@mastering92,
"It becomes an almost never-ending quest for perfection - which is unattainable in a subjective way. You can have a system that is 99% accurate for Pro audio work - But you can never have a perfect system that everyone you know will enjoy. Invite all of your friends and a few family members - let them listen to your best system and ask for honest opinions."
"Too many I’ve met in real life can’t make convincing arguments to prove things they believe in."
Sadly it’s all true.
From the moment the recording is captured on tape and issued on vinyl, CD, download etc it has already lost some fidelity.
Once it’s in the hands of the listener the recording then assumes a life of its own as the speakers (or headphones) it’s being played back in are unlikely to be the same as those it was recorded with.
At best playback can only be a rough approximation unless you somehow know the details of the equipment used in original recording.
Even if that were possible, it would only apply to those particular recordings.
For sure reference standard playback loudspeakers can tell you just how good a job was made on that original recording but they can’t take into account any of the deficiencies that may have been present in the original monitors used.
Deficiencies that may have made the recording sound significantly different, (presumably better) to what you’re hearing now.
As we now know there were significant sonic differences in the monitors used in recording studios back in the day. Some used Tannoys, some used JBLs, some used B&Ws etc.
Whatever studios use for mixing/tracking nowadays, be it ATC, Adam, Genelec, Yamaha? Sony 7506, Audio Technica M50x, Beyerdynamic, Behringer, Sennheiser etc, you can be sure they don’t all sound the same.
However we can hope that these are more accurate than what was being used between 1950 and 1990.
Therefore perhaps we can also hope that audio’s circle of confusion should become less of an issue as more accurate monitoring equipment is employed.
It will never be perfect, how could it be, but these inconsistencies can be reduced.
Even of it sometimes means that more accurate playback equipment will only highlight pre-existing recording deficiencies further.
This seems inevitable, unless you want to playback Elvis and Buddy Holly via 1950s monitors, or the Beatles via vintage Altecs/Tannoys etc
Therefore it shouldn’t be too surprising when even the highly recommended Revel Salon 2s don’t always sound fabulous with every recording.
How could they, how could any loudspeaker?
Perhaps the key point is to remember just what it is that we are hoping for, and just how far it is practically achievable.
So are we somewhat crazy for attempting to achieve this?
As long as we’re not suffering adversely, or causing others to unduly suffer, isn’t that usually something for independent outside observers to decide?
Not all truth passes through 3 stages, some of it is self-evident, isn’t it?
"It becomes an almost never-ending quest for perfection - which is unattainable in a subjective way. You can have a system that is 99% accurate for Pro audio work - But you can never have a perfect system that everyone you know will enjoy. Invite all of your friends and a few family members - let them listen to your best system and ask for honest opinions."
"Too many I’ve met in real life can’t make convincing arguments to prove things they believe in."
Sadly it’s all true.
From the moment the recording is captured on tape and issued on vinyl, CD, download etc it has already lost some fidelity.
Once it’s in the hands of the listener the recording then assumes a life of its own as the speakers (or headphones) it’s being played back in are unlikely to be the same as those it was recorded with.
At best playback can only be a rough approximation unless you somehow know the details of the equipment used in original recording.
Even if that were possible, it would only apply to those particular recordings.
For sure reference standard playback loudspeakers can tell you just how good a job was made on that original recording but they can’t take into account any of the deficiencies that may have been present in the original monitors used.
Deficiencies that may have made the recording sound significantly different, (presumably better) to what you’re hearing now.
As we now know there were significant sonic differences in the monitors used in recording studios back in the day. Some used Tannoys, some used JBLs, some used B&Ws etc.
Whatever studios use for mixing/tracking nowadays, be it ATC, Adam, Genelec, Yamaha? Sony 7506, Audio Technica M50x, Beyerdynamic, Behringer, Sennheiser etc, you can be sure they don’t all sound the same.
However we can hope that these are more accurate than what was being used between 1950 and 1990.
Therefore perhaps we can also hope that audio’s circle of confusion should become less of an issue as more accurate monitoring equipment is employed.
It will never be perfect, how could it be, but these inconsistencies can be reduced.
Even of it sometimes means that more accurate playback equipment will only highlight pre-existing recording deficiencies further.
This seems inevitable, unless you want to playback Elvis and Buddy Holly via 1950s monitors, or the Beatles via vintage Altecs/Tannoys etc
Therefore it shouldn’t be too surprising when even the highly recommended Revel Salon 2s don’t always sound fabulous with every recording.
How could they, how could any loudspeaker?
Perhaps the key point is to remember just what it is that we are hoping for, and just how far it is practically achievable.
So are we somewhat crazy for attempting to achieve this?
As long as we’re not suffering adversely, or causing others to unduly suffer, isn’t that usually something for independent outside observers to decide?
Not all truth passes through 3 stages, some of it is self-evident, isn’t it?