Pro is about getting the job done well within a budget.
Home is often as much about bling as sound and individuals can take it as far as they want.
Home is often as much about bling as sound and individuals can take it as far as they want.
The more I researched the further i drifted from "audiophile " equipment. I now use Genelec speakers and a streamer and am enjoying some of the best sound I have ever heard in my life. Even though I can hear the distortion of a sax reed in some old Jazz recordings I even enjoy knowing that's the way they heard it when it was recorded.
What I'd like to know is: Why is pro gear better at putting sound onto media than home gear is at taking it off? Steve Guttenberg had a YouTube video yesterday titled " The LAW of DIMINISHING RETURNS is BS".
The video was about how uber expensive gear is ACTUALLY BETTER than "pretty good" gear. Steve's criteria for greatness is information retrieval and how much better big $$$ gear is at giving it to you.
So why does it take 100K speakers and amps to get info that was recorded by equipment that cost 1/10th of that?
Are equipment makers "dumbing down" their products so they can sell us the Mark-II versions?
Most people, even pro, overestimate the price necessary to be invested to reach a very good audio quality level...
Most people, even pro, underestimate the power of controlling the working dimensions of ANY audio system, what i called their embeddings, mechanical and electrical and the powerful acoustical dimension....
The result is that most peple,even pro, are obsessed by high cost component and think that it is all there is about High end audio experience...
I listened to many high cost system that are worst than my 500 bucks very well embed system.... I try to make people think before throwing money.... Thats all.... It seems i am the only one who say that.... Incredible!
Gullible consumerism upgrading is not the way..... Controlling the working dimensions of what you already own is.....
Audio cost is creativity+ peanuts..,..
There's a guy sitting on a swivel office chair with a 156-channel mixing console 5 feet deep by 30 feet long and a computer monitor in front of him, and the geniuses at Stereophile wonder why there isn't more in common with the audiophile with 2 channels, one fixed chair, and nothing no lights or anything in front of him. Genius. Not. Couldn't see their own hand in front of their face.
And where did this nonsense about recording engineers being neutral transcribers come from anyway? Music is art sculpted with sound. That's what the performer does in the studio. That is what the engineers do with it. And that is what we do with it. The idea of any of this being somehow objectively neutral can only have been cooked up by measurebators drunk on their own cool-aid.
Remember the old “story” about putting ten (?) people in a straight line. Then, you whisper something in the ear of the first person and he whispers your comment into the ear of the second person who in turn whispers it to the third person and on and on..... By the time your comment reaches the tenth person it is a very different comment. This is analogous to what happens to music in the record/reproduce chain of events. Every step of the way to the home listener’s ear the sound loses some fidelity to the original event, no matter the quality of the gear (yes, even with “perfect” digital). As we all know there are many steps in this process.
**** What I’d like to know is: Why is pro gear better at putting sound onto media than home gear is at taking it off? ****
Is it? I’m not so sure. The way I see it, when “putting sound unto media” with pro gear, even if the pro gear happens to not be of quite the same high quality as the best audiophile gear, the sound is still a lot closer in fidelity to the original live event by virtue of the fact that it has endured far fewer “steps” of the total record/reproduce process. By the time the music is reproduced by the home gear (the tenth person) it has lost that much more fidelity. The better the home gear, the better it highlights just how much has been lost.
So here’s the thing. 5 years ago I had what most would call a pretty decent audio system. McIntosh tube amplifiers, Willson speakers, great cables and connectors, a $10,000 turntable excellent CD player etc. When we moved to South America, I sold all of it. When I returned to Canada, I purchased Paradigm 3F speakers, NAD 300 watt power amp and the NAD M10 Streamer AMP. The total cost, $20,000 Canadian. $80,000 lass than my previous system. The difference in audio quality was less, but not by much. Pro Audio is highly overrated. I think quality streaming is the future of audio.
".... Don't waste your money on a new set of speakers,
You get more mileage from a cheap pair of sneakers."
Thanks, Billy. A little self-exam is good on occasion. That extra .0001% can cost lots, just to exhibit what some won't like and try to 'fix'.
Whether one can consider it an upwards or downwards spiral still depends on perspective anyway. Oh, and budget of course.
Frankly, I'm still curious as to what my Walsh DIY redux would sound like with a SET. But I'm not about to go cook a budget to find out...
Sound great to me with SS....but I am hopelessly biased....like anyone else you know.... ;)
We have to keep in mind that the final recording of the music is under the responsability of the artistik realizator/ director linked with the production company..
As a result the technical task of the sound engineer is not free since he has to follow up realizator recommandation during recording, mastering and mix..
These step need accuracy and the final result of the sound has to respect artistic profile and marketing consideration...
So the audiophile is "alone," vs the professionnal as a result...
The example of the "loudness war" that higligth the" average power" vs the dynamic in the recording option...
**** Well, if we are the 10th person in the line and so much of the music has been lost, then why we even bother with any hifi ****
I was afraid of responses like that. Seriously?
Obviously, it’s all relative. So, are you suggesting that fidelity is NOT lost? Go to a concert of a symphony orchestra or an acoustic set by a Jazz or Rock artist in a good hall and then listen to some similar music on your system and then get back to me. That was the point.
"By the time the music is reproduced by the home gear (the tenth person) it has lost that much more fidelity. The better the home gear, the better it highlights just how much has been lost."
I’ve gone to live concert many times thank you.
My point is if someone believes the above statements as you stated then why spend more money on better gears, it will just make you more unhappy with them. Get something that you are happy with and stop the upgrade bug! Just saying.
You are misinterpreting what I wrote. It is not that better gear will not OVERALL provide better sound. Obviously, it will. However, inferior gear will mask much of what is lost. That is why many complain about the quality of many recordings. Good gear exposes the warts; it will also sound fantastic with good recordings.....but there will still be losses.
The overlooked question from this article is why don't both disciplines - pro vs public, jointly find advancements in sound reproduction that would benefit everyone? At one time, among other studios, Atlantic Records had a NYC studio full of Mark Levinson's Cello gear according to him. Obviously, given the at the time $25k minimum a Cello system cost, it wasn't meant for the casual listener, but as in other industries, advances at the top end should trickle down the food chain but often in our hobby, they don't.
Over in another thread there is a ton of people complaining about low distortion highly revealing speakers like B&W 800's, Wilsons, Magico. They claim they are too bright. I know that is a factor of room acoustics and would take one of these over most other "gentle" but lacking speakers any day.
Most audiophiles and certainly at the age of most here are not looking for accurate they are looking for a particular flavor.
Every step of the way to the home listener’s ear the sound loses some fidelity to the original event, no matter the quality of the gear (yes, even with “perfect” digital). As we all know there are many steps in this process.
Well that is pretty much wrong. The sound may change, but it is not lost w.r.t. inherent detail and resolution unless intentional ... And yes that is because the processing is digital.
There is no "loss of fidelity" in digital processing. There may be intentional changing, i.e. fequency response , fade left or right essentially, but these are not losses of fidelity. Short of two miles recording without any change with are almost non existent by your definition everything has a loss of fidelity. That is ridiculous and wrong.
noted that audiophiles are often proud of how much their systems cost; pro audio people, in contrast, are likely to brag about how cheaply they got their gear. There is overlap: mastering engineers with six-figure monitoring systems; audiophiles who harshly criticize high-end prices and insist that their inexpensive systems are just as good or better.
This is a lot of you here on Agon, pretentiousness is abound here. I lean toward the real value and quality.
a2d, You keep thinking that. What I find “ridiculous” (thanks, btw) is that someone who claims to be a “professional” in the field would think that. Not surprising. Explains a whole lot and why so many of today’s recordings sound overly processed and just plain bad. Go ahead and have the last word, I don’t enjoy our discussions.
When @mapman says " Pro is about getting the job done well within a budget." I think back to 1971-2 when I had a part time job at a recording studio in St. Louis which had the contract for Budweiser radio commercials. The operation was "all business" and when the studio musicians would arrive in the morning, they'd be handled some sheet music, had the opportunity to practice for just a few minutes before they recorded about a half-dozen samples, sometimes at different speeds, then it was on to the next piece.
I remember reading how Jimi Hendrix would show up to the recording studio and want to jam and how the producer had to reign him in.
Even the best measurement microphones, unless digital out and internally calibrated must be externally calibrated, preferably digitally to be flat. Most microphones are flat over a frequency range not everywhere and when you look off axis not at all.
Your concept of fidelity is based in lack of knowledge but you spew on about it none the less. I am sorry you don't enjoy being wrong but that is not my problem.
@skypunk, then just about everything you listen too now sucks. Even old analog recordings are stored digitally, to keep them from losing fidelity!
Once the music is in 1's and 0's it is essentially indestructible, a far cry from the old analog days when every step added noise and distortion. It was the big reason D to D recordings sounded so good.
Pro audio is priced much more reasonably as ego is not involved. Equipment from pro manufacturers is a far better value and you spend a lot less for "bling." Benchmark is a great example, dBx another.