The comments above indicate some misunderstanding of the recording process.Almost uniformly recording studios use equalizers.The Cello Audio Palette was primarily used by recording engineers,it's use in the home system does not detract in anyway from the quality of the sound,and has nothing to do with room equalizers.Should you use a low quality tone controls or equalizer the result ay indeed be deleterious to the sound.Try it you will like it.
The use of equipment as "tone controls"
Several times in my Audiogon reading and posting over the last couple of years, I've noticed this or that contributor commenting along the lines of: "You shouldn't use your amp/cables/cartridge/whatever as a tone control."
I assume what this is supposed to mean is that there is some absolutely correct sound out there, and we ought not have audio equipment of any kind that deviates from that absolutely correct sound.
I might be able to buy into this if we were listening to live instruments (although their sound is, of course, affected by the space in which they are played, the position of the listener, etc., so is not itself "absolute"). But we're not listening to live music. We're listening to recordings. There are microphones, cables, recording equipment, mastering equipment, storage medium, etc, all of which come between us and the original sound--not to mention the taste and perception of the engineers, producers, etc. In that sense, what we hear coming out of our speakers is all illusion, anyway. And the illusion comes in quite a few "flavors." On one system I had, Bill Evans at the Village Vanguard sounded like he was in my living room. But Leonard Bernstein conducting the NY Phil in the early 60's was so shrill it made me run screaming from the room. In my current system, Bill Evans doesn't sound as "right there" as he used to (now I'm a few of rows back, yet still quite happy), but Leonard Bernstein doesn't make my ears bleed, either.
How did I work that? I experimented with different equipment. I used the equipment as "tone controls" (I guess). It's all respectible equipment: ARC, VTL, BAT, Cardas, etc. Maybe it reduced the "accuracy" of the reproduction of Bill Evans, but it increased the "accuracy" of the reproduction of Leonard Bernstein. Maybe. But who knows for sure?
We all tailor the sound of our systems to suit our preferences. What's wrong with that? And, most equipment has it's own sound character. That seems like a good thing, to me. It allows us to tailor our sound.
Now what we REALLY need is a good set of tone controls on our fancy pre-amps, so we can really tailor our sound!
Food for comment?
I assume what this is supposed to mean is that there is some absolutely correct sound out there, and we ought not have audio equipment of any kind that deviates from that absolutely correct sound.
I might be able to buy into this if we were listening to live instruments (although their sound is, of course, affected by the space in which they are played, the position of the listener, etc., so is not itself "absolute"). But we're not listening to live music. We're listening to recordings. There are microphones, cables, recording equipment, mastering equipment, storage medium, etc, all of which come between us and the original sound--not to mention the taste and perception of the engineers, producers, etc. In that sense, what we hear coming out of our speakers is all illusion, anyway. And the illusion comes in quite a few "flavors." On one system I had, Bill Evans at the Village Vanguard sounded like he was in my living room. But Leonard Bernstein conducting the NY Phil in the early 60's was so shrill it made me run screaming from the room. In my current system, Bill Evans doesn't sound as "right there" as he used to (now I'm a few of rows back, yet still quite happy), but Leonard Bernstein doesn't make my ears bleed, either.
How did I work that? I experimented with different equipment. I used the equipment as "tone controls" (I guess). It's all respectible equipment: ARC, VTL, BAT, Cardas, etc. Maybe it reduced the "accuracy" of the reproduction of Bill Evans, but it increased the "accuracy" of the reproduction of Leonard Bernstein. Maybe. But who knows for sure?
We all tailor the sound of our systems to suit our preferences. What's wrong with that? And, most equipment has it's own sound character. That seems like a good thing, to me. It allows us to tailor our sound.
Now what we REALLY need is a good set of tone controls on our fancy pre-amps, so we can really tailor our sound!
Food for comment?
- ...
- 44 posts total
For instance, I once heard a very beautiful sounding system that was absolutely wonderful. Some recordings sounded as if the performers were in the room, but they were all great. Then I realized that everything sounded not only good, but practically the same. That cannot be right. "You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize?" [Takes a bite of steak] "Ignorance is bliss. " |
Wireless200, Do you see it too? I constantly see audio performance specifications raining down on me from all sides. I thought it was just me ;-) |
Nilthepill, when I wrote that everything sounded practically the same, I pretty much meant that. Though the groups, music, dates, etc. were all different, all could have been recorded in the same studio, and all artists were in the same or similar mood. I was not alone when listening to this system, but was the only pedestrian (non audio field related) that ended up with a negative impression of the system. I have heard other types of systems that to me were a joke, incapable of producing anything approaching an actual performance, but others just thought that stuff was the greatest thing since sliced bread. I guess it just depends on what we want in our home with our money, which will in part be based on what we know. |
- 44 posts total