1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Audio Quality Rankings

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by freakydrew, Feb 3, 2010.
First
 
Back
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
13
Next
 
Last
  1. TwoTrack
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by grokit /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    It's like Steven Hawking vs. the Pope around here!

    Can't we all just agree to co-exist?

    That would be no fun, though [​IMG]




    I don't think its right for you to call Steve Eddy the Pope. [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  2. Steve Eddy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    I don't think its right for you to call Steve Eddy the Pope. [​IMG] [​IMG]



    No ****.

    It's pretty clear who the Pope is here.

    I offer up a very simple way for you to investigate whether or not mangetized LPs are a problem in the first place and you simply ignore it. Perhaps it poses too much of a threat to Church doctrine?

    se
     
  3. wnmnkh Contributor
    Truth must be told, this thread is about as useless as cable burn-in machines usually selling at 2000$ from so called Hi Fi companies.
     
  4. TwoTrack
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    I offer up a very simple way for you to investigate whether or not mangetized LPs are a problem in the first place and you simply ignore it. Perhaps it poses too much of a threat to Church doctrine?



    I see no reason to do your silly experiment. I've already listened to the Clarity and non-Clarity vinyl of Blue Train and the non-magnetic Clarity is noticeably better in sound quality.

    I'm sorry you are not willing to do the test yourself.

    Like many here, you are more judgmental than curious.
     
  5. bdr529
  6. wnmnkh Contributor
    Now this thread becomes more useless than 500,000$ power cord, can we stop discussing silly de-magnetizing things and back to the topic please?

    Now with videos you put up ( http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/i...igital-474381/ ) and posts you made, TwoTrack, can I safely assume that your opinion on recording music is based on "good" sound rather than "accurate" sound?

    Thing is, on both videos, I hear constantly....

    "but it just sound does not right"
    "Sound is not good. Something is gone"
    "It is not involving anymore"
    "Vinyl makes sound good"

    And other stuffs which is not even close to "accurate", other than a guy who briefly mentions advantages of CD.


    Now, if you read my posts carefully, I really do not mind about "good" and "accurate" on recording stage of the music. Because as far as I understand, recording is also art, bound to be subjective. You create a form of art from another art.

    Using analog or digital or whatever you like to make a sound you desire... I (and all of us should) am fine about it. It is your master tape at your disposal.

    But we are talking about end-user-playback stage, which purpose is to faithfully reproduce the sound done by record stage.

    Think about this; if a person wants end-user-playback sounds "good" but not "accurate", it can be perceived that he refuses to listen to what record engineers intended. You made a wonderful mix, and think sound is perfectly fine as it is, yet a random person comes out and say "hey this is not enough, there should be more" and uses some exotic products that alter the sound of your mix. Does he have any respect to your art?
     
  7. nick_charles Contributor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wnmnkh /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    And other stuffs which is not even close to "accurate", other than a guy who briefly mentions advantages of CD.



    That would be the notorious Michael Fremer a man whose hearing ability is so acute that he waxed lyrical about a broken cable.
     
  8. TwoTrack
    I don't understand why in your opinion good sound does not include accuracy. If you are accurate to what real music sounds like, why would it not sound great?
     
  9. wnmnkh Contributor
    If record is semi-decent/fine:



    Accurate sound guarantees good sound.
    Good sound does not guarantee accurate sound.


    It is one-way interchangeable. Think about it. There are tons of people outside of this EQ-hate community, use all sort of EQ presets, effects and putting oversized sub-woofers on their cars. They say then "sounds good". But does it means it sounds "accurate"?


    To be honest, even more subjective can go, "Accurate sound guarantees good sound" is also being disputed, by audiophiles without aware.



    Now, I really have to do go jogging. I gotten fat these days...
     
  10. Steve Eddy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    I don't understand why in your opinion good sound does not include accuracy. If you are accurate to what real music sounds like, why would it not sound great?



    Ask the fans of say, single-ended triode tube amps.

    se
     
  11. grokit
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wnmnkh /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    Now this thread becomes more useless than 500,000$ power cord, can we stop discussing silly de-magnetizing things and back to the topic please?

    And other stuffs which is not even close to "accurate", other than a guy who briefly mentions advantages of CD.




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    That would be the notorious Michael Fremer a man whose hearing ability is so acute that he waxed lyrical about a broken cable.



    Mr. Fremer also has full faith in the belief system of de-magnetization, as I posted while in a religious fervor earlier, for better or worse [​IMG]

    Sorry, pay no attention, couldn't resist [​IMG]
     
  12. TwoTrack
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by grokit /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    Mr. Fremer also has full faith in the belief system of de-magnetization, as I posted while in a religious fervor earlier, for better or worse [​IMG]

    Sorry, pay no attention, couldn't resist [​IMG]




    Mike isn't always right but he's a good guy and mostly right in my experience.
     
  13. sbtruitt
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wnmnkh /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    If record is semi-decent/fine:



    Accurate sound guarantees good sound.
    Good sound does not guarantee accurate sound.


    It is one-way interchangeable. Think about it. There are tons of people outside of this EQ-hate community, use all sort of EQ presets, effects and putting oversized sub-woofers on their cars. They say then "sounds good". But does it means it sounds "accurate"?


    To be honest, even more subjective can go, "Accurate sound guarantees good sound" is also being disputed, by audiophiles without aware.



    Now, I really have to do go jogging. I gotten fat these days...




    This debate seems to be mixing what is 'accurate'=definable/objective, with what is 'good'=non-definable/subjective.

    Maybe oversimplified, but I would think you would obviously want
    1) first an 'accurate' recording
    2) then the art/production comes in to make that 'good' to what the artist/producer wants it to sound like (using the most 'accurate' tools you can)
    3) then on the end again go for the most 'accurate' system of reproduction of that material that can be attained,
    4) but then, I would argue, it is then back in my court to decide what is 'good' based on my transducers, ears, and listening preferences - given that none of those can be fully accounted for in 2).
     
  14. wnmnkh Contributor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sbtruitt /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    This debate seems to be mixing what is 'accurate'=definable/objective, with what is 'good'=non-definable/subjective.

    Maybe oversimplified, but I would think you would obviously want
    1) first an 'accurate' recording
    2) then the art/production comes in to make that 'good' to what the artist/producer wants it to sound like (using the most 'accurate' tools you can)
    3) then on the end again go for the most 'accurate' system of reproduction of that material that can be attained,
    4) but then, I would argue, it is then back in my court to decide what is 'good' based on my transducers, ears, and listening preferences - given that none of those can be fully accounted for in 2).






    No, I don't mean 'accurate' recording. If even recording stage has to be 'accurate', then pretty much those lame rap, hip-hop, pop, rock and other popular genre will disappear, since many of them are heavily rely on tweaks done on recording and mastering stage. They are really in subjective area other than recognizing limitations of medium of end-products (i.e dynamic range limitations on CD. Vinyl, maximum sample rate of CD, DVD-A. Different formats for DVD-A and SACD)


    If all of good tweaks are done within limitations (which is not happening in Today's recordings, making sound loud as possible and cause clipping on CDs) I don't mind how the record was done.


    I also hardly care about transducers part, because there is really little thing I can do other than EQ or buy more expensive ones (but unfortunately they are the one doing most impacts on sound quality)

    What I am focusing is accurate transfer of data from final source (i.e master tape) to output of an amplifier.
     
  15. danielghofrani


    Quote:


     how about the lossless 24 bit 96 kHz wav and flac files?!
    does CD still beat those?!
     
First
 
Back
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
13
Next
 
Last

Share This Page