So you put together the most linear playback system you can, which will reproduce the recording as accurately as possible .
Keith
Keith
OK, a real world example. I have done comparisons between the LP and CD versions of the Performance Recording comparison package of PR-7 Pictures at an Exhibition for solo piano. All three versions sound terrific. All three versions sound astonishingly life like. The LP version sounded better to me. Clearly of the three that would be the least neutral and most distorted version. So how do I reconcile this? The prefered sourece component/medium is the more distorted source component/medium. And yeah, I did do the comparisons under blind conditions. What takes precedence in this situation? My preferences based on pure aesthetic values or a philosophy that accuracy is mandated in audio playback in order to "preserve the art?"So you put together the most linear playback system you can, which will reproduce the recording as accurately as possible .
Keith
All you have shown to yourself, and us, is that you prefer the euphonic colouration added by LP playback (and, incidentally and inevitably the manufacturing process).OK, a real world example. I have done comparisons between the LP and CD versions of the Performance Recording comparison package of PR-7 Pictures at an Exhibition for solo piano. All three versions sound terrific. All three versions sound astonishingly life like. The LP version sounded better to me. Clearly of the three that would be the least neutral and most distorted version. So how do I reconcile this? The prefered sourece component/medium is the more distorted source component/medium. And yeah, I did do the comparisons under blind conditions. What takes precedence in this situation? My preferences based on pure aesthetic values or a philosophy that accuracy is mandated in audio playback in order to "preserve the art?"
By the way, let's not forget the option I have chosn. To have both.
http://shop.performancerecordings.com/product.sc?productId=5
Ok, but if you have not read Toole's books to see what he is really saying, then you might be accused of trying to enlist some out of context words of his incorrectly to justify whatever opinion you wish. But, yes, of course, he, as would we all here, agree with the Circle of Confusion idea about the inexactitude of what is on the recording. It is a fact of life, but one which does not in any way preclude striving for the highest fidelity in recording and playback systems.I don't think that is quite all that Toole is saying. And you can't hear what's on the recording in any "pure" form because the recording has no sound of it's own without a playback ssyetm on which to hear it. But we have alrady been over all of this and I would prefer not to do so many laps on the same points.
My example wasn't meant to prove anything. Nor did I make any assertions of magic or unexplained phenomenon transpiring in that example. There was a question attached. What takes precedence in this situation? My preferences based on pure aesthetic values or a philosophy that accuracy is mandated in audio playback in order to "preserve the art?" Fell free to answer it if you like. I wan't trying to prove anything to anyone.All you have shown to yourself, and us, is that you prefer the euphonic colouration added by LP playback (and, incidentally and inevitably the manufacturing process).
Lots of people do, I like it too but rather than believing that there is some magic as-yet-unexplained-by-man feature of LP records I accept that the well known (for decades) and well documented shortcomings are almost entirely euphonic and it is that that people are hearing and liking.
I have no problem with people preferring LPs, I like them a lot too. What I find refreshing here is that I don't generally get a host of people going on about the fact that the distortions are inaudible and LPs are just better when in fact it is the audibility of the distortion that they like.
Ditto SET amplifiers.
Ok, but if you have not read Toole's books to see what he is really saying, then you might be accused of trying to enlist some out of context words of his incorrectly to justify whatever opinion you wish.
But, yes, of course, he, as would we all here, agree with the Circle of Confusion idea about the inexactitude of what is on the recording. It is a fact of life, but one which does not in any way preclude striving for the highest fidelity in recording and playback systems.
Can a test with vinyl really warrant a blind test? The noise and pops in the quiet bits must surely give it away..? (even if you don't consciously notice them)OK, a real world example. I have done comparisons between the LP and CD versions of the Performance Recording comparison package of PR-7 Pictures at an Exhibition for solo piano. All three versions sound terrific. All three versions sound astonishingly life like. The LP version sounded better to me. Clearly of the three that would be the least neutral and most distorted version. So how do I reconcile this? The prefered sourece component/medium is the more distorted source component/medium. And yeah, I did do the comparisons under blind conditions. What takes precedence in this situation? My preferences based on pure aesthetic values or a philosophy that accuracy is mandated in audio playback in order to "preserve the art?"
By the way, let's not forget the option I have chosn. To have both.
http://shop.performancerecordings.com/product.sc?productId=5
I said nothing about "proof", nor would I.My example wasn't meant to prove anything. Nor did I make any assertions of magic or unexplained phenomenon transpiring in that example. There was a question attached. What takes precedence in this situation? My preferences based on pure aesthetic values or a philosophy that accuracy is mandated in audio playback in order to "preserve the art?" Fell free to answer it if you like. I wan't trying to prove anything to anyone.
Can a test with vinyl really warrant a blind test? The noise and pops in the quiet bits must surely give it away..? (even if you don't consciously notice them)
Maybe we should reconcile ourselves to the idea that, perhaps, transient preferences are nothing to get hung up about. There are times, no doubt, when gourmet chefs crave comfort food - beans on toast or something. Serious art film directors probably want to watch Police Academy now and again, etc. Listening to worthy music on a great, neutral system is actually hard work, just as attending a classical concert in a great concert hall is.
Sometimes we're not even in the mood for excellence. We mustn't dilute what is superb by suggesting that Pot Noodle is just as important as top quality restaurant food.
I, personally, like to listen to 60s music on a 60s valve radio with large open back speaker, now and again - I like to imagine that I am travelling back in time and experiencing something as it was 50 years ago. I would never think to suggest that this 'preference' should be promoted as a measure of excellence or sold as a product for $10,000.
I said nothing about "proof", nor would I.
You buy whatever sounds nicest to you, I am sure nobody has any problems with this. I also have not personally mentioned "preserving the art", that is not something I have any sensitivity to.
If you find the added, inevitable, and well known colouration of LP replay preferable to listen to, that is fine by me.
I listen to LPs and CDs and do a bit of streaming of files I have on my computer.
I know the digital systems, and I have used both analogue and digital for recording both data and music (I suppose music is really just sound data anyway) over the last 50+ years, and I know the digital systems are usefully more accurate than analogue from experience.
When it comes to listening to music at home it is now possible to hear a sound much closer to that the sound engineer produced than any analogue system is capable of,
but maybe you don't like what he liked and overlaying a bit of euphony over it is more pleasing to you - so go ahead, I don't imagine anybody here cares which you prefer - I certainly don't.
I agree with that. But I am not going to let an artifact with unknown origins affect my aesthetic choices. Whatever way it sounds best to me will be my choice when given options.It doesn’t matter what the engineer or anyone else heard at the time, the only artefact we have is the record itself.
Keith
Hold on here. How is this about me? We have a vast legacy of recordings of great music that fall within this idea of the circle of confusion. That is reality. it has nothing to do with me either being "content" or being "intent" on maintaining it. That ship sailed when it comes all music that has already been recorded. No amount of worry about the accuracy of your playback system or my playback system will fix that. So how I choose to listen to those recordings has no bearing on this issue. "The circle can be opened?" Not retroactively!Well I said many pages back in the thread it seems Analog Scott is intent or maybe just content to maintain the circle of confusion rather than try to open that circle. The circle can be opened, so one need not maintain it must stay closed just because reducing confusion isn't perfectly eliminating confusion. There in the remaining confusion is room to proclaim the audiophile's preference as supreme and inviolate. So despite protests to the contrary that is about where things lie.
Ok, ok, we gladly concede your right to choose whatever sounds best to you. Knock yourself out. But, that was true ever since your first post. You seem to be seeking some sort of justification or approval from us for your choices, but none is or ever was needed. And, you will never, ever sell your own arbitrary subjective preferences to us. We each have our own, thank you.I agree with that. But I am not going to let an artifact with unknown origins affect my aesthetic choices. Whatever way it sounds best to me will be my choice when given options.
Ok, ok, we gladly concede your right to choose whatever sounds best to you. Knock yourself out. But, that was true ever since your first post. You seem to be seeking some sort of justification or approval from us for your choices, but none is or ever was needed.
And, you will never, ever sell your own arbitrary subjective preferences to us. We each have our own, thank you.
So, if it was not obvious, you have our full permission to indulge yourself however you choose, as you have always had in this forum.
With that out of the way, do you actually have a point worth discussing,
as all you have been doing is arguing for argument's sake without offering anything of use other than your own preferences. Can I suggest a better forum for that, like WBF? You will find many kindred spirits there.
Hold on here. How is this about me? We have a vast legacy of recordings of great music that fall within this idea of the circle of confusion. That is reality. it has nothing to do with me either being "content" or being "intent" on maintaining it. That ship sailed when it comes all music that has already been recorded. No amount of worry about the accuracy of your playback system or my playback system will fix that. So how I choose to listen to those recordings has no bearing on this issue. "The circle can be opened?" Not retroactively!
At this point I'd be happy to walk away because to be perfectly honest the above statement sounds borderline cultish. But I do have one last question. maybe last we'll see. I got the Toole book today. Skimmed through it very quickly before staring to read it. I was trying to find all this research he did that I have been asking about throughout this thread.Like some others I have struggled to understand what point you are trying to make other than disagreeing with Toole's results indicating something useful or important. So it is about you only in the sense of trying to see what your point really is. So far it seems evasive and designed to maintain our acceptance of your idea that the circle of confusion is not or cannot be unraveled.
The circle if opened for the here and now then gives us a platform from which to assess past recordings. Doesn't change the past recordings, doesn't mean we have perfect insight into the past intent when confusion was intact.
At this point I'd be happy to walk away because to be perfectly honest the above statement sounds borderline cultish. But I do have one last question. maybe last we'll see. I got the Toole book today. Skimmed through it very quickly before staring to read it. I was trying to find all this research he did that I have been asking about throughout this thread.
So can anyone tell me where I can find the actual published research that lead to the conclusions that....
1. A distortion free audio playback chain is subjectively superior regardless of recording
2. That preferences for speaker designs tested in mono in one room using limited program material and a set of listeners trained to detect specific distortions transfers to other speakers in different systems in different rooms (many of which are customized to suit the specific speaker) with a multitude of listeners and a multitude of recordings.
These are the assertions I find most interesting and unlikely. But hey, if they are really are supported by a substantial body of evidence that has been compiled by Toole and Olive and they really put all of these variables to a meaningful test then so be it. But I'd like to see the actual research. It's not in Toole's book