The "same as live" concept is irrelevant, except you can shoot for timbre and room feeling I suppose (I’ve mixed and recorded hundreds of live concerts from Richie Havens to the Baltimore Consort), and "black backgrounds" exist in a vacuum only. We really have to ban the "black background" term…really…perhaps the most overused and patently useless audio bullshit term since it appeared a few years ago. Maybe "noiseless" is OK…still…the world has ambient sound in it, and "hearing a venue" sort of makes my point. It does. Trust me (!). Is an image stable when you move your head? No, it’s not, but again…live images as a reference are often vague unless you’re sitting on the stage with the musicians (I argue this point often). Good hifi lets the results of the recording engineer’s panning (and mic placement) or lack of same shine through…I get it (and, I do it). I also think great music makes any decent system "disappear," and I have piles of actual acoustic instruments I can play that are within several feet of my "listening" audio rig (and surrounding my home recording rig) and I know what they sound like…I can make un-miked live natural wooden acoustic instruments distort in your face (uh…is that a capacitor or your MAMA), and they come from a "black background" only in somebody’s imagination.
- ...
- 80 posts total
| Post removed |
roger_paul " ... in
order to have speed variations on the turntable the are like those found
in amplifier, your TT speed (33 rpm) would have to speed up to 66 rpm
in order to produce a harmonic of what ever is in the groove. Amplifiers that can generate energy at 2 Khz from a 1Khz fundamental experience a very rapid change in velocity causing the fundamental to "slide" up the spectrum and be seen at 2khz and then slide" back to 1Khz. If it does not slide - then it is digital not analog" You sound very, very confused. Good luck to you in sorting it all out. |
cleeds, I'm sorry for the confusion. I may not have properly explained this phenomenon. Its all in the viewpoint. I have more experience in the field of distortion than anyone. (Bold statement? Yes) Its because I have studied in great detail what happens to a signal as it passes through an amplifier circuit. A good 30 years of research just on this one aspect of amplification. It has been my goal to find any error whatsoever and deal with it in real time. For that reason the technology I am using is years ahead of any other attempt at analog amplification. There are no man made tools available to show what has been going on. That's why it is pure theory. This is why I am able to claim the complete removal of distortion. The effect of having no distortion is like nothing ever heard by audiophiles. The reaction of those who are exposed to this is unanimous. Shock followed by great joy in what they hear. I might add that I am quite humbled by what I have discovered and thank God for his help. Everything I post is fact - with hard evidence to back it up. I am in the process of responding to wolf's comments and will take one statement at a time to explain what happens electronically vs what happens acoustically. The mystery is gone and I am trying to share my findings with audiophiles who are the first to take advantage of this body of work. Poking fun at a process because it is not understood is not helping anyone. The reason it sounds odd to describe what you think is your understanding of distortion is because there has been new information revealed that explains the missing links between what seems to be a straight forward process and one that actually encompasses the total process including errors the have gone unnoticed. (Not found in the text books - sorry) The amplifying process was never taken to its limit. I took it there. The confusion is not on my end. BTW - "what you think" (I'm not referring to you cleeds) Roger |
- 80 posts total