More 'Audiophile' bullsh*t

[TonyRPH]

If you have an eclectic taste in music - Radio Paradise is worth a listen.

No adverts either - just music, music, and more music!

And they have some very high quality streams too.

[jmorgan]

Cheers. Might have a pop over later and see what it is like.

[gpo746]

haha I know its not audio so you can have a go if you want but this caught my eye
I cant think theres anything wrong with ours as it is

http://www.whathifi.com/news/russ-andrews-tunes-up...

[TonyRPH]

gpo746 said:

haha I know its not audio so you can have a go if you want but this caught my eye
I cant think theres anything wrong with ours as it is

http://www.whathifi.com/news/russ-andrews-tunes-up...

And some great comments there about it too lol.

[Globs]

TonyRPH said:

gpo746 said:

haha I know its not audio so you can have a go if you want but this caught my eye
I cant think theres anything wrong with ours as it is

http://www.whathifi.com/news/russ-andrews-tunes-up...

And some great comments there about it too lol.

Snake oil salesmen can't do anything else so they keep on at it.

http://asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2011/1/Rus...

[gpo746]

haha I bet they go round all the branches of cash converters buying these up to sell on....

http://www.russandrews.com/product.asp?lookup=1&am...

can you imagine if you got one of them and it went wrong and sky gave you a cheapo box back

[Crackie]

loughran said:

It is impossible to reproduce the sound of a live performance in your listening room.

to think any hi-fi system, however magnificent, could replicate that is frankly ridiculous.

Any body who thinks that.... are, quite frankly, delusional.

I agree that its not possible to reproduce the sound of a live performance in a listening room but what's the best you've heard and how close ( % )to live sound do you think it got ?

[probedb]

Crackie said:

I agree that its not possible to reproduce the sound of a live performance in a listening room but what's the best you've heard and how close ( % )to live sound do you think it got ?

Studio recordings never sound like a live performance. Even live albums are mixed to be listened to through a hi-fi/home cinema so I'm not sure you can even suggest getting close to the experience. If you had a PA system and the raw recording from a live set then maybe you'd get close.

But you can't compare the experience of seeing/hearing a band live to listening to them in your own room, they're different experiences. Plus, you'd need someone to barge passed you several times and possibly even be hit by flying beer. Let's not even talk about having a one person circle pit

[Bullett]

You might get close with some classical type music. Modern band or pop music no chance as it is built up and processed in the studio and not performed. Plus it will be mixed and then mastered for the most impact often to the detriment of the actual music (see loudness wars).

[Crackie]

probedb said:

Crackie said:

I agree that its not possible to reproduce the sound of a live performance in a listening room but what's the best you've heard and how close ( % )to live sound do you think it got ?

Studio recordings never sound like a live performance. Even live albums are mixed to be listened to through a hi-fi/home cinema so I'm not sure you can even suggest getting close to the experience. If you had a PA system and the raw recording from a live set then maybe you'd get close.

But you can't compare the experience of seeing/hearing a band live to listening to them in your own room, they're different experiences. Plus, you'd need someone to barge passed you several times and possibly even be hit by flying beer. Let's not even talk about having a one person circle pit

The recording and playback venues are very big factors. The average listening room has standing waves which have a huge influence on amplitude below 500Hz and reproducing the acoustic of a much larger venue or outdoor concert is very difficult. IMHO best speaker systems can achieve results, with vocals and acoustic instruments, which are extremely close to live when recording and playback venues are the same or of very similar size. http://www.stereophile.com/ces2010/live_ivsi_recor...

John Dunlavy arguably designed the worlds most accurate speakers; he used "comparative listening" to verify their measured performance. This involved comparing a speaker's output to live music; Dunlavy carried out extensive "live vs recorded" tests, he used one of the large anechoic chambers at his Colorado factory to record classical chamber music and soloists. He played back the recordings through his speakers and invited people to compare the sound with the performers, hidden by a curtain, playing live between the speakers. Some people could tell the difference, many could not. He also worked with the Colorado Springs Symphony Orchestra to make recordings and then used these master tapes to check his speaker designs' accuracy. http://www.stereophile.com/interviews/163

Edited by Crackie on Tuesday 11th June 22:58

[probedb]

Crackie said:

The recording and playback venues are very big factors. The average listening room has standing waves which have a huge influence on amplitude below 500Hz and reproducing the acoustic of a much larger venue or outdoor concert is very difficult. IMHO best speaker systems can achieve results, with vocals and acoustic instruments, which are extremely close to live when recording and playback venues are the same or of very similar size. http://www.stereophile.com/ces2010/live_ivsi_recor...

John Dunlavy arguably designed the worlds most accurate speakers; he used "comparative listening" to verify their measured performance. This involved comparing a speaker's output to live music; Dunlavy carried out extensive "live vs recorded" tests, he used one of the large anechoic chambers at his Colorado factory to record classical chamber music and soloists. He played back the recordings through his speakers and invited people to compare the sound with the performers, hidden by a curtain, playing live between the speakers. Some people could tell the difference, many could not. He also worked with the Colorado Springs Symphony Orchestra to make recordings and then used these master tapes to check his speaker designs' accuracy. http://www.stereophile.com/interviews/163

Edited by Crackie on Tuesday 11th June 22:58

But none of that matters as no-one has a 'large anechoic chamber' in their house.

My point still stands that albums are mixed for listening to at home and not to sound live the performers on stage. So surely in this situation if you want accuracy you want it to sound like it sounded to the mixing guy in the studio when it was mixed. Preferably mixed by someone who doesn't turn everything up to 11

[Crackie]

probedb said:

Crackie said:

The recording and playback venues are very big factors. The average listening room has standing waves which have a huge influence on amplitude below 500Hz and reproducing the acoustic of a much larger venue or outdoor concert is very difficult. IMHO best speaker systems can achieve results, with vocals and acoustic instruments, which are extremely close to live when recording and playback venues are the same or of very similar size. http://www.stereophile.com/ces2010/live_ivsi_recor...

John Dunlavy arguably designed the worlds most accurate speakers; he used "comparative listening" to verify their measured performance. This involved comparing a speaker's output to live music; Dunlavy carried out extensive "live vs recorded" tests, he used one of the large anechoic chambers at his Colorado factory to record classical chamber music and soloists. He played back the recordings through his speakers and invited people to compare the sound with the performers, hidden by a curtain, playing live between the speakers. Some people could tell the difference, many could not. He also worked with the Colorado Springs Symphony Orchestra to make recordings and then used these master tapes to check his speaker designs' accuracy. http://www.stereophile.com/interviews/163

Edited by Crackie on Tuesday 11th June 22:58

But none of that matters as no-one has a 'large anechoic chamber' in their house.

My point still stands that albums are mixed for listening to at home and not to sound live the performers on stage. So surely in this situation if you want accuracy you want it to sound like it sounded to the mixing guy in the studio when it was mixed. Preferably mixed by someone who doesn't turn everything up to 11

I think it is all that matters.............. imho the live verses recorded test process is the most accurate test available; how accurately does a record / playback system reproduce a performance when playing back that same event in the very same room the performance took place? If a listener cannot distinguish between the live performance and the recording of that performance then, clearly, it is an extremely accurate recording / playback chain.

The speaker designer has no influence on where the speakers are used; the best he can hope to achieve are accurate impulse, step, phase and amplitude responses etc etc etc. For passive speakers, amongst other things, this requires non resonant enclosures, time aligned wide bandwidth drivers, phase accurate ( 1st order )crossovers, baffle step compensation, control of cabinet diffraction etc etc etc etc. There is a reason why John Dunlavy's designs are well thought of by professionals. http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_highend_studio_moni...

In my experience, a pair of well set up Duntechs or Dunlavys playing in a good room is easily capable of creating the illusion of a real musical event in that room. IMHO of course. Try and get to hear a pair of DAL SC-V or SC-1V and I'd be very surprised if you didn't agree.

Edited by Crackie on Tuesday 18th June 19:20

[TonyRPH]

Playback in the home is always going to be a compromise anyway.

There are so many variables to consider and I think the best one can hope for is a reasonable facsimile of the original sound as heard in the studio.

Likewise - when a live performance is mastered - surely said performance is being monitored and mixed in the same way as a studio recording?

So who's to say that what the engineer is hearing is an accurate rendition of the live performance? After all, he can hardly go out into the stage area and compare the sound with what he's hearing through the monitors in his mixing environment can he?

So at the end of the day - if, when you sit down and listen to a performance on your home system (live or studio recording) you're satisfied with what you're hearing, that's all that matters surely?

[LordLoveLength]

TonyRPH said:

Playback in the home is always going to be a compromise anyway.

Likewise - when a live performance is mastered - surely said performance is being monitored and mixed in the same way as a studio recording?

So who's to say that what the engineer is hearing is an accurate rendition of the live performance? After all, he can hardly go out into the stage area and compare the sound with what he's hearing through the monitors in his mixing environment can he?

Live performances are normally recorded as multichannel / multitrack. You wouldn't normally mix down at that stage (unless you really needed to eg live broadcast). Auditorium sound (if it exists) is usually mixed down by a separate mixer and engineer in the auditorium.

During the rigging and rehearsal the engineer will spend a lot of time listening on the stage whilst positioning microphones. They know what they are listening for and what the final sound will be. The big differences will be in the mixdown and mastering.

During mixdown most engineers usually have a pair of nearfield monitors (you often see Yamamha NS10s in recording studio photos) which are used to get an idea of what the mix will sound like in a typical home environment.

As said earlier in the thread, the final mastering process is where it usually goes wrong, with things being 'normalised' to give a 'better' sound. It will no longer sound anything like the final mixdown! This is then the consumer release.

Worth noting that during this process the signal will have passed through many metres of cable, many many opamps and connectors of differing types. All this is fixed in the media of the released recording. Quite how one 'special' connector or cable at the replay end of all this manages to make such an enormous difference to the sound (as well as wallet)is beyond me.

[PJ S]

Again I reiterate, the true audiophile understands and knows they can't better the sound that's on the disc, but use various accessories to prevent degradation of the sound through their playback chain.

It's the equivalent of looking at a painting with glasses on.
Ideally you'd want to have no glasses at all, but as you do, you want them to be as optically transparent as possible, and with no shifts in the colour spectrum.
Anything which presents the viewer with a purer view of the painting, will be used even if others claim the item(s) can't be measurably proven to have a beneficial effect.

[jmorgan]

I expect there are gains to be had but. But at what point do they alter the original if they were ever close to it and at what point is it the shiny=good syndrome? If there was a formula for the perfect sound then all kit would probably sound the same. So what I read on some sites, the reviews that is, they are all a bit different, which one combination is the right one? Subjective me thinks not actual that is what it is meant to sound like.

Reminds me of a science show once comparing a modern cheap watch to an expensive one. Both will probably keep good time, the cheaper may even end up being the better depending on luck with the construction and integration of the crystal used to get the timing pulse.

If I could spend more I probably would that is because I want to have a Linn or want those speakers, not because they will improve anything, but because I like them.

Re painting analogy, depends if they were a crap painter or not..... source material is never guaranteed


But if it floats your boat, carry on.

Might get out a scratchy War of the Worlds later for a spin.

[Crackie]

PJ S said:

Again I reiterate, the true audiophile understands and knows they can't better the sound that's on the disc, but use various accessories to prevent degradation of the sound through their playback chain.

You can't better what's on the disc; any difference is a deviation from what the artist, recording engineer, producer, mixer, etc wanted. The very best systems can approach the levels where live and recorded are indistinguishable but as has been said earlier in the thread, many recordings are not produced to sound like the artist is playing live in your home.

Most domestic systems will never get close recreating a realistic performance because very few are capable of generating the SPLs and dynamics that real instruments can. eg. 88db speaker + 100w amp still only capable of 105db when listening 2m away. Real instruments are capable of well over 120db+ ; the same 88db speakers would need a 6310w amp to make 120db at 2m.

[TonyRPH]

Crackie said:

You can't better what's on the disc; any difference is a deviation from what the artist, recording engineer, producer, mixer, etc wanted. The very best systems can approach the levels where live and recorded are indistinguishable but as has been said earlier in the thread, many recordings are not produced to sound like the artist is playing live in your home.

I don't think anyone is trying to better what's on disc - that would be impossible.

Garbage in - garbage out.

As I stated earlier in the thread - I just want to give the disc the best chance to sound as good as it can, and I believe that going to extremes with cables etc. is a waste, preferring to optimise the equipment I have with careful siting, keeping discs and contacts clean etc.

Crackie said:

Most domestic systems will never get close recreating a realistic performance because very few are capable of generating the SPLs and dynamics that real instruments can. eg. 88db speaker + 100w amp still only capable of 105db when listening 2m away. Real instruments are capable of well over 120db+ ; the same 88db speakers would need a 6310w amp to make 120db at 2m.

That's a fair comment - but having had a three piece band playing in my 12' x 13' living room, I wouldn't want such high levels anyway - the live band was *way* too loud, so I can't see the point of aiming for such high levels.

I had had various amps of various output power over the years, and one amp in particular (a NAD 2200) was capable of silly output power (150w + per channel into 4 ohms) and when used with my old Paradigm Monitor 7 speakers, I could wind it up that loud that I wanted to retreat from the room.

Personally - with speakers of an average efficiency, anything over 60w per channel is enough in my room.

Obviously, those of us lucky enough to own a mansion will need far greater power.

ETA: On the subject of cables ewtc. - I recently 'built' a mains filter with parts pillaged from an APC 3kW UPS.

I was actually quite dissapointed when testing it in my system.

1) Did it make the sound "darker"? - No.
2) Did it make the sound better? - No.
3) Did it reduce interference? - I don't know - because my mains is pretty clean anyway.

Here's picture for those interested...

Edited by TonyRPH on Thursday 13th June 09:10

[Crackie]

TonyRPH said:

I had had various amps of various output power over the years, and one amp in particular (a NAD 2200) was capable of silly output power (150w + per channel into 4 ohms) and when used with my old Paradigm Monitor 7 speakers, I could wind it up that loud that I wanted to retreat from the room.

Personally - with speakers of an average efficiency, anything over 60w per channel is enough in my room.

Obviously, those of us lucky enough to own a mansion will need far greater power.

Hi Tony, of course it does depend what playback level you are comfortable with; not everyone wants to listen at realistic volume levels. I agree; 100db max is enough for most people; an average pair of speakers (87-88db) + 60w amp would produce 100db in an average sized room when listened to 2.5m away.

[TonyRPH]

Just while people who may possibly be involved with the recording industry are reading this topic...

I started this thread which I will reproduce below.

Any offers of help welcome!

TonyRPH said:

As per the title, I'm looking for anyone who has access to a Dolby 'A' and DBX decoder.

I have a CD that has a really odd sound contour on it - it almost sounds like playing a Dolby encoded tape back with Dolby switched out (but slightly different) - or possibly even DBX encoded material without a DBX encoder.

So I was wondering if I could make a rip of said CD available - could somebody run a couple of tracks through the above mentioned decoders to see if it improves things?

I think it's unlikely a record company would release a CD without putting it through the correct decoding first, but stranger things have happened!!

Oh, and I have tried running it through 'sox' and applying de-emphasis - as that was my first thought - and although this improved matters - it still sounds wrong (very bright and sibilant).

For those wondering - the CD concerned is Yes - Live from house of blues.

TIA.