Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Many recording professionals do not understand the value of better cables and other tweaks, so there's no special expertise of pro engineers with high end audio. In fact often pro audio processing is often the opposite of quality, open sounding recordings.
|
I'm sorry, but can you prove the value of "better cables" and the vague "other tweaks"? Also, can you correlate it to minimum cost? Thanks.
Quote:
Reality:
1. Upper frequencies impact audible music via harmonic overtones. |
I'd love it if you could cite where overtones above 20khz are audible in an actual recognized and published study.
Quote:
2. Wider HF can be recorded with high resolution digital. |
You're going to have to explain the "wider" part. If by that you mean higher bandwidth . . . sure, but what use does that have for the average human ear?
Quote:
3. Supertweeters and high bandwidth speakers do sound better. |
Wow, this is extremely subjective and not supportable in ANY fashion. I'm inclined to say that, based on the crossover point (above 22Khz or so) one would be unable to hear it. You're completely free to cite examples of people being able to hear it though.
Quote:
Reality:
1, High end cables do make an audible difference. |
That's funny, we don't have material evidence to prove this. Considering I asked for material evidence I'm sure you're going to provide it to us yes?
Quote:
2. Capacitance, Inductance, and Resistance all make a difference. |
To varying degrees, yes. I think he highlighted the importance of resistance did he not? The question is, how will it impact the audible range, and even more importantly who can hear it (and at what point)?
Ears are unreliable instruments -- good measuring equipment is not.
Quote:
3. Wire geometry makes a difference. |
It
can make a difference under extreme circumstances -- ones usually out of the audible range. You're free once again to provide material evidence for this claim.
Quote:
Absolute rubbish. Anyone who has heard C-J gear with and without Teflon capacitors understands there is a significant sonic upgrade with Teflon caps. |
Anyone that has "heard"? Once again, ears, brains, etc . . . all unreliable. Unless you're talking the unmentionable testing method or material evidence you have no proof.
Quote:
Better parts matter. Better design matters. |
Yes . . . but audiophile tweaks usually don't constitute that unless it's already overkill (which can actually hurt the design depending on what it is). Better design matters, sure . . . when did you become a better designer than those building the equipment exactly? I'm just saying, what's you're credentials for "fixing" their designs?
Once again, I expect material evidence for all of these claims you're making. The burden of proof is upon you, especially when you go out of the way to drag other professionals through the mud by calling them "moron" and "inexperienced". If you hide behind "it's subjective" then you've done nothing more than prove Ethan's point and libel him (not to mention that doesn't really work, since you labeled them a "reality" (aka a fact), and for that to be the case it must be able to be proven).
Quote:
Originally Posted by anetode
The room has a huge impact, so much so that a couple of panels are unlikely to mitigate it. Especially when they can't achieve uniform attenuation across the frequency range.
|
Anything that changes reflections will have a large impact, not to mention absorb it. Given a "couple" panels won't fix a room . . . that's why many rooms that seriously consider acoustics have much more than a "couple"