Those who own Audioquest cable...what do you think?

[semente]

It would be a sad state of affairs to strive to assemble a system of components to accurately reproduce the sound of a piano recording that had no fidelity to begin with, wouldn't it? So, we have to rely on producers to do their job well, as well as component manufacturers. But how do you establish or measure a standard to assess the fidelity of what you have assembled? You listen, right?

 

You play synthetic test signals and measure the response.

 

Measuring frequency response is easy but a more comprehensive set of measures requires deeper knowledge and complex equipment.

I have to rely on published measurements if I'm looking for a technical assessment.

 

 

By the way, one of my favorite pastimes is listening to live broadcasts.

 

I enjoy that too.

And quite often the sound is better than that of many commercial recordings.

 

R

[Jud]

Those are certainly cheap enough to experiment with but I'm not sure I would know what to do with the results.

 

 

Get Better Sound - Get Better Sound

[mansr]

Measuring frequency response is easy but a more comprehensive set of measures requires deeper knowledge and complex equipment.

 

Frequency response and impulse response already give you quite a bit of useful information. As for equipment, a mike/ADC and some software is generally all you need. Of course you still need to know how to interpret the results.

 

I have to rely on published measurements if I'm looking for a technical assessment.

 

Professionally done measurements are a good reference, but they tell you nothing about your own room.

[semente]

Frequency response and impulse response already give you quite a bit of useful information. As for equipment, a mike/ADC and some software is generally all you need. Of course you still need to know how to interpret the results.

 

 

 

Professionally done measurements are a good reference, but they tell you nothing about your own room.

 

I have been making my own room measurements for some years now, and despite their usefulness in regards to positioning the speakers and listening spot they will not give a lot more information than the system's response in one's room.

This was made with my mobile phone and a calibrated mic.

 

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1554/24502379341_9c07af7908_o.png

 

In my experience frequency response is also reasonably easy to evaluate by listening, it's for the more intricate distortions and shortcomings that I see a need for a more comprehensive technical assessment.

 

I'm not saying that some types of distortion and their causes cannot be pinned down by listening but here's where a good set of measurements can help, even as a screening/shortlisting tool to help decide the to-listen equipment.

 

R

[PopPop]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24505[/ATTACH]

 

Get Better Sound - Get Better Sound

 

I am actually going to follow up with this. I recently moved my gear from the south wall of my listening room to the east wall (it is square) and was surprised but not particularly pleased by the difference it made in the sound.

[Sal1950]

Well, I respectfully disagree. In most pop recordings, the performance and the recording are inseparable. One cannot exist without the other. In a classical performance, no electronics is required at all for people to hear the performance the way the composer and the conductor meant for it to be heard.

Really? That's some magical system that gets the wavefront at the mike into your listening room with "no electronics is required at all". Truly amazing.

In any case I have no idea how many classical recordings are done in a absolute minimalist style. I do know we just went thru a testing and tweaking session with Mario who does minimalist style recording where we were listening to various filters, etc; so the recordings in his room sounded the way he intended.

In any case none of this has anything to do with the original premise. Ultimately I would like my system to be as accurate as possible and reflect what the production chain intended me to hear. That is as important and valuable to many popular music audiophiles as it is to classical. You can not discount or depreciate the pop music audiophile world due to your admitted distaste for it. Maybe you should put aside your prejudices and listen to some Pink Floyd and learn about the music, it might enrich your world a bit.

il saluto

[plissken]

Really? That's some magical system that gets the wavefront at the mike into your listening room with "no electronics is required at all". Truly amazing.

 

Hi may be inferring a live audience(?)

[Sal1950]

I am actually going to follow up with this. I recently moved my gear from the south wall of my listening room to the east wall (it is square) and was surprised but not particularly pleased by the difference it made in the sound.

Since the room is square did this move included a different positioning in off wall distances? Even if not the difference in the reverberant nature of the surfaces in the room can make a very large change. The room is dang near as important as the speakers, some would say more.

[semente]

Since the room is square did this move included a different positioning in off wall distances? Even if not the difference in the reverberant nature of the surfaces in the room can make a very large change. The room is dang near as important as the speakers, some would say more.

 

Maybe the listening spot has changed in relation to the speakers and/or room, or the current sidewalls are more reflective... Too many variables.

 

R

[Jud]

I am actually going to follow up with this. I recently moved my gear from the south wall of my listening room to the east wall (it is square) and was surprised but not particularly pleased by the difference it made in the sound.

 

While you're waiting to receive it (I have it - get the version from Jim's site, the one with DVD), some of the most thorough speaker manuals I've seen on the specific topic you are talking about are the Vandersteen manuals. Pages 7-10 at the following link may be helpful to you: http://vandersteen.com//media/files/Manuals/3asigmanual.pdf

[Allan F]

Cardas also has a Room/Speaker Setup Guide and it includes variations for different room shapes: Cardas Room Setup Guide

[PopPop]

Maybe the listening spot has changed in relation to the speakers and/or room, or the current sidewalls are more reflective... Too many variables.

 

R

 

Yes, the addition of a billiard table forced me to move the listening position. What a terrible burden. [emoji1]

 

While you're waiting to receive it (I have it - get the version from Jim's site, the one with DVD), some of the most thorough speaker manuals I've seen on the specific topic you are talking about are the Vandersteen manuals. Pages 7-10 at the following link may be helpful to you: http://vandersteen.com//media/files/Manuals/3asigmanual.pdf

 

Thanks, I will do that. And rather than clutter this thread with too much discussion about my particular situation, I will probably start a new thread. If anyone else is interested in making comments.

[gmgraves]

A while back, I listened to a test that was done using several different pairs of microphones. It was a simple test. The mics were brought into a studio and they recorded the exact same thing using each one. When the recordings were played back, the differences were huge. And that's just the first component in the recording/playback chain. The signal still has to pass through everything else in order to reach the speakers. Who knows how much more the signal is distorted by the time it comes out your speakers?

 

 

Well, you must expect that. Microphones are transducers, just like speakers and phono cartridges and just as no two models of those sound alike, neither do two disparate models of microphones.

[gmgraves]

I enjoy that too.

And quite often the sound is better than that of many commercial recordings.

 

R

 

(Pop-Pop says that he enjoys listening to live broadcasts)

 

+1! The Boston Symphony concerts on WCRB.com from Boston, and the SF Symphony via KDFC.com from San Francisco.

[CR250]

Well, you must expect that. Microphones are transducers, just like speakers and phono cartridges and just as no two models of those sound alike, neither do two disparate models of microphones.

 

I just brought it up as a general comment. The same voice sounded completely different with all other things being equal. Reproducing an original event with any type of accuracy seems to be easier said than done. But to be fair, this event happened a long time ago. If I remember correctly, it was early 1990's at WCES. No doubt advancements have been made, and I believe that at least some of the mics were tube. I'm not sure if a modern recording studio would even use tube mics.

[gmgraves]

Really? That's some magical system that gets the wavefront at the mike into your listening room with "no electronics is required at all". Truly amazing.

 

I never said that at all, Sal! I said that most classical recordings (the good ones, anyway) go from a minimalist stereo microphone setup to an ADC and then to the final media. I said nothing about no electronics. The only time no electronics are needed is in the concert hall where there is nothing between the musicians and the listener's ears but air. In that, I was referring to a live performance, not a recording.

 

In any case I have no idea how many classical recordings are done in a absolute minimalist style. I do know we just went thru a testing and tweaking session with Mario who does minimalist style recording where we were listening to various filters, etc; so the recordings in his room sounded the way he intended.

 

I realize that you have no idea about this because you have said many times that you do not value this kind of music, but I do know about it, Sal. I even make minimalist recordings, and I can assure you that the best classical recordings, these days are made using minimalist techniques. Also all of the most highly regarded stereo recordings from the so-called "golden age" of classical recording in the 1950's and early 60's from labels such as DGG, British Decca, RCA Victor, Mercury Living Presence, Everest, Vanguard, etc. were recorded using minimalist techniques. And guess what? These recordings, whether in their original LP pressings, or in LP or digital reissues, are still big sellers and in high demand by audiophiles who appreciate the sound and the stereo perspective afforded by the minimalist techniques used by recording engineers such as C. Robert Fine (Mercury), Lewis Leyton (RCA Victor), Bert Whyte (Everest), etc.

 

In any case none of this has anything to do with the original premise. Ultimately I would like my system to be as accurate as possible and reflect what the production chain intended me to hear. That is as important and valuable to many popular music audiophiles as it is to classical. You can not discount or depreciate the pop music audiophile world due to your admitted distaste for it. Maybe you should put aside your prejudices and listen to some Pink Floyd and learn about the music, it might enrich your world a bit.

il saluto

 

Pot Kettle, Black. The original premise, as I recall, was that you asked if anyone paid any attention to accuracy any more, and I said that it had been replaced with the attitude "if it sounds good, do it" and I gave some examples, one of which was that accuracy loses it's meaning when there is no "reference". By that I meant that if nobody knows what your Pink Floyd sounded like in the control room of the recording studios where those recordings were made, then what are you being accurate to? See, I know what the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra sounds like when they play in both Davies Symphony Hall and their alternate venue the DeAnza College auditorium in Cupertino CA, because I've been there many times and have even helped set-up microphones at both venues and set levels for live broadcasts and even recorded the San Jose Symphony in DeAnza. So, when I hear a recording of the orchestra, recorded in those halls (especially Davies, where they all are recorded presently), I can tell (roughly), how accurate my playback is because there is a reference - I have something to be accurate to. So, in my case, the word "accuracy" actually has meaning. Were you in the control room during any Pink Floyd recording sessions? No?, Then how do you know anything about the accuracy of your playback? You don't and you can't, and that means that the best that you can come up with is that it sounds good to you, and that's fine and nobody is saying that "sounding good" isn't a worthy goal, because it is. But the word accuracy doesn't apply here, and that's my only point. This isn't a cut. I'm not your enemy here. I'm merely trying to explain the facts of this question. Words have meanings and are only minimally up for individual interpretation.

[gmgraves]

I just brought it up as a general comment. The same voice sounded completely different with all other things being equal. Reproducing an original event with any type of accuracy seems to be easier said than done. But to be fair, this event happened a long time ago. If I remember correctly, it was early 1990's at WCES. No doubt advancements have been made, and I believe that at least some of the mics were tube. I'm not sure if a modern recording studio would even use tube mics.

 

Actually i don't see that any real technical advancements in microphones have been made since the 1990s. There are a lot more good microphones on the market today than then, and they are a lot cheaper (China). The only real advances in condenser microphones occurred in the 1970's when acid-etched bronze microphone diaphragms were replaced with sputtered Mylar diaphragms and FETs replaced tubes (in some models). This gave microphones a smoother, less peaky frequency response, and made them quieter.

 

But if you went into your average recording studio these days, you would find microphones of all types from just about all eras. You would find Telefunken and Neumann tubed condenser mikes from the 1950's (which are worth much more today than they were when they were new), Sony's and Sennheisers and AKGs from the 60's, 70's etc. You might even find some ancient RCA ribbons (or modern knockoffs of same). Why? Because all recording engineers have their favorites and many prefer different mikes for different tasks. One might prefer a dynamic Shure mike for vocals, or perhaps a vintage Neumann U87 for cymbals, etc.

[sandyk]

Actually i don't see that any real technical advancements in microphones have been made since the 1990s.

Did they have microphones back then like Barry D. uses, which are only -1dB down at 40kHz ?

I believe that there are now also Laser based microphones available with even better specifications.

[Teresa]

Since we are now moving to power cables, wouldn't these have to work as filters to make any difference in performance?

 

And can this filtering ability be achieved solely through the use of wires?

 

R

 

I’m curious too, as I used a different solution.

 

I use the Monster High Definition PowerCenter 1800 Line Conditioner to filter my AC power. It claims to have circuitry that virtually stops the electromagnetic pollution that goes right through typical surge protectors.

 

I purchased it because I was hearing bad radio frequency interference (RFI) that actually sounded like a low level slightly mistuned radio station playing when I had no music playing or in between songs. I don’t own a tuner so I had no idea where this was coming from. I routed all my system power cords through the PowerCenter 1800 and the interference disappeared completely.

 

All of my power cords are stock that came with my equipment. I guess my question would be, is there any improvement using aftermarket power cords between my components and the Monster line conditioner?

[Teresa]

Actually i don't see that any real technical advancements in microphones have been made since the 1990s.

 

Did they have microphones back then like Barry D. uses, which are only -1dB down at 40kHz ?

I believe that there are now also Laser based microphones available with even better specifications.

 

Among the newer microphones made for high resolution digital is the Sanken CO-100K whose frequency response extends to 100kHz. Here is a user report from Michael Bishop, recording engineer & producer of Five Four Productions Ltd.

[semente]

Why would we need -1dB at 40kHz to record music?

 

R

[Jud]

Why would we need -1dB at 40kHz to record music?

 

R

 

Not to record CDs, I would guess.

[Teresa]

...I even make minimalist recordings, and I can assure you that the best classical recordings, these days are made using minimalist techniques. Also all of the most highly regarded stereo recordings from the so-called "golden age" of classical recording in the 1950's and early 60's from labels such as DGG, British Decca, RCA Victor, Mercury Living Presence, Everest, Vanguard, etc. were recorded using minimalist techniques. And guess what? These recordings, whether in their original LP pressings, or in LP or digital reissues, are still big sellers and in high demand by audiophiles who appreciate the sound and the stereo perspective afforded by the minimalist techniques used by recording engineers such as C. Robert Fine (Mercury), Lewis Leyton (RCA Victor), Bert Whyte (Everest), etc.

 

I strongly agree with this and those are some of my favorite golden age labels. I feel for "major label" classical and jazz the 50's to the 60's are the best and for "major label" rock the 60's to the early 70's are also the best. After those years all the major labels went downhill fast, instead of being basically natural photographic styles of recording, they became a highly processed gimmicky production-styles of recording.

 

People invented all these tools to process audio and I believe that is the download fall of the major labels and what gave birth to the rise of original audiophile recordings, audiophile from the microphones to the finished product as they went back to the microphoning techniques of the golden age. Sheffield Lab used a single stereo microphone, the Robert Woods / Jack Renner team at Telarc used three microphones inspired by the Mercury Living Presence recordings of which they were fans, just to name two audiophile companies. Basically the major labels departed away from accurately representing music to making productions instead, and audiophile labels continue to fill this gap.

 

Did you know Bert Whyte also engineered a lot of Crystal Clear Direct to Disc LPs?

 

P.S. I knew you meant acoustic versus electronic music not reproduced music. When music is reproduced with electricity in our homes, acoustic music still sounds acoustic and electronic music still sounds electronic.

[semente]

Not to record CDs, I would guess.

 

Perhaps not...but

 

Why do we need -1dB at 40kHz if we can't hear above 18-19kHz.

Why do we need -1dB at 40kHz if most tweeters roll-off long before.

Why do we need -1dB at 40kHz if this will trigger the >10dB resonance of most rigid-domed tweeters.

 

R

[Sal1950]

I never said that at all, Sal! I said that most classical recordings (the good ones, anyway) go from a minimalist stereo microphone setup to an ADC and then to the final media. I said nothing about no electronics. The only time no electronics are needed is in the concert hall where there is nothing between the musicians and the listener's ears but air. In that, I was referring to a live performance, not a recording.

 

Excuse me kind sir but that is exactly what you said, notice it was a quote from your post #644. Here I'll show you again with a copy/paste

"In a classical performance, no electronics is required at all for people to hear the performance the way the composer and the conductor meant for it to be heard."

 

George, I really do like and respect you. But your superior attitude towards popular music and your generalization that it is all crap not deserving of striving for accuracy in a audio system takes the conversation away from having any chance of being constructive. You have blinders on bro. Yes I've said classical is not my cup of tea and I only have around 25 or 30 albums collected over the years to compare with what other "golden ears" were hearing and never really listened to them again. But I've not disrespected you for your tastes or insulted classical in general.

You really should be supporting the pop music community since classical only contributes much less than 3% of the industry's income. If it weren't for us baby boomer rockers the high end industry would only be a glimmer of what it is today.

Got to be about a million equipment and speaker/headphone reviews out there that for the last 43 years used Dark Side Of The Moon as reference.

Sorry sir but popular music is not irrelevant nor are it's fans.

il saluto