Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I
usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something else (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen to vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to another and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost all night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job I want for my Alfa! There seems to be something compelling about listening to records that CD can't match (at least for me). I don't know what it is. I like digital, hell, I record digitally and get very realistic sounding results. I have read articles by audio writers who have expressed experiencing this phenomenon as well, but I'm just wondering if anyone on this forum has had similar experiences? |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
Yes.
I also find that I like the LPs louder, and will listen at concert level volumes. I notice that I will often will turn the CD down until it becomes background music, and it's like I get 'tired' with listening. This has happened less often since I went to the H/K HD970 CD player but it still happens. BTW, I listen to the exact opposite sort of music that I understand you do. I prefer rock, jazz and blues, and **love** good electric guitar. I find most classical music bores me to sleep. :-) Greg In article , Audio Empire wrote: Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something else (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen to vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to another and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost all night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job I want for my Alfa! There seems to be something compelling about listening to records that CD can't match (at least for me). I don't know what it is. I like digital, hell, I record digitally and get very realistic sounding results. I have read articles by audio writers who have expressed experiencing this phenomenon as well, but I'm just wondering if anyone on this forum has had similar experiences? |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something else (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen to vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to another and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost all night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job I want for my Alfa! I have the exact opposite situation. Even though I have several compete vinyl playback systems, one with tubed electronics, I find it difficult to compel myself to ever listen to them. Even when I sit down and listen to a LP, I rarely if ever can stand to listen to the whole thing. There seems to be something compelling about listening to records that CD can't match (at least for me). I don't know what it is. I like digital, hell, I record digitally and get very realistic sounding results. I have read articles by audio writers who have expressed experiencing this phenomenon as well, but I'm just wondering if anyone on this forum has had similar experiences? Three things compel me to avoid listening to vinyl. One is simply that most of my music listening is related to recordings that I produce of live events. Producing recordings presumes a lot of listening through the process, and for evaluation purposes when the recording is supposedly finished. Another problem for vinyl is that other than a sentimental attachment to recordings that I enjoyed when I was younger, I primarily listen to recordings that were made in the past few years. The third problem is that I have enough of my hearing acuity remaining that the clearly audible noise and distortion that is inherent in vinyl bothers me. I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to enjoy music as we do today were we still hobbled by analog recording technology. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010, Audio Empire wrote:
Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something else (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen to vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to another and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost all night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job I want for my Alfa! Same here, with one exception: I listen to CD so infrequently that I have taken the player out of my system. But when I did used to listen to CD, it never held my attention and I certainly didn't have many multi-album listening sessions as I do now. -- Rich Teer, Publisher Vinylphile Magazine www.vinylphilemag.com |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
On Aug 29, 7:26=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in message Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something else (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen to vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to another and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost all night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job I want for my Alfa! I have the exact opposite situation. Even though I have several compete vinyl playback systems, one with tubed electronics, I find it difficult t= o compel myself to ever listen to them. =A0Even when I sit down and listen = to a LP, I rarely if ever can stand to listen to the whole thing. Can you describe those systems in detail? Why would you have several? |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
On Aug 28, 12:41=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something = else (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen= to vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to anot= her and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost = all night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job= I want for my Alfa! There seems to be something compelling about listening to records that CD can't match (at least for me). I don't know what it is. I like digital, h= ell, I record digitally and get very realistic sounding results. I have read articles by audio writers who have expressed experiencing this phenomenon= as well, but I'm just wondering if anyone on this forum has had similar experiences? Can't say that I have had that specific experience. For the past 7 months my system has been in storage. I've been working out of the country and am in between houses, more or less. Things move very slowly in real estate these days. But anyway, I have mostly been listening to music on my i-touch with some Grado SR 80 headphones. Some of the material is from online downloads and some ripped from my CDs. It really is a grand equalizer (not EQ). Nothing sounds particularly bad nor particularly great. Luckily work has not stopped me from seeing a lot of live music. So that dichotomy is now greater than it has been since I got into audio. I just got back from the Santa Fe Chamber music festival. That was awesome. Got to see two recitals with my current favorite pianist Yuja Wang. What is even cooler is that they have open rehersals every day. And you can meet and shoot the bull with the artists. A total classical music geek fest. I didn't break out the i-touch the whole time I was there. The divide is so great between the i-touch system and live music experience that fidelity almost looses meaning with the i-touch. I even did some comparisons between apple lossless files and some lowly MP3s. Can't say that I actually head any difference. If I did it really didn't matter. I promptly converted all my Apple lossless files to MP3s just to make more room for more material. I have been downloading more and more MP4 videos for the i-touch. That is actually pretty cool. It's funny, with the i-touch seeing the artist perform seems to have more impact than the sound quality, even on that little screen. And now I have this huge stack of new LPs that havn't been played yet. I do look forward to getting settled and setting up the system again. I can not recomend the Santa Fe Chamber Music Festival enough. Watching Yuja Wang, Lynn Harrell and Benny Kim first reherse and then perform Beethoven's Archduke was definitely a 10. It even woke up the 90 and over crowd. I can actually enjoy listening to the i- touch/Grado SR 80 combo for extended periods of time when I am forced into situations where I have nothing else to do. It really makes those situations much better. It's kind of interesting to live with the non- audiophile perspective for an extended period of time. But when I hear people say that their MP3 player/earbud system is as good as one would ever need or want I am more baffled than ever. It is better than nothing.....but it aint hifi or high end. It's a private boom box. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:31:18 -0700, Greg Wormald wrote
(in article ): Yes. I also find that I like the LPs louder, and will listen at concert level volumes. I notice that I will often will turn the CD down until it becomes background music, and it's like I get 'tired' with listening. This has happened less often since I went to the H/K HD970 CD player but it still happens. BTW, I listen to the exact opposite sort of music that I understand you do. I prefer rock, jazz and blues, and **love** good electric guitar. I find most classical music bores me to sleep. :-) Greg In article , Audio Empire wrote: Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something else (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen to vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to another and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost all night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job I want for my Alfa! There seems to be something compelling about listening to records that CD can't match (at least for me). I don't know what it is. I like digital, hell, I record digitally and get very realistic sounding results. I have read articles by audio writers who have expressed experiencing this phenomenon as well, but I'm just wondering if anyone on this forum has had similar experiences? Well Greg, there's no accounting for taste - or even a lack of it. 8^) But thanks for the confirmation. It's good to hear that this phenomenon is not restricted to any one type of music. And for the record, I too listen to a lot of jazz as well as classical. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 09:38:52 -0700, Rich Teer wrote
(in article ): On Sat, 28 Aug 2010, Audio Empire wrote: Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something else (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen to vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to another and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost all night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job I want for my Alfa! Same here, with one exception: I listen to CD so infrequently that I have taken the player out of my system. But when I did used to listen to CD, it never held my attention and I certainly didn't have many multi-album listening sessions as I do now. Well, I can't countenance going so far as to remove my digital equipment from my system. But I do find myself listening to vinyl more and more when I listen attentively for musical content as opposed to background music. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 07:26:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something else (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen to vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to another and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost all night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job I want for my Alfa! I have the exact opposite situation. Even though I have several compete vinyl playback systems, one with tubed electronics, I find it difficult to compel myself to ever listen to them. Even when I sit down and listen to a LP, I rarely if ever can stand to listen to the whole thing. That's a shame. There seems to be something compelling about listening to records that CD can't match (at least for me). I don't know what it is. I like digital, hell, I record digitally and get very realistic sounding results. I have read articles by audio writers who have expressed experiencing this phenomenon as well, but I'm just wondering if anyone on this forum has had similar experiences? Three things compel me to avoid listening to vinyl. One is simply that most of my music listening is related to recordings that I produce of live events. Producing recordings presumes a lot of listening through the process, and for evaluation purposes when the recording is supposedly finished. IOW, you don't listen for pleasure anyway, you listen because it's part of your recording efforts. Quite a different thing, if I might be permitted to say so. Another problem for vinyl is that other than a sentimental attachment to recordings that I enjoyed when I was younger, I primarily listen to recordings that were made in the past few years. Since I listen for pleasure (as well as for the reasons that you say you listen as I too record live events), and because I love classical music, I tend to listen to older recordings. IMHO, few, if any, of the modern conductors can hold a candle to the likes of Walter, Ormandy, Szell, Reiner, Boult, Von Karajan, et al. The third problem is that I have enough of my hearing acuity remaining that the clearly audible noise and distortion that is inherent in vinyl bothers me. That's not hearing acuity, it's attitude; prejudice, actually. It's the MUSIC, man, not the media. I listen to both vinyl and digital and have huge collections of both. The fact that I find something compelling about vinyl that CD lacks, doesn't mean that I don't enjoy digital, it just doesn't seem to "pull me in" the way vinyl does. I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to enjoy music as we do today were we still hobbled by analog recording technology. If you'll excuse me, that's a nonsensical premise to start with. If we still had ONLY analog recording technology, you wouldn't know any better or any different, for that matter. That's tantamount to saying that before digital, you couldn't enjoy listening to recorded music. If that's true, I feel sad for you. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
On Aug 29, 4:50=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
That's not hearing acuity, it's attitude; prejudice, actually. It's the MUSIC, man, not the media. No, if you get more extended pleasure listening to vinyl than to digital, that's the MEDIA. Personally, I find the music to be what engages me. Somebody who tells me they find one medium less fatiguing than the other is concentrating on the wrong thing, methinks. bob |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:28:07 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ): On Aug 29, 4:50=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: That's not hearing acuity, it's attitude; prejudice, actually. It's the MUSIC, man, not the media. No, if you get more extended pleasure listening to vinyl than to digital, that's the MEDIA. You misunderstand me. I'm not addressing my pleasure at listening to vinyl with that comment, I'm addressing Mr. Kruger's comment that he cannot get pleasure from anything other than digital. You see, if the music is good, I get pleasure from either. I was merely stating a phenomenon in which vinyl seems to ENGAGE me more than digital does. It doesn't mean that I can't (or don't) listen to digital. Personally, I find the music to be what engages me. Somebody who tells me they find one medium less fatiguing than the other is concentrating on the wrong thing, methinks. If digital is more fatiguing to listen to than is vinyl, then it's a very subconscious thing. I don't find myself thinking "Bah, this CD is fatiguing to listen to, I'm going to go do something else." However I have noticed that I'm more apt to listen to vinyl into the wee hours, than I am to have such an extended listening session with digital. Since it's not something that I consciously notice while listening, I have yet to ascertain if this phenomenon is restricted only to Redbook CD or whether it also applies to SACD, 24/96 or 192 DVD-A or high resolution downloads as well. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 07:26:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something else (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen to vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to another and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost all night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job I want for my Alfa! I have the exact opposite situation. Even though I have several compete vinyl playback systems, one with tubed electronics, I find it difficult to compel myself to ever listen to them. Even when I sit down and listen to a LP, I rarely if ever can stand to listen to the whole thing. That's a shame. It's the high price of having demanding tastes and having grown used to audio reproduction without audible flaws like flutter, wow, tics and pops. There seems to be something compelling about listening to records that CD can't match (at least for me). I don't know what it is. I like digital, hell, I record digitally and get very realistic sounding results. I have read articles by audio writers who have expressed experiencing this phenomenon as well, but I'm just wondering if anyone on this forum has had similar experiences? Three things compel me to avoid listening to vinyl. One is simply that most of my music listening is related to recordings that I produce of live events. Producing recordings presumes a lot of listening through the process, and for evaluation purposes when the recording is supposedly finished. IOW, you don't listen for pleasure anyway, you listen because it's part of your recording efforts. That's is one of three reasons. Quite a different thing, if I might be permitted to say so. It makes the point that audio production as we know it today would be impossible if we were restricted to analog media. Another problem for vinyl is that other than a sentimental attachment to recordings that I enjoyed when I was younger, I primarily listen to recordings that were made in the past few years. Since I listen for pleasure (as well as for the reasons that you say you listen as I too record live events), and because I love classical music, I tend to listen to older recordings. IMHO, few, if any, of the modern conductors can hold a candle to the likes of Walter, Ormandy, Szell, Reiner, Boult, Von Karajan, et al. That's an opinion that you get to hold, and pursue if you wish. I think that the art of music is still being taught and executed with brilliance and so contemporary performers can be worth listening to. The third problem is that I have enough of my hearing acuity remaining that the clearly audible noise and distortion that is inherent in vinyl bothers me. That's not hearing acuity, it's attitude; prejudice, actually. Test equipment and the annals of audio technology support my claims. It takes considerable attitude and prejudice to hold that they are wrong. Also, the vast majority of all living music lovers seem to agree with me. It's the MUSIC, man, not the media. Only true if the media is adequately non-intrusive. I listen to both vinyl and digital and have huge collections of both. The fact that I find something compelling about vinyl that CD lacks, doesn't mean that I don't enjoy digital, it just doesn't seem to "pull me in" the way vinyl does. That speaks to your unusual (for a living music lover) prejudices and attitudes. I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to enjoy music as we do today were we still hobbled by analog recording technology. If you'll excuse me, that's a nonsensical premise to start with. Calling other people's opinions nonesense is inexcusable. My position that even minority opinions are If we still had ONLY analog recording technology, you wouldn't know any better or any different, for that matter. The statement "ignorance is better than advanced knowlege" seems anti-intellectual. That's tantamount to saying that before digital, you couldn't enjoy listening to recorded music. ??????????????? If that's true, I feel sad for you. I make no apologies for living in better days. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:28:07 -0700, bob wrote (in article ): On Aug 29, 4:50=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: That's not hearing acuity, it's attitude; prejudice, actually. It's the MUSIC, man, not the media. No, if you get more extended pleasure listening to vinyl than to digital, that's the MEDIA. You misunderstand me. I'm not addressing my pleasure at listening to vinyl with that comment, I'm addressing Mr. Kruger's comment that he cannot get pleasure from anything other than digital. Of course I never said that. You see, if the music is good, I get pleasure from either. One of the basic precepts of high fidelity is the idea that audible noise and distortion can distract from enjoyment of the music and therefore they should be avoided whenever possible. I was merely stating a phenomenon in which vinyl seems to ENGAGE me more than digital does. It doesn't mean that I can't (or don't) listen to digital. Again, that's your preference and of course you are entitled to hold it and express it on public forums without being punished or demeaned. There are other prefereces, and they at the very least deserve the privilege of being repeated accurately when they are repeated at all. Personally, I find the music to be what engages me. Somebody who tells me they find one medium less fatiguing than the other is concentrating on the wrong thing, methinks. If digital is more fatiguing to listen to than is vinyl, then it's a very subconscious thing. This is a false claim on the grounds that the level of consciousness of fatique-causing influences is well known to vary. I don't find myself thinking "Bah, this CD is fatiguing to listen to, I'm going to go do something else." Interestng. The other day I was testing a PC and I ripped a more-or-less randomly selected CD as part of those tests. I immediately thought: "Bah, this CD is fatiguing to listen to, I'm going to go do something else." What I did is a little critical listening to it wherein I identified the problem with the CD to be its spectral balance. I quickly worked up some parameters for a FFT-based transformation that changed the CDs spectral balance to be something that was more to my liking, which rendered it non-fatiquing. However I have noticed that I'm more apt to listen to vinyl into the wee hours, than I am to have such an extended listening session with digital. I seem to have more err, pleasurable things to do into the wee hours... ;-) Since it's not something that I consciously notice while listening, I have yet to ascertain if this phenomenon is restricted only to Redbook CD or whether it also applies to SACD, 24/96 or 192 DVD-A or high resolution downloads as well. IME the major factor in fatiquing media is usually spectral balance, not format. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
"Scott" wrote in message
On Aug 29, 7:26 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio Empire" wrote in message Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something else (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen to vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to another and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost all night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job I want for my Alfa! I have the exact opposite situation. Even though I have several compete vinyl playback systems, one with tubed electronics, I find it difficult to compel myself to ever listen to them. Even when I sit down and listen to a LP, I rarely if ever can stand to listen to the whole thing. Can you describe those systems in detail? I could, but I know that no matter what they were composed of, they would be second-guessed to death. Suffice it to say that their sound quality is similar or superior to better quality audiophile vinyl playback systems from the days of vinyl. I understand that current vinylphile doctrine is that if you don't spend the big bucks for the latest toys, you don't know what you are missing. Why would you have several? People around me are unloading their vinyl systems and I can't pass up a bargain. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:19:40 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ): On Aug 29, 7:26=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio Empire" wrote in message Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something else (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen to vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to another and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost all night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job I want for my Alfa! I have the exact opposite situation. Even though I have several compete vinyl playback systems, one with tubed electronics, I find it difficult t= o compel myself to ever listen to them. =A0Even when I sit down and listen = to a LP, I rarely if ever can stand to listen to the whole thing. Can you describe those systems in detail? Why would you have several? ......And not listen to any of them!!??? |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:48:08 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ): On Aug 28, 12:41=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something = else (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen= to vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to anot= her and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost = all night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job= I want for my Alfa! There seems to be something compelling about listening to records that CD can't match (at least for me). I don't know what it is. I like digital, h= ell, I record digitally and get very realistic sounding results. I have read articles by audio writers who have expressed experiencing this phenomenon= as well, but I'm just wondering if anyone on this forum has had similar experiences? Can't say that I have had that specific experience. For the past 7 months my system has been in storage. I've been working out of the country and am in between houses, more or less. Things move very slowly in real estate these days. But anyway, I have mostly been listening to music on my i-touch with some Grado SR 80 headphones. Some of the material is from online downloads and some ripped from my CDs. It really is a grand equalizer (not EQ). Nothing sounds particularly bad nor particularly great. Luckily work has not stopped me from seeing a lot of live music. So that dichotomy is now greater than it has been since I got into audio. I just got back from the Santa Fe Chamber music festival. That was awesome. Got to see two recitals with my current favorite pianist Yuja Wang. What is even cooler is that they have open rehersals every day. And you can meet and shoot the bull with the artists. A total classical music geek fest. I didn't break out the i-touch the whole time I was there. The divide is so great between the i-touch system and live music experience that fidelity almost looses meaning with the i-touch. I even did some comparisons between apple lossless files and some lowly MP3s. Can't say that I actually head any difference. If I did it really didn't matter. I promptly converted all my Apple lossless files to MP3s just to make more room for more material. I have been downloading more and more MP4 videos for the i-touch. That is actually pretty cool. It's funny, with the i-touch seeing the artist perform seems to have more impact than the sound quality, even on that little screen. And now I have this huge stack of new LPs that havn't been played yet. I do look forward to getting settled and setting up the system again. I can not recomend the Santa Fe Chamber Music Festival enough. Watching Yuja Wang, Lynn Harrell and Benny Kim first reherse and then perform Beethoven's Archduke was definitely a 10. It even woke up the 90 and over crowd. I can actually enjoy listening to the i- touch/Grado SR 80 combo for extended periods of time when I am forced into situations where I have nothing else to do. It really makes those situations much better. It's kind of interesting to live with the non- audiophile perspective for an extended period of time. But when I hear people say that their MP3 player/earbud system is as good as one would ever need or want I am more baffled than ever. It is better than nothing.....but it aint hifi or high end. It's a private boom box. Well, the ipod Touch is basically "portable music" as far as I'm concerned, and no more. I don't expect this device or the music ripped to it to be any better than previous "portable" formats such as cassette. So without any high expectations, I find my ability to plug my iPod into my daily-driver's car stereo to be a boon. Car audio quality is an oxymoron at best in my estimation because of the high background noise levels. For instance, I find that XM/Sirius radio is quite listenable in the car, where I cannot stand it in the house and my iPod touch sounds very good in that context. BTW, I can hear the difference between lossless and MP3 on headphones, and don't like the MP3 artifacts. Therefore I use ALC for all my ripped music. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
Well, the ipod Touch is basically "portable music" as far as I'm concerned, and no more. The sound quality of portable audio gear has improved dramatically since the days of portable AM (and even FM) radios. I don't expect this device or the music ripped to it to be any better than previous "portable" formats such as cassette. If one listens or checks technical performance, one finds that previous portable formats such as cassette are beneath comparison to mainstream portable digital players. So without any high expectations, I find my ability to plug my iPod into my daily-driver's car stereo to be a boon. If you do that via a direct connnection, then with good choices of files on your iPod, the results will be CD quality which is to say sonically limited by the speakers and room, etc. Car audio quality is an oxymoron at best in my estimation because of the high background noise levels. Agreed. For instance, I find that XM/Sirius radio is quite listenable in the car, where I cannot stand it in the house and my iPod touch sounds very good in that context. I did a 2 day trip in a recent GM "crossover" with a XM-based audio system. It was clearly audibly deficient even with the vehicle in motion over rough roads, as compared to playback of of a randomly-selected CD. BTW, I can hear the difference between lossless and MP3 on headphones, and don't like the MP3 artifacts. It is well known that properly-made MP3s are usually difficult or impossible to reliably detect in comparisons with the CDs they were made from in level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled listening tests. Therefore I use ALC for all my ripped music. Fact of the matter is that the last digital music player I loaded was loaded primarily with .wav files. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:17:37 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Scott" wrote in message On Aug 29, 7:26 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio Empire" wrote in message Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something else (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen to vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to another and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost all night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job I want for my Alfa! I have the exact opposite situation. Even though I have several compete vinyl playback systems, one with tubed electronics, I find it difficult to compel myself to ever listen to them. Even when I sit down and listen to a LP, I rarely if ever can stand to listen to the whole thing. Can you describe those systems in detail? I could, but I know that no matter what they were composed of, they would be second-guessed to death. Suffice it to say that their sound quality is similar or superior to better quality audiophile vinyl playback systems from the days of vinyl. I understand that current vinylphile doctrine is that if you don't spend the big bucks for the latest toys, you don't know what you are missing. Don't know about that, but modern cartridges track better, have better stylus profiles,lower moving mass, and lower distortion than their predecessors. The only exception that I know of in the distortion department was the Shure V-15 IV. Even by modern standards, it's very low. The only caveat on the Shure is that the stylus profile and cantilever design is pretty old fashioned. I'll bet a modern stylus retipping with a Shibata or other modern profile would reduce inner-groove distortion significantly. The lowest distortion cartridge on the market today, AFAICS, is the Soundsmith line of B&O continuation cartridges. The guy who makes them has re-engineered the moving-iron design of the old B&O "Stereodynes" to update stylus profile, cantilever design, and the famous push-pull B&O "moving cross" design. It's the best cartridge I've ever heard and it measures fantastically! Why would you have several? People around me are unloading their vinyl systems and I can't pass up a bargain. I hear you there. The temptation is great. There are good old turntables around from Garrard (301, 401) Thorens (TD-124, TD-125), Empire (598, 698), any Linn Sondek, and others, but many tables are just crap (like most direct drive units) especially after they have some age on them. Most DD tables had lousy bearings to begin with (essentially the motor bearings) and these days most are uselessly worn out. Arms have gotten better and old ones need to be replaced (especially the mass market Japanese arms that came attached to most DD 'tables. Of course, we've already discussed cartridges. You can get older Vinyl equipment to perform, but you have to have the right stuff to begin with. If you haven't experienced a modern vinyl setup, then you really don't have any idea how much better records sound today than they did 20 years ago. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:17:28 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:28:07 -0700, bob wrote (in article ): On Aug 29, 4:50=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: That's not hearing acuity, it's attitude; prejudice, actually. It's the MUSIC, man, not the media. No, if you get more extended pleasure listening to vinyl than to digital, that's the MEDIA. You misunderstand me. I'm not addressing my pleasure at listening to vinyl with that comment, I'm addressing Mr. Kruger's comment that he cannot get pleasure from anything other than digital. Of course I never said that. You certainly implied it: " I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to enjoy music as we do today were we still hobbled by analog recording technology." Direct quote. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:17:26 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 07:26:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something else (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen to vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to another and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost all night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job I want for my Alfa! I have the exact opposite situation. Even though I have several compete vinyl playback systems, one with tubed electronics, I find it difficult to compel myself to ever listen to them. Even when I sit down and listen to a LP, I rarely if ever can stand to listen to the whole thing. That's a shame. It's the high price of having demanding tastes and having grown used to audio reproduction without audible flaws like flutter, wow, tics and pops. There seems to be something compelling about listening to records that CD can't match (at least for me). I don't know what it is. I like digital, hell, I record digitally and get very realistic sounding results. I have read articles by audio writers who have expressed experiencing this phenomenon as well, but I'm just wondering if anyone on this forum has had similar experiences? Three things compel me to avoid listening to vinyl. One is simply that most of my music listening is related to recordings that I produce of live events. Producing recordings presumes a lot of listening through the process, and for evaluation purposes when the recording is supposedly finished. IOW, you don't listen for pleasure anyway, you listen because it's part of your recording efforts. That's is one of three reasons. Quite a different thing, if I might be permitted to say so. It makes the point that audio production as we know it today would be impossible if we were restricted to analog media. Another problem for vinyl is that other than a sentimental attachment to recordings that I enjoyed when I was younger, I primarily listen to recordings that were made in the past few years. Since I listen for pleasure (as well as for the reasons that you say you listen as I too record live events), and because I love classical music, I tend to listen to older recordings. IMHO, few, if any, of the modern conductors can hold a candle to the likes of Walter, Ormandy, Szell, Reiner, Boult, Von Karajan, et al. That's an opinion that you get to hold, and pursue if you wish. I think that the art of music is still being taught and executed with brilliance and so contemporary performers can be worth listening to. No doubt about it, but the older conductors seem closer to the composer. For instance, Bruno Walter KNEW Mahler and knew ho he wanted his works to sound. I like Tilson Thomas' Mahler readings, but Walter is better. Reiner knew Richard Strauss, Boult was life-long friends with both Vaughan-Williams and Holst, Rubinstien was a personal friend of Rachmaninoff, etc. I trust their readings and, because, these early stereo recordings were two (or three) track, and minimalist miked, they sound better to me than do the modern "overproduced" recordings - a matter of taste, for sure, but it's my taste to have the soundstage RIGHT, these early RCAs, Mercury's and Columbias did that. The third problem is that I have enough of my hearing acuity remaining that the clearly audible noise and distortion that is inherent in vinyl bothers me. That's not hearing acuity, it's attitude; prejudice, actually. Test equipment and the annals of audio technology support my claims. Yawn! That mantra again. Yes, on paper and in measurements, digital trumps analog, but things that aren't measured and that the "annals of audio technology" don't seem to pick-up on, seem to be at play here. It takes considerable attitude and prejudice to hold that they are wrong. Wrong? No, not wrong, just incomplete. Also, the vast majority of all living music lovers seem to agree with me. The vast majority of all music lovers have never checked-in on the issue. To say that they agree with you is citing facts not in evidence. What they have checked-in on is the convenience, and portability of digital, coupled with the fact that it's what we've got. I'm not saying you're wrong on this, in all probability, the" vast majority" of which you so glibly speak, would choose digital over record even if everything were available on both formats equally, but I doubt if they would agree with you for any actual sound quality reasons, but rather they'd agree with you on practical grounds, and I don't blame them. I agree with you on those grounds too. Fact is the proliferation and popularity of low bit-rate MP3 and the overproduced quality of modern pop music tells us all that convenience is far more important to the younger generations than is any semblance of quality. It's the MUSIC, man, not the media. Only true if the media is adequately non-intrusive. Like good vinyl? I listen to both vinyl and digital and have huge collections of both. The fact that I find something compelling about vinyl that CD lacks, doesn't mean that I don't enjoy digital, it just doesn't seem to "pull me in" the way vinyl does. That speaks to your unusual (for a living music lover) prejudices and attitudes. And, as one who is most vocal about his own attitudes and prejudices, you should know. I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to enjoy music as we do today were we still hobbled by analog recording technology. If you'll excuse me, that's a nonsensical premise to start with. Calling other people's opinions nonesense is inexcusable. My position that even minority opinions are Your comment is like saying that you couldn't enjoy reading a book before the advent of the electric light. How would you know that? If we still had ONLY analog recording technology, you wouldn't know any better or any different, for that matter. The statement "ignorance is better than advanced knowlege" seems anti-intellectual. The statement has nothing to do with ignorance or ant-intellectualism. it has to do with the fact that no one can say what their attitudes would be about anything if the basic reality of their lives were changed. You can only speculate what your attitudes would be as influenced by CURRENT circumstances. Your speculation about how you would react under a different reality is fatally colored by how you react in this one. Here's an example: I would like to say that had I lived in the South in 1850, that I would have been anti-slavery. The 21st century ME certainly is, but if I lived in the mid 19th century my ideals and mores would have been formed by a totally different reality. Therefore, I cannot, with any credibility whatsoever, tell you what a 19th Century me, living in the South would think about slavery any more than you can say with any credibility that you couldn't listen to recorded music with the same enjoyment that you do now if digital hadn't been developed and we still had only analog. That's what makes your argument nonsensical in my estimation. That's tantamount to saying that before digital, you couldn't enjoy listening to recorded music. ??????????????? If that's true, I feel sad for you. I make no apologies for living in better days. But we weren't talking about today's reality, are we? We are talking about a "what if" scenario. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:49:55 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message Well, the ipod Touch is basically "portable music" as far as I'm concerned, and no more. The sound quality of portable audio gear has improved dramatically since the days of portable AM (and even FM) radios. Really? A champion of the obvious, are we? I don't expect this device or the music ripped to it to be any better than previous "portable" formats such as cassette. If one listens or checks technical performance, one finds that previous portable formats such as cassette are beneath comparison to mainstream portable digital players. That's one opinion. Cassettes have DIFFERENT limitations, that's for sure, but the end result is less than satisfactory for both. So without any high expectations, I find my ability to plug my iPod into my daily-driver's car stereo to be a boon. If you do that via a direct connnection, then with good choices of files on your iPod, the results will be CD quality which is to say sonically limited by the speakers and room, etc. To have all that drowned by the car noise? Not necessary, and not even audible under the circumstances. In my home system, I use an AppleTV connected to my outboard upsampling DAC. I agree that my ALC ripped CDs are CD quality, But I wasn't talking about in-house, I was talking about the convenience of using my iPod Touch in combination with my car stereo to give me portable access to (some of) my music collection. Car audio quality is an oxymoron at best in my estimation because of the high background noise levels. Agreed. For instance, I find that XM/Sirius radio is quite listenable in the car, where I cannot stand it in the house and my iPod touch sounds very good in that context. I did a 2 day trip in a recent GM "crossover" with a XM-based audio system. It was clearly audibly deficient even with the vehicle in motion over rough roads, as compared to playback of of a randomly-selected CD. Then either that GM car stereo is better than my VW's or the the GM's XM receiver is worse than mine, because I find XM/Sirius to be quite listenable in the car and notice little difference between it and a CD played on the same stereo. BTW, I can hear the difference between lossless and MP3 on headphones, and don't like the MP3 artifacts. It is well known that properly-made MP3s are usually difficult or impossible to reliably detect in comparisons with the CDs they were made from in level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled listening tests. Good for you. I hope that bit of dogma makes you happy. Personally, I don't buy it. I can HEAR the artifacts. So can a lot of people. Therefore I use ALC for all my ripped music. Fact of the matter is that the last digital music player I loaded was loaded primarily with .wav files. Wave files aren't compressed at all, either content-wise or data-wise. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:17:28 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in ): "Audio wrote in message On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:28:07 -0700, bob wrote (in ): On Aug 29, 4:50=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: That's not hearing acuity, it's attitude; prejudice, actually. It's the MUSIC, man, not the media. No, if you get more extended pleasure listening to vinyl than to digital, that's the MEDIA. You misunderstand me. I'm not addressing my pleasure at listening to vinyl with that comment, I'm addressing Mr. Kruger's comment that he cannot get pleasure from anything other than digital. Of course I never said that. You certainly implied it: " I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to enjoy music as we do today were we still hobbled by analog recording technology." Direct quote. And until someone invents the digital microphone and loudspeaker plus digital amp then there will always be a lot of analogue in the chain. Cheers Ian |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:01:17 -0700, Ian Bell wrote
(in article ): Audio Empire wrote: On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:17:28 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in ): "Audio wrote in message On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:28:07 -0700, bob wrote (in ): On Aug 29, 4:50=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: That's not hearing acuity, it's attitude; prejudice, actually. It's the MUSIC, man, not the media. No, if you get more extended pleasure listening to vinyl than to digital, that's the MEDIA. You misunderstand me. I'm not addressing my pleasure at listening to vinyl with that comment, I'm addressing Mr. Kruger's comment that he cannot get pleasure from anything other than digital. Of course I never said that. You certainly implied it: " I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to enjoy music as we do today were we still hobbled by analog recording technology." Direct quote. And until someone invents the digital microphone and loudspeaker plus digital amp then there will always be a lot of analogue in the chain. Cheers Ian Yes, that too is true. Basically human hearing is analog, the rarefaction and compression of air between the instruments and the microphone and the speaker and the listener's ear is also analog. Maybe someday, direct brain stimulation will obviate these transducers, but until then, we're stuck with them. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
On Aug 30, 6:17=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message On Aug 29, 7:26 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio Empire" wrote in message Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something else (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen to vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to another and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost all night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job I want for my Alfa! I have the exact opposite situation. Even though I have several compete vinyl playback systems, one with tubed electronics, I find it difficult to compel myself to ever listen to them. Even when I sit down and listen to a LP, I rarely if ever can stand to listen to the whole thing. Can you describe those systems in detail? I could, but I know that no matter what they were composed of, they would= be second-guessed to death. That is simply a false claim. Suffice it to say that their sound quality is similar or superior to bett= er quality audiophile vinyl playback systems from the days of vinyl. Sorry but that does not suffice for me. Your assertions about the sound of vinyl in "your experience" simply lack any meaningful context so long as you choose to keep everything a secret. I understand that current vinylphile doctrine is that if you don't spend = the big bucks for the latest toys, you don't know what you are missing. Nope, not even close. Why would you have several? People around me are unloading their vinyl systems and I can't pass up a bargain. I am afraid this really doesn't make sense to me. If you really can't get through listening to an lP why have even one system much less several, even at "bargain" prices? I can't see how one would ever buy any sort of high end system even second hand if one isn't going to put it to good use. Given the health of the second hand market even second hand rigs of any merit cost more than the change one finds in the sofa. I'm guessing the people around you have better business sense than to sell their stuff so far under market value that even someone who doesn't listen to vinyl would feel compelled to buy it. That is if it is even decent equipment. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
On Aug 30, 6:17=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
One of the basic precepts of high fidelity is the idea that audible noise and distortion can distract from enjoyment of the music and therefore the= y should be avoided whenever possible. Or it can make it better. It goes both ways. so your assertion is kind of a half truth. The idea that it should be avoided whenever possible is a completely is clearly an erroneous statement. even you prefer added distortion in some cases. Interestng. The other day I was testing a PC and I ripped a more-or-less randomly selected CD as part of those tests. I immediately thought: "Bah, this CD is fatiguing to listen to, I'm going to go do something else." What I did is a little critical listening to it wherein I identified the problem with the CD to be its spectral balance. I quickly worked up some parameters for a FFT-based transformation that changed the CDs spectral balance to be something that was more to my liking, which rendered it non-fatiquing. Ah, you see? Like I said, even you like added distortion at least some times. Thank you for proving my point. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
Don't know about that, but modern cartridges track better, have better stylus profiles,lower moving mass, and lower distortion than their predecessors. I know only of technical measurements that show this to not be true. If you have reliable evidence that show that there is some cartrdige that outtracks a V15 IV-V on real world LPs, please provide it. One of the problems with characterizing the performance of cartriges is that there are significant sample variations and that optimization of the mounting of the cartrdige can have signficant effects. Therefore a definitive study would involve more than one or two tests of each make and model of cartrige. The only exception that I know of in the distortion department was the Shure V-15 IV. Even by modern standards, it's very low. The V15 IV was introduced in 1978. It is positively ancient. I believe that there were cartridges in those days or slightly later whose tracking was competitive with it. I believe that there are several modern cartrdiges that are competitive and only modestly priced. It seems like it would be possible for any competitor to reverse-engineer the V-15 VI - V and duplicate its "magic sauce". |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:17:28 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:28:07 -0700, bob wrote (in article ): On Aug 29, 4:50=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: That's not hearing acuity, it's attitude; prejudice, actually. It's the MUSIC, man, not the media. No, if you get more extended pleasure listening to vinyl than to digital, that's the MEDIA. You misunderstand me. I'm not addressing my pleasure at listening to vinyl with that comment, I'm addressing Mr. Kruger's comment that he cannot get pleasure from anything other than digital. Of course I never said that. You certainly implied it: " I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to enjoy music as we do today were we still hobbled by analog recording technology." Direct quote. I stand by what I wrote and I renounce your self-serving misinterpretation of it. It is obvious to anybody who does music production these days that digital signal processing and storage has cut hours, even days out of the production process. Many projects that would have been too expensive or time consuming in the days of analog-only are now feasible, even pretty easy. This means that we can now enjoy music that would have never been produced and distributed. You are free to misinterpret what I wrote as you will, but I will not be silent if you continue to do so in public. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
"Scott" wrote in message
On Aug 30, 6:17=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: One of the basic precepts of high fidelity is the idea that audible noise and distortion can distract from enjoyment of the music and therefore the= y should be avoided whenever possible. Or it can make it better. You're asserting your preferences, you aren't addressing the fundamental precept. You'd have to change any number of encyclopedias and dictionaries if you wanted to even *start* changing the idea that "One of the basic precepts of high fidelity is the idea that audible noise and distortion can distract from enjoyment of the music and therefore they should be avoided whenever possible." It goes both ways. ?????????????? |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
Arny Krueger wrote:
The V15 IV was introduced in 1978. It is positively ancient. I believe that there were cartridges in those days or slightly later whose tracking was competitive with it. I believe that there are several modern cartrdiges that are competitive and only modestly priced. Really? There isn't much real technical information available for cartridges these days, but I can't remember seeing anything as good (distortion, frequency response) as a V15. http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/LP4/NewLampsForOld.html It seems like it would be possible for any competitor to reverse-engineer the V-15 VI - V and duplicate its "magic sauce". Beryllium cantilever? Andrew. |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
"Andrew Haley" wrote in
message Arny Krueger wrote: The V15 IV was introduced in 1978. It is positively ancient. I believe that there were cartridges in those days or slightly later whose tracking was competitive with it. I believe that there are several modern cartrdiges that are competitive and only modestly priced. Really? There isn't much real technical information available for cartridges these days, but I can't remember seeing anything as good (distortion, frequency response) as a V15. http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/LP4/NewLampsForOld.html It seems like it would be possible for any competitor to reverse-engineer the V-15 VI - V and duplicate its "magic sauce". Beryllium cantilever? If materials were all that mattered, diamond might be even better. Thing is, engineering is about more than materials. For example, do you know about the vibration absorber *inside* the V15's shank? |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:00:06 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Andrew Haley" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: The V15 IV was introduced in 1978. It is positively ancient. I believe that there were cartridges in those days or slightly later whose tracking was competitive with it. I believe that there are several modern cartrdiges that are competitive and only modestly priced. Really? There isn't much real technical information available for cartridges these days, but I can't remember seeing anything as good (distortion, frequency response) as a V15. http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/LP4/NewLampsForOld.html It seems like it would be possible for any competitor to reverse-engineer the V-15 VI - V and duplicate its "magic sauce". Beryllium cantilever? If materials were all that mattered, diamond might be even better. Thing is, engineering is about more than materials. For example, do you know about the vibration absorber *inside* the V15's shank? I think Shure was premature in abandoning the V-15. When I think of the business that companies like Ortofon must be doing with their dozens of models, I suspect that there is room in the marketplace for the V-15. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andrew Haley" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: The V15 IV was introduced in 1978. It is positively ancient. I believe that there were cartridges in those days or slightly later whose tracking was competitive with it. I believe that there are several modern cartrdiges that are competitive and only modestly priced. Really? There isn't much real technical information available for cartridges these days, but I can't remember seeing anything as good (distortion, frequency response) as a V15. http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/LP4/NewLampsForOld.html It seems like it would be possible for any competitor to reverse-engineer the V-15 VI - V and duplicate its "magic sauce". Beryllium cantilever? If materials were all that mattered, diamond might be even better. Well yeah, but the machining might be a challenge. No-one said that materials were all that mattered. You said that it would be possible for any competitor to reverse-engineer the V-15 VI; maybe not, because no-one wants to work with beryllium. It may not be possible to duplicate the V15 without using beryllium, which has some very nice properties for this application. Thing is, engineering is about more than materials. For example, do you know about the vibration absorber *inside* the V15's shank? No, I don't. I'm sure we'd all be interested. The problem with phono cartridges seems to be that what sells has more to do with witchcraft and snake oil than actual engineering. Even if you could come up with a very high-performance cartridge at a reasonable price, would the "high-end" crowd buy it? I suspect they'd still prefer expensive hand-wound moving coils made of some exotic wood. Andrew. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
On Aug 28, 12:41=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something = else (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen= to vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to anot= her and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost = all night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job= I want for my Alfa! There seems to be something compelling about listening to records that CD can't match (at least for me). I don't know what it is. I like digital, h= ell, I record digitally and get very realistic sounding results. I have read articles by audio writers who have expressed experiencing this phenomenon= as well, but I'm just wondering if anyone on this forum has had similar experiences? I noticed the same effect, but I have a different explanation for it. I thought about it and tried to analyze what is the difference. I noticed that when I listen CD very often I am much more involved emotionally in a listening. What I mean that there are more details available to the ear, because of much lower noise level and (I assume) higher quality of the recording. And it causes stronger emotional response to the music. So after listening say Bruckner's symphony I feel more exhausted then after listening the same piece from LP just because it was more thrilling experience. So in some sense after couple hours of intentional listening music from CD I feel exhausted emotionally and cannot continue. This is my $0.02 worth about "fatiguing" syndrome. vlad |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:13:39 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message Don't know about that, but modern cartridges track better, have better stylus profiles,lower moving mass, and lower distortion than their predecessors. I know only of technical measurements that show this to not be true. If you have reliable evidence that show that there is some cartrdige that outtracks a V15 IV-V on real world LPs, please provide it. There aren't any. As I said, the V15 is the exception. However there are cartridges that have better stylus profiles (or at least different ones) that ride in a different section of the V-groove and which can track a different portion of the groove-wall than did the standard 2 X 7 Mil elliptical and therefore on older, slightly worn records can provide lower distortion, less surface noise, and better high-frequency response. One of the problems with characterizing the performance of cartriges is that there are significant sample variations and that optimization of the mounting of the cartrdige can have signficant effects. Therefore a definitive study would involve more than one or two tests of each make and model of cartrige. Quite true. Like with any transducer, there will be unit-to-unit variations. because cartridges have tiny moving masses, these variations are likely to be larger than with microphones or speakers. The only exception that I know of in the distortion department was the Shure V-15 IV. Even by modern standards, it's very low. The V15 IV was introduced in 1978. It is positively ancient. I believe that there were cartridges in those days or slightly later whose tracking was competitive with it. I believe that there are several modern cartrdiges that are competitive and only modestly priced. Tracking is fairly well understood these days, and I know that many can match the V-15 IV-V, I'm not sure that any can beat it however. I usually subject cartridges to the Torture test track on the Shure test record (as well as the CBS test record and the Orion test record) and every modern cartridge that I've tried seems to have no problem there. It seems like it would be possible for any competitor to reverse-engineer the V-15 VI - V and duplicate its "magic sauce". Judging by the plethora of excellent performing MM. MC, and VR designs on the market today many do "duplicate the Shure's magic sauce" and do so without reverse engineering it. Being a transducer, cartridges can be designed to do specific things that it's designer deems to be critical to HIS tastes in playback, sometimes at the expense of other things (just like speakers). It depends upon what the designer's design criteria are. For instance, while the V-15s had great tracking, exceptionally low distortion, and flat, smooth frequency response, I always felt that it didn't image very well when compared to some others. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:14:08 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:17:28 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:28:07 -0700, bob wrote (in article ): On Aug 29, 4:50=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: That's not hearing acuity, it's attitude; prejudice, actually. It's the MUSIC, man, not the media. No, if you get more extended pleasure listening to vinyl than to digital, that's the MEDIA. You misunderstand me. I'm not addressing my pleasure at listening to vinyl with that comment, I'm addressing Mr. Kruger's comment that he cannot get pleasure from anything other than digital. Of course I never said that. You certainly implied it: " I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to enjoy music as we do today were we still hobbled by analog recording technology." Direct quote. I stand by what I wrote and I renounce your self-serving misinterpretation of it. I can only interpret what I read. Seems to me that your statement is pretty unambiguous. If you meant something else, it's up to you to clarify that point. None of us are mind readers. It is obvious to anybody who does music production these days that digital signal processing and storage has cut hours, even days out of the production process. No argument there. But that has little to do with one's ability to enjoy music. Many projects that would have been too expensive or time consuming in the days of analog-only are now feasible, even pretty easy. This means that we can now enjoy music that would have never been produced and distributed. I agree, and if that's what you meant by your above comment, you should have been more clear about it. Like I said, I can only respond to your words not your intentions. You are free to misinterpret what I wrote as you will, but I will not be silent if you continue to do so in public. Like I said, I went by ONLY what you wrote. It's simply not my fault if what you wrote didn't convey what you actually meant. Since we were talking about vinyl playback in that exchange, I can only assume that you too were talking about playback. That you were talking about commercial PRODUCTION is not made clear. But since you have NOW clarified your meaning, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I have new recordings of classic film soundtracks (and releases of newly mastered archival material from film company vaults) that would NEVER have been released were it not for digital and CD. Some soundtracks that I have were only pressed in lots of 1000 or fewer for the ENTIRE WORLD. If we only had analog (vinyl) it's likely that these titles would never have been released, or if they were, they would be so expensive (amortizing production costs over fewer copies) that most people would be unable or unwilling to pay the price. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
On Sep 1, 9:03=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message On Aug 30, 6:17=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: One of the basic precepts of high fidelity is the idea that audible noise and distortion can distract from enjoyment of the music and therefore the=3D y should be avoided whenever possible. Or it can make it better. You're asserting your preferences, No Arny I used your preferences as stated by you to illustrate my point. I don't know whay you chose to snip that part of my post. you aren't addressing the fundamental precept. Sure I am. I am finding it to be fundamentally flawed and used your preferences to illustrate that fact. =A0You'd have to change any number of encyclopedias and dictionaries if you wanted to even *start* changing the idea that =A0"One of the basic precepts of high fidelity is the idea that audible noise and distortion c= an distract from =A0enjoyment of the music and therefore they should be =A0a= voided whenever possible." Which "encyclopedias and dictionaries" would that be Arny? Citations please. I couldn't find that precept in any of the ones I usually go to. It goes both ways. ?????????????? Go back and reread the part of my post that illustrates that using your stated preferences. You will find the answer there. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
On Sep 2, 8:01=A0am, Andrew Haley
wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: "Andrew Haley" wrote in Arny Krueger wrote: The V15 IV was introduced in 1978. It is positively ancient. =A0I believe that there were cartridges in those days or slightly later whose tracking was competitive with it. I believe that there are several modern cartrdiges that are competitive and only modestly priced. Really? =A0There isn't much real technical information available for cartridges these days, but I can't remember seeing anything as good (distortion, frequency response) as a V15. http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/LP4/NewLampsForOld.html It seems like it would be possible for any competitor to reverse-engineer the V-15 VI - V and duplicate its "magic sauce". Beryllium cantilever? If materials were all that mattered, diamond might be even better. Well yeah, but the machining might be a challenge. No-one said that materials were all that mattered. =A0You said that it would be possible for any competitor to reverse-engineer the V-15 VI; maybe not, because no-one wants to work with beryllium. =A0It may not be possible to duplicate the V15 without using beryllium, which has some very nice properties for this application. Thing is, engineering is about more than materials. For example, do you know about the vibration absorber *inside* the V15's shank? No, I don't. =A0I'm sure we'd all be interested. The problem with phono cartridges seems to be that what sells has more to do with witchcraft and snake oil than actual engineering. =A0Even if you could come up with a very high-performance cartridge at a reasonable price, would the "high-end" crowd buy it? =A0I suspect they'd still prefer expensive hand-wound moving coils made of some exotic wood. Really? I suspect that my Koetsu Rosewood signature is exactly what you are speaking of. It has hand wound coils and and exotic wood body and was pretty expensive. I do indeed prefer it to the Shure V 15. And yes the comparisons were done blind and level matched. I prefer it by a margin that is suprisingly in line with the price difference. Not something one would expect with the laws of diminishing returns. Do tell me though, what "witchcraft" are you speaking of? What "snake oil" are you refering to? What actual engineering is missing from a Koetsu Rosewood signature? Or perhaps you were speaking of some other hand wound cartridge with an exotic wood body? |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 08:20:23 -0700, David wrote
(in article ): On Aug 28, 12:41=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something = else (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen= to vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to anot= her and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost = all night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job= I want for my Alfa! There seems to be something compelling about listening to records that CD can't match (at least for me). I don't know what it is. I like digital, h= ell, I record digitally and get very realistic sounding results. I have read articles by audio writers who have expressed experiencing this phenomenon= as well, but I'm just wondering if anyone on this forum has had similar experiences? I noticed the same effect, but I have a different explanation for it. I thought about it and tried to analyze what is the difference. I noticed that when I listen CD very often I am much more involved emotionally in a listening. What I mean that there are more details available to the ear, because of much lower noise level and (I assume) higher quality of the recording. And it causes stronger emotional response to the music. So after listening say Bruckner's symphony I feel more exhausted then after listening the same piece from LP just because it was more thrilling experience. So in some sense after couple hours of intentional listening music from CD I feel exhausted emotionally and cannot continue. This is my $0.02 worth about "fatiguing" syndrome. vlad Were that the case, I'd think that attending a live concert for several hours would be even more fatiguing, yet I never feel fatigued by live music, just exhilarated, uplifted, and enthused by what I've heard. |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
"David" wrote in message
Were that the case, I'd think that attending a live concert for several hours would be even more fatiguing, yet I never feel fatigued by live music, just exhilarated, uplifted, and enthused by what I've heard. I've spent over 14 hours a day for several days straight recording live music, producing over 40 separately distributed recordings per day. I was pretty thoroughly fatigued. |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Records again
Scott wrote:
On Sep 2, 8:01?am, Andrew Haley wrote: The problem with phono cartridges seems to be that what sells has more to do with witchcraft and snake oil than actual engineering. Even if you could come up with a very high-performance cartridge at a reasonable price, would the "high-end" crowd buy it? I suspect they'd still prefer expensive hand-wound moving coils made of some exotic wood. Really? I suspect that my Koetsu Rosewood signature is exactly what you are speaking of. Let's be clear, I'm not talking about any particular cartridge. It has hand wound coils and and exotic wood body and was pretty expensive. I do indeed prefer it to the Shure V 15. And yes the comparisons were done blind and level matched. I prefer it by a margin that is suprisingly in line with the price difference. Not something one would expect with the laws of diminishing returns. So I've heard. I wonder whether people would like it quite so much if it wasn't expensive, hand-wound, and made from wood. (Rosewood isn't very exotic, so this cartridge doesn't quite match my description.) Of course, people *like* the idea of something lovingly made by hand out of nice materials, and there's nothing wrong with that. Do tell me though, what "witchcraft" are you speaking of? What "snake oil" are you refering to? What actual engineering is missing from a Koetsu Rosewood signature? Or perhaps you were speaking of some other hand wound cartridge with an exotic wood body? I would love to know why people prefer the Koetsu Rosewood signature sound, if indeed they do. I'm not sure that any public research has been done to find out. Andrew. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
HUGE LOT 78RPM RECORDS FOR SALE-(1000) RECORDS FOR $250 | Pro Audio | |||
HUGE LOT 78RPM RECORDS FOR SALE-(1000) RECORDS FOR $250 | Vacuum Tubes | |||
HUGE LOT 78RPM RECORDS FOR SALE-(1000) RECORDS FOR $250 | Tech | |||
HUGE LOT 78RPM RECORDS FOR SALE-(1000) RECORDS FOR $250 | Marketplace | |||
FS: Over 350 mint LP records | Marketplace |