Music Lover vs Audiophile

[tube fan]

Even I can see that, in , say twenty years, high res MC will TOTALLY dominate the audio world. Yes, in twenty years, a great MC system will cost very little (compared to today's stereo high end cost).

[E-Stat]

Even I can see that, in , say twenty years, high res MC will TOTALLY dominate the audio world. Yes, in twenty years, a great MC system will cost very little (compared to today's stereo high end cost).

So, you believe that the cost of all high performance sources, cabling, amplification and speakers will drop by more than half? While that notion is certainly desirable, it does not reflect what has happened over the past several decades.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

And yet, you don't seem to understand or retain what you've heard.

How would you know this, a spirit told you? Or perhaps Harry Potter gave you his magic wand so you can read my mind? This is at best a stupid statement, and t worst, a very stupid statement.

Bingo, we have a winner!!!! Now you've acknowledged the real answer.

That answer does not apply to every release by every artist does it?

[Byron4]

So, you believe that the cost of all high performance sources, cabling, amplification and speakers will drop by more than half? While that notion is certainly desirable, it does not reflect what has happened over the past several decades.

Actually with the new global economy combined with the number of outstanding American made high value products made by Quicksilver, Rogue, Vandersteen, Magnepan, the list goes on, I feel high-end products have become very affordable. However, when reading some of the comments there are still a substantial number of audiophiles that equate quality with price. I read a long time ago that high-end audio is an attitude of the manufacturers design of a product not about price. Also The April 2011 issue of Stereophile has an article called "The Upward Price Spiral" which discusses the issue of pricing. It is available on their website.

On a related note, after rereading my initial post, I would like to clarify that Stereophile does a very balanced job of covering their entry level products, especially with their introduction of "The Entry level " and some of the new reviewers hired the past few years. Like I said earlier Sam Tellig exposed me to the Quicksilver line of reasonably price tube amps. I am only suggesting they review a few more floor standing speakers instead of the mostly stand mounted speakers to appeal to a wider young crowd. And no these do not have to be muddled bass speakers for loud modern music. There are probably some new companies out there we have never heard of that could use the exposure.

[E-Stat]

How would you know this, a spirit told you?

The "spirit" would be you with your previous comments.

That answer does not apply to every release by every artist does it?

Only the vast majority of current music which shares this gross compression. You might recall that the AES has formally complained about that.

[Brett A]

I hate music. I only listen to frequency sweeps.

[JoeE SP9]

I hate music. I only listen to frequency sweeps.

One good thing about them, you can't tell if they're compressed.

[Byron4]

I hate music. I only listen to frequency sweeps.

Haha

Beautiful system although I don't know why the link disappears when I sign in.

[RGA]

Actually with the new global economy combined with the number of outstanding American made high value products made by Quicksilver, Rogue, Vandersteen, Magnepan, the list goes on, I feel high-end products have become very affordable. However, when reading some of the comments there are still a substantial number of audiophiles that equate quality with price. .

It depends what your standards are. Rogue makes over $10k amps, Magnepan makes $15,000 loudspeakers and Vandersteen makes a $50,000+ loudspeaker.

Sure they make "affordable products" but just keeping it within the company line - the more expensive models tend to sound a lot better than their less expensive models.

MC presently would make my increased cost dramatic. The old 2 great speakers and a great two channel SET amp to let you listen to 99.99999% of all recorded music in history or buy 6 to 11 lesser loudspeakers and some sort of SS surround system to play the remaining fraction of a percent of music seems off to me.

That's in an "either or" scenario. It does not have to be - you can always buy BOTH. Have a lesser priced MC set-up with "good" speakers and play MC back on that.

It depends on what sacrifices you wish to make. Using Maggie as an example - 3 pairs of 1.6 speakers for $6k in multi-channel or one pair of 3.6 for two channel. I'd probably go MC given the choice.

If it was stuff I liked I could run 3 pairs of AX Two standmounts with one or two Genesis subwoofers for H/T and MC. I can buy mono-block SET amps as power amps for each speaker (and then run an MC SS amplifier with a bypass to a SET preamp for 2 channel).

[Brett A]

Haha

Beautiful system although I don't know why the link disappears when I sign in.

Thanks. I'll check my linkages...

And an even funnier thing is when I got home last night, I actually DID listen to sweeps and spot tones for most of an hour. (I'm working on positioning a new set of speakers).

[Byron4]

[QUOTE=RGA;383456]It depends what your standards are. Rogue makes over $10k amps, Magnepan makes $15,000 loudspeakers and Vandersteen makes a $50,000+ loudspeaker.

You have a point. Still the Rogue integrated amp complete with phono stage for under 2k is intriguing and I have read some really good things about this amp. Someday I would like to hook them up to my Alon speakers to hear how they compare to my ASL/Quicksilver combo especially because they both have a similar tube complement.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The "spirit" would be you with your previous comments.

And what comments would those be?

Only the vast majority of current music which shares this gross compression. You might recall that the AES has formally complained about that.

Much more targeted response, because not ALL music is highlty compressed.

I am acutely aware of the AES complaint, I was one of the members complaining.

[E-Stat]

And what comments would those be?

"Using "unamplified" music as a reference really only benefits a single genre of music heavily(classical), one partially(jazz which is becoming more electronic yearly)...

You have no reference to a recording of all acoustic instruments without listening to the original file or analog master, you can only say you like it or you don't. There is no real reference unless you have access to the masters. "

The characteristics that make an audio system disappear benefit all genres of music to which I listen - unless of course you really like the gross colorations of sound reinforcement gear. I don't!

A voice, piano, guitar, cello, drum, bell tree, etc. all have a signature sound regardless of the variance you find between any two instruments or sound venues.

[E-Stat]

The number of microphones you use has no relevancy to the sound quality you get.

Agree to an extent, but... clearly in this case the engineers used the many pieces as crutches resulting in a poor product. A well done minimally miked recording will almost always be superior with respect to natural depth retrieval than one using dozens of mikes. Yes, you can find some oddball exceptions.

I'd much rather look through a GAF viewer of a stereo picture than looking through dozens of zoomed in slides of individual aspects of the image all stacked together. One is a natural perspective, The other, not.

Do you blame this on the original recording, or the duplicated release product? Do you blame this on the original tape, or the playback format?

The product delivered to the public, format included.

What if the culprit was the end users system, and not the recorded product?

Fair question. Is one's system capable of reproducing the natural depth you find in the best recordings? If the answer is yes it can with some recordings and others not, then clearly the problem is NOT the system.

[Florian]

Having worked in mental health services for many years I'm not keen on being labeled with any word ending in phile.

Comedy Gold

[Florian]

How would you know this, a spirit told you? Or perhaps Harry Potter gave you his magic wand so you can read my mind? This is at best a stupid statement, and t worst, a very stupid statement.




That answer does not apply to every release by every artist does it?

Please leave Harrys magic wang....aeh.... wand out of this

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

"Using "unamplified" music as a reference really only benefits a single genre of music heavily(classical), one partially(jazz which is becoming more electronic yearly)...

Well Ralph, it does not help rock, soul, electronic, progressive jazz, or any other genre that uses amplified instruments does it?

You have no reference to a recording of all acoustic instruments without listening to the original file or analog master, you can only say you like it or you don't. There is no real reference unless you have access to the masters.

"

Sitting in a concert hall(with its reverberation characteristics) is not exactly listening to the instrument in its pure form. A microphone with neutral characteristisc(I use DPI) placed near the instrument gives you a better idea of the pure tone of the instrument than sitting in the 15 row, or the mezzanine. Listen to a woodwind or string instrument up close, and then move back to mid hall. You here far more reverberation than you hear pure tone.

The characteristics that make an audio system disappear benefit all genres of music to which I listen - unless of course you really like the gross colorations of sound reinforcement gear. I don't!

So Madonna or Rihanna recording makse your audio system disappear. Yeah right, they contain all the processing you complain about. Sound reinforcement gear has come a very long way, but of course your personal prejudices with it would prevent you from recognizing this.

A voice, piano, guitar, cello, drum, bell tree, etc. all have a signature sound regardless of the variance you find between any two instruments or sound venues.

And one you introduce the reverberation characteristic of the hall, that sound signature is subtlely altered. The piano can lose it percussiveness as can the guitar, the cello sounds a bit less woody, and the transients of the bell tree are blunted.

The only true way to hear the purity of anything, is in a anechoic chamber, or with your ear very close to the instrument. You don't get that experience in a concert hall.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Agree to an extent, but... clearly in this case the engineers used the many pieces as crutches resulting in a poor product. A well done minimally miked recording will almost always be superior with respect to natural depth retrieval than one using dozens of mikes. Yes, you can find some oddball exceptions.

You could not be more wrong on this. The number of microphones has absolutely NOTHING to do with how good the recorded sound will be. It has nothing to do with getting depth, or razor sharp imaging. Your lack of recording experience brings you to the wrong conclusions on this every time this is discussed.

I'd much rather look through a GAF viewer of a stereo picture than looking through dozens of zoomed in slides of individual aspects of the image all stacked together. One is a natural perspective, The other, not.

Unfortunately our ears do not work like our eyes do, so this comparison fails on close scrutiny. Anyone who has heard Claudio Abaddo's Bluray release of Mahlers symphonies 1-7, and compares it to dozen's of individual zoomed in slides has ear issues. This recording used no less than 15 microphones, and the presentation is as natural as you can get, with excellent depth, timbre clarity, and soundstaging

I made a recording which included 1300 choir members, a 110 piece orchestra, soloists, a Hammond B3 organ, and Yamaha CP-70 electric piano and a acoustical piano, synthesizers, and a drummer with a HUGE drum kit. It required close to 85 microphones to capture this performance, and its presentation is totally natural, well scaled, VERY dynamic, top notch clarity, excellent soundstaging and depth. There is no way in hell the performance could have been captured clearly using minimal microphone techniques - the scale is just too massive.

It is all about the skill of the mixer and the quality of the recording equipment, not about how many microphones that are used.

Fair question. Is one's system capable of reproducing the natural depth you find in the best recordings? If the answer is yes it can with some recordings and others not, then clearly the problem is NOT the system.

I am going to throw this at you. How do you separate natural depth of the recording from the artificial depth imparted by delayed room reflections combined with dipole speakers?

I find it quite interesting that you clamor for depth, coherence, micro dynamics, and various other desireable playback characteristics, but completely ignore spatial errors, and HRT effects of mono signals produced by two speakers. Surely tackling these two issues is just as important as the others you claim to love so much.

[E-Stat]

Well Ralph, it does not help rock, soul, electronic, progressive jazz, or any other genre that uses amplified instruments does it?

I'm not alone in finding that even a good home system sounds more "live" on rock music than sound reinforcement systems. You actually get to articulate voices and instruments. The same is certainly true for electronic music where there's all sorts of tasty detail to be found with the synthesizers that is totally lost in a "live" venue. I'll go further. I find nothing at all desirable about them. The show and dance means nothing to me. What is highly desirable at such events is very good ear protection. : )

A microphone with neutral characteristisc(I use DPI) placed near the instrument gives you a better idea of the pure tone of the instrument than sitting in the 15 row, or the mezzanine.

Sorry, I prefer natural sound. Not an unrealistic macro view.

So Madonna or Rihanna recording makse your audio system disappear.

Rhianna, no. Some Madonna is very good. It is the system that gets out of the way.

The only true way to hear the purity of anything, is in a anechoic chamber,

If listening to music in an anechoic chamber floats your boat, then enjoy!

[Feanor]

...
Sitting in a concert hall(with its reverberation characteristics) is not exactly listening to the instrument in its pure form. A microphone with neutral characteristisc(I use DPI) placed near the instrument gives you a better idea of the pure tone of the instrument than sitting in the 15 row, or the mezzanine. Listen to a woodwind or string instrument up close, and then move back to mid hall. You here far more reverberation than you hear pure tone.
...
The only true way to hear the purity of anything, is in a anechoic chamber, or with your ear very close to the instrument. You don't get that experience in a concert hall.

You are right, of course. But I guess I judge real instrument sound by the way I typically hear the real instrument -- rarely close up (since I'm not a performer), and never in an anechoic chamber.

Sound recording is a both a science and an art, no doubt. I don't know its mysteries. I do know that older Deutsche Grammophon recordings that used many microphones, didn't convey a concert hall experience. I know that Mercury Living Presence recordings, made typically using only 3 mics, usually not placed close. The Mercurys did presented something closer to a concert hall experience, yet somehow I don't like the Mercury recordings all that much -- maybe I just don't like halls where they were made.

[Byron4]

Wow I never thought this post would generate this much interest. I have enjoyed reading most of the posts even the ones that differ from my point of view with the exception of JoeE SP9's second post which I found rather childish and off topic.

Even though I have been a member for almost two years I have not posted much due to the lack of time. Now that things have slowed down at work I would like to participate more. Remember I am still new at this so please have patience.

About myself. I started in music at the age of six taking piano lessons. As time went on I also learned to play the violin, drums, and trumpet. BTW I thought the musician/crappy stereo comments were amusing and did not take it personally. It is interesting because despite playing all of these instruments I did not become a music lover for another 10 years. As a teenager I started listening to rock like everyone else my age which differed greatly from the music I played classical. As I got older the performing arts talent increased greatly each level up until about the time I graduated from college and could not keep up so I stopped playing altogether. This gave me the appreciation for the classical and jazz I enjoy so much. It is also why I do not consider the term "unamplified" a genre of music. It is also why I do not like parts of the music (bass) removed for any reason when I listen on my system. Again these are just my opinions and preferences. I know many of you disagree and that is OK. I became an audiophile around the age of 19 because like many of you I wanted my music to sound better. I am comfortable and happy with my main system now although I know it could be better. The primary deficiency has to be my digital rig because I have been using the same equipment for 19 years. I feel my turntable ensemble is still pretty good especially after I got rid of the AR turntable motor noise using sewing machine oil about 10 years ago.

I find both Sir TTT and Estat to be music lovers taking a different approach to system building and listening. They both seem extremely knowledgeable and know way more than me about this topic so I plan to stop posting on this thread. Anyone want to join me in the analog forum. I posted about the new replica AR turntable and am interested in comparisons to the new VPI Traveler and Clearaudio Concept.

[JoeE SP9]

I always wonder, why does it only take two ears to hear what (according to many engineers) takes 15+ microphones to record.

The best sounding recordings I've collected in 45+ years all have two things in common. They were all done with minimal miking (many with only two) and they have little or no (studio sweetening) processing.

Byron4: Please stop thinking that bass isn't important to the majority of audiophiles. That's simply an incorrect assumption. Accurate natural sounding bass is what I and many others are after. In my case I've been spurred on by being a bass player. A system not having enough bass for you means only one thing; it doesn't have enough bass for you, nothing else.
Also, calling my previous post childish mainly because you don't agree with it is actually the childish response. Please don't start calling people names. No one was doing it before you started posting.

Whenever you post incorrect assumptions about others I will post a dissenting post.

FWIW: My system is flat to ~18Hz. Even so, I've had people tell me it doesn't have enough bass. For many people enough bass has nothing to do with flat response. What a lot of people think is bass is above 100hz in frequency and is actually lower midrange, not bass. Wanting excess energy in that range usually coincides with wanting extra treble. That places the sound in the "boom and sizzle" area.

[E-Stat]

The number of microphones has absolutely NOTHING to do with how good the recorded sound will be.

My experience is to the contrary.

Unfortunately our ears do not work like our eyes do, so this comparison fails on close scrutiny.

Sorry, I most certainly disagree. We see and hear in two dimensions, yet our brain recreates the third dimension from our genetic hard wiring and experience in a similar manner. Just the other night, I watched a PBS program about how our senses work and how they are fooled. Quite fascinating.

Anyone who has heard Claudio Abaddo's Bluray release of Mahlers symphonies 1-7, and compares it to dozen's of individual zoomed in slides has ear issues.

I'm glad to hear he did not choose a close miking technique. Fill works fine as I have directly experienced with Jack Renner's techniques recording the ASO. Others, however, use close up techniques which destroy natural depth.

It is all about the skill of the mixer and the quality of the recording equipment, not about how many microphones that are used.

And, mike placement.

How do you separate natural depth of the recording from the artificial depth imparted by delayed room reflections combined with dipole speakers?

By listening to headphones. You might try that sometimes.

I find it quite interesting that you clamor for depth, coherence, micro dynamics, and various other desireable playback characteristics, but completely ignore spatial errors, and HRT effects of mono signals produced by two speakers. Surely tackling these two issues is just as important as the others you claim to love so much.

What I find to fool the senses as "being there" is apparently different from yours. I find coherency and system resolution more important than spatial effects because the former are present regardless of the venue. Like hearing wifey play her baby grand or sing. The acoustics of our small living room aren't that impressive. My notion of "live" isn't tied to the size of the space:



I will confess, however, that I thoroughly enjoyed the soundtrack watching The Adventures of Tintin last night on the HT/MC. I'm one of those folks who actually watches and listens to the end credits as some of the best music is sometimes found there! The end credit music score was quite tasty and MC certainly improved the experience - if not sounding a touch hokey. The brass sounded as if it was coming primarily from the sides of the room. Overall, very nice.

The largest factor by far, however, has to do with my library of software. As I've mentioned before, I buy music that I enjoy listening to on a regular basis. Is that different from the way you relax and enjoy your music? Unfortunately, MC versions cover about 2% of that since I listen to lots of stuff that was recorded pre-MC era. Call me an old f**t at age 55. I go for greatest bang-for-the-buck. Yes, I have a few gee-whiz "audiophile quality" recordings of various types, but quite frankly, I don't listen to them that much - unless I'm doing an evaluation between components to determine how well they are performing. Then, I return to feeding my addiction for music.

[PolsdVigan]

I guess I'm more of a Music lover in this case. The reasons is mostly that I do not have the amount of money like most people do to get nice hardware.:-(

[Feanor]

I guess I'm more of a Music lover in this case. The reasons is mostly that I do not have the amount of money like most people do to get nice hardware.:-(

Pols, you don't have to be ashamed for not spending more on equipment than you can afford. On the other hand, having and spending money lots of money on equipment doesn't make you any less a music lover.