|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
65.19.76.104
In Reply to: RE: Why does a ten year old NOS DAC sound so good? posted by RGA on June 01, 2014 at 21:41:58
" 'Unfortunately, in a sampled system such as digital audio you can not know what the original signal was'
You can by listening. And Audio Note's design principals (via listening) is their "Comparison by Contrast" method which was written by classical composer music reviewer Leonard Norwitz and Peter Qvortrup of Audio Note to indeed figure out what was on the original recording by noting that all recordings sound different from each other. Contrast is the ability of a system to contrast those recorded differences - the system that has the highest level of contrast is the system that is being far more truthful to the original discs. (or at least has a fighting chance of accuracy)."
This is complete BS. One may imagine what one hoped the original might have sounded like, but if the record producers and engineers put something different on the disk then you'd better hear this. If you don't you might as well blame your CD player when the artwork says "Beethoven" and you hear "Beatles". As to the "contrast" principle, this is also a bogus concept. One will automatically hear more differences by turning up the volume to unnatural levels, but the ability to do does not mean that the resulting reproduction will be more realistic, more pleasant, or even safe to hear.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Follow Ups:
If you didn't understand that article then I can't help you - it is very easy to follow and logically sound and has nothing to do with touching the volume control - in fact it would be advisable to NOT touch the volume control.
"An Ideal Audio System Should Re-Create
An Exact Acoustical Analog Of The Recorded Program
If so, then it would be very useful if we had meaningful knowledge of exactly what is encoded on our recordings. Unfortunately, such is not possible. (This assertion may appear casually stated, but on its truth depends much if the following argument; we therefore invite the closest possible scrutiny.)
Even if we were present at every recording session, we would have no way of interpreting the electrical information which feeds through the microphones to the master tape--let alone to the resulting CD or LP -- into a sensory experience against which we could evaluate a given audio system. Even if we were present at playback sessions through the engineer's monitoring (read: "presumed reference") system, we would be unable to transfer that experience to any other system evaluation. And even if we could hold the impression of that monitoring experience in our minds and account for venue variables such knowledge would turn out to be irrelevant in determining system or component accuracy since the monitoring equipment could not have been accurate in the first place. (More about this shortly.) But if this is true, how can we properly evaluate the relative accuracy of any playback system or component?
The Old Method:
Comparison By Reference
We should begin by examining the method in current favor: The usual procedure is to use one or more favored recording and playing slices of them on two different systems (or the same system alternating two components, which amounts to the same thing); and then deciding which system (or component) you like better, or which one more closely matches your belief about some internalized reference, or which one "tells you more" about the music on the recording.
It won't work! ... not even if you use a dozen recordings of presumed pedigree ... not even if you compare for stage size, frequency range, transient response tonal correctness, instrument placement, clarity of text, etc. -- not even if you compare your memory of you emotional response with one system to that of another -- It makes little difference. The practical result will be the same: What you will learn is which system (or component) more closely matches your prejudice about the way a given recording ought to sound. And since neither the recordings nor the components we use are accurate to begin with, then this method cannot tell us which system is more accurate! It is methodological treason to evaluate something for accuracy against a reference with tools which are inaccurate -- not least of which is our memory of acoustical data.
Therefore it is very-likely-to-the-point-of-certainty that a positive response to a system using this method is the result of a pleasing complimentarily between recording playback system, experience, memory, and expectation; all of which is very unlikely to be duplicated due to the extraordinarily wide variation which exists in recording method and manufacture. (Ask yourself, when you come across a component of system which plays many of your "reference" recordings well, if it also plays all your recordings well. The answer is probably "no;" and the explanation we usually offer puts the blame on the other recordings, not the playback system. And, no, we're not going to argue that all recordings are good; but that all recordings are much better than you have let yourself believe.)
Recognizing that many will consider these statements as audiophile heresy; we urge you to keep in mind our mutual objective: to prevent boredom and frustration, and to keep our interest in upgrading our playback system enjoyable and on track. To this end it becomes necessary that we lay aside our need to have verified in our methodology beliefs about the way our recordings and playback systems ought to sound. As we shall see, marriage to such beliefs practically guarantees us passage to AUDIO HELL. It is our contention that, while nothing in the recording or playback chain is accurate, accuracy is the only worthwhile objective; for when playback is as accurate as possible, the chances for maximum recovery of the recorded program is greatest; and when we have as much of that recording to hand -- or to ear -- then we have the greatest chance for an intimate experience with the recorded performance. It only remains to describe a methodology which improves that likelihood. (This follows shortly.)
Listeners claiming an inside track by virtue of having attended the recording session are really responding to other, perhaps unconscious, clues when they report significant similarities between recording session and playback. As previously asserted, no one can possibly know in any meaningful way what is on the master tape or the resulting software, even if they auditioned the playback through the engineer's "reference" monitoring system.
Anyone who thinks that there exists some "reference" playback system that sounds just like the live event simply isn't paying attention: or at best doesn't understand how magic works. After all, if it weren't for the power of suggestion, hi fi would have been denounced decades ago as a fraud. Remember those experiments put on by various hi fi promoters in the fifties in which most of the audience "thought" they were listening to a live performance until the drawing of the curtain revealed the Wizard up to his usual tricks. The truth is the audience "thought" no such thing; they merely went along for the ride without giving what they were hearing any critical thought at all.
It is the nature of our psychology to believe what we see and to "hear" what we expect to hear. Only cynics and paranoids point out fallibility when everyone else is having a good time.
Another relevant misunderstanding involves the correct function of "monitoring equipment." The purpose of such equipment is to get an idea of how whatever is being recorded will play back on a known system and then to make adjustments in recording procedure. It should never be understood by either the recording producer or the buyer that the monitoring system is either definitive or accurate, even though the engineer makes all sorts of placement and equipment decisions based on what their monitoring playback reveals. They have to use something, after all, and the best recording companies go to great lengths to make use of monitoring equipment that tells them as much as possible about what they are doing. But no matter what monitoring components are used, they can never be the last word on the subject, and it is entirely possible to achieve more realistic results with a totally different playback system, for example a more accurate one. Notice "more accurate," not accurate. It bears repeating that there is no such thing as an accurate system, nor an accurate component, nor an accurate recording. Yet as axiomatic as any audiophile believes these assertions to be, they are instantly forgotten the moment we begin a critical audition."
Continued
TL;DR.
That was all I really needed to say, but for one sentence that is worth quoting and translating into language that idiots can understand.
"Recognizing that many will consider these statements as audiophile heresy; we urge you to keep in mind our mutual objective: to prevent boredom and frustration, and to keep our interest in upgrading our playback system enjoyable and on track. "
For those who don't have a brain, let me translate the emphasized phrase, "So we can collect more of your money into our pockets".
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Once again I will have to partially (at least) disagree with you. I think that comparison by contrast has some validity in the sense that it can help you detect subtle things that are going on between components. I don't think as Peter Q does that it can help you find the absolute best sounding component...this can only be with regard to an absolute reference or the closest thing to that a recording made by the evaluator in real space with one or more real instruments...not an easy task. Comparison by contrast might get you to the best sound in a small group of comparison units though.
WHile I do not condone the high prices for some of their gear, I must admit that their top products sound the business. With simple circuits, parts selection really does become critical. With complex circuits they will never give realistic sound regardless of the parts.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: