russ69 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 "...a hi-rez file of a new recording can't match the bloody realism of a ...LP...and a pair of...Klipschorns." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Sure there is - hi-rez and a pair of Khorns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbox Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 It must start with a great set of Klipsch speakers. [Y] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebse2a3 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 The article is "Accuracy Is Not the Answer" I would ask the author or anyone using the word "Accuracy" or claiming "Accuracy" to give us their description of it before we can even know if we are talking about the same thing. In the real world where nothing is perfect "Accuracy" only has meaning when we understand the parameters it is being applied to as well as were it's not applicable. This recording industry has no basic standards so the Analog and Digital recording results fall all over the map and the rooms we all listen in have nothing standard about them and so again the results of reproducing recordings in them falls all over the map. I do agree with his comment "We need to learn more about capturing and reproducing the gestalt of music". Measurements and test as tools for design and standards need to show correlation with how humans perceive sound for pratical use in real world trade-offs that are often necessary. miketn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wdrazek Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 That is a great quote from AE. As for the magazine and its writings, I grew beyond it around 15 years ago and never looked back. Everything they review is great, the more expensive the better, and the newer and more expensive the better yet. Got off their bus a while ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derrickdj1 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 For audio accuracy is a terrible word since none of us can duplicate what was heard in the studio. And even the studio engineers have to tailor the final version so, even they thought what was heard in the studio needed some adjustments. Maybe we don't want to duplicate what was heard in the sudio, lol. I don't strive for accuracy, I go for personal enjoyment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybob Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 The article is "Accuracy Is Not the Answer" I would ask the author or anyone using the word "Accuracy" or claiming "Accuracy" to give us their description of it before we can even know if we are talking about the same thing. In the real world where nothing is perfect "Accuracy" only has meaning when we understand the parameters it is being applied to as well as were it's not applicable. This recording industry has no basic standards so the Analog and Digital recording results fall all over the map and the rooms we all listen in have nothing standard about them and so again the results of reproducing recordings in them falls all over the map. I do agree with his comment "We need to learn more about capturing and reproducing the gestalt of music". Like looping songs, while capturing, that is, my understanding of the word "gestalt. Playing the same song at different times, while listening for any subtle nuance, until you discover one. A style of teaching from the old world, gestalt...learning from sheer dent of repetition. Not the standard definition. Measurements and test as tools for design and standards need to show correlation with how humans perceive sound for pratical use in real world trade-offs that are often necessary. miketn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennie Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 For audio accuracy is a terrible word since none of us can duplicate what was heard in the studio. And even the studio engineers have to tailor the final version so, even they thought what was heard in the studio needed some adjustments. Maybe we don't want to duplicate what was heard in the sudio, lol. I don't strive for accuracy, I go for personal enjoyment. Yeah, but you've always been crazy like that!!!! ...... Dennie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tromprof Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 I don't strive for accuracy, I go for personal enjoyment. Well said. I think the same can also apply to music performance as well. There are a lot of amazingly accurate performers out there in the classical music scene that are as interesting to listen to as paint drying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Even with live sound the sound reinforcement systems, which can be quite accurate, are often mixed to exaggerate certain sounds at the expense of accuracy. The way some of them are operated they are not sound reinforcement systems at all, they are percussion instruments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.