D.M. Procida wrote:

-------------------



** CD players are unsurprisingly designed to play audio CDs made to the
original 1982 Red Book standard. Such disks carry the rectangular logo:
"Compact Disc digital audio".

I'm talking about standard audio CDs.

** No you are not, cos like anyone you have no idea if a given CD is
"standard" or not.

If you bothered to read my post, you would see that it refers to CDs being
sold that do not comply despite having the rectangular logo.

Perhaps you ought to read what you write more carefully in that case.


** Really - perhaps you can go **** yourself.


And perhaps be a little less rude while you're at.


** No need exists to be polite to brain dead trolls like you.




..... Phil

In article , RJH
wrote:
People keep arguing as if an inability to get perfection means that
nothing can be done. I know the Civil Service love this ploy, and
debaters use it. But the reality is that if you want to hear a sound
as similar as possible to what you'd get in a live venue, then you do
need to have some idea what that actually sounds like. :-)


I think you're deploying shifting sands here. I don't think anybody is
asking for perfection.

Actually, I think 'perfection' *is* implicitly what Bob is taking for
granted in his arguments to the effect that it is irrelevant to become
familiar with the sound in a venue and trying to use that as a reference
when assessing how convincingly your home hifi plays material from there.
Note his total failure (thus far) to accept that doing such a comparison
could ever have any usefulness.

The process isn't perfect. But it can be very useful *if* what you want to
hear at home is a result convincingly similar to 'being there'. *And* if
the recording/broadcast was made with this aim in mind - which will be
the case for examples like R3 concerts, etc.

OTOH if you just want a 'music box' that plays studio creations that were
laid down track by track, say, then I'd agree the above would be
irrelevant. But that means you want a music box not a high *fidelity*
system. *And* this can be relevant for 'studio creations' which aim at
an effect other than replicating being in the venue.

Note: I do NOT use the term "music box" here in a derogatory sense. I'm
just trying to signal that different people want different things. This
kind of distinction isn't new. You can see it discussed, for example, in
Milner's "Perfecting Sound Forever" book. Nothing wrong in this in itself.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , RJH
wrote:

Yes of course - partly my point in fact. You wouldn't want a version of
the live performance as experienced.


Yet when I listen to a R3 broadcast from the RAH, RFH, etc, I want a sound
at home which is as similar as I can get to what I hear when I was there.

So not all events or listeners are the same. And not all recording
engineers/producers will have the same aims.

It's Bob's apparent lack of realising this which has puzzled me.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
OTOH if you just want a 'music box' that plays studio creations that were
laid down track by track, say, then I'd agree the above would be
irrelevant. But that means you want a music box not a high *fidelity*
system. *And* this can be relevant for 'studio creations' which aim at
an effect other than replicating being in the venue.

Not quite, Jim. Pop type recordings are mixed by their engineers for the
very best sound they can get in their control room. To say they will sound
just as good on a 'music centre' or whatever isn't the case.

A poor sound system will degrade everything. Likewise, a good one will get
the best from everything.

--
*Time is the best teacher; unfortunately it kills all its students.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 10:56:02 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
wrote:



Actually, I've just remembered and I'm going to have to fess up. Strange
as it may seem and against all I've already said about using classical for
evaluation, I can remember when the dealer put the 208 on against my 207
the disc chosen from my collection by him that stood out as having a
considerable improvement was:

Dvorak Symphony No.9
Wiener Philharmonika - Kirill Kondrashin
Decca 400 047-2
So the exception that proved the rule. Still like that recording.

(It is all streamed from the server now so it is quick and easy to find
that information.)

That event must have been roughly 1990 and anticipating that someone was
likely check the release date of the recording I checked it myself. The
disc offered by Arkivmusic.com isn't the same at all. Different cover and
other works on the disc mine had nothing else on it.


Cheers,

Bob.

I too liked that recording. It was amongst the earliest CDs that I
bought; that one would probably been acquired in 1983.

According to the liner it was recorded in the Sofiensaal in September
1979 and released on CD in 1982.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
OTOH if you just want a 'music box' that plays studio creations that
were laid down track by track, say, then I'd agree the above would be
irrelevant. But that means you want a music box not a high *fidelity*
system. *And* this can be relevant for 'studio creations' which aim at
an effect other than replicating being in the venue.

Not quite, Jim. Pop type recordings are mixed by their engineers for the
very best sound they can get in their control room. To say they will
sound just as good on a 'music centre' or whatever isn't the case.

I'm using 'music box' more generally to mean a system which plays music in
a way that suits the user from info that is abstracted from the effects of
being performed live in a real acoustic venue. i.e. the parallel in my mind
is with old mechanical music boxes, not 'music centers'. So I'm using
the term with what you describe included. However it hinges also on just
what 'best' means in the minds of those creating recordings, etc. They
don't all use the same meaning or want the same results.

The point here is that for some listeners and types of music, the optimum
is whatever the user finds 'nicer' without any need to consider a 'real'
source event's sound. As distinct from wanting to hear, warts and all, what
a live performance of something like a Prom would have sounded like if
you'd been standing or sitting in a suitable point in the RAH.

Similarly, some popular music creators want a result that 'sells' by
whatever means. From EQ to compression to soupy added reverb. Whatever
they think the target audience will want to buy. A R3 engineer might
have something else in mind, etc...

I'm not saying there is anything wrong about the 'music box' approach. Just
that it means the user has a different requirement to someone who wants to
'be at the hall'. Hence for them, the sound of a hall won't directly
matter, but for others, it will.

A poor sound system will degrade everything. Likewise, a good one will
get the best from everything.

Agreed. But one effect of a poor system can be to blur distinctions.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Jim Lesurf
writes:

OTOH if you just want a 'music box' that plays studio creations that were
laid down track by track, say, then I'd agree the above would be
irrelevant. But that means you want a music box not a high *fidelity*
system. *And* this can be relevant for 'studio creations' which aim at
an effect other than replicating being in the venue.

Note: I do NOT use the term "music box" here in a derogatory sense. I'm
just trying to signal that different people want different things. This
kind of distinction isn't new. You can see it discussed, for example, in
Milner's "Perfecting Sound Forever" book. Nothing wrong in this in itself.

The producer of a studio creation will be trying to create the sound
he feels is ideal, so it's only polite to try to reproduce that sound
accurately.

--
Mike Fleming

In message , Mike Fleming
writes

The producer of a studio creation will be trying to create the sound
he feels is ideal, so it's only polite to try to reproduce that sound
accurately.

Not sure how well I can express myself here. I think two different
experiences are being discussed. Listening to 'classical' musical, it
is the sound engineer is trying to capture that live sound, to be
reproduced at home via CD.

With 'popular' (including pop/rock/country/whatever) music is not the
opposite true? Whether we are discussing a recording made last week or
the Crystals in 1963, it is the live artist trying to reproduce the
sound record buyers hear on the LP/CD.

In other words, the 'real' sound with classical is what we hear live.
With pop, the 'real' sound is decided by the engineer.
--
Graeme

On 18/11/2017 08:23, Graeme wrote:
In message , Mike Fleming
writes

The producer of a studio creation will be trying to create the sound
he feels is ideal, so it's only polite to try to reproduce that sound
accurately.

Not sure how well I can express myself here.Â* I think two different
experiences are being discussed.Â* Listening to 'classical' musical, it
is the sound engineer is trying to capture that live sound, to be
reproduced at home via CD.

With 'popular' (including pop/rock/country/whatever) music is not the
opposite true?Â* Whether we are discussing a recording made last week or
the Crystals in 1963, it is the live artist trying to reproduce the
sound record buyers hear on the LP/CD.

That won't work with Sgt Pepper and the many albums that followed it.


In other words, the 'real' sound with classical is what we hear live.
With pop, the 'real' sound is decided by the engineer.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In article , Graeme
writes:

In message , Mike Fleming
writes

The producer of a studio creation will be trying to create the sound
he feels is ideal, so it's only polite to try to reproduce that sound
accurately.

Not sure how well I can express myself here. I think two different
experiences are being discussed. Listening to 'classical' musical, it
is the sound engineer is trying to capture that live sound, to be
reproduced at home via CD.

With 'popular' (including pop/rock/country/whatever) music is not the
opposite true? Whether we are discussing a recording made last week or
the Crystals in 1963, it is the live artist trying to reproduce the
sound record buyers hear on the LP/CD.

In other words, the 'real' sound with classical is what we hear live.
With pop, the 'real' sound is decided by the engineer.

A fair amount of non-classical music is performed for recordings only
and never played live. But you're rather making my point, the engineer
decides what the real sound is, so, if you want the real sound that
the engineer decided on, you need a high fidelity system.

--
Mike Fleming