In article , Iain M Churches
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:03:09 +0200, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

You could follow the KISS thread in RAT so far, and see if you agree
with what Andre has written to date. RAT is a friendly NG with a
large number of very well informed subscribers.

Indeed it is - and some extremely ill-informed ones! :-)

It is also a pleasure to follow a group (RAT) where each and every
thread does not turn into "all good SS amps sound the same - identical
to the input" :-))

This brings to a mind a question I have been meaning to ask you, but have
only now got around to... :-)

When producing/balancing/mixing/etc a recording and adjusting the results,
monitoring what you then get (hear) I am wondering what you have in mind in
the following terms:

When you then output a set of waveforms (e.g. in the form of sets of sample
values to define the waveforms to be recorded/distributed on CD's, etc) is
the implict assumption (or consious intent) that these should be the
waveforms that will be presented to the loudspeaker terminals of the
listener who has a 'good' system? Or is it that this represents the
pressure waveforms you wish the speakers to radiate to their ears? Or what,
exactly?

The question really boils down to, when you decide a given result
heard/observed by you during this process is 'right', how do you set about
providing that for the customer (buyer of the CD, etc). Or is it your
assumption that what you are doing has no defined relationship with what
the customer should hear? I am trying to clarify what the actual purpose of
the balancing/mixing/monitoring, etc, is in terms of what you aim to
deliver to the customer.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html