Group: rec.audio.high-end
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Cables again. For Arny, et al.
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:51:52 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <fpd5mo0241v@news4.newsguy,com >):
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:fpad740ni4@news1.newsguy,com
>
>> I still don't think so. As I just outlined for Bob in
>> another post, the things over which the mastering
>> engineer has direct control are on the mechanical end of
>> the process, not on the signal side.
>
> ??????
>
> Here's a formal definition of mastering from the rec.audio.pro FAQ, written
> by the sainted Gabe Wiener:
>
> Q6.3 - What is mastering?
>
> "
> Mastering is a multifaceted term that is often misunderstood. Back in
> the days of vinyl records, mastering involved the actual cutting of
> the master that would be used for pressing. This often involved a
> variety of sonic adjustments so that the mixed tape would ultimately
> be properly rendered on vinyl.
>
> The age of the CD has changed the meaning of the term quite a bit.
> There are now two elements often called mastering. The first is the
> eminently straightforward process of preparing a master for pressing.
> As most mixdowns now occur on DAT, this often involves the relatively
> simple tasks of generating the PQ subcode necessary for CD replication.
> PQ subcode is the data stream that contains information such as the
> number of tracks on a disc, the location of the start points of each
> track, the clock display information, and the like. This information
> is created during mastering and prepared as a PQ data burst which the
> pressing plant uses to make the glass pressing master.
>
> Mastering's more common meaning, however, is the art of making a
> recording sound "commercial." Is is the last chance one has to get
> the recording sounding the way it ought to. Tasks often done in
> mastering include: adjustment of time between pieces, quality of
> fade-in/out, relation of levels between tracks (such that the listener
> doesn't have to go swinging the volume control all over the place),
> program EQ to achieve a desired consistency, compression to make one's
> disc sound LOUDER than others on the market, the list goes on.
>
> A good mastering engineer can often take a poorly-produced recording
> and make it suitable for the market. A bad one can make a good
> recording sound terrible. Some recordings are so well produced,
> mixed, and edited that all they need is to be given PQ subcode and
> sent right out. Other recordings are made by people on ego trips, who
> think they know everything about recording, and who make recordings
> that are, technically speaking, wretched trash.
>
> Good mastering professionals are acquainted with many styles of music,
> and know what it is that their clients hope to achieve. They then use
> their tools either lightly or severely to accomplish all the multiple
> steps involved in preparing a disc for pressing. [Gabe]
> "
>
He is quite correct. The "sonic adjustments" to which Gabe Weiner refers are
those parameters that I mentioned in another thread which keep the sound from
the master tape within the parameters of the vinyl cutting equipment's limits
and for many years most of these have been computer controlled and automatic,
--
Do you know the difference between students like you, amateurs and
professional jazz musicians? Student bands and amateurs "almost" swing!
Fred Berry
Professor of Music
Stanford University
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:51:52 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <fpd5mo0241v@news4.newsguy,com >):
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:fpad740ni4@news1.newsguy,com
>
>> I still don't think so. As I just outlined for Bob in
>> another post, the things over which the mastering
>> engineer has direct control are on the mechanical end of
>> the process, not on the signal side.
>
> ??????
>
> Here's a formal definition of mastering from the rec.audio.pro FAQ, written
> by the sainted Gabe Wiener:
>
> Q6.3 - What is mastering?
>
> "
> Mastering is a multifaceted term that is often misunderstood. Back in
> the days of vinyl records, mastering involved the actual cutting of
> the master that would be used for pressing. This often involved a
> variety of sonic adjustments so that the mixed tape would ultimately
> be properly rendered on vinyl.
>
> The age of the CD has changed the meaning of the term quite a bit.
> There are now two elements often called mastering. The first is the
> eminently straightforward process of preparing a master for pressing.
> As most mixdowns now occur on DAT, this often involves the relatively
> simple tasks of generating the PQ subcode necessary for CD replication.
> PQ subcode is the data stream that contains information such as the
> number of tracks on a disc, the location of the start points of each
> track, the clock display information, and the like. This information
> is created during mastering and prepared as a PQ data burst which the
> pressing plant uses to make the glass pressing master.
>
> Mastering's more common meaning, however, is the art of making a
> recording sound "commercial." Is is the last chance one has to get
> the recording sounding the way it ought to. Tasks often done in
> mastering include: adjustment of time between pieces, quality of
> fade-in/out, relation of levels between tracks (such that the listener
> doesn't have to go swinging the volume control all over the place),
> program EQ to achieve a desired consistency, compression to make one's
> disc sound LOUDER than others on the market, the list goes on.
>
> A good mastering engineer can often take a poorly-produced recording
> and make it suitable for the market. A bad one can make a good
> recording sound terrible. Some recordings are so well produced,
> mixed, and edited that all they need is to be given PQ subcode and
> sent right out. Other recordings are made by people on ego trips, who
> think they know everything about recording, and who make recordings
> that are, technically speaking, wretched trash.
>
> Good mastering professionals are acquainted with many styles of music,
> and know what it is that their clients hope to achieve. They then use
> their tools either lightly or severely to accomplish all the multiple
> steps involved in preparing a disc for pressing. [Gabe]
> "
>
He is quite correct. The "sonic adjustments" to which Gabe Weiner refers are
those parameters that I mentioned in another thread which keep the sound from
the master tape within the parameters of the vinyl cutting equipment's limits
and for many years most of these have been computer controlled and automatic,
--
Do you know the difference between students like you, amateurs and
professional jazz musicians? Student bands and amateurs "almost" swing!
Fred Berry
Professor of Music
Stanford University
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:fpg2lb021r1@news3.newsguy,com
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:51:52 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <fpd5mo0241v@news4.newsguy,com >):
>
>> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
>> news:fpad740ni4@news1.newsguy,com
>>
>>> I still don't think so. As I just outlined for Bob in
>>> another post, the things over which the mastering
>>> engineer has direct control are on the mechanical end of
>>> the process, not on the signal side.
>>
>> ??????
>>
>> Here's a formal definition of mastering from the
>> rec.audio.pro FAQ, written by the sainted Gabe Wiener:
>>
>> Q6.3 - What is mastering?
>>
>> "
>> Mastering is a multifaceted term that is often
>> misunderstood. Back in the days of vinyl records,
>> mastering involved the actual cutting of the master
>> that would be used for pressing. This often involved
>> a variety of sonic adjustments so that the mixed tape
>> would ultimately be properly rendered on vinyl.
>>
>> The age of the CD has changed the meaning of the term
>> quite a bit. There are now two elements often called
>> mastering. The first is the eminently straightforward
>> process of preparing a master for pressing. As most
>> mixdowns now occur on DAT, this often involves the
>> relatively simple tasks of generating the PQ subcode
>> necessary for CD replication. PQ subcode is the data
>> stream that contains information such as the number of
>> tracks on a disc, the location of the start points of
>> each track, the clock display information, and the
>> like. This information is created during mastering and
>> prepared as a PQ data burst which the pressing plant
>> uses to make the glass pressing master.
>>
>> Mastering's more common meaning, however, is the art
>> of making a recording sound "commercial." Is is the
>> last chance one has to get the recording sounding the
>> way it ought to. Tasks often done in mastering
>> include: adjustment of time between pieces, quality of
>> fade-in/out, relation of levels between tracks (such
>> that the listener doesn't have to go swinging the
>> volume control all over the place), program EQ to
>> achieve a desired consistency, compression to make one's
>> disc sound LOUDER than others on the market, the list
>> goes on.
>>
>> A good mastering engineer can often take a
>> poorly-produced recording and make it suitable for the
>> market. A bad one can make a good recording sound
>> terrible. Some recordings are so well produced,
>> mixed, and edited that all they need is to be given PQ
>> subcode and sent right out. Other recordings are made
>> by people on ego trips, who think they know everything
>> about recording, and who make recordings that are,
>> technically speaking, wretched trash.
>>
>> Good mastering professionals are acquainted with many
>> styles of music, and know what it is that their
>> clients hope to achieve. They then use their tools
>> either lightly or severely to accomplish all the
>> multiple steps involved in preparing a disc for
>> pressing. [Gabe] "
> He is quite correct. The "sonic adjustments" to which
> Gabe Weiner refers are those parameters that I mentioned
> in another thread which keep the sound from the master
> tape within the parameters of the vinyl cutting
> equipment's limits and
In the latter days of cutting vinyl, the toughest problems were not due to
the equipment, it is the vinyl medium.
> for many years most of these have
> been computer controlled and automatic,
That's not what I've seen in actual practice.
Those sonic adjustements have sufficient latitude and magnitude to create
readily audible differences.
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:fpg2lb021r1@news3.newsguy,com
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:51:52 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <fpd5mo0241v@news4.newsguy,com >):
>
>> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
>> news:fpad740ni4@news1.newsguy,com
>>
>>> I still don't think so. As I just outlined for Bob in
>>> another post, the things over which the mastering
>>> engineer has direct control are on the mechanical end of
>>> the process, not on the signal side.
>>
>> ??????
>>
>> Here's a formal definition of mastering from the
>> rec.audio.pro FAQ, written by the sainted Gabe Wiener:
>>
>> Q6.3 - What is mastering?
>>
>> "
>> Mastering is a multifaceted term that is often
>> misunderstood. Back in the days of vinyl records,
>> mastering involved the actual cutting of the master
>> that would be used for pressing. This often involved
>> a variety of sonic adjustments so that the mixed tape
>> would ultimately be properly rendered on vinyl.
>>
>> The age of the CD has changed the meaning of the term
>> quite a bit. There are now two elements often called
>> mastering. The first is the eminently straightforward
>> process of preparing a master for pressing. As most
>> mixdowns now occur on DAT, this often involves the
>> relatively simple tasks of generating the PQ subcode
>> necessary for CD replication. PQ subcode is the data
>> stream that contains information such as the number of
>> tracks on a disc, the location of the start points of
>> each track, the clock display information, and the
>> like. This information is created during mastering and
>> prepared as a PQ data burst which the pressing plant
>> uses to make the glass pressing master.
>>
>> Mastering's more common meaning, however, is the art
>> of making a recording sound "commercial." Is is the
>> last chance one has to get the recording sounding the
>> way it ought to. Tasks often done in mastering
>> include: adjustment of time between pieces, quality of
>> fade-in/out, relation of levels between tracks (such
>> that the listener doesn't have to go swinging the
>> volume control all over the place), program EQ to
>> achieve a desired consistency, compression to make one's
>> disc sound LOUDER than others on the market, the list
>> goes on.
>>
>> A good mastering engineer can often take a
>> poorly-produced recording and make it suitable for the
>> market. A bad one can make a good recording sound
>> terrible. Some recordings are so well produced,
>> mixed, and edited that all they need is to be given PQ
>> subcode and sent right out. Other recordings are made
>> by people on ego trips, who think they know everything
>> about recording, and who make recordings that are,
>> technically speaking, wretched trash.
>>
>> Good mastering professionals are acquainted with many
>> styles of music, and know what it is that their
>> clients hope to achieve. They then use their tools
>> either lightly or severely to accomplish all the
>> multiple steps involved in preparing a disc for
>> pressing. [Gabe] "
> He is quite correct. The "sonic adjustments" to which
> Gabe Weiner refers are those parameters that I mentioned
> in another thread which keep the sound from the master
> tape within the parameters of the vinyl cutting
> equipment's limits and
In the latter days of cutting vinyl, the toughest problems were not due to
the equipment, it is the vinyl medium.
> for many years most of these have
> been computer controlled and automatic,
That's not what I've seen in actual practice.
Those sonic adjustements have sufficient latitude and magnitude to create
readily audible differences.
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
On Feb 17, 5:41 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> I still don't think so. As I just outlined for Bob in another post, the
> things over which the mastering engineer has direct control are on the
> mechanical end of the process, not on the signal side. And those things are
> unlikely to affect the sound in any way from disc to disc or day to day.
Well, you might want to, then argue the meaning of "mastering"
with Bob Katz. See, the second edition of his book "Mastering
Audio: The Art and Science" was just published and maybe 99%
of the book deals with stuff that has nothing to do with the
"mechanical end of the process." Indeed, most of what he deals
with have DIRECT effect on the way the final disk sounds.
Though you might dispute the point with Mr. Katz, had I the
opportunity to wager on the outcome of said dispute, you,
hopefully, won't take offense on who I might choose to
place my bet on.
On Feb 17, 5:41 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> I still don't think so. As I just outlined for Bob in another post, the
> things over which the mastering engineer has direct control are on the
> mechanical end of the process, not on the signal side. And those things are
> unlikely to affect the sound in any way from disc to disc or day to day.
Well, you might want to, then argue the meaning of "mastering"
with Bob Katz. See, the second edition of his book "Mastering
Audio: The Art and Science" was just published and maybe 99%
of the book deals with stuff that has nothing to do with the
"mechanical end of the process." Indeed, most of what he deals
with have DIRECT effect on the way the final disk sounds.
Though you might dispute the point with Mr. Katz, had I the
opportunity to wager on the outcome of said dispute, you,
hopefully, won't take offense on who I might choose to
place my bet on.
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:15:35 -0800, dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail,com wrote
(in article <fpg2g7021ju@news3.newsguy,com >):
> On Feb 17, 5:41 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>> I still don't think so. As I just outlined for Bob in another post, the
>> things over which the mastering engineer has direct control are on the
>> mechanical end of the process, not on the signal side. And those things are
>> unlikely to affect the sound in any way from disc to disc or day to day.
>
> Well, you might want to, then argue the meaning of "mastering"
> with Bob Katz. See, the second edition of his book "Mastering
> Audio: The Art and Science" was just published and maybe 99%
> of the book deals with stuff that has nothing to do with the
> "mechanical end of the process." Indeed, most of what he deals
> with have DIRECT effect on the way the final disk sounds.
I don't doubt it. But all of those things are done because of the mechanical
limitations of the process, not of the source material.
>
> Though you might dispute the point with Mr. Katz, had I the
> opportunity to wager on the outcome of said dispute, you,
> hopefully, won't take offense on who I might choose to
> place my bet on.
Place your bet on who you like. There is little that one can do in the chain
between the master tape and the record master that would alter the sound of
similar master tapes from master disc to master disc. I have mastered more
than my share of records in my time, I know what would affect the sound of
the finished disc and what wouldn't. Almost all of the things that would
affect the sound of a record have to do with the limitations of disc cutting
and transferring sound from a medium with a greater dynamic range than the
final disc, and these are pretty much the same from disc to disc. Now the
tapes may be wildly different, but that's another story. I suspect that Rudy
Van Gelders master tapes sounded very similar from artist to artist.
--
Do you know the difference between students like you, amateurs and
professional jazz musicians? Student bands and amateurs "almost" swing!
Fred Berry
Professor of Music
Stanford University
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:15:35 -0800, dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail,com wrote
(in article <fpg2g7021ju@news3.newsguy,com >):
> On Feb 17, 5:41 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>> I still don't think so. As I just outlined for Bob in another post, the
>> things over which the mastering engineer has direct control are on the
>> mechanical end of the process, not on the signal side. And those things are
>> unlikely to affect the sound in any way from disc to disc or day to day.
>
> Well, you might want to, then argue the meaning of "mastering"
> with Bob Katz. See, the second edition of his book "Mastering
> Audio: The Art and Science" was just published and maybe 99%
> of the book deals with stuff that has nothing to do with the
> "mechanical end of the process." Indeed, most of what he deals
> with have DIRECT effect on the way the final disk sounds.
I don't doubt it. But all of those things are done because of the mechanical
limitations of the process, not of the source material.
>
> Though you might dispute the point with Mr. Katz, had I the
> opportunity to wager on the outcome of said dispute, you,
> hopefully, won't take offense on who I might choose to
> place my bet on.
Place your bet on who you like. There is little that one can do in the chain
between the master tape and the record master that would alter the sound of
similar master tapes from master disc to master disc. I have mastered more
than my share of records in my time, I know what would affect the sound of
the finished disc and what wouldn't. Almost all of the things that would
affect the sound of a record have to do with the limitations of disc cutting
and transferring sound from a medium with a greater dynamic range than the
final disc, and these are pretty much the same from disc to disc. Now the
tapes may be wildly different, but that's another story. I suspect that Rudy
Van Gelders master tapes sounded very similar from artist to artist.
--
Do you know the difference between students like you, amateurs and
professional jazz musicians? Student bands and amateurs "almost" swing!
Fred Berry
Professor of Music
Stanford University
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:fpigha02o8g@news3.newsguy,com
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:15:35 -0800,
> dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail,com wrote (in article
> <fpg2g7021ju@news3.newsguy,com >):
>
>> On Feb 17, 5:41 pm, Sonnova
>> <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>>> I still don't think so. As I just outlined for Bob in
>>> another post, the things over which the mastering
>>> engineer has direct control are on the mechanical end
>>> of the process, not on the signal side. And those
>>> things are unlikely to affect the sound in any way from
>>> disc to disc or day to day.
>>
>> Well, you might want to, then argue the meaning of
>> "mastering" with Bob Katz. See, the second edition of
>> his book "Mastering Audio: The Art and Science" was just
>> published and maybe 99%
>> of the book deals with stuff that has nothing to do with
>> the "mechanical end of the process." Indeed, most of
>> what he deals with have DIRECT effect on the way the
>> final disk sounds.
>
> I don't doubt it. But all of those things are done
> because of the mechanical limitations of the process, not
> of the source material.
That's not always the case. Subjective tastes are usually addressed at the
same time. No matter what you have heard, the process is not entirely
automated. Yes, some automated equipment may be used, but as a rule the
operational parameters of some or all of the equipment are set by ear.
>> Though you might dispute the point with Mr. Katz, had I
>> the opportunity to wager on the outcome of said dispute,
>> you, hopefully, won't take offense on who I might choose
>> to
>> place my bet on.
> Place your bet on who you like. There is little that one
> can do in the chain between the master tape and the
> record master that would alter the sound of similar
> master tapes from master disc to master disc.
Sure there is - all of the equipment that is in that chain has adjustements
that can audibly affect sound quality.
If you are so sure of what you know, name the equipment that would be used
in that application, and show that it lacks operator adjustments that can
affect sound quality.
> I have mastered more than my share of records in my time, I know
> what would affect the sound of the finished disc and what
> wouldn't. Almost all of the things that would affect the
> sound of a record have to do with the limitations of disc
> cutting and transferring sound from a medium with a
> greater dynamic range than the final disc, and these are
> pretty much the same from disc to disc.
"pretty much the same" is a very vague statement and allows for changes that
would cause audible differences.
The whole reason why recorders that are remastered are advertised as such,
is because remastering with a different operator and different equipment can
reasonbly be expected to cause audible differences.
> Now the tapes may
> be wildly different, but that's another story. I suspect
> that Rudy Van Gelders master tapes sounded very similar
> from artist to artist.
The obviously sounded different because they involved different artists.
What you seem to be saying is that there was a "Van Gelder Sound" that was
never audibly different. If it was never audibly different, then there were
never any adjustements to the equipment that was used during the mastering
phase, and if that were so, why would Mr.Van Gelder's services be needed if
the equipment was unchanged?
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:fpigha02o8g@news3.newsguy,com
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:15:35 -0800,
> dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail,com wrote (in article
> <fpg2g7021ju@news3.newsguy,com >):
>
>> On Feb 17, 5:41 pm, Sonnova
>> <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>>> I still don't think so. As I just outlined for Bob in
>>> another post, the things over which the mastering
>>> engineer has direct control are on the mechanical end
>>> of the process, not on the signal side. And those
>>> things are unlikely to affect the sound in any way from
>>> disc to disc or day to day.
>>
>> Well, you might want to, then argue the meaning of
>> "mastering" with Bob Katz. See, the second edition of
>> his book "Mastering Audio: The Art and Science" was just
>> published and maybe 99%
>> of the book deals with stuff that has nothing to do with
>> the "mechanical end of the process." Indeed, most of
>> what he deals with have DIRECT effect on the way the
>> final disk sounds.
>
> I don't doubt it. But all of those things are done
> because of the mechanical limitations of the process, not
> of the source material.
That's not always the case. Subjective tastes are usually addressed at the
same time. No matter what you have heard, the process is not entirely
automated. Yes, some automated equipment may be used, but as a rule the
operational parameters of some or all of the equipment are set by ear.
>> Though you might dispute the point with Mr. Katz, had I
>> the opportunity to wager on the outcome of said dispute,
>> you, hopefully, won't take offense on who I might choose
>> to
>> place my bet on.
> Place your bet on who you like. There is little that one
> can do in the chain between the master tape and the
> record master that would alter the sound of similar
> master tapes from master disc to master disc.
Sure there is - all of the equipment that is in that chain has adjustements
that can audibly affect sound quality.
If you are so sure of what you know, name the equipment that would be used
in that application, and show that it lacks operator adjustments that can
affect sound quality.
> I have mastered more than my share of records in my time, I know
> what would affect the sound of the finished disc and what
> wouldn't. Almost all of the things that would affect the
> sound of a record have to do with the limitations of disc
> cutting and transferring sound from a medium with a
> greater dynamic range than the final disc, and these are
> pretty much the same from disc to disc.
"pretty much the same" is a very vague statement and allows for changes that
would cause audible differences.
The whole reason why recorders that are remastered are advertised as such,
is because remastering with a different operator and different equipment can
reasonbly be expected to cause audible differences.
> Now the tapes may
> be wildly different, but that's another story. I suspect
> that Rudy Van Gelders master tapes sounded very similar
> from artist to artist.
The obviously sounded different because they involved different artists.
What you seem to be saying is that there was a "Van Gelder Sound" that was
never audibly different. If it was never audibly different, then there were
never any adjustements to the equipment that was used during the mastering
phase, and if that were so, why would Mr.Van Gelder's services be needed if
the equipment was unchanged?
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:07:26 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <fpl07e01bi2@news1.newsguy,com >):
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:fpigha02o8g@news3.newsguy,com
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:15:35 -0800,
>> dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail,com wrote (in article
>> <fpg2g7021ju@news3.newsguy,com >):
>>
>>> On Feb 17, 5:41 pm, Sonnova
>>> <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>>>> I still don't think so. As I just outlined for Bob in
>>>> another post, the things over which the mastering
>>>> engineer has direct control are on the mechanical end
>>>> of the process, not on the signal side. And those
>>>> things are unlikely to affect the sound in any way from
>>>> disc to disc or day to day.
>>>
>>> Well, you might want to, then argue the meaning of
>>> "mastering" with Bob Katz. See, the second edition of
>>> his book "Mastering Audio: The Art and Science" was just
>>> published and maybe 99%
>>> of the book deals with stuff that has nothing to do with
>>> the "mechanical end of the process." Indeed, most of
>>> what he deals with have DIRECT effect on the way the
>>> final disk sounds.
>>
>> I don't doubt it. But all of those things are done
>> because of the mechanical limitations of the process, not
>> of the source material.
>
> That's not always the case. Subjective tastes are usually addressed at the
> same time. No matter what you have heard, the process is not entirely
> automated. Yes, some automated equipment may be used, but as a rule the
> operational parameters of some or all of the equipment are set by ear.
>
>>> Though you might dispute the point with Mr. Katz, had I
>>> the opportunity to wager on the outcome of said dispute,
>>> you, hopefully, won't take offense on who I might choose
>>> to
>>> place my bet on.
>
>> Place your bet on who you like. There is little that one
>> can do in the chain between the master tape and the
>> record master that would alter the sound of similar
>> master tapes from master disc to master disc.
>
> Sure there is - all of the equipment that is in that chain has adjustements
> that can audibly affect sound quality.
>
> If you are so sure of what you know, name the equipment that would be used
> in that application, and show that it lacks operator adjustments that can
> affect sound quality.
Acceleration limiters are calibrated to the cutting head as are the headrooom
limiters. Once set they aren't touched until the head is changed. The inverse
RIAA network is fixed. Of course the gain is variable, but as long at it is
used to to keep the cutting head out of the mud and below the limiter
threshold, it shouldn't affect the sound, just the volume. Running the signal
into limiting, will, of course, result in distortion, but you don't want to
go there. No mastering engineer does. Other than that, its mostly about
volume. The louder the better (that vinyl S/N thing, you know), but you have
to understand the limitations. Low frequencies make for large cutting stylus
excursions and large excursions can cut through the groove wall into an
adjacent groove (called overcutting). Thus most commercial record cutting
systems have a another tape pickup head if front of the actual pickup. It's
duty is to tell a computer what the frequency response and dynamic
distribution of the signal that's coming (and delayed by only a few
milliseconds) so that the groove pitch on the record can be closed down or
opened up. The mastering engineer can override this, but there's little
reason to do so. After all, we're trying to do a balancing act here of
optimizing the amount of program that fits on the a side against the need to
limit groove excursions for S/N concerns, overcutting, and trackability.
There is little use making records that the average record player cannot
track. In my experience, most of the variability in the sound quality that
one can get from a single lathe is in the cutting masters. These tapes vary
so much that the same lathes can produce records that sound anywhere from
spectacular to downright unlistenable. When I worked at Century, many years
ago, we'd get everything from high-school bands to polished municipal
symphony orchestras. The quality was all over the place, yet little if none
of that variability came from the cutting process.
>> I have mastered more than my share of records in my time, I know
>> what would affect the sound of the finished disc and what
>> wouldn't. Almost all of the things that would affect the
>> sound of a record have to do with the limitations of disc
>> cutting and transferring sound from a medium with a
>> greater dynamic range than the final disc, and these are
>> pretty much the same from disc to disc.
>
> "pretty much the same" is a very vague statement and allows for changes that
> would cause audible differences.
That's because, like I said, the master tape was far more variable than the
cutting process.
> The whole reason why recorders that are remastered are advertised as such,
> is because remastering with a different operator and different equipment can
> reasonbly be expected to cause audible differences.
That's true. But the type of difference I'm talking about (getting back to
the original premise of this thread) is that the reviewer heard differences
in overall clarity, you know, the proverbial "veils" being lifted. These are
the types of differences that a cutting room setup would not cause (my
original premise), as far as I know, unless they were on the master tapes to
begin with or, some components in the cutting chain were changed. In the
latter case, re-cabling could effect such a change if some of the connections
had become dirty or corroded, and the new cable freshened them. A new
(actually they're rebuilt) cutting head would be the component most likely to
be changed in a working cutting room setup between sessions. New cutters have
to be EQ'd or "normalized" when installed and a good cutting engineer can do
that in such a way that nobody can tell that the head's been changed - but it
takes commitment and a lot of talent and work to do so.
>> Now the tapes may
>> be wildly different, but that's another story. I suspect
>> that Rudy Van Gelders master tapes sounded very similar
>> from artist to artist.
>
> The obviously sounded different because they involved different artists.
> What you seem to be saying is that there was a "Van Gelder Sound" that was
> never audibly different. If it was never audibly different, then there were
> never any adjustements to the equipment that was used during the mastering
> phase, and if that were so, why would Mr.Van Gelder's services be needed if
> the equipment was unchanged?
I never said that the Van Gelder sound was never audibly different. I assert
that there is a recognizable "Van Gelder Sound".
I record, at present, a jazz band, a wind ensemble and a symphony orchestra.
I use different mikes and different mike techniques for each, yet, the
overall sound I get from each is very similar because I strive for the same,
consistent results. I strive for big soundstage, good image specificity, and
wide dynamic range. Others might gain-ride to keep the overall level of the
recording high, but my recordings require a lot more volume control on
playback because I DON'T gain-ride or use signal processing of any kind. Low
level passages are, indeed, low level and loud passages are really loud, but
because I NEVER reduce the gain of high level passages, and because I try to
stay well clear of "0" Vu (-3 dB is my absolute peak) the overall average
level of my recordings is around -20 dB.
I've heard many of Van Gelder's recordings and a have number of them both on
vinyl and on JVC's XRCD series CD. He had a distinct sound; one that had many
characteristics in common from recording to recording. This characteristic
sound likely resulted from the use of the same equipment chain, same
microphones, same mixer/pre-amps, same tape deck and to a certain extent
(especially the later ones) same recording venue. The differences between his
various recordings do not include differences in recording clarity,
distortion, or gross variances in frequency response from session to session.
--
Do you know the difference between students like you, amateurs and
professional jazz musicians? Student bands and amateurs "almost" swing!
Fred Berry
Professor of Music
Stanford University
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:07:26 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <fpl07e01bi2@news1.newsguy,com >):
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:fpigha02o8g@news3.newsguy,com
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:15:35 -0800,
>> dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail,com wrote (in article
>> <fpg2g7021ju@news3.newsguy,com >):
>>
>>> On Feb 17, 5:41 pm, Sonnova
>>> <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>>>> I still don't think so. As I just outlined for Bob in
>>>> another post, the things over which the mastering
>>>> engineer has direct control are on the mechanical end
>>>> of the process, not on the signal side. And those
>>>> things are unlikely to affect the sound in any way from
>>>> disc to disc or day to day.
>>>
>>> Well, you might want to, then argue the meaning of
>>> "mastering" with Bob Katz. See, the second edition of
>>> his book "Mastering Audio: The Art and Science" was just
>>> published and maybe 99%
>>> of the book deals with stuff that has nothing to do with
>>> the "mechanical end of the process." Indeed, most of
>>> what he deals with have DIRECT effect on the way the
>>> final disk sounds.
>>
>> I don't doubt it. But all of those things are done
>> because of the mechanical limitations of the process, not
>> of the source material.
>
> That's not always the case. Subjective tastes are usually addressed at the
> same time. No matter what you have heard, the process is not entirely
> automated. Yes, some automated equipment may be used, but as a rule the
> operational parameters of some or all of the equipment are set by ear.
>
>>> Though you might dispute the point with Mr. Katz, had I
>>> the opportunity to wager on the outcome of said dispute,
>>> you, hopefully, won't take offense on who I might choose
>>> to
>>> place my bet on.
>
>> Place your bet on who you like. There is little that one
>> can do in the chain between the master tape and the
>> record master that would alter the sound of similar
>> master tapes from master disc to master disc.
>
> Sure there is - all of the equipment that is in that chain has adjustements
> that can audibly affect sound quality.
>
> If you are so sure of what you know, name the equipment that would be used
> in that application, and show that it lacks operator adjustments that can
> affect sound quality.
Acceleration limiters are calibrated to the cutting head as are the headrooom
limiters. Once set they aren't touched until the head is changed. The inverse
RIAA network is fixed. Of course the gain is variable, but as long at it is
used to to keep the cutting head out of the mud and below the limiter
threshold, it shouldn't affect the sound, just the volume. Running the signal
into limiting, will, of course, result in distortion, but you don't want to
go there. No mastering engineer does. Other than that, its mostly about
volume. The louder the better (that vinyl S/N thing, you know), but you have
to understand the limitations. Low frequencies make for large cutting stylus
excursions and large excursions can cut through the groove wall into an
adjacent groove (called overcutting). Thus most commercial record cutting
systems have a another tape pickup head if front of the actual pickup. It's
duty is to tell a computer what the frequency response and dynamic
distribution of the signal that's coming (and delayed by only a few
milliseconds) so that the groove pitch on the record can be closed down or
opened up. The mastering engineer can override this, but there's little
reason to do so. After all, we're trying to do a balancing act here of
optimizing the amount of program that fits on the a side against the need to
limit groove excursions for S/N concerns, overcutting, and trackability.
There is little use making records that the average record player cannot
track. In my experience, most of the variability in the sound quality that
one can get from a single lathe is in the cutting masters. These tapes vary
so much that the same lathes can produce records that sound anywhere from
spectacular to downright unlistenable. When I worked at Century, many years
ago, we'd get everything from high-school bands to polished municipal
symphony orchestras. The quality was all over the place, yet little if none
of that variability came from the cutting process.
>> I have mastered more than my share of records in my time, I know
>> what would affect the sound of the finished disc and what
>> wouldn't. Almost all of the things that would affect the
>> sound of a record have to do with the limitations of disc
>> cutting and transferring sound from a medium with a
>> greater dynamic range than the final disc, and these are
>> pretty much the same from disc to disc.
>
> "pretty much the same" is a very vague statement and allows for changes that
> would cause audible differences.
That's because, like I said, the master tape was far more variable than the
cutting process.
> The whole reason why recorders that are remastered are advertised as such,
> is because remastering with a different operator and different equipment can
> reasonbly be expected to cause audible differences.
That's true. But the type of difference I'm talking about (getting back to
the original premise of this thread) is that the reviewer heard differences
in overall clarity, you know, the proverbial "veils" being lifted. These are
the types of differences that a cutting room setup would not cause (my
original premise), as far as I know, unless they were on the master tapes to
begin with or, some components in the cutting chain were changed. In the
latter case, re-cabling could effect such a change if some of the connections
had become dirty or corroded, and the new cable freshened them. A new
(actually they're rebuilt) cutting head would be the component most likely to
be changed in a working cutting room setup between sessions. New cutters have
to be EQ'd or "normalized" when installed and a good cutting engineer can do
that in such a way that nobody can tell that the head's been changed - but it
takes commitment and a lot of talent and work to do so.
>> Now the tapes may
>> be wildly different, but that's another story. I suspect
>> that Rudy Van Gelders master tapes sounded very similar
>> from artist to artist.
>
> The obviously sounded different because they involved different artists.
> What you seem to be saying is that there was a "Van Gelder Sound" that was
> never audibly different. If it was never audibly different, then there were
> never any adjustements to the equipment that was used during the mastering
> phase, and if that were so, why would Mr.Van Gelder's services be needed if
> the equipment was unchanged?
I never said that the Van Gelder sound was never audibly different. I assert
that there is a recognizable "Van Gelder Sound".
I record, at present, a jazz band, a wind ensemble and a symphony orchestra.
I use different mikes and different mike techniques for each, yet, the
overall sound I get from each is very similar because I strive for the same,
consistent results. I strive for big soundstage, good image specificity, and
wide dynamic range. Others might gain-ride to keep the overall level of the
recording high, but my recordings require a lot more volume control on
playback because I DON'T gain-ride or use signal processing of any kind. Low
level passages are, indeed, low level and loud passages are really loud, but
because I NEVER reduce the gain of high level passages, and because I try to
stay well clear of "0" Vu (-3 dB is my absolute peak) the overall average
level of my recordings is around -20 dB.
I've heard many of Van Gelder's recordings and a have number of them both on
vinyl and on JVC's XRCD series CD. He had a distinct sound; one that had many
characteristics in common from recording to recording. This characteristic
sound likely resulted from the use of the same equipment chain, same
microphones, same mixer/pre-amps, same tape deck and to a certain extent
(especially the later ones) same recording venue. The differences between his
various recordings do not include differences in recording clarity,
distortion, or gross variances in frequency response from session to session.
--
Do you know the difference between students like you, amateurs and
professional jazz musicians? Student bands and amateurs "almost" swing!
Fred Berry
Professor of Music
Stanford University
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
In my experience with cables, I have not been able to distinguish any
difference among the types I've tried in my system. At the same time I've
been able to distinguish differences among CD players and amps (including
Adcom 545 and 555.)
Having said that, I believe that there ought to be differences among some
cables.
With regard to your specific question, there seem to be too many unknown
variables here to make any conclusion.
In my experience with cables, I have not been able to distinguish any
difference among the types I've tried in my system. At the same time I've
been able to distinguish differences among CD players and amps (including
Adcom 545 and 555.)
Having said that, I believe that there ought to be differences among some
cables.
With regard to your specific question, there seem to be too many unknown
variables here to make any conclusion.
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:59:09 -0800, jeffc wrote
(in article <fp9sld02ijt@news1.newsguy,com >):
> In my experience with cables, I have not been able to distinguish any
> difference among the types I've tried in my system. At the same time I've
> been able to distinguish differences among CD players and amps (including
> Adcom 545 and 555.)
This is my experience as well (except for the brands you mention. No
experience with them)
>
> Having said that, I believe that there ought to be differences among some
> cables.
Physics says no. The only way for there to be differences is if the cable
company deliberately designed their cable to be a filter. This isn't likely,
because the values of capacitance, inductance and resistance encountered in
cables can only roll-off high frequencies, and no one would want that because
everyone knows that the human ear, in a direct AB test, will always favor the
loudest or the brightest sounding source as the "better" one.
> With regard to your specific question, there seem to be too many unknown
> variables here to make any conclusion.
Agreed.
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:59:09 -0800, jeffc wrote
(in article <fp9sld02ijt@news1.newsguy,com >):
> In my experience with cables, I have not been able to distinguish any
> difference among the types I've tried in my system. At the same time I've
> been able to distinguish differences among CD players and amps (including
> Adcom 545 and 555.)
This is my experience as well (except for the brands you mention. No
experience with them)
>
> Having said that, I believe that there ought to be differences among some
> cables.
Physics says no. The only way for there to be differences is if the cable
company deliberately designed their cable to be a filter. This isn't likely,
because the values of capacitance, inductance and resistance encountered in
cables can only roll-off high frequencies, and no one would want that because
everyone knows that the human ear, in a direct AB test, will always favor the
loudest or the brightest sounding source as the "better" one.
> With regard to your specific question, there seem to be too many unknown
> variables here to make any conclusion.
Agreed.
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
On Feb 17, 5:42 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:59:09 -0800, jeffc wrote
> (in article <fp9sld02...@news1.newsguy,com >):
>
> > In my experience with cables, I have not been able to distinguish any
> > difference among the types I've tried in my system. At the same time I've
> > been able to distinguish differences among CD players and amps (including
> > Adcom 545 and 555.)
>
> This is my experience as well (except for the brands you mention. No
> experience with them)
>
>
>
> > Having said that, I believe that there ought to be differences among some
> > cables.
>
> Physics says no. The only way for there to be differences is if the cable
> company deliberately designed their cable to be a filter. This isn't likely,
> because the values of capacitance, inductance and resistance encountered in
> cables can only roll-off high frequencies, and no one would want that because
> everyone knows that the human ear, in a direct AB test, will always favor the
> loudest or the brightest sounding source as the "better" one.
>
> > With regard to your specific question, there seem to be too many unknown
> > variables here to make any conclusion.
>
> Agreed.
I think it's been repeatedly proven that sonic differences CAN be
engineered
into cables, and the specialist cable makers have been doing that very
thing
for years. What irks me about the whole business is that the most
'neutral'
sounding cables are the most expensive! Wouldn't it make more sense to
pay
more for extra 'coloration', than vice-versa?
-Neb
On Feb 17, 5:42 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:59:09 -0800, jeffc wrote
> (in article <fp9sld02...@news1.newsguy,com >):
>
> > In my experience with cables, I have not been able to distinguish any
> > difference among the types I've tried in my system. At the same time I've
> > been able to distinguish differences among CD players and amps (including
> > Adcom 545 and 555.)
>
> This is my experience as well (except for the brands you mention. No
> experience with them)
>
>
>
> > Having said that, I believe that there ought to be differences among some
> > cables.
>
> Physics says no. The only way for there to be differences is if the cable
> company deliberately designed their cable to be a filter. This isn't likely,
> because the values of capacitance, inductance and resistance encountered in
> cables can only roll-off high frequencies, and no one would want that because
> everyone knows that the human ear, in a direct AB test, will always favor the
> loudest or the brightest sounding source as the "better" one.
>
> > With regard to your specific question, there seem to be too many unknown
> > variables here to make any conclusion.
>
> Agreed.
I think it's been repeatedly proven that sonic differences CAN be
engineered
into cables, and the specialist cable makers have been doing that very
thing
for years. What irks me about the whole business is that the most
'neutral'
sounding cables are the most expensive! Wouldn't it make more sense to
pay
more for extra 'coloration', than vice-versa?
-Neb
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
nebulax <nebulax@earthling,net > wrote:
> I think it's been repeatedly proven that sonic differences CAN be
> engineered
> into cables, and the specialist cable makers have been doing that very
> thing
> for years. What irks me about the whole business is that the most
> 'neutral'
> sounding cables are the most expensive!
What on earth makes you think that? Or are you using the word
'neutral' sarcastically?
> Wouldn't it make more sense to
> pay
> more for extra 'coloration', than vice-versa?
You do..those 'colorations' tend to be associated with
exotic, high priced designs.
__
-S
"Hey pip squeak, who's L Ron, some new rapper?" -- Nic
nebulax <nebulax@earthling,net > wrote:
> I think it's been repeatedly proven that sonic differences CAN be
> engineered
> into cables, and the specialist cable makers have been doing that very
> thing
> for years. What irks me about the whole business is that the most
> 'neutral'
> sounding cables are the most expensive!
What on earth makes you think that? Or are you using the word
'neutral' sarcastically?
> Wouldn't it make more sense to
> pay
> more for extra 'coloration', than vice-versa?
You do..those 'colorations' tend to be associated with
exotic, high priced designs.
__
-S
"Hey pip squeak, who's L Ron, some new rapper?" -- Nic
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
On Feb 20, 7:32 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix,com > wrote:
> nebulax <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote:
> > I think it's been repeatedly proven that sonic differences CAN be
> > engineered
> > into cables, and the specialist cable makers have been doing that very
> > thing
> > for years. What irks me about the whole business is that the most
> > 'neutral'
> > sounding cables are the most expensive!
>
> What on earth makes you think that? Or are you using the word
> 'neutral' sarcastically?
No, not being sarcastic. For example, Cardas has an interconnect they
call Neutral Reference, which goes for around $525 a meter, whereas
their entry level Crosslink cable goes for $105 a meter. What
determines which cable is more 'neutral'? Well, I guess that's hard to
say, because you would have to have at least one cable as a reference.
I don't know what a neutral cable would sound like (hopefully like
nothing), but I have heard some rather un-neutral cables, and they can
do weird stuff to the signal.
In my experience, the cheaper cables get the more 'colorful' sound.
Some of the weirdest sounding interconnects I've ever heard were entry
level Monster cables (Interlink 400, I think), that were bloated on
the low-end, artificial in the mids, and rolled off on the high freqs.
I can only assume they did this 'engineering' on purpose for those
consumers who really want to hear something different in their system.
Granted, as bad as some audio gear sounds (80's vintage cd players,
anybody?), that sort of coloration could be a blessing!
-Neb
On Feb 20, 7:32 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix,com > wrote:
> nebulax <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote:
> > I think it's been repeatedly proven that sonic differences CAN be
> > engineered
> > into cables, and the specialist cable makers have been doing that very
> > thing
> > for years. What irks me about the whole business is that the most
> > 'neutral'
> > sounding cables are the most expensive!
>
> What on earth makes you think that? Or are you using the word
> 'neutral' sarcastically?
No, not being sarcastic. For example, Cardas has an interconnect they
call Neutral Reference, which goes for around $525 a meter, whereas
their entry level Crosslink cable goes for $105 a meter. What
determines which cable is more 'neutral'? Well, I guess that's hard to
say, because you would have to have at least one cable as a reference.
I don't know what a neutral cable would sound like (hopefully like
nothing), but I have heard some rather un-neutral cables, and they can
do weird stuff to the signal.
In my experience, the cheaper cables get the more 'colorful' sound.
Some of the weirdest sounding interconnects I've ever heard were entry
level Monster cables (Interlink 400, I think), that were bloated on
the low-end, artificial in the mids, and rolled off on the high freqs.
I can only assume they did this 'engineering' on purpose for those
consumers who really want to hear something different in their system.
Granted, as bad as some audio gear sounds (80's vintage cd players,
anybody?), that sort of coloration could be a blessing!
-Neb
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 07:22:36 -0800, nebulax wrote
(in article <fqegns01dfi@news1.newsguy,com >):
> On Feb 20, 7:32 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix,com > wrote:
>> nebulax <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote:
>>> I think it's been repeatedly proven that sonic differences CAN be
>>> engineered
>>> into cables, and the specialist cable makers have been doing that very
>>> thing
>>> for years. What irks me about the whole business is that the most
>>> 'neutral'
>>> sounding cables are the most expensive!
>>
>> What on earth makes you think that? Or are you using the word
>> 'neutral' sarcastically?
>
> No, not being sarcastic. For example, Cardas has an interconnect they
> call Neutral Reference, which goes for around $525 a meter, whereas
> their entry level Crosslink cable goes for $105 a meter. What
> determines which cable is more 'neutral'?
Cardas' marketing department.
> Well, I guess that's hard to
> say, because you would have to have at least one cable as a reference.
> I don't know what a neutral cable would sound like (hopefully like
> nothing), but I have heard some rather un-neutral cables, and they can
> do weird stuff to the signal.
For interconnects try a piece of generic coax with a tin RCA soldered on each
end. For speaker cables, try a length of 14 AWG zip cord.
>
> In my experience, the cheaper cables get the more 'colorful' sound.
In my experience and in many double-blind listening tests, there is no
difference between the sound of the cheap cable sometimes thrown in the box
with a new CD player or VCR and a three-thousand dollar pair of Nordost
Valhallas.
> Some of the weirdest sounding interconnects I've ever heard were entry
> level Monster cables (Interlink 400, I think), that were bloated on
> the low-end, artificial in the mids, and rolled off on the high freqs.
> I can only assume they did this 'engineering' on purpose for those
> consumers who really want to hear something different in their system.
> Granted, as bad as some audio gear sounds (80's vintage cd players,
> anybody?), that sort of coloration could be a blessing!
OK, now would you like to tell us just what magic technology it is that
Monster employs to make a difference anywhere in the audio spectrum big
enough to hear?
Such purposeful fiddling with the sound would require capacitance and
inductance values so large that they would require a a big box in the center
of each cable just to house them.
IOW, the possibility of a piece of wire having enough capacitive reactance or
inductive reactance to affect any but the very highest frequencies (above
20KHz) is nil. It's physics that determine these things and you are talking
about a cable employing several series and several parallel filter circuits
requiring large value capacitors as well as resistors and possibly even
inductors of at least several microhenries to effect. Such filters alone
would cost more than any cable in the Monster Interlink 400 series.
In other words it's the known principles of of electronics engineering that
determines the effect on a signal by the conductor carrying it, and while
even a bend in a wire can affect the transfer of signals at very high
frequencies (like 2 GigaHertz), there is practically nothing one can do at
audio frequencies to affect the wire's effect on the signal at all except to
maybe make a poor connection and that would likely cause distortion if
anything at all, and certainly wouldn't affect the frequency response. Like
someone else said here recently, You could use a couple of lengths of
barbed-wire fencing between your preamp and your power amp, and baring any
hum or interference pick-up (such an arrangement would be un-shielded), there
would be no difference in the sound between the barbed wire and the
aforementioned $3,000 Nordost.
On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 07:22:36 -0800, nebulax wrote
(in article <fqegns01dfi@news1.newsguy,com >):
> On Feb 20, 7:32 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix,com > wrote:
>> nebulax <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote:
>>> I think it's been repeatedly proven that sonic differences CAN be
>>> engineered
>>> into cables, and the specialist cable makers have been doing that very
>>> thing
>>> for years. What irks me about the whole business is that the most
>>> 'neutral'
>>> sounding cables are the most expensive!
>>
>> What on earth makes you think that? Or are you using the word
>> 'neutral' sarcastically?
>
> No, not being sarcastic. For example, Cardas has an interconnect they
> call Neutral Reference, which goes for around $525 a meter, whereas
> their entry level Crosslink cable goes for $105 a meter. What
> determines which cable is more 'neutral'?
Cardas' marketing department.
> Well, I guess that's hard to
> say, because you would have to have at least one cable as a reference.
> I don't know what a neutral cable would sound like (hopefully like
> nothing), but I have heard some rather un-neutral cables, and they can
> do weird stuff to the signal.
For interconnects try a piece of generic coax with a tin RCA soldered on each
end. For speaker cables, try a length of 14 AWG zip cord.
>
> In my experience, the cheaper cables get the more 'colorful' sound.
In my experience and in many double-blind listening tests, there is no
difference between the sound of the cheap cable sometimes thrown in the box
with a new CD player or VCR and a three-thousand dollar pair of Nordost
Valhallas.
> Some of the weirdest sounding interconnects I've ever heard were entry
> level Monster cables (Interlink 400, I think), that were bloated on
> the low-end, artificial in the mids, and rolled off on the high freqs.
> I can only assume they did this 'engineering' on purpose for those
> consumers who really want to hear something different in their system.
> Granted, as bad as some audio gear sounds (80's vintage cd players,
> anybody?), that sort of coloration could be a blessing!
OK, now would you like to tell us just what magic technology it is that
Monster employs to make a difference anywhere in the audio spectrum big
enough to hear?
Such purposeful fiddling with the sound would require capacitance and
inductance values so large that they would require a a big box in the center
of each cable just to house them.
IOW, the possibility of a piece of wire having enough capacitive reactance or
inductive reactance to affect any but the very highest frequencies (above
20KHz) is nil. It's physics that determine these things and you are talking
about a cable employing several series and several parallel filter circuits
requiring large value capacitors as well as resistors and possibly even
inductors of at least several microhenries to effect. Such filters alone
would cost more than any cable in the Monster Interlink 400 series.
In other words it's the known principles of of electronics engineering that
determines the effect on a signal by the conductor carrying it, and while
even a bend in a wire can affect the transfer of signals at very high
frequencies (like 2 GigaHertz), there is practically nothing one can do at
audio frequencies to affect the wire's effect on the signal at all except to
maybe make a poor connection and that would likely cause distortion if
anything at all, and certainly wouldn't affect the frequency response. Like
someone else said here recently, You could use a couple of lengths of
barbed-wire fencing between your preamp and your power amp, and baring any
hum or interference pick-up (such an arrangement would be un-shielded), there
would be no difference in the sound between the barbed wire and the
aforementioned $3,000 Nordost.
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
On Mar 2, 10:22 am, nebulax <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote:
> On Feb 20, 7:32 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix,com > wrote:
>
> > nebulax <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote:
> > > I think it's been repeatedly proven that sonic differences CAN be
> > > engineered
> > > into cables, and the specialist cable makers have been doing that very
> > > thing
> > > for years. What irks me about the whole business is that the most
> > > 'neutral'
> > > sounding cables are the most expensive!
>
> > What on earth makes you think that? Or are you using the word
> > 'neutral' sarcastically?
>
> No, not being sarcastic. For example, Cardas has an interconnect they
> call Neutral Reference, which goes for around $525 a meter, whereas
> their entry level Crosslink cable goes for $105 a meter. What
> determines which cable is more 'neutral'? Well, I guess that's hard to
> say, because you would have to have at least one cable as a reference.
> I don't know what a neutral cable would sound like (hopefully like
> nothing), but I have heard some rather un-neutral cables, and they can
> do weird stuff to the signal.
>
> In my experience, the cheaper cables get the more 'colorful' sound.
> Some of the weirdest sounding interconnects I've ever heard were entry
> level Monster cables (Interlink 400, I think), that were bloated on
> the low-end, artificial in the mids, and rolled off on the high freqs.
> I can only assume they did this 'engineering' on purpose for those
> consumers who really want to hear something different in their system.
> Granted, as bad as some audio gear sounds (80's vintage cd players,
> anybody?), that sort of coloration could be a blessing!
>
> -Neb
Wire only has three characteristics that apply here; resistance,
inductance, and capacitance. Resistance is frequency neutral for the
purposes of any frequency in this discussion. Both of the other two
directly relate to frequency. The higher the frequency the more it
will be affected by inductance and capacitance in the cable. Trouble
is that with straight pieces of wire you've got to get into some
pretty high frequencies before either of the tiny amount of
capacitance and inductance involved will have an effect. That you
suggest that straight pieces of wire can somehow "enhance" low
frequency characteristics just shows how out of touch you are with
basic physics.
On Mar 2, 10:22 am, nebulax <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote:
> On Feb 20, 7:32 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix,com > wrote:
>
> > nebulax <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote:
> > > I think it's been repeatedly proven that sonic differences CAN be
> > > engineered
> > > into cables, and the specialist cable makers have been doing that very
> > > thing
> > > for years. What irks me about the whole business is that the most
> > > 'neutral'
> > > sounding cables are the most expensive!
>
> > What on earth makes you think that? Or are you using the word
> > 'neutral' sarcastically?
>
> No, not being sarcastic. For example, Cardas has an interconnect they
> call Neutral Reference, which goes for around $525 a meter, whereas
> their entry level Crosslink cable goes for $105 a meter. What
> determines which cable is more 'neutral'? Well, I guess that's hard to
> say, because you would have to have at least one cable as a reference.
> I don't know what a neutral cable would sound like (hopefully like
> nothing), but I have heard some rather un-neutral cables, and they can
> do weird stuff to the signal.
>
> In my experience, the cheaper cables get the more 'colorful' sound.
> Some of the weirdest sounding interconnects I've ever heard were entry
> level Monster cables (Interlink 400, I think), that were bloated on
> the low-end, artificial in the mids, and rolled off on the high freqs.
> I can only assume they did this 'engineering' on purpose for those
> consumers who really want to hear something different in their system.
> Granted, as bad as some audio gear sounds (80's vintage cd players,
> anybody?), that sort of coloration could be a blessing!
>
> -Neb
Wire only has three characteristics that apply here; resistance,
inductance, and capacitance. Resistance is frequency neutral for the
purposes of any frequency in this discussion. Both of the other two
directly relate to frequency. The higher the frequency the more it
will be affected by inductance and capacitance in the cable. Trouble
is that with straight pieces of wire you've got to get into some
pretty high frequencies before either of the tiny amount of
capacitance and inductance involved will have an effect. That you
suggest that straight pieces of wire can somehow "enhance" low
frequency characteristics just shows how out of touch you are with
basic physics.
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
"nebulax" <nebulax@earthling,net > wrote in message
news:fqegns01dfi@news1.newsguy,com
> No, not being sarcastic. For example, Cardas has an
> interconnect they call Neutral Reference, which goes for
> around $525 a meter, whereas their entry level Crosslink
> cable goes for $105 a meter. What determines which cable
> is more 'neutral'? Well, I guess that's hard to say,
> because you would have to have at least one cable as a
> reference. I don't know what a neutral cable would sound
> like (hopefully like nothing), but I have heard some
> rather un-neutral cables, and they can do weird stuff to
> the signal.
Cardas cables appear to be based on the following:
"Neutral Reference The Constant "Q" design of Cardas Neutral Reference
arranges different diameter conductors in ascending order of strand
cross-section from the center toward the cable outer circumference.
Conductors are sized according to Cardas' proprietary Golden Section
Stranding, which earned the company an award for "The Most Significant
Contribution of the Advancement of High End Audio in Cable and Accessory
Design" from the Academy for the Advancement of High End Audio. In real
world terms, the ground-breaking design reduces cable resonance produced by
fluctuating current flow for a clearer, more in-focus sonic signature."
Very definately a candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
I would be interested in hearing of the circumstances and relevant brand
names of an interconnect that does "weird stuff", and associated components.
> In my experience, the cheaper cables get the more
> 'colorful' sound. Some of the weirdest sounding
> interconnects I've ever heard were entry level Monster
> cables (Interlink 400, I think), that were bloated on the
> low-end, artificial in the mids, and rolled off on the
> high freqs. I can only assume they did this 'engineering'
> on purpose for those consumers who really want to hear
> something different in their system. Granted, as bad as
> some audio gear sounds (80's vintage cd players,
> anybody?), that sort of coloration could be a blessing!
The purported technology of Interlink 400 cables is said to include:
"
a.. Multiple gauge high and low frequency wire networks for accurate,
natural sound reproduction.
a.. Dual solid-core center conductors for deeper, tighter bass.
a.. PEX insulator features low dielectric constant for clearer highs.
"
Another candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
"nebulax" <nebulax@earthling,net > wrote in message
news:fqegns01dfi@news1.newsguy,com
> No, not being sarcastic. For example, Cardas has an
> interconnect they call Neutral Reference, which goes for
> around $525 a meter, whereas their entry level Crosslink
> cable goes for $105 a meter. What determines which cable
> is more 'neutral'? Well, I guess that's hard to say,
> because you would have to have at least one cable as a
> reference. I don't know what a neutral cable would sound
> like (hopefully like nothing), but I have heard some
> rather un-neutral cables, and they can do weird stuff to
> the signal.
Cardas cables appear to be based on the following:
"Neutral Reference The Constant "Q" design of Cardas Neutral Reference
arranges different diameter conductors in ascending order of strand
cross-section from the center toward the cable outer circumference.
Conductors are sized according to Cardas' proprietary Golden Section
Stranding, which earned the company an award for "The Most Significant
Contribution of the Advancement of High End Audio in Cable and Accessory
Design" from the Academy for the Advancement of High End Audio. In real
world terms, the ground-breaking design reduces cable resonance produced by
fluctuating current flow for a clearer, more in-focus sonic signature."
Very definately a candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
I would be interested in hearing of the circumstances and relevant brand
names of an interconnect that does "weird stuff", and associated components.
> In my experience, the cheaper cables get the more
> 'colorful' sound. Some of the weirdest sounding
> interconnects I've ever heard were entry level Monster
> cables (Interlink 400, I think), that were bloated on the
> low-end, artificial in the mids, and rolled off on the
> high freqs. I can only assume they did this 'engineering'
> on purpose for those consumers who really want to hear
> something different in their system. Granted, as bad as
> some audio gear sounds (80's vintage cd players,
> anybody?), that sort of coloration could be a blessing!
The purported technology of Interlink 400 cables is said to include:
"
a.. Multiple gauge high and low frequency wire networks for accurate,
natural sound reproduction.
a.. Dual solid-core center conductors for deeper, tighter bass.
a.. PEX insulator features low dielectric constant for clearer highs.
"
Another candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.
On Mar 3, 6:28 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote:
> "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>
> news:fqegns01dfi@news1.newsguy,com
>
> > No, not being sarcastic. For example, Cardas has an
> > interconnect they call Neutral Reference, which goes for
> > around $525 a meter, whereas their entry level Crosslink
> > cable goes for $105 a meter. What determines which cable
> > is more 'neutral'? Well, I guess that's hard to say,
> > because you would have to have at least one cable as a
> > reference. I don't know what a neutral cable would sound
> > like (hopefully like nothing), but I have heard some
> > rather un-neutral cables, and they can do weird stuff to
> > the signal.
>
> Cardas cables appear to be based on the following:
>
> "Neutral Reference The Constant "Q" design of Cardas Neutral Reference
> arranges different diameter conductors in ascending order of strand
> cross-section from the center toward the cable outer circumference.
> Conductors are sized according to Cardas' proprietary Golden Section
> Stranding, which earned the company an award for "The Most Significant
> Contribution of the Advancement of High End Audio in Cable and Accessory
> Design" from the Academy for the Advancement of High End Audio. In real
> world terms, the ground-breaking design reduces cable resonance produced by
> fluctuating current flow for a clearer, more in-focus sonic signature."
>
> Very definately a candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> I would be interested in hearing of the circumstances and relevant brand
> names of an interconnect that does "weird stuff", and associated components.
>
> > In my experience, the cheaper cables get the more
> > 'colorful' sound. Some of the weirdest sounding
> > interconnects I've ever heard were entry level Monster
> > cables (Interlink 400, I think), that were bloated on the
> > low-end, artificial in the mids, and rolled off on the
> > high freqs. I can only assume they did this 'engineering'
> > on purpose for those consumers who really want to hear
> > something different in their system. Granted, as bad as
> > some audio gear sounds (80's vintage cd players,
> > anybody?), that sort of coloration could be a blessing!
>
> The purported technology of Interlink 400 cables is said to include:
>
> "
> a.. Multiple gauge high and low frequency wire networks for accurate,
> natural sound reproduction.
> a.. Dual solid-core center conductors for deeper, tighter bass.
> a.. PEX insulator features low dielectric constant for clearer highs.
> "
>
> Another candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
This site explains it better than I could - http :// sound.westhost,com /cablewhitepaper.htm
Here's a quote:
"The second requirement is that the interconnect have low impedance.
High impedance can cause loss of output at both high and low
frequencies depending on the loads presented by the components
connected to the interconnect. And when the frequency response is
restricted in this way, the effects are indeed audible.".
And guess what Arny, the writer here even encourages the use of AB and
ABX testing!
-Neb
On Mar 3, 6:28 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote:
> "nebulax" <nebu...@earthling,net > wrote in message
>
> news:fqegns01dfi@news1.newsguy,com
>
> > No, not being sarcastic. For example, Cardas has an
> > interconnect they call Neutral Reference, which goes for
> > around $525 a meter, whereas their entry level Crosslink
> > cable goes for $105 a meter. What determines which cable
> > is more 'neutral'? Well, I guess that's hard to say,
> > because you would have to have at least one cable as a
> > reference. I don't know what a neutral cable would sound
> > like (hopefully like nothing), but I have heard some
> > rather un-neutral cables, and they can do weird stuff to
> > the signal.
>
> Cardas cables appear to be based on the following:
>
> "Neutral Reference The Constant "Q" design of Cardas Neutral Reference
> arranges different diameter conductors in ascending order of strand
> cross-section from the center toward the cable outer circumference.
> Conductors are sized according to Cardas' proprietary Golden Section
> Stranding, which earned the company an award for "The Most Significant
> Contribution of the Advancement of High End Audio in Cable and Accessory
> Design" from the Academy for the Advancement of High End Audio. In real
> world terms, the ground-breaking design reduces cable resonance produced by
> fluctuating current flow for a clearer, more in-focus sonic signature."
>
> Very definately a candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
>
> I would be interested in hearing of the circumstances and relevant brand
> names of an interconnect that does "weird stuff", and associated components.
>
> > In my experience, the cheaper cables get the more
> > 'colorful' sound. Some of the weirdest sounding
> > interconnects I've ever heard were entry level Monster
> > cables (Interlink 400, I think), that were bloated on the
> > low-end, artificial in the mids, and rolled off on the
> > high freqs. I can only assume they did this 'engineering'
> > on purpose for those consumers who really want to hear
> > something different in their system. Granted, as bad as
> > some audio gear sounds (80's vintage cd players,
> > anybody?), that sort of coloration could be a blessing!
>
> The purported technology of Interlink 400 cables is said to include:
>
> "
> a.. Multiple gauge high and low frequency wire networks for accurate,
> natural sound reproduction.
> a.. Dual solid-core center conductors for deeper, tighter bass.
> a.. PEX insulator features low dielectric constant for clearer highs.
> "
>
> Another candidate for a "Weird Science" award.
This site explains it better than I could - http :// sound.westhost,com /cablewhitepaper.htm
Here's a quote:
"The second requirement is that the interconnect have low impedance.
High impedance can cause loss of output at both high and low
frequencies depending on the loads presented by the components
connected to the interconnect. And when the frequency response is
restricted in this way, the effects are indeed audible.".
And guess what Arny, the writer here even encourages the use of AB and
ABX testing!
-Neb
