In article ,
Mike Fleming wrote:
Not entirely. Carefully controlled double-blind trials are acceptable.
So called "golden ears" are just a joke.

Surely not. After all, they can discern the difference between digital
interconnects, which mere mortals can't even measure.

Point is they can't. Ages ago, there was a substantial cash prize on offer
to anyone who could reliably tell the difference between 'ordinary'
interconnects and the high priced ones. In a proper double blind test.
No-one has won it. I'd guess many who say they can don't want to be proved
wrong. ;-)

--
*Santa Claus has the right idea. Visit people only once a year.

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

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 15:20:03 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mike Fleming wrote:
Not entirely. Carefully controlled double-blind trials are acceptable.
So called "golden ears" are just a joke.

Surely not. After all, they can discern the difference between digital
interconnects, which mere mortals can't even measure.

Point is they can't. Ages ago, there was a substantial cash prize on offer
to anyone who could reliably tell the difference between 'ordinary'
interconnects and the high priced ones. In a proper double blind test.
No-one has won it. I'd guess many who say they can don't want to be proved
wrong. ;-)

Neither can they tell the difference between competent analogue
interconnects. I put this to the test years ago when I was at Pye
studios in Marble Arch. Someone had brought in some super-expensive
cables which I scoffed at. Anyway, long and the short is that I rigged
up a test, single rather than double blind. But nobody present -
engineers, and a producer included - could tell the difference.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Once upon a time on usenet ~misfit~ wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Brian Gaff wrote:
Maybe it just sounded OK to that person.
One thing that has always amazed me is that some shops have crap
sound from crap systems, while others seem to use stuff I'd never
heard of and remarkably get decent sound. I don't know ho Beng
speakers are, but considering they were only 790 quid a pair they
sounded pretty good, especially compared to the average crap bundled
with these stereo systems sold in the multiples these days. I have
never seen them since though so maybe they were bankrupt stock from a
decent company I'd never heard of...
I have some Goodmans speakers here from one of their stereo systems
which sounds good on good speakers, but rubbish on the ones they
bundle indeed the speakers sound rubbish on anything!
I wonder how a company can actually make such bad honking flat dodgy
speakers.
Brian

I had a 'Goodmans' mini-system that had horrible bookshelf speakers
with it. I got rid of them smartish. However I'll not get rid of my
Goodmans Mezzo SLs unless I absolutely have to.

I should have said that the mini system was circa 2000 after the Goodmans
name had been sold to gods know who and the equipment was being made in
China. The Mezzos are 1970s, made in England (but with a SEAS 1.5" soft-dome
tweeter) and cost something like 450 quid back then.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

In article , "Brian Gaff"
writes:

One thing that has always amazed me is that some shops have crap sound from
crap systems, while others seem to use stuff I'd never heard of and
remarkably get decent sound. I don't know ho Beng speakers are, but
considering they were only 790 quid a pair they sounded pretty good,
especially compared to the average crap bundled with these stereo systems
sold in the multiples these days. I have never seen them since though so
maybe they were bankrupt stock from a decent company I'd never heard of...

At 790 quid a pair, I'd hope they sounded exactly like the original.
Did a stray "0" creep in by any chance?

--
Mike Fleming

keskiviikko 11. lokakuuta 2017 20.54.27 UTC+3 Dave Plowman (News) kirjoitti:
In article ,
UnsteadyKen wrote:
What does "upper mids being airy" mean?

According to one source: Airy - Spacious. Open. Instruments sound like
they are surrounded by a large reflective space full of air.

That could be a problem if they were recorded in the usual smallish
studio.

The majority of non-classical projects are recorded in the "usual smallish studio" and many projects are recorded in several "usual smallish studios"
for example rhythm section in London, strings in Berlin, brass in LA and then vocals in London again. The acoustic which the listener hears is added in mix or post, from a digital reverb unit. I am currently working on an album made in three locations. The final acoustic parameters will be of the Queen Elizabeth Hall.

So, even recordings made in small and dry locations can give the impression that the "Instruments sound like they are surrounded by a large reflective space full of air".


Iain

torstai 12. lokakuuta 2017 2.46.46 UTC+3 Dave Plowman (News) kirjoitti:
In article ,
Woody wrote:
Clearly you have never had the joy of listening to a direct cut disc
played on a good turntable with a moving coil cartridge into any sort
of reasonable system. It is a really something to behold.

I've had the joy of listening to the live sound in the control room where
it's being balanced/recorded.

Listening to the live sound is indeed a joy.

Actually recording the sound is an even greater joy. The feeling of elation when you pull down the stereo fader as the reverb dies away on a fine performance is difficult to describe.

You may have not had the same opportunity Dave, but at Decca, trainee engineers were encouraged to spend the first part of a classical session sitting in the studio, "soaking up the live" sound". We had three chairs behind the conductor's podium just under the Decca tree. It was then interesting to go to the control and hear what was coming from the monitors.

Only a good digital recording comes close to
that. Analogue tape never did, (snip)

Really?

I have a CD which I made up as my "show reel" which contains baroque compositions by Henry Purcell and Thomas Arne. Most were digital recordings which I have made over the years for Decca, Argo, L'Oiseau Lyre and RCA but a few were analogue Dolby SR. No one who has listened to them has ever been able to say with certainty which were which.

Iain

keskiviikko 11. lokakuuta 2017 19.29.47 UTC+3 Don Pearce kirjoitti:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:20:19 +0100, Adrian Caspersz
wrote:

Just spotted some rebranding going on, they know their limitations...

https://thevinylfactory.com/features...sley-c10-c100/

There is no such thing as top end with vinyl. Poor-to-middling is as
good as it is possible to get. It has built into it distortion levels
which, in an amplifier, would result in it being binned.
Bass response is limited by the need to limit groove amplitude in
recording, and by the necessary arm resonance at reproduction.
Treble response is limited by temperature rise in the cutting head.

In short, if you are interested in musical reproduction, forget it,
but if you just want to collect interesting technology make a bid. But
don't go over a tenner.

d


By the mid 50's Decca had an ffrr cutting head that followed RIAA within 0.5dB to 15kHz. The Neumann SX68 is (usually better than) +/- 1 dB 40Hz to 16kHz. In Decca trials, its successor the SX74 was -2dB at 22kHz ref RIAA. We had a test disc for internal use (cutting and listening rooms turntable/RIAA set ups) which had a glide tone 20Hz to 20kHz. Many Decca classical LPs were cut at half speed, so hf was not compromised.

The problem that Don mentions: "Treble response is limited by temperature rise in the cutting head" is solved by half speed cutting and/or cooling the cutter head with helium.

What is actually on the disc depended greatly on the skills of the cutting engineer. The object of the exercise is to cut an acetate master which is as close as possible to the original master tape. (Any fool can make it sound different-) Given the medium involved, and the expectations of producers and engineers, this is no easy task.

The general public used cheap turntables with doubtful stylii played records which were poorly looked after, and expected high fidelity. Budget labels, especially in the UK, used to punch out the centres of unsold and returned vinyl pressings to be recycled in the vinyl mix for subsequent production. The same matrices were used for over-extended runs pressing runs.

These days, now that vinyl and well and truly matured, people are willing to pay more for a quality product, and we are offered immaculate 180 gr pressings, pressed in very short runs before stamper renewal. On a goods vinyl rig, they sound wonderful. This, a 12inch gatefold sleeve and a booklet which one can read without a magnifying glass all add up to a quality product.

Interestingly, comparison of many non-classical parallel productions, CD and LP, often give listeners the idea that LP is in fact better, because they prefer what they hear. And due to the lack of compression, people often assume (eroniously) that vinyl has a greater dynamic range.

In A/B/C comparison, it is not unusual for people to conclude that the vinyl is closer to the master than the CD.

The principles of CD mastering are totally different to those of vinyl cutting. During the various steps of the mastering process, the CD quickly starts to sound noticeably different to the original digital recording, - which depending on your viewpoint, may, or may not be a good thing:-))

But trying to give the public what they think they want, is not without its problems.


Iain

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
Woody wrote:
Clearly you have never had the joy of listening to a direct cut disc
played on a good turntable with a moving coil cartridge into any sort
of reasonable system. It is a really something to behold.

I've had the joy of listening to the live sound in the control room where
it's being balanced/recorded. Only a good digital recording comes close to
that. Analogue tape never did, and any form of disc recording a very poor
second.




Old Stan Curtis has an interesting take on analogue recorders;!

And a few other audio topics.


http://www.stancurtis.com/PDFs/HiFi%20Critic%205.pdf

--
Tony Sayer

"tony sayer" wrote in message
news
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
Woody wrote:
Clearly you have never had the joy of listening to a direct cut
disc
played on a good turntable with a moving coil cartridge into any
sort
of reasonable system. It is a really something to behold.

I've had the joy of listening to the live sound in the control room
where
it's being balanced/recorded. Only a good digital recording comes
close to
that. Analogue tape never did, and any form of disc recording a very
poor
second.




Old Stan Curtis has an interesting take on analogue recorders;!

And a few other audio topics.


http://www.stancurtis.com/PDFs/HiFi%20Critic%205.pdf

--


Now there was a chap who knew his onions.


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

In article ,
Woody wrote:

"tony sayer" wrote in message
news
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
Woody wrote:
Clearly you have never had the joy of listening to a direct cut
disc
played on a good turntable with a moving coil cartridge into any
sort
of reasonable system. It is a really something to behold.

I've had the joy of listening to the live sound in the control room
where
it's being balanced/recorded. Only a good digital recording comes
close to
that. Analogue tape never did, and any form of disc recording a very
poor
second.




Old Stan Curtis has an interesting take on analogue recorders;!

And a few other audio topics.


http://www.stancurtis.com/PDFs/HiFi%20Critic%205.pdf

--


Now there was a chap who knew his onions.

If he does, he doesn't cover it fully in that article. More to lining up
an analogue tape machine for replay than simply cleaning the heads and
setting a level.

--
*Cleaned by Stevie Wonder, checked by David Blunkett*

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