FORUMS
Sometimes it's good to step back and take a look at this hobby for what it really is, instead of what people have tried to make it into.
Do we as hobbyist, designers and industry makers think we are going to move ahead calling ourselves the people in the know when in fact we are just at the beginning of the understanding curve?
You've heard me say "every recording is different" and "every playback of that recording is different" yet up in arms goes the guy who has created his "one sound system" claiming it as a reference.
My question is this, a reference to what?
All over this industry the fingers point to needed flexible systems, still the high end part of this industry will not budge off of the idea of "one sound fits all". I hate to break the news but this is not going to happen and the closer you get to making your system "one sound" to judge by the less music you are going to be able to play.
Don't listen to me if you wish, how about others who I can randomly pick all over the web giving the reasons why. here's one
___________________________________
"Curve? We don't need no stinkin' curves." The simplest form of disk-cutter consists of an amplifier, similar to that used to drive a loudspeaker, connected to a cutting-head having a stylus connected to a coil, which is placed in the field from a strong magnet (or, more usually in later designs, a magnet within a coil). When the signal is applied to the coil, the stylus moves and engraves a groove in the blank disk. This is, of course, the simple explanation.
However, because the cutter head's movements translate the amplitude swings of the original signal into velocity - the rate at which the stylus moves during its swings - low-frequency signals would be recorded with a much larger swing than high-frequency signals of the same original amplitude. So, the low frequency grooves would be much wider than the grooves on an equalized disk. Wider grooves take up more room which reduces the available recording time. They are also much harder for the cartridge to track which increases distortion. The solution is to reduce the amplitude of low frequencies during disk cutting and then boost them with a reverse curve during playback.
Another problem is distortion and signal-to-noise ratios in the high frequencies. Early disc recording equipment did not have the extended high frequency capabilities of today's modern equipment. However, as disk cutters improved during the 1940's through the 1960's the need to address the high frequencies increased. The solution was to boost the high frequencies during cutting and then reduce them during playback. Now there was a high and low curve with a "knee" frequency.
Each 3 dB difference in the curve is double the volume. Some of the curves boosted or reduced certain frequencies by 18 dB or 64 times. The "knee" or "cutoff frequencies" ranged from 250 to 500 Hz in the lower end and 6KHz to 15KHz in the upper end. With that much difference in the volume and cutoff points, the curve could not be ignored during playback. Tone controls normally operate at the extremes and don't reach the knee frequency. So, you do need a playback decoding curve.
"Which curve is best?" Well, there's always Gena Davis's curves on Phil's 10ft. HDTV. Or Columbia, Decca, N.A.B., R.C.A., B.B.C., E.M.I., C.C.I.R., A.E.S., or maybe Orthacoustic to name but a few? The experts argued for decades about which curve to use. There were compromises with every option. Each curve traded and balanced signal-to-noise, distortion, trackability, rumble, disk space, and other sonic qualities against each other. The critics complained about "tracking", "muddiness", "smearing", "overmodulation by second & third harmonics of the soprano voice", "cymbals and brass instruments overload the system", and more. While each manufacturer adopted the curve that suited them, the individual disk mastering engineers altered the "company curve" to suit their own preferences. The equipment manufacturers tried to keep up with all the different equalization curves and build playback circuits with curves that would make their own equipment sound "good". Audio equipment in the 1950's had a separate knob for the playback curves. The user had anywhere from 3 to maybe 5 or more choices for the desired playback curve. This meant checking each album cover for the recommended curve or keeping a log nearby for quick reference. Users who stacked their records on automatic changers had to pick a single curve for the whole stack or run to the record changer at every change. Many 78 rpm acoustic recordings had no curve, so their tremendous sonic potential is absolutely ruined by any playback curve. Some record makers didn't give the recommended curve, so the user had to experiment. Others even lied about which curve they used. Imagine your stereo system is located in a busy airline terminal and everyone who passes turns the bass and treble tone controls to different extreme positions. Now imagine you are blind folded and trying to make your system sound "right". That was life before the RIAA standard. In a word, there was CHAOS!!!! "
_____________________________________________
The audiophile, designer or even reviewer who can not understand the need for variable systems is living in a world that doesn't exist. In every aspect of this industry I can show you why we need "tunable", and this can be done without my words, but using the words of people involved in every step along the audio pathway.
With Harry Pearson's passing it makes me think about his quest "the absolute sound". Maybe some of you haven't, but I always took this as meaning the absolute sound and not "the absolute one sound system". We keep reviewing all these systems presenting "their sound" and reviewers describing how well these one sound systems do one thing better than the others, but never reaching "the absolute sound" with every recording. So what do we do, keep pretending that recordings have this same magical code like with RIAA that we can use to regulate, forgetting why this EQ was needed? So what does this mean, are we to do the same with rooms, speakers, amps or all the many parts that make their own marks on sound? We'll stamp a rating on everything and the industry will instantly become vanilla. Is that what highenders think the audiophile world is, a one size fits all process from start to finish?
I have news for you. This industry is one of the most variable sports you will ever experience and those of you who are thinking you can put all these ingredients in a blender and have them come out the same are going to be in buying mode and trade-offs forever. Some may want this, but I would venture to say that most will tell you they would "rather be listening". How many more seasons of "bad sounding" or "my system will only play the best" does a hobby have to go through before realizing there is a better way? Go ahead do the research and take a good look at how many standards or non-standards you are listening to with the same "one sound" system. I promise you that if you don't figure out how to play all the music (I'm talking about audiophile vs audiophile as well) this will be the end of the high end part of this hobby. You can not sit there and play music judge with a one sound system and think that you are getting the true sound unless you are completely out of touch with reality or have an extremely narrow selection of music choices that you play for you and your audio club over and over, or introduce something new every month that happens to play well on someones system.
I do believe in the quest for the absolute sound, but I also know that getting there can not be building as many rooms and systems that it takes to play the absolutes, and that's what this hobby is trying to do. I'm not even sure if I can call highenders audiophiles anymore. Instead of learning and building for the many great pieces of music out there, it seems like the industry (this part of it) is more about building components that only play a few pieces of music extremely well and not able to play the rest at all. That to me seems to be the opposite of what the audiophile is. A bunch of guys claiming they know what good sound is and able to make judgement calls based on systems sitting in rooms fighting the sound and system components fighting each other. Making the odds against playing a wide range of great music recordings doesn't compute to me. Does it you? Do you really know recordings well enough to be able to judge them with a system that only plays one sound and very few pieces of music?
michael green
MGA/RoomTune
