I would like to hear what the performer originally intended....
The performance as performed, recorded, checked by the performer then mastered by the engineer and confirmed/verified by the performer.
That is my ultimate goal / idea of perfection in audio.
If the original performance was dreadful - then the end result should sound just as dreadful, and if the original performance was pure genius then that should be reproduced too.
Given that I cannot directly compare via A / B the actual live performance (which in some cases occurred before my birth) with the recording, I am dependent on technical measurements to define, configure, adjust, or select components for my audio system.
I have no control over the recording, mastering and production (pressing) - all that I can ensure is that I take all the necessary steps to ensure that a signal recorded in a certain way, is also reproduced in the same way.
To that end the RIAA, DIN and IEC released a whole bunch of standards... including the speed of rotation of the record, equalisation of the signal, etc...
One could of course play a 33.33rpm record at 38rpm - and many might find this a very pleasant experience - this is of course what many DJ's do with the pitch controls....
But the end result is no longer an attempt to reproduce the original recording, instead it is using the original recording as a component of a new artwork - the new artwork is of course a mashup, or collage if you like - and it might be very fine - but it is no longer the original work.
When you go and listen to something - it may sound good, or it may sound bad... how do you know whether it accurately reflects the original??
If this does not matter to you... and as per the collage - you only care about your personal end result - then stop right here, go no further, why waste your time?
The purely subjective listening approach, will invariably deviate from the "reproduction" goal, and, as the listeners tastes change over time, the systems sound will also change over time, which direction the system goes in will be completely driven by the individual taste of the listener.
And if the listener enjoys the outcome then more strength to him - may he enjoy it to the full.
In my opinion the end result is almost invariably "audio roulette" (somewhat like russian roulette) - pick a component, you like how it sounds, put it into your system, and it will change the sound in a relatively random manner - keep selecting components that randomly alter the system (of course that randomness is only from a specification/measurement and neutrality seeking approach) - end result will of course, from a neutrality seeking approach perspective, be completely random - "audio roulette".
For the rest of it - the technical side, and the search for perfection, is its own and quite seperate hobby, from the hobby of listening to music. - The two are obviously related, but they are quite distinct.
Through measurement and analysis I have come to understand my system far better than I once did (when I used to use the subjective listening approach...).
Changes that were then done in a non random manner - by analysing flaws, and targeting adjustments/variations to resolve them - have almost invariably been effective.
For example - I placed the TT needle on the TT plynth to use it as a sensor and detect parasitic vibrations, feedback and footfall.... measurement.
Then I started varying the footers, platform an rack - I had many options, as I had been trying to resolve my isolation problem for a long time, and in the process I had purchased various platforms, sorbothane pads, sorbothane domes, rubber pucks, magnetic levitation feet, various spike feet, etc.. etc...
But the random number of possible permutations and combinations of all these different components is simply astronomical. Testing each variation by ear, requires spending an extended amount of time with each configuration (on the order of hours) - to identify differences in differing performance aspects. (tracking impact, high frequency impact, stability of piano notes, bass solidity, imaging, etc...)
Having already spend many months on the exercise with relatively minor improvements, I started measuring... once I had worked out how to measured the desired phenomenon - It then took me a few minutes per configuration to test a whole bunch of them.
I varied each level in my setup (floor interaction/interconnection, platform to rack, turntable to platform) individually, and swapped my various options around until each was optimised before moving to the next.
The end result was that after months of playing audio roulette and never "scoring", I worked through the whole thing in a weekend, and reduced vibration impact on the turntable by over 20db.
Now I can no longer hear my partner walking around the house through the music on the turntable (!!) - but also the imaging and soundstage remains stable, and piano notes are more solid/real.
So why do I want to know all those specs, figures and numbers? - Because it enables me to model the behaviour of my system, and through that mathematical modeling, I can then do "what if" analysis - what would happen to my system if I change parameter X, or component Y.
With decent modelling, I can go through large numbers of possible permutations and combinations of components in a relatively negligible amount of time - and then when I make a physical change, the chances of achieving my audible goal are increase by several orders of magnitude.
With the right knowledge, I can look at the specifications of an arm a cartridge and a phono stage, and make an informed judgement as to whether the combination is likely to work together effectively.
That judgement is of course only as good as the level of detail in the mathematical model I am using - the more variables I have missed, the more random the result.
Getting back to tracking ability, impedance, VTF etc...
These are normally the details that a cartridge design engineer worries about - they are the parameters that the cartridge designer has to contend with, and balance to produce the AN IO-M cartridge, or the Audio Technica AT95 cartridge.... (balanced obviously by manufacturing and budgetary constraints).
With a thorough understanding of these parameters - supported by the process of measuring, and listening to a library of over 100 cartridges which I have now, I gain the ability to with some degree of accuracy, predict what a given type/design/specification of cartridge is likely to sound like.
Personally I find this fascinating and rewarding in its own right.
And so far the result of the process is that my system is sounding substantially better!
The sound is its own goal...
The data is its own goal too... (I admit to being a geek...
)
But with the data, the likelihood of improving the sound is increased by several orders of magnitude.
I hope that makes my personal approach clear....
As a vinyl beginner, I purchased the "best" I could. (which was defined as what the salesman told me was best, and what I thought sounded good while being within my budget...)
I then worked for a while in Audio, and spent a lot of time listening to various gear, and visiting competing stores to hear what they had to offer, and what other systems could/did sound like.
Further years of experimenting and listening taught me more, but things/results were still relatively random (or required enormous amounts of time listening to many many components to achieve anything).
It is only over the last 3 years that I started truly measuring - after I realised that the now ubiquitous computer was a complete audio measurement lab for almost no cost... - And that process is definitely not one for beginners, unless they are very very geeky...
bye for now
David
