LaScalas sound different with different discs

[jpm]

Who'da thunk? Yes, it's true, my speakers sound bright and lively with some cds and flat and lifeless with others. Sometimes they sound simply awesome with a cd that is obviously mixed to my liking. So, there goes the theory that this or that amp, or this or that other doo dad is the ultimate way to go, because unless we're able to control the mix, we're at the mercy of the mixer... if ya get my drift. So, as far as I'm concerned, this phenomenon negates the tube vs ss argument.

[Coytee]

oh, and don't even try to listen to things in different rooms!!

I tried to illustrate to my wife in a basement room we're working on, the dramatic difference in sound from the concrete floor, open studs to what it was sounding like (simply vocals and hand claps) AFTER I got some insulation installed (same concrete floor)

Clearly there is not enough chat here (IMHO) about how to first or second, make your ROOM sound good!! then worry about the other goodies.

I mentioned to her doing some sound treatments and adding some bass traps and she turned beet red laughing at the mere words "bass traps" like I was chasing little green martians or something spooky.

[NOSValves]

No actually your totally confused to some extent. The amp, preamp and source can have everything to do with the good, being gooder...... bad being badder and so on. It all matters......

Say you have a recording that is Hot and objectionable in the HF region........ Play it on the preamp/amplifier combo that is very polite (rolled off) in this region and wow....this hot recording sounds okay..... play on the more resolute system and bang its some what fatigueing......... Play on the Amp/preamp combo that is hot all on its own HF wise and it drives you to the volume control to turn it down or off.

It all matters........

[jpm]

Yeah, it does all matter, but ya better have tone controls. I hate tone controls though, so I choose to suffer through it. Actually I do know cheap gear sucks, but I think there's a quick point of no return on the $.

[Coytee]

It all matters........

Whoo hoo... I get to agree with Craig!! [Y]

So, now that we agree that it all DOES matter, is it perhaps fair to say that everything (however we define "all") could or should maybe be put in some form of heirachy so you can squash the worst offenders first?

I then might wonder how someone can be sure what component is the worst offender if he was listening to it in my basement before I got the insulation up and had the room ringing like the Liberty bell.

My logic being... get the environment you're going to use, to sound good and then start dickering around with the 'stuff'.

no?

Gads, I'm scaring myself... I'm sounding more & more like MAS!! [] [:|] [6]

[jpm]

Most dealers tell me it all starts with the source. I call BS. I think it starts with the speakers.

[Macho Nacho]

I am not a dealer of audio, but if there is no source, there is no music.

[pauln]

I think of the chain to be made up of these stages:

PERFORMANCE: The quality of the musical event (assuming recording, but not including the quality of the sound engineer, the recording equipment, and the skills employed); how well did the artists' perform and/or interpret the work. How fine a venue, the quality of the instrument(s), other conditions of the event influencing the musical outcome.

MASTER: What the sound engineer recorded and what subsequent engineering did that ultimately became put on the media. The "quality of the recording" holds the entirety of the playback potential.

SOURCE: stylus can add and/or subtract to the sound, add or subtract frequency ranges, etc. Not sure about CDs (I don't use them), but generally I would think that since the source comes first in the reproduction chain it sets the upper and lower boundaries in frequency response, distortion, and other subtle characteristics available to the next element in the chain.

PHONO EQ / PREAMP / AMP: seems each of these elements takes what is available from the presious element in the chain and just has that with which to perform it's function. Likewise, these can add/subtract, distort, and do other subtle things (not really supposed to), but are pretty much bound to what they recieve from the previous stage in the chain.

SPEAKERS: Add/subtract, distortion, lots of other not so subtle things (not really supposed to, but hard to get it all right). Probably the most variable of the elements due to design and engineering/manufacturing skills, quality and matching of component parts (cab, speakers, networks), and position placement in room.

ROOM: Stong impact on the resultant sound, may dominate some of the other elements' attributes in the chain completely.

Those with more expertise will surely find my stages above to be incorrect in some fasion, but assuming just the gross stages, how should one weigh the contributions of these stages in their effect on the overall sound? They all seem to make a difference, but I agree that the "MASTER" stage can make different recordings sound quite good or bad from the outset.

And different combinations of equipment with variations in their design behavior sometimes work well together (synergy), sometimes not. This is where experience and outside consul from others' experience is very helpfull.

Another way of asking this question would be, "When assembling a set of elements, what order of choise will result in the highest quality or best synergy? In my mind it makes sense to built it in the reverse direction of the signal's path through the stages - room first (if possible and/or affordable), them speakers to match the room, then selection of gain stages to support the speakes, then source. But this gets confounded somewhat because you need all the preceding stages in order to evaluate the later stages. This is where having access to equipment prior to final selection is nice. And why many go through a series of gear sets along the way. And why we like to audition other equipment in the showrooms and other folk's homes, even though that is just a partial test.

[Welshstar]

Hi

In the CD world the most important thing is the quality of the recording. Ive studied this extensively and I have no douby whatsoever that a great recording on a $2000 system will blow away a poor flat recording on a $100,000 system.

I have CD"s such as the new Tab Benoit recording that are absolutely great and sound lively and detailed on almost anything.

Of course a great CD on a great systems sounds incredible but a bad Cd on a great system still sounds bad, I dont care what type of Khorns and amps etc thay you are using.

Alan

[Islander]

Who'da thunk? Yes, it's true, my speakers sound bright and lively with some cds and flat and lifeless with others. Sometimes they sound simply awesome with a cd that is obviously mixed to my liking.

Well, your speakers (or more likely your system, from source to room) let good CDs sound good and show bad CDs for what they are. Isn't that exactly what a good system is supposed to do? Let you clearly hear the recording, "warts and all"?

If it all CDs sound the same, your system is imposing its flavour on them. That's one description of an inferior system, no matter how much it cost. Another similar problem is systems that make all music or all instruments sound the same size, from a solo instrument to a full orchestra. If they all sound big or all sound small, that's not right.

Now that your system is doing what it should, you may want to look for better CDs and let the bad ones sit on the back of the shelf.

[tigerwoodKhorns]

The mastering does matter, as well as the system.

Are you familiar with the compression that is going on in the recording industry?

Here is an article:

http://georgegraham.com/compress.html

I have not read it, but they all say pretty much the same thing. Recording studios currently have some of the best equipment and media ever available at a low cost and are putting out some of the worst mastering ever because of pressure from the sales department.

Try getting some Steely Dan, Neil Young or Alan Parsons recordings. They were always really concerned with mastering.

[jpm]

Regarding looking for better CDs, do you guys recommend one particular brand (say Columbia, for instance) over another for better quality recordings?

[mas]

You guys are all nuts...

I just saw a commercial on TV talking about the conversion of TV from analog to digital, and they even said that digital is perfect.

I find it offensive that someone can even suggest that a digital CD could sound less than perfect.

In fact, I transferred some old cassette tapes t a CD recently and they transformed from lifeless, limited bandwidth and compressed recordings into vibrant uncompressed objects of near limitless bandwidth perfection! They even look spectacular while hanging from my car mirror when the sun hits them!

I mean, when I wrote this on paper this post didn't seem very astute, but now that it is tranformed into the digital domain, it has assumed a near transcendent aura of enlightenment.

So let's cool it with the talk that digital CD can be anything less than perfection!

[]

Here's an update, i just went back and listened to them again and i was
not fair in my earlier assessment. They are not only life-like. That is
an understatment. Its not only like the person is actually there.
Rather I can actually converse with them - interactively! Now that's realism! And all simply because I transferred the analog cassettes to digital CD!

Oh wait! I just discovered that it wasn't due to the CDs at all...it was the magic "tubes"...and the phase of thre moon and the barometric pressure and the drugs and the ....[*-)]

[ZAKO]

UUHHH !!!! come on you guys... The flaver begins with the mics and there placement in the hall....you can have 30 mics with different colorations,,,J Gorden Holt did this on the Stereophile CD 1 test CD. You can hear the difference whether its played back on a Bose or a Jubilee...useing analog or digital. Tape or hard drive,,, Ive been recording for 30 years and can give you any flaver you want. The room and speakers are only the messenger.

[PrestonTom]

UUHHH !!!! come on you guys... The flaver begins with the mics and there placement in the hall.....you can have 30 mics with different colorations,,,J Gorden Holt did this on the Stereophile CD 1 test CD. You can hear the difference whether its played back on a Bose or a Jubilee...useing analog or digital. Tape or hard drive,,, Ive been recording for 30 years and can give you any flaver you want.

That CD was a very revealing demonstration. The mics made a huge difference. As I recall, they were all standard (frequently used) mics and some were very expensive (the B&K one I have used in lab settings and they cost a fortune).

-Tom

[jpm]

Some CDs are dead and muddy, some shrill and irritating, some just fine. I'm not trying over-think this, just making a general observation.

[mas]

Bring that same CD home an hour later, and play it on your BoogieHorn2000 speakers with the MegaAmp 900XLT, in your suavely decorated living room, and you are NOT hearing accuracy or perfection for THAT CD. It simply can't possibly be any other way. Now try a CD for which you never even visited the mix/mastering room! What do you imagine you are hearing? On what basis do you make judgment about the sound?

And yet we hear daily as to how only tubes can accomplish that very thing!

[mas]

To date there is only ONE recording method that accurately captures and recreates the 3space phase relationships of the original experience. And that is the ITE (In the Ear) microphones develped by Etymotic Research and extensively tested by Don and Carolyn Davis and which have subsequently been acquired by Richard Clarke (of, among other things, car audio fame).

[bodcaw boy]

To date there is only ONE recording method that accurately captures and recreates the 3space phase relationships of the original experience. And that is the ITE (In the Ear) microphones develped by Etymotic Research and extensively tested by Don and Carolyn Davis and which have subsequently been acquired by Richard Clarke (of, among other things, car audio fame).

okay.....this doesn't happen too often......but you have heightened my curiousity. i have a home studio and this sounds logical. i take it that etymotic research has a website? have you ever tried them before?

in Christ, because of God's grace,

roy

[mas]

To date there is only ONE recording method that accurately captures and recreates the 3space phase relationships of the original experience. And that is the ITE (In the Ear) microphones develped by Etymotic Research and extensively tested by Don and Carolyn Davis and which have subsequently been acquired by Richard Clarke (of, among other things, car audio fame).

okay.....this doesn't happen too often......but you have heightened my curiousity. i have a home studio and this sounds logical. i take it that etymotic research has a website? have you ever tried them before?

Yes!

If you like, I would be glad to tell you about them. They are absolutely astounding. And you can easily verify this with any number of folks.

To my knowledge Etymotic is not actively marketing them. But we can certainly get you in touch with those who can provide the information. It is something that I have also been very interested in.

When I spoke with Don and inquired about the status of the equipment, he informed me that Richard had acquired them and was pursuing the technology. A call or two should get you to the source.

I will also be glad to dig up a bit of published data on them.

If you can PM me with your contact info I will be glad to send it.