-
Dirty New Shirt VS Clean but Slightly Bleached Shirt
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...
-
Depends on the amount of dirt (does it stank?), and how much bleach was used.
As compared to audio, digital is also much more convenient. And the washed out effect is harder to hear on a cheaper system. +1 for digital in this fast paced "dark grey is ok for black" world. But if you have a large investement in audio, have time to sit back and enjoy it, and don't mind flipping records, +1 for analog.
Maybe there is room for both.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMichael
Depends on the amount of dirt (does it stank?), and how much bleach was used.
As compared to audio, digital is also much more convenient. And the washed out effect is harder to hear on a cheaper system. +1 for digital in this fast paced "dark grey is ok for black" world. But if you have a large investement in audio, have time to sit back and enjoy it, and don't mind flipping records, +1 for analog.
Maybe there is room for both.
Actually I'm starting to see a possible trend forming where vinyl fans are using a music server as a second source... Which makes sense to me, since we don't always have the time or energy to flip records...
I initially thought it would be CD fans like msyelf who would be quickest to adopt music servers, yet I see as much (if not more) resistance among them than vinyl fans...
-
It really depends on the resolution of the digital system. Using the redbook standard, your analogy might be correct. Raising the resolution up to 24/192khz would clean the dirt just right, without the over bleaching effect.
With digital audio you have to be more specific than just digital. Digital is meaningless in the absence of details and specifics.
-
I think this is a bit of a false argument.
I've heard $500,000+ digital based systems and I've heard $500,000+ analog based systems. They both sounded fantastic. The Audio Federation room at RMAF was running an Audio Note CD5 (i think) into a tube amp etc... and it was by far the best sound I heard at the sound.
But conversely I've heard some $15,000 and $100,000 turn tables that were fantastic as well. Didn't sounds like there was a layer of dirt at all.
So, I don't think one really should be choosing between dirt and clean. It really is just about what you like to hear, and what price you can afford.
Maybe the argument applies more to a lower price range than limitless.
-adam
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomicAdam
I think this is a bit of a false argument.
I've heard $500,000+ digital based systems and I've heard $500,000+ analog based systems. They both sounded fantastic. The Audio Federation room at RMAF was running an Audio Note CD5 (i think) into a tube amp etc... and it was by far the best sound I heard at the sound.
But conversely I've heard some $15,000 and $100,000 turn tables that were fantastic as well. Didn't sounds like there was a layer of dirt at all.
So, I don't think one really should be choosing between dirt and clean. It really is just about what you like to hear, and what price you can afford.
Maybe the argument applies more to a lower price range than limitless.
-adam
Adam, I understand what you're saying but I don't think it contradicts my argument... At $500K a system should have so little dirt or bleach that you shouldn't be able to notice either dirt or bleach... I would say that at $15K and above, the only dirt a turntable should clearly exhibit is the literal kind resulting in surface noise (snap, crackle & pops)...
But as GM says, we have limits... At more normal budgets, the compromises tend to be more evident...
I see audio this way: all technologies have inherent advantages and disadvantages... For example, if I wanted a system with serious dynamic range, but only had $2K to spend, then I would skip electrostats... However with a budget of $200K, I can buy a pair of stats the length and height of an entire side of my house and capable of flat frequency response down to 10hz...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
It really depends on the resolution of the digital system. Using the redbook standard, your analogy might be correct. Raising the resolution up to 24/192khz would clean the dirt just right, without the over bleaching effect.
With digital audio you have to be more specific than just digital. Digital is meaningless in the absence of details and specifics.
Agreed... I forgot to mention that I was only referring to CD res and below...
-
Well if you are like me...you just like good gear so you can enjoy the music.
Last week Peabody and I listened to a T+A turntable that cost I think it was about $10k....sounded great...no dirt..so to speak...nothing but enjoyable music.
last Friday I listed to teh new Bel Canto gear....2 mono amps, Bel Canto pre, and Bel Canto DAC all going through Gallo Strada's and Gallo TR3 sub, and a Vincent tubed CDP with the digital out by passing the tube out. Bel Canto has a tubed character to it...nothing but bliss, enjoyable music cleaned up really well.
Today I have in my 2 channel room the best resolution in digital I have ever heard. A Stello DAC 100 Signiture and the Stello Transport CDT 100. Its all because a good friend let me borrow the Stello gear.
I have been switching out the CDT 100 transport with the Musical Fidelity XRAY v8 CDP and going back and forth between the two CDP's using the Stello DAC. I can honestly report that these two CDPs have the best resolution I have ever heard....and its because of the Stello Dac 100 SIGNITURE...and I've heard a lots of gear.
So I think your dirty new shirt and slightly bleached shirt analogy is really a wash when we get to just enjoying the music that the gear produces.
-
I really do believe that digital formats deserve a lot more credit in today's world than they get form the high end crowd. I really think that a person can have a quality digital and analog setup Like Mr Peabody's and get great from both formats. I don't see that either format is bad per say in either direction I think its the equipment used and the system. I personally like my digital setup now so much sense incorporating my new dac and transport or multi disk player that I am not in a huge hurry to set up and fix up my TT that I have because my digital system sounds good. My PS audio dac takes the digital hardness everyone talks about and makes it go away and some great music comes through.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by frenchmon
Well if you are like me...you just like good gear so you can enjoy the music.
Last week Peabody and I listened to a T+A turntable that cost I think it was about $10k....sounded great...no dirt..so to speak...nothing but enjoyable music.
last Friday I listed to teh new Bel Canto gear....2 mono amps, Bel Canto pre, and Bel Canto DAC all going through Gallo Strada's and Gallo TR3 sub, and a Vincent tubed CDP with the digital out by passing the tube out. Bel Canto has a tubed character to it...nothing but bliss, enjoyable music cleaned up really well.
Today I have in my 2 channel room the best resolution in digital I have ever heard. A Stello DAC 100 Signiture and the Stello Transport CDT 100. Its all because a good friend let me borrow the Stello gear.
I have been switching out the CDT 100 transport with the Musical Fidelity XRAY v8 CDP and going back and forth between the two CDP's using the Stello DAC. I can honestly report that these two CDPs have the best resolution I have ever heard....and its because of the Stello Dac 100 SIGNITURE...and I've heard a lots of gear.
So I think your dirty new shirt and slightly bleached shirt analogy is really a wash when we get to just enjoying the music that the gear produces.
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!!! :hand:
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...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
So once you talk about just enjoying the music, any audiophile analysis dies a bitter, cold death...
Untrue. You upgrade your system in order to get to the place where you can just enjoy the music and it takes analysis to get there. For some the analysis is much quicker than others. For some it takes a whole load of cash and for some it doesn't.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by harley .guy07
I really do believe that digital formats deserve a lot more credit in today's world than they get form the high end crowd. I really think that a person can have a quality digital and analog setup Like Mr Peabody's and get great from both formats. I don't see that either format is bad per say in either direction I think its the equipment used and the system. I personally like my digital setup now so much sense incorporating my new dac and transport or multi disk player that I am not in a huge hurry to set up and fix up my TT that I have because my digital system sounds good. My PS audio dac takes the digital hardness everyone talks about and makes it go away and some great music comes through.
Frankly, I think that the respect of the "high end crowd" is irrelevant... New technology doesn't come from them, it comes from the mass market and they historically resist as long as possible and then eventually start producing "statement products" designed to push the limits of that tech...
Left up to the high end crowd I wouldn't have either of my 2 music server based systems... I'd probably be cranking up the gramophone about now...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHills44060
Untrue. You upgrade your system in order to get to the place where you can just enjoy the music and it takes analysis to get there. For some the analysis is much quicker than others. For some it takes a whole load of cash and for some it doesn't.
And once you get there, there is no need to analyze anymore, so audiophile analysis dies....
Also, if you were already able to enjoy the music then you would never need to analyze...
So analysis is not necessary unless you are an audiophile...
So enjoying the music kills audiophilia....
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
And once you get there, there is no need to analyze anymore, so audiophile analysis dies....
Also, if you were already able to enjoy the music then you would never need to analyze...
So analysis is not necessary unless you are an audiophile...
So enjoying the music kills audiophilia....
Didn't die for me. I love helping friends and families build there own systems to suit their tastes. That way it always keeps the hobby fresh even if you have reached your own goals.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
And once you get there, there is no need to analyze anymore, so audiophile analysis dies....
Also, if you were already able to enjoy the music then you would never need to analyze...
So analysis is not necessary unless you are an audiophile...
So enjoying the music kills audiophilia....
Can't we do both? Enjoy the music now. but still keep an ear out for possible improvements.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMichael
Can't we do both? Enjoy the music now. but still keep an ear out for possible improvements.
Well, you could do as thehills does and analyze other persons' systems...
As for keeping an ear out, I see that much like a married man enjoying looking at a pretty girl... You're off the market, but you can still enjoy the view (sound)... But it's not nearly the same as being single and on the prowl... Or doing the kind of heavy analysis that many audiophiles do...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMichael
Can't we do both? Enjoy the music now. but still keep an ear out for possible improvements.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
Well, you could do as thehills does and analyze other persons' systems...
As for keeping an ear out, I see that much like a married man enjoying looking at a pretty girl... You're off the market, but you can still enjoy the view (sound)......
Which brings me to The Hills' avatar. Um, nice hills, Hills.
-
When I got into "hi-fi" almost 40 years ago in the early '70s, it was ostensibly about high fidelity, i.e. accuracy. It remained that way, at least notionally, until I my interest flagged in the late '80s. I lost interest around then mostly, (and reasonably), because I was doing a lot of other things instead of serious listening to music.
When my interest in hi-fi, (and music), was revived in the early '00s, I discoved that audiophiles were no longer exclusively interested accuracy. There had emerged an "accuracy versus euphony" dichotomy. The opposing parties didn't always understand their positions: clear advocates of euphony often insisted, irrationally, that what they liked was actual accuracy.
In the first place, a large segment of listeners don't know what accuracy is because they never listen to live acoustic music. (And pardon me for saying so but I think classical music is the definitive acoustic music, more so than jazz, because of the large scale orchestral and choral works.) But acoustic listeners, too, have a problem because there isn't a clear-cut "live" sound to constitute a standard: sound varies by performance, instrument, venue, and one's seat in a particular venue. Thus even some live acoustic listeners, confused by a variety of experiences, define accuracy in terms terms of what they like, not actuality.
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.
The long & short of the "beached" sound phenomenon is, IMO, the combination of the facts that (1) that the sonic actuality is not as sweet, warm, and bloomy as people imagine in their mind's ear, and (2) recording practice often fails to deliver optimum sound from the audience members' perspective.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
When I got into "hi-fi" almost 40 years ago in the early '70s, it was ostensibly about high fidelity, i.e. accuracy. It remained that way, at least notionally, until I my interest flagged in the late '80s. I lost interest around then mostly, (and reasonably), because I was doing a lot of other things instead of serious listening to music.
When my interest in hi-fi, (and music), was revived in the early '00s, I discoved that audiophiles were no longer exclusively interested accuracy. There had emerged an "accuracy versus euphony" dichotomy. The opposing parties didn't always understand their positions: clear advocates of euphony often insisted, irrationally, that what they liked was actual accuracy.
In the first place, a large segment of listeners don't know what accuracy is because they never listen to live acoustic music. (And pardon me for saying so but I think classical music is the definitive acoustic music, more so than jazz, because of the large scale orchestral and choral works.) But acoustic listeners, too, have a problem because there isn't a clear-cut "live" sound to constitute a standard: sound varies by performance, instrument, venue, and one's seat in a particular venue. Thus even some live acoustic listeners, confused by a variety of experiences, define accuracy in terms terms of what they like, not actuality.
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.
The long & short of the "beached" sound phenomenon is, IMO, the combination of the facts that (1) that the sonic actuality is not as sweet, warm, and bloomy as people imagine in their mind's ear, and (2) recording practice often fails to deliver optimum sound from the audience members' perspective.
Not sure I agree on classical as the definitive music for live performance... Since as you noted, the concert hall is such a major part of that experience that it can skew persons into thinking that all music should have sound coming from all around you...
I do agree that many audiophiles don't listen to live (un-amplified) music... Just based on many of the comments I see... When I saw complaints that a digital source or pair of speakers occasionally makes a recording sound harsh, while their speakers or source is never harsh or bright, I know those persons haven't listened to enough live music... Crashing cymbals should be harsh and bright... Vocals can be as well, depending on the singer... And some albums are just badly recorded.... So if your system makes everything sound pleasant to listen to, then it can't be truly accurate...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
Not sure I agree on classical as the definitive music for live performance... Since as you noted, the concert hall is such a major part of that experience that it can skew persons into thinking that all music should have sound coming from all around you...
...
Of course it's true that the concert hall has a huge effect on the sound -- I said as much earlier. And it's true that a jazz trio (unamplified) is about as good as classical trio for sound definition, but equally, the sound of the former is going to vary with the venue just as much as the latter. On the other hand when was the last time anybody heard a 100 piece jazz ensemble? Or a 60 person jazz chorus? (Well maybe some are so lucky as to hear large African-American church choirs pretty often.)
But what "live" listeners do is to derive a sort of "consensus" of what accuracy is; a sort of amalgam of their experiences. In this regard what I said earlier is that a lot of people, in developing their personal consensus, have a sort of "confirmation bias" in favor of a sweeter, smoother sound than the typical actuality. (TAS' Jonathan Valin comes to mind as an example of such a person. Ammo for RGA and Ajani: is this why he likes the Maggie 1.6 and 1.7's so much?)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
So if your system makes everything sound pleasant to listen to, then it can't be truly accurate...
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.
-
I don't know,
why would there necessarily be a "layer of dirt" on analog audio formats (vinyl)? and if there is, you can clean that, just like you wash a T-Shirt. A good RCM is your best friend when collecting vinyl.
that said, I'd go for the "dirty" shirt...
-
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.
Nothing wrong with that... As long as you are honest about that preference... An issue only arises when audiophiles claim that a system that is incapable of showing just how bad a recording is, is truly accurate...
-
1 Attachment(s)
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.:1:
-
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.:1:
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.
-
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!!! :hand:
lol your to funny Ajani.
Quote:
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
:biggrin5:
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
Quote:
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.
-
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.
|