Cables, caps, cords, amps, material, speakers...?

[Mallette]

So after several days of listening to this 24/192 4 channel surround of a live show, I am asking myself...What REALLY defines awesome sound?

I'm not going to rain on anybodies parade, as opinions are just that. However, I've eliminated lots of things and am going to rank at least three in order of importance (IMHO).

1. Material

Don't make no never mind how many megabucks you've got in your system if the material is not of high quality. Truly high quality material sounds good even on the radio or PC speakers and such. While this is perhaps more debateable, I believe this diverges at some rate as the quality of the material and the system go down. i.e., a poor reproduction system will sound worse playing poor material than a high quality system. I know that may seem obvious to some, but the relationship is NOT constant.

2. Speakers

As we used to say in the film business, your image will look exactly as good as the worst piece of glass it went through. I doubt many Klipsch fans will suggest there is a more critical component that your speakers...save perhaps your ears.

3. Amp/Preamp

My opinions have softened a bit here. I certainly know a crappy amp when I hear one, but living with the old SS Citation 12 since my ST-70 died (or I killed it) has been pretty easy. The Citation is certainly a bit more "clinical," but I need that judging location sound. I had a Rat Shack Reciever I lifted from my daughter's room amplifying the rear speakers for surround channels (these are normally passive DynaQuad, but I added a Niles switch to make them amplified for the surround recording) until I dug the Mac 2100 out of the garage. The difference is there, but on this quality of material, it is hardly notable. Also, I find my all Frazier LR system sounds super on my old Denon AV Reciever. Very little I can think of to improve it.

Below this level (I am NOT including sources here, as that is really deep) resides perhaps another percent. Just how much more REAL can REAL get?

Dave

[Malcolm]

My experience is that a good system will sound worse with poor material than a poor system. The poor system hides some of the problems inherent in the material. For example, assume the recording engineer is a complete idiot and mics the studio in a way that loses the low and high frequencies. Play that back on a cheap system with little low or high end extension and it might sound the same as if the engineer had miced (miked?) properly. Play it back on a full range system and you will hear the difference.

I'll agree that speakers are the most critical component primarly because even the best speakers produce much more distortion than even mediocre electronic components operated within their limits. OTOH it is much easier to do something about the electronic components.

I think it all comes down to you chooses your distortion and pays your money.

[artto]

How real does it get?

Well, one day, a friend of mine who plays American Classical Banjo wanted to come over & record some stuff, & then dub another track along with it, so he could do a duo with himself. I had previously recorded a commercially available recording for him & two friends of his who play this stuff professionally.

Im not a big American Classical Banjo fan. Neither is my wife, or his wife, who were also present. So we werent paying attention. So What! Anyway, this big mistake comes along. We all look up to laugh & point at Bill and Bill is not playing. Hes the one whos laughing. Because he knew the mistake was coming up on the recording. He stopped playing. But we thought the recording was him playing live.

Thats as good as it can get. And thats all there is.

[Erik Mandaville]

I have been really pondering the importance of what I am beginning to think is the most important part of the whole listening experience. My dad, who had built and operated radio (transmitting and receiving) for a long while, tells me how absolutely critical antennas are -- indeed they are considered among the most important of components in that field. I have overheard sooooooooooooooo many conversations with him and other radio operators that focus on virtually nothing else other than antennas.

This thinking has come to have implications for me in terms of listening to music. I have talked about the hardware: What was mentioned above as the speakers, amplifiers, preamplifiers, source equipment, etc., until I almost get tired of talking (or thinking)about it. I can't help but think that the listener and the user of the machines is maybe even more important. Our ears are very like antennas used in radio, which like antennas couple a signal to another stage that processes it in one way or another. And the end result is of course our response -- to the notes, the music, the rhythm...the essential elements of music. We are really sort of the final component in the chain. And just as audio electronic equipment is subject to the variations in line voltage, pollution, RFI ,EMI and a host of other 'contaminants' that can compromise peformance, I kind of think sometimes that the same is true for us. I have a fairly acute case of tinnitus in my left ear (that's not fun when trying to sleep); I can't hear high frequencies as well as I used to be able to; sometimes I feel pensive or thoughtful or depressed or happy or whatever else we as people feel -- and all of those factors must in some way contribute to the manner in which I perceive, process, and utltimately enjoy or not enjoy what I am listening to. The suggestion I'm trying to make is, I sometimes wonder if I am the component in the chain that is haveing the greatest impact on the sound of the music machinery...

...speaking of machines, I need to finish the last of the wiring on my new amplifiers. I'll post my impressions (whatever they happe to be )in a day or two.

Erik

[artto]

Very Interesting.............

Yes, I think that is true. And that is why we all interpret things differently.

But I'm telling you. MINE IS BEST.

[artto]

[mike stehr]

[jt1stcav]

..."Just how much more REAL can REAL get?"

When your favorite piece of music (perfectly recorded) brings a tear to your eye at its conclusion...that's as REAL as REAL gets to me.

As I write this, I'm listening to a CD-R (recorded from a DAT master) of a private concert by R. Jelani Eddington performing on the M. Foley's residence WurliTzer theatre pipe organ in CT. I've heard (and played) this particular organ many times in the past, but this recording of Eddington's performance is truely breathtaking, and the organ sounds its best for it (not to mention the wonderful recording...I wish I knew the equipment used, but I wasn't in attendence during this concert). The music is flawlessly executed, and it moves me! When I'm moved to tears because of reasons stated above, then that's REAL for me, despite what gear is used to reproduce the musical event (but it does have to be good components to bring the music to near-realistic levels, natch).

By the way Dave, thanks for the recent e-mails...

[Dflip]

Antennas are important! A dipole in the basement produced limited quality and distortion. A 9' Yagi on the roof pulls in fm stations 30-40 miles away perfectly.

Until I put it on the roof and tried it, I may not have believed the difference. Is it worth the $200 Cdn for the antenna, RG 6 cable, connections, new drill bit, 2 transformers, etc? Sitting back, relaxing to great jazz coming in crysal clear, Priceless!

[Mallette]

Wow, what a great lot of interesting takes on "REAL." We humans have a breathtaking amount of varying experience to share.

Today I made CD downsampling of the looped through 24/88.2 front mics from the 24/192X4 location recording. The difference between CD and the hi res was so apparent. The music still sounded great but a bit more distant, however, the applause suddenly sounded like the difference between clapping with cupped hands and flat hands. Try it.

Dave

[Erik Mandaville]

Dave:

Have you thought of submitting some of this work you have been doing to maybe one of the available publications that cover aspects of home recording? Honestly, you have done such an enormous amount of work with all of this, that there are others (beyond this roundtable)who I think would be really interested in your work. I still need to get a good front end...I got involved in this amplifier project for a host of reasons, which are not necessarily simple, however I'm glad that I am carrying through with it. I have not been on a quest to upgrade as much as I have finding the best ways to make the best of what I have.

What is the latest on your audio server?

Antennas: They are important, and I was using the term 'antenna' in more of a figurative sense, Flip. However, I need to try to improve my own FM listening, likely with a good antenna installed in the attic.

[Mallette]

Actually, it was the MBS-4 that prompted this thread. Playback of the Asylum Street Spankers show on it is so vivid even with my Rat Shack cables and such I began to contemplate the one thing most difficult to control, that of the material. Source material obviously varies widely in quality and you can never know just what all it went through before becoming the CD, LP, SACD, or whatever you are listening to. The only wat to really know your source material is to get it yourself...impractical for the average audiophile.

So we try to control what we can, by tweaking this and that and upgrading one thing or the other. As I've said before, I'm not knocking that. I've no doubt those who are into Kimber Kable, power isolation, or whatever hear differences. However, I liken these differences to hearing the same orchestra in different halls. All will be good, but all will be different and some will prefer one over the other.

I like them all.

Back to the servers, I now have two. The MBS-3 is equiped with the Card Deluxe and I use it as a server. The MBS-4 has 8 in and 8 out at up to 24/192. I recorded the Spankers at 24/192X4 to:

1. See if I could do it.

2. Thinking of issueing a DVD-A with 24/192 stereo in addition to the surround.

3. To see if there is a notable difference at that rarified rate.

1. I can do it, but it is quite a strain on systems at the moment and there was occasional data loss (tiny, but audible, perhaps 1/30 sec.) due, I believe to, to thermal recalibration of the drive. I've since added a faster 160 gig drive to the arsenal.

2. I've since decided a 24/192 track doesn't fit my philosphy. I wouldn't record something in surround that didn't need to be heard in surround. Why provide something aesthetically incorrect?

3. There is an audible difference, but it is nowhere near as great as the difference between CD and LP. Further, the specifications don't support 24/196X4, so I'm going to give the equipment and drive space a break next time and just record at 24/96.

And, finally, yes, I've been contemplating pulling all the stuff I've written together for an article for some mag like Mix or whatever. I still favor calling it "Don't try this at home...!"

Dave

[ben.]

----------------

On 7/23/2003 6:56:26 PM artto wrote:

How real does it get?

Well, one day, a friend of mine who plays ‘American Classical Banjo’ wanted to come over & record some stuff, & then dub another track along with it, so he could do a duo with himself. I had previously recorded a commercially available recording for him & two friends of his who play this stuff professionally.

I’m not a big ‘American Classical Banjo’ fan. Neither is my wife, or his wife, who were also present. So we weren’t paying attention. So What! Anyway, this big mistake comes along. We all look up to laugh & point at Bill and Bill is not playing. He’s the one who’s laughing. Because he knew the mistake was coming up on the recording. He stopped playing. But we thought the recording was him playing live.

That’s as good as it can get. And that’s all there is.

----------------

This isn't a refutation, just funny-

Doing live sound for a roots festival a few years back, I was mixing monitors for a string band. The banjo player told me, "When it sounds like crap, you've got it!!"