In article . com,
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
Absolutely they are different issues. unfortunately for we the
audiophile public they are not seperate issues in practice. If an LP
sounds better than it's CD counterpart it doesn't matter to us why.
It should. The point being that if you know *why* the two may "sound
different" then you may be able to shine a light onto those who make
them "different" as a result of ignorance or idiocy.
You must be kidding. so you expect consumers to give technical advice
to pros based on auditions? Sory that is ridiculous.
....and also not what I actually said. :-)
The only thing we can do is offer our aesthetic impressions.
Only if you decide to limit what you are prepared to do to such
"impressions". But that is your individual choice, not a limitation imposed
by the real world. :-)
The point here is that it is open to you, and to others, to do comparisons
and other tests which could be more than just an "aesthetic impression."
But this does involve engaging in the kind of process I keep explaining,
and requires people to give the details for others to assess.
Consider the possibility: If we and the magazine reviews set out to
identify why a CD "sounds different" to the nominally equivalent LP,
then we could use that knowledge to get them to improve what they
offer - perhaps for *both* formats.
Consider the possibility. The people making audiophile recordings are
already doing everything they can to make the best sounding CDs, LPs etc
and the big labels who produce the majority of crap sounding product
don't care about audiophiles that much because they represent such a
small piece of the pie.
That is certainly part of the problem. But the other part is that the
companies concerned tend to escape anyone detecting the specific and
correctable flaws in what they produce. The reason being the reviewers in
audio mags simply ignore poor recordings, and show no interest in finding
out why they are poor.
Also: Even those who are doing "everything they can" will probably still
be hoping to learn and improve their skills and levels of understanding.
For that process, reliable evidence and rational consideration may
well be helpful for them.
I am curious, what do you think you have to offer to Doug Sax, Kevin
Gray, Steve Hoffman, Dave Chesky, Kieth Johnson , Kavi Alexander etc etc
in the way of technical advice? yeah experts always benefit from
technical advice from the neophytes and armchair quarterbacks. not.
....but as you indicate above, the real problems are not with those who
apply skill and understanding to create excellent results. It is with the
companies why cynically or ignorantly produce lousy results - so long as
they can get people to buy them without realising they could be better if
made with care.
Or is your argument that such people are gurus who know all and never
will need to learn anything in the future?
I have no reason to think I could give them any specific advice. But
I assume that they would be open to any advice offered *provided* it
was given on the basis of relevant evidence and they could decide
for themselves how any tests or experiment that prompted the advice
were done. i.e. not simply a matter of "believe what gurus say, and
ignore anyone else you've never heard of."
Certainly my experience of other people in audio in the past was that
they were quite willing to consider evidence and rational arguments,
and to expect to continually learn. Up to them what they then agreed
with or not, though.
What advice can we give to those who apply care and understanding? Simply
to encourage them to go on doing so, and if we can help find issues that
might be useful, to do so.
What advice can we give to those who *don't*? To find out the reasons
their products are poor and give them the knowledge the lack, and to make
clear to them that we have identified what they are doing wrong and object
to it.
This isn't a matter of what I or you can do as isolated individuals. It
is something *we* can do if we promote understanding and are willing
to share evidence, experiment in critical and relevant ways, etc.
Of course, the people you mention may well have a level of skill and
understanding in some matters which exceeds your or mine. But this does
not mean that we can't consider what you report in the light of the
details of how you reach the conclusions you have asserted and come
to our own indivudual views of the reliability of what you claim.
So quoting the above list does not affect the status of what you or
I say.
Or was your meaning that what you say is authorised by some of the
people you list, and said on their behalf? Are you saying that when
you claim that that you have heard CDR copies of LPs, that they
made the copies and ran the tests you participated in?
It occurs to me to make another point about your question.
It seems to me to overlook much of the reality of the situation.
This is for two related reasons. Most of the recordings people
buy (and whose content they generally enjoy) weren't made by
the select band of people who have an 'audiophile reputation'.
Nor were the produced and delivered by a single person.
Most of the recordings people buy are made and distributed
on what could be called and industrialised process. This
may involve various stages where those involved had little
to do with the musicians or the studio, and may just want
to fullfill their job requirement to make x thousand copies
per week, and have them sell and not be returned.
In such processes is it quite easy to have a situation where
the musicians and those in the recording studio were skilled
and dedicated, and produced an an excellent recording - but
the product that is then sold the individual customer may
simply fail to match that.
The obvious example with LP was the way the factories often
produced discs which were scratched, damaged, shaped like
a fruit bowl, or had a 'center' sic hole that was well
away from the actual center of the groove spirals.
With CD the physical production tends to be less likely to
cause problems. But there may well be some mistake made in
between the original recordings sessions and the industrially
produced copies.
I recall that the buying of LPs was a frustrating process.
This was because if you wanted the performances of your
preferred artists you then tended to have to buy them from
the company who had them under contract. If that company
produced LPs that were made with a lack of care, it
would mean either putting up with an LP that had obvious
and annoying audible problems, or being willing to keep
returning them for replacement, searching for an acceptable
copy.
One of the things I like about CD is that it largely freed
me from the above annoyance. No more pops and crackles,
not more wildly off-center pressings.
If it was reasonable to return such LPs and tell the shop
or company why you were doing so, it seems reasonable to
me if people wished to do the same for a CD, or any format.
But this may involve more than saying "I don't like this".
It may help to be able to give a reason that would guide those
involved to focus on what they could do to reduce the rate
of returns.
Of course, some of those involved won't care, and won't amend
any poor practices. But others may well care, and also want
to ensure their future employment by trying to deal with any
problems which have been identified. In this way we can at
least try to support those who want to do a good job, and
show up those who do not.
BTW I note from the names in your list and your reference to
"quarterbacks" that you may have a USA bias in your list. :-)
It may be useful to point out that for some years I was involved
with one of the UK specialist labels. Some people here may be
familiar with the name of Mike Dutton. I can't say that I have
many 'audiophile' recordings. But I do have some which seem to
me to be excellent, and which deliver to me the ability to
enjoy the music they convey with no awarness that I am
using either a CD or an LP.
Alas, I also have both CDs and LPs which show clear audible
problems. Not all of these are due to the original musicians
or the engineers, etc, in the studio when the recording was
made.
Perhaps the situation is very different in the USA. I'm afraid
I can only base my comments on what I know of the situation
with music companies and magazines in the UK. Perhaps you
are unfamiliar with that.
You just have to be prepared to try and find it, not leave it as a
mystery. :-)
No we as consumers do not have to be prepared to do anything except
offer our aesthetic opinions. It is up the the folks making this stuff
to deal with it.
You may regard yourself only as a "consumer". That is for you to decide.
I regard myself as someone who is not just a "consumer". I also want to
understand what is on offer, and how it might be flawed, or could be
improved, and thus be more involved, and to learn. It also allows me to
some extent to discriminate and choose on the basis of some understanding,
not just on a case-by-case basis.
FWIW I have designed and tested audio equipment on both a professional
and an amateur basis over the years. I also still do so to a limited
extent, and try to report what I think I have learned or discovered.
I doubt I will appear in any lists of gurus as a result. :-) But I
do it because it interests me to do so, and I hope that some people
at least find the results useful or interesting as well.
I suppose it is largely because I like to understand things, and am curious
about how things work. But perhaps some people simply lack this curiosity.
Of course, even as a "consumer" I can reject items that are not fit for
purpose and identify the reasons when I do so. As Iain would probably
agree, some companies will take this seriously. Others may not, alas.
You can't fix a poorly mastered CD no matter how much you love the
medium.
Well, that would depend on what way it was "poorly mastered". However
if it is poor, and people can be specific, you can then use this
understanding to apply pressure on the company involved to do better
in future.
You can apply that same preasure without offering an uninformed
inexperienced opinion on why.
....or offer it on the basis of having some specific points for which you
have evidence others can assess for themselves, and is then public
knowledge - thus meaning that the recording companies will know that others
will considering the evidence as well, and may judge their reactions
accordingly.
The distinction here is simply saying the result is poor may give no
guide as to what might be done to make the next attempt better. But
trying to identify specific possible reasons, based on some evidence,
may well be very useful in allowing someone to deal with the reasons
and do better.
You can just cut to the chase and say what it is you like and dont like
abou what you hear. Guess what, A lot of us are already doing that with
the audiophile labels. What are you doing?
I am in part acting as a consumer with my own aesthetic preferences as you
describe. :-) However I am also trying to find out if there are any
specific engineering reasons which can then be used by others to help
inform their own choices, and provide useful feedback for those involved.
The folks I know who actually communicate with these companies, myself
included, offfer our praise and our dissatisfatcion on a title by title
basis. To offer some lame uninformed technical advice will most likely
lead to some laughs behind our backs and less regard for our opinions on
the quality of the product.
I am sure it would if what was offered was "lame uniformed advice". But
what if it was actually "useful and perceptive advice"?... :-)
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
Too neat to waste...
Linear Mode
