I had mentioned that I would run an experiment to see if the transport and digital cable really matter if you have an excellent clocking device in place right before your DAC.
Well, the "JISCO" is and excellent clocking device and the "Attraction" is an excellent DAC.
The bottom line is that there is very little difference in sound when one uses different transports or different digital cables with the JISCO-enabled Attraction DAC.
I have never, until now, come across a DAC where the transport and cable made next to no difference.
I honestly thought this experiment would once again show a significant difference between different transports and different cables.
I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong.
It isn't the first time I've been wrong about something and it won't be the last.
If I ever happen to come across a cable or a transport that makes any significant difference when paired with the Attraction DAC I will post my findings on the "Is the Altmann Attraction DAC really the best?" thread. |
Exlibris,
Your findings match what Bob Katz widely reports...the DAC is where most subtle differences in digital tend to happen. (Clocking from transport is related but in the end jitter can be controlled at the DAC with appropriate design) |
Exlibris...Thanks for the info.
I also made a mistake once. I thought I was wrong about something, but I wasn't :-) |
Now that I'm no longer conceited I'm perfect. :-) |
I said: "How is the average person supposed to know what "sounds good" or "sounds right" when those supposedly devoted to "high fidelity audio reproduction" don't even know what it is?".
Mlsstl said: "Such touching devotion to the common man! ;-)".
Honestly though, think about it and the specifics of the other things i made mention of before making that statement. If amplitude linearity and low distortion don't really matter, audiophiles using and recommending highly expensive but highly distorted components really have nothing to do with the "high fidelity" reproduction of music. It might be "high end" in terms of cost and so-called "glamour", but it surely isn't "high fidelity" by any means. THAT is what i meant by "audiophilia" sending the general public "mixed signals".
I guess that this boils down to whether one REALLY is a "music lover" or an "audiophile". The distortions ( regardless of types or amplitudes ) don't really matter to the music lover, so long as it "sounds good" to them. On the other hand, the "true" audiophile is more concerned with the purity of signal being reproduced than the actual sonic characteristics of the recording.
Having said that, it is nice when both the recordings and the systems are reasonably "accurate" AND "musical", which is getting to be more rare rather than commonplace. One would think that with the advent of greater technology, just the opposite would be taking place. I say that because the recordings are getting worse, and in order to make them more "listenable", the end user's are resulting to introducing further distortions into the chain. Kind of a band-aid effect, but i guess that if one truly wants to enjoy listening to music, they'll do what they think is necessary.
Too bad none of the schools for recording technology offer some type of class in "audiophilia". Maybe if those going into the industry had a better idea of how good things really could sound without massive signal manipulation on even a decent system, they would better strive to achieve such results. After all, to most folks going into such a field, they have no idea what they are missing. To them ( and the rest of the world ), a "good sounding" system consists of a Pioneer / Sony / Kenwood / JVC / Technics cd player stacked on top of a Pioneer / Sony / Kenwood / JVC / Technics receiver plugged into a $1.99 power strip / surge protector feeding some Bose speakers connected through Monster Cable. This is as good as it gets, right? After all, this is all "brand name" stuff that cost them hundreds of dollars, right???
If we were to change the point of reference for those making the recordings via exposure to better quality gear and system installations, we might be able to change their goals and motivations too.
I wonder if it would be worthwhile for audiophiles, working together as a group both regionally and nationally, to contact local recording schools and studios and work with them on something like this? Just giving them access to a "decent" audiophile grade system on their premises might make for a world of difference. Even our old "junk" properly set up would be a step up from what they are used to using and listening to.
Any thoughts / comments from the peanut gallery??? Sean
> |
Sean writes: Any thoughts / comments from the peanut gallery??? Smile when you say that. Regards, |
Sean,
I think it is not as bad a picture as you paint....there are some good recording industry people out there...Telarc, Chesky, Naxos, The Mastering Lab....just to name a few of the better known sources of good recordings |
Shadorne: Out of all of the recordings sold om a day, what percentage of them do you think come from those labels? Sean
> |
Here's an interesting article about the horrid sound of modern digital recordings / CD's that you might want to check out. It's good to see that some folks on the "inside" of the music making / recording industry are noticing what we are too. The fact that Neil Young, Bob Dylan, etc... are speaking out about things like this in such a vocal fashion can only help the cause. Sean > |
Sean,
Yeah the percentage is small...I grant you that. |
Sean,
Interesting article about the compression on modern pop CD's. This matches my experience....it all sounds ok in the car or on a boombox but on my system I hear it for what it is....lots of distortion and monotonously loud and dull sounding.
If you are looking for great examples of a good recording; try Tower of Power Soul Vaccination or George Bensen "On broadway" live...
Perhaps the best way to fight this would be for audiophiles to publish lists of the worst offending crap CD's; giving the artists recognition for their vile sounding work.
Artists like Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Lenny Kravitz, Ricky Martin etc. (all of which I can appreciate muscially but have a track record of putting out badly compressed and distorted CD's) |
Sean,
Thanks for the link. |
Sean,
What do you think monitoring setups in most studios and recording schools are like? If you think that $3,000-$5,000 nearfield monitors and a pair of expensive mains is akin to bose speakers, then you've obviously never heard a serious studio playback system. A student listening in a highly acoustically treated, specially designed room on dynaudio nearfields and ATC mains has an idea of what good sound is like.
It really gets me angry when over and over again I see a lack of respect on this and other audiophile forums for people in the recording industry. There is a negative (in my opinion) trend towards over compression and SOME poor recording practices, but the problem isn't all the engineers. You would also be SHOCKED to hear how different most recordings sound like before mastering. If anybody is interested I can post a clip of a project I just finished before mastering, and afterward. There's probably a 10-15db difference in percieved loudness, and the difference in dynamic range is huge.
The problem is NOT the engineers (or even the mastering engineers), it's the labels and people's expectations. When someone puts a CD in their car and it's 15db softer than the rest of their CD's, their instant reaction is that it is an inferior product, and that the sound quality is lower than their other CD's. In a short AB test, people almost always prefer the louder, brighter recording.
Another reason for over-compression and a lack of dynamic range is that most people don't just sit and listen to music anymore. They listen in the car, on headphones while commuting, jogging, etc, or in the background. A recording with little dynamic range is ideal for these purposes. I can't listen to classical music in the car because it's either too soft to hear, or it's blowing my ears out. Same goes for listening on the subway or while jogging. Music with too much dynamic range is tougher to listen to in a noisy environment or in the background. Most modern music isn't very dynamic anyway. Trust me, it's not like there's much in the way of dynamic swings in modern pop or rock before it hits mastering.
The problem is also that engineering is an INCREDIBLY competitive field. Most attempting to enter the field today won't be anything more than assistants, interns, or runners for the rest of the decade and beyond. There aren't many jobs for engineers out there, and getting the few that do exist involves mainly luck, but also feeding into exactly the expectations that are there for you. It's probably not too surprising that the goal is almost always "sound like band x", or "just like the break in song y", not "give us the best sound".
So don't be so quick to blame the state of modern recording on some incompetency on the part of engineers. We know what good sound is, even if most of the guys don't have nice playback rigs at home (do you like to bring your work home with you?). Engineers also know about the current state of the recording industry. Engineers are always complaining about over compression and the lack of musicality in modern recordings. Most of the problem is in mastering, and out of the recording/mix engineer's hands, and even then the problem is with the labels and expectations of the public and the guys writing the checks. I have a degree and years of experience in my field. If you think that you can do my job better, please come out to the studio and have a crack at it. You're welcome to try anytime. |
Axelfonze,
I agree with you that it is the market (cars, iPod's in the gym etc.) that drives the industry to "hot" sounding CD's and nothing to do with the technology or the mastering engineer's abilities. Fortunately movie soundtracks have not headed so relentlessly towards "loudness wars" and many soundtracks for movies sound very good.
Perhaps the only solution for audiophiles to hit back is to complain to the labels, artists and producers...in the end it spells opportunity for a new Telarc, Chesky or a new Sheffield labs etc. to be born out of the "boring monotony of the loudness wars".....may be a new "Axelfonze" label where pop music still has dynamic range? .....much like Starbucks simply offered good coffee at a time where it was becoming almost impossible to find good coffee in much of North America...the rest is history. |
Very good post Axelfonze. None of these things surprise me - but it's nice to see them so well stated.
Regards, |
Axelfonze: I have been in studios and could sit here and pick apart your response, highlighting tons of flaws that take place in most every session, but that would only create further tension and debate. As a general rule though, i do agree with a lot of what you have said.
With that in mind, it is up to those that are "industry professionals" that still have some form of integrity to do their job as best possible and speak up about the matter. To me, this would mean taking the time to educate the performers, making them aware of the different methods used to make good and / or bad sounding recordings. I can guarantee that most every performer would rather have their records sound as good as possible, even it meant sacrificing some volume. If such weren't the case, we wouldn't have folks like Bob Dylan, Neil Young, etc... making the comments that they are. If we can get the performers educated and involved, it will be hard for the "industry professionals" responsible for this mess to ignore pressure from both sides i.e. the bands and the consumers.
Those in marketing are the idiots responsible for the "volume wars" that the aforementioned article talks about. Getting through to them will be difficult, but we really do need to take steps to see what we can do. While i have a million projects going as it is, i'm going to see what we can do about this. Obviously, this will take a LOT of help from others, both end users and those within the industry. When i get some time and start to make some progress organizing some type of "protest", i'll surely post something here and at AA.
Obviously, this type of protest will meet with some within the recording industry, but my guess is, that most engineers want to be proud of their work and how their work sounds. As such, they might take offense to some of the comments made here and how they are perceived in the future, but the bottom line is that we both strive for the same thing. Good music that is well recorded and well preserved for a long time to come. Sean
>
|
If we can get the performers educated and involved, it will be hard for the "industry professionals" responsible for this mess to ignore pressure from both sides i.e. the bands and the consumers There's no pressure from consumers. Regards, |
Metralla: You're absolutely right and we need to change that in a very organized, large scale and highly publicized manner. That's what i'm going to try working on sometime shortly. Sean
> |
Jason, I've often wondered how to go about making some really fine recordings for my firends and myself. Do you know any resources on the web for amateur recording. I know that Manley makes a nice 8 channel Tube mixing board and I've noticed that many of the recordings of the 1950's and early sixties have the characteristic sound of tube equipment. But that's as far as I've gotten with that idea. Any help from anyone would be appreciated. |
Again, most engineers are fighting the same battle that you are Sean. The problem is two fold. For one, most bands attached to labels have little say in how their record sounds, except for the biggest, most established acts. Most people selling tons of records have absolutely no control over their album. At the same time, most people who are making independant recordings and who are not attached to a label only want something to compete with major label recordings. We DO try to educate our clients about good sound. We also get stuck between a rock and a hard place in that if we don't give the client what they want (loud, over compressed recordings), then we will often lose work.
As industry professionals our integrity is to do the job that we are hired to do. If it was purely up to me I would do many things differently with most of the recordings I produce. I also think that most music being produced (alot of the stuff that I work on in fact) is garbage as well, but much of the time it's not my place to comment on that either.
I also believe that the way recordings are produced today suits the way that most people listen to music. Less compression and more dynamic range is going to be bad news for most consumers. The real battle is over the role music place in the marketplace. The advent of the ipod, as well as the convenience of technology has turned music into a background affair. Most peolpe listen to music constantly for most of the day (be it on their ipod, the radio, on tv, in the car, etc), and as a result the meduim is losing its percieved value. We need to get more people actively listening, and going to live shows. Most people don't even listen to whole songs anymore.
The movement you're talking about will only occur if the general public changes their listening habits. Back when people would sit down and listen to an album in its entirety, many more people cared about sound quality than do today. Now the shift has been towards convenience and image, and things won't change until that changes. The vast majority of engineers would love to see a shift towards better recordings, but the market has to change first. Engineers complain about the state of the industry and sound quality more than audiophiles, if that's even possible. For now, we have to meet the demands of the market and our employers. Most of us are having a tough enough time working enough to feed our families. We live in a world where everyone thinks they are an engineer or producer, and budgets are always shrinking. It says alot that videos are more expensive than ever, when recording budgets are a fraction of what they were. The studio where I typically work charges less than similarly equipped studios 30 years ago, not accounting for inflation, and people still aren't exactly beating down the door.
The best thing for audiophiles to do is support the labels that do cater to us, and produce the kinds of recordings that you want to hear. There are lots of recordings produced today that sound better than ever, and we need to make sure that there's enough of a market to keep these people busy. We should also be fighting to get more people interested in music on an active level. If you can get somebody to start listening to music in an active way, and listening to complete albums, then getting them to care about sound quality is sure to follow shortly. |
Again: If we can get the performers educated and involved, it will be hard for the "industry professionals".... to ignore pressure from both sides i.e. the bands and the consumers. I'd forget consumers and focvus on performers. But then, you'd need stars with considerable commercial clout to set such a trend. I expect the sound engineers will follow and probably crack open a few bottles of champagne while they're at it. So the question is, can we convince say, Madonna, to switch to 0dB fs recordings and talk about it too??? |
Though I will always purchase the music that I love, regardless of how it is recorded or mastered, I would like to also actively support the labels that do cater to us, and produce the kinds of recordings that we want to hear.
The problem is that I generally only listen to 'rock.' I generally listen to independent bands and solo artists that are 'below the radar'.
I already know about all the small labels that are producing excellent sounding classical, jazz, easy listening, ambient, electronic, and 'world' music.
Does anyone have a list of labels (or mastering engineers) producing excellent sounding CDs from artists in the rock/alt/indie genres?
Thanks. |
Exlibris,
Doug Sax at the Mastering Lab is very good and in very high demand (he has won so many awards). For pop stuff/country, he uses compression like most everyone these days but at least he uses it sparingly. Check him out on Artist Direct and see which albums he is credited with...
A great example of his work is the remastered Toys in the Attic Aerosmith CD or SACD...this album sounds much better than earlier CD versions or greatest hits versions. He founded Sheffield Labs and has a long track illustrous track record of high quality productions. |
Exlibris
All this stuff about the superiority of vinyl and tubes over CDs and solid state and it turns out you only listen to rock! Who the hell cares how accurate the audio as long as it blasts you away. Do you ever have any idea what the intent of the musicians and/or producers was at the time of the recording?
Thanks to Axelfonze and a few others, the thread was a worthwhile read. My experience is that there are excellent CDs and SACDs, but then I prefer jazz and chamber music, the likely target for those producing high quality recordings, so my sample may be biased.
db |
Unfortunately 'rock' is catch-all term that covers lots of music. Most of the music that I listen to is very emotionally involving and yes, my system portrays the intent of the musicians.
Sorry, chamber music just doesn't speak to me. Why should it, look who it was written for and by. I live in a huge urban centre in the 21st century; the music I listen to is generally written by people like me. I understand where they are coming from. I have no connection to those who wrote chamber music, nor do I have any connection to the audience they wrote it for.
Enjoy the chamber music and let me enjoy artists like:
Sufjan Stevens
Radiohead
Sun Kil Moon
Beck, etc. |
By the way, your post is a little elitist and if the 'phd' that you end your ID with stands for what I think it stands for, well, in these circles that's a little elitist as well.
Best regards,
DH
MA, MLS |
You haven't lived unless you have laid down flat on the floor and kicked your legs to propel yourself around in circles with an air guitar in your hands and with "Back in Black" playing at 110 decibels (average) and screaming all the time Angus, Angus....
Long live Rock and Roll!
Seriously: Back in Black is a pretty awesome recording....it reminds me of another Aussie band that produced extremely high quality recordings: INXS. |
I think Back in Black is one of the best recorded straight-ahead rock albums of all time. Listen to that, then The Darkness' Permission to Land for an example of what overcompression does to a recording. Permission to Land would have been an incredible sounding recording if a little restraint was shown in mastering. |
Jason, I've often wondered how to go about making some really fine recordings for my firends and myself. Do you know any resources on the web for amateur recording. I know that Manley makes a nice 8 channel Tube mixing board and I've noticed that many of the recordings of the 1950's and early sixties have the characteristic sound of tube equipment. But that's as far as I've gotten with that idea. Any help from anyone would be appreciated. there's a great discussion board at www.taperssection.com the vast majority of folks over there are only interested in two-channel recordings, and portable gear that can easily be powered at concerts and similar situations. I'm not sure what music (local bands, big acts, your own playing, etc, etc) you are interested in recording, but you'll certainly be able to find a lot of options for portable gear. |
lots of a recording's information isn't on the cd at all. that hasn't changed since the inception of the compact disc. no player retreives missing information...your brain fills that in.....also, the vast majority of music lovers don't even vaguely fit an audiophile's definition of one. its their world..we're just in it......investigate actual sales numbers on hi end recordings if you want to get a wake up call. |
lots of a recording's information isn't on the cd at all. that hasn't changed since the inception of the compact disc. no player retreives missing information...your brain fills that in..... Yeah TV's and movies are the same....I can never watch a TV or go to a movie because the frame rates are so slow (30 frames per second)....all I see is bunch of independent pictures flashing by....so harsh and unrealistic...my brain tries to fill in the gaps in all that missing information...worse I see all the pixels and know all to well that I am missing information between each pixel on the screen.....it is so frustrating. ...and the Victrola was so good! |
