"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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?



Hah!

Do you think they're *not* then...??

(From *analogue* tape, of course....!! ;-)

"Wally" wrote in message
...
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.


Maybe you're right but I still thinks it's *denial*....




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.


Yes!


Class
always shines through.


Yes!


The pukka **** grabs you by the boo-boo.


Yes!

Needs no *talking up*....!! (The Monitor Gold boyz know this, for
example....)



It is a
directly perceived phenomenon.


Yes!




(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.


Can't argue with any of that....

(As soon as you touch the volume control you are changing the sound to suit
yourself!!)



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. :-)


I got no problem with measurements, I only got a problem with people who got
a problem with people who don't rely only on measurements...

wrote:

Wally wrote:

I put it to you that
the term "sounds better" can only have meaning when considered in the
context of individual preference.

That is quite true. Now a lot of people who prefer tubes and vinyl have
clearly stated the context in which they claim tubes and vinyl sound
better. That being a greater sense of realism being the goal. Are you
going to tell me this is news to you?

The concept of vinyl as a sensible hi-fi medium these days is truly hilarious.
It's quite remarkable that it works as well as it does actually.

Graham

wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Andy Evans wrote:

If you're in favour of selectively added distortion why not just say so
? Graham

I've put you down for a one hour session with Grabuschka
Yekaterinavich, an excellent brain washer. Ex KGP, immaculate
credentials. She will guide you painlessly through the hour's
brainwashing, and by the end of it you won't even remember that you
ever said this. I will personally pay for the session. Andy

What do you have against added distortion ?

It's a very creative method of 'enhancing' sound.

Why not come out of the closet about it ?

I have no probelm with it if it gets me closer to the sound of live
music.

What if it wasn't a live recording ?


I am a results kind of guy. I have no worries about the path
that leads where I am going.

Provided you can accept you're sacrificing technical accuracy to get that result.

Graham

wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
wrote:
Laurence Payne wrote:
On 19 Sep 2006 08:10:01 -0700, wrote:

If it sounds better it is technically superior. What do you believe?
that in audio technology serves the aesthetic or that the aesthetic
serves the technology?

In the audiophile world (among others) this is squewed by a natural
desire for the more expensive item to sound better.

I am sure this happens. It's hardly a rule.

It's very tricky to make a good loudspeaker without a fair bit of expenditure
but there's no particular reason for the electronics to be horribly expensive
since it's quite trivial to design sonically blameless circuitry these days.

if you could build high powered SETs that sound like the ones from
companies such as WAVAC and are built as well to boot and sell them for
the cost of mass produces SS amps of similar power you will make a lot
of sales. i don't think you could do it though.

Since an SET is essentially incapable by design of any modicum of sonic accuracy I
wouldn't be inclined to try for that very reason.

Graham

wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Laurence Payne wrote:

On 19 Sep 2006 08:10:01 -0700, wrote:

If it sounds better it is technically superior. What do you believe?
that in audio technology serves the aesthetic or that the aesthetic
serves the technology?

In the audiophile world (among others) this is squewed by a natural
desire for the more expensive item to sound better.

In proportion to the damage to one's wallet !

Heck... if it cost that much it *must* be good !

examples of such thinking? Or are you just making it up?

I was being sardonic.

Graham

wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Keith G wrote:
wrote

So - are you now going to argue in favour of high distortion figures ?

Nope just greater sense of realism. You can argue measurements all by
yourself.

And you can't measure arguments aka opinion.

Actually you can measure subjective imrpessions. It's done all the
time.

Then tell me how you'd measure it.


Hmm, uou seem to have a 'basher' on your hands...??

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

Please cite an example of an original performance ever surviving intact
through any SS recording and production chain.

See almost any CD or vinyl record.

Graham

wrote:

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.

I didn't intend to mean 'swamping' the music with reverb for sure.


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?

It was a method of focussing on a specific point..

If I understand correctly, you're saying that adding intentional colouration ( reverb
in this case ) may result in a more pleasing reproduction which may also indeed sound
more 'natural' to the ear.

I have no argument with that. It's a matter of taste. In this instance some ppl might
rather prefer more or less of the reverb for example.

What puzzles me then is that you're apparenly unwilling to accept that valve circuitry
does something similar by adding colouration too. There's nothing to be ashamed about
it but it isn't 'fidelity', accuracy or any of those similar terms per se but simply a
'nice sound' to your ear.

Graham

Keith G wrote:

The pukka **** grabs you by the boo-boo.

Yes!
Needs no *talking up*....!!

Exactly.


(As soon as you touch the volume control you are changing the sound
to suit yourself!!)

That's a good point...

Hey, Accuracy Boyz - do you have only one volume setting?


I got no problem with measurements, I only got a problem with people
who got a problem with people who don't rely only on measurements...

I know what you mean. I sense a certain intolerance at times.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

Wally wrote:

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"?

Maybe he didn't but you know the usual audiphool mumbo-jumbo. It might have been
'articulated' for all the difference it makes.