Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Before and After Krell
Before owning a Krell:-
"I'm an engineer. To be quite honest, my view has been that digital audio was a solved problem. Any competent designer can build a CD player, with inexpensive, off-the-shelf parts, and get a result that's close to perfection. It's not an art, it's not a religion--it's science and engineering. Some of the high-end CD rigs probably do sound different--but only because they're playing games with frequency response. Different, not better. Less accurate, not more accurate."....... ....."That's why I'd been hanging on to my very competently designed, very well made, and very good sounding Technics player. The guys in the local audiophile club weren't impressed, but I held my ground. "It's a solved problem. All competent designs are going to sound the same. You want to spend ten times the money for an incompetent design that's nothing more than a tone control, that's your problem. Just don't try to pretend it's more accurate." ...... And after having Krell:- ....."Now a skeptic would laugh at all of this. Better bass? Excuse me, but the Krell and the Technics are both ruler flat to 20 Hz or below. You're hearing a difference? Better dynamics? Yeah, maybe on paper the Krell's D/A ekes out a few extra dB in signal to noise, but get real."... ...."I don't know. Maybe I'm imagining the differences. Or maybe the professor's right... maybe things in audio are more complicated than they seem at first. For example, I think I'm hearing better performance in the bass, but not necessarily better frequency response. Maybe the improvement I'm hearing isn't related to frequency response per se, but to better behavior with musical material, which is very dynamic. Better transient response, perhaps. Maybe."... ....In a way, I don't care. If it's a delusion, it's a harmless one, and extremely pleasant. I was feeling pretty jaded about the audio scene. Suddenly, I'm having a lot of fun with it." http://www.audiophile.nu/cgi-bin/gen...lighten-up-001 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Chelvam" wrote in message
... Before owning a Krell:- "I'm an engineer. To be quite honest, my view has been that digital audio was a solved problem. Any competent designer can build a CD player, with inexpensive, off-the-shelf parts, and get a result that's close to perfection. It's not an art, it's not a religion--it's science and engineering. Some of the high-end CD rigs probably do sound different--but only because they're playing games with frequency response. Different, not better. Less accurate, not more accurate."....... ...."That's why I'd been hanging on to my very competently designed, very well made, and very good sounding Technics player. The guys in the local audiophile club weren't impressed, but I held my ground. "It's a solved problem. All competent designs are going to sound the same. You want to spend ten times the money for an incompetent design that's nothing more than a tone control, that's your problem. Just don't try to pretend it's more accurate." ...... And after having Krell:- ...."Now a skeptic would laugh at all of this. Better bass? Excuse me, but the Krell and the Technics are both ruler flat to 20 Hz or below. You're hearing a difference? Better dynamics? Yeah, maybe on paper the Krell's D/A ekes out a few extra dB in signal to noise, but get real."... ..."I don't know. Maybe I'm imagining the differences. Or maybe the professor's right... maybe things in audio are more complicated than they seem at first. For example, I think I'm hearing better performance in the bass, but not necessarily better frequency response. Maybe the improvement I'm hearing isn't related to frequency response per se, but to better behavior with musical material, which is very dynamic. Better transient response, perhaps. Maybe."... ...In a way, I don't care. If it's a delusion, it's a harmless one, and extremely pleasant. I was feeling pretty jaded about the audio scene. Suddenly, I'm having a lot of fun with it." I am happy for you. Just touching, feeling, seeing the Krell is a wonderful thing. It is a masterpiece, no doubt about it. Pride of ownership surely counts for something. I _really_wish I could afford one. Till then, the Technics will have to do, but I still have happy ears, even if the aestetics are not there! Without a doubt, the Technics is one compentent cd player, even if it is 14 years old. Sorta like good vino - it just gets better with time. Regards, Tom |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Chelvam" wrote: Before owning a Krell:- [silly audiophile wish fulfillment fiction snipped] And after having Krell:- [more silly fiction snipped] http://www.audiophile.nu/cgi-bin/gen...lighten-up-001 You are aware this is a work of fiction, right? It says so on that very page. Up at the top: "It's an elaborate, highly-embellished, free improvisation based very loosely on a few kernels of fact..." I cannot do anything but agree. -- Tim |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Chelvam" wrote in message
... ...In a way, I don't care. If it's a delusion, it's a harmless one, and extremely pleasant. I was feeling pretty jaded about the audio scene. Suddenly, I'm having a lot of fun with it." Nothin' wrong with that attitude, as long as you're willing to spend money on something that might be an illusion (NOT a delusion, by the way). Personally, I'd rather have fun with things I knew weren't illusions. To each his own. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/g...ave/direct/01/ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Timothy A. Seufert" wrote in message
... In article , "Chelvam" wrote: Before owning a Krell:- [silly audiophile wish fulfillment fiction snipped] And after having Krell:- [more silly fiction snipped] http://www.audiophile.nu/cgi-bin/gen...lighten-up-001 You are aware this is a work of fiction, right? It says so on that very page. Up at the top: "It's an elaborate, highly-embellished, free improvisation based very loosely on a few kernels of fact..." You said it all. A fiction based on "a few kernels of fact". Anyway, the fault was on my part for not making it clear. Just forgot to paste the intro after the link. But RAHE is slowing down alot and I thought I could just provide some humour... Cheers. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Marcus" wrote Nothin' wrong with that attitude,
as long as you're willing to spend money on something that might be an illusion (NOT a delusion, by the way). Personally, I'd rather have fun with things I knew weren't illusions. To each his own. I've always thought of home audio as a means of creating an illusion. However that can be made to happen is good, even if it unfortunately involves spending money. Wylie Williams |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Um - I'm still holding on to an ancient Revox CD player because I like
the sound of it. My guess is that it's almost totally due to the way the analog output section is implemented and almost nothing to do with the digital. Yes, I've tried newer boxes including a DVD player. The bass from all the others simply wasn't as convincing, and the treble sounded harsher. That, of course, is my opinion and not demonstrable fact. I'm basing my opinion on the fact that Revox knows a LOT about analog outputs and many of the digital guys don't - or don't want to spend the money. So, whether the article is fact or fiction, I've heard different sounds in single blind testing. -- Bob T. Timothy A. Seufert wrote: In article , "Chelvam" wrote: Before owning a Krell:- [silly audiophile wish fulfillment fiction snipped] And after having Krell:- [more silly fiction snipped] http://www.audiophile.nu/cgi-bin/gen...lighten-up-001 You are aware this is a work of fiction, right? It says so on that very page. Up at the top: "It's an elaborate, highly-embellished, free improvisation based very loosely on a few kernels of fact..." I cannot do anything but agree. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Wylie Williams wrote:
"Bob Marcus" wrote Nothin' wrong with that attitude, as long as you're willing to spend money on something that might be an illusion (NOT a delusion, by the way). Personally, I'd rather have fun with things I knew weren't illusions. To each his own. I've always thought of home audio as a means of creating an illusion. However that can be made to happen is good, even if it unfortunately involves spending money. Wylie Williams I would think that would be much more so in home theater, but purists tend to stick to stereo for creating a realistic interpretation. CD |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 15:04:44 +0000, Wylie Williams wrote:
"Bob Marcus" wrote Nothin' wrong with that attitude, as long as you're willing to spend money on something that might be an illusion (NOT a delusion, by the way). Personally, I'd rather have fun with things I knew weren't illusions. To each his own. I've always thought of home audio as a means of creating an illusion. However that can be made to happen is good, even if it unfortunately involves spending money. Wylie Williams ________________________________________________ Wylie... It is all about an "illusion"...when the sound gets to your mental processes it enters the world of a recreation of an event. Unfortunately, we have some that think this is a bad thing and continue to engineer a "fix" for this imagined problem. All variations from a "known" get thrown into the "bias" box...or the "illusion" corner! Never once understanding the variables involved in these "illusion" issues..they can't be numericalized in a handy fashion for the "cult of numbers" group. Admitting this factor is not understood, it is a "no-no" for this mindset! Pity. Note also, we are working ourselves toward some kind of 10-channel mismash! Some of the current magazines that have "many pictures" have already started the march toward more channels, speakers and equipment...who needs this? I would think perhaps some manufacturers, over a few drinks at some event, keep hinting at "more, more, more". Read some of the editorials and technical comments... ...certain participants on this forum have already began the chant.."more, more, more". Never mind that multi-channel (5) is already unnatural...I rarely sit in the middle of a musical event! But, then "natural" belongs in the "bias box". Hmmm! Our ole Capitalistic system will allow for some unbridled excesses unless the buyer says.. .."..enough already"! We watch the quality drop as we are pushed toward 15 wireless speakers with built-in amps. Will it never end? Its coming!! You will be told how good these built-in amps are..further degradation of this audio hobby of ours. They must be built to a price...and on it goes. Quality? Leonard... |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On 13 Sep 2004 23:42:54 GMT, lcw999 wrote:
Never mind that multi-channel (5) is already unnatural...I rarely sit in the middle of a musical event! But, then "natural" belongs in the "bias box". Hmmm! That's a very common misconception, aided by the several '5.1' music tracks which do indeed use this unnatural balance. Find a *properly* recorded multi-channel disc however, where the surround channels are used to add the reverberent sound of a live concert location, and you have a definite leap forward in fidelity compared to 2-channel. We watch the quality drop as we are pushed toward 15 wireless speakers with built-in amps. Will it never end? Its coming!! You will be told how good these built-in amps are..further degradation of this audio hobby of ours. They must be built to a price...and on it goes. Quality? There is no reason why active speakers have to be 'built to a price', especially since most pro-audio monitors are already active, and we have genuine 'high-end' companies like Meridian already offering fuully active 7.1 channel solutions of exceptional quality. Are you suggesting that the ATC SCM300 is a poor quality active speaker? If you're referring to 'HT in a box' solutions - well, we've *always* had cheap and cheerful mass-market music centres, going right back to the legendary Dansette. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
lcw999 wrote:
It is all about an "illusion"...when the sound gets to your mental processes it enters the world of a recreation of an event. Unfortunately, we have some that think this is a bad thing and continue to engineer a "fix" for this imagined problem. All variations from a "known" get thrown into the "bias" box...or the "illusion" corner! Never once understanding the variables involved in these "illusion" issues..they can't be numericalized in a handy fashion for the "cult of numbers" group. Admitting this factor is not understood, it is a "no-no" for this mindset! Pity. Even when I agree with everything you say below, Leonard, I cannot share your opinion on the above. The problem with the illusions is, they do not last. So even when you perceived an amplifier sounding "better" than another (which was actually sounding identical), sooner or later the truth will pop-up in your mind when you do the comparison again, or hear somebody elses gear. So it is better to keep away from open mindedness and tell yourself again and again those beliefs, maybe you can manage, but I doubt. Note also, we are working ourselves toward some kind of 10-channel mismash! Some of the current magazines that have "many pictures" have already started the march toward more channels, speakers and equipment...who needs this? I would think perhaps some manufacturers, over a few drinks at some event, keep hinting at "more, more, more". Read some of the editorials and technical comments... ...certain participants on this forum have already began the chant.."more, more, more". Never mind that multi-channel (5) is already unnatural...I rarely sit in the middle of a musical event! But, then "natural" belongs in the "bias box". Hmmm! Our ole Capitalistic system will allow for some unbridled excesses unless the buyer says.. .."..enough already"! We watch the quality drop as we are pushed toward 15 wireless speakers with built-in amps. Will it never end? Its coming!! You will be told how good these built-in amps are..further degradation of this audio hobby of ours. They must be built to a price...and on it goes. Quality? Leonard... Happy listening! -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Reading these posts I have grow confused over who is referring to
delusions versus illusions, or is for or against either, but it probably doesn't matter. The semantics are always an obstacle. Let me put it this way: if you have recreated the sound of a live musical performance from a stereo system it must be an illusion because it can't be the real thing. The actual performance happened in another time and place. So, given my definition, I don't see the word illusion as a pejorative term. Wylie Williams |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Wylie Williams wrote:
Reading these posts I have grow confused over who is referring to delusions versus illusions, or is for or against either, but it probably doesn't matter. The semantics are always an obstacle. Let me put it this way: if you have recreated the sound of a live musical performance from a stereo system it must be an illusion because it can't be the real thing. The actual performance happened in another time and place. So, given my definition, I don't see the word illusion as a pejorative term. Wylie Williams I think of it as a realistic interpretation of the reality CD |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:23:58 +0000, Ban wrote:
lcw999 wrote: It is all about an "illusion"...when the sound gets to your mental processes it enters the world of a recreation of an event. Unfortunately, we have some that think this is a bad thing and continue to engineer a "fix" for this imagined problem. All variations from a "known" get thrown into the "bias" box...or the "illusion" corner! Never once understanding the variables involved in these "illusion" issues..they can't be numericalized in a handy fashion for the "cult of numbers" group. Admitting this factor is not understood, it is a "no-no" for this mindset! Pity. Even when I agree with everything you say below, Leonard, I cannot share your opinion on the above. The problem with the illusions is, they do not last. So even when you perceived an amplifier sounding "better" than another (which was actually sounding identical), sooner or later the truth will pop-up in your mind when you do the comparison again, or hear somebody elses gear. So it is better to keep away from open mindedness and tell yourself again and again those beliefs, maybe you can manage, but I doubt. Granted...the issue with "illusions" is that they do not last! Mother nature has blessed us with mental processes that are dictated by certain "chemical" processes in the brain that continually varies the "results". In fact, the times you just really don't want to hear your system play anything is due to this "chemical" variations that we all have...the mental processes are not consistent.. which leads to certain types within our midst attempting to "numericalize" things to somehow make all things consistent..but, "mother nature" has blessed us with a variable mental process that really vary the "illusion". We all suffer this variability...one cannot pick and choose and dump unacceptables into a "bias-box"...Individuals with rather rigid formal training that is outdated have difficulty in these mental variation factors. They are not trained in a discipline that is still not well grasped at this point in time...even by those that spend their career in these disciplines. Those that see consistency in the front end of the audio chain are deceiving themselves that this represents what is interpreted in the ear-brain process... ...this represents another domain...simplistic efforts to dump all unexplained mental process into a "bias-bucket" won't work. This was one of my points. We have to work with all the flaws of the unpredictable mental processes we are endowed with. One cannot tell another individual with different mental processes what he can or cannot hear. That he started out with a linear device does not mean any two individuals will interpret it the same. Sorry! The "illusion" does change..sorry about the variability! It can come back to where it was in the past..as your memory recalls it..assuming a lot of other variables are in place. Leonard... Note also, we are working ourselves toward some kind of 10-channel mismash! Some of the current magazines that have "many pictures" have already started the march toward more channels, speakers and equipment...who needs this? I would think perhaps some manufacturers, over a few drinks at some event, keep hinting at "more, more, more". Read some of the editorials and technical comments... ...certain participants on this forum have already began the chant.."more, more, more". Never mind that multi-channel (5) is already unnatural...I rarely sit in the middle of a musical event! But, then "natural" belongs in the "bias box". Hmmm! Our ole Capitalistic system will allow for some unbridled excesses unless the buyer says.. .."..enough already"! We watch the quality drop as we are pushed toward 15 wireless speakers with built-in amps. Will it never end? Its coming!! You will be told how good these built-in amps are..further degradation of this audio hobby of ours. They must be built to a price...and on it goes. Quality? Leonard... Happy listening! |