True sound? There are so many different types of recording though. A typical classical recording is trying to supply the sound of a live orchestra, for instance. But a typical multitracied pop recording isn't doing that at all. All the soundstage illusion is constructed by the engineer; placing of instruments etc.
But if we accept that the master is the final output of an artist/engineer combined effort, then surely the flatter the response of the home reproduction equipment the better, if you don't want to stray far from that master. My old Quad 303 had a form of tone controls, but they weren't designed for the listener's taste but to adjust for the the listening room.
Howard, you say "everything gets better, technology triumphs" but I thoroughly disagree. The mp3s you mention followed directly from CD. In every way from cursory listening to detailed measurements, they are showably worse. Convenience won out, not audibility.
It's rather like the chap I was once with who was a posture expert. He said, remember that any chair you sit on in a public venue has been designed to fold and/or stack efficiently, not to hold you properly.
Nick
MP3s are not lossless compression. They are in fact quite lossy. Modern recordings will be made in most cases on digital equipment to allow for adjustments as have been described. The finished "product" whether studio or live is surely digital but correct me if I am wrong. Playing this at home after it has been losslessly compressed has to be the nearest thing to what was intended. Putting into the mix crude old technology like vinyl , and why vinyl and not wax, plus thermionic valve amplifiers is at best altering what the studio put out.. As indeed you say in your first paragraph.
As for " you say "everything gets better, technology triumphs" but I thoroughly disagree" I give you trad Morgan suspension and brakes. Not to mention chassis and waterproofing.
Well Howard, I was directly addressing your statement "That said, I am not a hi fi buff being happy to listen to mp3 tracks via earbuds down at the gym. And I have never believed in "old". The world moves on, everything gets better, technology triumphs whilst old is just that - old."
Mp3 sound is rubbish. I wasn't referring to lossless digital.
However it remains a fact that analogue recording captures the sound wave with no breaks. Digital recording samples small pieces of a soundwave and reconstructs those pieces. However often you sample you still have lots of joins and that's what makes it ultimately unsatisfying perhaps. More samples equals more gaps. A professional photographer client of mine explained to me the same argument as it affects photographs. He said, every pixel has a black border around it. So every time you increase the number of pixels you also increase the number of borders. So, for him, it never gets as good as an analogue film image which is complete.
Obviously, the current trend for producing analogue lp discs from a digital recording is emperor's new clothes, but a genuine analogue recording undigitalised is something else.
Another client of mine is an expert in old gramophones with huge horns (ooer missus), fascinating bloke, house full of enormous 78 players from goodness knows when. When he plays an old recording done straight into a reverse horn mike onto the disc the sound is absolutely amazing. It's holographic or something. Of course, there's alot of hiss, but the brain soon ignores that. It's a spooky sound.
By the way, I'm with Tim about valve amps, all those added sweet harmonics that the valves produce sound lovely but are ultimately distortion. A really good transistor amp wins for me and allows far more power to feed those stunning Quad speakers in a relaxed manner.
Obvs, all just my opinion, not claiming any moral higher ground.
Nick
