The source. The ultimate determinent of sound quality?

Used to be in the high end people talked about analyticle vs musical, essentially high frequency response and tube type sweetening.

Resolving I don't see as descriptive of what is likely happening, which is masking. Systems don't resolve more, they just mask less.

 

Masking! Did you mention Masking? Surely you didn't say masking.

One of the most important things about audio is masking. Unmasking can get nasty, tastefully done masking can be beguiling, and in general masking isn't given it's due.

I do think some systems can sound as if they are masking less, when they are in fact not. Those are a bit of an art form. On the other hand, if you get to hear the full unmasked version you won't be fooled by the artful dodgers.

 

I still say "you" the person is. This is why, you; e.g.; (damn that punctuation) yourself depending on your mood. I'm not saying this right. Here goes another shot, if you are in a good mood, things sound better, than when you are in a bad mood. When you are in a bad mood things are just different, irritants are more pronounced, even the good things can just not be satisfactory.

M~

 

Can you elaborate more on your reasons for that?
I think most amplifiers and pre amps do a reasonably good job. Audible distortions there most likely coming as transient distortions, such as from large global negative feedback loops, which are usually not a problem in high end equipment. I do see a lot of ringing and tilting of square waves on most CDP's though at most every price point.
Speakers, on the other hand have multiple distortions: cone breakup, splash off the cabinet face, cabinet resonances, crossover induced time delays that vary with frequency, etc.
I think making the waveform unrecognizable when compared to the original (from a speaker) is much worse than a few degrees of tilt from a CDP or a bit of ringing.
Many modern speakers have metal tweeters, which also ring. I guess my viewpoint would be "Electronics CAN screw up the waveform, but speakers almost always DO screw up the waveform". I agree with you on CDP's being an issue.

 

One more thing. A lot of people cite the source, but what actually is the source?
The CDP? The turntable? Tone arm? Phono cartridge?
I would argue you need to go farther back in the chain. What about the mic used to capture the performance? Mic cable? Mic Pre amp? Instrument used? Mic PLACEMENT?
I think ALL these things ultimately determine the end result. In my own recordings, I have found mic choice and mic placement the keys to better capture.

 

Absolutely.

 

Some microphones are fantastic, but I don't think you need to go far into quality microphones before the SQ exceeds any speaker. I think placement has more ways that work, then those that cause "inherent" trouble, with plenty of other recording and mixing practices that may interact negatively with types of microphones and placement. You can't play a lot of electronic games with a signal unless the source is fairly isolated, which means mic very close or physical isolation.

I've never worked with anything "really" fancy, so I don't know what they bring to the table, but with garden variety pro mics I was usually more concerned with pattern than SQ or EQ. Sometimes its more about what the mic doesn't pick up than anything special it does with what it does pick up.

 

Nonsense.

Music - The type of music is not the ultimate in sonic quality. Just because you don't care for a particular sound, doesn't mean it wasn't recorded properly.
Musicians - Only possible if you're talking about someone who cannot play at all and is just beating on instruments for the heck of it. Hyperbole aside, I don't think that's what you mean.
Mixing and mastering - Now you're actually making sense...a bit, however, this too is applicable only in the fringes of average.
Playback room - Warmer, but you're not quite there yet.
Playback speakers - Ding ding ding. Finally a winner.
Everything else - correct.

Take an average of everything. I'm not even going to touch your first offering because it has no bearing. Average musicians, recorded via a process that more or less accurately captures the performance and then mixed and mastered for the playback media of choice without being wonky one way or another. Played back on average digital or analog gear that is properly set up will sound strikingly different depending on what speakers are producing the sound. No amount of digital frontend selection, arm changing, cart swapping, what have you, will change the sound of playback as significantly as different speakers. Speaking of, you don't choose the room for the type of speakers, it's the other way around. Unless you're trying to say a concert hall can't sound as good as a 12x12' room.

 

I wasn't answering the OP's question of SQ, I was saying what matters to me.

Recording methods, mixing and mastering can ruin the SQ with no hope of recovery.
A really good room can make almost any speakers sound pretty good, and no speakers can overcome a really bad room.

One of my friends told me the most difficult thing to record and reproduce accurately was a pair of scissors cutting a piece of paper.

 

Potential is not quite the same as results. Crimping still has the contact points that the electrons must jump. Ultrasonic welders cost thousands of $$$$. So I'll tell you what, you buy one and bring it to my house and we can re-do my cables.

 

I have an 8 ton hydraulic crimper, with copper the two pieces become one.

 

When would you like to bring it over?

 

It weighs 8 tons.
I don't think he'll be bringing it over.

 

Hmmm, that reality thing getting in the way of an argument. Darn it!

 

Harbor Freight $60, 8 ton is actually small for this type of device. Popular with the off grid people making up battery cables etc.

Places that rebuild battery packs often have ultrasonic welders, and might be willing to do a small amount for a reasonable sum.

 

Don't see how this could join two 20ga wires together much less if they were stranded; And the tool is not going to make it into tight spaces. Getting the tool into tight spaces will likely preclude any spot type welder too. Me thinks 4% silver solder will just have to do for the parsnickety. This is the kind of set up (hard soldered phono cables) where the connections must be made at final desitnation where the equipment is to live. Good try Danglerb but you just can't pick your nose with your elbow.

 

An interesting discussion, if people can behave and we remain on topic!

It's all very well talking about microphones, recording techniques etc. but we, the consumer, have little control in that. All we have a say in is from the source (CD, vinyl, download) through our gear to our ears.

Most of my music is Redbook CD with no apparent re-mastering etc., and I have a reasonably good set up. I find the biggest single factor effecting my enjoyment of the music is the room/speaker interaction. I employ acoustic foam and a digital equaliser to try and counteract this. If I didn't do that the music would be unlistenable.

 

I mostly agree, but would add that matching the mic to the singer is an art not often discussed.
I can point you to the Joni Mitchel "Blue" album, where for whatever reason, the engineer chose to use a different mic on almost every song on the album on Joni's voice.
Easy to hear which ones work and which ones don't. It most certainly negatively effects my enjoyment of the album. In fact, the only time I listen to it is to point out the different mics used to folks. Sad too as Joni is so talented.
I always get a chuckle when I think back to Michael Fremer's review of the "Blue" album re-mastered by Steve Hoffman.
Not one mention of those multiple mics used on Joni's voice. His speakers at the time I believe were the $165K Wilson Alexandria's.
Easy to hear those different mics on my Green Mountain Audio speakers at less than a tenth of that cost.
I e-mailed Micheal about this, as well as Steve because I was curious.
Steve Hoffmans response was "Your right" and he asked me to pose that question about different mics here on this forum, which I did.
Michael's response was "What's your source on this"? adding "The engineer, Dewey has been dead for years" indicating that even after it was pointed it out to him,
he did not/could not hear it.
I'm sure Steve and Michael listen quite differently, but this was so easy to hear one would think ANYONE could hear it.
My point is SOME speakers are definitely able to reproduce such things.
If you have the album, listen yourself. Just the first 2 songs are all that is needed to hear the different mics used.

 

Interesting about "Blue". I hadn't attributed the different sound to different mics. The vocal sound does clearly change for each track. Almost like changing headphones for each song. Not a good way to make an album. Makes it sound like a compilation rather than an album. An example of where recording source is the important source. No fixing that after the fact.

The mic used for the last track "The Last Time I Saw Richard" seemed to do well. Some of the others got a little forward and harsh for brief periods. Others were overly soft.

For playback purposes though I consider the DAC or TT to be the source and let the recording be what it is. I can look for better masterings, but the recording still is what it is and I can't do much about that. My control is the source I have to play it.

 

Yes it is interesting. I asked over at Audio Asylum before posting here, but no one could provide any feedback. One guy said he was sure the recording was simply recorded in reverse polarity. I said "It sounds more like different mics to my ears".
Here's Steve Hoffman's original reply:
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threa...n-about-microphones-and-sound-quality.102793/

 

You wouldn't think swapping around microphones for a vocalist like Joni Mitchell would occur unintentionally. Makes me wonder why it happened, and if it was planned for effect, or what. That's messing with the "brand" usually a really bad move.

I've got Blue on DCC, when I get a chance I will listen again to see what I hear. First time I heard it Joni Mitchell was too new to me to make any kind of sonic judgments.

 

Cool, let me know what your ears are hearing. I'm always listening for that sort of thing.

 

Busy day, tried 3 trcks, Blue, Calif, Richard, and I hear some differences, but it seems kind of spacial to me. OTOH I kept forgeting to listen and just enjoyed the music too much of the time.

Did you hear a change in the sound of the piano, seemed to me it stayed the same.

 

Haven't listened to the album much as I could never get past the vocal changes. I'll give it another shot someday.
Right now I'm recording a song for my 20th wedding anniversary which is taking up a lot more time than I anticipated.
Might be due to this inner ear infection I have going on, huh?
I don't know how Brian Wilson did it with one ear.
Plugged, pressure and ringing in the ear are not good traits to have in the recording biz.

 

There is one source that never sounds good in my opinion, and that's satellite radio. Just awful. Music is swirly, papery mush. All spoken voices sound like Max Headroom in a barrel. I've heard XM and Sirius both in all kinds of systems, and it just can't be improved upon. Some people love it. Think it's "CD quality". Whatever.