wrote:

An individual's preference cannot be expressed, or measured, in
terms of "9 out of 10 cats prefer".

no one said it could.

---------------------------------
andy wrote:
Wally wrote:
How do you measure "sounds better"?

You measure it in the same way as other preferences. How do we know
that more people prefer Coke to Pepsi and that 9 out of 10 cats prefer
Kat-E-Chunks?
---------------------------------


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
Call me a saint, call me a sinner - just don't call me... late for
dinner.

Eeyore wrote:
Keith G wrote:

It looks like you're doing perfectly fine, but it might help you to know
that some of choose to use valves for a greater sense of realism *and*
naturalness. What makes me die is some of these clowns think we would
*actually* choose summat that sounded *worse* (than SS)....???

Let me put the following suggestion to you.

Let's imagine we have a superlative recodring but made ina near anechoic
environment.

When played back it sounds 'lifeless' from the absence of natural reverberation.

Would discretely adding an effect in the form of artifical reverb be more or
less 'accurate', realisitic, natural or 'better' ?



Less accurate for sure if there is substantial reverb added. realistic/
depends on your reference. If your reference is the same perofmance in
a naturally reverberant envirement then it will likely sound more
realistic. If you use that performance in an anechoic chamber as your
reference then it will likely sound far less realistic. Since most of
us listen to live music in a naturally reverberant envirement your
particular example is plainly misleading. Was that by accident or on
purpose?


Scott

Eeyore wrote:

It looks like you're doing perfectly fine, but it might help you to
know that some of choose to use valves for a greater sense of
realism *and* naturalness. What makes me die is some of these clowns
think we would *actually* choose summat that sounded *worse* (than
SS)....???

So how do you explain that the recording travelled intact through an
entirely ss recording and production chain - only to be be allegedly
'revealed' by the sonic purity of thermionics at the 'eleventh hour' ?

Perhaps I missed it - where does he say that something was being "revealed"?


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

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Eeyore wrote:

It looks like you're doing perfectly fine, but it might help you to
know that some of choose to use valves for a greater sense of
realism *and* naturalness. What makes me die is some of these clowns
think we would *actually* choose summat that sounded *worse* (than
SS)....???

So how do you explain that the recording travelled intact through an
entirely ss recording and production chain - only to be be allegedly
'revealed' by the sonic purity of thermionics at the 'eleventh hour' ?

Perhaps I missed it - where does he say that something was being
"revealed"?



That wattock still at it?

They see everything they want to see in your posts and nothing of what you
actually wrote. (Standard Procedure - make it what you want to be, just like
most *measurements*....)

What bits of that clown's posts I do get to see remind me very much of
Plowie - always putting words in your mouth and tricky little posts trying
to catch you out! I've said it a thousand times - I don't give a rats what
went into the creation of the product (digital, analogue, SS or valve) that
I'm about to play, all I care about is what sounds best *when* I play it!
How difficult is that...??

(I suspect these 'accurist' Denial Boyz can *only* rely on measurements - it
seems they sure as hell can't *hear* the differences....)

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:


Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...

It's almost unkown to come
across a valve amp in a studio monitor setup.

Hold on a moment, Graham. I know some five or six which
offer valve amp monitoring as an option. Our own mobile set
up includes a Radford STA100 which clients often choose.

Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims..

Like the one you made above? :-)))

I've yet to meet one in any studio that I've come across.

Most studios will be happy to supply any monitoring amps and speakers a
client requires. It's just that *most* clients wouldn't dream of asking
for antiques...

--
*All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my hand *

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

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
Well, Iain, I've said it before and I'll say it again. If the valve
amp sounds better, it belongs in the recording chain, not the
monitoring side chain. The only people who can hear the "benefit" of
it there are the folks in the control room. Why would they be so mean
spirited as to deny the experience to the final listener?

Iain is obviously a wonderful salesman for his own hire equipment
portfolio. Don't knock it - money is extremely important to him.
Perhaps he should add some of Keith's home made amps and speakers to it
too.
There will be a client somewhere who prefers that sound.

--
*To be intoxicated is to feel sophisticated, but not be able to say it.

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

In article .com,
wrote:
I have a bit of news for you. Tubes are commonly used by the folks
making the best recordings and masterings. I'm not interested in what
the folks producing crap use other than to avoid it.

You mean all the best recordings are made *totally* with valve equipment?

--
*Men are from Earth, women are from Earth. Deal with it.

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

Keith G wrote:

That wattock still at it?

They see everything they want to see in your posts and nothing of
what you actually wrote. (Standard Procedure - make it what you want
to be, just like most *measurements*....)

Perhaps it was a definitional transmogrification.


What bits of that clown's posts I do get to see remind me very much of
Plowie - always putting words in your mouth and tricky little posts
trying to catch you out! I've said it a thousand times - I don't give
a rats what went into the creation of the product (digital, analogue,
SS or valve) that I'm about to play, all I care about is what sounds
best *when* I play it! How difficult is that...??

**** easy, actually. One instinctively knows when something is right. Class
always shines through. The pukka **** grabs you by the boo-boo. It is a
directly perceived phenomenon.


(I suspect these 'accurist' Denial Boyz can *only* rely on
measurements - it seems they sure as hell can't *hear* the
differences....)

The thing that gets me about the accuracy game is that it seems to assume
that accurate is the best sound to aim for, and that many of its proponents
think that accurate is the best sound for *everyone* to aim for. I think
that's debatable - hearing differs, and it can't be said that, if an
instrument grates on someone when played live, the best way for them to
reproduce it is accurately - 'cos it'll still grate. Their best bet is to do
something like twiddle the tone controls (get different kit, whatever) until
they get something that works for them.

In defence of the meter-toting scope jockeys [ ;-) ], I would say that
there's nowt wrong with aiming for an accurate set up and then tweaking
things until the pukka **** grabs you by the boo-boo. That's why my DSP
bass-tweaker doohickey ain't flat to 25Hz, but has a nice, rising curve to
+6dB as it goes down. :-)


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

wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

No. What we're talking abou is the confusion of objective science with
subjective preferences, with the subjectivists believing that 'what they like'
must be inherently technically superior but with no regard to any supporting
science and a wholesale dismissal of the science that counters their ideas.

If it sounds better

Whose idea of 'better' ?

Who ever is listening.

So really whatever you think is better only applies to you.

Graham

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
Well, Iain, I've said it before and I'll say it again. If the valve
amp sounds better, it belongs in the recording chain, not the
monitoring side chain. The only people who can hear the "benefit" of
it there are the folks in the control room. Why would they be so mean
spirited as to deny the experience to the final listener?

Iain is obviously a wonderful salesman for his own hire equipment
portfolio. Don't knock it - money is extremely important to him.
Perhaps he should add some of Keith's home made amps and speakers to it
too.
There will be a client somewhere who prefers that sound.


:-)

Give yourself a treat Plowie and take a trip to LowtherLand:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Lowther01.JPG

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Lowther02.JPG

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Lowther03.JPG

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Lowther04.JPG

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Lowther05.JPG

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Lowther06.JPG


Note (if you can) that the EX3 drivers in the (black) InFidelios have been
'let in' and that I still have to do that with the lowly PM6Cs in the
(white, at the moment) Jerichos. (Note also the paint and dead bugs on the
carpet - was I in a hurry to get them back in....?? :-)

The EX3s cost twice the price of the others - guess which ones I prefer (in
either cabinet).....??

(Clue to Lowther hunters: Grab PM6Cs if you can get them for 200/pr or
less!! ;-)