic range comes nowhere near that of vinyl (listen to the scratches); you believe vinyl to be the ultimate ... so where does that leave cassette by your logic?

Or, perhaps, among those "flavours of sound" that you like, you include tape hiss?

I am only trying to prove that, going by your logic that since none of us were in the recording studio so we cannot detect which medium is truer to the source, we cannot eliminate cassettes from the competition. Who knows that the hiss was also recorded..who knows, who was in the recording studio in the era of cassettes ? Since you argue that the quality of a medium cannot be judged unless one is in the recording studio, I find a contradiction when you say cassettes are inferior to CDs. How do you know ? Measurements ? Then you should not even consider vinyl as a contender because going by measurements alone, digital always wins !! If you are using a logic, be fair and apply it "ethically" to all the mediums.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Because I made my own cassettes from vinyl. Lots. Because I made tapes from CDs. Because I had tapes that stretched, tapes that stuck, tapes that broke, tapes that tangled. Because I lived with LPs and cassette tapes for years and years and years. And, not least perhaps ... because I can look up the technical information on the net.

Yes. By measurement, it would seem that digital always wins --- which is why my conclusion, so far, is that it is a flavour of sound, created by a combination of media and equipment, that individuals go for. That is fine... but claims that your favourite combo, or mine, are truer to the music or represent it more accurately, are not. That is something that I think (not 100% sure) that the figures are most likely to tell us.

I know that I like a little warmth with my music (I grew up with that radiogram). It is quite possible that, if I listened to clean vinyl on a good TT through a valve amp, that I might feel so at home that my CDs might loose some of their charm. That is why I keep saying I have no argument with personal taste. Technically, though, it is likely that it would be my "niceness button". ...And I can't afford it

 

[jls001]

Even today I have some well recorded cassettes which are much better than their CD equivalent. You can blame it on HMV or digital or whatever

The most joyful listening I had was on Walkmans (and clones) as a teenager, using the stock headphones. Earphone listening was a big upgrade from the mono 2-in-1s that we had at home in those days. There was more detail, though it didn't matter too much as I was full-time into hard rock and metal. I reverted to a 20 Watt 2-in-1 (this time a stereo set) when I joined college, always armed with a tiny screwdriver to adjust the position of the tape head, blasting away on the same hard rock and metal, and the occasional non-hard rock, non-metal numbers due to the influence of batch mate. Now all my cassettes are packed in a carton and hardly ever come out of this confinement, though I do have a player.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

My 3-head Sony deck died last week. :sad:

We'll take it to the service centre, but I don't hold much hope of available spares or whatever.

Fingers crossed that it might only need the hair of several cats removing from its insides.

 

[Dr.Bass]

Because I made my own cassettes from vinyl. Lots. Because I made tapes from CDs. Because I had tapes that stretched, tapes that stuck, tapes that broke, tapes that tangled. Because I lived with LPs and cassette tapes for years and years and years. And, not least perhaps ... because I can look up the technical information on the net.

You did all that but you were not in the recording studio, so none of those experiences count when it comes to make a judgement of truenesshyeah:.

Yes. By measurement, it would seem that digital always wins --- which is why my conclusion, so far, is that it is a flavour of sound, created by a combination of media and equipment, that individuals go for. That is fine... but claims that your favourite combo, or mine, are truer to the music or represent it more accurately, are not. That is something that I think (not 100% sure) that the figures are most likely to tell us.

If you believe your senses cannot differentiate between degrees of artificiality between two different mediums even after comparing them extensively over years on hundreds of different materials, then you are right and your approach works for you.

I belong to the opposite camp where I believe only my ears. Recently I auditioned a pair of Tidal Piano Cera speakers ($20k) powered by Tidal pre-power ($100k), source was a Brinkmann Bardo TT ($20k). I now know how it sounds but I dont know anything about the specs. Do you think any spec sheet however extensive and accurate can change my impression about the setup ? Not even in dreams. Only another audition "may" possibly do it.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Why would it?

But are you going to invent your own specs? Like Rhythmic Stability?

Because that is the point at which we will disagree.

You did all that but you were not in the recording studio, so none of those experiences count when it comes to make a judgement of trueness

I was comparing A to B. OK, D to E then: it doesn't matter what came before, and you know that very well.

But your "arguments" go around in circles. Who can follow? I think too much compression was used in the master mix

I knew, by the way, that cassette had less dynamic range than vinyl, long before I even heard the words "dynamic range." But you'll know that ...if you read my posts.

 

[Dr.Bass]

"Rhythm" is a very well known aspect of music. But there is no spec which defines the accuracy of "Rhythm" in a setup, even though every setup alters the rhythm to some degree.

It is very difficult to express a musical experience in words. There are many intangible things that make music. Awarding numbers to a few specific attributes (bass, midrange, soundstage) does not convey the whole feeling most of the time. That is when one resorts to things like "Rhythmic stability". As long as you are waiting for a spec to map every word of an article which is trying to describe a musical experience, you will always remain a cynic.

 

[jls001]

"Rhythm" is a very well known aspect of music. But there is no spec which defines the accuracy of "Rhythm" in a setup, even though every setup alters the rhythm to some degree.

It is very difficult to express a musical experience in words. There are many intangible things that make music. Awarding numbers to a few specific attributes (bass, midrange, soundstage) does not convey the whole feeling most of the time. That is when one resorts to things like "Rhythmic stability". As long as you are waiting for a spec to map every word of an article which is trying to describe a musical experience, you will always remain a cynic.

+1 to above.

Also, how does one quantify the decay of transients that lingers and sends that mild fever down your spine?

How does one define, much less quantify, the blackness when the music is stopped at the peak of a crescendo, and resumes after a moment's pause? The feeling that one momentarily landed in a void where sound has been banished? Isn't silence as much part of music as the music itself?

How does one define the airiness with which percussions play on some music systems? How does one define and quantify how much they "float" in relation to the overall music?

How does one define the effortlessness with which some music systems reproduce recorded music?

And how does one define the illusion of of spatial separation that some music systems reproduce with uncanny realism?

Questions, questions, questions.

My point being that there are way too many perceptible qualities in music that are not definable in numbers. And that some of the recognised and defined/accepted metrics need not have any relation to how that system reproduces music faithfully and musically.

Coming to the live event being the absolute reference by which music reproduction should be judged, I guess this is true insofar as the live event is something that was performed singly or together by the artist(s) in a venue and recorded straight with whatever fader settings decided by the recording engineer. If there is any post production work performed on the record, it is no longer a faithful copy of the live event, though perhaps a nicer copy of the event. The only remaining question would then be, copy of the live event as listened from which listening position.

 

[Dr.Bass]

+1 to above.

Also, how does one quantify the decay of transients that lingers and sends that mild fever down your spine?

How does one define, much less quantify, the blackness when the music is stopped at the peak of a crescendo, and resumes after a moment's pause? The feeling that one momentarily landed in a void where sound has been banished? Isn't silence as much part of music as the music itself?

How does one define

How does one define the airiness with which percussions play on some music systems? How does one define and quantify how much they "float" in relation to the overall music?

How does one define the effortlessness with which some music reproduce recorded music?

And how does one define the illusion of of spatial separation that some music systems reproduce with uncanny realism?

Questions, questions, questions.

My point being that there are way too many perceptions that are not definable in numbers. And that some of the recognised and defined/accepted metrics need not have any relation to how that system reproduces music.

Coming to the live event being the absolute reference by which music reproduction should be judged, I guess this is true insofar as the live event is something that was performed singly or together by the artist(s) in a venue and recorded straight with whatever fader settings decided by the recording engineer. If there is any post production work performed on the record, it is no longer a faithful copy of the live event, though perhaps a nicer copy of the event. The only remaining question would then be, copy of the live event as listened from which listening position.

And then there are terms like music had a "breathing" quality:licklips:. These are nothing but a desperate measure to express something intangible using words which is universally understandable. But to realize or even correlate to such words and feelings one needs to listen to such setups and feel it practically.

To give you an example, if someone has never tasted "Ghee", you can never explain to him what "Ghee" tastes like even with the best of the vocabulary, because words have limitations beyond a certain point. Especially when things are beyond cerebral.

 

[Hiten]

Bros,
Happy to see cassette & cd debate. vinyls are in different league. hyeah:
Tears of happiness...

as vinyl fans stand is vindicated.
just kidding.

Questions, questions, questions.

Joshua, copy pasting from steve hoffman link posted in another post.

When the music (doesnt matter what kind) has some "breath of life" as I call it. In other words, if, when you play the music your ears might accept it as actually happening instead of a mere recording of something. Dynamics and fidelity come first. Your ears want to hear something that sounds lifelike no matter what the type of music. From birth you have been unconsciously taught to survive by using your wits, eyes and ears. Your ears need to be able to tell you if there is danger, the sound of a friendly voice or whatever. We are "tuned" to this whether we realize it or not. Well, when we hear music we struggle to make sense of it; is it happening in a real space, etc. When we can put a mental "picture" to the music we can enjoy it better. Its hard to do this with purely electronic music, but we are getting so used to that sound now (after years of synths, Star Wars, etc.) that its becoming a reality just like a violin. We do strive to makes sense of noise though, and the more dynamic something is (even if its a sound that does not occur in nature) the more our ears can accept it as "fact" instead of fiction. That helps.
Remember, our ears are pretty smart.
We can recognize a voice over a really tinny cell phone speaker, so its not about total fidelity. Its about the idea that the more lifelike something sounds, the better we can enjoy it. You can be walking on a street and hear inside a club some music playing and you will know instantly if there is a live band in there or not. Im sure weve all experienced that. We are nowhere near the band, but even from a block away we know its live. It has certain musical and sound "cues" that clue our brain to the excitement of live music.
Dynamics have a lot to do with it. When a drum set is being played, the cymbal vibrates at a different frequency than the snare drum and at a different volume. When our recorded music faithfully reproduces this, we can be "fooled" into thinking that its actually happening. That always makes the listening experience better.
Also, when people are all playing together in a room, the sound is bouncing off the walls, ceiling, etc. and this all hits our ears at different times. When this can be reproduced on a CD or album, its all the better for us. Close micing techniques of most modern music can really spoil this illusion. Think about it; no one listens to a hi-hat cymbal on a drum kit from one inch away from it. Well, that is where the microphone is! If the engineer moved the microphone back about two feet the sound of the hi-hat would mingle with the sound of the rest of the kit and the room and (like a good sauce in cooking) everything would simmer together better.

 

[ajay124]

A You Tube presentation of an Abbey Road/EMI project for remastering the historic recordings of conducter Wilhelm Furtwangler. Hotly debated by Furtwangler fans and societies, most of whom don't seem to be very impressed with Abbey Road/EMI. The general consensus seems to be that remastering efforts such as these, not only filter out the 'noise' of live ambience and ancient master tapes, but they also filter out the 'essence' of music. I have been surfing extensively for many weeks trying to decide which recordings of Furtwangler to buy. EMI and DG originally recorded most Furtwangler performances, but his fans seem to prefer remastered CD's issued by smaller labels like Tahra, Audite and SWF. Only an extensive and expensive :sad: audition of Furtwangler's recordings would clear up the muddle of contrasting opinions.

Abbey Road engineer Simon Gibson on remastering Furtwangler - YouTube

Furtw?ngler's recordings : SWF's best choice

The Great EMI..: Wilhelm Furtwangler: Amazon.co.uk: Music

The Legacy (107CD): Wilhelm Furtwangler, Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, Johann Sebastian Bach, Ludwig van Beethoven, Wilhelm Furtwngler, Berliner Philharmoniker, Wiener Philharmoniker, Chorus & Orchestra of Milan Scala, Bayreuth Festival Chorus & Orches

Furtwangler: Live Recordings 1942-1944 Vol. 2: Brahms/Schumann/Bruckner/R. Straus, Berlin Philharmonic: Amazon.co.uk: Music

Beethoven: Symphonies No. 3 5 6 7 8: Wilhelm Furtwangler: Amazon.co.uk: Music

Edition Wilhelm Furtwangler - The Complete RIAS Recordings: Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra;Yehudi Menuhin;Gerhard Taschner, Beethoven, Bach, Schubert, Brahms, Gluck, Strauss, Weber, Wagner, Handel et al, Wilhelm Furtwangler: Amazon.co.uk: Music

Furtwangler Conducts Beethoven - Beethoven: symphonies no 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 9, Leonore & Coriolan overtures: Wilhelm Furtwangler: Amazon.co.uk: Music

 

[jls001]

Incidentally this morning I was listening to Jazz at the Pawnshop - I (on CD) over breakfast. As long as the music played, it was warm, nice, lovely (so many unquantifiable parameters - I feel guilty using them :lol, capturing the ambience of the Stockholm night club where it was recorded live, but when the audience clapped at the end of each number, the clapping sound sounded un-lifelike. I can tell because, like the rest of you, I have heard audiences clapping many times in real life, and therefore have a real life reference in some corner of my brain.

It is a known fact that audience applause is very difficult to reproduce. Such is the limitation of music reproduction, and more specifically the one in my living room.