[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Rob Poretti <r.poretti@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > A few of these facilities use those $1000+ AC cables. I did not have the
> > balls to ask them to swap to a standard cable for my own curiosity, but I
> > can tell you *none* of the mastering engineers described the differences
> > "major improvements".
> Again, the studio environment... these are not listening studios, these are
> recording (or mastering) studios.
> RP) I'm sorry, but I beg to differ and I believe most audio professionals
> won't agree with that statement.
That you "beg to differ"? *That *statement? ;-)
Anyway: Now you're using the Appeal to Authority, so one must ask who elects
these authorities? Is it not the case, that they are a self-chosen lot? In
which case... well... I'm not so sure *I'd* appeal to *them!*
And earlier I named two prominent and successful engineers who are very much
on my side.
Besides all that, I'm an Audio Engineering Society Lifetime Member, hooray,
but I don't think you're going to ever ask me what *I* think!
> Mastering rooms are built for critical
> listening. I agree that the design criteria (neutrality with excellent
> translation to the outside world) might be different then in a personal
> listening room. (personal preference often based on a preferred music
And mastering rooms aren't designed by persons? Persons with, ah,
> If you really feel this way,
Feelings have nothing to do with it.
OK: I *feel* the Wiki piece originally quoted by me was not only prejudicial
and pejoratively worded, but wholly untriangulated in Wiki's own terms.
But everyone has* felt* so captious over what they *feel* is the absurdity
of the referenced claim, they've seized on that rather than discuss the
unreasonableness of its use in the Wiki context. Which was* my* concern.
> then we have a serious void in our individual
> point of reference, to even continue the debate.... IMHO.
> Besides, I've never claimed that differences are instantly detectable.
> They're not, usually. They get to you over an extended period.
> RP) That's an interesting comment. I was reacting earlier to your
> statement "wrought major improvements".
> I would think that "wrought major improvements" are also "instantly
> detectable." Would you mine defining "an extended period"? Was it hours,
> days, weeks?
> > Do I understand by your comments that the "major
> > improvements" that you discerned did not require ABX listening tests?
> "Require"? As stated earlier, ABX only blurs the distinctions.
> Someone locally here once told me he'd done a DBT that proved to the 99%
> confidence level, that insertion of the ABX box was audible. I chuckled, as
> I might hope everyone would.
> Who elected the ABX box as our arbiter?
> RP) First, I meant to say DB ABX. My mistake. Second, you can build very
> transparent ABX boxes and the nice thing about them is they provide the
> lens for both "A" and "B" - that's why they are valid in critical listening
> tests. Unless you are saying that all DB ABX listening tests are not
> Do you have a more definitive listening test procedure?
> My comment about "requiring ABX" was that I was trying to determine how
> audible the difference was - was it instant or was it difficult to
> determine? I think you could see the intent of my question.
> Rob Poretti
> Sales Engineer - Archiving
> Cube-Tec North America