subjectivity and sound quality idea

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

i-tunes doesn't give you the same kind of fidelity (especially on your
example... cymbals). Also, how it sounds will depend on what you're
listening on.

Too many variables to make this a non-starter. A better approach is to
compile a universal list of well recorded, well engineered, good sounding
albums, and a list of badly recorded, badly engineered, bad sounding albums
in all genres, then you go out and buy a bunch of each that fit your genre,
and test the speakers to see which ones YOU like the sound of best, and
check that the bad albums do in fact still sound bad. The latter, obviously
because if it all sounds good, its not a true representation, and is not
going to help you as an engineer.

Unfortunately, there is also a flaw in my plan. No one would be able to
agree on a list.




--
www.richiebee.ca
www.funkydory.ca

"cporro" <cporro@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122141652.831443.20010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> like many others i have often asked the question "which sounds better?"
> and usually people come back with the sound is subjective argument.
> which i agree with. my idea is that perhaps people could use a
> reference to some popular work describing the sound. for example,
> "these converters sound kinda harsh like the cymbols on the album
> frying bacon by johnny and the 8 bits." that way someone can go to
> itunes and take a listen for themselves hopefully remoing some of the
> subjectivity. i know i know. its more work, but may be helpful.
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

cporro <cporro@gmail.com> wrote:
>like many others i have often asked the question "which sounds better?"
>and usually people come back with the sound is subjective argument.
>which i agree with. my idea is that perhaps people could use a
>reference to some popular work describing the sound. for example,
>"these converters sound kinda harsh like the cymbols on the album
>frying bacon by johnny and the 8 bits." that way someone can go to
>itunes and take a listen for themselves hopefully remoing some of the
>subjectivity. i know i know. its more work, but may be helpful.

Stereophile did a glossary some years ago to give people a basic reference
list of subjective terms that would mean similar things to different people.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Rich" <dizNOSPAM@funkydory.ca> wrote:

>i-tunes doesn't give you the same kind of fidelity (especially on your
>example... cymbals). Also, how it sounds will depend on what you're
>listening on.
>
>Too many variables to make this a non-starter. A better approach is to
>compile a universal list of well recorded, well engineered, good sounding
>albums, and a list of badly recorded, badly engineered, bad sounding albums
>in all genres, then you go out and buy a bunch of each that fit your genre,
>and test the speakers to see which ones YOU like the sound of best, and
>check that the bad albums do in fact still sound bad. The latter, obviously
>because if it all sounds good, its not a true representation, and is not
>going to help you as an engineer.
>
>Unfortunately, there is also a flaw in my plan. No one would be able to
>agree on a list.

Well, a lot of us used the rec.audio.pro compilations to define some
sounds in the past, and we all seemed to agree that some of the sounds
on those compilation sets served as standards (or at least high marks)
to shoot for.

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/