We're back to the pushing air vs pushing electrons question. All sounds
created electronically are artificial. They are made up. You may prefer
recordings of made up sounds to those attempting to replicate those that are
bowed, stuck, blown, etc., but it's still fictional noise. Hey, that's a
pretty good phrase. Maybe I'll copyright....nah.
We're talking here about a calibration issue- one where the sounds a system
component makes comes as close to matching that the listener has experienced
in a live listening environment. After this is matched to the auditor's
satisfaction, he can play whatever he likes through his new equipment.
It's simply perverse to pick a favorite electronically derived sound as the
standard for an equipment purchase and blame the physical world should
acoustically created sounds sound badly through it.
Steve Smolian
-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Don Cox
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 9:34 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Audibility of 44/16 ?
On 13/02/2013, Mew, Peter wrote:
> Hi
> I think you should define "better" in this context. Surely the "best"
> copy should be the one that most accurately represents the source,
> however that sounds.
>
Realistically, unless you were yourself the recording engineer, "better"
means "nearer to how I imagine the source sounded, based on my experience of
hearing live music".
>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Don Cox <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I had an early player on which, if you ripped a CD to a CD-ROM, the
>>> copy sounded better than the original.
>>>
>>
>> As a rule, almost any CD-R sounds better than the original --
>> although
>
>> certainly this has to be a function of the player. Which means that
>> all (most) players have a design shortfall.
>>
> I think they do.
>
> The effect is in my experience absent if you use a separate D->A
> converter.
>>>
>>> I think this was because the copy disc was lighter. The designer
>>> underestimated how much power was needed to spin the discs. The
>>> result was a drop in voltage supply to the audio output circuit. (In
>>> my
>>> opinion.)
>>>
>>
>> That may well be as well.
>>
>> clark
>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> --
>>> Don Cox
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>
> Regards
> --
> Don Cox
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> Music from EMI
>
> This e-mail including any attachments is confidential and may be
> legally privileged. If you have received it in error please advise the
> sender immediately by return email and then delete it from your
> system. The unauthorised use, distribution, copying or alteration of
> this email is strictly forbidden. If you need assistance please
> contact us on +44 20 7795 7000.
>
> This email is from a unit or subsidiary of EMI Group Limited.
>
> Registered Office: 364-366 Kensington High Street, London W14 8NS
>
> Registered in England No 229231.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards
--
Don Cox
[log in to unmask]
|