Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 83
  1. #26
    Forum Regular pixelthis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    tuscaloosa
    Posts
    5,528

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    So if you had a choice between wearing a dirty new shirt or a clean but slightly bleached shirt which would you wear?

    So let's apply the dirty new shirt VS clean but slightly bleached shirt phenomenon to audio:

    There is an argument that digital cleans all the dirt off analog, but goes a bit too far and bleaches out the sound... so basically an analog recording will have all the sound but also a layer of dirt on top (literally and figuratively), while digital will be perfectly clean but miss a touch of the sound...

    So in the case of audio, if you had to choose between preserving all the sound but with some distortion (dirt) added or removing all the disortion and possibly losing a touch of the sound, what would you choose?

    Note: This is not meant to be a bash of either digital or analog formats... The way I see it is that too much dirt would distort the music so much that it doesn't sound like the original... On the other hand, too much bleaching would end up with just the barest oultine of what the original sounded like... So essentially a slightly dirty sound might be more faithful to the original than a highly bleached one, and a slightly bleached sound might be more faithful than a very dirty one...
    Its the same as the old joke about asking an old farmer on the side of the road for
    directions, and he says..."Well, you can't get there from here".
    In other words you start out with a flawed premise and get even more off the beam as you go along.
    Analog is not "dirty", but analog formats have their shortcomings. The best recording
    used to be reel to reel copies of studio masters.
    I HAVE several records that are "direct" copies from masters, don't know how much hype
    is involved, but they not only sound great, they used to freak cassette freaks out
    when they asked why I still messed with them, they were so good.
    Digital, on the other hand, is not meant to "clean" anything, but as a result of its nature
    of just reproducing music and leaving junk behind, that happens sometimes
    What the digital haters decry is the "non musical sound", which they derive from their feelings and "intuition". Digital is just a better way of doing things, thats all.
    I imagine that when we started driving cars there were old farts that wouldn't give up their
    horses, there are always some stubborn types that refuse to change.
    THEY love playing with their turntables, their old records, imagining nuances in the sound
    that a German Shepard couldn't discern, and they are quite harmless, really.
    I still listen to records, because I have records collected over a lifetime that are irreplaceable, but I am not so delusional as to think for a minute that they are superiour
    to even the most roughly recorded party mix CD .
    Thats just not reality, and it has nothing to do with analog being "dirty" and Digital being
    "clean". Either can be clean or dirty. THE QUESTION is, which is better, and thats digital,
    of course. Even commuter prop planes use turbines, only the cheapest planes use
    piston engines, because progress marches on. A man from 1850 would find a
    turntable from 1960 incomprehensible, and a man from 1960 would have a hard time believing that I have over a hundred albums on an eight gig USB drive smaller than a cigarette lighter. Whats sad is that the guy from 1960 would probably embrace the USB drive as a fantastic invention from the future, while the analog crowd decry it as "crap".
    Analog record lovers can hang onto their tube "sound" and ultra expensive turntables
    forever, its a free country, but they are already irrelevant.
    SO ARE most audiophiles, for that matter. The future has arrived , and you carry it in your pocket.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    LG 42", integra 6.9, B&W 602s2, CC6 center, dm305rears, b&w
    sub asw2500
    Panny DVDA player
    sharp Aquos BLU player
    pronto remote, technics antique direct drive TT
    Samsung SACD/DVDA player
    emotiva upa-2 two channel amp

  2. #27
    Suspended atomicAdam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oaktown!
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by pixelthis
    but I am not so delusional as to think for a minute that they are superiour
    to even the most roughly recorded party mix CD .
    Thats just not reality, and it has nothing to do with analog being "dirty" and Digital being
    "clean". Either can be clean or dirty. THE QUESTION is, which is better, and thats digital,
    of course. Even commuter prop planes use turbines, only the cheapest planes use
    piston engines, because progress marches on. A man from 1850 would find a
    turntable from 1960 incomprehensible, and a man from 1960 would have a hard time believing that I have over a hundred albums on an eight gig USB drive smaller than a cigarette lighter. Whats sad is that the guy from 1960 would probably embrace the USB drive as a fantastic invention from the future, while the analog crowd decry it as "crap".
    Analog record lovers can hang onto their tube "sound" and ultra expensive turntables
    forever, its a free country, but they are already irrelevant.
    SO ARE most audiophiles, for that matter. The future has arrived , and you carry it in your pocket.
    I'm curious what high end analog sourced systems you've heard. Could you please give me some examples of system in the $100,000k+ level you've heard? Either tape sourced or turntable sourced.

  3. #28
    frenchmon frenchmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    St. Charles Mo
    Posts
    3,271

    Not so Fast Ajani...you know this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    What kind of audiophile are you??? Enjoy the music does not compute!!! You're supposed to listen for the most minor imperfections in every aspect of your system... Now go sit in the corner of shame, with your dunce cap on!!!
    lol your to funny Ajani.


    Seriously though, just enjoying the music is the death of audiophilia... The more you are able to just enjoy the music, the less desire you have to upgrade equipment... It's why I find it so amusing when persons in our hobby hate on the iPod generation (many of whom just enjoy the music - thousands of albums) for not wanting to spend thousands (or tens or hundreds of thousands) of dollars on a HiFi setup...

    So once you talk about just enjoying the music, any audiophile analysis dies a bitter, cold death...
    Ah...IF you read the posting again youd understand that I said good gear...nothing good about an iPOD...I have a portable music player and really cant sit down in my sweet spot with a nice beverage after a hard days work and enjoy the music the way I want to Ajani. Whats the point spending hundred and thosands of dollars on good gear if you dont listen to what it can do? Being an audio hobbyist is more than just listening critically and looking at written stats. No sir...You see, we look at written stats and then listen critically first to see if it meets our expectations...if so, then we enjoy.

    A football team has to play as a team to get good results....oh yes they have their individual parts but they must play as a team. Same with music most of the time, unless you are listing to a solo. When I listen critically, I want to hear the mid range. Is it recessed or to forward? I want to listen to the bottom end...is it sloppy like the Sanus Fabers? Or does it have great control but sometimes over powering like I think Dynaudio's are? I want to listen to the high frequencies...will they make my ears bleed after hours of listenig like the BMW CM series? IF all the individual parts are doing what I want them to do, them I sit down and enjoy my friend. Just like I have analyzed critcally the Stello DAC 100 Signature and the Stello CDT 100 Transport and the Musical Fidelity XRAY/Stello DAC 100 Signature together....now I can sit back in my easy chair/sweet spot and enjoy.

    Thank for the conversation Ajani.
    Music...let it into your soul and be moved....with Canton...Pure Music


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    W10 i5 Quad core processor 8GB RAM/Jriver 20/ Fidelizer Optimizer/ iFI Micro DSD DAC-iUSB 3.0/Vincent SA - T1/Vincent SP-331 MK /MMF-7.1/2M BLACK/MS Phenomena ll+/Canton Vento 830.2

  4. #29
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by frenchmon
    lol your to funny Ajani.




    Ah...IF you read the posting again youd understand that I said good gear...nothing good about an iPOD...I have a portable music player and really cant sit down in my sweet spot with a nice beverage after a hard days work and enjoy the music the way I want to Ajani. Whats the point spending hundred and thosands of dollars on good gear if you dont listen to what it can do? Being an audio hobbyist is more than just listening critically and looking at written stats. No sir...You see, we look at written stats and then listen critically first to see if it meets our expectations...if so, then we enjoy.

    A football team has to play as a team to get good results....oh yes they have their individual parts but they must play as a team. Same with music most of the time, unless you are listing to a solo. When I listen critically, I want to hear the mid range. Is it recessed or to forward? I want to listen to the bottom end...is it sloppy like the Sanus Fabers? Or does it have great control but sometimes over powering like I think Dynaudio's are? I want to listen to the high frequencies...will they make my ears bleed after hours of listenig like the BMW CM series? IF all the individual parts are doing what I want them to do, them I sit down and enjoy my friend. Just like I have analyzed critcally the Stello DAC 100 Signature and the Stello CDT 100 Transport and the Musical Fidelity XRAY/Stello DAC 100 Signature together....now I can sit back in my easy chair/sweet spot and enjoy.

    Thank for the conversation Ajani.
    I'd love to hear your setup... I had the same experiences with both Dynaudio and the B&W CM line...

    For some persons (audiophiles) a certain amount of money has to be spent before they can just sit down and enjoy the music... However, other persons can just enjoy it straight from a stock iPod.... The driving factor in audiophilia is dissatisfaction with the sound quality (or obsession with electronics)... Once you reach that state of satisfaction then you can just enjoy the music and stop thinking about the next upgrade...

  5. #30
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by atomicAdam
    This one time in band camp.....

    No seriously though - this one show I was at, I was sick and not really feeling well and it was this god awful boring Brazilian soft folk singing absolute crap (IMHO) (was there for a girl - it was hot while it lasted - anyways) the snare drum was so sharp and pricing it felt like it was being played six inches from my face. It was a truly awful experience. And to that point I don't like a system that replicated this amount of live. I'm very sorry, but I don't often goto live/acoustic or not/ shows because the sound is so awful. I like a system at home, where I can take a poorly recorded (sharp in this case) record and listen to it. Sometimes the music is awesome and the recording engineer is deaf.

    I give props to a system that can reflect the annoying and awfulness of a live event, but the reason why I have a great system at home is so that I can enjoy the music.

    Anyways - just my two cents.
    If you choose to "improve" the poorer albums, you don't hear the better albums at their best. My choice is to hear the best albums at their best and let poorer albums be revealed for what they are.

  6. #31
    frenchmon frenchmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    St. Charles Mo
    Posts
    3,271

    Ajani!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    I'd love to hear your setup... I had the same experiences with both Dynaudio and the B&W CM line...

    For some persons (audiophiles) a certain amount of money has to be spent before they can just sit down and enjoy the music... However, other persons can just enjoy it straight from a stock iPod.... The driving factor in audiophilia is dissatisfaction with the sound quality (or obsession with electronics)... Once you reach that state of satisfaction then you can just enjoy the music and stop thinking about the next upgrade...
    Thank you Ajani...the Stello Outfit was a loner from a good audio friend who gave me the privilege of listening to his fine gear...he also sent me his Rega integated amp and his Blue Marble speaker wire and BM interconnects. This set up is outstanding...so I have been having all kinds of fun matching his gear with my gear...breaking it all down and putting other combinations of mine and his gear together....oh yeah...listening critically for spells and then enjoying even for longer spells.....I love this hobby.
    Music...let it into your soul and be moved....with Canton...Pure Music


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    W10 i5 Quad core processor 8GB RAM/Jriver 20/ Fidelizer Optimizer/ iFI Micro DSD DAC-iUSB 3.0/Vincent SA - T1/Vincent SP-331 MK /MMF-7.1/2M BLACK/MS Phenomena ll+/Canton Vento 830.2

  7. #32
    Sgt. At Arms Worf101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Troy, New York
    Posts
    4,288

    Welp...

    My problem is this. I'm old enough to have been around when "Hi Fi" challenged mono. I was also in the park when stereo supplanted both. But musical fidelity wasn't even a concept to us as we were busy dancing and singing along to portable record players with quarters strapped to the back of the tone arm. I know/knew analog was imperfect when we played certain .45's so long the grooves literally seemed to disappear but it was all we had till Cassettes and 8 tracks came along. They lasted what seemed a hot minute, well mebbe longer in terms of Cassettes, before being cast aside in favor of a new, all digital media, the CD.

    I'm not nostalgic for the "good old days" of analog because for me, there were no good ole days, just varying levels of snap, crackle, pop, drone and whirr. I've never heard a world class analog set up. Perhaps one day I will, but until I do the question is moot. I prefer my music without bacon frying in the background, simple as that.

    Worf

  8. #33
    _ Luvin Da Blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    _
    Posts
    1,951
    I think I see the problem with your attempts at vinyl playback.

    Quote Originally Posted by Worf101
    .......... as we were busy dancing and singing along to portable record players with quarters strapped to the back of the tone arm...............just varying levels of snap, crackle, pop, drone and whirr.

    Worf
    Back in my day, we had nine planets.

  9. #34
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Worf101
    My problem is this. I'm old enough to have been around when "Hi Fi" challenged mono. I was also in the park when stereo supplanted both. But musical fidelity wasn't even a concept to us as we were busy dancing and singing along to portable record players with quarters strapped to the back of the tone arm. I know/knew analog was imperfect when we played certain .45's so long the grooves literally seemed to disappear but it was all we had till Cassettes and 8 tracks came along. They lasted what seemed a hot minute, well mebbe longer in terms of Cassettes, before being cast aside in favor of a new, all digital media, the CD.

    I'm not nostalgic for the "good old days" of analog because for me, there were no good ole days, just varying levels of snap, crackle, pop, drone and whirr. I've never heard a world class analog set up. Perhaps one day I will, but until I do the question is moot. I prefer my music without bacon frying in the background, simple as that.

    Worf
    Those are good points... Often when audiophiles talk about the 'superior' sound of analog and tubes they are referring to state of the art/ultra expensive gear... Then they claim the mass market is deaf for preferring digital and SS... Yet they neglect that in the price ranges the mass market shop, Digital and SS sound far superior to the analog and tube alternatives of the day... an iPod sounds far superior to the Sony Walkman I had as a child...

  10. #35
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Worf101
    I prefer my music without bacon frying in the background, simple as that.

    Worf
    (spews coffee all over laptop) You son of a...you owe me one shiny new MacBook Pro.


    There's still a few weeks left, but early in Round 12, Worf lands a strong left hook in the fight for Quote of the Year.

    Someone get me some napkins.

  11. #36
    Suspended atomicAdam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oaktown!
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    If you choose to "improve" the poorer albums, you don't hear the better albums at their best. My choice is to hear the best albums at their best and let poorer albums be revealed for what they are.
    Feanor -

    I agree with you - but there is a fine line at times - what I actually prefer is having enough equipment to compensate for a poor recording.

    Really the only sounds that drive me nuts in poor recordings are highs. Some amps ride that border line of reproducing those sharp highs, like live sound, very well, when they are in the recording. And if they pop up and go away as a horn flares or a drummer really has at it, that is fine, I appreciate that. But if they whole recording crosses that border than it is too much. Thankfully most recordings don't, but is nice to be able to change some gear around when it does.

    For instance, Right now I have the PrimaLuna Prologue Premium in and the Melody MK88. Both tube amps, similar price, different tube sets and different sounds. One of them, on poor recordings, is just too much, I can't listen to it. The other on poor recordings softens out those shrieking highs and turns albums like The Thermals - Blood Body Machine - into something I can listen too. Or tames the vocals on a Afro-beat mix vinyl I have. I like being able to listen to music I buy, instead of saying, damn, I wish I could listen to that $40 I just spent, but I can't. So there is a fine line between comfort and reality. The reason why most people live in their own little bubble, myself included, is that reality isn't also perfect or enjoyable. And since the audiophile technophoria that seeks perfection is, as i see it, a never ending road called burning money, I choose to look for a system that plays the well recorded albums very well, captivatingly well, and controls a bit of the poor recorded ones.

    Look, if you get all hot and bothered over the latest in hi-fi technology, than sure enough, go after that. Spend your money, because the technology is what gets you off, not the music. Where as for me, I love the music, and I want to hear it on a really good system, a great system, and system that makes me blow my mind every time I hear it, but that doesn't have to mean it is a system that perfectly mirrors reality.

    Though, that doesn't mean I can't give systems like that props. There is something absolutely enjoyable when the reality is in cohesion with my ears. But if I was to spend money, I'd want something that I can always enjoy.

  12. #37
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    (spews coffee all over laptop) You son of a...you owe me one shiny new MacBook Pro.


    There's still a few weeks left, but early in Round 12, Worf lands a strong left hook in the fight for Quote of the Year.

    Someone get me some napkins.
    Here Kex,(hands over the napkins). I am mad as hell at worf, he just made me so hungry with the bacon comment. I love bacon.....damn I want some.....I HATE YOU WORF!
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  13. #38
    Class of the clown GMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Anywhere but here...
    Posts
    13,243
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    (spews coffee all over laptop) You son of a...you owe me one shiny new MacBook Pro.


    There's still a few weeks left, but early in Round 12, Worf lands a strong left hook in the fight for Quote of the Year.

    Someone get me some napkins.
    What a mess.
    WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

  14. #39
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    The problem, IMHO, is greatly exacerbated by recording practice. It is common practice to record acoustic performance with numerous microphones placed very close to the performers. How easy, then, is it for this practice to deliver the 5th row center, audience perspective? The answer is not very, and some producers & sound engineers are a lot more successful than others. The close-up sound is generally more strident than one hears in the typical orchestra section seat where multiple reflect sounds with different volumes and time delays merge together to soften the sound.
    Feanor, I would like to add that not every close miked recording sounds strident, and it is not always advisable(or even possible) to do a 5th row recording. A 5th row perspective in a concert hall is just one perspective.

    Sometimes the best venues for recording are not available, and you have to make a second choice. That second choice may have all kinds of acoustical problems, but it available with a reasonable cost. The acoustics of the room may be too expensive to alter with temporary treatments, so the room acoustical signature must be avoided altogether. You close mike in this case so you can control what goes on the drive or tape. Keeping the room in the equation when it sound is lacking, just means a ton of adjustments in post. I personally prefer to record up close, than to have to make a ton of adjustments in post production. Sometimes the venue reverberation time is too long, and putting microphones in the 5th row would muddy the recording. I can name(and have been in) a ton of situations that require close mike recording to avoid the acoustics of the hall itself.

    The problem with close miking used in the past was the sample rate used. Acoustical musical instruments require interaction with the air to achieve proper tonal and timbre qualities. This is why recordings sound better when the microphones are high overhead, or placed out in the first few rows in the concert hall. Close miking, and a relatively low sample rate prevents the instruments output from mixing with the air efficiently. Hence the harshness you can hear from the arrangement. 44.1khz is too low a sample rate to close mike a recording. The system does not allow much air mixing before filters kick in to prevent anti aliasing. Once you raise the system's sample rate to 96khz, the system itself allows enough air to mix with the instruments to get the proper tonal and timbre qualities that make them sound natural. The higher up you go, the more air that is introduced to the system, the more natural the recording will sound.

    Just like there are compromises in designing and manufacturing audio equipment, there are also compromises that have to be made on the recording end as well. Just like with equipment, you have to balance those compromises in order to create a great final product.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  15. #40
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Thanks for these insights, Sir T.

    For sure they help us understand the pitfalls of recording. Of course many producers and engineers are able to overcome practical difficulties and capture truly execellent sound.

    Do you suppose a low sample rate was much of the problem with recordings of say, the '90s? And, I suppose, the reason so many pundits insisted on the superiority of 15 ips analog tape. In any case I'm sure low sample rates are a problem of the past, not the present.

    It's still my opinion today -- as I did even before the advent of CD -- that most "harsh" sound is not the fault of playback equipment but of the recording. And it's not always just the recording process; it can be the actuality of the live music. Live music can sound strident.
    Last edited by Feanor; 12-08-2010 at 12:23 PM.

  16. #41
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by atomicAdam
    Feanor -

    I agree with you - but there is a fine line at times - what I actually prefer is having enough equipment to compensate for a poor recording.

    Really the only sounds that drive me nuts in poor recordings are highs. Some amps ride that border line of reproducing those sharp highs, like live sound, very well, when they are in the recording. And if they pop up and go away as a horn flares or a drummer really has at it, that is fine, I appreciate that. But if they whole recording crosses that border than it is too much. Thankfully most recordings don't, but is nice to be able to change some gear around when it does.
    ....
    That is why tone controls were invented -- as we used to say before they went out of fashion.

    Anyway, thank goodness we can still say, Chacun à son goût.

  17. #42
    Forum Regular pixelthis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    tuscaloosa
    Posts
    5,528

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by atomicAdam
    I'm curious what high end analog sourced systems you've heard. Could you please give me some examples of system in the $100,000k+ level you've heard? Either tape sourced or turntable sourced.
    As soon as you post all of the double blind tests where you could tell the difference
    between one of those systems and a receiver with decent speakers.
    They did one of these tests a few ago, and threw in a 400 dollar plastic PIONEER
    receiver with a bunch of megabuck amps. THE Pioneer was picked by several
    so called "audiophiles".
    LG 42", integra 6.9, B&W 602s2, CC6 center, dm305rears, b&w
    sub asw2500
    Panny DVDA player
    sharp Aquos BLU player
    pronto remote, technics antique direct drive TT
    Samsung SACD/DVDA player
    emotiva upa-2 two channel amp

  18. #43
    Forum Regular pixelthis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    tuscaloosa
    Posts
    5,528

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    Those are good points... Often when audiophiles talk about the 'superior' sound of analog and tubes they are referring to state of the art/ultra expensive gear... Then they claim the mass market is deaf for preferring digital and SS... Yet they neglect that in the price ranges the mass market shop, Digital and SS sound far superior to the analog and tube alternatives of the day... an iPod sounds far superior to the Sony Walkman I had as a child...
    What AM I going to do with you? Send you back to audiophile 101, I GUESS.
    Thanks to a little thing called diminishing returns the difference between a 10,000
    system and a 100,000 system is less than you might think.
    It takes a few grand to go from HTIB to a decent system with 95% of all of the performance
    you will ever get, and about another 100,000$ to get a few more percent. You never will
    get perfection, just chipping away a few fractions of a percent at higher and higher cost.
    THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN mass market and a system that cost the annual
    budget of Norway, not that much.
    and this applies to everything, my 13 year old car can do around 140 if I WANT TO RISK MY LIFE, a shiny new Corvette can clear 200 MPH, a difference of 60 MPH, AND THE DIFFERENCE in 0 to 60 is around four seconds.
    THE DIFFERENCE IN PRICE is fifty grand.
    LG 42", integra 6.9, B&W 602s2, CC6 center, dm305rears, b&w
    sub asw2500
    Panny DVDA player
    sharp Aquos BLU player
    pronto remote, technics antique direct drive TT
    Samsung SACD/DVDA player
    emotiva upa-2 two channel amp

  19. #44
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by pixelthis
    What AM I going to do with you? Send you back to audiophile 101, I GUESS.
    Thanks to a little thing called diminishing returns the difference between a 10,000
    system and a 100,000 system is less than you might think.
    It takes a few grand to go from HTIB to a decent system with 95% of all of the performance
    you will ever get, and about another 100,000$ to get a few more percent. You never will
    get perfection, just chipping away a few fractions of a percent at higher and higher cost.
    THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN mass market and a system that cost the annual
    budget of Norway, not that much.
    and this applies to everything, my 13 year old car can do around 140 if I WANT TO RISK MY LIFE, a shiny new Corvette can clear 200 MPH, a difference of 60 MPH, AND THE DIFFERENCE in 0 to 60 is around four seconds.
    THE DIFFERENCE IN PRICE is fifty grand.
    Thanks for providing the segue for a contentious point I've been thinking of bringing into this thread: Diminishing Returns

    My opinion on Diminishing Returns has changed a lot in the last 5 years... I remember JM and I agreeing in a thread I started on the topic back then, that diminishing returns for a CD player starts at about $300 with the Marantz CD5001... Flash forward 5 years and both JM and I own $1K digital sources....

    I think there is no fixed point of diminishing returns... And here is where my view gets really contentious; I actually think it has less to do with sound quality and more to do with disposable income...

    In other words, the more disposable income you can allocate to this hobby, the higher the price point you declare that 'diminishing returns' kicks in...

    NOTE: I am not talking about Income... as many persons make the ridiculous assumption that someone is poor because they own a humble Rotel, NAD or Emotiva amp... I am talking about the money you are able to spend on this hobby after dealing with all your financial commitments (paying off the mortgage on the house or mansion, yacht, BMW, kid's college, etc) and all your other expensive hobbies (wine tasting, fine dining, luxury watches) and also what your spouse will allow you to spend or else she'll divorce you....

    I think it's why a lot of audiophiles are suddenly able to 'enjoy the music' when they've spent like $30K on a setup... They know they can't justify the expense required to reach the next level to a spouse or are unwilling to sell the BMW or give up their other hobbies, so they realize that they've found audio nirvana at that price point... Yet check on them 5 years later, when they've accumulated some more cheddar and suddenly it's time to upgrade some part of their perfect setup...

  20. #45
    Sgt. At Arms Worf101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Troy, New York
    Posts
    4,288

    Ooops...

    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    (spews coffee all over laptop) You son of a...you owe me one shiny new MacBook Pro.


    There's still a few weeks left, but early in Round 12, Worf lands a strong left hook in the fight for Quote of the Year.

    Someone get me some napkins.
    Sorry muh man didn't mean to cause spewage, jest makin' a point. Thanks for the love though. But lets be honest, that's what most .45's sounded like after about 10 or so trips through the ringer.

    Errr. Sir TT. I gave up pork for about 10 years after getting sick once in the Army from a booby trapped pork chop (no lie). I could resist all manner of porkage but bacon always gave me trouble.... it just smells so..... damn..... good.... (slobber, smeck, drool). When I finally caved and started swallowing swine again you can guess what I started with... A heaping pile of salty, crispy, sizzlin' and scrumptious bacon.

    Sorry for the thread jack. Man ah'm hongry.

    Worf

  21. #46
    Class of the clown GMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Anywhere but here...
    Posts
    13,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Worf101
    A heaping pile of salty, crispy, sizzlin' and scrumptious bacon.

    Sorry for the thread jack. Man ah'm hongry.

    Worf
    Awwww man! Some of us are on a diet you know.
    WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

  22. #47
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    Thanks for these insights, Sir T.
    No problem. When I started doing live and film score recording back in the late 80's, I found that there were so many issues that could crop up that you had to be flexible to deal with. Poor acoustics in a recording venue was one of them.

    For sure they help us understand the pitfalls of recording. Of course many producers and engineers are able to overcome practical difficulties and capture truly execellent sound.
    Ingenuity can take you a long way in this business.

    Do you suppose a low sample rate was much of the problem with recordings of say, the '90s? And, I suppose, the reason so many pundits insisted on the superiority of 15 ips analog tape. In any case I'm sure low sample rates are a problem of the past, not the present.
    It was several issues, both in the recording and playback chains. First, it was the sample rate and close miking. On the playback side it was brick wall filters and the associated ringing ALONG with the sample rate and close miking. We also had jitter issues in the studio as the digital audio passed through different digital processors. That also showed up during replication of the discs as well. The playback side improved with oversampling(which eliminated brick wall filters), but we were still stuck with the Redbook standard, which I believe was still inadequate at the time. As re-clocking, oversampling at the recording side, and improved DAC and digital interfaces on the playback side, the sound of digital improved dramatically, but still not enough to my taste. On the film side of my career, everything sounded better because we were still using high quality analog tape and high quality analog equipment. Once we kicked it up to 24/96khz, that is when I have seen a monumental shift in the quality of digital sound. Once I started working with DXD(32bit 352.8khz sample rate) then nothing analog could even come close to the beautiful sound of this digital format. It has everything analog has in terms of sound quality, but none of the drawbacks of either early digital sound, or current analog sound. When it is downcoverted to 24/192khz, there is no loss of sound quality.

    It's still my opinion today -- as I did even before the advent of CD -- that most "harsh" sound is not the fault of playback equipment but of the recording. And it's not always just the recording process; it can be the actuality of the live music. Live music can sound strident.
    I can agree with this. Part of the reason some of the older recordings sounded so good, is because conductors balanced their orchestra's even before the first microphone was positioned. There was no over blowing or bowing of the acoustical instruments, and therefore no chance of harshness or stridency coming from them. When we set up microphones, it was not to achieve a proper balance(that was already done) but to get the best capture of the tonal and timbres of the instruments. At some point, we recording guys got it in our heads that the "you can fix that in post" was more important than "fix that before we record". Now we are back to fix it before we record, because the resolution of todays formats do not allow for fixing much of anything in post, and neither do the budgets we get.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  23. #48
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    ...
    .... Once we kicked it up to 24/96khz, that is when I have seen a monumental shift in the quality of digital sound. Once I started working with DXD(32bit 352.8khz sample rate) then nothing analog could even come close to the beautiful sound of this digital format. It has everything analog has in terms of sound quality, but none of the drawbacks of either early digital sound, or current analog sound. When it is downcoverted to 24/192khz, there is no loss of sound quality.
    ...
    ... Part of the reason some of the older recordings sounded so good, is because conductors balanced their orchestra's even before the first microphone was positioned. There was no over blowing or bowing of the acoustical instruments, and therefore no chance of harshness or stridency coming from them. When we set up microphones, it was not to achieve a proper balance(that was already done) but to get the best capture of the tonal and timbres of the instruments. At some point, we recording guys got it in our heads that the "you can fix that in post" was more important than "fix that before we record". Now we are back to fix it before we record, because the resolution of todays formats do not allow for fixing much of anything in post, and neither do the budgets we get.
    This is all good news. I don't buy a huge number of recordings, mostly on account ot financial constraints. However it is my impression that recent recordings are more consistently excellent to superb than ever before.

    As for older recordings, there is a lot of attrocious stuff out there. And the better older recordings,e.g.g, Mercury Living Presences or RCA Living Stereo, the results were above average for their time, but by no means as good as the best recent recordings. (And I'm not even talking about multi-channel.)

  24. #49
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Once I started working with DXD(32bit 352.8khz sample rate) then nothing analog could even come close to the beautiful sound of this digital format. It has everything analog has in terms of sound quality, but none of the drawbacks of either early digital sound, or current analog sound. When it is downcoverted to 24/192khz, there is no loss of sound quality.
    Now that's what I'm talking about! Why can't we get that kind of resolution on iTunes and Amazon??? I can't wait for the day when that level of quality is easily accessible...

  25. #50
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    Now that's what I'm talking about! Why can't we get that kind of resolution on iTunes and Amazon??? I can't wait for the day when that level of quality is easily accessible...
    The problem with getting that from either retail downloading site is bandwidth and storage. You need the bandwidth so you can quickly download the huge file before the entire system times out. Storage would be a huge problem, as you would have to cut 3/4 of your low rez stuff just to store a quarter of this high resolution stuff. The economical feasibility of that does not work out for either the consumer, or the retailer.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •