"Audiophile Jabberwocky"

"A copy can never be better than the original". This has all the logic in the world written all over it, except for one tiny flaw; "copies" are all that audiophiles ever deal with.

Using vinyl as an example, the black disc is the only thing that's original. The cartridge copies something from the disc, sends it to the phono pre; which makes a "copy", and sends that to the pre; which makes a "copy" and sends that to the amp; which makes a "copy" and sends that to the crossover; which makes a "copy" and sends that to the various drivers; which makes a "copy" and sends that to the room; which makes the copy that goes to your ears.

If we assume that the cartridge copy is the original, it can be improved on by the phono pre. Or maybe we'll consider the "line out" to be the original. If we assume that, it to can be improved on by a good 2 track reel on playback.

I recorded Yma Sumac from a record to my 2 track reel using EE tape. I have synchronized the TT and the reel so that I can flip back and forth while listening to the same song. Although you can't hear what I'm discribing I hope this music will help. This was when Yma Sumac was strikingly beautiful and had a vocal range that covered five octaves. The first "Youtube" example displays her striking beauty, while the second one is my favorite.



Yma was able to sing notes in the low baritone register as well as notes above the range of an ordinary soprano, her range was from 123 to 2270 HZ. Both low and high extremes can be heard in the song "Chuncho" (The forest creatures). In "Chuncho", she was able to sing in an eerie "double voice".


When I went from the original record, to the reel playback with EE tape; the difference was not at all subtle. The reel playback was like an upgraded system, (the copy) captured her dynamic range much better than the original record. Although this has been stated many times by many people, the "Audiophile Jabberwocky" holds public opinion.
Strikingly beautiful ?
You lost me at jabberwocky.
Everything is a copy.
But can she sing Yellow Submarine???
With the exception of recorders, audio equipment doesn't copy anything. It reacts to electrical impulses embedded in the software. I'm not surprised you could make a more euphonic representation of the impulses. Strictly speaking though, your deviant copy is a corruption of the original. It may sound better but it is not a better COPY. Exactly the reverse is true, its variance to the original defines it as a poorer, less than optimal copy.
Rockvirgo, you don't know squat about electronics, do you?
There is no rule that says the original is always better. That's an audiophile myth that leads to tone controls, signal processing etc. being reviled. Many enhancements are possible during the copy process that may produce preferred if not necessarily better results. Anybody who has ever "enhanced" a digital image can see that. Its the same with sound. A copy is usually somewhat different. That may be for better or for worse. The determination is often a subjective and not an objective one, unless perhaps what is being copied is a test or reference signal of some sort and not music.
Orpheus, you are correct, amplifiers make larger signal copies of the smaller signals fed to them. But nowhere is an exact copy made.

The expression "a copy can never be better than the original" says nothing about copies that are bigger or better than others. Its common meaning is that nothing can be an exact copy of the original. On this rests the consensus of public opinion, not on the applecart built of copies called originals that you managed to overturn. So gyre and gimble on that. Thanks for your provocative posting.
Rockvirgo, if you go to the Analog forum, and then find the reel to reel thread; you will find a number of "Goners" who argued me that it was impossible to have a playback "copy" from my reel that was better than the original.

Although I could be wrong, I have assumed those "Goners" represented "The consensus of public opinion".
I'd agree with you Orpheus. Every so often my tape deck will make an absolutely stunning copy, far surpassing the source. My guess is that some signals latch onto the deck just right, but I really can't say why. However it seemed to occur only when recording the third or fourth side of a double LP. The same thing happens very rarely in photography -- a single image outperforms in saturation and impact all others from the same camera.

Regardless of causes, the orthodoxy of the consensus has many pitfalls. Enjoy your system your way.