Studio Master?

[Drikus]

You seem confused. Anything I might help clarify?

Nah, I'll ask an expert if I need something clarified. You didn't seem to remember that it was you who started the whole 35 year thing, just wanted to show you that...

 

[rbbert]

And also all the great digital titles by Channel Classics, Pentatone, Telarc, BIS and others.....

No Bruce, no music from this century considered.

 

[Julf]

Nah, I'll ask an expert if I need something clarified. You didn't seem to remember that it was you who started the whole 35 year thing, just wanted to show you that...

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I "started the whole 35 year thing" by simply answering Mike Lavigne's question about my experience. You then started to question what that meant. Could we now maybe return to our normal programming and actually discuss the meaning of "Studio Master" in a digital context, instead of having meta-discussions and ad hominems about each other?

 

[rockitman]

So you choose format over content for your listening choices? And of course there is a significant amount of excellent music recorded in analog but only commercially available in digital formats.

any instance where I have a CD, Vinyl or tape of the same title, I take one of the analog choices. What is the point of listening to an analog mastered tape a/d..compressed and normalized in 16 bits for cd over and RIAA eq'd vinyl or uncompressed 1/4" tape ? For me the choice is easy since 90% of what I have on cd, I also have the analog counterpart. I do have tons of live 16 bit recordings I listen to on the digital rig.

 

[microstrip]

(...) That is one view, and I can understand that view very well. At the same time, there is a view that the objective of sound reproduction is to reproduce the sound created by the original artits(s) as faithfully as possibly. They might not have intended their music to be enjoyable in the first place.

(...)
Again, there are others who take a different view, stating that a more accurate reproduction of the original signal is "better" than one that might be deemed more pleasing by a majority of listeners.

(...)
While they can't solve every problem, it us good to recognize that sound reproduction systems are designed by engineers, based on applied science. It would seem somewhat reasonable that those engineers who design the equipment are in the best position to solve the actual problems with those systems.

OK, you presented us with the more radical opinions I have ever read in WBF. I am speechless.

 

[rbbert]

... I do have tons of live 16 bit recordings I listen to on the digital rig.

In that 2% of the time you don't listen to analog? I know I'm giving you a bit of a hard time, but really if 98% of your listening is to LP (or the minuscule amount of music commercially available on open reel) you're missing out on an unbelievable amount of great music in any genre or of any artist.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I "started the whole 35 year thing" by simply answering Mike Lavigne's question about my experience. You then started to question what that meant. Could we now maybe return to our normal programming and actually discuss the meaning of "Studio Master" in a digital context, instead of having meta-discussions and ad hominems about each other?

and when you discounted experiences here in that response to me....

Facts are facts, and experience shouldn't factor into it, but my opinion in this case is based on university-level training in digital signal processing and 35 years of audio electronics.

.....i knew there would be no reason to discuss it with you. as others have painfully also concluded.

if our experiences don't matter, then the discussion is not of interest to me.

 

[rockitman]

In that 2% of the time you don't listen to analog? I know I'm giving you a bit of a hard time, but really if 98% of your listening is to LP (or the minuscule amount of music commercially available on open reel) you're missing out on an unbelievable amount of great music in any genre or of any artist.

I would conservatively say 95% of my listening over the past two years has been vinyl or tape. I haven't listened to a studio title on cd that I have on vinyl for over 3 years. That is why I don't have a SOTA digital playback system. What I have is no slouch, but I would imagine the Msb or Dcs would beat it quite handily. I focus on classic rock, classical from the 50's and jazz from the 50-60's. There is not enough time in the day to dedicate to digital listening, different genre's.

 

[microstrip]

(....)

if our experiences don't matter, then the discussion is not of interest to me.

+1!

 

[mep]

Who needs experience when you have specifications?

 

[rbbert]

There's a heck of a lot of classic rock and '50's - '60's jazz that's never been on LP, and that's not even taking into account the difficulty of getting decent pressings (in decent condition) of what has been available on LP. And why are we limiting things to studio LP's? Probably 1/3 or more of my listening is to live stuff.

 

[mep]

There's a heck of a lot of classic rock and '50's - '60's jazz that's never been on LP, and that's not even taking into account the difficulty of getting decent pressings (in decent condition) of what has been available on LP. And why are we limiting things to studio LP's? Probably 1/3 or more of my listening is to live stuff.

A lot of classic rock and 1950s and 1960s jazz that has never been released on LP?? Uh, what was it released on?

 

[rbbert]

A lot of classic rock and 1950s and 1960s jazz that has never been released on LP?? Uh, what was it released on?

I'm referring to recordings from those eras that were unreleased at the time, but have since been released on CD. Much of this is live, but there's a lot of studio stuff also. Surely you are aware of this? If not, I can provide a few links...

My listening tastes are also "traditional" jazz, classic rock and classical, and easily 50% of what I listen to is not and has never been available on LP.

 

[mep]

I'm referring to recordings from those eras that were unreleased at the time, but have since been released on CD. Much of this is live, but there's a lot of studio stuff also. Surely you are aware of this? If not, I can provide a few links...

My listening tastes are also "traditional" jazz, classic rock and classical, and easily 50% of what I listen to is not and has never been available on LP.

Surely I'm not aware of any significant jazz music that wasn't released on LP from the 1950s through the 1960s. Are you talking about studios dredging through their vaults and coming up with tapes that weren't deemed worthy of commercial release when they were recorded and now they are seeing the light of day on digital?

 

[rbbert]

You really need to check out Mosaic's catalog, and probably also further investigate the discographies of Coltrane, Miles, Mingus and many other jazz giants (and of course lesser artists of that era too). As for classic rock, I'm not sure of your specific tastes, but most major artists have had live stuff only available digitally (often quite a lot), and not unusually studio stuff as well. Some of it is of questionable merit, of course, but probably more of it makes one wonder why it wasn't released earlier.

 

[Julf]

What is the point of listening to an analog mastered tape a/d..compressed and normalized in 16 bits for cd over and RIAA eq'd vinyl or uncompressed 1/4" tape?

There is of course no need to compress the music for a digital format, as even 16 bit CD has a much larger dynamic range than 1/4" tape (even if you use Dolby processing, with all it's problems, on the tape). The over-compression (and resulting loudness war) started in the analog era, with 7" singles and analog radio. It is just unfortunate that modern digital processing makes excessive compression all too easy.

 

[Julf]

if our experiences don't matter, then the discussion is not of interest to me.

So, in your opinion, is who you are more important than the factual correctness of what you say?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

So, in your opinion, is who you are more important than the factual correctness of what you say?

here is the problem. you are not open to hearing something that could be in conflict with your beliefs since you don't care about any experiences. so no matter what others might perceive, no one is going to tell you anything based on their experience that will matter to you.

so why should i even worry about discussing this subject with you? I pretty much care only about experiences. we look for our truths in different places.

i'm not sure what you are inferring regarding 'who I am'???

and your 'facts' are not 'facts' to me. they may be data points in and of themselves. but to my ears they don't add up to the significance in real performance that you think they do. OTOH I will grant you that I am referring to subjective listening so YMMV. I don't care about measurements as any final arbiter of ultimate performance.

if you lived in my neighborhood I could invite you over to listen and then we might find some common ground.....who knows?

 

[Julf]

here is the problem. you are not open to hearing something that could be in conflict with your beliefs since you don't care about any experiences.

If you say so...

I did not say I don't care about your *experiences*. I just don't take random *experience* (as in CV fodder) of people as any sort of proof of their claims. Even if the Pope claims the earth is flat, I'd rather rely on scientific evidence.

and your 'facts' are not 'facts' to me. they may be data points in and of themselves.

When talking about facts I am referring to things like "2 + 2 = 4" and "2^16 = 65536 ? 96 dB", that are easily independently verifiable and not subject to opinion. Yes, we can then discuss if those facts are applicable to the situation at hand...

but to my ears they don't add up to the significance in real performance that you think they do.

And that is a discussion I am happy to participate in. The key phrase here is "to my ears". That can then lead to a productive discussion on, on one hand, the audible impact of various measurable parameters, and on perceptual biases and individual auditory preferences on the other hand.

OTOH I will grant you that I am referring to subjective listening so YMMV.

Indeed. The only problem with subjective listening is the "subjective" part. The results are of course totally valid for that specific individual, but do not necessarily generalize to everything else, and can definitely not, without enough statistical data, controls and accounting of perceptual biases, be used as basis for general claims like "analog is better than digital".

I don't care about measurements as any final arbiter of ultimate performance.

Measurements are just tools (albeit very useful ones). Ultimate performance can only be judged through listening, but the results will be subjective and only apply to that specific individual. What measurements do provide is repeatable indication that a system performs as designed, and allow us to compare systems in a repeatable, verifiable and objective way.

if you lived in my neighborhood I could invite you over to listen and then we might find some common ground.....who knows?

Agree - who knows. Likewise, if you lived in my neighborhood, I could invite you over to listen to the effect of the various measurable parameters of a sound system.

 

[microstrip]

So, in your opinion, is who you are more important than the factual correctness of what you say?

You choose to focus on the "you" (the individual), ignoring the context of an audio forum and insisting, IMHO, on a distorted perspective of the hobby and the way people build their opinions about high-end systems. High-end is a community, not just an individual.

In order to profit from people opinions and weight them you will have to know a lot about this people and their systems. BTW ,the world of high-end did not start and does not end with WBF. There are many forums, decades of high-end magazines and debates archives. People like Mike, Steve, Amir, Myles and Bruce (apologies for all other great contributors I am not nominating) have openly exposed their systems, findings and opinions for many years, we know some of their biases and preferences. A situation similar to many well known reviewers that we have read reviews for many years.

The "factual correctness" is valuable, but its value should also be weighted, as the few objective facts that are presented are not enough to describe the full reality of sound reproduction.