[bigshot]

Quote:

Sheffield Lab is a recording studio that uses a philosophy like this.

 
Sheffield Lab can only control the recording end of the chain. If I choose to play my copy of Lincoln Mayorga and Distinguished Collegues Vol 2 on a Califone suitcase phonograph, they have no control over how it's going to sound. Likewise, in my stereo system, I can only control my playback equipment. If the engineer selects an EQ or compression setting, I have to live with it.
 
Recording is a different kettle of fish from playback.

 

[knucklehead]

Quote:

Everyone uses the "whole system." Audio exists only to be heard, so it eventually passes through an entire chain from microphone to headphone/speaker.
 
I don't really know what you mean by "chase mirages."
 
Sheffield Lab is a recording studio that uses a philosophy like this. Actually, just about any audiophile label would. I discovered a label called "Albany Records;" heard their recording of a trombone quartet. Fantastic, and almost certainly they put an emphasis on listening as the only true way to evaluate equipment. It's hard to imagine getting such a result without that.

All I'm asking is if you have heard a system that you feel has been able to adequately reproduce the patterns that you have been talking about. That's a different situation than if you haven't been able to.

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

All I'm asking is if you have heard a system that you feel has been able to adequately reproduce the patterns that you have been talking about. That's a different situation than if you haven't been able to.

Sure, I've heard it. Most of my own system was put together by intuition and guesses so it's not proof, but I did have an opportunity to be present for a recording session by a fellow associated with Sheffield Lab, using the philosophy I have outlined here--- that is a much better way to assess the usefulness of a particular philosophy. I also did some audio design projects under his guidance. This is what gave me my original thoughts, and the rest is common sense.

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

 
Sheffield Lab can only control the recording end of the chain. If I choose to play my copy of Lincoln Mayorga and Distinguished Collegues Vol 2 on a Califone suitcase phonograph, they have no control over how it's going to sound. Likewise, in my stereo system, I can only control my playback equipment. If the engineer selects an EQ or compression setting, I have to live with it.
 
Recording is a different kettle of fish from playback.

You're right they have no control over playback (except their own monitor system), but a method of assessing fidelity applies to either playback or recording. It's not a "different kettle of fish."

 

[bigshot]

It's not a different method that I'm advocating. I'm suggesting that it's a very good idea to isolate the aspects of the sound quality that you *can* control, so you don't make adjustments to your playback settings based on problems with the recording of a specific piece of music.

Ideally, you choose a CD that is well recorded and exhibits a wide variety of types and textures of sound. Then you play it on your system and focus solely on how well your system reproduces the CD. If you start listening for things that are part of the miking or mixing, you'll be led down a lot of blind alleys before you find the solution to your problem.

 

[knucklehead]

Quote:

Sure, I've heard it. Most of my own system was put together by intuition and guesses so it's not proof, but I did have an opportunity to be present for a recording session by a fellow associated with Sheffield Lab, using the philosophy I have outlined here--- that is a much better way to assess the usefulness of a particular philosophy. I also did some audio design projects under his guidance. This is what gave me my original thoughts, and the rest is common sense.

There ya go! Like bigshot said, now you don't have to worry about where the mikes were, because for your purposes, they were obviously in the right place! 
 
I believe you mentioned that you use headphones a while back. What headphones have you used that reproduced your patterns, and what recording was it?

 

[bigshot]

Doug Sax is an interesting character. At the beginning of digital audio, he was very vocal about the superiority of vinyl. He wrote borderline hysterical articles about how vinyl had "infinite sampling rates" that audiophools still parrot blindly. He clearly wasn't open to learning how digital audio worked. Time marched on right past him, and he was forced to catch up. His last few projects were recorded digitally, and he seemed to have wised up.

I don't know the engineer behind it, but around the same time Doug Sax was diddling with direct to disk and half speed mastering, Dave Grusin made some experimental albums with JVC Japan using very early digital technology that completely matched, if not topped what Sheffield Lab was doing. Whoever was behind those albums was a true visionary. I only have those records on vinyl, but I bet on CD, they're spectacular.

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

Doug Sax is an interesting character. At the beginning of digital audio, he was very vocal about the superiority of vinyl. He wrote borderline hysterical articles about how vinyl had "infinite sampling rates" that audiophools still parrot blindly. He clearly wasn't open to learning how digital audio worked. Time marched on right past him, and he was forced to catch up. His last few projects were recorded digitally, and he seemed to have wised up.
I don't know the engineer behind it, but around the same time Doug Sax was diddling with direct to disk and half speed mastering, Dave Grusin made some experimental albums with JVC Japan using very early digital technology that completely matched, if not topped what Sheffield Lab was doing. Whoever was behind those albums was a true visionary. I only have those records on vinyl, but I bet on CD, they're spectacular.

 A lot of use still think vinyl is superior to digital. Have you considered that making digital recordings now is a practical matter, not necessarily about superior sound quality?

 

[jcx]

Quote:

 A lot of use still think vinyl is superior to digital. Have you considered that making digital recordings now is a practical matter, not necessarily about superior sound quality?

and none of "you" have taken up Meyer/Moran on their offer to work with any "Golden Ear" who is certain they can distinguish a good, modern ADC/DAC inserted in their "magic" audio reproduction chain

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

It's not a different method that I'm advocating. I'm suggesting that it's a very good idea to isolate the aspects of the sound quality that you *can* control, so you don't make adjustments to your playback settings based on problems with the recording of a specific piece of music.
Ideally, you choose a CD that is well recorded and exhibits a wide variety of types and textures of sound. Then you play it on your system and focus solely on how well your system reproduces the CD. If you start listening for things that are part of the miking or mixing, you'll be led down a lot of blind alleys before you find the solution to your problem.

Well, I'm talking about how one comes to know things about audio, and I think that the knowledge one gains is most useful by experiencing the whole chain; being present for the recording and listening on a monitor system, then listening on one's own system. I got a chance to do this once. I'm saying that's probably the most useful and secure way of learning what you are doing and what patterns to listen for. Everything else is a guess, although this guessing must be done (usually) when putting one's playback system together.

 

[rroseperry]

 A lot of use still think vinyl is superior to digital. Have you considered that making digital recordings now is a practical matter, not necessarily about superior sound quality?

What do you mean by superior? From what I can tell, you can get greater dynamic range with digital.

 

[JadeEast]

I'm going to guess that his idea of superiority is based on a judgement of musicality through pattern recognition as compared to a live musical event, unless I've misunderstood his posts so far. 

 

[bigshot]

Well, I'm talking about how one comes to know things about audio, and I think that the knowledge one gains is most useful by experiencing the whole chain; being present for the recording and listening on a monitor system, then listening on one's own system. I got a chance to do this once.

I've done that quite a few times. I've learned a great deal from the artists and recording engineers I've worked with.

 

[bigshot]

 A lot of use still think vinyl is superior to digital. Have you considered that making digital recordings now is a practical matter, not necessarily about superior sound quality?

I've recorded analogue and I've recorded digital. They're both about both practicality and sound quality. I'm not sure I understand your point.

You'll be interested to hear about another test I conducted... I captured a pristine copy of Lincoln Mayorga and Distinguished Collegues Vol 2 to digital and burned it to a CD. I did a direct comparison between the CD and the original vinyl.... No difference. Digital is capable of reproducing everything vinyl can. Properly engineered, it can even sound better because the distortion is significantly lower, and the dynamic range is greater. No surface noise. No inner groove distortion. No pops and clicks. Just music.

 

[arcticears]

@bigshot:  Love those early Sheffield Labs records, I have several and also have several of the matching CD's.  Both are good but it is more about the quality of the recordings than the vinyl/CD thing.