Jump to content
The Computer Audiophile

Article: Editorial: What's Wrong With You?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Richard Dale said:

Words ending in '-phile' just describe a person who likes or loves something, and 'audiophile' refers to someone who loves audio, which normally means music.

It would be more accurate to say that an "audiophile" is someone who loves audio, which means music reproduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, STC said:

 

I can't recall everything about Beatles now as I was gathering information on stereo development at the time. Anyway, here is something which may help to throw some light on this discussion which has now gone out of topic.

 

"

Martin: Four-track was the earliest thing we had and that wasn’t until 1965. From ’62 to ’65 we didn’t have four-track. We had mono--mono was the thing. Mono was all that pop records were. Stereo was reserved for classical. Stereo wasn’t considered to be in any way useful to pop record because it dissipated the sound...

MF: ...on the radio...

Martin: ...and pop had to hit you square on the nose. And so it was considered irrelevant. Very few people had stereo machines anyway. And if they did, they generally had them in cabinets where the speakers were about a foot apart, so you couldn’t really tell.

So mono was the thing. But I took a stereo machine and separated the tracks and made it into a twin-track machine. So when we recorded the Beatles live as we did, we didn’t overdub. I would keep the voices on one track and put the backing on another, so when they went home I could then mix it down and keep the voice forward--but at the same time get plenty of impact. I wouldn’t have to do it on the spot. So that gave me time.

MF: And there was some leakage between the two tracks because they were playing live...?

Martin: Of course.

MF: But it was amazing separation!

Martin: Yes, but then, in the instrumental where the voices stop, all the shit comes out on that track from elsewhere. When I first heard what they’d been doing, I was horrified. But they just did. And I didn’t find out 'till afterwards, and it was too late.

But the worst thing is: The people got used to this and loved it! They liked to be able to turn up the voices in songs. So I was hoisted with my own petard here. I couldn’t protest anymore. I was saying, “Why do you do this? It’s a travesty!” But then they’d say, “The people like it!”

MF: But that came out in England also—the stereo With the Beatles.

Martin: It did. By this time I’d left EMI, and I had no power there at all. I left EMI in 1965 to start my own company. Up to ’65 I was the head of Parlophone Records, so what I said went--as far as Parlophone was concerned. But once I left, I had no authority...apart from complaining.

MF: Back to those Capitol tracks: They were in mono, I assume.

Martin: Yes, "Baby, You’re a Rich Man," "Penny Lane," and "All You Need is Love" should have been mono.


Read more at https://www.analogplanet.com/content/sir-george-martin-interview-part-two-0#ZEV6pzrSh7tOpvJG.99 "

 

 

And 

 

Beyond this, working in true stereo the way the Beatles wanted to simply wasn’t possible through most of the 1960s. By the time of A Hard Day’s Night in 1964, for example, EMI had taken delivery of several new four-track machines, but that remained the state of the art for the next several years. And four tracks is far short of the number necessary to create what we might think of as a “modern” recording - with stereo drums, stereo instruments and stereo voices. Since early stereo attempts tended to sound clumsy and primitive, the Beatles gave up on the format until better times arrived. It wasn’t until 1968, when they began using eight-track machines, that they began giving real attention to stereo.

In the Beatles’ minds, we should remember, it was always more important for a record to be musically good than for it to be compatible with some new, gimmicky format. The Beatles had been raised on mono. All their early records were mono. The radio they listened to was mono. And so it’s natural that, as they began recording, mono remained their chief form of public expression. From 1962 until 1968 the Beatles would record their songs, create mono masters with George Martin plus either Norman Smith (1962-65) or Geoff Emerick (1966-67), and then go off on tour or holiday, leaving the stereo mixes to be done solely under Martin’s supervision. Stereo tapes were often couriered to Capitol in New York without the Beatles ever hearing them at all.

Wow, are your just trying to inform us of something you think we don’t know about  or are you arguing a non-existent argument? All of this is known.  They didn’t have the setup to do stereo the way we do it now. So what? In the 50’s a lot of tracks were recorded on only 3 tracks and then mixed to stereo. Even “Kind of Blue”. Doesn’t mean it isn’t stereo. 

It also doesn’t mean the Beatles songs weren’t  quite deliberately mixed and recorded to stereo. No one has said the Beatles didn’t have an orientation towards mono. But you are over interpreting based on seeing a few quotes. Yes stereo mixes were deliberately produced  also for release in the UK, not just for the US. All the albums were intentionally mixed to stereo and not just for the US. Nothing you quoted contradicts that. You simply are thinking you understand those quotes without knowing the context.
Sgt. Pepper is a good example. The Beatles spent 3 solid weeks working on the mono mix with Geoff Emerick and GM,  which was the most important one to them. When it was done, they basically said, “You know what we want now, so you can do the stereo without us”.  Doesn’t mean it wasn’t intentionally done and not just for the US market. 
 

And yes, there were some odd and fake stereo mixes made by Capitol. The were so desperate for Beatles songs to fill out all the “extra” albums they made  that they would even take mono tapes they were given and make fake stereo.

  Read “Recording the Beatles” or Mark Lewisohn’s or Geoff Emerick’s books and you will see.

Note: The 5  songs for the  Magical Mystery Tour TV special were originally intended for release on EP/45 only,  weren’t considered by the Beatles to be an “album” and so weren’t originally mixed to stereo.  


Main listening (small home office):

Surge protector +_iFi  AC iPurifiers >Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Conditioning+Isolation>CAPS IV Pipeline Server + Sonore 12V PS >SOtM Lan Isolator>Bricasti M5 Network Player >Kii Control>Kii Three >GIK Room Treatments.
 

Secondary Listening: CAPS Pipeline>IFi iOne DAC>Schiit Freya>Kii Three . Also an SBT and a RB Pi 3B+ running piCorePlayer as an SBT emulator. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jud said:

I guess it does show a certain tendency to be tendentious.

 

Darn, I meant to use my Beatles puns Yesterday, but now I gotta Get Back to being on topic! 

 

-Paul 


Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Triple amen to that. A whole lot of the anti-audiophile and anti-fancy gear arguments I see people tee up seem to firmly rest on the assumption that everyone's confirmation bias is identical


"The overwhelming majority [of audiophiles] have very little knowledge, if any, about the most basic principles and operating characteristics of audio equipment. They often base their purchasing decisions on hearsay, and the preaching of media sages. Unfortunately, because of commercial considerations, much information is rooted in increasing revenue, not in assisting the audiophile. It seems as if the only requirements for becoming an "authority" in the world of audio is a keyboard."

-- Bruce Rozenblit of Transcendent Sound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

Triple amen to that. A whole lot of the anti-audiophile and anti-fancy gear arguments I see people tee up seem to firmly rest on the assumption that everyone's confirmation bias is identical

 

Seriously, what do you think of CC's editorial? What do you understand his overall position to be and do you share it?


"The fundamental task of music is to give resonance not to objectivity but rather to the manner in which the innermost self is essentially moved according to its subjectivity and the ideal nature of the soul."  ---  GWF Hegel, Lectures On Aesthetics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Is it possible he said it outside this single article / interview?

 

I understood your "infamous" preface to me "possibly apocryphal." It seems to be a Slashdot commenter's quip in reference to the 2012 Parsons interview, which somehow morphed into Parsons having said it himself. It's definitely more quotable than Parsons's actual comments! 

 

In any case, "I Wouldn't Want to Be Like You" sounds great on "audiophile" systems! Haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 4est said:

The way you seem to spout BS causes me to wonder if you are running on all cylinders. If you cannot understand how a recording made off a camera and played back via YouTube might not tell the whole story, then there really isn't much common ground to work off of. I imagine we would all love to think that "sleeper cars(gear)" will out perform bespoke high end ones. The truth is that it depends a lot on the actual implementations. I am sure that I am not alone is suspecting that you system is no where near as capable as you make it out to be- regardless of price or how well you have hard soldered your cables.

 

Again, what a recorded clip of music playing does is communicate whether there is something wrong with the sound - if there are incidental noises, like people talking in the background while listening, etc, this allows one to 'calibrate' the overall sense of the recording. If when the music starts it is jarringly out of kilter with the preceding sound picture, then something is very wrong with the playback being recorded.

 

The "whole story" is not the point - if it's easy to hear that you don't like the sound of the gear over a YouTube link, then it would be much worse in the flesh.

 

Yes, actual implementations are at the heart of getting good sound. And my rigs are all over the place in SQ, because I'm always in the process of investigating, and trying things out. One day it will be a bit of magic; the next day it will irritate the hell out of me - because I've made a wrong move, or something has come adrift; or an external factor has come into the picture.


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Ahhh, Mankind ... Porsche intellect, Trabant emotions ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

I am still trying to get past the Ferrari thing.

 

There is currently a red Scion FR-S with prancing horse decal in the used lot of a local Toyota dealer:

 

57914627.jpeg

 

The asking price is less than the carbon fiber drink holder option on the Ferrari F12 if I'm not mistaken. One heck of a motorized drink holder, with feisty Chihuahua attitude. Awesome 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, audiobomber said:


😯

 

I am always intrigued by systems with exotic or unusual sources, amps, and speaker technologies. I would love to hear this system, but I would not have made the same equipment choices... no bass!!!


@The Computer Audiophile

 

 

 

And I alway ask the question - what is this thing about bass? When I go to the concert hall, I don't hear "audiophile bass"; when I'm sitting in a room with a rock band rehearsing, I don't hear "audiophile bass" ...

 

One of my tests for this is classic Boney M. tracks - there is a visceral, gut wrenching thud from the beat which is part of the magic - and listening to this on a rig with mighty woofers, this can be missing ... Fail!!!


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Ahhh, Mankind ... Porsche intellect, Trabant emotions ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Again, what a recorded clip of music playing does is communicate whether there is something wrong with the sound - if there are incidental noises, like people talking in the background while listening, etc, this allows one to 'calibrate' the overall sense of the recording. If when the music starts it is jarringly out of kilter with the preceding sound picture, then something is very wrong with the playback being recorded.

 

The "whole story" is not the point - if it's easy to hear that you don't like the sound of the gear over a YouTube link, then it would be much worse in the flesh.

 

Yes, actual implementations are at the heart of getting good sound. And my rigs are all over the place in SQ, because I'm always in the process of investigating, and trying things out. One day it will be a bit of magic; the next day it will irritate the hell out of me - because I've made a wrong move, or something has come adrift; or an external factor has come into the picture.

I completely relate to your last paragraph. It fits me to a tee. Whatever is in my signature is merely my LR stereo and the one that works! LOL

 

Your first two paragraphs baffle me though. I agree there should be some averaging, but there are too many variables for me to be comfortable saying anything concrete about it.


Forrest:

Win10 i7 3770k HQPlayer>Win10 NAA

DSD512>Pavel's DSC2.6>Bent Audio TAP>

Parasound JC1>Quad ESL63/Tannoy PS350B subs<100Hz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 4est said:

 

Your first two paragraphs baffle me though. I agree there should be some averaging, but there are too many variables for me to be comfortable saying anything concrete about it.

 

There is a fundamental difference between what one attempts to do with a car - and with an audio rig. With a vehicle there is no "absolute performance" - you can always give it a higher top speed, level of acceleration; in the extreme, land speed records and dragsters. With audio there is a set maximum - what is on the recording; the goal is to get as close to the track contents as possible; this is an https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptote goal.

 

What I listen for are the signs that the gap is too large; clear "extra noises" that tell me the rig is 'rattling' too much, instead of quietly getting on with the job.


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Ahhh, Mankind ... Porsche intellect, Trabant emotions ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, accwai said:

 

There is currently a red Scion FR-S with prancing horse decal in the used lot of a local Toyota dealer:

 

 

 

If I were to buy a newer sports car, I'd get a Boxster/Cay-thing or a Miata with a jaguar V-6 sound system (lighter & more hp than stock).

 

But, I would not try to evaluate them thru youtube...


"The overwhelming majority [of audiophiles] have very little knowledge, if any, about the most basic principles and operating characteristics of audio equipment. They often base their purchasing decisions on hearsay, and the preaching of media sages. Unfortunately, because of commercial considerations, much information is rooted in increasing revenue, not in assisting the audiophile. It seems as if the only requirements for becoming an "authority" in the world of audio is a keyboard."

-- Bruce Rozenblit of Transcendent Sound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You tube is getting pretty good; 4K picture and decent sound rendition. Yeah I know, it's not analog from a record (vinyl) playing. Still, you can make music sound very good.

 

It's easy to dismiss, and it's easy not to. 

  _____

 

Bonus (not for sound, not for picture, but for what's wrong, and right with us?)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...