Interesting Article on High Fidelity Audio Resurgence

[Rich]

I also wonder how much of the CLASP-grasping is generational. How many Gen Y recordinging artists/engineers care about tape given their general lack of exposure (except by those at least a generation or two older than they are). Just a thought.

I imagine that may be part of it. Although plenty of the Gen Y folks are re-discovering Vinyl, so maybe not as much as you might think. Ultimately, it just depends on what types of sound you are trying to achieve as an artist. There are things you can achieve with tape, from a sound quality altering perspective (by taping at different speeds, for instance), that you just cannot achieve at this point in time with digital simulations. I liken it to photography. While digital manipulation is getting really good, most of the high end photoshop plugins still cannot render a really effective representation of a film shot, toned silver-halide print (such as sepia toning or selenium toning process). They can make an interesting look, but if you compare a print of it to the real thing, it still pales in comparison for lots of reasons. At the same time, I believe we are in the beginning of the digital revolution still, not the end. I fully expect it to continue to improve at an amazing pace.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Rich,

I found your comment about analogue folks "altering the sound color with the cartridge" interesting. I'm curious as to the thoughts of those who can vary the "up-sampling" settings on their CDP. I believe Esoteric offers this and I know Cary does also. Cary has three different digital settings and five different analogue settings. Many combinations as you can imagine.

That feature, amongst its other strengths, was an important factor in my decision to buy a Cary. You can alter the "color" quite dramatically (not to mention soundstage, depth, speed, etc.) depending on your tastes and biases. I have found the 96 / 96 settings to be the most musical in my system.

Given this, seems like other manufacturers should offer something similar.

Gordon

 

[Rich]

Another interesting article concerning audiophilia and sound quality of recordings: Beatles, Pink Floyd Engineer Alan Parsons Rips Audiophiles

Alan Parsons, producer, musician and sound engineer of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, says audiophiles overpay for equipment while ignoring room acoustics.

 

[tsv_1]

Another interesting article concerning audiophilia and sound quality of recordings: Beatles, Pink Floyd Engineer Alan Parsons Rips Audiophiles

Interesting article. Thanks for posting. He certainly has the cred to say whatever he wants... and in this case, for a certain percentage of self-proclaimed audiophiles, it's pretty hard to disagree with him. That said, it's never fair or accurate to make blanket statements about any group of people. Most of us know full well that room treatment is important. Some of us spend more time/money/effort on that piece of the puzzle than others. So be it. If you like your sound and like your system... good for you.

If, on the other hand, you buy equipment based only on "brand names and reputation", your priorities may be a bit skewed.

Cheers

 

[Rich]

I agree, Todd. You can't generalize too much with any group, but at the same time I think he is generally correct with the statement: "The hi-fi world attaches less importance to room acoustics, and prioritizes equipment; they are looking more at brand names and reputation." If you go to any hi fi show, you see this. Everything is about the brand, the equipment. Yet very few of the rooms have any room treatment at all. Ultimately, acoustic treatments aren't making much money for anyone, so the equipment manufacturers aren't pushing them. They would rather you think their new DAC can make all the difference in the sound of your system, rather than have you spend a few hundred dollars on room treatment and get a much greater increase in sound quality. And I think a lot of average audiophile consumers fall into that trap. How many systems do we see on this site that have twenty or thirty thousand dollars worth of equipment, with specialty cables, vibration isolation, and all kinds of other expensive tweaks, while having minimal or no acoustic treatment in a small boxy room. Certainly enough to give credence to the quote above.

I do find it interesting that he didn't seem to care too much about vinyl and seemed to recognize that high resolution downloads are where its at:

"I’m not sure vinyl is selling beyond audiophile purists, and I’m not really one of them. I’m reasonably happy with the quality of CDs, but I’d really like to see high-resolution downloads become more widely available."

 

[tsv_1]

I agree, Todd. You can't generalize too much with any group, but at the same time I think he is generally correct with the statement: "The hi-fi world attaches less importance to room acoustics, and prioritizes equipment; they are looking more at brand names and reputation." If you go to any hi fi show, you see this. Everything is about the brand, the equipment. Yet very few of the rooms have any room treatment at all. Ultimately, acoustic treatments aren't making much money for anyone, so the equipment manufacturers aren't pushing them. They would rather you think their new DAC can make all the difference in the sound of your system, rather than have you spend a few hundred dollars on room treatment and get a much greater increase in sound quality. And I think a lot of average audiophile consumers fall into that trap. How many systems do we see on this site that have twenty or thirty thousand dollars worth of equipment, with specialty cables, vibration isolation, and all kinds of other expensive tweaks, while having minimal or no acoustic treatment in a small boxy room. Certainly enough to give credence to the quote above.

I do find it interesting that he didn't seem to care too much about vinyl and seemed to recognize that high resolution downloads are where its at:

"I’m not sure vinyl is selling beyond audiophile purists, and I’m not really one of them. I’m reasonably happy with the quality of CDs, but I’d really like to see high-resolution downloads become more widely available."

From a relative perspective though... recording studios (and their engineers) are all about room treatment. No choice. Cant be too live or too dead. They have to stike the balance (so they can add all those crappy effects later). That said, I think there's a difference between general acoustical treatment to get just the right sound in a studio, versus what's needed in an audiophile's listening room. Would you agree? I think the goals are a bit different.

 

[Rich]

From a relative perspective though... recording studios (and their engineers) are all about room treatment. No choice. Cant be too live or too dead. They have to stike the balance (so they can add all those crappy effects later). That said, I think there's a difference between general acoustical treatment to get just the right sound in a studio, versus what's needed in an audiophile's listening room. Would you agree? I think the goals are a bit different.

You are right, in that recording engineers don't care as much about equipment quality, say for their monitor speakers, as they do about room acoustics. An old engineer adage is: "If I can get the music to sound great on these crappy yamaha monitors, then it is going to sound good on any system."

But as far as acoustic treatment is concerned, you have to delineate between treatment in the control room, where the engineer is listening to monitor speakers just a few feet from his face and direct reflections are the primary issue to deal with . . . vs. treatment in the studio room where the musicians are actually playing, and reflections as well as bass wave management becomes important. These treatments are more likely to resemble the treatments you and I would need in our home in makeup and setup, although the microphones are the issue, rather than a central listening position, as far as reflections are concerned. But overall, the treatments are the same, and are bought from the same people we buy from. My friend who is an engineer knows Ethan at RealTraps.

 

[tsv_1]

You are right, in that recording engineers don't care as much about equipment quality, say for their monitor speakers, as they do about room acoustics. An old engineer adage is: "If I can get the music to sound great on these crappy yamaha monitors, then it is going to sound good on any system."

But as far as acoustic treatment is concerned, you have to delineate between treatment in the control room, where the engineer is listening to monitor speakers just a few feet from his face and direct reflections are the primary issue to deal with . . . vs. treatment in the studio room where the musicians are actually playing, and reflections as well as bass wave management becomes important. These treatments are more likely to resemble the treatments you and I would need in our home in makeup and setup, although the microphones are the issue, rather than a central listening position, as far as reflections are concerned. But overall, the treatments are the same, and are bought from the same people we buy from. My friend who is an engineer knows Ethan at RealTraps.

Yep... agree on all points. And if I keep getting involved with discussions like these, along with active EQ discussions with Ken, I may actually have to do something about it

I have to say though that my room, while on the "live" side, is actually a pretty good acoustical environment due to it having almost no parallel surfaces. The sloped cathedral ceilings (which slope almost down to the floor) and "broken up" rear wall help to compliment the wonderous output of the CLX. Also, the wooden window blinds behind the speakers actually allow for some diffraction tuning. Could it be better? I'm sure it could. Am I thrilled with the sound right now? F*ck yes!

 

[RUR]

Yep... agree on all points. And if I keep getting involved with discussions like these, along with active EQ discussions with Ken, I may actually have to do something about it

Well, we'll see how you feel after you've heard it.

The problem with acoustical models for 2ch or 2.x ch listening rooms is that there's so little public discussion amongst acousticians about it. Most focus on studios with a very few who design for multi-channel home theater. However and FWIW, my reading would indicate that there are a few generally accepted attributes/goals:

1)Bass trapping to mitigate modal behavior
2)ETC analysis to identify and eliminate undesirable reflections while maintaining a generally dense specular field
3)Linear FR to within a few dB and with a generally downward slope

Hedbeck/Mellor are the only guys I've read who have taken the time to create any guidance for we poor slobs trying to find 2ch acoustic nirvana and even they discuss only attributes, not how to achieve them.