Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 116
  1. #76
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    In general audiophiles "listen better" than most people - and I would say that includes recording engineers who are not necessarily "good listeners" because they know how to run mixing boards or have engineering degrees.
    Wow, that is quite a statement to make, as I have found the exact opposite. Maybe because I work around a bunch of recording engineers that are actually good listeners, and have always worked around recording engineers that are good listeners, and that has shaped my experience. Rich, I do not know what recording studios you have been around, the quality of engineers, or their experience, but the four cities I work in are full of recording engineers that are good listeners, and create very good sounding projects.

    Tubes are not used because they have a much higher degree of downtime and lower warranties - Bryston carries a 20 year warranty, is cheap (relatively) and thus for a business where downtime means dollars they won't be used. The better tube devices are truly linear amplifying devices - no non SE SS amp is regardless of price.
    Another reason tubes amps are not used is they cannot stand the rigor and punishment of being used 12-15 hours a day being pushed to high levels on occasion. They just do not have the stamina.

    Recording studios make choices that affect dollars. But it is interesting to note that plenty of artists are using tube amplifiers to record - as an example Jackson Browne interestingly uses Manley Labs to record his stuff and it's funny but Jackson Browne albums happen to be some of the very best recordings I own in that genre. And Manley isn't exactly the be all and end all of tube gear. And I only learned that by fluke as I brought an album to the Manley room that they were playing and I made the comment that I brought the same one and the conversation ensued.
    Are you referring to tube pre-amps and microphones? Or tube guitar amps? All of these have been used for years in recording studios. They are used to take the edge off of digital recordings, and they are particularly effective at doing it.

    I am getting quite excited to see how and when Audio Note starts rolling out their new digital conversion, mixing boards, microphones, etc.
    I would be curious to see how they will differentiate themselves from others in an already very crowded market.
    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

  2. #77
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Perhaps I am coming at from a different perspective. Most of my personal experience is with Audio Note - by personal - I mean owning it and so I can't discuss what the long term lifespans of gear is other than my own experience and of course I don't run the gear 15 hours a day. Peter Qvortrup is fine with his amps being run 24/7 and with running a dead short by placing a screwdriver over the terminals

    The CD players are rated to run 100,000 hours continuous - that's about 11 years 24/7 so I am not so sure that a tube amp can't handle being on for long durations. Perhaps bad tube amps can't be run and Chesky records seems fine with running tube gear - it's all tube gear. Jackson Browne isn't just using tubes in the guitar amp - Manley doesn't make tubes - they make preamp, integrated, power amps...I am not sure where and how they're used in the studio - I suppose I should have asked in more detail - but it didn't terribly interest me.

    I think the issue may be the the tube power amp stage where tube life is considerably shorter than a 12AX7 preamp tube so you may get as little as 2000 hours and in a studio I would agree that is pretty terrible and VERY costly as some of these tubes can run $300 to over $1500 pair and maybe more. Even if the recording studio engineer truly did like it better that is not money likely to be spent when CD sales are down and the vast majority of listeners don't really care about audio anyway.

    So that leaves a small niche of audiophiles who will pay a premium for quality recordings. To answer that question - that is where I suspect Audio Note would target themselves. They have spent years remastering a lot of very old recordings - I am not really knowledgeable about where they are or what exactly they plan on doing - Fred Crowder visited their plant and knows more about the recording somewhere in his article on the factory tour http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=581 (one of the last paragraphs on the last page I believe so skip to it) Can't remember which component but it is different than anything else out there and is patented. Don't know until I hear it but I know Peter would buy the best mixers on the planet, and the best analog to digital recorders available and then he will build his unit and it will no doubt destroy what is currently on the market - or he would not bother. There's no real money in any of this and certainly no commercial appeal.

    My comments about RE not being good listeners - I think I was being somewhat unfair but not so unfair when so many recordings sound so poor - someone should be listening and deciding that this CD is unacceptably bad and needs to be fixed. And the excuse that it needs to sound good for a car or MP3 is bogus. The stuff that sounds great on a high end system - also sounds better than bad recordings on my ipod or in my car with stock stereo speakers. And the Bad CD's sound worse regardless of the stereos.

    I don't pretend to know how ALL recording studios operate but I can tell you that the people who recorded Madonna's "Like A Prayer" and "Immaculate Collection" did a pretty darn good job with this music while the people who did the much newer "Confessions on a Dance Floor" were pretty hopeless. And that's just 20 years.

    I have LP's from the 60s such as Ray Charles that are leagues better than virtually any recording on either format I own today - with the exception of noise floor but that's hardly the only parameter going. And LP has serious measurement disadvantages if you think about which is even more telling of how truly good the recordings were.

    I think my point of contention in this entire discussion is that people view tubes merely as a way to tailor the sound and are inaccurate. And certainly tubes CAN be used this way. I suppose in many people's experiences this is the majority. But in my direct experience comparing a Bryston to a SET - it was interesting to note that the one that sounded distorted was the Bryston. How can the SET be distorted when there was no audible noise, no audible warbling of voices, no flab in the bass, not highs sounding buzzy. The SET had faster transients, far better decay, separation - you could hear more of the instruments - the picks plucks, breathing, trumpet valves, it sounded faster(nimbler) and cohesive. I suppose my issue here is I can't separate the listening experience from my opinion on the matter. Because looking at the specs the Bryston kills the SET. The listening experience is just so not in the same class as to having the Yankees play a team of five year olds - or the Pirates (sorry Pirates fans).

    I would accept arguments of Euphonics (not a bad word since it means pleasing) if the sound coming from the SET was syrupy slow had oozing bass over tight articulate fast bass. I even prefer systems on occasion that lean warm over bright - but when you get the twang of a guitar pick and the reverberation of the guitar box and it sounds supremely natural - and the Bryston doing the same thing gets a bright pluck doesn't follow the note through and then you hear the next pluck and ask where did the guitar go - it sounds so 2dimensional. And if the recording studio is using IMO broken amplification - how on earth can any of these Recording engineers possibly put together a quality recording. I suspect they can't do the job with this stuff very well and probably why all the best recording I have seem to be from the 1960's and older. Despite some noise.

    Of course this is just moot - I still buy and like new music regardless of the recording quality - but I would sure like to see it greatly improved. Hopefully the Audio Note guys can do something - Peter seems to go on at length about the microphones being hugely problematic today. I guess whenever the product actually comes out that results will determine whether it truly is better than the best microphones out today. We'll see or hear.

  3. #78
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Perhaps I am coming at from a different perspective. Most of my personal experience is with Audio Note - by personal - I mean owning it and so I can't discuss what the long term lifespans of gear is other than my own experience and of course I don't run the gear 15 hours a day. Peter Qvortrup is fine with his amps being run 24/7 and with running a dead short by placing a screwdriver over the terminals

    The CD players are rated to run 100,000 hours continuous - that's about 11 years 24/7 so I am not so sure that a tube amp can't handle being on for long durations. Perhaps bad tube amps can't be run and Chesky records seems fine with running tube gear - it's all tube gear. Jackson Browne isn't just using tubes in the guitar amp - Manley doesn't make tubes - they make preamp, integrated, power amps...I am not sure where and how they're used in the studio - I suppose I should have asked in more detail - but it didn't terribly interest me.

    I think the issue may be the the tube power amp stage where tube life is considerably shorter than a 12AX7 preamp tube so you may get as little as 2000 hours and in a studio I would agree that is pretty terrible and VERY costly as some of these tubes can run $300 to over $1500 pair and maybe more. Even if the recording studio engineer truly did like it better that is not money likely to be spent when CD sales are down and the vast majority of listeners don't really care about audio anyway.

    So that leaves a small niche of audiophiles who will pay a premium for quality recordings. To answer that question - that is where I suspect Audio Note would target themselves. They have spent years remastering a lot of very old recordings - I am not really knowledgeable about where they are or what exactly they plan on doing - Fred Crowder visited their plant and knows more about the recording somewhere in his article on the factory tour http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=581 (one of the last paragraphs on the last page I believe so skip to it) Can't remember which component but it is different than anything else out there and is patented. Don't know until I hear it but I know Peter would buy the best mixers on the planet, and the best analog to digital recorders available and then he will build his unit and it will no doubt destroy what is currently on the market - or he would not bother. There's no real money in any of this and certainly no commercial appeal.

    My comments about RE not being good listeners - I think I was being somewhat unfair but not so unfair when so many recordings sound so poor - someone should be listening and deciding that this CD is unacceptably bad and needs to be fixed. And the excuse that it needs to sound good for a car or MP3 is bogus. The stuff that sounds great on a high end system - also sounds better than bad recordings on my ipod or in my car with stock stereo speakers. And the Bad CD's sound worse regardless of the stereos.

    I don't pretend to know how ALL recording studios operate but I can tell you that the people who recorded Madonna's "Like A Prayer" and "Immaculate Collection" did a pretty darn good job with this music while the people who did the much newer "Confessions on a Dance Floor" were pretty hopeless. And that's just 20 years.

    I have LP's from the 60s such as Ray Charles that are leagues better than virtually any recording on either format I own today - with the exception of noise floor but that's hardly the only parameter going. And LP has serious measurement disadvantages if you think about which is even more telling of how truly good the recordings were.

    I think my point of contention in this entire discussion is that people view tubes merely as a way to tailor the sound and are inaccurate. And certainly tubes CAN be used this way. I suppose in many people's experiences this is the majority. But in my direct experience comparing a Bryston to a SET - it was interesting to note that the one that sounded distorted was the Bryston. How can the SET be distorted when there was no audible noise, no audible warbling of voices, no flab in the bass, not highs sounding buzzy. The SET had faster transients, far better decay, separation - you could hear more of the instruments - the picks plucks, breathing, trumpet valves, it sounded faster(nimbler) and cohesive. I suppose my issue here is I can't separate the listening experience from my opinion on the matter. Because looking at the specs the Bryston kills the SET. The listening experience is just so not in the same class as to having the Yankees play a team of five year olds - or the Pirates (sorry Pirates fans).

    I would accept arguments of Euphonics (not a bad word since it means pleasing) if the sound coming from the SET was syrupy slow had oozing bass over tight articulate fast bass. I even prefer systems on occasion that lean warm over bright - but when you get the twang of a guitar pick and the reverberation of the guitar box and it sounds supremely natural - and the Bryston doing the same thing gets a bright pluck doesn't follow the note through and then you hear the next pluck and ask where did the guitar go - it sounds so 2dimensional. And if the recording studio is using IMO broken amplification - how on earth can any of these Recording engineers possibly put together a quality recording. I suspect they can't do the job with this stuff very well and probably why all the best recording I have seem to be from the 1960's and older. Despite some noise.

    Of course this is just moot - I still buy and like new music regardless of the recording quality - but I would sure like to see it greatly improved. Hopefully the Audio Note guys can do something - Peter seems to go on at length about the microphones being hugely problematic today. I guess whenever the product actually comes out that results will determine whether it truly is better than the best microphones out today. We'll see or hear.
    The Immaculate Collection is indeed a well recorded album and is likely an example that good recordings can be made with SS and CD....

    I agree that a good recording will sound good regardless of what it is played on....

    I have no doubt that true high end tubes (where the aim of the manufacturer is more to be accurate and realistic than euphonic, syrupy and warm) can sound brilliant, but I question why there should be the belief that the same isn't true of the best SS gear...

    At the entry level box speakers tend to sound... well... boxy... and panels fail miserably at providing bass... but as you climb the price scale you can find boxes that sound open and panels that produce full range sound.... so I'd expect a similar situation with tubes and SS...

    And by the best SS, I don't necessarily mean 1000 Watt beasts.... How about the more modestly powered Class A gear??? You like mid priced Class A like Sugden, so how about something from Pass Labs or maybe the Musical Fidelity AMS35i (35 watt pure Class A Integrated at $9K)? That should sound very different from Musical Fidelity's usual monster class A/B amps (which I know you don't like)....
    Last edited by Ajani; 04-09-2010 at 06:55 PM.

  4. #79
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Ajani

    You raise a good point here and many have made the same point that as you move up in the price spectrum sound is much improved whether we're talking SS or Tube.

    I prefer some SS over tubes at the lower price points myself as you rightly note - The Sugden A21a I have been on about for over a decade. And I would take this over tube amps I have heard under it - though I may have to take issue with myself on this view.

    I don't want to come off as loathing all SS - I have a preference for SE tubes but there are plenty of SS amps that I like and recommend. Though after a certain price point I believe the better tube amps take the lead and don't give it up. If this is so in playback and the vast majority of the best speaker makers seem to agree then why would it be any different in the recording studio? It doesn't and shouldn't but it does because of money. It's too expensive to buy the best tube amps (or even the best Solid State amps) and so they attempt to justify the choice via technical arguments that IMO don't fly.

    Everything is compromised and nothing is perfectly accurate. As you move up the price realm (assuming it's a product that actually truly does live up to the price - most doesn't) then in theory you reduce many of the compromises whether it is SS, tubes, panels or boxes etc.

    And since everything is inaccurate you may as well make choices you can live with. That is why I can see why some people like panels - you and I and probably Sir Terrence won't buy the small ones because they simply lack dynamics bass and the ribbon varieties usually have an incredibly tight head in the vice quality to retain any semblance of soundstage. And they require power, and they can't play very loud. But I can see that some would choose such speakers to avoid box colourations and hand over mouth quality of many boxed speakers under $2k - even if they have more bass dynamics etc they also bring annoyances. People choose their compromise.

    Take amplifiers - I just reviewed two Tube Hybrid Monoblock power amps. They EACH way 40lbs and have a tube stage for rolling and the monoblocks are rated as 10 watts class A - then switch to class A/B 150watts 8ohm and 300watts 4ohms. They sound so very much better than a Bryston 4BST or anything else I have heard from bryston in my opinion it's not even funny. The amplifiers are made by Shengya out of China and imported by Grant Fidelity - who is also a recording engineer and who has used Bryston for many years. There just is no comparison.

    Price for the monoblocks $2400 pair and they are giving you a preamp to go with it - I can't say anything about the preamp but... It's built FAR better than Bryston, costs less, has more power, and much better bass depth and control. And they actually look great to boot (the pictures suck unfortunately).

    You can see the mono blocks on the floor - silver ones - These were the ones I reviewed I believe as I shipped it back to them so they could bring them to the show. http://grantfidelity.com/site/

  5. #80
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Home Of The Fighting Gamecocks
    Posts
    1,702
    With my SET I get to hear Mile's trumpet spit :-)

  6. #81
    Vinyl Fundamentalist Forums Moderator poppachubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Analog Synagogue
    Posts
    4,363
    Quote Originally Posted by Poultrygeist
    With my SET I get to hear Mile's trumpet spit :-)

    I'm with you on that PG. Not sure if you saw, but my earlier post discussed Joe Henderson's Inner Urge. His breathy style is audible as is the sound of his fingers pumping the valves. Man I love that...

  7. #82
    frenchmon frenchmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    St. Charles Mo
    Posts
    3,271
    Quote Originally Posted by poppachubby
    I'm with you on that PG. Not sure if you saw, but my earlier post discussed Joe Henderson's Inner Urge. His breathy style is audible as is the sound of his fingers pumping the valves. Man I love that...
    I hear that with my SS.

    frenchmon
    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

  8. #83
    Vinyl Fundamentalist Forums Moderator poppachubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Analog Synagogue
    Posts
    4,363
    Quote Originally Posted by frenchmon
    I hear that with my SS.

    frenchmon

    No doubt, Have you got Inner Urge frenchie?

  9. #84
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by frenchmon
    I hear that with my SS.

    frenchmon
    I'm with you, Mon. My s/s Monarchys will do that too, no sweat. Overall they'll beat any tubes at or close their price, and not just for power.

  10. #85
    _ Luvin Da Blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    _
    Posts
    1,951
    Quote Originally Posted by frenchmon
    I hear that with my SS.

    frenchmon
    Hell, my Marsh does this also, even at extremely low levels. Too many people talk in absolutes on this forum.
    Back in my day, we had nine planets.

  11. #86
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Luvin Da Blues
    Too many people talk in absolutes on this forum.
    Too often Audiophiles get caught up with a specific technology and forget that there are good and bad examples of each type... Just because someone hasn't heard a type they like, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist...

  12. #87
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    I just wanted to take the time to address some of the issues that RGA has brought up concerning recording engineers. First, things have changed in the recording industry since the 80's. Since RGA brings up Madonna earliest recordings as an example, back when those two album's he mention where recorded, the audio engineer(who most of the time was the project producer as well) had the last word on every decision of the sound of the end product. When we were meticulous on every detail of the recording process, it showed up in the end product as a good sounding album. Most recording was analog, and with analog being around so long, the analog recording process was quite refined, including the equipment used. A lot of great audio engineers were around back then, customizing everything under the sun to get the best studio sound(and live sound as well). These days are long gone, and the changes that have come along has buried the audio engineer in the process.

    These days the audio engineer has no say so in how the album is going to sound in the end. The marketing people and bean counters rule that area now. That is unless the audio engineer is the producer and is very powerful in the industry(Quincy Jones for example). Most all recording of pop and rock is done in pro tools, a digital processing platform. The platform is extremely powerful and efficient(it is ubiquitous in the film recording as well for this same reason), but its D/A converters are quite frankly awful.(I never use them, and neither does our studio). The bean counters follow the entire recording process continually trying to hurry the process along which means corners are sometimes cut. When the recording is done and we hit the mastering process, the marketing people enter the picture with their louder is better mantra. At that point we are forced to cripple our own baby, as we have to compress and compress to make the end product sound good on radio, and to be louder than the next competitors project. If we do not do what the marketing people ask, they threaten to take the project elsewhere thereby effecting the recording studio(and engineers) income. It is for these reasons I no longer will accept a project from a major record company, but do projects where creativity and audio quality are first.

    I do not know any recording or mastering engineer who likes what is going on with recording practices today. We fuss over the recording chain to make sure it is as clean as possible, we try to use processing only for the artistic means of the artist, pick the best equipment we can find, and work like the devil himself to draw good performances from the artists only to have our fussed over project get turned into crap by the marketing folks. It is frustrating, as we get blamed for what the end product sounds like, but have little to no input on the ultimate sound quality. Compression is a great tool in skilled hands, as we can make it sound completely transparent while blending audio stems together. It is the tool of the audio devil in the wrong hands, as it can steal the very soul out of a mix, and make a great mix sound like mush. Clipping is rampant as we are asked to push the volume louder and louder, and to compensate for that request, we compress the hell out of the peaks to keep digital zero from being overshot.

    I really do not like that the audio engineer is getting blamed for something that is totally out of their control, and it is time(or passed time) to let audio enthusiasts know that it is the record company's that should be blamed for the sound of audio today. They have killed their own sales with ugly sounding products made for radio playback(in cars), and not playback on home stereos where critical listening is often done. We have to mix for the lowest common denominator, and not for the highest. This is why CD's sound they way they do, and it is time to throw the blame back to the source. The record companies are the ones that approve the end product, and if it sound like crap, that is what they approved. The audio engineer is nothing more than a project coordinator and facilitator these days, and we have no say so on what the end product is going to sound like.

    As far as Bryston products, the 4BST is an amp that is no longer made, and what it sounded like is far different than what current Bryston amps sound like today. I use the 7B SST, and the 28B SST amps(as well as several others) in my studio, and the sound from these amps are far better than the 4BST on every level.
    Last edited by Sir Terrence the Terrible; 04-11-2010 at 09:11 AM.
    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. #88
    frenchmon frenchmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    St. Charles Mo
    Posts
    3,271
    Quote Originally Posted by poppachubby
    No doubt, Have you got Inner Urge frenchie?
    what do you mean by Inner Urge?

    frenchmon
    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

  14. #89
    Vinyl Fundamentalist Forums Moderator poppachubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Analog Synagogue
    Posts
    4,363
    Quote Originally Posted by frenchmon
    what do you mean by Inner Urge?

    frenchmon

  15. #90
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Home Of The Fighting Gamecocks
    Posts
    1,702
    "A typical audiophile spends over 40 years in his quest for the best amp.

    The 1st 10 years he spends all his money and time on ss amps.

    The 2nd 10 years he discovers tube amps and spends all his money and time on both ss
    and tube amps as well as cables, speakers etc.

    The 3rd 10 years he discovers SET tube amps but spends all his money and time back and forth on ss, push pull, and SET tube amps.

    The last 10 years he finally stays with a low power SET tube amp and takes it with him to heaven." - author unknown

  16. #91
    Retro Modernist 02audionoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,908
    After 90 posts, I'm wondering if someone could summarize the final answer for me.

  17. #92
    frenchmon frenchmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    St. Charles Mo
    Posts
    3,271

    My Man!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by poppachubby

    Ohhhh. Inner Urge!

    No...never heard of that one...have to look in to that one....I love me some Henderson.

    I have Lush Life by Henderson

    And New York Reunion with McCoy Tyner Ron Carter and Al Foster.

    Gotta Look for Inner Urge! Oh and by the way...that may be Tyners album, but its all Joe...he makes it what it is with his horn.

    frenchmon
    Last edited by frenchmon; 04-11-2010 at 04:45 PM.
    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

  18. #93
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by 02audionoob
    After 90 posts, I'm wondering if someone could summarize the final answer for me.
    I think it is too subjective to summarize. Some folks like it plain, some folks like salt, pepper, or herbs. I think that is what makes this hobby quite special.
    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

  19. #94
    Phila combat zone JoeE SP9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,710
    Quote Originally Posted by Poultrygeist
    "A typical audiophile spends over 40 years in his quest for the best amp.

    The 1st 10 years he spends all his money and time on ss amps.

    The 2nd 10 years he discovers tube amps and spends all his money and time on both ss
    and tube amps as well as cables, speakers etc.

    The 3rd 10 years he discovers SET tube amps but spends all his money and time back and forth on ss, push pull, and SET tube amps.

    The last 10 years he finally stays with a low power SET tube amp and takes it with him to heaven." - author unknown

    Hey c'mon! There are plenty of us for whom SET's Lowther's and OB's just ain't the thing. In my 40+ years at this I've never once wanted a SET, a Lowther or an open baffle speaker and I've heard plenty. I've also heard plenty of horns and I don't want them either
    ARC SP9 MKIII, VPI HW19, Rega RB300
    Marcof PPA1, Shure, Sumiko, Ortofon carts, Yamaha DVD-S1800
    Behringer UCA222, Emotiva XDA-2, HiFimeDIY
    Accuphase T101, Teac V-7010, Nak ZX-7. LX-5, Behringer DSP1124P
    Front: Magnepan 1.7, DBX 223SX, 2 modified Dynaco MK3's, 2, 12" DIY TL subs (Pass El-Pipe-O) 2 bridged Crown XLS-402
    Rear/HT: Emotiva UMC200, Acoustat Model 1/SPW-1, Behringer CX2310, 2 Adcom GFA-545

  20. #95
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by 02audionoob
    After 90 posts, I'm wondering if someone could summarize the final answer for me.
    Summary:

    This thread is actually about the difference between Live and HiFi sound and whether the goal of HiFi is really to recreate the live event: the answer was pretty much that for many persons recreating the live event is not the goal....

    The thread then turned to a discussion of plannar versus box speakers and finally to tubes versus SS: It became clear that which is better is totally up to the individual as some persons worship tubes while others hate them with a passion (same for SS)...

  21. #96
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    I'm with you, Mon. My s/s Monarchys will do that too, no sweat. Overall they'll beat any tubes at or close their price, and not just for power.
    Have you tried the Monarchy as a stereo amp? I'm interested to know how it compares as a stereo (RCA) versus as a balanced mono....

  22. #97
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by Poultrygeist
    "A typical audiophile spends over 40 years in his quest for the best amp.

    The 1st 10 years he spends all his money and time on ss amps.

    The 2nd 10 years he discovers tube amps and spends all his money and time on both ss
    and tube amps as well as cables, speakers etc.

    The 3rd 10 years he discovers SET tube amps but spends all his money and time back and forth on ss, push pull, and SET tube amps.

    The last 10 years he finally stays with a low power SET tube amp and takes it with him to heaven." - author unknown
    I realize that these aren't your words, Poultry. But this is a very "niche" opinion; in fact really only the author's opinion though he/she probably has some buddies who feel the same. Or to put it another way, it's bullsh!t.

  23. #98
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    Have you tried the Monarchy as a stereo amp? I'm interested to know how it compares as a stereo (RCA) versus as a balanced mono....
    Yes, briefly a few years ago with my Magneplanar MMGs. The character of the SM-70 Pro sound was identical to a pair used as balanced monoblocks, only the dynamics weren't as good, especially at higher volumes of course. Bear in mind that used as a stereo amp, the power is only 40 wpc into 8 ohms, (vs. 120 wpc into 4 ohms as a monoblock), so it is hardly more powerful that a typical tube amp.

  24. #99
    Vinyl Fundamentalist Forums Moderator poppachubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Analog Synagogue
    Posts
    4,363
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    It is for these reasons I no longer will accept a project from a major record company, but do projects where creativity and audio quality are first.
    So what areas are left in which an engineer has some control? I would imagine that there are many smaller labels that would offer artists and studios some creative space. The problem is, the money would be less.

    Pro Tools is an awesome program when used correctly and not to auto tune or edit a drum kits output. What's that called, a click track? When they use the best snare shot and insert it into the whole track.

  25. #100
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    Summary:

    This thread is actually about the difference between Live and HiFi sound and whether the goal of HiFi is really to recreate the live event: the answer was pretty much that for many persons recreating the live event is not the goal....

    The thread then turned to a discussion of plannar versus box speakers and finally to tubes versus SS: It became clear that which is better is totally up to the individual as some persons worship tubes while others hate them with a passion (same for SS)...
    Pretty reasonable summary, Ajani. In particular, it think it's fair to say that record producers & engineers typically are not attempting to reproduce a live event as it might actually be heard in some venue, but their to own create their own, personal presentation of a performance.

    I would say there was a minor digestion into the definition of "accuracy". I think there was a consensus that the proper narrow defintion is fidelity to the recording on it's medium. But, further, that what the groves or pits on the disc sound like apart from the reproduction equipment is impossible to really know.
    Last edited by Feanor; 04-12-2010 at 04:14 AM.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 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
  •