[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?
Guys, could you take this "my penis is bigger than yours" argument
private? It's getting kind of boring.
Or at least change the subject heading.
On Oct 18, 2008, at 4:29 PM, Clark Johnsen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Rob Poretti <r.poretti@cube-
A few of these facilities use those $1000+ AC cables. I did not
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
Again, the studio environment... these are not listening studios,
recording (or mastering) studios.
RP) I'm sorry, but I beg to differ and I believe most audio
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
these authorities? Is it not the case, that they are a self-chosen
which case... well... I'm not so sure *I'd* appeal to *them!*
And earlier I named two prominent and successful engineers who are
on my side.
Besides all that, I'm an Audio Engineering Society Lifetime Member,
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
translation to the outside world) might be different then in a
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
and pejoratively worded, but wholly untriangulated in Wiki's own
But everyone has* felt* so captious over what they *feel* is the
of the referenced claim, they've seized on that rather than discuss
unreasonableness of its use in the Wiki context. Which was* my*
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
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
Do I understand by your comments that the "major
improvements" that you discerned did not require ABX listening
"Require"? As stated earlier, ABX only blurs the distinctions.
Someone locally here once told me he'd done a DBT that proved to
confidence level, that insertion of the ABX box was audible. I
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
transparent ABX boxes and the nice thing about them is they provide
lens for both "A" and "B" - that's why they are valid in critical
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
audible the difference was - was it instant or was it difficult to
determine? I think you could see the intent of my question.
Sales Engineer - Archiving
Cube-Tec North America