when you cut a record you have a space limit as it has to be cut all in one line so if a track has a lot of low end bass in it the sapphire will cut wider grooves in the dub plate.

 

so to make it fit you have to compromise and get the grooves smaller and closer together to get it to all fit on one side and can be a right pita if you dont know what you are doing.

 

it looks easy but its not and if you fook that cutting head its 6-8k to fix one.

... Exactly my point... Except for the "looks easy" bit where you have an experience I lack.

its why it has to be mastered for the format you want it in you cant have a hi tempo dance track with base line in it flat out all the way at 200bpm to 0db as it wont fit.

 

if it goes over 0db and ur cutting a dub plate then big hole that can make and destroy the cutting head in the process.

 

 

those things new were 250.000

not sure if you can see that but all the 3 vu meters have a max of 0db anything over that it will clip and distort.

 

if that happens i also have a red clip light on my monitors.

... In some of my recent reading another culprit has been identified. .. the mixing desk engineer.

 

Very true, and part of what I meant when mentioning the defects of our recording processes. There's a lot more to it though, multi-miking and multitrack recording are riddled with introduced errors that prevent a good simulation of a live music experience.

 

When discussing these matters a very large proportion of the population lack understanding, basically because the great majority only listen pop of one sort or another. Since that is almost invariably amplified they have little concept of live acoustic instrument sound and the effect of the spaces in which it's played.

.

0db limiters and loudness over what is real from the instrument i guess is what ur on about.

 

or mic up from a speaker from the performer with the instrument then being recorded and then 0db software limited for the complete mix at the end.

 

it never sounds the same as live at the time as the room its in will dictate what it sounds like anyway and any speakers you can buy dont have the freq range in that same environment.

 

take a gun and fire it off in ur room and record it, it will be never as loud being recorded with mics and then played back by monitors as the freq range is just not there.

 

Edited March 23, 20179 yr by soundwave

.. why should valves sound warmer ,? is it because you like their distortion?. Any amplifier should have no distortion.

 

Valves favour the second harmonic and the following even harmonic bias of that smoother sound. That was what was behind the huge popularity of Marshall amps in the pop world for so many years.

 

Digital bias when it exists tends to odd harmonics and the comparative harshness. Both wrong, but some wrongs are more sonically acceptable than others.

.

 

the best of the best 16-20k if you want one

0db limiters and loudness over what is real from the instrument i guess is what ur on about.

 

Only in part, microphones cannot reproduce the spatial field of what ears hear, the latter through the shape of the external ear setting the spatial positions of instruments. Microphones are very crude in comparison.

 

Accuracy such as digital produces copies the inherent problems with less than satisfactory results.

 

Analogue disc and speaker inaccuracies can sum in the wrong or right direction, but when right simulate through the accumulated errors a spatial field. Of course that spatial field may not be faithful to the original, probably isn't, but if recognisably an authentic one can be satisfyingly "real".

.

Valves favour the second harmonic and the following even harmonic bias of that smoother sound. That was what was behind the huge popularity of Marshall amps in the pop world for so many years.

 

Digital bias when it exists tends to odd harmonics and the comparative harshness. Both wrong, but some wrongs are more sonically acceptable than others.

.

... I am aware of the characteristic transfer curves for both valves bjts and FETs , but my point is that under no situation should the amplifier be getting into regions where this type of distortion, irrespective of the technology should occur. Whatever distortions and sound modifications that occur within the recording studio can be considered as part of the creative process, just as a Stradivarius instrument distorts sounds, but once outside of the studio, there should be no further distortions. Words like musicality, warm, hard edged, smooth, clinical are just other terms for distortion.

As part of an app called Readly i have access to a collection of magazines including an apparently prestigious USA one called stereophil which showcases absurdly priced kit ... it is amusing to read

SW / Flecc, totally agree with your thought process and understanding. However, it is clear that Danidl his own thoughts, mostly being incorrect:p.

 

Anyone, who thinks valves don't add warmth and compares anything from Samsung in terms of audio quality etc, really!.

 

My experience of anything Samsung is somewhat tainted, having wasted money and thrown in the bin.

 

Anyway, i'm opting out, off to listen to Spotify. Arrgghhh, where are those Samsung speakers?

SW / Flecc, totally agree with your thought process and understanding. However, it is clear that Danidl his own thoughts, mostly being incorrect:p.

 

Anyone, who thinks valves don't add warmth and compares anything from Samsung in terms of audio quality etc, really!.

 

My experience of anything Samsung is somewhat tainted, having wasted money and thrown in the bin.

 

Anyway, i'm opting out, off to listen to Spotify. Arrgghhh, where are those Samsung speakers?

.. I am now so gravely offended that i will slink off into the undergrowth which is obviously the only place for the likes of me... Funny though, you don't address my fundamental statement that an amplifier should neither be warm or clinical it should be neutral and a wire with gain. Likewise that record players should produce accurately only the sounds produced by the recording engineer, no more , no less. .

Anyway I do most of my listening via Sony mdr1 headphones.

 

 

Peace

http://www.dv247.com/studio-equipment/genelec-1038b-tri-amplified-monitor--30859

 

each the amp is in the back

 

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/audio-and-headphones/audio/hifi-systems-and-speakers/panasonic-max4000-wireless-megasound-hi-fi-system-black-10147657-pdt.html

... I am aware of the characteristic transfer curves for both valves bjts and FETs , but my point is that under no situation should the amplifier be getting into regions where this type of distortion, irrespective of the technology should occur. Whatever distortions and sound modifications that occur within the recording studio can be considered as part of the creative process, just as a Stradivarius instrument distorts sounds, but once outside of the studio, there should be no further distortions. Words like musicality, warm, hard edged, smooth, clinical are just other terms for distortion.

As part of an app called Readly i have access to a collection of magazines including an apparently prestigious USA one called stereophil which showcases absurdly priced kit ... it is amusing to read

 

In my view there's no "should" about it, it's the sonic end result that counts, not a technical purist perfection that accurately reproduces our recording method inadequacies.

 

If you are satisfied with listening to that technically more accurate sound, fine, I and many others are not. We prefer to listen to something that's more faithful to our acoustic listening experiences, regardless of how it was produced.

.

you don't address my fundamental statement that an amplifier should neither be warm or clinical it should be neutral and a wire with gain. Likewise that record players should produce accurately only the sounds produced by the recording engineer, no more , no less. .

Anyway I do most of my listening via Sony mdr1 headphones.

 

I did address that in my latest post, but you won't like that I dismissed the contention.

 

I also occasionally use headphones, though once again they can never reproduce an accurate representation of an original acoustic.

 

In my case it's Beyerdynamics DT 1990

.

In my view there's no "should" about it, it's the sonic end result that counts, not a technical purist perfection that accurately reproduces our recording method inadequacies.

 

If you are satisfied with listening to that technically more accurate sound, fine, I and many others are not. We prefer to listen to something that's more faithful to our acoustic listening experiences, regardless of how it was produced.

.

 

When I am dealing with people I try not to use the "should " word. It is counterproductive. When dealing with designed mechanical or electronic systems I do feel entitled to use the should word.

What you and others wish to spend your money and time on is your own choice to make, for myself I value deep silence between tracks and clear acoustics without artifacts introduced by the replay process.

 

Just to compound my reputation as a philistine, I have found that the Samsung galaxy s7 phone makes a superb music player when matched with good earphones. This phone has a fecture I have not found elsewhere whereby it tunes the frequency response to ones own ears and phones. In the test mode it sends a sequence of audio tones at different amplitudes and frequencies to each ear in a random sequence and therefore maps ones individual ear response With the senneisier c5 or momentum iem. The result is a very refined system.

.. So now I will close this can of worms. At our ages we don't want to get too excited.

I am with the Philistine.

The first thing is to get accurate reproduction. Digital beats vinyl hands down here.

Then you can use any form of wave shaping and amplification you like to induce the sound you want, call it warmth or even harmonic bias.

Valve amps have limitations they happen to taint the sound in a way most people like:eek: but it's not well controlled.

Digital filters can easily replicate this if wanted.

Go with the adaptive system where it matches the acoustic environment you are in to replicate the environment you want.

perhaps it could add in the sound of coughing in the quiet bits for real concert feel?

Or police helicopters for the glasto experience

The first thing is to get accurate reproduction. Digital beats vinyl hands down here.

 

Agreed, digital does give more accurate reproduction of what was wrong in the first place. What it doesn't give is recording.

 

The whole point of recording is to reproduce as accurately as possible an original. Unfortunately what happens at the outset of the process cannot make that possible if that defective original is faithfully adhered to. Deviation can much better approach the original when the circumstances are right.

 

I know exactly what Danidl means about the deep silences between tracks and clear acoustics, and I agree with his exposition of Peter Walkers "straight wire" amplifier philosophy (pity Walker didn't stick to it though). In that respect I'm more of a purist than Walker, and I don't use "wave shaping" or valves to induce a bias. I just as far as possible use some initial analogue biases to compensate for the inherent recording process defects that we are stuck with. Incidentally I also have a large collection of CDs (though I've sold off many unsatisfactory ones), as well as MP3, WMA and even some Minidiscs, all of which get some use.

 

I'm content for those who get their pleasure from the purist forms of digital since that makes them happy. But there's far more to some forms of music than that, and some of us don't like the soul being torn out of those. I understand if you can't hear or appreciate that, or if your kind of music doesn't suffer the problems I speak of. I just wish it were possible for the understanding to extend the other way too.

 

I've had CDs of piano pieces recorded by artists I've listened to live where I might as well have bought a punched paper roll and listened on a pianola. All the musical "colour" that the artist produces from the piano using their skill, gone, replaced with a largely mechanical function that can also detract from the composer's achievement. I get little or no pleasure from that.

.

Agreed, digital does give more accurate reproduction of what was wrong in the first place. What it doesn't give is recording.

 

The whole point of recording is to reproduce as accurately as possible an original. Unfortunately what happens at the outset of the process cannot make that possible if that defective original is faithfully adhered to. Deviation can much better approach the original when the circumstances are right.

 

I know exactly what Danidl means about the deep silences between tracks and clear acoustics, and I agree with his exposition of Peter Walkers "straight wire" amplifier philosophy (pity Walker didn't stick to it though). In that respect I'm more of a purist than Walker, and I don't use "wave shaping" or valves to induce a bias. I just as far as possible use some initial analogue biases to compensate for the inherent recording process defects that we are stuck with. Incidentally I also have a large collection of CDs (though I've sold off many unsatisfactory ones), as well as MP3, WMA and even some Minidiscs, all of which get some use.

 

I'm content for those who get their pleasure from the purist forms of digital since that makes them happy. But there's far more to some forms of music than that, and some of us don't like the soul being torn out of those. I understand if you can't hear or appreciate that, or if your kind of music doesn't suffer the problems I speak of. I just wish it were possible for the understanding to extend the other way too.

 

I've had CDs of piano pieces recorded by artists I've listened to live where I might as well have bought a punched paper roll and listened on a pianola. All the musical "colour" that the artist produces from the piano using their skill, gone, replaced with a largely mechanical function that can also detract from the composer's achievement. I get little or no pleasure from that.

.

 

I have been debating with myself all day as to whether let well enough alone, and I lost so here goes.

 

My interest in music tends more to acoustic guitar, folk, chamber, classical piano than pop , blues , jazz , opera, or full orchestra.

I like singers with clear voices and good diction.

No recording can compete with the visceral effect of sitting close to a full symphony orchestra.

Last point first.. fleec we all have such recordings unfortunately. The question surely should be .. why the discrepancy ? Was it poor microphoning?, inappropriate mastering ?, the engineer interfering with the music,? excessive loudness?. The only element I would exclude, ( you won't) is the data recorded on a CD . If it were recorded with even higher resolution, and or bit rate it might even be more true..There is an emotional element in music listening, and the same stimuli in a different context will emot difference responses.

 

I suspect that your greater affinity to vinyl owes more to psychology than physiology. Where the vinyl fails to provide information, your mind substitutes what you expect or intend to find. In this context. " less is more. " Please do not consider this as a put down. In the absence of information, the mind will construct plausible scenarios. Enjoy what you are listening to.

 

If the defects in music reproduction are created at the earliest stages in capture, then why would additional defects in its re reproduction correct these initial defects, . Regrettably errors tend to propagate not cancel. It is suggesting magic otherwise. It would be a particularly fortunate set of circumstances otherwise.

I suspect that your greater affinity to vinyl owes more to psychology than physiology. Where the vinyl fails to provide information, your mind substitutes what you expect or intend to find.

 

This is absolutely not the case, vinyl alone is insufficient and when the system and its environmental setting isn't suited the results are no better for me.

 

It's only when the whole system is "right" that the contribution due to vinyl can be heard as an improvement. Getting the system right isn't an exact science, more due to a combination of trial and error and past experience.

 

Perhaps the best proof that I'm not imagining or inducing this are many of the final generation of vinyl recordings using digital at every stage of production until mastering to disc. I often find them awful in any circumstances and would far rather listen to the equivalent CD. It was this last generation of vinyl that stopped me buying them, and I've never returned to buying new vinyl. I may be mistaken in this since new vinyl recordings could have improved, but my collection is adequate anyway.

 

It seems to me that you've conditioned yourself to a wholly unnatural sound reproduction with silences and crystal clarity that's don't exist in any live situation. That music devoid of atmosphere is too unreal for me, I like to hear an environment and I'm prepared to accept one that's not necessarily accurate to the original circumstance but is recognisably a typical real one.

 

As I noted earlier, that digital sound can be a very rewarding experience for some. There's even many classical pieces which can be enhanced by those factors making them sound more exciting, even exhilarating. I've even known people who don't like live classical concerts, complaining that their home system sounds far better.

 

But that doesn't suit me, I prefer reproduction closer to a live experience.

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_key_frequencies

 

acoustic transducers cant match the freq range thats why it never sounds the same.

 

then add in mastering to cd so it now sounds comp different to a live grand piano.

 

Frequency Response - 20Hz-50kHz

 

 

Edited March 24, 20179 yr by soundwave

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_key_frequencies

 

acoustic transducers cant match the freq range thats why it never sounds the same.

 

then add in mastering to cd so it now sounds comp different to a live grand piano.

 

Frequency Response - 20Hz-50kHz

 

 

... Here I go again against my better judgement, but if the transducer is deficient, and it is at the start of the process, why would an inferior recording technology be deemed better when both are using the same signal source?

.

The engineering involved in constructing a modern turntable, tone arm, stylus, cartridge, preamp etc is highly impressive, some highly innovative, some mind bogglingly expensive and in some cases really beautiful, all with the intention of extracting a millivolt signal, which was impressed on that plastic by what were electronic means.Why? When there was no alternative, yes it was the way to go , but no longer

The accumulated errors in the process build up layer on layer.

 

This strand on this thread started by my response to a statement by Steve A , who favoured less wire based communications

 

So trying to bring it to a conclusion...

SW ... Samsung may not have a reputation in audio circles at present, but a company with the engineering expertise to make earthmovers , fridges, TVs , and 25% of the global Mobilephone market is making serious profits and can probably engineer their way into any market they want.

That lovely 1950s style fairchild amplifier or mixer almost certainly used carbon composition resistors and suffers from microphonics. I bow to your expertise in vinyl mastering . . But have you not also made the point that there are engineering compromises in setting out the master.where the frequency response recorded is a function of placement on the disc.

 

Digital systems react horribly to over load conditions, at least the older analogue systems were more graceful in that respect just producing marginally more and more distortion, hence the need to put limiters in the data path.. but the tendency to run the levels at close to 0db limits subtleness

 

Fleec, your opinion I value, but still cannot agree with you. Your observation that modern vinyl is unpleasing, is a valid opinion, .. I cannot share it as I don't have any such vinyl nor the means to play it as I gave up my Garrard deck 20 years ago. But the inference that it is due to a digital processing path, could well be incorrect. In an earlier post I suggested that mixing engineers are increasing the loudness levels and processing sounds to be more punchy. Explanations for this range from better for dance purposes, better for in car listening, where the ambient noise is higher or just fashion.My intitial and closing argument is that this and not CD is where the ire might be directed.

Edited March 25, 20179 yr by Danidl

but would you spend 10k on speakers? or even listen to a pair that cost that much as no junk in currys is not even going to come close like a 700 quid sound bar, id throw that in the skip tbh but to most will sound fine for there needs.

 

i spent the most on what matters the speakers and work my way back down the signal chain and upgrade as i could afford it.

 

i just gave up in the end as it is a endless money pit you can spend 10k on just a ad da converter but not much point if you have small 2 way 500 quid monitors.

but would you spend 10k on speakers? or even listen to a pair that cost that much as no junk in currys is not even going to come close like a 700 quid sound bar, id throw that in the skip tbh but to most will sound fine for there needs.

 

i spent the most on what matters the speakers and work my way back down the signal chain and upgrade as i could afford it.

 

i just gave up in the end as it is a endless money pit you can spend 10k on just a ad da converter but not much point if you have small 2 way 500 quid monitors.

Me too. Sold / selling my B&W signatures, amps, processors etc.

what you downgrading lol Abby road uses them tho i just dont like them tbh.

 

http://www.heyuguys.com/images/2013/07/Explore-Abbey-Banner.jpg

http://blueaudio.pl/images/nautilus_czarny.jpg

 

get some of those

but would you spend 10k on speakers? or even listen to a pair that cost that much as no junk in currys is not even going to come close like a 700 quid sound bar, id throw that in the skip tbh but to most will sound fine for there needs.

 

i spent the most on what matters the speakers and work my way back down the signal chain and upgrade as i could afford it.

 

i just gave up in the end as it is a endless money pit you can spend 10k on just a ad da converter but not much point if you have small 2 way 500 quid monitors.

 

I could afford to spend that amount on speakers, but there are a vast number of other items where I would spend money before such a purchase ...food , holidays , travel, and actual live concerts being some of them.

There is a statement I once came across .". perfect is the enemy of good" . ..And it seems particularly appropriate in the context of high end audio.

 

My best speakers are venerable tannoy m2 dating from about 1983, and they are not bad when coupled with an marantz reciever. But for listening privately I would use the Sony headphones. The Chromecast audio dongle has given this system a new lease of life.

Edited March 25, 20179 yr by Danidl