Agoraquest Logo
The only place for the Sony Enthusiast Free Member Registration | Login | Contact Us | Quick Search Forum   
Main Menu
  • Home
  • Topics
  • Forums
  • Reviews
  • The Top
  • Web Links
  • File Downloads
  • Photo Gallery
  • Archived Articles
  • Media Center
  • Useful Sections
  • Sony Issues
  • Sony Alerts
  • Senior Members
  • Premium Members
  • eBay Sony Auction
  • Search Site
  • About Us
  • Recommend Us
  • Members List
  • Bookmark this Page

    Additional Features
  • Linking to Us
  • Owner Manuals
  • Calender of Events
  • Contact Us
  • Stock Market
  • Agorasearch
  • Break It Down Blog

  • Sponsors




    Who's Online
    Currently Online
    Visitors:194
    Members:1
    Total of:195 users
    MemberLogged
    ag1386.9 min
    Users will be removed if they logged out or are inactive for 35 minutes

    Most Online Users
    Visitors:980
    Members:1
    Total of:981 online users
    October 17, 2013, 10:29 pm

    Your Current Status
    You are Anonymous user. Register for free by clicking here.

     Inbox
    Log in to check your private message


      
    Moderated By: Maxxwire
    Agoraquest Forum Index » » Amp/Receiver/Speakers/Connections/Cables
      
    21st century sound quailty of home audio. Why isn't better? Dashboard
    Replies: 374 | Views: 138,840
    Last Reply: August 23, 2012, 3:16 am

    View Printable Version of this thread
    Members below have participated in this thread
    Maxxwire | jttar | Skytrooper | mhedges | jehill | dahrich | jeromelang | mykyll2727 | David_S | RickeyM | Welwynnick | Danglerb | dontsleep33 | scott1019 | sterling1 | magellan |
    This thread topic spans 25 pages - You are currently on page 19
    NEXT>> (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 )
    Search other threads for related issues/solutions: or use Advance Forum Search
    Get the latest Exclusive Sony News by Joining our RSS Feed or Get RSS Via Email
    Author 21st century sound quailty of home audio. Why isn't better?
    mykyll2727

    Rank: Sony Pro


    Joined: Apr 30, 2004
    Posts: 4171
    From: Las Vegas

      Posted: 2012-01-11 03:27

    McGowen's latest email and a good question.




    Why can’t we have both?

    My friend Art Tedeschi from the Colorado Audiophile Society sent me an interesting observation which I think is rather relevant and relates to our thoughts.

    “I think most died-in-the-wool audiophiles have two distinct goals:

    1) We want a system that bathes us in glorious, unadulterated sonic bliss that washes away our troubles and soothes us emotionally and inspires us intellectually and….

    2) We want a system that’s as true as possible to the live performance.

    Unfortunately, these goals do not necessarily coincide, which is the crux of the problem.

    So however unreachably lofty, my vote would be to strive for accuracy, as I believe the best recordings will always supersede a system that consistently sounds good with all or most sources.

    Practically speaking, of course, I also prefer a system that sounds good, but the industry itself must have some kind of standard to evolve it in a positive direction, and I think the only standard we have now, as flawed as it is, would be the live performance.”

    So accuracy or emotionally inspiring? Heck of a choice.

    Why can’t we have both?


       


    mykyll2727

    Rank: Sony Pro


    Joined: Apr 30, 2004
    Posts: 4171
    From: Las Vegas

      Posted: 2012-01-11 03:54

    Regarding the above post and Mr Tedeschi's A and B, I know I want A. Man, do I ever want A. Personally it's what I got into this hobby for and for little else really. Not too sure I should want or even care about B though. Like it's been discussed here before, it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to know what B is and who's to say that even if a could achieve it that I'd like B better, or even as much as A. At this point I think I'll be perfectly fine with A, no matter how close or far it is from B. I feel for me that my continuous, and rather unsatisfying, cycle of upgradeitis stemmed from a greater priority of attaining B instead of A. Now what I want is to get out of that cycle and attain A. It was my initial goal and I'm not sure how or when I lost sight of it. To paraphrase "Damn B, full speed ahead to A". It's going to be my new motto and outlook for my system. _mykl


       
    mykyll2727

    Rank: Sony Pro


    Joined: Apr 30, 2004
    Posts: 4171
    From: Las Vegas

      Posted: 2012-01-12 03:11

    I found this post by McGowen interesting,



    Studio speakers

    Have you ever wondered what recording studio engineers use for monitors? I’ll tell you – probably nothing you’d have in your home or system. For the most part they are anything but high-end.

    A few loudspeaker manufacturers proudly show us their products in the studios and mastering rooms of the world, but this is done for advertising and does not represent what the real world speakers are – Genelec, JBL and brands you wouldn’t consider in a high-end setting. Yet we high-end people judge the work mastered on these less-than-high-end speakers on a daily basis.

    I remember speaking with Keith Johnson of Reference Recordings asking what he uses and was surprised to learn he has some home brew designs that work for him. As Keith told me “you’d hate them in your listening room” but they work for Keith.

    If I were to build a studio to record music I’d make my control room setup an identical copy of my listening room. Think about it for a moment. What if you could have live musicians playing in the next room and a control panel connected to your high-end setup. The control panel could set levels and tonal qualities of each microphone feed such that when you were done, you’d have the finest sound your system was capable of.

    I remember “back in the day” when Dave Wilson was into recordings. He actually designed the Wilson WATT loudspeaker to be his recording monitor and later turned it into a company that made loudspeakers. They are certainly high-end.

    I probably will never have the time to build my recording studio, but it sure is fun to dream.


       
    mykyll2727

    Rank: Sony Pro


    Joined: Apr 30, 2004
    Posts: 4171
    From: Las Vegas

      Posted: 2012-01-12 03:47

    I was wondering if anyone else found the above post interesting in the way I did. In particular did they see a problem with what he claims he would do if he built a studio to record music?


    Many times he stresses that we (i.e. audiophiles) should strive for the, even by his admission, probably unattainable goal of accuracy. Meaning by that the exact reproduction of the live event. I touched on how it's virtually impossible for us to even know what that was. Yet Mr. Truth and Accuracy to the live event states that if he were in the ultimate postion to know and duplicate it he wouldn't do it. He says that if in that position we could in fact not only set mic levels but tonal qualities (i.e. EQ) to make our system sound it's best. Not to most accurately reproduce the live event. If that's the case why do we need the studio setup? Just use whatever source you have and EQ it until your system sounds it's best and to heck with the live event.


    Maybe that's the biggest lesson we should take forward in the 21st century as far as SQ improvement. Completely forget about the live event goal. Which unless you're in the position McGowen describes you can't be sure of anyway. So how could you honestly know when you attain it or even come close. Make the SQ goal of your system to be the best/most satisfying it can be and the live event goal be damned. I know the live event accomplishment is supposed to be the Holy Grail of home audio but McGowen is saying that even when in the best position to accomplish it to use EQ and make your system sound it's best not most accurate to the live event. And yes that's contradictory to what he's said at other times as to what our goal should be. I don't know why he vascillates so much._mykl


       
    mykyll2727

    Rank: Sony Pro


    Joined: Apr 30, 2004
    Posts: 4171
    From: Las Vegas

      Posted: 2012-01-15 04:21

    An excellent suggestion from Paul McGowen when it comes to fine tuning the SQ of a system.




    The elephant in the room

    Have you ever noticed that sometimes you’re focusing so hard on a minute details that you miss the elephant in the room? Happens to me all the time.

    A commenter to these posts mentioned an AB test he witnessed between two amps and after multiple A/B back and forth tests someone suggested the channels between the two amps were reversed. Horrors as not one Golden Ear in the crowd noticed it. While this was an embarrassment to those in the room as well as the presenters it happens more often than you might think.

    We have the amazing ability to filter out everything but what we want to focus on – as humans living in an incredibly noisy environment this feature is a must.

    This happens so often to me that I routinely bring someone else into the listening room without telling them what I am focusing on to see if they pick up something stupid like the channels reversed that I missed.

    Next time you’re evaluating something new in the system take a break and let a day go by before you revisit your decision.

    You might see the elephant in the room.


       
    magellan

    Rank: Sony Devotee


    Joined: Dec 28, 2011
    Posts: 69
    From: San Diego, CA

      Posted: 2012-01-15 05:21

    • Member Quote

    On 2012-01-11 03:54, mykyll2727 wrote:
    Regarding the above post and Mr Tedeschi's A and B, I know I want A. Man, do I ever want A. Personally it's what I got into this hobby for and for little else really. Not too sure I should want or even care about B though. Like it's been discussed here before, it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to know what B is and who's to say that even if a could achieve it that I'd like B better, or even as much as A. At this point I think I'll be perfectly fine with A, no matter how close or far it is from B. I feel for me that my continuous, and rather unsatisfying, cycle of upgradeitis stemmed from a greater priority of attaining B instead of A. Now what I want is to get out of that cycle and attain A. It was my initial goal and I'm not sure how or when I lost sight of it. To paraphrase "Damn B, full speed ahead to A". It's going to be my new motto and outlook for my system. _mykl


    You formulate this very well. So well that I realized that it was my goal for years.


       
    mykyll2727

    Rank: Sony Pro


    Joined: Apr 30, 2004
    Posts: 4171
    From: Las Vegas

      Posted: 2012-01-15 05:25

    magellan_Thanks for the response. It's nice to know I'm not alone._mykl


       
    magellan

    Rank: Sony Devotee


    Joined: Dec 28, 2011
    Posts: 69
    From: San Diego, CA

      Posted: 2012-01-15 05:31

    • Member Quote

    On 2012-01-12 03:11, mykyll2727 wrote:
    I found this post by McGowen interesting,



    [SIZE=18px]<A style="COLOR: rgb(51,102,153); FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none" class=ecxtpl-content-highlight href="http://psaudio.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=bd5baa3af039b1bce8455f635&id=9db4fadacb&e=b6c3dcf3e2" target=_blank>Studio speakers</A>

    <P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10px">Have you ever wondered what recording studio engineers use for monitors? I’ll tell you – probably nothing you’d have in your home or system. For the most part they are anything but high-end.
    <P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10px">A few loudspeaker manufacturers proudly show us their products in the studios and mastering rooms of the world, but this is done for advertising and does not represent what the real world speakers are – Genelec, JBL and brands you wouldn’t consider in a high-end setting. Yet we high-end people judge the work mastered on these less-than-high-end speakers on a daily basis.
    <P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10px">I remember speaking with Keith Johnson of Reference Recordings asking what he uses and was surprised to learn he has some home brew designs that work for him. As Keith told me “you’d hate them in your listening room” but they work for Keith.
    <P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10px">If I were to build a studio to record music I’d make my control room setup an identical copy of my listening room. Think about it for a moment. What if you could have live musicians playing in the next room and a control panel connected to your high-end setup. The control panel could set levels and tonal qualities of each microphone feed such that when you were done, you’d have the finest sound your system was capable of.
    <P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10px">I remember “back in the day” when Dave Wilson was into recordings. He actually designed the Wilson WATT loudspeaker to be his recording monitor and later turned it into a company that made loudspeakers. They are certainly high-end.
    <P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10px">I probably will never have the time to build my recording studio, but it sure is fun to dream.


    In production rooms in every studio you have Genelec, Adam, Fostex, Yamaha NS-10, . . . for small - near field monitors (even Fostex one peace, for mono control), and as big control monitors you have JBL 4XXX, Dynaudio, Tanoy . . . all professional series.
    In the post-production rooms is rather different story. There you have JM Labs Utopia, B&W Nautilus 800 series, Wilson Sasha or Alexandria, . . . lets say - ULTRA HIGH-END SPEAKERS.  


       
    mykyll2727

    Rank: Sony Pro


    Joined: Apr 30, 2004
    Posts: 4171
    From: Las Vegas

      Posted: 2012-01-16 02:59

    magellan_Very true! An excellent point._mykl


       
    mykyll2727

    Rank: Sony Pro


    Joined: Apr 30, 2004
    Posts: 4171
    From: Las Vegas

      Posted: 2012-01-16 03:14

    The letter in this email of McGowen's makes IMO an outstanding point. I'll be looking forward to further discssions in Paul's emails on this subject.




    Absolute what?

    Reader Mark Laufer sent me an interesting letter that I want to share with you. He brings up some excellent points: ones we will be exploring in future posts.

    “I always am amazed when reviewers talk about two things: one is “true to the recording” and the other is “true to the live performance.” They are both total fallacies.

    A recording is true to what? To the studio monitors used to balance the sound? To the way the studio monitors sound in the mixing room? And really, what is the “actual” sound of an electric guitar? Is it the sound of the playback monitor heard by the artist? Or the playback speaker heard in the recording room?

    And for live recordings – is it any different? I am always going to live concerts in NYC – I am blessed with some of the best concert halls in the world (and some of the worst). Sitting in the orchestra at David Koch theater has a distinctly different acoustic “signature” than seats in the front of the mezzanine. Move 8 rows back and you move under the overhang for the next tier up, and the sound changes again. Move up another tier, and another, and the sound changes again. Which is better?

    Well, for me, I prefer the first mezz center to center orchestra. I like the “lift” the sound gets as it moves “up.” But others like the orchestra … At Carnegie Hall, I just sat 8th row orchestra during a Bartok concerto. The orchestra is actually “above me.” Many would say that a more “accurate” sound comes from sitting much further back in the hall, or in the first tier (again, up). Distinctly different sonic signatures. When you sit closer to the orchestra, the instruments in the front are much more pronounced … the totality of the sound is much clearer further back in the hall. The point is quite simple. There is no “correct” sound, there is no “absolute” sound. There is no “sound as it appeared live.” There is only the sound as it appears at a given moment in a particular acoustic setting. Which can change one seat over.”

    Mark’s points are well taken. The Absolute Sound is something coined by HP to describe what we’re all seeking but it doesn’t exist and if it did, how would we know it’s right?

    Much more to come on this subject.


       
    magellan

    Rank: Sony Devotee


    Joined: Dec 28, 2011
    Posts: 69
    From: San Diego, CA

      Posted: 2012-01-16 09:04

    Mykill,

    You are hit in the center again. I used to go to the live events when ever I can, and I have my favorite seats in the concert halls of course. But you can't always get that favorite seats, correct?

    And when you don't reach your favorite seat (spot), then you have different experience, and I love it, more and more.

    For years I have managed, when I was selected positions, by the position of the sound engineers and their mixpults and other gear. There is no room for mistake if you use that kind of logic, but there is something that you can experience if don't reach that "best" places in the concert hall. If you can get only places in the first rows, next to the stage, and you miss almost all the sound system in the hall.

    What it is then? It is unique situation when you hear all the music and hall respond, and you hear all the nature sounds of the instruments with all voices and sounds that musicians produces on the stage.

    This is my favorite experience from last Jazz Festival in my Fatherland, here in south-east Europe.





       
    mykyll2727

    Rank: Sony Pro


    Joined: Apr 30, 2004
    Posts: 4171
    From: Las Vegas

      Posted: 2012-01-17 04:28

    I've never come across any CDs featuring a map of the musicians. An interesting idea and a plus for those seeking to recreate the "live event".




    The map

    In yesterday’s post we started a discussion about the fallacy of the Absolute Sound. Absolute compared to what? Without knowing what it is you are listening to or how it was recorded – even a hint as to what to expect – it’s a nearly impossible task to know if you’ve reached the Absolute Sound of exactly what the recordist wanted you to hear.

    And that really sums it up. We can’t expect our systems to playback the sound of live un-amplified instruments on recordings that never had that goal in mind. But what we can expect is to duplicate what the recordist was trying to achieve.

    Audiophile record producer Kent Poon has made some strides in that area – as have other pioneers in this field (including some of the original Mercury recordings). What Kent’s done in several of his recordings is provide a layout of the musicians and the recording microphones.

    I have found such a map ever so invaluable on the few recordings I have that provided it. In fact, I remember one of my favorites was the Weavers in Carnegie Hall. I remember finding a sort of map detailing where the performers were standing and how they miked them – wow – that was incredible.

    We all strive to visualize the performers in the acoustic space when we listen. Having a map makes it ever so much more vivid.


       
    magellan

    Rank: Sony Devotee


    Joined: Dec 28, 2011
    Posts: 69
    From: San Diego, CA

      Posted: 2012-01-17 06:18

    Mykyll,

    What an example !!! Way beyond all expectations.


       
    mykyll2727

    Rank: Sony Pro


    Joined: Apr 30, 2004
    Posts: 4171
    From: Las Vegas

      Posted: 2012-01-18 07:02

    Here Paul hits on many of the points/questions I've had that caused me to start this thread. While new may be a matter of opinion, I think I gave my definition of what my opinion was.




    Is anything really new?

    One of our readers asks the question “is anything out there really new or just incremental advances to old technology?” Good question.

    I think the answer is yes, but with some qualifiers.

    Let’s take loudspeakers. The vast majority of loudspeakers are based on the same driver technology of a cone, a voice coil and a magnet. Tweeters, on the other hand, are almost never a cone because most are domes – but they started out as cones – so there’s something new that’s stuck. But still, domes have been around for a long, long time – so maybe nothing truly new here.

    How about electrostatic and ribbon? While new to many, these are actually decades old technologies being refined by companies like Martin Logan and Magnepan.

    Indeed, I can’t think of any really new speaker technology today. How about on the horizon?

    What I see off in the distance is a trend to all-in-one speakers with everything you need to play music built in – wireless, high-end, DSP corrected, single box creating three dimensional audio and awesome sounding. Now, that’s new and innovative and blending some of the old with some of the very new – or is it?

    I am reminded that actually everything was an all-in-one approach in the beginning. The old hand crank Victrolas, console stereos were all one-box wonders. In fact, the “new” was when we separated everything and we’re just now coming back full circle making old new again – just with a twist – but what a twist!

    New might be direct-to-vinyl eclipsed by the tape recorder, LP’s eclipsed by CD’s, wire eclipsed by fiber optics – but one could also argue these are just improvements of what came before.

    I think new is a point of view and one different for us all.


       
    mykyll2727

    Rank: Sony Pro


    Joined: Apr 30, 2004
    Posts: 4171
    From: Las Vegas

      Posted: 2012-01-20 03:41

    I agree with McGowen's statements about the ultra expensive gear yet I feel it's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. For a guy who used to make some reasonably affordable, and outstanding power products I find his statements a bit like sour milk. His company used to make such products as the Duet, Quintet, Power Plant Premiere, among many, many others. Now you have to spend $3500 for his cheapest power conditioner. Justify that to the average person who is considering getting into the high end and thinks pricing is stupidly expensive.




    $100K turntables, circus act?

    Does the mere fact there are $100K plus turntables and $250K plus power amplifiers available as serious products, featured and reviewed by the magazines, hurt or help the high-end?

    Of course an argument can be made for both sides – mine would be it hurts the high-end.

    Why? Because it turns many potential high-end customers off to the entire genre. Whenever I see the high-end criticized by the mainstream press it’s either that we’re selling snake oil or stupidly expensive products.

    I could understand if a single craftsman wanted to sell a $100K turntable or $250K power amplifier – hand machined by himself and then charge for it. Even if he had a few elves working out of the Black Forrest it’d make sense. He builds one a month and sells them to a waiting audience. That actually makes sense, builds respect and adds a hand-crafted one-of-a-kind aspect that can easily justify the price. The way they are sold now it’s more like a circus act – the greatest show in the world.

    Of course there’s no regulations, no rules and manufacturers do what they want. Heck, Arnie and I sold a $100K pair of loudspeakers in our day – but these were hand built 1.2 ton beauties that people felt like bowing down to when in their presence.

    As an industry we need to be mindful of coming off like a circus act. It hurts us all.


       
    This topic thread spans 25 pages - You are currently on page 19
    NEXT>> (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 )


    Advance Features
      
    Jump To:
    Locations 
of visitors to this page


    All logos and information in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters. This website www.agoraquest.com, Claudio Meira and Agoraquest, LLC is not tided in any form to the Sony Corporation (www.sony.com). This unoffical website is just place where Sony products are reviewed among the general public. Sony is a registered of Sony, Inc. "PlayStation", "PlayStation2", the PlayStation "PS" logo, and all associated logos/graphics. "Agoraquest, LLC" and "agoraquest.com" are associated exclusively with agoraquest.com, and are NOT associated in ANY way with Sony Electronics, Inc. To view the privacy policy, please click here and to view the terms of use, please click here. If you have any further questions, please contact using our online form.