| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
|
|
#42
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
"Jenn" wrote in message
... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message ... On 2 Mar, 15:18, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 08:27:19 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): wrote in message ... On 26 Feb, 07:33, Steve wrote: Assuming that I have adequate entry level CD player (or other digital source), amp and speakers what are the best 3 ways to improve the sound of my system for a wide range of recordings? I am looking for a list in order of diminishing returns - you can change existing components or add new ones. 1. Get an entry level high end turntable rig and phono preamp Probably the worst possible advice I've ever seen on RAHE. Vinyl is history, long live vinyl! Been there done that even twice. The only logical purpose for a vinyl rig is to transcribe recordings that never made it to digital on their own. Most of them are fairly obscure. There's usually a reason why they are obscure. ;-) I agree with Steve. Vinyl is special. There are great performances and recordings that have never and will never show up on CD. So what? For those who have an interest in those great performances and recordings it means they need a vinyl playback system to listen to those performances and recordings. However, they aren't the only great performances that there are. Beside the point. If one wants a certain performance of a work, that's the one he/she wants. True for avid music collectors, are there 100,000 of them in the whole world? There is a valid question: If this music is so great, why wasn't it transcribed to digital? There can be a variety of reasons. Missing/damaged original tape, for example. But there are LPs, and if the LP is really good cleaning it up for CD isn't rocket science. That's why some of the Mercury releases won't make it to CD. I suspect that the real reason is absence of a commercially viable market. If you have a collection of every great performance that has appeared on CD, then maybe you feel the need to extend your purview a bit further back. Or not. One need not have such a collection of CDs to have an interest in the many great recordings that are only available on vinyl. I can see that having a major investment in an expensive vinyl playback system might spur someone with lots of time on their hands to search out obscure recordings in the interest of justifying their investment. Or perhaps he/she just likes how some LPs sound. Yes, all of the vinyl newbies are turning handsprings over the inevitable tics and pops. ;-) |
|
#43
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
On Mar 3, 4:46*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:18:14 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote I won't dispute that. However, I've seen so many myths related to audio busted by impartial evaluations that I have good reason to have my doubts that $10,000 turntables have any sonic advantage over $1,000 turntables. That's not hard to imagine. I'd say, that like anything else, there is certainly a point of diminishing returns, but I doubt seriously if that point is $1K. It might be $5K for the whole kit and kaboodle, then again, it might not. The sad thing is, we really have no way of knowing. There just isn't any objective source of information about turntables anymore. Consistent measurements aren't being done by nonbiased parties, so we're left with the ravings of self-proclaimed experts who, when they aren't waxing eloquent on the glories of expensive vinyl rigs are waxing eloquent on the glories of expensive wires or $350,000 amps that clip at 2 watts. They whine about digital jitter, and then extol turntables whose makers won't publicly admit their W&F measurements. They put vibrapods under their CD players and buy turntables without rumble specs. Turntables today may or may not be better than they were in the 80s, but I think I'd much rather be buying a turntable in the 80s, when the ratio of information to hype was a little higher. bob |
|
#44
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 16:40:08 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message ... On 2 Mar, 15:18, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 08:27:19 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): wrote in message ... On 26 Feb, 07:33, Steve wrote: Assuming that I have adequate entry level CD player (or other digital source), amp and speakers what are the best 3 ways to improve the sound of my system for a wide range of recordings? I am looking for a list in order of diminishing returns - you can change existing components or add new ones. 1. Get an entry level high end turntable rig and phono preamp Probably the worst possible advice I've ever seen on RAHE. Vinyl is history, long live vinyl! Been there done that even twice. The only logical purpose for a vinyl rig is to transcribe recordings that never made it to digital on their own. Most of them are fairly obscure. There's usually a reason why they are obscure. ;-) I agree with Steve. Vinyl is special. There are great performances and recordings that have never and will never show up on CD. So what? For those who have an interest in those great performances and recordings it means they need a vinyl playback system to listen to those performances and recordings. However, they aren't the only great performances that there are. Beside the point. If one wants a certain performance of a work, that's the one he/she wants. True for avid music collectors, are there 100,000 of them in the whole world? Irrelevant. Your attempt to derail with conversation with market share and age group arguments is noted. ;-) There is a valid question: If this music is so great, why wasn't it transcribed to digital? There can be a variety of reasons. Missing/damaged original tape, for example. But there are LPs, and if the LP is really good cleaning it up for CD isn't rocket science. It also isn't done commercially. That's why some of the Mercury releases won't make it to CD. I suspect that the real reason is absence of a commercially viable market. No, there are a number of Mercury Living Presence master tapes that are missing and some were made on tape that has since decomposed. If you have a collection of every great performance that has appeared on CD, then maybe you feel the need to extend your purview a bit further back. Or not. One need not have such a collection of CDs to have an interest in the many great recordings that are only available on vinyl. I can see that having a major investment in an expensive vinyl playback system might spur someone with lots of time on their hands to search out obscure recordings in the interest of justifying their investment. Or perhaps he/she just likes how some LPs sound. Yes, all of the vinyl newbies are turning handsprings over the inevitable tics and pops. ;-) Some listeners are not put off by ticks and pops. See, they listen to the MUSIC! |
|
#45
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
On 3 Mar, 09:49, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: It's only bad advice if one does not have any interest in getting the best sound from their favorite commercial recordings. It is my impression that the OP is actually interested in doing just that. Lets say, for argument's sake. the OP has a keen interest in artists like Van Morrison or Neil Young or Miles Davis or John Coltrane. Odd choices for your argument, since excellent-sounding digital versions of their catalogs -- largely free from 'loudness wars' issues -- are readily available. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine Excellent is a matter of opinion. Perhaps you could tell us about some of your personal comparisons. I can tell you about some of mine in regards to these artists. They made for compelling arguments for vinyl playback. Have you heard the Van Morrison reissue of Moondance? Have you heard the AP reissues of the John Coltrane or Miles Davis LPs? Have you heard the Classics reissues of Neil Young? |
|
#46
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
On 3 Mar, 11:35, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message ... On 2 Mar, 08:27, "Arny Krueger" wrote: It's only bad advice if one does not have any interest in getting the best sound from their favorite commercial recordings. In this day and age most people's favorite recordings are available only on digital media. LP new titles are like hen's teeth in comparison. How would you know what most people's favorite recordings are? Very few of mine are not available on vinyl. New titles? You would probably be quite surprised at just how many new releases are being issued on vinyl if you took a look. Why would you presume anyone is interested in new releases exclusively? |
|
#47
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
|
|
#48
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
On 3 Mar, 17:55, wrote:
On Mar 3, 4:46*pm, Sonnova wrote: On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:18:14 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote I won't dispute that. However, I've seen so many myths related to audio busted by impartial evaluations that I have good reason to have my doubts that $10,000 turntables have any sonic advantage over $1,000 turntables. That's not hard to imagine. I'd say, that like anything else, there is certainly a point of diminishing returns, but I doubt seriously if that point is $1K. It might be $5K for the whole kit and kaboodle, then again, it might not. The sad thing is, we really have no way of knowing. There just isn't any objective source of information about turntables anymore. We don't? Ever consider the idea of auditioning? Consistent measurements aren't being done by nonbiased parties, so we're left with the ravings of self-proclaimed experts who, when they aren't waxing eloquent on the glories of expensive vinyl rigs are waxing eloquent on the glories of expensive wires or $350,000 amps that clip at 2 watts. They whine about digital jitter, and then extol turntables whose makers won't publicly admit their W&F measurements. They put vibrapods under their CD players and buy turntables without rumble specs. Who is left with just that? again I have to ask, have you considered the possibility of auditioning equipment? Turntables today may or may not be better than they were in the 80s, but I think I'd much rather be buying a turntable in the 80s, when the ratio of information to hype was a little higher. bob Actually we now have the ability to do the most reliable auditions ever. One can do high rez didgital copies and do level matched comparisons on their own system. You couldn't do that in the 80s. |
|
#49
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 17:55:58 -0800, wrote (in article ): On Mar 3, 4:46 pm, Sonnova wrote: On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:18:14 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote I won't dispute that. However, I've seen so many myths related to audio busted by impartial evaluations that I have good reason to have my doubts that $10,000 turntables have any sonic advantage over $1,000 turntables. That's not hard to imagine. I'd say, that like anything else, there is certainly a point of diminishing returns, but I doubt seriously if that point is $1K. It might be $5K for the whole kit and kaboodle, then again, it might not. The sad thing is, we really have no way of knowing. There just isn't any objective source of information about turntables anymore. Consistent measurements aren't being done by nonbiased parties, so we're left with the ravings of self-proclaimed experts who, when they aren't waxing eloquent on the glories of expensive vinyl rigs are waxing eloquent on the glories of expensive wires or $350,000 amps that clip at 2 watts. They whine about digital jitter, and then extol turntables whose makers won't publicly admit their W&F measurements. They put vibrapods under their CD players and buy turntables without rumble specs. Some light is being shed, at least on low-cost turntables. You can see evidence of it he http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=69979 Turntables today may or may not be better than they were in the 80s, but I think I'd much rather be buying a turntable in the 80s, when the ratio of information to hype was a little higher. I seem to recall that Julian Hirsch did occasional measurements on turntables and cartrdiges. JGH did some too, but his art seems to have died with his departure from SP. You have a point. But I think that today's materials make 'tables better than in the eighties. Carbon fiber arms, massive acrylic tables that go "thonk" when you rap them rather than ringing like the Bells of St. Mary's. Intuitive technology is not always functional technology. I know that many arms have better bearings than they did in the '80's. I don't know why. The art of making bearings is pretty old. But turntable bearings have changed little, they are still generally bronze sleeve bearings, but some of them do use Archimides screw principle to pump oil to the top and are therefore better lubricated than in the "good old days" but you are correct that the amount of actual data and measurements of today's tables is thin on the ground. After review on Hydrogen Audio, the data on a goodly number of inexpensive turntables will probably migrate to http://www.knowzy.com/Computers/Audi...Comparison.htm |
|
#50
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
On 3 Mar, 12:10, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message ... On 2 Mar, 15:18, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 08:27:19 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): wrote in message ... On 26 Feb, 07:33, Steve wrote: Assuming that I have adequate entry level CD player (or other digital source), amp and speakers what are the best 3 ways to improve the sound of my system for a wide range of recordings? I am looking for a list in order of diminishing returns - you can change existing components or add new ones. 1. Get an entry level high end turntable rig and phono preamp Probably the worst possible advice I've ever seen on RAHE. Vinyl is history, long live vinyl! Been there done that even twice. The only logical purpose for a vinyl rig is to transcribe recordings that never made it to digital on their own. Most of them are fairly obscure. There's usually a reason why they are obscure. ;-) I agree with Steve. Vinyl is special. There are great performances and recordings that have never and will never show up on CD. So what? For those who have an interest in those great performances and recordings it means they need a vinyl playback system to listen to those performances and recordings. However, they aren't the only great performances that there are. Irrelevant to the point. There is a valid question: If this music is so great, why wasn't it transcribed to digital? Unfortunately answering that question will not change the reality of the situation. If you have a collection of every great performance that has appeared on CD, then maybe you feel the need to extend your purview a bit further back. Or not. One need not have such a collection of CDs to have an interest in the many great recordings that are only available on vinyl. I can see that having a major investment in an expensive vinyl playback system might spur someone with lots of time on their hands to search out obscure recordings in the interest of justifying their investment. Actually a genuine interest in music is the likely cause for searching out obscure recordings IME. If one is letting format influence their musical tastes they are doing themselves a great disservice. Given that transcribing vinyl to LP is so inexpensive, the non-availabilty of legacy recordings on digital asks questions about their actual general interest and musical quality. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. On top of that there is the reality that a good many of those great titles that are available on CD were simply poorly mastered and/or poorly sourced (for some of us excellent mastering begins with using the best possible source). It is true that most inexpensive digital transcriptions of rare music starts out with a LP which violates the principle of using the best possible source. It is? What do you base that assertion on? If you don't have a good collection of the great performances that appeared on CD, seems like you already have your work cut out for you. You may have your work cut out even if you do. I pity the poor audiophiles who built up large collections of great recordings on CDs that were poorly mastered. That's their own fault. Ironically it is exactly what would likely happen were someone with a genuine braod interest in music were to follow your advice. I also pity the people who were tricked into investing in LP playback systems with false promises of some magic sound quality that can't possibly be duplicated digitally. That is an odd concern. What promises would you be refering to? I have never heard anyone make any such promises of magic sound. There has been plenty of that sort of thing going around. Then you should have no trouble citing examples of such claims. You might even know someone who has made those sorts of false claims in the recent past. Not that I can remember. One need look no further than the early Decca classical catalog or the great Bluenote jazz catalog so poorly remastered on CD. So you are critical of the Decca CDs that involved the late Mr. Fine's wife? Huh? I don't know of any such Decca CDs. What a shame it would be that one would suffer such terrible sound over an idealogical position about vinyl if one had any love for this music. What a shame it would be that one would make a tremendous investment in LP technology based on false claims about "empty spaces" between the samples in digital. There has been plenty of that sort of thing going around. You might even know someone who has made those sorts of false claims in the recent past. I don't know what you are talking about. But I would expect anyone, such as myself, who has made a tremendous investment in the vinyl format to have done so based on listening experience. That was what did it for me. I have been quite happy about it all these years. Hunting for vinyl treasures is fun and rewarding. But what about people who already have a pretty full life? If they are not crippled by bizarre and extreme prejudices about vinyl playback they can also find such endevours fun and rewarding. You're not answering the question. I'm talking about people who have families, children, friends, and interesting professions, not people with time lots of time on their hands between an occasional engagement. I answered the question. You may not have liked the answer or you may not have understood it but I did answer it. Whether you transfer said vinyl to digital after getting it, is of course, an individual choice, but remember this, Vinyl playback quality, ultimately, depends on the quality of the turntable, arm, and cartridge used to extract the sound from it. Only to a certain point. Beyond that point, you're spinning your wheels. Could be. For me that point seems to be a Forsell Air reference Turntable, Koetsu Rosewood signature cartridge and Audio research SP 10 preamp. There's no reliable evidence that a well-chosen system at 1/10th the price would be sonically inferior in any way.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I find my personal bias controlled comparisons to be relaible enough evidence for me. I'm not worried about proving these things to others. i don't need anyone else's permission to enjoy my personal experiences. |
|
#51
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
|
|
#52
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 06:38:57 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 17:55:58 -0800, wrote (in article ): On Mar 3, 4:46 pm, Sonnova wrote: On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:18:14 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote I won't dispute that. However, I've seen so many myths related to audio busted by impartial evaluations that I have good reason to have my doubts that $10,000 turntables have any sonic advantage over $1,000 turntables. That's not hard to imagine. I'd say, that like anything else, there is certainly a point of diminishing returns, but I doubt seriously if that point is $1K. It might be $5K for the whole kit and kaboodle, then again, it might not. The sad thing is, we really have no way of knowing. There just isn't any objective source of information about turntables anymore. Consistent measurements aren't being done by nonbiased parties, so we're left with the ravings of self-proclaimed experts who, when they aren't waxing eloquent on the glories of expensive vinyl rigs are waxing eloquent on the glories of expensive wires or $350,000 amps that clip at 2 watts. They whine about digital jitter, and then extol turntables whose makers won't publicly admit their W&F measurements. They put vibrapods under their CD players and buy turntables without rumble specs. Some light is being shed, at least on low-cost turntables. You can see evidence of it he http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=69979 Turntables today may or may not be better than they were in the 80s, but I think I'd much rather be buying a turntable in the 80s, when the ratio of information to hype was a little higher. I seem to recall that Julian Hirsch did occasional measurements on turntables and cartrdiges. JGH did some too, but his art seems to have died with his departure from SP. You have a point. But I think that today's materials make 'tables better than in the eighties. Carbon fiber arms, massive acrylic tables that go "thonk" when you rap them rather than ringing like the Bells of St. Mary's. Intuitive technology is not always functional technology. I know that many arms have better bearings than they did in the '80's. I don't know why. The art of making bearings is pretty old. But good bearings have become cheaper in the last few years, meaning that they are more likely to incorporated in arms that cost less than a used car. But turntable bearings have changed little, they are still generally bronze sleeve bearings, but some of them do use Archimides screw principle to pump oil to the top and are therefore better lubricated than in the "good old days" but you are correct that the amount of actual data and measurements of today's tables is thin on the ground. After review on Hydrogen Audio, the data on a goodly number of inexpensive turntables will probably migrate to http://www.knowzy.com/Computers/Audi...rd_Player_Turn table_Comparison.htm Most of the 'tables listed here are junk. Light aluminum platters that ring, They have poor bass, Most have arms so poor that they invite warp and eccentric-record wow. The Pro-ject and the Thorens 190 are OK but you won't get the most from your records using either of them. All of the 'tables listed, with the exception of the Project and the Thorens are really cheap and poorly designed/made. I wouldn't recommend such a table to anyone for any reason. If you plan to digitize all of your records, my advice is to buy the best turntable/arm/cartridge that you can afford. After all, that's what's going to decide what your records, by way of CD, are going to sound like from now on. The setup used to transcribe them will set that sound in stone, for all time. My recommendation would be something like this: Turntable - VPI Scout 2 - ~$1600 Arm - VPI JMW - 9 Standard arm (the Signature model is wired with silly, overpriced Nordost wire - a complete waste of money) - ~$500 A Sumiko Bluepoint #2 moving coil - ~$300 or The Grado Reference Platinum moving magnet -~$350 This combo will do your records proud. Not the best, to be sure, but this is about the price of minimum admission to the best of the world of vinyl. There are, of course other tables and other cartridges that should give equally good performance in this price range, but I have personally tested these and I know they are good. The two cartridge choices bring different things to the table, but I could happily live with either. For what it's worth, I actually found the Bluepoint 2 better than either the more expensive Bluepoint Special and Sumiko's $750 Blackbird! |
|
#53
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
|
|
#54
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
|
|
#55
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
In article ,
Sonnova wrote: That's what I am wondering. If I'm not mistaken, Arny is trying to say here that digital transcriptions of "rare music" (whatever that means) are actually made from a phonograph record as the master source material. If he is saying that, he's very wrong. I have NEVER seen a commercial CD that was a copy of a vinyl record. Even stuff sourced from the pre-audio tape era wasn't transcribed from commercial records, but rather from the original transcriptions themselves which were generally cut on acetate. I know for a fact that most of RCA's 1940s Toscanini recordings were transfered from acetate transcriptions to magnetic tape back in the 1950's and any CDs made of those performances would be made from those tapes. It is possible that some early performances are sourced from 78 RPM shellac discs or even Edison cylinders because those are the best (or only sources) available for such historic works. But tape has been available for practically all of the LP era, and that's the source of every LP reissue to digital AFAIK. There are many exceptions to this. Tapes go lost or deteriorate. Unless you mean "not a straight copy," ie, without subsequent mastering. Stephen |
|
#56
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
wrote in message ...
On 3 Mar, 12:10, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message I find my personal bias controlled comparisons to be relaible enough evidence for me. That makes you like a person who says they are greatest cook in the world, based on their taste tests of their cooking. I'm not worried about proving these things to others. Good, because there is no reason to believe claims by people who live only to satisfy themselves. I don't need anyone else's permission to enjoy my personal experiences. No, but if you wish to have any credibility when you share your experiences, then you need to get outside your own appreciation of your own work. BTW Scott, I want you to know that I'm the greatest makeup artist in the world, based on my evaluation of my own work. ;-) |
|
#57
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 06:38:57 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote http://www.knowzy.com/Computers/Audi...rd_Player_Turn table_Comparison.htm Most of the 'tables listed here are junk. Definitely bottom-feeder stuff. Light aluminum platters that ring, But with what effect on sound quality? Doesn't the mat and the LP itself have some effect on that? They have poor bass, Really? Most have arms so poor that they invite warp and eccentric-record wow. Really? List the properties of a tone arm that "invite warp and eccentric-record wow", and explain to me why a low cost tone arm can't possibly have them. The Pro-ject and the Thorens 190 are OK but you won't get the most from your records using either of them. All of the 'tables listed, with the exception of the Project and the Thorens are really cheap and poorly designed/made. I wouldn't recommend such a table to anyone for any reason. I'd like to see the details of the careful engineering analysis that led to this conclusion. That means careful measurement of geometries and performance. I seriously doubt that any such formal engineering evaluation exists! I seriously doubt that anybody on this forum has gone over these products individually and up front and personal with the necessary tools. I think I'm hearing about people's fears and doubts, not actual empirical results. My take is that a lot of the goodness of a playback system comes from making things the right size, which processes like injection molding, die casting, and other common industrial procedures can do well. When the AR turntable came out, it sold for about the price of a Garrard AT6, which was a real POS. Other than friction in the tonearm bearings, the AR TT was really pretty good. The turntable part of it was very good. The difference between the two products was more in the design than the execution. Once you get geared up to produce many things in quantity, they become very cheap. |
|
#58
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
wrote in message
... On 3 Mar, 17:55, wrote: On Mar 3, 4:46 pm, Sonnova wrote: On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:18:14 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote I won't dispute that. However, I've seen so many myths related to audio busted by impartial evaluations that I have good reason to have my doubts that $10,000 turntables have any sonic advantage over $1,000 turntables. That's not hard to imagine. I'd say, that like anything else, there is certainly a point of diminishing returns, but I doubt seriously if that point is $1K. It might be $5K for the whole kit and kaboodle, then again, it might not. The sad thing is, we really have no way of knowing. There just isn't any objective source of information about turntables anymore. We don't? Ever consider the idea of auditioning? To be effective, the listening evaluations need to be inherently reliable and sensitive. Part of Knowzy's turntable review is .wav files that were made using the same recordings and the various turntables: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=69979 is an installment of them. Since modern digital technology is capable of capturing the output of the finest turntable with far more precision than said turntable will ever has, ...wav files provide a means for remote listeners to audition the equipment just as effectively had it at their disposal. As performed by most audiophiles and reviewers, the listening evaluations are neither inherently reliable nor sensitive. Consistent measurements aren't being done by nonbiased parties, so we're left with the ravings of self-proclaimed experts who, when they aren't waxing eloquent on the glories of expensive vinyl rigs are waxing eloquent on the glories of expensive wires or $350,000 amps that clip at 2 watts. They whine about digital jitter, and then extol turntables whose makers won't publicly admit their W&F measurements. They put vibrapods under their CD players and buy turntables without rumble specs. Who is left with just that? Readers of the leading high end ragazines, web sites, and blogs. again I have to ask, have you considered the possibility of auditioning equipment? Asked and answered. Turntables today may or may not be better than they were in the 80s, but I think I'd much rather be buying a turntable in the 80s, when the ratio of information to hype was a little higher. bob Actually we now have the ability to do the most reliable auditions ever. One can do high rez digital copies and do level matched comparisons on their own system. You couldn't do that in the 80s. Right, and I have posted links to sample files related to that. Have you downloaded them and listened to them? |
|
#59
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... That's what I am wondering. If I'm not mistaken, Arny is trying to say here that digital transcriptions of "rare music" (whatever that means) are actually made from a phonograph record as the master source material. Many of them are. If he is saying that, he's very wrong. Not at all. Obviously digitizing a commercial recording is a last-ditch approach, but it is often the only way. Besides, why would such a digital recording be any worse than listening to a commercial recording on your own stereo? I have NEVER seen a commercial CD that was a copy of a vinyl record. Perhaps, knowingly. . Even stuff sourced from the pre-audio tape era wasn't transcribed from commercial records, but rather from the original transcriptions themselves which were generally cut on acetate. I know for a fact that most of RCA's 1940s Toscanini recordings were transferred from acetate transcriptions to magnetic tape back in the 1950's and any CDs made of those performances would be made from those tapes. It is possible that some early performances are sourced from 78 RPM shellac discs or even Edison cylinders because those are the best (or only sources) available for such historic works. But tape has been available for practically all of the LP era, and that's the source of every LP reissue to digital AFAIK. You need to explain why a LP you play at home would sound any better than a digital transcription of a sister LP that was made by a skilled technician. There are only reasons why the LPs you play at home would sound worse. |
|
#60
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 19:18:07 -0800, MiNe 109 wrote
(in article ): In article , Sonnova wrote: That's what I am wondering. If I'm not mistaken, Arny is trying to say here that digital transcriptions of "rare music" (whatever that means) are actually made from a phonograph record as the master source material. If he is saying that, he's very wrong. I have NEVER seen a commercial CD that was a copy of a vinyl record. Even stuff sourced from the pre-audio tape era wasn't transcribed from commercial records, but rather from the original transcriptions themselves which were generally cut on acetate. I know for a fact that most of RCA's 1940s Toscanini recordings were transfered from acetate transcriptions to magnetic tape back in the 1950's and any CDs made of those performances would be made from those tapes. It is possible that some early performances are sourced from 78 RPM shellac discs or even Edison cylinders because those are the best (or only sources) available for such historic works. But tape has been available for practically all of the LP era, and that's the source of every LP reissue to digital AFAIK. There are many exceptions to this. Tapes go lost or deteriorate. And therefore never get put out on CD. I don't know of any commercially made CD that was made from an LP. In fact, until Arny mentioned it, I'd never even heard of such a thing. Unless you mean "not a straight copy," ie, without subsequent mastering. I mean a CD mastered straight from an LP. |
|
#61
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
On 4 Mar, 19:17, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: On 3 Mar, 17:55, wrote: On Mar 3, 4:46?pm, Sonnova wrote: On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:18:14 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote I won't dispute that. However, I've seen so many myths related to audio busted by impartial evaluations that I have good reason to have my doubts that $10,000 turntables have any sonic advantage over $1,000 turntables. That's not hard to imagine. I'd say, that like anything else, there is certainly a point of diminishing returns, but I doubt seriously if that point is $1K. It might be $5K for the whole kit and kaboodle, then again, it might not. The sad thing is, we really have no way of knowing. There just isn't any objective source of information about turntables anymore. We don't? Ever consider the idea of auditioning? If by 'auditioning', you mean sighted evaluation, that's not a particularly good way of *really* 'knowing' if $1K or $5K is a point of diminishing returns. * -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - By auditioning I mean *auditioning.* Auditions can be done blind, sighted or both. I don't control what others do. Personally, I like doing my auditions both blind and sighted. Funny thing though. When others conme in here and talk about their opinions on the sonic attributes of various components they are pounced upon for having done their evaluations under sighted conditions. When I express my observations I get I the same even though I have done much of my evaluations under blind conditions. I think some people just don't like the results and are goping to attack them for reasons that have nothing to do with anything other than personal ego. That is very unfortunate for people like the OP who came here seeking advice in good faith. |
|
#62
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
On 5 Mar, 07:22, Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 19:18:07 -0800, MiNe 109 wrote (in article ): In article , *Sonnova wrote: That's what I am wondering. If I'm not mistaken, Arny is trying to say here that digital transcriptions of "rare music" (whatever that means) are actually made from a phonograph record as the master source material. If he is saying that, he's very wrong. I have NEVER seen a commercial CD that was a copy of a vinyl record. Even stuff sourced from the pre-audio tape era wasn't transcribed from commercial records, but rather from the original transcriptions themselves which were generally cut on acetate. I know for a fact that most of RCA's 1940s Toscanini recordings were transfered from acetate transcriptions to magnetic tape back in the 1950's and any CDs made of those performances would be made from those tapes. It is possible that some early performances are sourced from 78 RPM shellac discs or even Edison cylinders because those are the best (or only sources) available for such historic works. But tape has been available for practically all of the LP era, and that's the source of every LP reissue to digital AFAIK. There are many exceptions to this. Tapes go lost or deteriorate. And therefore never get put out on CD. I don't know of any commercially made CD that was made from an LP. In fact, until Arny mentioned it, I'd never even heard of such a thing. Unless you mean "not a straight copy," ie, without subsequent mastering. I mean a CD mastered straight from an LP.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well there are a few. Since digging deep into the world of 60s 70s Brittish folk psych rock I have run across one example. Comus, First Utterance. But with this genre we are talking about groups that often released their recordings on private labels in batches of 500 and did music as a side thing while working regular jobs. I am actually amazed at how many of these folks kept their master tapes. The original LPs of interest in this genre are often fetching upwards of 2-3K. Luckily for fans like me almost all of the material has been reissued on LP and CD. But Arny is plainly wrong that CDs mastered from LPs are the norm. They are the exception. And his assertion that interests in such things is just a means of justifying purchases of high end vinyl playback gear is absurd and speaks more of his prejudices than of any reality behind hobbyists who have an interest in music that is not so commercially mainstream. |
|
#63
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
|
|
#64
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 07:22:27 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... That's what I am wondering. If I'm not mistaken, Arny is trying to say here that digital transcriptions of "rare music" (whatever that means) are actually made from a phonograph record as the master source material. Many of them are. Please name at least one. If he is saying that, he's very wrong. Not at all. Again, examples? Obviously digitizing a commercial recording is a last-ditch approach, but it is often the only way. Besides, why would such a digital recording be any worse than listening to a commercial recording on your own stereo? I have NEVER seen a commercial CD that was a copy of a vinyl record. Perhaps, knowingly. Since there is no such thing as a record without some kind of surface noise or re-occuring "vinyl rush" to give it away, I think I'd notice. . Even stuff sourced from the pre-audio tape era wasn't transcribed from commercial records, but rather from the original transcriptions themselves which were generally cut on acetate. I know for a fact that most of RCA's 1940s Toscanini recordings were transferred from acetate transcriptions to magnetic tape back in the 1950's and any CDs made of those performances would be made from those tapes. It is possible that some early performances are sourced from 78 RPM shellac discs or even Edison cylinders because those are the best (or only sources) available for such historic works. But tape has been available for practically all of the LP era, and that's the source of every LP reissue to digital AFAIK. You need to explain why a LP you play at home would sound any better than a digital transcription of a sister LP that was made by a skilled technician. There are only reasons why the LPs you play at home would sound worse. I'm not saying that it would or wouldn't. I'm saying that I don't believe any commercial CDs have been mastered off of LPs and won't until somebody gives some examples that are available to the general public. To paraphrase Moses, I would like to "turn aside and (hear) this great (sound)." |
|
#65
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
|
|
#66
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 07:21:07 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 06:38:57 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote http://www.knowzy.com/Computers/Audi...cord_Player_Tu rn table_Comparison.htm Most of the 'tables listed here are junk. Definitely bottom-feeder stuff. Light aluminum platters that ring, But with what effect on sound quality? Doesn't the mat and the LP itself have some effect on that? Boy does it! A little anecdote, here (for what its worth). In the early 1980's, I had a Thornes TD-160 turntable. I had bought the Telarc LP of the two Holst Suites for Military Band (the ones with the huge bass drum whacks) with Frederick Fennel and the Cleveland Winds (you know the one). Anyway, I had heard this recording played back from the Soundstream digital system at Soundstream's exhibit room at the Audio Engineering Society Convention in New York City. I was so impressed on that occasion that I kept going back to that room and listening to those works over and over. To say I was impressed with what I heard would be an understatement. Anyway, when the record came out, I bought it. What a let-down. One could see the excursions of the bass drums just looking at the record. The pitch of the grooves was so wide at those drum whacks that I'm sure it cut minutes off off of the record side's capacity. Anyway, when I played them, they just didn't have the authority of the playback I heard at the CES. I put the record away thinking that they must not be able to put that kind of bass on an LP. After reading a glowing review of a certain Nagaoka record mat, I decided to try one. This mat was thick, and made of rubber mixed with lead filings. It weighed a ton. When I put it on my Thorens, it so weighed down the suspension that the platter rubbed on the plinth. I had to get under the 'table and increase the tension on the springs to keep the suspension from bottoming-out. That done. I pulled out the Telarc record and tentatively played it. WOW! What a difference. The bass drum whacks were much louder and had much more punch and impact. Organ records shook the walls like never before. It was a revelation! My necx 'table, a Mapleknoll air-bearing unit had a lead platter and didn't benefit from the Nagaoka mat. They have poor bass, Really? Oh yes. Most have arms so poor that they invite warp and eccentric-record wow. Really? List the properties of a tone arm that "invite warp and eccentric-record wow", and explain to me why a low cost tone arm can't possibly have them. Bearing drag, resonant arm tubes, overall arm resonance above 11 or so Hz The Pro-ject and the Thorens 190 are OK but you won't get the most from your records using either of them. All of the 'tables listed, with the exception of the Project and the Thorens are really cheap and poorly designed/made. I wouldn't recommend such a table to anyone for any reason. I'd like to see the details of the careful engineering analysis that led to this conclusion. That means careful measurement of geometries and performance. I have heard many of these tables. The direct drive ones have cheap DC motors with small, cheap bearings. They have platters that are made of cast aluminum and are light and thin. They ring like bells. I seriously doubt that any such formal engineering evaluation exists! Play a record on one of them. Then play the record on the Thorens or the Pro-ject. One can easily hear the difference. It's not in the least subtle. More like the difference between hearing a work on a 6-transistor radio with a two-inch speaker vs hearing it on a decent stereo. I'm exaggerating, of course, but you get the idea. Readily discernable to ANYONE. I seriously doubt that anybody on this forum has gone over these products individually and up front and personal with the necessary tools. Don't need to. The general design will tell you what these cheap direct-drive models will sound like. I've heard dozens of them just like it during the hey-day of Japanese DD turntables. I think I'm hearing about people's fears and doubts, not actual empirical results. My take is that a lot of the goodness of a playback system comes from making things the right size, which processes like injection molding, die casting, and other common industrial procedures can do well. When the AR turntable came out, it sold for about the price of a Garrard AT6, which was a real POS. Other than friction in the tonearm bearings, the AR TT was really pretty good. Yes it was. In fact, a AR with a decent arm to replace the one fitted to it, can be a very good performer today. But to get the best performance out of it, you need to tame the platter resonance. Some people use a good dampening mat, (you'll want to replace that foam mat that came on the thing at any rate), other use auto-body sound-dampening putty on the underside of the platter to accomplish this. But if you do decide to go with an AR, get one of the later ones with ONE motor, stay clear of the early two- motor ARs. Of course, one could say that the ultimate development of the AR 'table was the Linn Sondeck. The turntable part of it was very good. The difference between the two products was more in the design than the execution. Once you get geared up to produce many things in quantity, they become very cheap. But they have to be designed well first. These cheap direct-drive 'DJ' tables in the article you referenced are not designed to do anything but spin records, get up to speed fairly quickly and be able to be back-cued and make that funny rurr-rurr sound that disco goers seem to like so much. |
|
#67
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
|
|
#68
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
On 5 Mar, 12:29, (David E. Bath) wrote:
In article , writes: By auditioning I mean *auditioning.* *Auditions can be done blind, sighted or both. I don't control what others do. Personally, I like doing my auditions both blind and sighted. Funny thing though. When others conme in here and talk about their opinions on the sonic attributes of various components they are pounced upon for having done their evaluations under sighted conditions. When I express my observations I get I the same even though I have done much of my evaluations under blind conditions. *I think some people just don't like the results and are goping to attack them for reasons that have nothing to do with anything other than personal ego. That is very unfortunate for people like the OP who came here seeking advice in good faith. But Scott, it was rather clear to me that the OP was asking how to improve his CD and/or digital playing experience. LP playback was not a part of his question. -- David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator We certainly read that first post quite differently. "Assuming that I have adequate entry level CD player (or other digital source), amp and speakers what are the best 3 ways to improve the sound of my system for a wide range of recordings?" "a wide range of recordings" I don't see what you see. I see a question that very much invites the advice I gave about expanding into vinyl. It looks to me like he is saying he is satisfied with his Speakers, amp and digital sources. Looks to me like the one thing he doesn't want to hear is get better speakers or a better amp or a better CD player. IMO without a doubt the best ways to improve the sound of his system "for a wide range of recordings" without changing the speakers, amp or digital sources is to get inot vinyl and explore the world of better mastering. And work on the room acoustics. |
|
#69
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
On 5 Mar, 03:22, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in ... On 3 Mar, 12:10, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message I find my personal bias controlled comparisons to be relaible enough evidence for me. That makes you like a person who says they are greatest cook in the world, based on their taste tests of their cooking. No Arny. I think you are getting things confused here. You and I are the hobbyists here not the pros. We are the patrons of the proverbial restaurant not the chefs. The wierd thing is no one ever demands that we do blind tests as evidence that our opinions on food are valid. As hobyists the only people we really need to please is ourselves. That is true for audio and for fine food. we are the customers and on a certain level the customer is always right because the customer votes with his or her dollars and decides for themselves what the results are. It is an aesthetic experience. I'm not worried about proving these things to others. Good, because there is no reason to believe claims by people who live only to satisfy themselves. That is hardly true at all. In the world of hobbyists the desire to be seen as "credible" or seen as some sort of authority or reference is IME a red flag. In the world of hobbyists I think the folks who are genuinely trying to satisfy themselves tend to be the most credible. But if you are looking for validation as a hobbyist fromother hobbyists then it's not about the audio, it's about the ego. I don't need anyone else's permission to enjoy my personal experiences. No, but if you wish to have any credibility when you share your experiences, then you need to get outside your own appreciation of your own work. If you are concerned about the credibility of us hobbyists you might want to do a little house work before casting stones at others. Your attack of perfectly good advice on this thread is just one of many examples of you hurting your own credibility. It seems that this is a big deal to you. You will do yourself a big favor by doing more meaningful homework before attacking good advice if you are concerened about the "credibility" of hobbyists such as you and me. BTW Scott, I want you to know that I'm the greatest makeup artist in the world, based on my evaluation of my own work. ;-) Well, now you are trying to personalize things. Not that I am offended but it does point to an obvious personal vendetta here that sadly does nothing to serve the needs of the OP or advance the discussion of audio. But you did open that door so I will step through it because it does touch on a number of points that are relevant. I am a professional makeup artist. http://www.imdb.com/find?s=all&q=scott+wheeler&x=22&y=8 You may actually be an amateur makeup artist and you may very well think you are the next best thing since sliced bread. There are numerous hobbyist makeup artists out there and if they are tickled pink by their own work that is just fine with me. If all one is doing is pleasing themselves then their opinion is the only one that counts. Maybe that is the case with you and your recordings of church music. That's cool. But as audio hobbyists we are not pros or amateurs here, we are the audience. As a pro I put my work out there and the audience ultimately judges it. They may love it, they may hate it. And all the while the audience passes judgement with all their biases in full force. Heck you may hate my work as a makeup artist because of your biases against me personally. No problem. That is reality. I have to live with it as an artist. The thing is, as a pro, my livelyhood depends on pleasing others. It's not the audience (in the case of audio that is we, the consumers) that has to please others or prove anything, scientifically or otherwise. It's the pros that have to do that. Yeah, as a pro, I could just stand up on a soap box and claim I'm the greatest thing since sliced bread but that won't put sliced bread on the table. Here is the irony though. at the end of the day I have made a very good living at it by pleasing myself as an artist. The irony is that the act of people pleasing themselves is far more fruitful than you seem to realize. IME artists, chefs, audio designers etc. that excel are the ones who are trying to please themselves. |
|
#70
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
|
|
#71
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... These cheap direct-drive 'DJ' tables in the article you referenced are not designed to do anything but spin records, get up to speed fairly quickly and be able to be back-cued and make that funny rurr-rurr sound that disco goers seem to like so much. If that's true, then the problems you mention will show up clearly and audibly in the files you can download from: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=69979 . There are files there for both musical tracks and technical tracks. Note that the musical tracks are level-matched and time-synched. They allow you to compare the CD and LP versions of music that has in several person's opinion, been mastered as closely as possible. This is far better, fairer and closer comparison than most people have ever heard in their whole lives. With one of the many freely downloadable music players designed to faciliate sonic comparisons, sighted, ABX and ABC/hr comparisons are possible. What problems are reliably discernable from those files that you can use as proof of bad design or construction? |
|
#72
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
In article ,
Sonnova wrote: That's what I am wondering. If I'm not mistaken, Arny is trying to say here that digital transcriptions of "rare music" (whatever that means) are actually made from a phonograph record as the master source material. Many of them are. Please name at least one. You might have overlooked this one: http://www.musicangle.com/album.php?id=104 Banned in D.C.-Bad Brains Greatest Riffs Caroline CAR 83049-2 From review by Michael Fremer: Most of the set (16 of the 22 songs) were transferred in my listening room last winter. I was given a nice credit and all of the gear used is mentioned: Simon Yorke S7 table, Graham 2.2, Audio-Tekne MC-6310 cartridge, Graham IC-70 DIN-RCA cable, Vibraplane, Manley Steelhead, Harmonic Technology Magic Link One and Alesis Masterlink. The bandıs manager and the compilationıs co-producer (along with bassist Darryl Jenifer) spent a day here listening, cleaning sides, choosing pressings and cartridges and finally transferring the tracks at 96K/24 bit resolution to the Masterlink. 96K/24 bit files were transferred to CDs and later assembled, mastered and authored at West West Side Music, my friend Alan Douchesıs place. There are a few minor pops and clicks, but Alan, god bless him, left everything as-is. -- Stephen |
|
#73
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 07:22:27 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... That's what I am wondering. If I'm not mistaken, Arny is trying to say here that digital transcriptions of "rare music" (whatever that means) are actually made from a phonograph record as the master source material. Many of them are. Please name at least one. If he is saying that, he's very wrong. Not at all. Again, examples? Obviously digitizing a commercial recording is a last-ditch approach, but it is often the only way. Besides, why would such a digital recording be any worse than listening to a commercial recording on your own stereo? I have NEVER seen a commercial CD that was a copy of a vinyl record. Perhaps, knowingly. Since there is no such thing as a record without some kind of surface noise or re-occurring "vinyl rush" to give it away, I think I'd notice. A lot of those artifacts can be processed so that they are not immediately obvious. Or in the case of material that is only available as masters that were also cut onto a disc, they are present on all extant media. . Even stuff sourced from the pre-audio tape era wasn't transcribed from commercial records, but rather from the original transcriptions themselves which were generally cut on acetate. I know for a fact that most of RCA's 1940s Toscanini recordings were transferred from acetate transcriptions to magnetic tape back in the 1950's and any CDs made of those performances would be made from those tapes. It is possible that some early performances are sourced from 78 RPM shellac discs or even Edison cylinders because those are the best (or only sources) available for such historic works. But tape has been available for practically all of the LP era, and that's the source of every LP reissue to digital AFAIK. You need to explain why a LP you play at home would sound any better than a digital transcription of a sister LP that was made by a skilled technician. There are only reasons why the LPs you play at home would sound worse. I'm not saying that it would or wouldn't. Implicitly, you are saying that a LP transcription would be somewhat undesirable, since you are asserting that such a thing is rarely if ever done. I'm saying that I don't believe any commercial CDs have been mastered off of LPs and won't until somebody gives some examples that are available to the general public. To paraphrase Moses, I would like to "turn aside and (hear) this great (sound)." http://www.audaud.com/article.php?ArticleID=4443 http://www.pristineclassical.com/ http://archivesatrisk.org/restricted...pong_Ghana.doc etc., etc. |
|
#74
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
|
|
#75
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 07:54:07 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... These cheap direct-drive 'DJ' tables in the article you referenced are not designed to do anything but spin records, get up to speed fairly quickly and be able to be back-cued and make that funny rurr-rurr sound that disco goers seem to like so much. If that's true, then the problems you mention will show up clearly and audibly in the files you can download from: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=69979 . Actually, they probably won't unless (A) you KNOW the record that the samples came from, and know how much bass is available from that record when played-back on a decent table. And (B) the files were made from records that were warped or eccentric (not all are, you know). Failure to notice either of these two problems on the samples provided tells us nothing. There are simply too many variables involved There are files there for both musical tracks and technical tracks. Note that the musical tracks are level-matched and time-synched. They allow you to compare the CD and LP versions of music that has in several person's opinion, been mastered as closely as possible. But if you don't know the level of bass that's on the disc, the lack of that amount won't tell you anything. That's the problem with sins of omission in audio. Unless you know what it's SUPPOSED to be, you won't know that the equipment that you are using is missing that information. This is far better, fairer and closer comparison than most people have ever heard in their whole lives. With one of the many freely downloadable music players designed to faciliate sonic comparisons, sighted, ABX and ABC/hr comparisons are possible. Except that unless you know what the disc CAN sound like on a decent 'table setup, you don't know what the test rig is not reproducing. What problems are reliably discernable from those files that you can use as proof of bad design or construction? See above. |
|
#76
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:37:16 -0800, MiNe 109 wrote
(in article ): In article , Sonnova wrote: That's what I am wondering. If I'm not mistaken, Arny is trying to say here that digital transcriptions of "rare music" (whatever that means) are actually made from a phonograph record as the master source material. Many of them are. Please name at least one. You might have overlooked this one: http://www.musicangle.com/album.php?id=104 Banned in D.C.-Bad Brains Greatest Riffs Caroline CAR 83049-2 From review by Michael Fremer: Most of the set (16 of the 22 songs) were transferred in my listening room last winter. I was given a nice credit and all of the gear used is mentioned: Simon Yorke S7 table, Graham 2.2, Audio-Tekne MC-6310 cartridge, Graham IC-70 DIN-RCA cable, Vibraplane, Manley Steelhead, Harmonic Technology Magic Link One and Alesis Masterlink. The bandıs manager and the compilationıs co-producer (along with bassist Darryl Jenifer) spent a day here listening, cleaning sides, choosing pressings and cartridges and finally transferring the tracks at 96K/24 bit resolution to the Masterlink. 96K/24 bit files were transferred to CDs and later assembled, mastered and authored at West West Side Music, my friend Alan Douchesıs place. There are a few minor pops and clicks, but Alan, god bless him, left everything as-is. -- Stephen Well, I didn't say it wasn't possible. I just said that I had never heard of the practice. But then, I do not listen to or follow the genre broadly described as "rock-n-roll" or indeed, any pop-culture music so you will forgive me for not having heard of this practice. I've certainly never seen it done in classical, film music, or jazz, but then it's possible I've never just never run across it before and it's much more common than I think it is. |
|
#77
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:42:50 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 07:22:27 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... That's what I am wondering. If I'm not mistaken, Arny is trying to say here that digital transcriptions of "rare music" (whatever that means) are actually made from a phonograph record as the master source material. Many of them are. Please name at least one. If he is saying that, he's very wrong. Not at all. Again, examples? Obviously digitizing a commercial recording is a last-ditch approach, but it is often the only way. Besides, why would such a digital recording be any worse than listening to a commercial recording on your own stereo? I have NEVER seen a commercial CD that was a copy of a vinyl record. Perhaps, knowingly. Since there is no such thing as a record without some kind of surface noise or re-occurring "vinyl rush" to give it away, I think I'd notice. A lot of those artifacts can be processed so that they are not immediately obvious. Or in the case of material that is only available as masters that were also cut onto a disc, they are present on all extant media. Yes, that's possible. On the other hand, wouldn't the producers be obliged to mention that the CD was transcribed from commercially available vinyl LPs in the CD's liner notes somewhere? I just don't think that this is a widely practiced process. . Even stuff sourced from the pre-audio tape era wasn't transcribed from commercial records, but rather from the original transcriptions themselves which were generally cut on acetate. I know for a fact that most of RCA's 1940s Toscanini recordings were transferred from acetate transcriptions to magnetic tape back in the 1950's and any CDs made of those performances would be made from those tapes. It is possible that some early performances are sourced from 78 RPM shellac discs or even Edison cylinders because those are the best (or only sources) available for such historic works. But tape has been available for practically all of the LP era, and that's the source of every LP reissue to digital AFAIK. You need to explain why a LP you play at home would sound any better than a digital transcription of a sister LP that was made by a skilled technician. There are only reasons why the LPs you play at home would sound worse. I'm not saying that it would or wouldn't. Implicitly, you are saying that a LP transcription would be somewhat undesirable, since you are asserting that such a thing is rarely if ever done. I don't see the connection between the two statements. The sound quality of the resultant CD and frequency with which the record industry tends to transcribe commercially produced LPs to CD for further commercial release has no intrinsic relationship. What is implicit is the confidence in the record companies to use the best source material available for releasing older material on CD. I assume, when I buy a CD of some older performance, that the source is tape at least, and hopefully a master tape. In the case of pre- 1948 performances, my expectations are, of course, lower. I expect these transcriptions to be from studio masters on acetate, or optical film because that was what was available. I'm saying that I don't believe any commercial CDs have been mastered off of LPs and won't until somebody gives some examples that are available to the general public. To paraphrase Moses, I would like to "turn aside and (hear) this great (sound)." http://www.audaud.com/article.php?ArticleID=4443 http://www.pristineclassical.com/ http://archivesatrisk.org/restricted...pong_Ghana.doc Thank you. I learned something. Since I'm a Furtwangler fan, I think I'll purchase the Vienna Philharmonic performance mentioned in the first article you cite. |
|
#78
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
MiNe 109 wrote:
In article , Sonnova wrote: That's what I am wondering. If I'm not mistaken, Arny is trying to say here that digital transcriptions of "rare music" (whatever that means) are actually made from a phonograph record as the master source material. Many of them are. Please name at least one. You might have overlooked this one: http://www.musicangle.com/album.php?id=104 Banned in D.C.-Bad Brains Greatest Riffs Caroline CAR 83049-2 The many old Rhino CD series of year-by-year pop/rock/R&B hits contained at least some tracks sourced from vinyl. The practice was far from unknown. And of course there is a goodly number of CDs of old music sourced from 78rpm records. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
|
#79
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
On 6 Mar, 11:33, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: On 5 Mar, 03:22, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in ... On 3 Mar, 12:10, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message I find my personal bias controlled comparisons to be relaible enough evidence for me. That makes you like a person who says they are greatest cook in the world, based on their taste tests of their cooking. No Arny. I think you are getting things confused here. You and I are the hobbyists here not the pros. We are the patrons of the proverbial restaurant not the chefs. The wierd thing is no one ever demands that we do blind tests as evidence that our opinions on food are valid. How often are opinions on food offered here? I don't keep count. What does it matter? This is more about subjective evaluation in general. Actually blind taste tests are a well-known tool, in the food industry. And of course in areas like wine appreciation. I see nothing wrong with chefs using blind tatse tests to aid them in their endevours to improve their craft. My point is it is not on the patrons to prove anything. We are entitled to our subjective opinions be it fine food or audio. We as consumers are not obligated to prove our aesthetic impressions are scientifically valid. It's on the providers to do what the need to do to please the consumers. If bias controls help them that is fine with me. I don't care about the means. I care about the results. However, most of the time people simply don't question whether two things taste *different*, and much of the time, there's no need to (similar, in audio, to the situation with loudspeakers). But of course when 'brands' and other biasing factors are involved, blind taste testing to test what factors are affecting *preference*, beyond the actual taste, is certainly the way to go. This seems to be a coomon misconception amoung certain audiophiles that bias effects only mattert when they suspect there is no audible differences. They are always in play and always affect the listener. I actually find it ironic that some people do all this hand waving about DBTs and the need for objective proof of subjective imporessions when they utterly neglect bias effects when it comes to the one thing they actually do believe is important, speakers. at the end of the day the folks who make such a stink about the need for DBTs when it comes to amps, cables, CD players etc. really have no bias controls in place in their own proverbial home. 1. ABX ( the apparent prefered bias controlled test for these folks) does nothing to prevent the bias of same sound from affecting the results. That seems to be a prevalant bias in play for these particular audiophiles. 2. bias effects are well known to affect preferences even with things like speakers and one finds very little attempt on the part of the said audiophiles to do bias controlled auditions of speakers. So, in the end, these folks are no more free of bias effects than the garden variety subjectivist. That is hardly true at all. In the world of hobbyists the desire to be seen as "credible" *or seen as some sort of authority or reference is IME a red flag. In the world of hobbyists I think the folks who are genuinely trying to satisfy themselves tend to be the most credible. It's no guarantee against being *credulous*. fruitful than you seem to realize. IME artists, chefs, audio designers etc. that excel are the ones who are trying to please themselves. Most amateurs are trying to 'please themselves', too. That's hardly a reliable indicator of excellence. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine What is a reliable indicator of excellence when it comes to things that are so subjective? |
|
#80
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best 3 ways to significantly improve a stereo system
Hi,
I am the OP. I have to admit vinyl is not an option for me - I recently sold my record collection and player that had been lying dormant for several years and quite frankly I wont miss them! I have Harbeth Super HL5 speakers, picked after listening to dozens of other speakers at a similer price or cheaper, because for me they were simply better at reproducing the music and the ambiance of the music (I could here characteristics of the venue the music was recorded at something rivals failed to do); http://www.harbeth.co.uk/uk/index.ph...=Sup er%20HL5 They are driven by budget electronics specicly a squeezebox 3 streamer (fed by flac from a PC via a wireless router) ; http://www.slimdevices.com/pi_squeezebox.html and a NAD 325 BEE budget amp; http://nadelectronics.com/products/h...ated-Amplifier On the whole I am satisifed with the sound my system produces but if I can improve it - why not try! Upgrading speakers is not an option for me as the Harbeths were dream speakers for me and cost more then I can afford. The relevant advice I hear here is to move my speakers around and use room treatments. Well that is possible. The speakers are on stands and there are door coasters under the stands that make it easy to move them around and they come out of their corners into the center of the room when I want to listen seriously. Maybe I should invest in a mike and SPL meter so I can do this more scientificly as suggested by some posters above. As for room treatments; the speakers are in our living room and I may put in a bookcase or some drapes over the windows but there is no way there is going to be any treatments that aren't functional and aesthetic and fit in with a my small houses main living room. I am playing with the idea of tring some DSP EQ room treatment using pro device like this; http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...acurve2496.htm I guess a sub woofer to make the Harbeths full range may be another option. Nobody mentions this but surely this is an option for most stereo systems without hideously large and expensive speakers? What is interesting is that the conventional way to improve would be to put a DAC between the SB3 and the AMP such as DacMagic or Benchmark1, and to upgrade the NAD to a more expensive amp. It seems that most posters here think that these are not worthwhile options? Steve |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| How to best improve my system | High End Audio | |||
| Improve Virtually Any System with MUSIC Timbre | Marketplace | |||
| Improve Virtually Any System with MUSIC Timbre | Audio Opinions | |||
| Line filtering to improve stereo sound | Tech | |||
Linear Mode
