Do equipment stands have an impact on electronics?

There is a select group of professional recording engineers now working who are considered the best in the business, responsible for some of the best sounding recordings ever made---lifelike instrumental timbre, high resolution and transparency, who can record on any equipment they choose. They have no allegiance to any system, just to getting the best sound possible. One such engineer is Kavi Alexander of Water Lily Records, located in Santa Barbara California.

Kavi not only continues to prefer analog tape to digital (though higher bit rates and sampling frequencies---24/192, are narrowing the gap), but he uses a very customized recorder that employs tubes! He does so NOT because of any "musical distortion" the recorder adds to the direct mic feed, but for the exact opposite reason---it is the most transparent, least distortion-adding method of recording he has found.

Kavi’s has produced some of the most astonishingly lifelike recordings ever made, including the Grammy Award-winning "A Meeting By The River", on which master slide guitarist Ry Cooder plays. Ry is VERY serious about the sound of his guitars (both live and recorded), which led him to make the first digitally recorded Pop (non-Classical) album, Bop Til You Drop. He HATED it! When he heard a Water Lily label recording he asked "Why don’t my records sound this good?". He sought out Mr. Alexander, and plans were undertaken to make the AMBTR album. It is World Music, and one of the handful of best recordings I’ve ever heard..

The Water Lily recorder’s tube circuits were designed by Tim Paravicini, who has also done work for the David Gilmore/Pink Floyd Studio in London, considered one of the best in the world. Tim also designs consumer Hi-Fi products for EAR-Yoshino, including tube pre-amps, power amps, and digital products. EAR-Yoshino has one phono pre-amp that is all solid state, which Tim preferred in that application. He, like Kavi, generally prefers tubes to solid state, not for their "musical distortion", but for their sonic superiority. One may disagree with that preference, but one can not truthfully claim that their preference is based on a desire for "musical distortion".

Thanks for that. I own Indian Architecture and agree his recordings are magnificent.....

FWIW, the fact that trace amounts of the 7th order causes a metallic quality in the sound is something that has been known since the 1930s. So I don't see it as any stretch at all to simply acknowledge that such could be the case. I really don't want to devote more time going round and round on the topic than you do.

Reference?  How did they arrive at that conclusion?

Agear
Atmasphere: FWIW, the fact that trace amounts of the 7th order causes a metallic quality in the sound is something that has been known since the 1930s. So I don’t see it as any stretch at all to simply acknowledge that such could be the case. I really don’t want to devote more time going round and round on the topic than you do.

Reference? How did they arrive at that conclusion?

Really. Besides, lots of things cause that metallic quality. E.g., RFI/EMI, vibration, background scattered light. As I’ve oft stated, in addition to that metallic quality there’s that thin quality, the rolled off quality, the bass shy quality, the congealed pablum quality, the screechy irritating quality, the electronic quality, the boring empty quality, the recorded-in-a-barrel quality, the uninterleaved quality. I trust I’m not the only one who hears it, am I?

Really. Besides, lots of things cause that metallic quality. E.g., RFI/EMI, vibration, background scattered light. As I’ve oft stated, in addition to that metallic quality there’s that thin quality, the rolled off quality, the bass shy quality, the congealed pablum quality, the screechy irritating quality, the electronic quality, the boring empty quality, the recorded-in-a-barrel quality, the uninterleaved quality. I trust I’m not the only one who hears it, am I?

Agreed 100%.  RFI/EMI is a biggie although a lot of people think that's hogwash as well (along with the subject of this thread).  

Yes, thanks Ralph, Merry X’s and Happy Holidays to all of you. Even the haters. I never get angry about this stuff. Really. I mostly just enjoy the challenge of explaining things to those who are clearly reluctant to learn. So this is my last comment for now:

As always, a believer (you) when challenged to describe a test he’s willing to take, finds a reason to avoid being tested at all. Ralph, the only analog source I have is a cassette deck, and I have an acoustic guitar. So you tell me exactly how to add gated hash noise while I capture my playing to tape in a way that challenges you to identify the noise, and I’ll send it to you. Or any other very specific and practical scenario you can describe. If you’re unable to describe any practical test I can give you (or others here) that lets you prove you can hear what you claim, I’ll be very disappointed in you (though not surprised).

But really, your claim is disingenuous on its face. All my Artifact Audibility test attempts to show is at what level below music a nasty sounding artifact can be heard. It has nothing to do with digital always adding disturbing artifacts, or whatever it is you believe. If that were even true, those artifacts would show up when recording and playing back a pure sine wave, or some other known source. So already your claim is easily proven false using basic audio test equipment. I should have posted this link earlier:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM

Therefore, your criticism of my test is not based on logic, but rather on a denial of basic audio principles. You can’t hear stuff when it’s 80 dB down! And in most cases you can’t even hear it when it’s 40 dB down. If you can’t hear that nasty noise when it’s 40-60 dB below the music, then you can’t hear any of the other stuff you claim people hear that makes digital sound unappealing. I’m sure you realize this. Either that, or you’re engaging in magical thinking. So please let’s resolve this so you can prove your point. If I’m wrong I’ll gladly admit it. Heck, I need to know if I’m wrong! I doubt I am, but I’d like to know for sure.