amazing miracle device
 

Paul wrote:

The source signal, regardless of how it is captured, is the source
signal that we have to work with.
Undoubtedly it is tainted by many things (as well as the engineers
preference).
This thing of concern to me is how I can best reproduce the program
content of the master.
Whatever its 'quality', that is the reference by which we determine
fidelity within our systems is it not?
How well a system can faithfully reproduce the signal *presented to
it* is how I determine High Fidelity.

Fair comment. I don't particularly subscribe to the idea of trying to
attain, or even define, the 'best' - at a certain point, it becomes 'good
enough'. Rather, given that things like speakers add much more colouration
than the electronic bits, improving the latter rapidly becomes a diminishing
returns game. Ultimately, it's all an approximation, and I fimly believe
that 'sounds good to me' is an important 'measurement goal' to aim for,
regardless of what the numbers might suggest.

I can appreciate the desire for ever more detail in a home recording set up,
especially if you play an 'analogue' instrument like a guitar. When you know
your instrument, you can be aware of lots of subtle little sonic effects
that go on behind the notes and rythm of the piece being played (finger and
pick noises, string interactions, resonances, etc). For me (guitarist), this
sort of stuff is very much part of the texture of the sound, and something
I'd want to capture if I was recording my guitar playing.

On a related note, have you heard the Filippa Giordano CD? She sings a bunch
of arias, close-miked in a studio, presumably with reverby stuff added
electronically. It differs from live operatic stuff in that you can really
hear the subtleties of her singing and voicing. I'd *rather* hear this than
the same performance in a large hall. For 'fidelity' purposes, that is - I'd
happily go and see her live in any case.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
Stress: You wake up screaming and realise you haven't fallen asleep yet.

amazing miracle device
 

In article ,
Wally wrote:
So called nearfield monitors are often the same in different studios,
though.

What is it that makes them 'nearfield'?

You have them so close they're not so much effected by room acoustics, etc.

Do they lose something if they're
used at normal living room distances?

No - they are - or were - often mid priced domestic units. Of course many
pro makers have such things in their catalogues. I'm not sure what's
flavour of the month at the moment.

IOW, would they be okay as mid/top for
domestic use if the bass was filled by something else?

They are nominally full range units - although due to their size probably
lack the bottom octave.

--
*I can see your point, but I still think you're full of ****.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

amazing miracle device
 

Fair comment. I don't particularly subscribe to the idea of trying to
attain, or even define, the 'best' - at a certain point, it becomes 'good
enough'.

The level of attainment at which a systems capability becomes 'good enough'
will obviously vary between listeners. Additionally, a declaration of 'good
enough' clearly implies an awareness and acknowledgement that it is not the
best. However, having reached that threshold, I too would see no point in
throwing more money, time and effort at it.
In my case I have yet to reach that level.
The 'best', I believe, is already (or can be) defined as the highest level
of fidelity that can be achieved with available technology.
An objection I have is with those that wish to translate 'good enough' (for
them) into 'best' and then attempt to 'sell' it to others.

... Ultimately, it's all an approximation, and I fimly believe
that 'sounds good to me' is an important 'measurement goal' to aim for,
regardless of what the numbers might suggest.


I do not agree that it is a 'measurement' goal as such - rather, in my
opinion, the 'sounds good to me' factor tends to 'creep up' on the listener
without any forethought by him/her. If I am correct, I would agree that
specifications are largely irrelevant in reaching an acceptable satisfaction
level for some.
However, this is perhaps a grey area. Would you buy the first system that
sounds good to you? I suspect not. I am not a betting man, but if I were,
I'd put money on you continuing to audition kit. Before I parted with my
cash, I would be thinking 'I'd be happy with that but can I do better for
the money?' and I suspect you would do too. There we are - the quest begins
(or continues).

I can appreciate the desire for ever more detail in a home recording set
up,
especially if you play an 'analogue' instrument like a guitar. When you
know
your instrument, you can be aware of lots of subtle little sonic effects
that go on behind the notes and rythm of the piece being played (finger
and
pick noises, string interactions, resonances, etc). For me (guitarist),
this
sort of stuff is very much part of the texture of the sound, and something
I'd want to capture if I was recording my guitar playing.

I could not agree more. Without said nuances (the product of both instrument
and musician) the guitar would be a completely different instrument. It is
*vital* that every effort is made to capture the *entire* performance.
Certainly, if this was of no importance to me I would have wasted a small
fortune on my acoustic guitars :)


On a related note, have you heard the Filippa Giordano CD? She sings a
bunch
of arias, close-miked in a studio, presumably with reverby stuff added
electronically. It differs from live operatic stuff in that you can really
hear the subtleties of her singing and voicing. I'd *rather* hear this
than
the same performance in a large hall. For 'fidelity' purposes, that is -
I'd
happily go and see her live in any case.


No I haven't. I must admit to not being an avid lover of opera (although
some I have heard is brilliant!).
Your description does sound good to me though.
I'll try my local library - could get lucky and find it there.

Paul.