But AFAIK Abbey Road is an album of some group called Beat Less that I never liked and have no record of.
Yes I am a pacifist and think that less beating would be good, but need not be reminded of this in song!

iosiP wrote:

I understand quite well how cryo works (and so are you, of course). Now the known and documented effects of cryo treatment have nothing to do with the temperatures used by a home deep freezer (unless, of course, American ladies use liquid nitrogen to keep their tenderloins... well, tender).

Of course the home freezer is not the same temperature as used in cryo. I already said that fer crying out loud. That's kind of the whole point of my mentioning the home freezer. Hel-lol! Don't you think it's at least a little, uh, interesting that home freezers are used by audiophiles to treat CDs, LPs, cables, receivers, CD players? Why, shucks, I was doing all this cryo and home freezer stuff back when Christ was a Boy Scout. Back when Honeywell was investigating whether cryo improved the performance of transistors. That was 15 years ago.

You assume that extremely low temperatures I.e., - 300 F are required to get a (permanent) effect. You know what they say about ASS-U-ME? When you assume something you make an ass out of me and Uma Thurman.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Advanced Audio Concepts

Is there a tweakers convention in town crashing Michaels listening party?

Time to move cross town and make yer own party and send out some invites.

If you wish to have a tech theme for your party go for it.

Michael,

You are a pretty laid back cat, and it takes a lot to get you riled.

I have noticed, of late, that the current contentious environment here on this forum occurs elsewhere on other forums. I am not referring to manufactures, but hobbyists. I do think it is bad form and lack of decorum when one manufacturer hijacks another manufactures thread, though.

Everyone is at each other's throats. You used to have small little disagreements over some technical matter, but lately it seems people go toe to toe over the smallest thing on thread after thread. I also notice there are a lot more hobbyist to manufacturer squabbles than there used to be. The internet is the great equalizer.

I think the industry is having an identity crisis and the hobbyists are the ones that are suffering and are lashing out.

So many promises were made and systems purchased and the hobbyist is left with half baked solutions that only sound decent with certain recordings.

It is no wonder a lot of people have lost the art of listening since they spend a considerable amount of time trying to get their systems to perform. The discussions have twisted to technical details as people are constantly trying to find and acquire (or swap) the myriad components, cables, speakers, tweaks needed to put a half decent system together.

Something needs to change.

>>> “(BTW, I never heard of any manufacturer to just admit he/she doen't know how the device works: he/she just discovered it by accident).” <<<

In that case you don’t know your audio history !!!

>>> “I have no reason not to try the cryo treatment on a few of my CDs, and even to compare the treated vs. untreated (I have qiute a few duplicates). So trying is not my problem!” <<<

But the ‘freezing’ of CDs (and many other things such as components and cables) has been discussed, in the world of audio, for the last 25 years to my knowledge, (both at the cryogenic temperatures and at the domestic deep freeze temperatures) so if you haven’t investigated it by now, then there must be a reason why – so there must be SOMETHING preventing you from trying.

>>> “I understand quite well how cryo works (and so are you, of course). Now the known and documented effects of cryo treatment have nothing to do with the temperatures used by a home deep freezer” <<<

Everyone I know understands FULLY that the temperatures of cryo freezing are not the same as a domestic deep freezer !!!!! It is not about a ‘shoot out at the OK coral’ as to which is best. However, one CAN achieve good results by using a domestic deep freezer - and it certainly is an easy experiment to try !! Especially if one has two identical CDs or have particular CDs where one has been disappointed with their sound and therefore never play them now.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

I exposed a few problems (and as such, asked a few questions). In your response you only address one of them, and in a derisive form - so no way to consider that a valid answer - then you switch to beating the dead horse of domestic cryo-ing. So would you please answer my (implied) questions, or just admit you can't and I'll get over it?

toledo wrote:

Is there a tweakers convention in town crashing Michaels listening party?

Time to move cross town and make yer own party and send out some invites.

If you wish to have a tech theme for your party go for it.

Sorry to disturb the congregation. It's all iosiP's fault for starting up with all that cryo stuff.

It's becoming clear there's no room for humor in high end audio.

;-)

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Where is the humor Geoff? You love your strawmen.

All anyone sees is blatant self promotion and a lack of manners!

Actually, its all May's fault for the cryo stuff ... I can play also ;)

iosiP

I didn't see your comments as questions, I just saw them (and still do)as statements.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Michael, I merely reply to some of the specific points you raise in YOUR postings. As in your :-

>>> “So take a look at your system and note every where you have twist (they need to be separated or loosened till things open up, transformers bolted and screwed down, heavy faceplates. Speaking of faceplace, take off the nobs and look at how the nob shafts are clamped onto the place with nuts. Look at how much mass is there. High end faceplates sound horrible. That's too much metal close to the signal path. Same goes for the rest of the chassis if it is heavy. Look for anywhere a heavier part might be next to a low mass part, and there is more blockage. Heavy circuit boards are another thing. If you had a lower mass setup next to a high mass setup, and both were tuned, the lower mass will cast a soundstage that is easily twice the size. “ <<<

You refer to those procedures (which I am NOT challenging as being able to change the sound) as ‘unblocking’, meaning that prior to doing those procedures there must have been a “blocking” action taking place. But, a “blocking” of what ? Of the ‘soundstage’ ? But where had that information of the ‘soundstage’ been, previously ? If you had selected the amplifier first as carrying out those procedures you describe, then the information about the ‘soundstage’ MUST HAVE already reached the input of the amplifier ! Meaning that that information of the ‘soundstage’ must have already been ‘handled’ perfectly adequately by the UNTREATED CD player and by the UNTREATED pre-amplifier to be able to reach the input of the amplifier.

And, then, if you can HEAR the improvements in the sound after carrying out those procedures on the amplifier, then this means that all that additional information regarding the ‘soundstage’ must have been ‘handled’ perfectly adequately by the UNTREATED loudspeakers and presented into the room.

Having said that, carrying out similar procedures to those described now on the CD player and the pre-amplifier would, again, produce further improvements in the sound but one cannot get away from the earlier realisation that all the additional information being heard MUST BE on the original recording but had not been resolved correctly earlier. THIS is the realisation (that there is a wealth of information on the recording but is not being resolved correctly) which so many people deliberately choose to AVOID thinking about!! And which I fully appreciate you are trying to get over to people.

>>> “I appreciate a point as much as the next guy but if I'm listening to a 30 plus wide/deep soundstage and May, Costin, Bill, Toledo, Geoff, Tim or who else is listening to a 15, 18, 45 foot one, how can a guy relate unless he hears the reference-er say that? He can't, he just hears quotes from a reviewer going Wow! (sorry just an example) (what designer hasn't had this said), that's what a review is. I don't mean to be mean and I'm glad a reviewer said wow, but what did it sound like with Abbey Road on a system playing on this thread? People are coming up saying use this, but without any listening to tell the listener reading here's what I like and why.” <<<

I quote what significant people in the audio industry are describing because they are CLUES. CLUES which people should be taking note of !!!!! CLUES which tell people that there is ‘something going on’ which needs investigating seriously.

I quote these people not because I regard them as Gods but because they are pointing to the fact that there is ‘something going on’ regarding what people are hearing (or not hearing) and which needs serious investigation. Exactly as you are doing, Michael. I do not challenge what you hear when you do what you describe. But I don’t need to be listening to a specific recording which others are listening to. I can be listening to a recording of a live performance of Tosca and I can follow and do something you describe – such as taking a plastic CD case out of the room and gaining an improvement in the sound – and if I suddenly hear one of the singers take an unexpected breath, or hear an expanse of shimmering treble – which I had not heard before – then I will realise that that information had been on the recording all the time but I had not heard it before !!!! Which would mean that the plastic CD case HAD BEEN having an adverse effect. I don’t need to be deliberately listening to a disc specified by others.

If your experience of finding that introducing a plastic CD case into the listening room had an adverse effect on the sound and you had referred to this in a magazine article, then I would quote THAT also. BECAUSE it is as significant to ‘sound’ and what affects ‘sound’ as would be a faulty/loose electrical/audio
connection !!

>>> “This industry has got to get back to listening or it will be kissed goodbye, cause no one wants to read about CD's in their freezer or cork under a board, sorry but why do I want it if the person presenting it won't reference it. Listeners want to listen and find out how they can get that. But few people here are willing to paint the picture, the soundstage.” <<<

You make comments like that but you don’t seem to want people to respond to those comments. I respond because SOME people, in the audio industry, ARE describing what they hear – and from the most unusual devices. As in a review by Jeremy R Kipnis Lessloss Blackbody Devices in Positive Feedback Online May/June 2013 issue:-

>>> “3) The harmonic structure of instruments and the acoustic space itself (as heard in the various recordings I am auditioning) ALL show a NEW (inter)related connection amongst themselves along with a wholeness of sonic presentation WITHIN the hall which was simply NOT AUDIBLE before.

With these 3 observations also comes the following reactions:

A) I am inclined to turn up the volume several dB because the sense of strain that was present above a certain volume level during playback of known materials is no longer as present. To that end, I can now hear better into the acoustic of the various recordings I'm auditioning because I raised the overall volume, and the presentation suddenly falls into place properly as it would in the actual hall itself—for reference (and so you can try this at home), I am listening here to:

HOLST: The Planets (1985) Charles Dutoit / Montreal Symphony Orchestra; London DECCA

B) Inner details of the recorded acoustic venue and the placement of individual instruments within that space has become vastly more solid and life-like, tangible and palpable; given the perspective found in the recording, which would place one 12 feet in the air hanging over the conductor's head, but back a few feet! Consequently, the holographic imaging has the orchestra descending both BACK and UP; in the same way as you might see it if you were hanging there, like a camera.

C) In spite of hearing this performance many hundreds of times since it came out in 1985 (it's one of my 20 best sounding recordings), I now find myself hearing YET NEW things I have never heard, before. Inner harmonies are now clear during both the most massive and the most silent moments. And the degree to which the soundstage hangs free from the speakers is now PALPABLE and VISCERAL, very much the way the BEST Analog discs and tapes sound!” <<<

Is this a detailed enough description of what this reviewer heard from his recordings sufficient for you, Michael ? Your comment below, Michael, is somewhat dismissive of OTHER’S experiences.

>>> “how can a guy relate unless he hears the reference-er say that? He can't, he just hears quotes from a reviewer going Wow! (sorry just an example) (what designer hasn't had this said), that's what a review is. I don't mean to be mean and I'm glad a reviewer said wow” <<<

Surely Jeremy R Kipnis, saying :-

>>> “And the degree to which the soundstage hangs free from the speakers is now PALPABLE and VISCERAL, very much the way the BEST Analog discs and tapes sound!” <<<

Is him describing the ‘soundstage’ he is hearing ???

The point I am trying to make, yet again, is that the improvement in the sound Jeremy R Kipnis is hearing is from introducing a device into the listening room which cannot possibly be ‘having an effect on the signal travelling through the audio system’ so all that ‘more’ information he is now resolving, which is giving him a ‘freer’ soundstage MUST HAVE already been in the room all the time !!!

Which fundamentally challenges the current thinking of most of the audio industry.

Which is what I think you are also trying to do Michael. But other people’s experiences have, at the same time, to be acknowledged and taken note of because they contribute to the ‘whole’ picture !!

>>> “Why would someone come to a thread on referencing Abbey Road when they know from the very beginning they are not going to be a part of the referencing?” <<<

Now, if something is brought up in the MIDDLE of a thread on referencing Abbey Road, then that is exactly the thread where it would be replied to !!!

>>> “My apologise to the listeners out there who came to a forum called Stereophile and never got a chance to reference a simple piece of music.” <<<

I don’t see anyone NOT having a chance to reference a simple piece of music if they so wish to ! The Stereophile forum is open – but is also open to anyone who wishes to respond to what you keep saying.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

May Belt wrote:

I didn't see your comments as questions, I just saw them (and still do)as statements.

Do I need to rephrase them as such or can you answer whithout my doing it?

>>> “Do I need to rephrase them as such or can you answer whithout my doing it?” <<<

iosiP. Now who is the one MAINTAINING a diversion in a thread which Michael wanted to concentrate on people listening to a specific recording ?

>>> “1. All tweaks are presented as being benefic (in my experience, only one dealer ever told me "Yes, this thing works, but you may not like what it does in yous system". And yes indeed, I didn't like the results (while I loved the results of the device in a friend's system). “ <<<

Statement !! But if you want it regarded as a question requiring an answer then here goes. I don’t know why you didn’t like the results of a particular ‘tweak’ even though you liked the effect of it in your friend’s system. I don’t know why you found that taking the plastic CD cases out of your listening room made your sound worse and you had to bring them back in again. When Michael, me and everyone else I know find that the presence of the plastic CD cases, in the room, have an adverse effect on the sound.

>>> “2. You cannot even figure out beforehand if the tweak will work, and how it will affect the sound of your system since (usually) no explanation is given on how they work, or else, the working principle is so far-off that it makes me (BTW, I never heard of any manufacturer to just admit he/she doen't know how the device works: he/she just discovered it by accident).” <<<

Statement !! But if you want it regarded as a question requiring an answer then here goes. I will give three examples of manufacturers who HAVE STATED how they discovered things by accident.

1) Dr Chow and his Cable Jackets. Dr Chow had spent quite a number of years arranging and re-arranging his audio equipment until it was completely to his satisfaction. Then he bought a new piece of equipment. He was reluctant to, yet again, disturb his equipment arrangement so he positioned the new piece of equipment in an adjacent room, drilled a hole in the adjacent wall to allow a connecting cable through to the main equipment. Everything was sorted to his satisfaction but he now found that there was a draught coming through the hole around the cable. So, he pushed some foam inside the hole, around the cable, to block the area allowing the draught. He now found that the ‘sound’ had CHANGED. BY accident !!! This put him on the path of investigating what had had that effect and which eventually resulted in his Cable Jackets.

2) The Stein Music Harmonizer. I will quote from an article by Jason Victor Serinus:-

>>> “So how does the Stein Harmonizer work? Best to quote directly from Stein. Since, for him, English is a second language, I’ve given him an assist in the editing department.

”Some years ago, my wife used some rose quartz for decoration in our showroom. When we powered up the system, we had the impression that the sound had changed somewhat. It was not a big difference; it was something like moving a curtain into a somewhat different position. But it did make some change.

“We wondered what was causing this phenomenon. Then, while moving the quartz, we found it made a small change in the music. It was small, but detectable. So we asked ourselves how this can be.” <<<

3) The Schumann Resonance device. The Schumann Resonance device was initially developed as an ‘aid’ to a person’s wellbeing. I.e it was created from a health point of view. However, someone with one of those devices, initially ac quired to assist in their wellbeing, found that whilstever that device was in the room, their ‘sound’ was much better !! So, after that report it began to be referred to as ‘also improving sound’ – which, from all reports, it obviously does !!

>>> “3. Some tweaks cost an arm and a leg. Now don't get me wrong, I do agree to pay what it takes for some high-tech device, but too many of them are no more than nicer reproductions of things you can buy at the local home improvement store, so could someone explain to me the actual difference between the $4.99 stuff and the identical $69.99 "audiophile" version?” <<<

You are presuming that things ARE ‘identical’ !! For example. You could have a particular CD on sale at £4.99 and you could have another identical CD on sale at $15 but both will LOOK identical – even though the $15 CD could have been through the ‘cryogenic freezing’ process. There are also ways of ‘treating’ materials to enable them to perform better. But, they will look identical to similar but ‘untreated’ material. Annealing is one such process. You can also have cables (interconnects) where the inner metal conductor could have been through the annealing process and THEN, with the plastic insulation material added the whole thing is additionally then put through the cryogenic freezing process – but that cable, in it’s finished state, would look no different to an identical cable where the metal conductor and insulation had never had those processes !!!!! Then there is the de-magnetising of objects and materials technique. Would YOU be able to spot the difference between something which had been demagnetised and something which had not ? And so it goes on.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

This is a very loud and very thick mix. If that was his goal, he achieved it at the expense of even hearing the subtilties of the other instruments. I'm glad to know that you noticed the piano being buried. It's especially subtle when taken with the thickness of his bass notes that seem to walk all over the other instruments and conceal any attempts at definition. From the very beginning of Thunder On The Mountain, it becomes obvious that this is an extremely loud and compressed album. I have to turn down my amps to levels that would make other recordings almost silent. There is very little dynamic range in this album and that only further conceals the performance of instruments when they are intentionally attempting to play them with any delicate techniques.

I would bet money that 99% of people would not even realize that Bob was playing the keyboards on Thunder on the Mountain.

It's not that you can't hear the piano at all, it's that the piano has no piano sound. It sounds like it's fighting the bass guitar for room to have a tone. It is clearly working with the bass to provide the rhythm, but not with any sound that defines the piano. This extends to the other instruments that are fighting for their identities in most of the jamming. When music gets compressed to the degree that this album is compressed, it becomes a wall of sound as opposed to a recording of performers and their instruments and that is the overwhelming destruction of the recording.

I can appreciate that some people are OK with this from their music. There are lots of people who enjoy the visceral boom and the occasional guitar riff placed in a position of prominance. But, like Guttenberg, I like a sense of what real instruments sound like in a recording. There just isn't much of that on display with this album. And you know it was there to be recorded, Bob just messed it up in a blaze of being who he is. Hell, even Dylan himself said it sounded like crap and that it sounded 10 times better when they were playing.

While this is certainly the worst recording that I own, it's not unique in that many of the recording techniques that destroy Modern Times exist on a lot of other albums, just not as plentiful in such a wide swath of destruction.

And you are not hearing what I am hearing. I'm hearing an avalanche of compression and you're hearing an engaging recording with all the hallmarks of good sound. Given your experience with audio, I know you know what severely compressed CDs sound like. Well, that's what mine sounds like.

My copy is the Columbia Limited Edition gatefold set with the DVD extra. I'm not aware of any more recent releases having addressed the sound quality, though it's certainly possible given the almost legendary storm of criticism this recording has received.

If you want, PM me your mailing address and I'll send my copy to you and you can compare it to yours. That would be the most useful way to determine whether we are comparing the same source material. Perhaps you do not find highly compressed discs nearly as unmusical as I do? Like you, I find Knopfler's stuff to be about as good as studio rock recordings get. His stuff has musical life preserved in his recordings. His use of compression and reproduction techniques should be the standard for his genre of music. Not a stinker in his entire, extensive, library or releases...with or without Dire Straits.

Focusing on Modern Times, and to a lessor extent...excessive compression, here is the best read on this subject. For those that are following our little audio adventure, even if you are remotely interested, give this a thorough read and watch the short youtube video and provided links to actual measured results of both the CD and Vinyl versions of this recording. If nothing else, you will be clearly introduced to what was employed on this disc and regularly employed on others as well...just not quite this bad.

http://www.cinchreview.com/bob-dylan-audio-scandal/570/

Sometimes the measurements do tell the whole story. Modern Times on CD measures exactly like it sounds like it should.

"Have you ever asked yourself why CDs often sound thin, undynamic, threadbare, hollow, tinny, bass shy, whimpy, rolled off, jangly, radio like, congealed, generic, uninspiring, airless and discombobulated? Here we look at some fundamental problems inherent with CD playback that might help explain why CDs frequently sound horrible." (Intro to my article)

Right of of the box without any treatment Modern Times sounded pretty generic, the bass was a little boomy and indistinct and the instruments were not particularly separated in space but Dylan's voice was recorded well enough...my main gripe was the bass performance ...and the closed in sound over all. I almost never even listen to anything unless it has some treatment, I mean, what's the point? Lol. After some treatments were applied the disc sounded considerably more OPEN, with better separation of instruments, especially Dylan's VOICE and the bass performance improved so there was actually some DEFINITION in the lower frequencies. But the most admirable thing was Dylan's VOICE, which was recorded magnificently -full, powerful, with lots of air. I can't help thinking his voice at least is definitely NOT compressed dynamically. I think I can also say this recording is not overly bright, not at all.

Ok, so you're probably wondering how did I treat the CD. Colored permanent ink pens (of purple, green and orange) for outer edge, inner edge and the blank band just before the start of data on the data side, a smidgen of Cream Electret on the label side, Liquid Resolution CD treatment for the data side. A few blasts of Dark matter on the label, allow to dry. Finally, demag with Walker Talisman and some ion spraying with my Particle Accelerator tourmaline gun. No fuss no muss.

Up next, Round 2 of tweaking. Super Intelligent Chip, Leaf Green Cream, disc stiffeners (black tape) and the enigmatic Red X Pen. Oh, my! Oh, a little visit to the Cooler won't hurt, either.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Dave Grohl likes his.....

http://www.fastcocreate.com/1682339/dave-grohl-explains-how-a-70s-era-recording-console-rocks-his-world-in-sound-city

geoffkait wrote:

.....how did I treat the CD. Colored permanent ink pens (of purple, green and orange) for outer edge, inner edge and the blank band just before the start of data on the data side, a smidgen of Cream Electret on the label side, Liquid Resolution CD treatment for the data side. A few blasts of Dark matter on the label, allow to dry. Finally, demag with Walker Talisman and some ion spraying with my Particle Accelerator tourmaline gun........

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Makes my vinyl ritual look like a time-saving no-brainer. ;)

wkhanna wrote:

geoffkait wrote:

.....how did I treat the CD. Colored permanent ink pens (of purple, green and orange) for outer edge, inner edge and the blank band just before the start of data on the data side, a smidgen of Cream Electret on the label side, Liquid Resolution CD treatment for the data side. A few blasts of Dark matter on the label, allow to dry. Finally, demag with Walker Talisman and some ion spraying with my Particle Accelerator tourmaline gun........

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Makes my vinyl ritual look like a time-saving no-brainer. ;)

Yeah, and that was just Phase I. I didn't create reality.

Geoffkait
Machina Dynamica

I'm not offended because someone doesn't like what I like or because they do like something that I don't. Cars come in all different colors for a reason. I'm certainly not offended by anyone being able to enjoy bad recordings. I am offended when they drive in front of my house and make my walls shake, though.

Well, today I went in for another peek into the whole inner workings of Modern Times, after wrapping up Phase II of
CD tweaking as promised. I added a few Morphic Message Foils since I has some lying around, figuring what heck,
this CD could probably use 'em. I gotta tell ya, this here Modern Times is really coming around. The kind of bass heaviness feel to the recording has been replaced with a more balanced sound, with plenty of kick and growl in the lower registers. Now one can Differentiate the bass and cello from the drum. But the most amazing things are still Dylan's huge voice, his harmonica on Spirit on the Water, also all the cool rock and roll and blues guitar riffs and fills from some long ago time, like the Chuck Berry guitar in the first track. This recording doesn't seem so much dynamically compressed as just plain dynamic, perhaps it was cut at a higher level than usual, who knows. I dug down deep deep in the mud and pulled up a diamond.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

link

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/1908

Your comment immediately brought to mind ZZ Top's "Antenna." Now that's a loud recording with all the dynamics preserved for good sound. You can blow out some drivers with that disc. I remember the first time I dropped the disc in my player and being slack-jawed grinning for a long time. Unfortunately, Modern Times was simply compressed into everything being too loud to maintain any dynamic range to speak of.

wkhanna wrote:

link

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/1908

Ah, the old data play. Well played, sir. That's weird, another great sounding recording, Led Zeppelin's Mothership also measures in the red on the Loudness Wars data base. What's up with that? Lol

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

geoffkait wrote:

Ah, the old data play. Well played, sir.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Hi Geoff.

Actually, no ‘play’ was intended.
I simply wanted to put as much information as possible on the table for this discussion.
If we are focusing on one particular album or master, the DR measurements serve as only one benchmark for that piece of music that is under scrutiny.

Nearly any time I reference DR Database, I mention that it is only one tool offering information on a recording in a narrow & specific context. It is by no means the panacea for determining the ultimate quality of any recording.

Both subjective & objective analysis is used when I am evaluating music.

This particular piece of music is one not in my library, & also one I have no intention of adding. So referencing the DR numbers helps me to get a better understanding of the basis of the comments being made relative to one aspect of its making.

Be well,

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please -

wkhanna wrote:

geoffkait wrote:

Ah, the old data play. Well played, sir.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Hi Geoff.

Actually, no ‘play’ was intended.
I simply wanted to put as much information as possible on the table for this discussion.
If we are focusing on one particular album or master, the DR measurements serve as only one benchmark for that piece of music that is under scrutiny.

Nearly any time I reference DR Database, I mention that it is only one tool offering information on a recording in a narrow & specific context. It is by no means the panacea for determining the ultimate quality of any recording.

Both subjective & objective analysis is used when I am evaluating music.

This particular piece of music is one not in my library, & also one I have no intention of adding. So referencing the DR numbers helps me to get a better understanding of the basis of the comments being made relative to one aspect of its making.

Be well,

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please -

Well, let's see, which one would you be most likely to dismiss out of hand, the Japanese high power amplifier with THD of 0.0001% or the Dart Zeel Monoblocks with distortion figure about 1%?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

geoffkait wrote:

Well, let's see, which one would you be most likely to dismiss out of hand, the Japanese high power amplifier with THD of 0.0001% or the Dart Zeel Monoblocks with distortion figure about 1%?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

Without having heard either one, I would take Dart Zeel Mono's in a heartbeat. No questions asked. No regrets.

HoneyBagger says, "F*ck your 1% distortion"

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

wkhanna wrote:

geoffkait wrote:

Ah, the old data play. Well played, sir.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Hi Geoff.

Actually, no ‘play’ was intended.
I simply wanted to put as much information as possible on the table for this discussion.
If we are focusing on one particular album or master, the DR measurements serve as only one benchmark for that piece of music that is under scrutiny.

Nearly any time I reference DR Database, I mention that it is only one tool offering information on a recording in a narrow & specific context. It is by no means the panacea for determining the ultimate quality of any recording.

Both subjective & objective analysis is used when I am evaluating music.

This particular piece of music is one not in my library, & also one I have no intention of adding. So referencing the DR numbers helps me to get a better understanding of the basis of the comments being made relative to one aspect of its making.

Be well,

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please -

Very well put, Hanna. To expand on the point a bit, which provides a little more context on a very misunderstood aspect of the whole compression issue is that we are talking about a matter of too much for a particular genre or performance as opposed to ANY compression, which is necessary and desirable.

When you look at Modern Times and its 6-7dB dynamic range, it would not be fair to simply claim that has the same destructive qualities for all types of music. Grunge, for example, has an even narrower dynamic range and that serves to make it sound even...grungier. I don't like grunge and see no point to be critical of using massive amounts of compression in a genre that is trying to create the wall of sound to begin with and probably celebrates distortion as a hallmark.

Classical music often times has a very wide dynamic range that is essential to capture in a recording to sound compelling and full of life and realism. Does the thought of hearing Scheherazade with a 6dB dynamic range sound appealing to anyone?

Between those two extremes, we have all the other genres of music with their own signatures and dynamic range requirements. Since the CD format is capable of 96db of dynamic range, this isn't an issue for the format...there's more than enough available for use.

As a listener, you can decide for yourself whether the lack of dynamic range is musically acceptable for ANY recording, but the lack of dynamic range can't be recreated if it doesn't exist on the disc to begin with and the lack of dynamic range from over compression applied by the sound engineers does not come without a cost to be paid in other aspects of the sound if the sound was created with a wider dynamic range by the performance.

Musical instruments require a certain amount of dynamic range to be rendered with a sense of realism. Add a bunch of instruments and performers into a session and the need for dynamic range becomes important, as well as the many other recording techniques employed to try and capture each one in a realistic way.

Or you can just call your genre grunge and blow it out the front of your two car garage. :)

Michael is correct about the general placement of the crickets and frogs. The froggies are perhaps five feet to the right of the right speaker. Crickets are right of center then a quick pan to left but a return to center then a slow fade to left again, finishing up about ten feet to the left of the left channel.

However.

Michael is what I call a BS "High End" fetishist. His fascination in outperforming anyone on the planet in one teeny part of the total setup is typical of the "High End" as that is what these guys all ways do.

A cable that costs 10 thousand dollars which is the BEST.

Magic wood blocks that "tune" your component and is "the BEST."

Frozen whale sperm under your turntable mat because it costs more than caviar and it is "the best" for isolation dampening.

I mean what a load of crap.

On the one hand I applaud his ability to put into words where the individual parts of the finished composition are supposed to BE. But I get a perfectly wonderful three dimensional soundstage with incredible "solidity" (STEREO-in Greek means "solid"). It is simply how a correct system should perform. Even if they rarely do due to incompetence on the part of the owner.

Anybody COULD do it by simply following perfectionist set up "common sense".

For one thing here's something that I would offer into evidence:

If we assume that you have a properly arranged stereo monitoring room with tons of attention to getting your output up to mastering level (where you hear the "life" AND the unique sound of the recording) you will discover that the participants at the session are ALL WAYS locked in place AS AN OUTLINE approximately where they DO go in the left to right display.

HOWEVER, until you adjust your balance control FOR THAT PARTICULAR RECORDING you will not be able to correctly FLESH OUT those outlines and make them holographic and SOLID. What's left is LEFT and what's right is RIGHT---but there will be no "substance" to their position until you get off your butt and set the "balance" control to fill in the spaces correctly.

Why does every recording have its unique DNA as to where the balance is? Well some research here would offer facts.

If I had to guess it is because somewhere during the reproduction chain certain phase and timing cues can get a little bit out of whack depending on whose room it was mixed in...whose room it was played back in...the timing and phase information encoded as "out of phase" information and WASTED by most folks is ALSO part of the problem.

I mean that the mics have phase issues. The room the session was made in has phase issues and timing issues. How the engineer thought it was going to final "tape" was just a guess he made using his monitors.

HERE'S a secret: RECORDING ENGINEER USING MONITORS ARE NOT HEARING WHAT WENT TO TAPE...

THEY ARE HEARING THEIR MONTORS...

THAT is why everybody with half a brain NEEDS a simple balance control in their pre-amp to handle the inevitable "fine tuning" of the soundstage which such a knob brings to the party.

You thought it was there for MOVING the stage around? Hell no!

It is there just to add solidity to the stage WHICH NEVER REALLY MOVES.

I for one would like to hear exactly what Michael has been smoking that allows him to adjust his BALANCE (or what reviewers have called---the "image tuner knob" WITHOUT USING A BALANCE KNOB.

Right there. I call BS.

I smell HIGH END BS.

I AM interested in learning from Michael when he has something worthwhile to offer.

However in my opinion having built reference systems for the better part of 50 years---he simply fetishizes ONE particular aspect of setup to prove his superiority.

Michael---you did NOT invent stereo imaging.

Rudy Van Gelder did.

Look him up. It was a LONG TIME AGO.

OK OK. I admit many High Enders NEVER comprehend even the most common sense setup procedures.

But that is not MY fault. And Michael suffers from what my mother-in-law calls a "speech impediment."

"HE HAS TO STOP TO BREATHE..."

And now I shall stop to take a breath. I am as bad as Michael is, I am afraid...

:)p

Doesn't look like you actually know what Michael does. He uses a cheap DVD player as his source and a cheap receiver for amplification. Look at his website-
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

Nice rant doc. Might I suggest you do a little research into something before you disparage it or attack someone.
Variable tuning is a methodology encompassing acoustics, unblocked signal flow and tuning tools that has a simple goal of allowing all music to be enjoyed and each recording can be quickly variably tuned however one decides to listen to it.

I am sure someone with 50years of reference systems can appreciate that goal and have certainly come across many recordings that are mediocre at best reproduced on a system that is fixed in nature that no balance control can fix.

Michael struck me wrong in the beginning and I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions about his motives. I think I was wrong to pull out the long knives so quickly. He obviously cares very deeply about what he's doing and has passion like nobody's business. That's usually a good combination for discovery.

We can discuss, argue and debate perfectly well without saying my father was a hamster and my mother smelled of eldeberry.

Another self-assured Naysayer augers in, to use an old Navy test pilot expression.

A balance control knob, indeed.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Advanced Audio Conceits