[Gerard[_3_]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article e.nl,
"Gerard" wrote:

gjsmo wrote:
On Oct 20, 3:21 am, "Gerard"
wrote:
gjsmo wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:06 pm, RichD wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones

Seems pricey to me.
Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?

--
Rich

Not really. I just bought (just received them today,
actually) a pair of Shure SRH-840s. They sound AMAZING, much
more balanced than any headphones I've ever had before. I've
had probably something from every style under $100 MSRP (not
counting ridiculous Amazon discounts), but these were $200
($130 on Amazon). I'm hearing stuff I've never heard before,
no exaggerated bass, mids OR highs, and they are overall MUCH
clearer than other stuff. I'm a young audiophile (I'm 16), and
still learning,

But you already had dozens of headphones?

Low build quality. I didn't say dozens... I'm probably used about
15, maybe 20 different pairs.

You suggest *many* more by writing "They sound AMAZING, much more
balanced than
any headphones I've ever had before.".
(Which is actually not saying much.)

gjsmo is invited to join the multitudes who have learned to ignore
Gerard.


Obviously you have learned nothing.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article e.nl,
"Gerard" wrote:

gjsmo wrote:
On Oct 20, 3:21 am, "Gerard" wrote:
gjsmo wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:06 pm, RichD wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones

Seems pricey to me.
Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?

--
Rich

Not really. I just bought (just received them today, actually) a
pair of Shure SRH-840s. They sound AMAZING, much more balanced
than any headphones I've ever had before. I've had probably
something from every style under $100 MSRP (not counting
ridiculous Amazon discounts), but these were $200 ($130 on
Amazon). I'm hearing stuff I've never heard before, no
exaggerated bass, mids OR highs, and they are overall MUCH
clearer than other stuff. I'm a young audiophile (I'm 16), and
still learning,

Audiophile 16 years old? Yup, you are still learning, big time!

But you already had dozens of headphones?

Low build quality. I didn't say dozens... I'm probably used about 15,
maybe 20 different pairs.

You suggest *many* more by writing "They sound AMAZING, much more
balanced
than
any headphones I've ever had before.".
(Which is actually not saying much.)

gjsmo is invited to join the multitudes who have learned to ignore
Gerard.

Or not. He raises the usual valid questions about casual subjective
evaluations, particularly those done on equipment they just purchased.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"wkasimer" wrote in message
...
On Oct 19, 12:06 pm, RichD wrote:

Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?

FWIW, these were among Stereophile's top choices in their list of
recommended components for 2011:

http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/he...56f/index.html

The other choices in their class were priced in the stratosphere.

ATH-AD700...


I had a pair of ATH-AD700 open air 'phones, maybe they are still someplace
around the house. They turn out to be very fragile. Mine were glued together
in many places which also means that I liked them and wore them a lot.

About the same time I purchased a pair of Audio Technica ATH-A700 Headphones
that being closed, had better bass and were also far more durable. Above 1
KHz they weren't that much different.

[wkasimer]

On Oct 20, 10:05*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

About the same time I purchased a pair of Audio Technica ATH-A700 Headphones
that being closed, had better bass and were also far more durable. Above 1
KHz they weren't that much different.

How were they in terms of comfort? I've been looking for a decent
pair of closed headphones for a while.

Bill

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article e.nl,
"Gerard" wrote:

gjsmo wrote:
On Oct 20, 3:21 am, "Gerard" wrote:
gjsmo wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:06 pm, RichD wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones

Seems pricey to me.
Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?

--
Rich

Not really. I just bought (just received them today, actually) a
pair of Shure SRH-840s. They sound AMAZING, much more balanced
than any headphones I've ever had before. I've had probably
something from every style under $100 MSRP (not counting
ridiculous Amazon discounts), but these were $200 ($130 on
Amazon). I'm hearing stuff I've never heard before, no
exaggerated bass, mids OR highs, and they are overall MUCH
clearer than other stuff. I'm a young audiophile (I'm 16), and
still learning,

Audiophile 16 years old? Yup, you are still learning, big time!

But you already had dozens of headphones?

Low build quality. I didn't say dozens... I'm probably used about 15,
maybe 20 different pairs.

You suggest *many* more by writing "They sound AMAZING, much more
balanced
than
any headphones I've ever had before.".
(Which is actually not saying much.)

gjsmo is invited to join the multitudes who have learned to ignore
Gerard.

Or not. He raises the usual valid questions about casual subjective
evaluations, particularly those done on equipment they just purchased.

No, he's nit-picking pointlessly as is his usual history.

Headphones are complicated to evaluate due to individual heads and ears,
etc, necessitating a higher level of subjectivity. For instance, I enjoy
my Grado 80s for casual listening while you have expressed distaste for
that model.

rec.audio.pro (including Arny's contributions) is a good read if gjsmo
wants to learn how those who work with sound make purchasing decisions.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Kirk McElhearn" kirkmc (at) mac (dot) com wrote in message
. fr...
How important is a dedicated headphone amp? My current cans are
Beyerdynamic DT 990, which are very nice, but I wonder how much better
they'd sound with a headphone amp. (I use a Cambridge Audio Sonata
receivere in my office, where I do most of my listening.)

Any recommendations for an affordable headphone amp?


The major benefit of a dedicated headphone amp comes when you replace a high
source impedance with a low source impedance.

The source impedance of a headphone jack in a receiver can be either high or
low. If it is high then any reasonable headphone amp with a low source
impedance can provide a worthwhile improvement in sound quality. If it is
already low, then finding an improvement is far more difficult.

I use a FIIO E5 headphone amp in those situations where the source impedance
or maximum output level of the source of an existing headphone jack is not
suitable. About $20, but requires a USB power source which may be an
inexpensive USB wall wart and cable.

http://www.amazon.com/FiiO-E5-Headph.../dp/B001P9EQH8

http://www.amazon.com/RIM-ASY-24479-.../dp/B003XKJ47E

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article e.nl,
"Gerard" wrote:

gjsmo wrote:
On Oct 20, 3:21 am, "Gerard"
wrote:
gjsmo wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:06 pm, RichD wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones

Seems pricey to me.
Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?

--
Rich

Not really. I just bought (just received them today, actually) a
pair of Shure SRH-840s. They sound AMAZING, much more balanced
than any headphones I've ever had before. I've had probably
something from every style under $100 MSRP (not counting
ridiculous Amazon discounts), but these were $200 ($130 on
Amazon). I'm hearing stuff I've never heard before, no
exaggerated bass, mids OR highs, and they are overall MUCH
clearer than other stuff. I'm a young audiophile (I'm 16), and
still learning,

Audiophile 16 years old? Yup, you are still learning, big time!

But you already had dozens of headphones?

Low build quality. I didn't say dozens... I'm probably used about
15,
maybe 20 different pairs.

You suggest *many* more by writing "They sound AMAZING, much more
balanced than any headphones I've ever had before.".
(Which is actually not saying much.)

gjsmo is invited to join the multitudes who have learned to ignore
Gerard.

Or not. He raises the usual valid questions about casual subjective
evaluations, particularly those done on equipment they just purchased.

No, he's nit-picking pointlessly as is his usual history.

That comment seems to confuse personal perceptions about someones past
posting history (IOW, personal prejudice) with the validity of a post that
seems to be very reasonable.

Headphones are complicated to evaluate due to individual heads and ears,
etc, necessitating a higher level of subjectivity.

Back in the real world, neither of us are 16 year olds or beginning
audiophiles. I hope that we both understand the effects of decades of
experience have on our renditions of our subjective impressions.

For instance, I enjoy
my Grado 80s for casual listening while you have expressed distaste for
that model.

It would appear that history is on my side because the manufacturer of that
product has just lately vastly improved it, if the recent comments of Mr.
Dorsey (a generally reliable and highly experienced source) are to be taken
seriously.

The Grado site says the following:

"What does the i stand for in the new SR80i from Grado? Improved, that's
what! Built on the same features as theSR60i, but SR80i utilizes a 4
conductor connecting cable and the diaphragms are put through a special
'de-stressing' process in order to enhance inner detail, the result of which
gives a more open stage. The new SR80i has an upgraded driver design, and
they have enlarged and improved the mass distribution in the plastic
housing. The way the SR80i's new driver and plastic housing move air and
react to sound vibrations are now less affected by transient distortions.
The SR80 provides an improved bass resonance, which enhances the overall
detail. With the SR80i you will notice improved control of the upper and
lower range of the frequency spectrum with both better supporting Grado's
world renowned midrange. The SR80i will produce a sound that is pure Grado,
warm harmonic color, rich full bodied vocals, excellent dynamics and an
ultra smooth top end. Listen and Enjoy!"

Like Scott, Grado themselves seem to be supporting the idea that they have
felt the need to significantly upgrade the version of the SR 80s that I
auditioned maybe a decade ago.

rec.audio.pro (including Arny's contributions) is a good read if gjsmo
wants to learn how those who work with sound make purchasing decisions.

Right, but one needs to consider the source and the tone of the comments.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"wkasimer" wrote in message
...
On Oct 20, 10:05 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

About the same time I purchased a pair of Audio Technica ATH-A700
Headphones
that being closed, had better bass and were also far more durable. Above
1
KHz they weren't that much different.

How were they in terms of comfort? I've been looking for a decent pair of
closed headphones for a while.

I found the ATH-A700s to be very comfortable. Their earpads are not tight or
constricting and don't become clammy or press tightly on the side of the
head. Of course this tends to put their bass performance intermediate
between say HD 280s and ATH-AD700s. For about $100 they are worth a try.

[gjsmo]

On Oct 20, 9:11*am, "Gerard" wrote:
gjsmo wrote:
On Oct 20, 3:21 am, "Gerard" wrote:
gjsmo wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:06 pm, RichD wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones

Seems pricey to me.
Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?

--
Rich

Not really. I just bought (just received them today, actually) a
pair of Shure SRH-840s. They sound AMAZING, much more balanced
than any headphones I've ever had before. I've had probably
something from every style under $100 MSRP (not counting
ridiculous Amazon discounts), but these were $200 ($130 on
Amazon). I'm hearing stuff I've never heard before, no
exaggerated bass, mids OR highs, and they are overall MUCH
clearer than other stuff. I'm a young audiophile (I'm 16), and
still learning,

But you already had dozens of headphones?

Low build quality. I didn't say dozens... I'm probably used about 15,
maybe 20 different pairs.

You suggest *many* more by writing "They sound AMAZING, much more balanced than
any headphones I've ever had before.".
(Which is actually not saying much.)

And I can afford about three - I was basically picking between these,
ATH-M50s or HD-280s. I am, as oxymoronic as it may sound, a budget
audiophile. I like good sound, but I usually can't afford it.

MiNe, I've been looking at rec.audio.pro for quite a while now. Not
quite a year.

[Norman Schwartz]

"Arny Krueger" wrote Seems pricey to me.

Back in the real world, neither of us are 16 year olds or beginning
audiophiles. I hope that we both understand the effects of decades of
experience have on our renditions of our subjective impressions.

And along with that go the effects of decades of hearing loss.........

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Norman Schwartz" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote Seems pricey to
me.

Back in the real world, neither of us are 16 year olds or beginning
audiophiles. I hope that we both understand the effects of decades of
experience have on our renditions of our subjective impressions.

And along with that go the effects of decades of hearing loss.........

In this day and age, seems like every 20 year old has them...

I've taken pretty good care of my ears and can hear far better than many
people who are decades my junior, particularly musicians.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article e.nl,
"Gerard" wrote:

gjsmo wrote:
On Oct 20, 3:21 am, "Gerard"
wrote:
gjsmo wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:06 pm, RichD wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones

Seems pricey to me.
Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?

--
Rich

Not really. I just bought (just received them today, actually) a
pair of Shure SRH-840s. They sound AMAZING, much more balanced
than any headphones I've ever had before. I've had probably
something from every style under $100 MSRP (not counting
ridiculous Amazon discounts), but these were $200 ($130 on
Amazon). I'm hearing stuff I've never heard before, no
exaggerated bass, mids OR highs, and they are overall MUCH
clearer than other stuff. I'm a young audiophile (I'm 16), and
still learning,

Audiophile 16 years old? Yup, you are still learning, big time!

But you already had dozens of headphones?

Low build quality. I didn't say dozens... I'm probably used about
15,
maybe 20 different pairs.

You suggest *many* more by writing "They sound AMAZING, much more
balanced than any headphones I've ever had before.".
(Which is actually not saying much.)

gjsmo is invited to join the multitudes who have learned to ignore
Gerard.

Or not. He raises the usual valid questions about casual subjective
evaluations, particularly those done on equipment they just purchased.

No, he's nit-picking pointlessly as is his usual history.

That comment seems to confuse personal perceptions about someones past
posting history (IOW, personal prejudice) with the validity of a post that
seems to be very reasonable.

I prefer to call it experience. Calling it prejudice seems prejudicial.

Arguing whether "15, maybe 20" falls short of the number Gerard expects
is definitely nitpicking.

Headphones are complicated to evaluate due to individual heads and ears,
etc, necessitating a higher level of subjectivity.

Back in the real world, neither of us are 16 year olds or beginning
audiophiles. I hope that we both understand the effects of decades of
experience have on our renditions of our subjective impressions.

Me, too.

For instance, I enjoy
my Grado 80s for casual listening while you have expressed distaste for
that model.

It would appear that history is on my side because the manufacturer of that
product has just lately vastly improved it, if the recent comments of Mr.
Dorsey (a generally reliable and highly experienced source) are to be taken
seriously.

Interesting, but does not show history is on your side. Many worthwhile
products are improved upon after introduction.

The Grado site says the following:

"What does the i stand for in the new SR80i from Grado? Improved, that's
what! Built on the same features as theSR60i, but SR80i utilizes a 4
conductor connecting cable and the diaphragms are put through a special
'de-stressing' process in order to enhance inner detail, the result of which
gives a more open stage. The new SR80i has an upgraded driver design, and
they have enlarged and improved the mass distribution in the plastic
housing. The way the SR80i's new driver and plastic housing move air and
react to sound vibrations are now less affected by transient distortions.
The SR80 provides an improved bass resonance, which enhances the overall
detail. With the SR80i you will notice improved control of the upper and
lower range of the frequency spectrum with both better supporting Grado's
world renowned midrange. The SR80i will produce a sound that is pure Grado,
warm harmonic color, rich full bodied vocals, excellent dynamics and an
ultra smooth top end. Listen and Enjoy!"

Like Scott, Grado themselves seem to be supporting the idea that they have
felt the need to significantly upgrade the version of the SR 80s that I
auditioned maybe a decade ago.

I'm sure Grado stood behind both the old and new versions. For all I
know, the 80 is just a 60 with better test specs for, say, driver
matching and it was the 60 that needed improving. Or maybe the line is
built on common components that became unavailable necessitating a
redesign.

It's amusing to see you appear to endorse a mysterious cable
"'destressing' process" that enhances "inner detail!" Distinguishing
that kind of ad copy from the more credible claims is the kind of wisdom
our 16-year-old should hope to learn from observation.

OTOH, if de-stressing keeps the wires from twisting up, I'm for it.

rec.audio.pro (including Arny's contributions) is a good read if gjsmo
wants to learn how those who work with sound make purchasing decisions.

Right, but one needs to consider the source and the tone of the comments.

Indeed.

Stephen

[Gerard[_4_]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article
e.nl,
"Gerard" wrote:

gjsmo wrote:
On Oct 20, 3:21 am, "Gerard"
wrote:
gjsmo wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:06 pm, RichD
wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones

Seems pricey to me.
Is it necessary to spend this much, for good
headphones?

--
Rich

Not really. I just bought (just received them today,
actually) a pair of Shure SRH-840s. They sound
AMAZING, much more balanced than any headphones I've
ever had before. I've had probably something from
every style under $100 MSRP (not counting ridiculous
Amazon discounts), but these were $200 ($130 on
Amazon). I'm hearing stuff I've never heard before,
no exaggerated bass, mids OR highs, and they are
overall MUCH clearer than other stuff. I'm a young
audiophile (I'm 16), and still learning,

Audiophile 16 years old? Yup, you are still learning, big time!

But you already had dozens of headphones?

Low build quality. I didn't say dozens... I'm probably
used about 15,
maybe 20 different pairs.

You suggest *many* more by writing "They sound AMAZING,
much more balanced than any headphones I've ever had
before.". (Which is actually not saying much.)

gjsmo is invited to join the multitudes who have learned to
ignore Gerard.

Or not. He raises the usual valid questions about casual
subjective evaluations, particularly those done on equipment
they just purchased.

No, he's nit-picking pointlessly as is his usual history.

That comment seems to confuse personal perceptions about someones
past posting history (IOW, personal prejudice) with the validity of
a post that seems to be very reasonable.

I prefer to call it experience. Calling it prejudice seems
prejudicial.

Arguing whether "15, maybe 20" falls short of the number Gerard
expects is definitely nitpicking.

Definitely not.
Last time I went to a store to buy headphones, they had a choice of much more
than 50 different types; I think it was close to 100.
And saying "much more balanced than any headphones I've ever had before" does
not give any information. It could have been 5, or 10, or 15, or whatever.
The nitpicking is definitely yours. Just for the case of nitpicking.

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Thu 2011-Oct-20 12:15, Kirk McElhearn writes:
How important is a dedicated headphone amp? My current cans are
Beyerdynamic DT 990, which are very nice, but I wonder how much
better they'd sound with a headphone amp. (I use a Cambridge Audio
Sonata receivere in my office, where I do most of my listening.)

FOr your application a headphone amp isn't going to buy you
anything for the money you'd spend imho.

HEadphone amps are mainly useful when you're trying to
distribute signal to more than one pair of phones, as in
tracking sessions at a recording studio.

Regards,
Richard
.... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[gjsmo]

On Oct 20, 5:10*pm, "Gerard" wrote:
MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
*"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article
e.nl,
"Gerard" wrote:

gjsmo wrote:
On Oct 20, 3:21 am, "Gerard"
wrote:
gjsmo wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:06 pm, RichD
wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones

Seems pricey to me.
Is it necessary to spend this much, for good
headphones?

--
Rich

Not really. I just bought (just received them today,
actually) a pair of Shure SRH-840s. They sound
AMAZING, much more balanced than any headphones I've
ever had before. I've had probably something from
every style under $100 MSRP (not counting ridiculous
Amazon discounts), but these were $200 ($130 on
Amazon). I'm hearing stuff I've never heard before,
no exaggerated bass, mids OR highs, and they are
overall MUCH clearer than other stuff. I'm a young
audiophile (I'm 16), and still learning,

Audiophile 16 years old? Yup, you are still learning, big time!

But you already had dozens of headphones?

Low build quality. I didn't say dozens... I'm probably
used about 15,
maybe 20 different pairs.

You suggest *many* more by writing "They sound AMAZING,
much more balanced *than *any headphones I've ever had
before.". (Which is actually not saying much.)

gjsmo is invited to join the multitudes who have learned to
ignore Gerard.

Or not. He raises the usual valid questions about casual
subjective evaluations, particularly those done on equipment
they just purchased.

No, he's nit-picking pointlessly as is his usual history.

That comment seems to confuse personal perceptions about someones
past posting history (IOW, personal prejudice) with the validity of
a post that seems to be very reasonable.

I prefer to call it experience. Calling it prejudice seems
prejudicial.

Arguing whether "15, maybe 20" falls short of the number Gerard
expects is definitely nitpicking.

Definitely not.
Last time I went to a store to buy headphones, they had a choice of much more
than 50 different types; I think it was close to 100.
And saying "much more balanced than any headphones I've ever had before" does
not give any information. It could have been 5, or 10, or 15, or whatever..
The nitpicking is definitely yours. Just for the case of nitpicking.

Well I didn't have that choice. I had 3 headphones in my price range
which fit my needs (around $100 to $200, studio/flattish over-the-ear,
closed-back/isolation cans), and I picked one. Before, I've always
wanted good sound quality (not over-bassy, not muddy), and good
isolation (either silicone earbuds or isolation phones). My budget was
also around $30-$50, and I kept breaking them, so I tried new ones
every 4 or 5 months. But there's still not any 50 or 100 phones in
that range.
And "much more balanced" DOES give quite a bit of information. That
is, they are far superior to any consumer-grade headphone I've had
before, particularly in frequency response.
I'm also not nitpicking. I made general statements, which you found
small flaws in. Riddle me this, Gerard: When did I question ANYONE
else's statements or judgements, and when did I nitpick?

[gjsmo]

On Oct 20, 4:54*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
*"Arny Krueger" wrote:









"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article e.nl,
"Gerard" wrote:

gjsmo wrote:
On Oct 20, 3:21 am, "Gerard"
wrote:
gjsmo wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:06 pm, RichD wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones

Seems pricey to me.
Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?

--
Rich

Not really. I just bought (just received them today, actually) a
pair of Shure SRH-840s. They sound AMAZING, much more balanced
than any headphones I've ever had before. I've had probably
something from every style under $100 MSRP (not counting
ridiculous Amazon discounts), but these were $200 ($130 on
Amazon). I'm hearing stuff I've never heard before, no
exaggerated bass, mids OR highs, and they are overall MUCH
clearer than other stuff. I'm a young audiophile (I'm 16), and
still learning,

Audiophile 16 years old? Yup, you are still learning, big time!

But you already had dozens of headphones?

Low build quality. I didn't say dozens... I'm probably used about
15,
maybe 20 different pairs.

You suggest *many* more by writing "They sound AMAZING, much more
balanced *than *any headphones I've ever had before.".
(Which is actually not saying much.)

gjsmo is invited to join the multitudes who have learned to ignore
Gerard.

Or not. He raises the usual valid questions about casual subjective
evaluations, particularly those done on equipment they just purchased.

No, he's nit-picking pointlessly as is his usual history.

That comment seems to confuse personal perceptions about someones past
posting history (IOW, personal prejudice) with the validity of a post that
seems to be very reasonable.

I prefer to call it experience. Calling it prejudice seems prejudicial.

Arguing whether "15, maybe 20" falls short of the number Gerard expects
is definitely nitpicking.

Headphones are complicated to evaluate due to individual heads and ears,
etc, necessitating a higher level of subjectivity.

Back in the real world, neither of us are 16 year olds or beginning
audiophiles. I hope that we both understand the effects of decades of
experience have on our renditions of our subjective impressions.

Me, too.

*For instance, I enjoy
my Grado 80s for casual listening while you have expressed distaste for
that model.

It would appear that history is on my side because the manufacturer of that
product has just lately vastly improved it, if the recent comments of *Mr.
Dorsey (a generally reliable and highly experienced source) are to be taken
seriously.

Interesting, but does not show history is on your side. Many worthwhile
products are improved upon after introduction.









The Grado site says the following:

"What does the i stand for in the new SR80i from Grado? Improved, that's
what! Built on the same features as theSR60i, but SR80i utilizes a 4
conductor connecting cable and the diaphragms are put through a special
'de-stressing' process in order to enhance inner detail, the result of which
gives a more open stage. The new SR80i has an upgraded driver design, and
they have enlarged and improved the mass distribution in the plastic
housing. The way the SR80i's new driver and plastic housing move air and
react to sound vibrations are now less affected by transient distortions.
The SR80 provides an improved bass resonance, which enhances the overall
detail. With the SR80i you will notice improved control of the upper and
lower range of the frequency spectrum with both better supporting Grado's
world renowned midrange. The SR80i will produce a sound that is pure Grado,
warm harmonic color, rich full bodied vocals, excellent dynamics and an
ultra smooth top end. Listen and Enjoy!"

Like Scott, Grado themselves seem to be supporting the idea that they have
felt the need to significantly upgrade the version of the SR 80s that I
auditioned maybe a decade ago.

I'm sure Grado stood behind both the old and new versions. For all I
know, the 80 is just a 60 with better test specs for, say, driver
matching and it was the 60 that needed improving. Or maybe the line is
built on common components that became unavailable necessitating a
redesign.

It's amusing to see you appear to endorse a mysterious cable
"'destressing' process" that enhances "inner detail!" Distinguishing
that kind of ad copy from the more credible claims is the kind of wisdom
our 16-year-old should hope to learn from observation.

OTOH, if de-stressing keeps the wires from twisting up, I'm for it.

rec.audio.pro (including Arny's contributions) is a good read if gjsmo
wants to learn how those who work with sound make purchasing decisions.

Right, but one needs to consider the source and the tone of the comments.

Indeed.

Stephen

Oh, by the way - I don't believe ANYTHING about claims of better
cables improving sound. In my mind, the following holds true, just
like everywhere else, for audio:
1.) Copper is copper is copper, and it transmits whatever you send
down it. Impurities will present resistance, which (however
negligible), will reduce the conductivity, but not the sound.
2.) Twisted pairs, shielding etc. will improve quality by preventing
crosstalk and keeping out EMI, respectively.
3.) Balanced is better that unbalanced, since the return isn't used
for EMI shielding.

Thus, I don't even pay attention to claims about cables (anyone
remember the debate about "hi-fi" SATA cables with the guy with all
Naim stuff? Malcolm Steward?). However, good design (durable and well-
shielded/braided) will help.

I'm a skeptic. Don't worry about me. I'll figure out what can and
can't work - I DO have Google... and a brain...

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
gjsmo wrote:

I'm a skeptic. Don't worry about me. I'll figure out what can and
can't work - I DO have Google... and a brain...

Good attitude!

Stephen

[Ralph Barone]

In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote:

snip
The Grado site says the following:

"What does the i stand for in the new SR80i from Grado? Improved, that's
what! Built on the same features as theSR60i, but SR80i utilizes a 4
conductor connecting cable and the diaphragms are put through a special
'de-stressing' process in order to enhance inner detail, the result of
which
gives a more open stage. The new SR80i has an upgraded driver design, and
they have enlarged and improved the mass distribution in the plastic
housing. The way the SR80i's new driver and plastic housing move air and
react to sound vibrations are now less affected by transient distortions.
The SR80 provides an improved bass resonance, which enhances the overall
detail. With the SR80i you will notice improved control of the upper and
lower range of the frequency spectrum with both better supporting Grado's
world renowned midrange. The SR80i will produce a sound that is pure Grado,
warm harmonic color, rich full bodied vocals, excellent dynamics and an
ultra smooth top end. Listen and Enjoy!"

Like Scott, Grado themselves seem to be supporting the idea that they have
felt the need to significantly upgrade the version of the SR 80s that I
auditioned maybe a decade ago.

I'm sure Grado stood behind both the old and new versions. For all I
know, the 80 is just a 60 with better test specs for, say, driver
matching and it was the 60 that needed improving. Or maybe the line is
built on common components that became unavailable necessitating a
redesign.

It's amusing to see you appear to endorse a mysterious cable
"'destressing' process" that enhances "inner detail!" Distinguishing
that kind of ad copy from the more credible claims is the kind of wisdom
our 16-year-old should hope to learn from observation.

OTOH, if de-stressing keeps the wires from twisting up, I'm for it.

rec.audio.pro (including Arny's contributions) is a good read if gjsmo
wants to learn how those who work with sound make purchasing decisions.

Right, but one needs to consider the source and the tone of the comments.

Indeed.

Stephen

Stephen, you misread. The diaphragms are put through a special
'de-stressing' process, not the cable. At first glance, that might
serve to improve the sound quality.

[Gerard[_4_]]

gjsmo wrote:

I'm also not nitpicking. I made general statements, which you found
small flaws in. Riddle me this, Gerard: When did I question ANYONE
else's statements or judgements, and when did I nitpick?

I did not write that /you/ are nitpicking.
I used that word in reply to Mine109.

[Rich Grise[_3_]]

Kirk McElhearn kirkmc (at) mac (dot) com wrote:

How important is a dedicated headphone amp? My current cans are
Beyerdynamic DT 990, which are very nice, but I wonder how much better
they'd sound with a headphone amp. (I use a Cambridge Audio Sonata
receivere in my office, where I do most of my listening.)

Any recommendations for an affordable headphone amp?

If you can hear the sound through your phones, then what makes you
think you need an amp?

Thanks,
Rich

[MiNe 109]

In article invalid-ED8056.21160020102011@shawnews,
Ralph Barone wrote:

In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote:

snip

The Grado site says the following:

"...SR80i utilizes a 4
conductor connecting cable and the diaphragms are put through a special
'de-stressing' process in order to enhance inner detail, the result of
which gives a more open stage...Listen and Enjoy!"

It's amusing to see you appear to endorse a mysterious cable
"'destressing' process" that enhances "inner detail!" Distinguishing
that kind of ad copy from the more credible claims is the kind of wisdom
our 16-year-old should hope to learn from observation.

OTOH, if de-stressing keeps the wires from twisting up, I'm for it.

rec.audio.pro (including Arny's contributions) is a good read if gjsmo
wants to learn how those who work with sound make purchasing decisions.

Right, but one needs to consider the source and the tone of the comments.

Indeed.

Stephen

Stephen, you misread. The diaphragms are put through a special
'de-stressing' process, not the cable. At first glance, that might
serve to improve the sound quality.

You're right! I read "cable and diaphragms" etc.

'De-stressing' does sound like 'break-in,' but I have no opinion on that.

Stephen

[Norman Schwartz]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Norman Schwartz" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote Seems pricey to
me.

Back in the real world, neither of us are 16 year olds or beginning
audiophiles. I hope that we both understand the effects of decades of
experience have on our renditions of our subjective impressions.

And along with that go the effects of decades of hearing loss.........

In this day and age, seems like every 20 year old has them...

I've taken pretty good care of my ears and can hear far better than many
people who are decades my junior, particularly musicians.

Unfortunately one's hearing goes to pot just like your hair turns gray, goes
bald or lose your teeth and one needn't have heard a single note for any of
that to happen..

[wkasimer]

On Oct 20, 12:15*pm, Kirk McElhearn kirkmc (at) mac (dot) com wrote:

How important is a dedicated headphone amp? My current cans are
Beyerdynamic DT 990, which are very nice, but I wonder how much better
they'd sound with a headphone amp. (I use a Cambridge Audio Sonata
receivere in my office, where I do most of my listening.)

Any recommendations for an affordable headphone amp?

I have a Creek OBH-11, purchased for about $110 a few years ago. I
also have one of these...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...2_USB_1_1.html

....which I use with my laptop.

Bill

[Allen[_7_]]

snip

Oh, by the way - I don't believe ANYTHING about claims of better
cables improving sound. In my mind, the following holds true, just
like everywhere else, for audio:
1.) Copper is copper is copper, and it transmits whatever you send
down it. Impurities will present resistance, which (however
negligible), will reduce the conductivity, but not the sound.
2.) Twisted pairs, shielding etc. will improve quality by preventing
crosstalk and keeping out EMI, respectively.
3.) Balanced is better that unbalanced, since the return isn't used
for EMI shielding.

Thus, I don't even pay attention to claims about cables (anyone
remember the debate about "hi-fi" SATA cables with the guy with all
Naim stuff? Malcolm Steward?). However, good design (durable and well-
shielded/braided) will help.

I'm a skeptic. Don't worry about me. I'll figure out what can and
can't work - I DO have Google... and a brain...

Don't even think about applying for a job at Best Buy unless you can
erase all traces of this post.
Allen

[Frank Stearns]

gjsmo writes:

snips

Oh, by the way - I don't believe ANYTHING about claims of better
cables improving sound. In my mind, the following holds true, just
like everywhere else, for audio:
1.) Copper is copper is copper, and it transmits whatever you send
down it. Impurities will present resistance, which (however
negligible), will reduce the conductivity, but not the sound.
2.) Twisted pairs, shielding etc. will improve quality by preventing
crosstalk and keeping out EMI, respectively.
3.) Balanced is better that unbalanced, since the return isn't used
for EMI shielding.

Thus, I don't even pay attention to claims about cables (anyone
remember the debate about "hi-fi" SATA cables with the guy with all
Naim stuff? Malcolm Steward?). However, good design (durable and well-
shielded/braided) will help.

I'm a skeptic. Don't worry about me. I'll figure out what can and
can't work - I DO have Google... and a brain...


Excellent places to start, gjsmo, and a good attitude, but a few things to keep in
mind:

- I assume you're talking DC resistance, but don't forget "frequency dependent"
resistance, also known as reactance (capacitive and inductive).

In the real world, *any* circuit element -- wire, resistor, capacitor, inductor, et
al -- will have components of inductance, capacitance, and resistance. And these can
interact in quirky ways.

Whether or not the unwanted parasitic factors and interactions are significant or
not depends on many considerations, including circuit Z, power and bandwidth to be
transferred, and of course the quality of the part (e.g., how much ESR or dielectric
absorption does your electrolytic cap from a Rat Shack grab bag cobbled from old
surplus have compared to a fresh, well-designed cap from a top-line manufacturer?
(Which, BTW, could be hard to get unless you purchase a 1000 pieces or spend a
fortune at an online boutique store.)

And, don't forget diode effects that can arise from corrosion or weird alloys -- or
even a bad connection. Many times I've watched audiophiles have an orgasm switching
a component (interconnect wire, let's say), and saying it was the best thing since
sliced crumpets. But then they put the old thing back in, and it too was suddenly
just as good.

What happened? They cleaned the contacts by making/breaking the connection a few
times!

This of course sets aside the psychological affects of the "ritual of change" or
more commonly, the "second play" effect, where upon the second time though (and
following the change to the New Thing) you've heard the obvious the first time and
are listening in more detail the second time, and perhaps erroneously attributing
that "new" detail to hardware, rather than your re-focused attention.

None of this is to say that different elements don't sound different (indeed some
do), but wild claims are likely just that.

You missed the early debacle of digital audio, wherein it spec'd perfectly (in the
analog domain using overly simplistic test methods) but sounded awful.

Pounded enough from the user side of the audio industry, the design/build side
finally did better quantifying of complaints and discovered the problems with bad
filters, jitter, and a few other things... But at the beginning, the complainers
were blown off as kooks.

Things can "look fine" in terms of a limited scientific view, but zoom out
with a little better science and you might have found something that initially
seemed improbable.


- google is fine, but separating info boon from info bogus can be tedious. Treat
google results with that same skepticism.


See if you can find a basic electricity class at your school or perhaps a junior
college -- one that takes you through the fundamental circuit components and how
they work in DC and AC circuits. It's simple, mostly stupid stuff, but it can serve
you well over time, and expand your horizons in this area.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Michael A. Terrell]

Allen wrote:

Don't even think about applying for a job at Best Buy unless you can
erase all traces of this post.


Why would ANYONE want to work for Best Buy? Or did they turn down
your application?

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

[gjsmo]

On Oct 21, 2:15*pm, Frank Stearns
wrote:
gjsmo writes:

snips









Oh, by the way - I don't believe ANYTHING about claims of better
cables improving sound. In my mind, the following holds true, just
like everywhere else, for audio:
1.) Copper is copper is copper, and it transmits whatever you send
down it. Impurities will present resistance, which (however
negligible), will reduce the conductivity, but not the sound.
2.) Twisted pairs, shielding etc. will improve quality by preventing
crosstalk and keeping out EMI, respectively.
3.) Balanced is better that unbalanced, since the return isn't used
for EMI shielding.
Thus, I don't even pay attention to claims about cables (anyone
remember the debate about "hi-fi" SATA cables with the guy with all
Naim stuff? Malcolm Steward?). However, good design (durable and well-
shielded/braided) will help.
I'm a skeptic. Don't worry about me. I'll figure out what can and
can't work - I DO have Google... and a brain...

Excellent places to start, gjsmo, and a good attitude, but a few things to keep in
mind:

- I assume you're talking DC resistance, but don't forget "frequency dependent"
resistance, also known as reactance (capacitive and inductive).

In the real world, *any* circuit element -- wire, resistor, capacitor, inductor, et
al -- will have components of inductance, capacitance, and resistance. And these can
interact in quirky ways.

Whether or not the unwanted parasitic factors and interactions are significant or
not depends on many considerations, including circuit Z, power and bandwidth to be
transferred, and of course the quality of the part (e.g., how much ESR or dielectric
absorption does your electrolytic cap from a Rat Shack grab bag cobbled from old
surplus have compared to a fresh, well-designed cap from a top-line manufacturer?
(Which, BTW, could be hard to get unless you purchase a 1000 pieces or spend a
fortune at an online boutique store.)

And, don't forget diode effects that can arise from corrosion or weird alloys -- or
even a bad connection. Many times I've watched audiophiles have an orgasm switching
a component (interconnect wire, let's say), and saying it was the best thing since
sliced crumpets. But then they put the old thing back in, and it too was suddenly
just as good.

What happened? They cleaned the contacts by making/breaking the connection a few
times!

This of course sets aside the psychological affects of the "ritual of change" or
more commonly, the "second play" effect, where upon the second time though (and
following the change to the New Thing) you've heard the obvious the first time and
are listening in more detail the second time, and perhaps erroneously attributing
that "new" detail to hardware, rather than your re-focused attention.

None of this is to say that different elements don't sound different (indeed some
do), but wild claims are likely just that.

You missed the early debacle of digital audio, wherein it spec'd perfectly (in the
analog domain using overly simplistic test methods) but sounded awful.

Pounded enough from the user side of the audio industry, the design/build side
finally did better quantifying of complaints and discovered the problems with bad
filters, jitter, and a few other things... But at the beginning, the complainers
were blown off as kooks.

Things can "look fine" in terms of a limited scientific view, but zoom out
with a little better science and you might have found something that initially
seemed improbable.

- google is fine, but separating info boon from info bogus can be tedious.. Treat
google results with that same skepticism.

See if you can find a basic electricity class at your school or perhaps a junior
college -- one that takes you through the fundamental circuit components and how
they work in DC and AC circuits. It's simple, mostly stupid stuff, but it can serve
you well over time, and expand your horizons in this area.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--
*.

I know about the various other effects (though not their exact
meanings), but it seems like those would be negligible, ESPECIALLY on
wires like speaker interconnects - big, thick wires carrying a good
amount of current. I know plenty of electricity fundamentals, but AC
in general seems to baffle me. That being said, I know how impedance
is basically AC resistance (right), which changes with frequency.
Extra capacitance rolls of higher frequencies, extra inductance rolls
off lower frequencies, and extra resistance lowers volume, right? The
inductance of a pair of wires side by side is meaningless, and the
capacitance probably is too, unless you have ridiculously long cables.

I'm still not buying any cable that costs much more than the copper
and rubber that's in it.

Didn't the bad digital have to do with aliasing effects and a general
lack of knowledge of how to use it?

As a skeptic, I don't trust everything I see on Google either.

[O]

In article , Michael A.
Terrell wrote:

Allen wrote:

Don't even think about applying for a job at Best Buy unless you can
erase all traces of this post.


Why would ANYONE want to work for Best Buy? Or did they turn down
your application?

I applied for a job sweeping up the digital bits that will leak out the
cheap cables for customers who don't buy $250 monster cables (and use
them to hook up composite video). It didn't pay much, but you could
keep all the bits, and at two bits to a quarter it turned into a nifty
sum.

-Owen, Shave and a Haircut,...

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

O wrote:
In articlelNCdnb4wRLt5KzzTnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@earthlink .com, Michael A.
wrote:

Allen wrote:

Don't even think about applying for a job at Best Buy unless you can
erase all traces of this post.


Why would ANYONE want to work for Best Buy? Or did they turn down
your application?

I applied for a job sweeping up the digital bits that will leak out the
cheap cables for customers who don't buy $250 monster cables (and use
them to hook up composite video). It didn't pay much, but you could
keep all the bits, and at two bits to a quarter it turned into a nifty
sum.

-Owen, Shave and a Haircut,...

That's what Bernie Ebbers thought.

--
Les Cargill

[PStamler]

On Oct 21, 7:33*pm, gjsmo wrote:
That being said, I know how impedance
is basically AC resistance (right), which changes with frequency.
Extra capacitance rolls of higher frequencies, extra inductance rolls
off lower frequencies, and extra resistance lowers volume, right?

Not necessarily. It depends, in all three cases, on whether the extra
capacitance appears in a series or shunt element of the circuit.

The
inductance *of a pair of wires side by side is meaningless, and the
capacitance probably is too, unless you have ridiculously long cables.

Depends on what kind of signal you're sending down them. If it's a S/
PDIF or AES digital signal the inductance and capacitance will
definitely matter.

I'm still not buying any cable that costs much more than the copper
and rubber that's in it.

Don't forget to buy one with high-quality XLR connectors; ya gotta pay
for them too. And, if you're not making it yourself, it's worth paying
somebody like Markertek to do a good job on the soldering if you want
the cable to last and be reliable.

Didn't the bad digital have to do with aliasing effects and a general
lack of knowledge of how to use it?

Mostly not. It had a lot to do with bad anti-aliasing filters, A/D
converters and D/A converters with extremely poor low-level linearity
(leading to something that behaved a little like crossover distortion)
and jitter in the clocks. Plus editors which defaulted to 14 bits when
the level control was set to anything but full up, and truncated
instead of dithering.

Peace,
Paul

[M forever]

On Oct 21, 11:33*pm, O wrote:
In article , Michael A.

Terrell wrote:
Allen wrote:

Don't even think about applying for a job at Best Buy unless you can
erase all traces of this post.

* *Why would ANYONE want to work for Best Buy? *Or did they turn down
your application?

I applied for a job sweeping up the digital bits that will leak out the
cheap cables for customers who don't buy $250 monster cables (and use
them to hook up composite video).

Composite video is analog, not digital.

*It didn't pay much, but you could
keep all the bits, and at two bits to a quarter it turned into a nifty
sum.

-Owen, Shave and a Haircut,...

[Allen[_7_]]

On 10/21/2011 10:33 PM, O wrote:
In articlelNCdnb4wRLt5KzzTnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@earthlink .com, Michael A.
wrote:

Allen wrote:

Don't even think about applying for a job at Best Buy unless you can
erase all traces of this post.


Why would ANYONE want to work for Best Buy? Or did they turn down
your application?

I applied for a job sweeping up the digital bits that will leak out the
cheap cables for customers who don't buy $250 monster cables (and use
them to hook up composite video). It didn't pay much, but you could
keep all the bits, and at two bits to a quarter it turned into a nifty
sum.

-Owen, Shave and a Haircut,...
LOL!
Allen

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Frank Stearns" wrote in message
acquisition...

Whether or not the unwanted parasitic factors and interactions are
significant or
not depends on many considerations, including circuit Z, power and
bandwidth to be
transferred, and of course the quality of the part.

Agreed.

(e.g., how much ESR or dielectric
absorption does your electrolytic cap from a Rat Shack grab bag cobbled
from old
surplus have compared to a fresh, well-designed cap from a top-line
manufacturer?

Often exactly the same, because they are the same other than age, and the
age isn't enough to make a difference.

(Which, BTW, could be hard to get unless you purchase a 1000 pieces or
spend a
fortune at an online boutique store.)

Boutique parts are a rip off with very few exceptions,

And, don't forget diode effects that can arise from corrosion or weird
alloys -- or
even a bad connection. Many times I've watched audiophiles have an orgasm
switching
a component (interconnect wire, let's say), and saying it was the best
thing since
sliced crumpets. But then they put the old thing back in, and it too was
suddenly
just as good.

Especially true if you do it in a proper level-matched, time-synched, bias
controlled listening test.

What happened? They cleaned the contacts by making/breaking the connection
a few
times!

Of course the basic problem with the connection is still there. Wait a
while, and the problem will be back.

This of course sets aside the psychological affects of the "ritual of
change" or
more commonly, the "second play" effect, where upon the second time though
(and
following the change to the New Thing) you've heard the obvious the first
time and
are listening in more detail the second time, and perhaps erroneously
attributing
that "new" detail to hardware, rather than your re-focused attention.

Totally agreed.

None of this is to say that different elements don't sound different
(indeed some
do), but wild claims are likely just that.

Yes, indeed.

You missed the early debacle of digital audio, wherein it spec'd perfectly
(in the
analog domain using overly simplistic test methods) but sounded awful.

That's something that probably happened, but not nearly as much as old-time
gossip suggests. Ever listen to a CDP-101 in as-new condition? In the day
many people couldn't statnd them, but set them up in a proper llistening
test, and all of a sudden everybody is guessing randomly. The worst thing
about much of the early digital stuff was that it lacked audible distortion,
particularly the euphonic distortions whose management many had built their
careers on.

Pounded enough from the user side of the audio industry, the design/build
side
finally did better quantifying of complaints and discovered the problems
with bad
filters, jitter, and a few other things... But at the beginning, the
complainers
were blown off as kooks.

Jiitter is mostly hype. If was such a problem, why did everybody turn a
blind eye to it when huge amounts of it was and still are part and parcel of
the analog world? Don't tell me its the difference in spectal contents,
because many times they are the same.
The worst thing about much of the early digital stuff was that it lacked
audible distortion, particularly the euphonic distortions whose management
many had built their careers on.

Things can "look fine" in terms of a limited scientific view, but zoom out
with a little better science and you might have found something that
initially
seemed improbable.

The worst thing about much of the early digital stuff was that it lacked
audible distortion, particularly the euphonic distortions whose management
many had built their careers on.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The worst thing about much of the early digital stuff was that
it lacked audible distortion, particularly the euphonic distortions
whose management many had built their careers on.

Some months back I pulled out a pile of audiophile direct-disk LPs and
decided that, though most were at least euphonic, in terms of accuracy (to
my perception of what comprises "live" sound) they simply weren't as good as
the best digital recordings -- especially SACDs.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The worst thing about much of the early digital stuff was that
it lacked audible distortion, particularly the euphonic distortions
whose management many had built their careers on.

Some months back I pulled out a pile of audiophile direct-disk LPs and
decided that, though most were at least euphonic, in terms of accuracy (to
my perception of what comprises "live" sound) they simply weren't as good
as
the best digital recordings -- especially SACDs.

At the risk of being predictable, I'm going to reference my usual
reservations about audiophile perceptions of live sound, and also suggest
that since the SACD format has no known audible benefits all by itself, it
was the nth remastering or merely your prejudices that made the differences
you perceived.

I've always believed that the LP format had enough audible flaws that it was
a major detriment to the enjoyment of recorded music, and nothing that has
come out of the scientific research of the past 30 years has changed that
one iota. The real marvel about it was that we were able to enjoy it as much
as we did, all things considered. The enjoyment was mostly due to the lack
of a superior alternative, which we have now had for about 30 years.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The worst thing about much of the early digital stuff was that
it lacked audible distortion, particularly the euphonic distortions
whose management many had built their careers on.

Some months back I pulled out a pile of audiophile direct-disk LPs and
decided that, though most were at least euphonic, in terms of accuracy
(to
my perception of what comprises "live" sound) they simply weren't as good
as the best digital recordings -- especially SACDs.

At the risk of being predictable, I'm going to reference my usual
reservations about audiophile perceptions of live sound, and also suggest
that since the SACD format has no known audible benefits all by itself, it
was the nth remastering or merely your prejudices that made the
differences
you perceived.

All too predictable, Arny. You really enjoy attacking someone who agrees
with you, don't you?

What do you mean by "reservations about audiophile perceptions of live
sound"? If anything, audiophiles should have a more-perceptive appreciation
of the superiority of live sound to recorded.

Whether DSD is a more-accurate method of recording than PCM is debatable. *
But the fact is that many (if not most) SACDs have significantly better --
more-realistic -- sound than CDs. Why is another matter.

Part of the difference is unquestionably the use of ambience channels.
Shutting them off produces an immediate degradation in sound quality. It
isn't just the loss of hall sound -- the front channels sound less natural.
(This effect also occurs when using a hall synthesizer with stereo
recordings.)

Another possibility is that the availability of ambience channels removes
the pressure of having to make a two-channel recording that "sounds good" by
itself. (Did I say that correctly?)

* One could set up a bypass test with live mic feeds. But as they don't
permit an exactly repeatable stimulus, it would be difficult to get
meaningful results. Along the same lines... remember when Julian Hirsch
visited Shure, and duly reported that the output of a V15 III pickup playing
an LP was indistinguishable from the master tape that produced the LP?


I've always believed that the LP format had enough audible flaws that it
was
a major detriment to the enjoyment of recorded music, and nothing that has
come out of the scientific research of the past 30 years has changed that
one iota. The real marvel about it was that we were able to enjoy it as
much
as we did, all things considered. The enjoyment was mostly due to the lack
of a superior alternative, which we have now had for about 30 years.

You'll note that I referred to audiophile recordings, which weren't anywhere
nearly as bad as most commercial recordings. I don't know why you seem to be
so upset about my describing them as "euphonic" -- because they are.

Though LPs are clearly inferior to CDs and SACDs, simply by "virtue" of
being beset by all kinds of mechanical colorations, my view is that a good
chunk of the audible differences among recordings of any type are due to the
choice / quantity / positioning of the mics, and the amount of electronic
equipment between the mics and the recorder. Make bad choices, and they'll
wipe out the superiority of digital recording.

[geoff]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

All too predictable, Arny. You really enjoy attacking someone who
agrees with you, don't you?

Occasionallly he can be 'on the spopt' and rational, as here.


What do you mean by "reservations about audiophile perceptions of live
sound"? If anything, audiophiles should have a more-perceptive
appreciation of the superiority of live sound to recorded.

Whether DSD is a more-accurate method of recording than PCM is
debatable. * But the fact is that many (if not most) SACDs have
significantly better -- more-realistic -- sound than CDs. Why is
another matter.

Actually more realistic, or simply 'different' (for whatever reason) which
causes those who have paid money, or have a predisposition to 'believe' ?


Part of the difference is unquestionably the use of ambience channels.
Shutting them off produces an immediate degradation in sound quality.


No. "Change" in sound. Does not necesarily equate to "quality".

It isn't just the loss of hall sound -- the front channels sound less
natural. (This effect also occurs when using a hall synthesizer with
stereo recordings.)

Another possibility is that the availability of ambience channels
removes the pressure of having to make a two-channel recording that
"sounds good" by itself. (Did I say that correctly?)

Nothing stopping multiple channels of LPCM....

..

Though LPs are clearly inferior to CDs and SACDs, simply by "virtue"
of being beset by all kinds of mechanical colorations, my view is
that a good chunk of the audible differences among recordings of any
type are due to the choice / quantity / positioning of the mics, and
the amount of electronic equipment between the mics and the recorder.
Make bad choices, and they'll wipe out the superiority of digital
recording.

Not to mention inter-person and same person day-to-day changes in aural and
mental perception, which I suspect swamp the technical factors by far.

geoff

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Whether DSD is a more-accurate method of recording than PCM is
debatable. * But the fact is that many (if not most) SACDs have
significantly better -- more-realistic -- sound than CDs. Why is
another matter.

Actually more realistic, or simply 'different' (for whatever reason) which
causes those who have paid money, or have a predisposition to 'believe' ?

Actually more realistic. Have you heard multi-ch SACDs played over a good
system? No?


Part of the difference is unquestionably the use of ambience channels.
Shutting them off produces an immediate degradation in sound quality.

No. "Change" in sound. Does not necesarily equate to "quality".

Wrong again. See preceding response.


Another possibility is that the availability of ambience channels
removes the pressure of having to make a two-channel recording
that "sounds good" by itself. (Did I say that correctly?)

Nothing stopping multiple channels of LPCM...

No. But that wasn't the point. Regardless, audio-only Blu-ray disks with
multi-ch LPCM show a similar improvement in quality.


Though LPs are clearly inferior to CDs and SACDs, simply by "virtue"
of being beset by all kinds of mechanical colorations, my view is
that a good chunk of the audible differences among recordings of any
type are due to the choice / quantity / positioning of the mics, and
the amount of electronic equipment between the mics and the recorder.
Make bad choices, and they'll wipe out the superiority of digital
recording.

Not to mention inter-person and same person day-to-day changes in aural
and
mental perception, which I suspect swamp the technical factors by far.

All supposition. I've been listening to stereo and surround sound for 45
years. And I've made stereo and surround live recordings. Do you comparable
or better experience?

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

I might vehemently disagree with Arny. But at least he uses his real name,
and we know who he is.

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Whether DSD is a more-accurate method of recording than PCM is
debatable. * But the fact is that many (if not most) SACDs have
significantly better -- more-realistic -- sound than CDs. Why is
another matter.

Actually more realistic, or simply 'different' (for whatever reason) which
causes those who have paid money, or have a predisposition to 'believe' ?

Actually more realistic. Have you heard multi-ch SACDs played over a good
system? No?


Part of the difference is unquestionably the use of ambience channels.
Shutting them off produces an immediate degradation in sound quality.

No. "Change" in sound. Does not necesarily equate to "quality".

Wrong again. See preceding response.


Another possibility is that the availability of ambience channels
removes the pressure of having to make a two-channel recording
that "sounds good" by itself. (Did I say that correctly?)

Nothing stopping multiple channels of LPCM...

No. But that wasn't the point. Regardless, audio-only Blu-ray disks with
multi-ch LPCM show a similar improvement in quality.


Though LPs are clearly inferior to CDs and SACDs, simply by "virtue"
of being beset by all kinds of mechanical colorations, my view is
that a good chunk of the audible differences among recordings of any
type are due to the choice / quantity / positioning of the mics, and
the amount of electronic equipment between the mics and the recorder.
Make bad choices, and they'll wipe out the superiority of digital
recording.

Not to mention inter-person and same person day-to-day changes in aural
and
mental perception, which I suspect swamp the technical factors by far.

All supposition. I've been listening to stereo and surround sound for 45
years. And I've made stereo and surround live recordings. Do you comparable
or better experience?

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

I might vehemently disagree with Arny. But at least he uses his real name,
and we know who he is.

Geoff isn't a real name? He's been participating here for a long time,
and often contributes very helpful information.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[geoff]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message


Actually more realistic. Have you heard multi-ch SACDs played over a
good system? No?

No, but I've heard multi-channel LPCM. And I've heardn 2 channel SACD v.
2-channel LPCM

Part of the difference is unquestionably the use of ambience
channels. Shutting them off produces an immediate degradation in
sound quality.

No. "Change" in sound. Does not necesarily equate to "quality".

Wrong again. See preceding response.

I sauggest the degradation may be entirely subjective, and is to do with the
overall experience rather than fidelity.


Another possibility is that the availability of ambience channels
removes the pressure of having to make a two-channel recording
that "sounds good" by itself. (Did I say that correctly?)

Nothing stopping multiple channels of LPCM...

No. But that wasn't the point. Regardless, audio-only Blu-ray disks
with multi-ch LPCM show a similar improvement in quality.

No, a similar change in excperience.

Though LPs are clearly inferior to CDs and SACDs, simply by "virtue"
of being beset by all kinds of mechanical colorations, my view is
that a good chunk of the audible differences among recordings of any
type are due to the choice / quantity / positioning of the mics, and
the amount of electronic equipment between the mics and the
recorder. Make bad choices, and they'll wipe out the superiority of
digital recording.

Not to mention inter-person and same person day-to-day changes in
aural and mental perception, which I suspect swamp the technical
factors by far.

All supposition. I've been listening to stereo and surround sound for
45 years. And I've made stereo and surround live recordings. Do you
comparable or better experience?

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Your 45 beats my 30. Presumably your ears have not degraded in those 45
years as much as mine have in 30.

I might vehemently disagree with Arny. But at least he uses his real
name, and we know who he is.

Hit a raw nerve somewhere have I ?

frank. Ooops, geoff.