| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#441
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Nousaine wrote:
The best part of modern listening is that anybody can have a 2 or greater channel system that blows the doors off the best 1970s could offer no matter how rich you were. I disagree here, one of my first customers in 1972(I worked as a student part-time in a HiFi shop) wanted a decent reproduction gear mostly for playing wheel to wheel tapes on an Ampex which were original masters. He was a film director. I got him some ESS speakers with the AMT Heil transducer and a 12" woofer, and as amplifier a combo Citation 11 and 12. Guess, he still is using that same gear at home. And all of the components have become legendary. Now I believe there are not many new speakers with better resolution and in fact the AMT is still sold. The EQ on that Citation11 is utterly useful, even if there are only 5 sliders for each side. Also the CrownDC350 is a decent amp still manufactured. I think the 70s were the time with the most progress in audio, studio automation, 24 channel multitrack 2" tapes, introduction of digital sound processing, invention of CD... And not only technically but also musically the most creative time. Great rock groups and solo musicians were coming up, almost daily new records were recorded that still today have not been surpassed. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
|
#442
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
|
#443
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
|
#445
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
S888Wheel wrote:
(snip) You seem to be taking Tom at his word that he can tell what MF's system sounds like without hearing it. I take Tom's word that he knows the sonic merits, or lack thereof, of the Wavav amp. I guess some people can be taken for their word while others need to provide results from DBTs to be trusted. Uhh, it's really simple. DBT's are necessary for subtle differences. That Wavac has errors that I don't think even you would call subtle. I take Tom's word that he could tell what distortion and bass bumps sound like. 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. Well, do you believe in Tom's ability to tell what those errors sound like? Does MF's system hide those errors? You think Tom has trouble turning up the level and noticing huge distortion? Or bass bump? (snip) Of course if someone wishes to arrange a test I'll happily place a wager on my opinion. Anyone who has any understanding of amplifiers will appreciate the significance of the following: 1. Huge bass bump at around 80 Hz. 2. High output impedance. 3. 10% distortion at 20 Hz (8 ohm tap, 8 ohm load). 4. 5% distortion at 15W output, 1KHz. 2.2% at 2W. (8 ohm tap, 8 ohm load.) 5. Huge intermodulation distortion at 2.5W output. 6. Significant AC spurious components. Most of us would say that you do not need an audition to form an opinion of the sonic merits of that amp, I am aware of that. Most of you have said it. Do you believe it? No. Ahh, measurements just don't mean a thing to you. Ever wonder why Stereophile makes those measurements and reports them? (snip) I do think blind comparisons on MFs system between these amps and "competent" amps would be most interesting. Why need blinding if there is a huge bass bump? Or 5% distortion at 2W? Are those subtle effects? As a control for the obvious bias the measurements have created about this amp. A lot of people are saying they don't like the sound of it without ever hearing it in the system used for the positive review. So you have trouble believing that those people do not like amps with bass bumps or huge distortion levels? Why would people care about hearing it in MF's system? You think anyone is interested in getting exactly the same system that MF has? And how would MF's sytem hide the huge distortion levels, and the bass bumps? |
|
#446
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
|
#447
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 26 Jul 2004 23:32:24 GMT, 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. Not in any decently designed amp. In extremis, you just put a passive filter on the input stage to prevent this. 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. Certainly, you can measure defects in amplifiers which are *way* below the threshold of hearing. 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. Yes, that has always been the best way to design any audio amplifier. The 'zero feedback' guys always seem to forget that their beloved 300B/211 amps have *lots* of negative feedback, it's just that it's mostly built right into those triodes! And of course each stage has its own regeneration, aka local feedback. Most of the worst-sounding amps have mistakenly tried to use low-bandwidth feedback loops to starighten an open-loop transfer curve like the hind leg of a donkey. Overall I agree - but AB or ABX or other controlled subjective listening tests is not always required provided you know what measurements to make. Quite so, although whether anyone *needs* something as linear as a Halcro power amp is another matter! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#448
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
|
#449
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
B&D wrote:
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. From the way you describe it, I don't think you understand feedback very well. Feedback extends the bandwidth of the amp, so that it reproduces high frequency signals more accurately. And it also reduces the open-loop distortion by the loop gain. If you look at a feedback amp from a small-signal point of view, the bandwidth of the amp is extended beyond the open-loop bandwidth. That amp can be made stable and predictable in operation. Feedback is truly wonderful. What some amp designers did was ignoring the large signal performance of the amp. If the input stage cuts off or saturates in the presence of a large input signal, the loop is essentially open, and the output simply slews (sometimes slowly), resulting in significant and possibly detectible high frequency distortion. To avoid this type of problem, you need to make sure that the slew rate of the amp is sufficient to handle the largest input signal at the highest frequency into the worst-case load, and that the input stage has sufficient voltage range. The problem is not because there is too much feedback, or some time-constant being exceeded. Of course, every attempt should be made to have the open-loop response be as linear and as wideband as possible. That insures good high-frequency distortion performance. It is not uncommon for a class AB (RF) amp to have -40dB intermodulation distortion and harmonic distgortion ~ -30dB or so. Of course. A loop would clean it up really nicely, but would be audible open loop. RF amp being audible? 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. They have been plenty of SS amps designed since the beginning of the solid state era that do not have this problem. Don't fall for the high-end urban legend. 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. I thought you said once that you did not put much faith in tests and measurements because that's not how you would use these components. But I am glad that you realize that it's not the measurements, but "how you interpret them" that could lead some people into the wrong conclusions. |
|
#450
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 7/26/2004 9:33 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: oWkNc.38279$eM2.2033@attbi_s51 "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. Press releases? Interviews? Why not on the liner notes? Why would they put something about some day reissuing the same material from back up analog tapes in the liner notes? Just because Bill Gates doesn't send me a personal note about program bugs he isn't 'responsible?' The analogy makes no sense. And exactly how did audio-salon personnel 'know' to tell people otherwise? How does Sheffield control what some guy in Detroit told you about their albums? 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 "Porkies" New term to me. What does it mean :-) |
|
#451
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 7/26/2004 4:24 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (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? Does the magazine you write for require you to use the speakers you believe best in the world? Otherwise why would we accept his personal word about the quality of any other device? Why wouldn't we? Do you have the best possible sound system in the world? If not why should we accept your word about the quality of any other device? Of course Stereophile explicitly states that no one should just take the word of any reviewer on any subjective review. They suggest that prospective buyers conduct personal auditions before any purchase. 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? I suppose it would. wouldn't it do the same every time you discovered better speakers? Would that make all your previous opinions meaningless? And how about the rest of the other review staff? Have they acquired this new MORE like live music reference? It is clearly stated in Stereophile that each reviewer has their own personal reference system. Is it different fot the magazine you write for? Do you all share one reference system? 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. Maybe you should listen to it in blind comparisons with the same system MF used before passing judgement. |
|
#452
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Absolute Sound
From: (Nousaine) Date: 7/27/2004 5:58 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: (Nousaine) Date: 7/23/2004 9:09 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: JKaMc.151836$JR4.63122@attbi_s54 (S888Wheel) wrote: (S888Wheel) Do you have any evidence that anyone actually *does* own one of these ludicrous toys? This particular amp or WAVACs in geeneral? In general, yes. This particular amp, no. But it would be quite surprising to me if no one has purchased one yet. So who? One of the Reviewers? Mr Atkinson? Mr Fremer? You want me to speculate? If you want a good answer just contact WAVAC and ask them. I know their primary market is in Japan. My guess is that NONE of the Stereophile review staff has or will purchase one. I'd guess the same. So? The related question is that if one of the review staff hasn't bought one (even at an accomodation price which would normally be roughly 50% of the retail price) i would wonder exactly why this piece would not have been made the "reference" piece for ALL of the staff? I would think the answer is obvious. It is expensive and it is huge. The writers for Stereophile do not all live in a frat house. So; So it is not something you can casually pass around from reviewer to reviewer. they are willing to recommend it as sounding "more" like live music They? No. MF. but won't buy one for themselves? Hmmm. Hmmm maybe you have an unrealistic idea of what Stereophile pays it's reviewers. The amp costs 350,000 bucks! even with a huge discount this is a very expensive unit. When is yours scheduled for delivery? I'm not planning to buy one. |
|
#453
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
|
#454
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
John Atkinson wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:YVkNc.177459$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 Careful, John. Even with a Nagra_IV-S, one of the finest analog tape machines ever made, at 19ips you only reach 74.5dB S/N. This is with the NAB eq curve, which is used for professional recording. This has an overall preemphasis of 15dB at 19kHz. The tape noise is basically "white", so the distribution is even across the frequency. Since the high frequencies are boosted when recording, their level has to be low(-15dB) or distortion will occur. It corresponds to the preemphasis bit on CD. The dynamic range stays still 74.5dB, and if you allow for +4dB peaks it will still be less than 80dB. Now you can apply a noise reduction system like dbx or Dolby-A and you gain maybe 12 to 15dB more dynamics. Still at the best you might get 90dB S/N. If you record at 38ips you might gain another 5-6dB, but this is only what any CD can reproduce easily. I do not see *any* possibility your noise being lower than 16bit. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
|
#456
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"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." Not just the dbt/dbx, any controled listening alone testing is dismissed, despite the almost universal use of such testing in all other areas involving humans where perception might be a confounding variable. This includes something as simple as putting a cloth over connections so the active bit of gear is not known. If that simple step confuses the results that alleged differences in amps/wire are "easily" heard, then those holding such views need to either explain why by controlled research and/or come up with testing of their own to demonstrate the flaw or results to the contrary. A benchmark of a variety of listening alone tests is now established, subjective hand waving is a now rapidly receeding notion whose only response is "I heare it, I really really do, don't you believe me?" The answer to which is, yes when you hear it when not knowing what is connected by listening alone, human perception as a confounding variable has been widely established in all areas and demands controlling for valid evaluations, don't you believe me? |
|
#457
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:1EHNc.183505$JR4.10048@attbi_s54... No, the subjectivists arguing here agree on only one thing...that the dbt abx test that is considered the "gold standard" for the objectivists in accepting that there is a difference *may be* a flawed test that has never been verified for its use as an open-ended evaluation of audio gear (as opposed to attempting to spot a known artifiact). We have challenged the majority objectivists here on that point and engendered their hostility as a result. Suppose that we agree that ABX is NOT the gold standard for proving there is a difference in audible sound between 2 systems. What might replace it--given that the results are to be repeatable, and that it's impossible to cheat? Long term sighted listening to 2 systems, switching between them at will, might very well be the most reliable method. But how are you going to prove it? The best I can come up with would be to do the comparison--sighted--then when you finally convince yourself that you can tell one from the other by sound alone, prove it with a blind test. Somehow though, I get the feeling that no such method would be acceptable to high-enders. Norm Strong |
|
#458
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"B&D" wrote in message
news:jEHNc.201442$XM6.158440@attbi_s53... On 7/27/04 7:36 PM, in article , "Michael McKelvy" wrote: 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. I have noticed that the love is shared both directions. :-) Objectivists/Subjectivists both have beefs with one another. Most are not willing to listen to each other (which is kinda funny given what this hobby is supposed to be about! :-) ). But, sure - at the end of the day the goals of everyone are roughly the same - but as in politics - the methods of getting there are what causes the controversy. I suspect that the way someone evaluates and chooses personal purchases of equipment regardless of the philosophy is about the same for just about any audiophile. AFAIK no objectivists has a problem with how you choose to buy or enjoy your stereo. The beef is with outrageous claim of superiority. |
|
#459
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 06:23:45 GMT, in article RDHNc.44155$eM2.20182@attbi_s51,
Harry Lavo stated: My reaction goFab's post was: "then why are you hanging out here on rec.audio.high-end? You've given up on high end and don't have time to listen, you say. If that's true, you certainly don't have time to hang out here and argue with those of us who still find listening to music on our "big rigs" enjoyable." Thank you. I guess you know better than I what I do and don't have time to do.  ) |
|
#460
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Subject: Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
From: B&D Date: 7/27/2004 11:23 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: BDHNc.200758$Oq2.104886@attbi_s52 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 $1000 (CD Player) you can get something almost as good? The reasons have been clearly stated. A desire for better sound and a willingness to pay the price. I have heard some truly stunning LP playback that beat my CD (NAD) - but I am unwilling to invest that kind of money to get it. See, you are not willing to pay the price. Some of us obviously are. |
|
#461
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 27 Jul 2004 23:55:20 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:QVkNc.194890$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$Oq2.24685@attbi_s52... Oh Sure; and the Thelma Huston "Pressure Cooker" lps I bought with the assurance that once the masters were used up there would never be availability again; was forever askanst by the release of the same material on cd; in a couple years by the "discovery" of analog back-up copies that were made at the time. What a crock; then and now. Sorry Sheffield announced from the beginning that they were making analog recordings as backups, and that they might be released after the direct to disks were gone. The only think promised was that the direct-to-disks were limited in number and once sold, were gone forever. That is simply not true. I collected many Sheffields in the '70s, right from Lab 1 (the third in the series.....), and no mention was *ever* made of the existence of any backup tapes, until *after* all the DD discs were safely in music stores. The fact that they didn't tell you personally doesn't mean it wasn't in their press releases and interviews. So quote one single source of such a statement from *before* the Treasury series magically appeared. Sorry, I don't make a habit of collecting press releases, or indexing twenty year old magazines. I remember it because it affected my decisions as to what direct to disks to buy and what to save for later (even if they ran out of D-D's and it had to be an analog-release version). How convenient. IOW, you have no evidence for your assertion, which runs contrary to the memories of everyone else contributing to this thread. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#462
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
|
#463
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 27 Jul 2004 23:55:20 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:QVkNc.194890$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). How convenient. IOW, you have no evidence for your assertion, which runs contrary to the memories of everyone else contributing to this thread. Well, let's see - exactly four people have participated in this specific discussion: 1) You say Sheffield never revealed they were making analog tapes of the sessions, much less releasing them. 2) I said they revealed both things right up front when announcing the D-D series...the only promise was that once the D-D disks were gone, they were gone. 3) Tom jumped in and said "then why did a salesman in NYC not tell me". 4) S888Wheel jumped in to ask why you "thought the company had an obligation to put in its liner notes on the D-D that eventually analog versions would be made available". That is the sum and substance of this discussion. Might you want to reconsider your conclusion that my "assertion ..... runs contrary to the memories of everyone else contributing to this thread"? Inventing support just isn't going to fly. |
|
#464
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Ban" wrote in message
... John Atkinson wrote: 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. Careful, John. Even with a Nagra_IV-S, one of the finest analog tape machines ever made, at 19ips you only reach 74.5dB S/N... I think you misunderstood what I was saying, Ban. Stewart was talking about real-world digital recordings where the _acoustic_ background noise limits dynamic range to less than the CD's 16 bits' worth. I was talking about hi-rez digital recordings where Stewart's contention is indeed correct at the LF end of the spectrum, but may not be true at higher frequencies. I didn't mention analog recordings. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#466
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
(S888Wheel) wrote:
From: (Nousaine) ....snip.... 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? Does the magazine you write for require you to use the speakers you believe best in the world? No they don'r. But I hold myself to that standard. Otherwise why would we accept his personal word about the quality of any other device? Why wouldn't we? Do you have the best possible sound system in the world? If not why should we accept your word about the quality of any other device? I have a reference sound system that equals or betters any other system I've ever heard. Of course Stereophile explicitly states that no one should just take the word of any reviewer on any subjective review. They suggest that prospective buyers conduct personal auditions before any purchase. 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? I suppose it would. wouldn't it do the same every time you discovered better speakers? Would that make all your previous opinions meaningless? Fair point; let's see if the RCL gets a new rating class for the more like "live music" Wavac. And how about the rest of the other review staff? Have they acquired this new MORE like live music reference? It is clearly stated in Stereophile that each reviewer has their own personal reference system. Is it different fot the magazine you write for? Do you all share one reference system? No we don't. But I'd prefer we did. And I'd prefer we always used a common set of program material. If I were the Editor these things might come to pass. 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. Maybe you should listen to it in blind comparisons with the same system MF used before passing judgement. Why? You're telling me that I should accept his say-so about sound quality when this device went off the skid-pad during lateral acceleration testing? |
|
#467
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:RDHNc.44155$eM2.20182@attbi_s51... "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." I think part of the problem here, is that what you mean by high-end, is essentially a myth. There are scores of amps and preamps that produce no audible distortion, and offer a myriad of features. There are amps that cost tens of thousands of dollars that don't out perform the stuff you can buy at Good Guys. CD player for $100.00 that objectively outperform the most expensive TT. Speakers that are made with new materials that weren't available 10 or 20 years ago that sound damn fine. There is they DIY market in speakers where if one has some determination and a PC, you can use CAD software that is extremely powerful. Or you could just get a kit for around $1500.00 like the SEAS THOR which is easily worth twice that if it were sold as a branded finished speaker. In fact I think it would be a great service of all the Hi-Fi mags to feature some of the DIY Kits and show their readers how easy some of them are and what a value they offer. Let's face it, TAS and SP cater to niche within a niche. Science solved most of the problems of audio 20 years ago. Loudspeakers are always going to be the weakest link in the audio chain, due to all the variables, such as room acoustics and materials. What used to cost several thousand dollars for speakers can be done with a kit pair of mains and the addition of a kit subwoofer. I don't think it's wise to spend 10K on a subwoofer from Wilson when you could probably get equal performance,or better, if your willing to build a big enough box for an Adire Shiva and build in an HS1000 sub woofer amp. $899.00 for 750 watts into 8 ohms or 1100 into 4. Take a 5 cubic ft box and a 125 dollar woofer and you get an equal to the Wilson for about 1/10th the price. If you're willing to dress up the cabinet more you can make it LOOK as good too. Now I understand that not everybody would be willing to try a project like this, but I think more of them would if they knew how easy it could be. Most kits come with the option at least of the xover being assembled for you. Some wire cutters, a pair of crimpers or a soldering iron if you prefer, a screwdriver and a few feet of 12 AWG wire and you can produce bass as low as an f3 of 18 Hz! No glorious brand name but talk about pride of ownership. As I was saying the need for expensive high end is pretty much over if it existed at all. There might have been a time when fully separate components were required but these days a $1000.00 receiver can equal virtually any thing from the esoteric high end market, except the weight. ADD to all that the fact that we know now there is now audio improvement to be gained from buying the newest product and you've got a recipe for enjoyment of music, that simply didn't exist before. If you really want to help your readers get the best sound possible you should consider a dedicated section on DIY. Let's live in the real world and realize there's so much good easily affordable gear that enhances the pleasure of listening to music, I get giddy just thinking about it and sad that more people don't get involved. |
|
#468
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 04:15:42 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 27 Jul 2004 23:55:20 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:QVkNc.194890$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). How convenient. IOW, you have no evidence for your assertion, which runs contrary to the memories of everyone else contributing to this thread. Well, let's see - exactly four people have participated in this specific discussion: 1) You say Sheffield never revealed they were making analog tapes of the sessions, much less releasing them. 2) I said they revealed both things right up front when announcing the D-D series...the only promise was that once the D-D disks were gone, they were gone. 3) Tom jumped in and said "then why did a salesman in NYC not tell me". 4) S888Wheel jumped in to ask why you "thought the company had an obligation to put in its liner notes on the D-D that eventually analog versions would be made available". That is the sum and substance of this discussion. Might you want to reconsider your conclusion that my "assertion ..... runs contrary to the memories of everyone else contributing to this thread"? Inventing support just isn't going to fly. You still provide zero evidence for your assertion, and you are the only contributor making this claim, which is refuted by both of those who have stated their opinion on the matter. Ducking the issue just isn't going to fly. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#469
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:xvHNc.175255$IQ4.105406@attbi_s02... 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. It's based on the figure I keep hearing, that it takes $4K for a decent LP playback rig. If I can out preform it for $100.00, I know where my money is going to go. 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 don't dismiss it totally I have hundreds of LP's, I just don't play them much since I can get better performance from a CD of the same music. 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 The problem for me is that full potential of LP playback compared to CD, is so far back in the dust, I see no reason other than something only being available as an LP to buy any new ones. 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. You like it, but most people like the CD, and for very sound reasons, they are technically superior. |
|
#470
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Absolute Sound
From: (Nousaine) Date: 7/30/2004 10:42 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: (Nousaine) ...snip.... 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? Does the magazine you write for require you to use the speakers you believe best in the world? No they don'r. But I hold myself to that standard. You have the best speakers in the world? What are they? Otherwise why would we accept his personal word about the quality of any other device? Why wouldn't we? Do you have the best possible sound system in the world? If not why should we accept your word about the quality of any other device? I have a reference sound system that equals or betters any other system I've ever heard. IYO and IYE. Of course Stereophile explicitly states that no one should just take the word of any reviewer on any subjective review. They suggest that prospective buyers conduct personal auditions before any purchase. 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? I suppose it would. wouldn't it do the same every time you discovered better speakers? Would that make all your previous opinions meaningless? Fair point; let's see if the RCL gets a new rating class for the more like "live music" Wavac. It has happend with a few components but usually new, better components simply shift the bell curve. I'm not sure why you have such a problem with Stereophile's RCL. If nothing else it makes a nice laundry list of components to consider. Since we no longer have Audio's fantastic anual components guide I think Stereophile offers one of the best lists out there. And how about the rest of the other review staff? Have they acquired this new MORE like live music reference? It is clearly stated in Stereophile that each reviewer has their own personal reference system. Is it different fot the magazine you write for? Do you all share one reference system? No we don't. But I'd prefer we did. You will have to take that up with your editor. Would you be willing to travel to use such a reference system? It seems very impractical. And I'd prefer we always used a common set of program material. If I were the Editor these things might come to pass. I understand your wishes here. I think the practical problems would leave you with few writers. 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. Maybe you should listen to it in blind comparisons with the same system MF used before passing judgement. Why? So you can make an unbiased evaluation based on what you actually hear. Isn't that the point of blind listening? You're telling me that I should accept his say-so about sound quality when this device went off the skid-pad during lateral acceleration testing? No, I am not saying that nor have I ever said that. |
|
#471
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Nousaine wrote:
let's see if the RCL gets a new rating class for the more like "live music" Wavac. I predict it'll be Class B, balancing Fremer's ecstacy with a caution about technical shortcomings. Anybody want to start a pool? bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy...n.asp?cid=3963 |
|
#472
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
|
#473
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:BVjOc.183524$IQ4.79057@attbi_s02... "Ban" wrote: Nousaine wrote: The best part of modern listening is that anybody can have a 2 or greater channel system that blows the doors off the best 1970s could offer no matter how rich you were. I disagree here, one of my first customers in 1972(I worked as a student part-time in a HiFi shop) wanted a decent reproduction gear mostly for playing wheel to wheel tapes on an Ampex which were original masters. He was a film director. I got him some ESS speakers with the AMT Heil transducer and a 12" woofer, and as amplifier a combo Citation 11 and 12. Guess, he still is using that same gear at home. And all of the components have become legendary. Now I believe there are not many new speakers with better resolution and in fact the AMT is still sold. Well I have always liked thr Heil but matched to a 12-inch woofer it didn't produce a particularly good speaker by todays standard. In fact I have a very good friend who spent the better part of 15 years optimizing the Heil in his DIY system but about 5 years ago he switched the B&G ribbons. That system has been featured in Speaker Builder/Audio eXpress, btw. The AMT-1, in which most Heil's were sold, included a 10" and not a 12" speaker. That speaker developed a reputation for a mid-range suck-out and peak based on positioning the speaker out in the room to take advantage of its bi-polar nature (in the tweeter). In reality, the speaker was designed to go against or close to the wall with the rear wall used to "disperse" the treble and widen the overall frequency response/balance. I wrote a review commentary to this effect in the second issue of The Abso!ute Sound. The EQ on that Citation11 is utterly useful, even if there are only 5 sliders for each side. Also the CrownDC350 is a decent amp still manufactured. I think the 70s were the time with the most progress in audio, studio automation, 24 channel multitrack 2" tapes, introduction of digital sound processing, invention of CD... I bought the review samples of the AMT-1's and later another pair for Quad. Still later I sold them to my professional musician friends and replaced them with Maggies. They use them to this day (along with a Citation 11 preamp and Amber power amp) in exactly the way described above, and they never fail to elicite a "wow" from visiting friends. It is an exceedingly revealing and "musical" system made up of carefully selected 30 year old components. And BTW, in my review I mentioned the need for active use of tone controls with the Heil's based on record quality; you are right that the Citation 11 sliders are excellent for this. CD may have been in the process of being brought to the consumer level but that didn't really happen until the 80s. And didn't really get "perfected" in terms of practice until the early '90's. And not only technically but also musically the most creative time. Great rock groups and solo musicians were coming up, almost daily new records were recorded that still today have not been surpassed. Agree completely on this. Seventies rock is still "the best sounding" in strictly engineering terms of any decade, IMO. I'm not saying that anything about the 70s was bad. Sure there was a tremendous amount of progress but it certainly didn't stop in 1980 and IMO has expanded exponentially since that time. In 1975 you could buy a good amplifier with a lot of power for $1 a watt (Heathkit AA-1640 or Dynaco 400) IF you were willing to buy your own labor. The last amplifier I bought produces 5000 watts for $0.56 a watt and that's not an indistry accomodation price .... purchased directly by me from a large mail-order por-audio company. That's quantity, not quality. In 1980 I had no choice but to pay $100 to $400 for phono cartridges (not counting the cost of the turntable) to play my Direct-Cut lps which cost $16 to $25 each. By 1984 I was able to buy a $450 cd-player to play my $16 cds and never have to replace any cartridges. By 2004 I can buy a cd player for under $100 and play my $12 (average price) cds. That's convenience, not quality. Or better yet, I can buy a universal dvd player and play anything that's ever been put on plastic (except perhaps for cd-g and laser discs.) Yep..that's a true step forward. But the best ones (from a transparency/accuracy standpoint) still cost. Speakers? Well in the late 70s I paid $750 for a pair of Dahlquist DQ-10s only to find they basically had no bass below 60 Hz. There are any number of $200 6-inch 2 ways that blow the doors off the DQ-10s in every significant performance aspect. In the 70s you could always buy the Dahlquist Subwoofer (which was no such thing .... it was a modestly extended common woofer) and although I can't recall the actual cost I think the crossover itself cost as much as a Hsu VTF-2 subwoofer ($450) which is significantly better in every respect. Speakers *are* one area where things have improved, although the "classics" of each era hold their own (JBL Paragons and Hartsfields, Qual Electrostatics, the AR-1/Janzen coupling, the AMT-1 Heils, Double Advents, etc.). My point is that today any interested enthusiast can buy performance for a reasonable cost that exceeded that commerically available in the 70s.....no cd, no dvd, no 'real' subwoofers, no speakers that don't vary significantly from unit-to-unit, no graphic EQ, no Dolby PLII or Logic 7, no discrete multichannel. I didn't mean that the 70s weren't fun ... I lived that life too. But things are much better today even if you cling to 2-channel and lp. In some ways yes, in some ways no. It's a mixed bag. |
|
#474
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Nousaine" wrote in message
... "goFab.com" wrote: On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 06:23:45 GMT, in article RDHNc.44155$eM2.20182@attbi_s51, Harry Lavo stated: 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." Thank you. I guess you know better than I what I do and don't have time to do. )I couldn't agree with you more. I have a "big rig" with a retail value of well over 50k not counting the labor for the design and contruction of the world's best subwoofer. And that's just the main system. This system plays NO vinyl that hasn't been extracted and duplicated on Cd-r. It also has more than one source of HDTV. It also contains NO branded wiring. Yet I don't spend time on RAHE telling you that I have some magic that makes my time and my pursuits better than yours. I fully agree that for the most part anybody with an interest can get great sound for a reasonable price (and you don't need to go vinyl to do so.) Believe me IF I really felt that vinyl were superior to newer formats I'd still be attacking like a pit bull. But it isn't today and it wasn't in 1984, no matter how hard the vinyl and high-end "big rig" proponents argue otherwise. Just for what it is worth, all I basically said was if the only way he listened today was with portable music on an iPod and he is satisfied with it (and no longer aspires to the sound he can get from his high end rig, which he admits is sitting silently), then why is he bothering to spend time on a rec.audio group devoted to high-end audio. I would think he would be happier spending his scarce free time on groups more attuned to his lifestyle. |
|
#475
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
... "S888Wheel" wrote in message news:xvHNc.175255$IQ4.105406@attbi_s02... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 7/26/2004 9:17 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: LHkNc.38215$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. It's based on the figure I keep hearing, that it takes $4K for a decent LP playback rig. If I can out preform it for $100.00, I know where my money is going to go. As Wheel says, your premise is faulty. I have yet to have a $100 cd or dvd player in my system that comes close to the $2500 (original retail...I didn't pay that much) reference CD system...no close in transparency, not close in dynamic stability. And that reference system is met/matched/occassionally exceeded by an LP system that cost $1800 new and much less new. And the price of good turntables and cartridges is coming down, no longer going up. 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 don't dismiss it totally I have hundreds of LP's, I just don't play them much since I can get better performance from a CD of the same music. Convenience, yet. CD's have that in abundance. But unless you've duplicated all of your LP's you are missing a lot of music that presumably you once loved. 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 The problem for me is that full potential of LP playback compared to CD, is so far back in the dust, I see no reason other than something only being available as an LP to buy any new ones. Well your $100 CD player hardly taps the full potential of CD... a straight frequency response curve is not the end of reproduction, it is only the beginning. Same with turntables. But unless you've really heard a top-notch phone system in a really good audio system, you may well be misled as to where the "full potential" of LP playback is. You like what you like, but it's still inferior to CD. That doesn't even make sense. Some times with some titles I like the CD better. You like it, but most people like the CD, and for very sound reasons, they are technically superior. They are technically adequate, can be had fairly cheaply, and are extremely convenient....seems to me to be a more accurate statement. |
|
#476
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 30 Jul 2004 17:47:01 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote: What used to cost several thousand dollars for speakers can be done with a kit pair of mains and the addition of a kit subwoofer. Sorry Mike, while I agree regarding the subwoofer, and you can build an even better one at home without using a kit, there is absolutely no way that a kit speaker can approach the quality of a top-class minimonitor such as the B&W N805 Signature or the JMLab Mini Utopia. This has been proven on many occasions. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#477
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"B&D" wrote in message
news:BDHNc.200758$Oq2.104886@attbi_s52... 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. You may have liked it's presentation better, but my hunch would be the CD was more faithful to the original. For the umpteenth time, I do not begrudge anyone their preferences, it's only claims of technical superiority that I have a problem with. CD is the better medium, assuming faithfulness to the original is your goal. |
|
#478
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
|
#479
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 30 Jul 2004 17:47:01 GMT, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: What used to cost several thousand dollars for speakers can be done with a kit pair of mains and the addition of a kit subwoofer. Sorry Mike, while I agree regarding the subwoofer, and you can build an even better one at home without using a kit, there is absolutely no way that a kit speaker can approach the quality of a top-class minimonitor such as the B&W N805 Signature or the JMLab Mini Utopia. This has been proven on many occasions. -- While a DIYer may not be able to get to the very pinnacle of speaker design, they can certainly achieve very high quality, particularly with designs by Joe D'Appolitto as an example. Many kits come without cabinets and the DIYer can go to whatever extremes he/she so desires. With the best drivers available from Focal, (the makers of JM labs), Scan Speak, and SEAS, it's possible to get very close to the best sound available from the finished speaker market. Out of curiosity, Stewart, have you heard any of the following, Focal Aria 5A with Accuton tweeter Focal Aria 5R with Raven tweeter Seas Thor Focal Aria 5 TD5 Wonder or Wonder-R this uses the Utopia 6W4254 and a Raven-1 I'm not claiming they are equal to the JM Labs or B&W's, but they are certainly the equal of many finished speakers costing many times more. My point was not that one could get the very best, but that very high quality was available for considerably less than one would have to pay otherwise. Naturally, the makers of the best drivers, keep the very best of their product for their own products. |
|
#480
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
(S888Wheel)
Absolute Sound From: (Nousaine) Date: 7/30/2004 10:42 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: (Nousaine) ...snip.... 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? Does the magazine you write for require you to use the speakers you believe best in the world? No they don'r. But I hold myself to that standard. You have the best speakers in the world? What are they? Why would you care; after all its just my opinion. Otherwise why would we accept his personal word about the quality of any other device? Why wouldn't we? Do you have the best possible sound system in the world? If not why should we accept your word about the quality of any other device? I have a reference sound system that equals or betters any other system I've ever heard. IYO and IYE. That's why I said. Let me put this in another context. It sounds more like live music than any other system I've ever heard. This includes ALL kinds of live music including classical to rock concerts. And it's not just a function of the individual (of which there are 8) speakers but lay-out and set-up. Of course Stereophile explicitly states that no one should just take the word of any reviewer on any subjective review. They suggest that prospective buyers conduct personal auditions before any purchase. 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? I suppose it would. wouldn't it do the same every time you discovered better speakers? Would that make all your previous opinions meaningless? Fair point; let's see if the RCL gets a new rating class for the more like "live music" Wavac. It has happend with a few components but usually new, better components simply shift the bell curve. I'm not sure why you have such a problem with Stereophile's RCL. I don't have any problem with the RCL. I just offer commentary on what it is (and what it is not.) If nothing else it makes a nice laundry list of components to consider. Since we no longer have Audio's fantastic anual components guide That the Audio Equipment Directory is sorely missed I'd agree fully. But the RCL is not a replacement because it's far too limited in breadth. Sound & Vision's Annual Equipment directory is much closer to the old Audio book. I think Stereophile offers one of the best lists out there. And how about the rest of the other review staff? Have they acquired this new MORE like live music reference? It is clearly stated in Stereophile that each reviewer has their own personal reference system. Is it different fot the magazine you write for? Do you all share one reference system? No we don't. But I'd prefer we did. You will have to take that up with your editor. Would you be willing to travel to use such a reference system? It seems very impractical. We'd all have one just like it. And I'd prefer we always used a common set of program material. If I were the Editor these things might come to pass. I understand your wishes here. I think the practical problems would leave you with few writers. I wouldn't want "writers" I'd want professional audio evaluators who can write. But you make an interesting point. As far as I know there are only a handful stringers (evaluators not on staff) in the entire industry who do not also have day or other jobs. S&V seems to have only one equipment evaluator that seems not to have alternative sources of income other than magazine work. That's because free-lance writing and audio reviewing doesn't pay that much. One of the calls of the job is access to the equipment and accomodation pricing. 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. Maybe you should listen to it in blind comparisons with the same system MF used before passing judgement. Why? So you can make an unbiased evaluation based on what you actually hear. Isn't that the point of blind listening? Sure but as I've said before I don't have to drive a Yugo to know that it's not as fast as a Corvette. You're telling me that I should accept his say-so about sound quality when this device went off the skid-pad during lateral acceleration testing? No, I am not saying that nor have I ever said that. You appear to be implying such. And you can't even consider commenting on my opinion that my system sounds more like live music than any other I've ever heard because YOU haven't listened to it. I have a number of amplifiers (of which I've collected over 15 years as the need ffor channels arose) that all sound exactly alike and some people, without ever listening to a single one of them, have enough nerve to question me about it, and yet I'm called on to stop commenting on a product without having listened to it in a 3rd party system? I'd be willing to bet that you haven't heard the Wavac amplifier in MFs system ..... have you? |
| 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
