Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#242
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:t6YKc.120975$%_6.14466@attbi_s01... "t.hoehler" wrote in message news:9mXKc.120706$%_6.77017@attbi_s01... Ditto the above, especially if he switched from open-reel to DAT and didn't notice a difference (other than, arguably, convenience). I record using both, and the DAT's (Panasonic 3700's) definitely "lean out" and "sharpen" the sound compared to tape and live feed (albeit this is subtle). DAT and CD-R are wonderful archiving tools. They are not the last word in sound reproduction media. But Harry, they _are_ the last word, for when all the vinyl is too worn to play back, then our archived CD's or digital what have you's _will_ be the de facto standard. I realize that to this day, we are finding better and better ways to play back the 78 rpm format, and that is heartening. BUT, there is a fidelity limit with 78's and when you hit that wall, brother, you have hit that wall. Same way with LP's. There is a limit to their fidelity, especially if that rare vinyl has some play on it, and the previous playback was done with equipment not kind to vinyl. Once the damage to the grooves is done, it's done. All the hand wringing, all the super duper arms, carts, stable tables, magic moon rocks etc etc are NOT going to bring back the limited fidelity that was there in the first place. Sorry, but that's the plain truth, and no hoping and wishing will make it any different. So get cracking and transfer that vinyl before it's too late! This ain't the fifties anymore, can't just run down to Tower Records and pick up a pristine copy of that old LP. Regards, Tom Can't argue with you in theory, but the records and original tapes I have recorded to DAT lose enough that I have stopped and am exploring other options...going directly to HD at 96k or perhaps to a Masterlink and then to 96k 24 bit disks. My beef isn't digital per se although it is only at the very highest level that it can compete with analog; it is the 44.1 / 16bit CD standard per se as exemplified by the 3700 which I object to as "perfect sound forever". Utter nonsense, be brave do a double blind comparison of 44.1 compared to any other digital format and see if you can tell any difference. As to Vinyl vs CD think of the difference between VHS and DVD, that's the difference between LP and CD. Everything on the CD is cleaner sharper and more real. With all due respect, that is your opinion but one I do not share. As to double blind, it is very difficult to do with LP because there is always some noise artifact to give it away. But I have done a lot of level-matched comparisons, and done them for friends / fellow audiophiles who were predisposed to CD (some of whom didn't even own vinyl...then..but do now). Flawed as the comparison may have been in your eyes, it made believers out of them. |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
I said: The hobby is still called high-fi and that has a meaning. Anything that gets us closer to the intent of the artist by removing distortion, noise, compression, or whatever might be hiding the choices made by the artist and the engineer is a benefit. I don't really care about other preferences, they are yours and you're welcome to them, but if they include things like flawed playback devices, they are LOWER-fi. Unfortunately, the hobby hasn't been called "high-fi" in many years...high-end audio has replaced that terminology. That should make you think. Why was the term Hi-Fi abandoned? Could it be that it the real advancements have been done? |
#244
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"B&D" wrote in message
news:1oZKc.121460$%_6.106075@attbi_s01... On 7/19/04 7:21 PM, in article , "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Hmmmm ... could it be that it is the listener who gets broken in, and not the cable itself ... That may be - but could there be any other explanations? No there couldn't unless the cable is old enough and corroded enough, or has sometinjg built into it to make something other than flat. Harley is as usual, wrong as been proven many times. I don't know of any, but I have heard that sentence a lot to make me think it is not an original thought... (i.e. A lot of people feel that way) It's not original it was thought up by marketing departments at expensive cable companies. That the listener, and not the cable gets broken in? I would think that the marketing departments at the cable companies would NOT say that. My mistake, I was of course referring to the idea that cables get broken in, which is a steaming heap of B.S. |
#245
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"B&D" wrote in message
... On 7/19/04 7:34 PM, in article cUYKc.122965$IQ4.70903@attbi_s02, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: I think, though, it is an apples to oranges a bit - because the mastering standards of CD has only recently reached the potential of the medium. Just as SACD comes on the horizon. Nonsense. There have been great sounding CD's and Mastering since about 10 minutes after the first recording engineers got their hands on the format. Which recording engineers would that be? Most of the ones recording Classical music and any number of expierienced-not-afraid-to-learn engineers involved in other types of music. The only real stinkers I've heard were those thaty started with a bad master. CD has some definite advantages over vinyl - more convenient, no surface noise. And both have some real stinkers as far as mastering quality is concerned - though I have noticed that the standards of quality have risen generally so that there are more good CD's now than there ever have been - I recall a lot of CD's that got released in the early days with hiss (!) and other nasty artifacts from the analog transfer as well as recordings that sounded rather emphasized on the high end (like fingers on a chalk board passing as violin) or full of grain (like Karajan's conducting Beethoven's 5th the CD vs. the Vinyl is pretty clear). IIRC correctly he also conducted a recording of Shaherazde(sp?) that was outstandingly recorded on the Chalfont Label. Noise reduction is not a fault of CD, it is simply a testament to how much more you could hear. |
#246
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 19 Jul 2004 22:31:15 GMT, in article , Michael
McKelvy stated: All recording/playback systems are flawed. I'm just looking for the best overall playback system I can afford and the best issues of my favorite recordings. For me that is the path which brings me to what I percieve to be higher fidelity to live music and that which makes live music intrinsicly more beautiful generally speaking. And no one wants to deny you that, but the facts still lead to the inevitable conclusion that solid state and CD get you closer than tubes and vinyl. I want a satisfying listening experience. For me, that means an absence of obvious artifacts in the sound. Does it mean it has to sound like live music? Well, what does that mean? I have been to live shows that made me ecstatic, and live shows that I could not wait to leave. And, while I like many forms of music that are recorded live or close to live, I love electronic music that has no existence whatsoever outside of an electronic playback medium. I have concluded that this is an irretrievably subjective medium and that magazines and reviewers can get you in the zone of good sound, but the final fine tuning is all up to the listener and nobody else. By the way, I have a pretty good analog rig, and yet I agree that all the claims about how analog is inevitably superior to digital are way overdone. Digital these days, done right, sounds exceptionally good. |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 7/19/2004 3:31 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 7/17/2004 7:47 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message news:MtmIc.58267$MB3.50681@attbi_s04... From: (Nousaine) Date: 7/10/2004 10:37 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: mm4Ic.66433$XM6.20336@attbi_s53 (S888Wheel) wrote: From: chung ...snip to content.... That is your POV. I find it interesting that you would take such a POV without actually listening to the product. I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess. Maybe not. But you are making presumptions without actually listening. How am I making presumptions? You said you don't think the amp in question is worth listening to without listening to it. I find that a bit presumptuous. This attitude is typical of another high-end platitude "You are unqualified to comment on a product that you've never listened to." Well, I suppose some people are comfortable forming opinions about sound they haven't heard. I'm not one of those people. This is simply another merchandising technique to forestall critical comment. No. I am not involved in merchandising. I simply don't like to make presumptions that you seem to be comfortable making. I am surprised that some one who has spent so much time decrying audiophiles who let their biases affect there purchasing decisions would so easily fall victim to his own biases. It assumes that there are special evaluative qualities which only high-end promoters (including buyers) possess. And only insiders can have access. No it doesn't. It presumes that the listening experience is the final arbitrator of quality. For many of us that is the purpose of the hobby. To listen. There is nothing wrong with being more interested in measurements than listening pleasure if that is what intersts you. To each his own. A false choice. Those of us concerned with what the measurements reveal are interested in them BECAUSE they relate to better listening, at least for us. Is that because of what you actually hear or your biases based on measurements? You will never really know without bias controled comparisons will you? It's because of expierience. Yes of course, but when one claims the opposite preference based on experience the objectivists cry bias. The objectivists cannot reasonably believe they are exempt from those same biases. The very first CD's I heard were all of things I'd heard many times before on vinyl and I instantlu knew that CD was better for me. I had the very same experience. I was quite the CD enthusiast. It was CDs that inspired me to persue high end equipment.Nautrally my new CD player was better than my crappy direct drive Yamaha rack system table with the cheap P mount cartridge. But when I ran up against high end LP playback the shoe was on the other foot. Both were experienced based preferences. Both were quite equal in their legitimacy. Every time I've been able to listen to music in a properly set up room that had been equalized for flat response I was able to hear more detail. I've had many occaisonsto hear before and after examples non-flat FR and always preferred flat response. What Turntable set ups were giving the sub-part performance? It does matter. The hobby is still called high-fi and that has a meaning. Yes hifi short for high fidelity. Fidelity meaning truth. Truth to what? To what was put on the master. For me it was the original event itself. No "sound" is put on a master. Only a signal. For me it is truth to the sound of live music. That works if it's a recording of live music, studio albums are not always that. That is why I judge those differently. But there are plenty of recordings of live music to use as reference when auditioning nes components. That does not neccessarily always mean truth to the componet directly adjacent in the chain. The recording and playback system has to be considered in total when evaluating fidelity and the final result is determined by ear not by measurements. The only meaning I know of for hifi is fidelity to the source material. That is your POV not a universal POV. To change it from that standard is to introduce distortion. To change what from what standard? The only "sound" that can be seen as a standard is the original acoustic event. Recorded signals are hardly standards. They are merely part of the chain of events leading to playback. Anything that gets us closer to the intent of the artist by removing distortion, noise, compression, or whatever might be hiding the choices made by the artist and the engineer is a benefit. And that means CD's and solid state. True for studio albums I suppose. But it is hard to know the intent of the artists. They are the ones involved in how the final mix goes. One asssumes that they agree with the end result. What end result? The one they heard over the monitors in the studio? Don't you see the problem here? Once that result is finalized it should be honored by playing it back in such a way as to not re-master it. So we should copy the studio playback system for each record? I think not. That means CD and solid state. If possible it also means room treatments and EQ. For live recordings the artists' intent is more a matter of performance and we are really speaking of the recording engineer's intent. See above. I don't really care about other preferences, they are yours and you're welcome to them, but if they include things like flawed playback devices, they are LOWER-fi. All recording/playback systems are flawed. I'm just looking for the best overall playback system I can afford and the best issues of my favorite recordings. For me that is the path which brings me to what I percieve to be higher fidelity to live music and that which makes live music intrinsicly more beautiful generally speaking. And no one wants to deny you that, but the facts still lead to the inevitable conclusion that solid state and CD get you closer than tubes and vinyl. But my experience doesn't. And you seem to place weight on your experience as well. |
#248
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Nousaine wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote: ....snip to content...... "Nousaine" wrote in message I have been adjusting and optimizing turntables, arms, and cartridges since the late '60's. It is hard work and requires knowledge. If you feel that CD's are superior to LP's because you don't have to do this work, or your comparison is to a conventional LP player with no particular attention to optimization, or the best cartridge your machine ever had was a Shure V15, or you've never had a low-output MC in your system, you are welcome to the opinion that CD's are better at reproduction of music. For Pete's sake; you are assuming that I've not been-there and done-that, which is exactly why I no longer borther with vinyl. I have owned several Shure V15s; and yes the best cartridge I ever owned was the last one. And yes I've owned MC cartridges None of them could hold a candle to the V15. This attitude is the last stronghold of the high-end apologist saying is essence that I don't share your opinions because I haven't done the work, lack the expertise and/or haven't owned the right equipment. It's also amusing in that one of the objections to controlled comparison that occasionally arises from the 'subjectivist' side is that, it's too much work to 'optimize' one. But before you conclude that this is "intrinsic" you must be willing to optimize LP; otherwise you are simply fooling yourself (and also robbing yourself of much fine music). I've always been willing to optimize my systems. But I am only willing tune an obsolete technology so much before simply replacing it with a better one. For what it's worth I've either acquired a re-issue or have an archived cd-r copy of any programming I owned on lp that I considered important. My biggest recording problem is that I have too many of them. Couple the financial, time and effort investment that comes with 'optimizing' the LP experience, with the circle-the-wagons threat that digital represents, and I think much of 'vinylphilia' is explained. That, and the cool album cover art. ; -- -S. "We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's. Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." -- David Lee Roth |
#249
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 20 Jul 2004 02:03:46 GMT, B&D wrote: On 7/19/04 7:34 PM, in article cUYKc.122965$IQ4.70903@attbi_s02, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: I think, though, it is an apples to oranges a bit - because the mastering standards of CD has only recently reached the potential of the medium. Just as SACD comes on the horizon. Nonsense. There have been great sounding CD's and Mastering since about 10 minutes after the first recording engineers got their hands on the format. Which recording engineers would that be? The ones who did Dire Straits CDs, for a start. The genesis of this thread, to remind everyone, was a quote indicating that noted 'audiophile' musicians/studio mavens Steely Dan, apparently consider high-end audio 'truisms' to be more than a little laughable. Fagan was an early adopter of digital recording, with his 'Nightfly' album, which is *still* cited as one of the nicest pop recordings out there (most recently, IME, by Bob Katz). CD has some definite advantages over vinyl - more convenient, no surface noise. And both have some real stinkers as far as mastering quality is concerned - though I have noticed that the standards of quality have risen generally so that there are more good CD's now than there ever have been - I recall a lot of CD's that got released in the early days with hiss (!) Lots of them are still being released with hiss from the analogue master tapes - why would that be a surprise? The difference is that on CD you can *hear* the hiss............... Besides, it seems to me the standards of *mastering* for pop CDs have *fallen* not risen, since the mid-90's, due to the 'loudness wars', so I have to wonder if Bromo is talking only about the relatively tiny jazz and classical markets. It would be erroneous, of course, to say that CDs sound intrinsically flawed, from the prevalence of *bad mastering*. -- -S. "We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's. Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." -- David Lee Roth |
#250
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:W9bLc.144437$XM6.135514@attbi_s53... On 19 Jul 2004 22:47:56 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: When you have the LP and CD systems sounding identical in timbre and frequency, you can be assured that this aspect of LP reproduction is set correctly. And in my system, it is. Mine, too. It's easier when you start with a decently neutral turntable, of course! :-) Regardless, once you achieve this goal, the Linn is wonderfully transparent in its ability to reveal detail. I've heard a direct comparison in same system with VPI's next to top of the line TT / graham arm, and it is every bit as revealing. And when it is, and identical recordings are played on LP and CD, the LP's usually win on "depth of image" and microdynamics. That's not a 'win', that's just a preference for the added artifacts and compression of vinyl over a truly accurate transcription of what was on the master tape. Here we differ in philosophy, perhaps. If it emulates what I hear in a concert hall, easily and without any intervening artifacts, then it is "more real"...which is my purpose in having a hi-fi rig to enjoy music on to begin with. Also, a perfectly set up line-contact stylus and good sounding headamp/preamp also minimize LP scratches and surface noise (assuming the LP's are in good shape) to an inconsequential level so that sometimes you really have to listen hard to hear any "noise" difference. Only in the loud bits! Nope, the soft and average in-between as well. Anything else, and you've got a mistreated record, an improperly set up line contact, a non-line-contact stylus, or a headamp or preamp that fails to separate groove noise from the recording underneath (the best do). I have been adjusting and optimizing turntables, arms, and cartridges since the late '60's. Me, too. Isn't it wonderful to be of a certain age? :-) It is hard work and requires knowledge. If you feel that CD's are superior to LP's because you don't have to do this work, or your comparison is to a conventional LP player with no particular attention to optimization, or the best cartridge your machine ever had was a Shure V15, or you've never had a low-output MC in your system, you are welcome to the opinion that CD's are better at reproduction of music. No, I believe CDs are superior because I can make a CD-R copy of an LP which sounds *exactly* like the original LP. That leads to the reasonable conclusion that the digital medium is sonically transparent, which LP most definitely isn't. I have had Goldring, Thorens and Michell tables, Lenco, SME, Mission and Rega arms, and Fidelity Research, Ortofon, Decca, and Audio-Technica carts. Oh yes, and a V-15 which was certainly one of the better carts................ Quite frankly, Stewart, if the V-15 was one of your better carts, then you haven't even begun to tap what a SOTA MC/headamp/preamp chain can do. But before you conclude that this is "intrinsic" you must be willing to optimize LP; otherwise you are simply fooling yourself (and also robbing yourself of much fine music). Agreed. Now, since I've been there and done that - and so have lots of others - did you have any point aside from your own personal *preference* for vinyl? Yep. Why then, do people exposed to systems like mine (my own and others) who have never heard a good vinyl setup, go away shaking their heads in disbelief at how good it sounds. And why do they often end up investing in their own vinyl rig (if they are audiophiles). That is certainly not based on the technical superiority of CD. Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering Harry Lavo | Audio is Hobby - Arguing Incessantly is Boring |
#251
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 7/19/2004 7:03 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 7/19/2004 11:43 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: hDUKc.117584$a24.95616@attbi_s03 "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 7/16/2004 3:45 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message news:J%cJc.78334$%_6.34016@attbi_s01... From: "Bob Marcus" Date: 7/14/2004 8:30 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 1kcJc.76426$MB3.32199@attbi_s04 B&D wrote: On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out. Some of us have heard highly distorting systems with massive bass humps before. We don't need to listen to another one to know we won't like it. bob Let me get this straight, you can look at the the measurements of the WAVAC and from those measurements you can determine with a reasonable level of certainty that you have heard a *system* that sounded so similar to the *system* MF reported on in his review that you wouldn't require an audition to form an opinion on it's sonic merits? Based on the measurements the only merit this amp would have is as a really expensive door stop. It would not have been considered a hi-fi amp since the 1940's. Look at the graph of any decent SS amp and you will see the distortion as a nearly flat line until full rated power is reached. With the WAVAC it continues to get worse as you increase the volume. At around 2 watts it's at 1% which is where THD becomes audible. If this amp were $12.00 it would still be overpriced to anyone looking for a 150 watt amp. Are you suggesting that those people who like what they hear from this amp and believe that what they hear through this amp sounds more like live music should revise their subjective impressions to fit the measurements? No, I'm suggesting that buying an amp with this kind of distortion, cannot by definition sound more like live music By definition? Let's not forget that no one listens to amplifiers. If you listen to music amplified by a WAVAC or any SET for that matter, you are definitely listening to the amplifier. No, you are still listening to a recording played back through a system that includes an amplifier and speakers. We listen to recordings played back through amplifier speaker systems. I don't believe your assertion is always true. With CD and Solid State electronics, you'd be correct. With any working playback system I am correct. and that basing one's buying decisions on their faulty memory of such events can only lead to inferior sound. When hifi retailer sets up a demp room with a live band we will be able to circumvent the potential problems we face with aural memory. Till then it is what we will have to rely on. I don't think it is quite so bad as some would have us believe anytime a unit measures one way and is subjectively percieved in another way. That's a wonderful anecdote, It wasn't even an anecdote much less a wonderful one. the science of audio shows that fidelity transfers to better listening. I think it has been established that science and the hobby of audio rarely cross paths. It's not personal, nobody has reliable memory when it comes to audio. This doesn't seem to become an issue when people talk about their impressions of speakers or recordings. Why is that? In the case of speakers they have much more distortion than the rest of the audio chain, as I'm reasonably sure you are aware of. What does that have to do with my point that people don't seem to start raising the issue of aural memory when someone expresses an opinion about the sound of speakers? Recordings are subject to the bias of the recording engineer and the artist involved, then they are played back through God knows what speakers in God knows what rooms. The fact is you mazy not like the choices made by the artist and the engineer, but if you listen through good equipment and in a well set up room, to a CD recording, you'll be hearing what they intended you hear, not some compromise made for LP or some colorized version provided via the distortion induced from something like the WAVAC. Rarely true unfortunately. |
#252
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
S888Wheel wrote:
From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 7/20/2004 8:48 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: y9bLc.143763$Oq2.122370@attbi_s52 On 19 Jul 2004 22:55:26 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 7/19/2004 9:05 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: DjSKc.117270$MB3.113782@attbi_s04 On 18 Jul 2004 16:18:15 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 7/18/2004 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 05:28:36 GMT, B&D wrote: On 7/16/04 6:41 PM, in article , "Michael McKelvy" wrote: "B&D" wrote in message news:QQkJc.92602$Oq2.45040@attbi_s52... On 7/14/04 6:33 PM, in article , "Michael McKelvy" wrote: LP compared to CD is objectively inferior in terms of distortion, compression, signal to noise, and all other technical specs related to fidelity. All other specs? Really? *ALL* of them? The important ones AFAIK. The fact is still that in terms of objective performance CD stomps all over LP. It is higher fi. Where I would agree with you is the POTENTIAL of CD is better than that of LP's - but the state of the art in mastering tends to make the CD's much less close to hifi. Absolute nonsense! There are numerous superbly mastered CDs on the market, all of which *grossly* exceed the fidelity of even the very best vinyl. You might want to check your vinyl rig to make sure everything is working well. I do, regularly. It works just fine, Then maybe you ought to consider that your biases are at work. This claim of "gross" outperformance would seem like a red flag that something is up. When we're talking about one medium which has a hundred times lower distortion and ten to a hundred times lower noise than the other, 'gross' seems like quite a mild term to me.................. Oh, I thought you might actually be talking about the actual listening experience, ....though he did write 'in terms of objective performance' back there, implying that he *wasn't* talking about the subjective listening experience in the exchange you quote. an experience that is inherently riddled with distortions that arguably look gross compared to either CD or high end LP. There are inherent, unavoidable forms of distortion in the system comprised of the listener, the recording, the medium, and the reproduction devices -- the human's non-flat frequency sensitivity , for example -- and there are forms of distortion that we can choose to add or not, based on purely subjective preference. Let's count the LP/turntable system in the latter category. Personally as such additional distortions go I prefer Dolby Pro Logic II. It was a logical thing to say to anyone who is having such trouble getting good sound from their high end turntable. Not what I said at all. "Grossly outperformed" would indicate a sign of trouble to me. especially when CDs rarely out perform LPs on my system. But I didn't realize you were talking measurements and not listening experience. Perhaps you were reading prejudicially. |
#253
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/20/04 11:46 AM, in article p7bLc.126823$JR4.95135@attbi_s54, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote: Speaking of speakers, do you think we need $100,000 speakers to get an accurate sound? or a $1000 mass market speakers will do? It's been my experience that the best speakers at their price point keep getting better all the way up to at least $50,000, which is the most expensive I've heard. OTOH, a really good $2-3,000 pair of minimonitors, combined with a high-quality subwoofer, gets *very* close, and can be much easier to match to a room. For example, the JMlabs Grande Utopia referenced above does not sound significantly different from the Mini Utopia above 100Hz, to these tired old ears. I would have to agree with you on that one. I would add that anything above $50k - the sound is likely to worsen, and even below you have to be very, very careful. I heard somewhere someone said that 95% of all speakers are not worth owning, it is figuring out which of the 5% are is the problem. I would agree that if your speaker budget is about $3-5k and you land good speakers for that - it will only be incremental above that! Minimonitors + subwoofer is a killer combo! |
#254
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 7/19/2004 3:32 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "B&D" wrote in message ... On 7/17/04 10:36 AM, in article , "S888Wheel" wrote: Are you suggesting that those people who like what they hear from this amp and believe that what they hear through this amp sounds more like live music should revise their subjective impressions to fit the measurements? IN this case, who knows. But the general consensus amongst so-called "objectivists" is that the data sheet tells you just about everything you need to know. Then it should be no trouble to provide a quote of that. probably not. Just run google searches on some the most frequent posters on RAHE and indeed you should have no trouble finding one. I looked. I didn't find any. Could you provide some search terms? Maybe I'm using the wrong ones. The 'consensus' that I would say exists, is : - 'data sheets' supplied with consumer audio (including high end stuff) may be misleading and may not contain the most useful measurement data. - bench test 'data sheets' published in audio mags can be informative as to the component's sound if the right measurements were done (and done well). - in all cases 'usefulness' depends on reader understanding how to properly interpret the measurement If an amplifier sounds nice, but the data sheet does not back it up - then somehow your ears are fooling themselves. Sorry what my ears tells me is what counts. I will not adjust my perceptions to suit the measurements. Alas, the vast majority of audiophiles, Mr. Fremer definitely and yourself probably included, do not *really* go only by what the ears tell them, in evaluating audio performance. Decades of studies in the field of perceptual and marketing psychology indicate that your perceptions of quality are likely to be significantly affected by what information you have already encountered (regardless of the actual accuracy or relevance of said information). That information can be anything you know, or think you know, about appearance, brand, price, distortion levels, or other objective data, as well as any subjective impressions you have read or heard from others beforehand. It really should go without saying at this point, here on RAHE, that the only way to *really* go by 'what your ears tell you', is to know *only* that a sound is playing, not which component is playing it. In practice this means one has to blind the listener to the identity of the DUT and to use statistical methods to identify relationships between perception and reality. But it is *also* reasonable to make inferences about audible performance from proper measurements. A speaker witha a FR that drops off precipitously at 10 kHz is, no surprise, going to sound more 'muffled' than one with full FR. Whether a person will *like* the filtered speaker's sound or not is another issue. -- -S. "We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's. Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." -- David Lee Roth |
#255
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
From: chung
Date: 7/20/2004 11:22 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: JpdLc.128387$IQ4.43727@attbi_s02 S888Wheel wrote: Absolute Sound From: chung Date: 7/19/2004 9:17 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 811Lc.138430$XM6.28315@attbi_s53 S888Wheel wrote: From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 7/19/2004 9:05 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: jjSKc.121019$IQ4.107545@attbi_s02 On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 18:26:52 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: From: "Ban" Date: 7/17/2004 11:01 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: rnoKc.119468$Oq2.36942@attbi_s52 S888Wheel wrote: Measurements "pejudicing" (sic) customers? That's a new one. No, It's nothing new.( except my unique spelling perhaps) Heck, just look at all the folks that jumped on the band wagon with the very early SS amps of the sixties. Some of them were really quite awful but the meter reasers thought they were the cat's meow based on the measurements. If the sound was awful, they will have also measured bad. I suggest you do your homework on that one. They measured amazingly well by the measurements made in that time. They sounded pretty awful though. I suggest you do your homework on that one. I did. These amps recieved glowing reviews for their measured performance and their sonic performance. i can only wonder if listening tests were actually done. They had very high crossover distortion, and very low slew rate, both of which were easily measurable. I suggest you take this up with the folks who claimed they measured well back in the day. It's not my fault the reviewers were hung up on THD. It's not my fault they praised amps that a lot of people figured out sounded awful just by listening. However it is your logical error when you conclude from this that bad amps measure well. No. That was the conclusion of the positive reviews of those amps at the time. What you failed to understand is that there are some bad amps that may have one parameter that measures well. No, I didn't fail to understand that. I was simply pointing out that contrary to your claim, being biased by measurements is nothing new. So those consumers who read the reviews you referred to were prejudiced by poor reviewers who did not understand measurements. See the difference? Nope given that the measurements used for the review were included in the review. Biasing based on measurements is nothing new even if it is new to you. The measurements do not prejudice. It is the lack of understanding of what the measurements mean that prejudice the reviewers/consumers potentially. If a consumer looks at a measurement, assumes it will manifest itself sonically and then believes they hear that when the audition the unit then the measurement has been the source for a bias. It's really quite simple. But other measured parameters clearly indicate that the amps are bad. Not my fault the meter readers of that time didn't know what to look for. So do not blame the measurements, blame the reviewers then. It isn't about blame. It is about history, what happened. You said peopel being biased by measurements was new to you. Well, it isn't new to the world of audio. It was quite common amoung people, including objectivist magazine reviewers. |
#256
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Nousaine" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote: ....snip to content...... "Nousaine" wrote in message I have been adjusting and optimizing turntables, arms, and cartridges since the late '60's. It is hard work and requires knowledge. If you feel that CD's are superior to LP's because you don't have to do this work, or your comparison is to a conventional LP player with no particular attention to optimization, or the best cartridge your machine ever had was a Shure V15, or you've never had a low-output MC in your system, you are welcome to the opinion that CD's are better at reproduction of music. For Pete's sake; you are assuming that I've not been-there and done-that, which is exactly why I no longer borther with vinyl. I have owned several Shure V15s; and yes the best cartridge I ever owned was the last one. And yes I've owned MC cartridges None of them could hold a candle to the V15. This attitude is the last stronghold of the high-end apologist saying is essence that I don't share your opinions because I haven't done the work, lack the expertise and/or haven't owned the right equipment. But before you conclude that this is "intrinsic" you must be willing to optimize LP; otherwise you are simply fooling yourself (and also robbing yourself of much fine music). I've always been willing to optimize my systems. But I am only willing tune an obsolete technology so much before simply replacing it with a better one. For what it's worth I've either acquired a re-issue or have an archived cd-r copy of any programming I owned on lp that I considered important. My biggest recording problem is that I have too many of them. If you are going to cut up my message, at least get the attribution correct. You've got our quotations reversed. As to your rationale for no longer using vinyl, I don't buy it. If you've really gone to the trouble to optimize a system, it is not a big deal to keep it in working order and enjoy the vinyl. Methinks a digital bias is present and that you never had a vinyl system as good as digital to begin with. It certain *is* possible if one cares to have it / do it. As far as I'm concerned this thread has reached its logical conclusion. Mr Lavo will forever consider any opinion I hold, that doesn't match his, to be not-worth-buying because I've "never had" a good enough vinyl system. This is the final high-end argument (and commons sales argument) in many cases; if you can't convince the opposition with logic or evidence then invoke the "you don't have good enough equipment" defense. |
#257
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
#258
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message I said: The hobby is still called high-fi and that has a meaning. Anything that gets us closer to the intent of the artist by removing distortion, noise, compression, or whatever might be hiding the choices made by the artist and the engineer is a benefit. I don't really care about other preferences, they are yours and you're welcome to them, but if they include things like flawed playback devices, they are LOWER-fi. Unfortunately, the hobby hasn't been called "high-fi" in many years...high-end audio has replaced that terminology. That should make you think. Why was the term Hi-Fi abandoned? Could it be that it the real advancements have been done? No, I think the phrase "high-end" was coined by Harry Pearson in the early days of TAS, to define companies that were primarily listening-oriented vs. measurement-oriented, because everything was called "hi-fi" in those days, including stuff that measured well but sounded like dreck...mostly mid-fi stuff that was positioned as "hi-fi". Harry, from the beginning, made a point of noting that he was talking about where (how high, or how exalted) they set their company's "mission", not their price. So a lot of not very expensive gear was reviewed as well as some very expensive stuff. For example, NAD was considered high end. Yamaha was not. And that distinction was deserved based on the sound of the day. |
#259
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
#261
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/20/04 6:04 PM, in article XFgLc.129726$JR4.107265@attbi_s54, "Michael
McKelvy" wrote: am always on the look out for better masterings. And I am quite a jazz enthusiast. John Handy Excursion in Blue is excellent on CD. Anything from GRP. What does it matter, you don't like CD sound so you'll claim your LP's out perform the CD. The problem is they don't but you like LP sound better, even though you're missing out on the increased transient response, lower noise and no possibility of tracking error. You like what you like, but it's still inferior to CD. Hate to pick nits - but if there is a CD "sound" it would have to be colored, yes? |
#262
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
#263
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
B&D wrote:
On 7/20/04 6:46 PM, in article , "Michael McKelvy" wrote: That the listener, and not the cable gets broken in? I would think that the marketing departments at the cable companies would NOT say that. My mistake, I was of course referring to the idea that cables get broken in, which is a steaming heap of B.S. I wouldn't use such a colorful (& smelly) method of description, but I haven't seen any evidence of this personally, though I have noticed that in some audio cables it can influence the sound (usually in a detrimental manner) - mostly the expensive ones .... I've conducted three experiments that exactly bear on this issue. In each of these cases I had 12-inch woofers which were conditioned by the manufacturer to require 24,48 and 150 hours of "break-in" to perform optimally. In the last case I asked to manufacturer to provide 4 samples at least one of which had been subjected to the 150 hour break-in period prior to delivery. Here's what I found. In the first 2 cases the woofers pre/post break-in performance was identical. By this I mean that when the voice coil was still hot after break-in there were differences in measured paramters (lower Fs, increased Vas, and increased Re) but enclosure simulations delivered tbe same optimal enclosure but installing the woofer in a box and measuring and listening to the sound showed they sounded exactly the same. Interestingly I found that the woofer that required 48 hours of break-in; where I followed break-in of impedance measurements at 1-hour intervals, had a slowly falling Fsb that settled after several hours, BUT slowly drifted back to its original value after an overnight rest. In my opinion speakers will "warm-up" but it doesn't change their sound and if you let the speaker rest overnight you're right back where you started. |
#264
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Steven Sullivan wrote:
S888Wheel wrote: From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 7/19/2004 3:32 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "B&D" wrote in message ... On 7/17/04 10:36 AM, in article , "S888Wheel" wrote: Are you suggesting that those people who like what they hear from this amp and believe that what they hear through this amp sounds more like live music should revise their subjective impressions to fit the measurements? IN this case, who knows. But the general consensus amongst so-called "objectivists" is that the data sheet tells you just about everything you need to know. Then it should be no trouble to provide a quote of that. probably not. Just run google searches on some the most frequent posters on RAHE and indeed you should have no trouble finding one. I looked. I didn't find any. Could you provide some search terms? Maybe I'm using the wrong ones. I also tried to find any such posts. Couldn't find any. Perhaps Mr. Wheel wishes to admit that he was wrong? Or provide some links? |
#265
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Nousaine" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Nousaine" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote: ....snip to content...... "Nousaine" wrote in message I have been adjusting and optimizing turntables, arms, and cartridges since the late '60's. It is hard work and requires knowledge. If you feel that CD's are superior to LP's because you don't have to do this work, or your comparison is to a conventional LP player with no particular attention to optimization, or the best cartridge your machine ever had was a Shure V15, or you've never had a low-output MC in your system, you are welcome to the opinion that CD's are better at reproduction of music. For Pete's sake; you are assuming that I've not been-there and done-that, which is exactly why I no longer borther with vinyl. I have owned several Shure V15s; and yes the best cartridge I ever owned was the last one. And yes I've owned MC cartridges None of them could hold a candle to the V15. This attitude is the last stronghold of the high-end apologist saying is essence that I don't share your opinions because I haven't done the work, lack the expertise and/or haven't owned the right equipment. But before you conclude that this is "intrinsic" you must be willing to optimize LP; otherwise you are simply fooling yourself (and also robbing yourself of much fine music). I've always been willing to optimize my systems. But I am only willing tune an obsolete technology so much before simply replacing it with a better one. For what it's worth I've either acquired a re-issue or have an archived cd-r copy of any programming I owned on lp that I considered important. My biggest recording problem is that I have too many of them. If you are going to cut up my message, at least get the attribution correct. You've got our quotations reversed. As to your rationale for no longer using vinyl, I don't buy it. If you've really gone to the trouble to optimize a system, it is not a big deal to keep it in working order and enjoy the vinyl. Methinks a digital bias is present and that you never had a vinyl system as good as digital to begin with. It certain *is* possible if one cares to have it / do it. As far as I'm concerned this thread has reached its logical conclusion. Mr Lavo will forever consider any opinion I hold, that doesn't match his, to be not-worth-buying because I've "never had" a good enough vinyl system. This is the final high-end argument (and commons sales argument) in many cases; if you can't convince the opposition with logic or evidence then invoke the "you don't have good enough equipment" defense. I'm happy to end the thread. But I would make one final observation - I didn't raise the "quality" issue until you made the specific claim that the Shure V15 was the best cartridge you have had in your system. Since I am very familiar with the many iterations of that cartridge, and with many more cartridges as well, I can say with utmost confidence that it is better than some MC's but far inferior to many others. Accordingly I can also say that you have not had in your system the best that LP has to offer, whether you can acknowledge that or not. Which may explain why we come out at two widely divergent places. I would be careful about building and asserting a "weltanschauung" based on that somewhat limited experience. |
#266
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Michael McKelvy wrote:
Unfortunately, the hobby hasn't been called "high-fi" in many years...high-end audio has replaced that terminology. That should make you think. Why was the term Hi-Fi abandoned? Could it be true that some of the higher priced gear didn't fulfill the "HiFi" requirements, which were coined down in international standards, and for that reason another term had to be invented? So you couldn't nail down the company and return the crappy gear. At least with the Wavac that seems to indicate this lengthly practiced habit. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
#267
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 19:42:15 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:
From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 7/20/2004 8:48 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: y9bLc.143763$Oq2.122370@attbi_s52 When we're talking about one medium which has a hundred times lower distortion and ten to a hundred times lower noise than the other, 'gross' seems like quite a mild term to me.................. Oh, I thought you might actually be talking about the actual listening experience, an experience that is inherently riddled with distortions that arguably look gross compared to either CD or high end LP. In listening also, CD is noticeably less coloured than LP. It does help if you use speakers such as mine, which have handily lower distortion than a high-end vinyl rig................... "Grossly outperformed" would indicate a sign of trouble to me. especially when CDs rarely out perform LPs on my system. Sure they do, you simply have a personal preference for the well-known *added* artifacts of vinyl. But I didn't realize you were talking measurements and not listening experience. In listening, I would tend to say that CD noticeably outperforms LP, it's only in measurements that the gross difference in fidelity to the original master is obvious. I reckon that I get as good sound as anyone else does from vinyl, I doubt that but that is another topic. Well of course you doubt it - but that's another topic. it's just that the *medium* is fundamentally limited. Every medium is limited. You were refering to gross outperformance. I made the mistake of assuming you were speaking of what you were hearing. I hear that CD is obviously more stable in pitch, has obviously deeper and clearer bass, has significantly superior dynamic range, and much better treble detail. I guess some would say that this constitutes a gross difference - especially those who claim to hear 'night and day' differences among cables! If it is "grossly" being outpreformed IME it would be likely one of two things. The rig isn't working right, the records are subpar in quality and/or condition or the listener is profoundly biased. Nope, CD simply outclasses vinyl in every possible way, as a high fifdelity sound source. And yet I keep getting better sound from my records most of the time. No, you simply keep *preferring* those added artifacts - which are easily reproduced by making a CD-R copy of LP. That's always seemed to me to be an obvious pointer to the transparency of CD, vs the euphonic distortions of LP. but *all* of my thirty-odd XRCDs exceed the fidelity of their vinyl equivalents, and that is simply down to excellent mastering on a fundamentally superior medium. What titles are you talking about? Which LP issues did you compare them to? I am always on the look out for better masterings. And I am quite a jazz enthusiast. Try the 'XXXXX with the Miles Davis Quintet' series. Every jazz enthusiast has at least one version of those classics. I am not familiar with this title. Is it a compliation? I have just about everything the Miles Davis Quintet released on vinyl though. What LPs did you compare this particular CD release with? Oh, very funny. As any Davis fan would know, I am of course referring to four albums - Relaxin', Cookin', Steamin' and Workin' with the Miles Davis Quintet, classic Davis albums from the mid '50s. The Prestige LPs are IMHO the best vinyl versions you'll find, but are a pale shadow of the XRCDs. Of course, I could also mention 'Kind of Blue', but that has been released so many times with so many remasterings that an 'apples for apples' comparison is very difficult. Let me simply say about 'Kind of Blue' that most of the CDs I have heard sound more lifelike to me than most of the LP versions I've heard. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#268
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 22:20:31 GMT, B&D wrote:
On 7/20/04 11:46 AM, in article w7bLc.108245$WX.83238@attbi_s51, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: On 19 Jul 2004 22:25:39 GMT, B&D wrote: On 7/18/04 5:04 PM, in article dBBKc.113201$%_6.50861@attbi_s01, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: Unfortunately, our beings our designed so that we do not listen "objectively". All we can do is listen "subjectively". And on that basis, there are many who believe a top-flight LP system can outperform a top-flight CD system. Indeed there are - but many, many more who believe the reverse. And a 'top-flight' CD player need not of course be expensive, which allows more money for what really matters - the speakers and the room. Actually, for me it would be MUSIC. Agreed - but a different argument. Sure - but I wanted to remind people it is more about the music than the gear. Gear is a means to an end. Sure, but this is a *high end audio* newsgroup, hence it's a forum for discussing equipment and setup, not music. There are literally hundreds of dedicated music newsgroups. And, yes, for comparable levels of reproduction CD is cheaper than turntable stuff - and is more convenient and lasts longer without fuss. Unfortunately for your theory, it would need a very cheap CD player to get down to the ability of even the most expensive vinyl rig...... Here we disagree. I think a $1500 CD player would compare to a $5k vinyl rig (turntable, tonearm, cartridge), though. Assuming the vinyl and CD's used for evaluation were pristine. Disagree all you like, it's a plain fact that the objective performance of a $500 CD player *grossly* exceeds the capability of the $75,000 Rockport Sirius II fitted with a $5,000 cartridge. As it happens, I have a £250 CD player and a £2,000 vinyl rig - and the CD player sounds flatter, clearer and quieter every time, with much deeper bass and no tracing distortion, microphony or treble splash. And *all* of my vinyl and CD is pristine, since I'm not one of those 'fleamarket' vinyl collectors. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#269
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 03:16:59 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote: I think the phrase "high-end" was coined by Harry Pearson in the early days of TAS, to define companies that were primarily listening-oriented vs. measurement-oriented, because everything was called "hi-fi" in those days, including stuff that measured well but sounded like dreck...mostly mid-fi stuff that was positioned as "hi-fi". So where are the controlled listening tests that shows anything sounded like "dreck?" Where are the controlled listening tests that show that that "high-end" equipmnet sounds better than "dreck"? Harry, from the beginning, made a point of noting that he was talking about where (how high, or how exalted) they set their company's "mission", not their price. Oh really: so how come there have been no bias-controlled listening tests conducted or published? Was it NOT true that you are suggesting that measurements didn't convey an accurate picture of an audio components true acoustical performance? So why weren't there any confirming bias-controlled listening tests to show that this was true? A 'screen' would seem to have been an obvious closer. So a lot of not very expensive gear was reviewed as well as some very expensive stuff. For example, NAD was considered high end. Yamaha was not. And that distinction was deserved based on the sound of the day. There was nothing based on the "sound" of the day because there were no bias-controlled listening tests employed confirming that the evaluations were confined to acoustical import. I'm amazed that you resisted the temptation to point out that a highly experienced audiophile, using his own reference system in his own listening room, failed to tell the difference between a 'dreck' Yamaha integrated amp and a $12,000 pair of extremely 'high end' Pass Aleph 1.2 monoblocs, when he actually did have to 'trust his ears'......... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#270
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Harry Lavo wrote:
As to double blind, it is very difficult to do with LP because there is always some noise artifact to give it away. But I have done a lot of level-matched comparisons, and done them for friends / fellow audiophiles who were predisposed to CD (some of whom didn't even own vinyl...then..but do now). Flawed as the comparison may have been in your eyes, it made believers out of them. But then, if you copy the LP to CD and make the comparison, why can it not be destinguished? Maybe the whole thing is due to the whimpy dynamics of LP, which requires a much bigger compression especially on classical recordings. So LPs *are* mastered differently. Some people just like it compressed, because they do not have the required gear to reproduce the dynamics of a life concert. This would also indicate that tubed amps are popular with them, which "round" the clipping a bit more. A LP played through a tube amp has 40 to 50dB less dynamics, the amp and the needle add so much distortion in the louder parts, that the compression gets compensated for and loudness seems to be higher, even if the amp puts out only a tiny bit of more power. Our ears are quite insensitive to short-time distortion (esp. of 2nd harmonics). Worse still the low frequency limitations. Even with the 20dB boost of the RIAA preamp, the low frequencies are very limited in level, the same is true for high frequencies (which are boosted at the same rate when mastering). So generally speaking, a LP will be "louder"(compressed) and with more midrange(again "louder"). It has been shown that louder sound corresponds with a "better" perceived quality. But it is more like a radio station quality, which all of us hate. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
#271
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 20 Jul 2004 22:55:00 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:W9bLc.144437$XM6.135514@attbi_s53... I believe CDs are superior because I can make a CD-R copy of an LP which sounds *exactly* like the original LP. That leads to the reasonable conclusion that the digital medium is sonically transparent, which LP most definitely isn't. I have had Goldring, Thorens and Michell tables, Lenco, SME, Mission and Rega arms, and Fidelity Research, Ortofon, Decca, and Audio-Technica carts. Oh yes, and a V-15 which was certainly one of the better carts................ Quite frankly, Stewart, if the V-15 was one of your better carts, then you haven't even begun to tap what a SOTA MC/headamp/preamp chain can do. Quite frankly, Harry, if you never appreciated the superb quality of the V-15, then you didn't have it set up properly - or could it be that you you have the typical 'high end' bias that low-output MCs are somehow intrinsically superior to high-output MMs? As it happens, I do use an A-T OC9 with a SOTA preamp, but I wouldn't say that it 'outclasses' a modern V-15 with an equally good preamp - especially on 'hot' records like Telarcs and most direct-cuts. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#272
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
#273
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
#274
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Nousaine wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote: Harry, from the beginning, made a point of noting that he was talking about where (how high, or how exalted) they set their company's "mission", not their price. Oh really: so how come there have been no bias-controlled listening tests conducted or published? Was it NOT true that you are suggesting that measurements didn't convey an accurate picture of an audio components true acoustical performance? So why weren't there any confirming bias-controlled listening tests to show that this was true? A 'screen' would seem to have been an obvious closer. I'd think that objective verification of one's claims would be the highest 'mission' one could aspire to, when designing real equipment. It doesn't seem to me that many 'high-end' companies have aimed very high, by that standard. So a lot of not very expensive gear was reviewed as well as some very expensive stuff. For example, NAD was considered high end. Yamaha was not. And that distinction was deserved based on the sound of the day. There was nothing based on the "sound" of the day because there were no bias-controlled listening tests employed confirming that the evaluations were confined to acoustical import. The audiophile press is a shameless enterprise today, and apparently was then too. -- -S. "We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's. Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." -- David Lee Roth |
#275
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:LelLc.150433$XM6.103359@attbi_s53... "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message I said: The hobby is still called high-fi and that has a meaning. Anything that gets us closer to the intent of the artist by removing distortion, noise, compression, or whatever might be hiding the choices made by the artist and the engineer is a benefit. I don't really care about other preferences, they are yours and you're welcome to them, but if they include things like flawed playback devices, they are LOWER-fi. Unfortunately, the hobby hasn't been called "high-fi" in many years...high-end audio has replaced that terminology. That should make you think. Why was the term Hi-Fi abandoned? Because it was over-ridden by high-end a marketing and sales term that had nothing to do with audio accuracy. Could it be that it the real advancements have been done? That's exactly the right answer. No, I think the phrase "high-end" was coined by Harry Pearson in the early days of TAS, to define companies that were primarily listening-oriented vs. measurement-oriented, because everything was called "hi-fi" in those days, including stuff that measured well but sounded like dreck...mostly mid-fi stuff that was positioned as "hi-fi". So where are the controlled listening tests that shows anything sounded like "dreck?" Where are the controlled listening tests that show that that "high-end" equipmnet sounds better than "dreck"? Harry, from the beginning, made a point of noting that he was talking about where (how high, or how exalted) they set their company's "mission", not their price. Oh really: so how come there have been no bias-controlled listening tests conducted or published? Was it NOT true that you are suggesting that measurements didn't convey an accurate picture of an audio components true acoustical performance? So why weren't there any confirming bias-controlled listening tests to show that this was true? A 'screen' would seem to have been an obvious closer. So a lot of not very expensive gear was reviewed as well as some very expensive stuff. For example, NAD was considered high end. Yamaha was not. And that distinction was deserved based on the sound of the day. There was nothing based on the "sound" of the day because there were no bias-controlled listening tests employed confirming that the evaluations were confined to acoustical import. Given the time of the "day" I wonder why not. It would seem to have been so easy. Because, frankly, in the "day" under discussion the sound differences even among amplifiers were as different as often the sound is today among speakers. Easily heard once you removed the propaganda bias. The purpose of the magazines was to say...."forget measurements and measurement hype for a moment, and just listen. Does it sound remotely like live music? Is it closer or further from that goal than the stuff you had five years ago? Ten years ago?" And those two magazines filled a real void. It was the attempts to define a vocabulary to describe sound, and the finger placed upon certain audio "sins", that perked the interest of enough engineers and entrepreneurs to reverse the momentum of deteriorating sound and start it back upwards to the high quality sound that is the rule today. |
#276
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
#277
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
#278
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Absolute Sound
From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 7/20/2004 3:04 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: XFgLc.129726$JR4.107265@attbi_s54 What titles are you talking about? Every album I replaced with a CD that I owned as an LP. From Pink Floyd to Bach. That is far too vague an answer to be of any use. Which LP issues did you compare them to? See above. Above does not begin to answer the question. You do realize that with many titles there have been several different issues on LP and often on CD many of which have been mastered quite differently to varying degree in excellence? I am always on the look out for better masterings. And I am quite a jazz enthusiast. John Handy Excursion in Blue is excellent on CD. Anything from GRP. What does it matter, you don't like CD sound so you'll claim your LP's out perform the CD. Thta's complete nonsense. I go title by title. I have never said I don't like all CDs. You are just burning a straw man here. You OTOH seem to have dismissed LP out of hand by claiming *every* title you replaced with a CD was superior. Given the history of mastering of various titles on LP and CD I suyspect that you are listening through a very biased POV or are using sub par LP playback equipment and/or poor pressings of the LPs in question. The problem is they don't but you like LP sound better, even though you're missing out on the increased transient response, lower noise and no possibility of tracking error. I'm not missing out on anything. I have both LPs and CDs I am quite happy when I find a better copy of any title whether it be on CD or LP, I'm afraid you are the one who is missing out by disnmissing an entire format. You like what you like, but it's still inferior to CD. That doesn't even make sense. Some times with some titles I like the CD better. |
#279
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Ban wrote:
Maybe the whole thing is due to the whimpy dynamics of LP, which requires a much bigger compression especially on classical recordings. So LPs *are* mastered differently. Some people just like it compressed, because they do not have the required gear to reproduce the dynamics of a life concert. This would also indicate that tubed amps are popular with them, which "round" the clipping a bit more. As I have pointed out in previous posts, some people just like the sound of certain kinds of compression. There's nothing wrong with this. It certainly can be euphonic, but it's not accurate in terms of signal processing. |
#280
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Absolute Sound
From: "Ban" Date: 7/21/2004 10:13 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: BuxLc.138649$IQ4.61407@attbi_s02 Maybe the whole thing is due to the whimpy dynamics of LP, which requires a much bigger compression especially on classical recordings. So LPs *are* mastered differently. They are mastered differently in so far as they need to be cut on a lathe but if you are assuming that compression is universally applied to all LPs and to no CDs you are quite mistaken. Some of the best LPs are mastered with no use of compression while many CDs are compressed to death in the mastering stage. So generally speaking, a LP will be "louder"(compressed) and with more midrange(again "louder"). It has been shown that louder sound corresponds with a "better" perceived quality. Your genralization doesn't hold water IME. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Imaging, soundstage, 3D | High End Audio | |||
the emperor's clothes | High End Audio | |||
Sound, Music, Balance | High End Audio | |||
DVI - The Destroyer Of Sound | High End Audio | |||
Surround Sound for Stereo Lovers | High End Audio |