136 replies to this topic

[rawl99]

when I listen to live music it's almost always voices through a mic and amplifier, instruments through amplifier and speakers

Prof

And this is why it gets interesting. My 'live music' experiences are almost always acoustic. Orchestral, chamber, jazz etc.
Vocal with jazz as an example is usually amplified, but commonly the instruments are not so we end up with a bit of a mixed bag.
Makes it all the more fun.

Rawl

[Arg]

You probably need to expand on that... why is a master tape a good reference in your view? ....

Exactly! Why 'is' a master tape a good reference point?....

Because it is the first point of completed creation, for the specific purpose of sound reproduction (as a unique class of communication and hence creation), by the artists and their technical and production support team. Post #1 provides some background on this point.

I see proftournesol (and others?) asking how he is going to be able to use the master tape as a reference point. Well that is a rather personal problem, i.e. some people can solve it and others won't. (In fact it could be argued that we do indeed have access to very good facsimiles of the master tape with high definition digital files... but that is not the main point here).

But putting aside the access issues that some home audiophiles have, the Right Reference Point is also right for the artists themselves and the production team. And what about playback equipment designers? For them not to aspire to the master tape's qualities is disrespectful of the art itself, the creation (the first point of completed creation for the purpose of sound reproduction).

Arg
BTW I am off on two weeks' leave starting now, and may or may not be able to check in at SNA on my travels. cheers

[proftournesol]

Arg, enjoy your trip The lack of a master tape is a problem for well over 99% of listeners I'd imagine. In that case what is the reference point for most of us?

[Dr X]

So I'm curious how can you assess whether your system is close to 100% transparent without access to the master tape?

Measurements. Why do you need access to a master tape for prof?

[datafone]

Measurements. Why do you need access to a master tape for prof?

Umm...

Hmm... what about the stuff you can't measure?

Without any of that, I would rather watch the TV.

[Steve M]

Surely the reference point is not the master tape or some other contrivance, but instead 'sounds made in nature'.

By this I mean birdsong, a human vocal, a traditional musical instrument, the purity of a triangle being struck (just the ringing of metal on metal contact - afterall) water cascading along a mountain stream, the magnificent scale and authority of the sound of thunder! ...coming to you direct from the source straight to your ears, no electronics involved.

If your sound system can approach sounds made in nature, then everything else will fall into place in terms of music listening. That is why Peter Walker's claim in 1957 that his Quad electrostatic loudspeaker is the closest approach to natural sound, has stood the test of time. I suspect horns have this knack of producing a natural acoustic, which leads many to believe they are the pinnacle of realism.

Regards,

Steve.

Edited by Steve M, 04 July 2012 - 06:45 AM.

[datafone]

Ya' post made me think of the few Andreas Vollenweider LP's I have.

[Steve M]

For a good example of sounds in nature combined with man made musical instruments, on your Squeezebox tune into Zen Radio Besancon, France (superb!) at http://opml.radiotim...49&partnerid=16


Steve.

[datafone]

No Squeezebox here, but no doubt a good link for those that do.

Been ages since i listened to radio.

[Dr X]

Hmm... what about the stuff you can't measure?

I'm not sure what that "stuff" is mate?

[proftournesol]

Measurements. Why do you need access to a master tape for prof?

<sigh> I should ignore the bait but..... <sigh>
Ok, measurement is the gold standard and tells us everything that we need to know about accuracy. Measurement of what comparing it to what? Let's work within your biases, analog is inaccurate so let's discard it for the comparison. Let's just look at 16/44.1 or hi-res digital then - what are you comparing your file to? How do you know that it's the 'gold standard?'

[Dr X]

<sigh> I should ignore the bait but..... <sigh>
Ok, measurement is the gold standard and tells us everything that we need to know about accuracy. Measurement of what comparing it to what? Let's work within your biases, analog is inaccurate so let's discard it for the comparison. Let's just look at 16/44.1 or hi-res digital then - what are you comparing your file to? How do you know that it's the 'gold standard?'

I can't really make much sense of your post. There was no answer to my question just four new questions. Hmmm, I assume you have no idea what you would need a master tape for.
Digital or analog source, doesn't matter, we end up with sound either way.
I think we may have reached the end of your knowledge (and mine) and you're starting to get off track.
Perhaps a a very educated physicist could determine the answer?
This is starting to go down the whole accuracy vs musical debate. I've been part of those before and it doesn't interest me now.

PS: There was no bait in my post. Perhaps saying that was just an an excuse for not being able to answer my question. Also talking about my biases is a bit presumptuous.

[myrantz]

I can't really make much sense of your post. There was no answer to my question just four new questions. Hmmm, I assume you have no idea what you would need a master tape for.
Digital or analog source, doesn't matter, we end up with sound either way.
I think we may have reached the end of your knowledge (and mine) and you're starting to get off track.
Perhaps a a very educated physicist could determine the answer?
This is starting to go down the whole accuracy vs musical debate. I've been part of those before and it doesn't interest me now.

PS: There was no bait in my post. Perhaps saying that was just an an excuse for not being able to answer my question. Also talking about my biases is a bit presumptuous.

LOL... You sorta just told us a string should be this long without telling us specific length.

Nothing to relate, refer or compare to...

[Dr X]

LOL... You sorta just told us a string should be this long without telling us specific length.

Nothing to relate, refer or compare to...

Ill ask you the same question then, help me learn.
What would you do with a master tape if you got hold of one to evaluate a single system?

PS: Try and post without using "LOL"...go on I dare ya...LOL

Edited by Dr X, 04 July 2012 - 12:49 PM.

[KenTripp]

Ill ask you the same question then, help me learn.
What would you do with a master tape if you got hold of one to evaluate a single system?

PS: Try and post without using "LOL"...go on I dare ya...LOL

Apart from admire it, not much at all if I didn't have a suitable machine to play it on

And the problem with this whole "master tape" BS is that's it's a fair leap to assume that what's on it is in fact the performance that they were trying to record.

[myrantz]

Ill ask you the same question then, help me learn.
What would you do with a master tape if you got hold of one to evaluate a single system?

PS: Try and post without using "LOL"...go on I dare ya...LOL

Honestly don't have a clue since I didn't come up with the master tape... LOL.

IIRC you said 100% before.. In other words in a very simplistic manner a "transparent" playback system will get 100%, anything that adds "colour" will be 100%+x... And anything that veils will be 100%-y. Well and dandy! Suddenly accurate and musical makes sense.

But 100% of what? And what mechanism is in place to stop someone from saying 100%+x is the new 100%?

[Dr X]

But 100% of what?

The source singal...be it master tape, CD, vinyl or whatever.

And what mechanism is in place to stop someone from saying 100%+x is the new 100%?

If 100 + x = 100 ...
... then x must be 0 for this to be true.
So your math being **** stops this mechanism from being in place...LOL

Otherwise you're talking musical-smusical stuff which I don't have anything to contribute to. But don't let me stop ya!

Edited by Dr X, 04 July 2012 - 01:57 PM.

[Dr X]

And the problem with this whole "master tape" BS is that's it's a fair leap to assume that what's on it is in fact the performance that they were trying to record.

Which is exactly the point I was trying to make, what use is a master tape? Wow I find myself agreeing with you Ken

[Bleek]

Edit

Edited by Bleek, 04 July 2012 - 02:04 PM.

[myrantz]

The source singal...be it master tape, CD, vinyl or whatever.

Getting somewhere - how to compare the source signal? What's the method?

If 100% is a perfect match, what about anything else that isn't 100%? i.e. what does 95% mean? What about 105%? What is the difference, and how do we relate, refer and compare 95%, 100% and 105%?

If 100 + x = 100 ...
... then x must be 0 for this to be true.

So your math being **** stops this mechanism from being in place...LOL

Not sure what you're trying to say actually.. % = percentage = ratio... http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Percentage.

Percentage is relative to something.. If you don't tell me what it's relative to, 100% + x can be a new 100% (of another quantity).

Kind of obvious, no?

[Dr X]

Getting somewhere - how to compare the source signal? What's the method?

If 100% is a perfect match, what about anything else that isn't 100%? i.e. what does 95% mean? What about 105%? What is the difference, and how do we relate, refer and compare 95%, 100% and 105%?


Not sure what you're trying to say actually.. % = percentage = ratio... http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Percentage.

Percentage is relative to something.. If you don't tell me what it's relative to, 100% + x can be a new 100% (of another quantity).

Kind of obvious, no?

You are rambling dude...LOL

[myrantz]

You are rambling dude...LOL

I was, wasn't I?? LOL..

Now that you have learned what percentage means - 100% of what?

[Dr X]

I was, wasn't I?? LOL..

Now that you have learned what percentage means - 100% of what?

The signal mate the signal...already answered that but here ya go: http://en.wikipedia....al_engineering)

[myrantz]

LOL.. Dejavu moment and looped back to #103.. And people ask me why I ramble... LOL

[Dr X]

The source signal could be a recording of you talking, rambling or farting.
I think in a blind test I wouldn't be able to pick a difference...LOL

[myrantz]

The source signal could be a recording of you talking, rambling or farting.
I think in a blind test I wouldn't be able to pick a difference...LOL

Maybe be true, but according your string theory - you could measure it ... LOL

[proftournesol]

Which is exactly the point I was trying to make, what use is a master tape? Wow I find myself agreeing with you Ken

in that case how can it be the 'gold standard', and if it isn't then is there such a thing at all?

[Dr X]

in that case how can it be the 'gold standard', and if it isn't then is there such a thing at all?

Well if you're asking me, there is no such thing.
The objective of a HIFI system is to sound like ... nothing ... it's a transducer of a signal afterall.

[proftournesol]

OK, is there a way you can tell if it has achieved its objective and sounds like nothing?

[datafone]

I'm not sure what that "stuff" is mate?

Oh well....

You would know it, if you heard it

[surfpurple]

Surely the reference point is not the master tape or some other contrivance, but instead 'sounds made in nature'.

By this I mean birdsong, a human vocal, a traditional musical instrument, the purity of a triangle being struck (just the ringing of metal on metal contact - afterall) water cascading along a mountain stream, the magnificent scale and authority of the sound of thunder! ...coming to you direct from the source straight to your ears, no electronics involved.

If your sound system can approach sounds made in nature, then everything else will fall into place in terms of music listening. That is why Peter Walker's claim in 1957 that his Quad electrostatic loudspeaker is the closest approach to natural sound, has stood the test of time. I suspect horns have this knack of producing a natural acoustic, which leads many to believe they are the pinnacle of realism.

Regards,

Steve.

That's where I beg to differ 'greatly' (about un-amplified sounds) being the most accurate reference!

Because we mainly DON'T listen to 'un-amplified' sounds on our systems and the engineers (who have produced the music we listen to, onto a master ), have geared the resulting sound to be played through 'amplified systems'!

An recording engineer 'doesn't' use the most 'revealing and natural' system to 'produce' his music (assuming we are talking a band situation). Whatever system (including speakers (or headphones) he uses is the most accurate reference point 'because' he is the 'only' one to determine 'exactly' what he wants the end result to sound like! And without knowing what he has used (as 'his' reference point, then we are only guessing as to what we think is the most 'accurate' reproduction situation.

And as no two albums have the same 'mastering' ( therefore 'master tape'), (therefore 'reference point'), then EVERY album will have a 'different' reference point so that means we can never really aim for a 'right' (or even more accurate) reference point for a recording because every recording has been mastered 'uniquely' by a different engineer using different equipment to 'evaluate' his personal preference of the end result!

IMHO a 'reference point' is like looking for the 'holy grail' (which does not exist)!

[Dr X]

OK, is there a way you can tell if it has achieved its objective and sounds like nothing?

It's an objective you practically can't reach, as we all know. To measure how close a system comes to it...well I'm no expert. Perhaps you could ask CERN?

[Dr X]

Oh well....

You would know it, if you heard it

I bet myself a Coopers Pale Ale you were going to say that

[surfpurple]

I bet myself a Coopers Pale Ale you were going to say that

I'd go a 'Sparkling Ale' myself!

[proftournesol]

So perhaps the length of this thread results from the confusing nature of the question: perhaps there is no 'right or wrong' single reference, perhaps the reference depends of what each of us is chasing in our system, perhaps accuracy, perhaps passion or emotional connection, perhaps that experience of 'being there'

[rantan]

LOL




..................and The Prof's last post sums it all up nicely.

Edited by rantan, 04 July 2012 - 05:52 PM.

[Dr X]

So perhaps the length of this thread results from the confusing nature of the question: perhaps there is no 'right or wrong' single reference, perhaps the reference depends of what each of us is chasing in our system, perhaps accuracy, perhaps passion or emotional connection, perhaps that experience of 'being there'

This is really an accuracy vs musicality thread from a different angle.
To look at it from Arg's angle...I personally agree with him.

[surfpurple]

So perhaps the length of this thread results from the confusing nature of the question: perhaps there is no 'right or wrong' single reference, perhaps the reference depends of what each of us is chasing in our system, perhaps accuracy, perhaps passion or emotional connection, perhaps that experience of 'being there'

I agree with Prof.

He put it well in such few words!

[rantan]

This is really an accuracy vs musicality thread from a different angle.

Exactly.

[Dr X]

So perhaps the length of this thread results from the confusing nature of the question: perhaps there is no 'right or wrong' single reference, perhaps the reference depends of what each of us is chasing in our system, perhaps accuracy, perhaps passion or emotional connection, perhaps that experience of 'being there'

Perhaps chasing accuracy...will result in the other objectives you listed...just falling into place?
Perhaps chasing accuracy...will fulfill tthe other objectives you listed...better than any "musical" method might achieve.
I think it's completely wrong to think that a 100% accuracte transducer...cannot make a grown man cry!

[proftournesol]

Perhaps chasing accuracy...will result in the other objectives you listed...just falling into place?
Perhaps chasing accuracy...will fulfill tthe other objectives you listed...better than any "musical" method might achieve.
I think it's completely wrong to think that a 100% accuracte transducer...cannot make a grown man cry!

I think that accurate and musical mean the same thing but that really informs you what my 'gold standard' is rather than it being a universal truth for everyone. Remember we play music for entertainment and for what it offers to our soul, not as a scientific experiment.

[Dr X]

I think that accurate and musical mean the same thing but that really informs you what my 'gold standard' is rather than it being a universal truth for everyone. Remember we play music for entertainment and for what it offers to our soul, not as a scientific experiment.

I think you're imagining things if you think anybody who contributes to this forum is really interested in sceintific experiments, at least before their enjoyment of music anyway.
I'm pretty confident we're all music lovers here mate!

[proftournesol]

I'm pleased to be wrong, sometimes it seems that some are much more interested in conducting experiments than enjoying music

[surfpurple]

'Accuracy' is only relevant to the 'original source' (ie: the master AND what it was meant to sound like on 'engineering equipment').

NO one is going to have the same equipment to 'reproduce' the master accurately, therefore there can be NO way that we can achieve an 'accurate' representation of the 'production'! Period!

[datafone]

I bet myself a Coopers Pale Ale you were going to say that

Better have another one, for me