Advice on a budget!

[Eddie]

Eddie...what if you want the recording to sound as it was intended?

well that's the thing...HOW do we really know the artist's intentions? For all we know, the recording engineer, his headphones, and/or the studio's monitors and room acoustics might've all had their say in whatever ends up on the CD.

"To hear music as it was intended" is a great idea in theory but in practice it seems to me similar to someone claiming to have arrived at a "literal" interpretation of a religious text.

Bottom line is "whatever works best for you" IMHO, trite but true.

[bikeman]

"To hear music as it was intended" is a great idea in theory but in practice it seems to me similar to someone claiming to have arrived at a "literal" interpretation of a religious text.
Bottom line is "whatever works best for you" IMHO, trite but true.

Amen, Brother Eddie.

Reverend David

[Eddie]

Amen, Brother Eddie.

Reverend David

LOL!

[rajacat]

well that's the thing...HOW do we really know the artist's intentions? For all we know, the recording engineer, his headphones, and/or the studio's monitors and room acoustics might've all had their say in whatever ends up on the CD.

"To hear music as it was intended" is a great idea in theory but in practice it seems to me similar to someone claiming to have arrived at a "literal" interpretation of a religious text.

Bottom line is "whatever works best for you" IMHO, trite but true.

In my opinion, speaker manufactures should try to reproduce the music exactly as it was originally recorded and not try to "improve" it in any way. Of course this is an ideal which is impossible to achieve but to deliberately introduce affectations to make it more palatable to certain listeners is unethical. So the studio monitors, acoustics, extraneous noises, headphone characteristics and any other influences on upon the original recording should be reproduced as accurately as possible by any speakers that claim to be of audiophile quality. "Whatever works best for you" is trite because it ignores the artists intentions and surely the artist must give his approval to the final master after the sound engineers are finished with it.

[curtis]

I guess I should have said "What if you do not want to add or take away from the signal that is provided?"

In the end, I agree, it is what sounds best to the listener.

[bikeman]

In my opinion, speaker manufactures should try to reproduce the music exactly as it was originally recorded and not try to "improve" it in any way. Of course this is an ideal which is impossible to achieve but to deliberately introduce affectations to make it more palatable to certain listeners is unethical.

You'd put an awlful lot of folks out of business because you have the way and the only way. The rest are all heretics? This hobby is all about personal preferences. We don't all hear the same. Why must we all listen the same?

So the studio monitors, acoustics, extraneous noises, headphone characteristics and any other influences on upon the original recording should be reproduced as accurately as possible by any speakers that claim to be of audiophile quality. "Whatever works best for you" is trite because it ignores the artists intentions and surely the artist must give his approval to the final master after the sound engineers are finished with it.

The artist is not the one shelling out the money. If they want control after the product is complete, they don't need to sell it. Very, very few artists would be fond of that arrangement. Once we buy a copy, we can do as we wish (except make unlimited copies of our copy) with that copy. Everyone benefits. Nothing "unethical."

David

[rajacat]

David,

So are you saying that the speaker designer should not even try to reproduce the music as the artist/studio engineers intended? That might be in the tradition of the **** mass marketing people but , if I read the Ascend design philosophy correctly, my 340SE's were not designed to that criteria. This would be similar to a classical musician ignoring the composers score and just throwing in a few notes here and there because he thought that it "prettyfied" the composition. I'm not speaking in absolutes but surely there must be some coherent desigh philosopy.

[curtis]

I think what David is saying is that it is a matter of preference.

While some may want to hear what was actually recorded, there are other that enjoy changes.

There are definitely different design philosophies that emphasize this.

[rajacat]

Yeah, I guess that's true and there are people who prefer Ripple to Château Neuf de Pape...or whatever. Most artists don't want others tinkering with their creation. Why do any technical tests at all in anechoic chambers if somewhat objective criteria is not the goal?

[bikeman]

Why do any technical tests at all in anechoic chambers if somewhat objective criteria is not the goal?

Goals are diffifcult to realize without good data. Goals differ. Good data shouldn't. The anechoic chamber is data.
Any engineer will tell you it's all about compromises.

David