Re: [ARSCLIST] Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy

["Steven C. Barr" <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Smolian" <smolians@xxxxxxxxx>
> It is my unshakable belief that any sound combination originating by the
> assembling of electronic signals- systhesizer, electric guitar, etc.,
should
> never be used for calibration or dispassionate testing of speakers.  There
> is simply no real-life experience of that sound to use for comparison.
> Cowbells are fine.
On the other hand, I've been listening to electric guitars for about 40
years...and I know what one should sound like. I can see what may be part
of your point...in that an electric guitar sound depends on the settings of
its controls, the settings of the amp's controls, and which if any outboard
effects were used. I can listen to a guitarist I'm familiar with, and know
what he should sound like...but there is no platonic ideal of what "an
electric guitar" in general sounds like.

Then, again, the sound of any instrument can vary substantially according
to the acoustic effects of the venue in which it is played...if you put
the trumpeter in the corner of the studio, it will probably sound somewhat
different than in the exact center!

> Similarly, trying to make a flat final equalization in the studio of a
> recorded event can be altered by the vagueries of frequency distribution
> from a non-analog original source.  That's fine for listening if the
> non-realistic distribution is intended but hopeless if using the source to
> calbrate in such manner as to be able for the user to trust its linearity.
And this would also apply to analog sources...an acoustic recording of a
trumpet is analog, but it sounds completely different from an electric
recording of the same event...?

Steven C. Barr