# The 10 Biggest Lies in Audio



## Guest (Nov 5, 2009)

Geared towards consumer audio, but some of it applies to music-produced-with-electric-guitars audio as well.

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf


----------



## fretboard (May 31, 2006)

Good read - thanks for the link. I'll be forwarding that off to a few of my friends who have different opinions on some of the topics.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Yeah, it was definitely interesting. I used to be much more "into" audio and was a big tweak-geek. I still really like certain brands because I think from a design standpoint, they are doing things that other's don't, and while I still have a few different brands of cables that I particularly like, I'm certainly not as gung-ho about some of the voodoo as I used to be.


----------



## Andy (Sep 23, 2007)

Great article. It's refreshing to see some skepticism in high-end audio, instead of one more reviewer gushing about the sonic benefits of a $2000 power cord. :sport-smiley-002:


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

I have had the "Monster Cable" argument with too many people to count. CBC's Marketplace did test them. They perform the same as the $12 store brands (that can be looked up at CBC Marketplace). I seen a tour of the CN tower on TV. It is the communications hub for Ontario and with all those millions of dollars of equipment, not one gold plated connector in the whole place.


----------



## seanmj (May 9, 2009)

Without getting into specifics... everyone has their own opinion.

At the end of the day... it doesn't matter whether you used this cable or that, analog or digital, this mic or that mic. To quote Evh "If it sounds good it is good."

I don't care what kind of battery or cable Eric Johnson uses... if I like the songs and the way they sound... that's what's important to me.

At the same time... I don't judge someone like him for being so nit picky. He's the one delivering the music... and he has to like the sound that he's getting... and needs the freedom to go about it in any way that he has to.

Having said that.... when it comes to the analog vs digital argument... it's impossible to say one is better than the other. There have been stellar recordings in both formats. It boils down to experience. You have to know how to get the sounds you want in the format you're using.

Someone who has worked analog all their life... will need some time to learn how to make a digital rig work for them....and vice versa. They really are completely different animals... and require different skills to make them work.

I personally disagree with some of the affirmations the author made. Why? Because I've compared a lot of gear... recorded in a lot of different formats... and have been doing so for a long time. There are differences... some big... some small. Does that make one thing better than another? No... to me they are all tools/colors to be used. It's just about picking the right tool for the job.

Sean Meredith-Jones
http://www.seanmeredithjones.com


----------



## Guest (Nov 6, 2009)

seanmj said:


> Without getting into specifics... everyone has their own opinion.


That's not entirely true. Some of us have science, not opinions. 



> Having said that.... when it comes to the analog vs digital argument... it's impossible to say one is better than the other. There have been stellar recordings in both formats. It boils down to experience. You have to know how to get the sounds you want in the format you're using.


Without a doubt.



> I personally disagree with some of the affirmations the author made. Why? Because I've compared a lot of gear... recorded in a lot of different formats... and have been doing so for a long time. There are differences... some big... some small. Does that make one thing better than another? No... to me they are all tools/colors to be used. It's just about picking the right tool for the job.


What specifically do you disagree with? You aren't going to tell me that thicker wires pass low frequencies better are you? Because man, as an Electrical Engineer, I can tell that pure nonsense.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

I'm not sure about tube manufacturers "deliberately colouring" the sound of their tubes, but it would be nice if the audiophiles would leave the tube market alone. Guitar amps and stereo amplifiers are different beasts. We *want* that distortion in our guitar amps. I've played some very decent solid state guitar amps, but they can't touch the better tube amps for what *I'm* after. Nowadays the Blu-Ray audio is top notch, but CDs I bought in the late 80's and 90's are crap compared to either their newly remastered CD brethren or the original LPs. This has less to do with old fuddy-duddies not knowing how to mix for digital audio than it does computer guys in the 80's remastering old analogue to CDs, not knowing how to mix a record. Consisder how "user-unfriendly" converting analogue tape into digital files would have been for a producer/engineer in the mid 80's. It's easy to forget this in an age where a 10 year old can do it at home.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

iaresee said:


> What specifically do you disagree with? You aren't going to tell me that thicker wires pass low frequencies better are you? Because man, as an Electrical Engineer, I can tell that pure nonsense.


It's hard to disagree with anything in the article, because, like you said, there's scientific backing for many of his points. What you _can_ dispute are subjective things like digital vs. analog.

One thing I would contend with is the ABX test. If there is a significant quality difference between the two components, even those who don't have a trained ear or much experience should be able to tell the difference. Now, will they be able to tell you which is which accurately, maybe not. But I think I could. I mean, when you're comparing a Sony stereo to something like a Krell, Naim or Musical Fidelity, it's really not hard to tell the difference in quality. Comparing the Krell, Naim and Musical Fidelity to _one another_ though, would be tough.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Rugburn said:


> I'm not sure about tube manufacturers "deliberately colouring" the sound of their tubes


What I've found with tubes isn't so much a colouration as an "emphasis" on one frequency range because of an inability to accurately reproduce another. Tube amps damping factors just plain aren't as good as solid state, so I've found solid state amps to have a tighter and deeper bass response. Because tube amps don't grip the speaker quite as ruthlessly as a SS amp, the bottom sounds, umm, warmer, more liquid (god I sound like one of _those_ people). Due to this the midrange seems to be emphasized, when it's not actually.

Anywho, that's what I hear when I compare the two and some people like one or the other, some dig both.


----------



## Guest (Nov 6, 2009)

Rugburn said:


> I'm not sure about tube manufacturers "deliberately colouring" the sound of their tubes, but it would be nice if the audiophiles would leave the tube market alone.


I think he meant stereo amplifier manufacturers who used tubes.



> Guitar amps and stereo amplifiers are different beasts. We *want* that distortion in our guitar amps.


Absolutely. That's one of the points in the article that doesn't really translate to our world. We absolutely enjoy non-linear amplifier response. But in the stereo world it's all about who can make the perfect linear amplifier.



> Nowadays the Blu-Ray audio is top notch, but CDs I bought in the late 80's and 90's are crap compared to either their newly remastered CD brethren or the original LPs. This has less to do with old fuddy-duddies not knowing how to mix for digital audio than it does computer guys in the 80's remastering old analogue to CDs, not knowing how to mix a record. Consisder how "user-unfriendly" converting analogue tape into digital files would have been for a producer/engineer in the mid 80's. It's easy to forget this in an age where a 10 year old can do it at home.


Very true. We've come along way with the technology and with the understanding of how to use it.

The latest generation, having grown up with digital being the norm, is turning out some amazing sounding stuff. I was listening to a remix of the Yeah, Yeah, Yeah's _Heads Will Roll_ yesterday and what really struck me was the incredibly artistic use of binaural mixing in the remix. Totally new technology that's only be really accessible in the past 3 or 4 years to DAW-type users. He used it perfectly, not too much, just enough to make you go "wow!" in just the right part of the song. You can get the remix here actually -- they're giving it away.


----------



## Guest (Nov 6, 2009)

hollowbody said:


> It's hard to disagree with anything in the article, because, like you said, there's scientific backing for many of his points. What you _can_ dispute are subjective things like digital vs. analog.


Absolutely. I was just teasing seanmj about the thicker wire/low frequency thing. :smile:



> One thing I would contend with is the ABX test. If there is a significant quality difference between the two components, even those who don't have a trained ear or much experience should be able to tell the difference.


I didn't that he was saying there's no difference. Just that what you might thing may make a big, audible difference, may in fact not.



> Now, will they be able to tell you which is which accurately, maybe not. But I think I could. I mean, when you're comparing a Sony stereo to something like a Krell, Naim or Musical Fidelity, it's really not hard to tell the difference in quality. Comparing the Krell, Naim and Musical Fidelity to _one another_ though, would be tough.


Yea, I didn't get that from the article. I think he was just advocating ABX comparisons instead of assuming that more $$ means better sound. Could be there's a big difference between a Sony amplifier and a Krell, could be there's not. I don't know. I can't even guess. I'd just have to sit down and try it out to understand. And every time I changed models it'd be a whole new comparison -- experience might not matter much here (again, I can't say -- because I have near zero -- my sample set is too small). Once you've done it 100 times for a 100 different A/B models you'd probably have some pretty solid experience to guide you when deciding if there will or will not be a difference.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Surprisingly there are still many people around these days who want to oil a snake.


Tough to accept the reality that at the end of the day, you will sound much the same regardless of the gear you use.


----------



## Guest (Nov 6, 2009)

Milkman said:


> Tough to accept the reality that at the end of the day, you will sound much the same regardless of the gear you use.


That is my sad reality: I pretty much suck the same way no matter what I play. :smile:


----------



## aC2rs (Jul 9, 2007)

Thanks for posting that article. Although I've actually read it before, it is very interesting and well worth reading again.


----------



## Guest (Nov 6, 2009)

Milkman said:


> Surprisingly there are still many people around these days who want to oil a snake.


I should say the separating the oil from the...uh...non-oil these days is pretty darn hard. Even me, Mister Trust-no-one,show-me-the-science skeptic, have caught myself more than a few times salivating over something pretty, with promises I know can't be possibly true, thinking, "I _freaking_ need that!"


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

There's a cool article in the Oct. GP regarding a audio reproduction system created by T Bone Burnett and a team of engineers called CODE. He likens most listeners experiences today as a "xerox of a polaroid of a photograph of a painting". Too bad I'm not much of a John Mellencamp dan.

http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/1476/tbone-burnetts-code-john-mellencamp

Shawn.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Finally read the article over lunch today. Holy doodle, does THAT guy ever need a bowl of All-Bran! There is not a lot I would disagree with, but man oh man, so much disdain is such a compact space!

There are a couple of things that people should not map 1:1 onto the musical performance domain (the writer is addressing music reproduction, remember). First, power conditioning IS useful for touring musicians. What comes out of your wall at home, and what comes out of the wall at an arena or a bar are certainly related, but there may be many more things and ways to alter that shared AC outside your home than in your home. So the "Bryston preamble" may be 100% valid for your living room, but the folks who run out to buy power conditioners for their PA do not buy them because they believed an audio mag. They bought them because they thought the sound at this particular gig was simply awful, and found the power conditioner improved things audibly (and not "golden ears" audibly, either).

There likely *will* be a difference in blind ABX testing as a function of how far apart you space the trials. It is next to impossible to suppress the tendency to listen for patterns over short intervals.

You will note that he omitted any mention of capacitors and capacitor *type*. One assumes that he elected to focus on CD-treatment (something which does not crop up nearly as often as capacitor voodoo), because he sees some elements of reason in the assorted debates about capacitors. Here is, to my mind, another area where audiophile thinking does not map 1:1 onto performing musician needs. The audiophile attempts to reproduce multi-source information with very broad bandwidth information, while the musician generally amplifies single-source information with fairly limited bandwidth. The peculiarities of capacitor types can play a role in the one which is absolutely moot in the other.

#3, the "anti-digital lie" was actually raised by either Len Feldman or Julian Hirsch in the early 80's when the disdain for digital was first forming. I remember reading an opinion piece by one of these two distinguished gentlemen at that time in Stereo Review, and this was exactly the sentiment being expressed: people were confusing the presumed "brittleness" of digital recordings with the over-accentuated treble that engineers would attempt to achieve to compensate for the traditional shortcomings of tape.


----------



## seanmj (May 9, 2009)

iaresee said:


> That's not entirely true. Some of us have science, not opinions.


And as we all know... scientists are never wrong... and always in agreement....




iaresee said:


> What specifically do you disagree with? You aren't going to tell me that thicker wires pass low frequencies better are you? Because man, as an Electrical Engineer, I can tell that pure nonsense.


I disagree with his cable lie notion. I couldn't tell if he meant in all musical applications... or just speaker wire. If he means all audio applications... I disagree. I'm not arguing that high priced cables are better. I'm just saying from experience... there are differences in sound between things like guitar patch cables and mic cables. Why? I have no clue. Cable gremlins I suppose. Do I care if people agree with me? No.

The tube lie. Tube guitar/bass amps sound different than solid state. Better? That's relative. I've never heard a solid state amp that I would buy... guitar or mic preamp. Similarly, tube mic preamps sound different than solid state. Right now, I have 4 different mic preamps in front of me... Neve, Avalon, Chandler, and DBX... they are all tube. 

I also currently own a THD Bivalve amp. It will take a plethora of different preamp and output tubes. I have a variety of different kinds and brands... 6l6, 6v6, kt66...etc. I've swapped them in and out. They all sound different. I could have two 6l6's from two different companies... and I can tell you they sound different. Not necessarily better... but different.

And lastly... his analog vs digital. He's stating his opinions as if they were fact. I already talked about that in my earlier post.

Sean Meredith-Jones
http://www.seanmeredithjones.com


----------



## Guest (Nov 6, 2009)

seanmj said:


> And as we all know... scientists are never wrong... and always in agreement....


We don't always, but when we don't the arguments aren't down, "Well I hear better than you". :smile:



> I disagree with his cable lie notion. I couldn't tell if he meant in all musical applications... or just speaker wire.


He was just talking about speaker wire. But you're not wrong when you say:



> If he means all audio applications... I disagree. I'm not arguing that high priced cables are better. I'm just saying from experience... there are differences in sound between things like guitar patch cables and mic cables. Why? I have no clue. Cable gremlins I suppose. Do I care if people agree with me? No.


No, you're 100% right there Every cable has an RLC value associated with it. And that has an impact on the signal traveling down it. He's just saying that cables signal transmissions properties are completely described by those three values. So if you send a cable in to space or rub it on the thighs of a virgin all that matters in the end is what R, L and C it has. And as long as you can find another cable that has the same R, L and C they'll sound the same.



> I also currently own a THD Bivalve amp. It will take a plethora of different preamp and output tubes. I have a variety of different kinds and brands... 6l6, 6v6, kt66...etc. I've swapped them in and out. They all sound different. I could have two 6l6's from two different companies... and I can tell you they sound different. Not necessarily better... but different.


Absolutely. Especially the way guitarists use tubes -- they aim to expose those differences. He's strictly talking about clean, linear amplification in his article. Not at all applicable to what we do to tubes as guitar players.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

seanmj said:


> I disagree with his cable lie notion. I couldn't tell if he meant in all musical applications... or just speaker wire. If he means all audio applications... I disagree. I'm not arguing that high priced cables are better. I'm just saying from experience... there are differences in sound between things like guitar patch cables and mic cables. Why? I have no clue. Cable gremlins I suppose. Do I care if people agree with me? No.


Aczel states "...resistance, inductance and capacitance are the only cable parameters that affect performance in the range below radio frequencies." The point is not that cable quality does not matter, or that cables varying in any of these parameters are no different from each other. Rather it is that cables which are not measurably different from each other in any of these respects do not sound, and *will* not sound, different from each other. That there is no "additional" set of dimensions beyond this which will matter.



> The tube lie. Tube guitar/bass amps sound different than solid state. Better? That's relative. I've never heard a solid state amp that I would buy... guitar or mic preamp. Similarly, tube mic preamps sound different than solid state. Right now, I have 4 different mic preamps in front of me... Neve, Avalon, Chandler, and DBX... they are all tube.


Again, what matters for single-source production will be different than what matters for multi-source *re*production.



> And lastly... his analog vs digital. He's stating his opinions as if they were fact. I already talked about that in my earlier post.


re-read what he said, and he doesn't disagree with you. Analog + appropriate engineering and attention to quality = digital + appropriate attention to quality. His gripe is with the view that somehow digital plus appropriate attention to detail can never = analog. And as you concur, its not what you use but what you do with it.

I'm in the midst of providing data for the review of a piece of federal legislation, and one of the things I have to keep reminding people of is the need to be able to discern the difference between the "pure" effects of the legislation, and the impact of ongoing historical events on some of those things that we innocently think might be a consequence of the legislation. Similarly, one needs to distinguish between myths that arose when a piece, or standard, of technology was first introduced and misused, and what we might now recognize as stemming directly from the technology itself, rather than its early misuse. Trouble is, myths die hard among believers.


----------



## Guest (Nov 6, 2009)

mhammer said:


> There are a couple of things that people should not map 1:1 onto the musical performance domain (the writer is addressing music reproduction, remember). First, power conditioning IS useful for touring musicians. What comes out of your wall at home, and what comes out of the wall at an arena or a bar are certainly related, but there may be many more things and ways to alter that shared AC outside your home than in your home. So the "Bryston preamble" may be 100% valid for your living room, but the folks who run out to buy power conditioners for their PA do not buy them because they believed an audio mag. They bought them because they thought the sound at this particular gig was simply awful, and found the power conditioner improved things audibly (and not "golden ears" audibly, either).


I think the need for conditioning for a guitar amplifier is even simpler than that: the considerations given to power conditioning in a guitar amplifier are probably (can't say always, but doubt it happens much) close to nil relative to the considerations given to the same subject in the design of a really linear power amplifier like a Bryston 2B. So it's built in to the design in a Bryston, but not in your guitar amp -- meaning it's possibly worthwhile in your guitar amp. No doubt we've all turned up an amp at one time or another and found that something was putting some nice 60 Hz hum on our power line and our guitar amp was reproducing it. That doesn't really happen with a the audio stuff like Brystons, they build the filter into the amp.



> There likely *will* be a difference in blind ABX testing as a function of how far apart you space the trials. It is next to impossible to suppress the tendency to listen for patterns over short intervals.


But can't you just remove the problem by running the trails multiple times?



> You will note that he omitted any mention of capacitors and capacitor *type*. One assumes that he elected to focus on CD-treatment (something which does not crop up nearly as often as capacitor voodoo), because he sees some elements of reason in the assorted debates about capacitors. Here is, to my mind, another area where audiophile thinking does not map 1:1 onto performing musician needs. The audiophile attempts to reproduce multi-source information with very broad bandwidth information, while the musician generally amplifies single-source information with fairly limited bandwidth. The peculiarities of capacitor types can play a role in the one which is absolutely moot in the other.


For sure. But is it manufacturing materials as much as it is tolerances? Are PIO caps revered as much because they have some nice non-linear response that guitarists like or because they're really tight on their tolerances so a 500 uF cap really is a 500 uF? I don't know myself.


----------



## dtsaudio (Apr 15, 2009)

Just a point of reference, Peter Aczel is a bitter hasbeen. His many attempts at audio magazines were not accepted well. He pretty much can't prove any of his claims. His statements are not aimed at de-bunking myth, but rather to get attention for himself and possibly taking down some industry people in the process.
It's interesting the about face he has done over the years. His original Audio Critic magazine back in the seventies relied solely on long term listening tests. And he did find differences among many pieces of equipment.


----------



## Guest (Nov 6, 2009)

dtsaudio said:


> Just a point of reference, Peter Aczel is a bitter hasbeen. His many attempts at audio magazines were not accepted well.


Don't attack the person, attack the claims. You say:



> He pretty much can't prove any of his claims. His statements are not aimed at de-bunking myth, but rather to get attention for himself and possibly taking down some industry people in the process.


Back them up. What has he said that can't be proven? The only thing that seems subjective, based more on observation than anything else, was the analog-savvy engineers compensating incorrectly when using digital claim. But Mark provided a second and third reference for that.



> It's interesting the about face he has done over the years. His original Audio Critic magazine back in the seventies relied solely on long term listening tests. And he did find differences among many pieces of equipment.


I'm not saying that people don't change their minds when the person paying for advertising is also submitting gear for review, but he's not saying you can't hear differences. He just advocating a method that establishes a more rigorous testing method so when differences are claimed you can trust the results. Did Audio Critic not use the methods he advocates? I don't know him or the magazine.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Well...

Bars, concert halls, theaters, stadiums are generally no in bedroom communities. They tend to be located right beside heavy industry. What a factory with 40 guys running welders, band saws, table saws, grinders, jacks, hammers, etc does to the power line signal is probably cleaned up at the switch-yards and substations, but before it gets there, it is probably quite a hash up.

I have also been reading up more on capacitors too. There is physics involved with them as well. From what I have read the big important "knee" is around 100KiloHertz and was important as radio was going up in frequency. This is well up from audio signals yes, but what I didn't read was if there were any other knee points. It is not uncommon for such things to be non-linear, or to have plateaus or to have repetitions, usually and oddly based in some manner on Planks Constant. I think by the time science got to realizing some materials would fail to pass signals at specific frequencies, new materials were coming out that so surpassed the old ones fully exploring that avenue became moot. However, there could be something to the way the paper or the oil resonate at audio frequencies that newer materials don't. I think there is enough science to arrange a study on it; to properly pose the question and postulate the answer.


----------



## seanmj (May 9, 2009)

Not to open up another can o' worms here but:

The primary reason why digital caught on in the first place was not the sound... but more the convenience factor.

Consider records... you couldn't listen to them on the go. You coudln't fit as much audio on to one. Tapes came out. You had the walkman...you could go anywhere you wanted and listen.

Then cds came out... though I'm not sure they necessarily offered more convenience. The big sell was when record companies could re-release entire catalogues as being re-mixed or re-mastered... and pitched them as sounding better than the previous recordings on record or tape. 

Now we live in the age of the mp3. You can fit thousands of tunes on an ipod. The audio resolution of an mp3 is not as high as an actual cd. Do people care? The majority of people don't. They can take their entire music collection everywhere. They don't have to buy entire albums if they only want the hits of a particular artist.

In the audio world... it's similar. In a completely analog studio... there were a number of things that took time: Cueing a song or an edit point on a tape real (add that up if you were cutting a 10 song record). 

On the console... you could only have one song at a time. You'd have to take photographs of all the channels when moving on to a new song... if you ever wanted to come back to that tune to fix.

Analog compressors, eqs...etc could only process one thing at a time. If you had a couple of la-2 compressors... they could only be used on a couple of sources.

Storage was expensive (tape reals that is). Things broke down... or had to be maintained by a professional.

Consider now. You can recall a 100 track song instantly. You can automate each track very quickly. You can use one la-2 emulating plugin in on 100 tracks with different settings. Storage is cheaper. It's more reliable long term.

With that convenience... many engineers jumped on the bandwagon. They could work faster and get more done. When people started to record on digital formats initially... adats, hard disks, da-88's...etc... the complaint across the board was that the recordings were like ice. No warmth... no punch.

Since then engineers have learned to use a hybrid of tools to record. And digi- companies have listened to that and offered better tools to work with.

Most recordings now that people think are good... were done with a healthy smattering of analog eq's, compressors, tube mics, tube mic pres.... and *analog emulating plug ins*.... and were recorded in digital format. There's still a large number of albums that are still mastered to tape as well. My point is that digital recording are *made to sound analog *for the most part... and are not without a variety of analog components along the way.

We want the convenience that digital brings, and the sound that analog has. It's taken time to get to this point. A/D/A converters have come a long way too to make this possible.

There are still people that swear by analog... real to real tape machines. The vynl industry has seen a resurgence recently. There are people that attest that the best way to listen to the Beatles is on vynl... and mono.

I can't argue with them... I don't care to. This is art. People like what they like and work the way that works for them. At the end of the day... it doesn't matter whether you used a hammer or a drill... it's the end result that matters.

Sean Meredith-Jones
http://www.seanmeredithjones.com


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

seanmj said:


> The primary reason why digital caught on in the first place was not the sound... but more the convenience factor.


My recollection of that historical period is a little different. Not necessarily the correct version, but different from yours.

Vinyl was more convenient than tape with respect to direct access (no rewinding or fast forward needed), but cassette was more convenient with respect to shipping and portability. It also seemed to hold more promise as far as commercial reproduction, in comparison to the tedious, costly, and error-prone process of pressing vinyl sides. Tape also had a potentially longer lifespan than vinyl, at least when you did it right and weren't using crappy tape.

The problem with tape, however, was that it was easier to make vinyl quieter (at least when the disc was "young"), and that when you went for portability (i.e., cassette), you tended to sacrifice quality and especially dynamic range. Consumer-grade tape simply could not hold big transients. It saturated far too easily. Dolby B, dbx, and eventually Dolby C, were reasonably good workarounds for making tape sound halfway decent, with respectable dynamic range, but it still was not the shiznazz in comparison to *good* vinyl. And, as still remains the case with CDs, people *really *missed the liner notes and pictures.

Digital sound processing first entered via vinyl. Its chief competitor at the time was so-called "direct-to-disc" vinyl, in which the musician and producer/engineer basically did what Les Paul was doing some 25 years earlier, namely bypassing tape and its inherent limitations and cutting the master directly from the soundboard. Many of the DTD recordings of the time were pretty damn stellar, although they did not lend themselves to musicians other than jazz or small classical combos particularly well. Besides, after so many years of hearing it that way due to steps taken to counteract the limitations of tape and broadcast transmitters, highly compressed sound *wa*s the sound of rock, so it would have pretty much been a waste of technology and time to try and capture the music of the time (punk and disco and early new wave) via direct-to-disc.

Digital recording, on the other hand, allowed the freedom to use overdubs, and multi-track bouncing without concerns over the dynamic range of tape. What you could eventually pack onto vinyl could have all the definition of direct-to-disc, but in a way that side-stepped the inconveniences of direct-to-disc (i.e., get it right all in one take). The very first "digital recording" that I remember coming out (which I bought, and still own) was Ry Cooder's "Bop Til You Drop" (1979-80), which was only available on vinyl. Decent record, and a decent recording and performance of decent material. I'd expect no less of Cooder. It was impressive for its time, and we would play it for each other to show off "digital recording".

Still, the problem was that unless you exhibited tremendous care and had a great turntable with a tonearm and cartridge that could track accurately with a 1-2gram payload, the record and all that pristine sonic quality was simply not gonna last. Such was vinyl. Packing it onto tape would encounter less wear and tear (assuming your tape path was demagnetised, clean, and you didn't leave the cassette sitting on the black leather interior of your car on a hot sunny day), but the tremendous dynamic range that could be obtained via the digital process and careful pressing simply failed to show up on 1/8" cassette tape.

CDs showed up in 1982, though I didn't really start seeing them in the stores like Sam's or A&A until maybe a year later or so. Even though digital recording had been around for a few years, after the debacle of things like the Elcaset, the stakeholders in setting a standard took their time. I suppose it must have been much the same when the RIAAA standard for equalization of vinyl records was established too. That battle was repeated during the Beta-vs-VHS war and the more recent battle that ended up with Blue-Ray as victor.

The Wikipedia entry lists the first "portable" CD player as the Sony Discman D-50, released in 1984. Compared to contemporary portable listening devices, the D50 was to an MP3 player what the early Osborne "portable computer" is to the current crop of Atom-processor-based "notepad" computers. Few people nowadays would consider it either portable or convenient, but it _was_ smaller than a home hi-fi unit.

The audio history story I love to tell is one I've told here probably more than once. Around 1977 or 78, I was living in Hamilton, and went to this guy's house in Westdale in response to an ad. I forget whether I was buying equipment from him or selling it to him. The guy was an absolute audio maniac. He had cut 18" diameter holes in his living room floor so he could sink concrete pipes through the floor into the basement, for mounting the woofers in his listening area on the main floor. The pipes (about 10ft long) would provide an "appropriate" enclosure volume so that his speakers could reproduce all frequencies down to the marginally audible ones without any untoward resonances. So, this is someone "committed" to their equipment (and I'm sure his relatives felt he *ought* to have been committed - rim shot please). So, the guy and I are talking and he tells me with a wave of his hand, as he gestures to a small fortune's worth of audio gear, "You know, some day this will all be obsolete. You'll buy your music on a chip, and listen to it digitally." To which I thought, under my breath, "Yeah, right."

So, while there were some aspects of digital sound that did come in for convenience factors, the chief impetus for developing digital recording and playback technology was sound quality, and the advantages it held over tape and vinyl, both with respect to producing them in large quantities, plus the archival/lifespan factor (the ability to withstand multiple playings without progressively losing quality).

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.:smile:


----------



## Guest (Nov 7, 2009)

seanmj: speaking of convenience, I remember this "a ha" moment a few years ago when I realized that a click track wasn't for my (the player's) benefit in the studio -- it made the engineers job in the DAW a whole lot easier. And the "a ha" came because I was still using cassette and was marveling over the studios ProTools setup while the drummer was bitching about having to lock to a click.

Funny that. Up until that point I'd been thinking the click made the whole band better. Tighter and what not. But truth be told: a little wavering here and there on the tape wasn't so bad. But it didn't work well with the fancy digital environment the engineer was using when we recorded.

I'm also guilty of the analog emulator love. There was a plugin in Cubase SX 3 called Magneto that laid on the master buss, did magical things to recordings. I abused that heavily. It was supposed to make it feel like tape. Go figure. Kind of wish I could get it back for Logic on my Mac...


----------



## Guest (Nov 7, 2009)

mhammer said:


> The very first "digital recording" that I remember coming out (which I bought, and still own) was Ry Cooder's "Bop Til You Drop" (1979-80), which was only available on vinyl. Decent record, and a decent recording and performance of decent material. I'd expect no less of Cooder. It was impressive for its time, and we would play it for each other to show off "digital recording".


It was '84 or '85 when a CD player entered our house and along with it came two of what I was told at the time were excellent examples of digital. Telarc's recording of the Cincinatti Pops doing 1812 Overture. Repleat with "digital recordings of canons" and the warnings about having your speakers blown if you weren't careful. The other was Mannheim Steamroller's Fresh Aire III -- the "Cricket" track in particular. Those were the discs that got pulled out to show the whole thing off whenever my dad's friends came around. Ahh...the memories... :smile:


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

iaresee said:


> seanmj: speaking of convenience, I remember this "a ha" moment a few years ago when I realized that a click track wasn't for my (the player's) benefit in the studio -- it made the engineers job in the DAW a whole lot easier. And the "a ha" came because I was still using cassette and was marveling over the studios ProTools setup while the drummer was bitching about having to lock to a click.
> 
> Funny that. Up until that point I'd been thinking the click made the whole band better. Tighter and what not. But truth be told: a little wavering here and there on the tape wasn't so bad. But it didn't work well with the fancy digital environment the engineer was using when we recorded.
> 
> I'm also guilty of the analog emulator love. There was a plugin in Cubase SX 3 called Magneto that laid on the master buss, did magical things to recordings. I abused that heavily. It was supposed to make it feel like tape. Go figure. Kind of wish I could get it back for Logic on my Mac...


I guess a click track wouldn't work for the Stones. I read an interview with them and everyone (including Charlie Watts) follows Keith for the beat.


----------



## ajcoholic (Feb 5, 2006)

one thing I will never understand is how you can sell anyone a "power cable" (you know, the cable that connects the amp to the wall socket) for $200?

Our amps draw so little current (maybe 2 amps?) and all this cable does is provide 115 AC to the amp. Even the cheapest cords are rated for well over the max current draw.

Nothing else comes into play with the sound... nothing!

But they are obviously selling these, and people are therefore buyign them. Wow...kksjur

AJC

these are what we use...http://www.infinitecables.com/pow_ext.html

these are what people who get suckered in use...http://essentialsound.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=ES&Category_Code=PRO

all these endorsers saying the upgraded power cord gives less distortion, etc must be being paid a lot. Rubbish!

The SELLER claims:


* Bass Extension and Control

* Clarity and Resolution

* Midrange Sweetness

* Extended Treble

How exactly is this even possible? The AC supply cord has nothing to do with the sound shaping circuit, as long as the cable can supply the proper current to the xformer/power supply...


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

ajcoholic said:


> one thing I will never understand is how you can sell anyone a "power cable" (you know, the cable that connects the amp to the wall socket) for $200?
> 
> Our amps draw so little current (maybe 2 amps?) and all this cable does is provide 115 AC to the amp. Even the cheapest cords are rated for well over the max current draw.
> 
> ...


You gotta admit, they look a heck of a lot cooler! :smile:


----------



## Morbo (Aug 26, 2009)

Interesting article. When in comes to comparisons based on perception, it's important to keep in mind that the actual sound is not the only factor of importance. Depending on the person and situation, the actual sound of a device might not be that important in a person's evaluation of its sound quality. Let me illustrate that.

In a relatively old study, they asked 60 students to compare two colas in a "blind testing". One glass was labeled "S", the other was labeled "L". For one group, they put Coca-Cola in both glasses, for the other group, Pepsi. Every single one of them was comparing two identical "stimuli". 

They overwhelmingly chose the "S" labeled cola as the better tasting one.

In American consumers, Pepsi is usually selected as better tasting in a double-blind test. Unless people know what they're drinking, then it's Coca-Cola, by a wide margin.

If the difference between the letter "S" and "L" can make people perceive taste differently, is the difference *I* find between two audio systems, sets of speakers, analog and digital, etc., influenced by my expectations and semi-conscious biases? Absolutely. As much as I'd want to perceive things "as they are", it's just not possible. Double-blind tests will reveal preferences free of expectations (partially. If you know you're comparing a high-end system with a cheap one, you might find big differences between systems that sound similar), but in the end you're buying and using equipment knowing the brand and type. 

Everyone has these kinds of biases. EVERYONE. We just have to acknowledge them and try not to get fooled by manufacturers and advertisers when it comes to expensive equipment.


----------



## ajcoholic (Feb 5, 2006)

hollowbody said:


> You gotta admit, they look a heck of a lot cooler! :smile:


And one review says they are more flexible... wow thats worth $150!

I guess I just dont get the connection.

WHat bugs me is Elliot Easton's comment that "you wouldnt use the cheap guitar cord that comes with your beginner guitar - so why would you want to use the cheap power cord?".... well, its pretty much two totally different things Elliot. Shheeesh!kqoct

AJC


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

ajcoholic said:


> WHat bugs me is Elliot Easton's comment that "you wouldnt use the cheap guitar cord that comes with your beginner guitar - so why would you want to use the cheap power cord?"


He's a guitar player - they'll believe pretty much any ole mumbo-jumbo ! :smile:


----------



## WarrenG (Feb 3, 2006)

bagpipe said:


> He's a guitar player - they'll believe pretty much any ole mumbo-jumbo ! :smile:


Like the tone of a fingerboard on a solid-body electric guitar...


----------

