Extremely Long Article by John Curl

[MylesBAstor]

Worthwhile reading:

http://www.q-audio.com/johncurl.pdf

 

[MylesBAstor]

And a second article that addresses a little bit about the problem of steel leads on resistors in circuits.

http://www.parasound.com/pdfs/JCinterview.pdf

 

[Gregadd]

JC will always have a chip on his shoulder. Despite the fact that he is on everyones list as a great designer.

 

[JackD201]

Read what he writes about Listening Tests. THAT is a rational man.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Read what he writes about Listening Tests. THAT is a rational man.

Uh-oh. You've gone and done it now Jack

 

[JackD201]

Don't look at me Myles! Look at the guys who started the scientific method. Curl is just following them not me!

 

[Ki Choi]

Thanks Myles for the link.
It was indeed long... more than 150 pages long... but it was an interesting read. I can understand the man better.

One interesting point from the article was JC's discussion on the third order harmonic distortion we get from tape source that is not supposed to be good being an odd order harmonic distortion but yet it ehances and brings "life" out of music. I couldn't really put my finger before on why even a mere digitally recorded/mixed CD can sound better when its contents were transferred to tapes but the JC's article explains it. On the other hand, if the original analog master tape contained its third order harmonic distortion as it was being played during the digital transfer process for analog recording CDs, where did the third order harmonic distortion go when the recording ended up as digital copies? Maybe a digital media guru can explain it to me...

Ki

 

[FrantzM]

This is not an article .. much like a book to me ..

Glanced through a few pages .. I must say I was taken aback by the defense or impression of defense of the Shakti Stones as microwave absorbers !!! From that point on I decided that it was in my best interest no too much time in the book ... err article.. Yes the man is an icon and a treasure of knowledge but that doesn't dispense one from esoterica ..

P.S. Just read Ki's post while editing mine ... Why can't a CD reproduce the third harmonic? You add it CD will reproduce it .. So now we should add some amount that makes it "pleasing" .. there goes the whole notion of "High Fidelity" .. I am bowing out .. John Curl can write book on Audio Reproduction , I am not at that level .. This article would certainly be the subject of debate among his peers and I am not one of them.. That does not mean he is always right .. I am out ...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I got as far as "I came out of a few years of working for The Grateful Dead to elevate Mark Levinson above his mere craftsmanship." I can't be sure that is indicative of the next 149.5 pages, but I'll take the risk.

P

 

[Gregadd]

I got as far as "I came out of a few years of working for The Grateful Dead to elevate Mark Levinson above his mere craftsmanship." I can't be sure that is indicative of the next 149.5 pages, but I'll take the risk.

P

u might want to go on to see what he has to say abou adding distortion.

 

[FrantzM]

Thanks Myles for the link.
It was indeed long... more than 150 pages long... but it was an interesting read. I can understand the man better.

One interesting point from the article was JC's discussion on the third order harmonic distortion we get from tape source that is not supposed to be good being an odd order harmonic distortion but yet it ehances and brings "life" out of music. I couldn't really put my finger before on why even a mere digitally recorded/mixed CD can sound better when its contents were transferred to tapes but the JC's article explains it. On the other hand, if the original analog master tape contained its third order harmonic distortion as it was being played during the digital transfer process for analog recording CDs, where did the third order harmonic distortion go when the recording ended up as digital copies? Maybe a digital media guru can explain it to me...

Ki

Ki

I have seen this reasoning in another Board/post... Let's say one can prefer anything over anything else. It is a matter of preference and no one can discuss preferences: They just are ..

That a COPY would sond better than an original is not correct .. It cannot be... Else we have to revise the laws that govern the physical world ...

 

[MylesBAstor]

Ki

I have seen this reasoning in another Board/post... Let's say one can prefer anything over anything else. It is a matter of preference and no one can discuss preferences: They just are ..

That a COPY would sond better than an original is not correct .. It cannot be... Else we have to revise the laws that govern the physical world ...

Couldn't a copy be better if the original was poorly equalized and that was corrected in the copying?

 

[Steve Williams]

Couldn't a copy be better if the original was poorly equalized and that was corrected in the copying?

But then it isn't a copy but a remaster

 

[FrantzM]

But then it isn't a copy but a remaster

Thanks Steve

 

[DonH50]

One quibble: IMO processing can make a copy sound "better" than the original performance; it cannot be as accurate (at best, and in the limit, it would be equal to the original). Some people may prefer the sound of the "modified original" as presented in the copy... Examples: Correcting room echoes and audience noise in the original, adjusting tuning/pitch issues in the original, etc.

Did I mention this is in my opinion? - Don

p.s. On topic: I only waded through the first 25 - 30 pages so have not commented; it gets to be a tough read with all the personal observations and commentary. I downloaded it for later reading, if and when. He sounds a bit bitter..

p.p.s. Others beat me to the punch whilst I paused and deviated to do some work... Oh well!

p.p.p.s. And, I suppose my definition could also be considered a remaster vs. a copy. Not sure the distinction is relevant to the audio community at large, however.

I'll quit while I'm behind! - Don

 

[MylesBAstor]

But then it isn't a copy but a remaster

Well that's basically what copying is doing. It's adding/subtracting things to/from the recording that some may like better. And all recordings are eq'd in one way or another.

And what the difference between re-eqing at the studio end or staying with the same recording and using something like a Cello Pallette?

 

[Ron Party]

Glanced through a few pages .. I must say I was taken aback by the defense or impression of defense of the Shakti Stones as microwave absorbers !!! From that point on I decided that it was in my best interest no too much time in the book ... err article.. Yes the man is an icon and a treasure of knowledge but that doesn't dispense one from esoterica

Frantz, google John Curl and the intellichip.

 

[Ki Choi]

Couldn't a copy be better if the original was poorly equalized and that was corrected in the copying?

Hi Myles:

I would agree that poor equalization on repro settings can make hugely different sonic impressions. If one records the re-equalized material on to a new media, it's been remastered... The tape sound made from the digital recording -I was referring to- was beyond the equalization differences. It had to be the third harmonic distortion that tape record/repro process adds to the original material to sound more livelier where as the "magic" is lost whenever the same material is played back via CD... The sound of tape for that matter, LP, isn't necessarily the most accurate reproduction in comparison the digital media IMHO but certainly more pleasant to my ears just like the effects I get from the tube stuff.

 

[FrantzM]

I will drop the issue after this post. I am interested in the opinions on this white paper/book/article... The man could design that much should be said ... He is not at the level of a Tim Paravicini or Nelson Pass in my book but he's up there .. so let's remain on topics.

but about the fine distinctions .. Mastering is not the same thing as copying. The etymologies of the words are quite different .. I' ll stop there we can always move this to another thread .. I am sure mep has some thoughts on the subject


P.S just Read Ron Party's post ... omg!!! ... I honestly think that I had seen it all .. I don't know if I should laugh or cry ... . My fellow audiophiles will never cease to amaze me ...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

u might want to go on to see what he has to say abou adding distortion.

OK. Under what subhead? He says quite a bit about distortion.

I do like this part:

I want to make this clear:

I make audio equipment that most accurately reproduces recorded music as best that I can do at EVERY price point. I NEVER add distortion or allow extra distortion to remain for some subjective reason, nor do I allow my associates to do so with my designs. I always try to make the best out of what I have available....I am NOT making musical instruments, but music onveyers that get you as close to the original performance as possible. This precludes making a component that is "musical" in some way, on purpose.

Emphasis mine.

P