High end contradiction...

hearingimpared

Quote:

It's generally agreed that the perfect preamp imparts no sonic signature on the signal.

F1nut wrote: »

Horse hockey.

I couldn't agree more.;)

cfrizz

TECHNOKID wrote: »

I just find your comment kind of odd when so many on here spend extensive money on gear and even cables to have good SQ and when it comes to actually hear the music the way it was intended it seems to be irrelevant or over analytical. Personnally, I prefer to be a little analytical at the selection process and then purchase exactly what I want or need thus saving big $$$$ on upgrades :cool:



As far as studio monitors, I find they too have their place for specific needs. Personnaly I own a pair for my portable rig and find them a much better choice than any computer speakers out there at this point and I definitely don't find them boring.

Everyone is chasing for good SQ and in my book, the most important factor for good SQ = accurate reproduction. If music was simply about music, the typical boom box (getto blasters) that were once so popular would still be favored today. Oh wait, it's been replaced by ipods and MP3s today. I guess you are right, it's only about the music no matter what the gear :)

TK, unless we are all there in the studio, music hall, etc, how exactly do we determine if what we are hearing is a TOTALLY accurate reproduction of what was played when recorded?

Right now I'm listening to a Linda Rondstadt cd. I'm hearing the slide guitar, drums, reg guitar, bass guitar, Linda etc. quite clearly. That I am able to detect all of that and more tells me the the gear is doing its job, how much more accurate does it have to be?

F1nut wrote: »

Horse hockey.

TECHNOKID wrote: »

I'm not familiar with that brand, it this high end

F1nut wrote: »

No, it's bottom end.

:D:D:D ROTFLMAO! Thanks for the laughs gentlemen.:D

heiney9

It's ALL about linearity. The more linear your gear the closer you are to how a recording is supposed to sound. That's really all there is too it. You are at the mercy of the recording more than you are at the mercy of gear.

H9

heiney9

When I say linearity I mean with respect to distortion characteristics and impedance matching. A piece of gear can have it's own sound as there is nothing made that is truly "neutral"; it doesn't exist. Gear with a very simple gain path and extremely linear in it's distortion characteristics will sound phenomenal and will get you closer to the real thing and always sounds more natural. Don't confuse my use of the word linearity to mean "neutral".

Linearity-having or being a response or output that is directly proportional to the input

H9

markmarc

It starts with the love for music.
Secondly, the level of resolution. The better the resolution the greater the listening experience becomes. Think of it in terms of the details and color explosion after they cleaned (not repainted) Michaelangelo's frescos off the ceiling of the Sistine chapel (see image). The better the quality of each piece of gear, the more detail can be revealed.
It ends with the love for music.

hearingimpared

heiney9 wrote: »

When I say linearity I mean with respect to distortion characteristics and impedance matching. A piece of gear can have it's own sound as there is nothing made that is truly "neutral"; it doesn't exist. Gear with a very simple gain path and extremely linear in it's distortion characteristics will sound phenomenal and will get you closer to the real thing and always sounds more natural. Don't confuse my use of the word linearity to mean "neutral".

Linearity-having or being a response or output that is directly proportional to the input

H9

Well my Spectral DMC 10G is supposed to be the most neutral hi-rez preamp ever made but this is when it's mated with the Spectral DMA line. However with the distortion characteristic and impedance matching it DOES sounds different with other makes of amplifiers. It still has one of the finest phono stages I've ever heard.

heiney9

^^ That is a great illustration MarkMarc. That's exactly how it was when I went from my Adcom to my Pass Aleph 30. The singled ended pure class A and two gain stages improved detail, clarity, resolution and sounded soooooo much more natural.

H9

jaxwired

hearingimpared wrote: »

Well my Spectral DMC 10G is supposed to be the most neutral hi-rez preamp ever made but this is when it's mated with the Spectral DMA line. However with the distortion characteristic and impedance matching it DOES sounds different with other makes of amplifiers. It still has one of the finest phono stages I've ever heard.

Interesting point. So, mixing and matching preamps and amps is more likely to disappoint than sticking with the pairings designed by the manufacturer?

hearingimpared

jaxwired wrote: »

Interesting point. So, mixing and matching preamps and amps is more likely to disappoint than sticking with the pairings designed by the manufacturer?

I wouldn't say that at all. It then becomes a matter of synergy. Spectral is known to make one system every couple a few years that they match all components precisely so there are no synergy issues. They also provide their own cable which are made by MIT. In their manuals they state that if you are using one of their components with other brand gear that MIT cables are the only ones one should use. It's been like that since the late '70s.

I've yet to hear my Spectral sound anything but great with any front end, DAC or amplifier. As I said it just sounds different.

This particular preamp was made when vinyl was king thus they put much much more into the vinyl state than the line stage. If I had to describribe the line stage I would say it is very good but the vinyl stage is absolutely superb.

DarqueKnight

jaxwired wrote: »

It's generally agreed that the perfect preamp imparts no sonic signature on the signal.

I will say that this is not always true. Sometimes a review will talk about the preamp's fidelity to the source and transparency, but more often than not the preamp is praised for how it sounds when it really shouldn't be adding a "sound".

Absolute accuracy is a great concept for laboratory grade measurement tools, but is not always desirable for activities based on objective tastes.

Some people find the naturally strident and "biting" character of some brass instruments unpleasant to listen to. Some people find the natural sonic impact and tactile power of a real drum kit to be "too much". They would prefer that these sonic attributes be toned down a bit (or a lot) when listening to these instruments reproduced on their home audio systems.

jaxwired wrote: »

So, mixing and matching preamps and amps is more likely to disappoint than sticking with the pairings designed by the manufacturer?

No. There are some technical considerations, such as input/output inpedance matching, that should not be violated, but gear matching is basically a trial and error process based on serious study, reasoning and personal preference. People often come to audio wanting to be told the "secrets" of putting together a satisfying system. The only two "secrets" are:

1. Lots and lots of listening to the real thing (live music performance in a good acoustic space) to get a benchmark on evaluating the false thing (reproduced music in a good acoustic space).

2. Lot and lots of listening to various flavors of the false thing to find your sound. Your "sound" is that approximation of the real thing that is most pleasing to your ears.

AudioFilet wrote: »

Even when listening to live music, it's going to sound different according to the listeners position.

Of course. That is why I always try to get seats at the center of the stage and back a comfortable distance...sort of like a "live" sweet spot.

markmarc wrote: »

It starts with the love for music...It ends with the love for music.

Yes...it seems to be so easy to lose sight of the fact that gear is (supposed to be) there for music's sake rather than gear being there for gear's sake.

George Grand

markmarc wrote: »

Think of it in terms of the details and color explosion after they cleaned (not repainted) Michaelangelo's frescos off the ceiling of the Sistine chapel (see image). The better the quality of each piece of gear, the more detail can be revealed.
It ends with the love for music.

I look at it, and it IS amazing what that guy could do with just black & white.

Hawkeye

As a high-jack. I was in the Sistine Chapel when they were doing the cleaning. I think it was around 93-95 time frame. There was scaffoling everywhere, almost just like the Rex Harrision/Charleton Heston movie where CH played Michealangelo.

Seeing the cleaned end and the dirty end was just stunning. They made art back then, unlike some of the things we see today. Although some of the popes destroyed some very beautiful pieces of scupture to meet the morals of the day:( Think figleaves!

Anyway, the photo above of the Sistine is comparable to me changing out a pre for a balanced pre with seperate power supplies for each channel. The basic sound was there all along, the better piece cleaned it up and allowed me to enjoy more of the art.

Gordon

Cpyder

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

This may be a stupid question, but how do we know how it was supposed to sound when it was recorded (or played live)? When the track is mixed, doesn't the gear (speakers, ect) that he is using to listen to it to make sure it sounds right 'color' the track as well?

I don't know anything about this, so I could be completely wrong.

Now you're asking the right questions! You're absolutely right. You can't invite the audio engineer to your house and say, "Does this sound pretty close to how you were trying to mix it to sound?"

I've swapped componenets and even played around with software equalizers to get different sounding versions of the same song that both sounded beautiful. I'm all for seeking the most undistorted signal as possible. When a piece of equipment adds a sonc signature and the listener likes it, this is the equipment distorting the signal. Statistically speaking, their should be a few pieces of equipment out there that are very transparent. But since you can hear differences between components, this means that all but a select few of them are adding distortion, often pleasurable.

This means that seeking transparency is sort of an unachievable goal because you will never have a reference to the original recording as heard by the mixing engineer. Now the race turns into - How much and what types of distortion are most pleasing to your ears and your ears only. Chase down this sound and you will be happy listening to music for years to come.

PSOVLSK

hearingimpared wrote: »

the preamp is one place above all else (besides the speakers) that you can mold the sound of your rig and music.

+1,000,000,000...

mdaudioguy

If someone buys a piece of fine art, do they attempt to recreate the conditions of the artist's studio when they display it in their home? If they do, will it look good to all who gaze upon it?

SolidSqual

Here's a mind bending thought: The sound of a good preamp could compensate for equipment up and down the chain and make the system overall sound neutral . . .

W WALDECKER

In theory the perfect preamplifier would be a straight wire with gain but in reality it does not exist. i prefer mine almost neutral with just a touch of warmth added. tubes are very linear devices and when used in a well designed real world circuit TUBES RULE!....WCW III

madmax

What I have found is a neutral sounding piece of equipment is best. If it adds sound that is not on a recording it will add the same sound to everything that is played. While this particular sound may be appealing with some recordings it becomes stale after awhile. Also, this added sound covers up the real sounds which were intended. Everything starts sounding like everything else after awhile and we loose interest.
madmax

heiney9

^^ The sign of a great rig is when every single piece of music you play on it sounds different.

H9

hearingimpared

heiney9 wrote: »

^^ The sign of a great rig is when every single piece of music you play on it sounds different.

H9

Then I must have a great rig!;) Although I've noticed that great recordings sound great, good recordings sound good, bad recording sound listenable which leads me to believe there is some coloration going on. On my last rig bad recordings sounded horrible and unlistenable. I think I like it better with the latest rig.

heiney9

Joe, I'm not talking better or worse or great or good.

Just simply; in my journey the best sounding systems, the most revealing systems, the most enjoyable systems (even though with poorly recorded music they can sound pretty bad) is this.................

The sign of a great rig is when every single piece of music you play on it sounds different. Which is the way it's supposed to be. If you record the exact same band in the exact same way in two different venues those recordings should sound a lot different. In lesser rigs they will tend to sound very similar.

A remaster, an original digital, and an anlaog recording of the exact same recording should all sound markedly different on a great rig. A lesser rig and you'll find they all sound very similar.

Get my point, etc.

hearingimpared

heiney9 wrote: »

Joe, I'm not talking better or worse or great or good.

Just simply; in my journey the best sounding systems, the most revealing systems, the most enjoyable systems (even though with poorly recorded music they can sound pretty bad) is this.................

The sign of a great rig is when every single piece of music you play on it sounds different. Which is the way it's supposed to be. If you record the exact same band in the exact same way in two different venues those recordings should sound a lot different. In lesser rigs they will tend to sound very similar.

A remaster, an original digital, and an anlaog recording of the exact same recording should all sound markedly different on a great rig. A lesser rig and you'll find they all sound very similar.

Get my point, etc.

I do now!

gdb

jaxwired wrote: »

Here's a mystery. It's generally agreed that the perfect preamp imparts no sonic signature on the signal. It simply passes on the signal with gain adjustments based on volume. YET, I read reviews all the time that talk about how a preamp "sounds". And yes, preamps are not perfect so they do impart a sound, but here's the contradiction, the reviewers usually are complimentary about the sonic changes the preamp adds. Commonly praising the various aspects of how the preamp sounds. Yet, the sonic signature of the preamp is just a sign that the preamp is not doing it's job well.

I will say that this is not always true. Sometimes a review will talk about the preamp's fidelity to the source and transparency, but more often than not the preamp is praised for how it sounds when it really shouldn't be adding a "sound".

I think it's a large heap of "Hoohah" to think that the signal from your recorded music source is somehow unvarnished and pure. The music has been jerked every which way by the guy sitting at that bigass sound board with all of those tone modifying, slider controls all over it ! A preamp's tone controls are there merely to allow you to second guess or to correct the engineers judgement where it concerns your estimation of what the material originally sounded like. If you prefer to be limited and dictated to by the recording as it is, don't get,use, or even look at a tone controling device.YMMV;)

heiney9

Tone controls are very poor correction devices. They are actually more harmful overall to the signal by what they impart in noise and the extremely limited bandwidth to be useful at all.

Tone controls are unnecessary

H9

mhardy6647

heiney9 wrote: »

Tone controls are very poor correction devices. They are actually more harmful overall to the signal by what they impart in noise and the extremely limited bandwidth to be useful at all.

Tone controls are unnecessary

H9

I concur (FWIW).

TECHNOKID

madmax wrote: »

What I have found is a neutral sounding piece of equipment is best. If it adds sound that is not on a recording it will add the same sound to everything that is played. While this particular sound may be appealing with some recordings it becomes stale after awhile. Also, this added sound covers up the real sounds which were intended. Everything starts sounding like everything else after awhile and we loose interest.madmax

Exactly my tought. I relize pure neutral gear does not exist but trying to achieve reproduction of what was intended by the engeneer(s) is my goal. I realize many on this board strive for coloration but it is definitely not my cup of tea as I am after what the creators of the music piece intended to do not trying to modify it to my liking (afterall IMHO the engeneers should know better, right?)

heiney9 wrote: »

Joe, I'm not talking better or worse or great or good.

Just simply; in my journey the best sounding systems, the most revealing systems, the most enjoyable systems (even though with poorly recorded music they can sound pretty bad) is this.................

The sign of a great rig is when every single piece of music you play on it sounds different. Which is the way it's supposed to be. If you record the exact same band in the exact same way in two different venues those recordings should sound a lot different. In lesser rigs they will tend to sound very similar.

A remaster, an original digital, and an anlaog recording of the exact same recording should all sound markedly different on a great rig. A lesser rig and you'll find they all sound very similar.

Get my point, etc.

Agreed!

gdb wrote: »

I think it's a large heap of "Hoohah" to think that the signal from your recorded music source is somehow unvarnished and pure. The music has been jerked every which way by the guy sitting at that bigass sound board with all of those tone modifying, slider controls all over it ! A preamp's tone controls are there merely to allow you to second guess or to correct the engineers judgement where it concerns your estimation of what the material originally sounded like. If you prefer to be limited and dictated to by the recording as it is, don't get,use, or even look at a tone controling device.YMMV;)

So I could understand you properly, are you telling us you know better than the sound engeneers?

heiney9 wrote: »

Tone controls are very poor correction devices. They are actually more harmful overall to the signal by what they impart in noise and the extremely limited bandwidth to be useful at all.

Tone controls are unnecessary

H9

I agree except for a very few situations, tone controls are to be avoided at all costs.

madmax

gdb wrote: »

I think it's a large heap of "Hoohah" to think that the signal from your recorded music source is somehow unvarnished and pure. The music has been jerked every which way by the guy sitting at that bigass sound board with all of those tone modifying, slider controls all over it !

This is true and the better your system the more disturbing sounds you hear. At one point in my journey everything sounded great. As I continued with better and better gear (who knows why...) I could clearly pick out effects added to the music. When the equipment gets good enough you start staying away from more popular music because you just don't want to hear the added crap. After all, what good is an effect if you hear it is clearly an effect?

gdb

TECHNOKID wrote: »

Exactly my tought. I relize pure neutral gear does not exist but trying to achieve reproduction of what was intended by the engeneer(s) is my goal. I realize many on this board strive for coloration but it is definitely not my cup of tea as I am after what the creators of the music piece intended to do not trying to modify it to my liking (afterall IMHO the engeneers should know better, right?)

Agreed!

So I could understand you properly, are you telling us you know better than the sound engeneers?

I agree except for a very few situations, tone controls are to be avoided at all costs.

Are you telling me that my ears need to be recalibrated to match those of the engineer? AFAIK......everybody has their own......oh nevermind,please disregard.:)

hearingimpared

gdb wrote: »

I think it's a large heap of "Hoohah" to think that the signal from your recorded music source is somehow unvarnished and pure. The music has been jerked every which way by the guy sitting at that bigass sound board with all of those tone modifying, slider controls all over it ! A preamp's tone controls are there merely to allow you to second guess or to correct the engineers judgement where it concerns your estimation of what the material originally sounded like. If you prefer to be limited and dictated to by the recording as it is, don't get,use, or even look at a tone controling device.YMMV;)

Forum hic-cup, double post.

hearingimpared

gdb wrote: »

I think it's a large heap of "Hoohah" to think that the signal from your recorded music source is somehow unvarnished and pure. The music has been jerked every which way by the guy sitting at that bigass sound board with all of those tone modifying, slider controls all over it ! A preamp's tone controls are there merely to allow you to second guess or to correct the engineers judgement where it concerns your estimation of what the material originally sounded like. If you prefer to be limited and dictated to by the recording as it is, don't get,use, or even look at a tone controling device.YMMV;)

heiney9 wrote: »

Tone controls are very poor correction devices. They are actually more harmful overall to the signal by what they impart in noise and the extremely limited bandwidth to be useful at all.

Tone controls are unnecessary

H9

mhardy6647 wrote: »

I concur (FWIW).

What are tone controls and what is tone controlling?;)