Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?

[Clark Johnsen <clarkjohnsen@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Rob Poretti <r.poretti@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> <SNIP>
> > 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
> as
> > "major improvements".
>
> Again, the studio environment... these are not listening studios, these are
> recording (or mastering) studios.
> <SNIP>
>
> 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
> genre.)


And mastering rooms aren't designed by persons? Persons with, ah,
preferences?

>
>
> 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.


Awww.....

clark

>
>
>
>
>
> <SNIP>
> 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
> same
> 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
> valid?
> 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.
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> Rob Poretti
> Sales Engineer - Archiving
> Cube-Tec North America
> Vox.905.827.0741
> Fax.905.901.9996
> Cel.905-510.6785
>
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
>