Audio Flynn Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 "we all" Oh little Parrot! You are so quick to speak for others. Perhaps becuase you can't even speak for yourself in your personal life? Or at least thats what I've been told by those who know you well . . . A little man of little substance. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Al, You never even met Paul and post this garbage? And never been in Arts room( nor have I) to where you could personally define the benifits of the treatment? Plus; bait both forum members in the same thread? Incredible. The sweet spot in your head is a misnomer; it is a soft spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 I never once questioned the benefits of Art's room "treatment." Go back and read my posts again. All I questioned was his assertion that HE was the arbiter of what is "refined, balanced neutral" in hi-fi. What a CROCK! I am sure he LOVES the sound of his sytem in his room and I am equally sure that he spent years of trial and error to get it EXAXCTLY the way HE likes it, but to claim that HIS way is the RIGHT way is pompous to the extreme and is indeed "self serving and pretentious." I have corresponded with members here who LOVE the sound of Art's room and I have also heard from others who were left TOTALLY unimpressed--who thought Art's system sounded "dead." So what? Art likes it and that is ALL that matters. Paul is merely a little yapping miniature terrier nipping at my heels. Bothersome at times to be sure, but of little importance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted December 3, 2004 Author Share Posted December 3, 2004 Win, The different mixes are a question mark for sure. I can't rcall Martins involvement with the mixes for CD. Since a lot of those earlier tracks were manually mixed, maybe they just didn't pull it off like they should have when they were redone. I've done enough mixes where different instruments were on the same track so that you have to have quick hands to bring up/pull down something to get the levels the way you want to. But newer automation should let you do that very easily. A lot of tapes really needed to be played back on the same machines they were recorded on to get the right speed. Or the cut cuttin lathe was off when the lacquers were made on the originals. Could be a lot of reasons. I have one of those 'Living Presence' CDs that was made from some 3 track tapes originally done in the '50s. They found the original Ampex decks and had them refurbed to play back the tapes on what they were originally recorded on. Whew! I'm getting too long winded, but it beats arguing / innuendo and flaming.... Marvel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 Thanks Marvel I appreciate it. Take Care Win Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 ---------------- On 12/3/2004 3:40:54 PM Allan Songer wrote: I never once questioned the benefits of Art's room "treatment." Go back and read my posts again. All I questioned was his assertion that HE was the arbiter of what is "refined, balanced neutral" in hi-fi. What a CROCK! I am sure he LOVES the sound of his sytem in his room and I am equally sure that he spent years of trial and error to get it EXAXCTLY the way HE likes it, but to claim that HIS way is the RIGHT way is pompous to the extreme and is indeed "self serving and pretentious." I have corresponded with members here who LOVE the sound of Art's room and I have also heard from others who were left TOTALLY unimpressed--who thought Art's system sounded "dead." So what? Art likes it and that is ALL that matters. Paul is merely a little yapping miniature terrier nipping at my heels. Bothersome at times to be sure, but of little importance. ---------------- There you are, with, presumably, an inadequate sound system (as you said, a $39 Chinese clock radio/CD player for your discs), and the resentment festers in you when you read Artto's description of his room and system. To further add to your psychic pain, you have people visiting who rave about Artto's room, which you take as an affront to your own. Hence, the lashing out. You say "Art likes it and that is ALL that matters." And yet, if you honestly believed that, you wouldn't have jumped in with a personal attack against him. Artto knows more about room acoustics than you've ever even dreamed of. But so that you can attempt to better him in this perceived challenge, which exists only in your mind, you have to explain that you get lost in your music more, and dance to it (not a sight any of us would want to see, by the way). Sounds like you are struggling to be respected as top dog. (Witness the "I have the most expensive vinyl" routine and "I see the most shows" routine, etc.) It's a silly competition, but amusing enough as far as free entertainment goes, so keep at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 Maybe not even a terrier--a chihuahua perhaps? No! A teacup poodle! I just can't seem to get enough of your yapping! Keep it up!!! Are you really a copy editor? For who? Highlights magazine? You are HILARIOUS! http://i23.ebayimg.com/02/i/02/ed/95/c6_1_b.JPG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 You can do better than the dog routine, surely? Why not tell us another tale like the one about how you spent $1400 on a beat-up LP that you already have several copies of, because it has a different street address on the back cover. And don't knock Highlights! The hidden images page is classic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted December 4, 2004 Share Posted December 4, 2004 ---------------- On 12/3/2004 3:40:54 PM Allan Songer wrote: I have also heard from others who were left TOTALLY unimpressed--who thought Art's system sounded "dead." So what? Art likes it and that is ALL that matters. ---------------- Yikes, who are these people? I'd love to meet them. (perhaps test their hearing too) There's a thread in the technical questions forum discussing some people trying to take a scientific approach as to what defines a good speaker. In a huge series of blind A/B testing, the data shows trends for both trained and untrained listeners and blah blah blah...though I don't entirely agree with everything about the process, it's interesting to note that the final conclusion is that there really isn't such a thing as personal taste when it comes to speakers. Likewise, I think the same conclusions will be true for acoustically treated rooms as well (though this would be practically impossible to test). The only reason I bring this up is to show that a person's opinion of a system is not 'entirely' a subjective matter. There is also another phenomenon where one can determine which sound is more natural without ever hearing the original sound. This is more readily shown in one's ability to determine which of two devices is a higher quality picture or camera, but the same applies to audio (just that our short term audible memories smear our perceptions). Anyways, I totally agree with your assertions that it's all about getting involved with the music. However, there are some of us who are far more sensitive to a crappy sound such that we are unable to get involved. I have a deep passion for music, but I would totally prefer to listen to nothing than listen to poor quality music. What determines poor quality? A situation where I cannot get fully involved with the music. After listening to Art's system for a few hours, it took me MONTHS to be able to listen to music at home again...It was like those days that you look out of the window in the winter. After a while, a fog builds up that you don't even realize until it's wiped away...and then when the fog comes back, you're quicker to want to get rid of it until you find yourself wiping constantly after every breath (tell me I'm not the only one that experiences this, lol). Listening to a better system is like looking through newly cleaned glass, only for it to get foggy again when you go home (only at home, you can't just wipe off the bad sound). Max...when Art says that his room is balanced between CD and LP, he's not saying that they both sound exactly the same. What he is saying though is that a well recorded LP will sound like a well recorded LP...the same thing with a CD. I think the reason a lot of people prefer LP over CD is not the difference between the mediums, but the difference between the recording methods. I think it's very safe to claim that people recording LPs were far more careful in the whole recording process. In this new digital revolution, it is far too easy for an engineer to come by and "fix" something while totally ruining the entire sound (and not even notice it either). It's natural to try and make everything seem louder in the mix and it's just easier to do this with digital...people working in analog wouldn't dare try it because they risk destroying the original. In the whole analog versus digital arguments, I would love to see tests conducted with LP recorded to CD and CD recorded to LP. I personally believe that LP to CD will sound the same for both and that the CD will sound better than the CD being recorded to LP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted December 4, 2004 Share Posted December 4, 2004 I think it's very safe to claim that people recording LPs were far more careful in the whole recording process. In this new digital revolution, it is far too easy for an engineer to come by and "fix" something while totally ruining the entire sound (and not even notice it either). Found Tom Dowd & The Language of Music to be a very interesting film, consider it essential viewing.. Natural sound by definition is analog, the inference here may lean more towards tone. Some digital recordings approach the analog wave form, and sound very musical, some listeners seem lured by prospects that multichannel may sound more natural, which may lean more to dimension and space. Whatever perceived differences are heard between formats, the original intent of the recording and mastering process weigh heavily in the results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted December 4, 2004 Share Posted December 4, 2004 But you're ignoring the delivery medium, which is an LP, a severe compromise to the original tape recording. Not only will it be generations away from the master, but it will be played back on a huge range of record players, with very very different-sounding cartridges, and there will be groove wear, tracking problems, inner groove distortion, wow and flutter, VTA problems, etc. etc. Just because it is analog doesn't mean it's closer to being like the source. The real wonder is that records can sound as good as they do sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Landau Posted December 4, 2004 Share Posted December 4, 2004 ---------------- On 12/4/2004 5:34:34 AM DrWho wrote: Yikes, who are these people? I'd love to meet them. - Apparently, there were a few that thought that his room was overdone and the music there sounded lifeless. The only reason I bring this up is to show that a person's opinion of a system is not 'entirely' a subjective matter. - Correct, Artto's probably not to subjective either. Anyways, I totally agree with your assertions that it's all about getting involved with the music. - difficult to do in an overdamped room. After listening to Art's system for a few hours, it took me MONTHS to be able to listen to music at home again...It was like those days that you look out of the window in the winter. After a while, a fog builds up that you don't even realize until it's wiped away...and then when the fog comes back, you're quicker to want to get rid of it until you find yourself wiping constantly after every breath (tell me I'm not the only one that experiences this, lol). Listening to a better system is like looking through newly cleaned glass, only for it to get foggy again when you go home (only at home, you can't just wipe off the bad sound). - Your system must sound real bad, then. - The guy whom I've bought my Khorns from, had a "perfect" acoustic room (Like Artto's). He had replaced his system with a $250K Burmester, top of the line, separates and his system sound great in his "perfect" room. When he had to move to his new house, he was worried that his system wouldn't sound that good in his new (and not so acousticly treated) room. Boy, how surprised he was when his system, actually sounded.......BETTER. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted December 4, 2004 Author Share Posted December 4, 2004 Paul brings up some very good points. On the LP itself, let's say you have an excellent lacquer cut from a superb two track master tape. If all goes well, you end up with a very good stamper. It's all downhill after that. One stamper makes X number of LPs. Does the first LP stamped sound the best, or is it the tenth, or n+1, n+1 ...? How bad does the stamper get before the stamper is replaced with a new one? Which one do you have of any particular LP? You could easily find two of the Brothers in Arms LPs that don't sound the same on the same system. Doesn't mean it's bad. Just not perfect, or consistent. Then toss in the playback systems variables. CDs should inherently be thesame from CD to CD, as they are reading 1's and 0's off the CD. Either it can read it and it works, or not read it and it doesn't. It's all physics and science, but I tend to think it's more magic that anything else. Marvel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted December 4, 2004 Share Posted December 4, 2004 "The real wonder is that records can sound as good as they do sometimes" Now aint that the truth. Shocked the crap out of me the first time I heard vinyl after parting company with it for CD back in '84, with a brief venture into SACD which has only just returned. That was 3 years and 1100 albums ago (Vinyl that is). Of course if you want close to source - Direct to Disk is about as close as it gets. There just aint too many recordings out there done like that - I guess it is a lot of pressure on the performer - one fluff and the session's screwed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audio Flynn Posted December 4, 2004 Share Posted December 4, 2004 The real wonder is that records can sound as good as they do sometimes. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Kids understand CDs. The under 25 crowd. When you tell the younger ones the sound from an LP comes from the needle vibrating in the goove it just freaks them out. The one that amazes me is the SACD/ LP comparison that I have done 3 times now with Weather Report Heavey weather. Highs and lows were better defined in the SACD but the LP seemed to be more musical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted December 4, 2004 Share Posted December 4, 2004 ---------------- On 12/4/2004 11:33:36 AM Guy Landau wrote: Apparently, there were a few that thought that his room was overdone and the music there sounded lifeless. -I'm not disputing this fact...I just want to know who they are and the basis for their opinions. There are many different and even wild approaches to audio, and if any of these people have a similar approach to my own, then I would very much enjoy hearing from them. Despite how objective and open minded I try to be, I am naturally going to disagree with those of a different approach because my approach is based on what I experience (as too their's). If science contradicts my approach, then that's another story... difficult to do in an overdamped room. -define overdamped. also, the other extreme is true and more extreme: "it's more difficult to do in an underdamped room." I remember Art's place sounding very much like the CSO...hardly an overdamped venue. Your system must sound real bad, then. - Well I think my system sounds excellent in comparison to the hundreds of systems I've had the opportunity to experience (ranging from crappy systems to all out million dollar recording studios). Compared to Art's place, coming home was like having mud on my glasses and it took a long time for me to learn how to see through it again. I'm also a "professional sound engineer" and make my living through audio; I have a hard time ignoring flaws that I hear because the very nature of my job is to fix them (not ignore them). EVERY system introduces it's own distortions; having heard my first well setup horn system just brought out the crap loads of frequency modulation distortion that i have been experiencing on my own system (FMD is naturally larger for direct radiating speakers like mine). The guy whom I've bought my Khorns from, had a "perfect" acoustic room (Like Artto's). He had replaced his system with a $250K Burmester, top of the line, separates and his system sound great in his "perfect" room. When he had to move to his new house, he was worried that his system wouldn't sound that good in his new (and not so acousticly treated) room. Boy, how surprised he was when his system, actually sounded.......BETTER. -Obviously his "acoustically perfect room" must have sucked. What kind of equipment was he using to calibrate room response and decay rates? What kind of treatment was he doing? Considering that he's dropping $250k on one component in his system leads me to believe the guy is a complete idiot with lots of money to throw at his system. Acoustics is a science...what experience/education does this person have? ---------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted December 4, 2004 Share Posted December 4, 2004 ---------------- On 12/3/2004 1:22:20 PM Marvel wrote: bclark... They didn't rebuild the facility. He built a new one somewhere else in London, geared more to symphonies. It has a large studio space. I thought the Sony used 1/2 inch tape? Epsecially since it was compatible with the Studer, which only uses 1/2 inch. Marvel ---------------- Too bad about Air Monserrat. It got quite a bit of attention for a while, there. Makes sense that Sir George would return to his roots in legit music, though. I'm sure you're right about the 1/2" tape. I either misremembered or mistyped. I leave it up to you to decide... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Disc Posted December 4, 2004 Share Posted December 4, 2004 I for one, along with another gentleman both felt that Arttos system had great slam, and the K-horns were impressive. We did however not care for the 3 - channel sound nor the overdamped acoustics. We both agreed that our personal preference would be a less overall damped sound. We felt too that the overuse of acoustical treatments killed the uppper frequencies and much of the life of the music. It was not for us. We base this on our own impressions and tastes. There is no right or wrong here, just our opinions. Artto never asked for my opinon of his setup, and why should he? He likes it and that is all that matters. Different strokes for different folks. He could give a **** what I think anyway. For what it's worth, I don't care much for my friends system either. His sounds good, but I prefer a warmer tube sound. He also prefers his system over mine. It's all a matter of taste. - No Disc -I'm not disputing this fact...I just want to know who they are and the basis for their opinions. There are many different and even wild approaches to audio, and if any of these people have a similar approach to my own, then I would very much enjoy hearing from them. Despite how objective and open minded I try to be, I am naturally going to disagree with those of a different approach because my approach is based on what I experience (as too their's). If science contradicts my approach, then that's another story... ---------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted December 4, 2004 Author Share Posted December 4, 2004 Mis-typed, didn't remember correctly -- it isn't important. I think those were also the first DASH machines (Digital Audio Stationary Head). It allowed you to edit with a razor blade. Pretty scary thought. THis link will make you drool if you've ever been in a studio. AIR studios website. Lyndhurst Hall was the last one he had. AIR Studios Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted December 4, 2004 Share Posted December 4, 2004 ---------------- On 12/4/2004 5:35:33 PM Marvel wrote: I think those were also the first DASH machines (Digital Audio Stationary Head). It allowed you to edit with a razor blade. Pretty scary thought. I don't know, I kinda miss the gloves and razor... Talk about a heady feeling. You'd better get that right! I can understand why they up with "non-destructive" for DAW editing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted December 4, 2004 Share Posted December 4, 2004 ---------------- On 12/4/2004 5:29:58 PM No Disc wrote: I for one, along with another gentleman both felt that Arttos system had great slam, and the K-horns were impressive. We did however not care for the 3 - channel sound nor the overdamped acoustics. We both agreed that our personal preference would be a less overall damped sound. We felt too that the overuse of acoustical treatments killed the uppper frequencies and much of the life of the music. It was not for us. We base this on our own impressions and tastes. There is no right or wrong here, just our opinions. Artto never asked for my opinon of his setup, and why should he? He likes it and that is all that matters. Different strokes for different folks. He could give a **** what I think anyway. For what it's worth, I don't care much for my friends system either. His sounds good, but I prefer a warmer tube sound. He also prefers his system over mine. It's all a matter of taste. - No Disc ---------------- Well then, thx for chiming in. I'm personally more a fan of slam and big sound than warm sound, so perhaps that explains our difference of opinion. 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.