Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#281
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Subject: Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
From: "Ban" Date: 7/21/2004 10:09 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: nrxLc.156323$Oq2.88089@attbi_s52 Michael McKelvy wrote: Unfortunately, the hobby hasn't been called "high-fi" in many years...high-end audio has replaced that terminology. That should make you think. Why was the term Hi-Fi abandoned? Could it be true that some of the higher priced gear didn't fulfill the "HiFi" requirements, which were coined down in international standards, and for that reason another term had to be invented? No, the history of the terminology is well known amoung some audiophiles and this was not what happened. So you couldn't nail down the company and return the crappy gear. At least with the Wavac that seems to indicate this lengthly practiced habit. Really? Do you have any evidence that WAVAC owners have been trying to return their amps but WAVAC refuses because audiophiles commonly use the term "high end" instead of "hifi?" |
#283
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
S888Wheel wrote:
They are mastered differently in so far as they need to be cut on a lathe but if you are assuming that compression is universally applied to all LPs and to no CDs you are quite mistaken. Some of the best LPs are mastered with no use of compression while many CDs are compressed to death in the mastering stage. You missed the point. The CD medium does not require compression AT ALL (for acoustic music at least) in mastering. If a CD master is compressed it it either by choice (preference) or outright stupidity. LP's REQUIRE compression for the medium to be even usable. |
#284
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
#285
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
From: chung
Date: 7/21/2004 10:08 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: CqxLc.157278$XM6.116966@attbi_s53 Steven Sullivan wrote: S888Wheel wrote: From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 7/19/2004 3:32 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "B&D" wrote in message ... On 7/17/04 10:36 AM, in article , "S888Wheel" wrote: Are you suggesting that those people who like what they hear from this amp and believe that what they hear through this amp sounds more like live music should revise their subjective impressions to fit the measurements? IN this case, who knows. But the general consensus amongst so-called "objectivists" is that the data sheet tells you just about everything you need to know. Then it should be no trouble to provide a quote of that. probably not. Just run google searches on some the most frequent posters on RAHE and indeed you should have no trouble finding one. I looked. I didn't find any. Could you provide some search terms? Maybe I'm using the wrong ones. I also tried to find any such posts. Couldn't find any. Perhaps Mr. Wheel wishes to admit that he was wrong? Or provide some links? Admit I was wrong about what exactly? |
#286
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 7/19/2004 3:38 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: "Bob Marcus" Date: 7/14/2004 8:30 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 1kcJc.76426$MB3.32199@attbi_s04 B&D wrote: On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out. Some of us have heard highly distorting systems with massive bass humps before. We don't need to listen to another one to know we won't like it. bob Let me get this straight, you can look at the the measurements of the WAVAC and from those measurements you can determine with a reasonable level of certainty that you have heard a *system* that sounded so similar to the *system* MF reported on in his review that you wouldn't require an audition to form an opinion on it's sonic merits? Absolutely. Seems like a pretty outrageous claim to me. Feel free to prove it. What do we "hear?" Sound. The primary receptor is the ear drum. It's called the tympanic membrane for a good reason. As humans we "hear" loudness, pitch (aka partial loudness) and arrival time. That's it. If the "amplifier" can transmit the signal to the loudspeaker terminals with no degradations in level and no changes in partial level differences and no additions (distortion) or arrival timing error it will be subjectively perfect. It is an interesting little story on "you and your ears" but what does it have to do with your extraordinary claim that you don't need to hear the system in question to know what it sounds like? |
#287
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
#288
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
#289
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
(S888Wheel) wrote:
From: (Nousaine) ....snip..... As humans we "hear" loudness, pitch (aka partial loudness) and arrival time. That's it. If the "amplifier" can transmit the signal to the loudspeaker terminals with no degradations in level and no changes in partial level differences and no additions (distortion) or arrival timing error it will be subjectively perfect. It is an interesting little story on "you and your ears" but what does it have to do with your extraordinary claim that you don't need to hear the system in question to know what it sounds like? Its similar to the idea that I don't have to drive a Aveo and a Ferrari to know which one is faster. Because we humans only hear level, pitch and timing we can tell from measurements which electronic devices will deliver level, pitch (frequency response) and timing (no time-dependency in amplification) to the speaker terminals most accurately. |
#290
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 07:14:00 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:
From: chung Date: 7/21/2004 10:08 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: CqxLc.157278$XM6.116966@attbi_s53 Steven Sullivan wrote: S888Wheel wrote: From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 7/19/2004 3:32 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "B&D" wrote in message ... On 7/17/04 10:36 AM, in article , "S888Wheel" wrote: IN this case, who knows. But the general consensus amongst so-called "objectivists" is that the data sheet tells you just about everything you need to know. Then it should be no trouble to provide a quote of that. probably not. Just run google searches on some the most frequent posters on RAHE and indeed you should have no trouble finding one. I looked. I didn't find any. Could you provide some search terms? Maybe I'm using the wrong ones. I also tried to find any such posts. Couldn't find any. Perhaps Mr. Wheel wishes to admit that he was wrong? Or provide some links? Admit I was wrong about what exactly? Obviously, about your claim that (and I quote from your post above): "the general consensus amongst so-called "objectivists" is that the data sheet tells you just about everything you need to know." I have never seen that said by *any* of the so-called 'objectivists', even by Tom Nousaine, who tends to be at the extreme end of that group in this forum. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#291
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 22 Jul 2004 00:13:34 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:
Absolute Sound From: "Ban" Date: 7/21/2004 10:13 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: BuxLc.138649$IQ4.61407@attbi_s02 Maybe the whole thing is due to the whimpy dynamics of LP, which requires a much bigger compression especially on classical recordings. So LPs *are* mastered differently. They are mastered differently in so far as they need to be cut on a lathe but if you are assuming that compression is universally applied to all LPs and to no CDs you are quite mistaken. Some of the best LPs are mastered with no use of compression while many CDs are compressed to death in the mastering stage. So generally speaking, a LP will be "louder"(compressed) and with more midrange(again "louder"). It has been shown that louder sound corresponds with a "better" perceived quality. Your genralization doesn't hold water IME. Actually, you pretty much confirmed his generalisation, since you already pointed out that only a very few 'audiophile' LPs (often of doubtful musical quality) are uncompressed, while only the worst rock and pop CDs are heavily compressed. The nice thing about classical CDs is that they are almost never compressed- because they don't *have* to be, whereas more than 90% of all classical LPs have noticeable compression, if only to lift the low-level detail above the noise floor. BTW, that's the reason behind the common claim of better 'inner detail' from LP's - it's not *really* low-level detail at all! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#292
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/22/04 3:13 AM, in article POJLc.3613$eM2.1877@attbi_s51, "Nousaine"
wrote: See what I mean. Harry doesn't give us any evidence he's content to question my experience and my equipment. Don't think that is a prerequisite for posting on this forum. The traffic in the NG would be reduced about about 40% in my opinion if evidence (experience or measured) were required. Unfortunately. |
#293
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung Date: 7/21/2004 10:08 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: CqxLc.157278$XM6.116966@attbi_s53 Steven Sullivan wrote: S888Wheel wrote: From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 7/19/2004 3:32 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "B&D" wrote in message ... On 7/17/04 10:36 AM, in article , "S888Wheel" wrote: Are you suggesting that those people who like what they hear from this amp and believe that what they hear through this amp sounds more like live music should revise their subjective impressions to fit the measurements? IN this case, who knows. But the general consensus amongst so-called "objectivists" is that the data sheet tells you just about everything you need to know. Then it should be no trouble to provide a quote of that. probably not. Just run google searches on some the most frequent posters on RAHE and indeed you should have no trouble finding one. I looked. I didn't find any. Could you provide some search terms? Maybe I'm using the wrong ones. I also tried to find any such posts. Couldn't find any. Perhaps Mr. Wheel wishes to admit that he was wrong? Or provide some links? Admit I was wrong about what exactly? Making the statement that "indeed you should have no trouble finding a RAHE post that claims that the general consensus amongst so-called "objectivists" is that the data sheet tells you just about everything you need to know". Inherent in that statement was the belief by you that "the general consensus amongst the so-called "objectivists" is that the data sheet tells you just about everything you need to know". Which is a false statement. We all know that there are huge differences between a data sheet and the measurements. The Wavac is just a latest example of that. Of course, Mr. Bromo also failed to provide such quote to support his statement that "the general consensus amongst so-called objectivists is that the data sheet tells you just about everything you need to know". |
#294
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung Date: 7/21/2004 10:08 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: CqxLc.157278$XM6.116966@attbi_s53 Steven Sullivan wrote: S888Wheel wrote: From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 7/19/2004 3:32 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "B&D" wrote in message ... On 7/17/04 10:36 AM, in article , "S888Wheel" wrote: Are you suggesting that those people who like what they hear from this amp and believe that what they hear through this amp sounds more like live music should revise their subjective impressions to fit the measurements? IN this case, who knows. But the general consensus amongst so-called "objectivists" is that the data sheet tells you just about everything you need to know. Then it should be no trouble to provide a quote of that. probably not. Just run google searches on some the most frequent posters on RAHE and indeed you should have no trouble finding one. I looked. I didn't find any. Could you provide some search terms? Maybe I'm using the wrong ones. I also tried to find any such posts. Couldn't find any. Perhaps Mr. Wheel wishes to admit that he was wrong? Or provide some links? Admit I was wrong about what exactly? This: "The general consensus amongst so-called 'objectivists' is that the data sheet ells you just about everything you need to know." For starters. -- -S. "We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's. Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." -- David Lee Roth |
#295
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:09:25 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote: "Nousaine" wrote in message ... As far as I'm concerned this thread has reached its logical conclusion. Mr Lavo will forever consider any opinion I hold, that doesn't match his, to be not-worth-buying because I've "never had" a good enough vinyl system. I find it quite hilarious that, when backed into a corner by those who *have* used top-class vinyl gear, he then claims that it must not have been set up properly! Perhaps the reverse is true - Harry sets up his vinyl rig so that it sounds very different from CD. I would define that as a *bad* setup............ This is the final high-end argument (and commons sales argument) in many cases; if you can't convince the opposition with logic or evidence then invoke the "you don't have good enough equipment" defense. I'm happy to end the thread. But I would make one final observation - I didn't raise the "quality" issue until you made the specific claim that the Shure V15 was the best cartridge you have had in your system. Since I am very familiar with the many iterations of that cartridge, and with many more cartridges as well, I can say with utmost confidence that it is better than some MC's but far inferior to many others. Interesting, since I have similar experience, and I can say that it is one of the half-dozen finest carts I have ever heard, and trounces many 'legendary' high end MCs, particularly when tracking the very best direct-cut discs. Perhaps this is simply a 'high ender' bias against MMs in general, rather than something based on actual listening? Accordingly I can also say that you have not had in your system the best that LP has to offer, whether you can acknowledge that or not. Which may explain why we come out at two widely divergent places. I would be careful about building and asserting a "weltanschauung" based on that somewhat limited experience. I would be careful about trotting out the old 'ah, but you've never heard vinyl at its best', when you are debnating with posters who hold difffering opinions from yours, but have listened very carefully to the Rockport Sirius III with Clearaudio Insider cart, all set up by Andy Payor's own hands. Try to accept that your preference for vinyl is simply your own *personal* preference, and that other equally experienced audiophiles may quite legitimately hold the opposite view. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#296
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 22 Jul 2004 00:17:27 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:
From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 7/21/2004 10:11 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 5txLc.4676$8_6.3086@attbi_s04 On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 19:42:15 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: I hear that CD is obviously more stable in pitch, has obviously deeper and clearer bass, has significantly superior dynamic range, and much better treble detail. I guess some would say that this constitutes a gross difference - especially those who claim to hear 'night and day' differences among cables! If this is your experience with every title you have compared on CD and LP I would say it likely has little to do with the limitations of the LP medium or with what you actually heard. I would suspect it has more to do with your set up or your biases or both. It is of course not the case with *every* title, it is simply true of the majority. My listening experience is also consistent with the gross technical superiority of CD. Let me simply say about 'Kind of Blue' that most of the CDs I have heard sound more lifelike to me than most of the LP versions I've heard. I'll say that the Classics reissue and the original 6 eyed pressings have outclassed every CD version I have heard of Kind of Blue. Have you compared either the Classics reissue or the original 6 eyed label pressings to your CDs of Kind of Blue. That is the precise reason why I'm not going to get into any kind of debate on this album, as you'll always claim that I've listened to inferior vinyl pressings. It is of course fair to say that the mastering has varied so much that if you prefer a particular mix, then that will remain your preference, regardless of the medium. Let's not forget that both vinyl and CD can give good sound, and that it's the *performance* that matters. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#297
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:09:25 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Nousaine" wrote in message ... As far as I'm concerned this thread has reached its logical conclusion. Mr Lavo will forever consider any opinion I hold, that doesn't match his, to be not-worth-buying because I've "never had" a good enough vinyl system. I find it quite hilarious that, when backed into a corner by those who *have* used top-class vinyl gear, he then claims that it must not have been set up properly! Perhaps the reverse is true - Harry sets up his vinyl rig so that it sounds very different from CD. I would define that as a *bad* setup............ It's also very illuminating that those prefer CD's very seldom resort to defenses such as "but you never listen to a top-class CD system (set up properly)" when debating with vinyl lovers... |
#298
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
S888Wheel wrote:
From: Date: 7/22/2004 12:05 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: lHJLc.7626$8_6.5406@attbi_s04 S888Wheel wrote: They are mastered differently in so far as they need to be cut on a lathe but if you are assuming that compression is universally applied to all LPs and to no CDs you are quite mistaken. Some of the best LPs are mastered with no use of compression while many CDs are compressed to death in the mastering stage. You missed the point. No I didn't. The point was simply based on a faulty premise and I pointed it out. The CD medium does not require compression AT ALL That doesn't really help the consumer who may be faced wiuth a possible choice between a CD trhat has been compressed to death and an LP of the same title that was mastered without compression. (for acoustic music at least) in mastering. If a CD master is compressed it it either by choice (preference) or outright stupidity. A *reality* consumers face and are *stuck with* in some cases should they choose to abandon the LP format due to the sort of prejudices widely displayed by some here on RAHE. LP's REQUIRE compression for the medium to be even usable. 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? |
#299
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:mTSLc.10928$8_6.7306@attbi_s04... (S888Wheel) wrote: From: (Nousaine) ...snip..... As humans we "hear" loudness, pitch (aka partial loudness) and arrival time. That's it. If the "amplifier" can transmit the signal to the loudspeaker terminals with no degradations in level and no changes in partial level differences and no additions (distortion) or arrival timing error it will be subjectively perfect. It is an interesting little story on "you and your ears" but what does it have to do with your extraordinary claim that you don't need to hear the system in question to know what it sounds like? Its similar to the idea that I don't have to drive a Aveo and a Ferrari to know which one is faster. Because we humans only hear level, pitch and timing we can tell from measurements which electronic devices will deliver level, pitch (frequency response) and timing (no time-dependency in amplification) to the speaker terminals most accurately. Conveniently ignoring the brain's role in integrating these in very subtle and complex fashion. Tom, there is a difference between "sound" and the interpretation of it by the brain, in this case as reproduced music.. and don't give me your usual reply that if you can't "hear" it, the brain can't interpret it. That's a given...but the brain can discern very fine discrepancies in relationsships between the various factors, each of which may be measured as "acceptable" by themselves. For example, can you tell me why the brain interprets a string section as "not right" even when measured frequency response is ruler flat to 20khz and beyond? |
#300
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"chung" wrote in message
news:79ULc.145167$IQ4.45596@attbi_s02... Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:09:25 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Nousaine" wrote in message ... As far as I'm concerned this thread has reached its logical conclusion. Mr Lavo will forever consider any opinion I hold, that doesn't match his, to be not-worth-buying because I've "never had" a good enough vinyl system. I find it quite hilarious that, when backed into a corner by those who *have* used top-class vinyl gear, he then claims that it must not have been set up properly! Perhaps the reverse is true - Harry sets up his vinyl rig so that it sounds very different from CD. I would define that as a *bad* setup............ It's also very illuminating that those prefer CD's very seldom resort to defenses such as "but you never listen to a top-class CD system (set up properly)" when debating with vinyl lovers... Well, if you all profess that a cheap $100 player sounds as good as (and indistinguishable from) more expensive systems, as many here have asserted, then it doesn't matter, does it? |
#301
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
S888Wheel wrote:
From: The CD medium does not require compression AT ALL That doesn't really help the consumer who may be faced wiuth a possible choice between a CD trhat has been compressed to death and an LP of the same title that was mastered without compression. That isn't a defect of hardware, but of the marketplace. (for acoustic music at least) in mastering. If a CD master is compressed it it either by choice (preference) or outright stupidity. A *reality* consumers face and are *stuck with* in some cases should they choose to abandon the LP format due to the sort of prejudices widely displayed by some here on RAHE. I can't speak for others, but Mr. Wheel, kindly don't associate me with that blunt propaganda brush. I have nearly 3000 LP's and I use them often, (and humdreds of 78's) not just because of recordings that there are not to be had on CD, but sometimes I just like what the euphonic distortions of LP do to the music. Additionally, I have wide experience with LP setups (in both use and setup) from Rockport and Versa tables, etc. down to kiddie record players, Garrard RC80 changers, 1940's Majestic consoles and even Edison machines. I never refer to specifics of what I personally use at any time because of those who choose to attack others based upon that. LP's REQUIRE compression for the medium to be even usable. That is simply wrong. Any number of outstanding LPs have been recorded and mastered with no compression. It's a little curious that in the case of yourself, (who often points out to others the importance of the listening experience by itself) would choose to argue from a deliberately narrow technical definition of compression when the summed monophonic bass of all LP's is most certainly a form of compression from the perspective of the listening experience. |
#302
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
In message inTLc.162933$XM6.110039@attbi_s53, Stewart Pinkerton
writes On 22 Jul 2004 00:17:27 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: I'll say that the Classics reissue and the original 6 eyed pressings have outclassed every CD version I have heard of Kind of Blue. Have you compared either the Classics reissue or the original 6 eyed label pressings to your CDs of Kind of Blue. That is the precise reason why I'm not going to get into any kind of debate on this album, as you'll always claim that I've listened to inferior vinyl pressings. It is of course fair to say that the mastering has varied so much that if you prefer a particular mix, then that will remain your preference, regardless of the medium. Let's not forget that both vinyl and CD can give good sound, and that it's the *performance* that matters. Some of the vinyl versions *are* objectively inferior, but not (just) because of the sound quality. In the case of "A Kind of Blue" several versions have some tracks (the first side) that are out of pitch - the recorder was running slow. Newer versions have this problem fixed. However, if anyone has a copy that is older than 1993, it will be about a quarter tone out on side 1, and correct on side 2. There may also be CD versions with this problem as well. Oddly, nobody seems to have noticed for 33 years, despite sales of hundreds of thousands of units. -- Regards, Glenn Booth |
#303
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Conveniently ignoring the brain's role in integrating these in very
subtle and complex fashion. Tom, there is a difference between "sound" and the interpretation of it by the brain, in this case as reproduced music.. and don't give me your usual reply that if you can't "hear" it, the brain can't interpret it. That's a given...but the brain can discern very fine discrepancies in relationsships between the various factors, each of which may be measured as "acceptable" by themselves. For example, can you tell me why the brain interprets a string section as "not right" even when measured frequency response is ruler flat to 20khz and beyond?" All the above addressed many times by controled listening alone tests. With wire/amps if there is a discernable difference it is in the music/recorded signal and not the gear. If you want to assert to the contrary, do the same kind of testing to demonstrate that wire/amps create that difference. |
#304
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"I'm happy to end the thread. But I would make one final observation - I
didn't raise the "quality" issue until you made the specific claim that the Shure V15 was the best cartridge you have had in your system. Since I am very familiar with the many iterations of that cartridge, and with many more cartridges as well, I can say with utmost confidence that it is better than some MC's but far inferior to many others. Accordingly I can also say that you have not had in your system the best that LP has to offer, whether you can acknowledge that or not. Which may explain why we come out at two widely divergent places. I would be careful about building and asserting a "weltanschauung" based on that somewhat limited experience." And how would you know, it all being based on "subjective" individual experience that no one else can duplicate? If one were to take your list of carts and say they were one and all inferior to the v15, then where are we? Then your individual experience leaves you without any basis to make any claim except for your spicific experience, no way to know that it is flawed so as to make it irrelevant. It would be like the teenager with his 10 band eq making a smile of the freq responce and he thinking his is the cat's meow and anyone not having or sharing his opinion has no basis to judge quality. This can be said with the upmost confidence that it can not be contridicted. This is the problem with such universal subjective opinions, there is no third party disintrested way to confirm or duplicate your judgement, making it worthless, or no less so then the kid with the 10 band eq system. Worst of all, it is equally subject to the fads that come and go and rise and fall by peer pressure and hifi mag content and marketing copy; worthless in the extreme. |
#305
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Absolute Sound
From: (Nousaine) Date: 7/22/2004 10:33 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: mTSLc.10928$8_6.7306@attbi_s04 (S888Wheel) wrote: From: (Nousaine) ...snip..... As humans we "hear" loudness, pitch (aka partial loudness) and arrival time. That's it. If the "amplifier" can transmit the signal to the loudspeaker terminals with no degradations in level and no changes in partial level differences and no additions (distortion) or arrival timing error it will be subjectively perfect. It is an interesting little story on "you and your ears" but what does it have to do with your extraordinary claim that you don't need to hear the system in question to know what it sounds like? Its similar to the idea that I don't have to drive a Aveo and a Ferrari to know which one is faster. Unfortunately it is not similar. I hope you have more than a bad analogy to support your extraoridinary claim. Because we humans only hear level, pitch and timing we can tell from measurements which electronic devices will deliver level, pitch (frequency response) and timing (no time-dependency in amplification) to the speaker terminals most accurately. Unfortunately for your agument the signal doesn't stop at the speaker terminals. |
#306
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
|
#307
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/22/04 3:00 PM, in article 79ULc.145167$IQ4.45596@attbi_s02, "chung"
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:09:25 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Nousaine" wrote in message ... As far as I'm concerned this thread has reached its logical conclusion. Mr Lavo will forever consider any opinion I hold, that doesn't match his, to be not-worth-buying because I've "never had" a good enough vinyl system. I find it quite hilarious that, when backed into a corner by those who *have* used top-class vinyl gear, he then claims that it must not have been set up properly! Perhaps the reverse is true - Harry sets up his vinyl rig so that it sounds very different from CD. I would define that as a *bad* setup............ It's also very illuminating that those prefer CD's very seldom resort to defenses such as "but you never listen to a top-class CD system (set up properly)" when debating with vinyl lovers... Is it? CD sounds the same regardless of the setup - vinyl in order to sound its best needs to be set up properly - does not matter if you love or hate either medium - it is a basic fact of vinyl that it is fussy about setup. |
#308
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
S888Wheel wrote:
Absolute Sound From: chung Date: 7/19/2004 7:06 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: chung Date: 7/18/2004 2:06 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 1DBKc.114777$IQ4.80972@attbi_s02 Ban wrote: S888Wheel wrote: Measurements "pejudicing" (sic) customers? That's a new one. No, It's nothing new.( except my unique spelling perhaps) Heck, just look at all the folks that jumped on the band wagon with the very early SS amps of the sixties. Some of them were really quite awful but the meter reasers thought they were the cat's meow based on the measurements. If the sound was awful, they will have also measured bad. Maybe in those times a distortion measurement was difficult to execute, but never the less it would have shown the low level distortion. The main reason people bought SS amps then was the affordable price and the overall satisfying performance. And that moment tubes disappeared from one year to the next. I think the measurements in those days were acceptable in terms of distortion, but the consumer might have put too much emphasis on a single number: THD at 1 KHz at max. power Certainly some manufacturers did. And it seems certain magazines did as well. unfortunately for some consumers who took them at their word. But that is an example of a consumer prejudiced by a poor review, *NOT* an example prejudiced by a set of measurements. See the difference? Measurements cannot "prejudice" customers. Sure they can if they are lead to believe that they tell a story that they don't really tell. funny how history repetes itself. That's an example of a customer not being careful in understanding the measurements, or putting too much faith in reviews. It is an example of a customer being biased by measurements. If the customer was not aware of the THD the customer might not assume that the awful sound he is hearing should be assumed to be better as in more accurate. If one is under the assumtion that they know something they don't really know based on a measurement one can easily write off bad sound as the old garbage in gargage out situation. Unfortunately one is settling for garbage out because they are assuming something based on a measurement. Apparently in the early seventies this was a common thing and a lot of people happily took home some pretty awful sounding electronics. You still do not see that its the lack of understanding of what measurements mean, or rather the dependence on certain marketing strategies and reviews, that result in consumers buying wrong products. Measurements cannot prejudice customers. Sure they can. Just about anything that gets into a customers head can do so. Measurements are facts. Facts do not prejudice customers. Sure they do this is a proven fact. You said facts prejudice customers. I suggest you understand exactly what the word "prejudice" means. From Webster's: Prejudice: (1) Judgment or opinion formed before facts are known. (2) Judgment or opinion held in disregards of facts. Not much point continuing if we don't use the same vocabulary... |
#309
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Harry Lavo wrote:
It was the attempts to define a vocabulary to describe sound, My favorite is the 'butterscotch' sounding ARC preamp. What a noble heritage! |
#310
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
And, yes, for comparable levels of reproduction CD is cheaper than turntable stuff - and is more convenient and lasts longer without fuss. MUCH more convienent. Plus, you can trust someone other than your expert self grin to put a CD on and play it - without gasp risking knocking some little widget on the 'table out of alignment and horrors! RUINING the sound. Or, like a friend of mine did, while putting on an LP, snagged his fuzzy sweater sleeve on the cantilever/stylus of a VERY expensive MC cart, and snapped that bad boy right off! Talk about one unhappy camper! Unfortunately for your theory, it would need a very cheap CD player to get down to the ability of even the most expensive vinyl rig...... Here we disagree. I think a $1500 CD player would compare to a $5k vinyl rig (turntable, tonearm, cartridge), though. Assuming the vinyl and CD's used for evaluation were pristine. Well, the CD will _always_ be pristine, if it started life that way. Now, in the case of vinyl, well, if it once was pristine, after a few playings . . . pop . . . tic . . . Damn! I cleaned that LP! You know, it is a purely mechanical setup. A very hard stone flying down a violently undulating vinyl groove. Mein Gott, it's a wonder the thing works at all! When all is well, the LP playback system is a thing of beauty and a joy to behold. But it won't stay that way, it's like the shock absorbers/struts on your car. From the day you drive it home, they degrade. Very subtly, very slowly, but they DEGRADE. Same way with vinyl and its playback equipment. OTOH, cd playback equipment, will not degrade, you can check it out after a month, a year, a decade - the quality is still there. I am not a cheapskate, but my 1989 Technics 150 buck cd player still sounds wonderful to me. Granted, I am 55 years old, but I have tried to be careful with my hearing, and my vinyl playback equipment doesn't sound as good as it did 10 years ago. I am also very, very careful with my LP's, but they wear out, they get noisy, they wow, the hole is sometimes not punched exactly on center, etc etc etc. I cannot do anything about bad vinyl pressings, but I can't remember the last time I had a bad cd. Equipment is not the end-all for me. The music is, and CDs deliver the goods with the least amount of hassle. Whoops, nearly fell climbing down off the soapbox. Hehe. Happy listening to all, Tom |
#311
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
S888Wheel wrote:
From: Steven Sullivan Date: 7/20/2004 3:53 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 20 Jul 2004 02:03:46 GMT, B&D wrote: On 7/19/04 7:34 PM, in article cUYKc.122965$IQ4.70903@attbi_s02, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: I think, though, it is an apples to oranges a bit - because the mastering standards of CD has only recently reached the potential of the medium. Just as SACD comes on the horizon. Nonsense. There have been great sounding CD's and Mastering since about 10 minutes after the first recording engineers got their hands on the format. Which recording engineers would that be? The ones who did Dire Straits CDs, for a start. The genesis of this thread, to remind everyone, was a quote indicating that noted 'audiophile' musicians/studio mavens Steely Dan, apparently consider high-end audio 'truisms' to be more than a little laughable. One can find quite a variety of opinions amoung pop recording artists. Usually citation has more to do with aagreement or disagreement with the artist. When Neil Young lamented demise of analog recordings many people incuding yourself challenged his hearing and his cognesense. Indeed, because Neil Young tends to play *damn loud* and has done so for decades. He's also a bit of a flake. Personally I don't think Nightfly is a nexceptional sounding recording. It isn't bad but not something I would use as a demo. Since you're the one who lieks to argue by authority to guys like Hoffman, I'm sure my Bob Katz cite must have given you cause for concern. Steely Dan's records are consistantly mediocre IMO sonically. Too bad because I love the music. Doesn't prove or disprove the validity of Fagen's and Becker's opinions. shrug Steely Dan's records are mediocre sonically? Well, I suppose if one waits long enough, one will encounter *every* opinion. Fagan was an early adopter of digital recording, with his 'Nightfly' album, which is *still* cited as one of the nicest pop recordings out there (most recently, IME, by Bob Katz). Leaving this in, just in case you missed it the first time. I know this sort of info is important to you. Besides, it seems to me the standards of *mastering* for pop CDs have *fallen* not risen, since the mid-90's, due to the 'loudness wars', so I have to wonder if Bromo is talking only about the relatively tiny jazz and classical markets. It would be erroneous, of course, to say that CDs sound intrinsically flawed, from the prevalence of *bad mastering*. This is a very good point. It makes me wonder what those who choose to abandon the LP format altogether are thinking? They're thinking that a format that *can* be implemented in a flawed fashion is preferable to one that is *intrinsically* flawed. They may also be fans of classical and jazz, rather than rock and pop, which is where the loudness wars plays out. -- -S. "We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's. Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." -- David Lee Roth |
#312
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
On 7/22/04 3:05 AM, in article lHJLc.7626$8_6.5406@attbi_s04,
" wrote: S888Wheel wrote: They are mastered differently in so far as they need to be cut on a lathe but if you are assuming that compression is universally applied to all LPs and to no CDs you are quite mistaken. Some of the best LPs are mastered with no use of compression while many CDs are compressed to death in the mastering stage. You missed the point. The CD medium does not require compression AT ALL (for acoustic music at least) in mastering. If a CD master is compressed it it either by choice (preference) or outright stupidity. LP's REQUIRE compression for the medium to be even usable. The point here was not a discussion of techniques required to give accurate results in the mastering stages of production (RIAA curves and all). The point is that while the CD has a lot of potential (one can argue about where the heights of that potential may lie) is that very few CD's ever achieve it since the record companies spend a lot of time compressing the dynamic peaks of the music - there are special pieces of equipment used for this as well to reduce the dynamics. Incidentally they tend to either model or use tubes to do the compression since the compression is more euphonic, generally, but the fact is that most, possibly the vast majority of modern recordings have significant compression and reduction of the dynamic range. This is to sound "better" on portable players mostly. There are some truly excellent recordings out there on CD, even some pop recordings (even a couple of remasters, too!), but the average state of the medium has dropped significantly over the last decade. The new vinyl, on the other hand, has become almost a pure audiophile pursuit, so the new stuff tends to be mastered very, very well, and cut with an attention to quality that hadn't been seen often in the heyday. |
#313
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
S888Wheel wrote:
From: (Nousaine) Date: 7/19/2004 3:38 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: "Bob Marcus" Date: 7/14/2004 8:30 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 1kcJc.76426$MB3.32199@attbi_s04 B&D wrote: On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance. I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark. And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out. Some of us have heard highly distorting systems with massive bass humps before. We don't need to listen to another one to know we won't like it. bob Let me get this straight, you can look at the the measurements of the WAVAC and from those measurements you can determine with a reasonable level of certainty that you have heard a *system* that sounded so similar to the *system* MF reported on in his review that you wouldn't require an audition to form an opinion on it's sonic merits? Absolutely. Seems like a pretty outrageous claim to me. Feel free to prove it. I wish you would demand the same degree of "rigor" from those making fantastic claims like cables requiring break-in. 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, and that's why you read those really negative remarks (e.g. POS) about this amp from posters in this newsgroup. After all, there is no possibility of anything else in a system that will undo those errors. |
#314
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"Its similar to the idea that I don't have to drive a Aveo and a Ferrari
to know which one is faster. Because we humans only hear level, pitch and timing we can tell from measurements which electronic devices will deliver level, pitch (frequency response) and timing (no time-dependency in amplification) to the speaker terminals most accurately." Which is a corollary to the listening results which show that if amps/wire fall within given parameters of electrical performance, then they can't be distinguished one from another. |
#315
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Nousaine wrote:
(S888Wheel) wrote: From: (Nousaine) ...snip..... As humans we "hear" loudness, pitch (aka partial loudness) and arrival time. That's it. If the "amplifier" can transmit the signal to the loudspeaker terminals with no degradations in level and no changes in partial level differences and no additions (distortion) or arrival timing error it will be subjectively perfect. It is an interesting little story on "you and your ears" but what does it have to do with your extraordinary claim that you don't need to hear the system in question to know what it sounds like? Its similar to the idea that I don't have to drive a Aveo and a Ferrari to know which one is faster. Because we humans only hear level, pitch and timing we can tell from measurements which electronic devices will deliver level, pitch (frequency response) and timing (no time-dependency in amplification) to the speaker terminals most accurately. If everything msut be heard in order to have an idea of what it sounds like, then manufacturing audio components must be either an incredibly tiring job, or else a crapshoot. How can they be confident that the 3657th copy of speaker X that rolls off their assembly line really sounds anything like the prototype? -- -S. "We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's. Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." -- David Lee Roth |
#316
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"And those two magazines filled a real void. It was the attempts to
define a vocabulary to describe sound, and the finger placed upon certain audio "sins", that perked the interest of enough engineers and entrepreneurs to reverse the momentum of deteriorating sound and start it back upwards to the high quality sound that is the rule today." As a fair exposition of what the mags never stop telling us, as a version of the "utility" of subjective "auditioning", as a reason for existing, as holders of the holy grail and final arbiter of hifi, as one would want. Inall cultures and at all times making and exercising mythology serves a vital purpose. |
#317
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
TonyP wrote:
S888Wheel wrote: From: Date: 7/22/2004 12:05 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: lHJLc.7626$8_6.5406@attbi_s04 S888Wheel wrote: They are mastered differently in so far as they need to be cut on a lathe but if you are assuming that compression is universally applied to all LPs and to no CDs you are quite mistaken. Some of the best LPs are mastered with no use of compression while many CDs are compressed to death in the mastering stage. You missed the point. No I didn't. The point was simply based on a faulty premise and I pointed it out. The CD medium does not require compression AT ALL That doesn't really help the consumer who may be faced wiuth a possible choice between a CD trhat has been compressed to death and an LP of the same title that was mastered without compression. (for acoustic music at least) in mastering. If a CD master is compressed it it either by choice (preference) or outright stupidity. A *reality* consumers face and are *stuck with* in some cases should they choose to abandon the LP format due to the sort of prejudices widely displayed by some here on RAHE. LP's REQUIRE compression for the medium to be even usable. 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 |
#318
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Harry Lavo wrote:
For example, can you tell me why the brain interprets a string section as "not right" even when measured frequency response is ruler flat to 20khz and beyond? Frequency response of what? Do amplifiers, cables and etc. have pickup patterns like microphones that are very unlike how our ears detect sound? Do amps, cables and etc. have dispersion patterns like speakers do that cause problems with strings sounding 'right.' I won't even begin to address the issues with bias and preference. |
#319
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
"TonyP" wrote in message
news:fcULc.11376$8_6.6319@attbi_s04... S888Wheel wrote: From: Date: 7/22/2004 12:05 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: lHJLc.7626$8_6.5406@attbi_s04 S888Wheel wrote: They are mastered differently in so far as they need to be cut on a lathe but if you are assuming that compression is universally applied to all LPs and to no CDs you are quite mistaken. Some of the best LPs are mastered with no use of compression while many CDs are compressed to death in the mastering stage. You missed the point. No I didn't. The point was simply based on a faulty premise and I pointed it out. The CD medium does not require compression AT ALL That doesn't really help the consumer who may be faced wiuth a possible choice between a CD trhat has been compressed to death and an LP of the same title that was mastered without compression. (for acoustic music at least) in mastering. If a CD master is compressed it it either by choice (preference) or outright stupidity. A *reality* consumers face and are *stuck with* in some cases should they choose to abandon the LP format due to the sort of prejudices widely displayed by some here on RAHE. LP's REQUIRE compression for the medium to be even usable. 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? Absolutely, most were. Moreover, the older classical and jazz disk were not compressed at all (the original recordings often were manually gain-ridden, more akin to limiters being used, rather than compression). This "no compression"pattern thankfully is being restored via SACD and DVD-A recordings. It was not until. the late 70's that compression became obviously used in pop music, and not until the 90's that the use of it got truly obnoxious. The irony is that many, many CD's today have only 10-15db of dynamic range, thereby wasting one theoretical advantage of the medium. |
#320
|
|||
|
|||
Steely Dan The Absolute Sound
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Nousaine" wrote in message news:mTSLc.10928$8_6.7306@attbi_s04... (S888Wheel) wrote: From: (Nousaine) ...snip..... As humans we "hear" loudness, pitch (aka partial loudness) and arrival time. That's it. If the "amplifier" can transmit the signal to the loudspeaker terminals with no degradations in level and no changes in partial level differences and no additions (distortion) or arrival timing error it will be subjectively perfect. It is an interesting little story on "you and your ears" but what does it have to do with your extraordinary claim that you don't need to hear the system in question to know what it sounds like? Its similar to the idea that I don't have to drive a Aveo and a Ferrari to know which one is faster. Because we humans only hear level, pitch and timing we can tell from measurements which electronic devices will deliver level, pitch (frequency response) and timing (no time-dependency in amplification) to the speaker terminals most accurately. Conveniently ignoring the brain's role in integrating these in very subtle and complex fashion. Tom, there is a difference between "sound" and the interpretation of it by the brain, in this case as reproduced music.. and don't give me your usual reply that if you can't "hear" it, the brain can't interpret it. That's a given...but the brain can discern very fine discrepancies in relationsships between the various factors, each of which may be measured as "acceptable" by themselves. For example, can you tell me why the brain interprets a string section as "not right" even when measured frequency response is ruler flat to 20khz and beyond? Several reasons: (1) You are not familiar with the recording venue's acoustics. (2) Your memory of what's "right" is based on certain performances or recordings. But you have no idea what the live feed sounds like in a particular recording. Your memory may also be simply faulty. (3) There may have been intentional errors (like compression) introduced in mastering. (4) Your speakers may have errors. (5) You may have been conditoned to listening to vinyl with all its artifacts, so that digital recordings sound unreal to you. (6) You have a bias against digital recordings. Need more? |
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 |