| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#401
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... "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. But you're basing your opinion on the least reliable way to form it. As to double blind, it is very difficult to do with LP because there is always some noise artifact to give it away. That's only one of it's may problems, it should however be possible to find passages where the surface noise is masked by the signal. 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. If the were competently done and that's their preference, so be it. The problem I have is most such preferences are based on none or incompetently done comparisons. |
|
#402
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
B&D wrote:
On 7/24/04 1:10 PM, in article 5KwMc.178294$XM6.4228@attbi_s53, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: This "no compression"pattern thankfully is being restored via SACD and DVD-A recordings. Hooey. There are no *master* tapes which even approach the dymaic range of CD, so there's no advantage in 24 bits over 16 in a world where the master tape has only 14 bits of range (at the very most). The advantage is usually in the mastering and cleanup process. It will usually be audible since the engineer won't have to "eat" into the effective audible dynamic range. You may want to read the Lip****z article on a comparsion done between the output of a 16-bit digital recorder and that of a high-end vinyl rig. Do a Google search on "Lip****z" article on this ng. |
|
#403
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
|
#405
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
... 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. When an amp puts out the kind of distortion the WAVAC does, you are hearing the amplification plus the distortion. In a decent SS amp the distortion would be inaudible and like most SS amps you wouldn't be able to tell one from the other. Played at anythiong over 2 watts the distortion would be audible from the WAVAC. 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. If the amp adds something that wasn't in the source, it's distortion and has no place in anyhing calling it self Hi-Fi or high end. 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. I think that statement is onbly true for the tiny minority of people who think they can remember what a live performance should sound like. 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? Because teh differences can be so gross and because no speaker is perfect, amps, preamps, CD players are generally perfect insofar as they don't impart any sound of their own. 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 may 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. According to what standard? |
|
#406
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Nousaine" wrote in message news:zGaMc.168737$Oq2.24685@attbi_s52... (Bruce J. Richman) wrote: That is simply wrong. Any number of outstanding LPs have been recorded and mastered with no compression. Weren't the old Shefield's direct to disk? Yes, they were, as were such labels as Crystal Clear, Century, Direct Disc. to name just a few. Also, in more recent times, Analogue Productions, the record label for Chad Kassem's Acoustic Sounds, has also produced direct to disc reecordings. And several former direct-to-disc recordings have won Grammy awards for engineering excellence (e.g. the LA Philharmonic's Wagner recording). For those unfortunate or prejudiced enough to not have vinyl playback equipment, many of the Sheffield titles are also available on CD. I would recommend a sampler called "Drive" on the Sheffield label for a nice assortment of cuts from various famous Sheffield albums (e.g. Harry James, the Moscow Sessions, etc.). This CD was originally designed to serve as a test CD of sorts for automotive stereo systems, and the notes accompanying each cut in the CD booklet are very interesting. . Bruce J. Richman Oh Sure; and the Thelma Huston "Pressure Cooker" lps I bought with the assurance that once the masters were used up there would never be availability again; was forever askanst by the release of the same material on cd; in a couple years by the "discovery" of analog back-up copies that were made at the time. What a crock; then and now. Sorry Sheffield announced from the beginning that they were making analog recordings as backups, and that they might be released after the direct to disks were gone. The only think promised was that the direct-to-disks were limited in number and once sold, were gone forever. The crock is your mistaken assertion. Well gee-whiz; I had high-end salesmen in Detroit and Chiacgo swear otherwise. But you are right. I wasn't surprised to see a re-issue. I was never all that hot for the Mayorga releases but I really enjoyed Pressure Cooker. |
|
#407
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 7/24/2004 7:25 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: Compression isn't inherently evil. It's been used during tracking, mixing and mastering for decades, and you wouldn't want to remove *all* of it from your favorite recordings. Perhaps not. I'd probably prefer not to have any added after the final mix though. And how many of your LPs fit that bill? Hard to say. I have never thought to research this question. Sounds like a big project. Clearly, adding *some* compression (along with the otehr stuff added by LP mastering and playback) is OK with LPphiles... Clearly? How so? it's jsut adding *too much* that bothers some...same as CD fans. And of course, 'too much' is purely subjective, too. It all becomes far more subjective when we talk about studio albums. The 'loudness wars' simply manifest an extreme example of use during mastering. And compression is only one of many 'adjustments' that can be made during mastering. Yeah, it has been a very unfortunate trend. So were fake stereo and recycled vinyl during the LP era. Yep that was really awful as well. Besides, 'loudness war' reissues cater to a market that wants a certain kind of euphonic distortion. So do vinyl reissues. Balony. They are very different in character and serve a different purpose. All that means is: you find one euphonic and the other, not so euphonic. No it means they are very different in character and they serve a different purpose. Btw, if you're suddently so worried abotu the consumer, where's the anxiety about expensive high-end stuff that makes dubious-at-best claims for performance? I am not as worried about the consumer at large as I am focused on myself as "the consumer." I am not worried about claims of manufacturers since I do not buy equipment based on claims. Surely Grover interconnects must be tempting. Where did that come from? Were we talking about interconnects? You know exactly what hte reference means. I know what you are refereing to. Where did your seemingly arbitrary choice to bring it up come from? OTOH when it comes to music and the various issues available auditions are not as easy to come by. So message boards such as Stevehoffman.tv do come in handy for some guidence. It is still hit and miss but thankfully the investment is not on the same level as equipment. When it comes to music reviews I am more aware of which reviewers' preferences tend to mirror my own and use that in some purchasing decisions. I also pay attention to my experience with various labels and my expereince with the various engineers behind the releases of these labels. I read lots of audiophile forums. On the ones where viunylphiles feel comfortable letting it all hang out, I've seen a significant amount of bitching and disagreement about various vinyl reissues -- this one is noisy, that one used a digital master,etc. Yeah, so? Is that a bad thing? People freely expressing their honest opinions about what is available on the market? The horror! But it does go to your point about CD buyers being faced with tough choices if they only want the 'best sounding' version. It's an issue for LPphiles too. Then again, maybe it simply that often you likes the sound that vinyl mastering and playback adds to the master tape. Maybe, maybe not. Does it matter why I like what I like? You do seem rather reflexively defensive about it. Perhaps becuase there is an over all tone that implies inferiority in my likes and dislikes. One would think you shoudl be pushing for reel-to-reel -- another format that could beat vinyl technically in its day. I have no problem with people who want to pursue that medium. So, why favor vinyl? Availability? That certainly is an issue for me. them still displaying the inherent flaws of vinyl, The inherent limitations of vinyl I think is hardly much of an issue. Well, not for you, of course. Not for me and others who have managed to overcome their anti-vinyl paranoia. No one's *afraid* of vinyl, Scott. Straw man. I never said anyone was "affraid" of vinyl. Am I 'paranoid' for preferring DVD to VHS? Were we talking about DVD and VHS? Did I say anyone who prefers CDs to vinyl are paranoid? No. (And what to make of CDphiles who still own and use turntables? Are they schizophrenic?)) I'd say they made a better choice than those who abandoned the format. But why are you asking about clinically diagnosed mental illnesses and preferences? It has nothing to do with anything I have said. If one can get past their anti-vinyl biases I think just about everyone would be quite impressed with vinyl at it's very best. Most of the battle is in the recordings and masterings once you have a good high end rig. I'm always impressed that such a primitive technology could produce such pleasant results. But it's not pleasant enough to be worth it, to me. That is a matter of personal values. Most people don't think quality playback of music is worth much money or effort at all. I think it's worth pursuing. Alas, LP doesn't constitute high enough 'quality playback' for me. I want something better. Unfortunately your choice underminds you own goals. One can see evidence of this with a passion we share. Yes music. If you are looking for better it will likely be found on their LPs. and, according to vinylphiles themselves, requiring expensive rigs and extensive 'optimization' to extract the benefits. That is true. But it is also true of speakers and rooms. No one promised the hobby will be cheap or easy. But nowadays it doesn't have to be *quite that* difficult, is the point. I wish it were true. And I think that seems to be a driving point of many "objectivists." Some people are simply not comfortable if they don't have all the answers and easy solutions to their needs. Some people create 'solutions' for themselves needlessly, perhaps enjoying the rituals of tweakery for their own sake. Or enjoy the belief that it all comes down to a few simple measurements and they have everything under their thumb. material, No. I dunno, are there any recordings of the '1812 overture', a fairly popular piece, that are on uncompressed vinyl? 1812 Overture (CSO / Reiner ) (4 discs; 45 RPM) Artist: Tchaikovsky Label: Classic Records Format: LP LOL. 4 discs, 45 RPM. I should have guessed. I'm sorry if I disapointed you by finding something you may have thought didn't exist. The legendary Reiner 1812 that was only available as a "1S" pressing having been deleted soon after the Mercury 1812 featuring live cannon shots was released making for a very rare original to find. T... So, if they put *that* one on uncompressed vinyl, would one of the four 45s be devoted entirely to the cannon shots? And that's leaving aside rock albums. Non-answer noted. Non-question noted. And how many vinyl recordingd don't sum bass to mono? Can you tell the difference? I dunno; but I'd rather not have to question it at all. Such bass summing is done specifically because of the *limitations of the medium*. And because you can't tell the difference. There. You don't have to worry about the question any more. It is answered. So, how many vinyl masterings don't sum bass to mono? and requiring an expensive rig to play without the danger of damage to the record or rig. No. One can get a rig that will not endanger the vinyl in any unusual manner that is not particularly expensive. Like, how expensive? Comparatively speaking, to play a recording with a full dynamic and frequency range, asuming such a beast even existed on LP, how much would it cost for a TT rig that could do it justice without sending the tonearm skidding across the vinyl? http://www.hcmaudio.com/comp.asp?compID=514 Great, now play some full-frequency, full-dynamic range cannon shots on that one and get back to me. (I'll assume you have the poor thing well vibration-proofed too). Why don't you play it back and rell us what happened? Do you have any evidence that this table with a Shure V-15 would have any problems tracking any records you know of? Compared to a CD of same? A portable player at $25-30 -- 1/10 the cost...assumign your listed TT really does what I'm asking it to do. I suppose if I were only interested in canon shots I might not be as enthusiastic about LPs. *This* is what you consider a viable choice comapred to CDs It is better to have the choice than not to have the choice IMO. Again, where's the call for a return to reel-to-reel? Why would I make such a call? I think I'd rather take a stab at SACD or DVD audio. At least the few titles that exist are easily found. Stab away. Not yet. (most of the pop music canon has now been remastered at least once, btw; Yes it has and all too often quite poorly. Then again, all too often it was crap on vinyl first... Yeah it was. Most pop recordings are simply bad. I still think finding the best version for me is worth while. Too often the crappyness was compounded by the vulnerabilities and weaknesses of the vinyl medium. What do you mean? you could always seek out the 'used' supposedly 'flat transfers' that Hoffmanites worship) I have. I don't always like them. I don't think it is fair to say that Hoffman "worships" these transfers. He often considers them to be the best CD versions available ofr a given title. That is all. Good to know don't you think? *Hoffmanites* You sort of were one once weren't you? Nope. *Hoffmanites* comprise a subset of participants on the Hoffman board. Before they suspended you for not following the rules. You certainly were a regular on those message boards. I certainly was. But I certainly was never a *Hoffmanite*. OK I'll bite, what is a Hoffmanite? |
|
#408
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
|
#409
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
(S888Wheel) wrote:
From: (Nousaine) Date: 7/23/2004 12:07 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 22 Jul 2004 00:14:53 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: Subject: Steely Dan The Absolute Sound From: "Ban" Date: 7/21/2004 10:09 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: nrxLc.156323$Oq2.88089@attbi_s52 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? No, the history of the terminology is well known amoung some audiophiles and this was not what happened. Quite right. Harry Pearson simply had to find some labels on which to hang his tweaky notions of why ultra-exotic and weirdly-designed equipment could be sold at exorbitent prices to an unsuspecting public. He and his accomplices at rags such as TAS have probably done irreparable harm to the high-fidelity sound reproduction field by encouraging nonsenses such as 'audiophile' cable and single-ended tube amps. 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. Really? Do you have any evidence that WAVAC owners have been trying to return their amps but WAVAC refuses because audiophiles commonly use the term "high end" instead of "hifi?" Do you have any evidence that anyone actually *does* own one of these ludicrous toys? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering Isn't that an interesting question. If it sounds so good why doesn't JA own one? And if he does ....... what was the purchase price? Maybe because he is not so wealthy that 350,000 bucks isn't an issue, even with a discount. Maybe he likes other amps better. Maybe they are too big and too hot. People can like things and not wish to buy them or even wish to own them. But IF it sounds MORE like live music wouldn't he almost be required to use it as a reference? Otherwise why would we accept his personal word about the quality of any other device? Or any other reviewer that doesn't use one. How about ALL the other reviews conducted prior? It seems likely that they don't sound AS MUCH like live music as this amplifier. So does this 'slide' everything down a category on the RCL? And how about the rest of the other review staff? Have they acquired this new MORE like live music reference? It seems most likely to me that this product is just another not-so-good ampliifer that gets on the RCL like all the other amplifiers that this magazine evaluates. |
|
#410
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/26/04 8:45 AM, in article X17Nc.165245$IQ4.135599@attbi_s02, "Nousaine"
wrote: If I understand you correctly, by your focus on MC cartridges, you have eliminated the MM cartridges as contenders for accuracy? There goes a significant precentage of vinyl rigs, right there. I guess the Shure V15 family of cartridges, which used to be very highly rated via measurements and subjective reviews, just don't cut it (pun unintended) anymore. And by the time you eliminate certain turntables and tonearms, and then various preamps and amps, what is the chance of another vinylist having the same sounding vinyl rig as yours? And we have not even got to the careful set-up, or the conditions of the LP's yet. About 3 years ago PSACS had a former Shure design engineer give a talk about his experience with cartridge design. He said that in the 70s Shure hand-built a one-off prototype moving coil that had exactly the same performance as the then-current V15. Interestingly he said that in bias-controlled listening tests nobody could tell one from the other; which was one of the reasons Shure never bothered with producing a Moving Coil cartridge. IIRC, Grado held a number of patents on moving coil cartridges, yet never made anything but MM. I wondered if they felt the same way - plus servicing the MM vs MC is a lot different. |
|
#411
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/26/04 1:56 AM, in article 721Nc.187393$XM6.133782@attbi_s53, "Michael
McKelvy" wrote: 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". IIRC there was a standard for what was considered Hi-Fi, it had to perform within certain limits. None of the measured well/sounded like dreck stuff was ever compared via ABX to see if the sounded like dreck part was really true, so in essence, it's just a blank assertion. One common mistake in amplifiers is the use of feedback in order to make an amplifier absolutely flat - since the time constant of the loop can be exceeding during transients, letting the open loop amplifier response (complete with distortion and so on) for a small amount of time. I don't think an ABX test would need to be done in this particular case as it is easily measured on a bench, and calculated by math. The way the very best amplifiers are designed (RF ones anyway that require linearization) is that the basic amplifier is made as flat and linear as possible and feedback or other linearization technique is used to make it better. I think audio amplifiers would need this as well. Overall I agree - but AB or ABX or other controlled subjective listening tests is not always required provided you know what measurements to make. |
|
#412
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 22 Jul 2004 00:08:29 GMT, in article ,
S888Wheel stated: This is a very good point. It makes me wonder what those who choose to abandon the LP format altogether are thinking? Gee, we ask a lot of our audiophiles, don't we? Not only are they expected to hold down jobs of sufficient importance and responsibility to enable the purchase of $20K speakers and $20K amplifiers, but they are expected to do so while still simultaneously having the free time required to affirmatively search out relatively scarce vinyl releases, optimize their analog rigs, clean the playback medium every time they interact with it, get up every 15-20 minutes to flip the record over and spend enough of that free time sitting in a room at home to listen in the first place. I have a reasonably decent system and I respect what it can do and the folks who designed the components, but at the end of the day most of my musical enjoyment comes through an iPod while I'm on the go (the iPod having freed us from the last great mobile music impediment, having to carry the software around and change it). Listening at the computer through an inexpensive sat/sub system comes a distant second. In terms of time spent, my home rig is not even on the chart, and I can't imagine how any person who doesn't have the good fortune to be a person of extreme leisure can spend enough time with the Walkers and Nordosts and Lyras of this world to make it all worth it. |
|
#413
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:oQaMc.148059$%_6.59039@attbi_s01...
No, gain riding *is* compression in professional audio engineering circles, "compression" is *by definition* an automated process, whereas the term "gain riding" is almost exlusively used to describe a manual activity. |
|
#414
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:X17Nc.165245$IQ4.135599@attbi_s02... chung wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: "chung" wrote in message ....snip...... And are you suggesting that all those vinyl lovers who believe in the accuracy of vinyl all have very neutral and fine phone systems that sound the same? I have no way of knowing that, for sure. But I do know that most MC cartridges can be made to be reasonable "flat" with proper loading, and their manufacturers are not loath to give out the proper information. I also know that nowadays, there are many good (read "neutral") turntables and arms out there compared to the past, and a de facto standardization on medium mass arms for MC's. So it wouldn't surprise me if many of them weren't in the ballpark. If I understand you correctly, by your focus on MC cartridges, you have eliminated the MM cartridges as contenders for accuracy? There goes a significant precentage of vinyl rigs, right there. I guess the Shure V15 family of cartridges, which used to be very highly rated via measurements and subjective reviews, just don't cut it (pun unintended) anymore. And by the time you eliminate certain turntables and tonearms, and then various preamps and amps, what is the chance of another vinylist having the same sounding vinyl rig as yours? And we have not even got to the careful set-up, or the conditions of the LP's yet. About 3 years ago PSACS had a former Shure design engineer give a talk about his experience with cartridge design. He said that in the 70s Shure hand-built a one-off prototype moving coil that had exactly the same performance as the then-current V15. Interestingly he said that in bias-controlled listening tests nobody could tell one from the other; which was one of the reasons Shure never bothered with producing a Moving Coil cartridge. Interesting antecdote, which flies in the face of a lot of empirical observation by others. So it may or may not be true. Or it may say something about the possible deficiencies of bias-controlled listening tests in certain regards. |
|
#415
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
... 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. Because in my case that is true. 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. Why in the world would I wish to spend the kind of money it takes for "par" when for $100.00, (less than my cd player cost) I can get a better medium. The problem is they don't but you like LP sound better, even though you're missing out on the increased transient response, lower noise and no possibility of tracking error. I'm not missing out on anything. I have both LPs and CDs I am quite happy when I find a better copy of any title whether it be on CD or LP, I'm afraid you are the one who is missing out by disnmissing an entire format. I still have LP's, some sound very nice, none sound as good as any CD I've ever heard. You like what you like, but it's still inferior to CD. That doesn't even make sense. Some times with some titles I like the CD better. According to you most of the time. |
|
#416
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
B&D wrote:
On 7/26/04 1:56 AM, in article 721Nc.187393$XM6.133782@attbi_s53, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: 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". IIRC there was a standard for what was considered Hi-Fi, it had to perform within certain limits. None of the measured well/sounded like dreck stuff was ever compared via ABX to see if the sounded like dreck part was really true, so in essence, it's just a blank assertion. One common mistake in amplifiers is the use of feedback in order to make an amplifier absolutely flat - since the time constant of the loop can be exceeding during transients, letting the open loop amplifier response (complete with distortion and so on) for a small amount of time. Time constant of the loop can be exceeding? What exactly are you talking about? BTW, it is trivial to test for large signal distortion effects. I don't think an ABX test would need to be done in this particular case as it is easily measured on a bench, and calculated by math. The way the very best amplifiers are designed (RF ones anyway that require linearization) is that the basic amplifier is made as flat and linear as possible and feedback or other linearization technique is used to make it better. I think audio amplifiers would need this as well. There are plenty of solid state amps designed with the open-loop response optimized for linearity and bandwidth. Read the Doug Self website for examples. Overall I agree - but AB or ABX or other controlled subjective listening tests is not always required provided you know what measurements to make. I am glad that now you believe in the power of measurements. That's a new position for you. What happened? |
|
#417
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
|
#418
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/26/04 1:56 AM, in article g21Nc.169722$JR4.10497@attbi_s54, "Michael
McKelvy" wrote: 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. If the were competently done and that's their preference, so be it. The problem I have is most such preferences are based on none or incompetently done comparisons. Depends upon what kind of conclusions you want to draw from a 'faulty' comparison. If it is a "I like it" then by most measures - the only criteria that needs to be satisfied has been satisfied it (the purchasing decision). If someone were to conclude "YOU like it" (deciding for others) then it becomes more complex and you may be right. After all, I believe there are 3 groups: 1. A large minority of "audiophiles" are truly and earnestly interested in absolute perfect recording reproduction 2. and equally large minority is interested in allowing some "euphonic distortion" if it makes the music sound like a live performance, 3. and a third group is only interested in replicating the emotional response of live music. The MEANS of this is what creates the "Objectivist/Subjectivist" split. |
|
#419
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 05:56:19 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... 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. And a lot of it by people who had very little idea what they were doing, if one is to believe the Audio Critic. We've all seen the evidence right here in r.a.h-e, haven't we? :-) For example, NAD was considered high end. Yamaha was not. And that distinction was deserved based on the sound of the day. By what objective verifiable standard? Remembering of course that Steve Zipser and two other experienced audiophiles couldn't tell the difference between a pair of $12,000 Pass Aleph 1.2 monobloc power amps and an old Yamaha AX-700 integrated amplifier - in Steve's own reference system. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#420
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Ban" wrote in message
... John Atkinson wrote: Most of the pro audio digital hardware available in the early 1980s did not use dither, unless it was inadvertently done by a fortuitous noisefloor. The original Sony digital editor, for example, did not dither its mathematical operations, merely truncating the longer word lengths. Worse, even when set to unity gain, it had a gain very slightly different from unity, meaning that it still operated on the data, reintroducing quantizing distortion as it did so. It was only at the end of that decade that pro audio digital components routinely incorporated dither, thanks to the proseltyzing of academics like Stanley Lip****z, who had been beating the drum on the behalf of dither since before the CD launch. Are you really sure John? Yes. It was not until the second-generation Sony editor, introduced in 1988, if I remember correctly, that dither was correctly used. While some products (as you mention) did use dither, many did not. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#421
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 25 Jul 2004 19:05:01 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 23 Jul 2004 19:09:10 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Nousaine" wrote in message news:zGaMc.168737$Oq2.24685@attbi_s52... Oh Sure; and the Thelma Huston "Pressure Cooker" lps I bought with the assurance that once the masters were used up there would never be availability again; was forever askanst by the release of the same material on cd; in a couple years by the "discovery" of analog back-up copies that were made at the time. What a crock; then and now. Sorry Sheffield announced from the beginning that they were making analog recordings as backups, and that they might be released after the direct to disks were gone. The only think promised was that the direct-to-disks were limited in number and once sold, were gone forever. That is simply not true. I collected many Sheffields in the '70s, right from Lab 1 (the third in the series.....), and no mention was *ever* made of the existence of any backup tapes, until *after* all the DD discs were safely in music stores. The fact that they didn't tell you personally doesn't mean it wasn't in their press releases and interviews. So quote one single source of such a statement from *before* the Treasury series magically appeared. The crock is your mistaken assertion. No, the crock is Sheffield telling porkies to keep up prices. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#422
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 25 Jul 2004 14:58:59 GMT, B&D wrote:
On 7/24/04 1:10 PM, in article 5KwMc.178294$XM6.4228@attbi_s53, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: This "no compression"pattern thankfully is being restored via SACD and DVD-A recordings. Hooey. There are no *master* tapes which even approach the dymaic range of CD, so there's no advantage in 24 bits over 16 in a world where the master tape has only 14 bits of range (at the very most). The advantage is usually in the mastering and cleanup process. It will usually be audible since the engineer won't have to "eat" into the effective audible dynamic range. He doesn't anyway. I repeat, there are no *master* tapes with more than 14 bits dynamic range. Now, if you're actually *recording* on digital tape, then you might find an extra few bits useful to avoid accidental mic overloads, but for *mastering*, no such headroom is required. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#423
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 25 Jul 2004 14:57:54 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: An amp that dynamically compresses and alters the frequency response of the system will not show any problems when measured using conventional measurements. And it may not show up with many kinds of music. But a trained ear, listening to the right material, and with experience with live music in a similar acoustic environment, will most likely pick it up with some extended listening. And without dbt. Harry, you have to be a bit more technical savvy. Any amp that dynamically compresses will show distortion that is easily measureable. Yes, with conventional measurements. I am honestly shocked to see this from one who has been in this hobby for as long as you have... I didn't say it couldn't be measured. I said it wouldn't show up as frequency deviation (which is the compression I am talking about) in a conventional frequency response plot. Unfortunately, out here in the real world (as opposed to TAS World), there is no such thing as an amp which dynamically compresses and alters the frequency response. That is sheer technobabble. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#424
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
|
#425
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
(S888Wheel) wrote:
From: chung Now do you not believe Tom's ability to tell what those errors sound like? I do not believe he knows what MF's system in MF's listening room sounds like with the WAVACs in that system. Of course if someone wishes to arrange a test I'll happily place a wager on my opinion. Roger; let me know what your accomodations will be and I'll try to arrange my schedule to fit. What do you want to bet? How about this; I'll bring a device to your place, say an unpedigreed Parasound integrated amplifier, and bring it to your place. I'll bet you that after I find it matches your personal reference amplifier within +/- 0.1 dB at 100, 1000 and 10,000 Hz that you won't be able to reliably tell them apart in a bias controlled listening test of a minimum of 10 trials. You can decide on the amount of the bet = $2000. If you fail you must also pay my travel but I agree to keep it as low as possible. But, in the former case how will you place a "wager on your opinion"? Will you be guessing as to what thay might be? |
|
#426
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
|
#427
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
|
#428
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"B&D" wrote in message
news:QLkNc.195354$XM6.151677@attbi_s53... On 7/26/04 1:56 AM, in article g21Nc.169722$JR4.10497@attbi_s54, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: 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. If the were competently done and that's their preference, so be it. The problem I have is most such preferences are based on none or incompetently done comparisons. Depends upon what kind of conclusions you want to draw from a 'faulty' comparison. First I want to establish there is a difference. I have read people here claim that some LP's are indistinguishable fro a CD of the same music. If it is a "I like it" then by most measures - the only criteria that needs to be satisfied has been satisfied it (the purchasing decision). And I, nor anyone else that would fall into the so called "objectivist" camp has ever claimed otherwise. If someone were to conclude "YOU like it" (deciding for others) then it becomes more complex and you may be right. After all, I believe there are 3 groups: 1. A large minority of "audiophiles" are truly and earnestly interested in absolute perfect recording reproduction 2. and equally large minority is interested in allowing some "euphonic distortion" if it makes the music sound like a live performance, 3. and a third group is only interested in replicating the emotional response of live music. The MEANS of this is what creates the "Objectivist/Subjectivist" split. The split, it seems arises from so many of the subjectivists claiming, or trying to claim that there is some sort of scientific reason why their preferences are better. They also seem to put words in the mouths of the objectivists, claiming they think all equipment sounds the same. No matter how many times it's pointed out that this is not what is being said and that nobody gives a rat's patute about one's preferences. There's also a lot of animosity about the people from the subjectivist side making the claims and their lack of credentials. |
|
#429
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message
news:YVkNc.177459$JR4.111272@attbi_s54... I repeat, there are no *master* tapes with more than 14 bits dynamic range. This is a bit too sweeping a generalization, Stewart, IMO. It is certainly true at low frequencies, where room noise restricts dynamic range. But even on my own recordings, which are almost all distantly, miked, the background noise in the treble can be lower than the 16-bit noise floor. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#430
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:QVkNc.194890$Oq2.82218@attbi_s52... On 25 Jul 2004 19:05:01 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 23 Jul 2004 19:09:10 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Nousaine" wrote in message news:zGaMc.168737$Oq2.24685@attbi_s52... Oh Sure; and the Thelma Huston "Pressure Cooker" lps I bought with the assurance that once the masters were used up there would never be availability again; was forever askanst by the release of the same material on cd; in a couple years by the "discovery" of analog back-up copies that were made at the time. What a crock; then and now. Sorry Sheffield announced from the beginning that they were making analog recordings as backups, and that they might be released after the direct to disks were gone. The only think promised was that the direct-to-disks were limited in number and once sold, were gone forever. That is simply not true. I collected many Sheffields in the '70s, right from Lab 1 (the third in the series.....), and no mention was *ever* made of the existence of any backup tapes, until *after* all the DD discs were safely in music stores. The fact that they didn't tell you personally doesn't mean it wasn't in their press releases and interviews. So quote one single source of such a statement from *before* the Treasury series magically appeared. Sorry, I don't make a habit of collecting press releases, or indexing twenty year old magazines. I remember it because it affected my decisions as to what direct to disks to buy and what to save for later (even if they ran out of D-D's and it had to be an analog-release version). |
|
#431
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/27/04 12:18 AM, in article HIkNc.177397$JR4.96037@attbi_s54, "chung"
wrote: B&D wrote: On 7/26/04 1:56 AM, in article 721Nc.187393$XM6.133782@attbi_s53, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: 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". IIRC there was a standard for what was considered Hi-Fi, it had to perform within certain limits. None of the measured well/sounded like dreck stuff was ever compared via ABX to see if the sounded like dreck part was really true, so in essence, it's just a blank assertion. One common mistake in amplifiers is the use of feedback in order to make an amplifier absolutely flat - since the time constant of the loop can be exceeding during transients, letting the open loop amplifier response (complete with distortion and so on) for a small amount of time. Time constant of the loop can be exceeding? What exactly are you talking about? Exceeded, not exceeding - sorry meaning you can exceed the speed of the loop with a transient. For every loop there is a finite loop constant - if you are slower than it - the response is the closed loop response. If you are faster - then it will approach the open loop response. If the open loop response has distortion and ripple in the pass band - then until the loop takes control - you will have distortion. It is not uncommon for a class AB (RF) amp to have -40dB intermodulation distortion and harmonic distgortion ~ -30dB or so. A loop would clean it up really nicely, but would be audible open loop. BTW, it is trivial to test for large signal distortion effects. I don't think an ABX test would need to be done in this particular case as it is easily measured on a bench, and calculated by math. The way the very best amplifiers are designed (RF ones anyway that require linearization) is that the basic amplifier is made as flat and linear as possible and feedback or other linearization technique is used to make it better. I think audio amplifiers would need this as well. There are plenty of solid state amps designed with the open-loop response optimized for linearity and bandwidth. Read the Doug Self website for examples. Yes, there are - now. Overall I agree - but AB or ABX or other controlled subjective listening tests is not always required provided you know what measurements to make. I am glad that now you believe in the power of measurements. That's a new position for you. What happened? I use measurements every day. I don't have to believe in them - they are 100% valid in the context of what they measure. It is *how* to measure and what it means that is the main issue and you and I would (usually) disagree. |
|
#432
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
|
#433
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
(S888Wheel) wrote:
From: (Nousaine) Date: 7/23/2004 9:09 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: JKaMc.151836$JR4.63122@attbi_s54 (S888Wheel) wrote: (S888Wheel) Do you have any evidence that anyone actually *does* own one of these ludicrous toys? This particular amp or WAVACs in geeneral? In general, yes. This particular amp, no. But it would be quite surprising to me if no one has purchased one yet. So who? One of the Reviewers? Mr Atkinson? Mr Fremer? You want me to speculate? If you want a good answer just contact WAVAC and ask them. I know their primary market is in Japan. My guess is that NONE of the Stereophile review staff has or will purchase one. The related question is that if one of the review staff hasn't bought one (even at an accomodation price which would normally be roughly 50% of the retail price) i would wonder exactly why this piece would not have been made the "reference" piece for ALL of the staff? I would think the answer is obvious. It is expensive and it is huge. The writers for Stereophile do not all live in a frat house. So; they are willing to recommend it as sounding "more" like live music but won't buy one for themselves? Hmmm. When is yours scheduled for delivery? |
|
#434
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 7/26/2004 9:17 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: LHkNc.38215$eM2.16080@attbi_s51 "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... 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. Because in my case that is true. That doesn't leave your claims any less vague or reduce the odds that your own biases were in play. 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. Why in the world would I wish to spend the kind of money it takes for "par" when for $100.00, (less than my cd player cost) I can get a better medium. Your question is based on a faulty premise. The problem is they don't but you like LP sound better, even though you're missing out on the increased transient response, lower noise and no possibility of tracking error. I'm not missing out on anything. I have both LPs and CDs I am quite happy when I find a better copy of any title whether it be on CD or LP, I'm afraid you are the one who is missing out by disnmissing an entire format. I still have LP's, some sound very nice, none sound as good as any CD I've ever heard. On your fig in your system in your opinion. Fine. But it hardly represents the full potential of LP playback You like what you like, but it's still inferior to CD. That doesn't even make sense. Some times with some titles I like the CD better. According to you most of the time. No. Most of the time I like an LP version of a given title best. |
|
#435
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"B&D" wrote in message
... On 7/26/04 1:56 AM, in article 721Nc.187393$XM6.133782@attbi_s53, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: 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". IIRC there was a standard for what was considered Hi-Fi, it had to perform within certain limits. None of the measured well/sounded like dreck stuff was ever compared via ABX to see if the sounded like dreck part was really true, so in essence, it's just a blank assertion. One common mistake in amplifiers is the use of feedback in order to make an amplifier absolutely flat - since the time constant of the loop can be exceeding during transients, letting the open loop amplifier response (complete with distortion and so on) for a small amount of time. It's not a mistake, it's done in all solid state amplifiers, AFAIK. IIRC this provides flat FR which is one of the things you want in an amp. I don't think an ABX test would need to be done in this particular case as it is easily measured on a bench, and calculated by math. It would depend on what design flaws there were and how gross they were in their effect on the sound. If you have flat FR, yo probably have most of the other problems under control, assuming it stay flat with inaudible distortion to the limit of its rating. The way the very best amplifiers are designed (RF ones anyway that require linearization) is that the basic amplifier is made as flat and linear as possible and feedback or other linearization technique is used to make it better. I think audio amplifiers would need this as well. Overall I agree - but AB or ABX or other controlled subjective listening tests is not always required provided you know what measurements to make. And I've said so, especially in the case of speakers. |
|
#436
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
|
#437
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
|
#438
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/27/04 12:17 AM, in article LHkNc.38215$eM2.16080@attbi_s51, "Michael
McKelvy" wrote: 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. Why in the world would I wish to spend the kind of money it takes for "par" when for $100.00, (less than my cd player cost) I can get a better medium. Actually, I would one better you. Assuming that the highest peaks of LP playback with the right records would be better (I have heard it so) than CD, why would you spend the $10,000 for that peak when for $1000 (CD Player) you can get something almost as good? I have heard some truly stunning LP playback that beat my CD (NAD) - but I am unwilling to invest that kind of money to get it. |
|
#439
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
... From: "goFab.com" Date: 7/26/2004 4:35 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: On 22 Jul 2004 00:08:29 GMT, in article , S888Wheel stated: This is a very good point. It makes me wonder what those who choose to abandon the LP format altogether are thinking? Gee, we ask a lot of our audiophiles, don't we? No, I don't ask anything of audiophiles. Not only are they expected to hold down jobs of sufficient importance and responsibility to enable the purchase of $20K speakers and $20K amplifiers, but they are expected to do so while still simultaneously having the free time required to affirmatively search out relatively scarce vinyl releases, optimize their analog rigs, clean the playback medium every time they interact with it, get up every 15-20 minutes to flip the record over and spend enough of that free time sitting in a room at home to listen in the first place. Some of us are fortunate enough to be able to do that. I don't "expect" it from anyone else. Audiophiles are free to do as they please. But I am amazed at the hostility towards those of us who do hold down jobs "of significant importance and responsibility" (whatever that is supposed to mean) to enable us to purchase expensive gear and simultaniously have the time required to search out "reletively scarce" vinyl releases (many of my favorites are not scarce and take little effort to "search out") optimize our analog rigs, clean the records and equipment effectively (your desciption of this is way off base with reality) and have the energy left over to flip the record at the end of each side. Why such hostility? I have a reasonably decent system and I respect what it can do and the folks who designed the components, but at the end of the day most of my musical enjoyment comes through an iPod while I'm on the go (the iPod having freed us from the last great mobile music impediment, having to carry the software around and change it). That's nice. What is your point though? Listening at the computer through an inexpensive sat/sub system comes a distant second. In terms of time spent, my home rig is not even on the chart, and I can't imagine how any person who doesn't have the good fortune to be a person of extreme leisure can spend enough time with the Walkers and Nordosts and Lyras of this world to make it all worth it. The confines of your imagination are, fortunately for me and other enthusiasts, not a real world boundary. My reaction goFab's post was: "then why are you hanging out here on rec.audio.high-end? You've given up on high end and don't have time to listen, you say. If that's true, you certainly don't have time to hang out here and argue with those of us who still find listening to music on our "big rigs" enjoyable." |
|
#440
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
... "B&D" wrote in message news:QLkNc.195354$XM6.151677@attbi_s53... On 7/26/04 1:56 AM, in article g21Nc.169722$JR4.10497@attbi_s54, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: 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. If the were competently done and that's their preference, so be it. The problem I have is most such preferences are based on none or incompetently done comparisons. Depends upon what kind of conclusions you want to draw from a 'faulty' comparison. First I want to establish there is a difference. I have read people here claim that some LP's are indistinguishable fro a CD of the same music. Then go establish it. I don't feel a need to. If it is a "I like it" then by most measures - the only criteria that needs to be satisfied has been satisfied it (the purchasing decision). And I, nor anyone else that would fall into the so called "objectivist" camp has ever claimed otherwise. Often with the dismissive "if you prefer distortion, so be it". If someone were to conclude "YOU like it" (deciding for others) then it becomes more complex and you may be right. After all, I believe there are 3 groups: 1. A large minority of "audiophiles" are truly and earnestly interested in absolute perfect recording reproduction 2. and equally large minority is interested in allowing some "euphonic distortion" if it makes the music sound like a live performance, 3. and a third group is only interested in replicating the emotional response of live music. The MEANS of this is what creates the "Objectivist/Subjectivist" split. The split, it seems arises from so many of the subjectivists claiming, or trying to claim that there is some sort of scientific reason why their preferences are better. They also seem to put words in the mouths of the objectivists, claiming they think all equipment sounds the same. No matter how many times it's pointed out that this is not what is being said and that nobody gives a rat's patute about one's preferences. No, the subjectivists arguing here agree on only one thing...that the dbt abx test that is considered the "gold standard" for the objectivists in accepting that there is a difference *may be* a flawed test that has never been verified for its use as an open-ended evaluation of audio gear (as opposed to attempting to spot a known artifiact). We have challenged the majority objectivists here on that point and engendered their hostility as a result. There's also a lot of animosity about the people from the subjectivist side making the claims and their lack of credentials. I believe you mean "directed toward the people...." Sure is .... that's the hostility so engendered. |
| 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 | |||
Linear Mode
