PDA

View Full Version : The Vain Pursuit of Excellence - Discussion.



DaveK
28-08-2009, 20:46
Hi Guys,
I'll open the discussion by stating that audio Nirvana does not exist. I have reached this conclusion, after reading many many postings on the subject on this forum.
My premise is that the constant drive to upgrade is satiated temporarily by change rather than improvement. We all suffer from this delusion to a greater or lesser extent, (even me ;) ) - the ones whose common sense exceeds their budget proceed only slowly and occassionaly up this path of self delusion but those with these attributes in the reverse order go galloping up the the path at a rapid rate - please note that I am being slightly provocative in exagerating the comparison just to make the point :) .
I invite each of you to look back on your pursuit of excellence in the reproduction of recorded music and ask yourself did each 'upgrade' actually bring you nearer to this goal - you may have convinced yourself that it did at the time but, with the benefit of hindsight, did you honestly maintain that view for very long?
Put another way, given that most of us started off with being originally reasonably happy with our then set up, (otherwise why did we buy it?), and having made numerous upgrades/improvements to it over the years, why haven't we yet reached Nirvana? - how many upgrades does it take? And in that time equipment manufacturers keep assuring us that this year's model is a significant improvement on anything available last year.
I do not doubt that improvements are made, Stan's Caiman and Mike's cables spring to mind, (but perhaps CDs don't qualify), but Nirvana doesn't really get much, or any closer. I can only liken it to chasing a rainbow over the Scottish mountains - you 'upgrade' to the top of the next mountain and are immediately impressed with the new view but then you notice that the rainbow is still as far away as it was and so you set of again aiming at the next mountain top, only for the experience to be repeated - in other words audio Nirvana is an illusion, it doesn't exist and we are all deluding ourselves in pursuing it beyond a certain point. The really cute ones amonst us realise when we have reached that point and sit back and enjoy the music. My recommendation, based on all of three or four months study, is to ignore the pursuit of excellence in the reproducion of recorded music and instead pursue the enjoyment in the reproducion of recorded music - not always the same thing.
Polite debate encouraged :) .
Cheers,

The Grand Wazoo
28-08-2009, 20:57
I think you're quite right, Dave.
I've reached a point where I'm happy with what I've got because now I know I can never reproduce the live sound, but only a fair approximation of it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

Sure, I could spend big money to make changes that would shift emphases one way or the other, but I have the basics I ask for in a hi-fi. This is one reason I spend so much time enjoying music through shonky old gear as much time in fact, as I spend listening to the big system.

I've touched on this before when I asked if anyone agreed with my theory that those of us who spend as much or more time in the 'Musical' sections of AoS than the 'Gear' sections are those who are somehow more 'at peace' with their hi-fi.

Jonboy
28-08-2009, 21:10
I've reached a point where I'm happy with what I've got because now I know I can never reproduce the live sound, but only a fair approximation of it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

Sure, I could spend big money to make changes that would shift emphases one way or the other, but I have the basics I ask for in a hi-fi. This is one reason I spend so much time enjoying music through shonky old gear as much time in fact, as I spend listening to the big system.

I've touched on this before when I asked if anyone agreed with my theory that those of us who spend as much or more time in the 'Musical' sections of AoS than the 'Gear' sections are those who are somehow more 'at peace' with their hi-fi.[/QUOTE]

Oh i wish i was at this stage, it's getting near

Spectral Morn
28-08-2009, 21:22
Hi Dave

I can honestly say that I have progressed from what I had to where I am now with my audio systems (and massively). Have I made a few mistakes along the way...:scratch: Yes a couple but these mistakes were slight and only happened when I assumed I knew better or bought without trying in my own system. However this has only happened a few times and never again ....unlike some I learnt from my mistakes.

The limiting factor now is the room, not the system, in my case.

Now I don't want to be rude, but you have so much further you could go, if domestic harmony allowed you to set your system up as it needs and deserves. However that state does not exist for you and you are happy where you are now, but I know that much more could be got out of your set up than you are getting now. I know you will think that an arrogant statement, but 20 odd years in the audio business and setting up systems in many compromised rooms etc over the years, informs me that more can be got. You have that to look forward to.

There are laws of diminishing returns in audio, but in most cases lack of proper set up or limiting rooms will hold things back more than lack of money. There are of course items that punch way above there modest price in performance but if pampered fully so much more can be had I found this with Stan's DAC when I reviewed it awhile ago. Better cables, digital and analogue, better transports and isolation all moved it up and up in terms of what it could do. Its fussier than many seem to realize....it needs pampering and pampering is what it got. Marco, Rob all heard this when a Stan Dac was moved off a card board box at the Hi-Fi Wigwam show onto a proper stand....Nuff said.

Regards D S D L

Beechwoods
28-08-2009, 21:41
For some, it is enough to enjoy an approximation of the music that the artist intended to impart to the listener. That is why a lot of people are happy to listen to MP3's though awful free headphones, or little 'boom-boxes'. Others pursue excellence because their enjoyment of the music is hampered by the compromises that boomboxes and MP3 players bring about.

I don't count myself an audiophile, but a lot of my non-audiophile friends consider me to be one, because I pay attention to how sound sounds and I try to do what I can to make my own system work to it's best, in my own way (with a nod to nostalgia and vintage gear :)).

You are right Dave, that audio nirvana is an awkward maiden to tame, and there's no-one here who would say that they have achieved audio nirvana. This means different things to different people. I'm surprised that you feel you have reached a point of contentment in such a short time though - the three or four months you mention, but if you are happy with the sound you have then that is great - the music will communicate with you unimpeded.

I guess that once you have heard other people's systems, you get a sense for what is possible, how the music really should sound. And that's what drives (or has driven) many of the members here forward in the pursuit of excellent sound.

Is your journey over then Dave ;) If you're feeling that you need to get yourself to a bakeoff or two!

The pursuit of excellence is anything but vain!

DaveK
28-08-2009, 21:52
Hi Dave
Now I don't want to be rude, but you have so much further you could go, if domestic harmony allowed you to set your system up as it needs and deserves. However that state does not exist for you and you are happy where you are now, but I know that much more could be got out of your set up than you are getting now. I know you will think that an arrogant statement, (No, not at all at all :) ) but 20 odd years in the audio business and setting up systems in many compromised rooms etc over the years, informs me that more can be got. You have that to look forward to. (Yep, I recognise that fact.)

There are laws of diminishing returns in audio, but in most cases lack of proper set up or limiting rooms will hold things back more than lack of money. There are of course items that punch way above there modest price in performance but if pampered fully so much more can be had I found this with Stan's DAC when I reviewed it awhile ago. Better cables, digital and analogue, better transports and isolation all moved it up and up in terms of what it could do. Its fussier than many seem to realize....it needs pampering and pampering is what it got. Marco, Rob all heard this when a Stan Dac was moved off a card board box at the Hi-Fi Wigwam show onto a proper stand....Nuff said.

Regards D S D L

Hi Neil,
I don't disagree with a word you said and, therefore needless to say, no offence taken. Please don't read my post as a defence of my current set up - I know it's flawed and, as far as chasing rainbows over Scottish mountains is concerned, I'm still in the queue to get on the ferry at Calais :lol: . No, it was aimed at getting a discussion going, prompted by various posts by members eulogising about their latest upgrade and how much better it sounds than what it replaced - that is a process that you can only repeat so many times, after that what you are appreciating must, to a greater or lesser extent, be change. Like everything else in life tastes in music reproduction change and what you liked a couple of years ago may not quite satisfy you today - it's not necessarily any worse, just different.

Alex_UK
28-08-2009, 21:59
Since I joined this forum around a month ago, I've bought the best part of 40 CDs, and I've committed to some of Mike's cables - I think that puts me in the "really cute" category? ;) (although I admit I came to the forum having just bought a Caiman and a new Creek amp... and now I quite fancy new speakers... I'm doomed, Captain Mainwaring!)

Jonboy
28-08-2009, 22:04
we are all doomed as Fraiser says

DaveK
28-08-2009, 22:16
For some, it is enough to enjoy an approximation of the music that the artist intended to impart to the listener. That is why a lot of people are happy to listen to MP3's though awful free headphones, or little 'boom-boxes'. Others pursue excellence because their enjoyment of the music is hampered by the compromises that boomboxes and MP3 players bring about. (Agreed 100%)

You are right Dave, that audio nirvana is an awkward maiden to tame, and there's no-one here who would say that they have achieved audio nirvana. This means different things to different people. I'm surprised that you feel you have reached a point of contentment in such a short time though (Now where on earth did you get that silly idea from - I refer you to my reply above to Neil regarding ferries at Calais and rainbows over Scottish mountains) - the three or four months you mention, but if you are happy with the sound you have then that is great - the music will communicate with you unimpeded. (Happy but could be much happier, if that was the only consideration - currently content might be a better description)

I guess that once you have heard other people's systems, you get a sense for what is possible, how the music really should sound. And that's what drives (or has driven) many of the members here forward in the pursuit of excellent sound. AgainI can see the logic in that - I wouldn't pretend, not even to me, that my system is a match for much of the kit enjoyed by other forum members. On the other hand, as I posted some time ago, I visited the Eggborough 'do' and, accepting that the rooms were anything near ideal to demonstrate any system to it's full potential, I can honestly say that I heard nothing their that made me feel ashamed or in any way inferior about what I hear at home, and that was before I got my 7520 !!

Is your journey over then Dave ;) Now where on earth did you get that crazy idea from - to repeat what I said earlier, my destination is to be looking at rainbows from the top of Scottish mountains and I'm still awaiting the ferry at Calais, but I can assure you that my journey will definitely end a long way short of Cape Wrath !! If you're feeling that you need to get yourself to a bakeoff or two!

The pursuit of excellence is anything but vain! I'll go with that but the pursuit of Nirvana is folly, IMHO

Beechwoods
28-08-2009, 22:19
It's ok Dave, my post was written ten minutes before your reply to Neil, and I agree you covered it all there! No worries...

lexi
28-08-2009, 23:24
I think it`s a good topic. Far to sensible for a an Audio Forum. Are you trying to kill the fun?:lolsign:

What interests me is how people make judgements on all the criteria of the usual "improvements". Ok maybe someone has to comment and why not.

But..........what are you comparing to? EG. " Breathy" vocals on highly produced pop albums .........these sounded more this or that. Does it matter? You weren`t there at the final cut or posess a copy of Mastertape so how do you know it is an improvement ? People say far too much in this hobby and loads of it is Piffle. The other one you mentioned........"oh I noticed a big difference ".....yeah?.....Thats` your wallet telling you it`s just lost weight.. Keep hearing "differences" and the Crocodile Square is gonna end up Levitating :eyebrows:

Not knocking the fun of music and gear etc......it keeps us going. To put a new cartridge on an arm and tweak then sit back and absorb.........lets face it that it still fun. DIY building amps speakers turntables etc...........maybe that is more like the New Direction. Also as said....The Room. It`s only ever you and the room. I think I have improved my sound with modding room and setting gear up to sympathise with it. My room was crap ..........thats what needed the work, my humble lil stereo can play music ok.

We can go round in circles at this game. Lowthers are out.....oh they`re in again. Idler is out.....no not now! Just keep what you got? It`ll come back again anyway!
The Music The Music that`s what counts....all played on good gear of course:lol: The Beat goes on.......

Barry
28-08-2009, 23:41
...........

I've touched on this before when I asked if anyone agreed with my theory that those of us who spend as much or more time in the 'Musical' sections of AoS than the 'Gear' sections are those who are somehow more 'at peace' with their hi-fi.

I think I'm there. 'Spinning Now .....' is always the first thread I look at when I log on. Most of my equipment has remained unchanged for 30 years; it does me and would cost a lot to substantially improve. It's not perfect, far from it, but does all the things that are important to me and my ears.

Every time I attend a live concert, I think to myself 'Boy have we got a long way to go', but when I return home and play my system I forget those misgivings. My system provides me with enormous pleasure and is in use several hours a day, every day we are at home, something like 300 days a year.

I still dabble and buy odd bits of kit, as I'm interested in the whole field of sound reproduction, but to chase after an unobtainable goal - no.

Regards

John
29-08-2009, 07:18
Its strange this obession I like most people here suffer from that endless pursuit of something that can never really be achieved but I get so much pleasure from music and want to be inolved in the experience as much as I can
I do not have the same commitments as others here do yet work in job that demands a lot emotionally from me so I will at least spend 2 hours each day listening to music and at weekends I can often spend 4 to 5 hours. Listening to music is like coming back home to myself
I know I can never really get the sound I want but I also know I can get closer to it. On the whole I am usually just happy listening to music and can even enjoy music on my walkman through my headphones.

Varun
29-08-2009, 07:29
Hi Dave,

Always nice to have some philosophy and this thread overlaps with the other one-'what is art of sound'. Once I heard the first demonstartion of Quad Electrostatics 63 speakers. The man demonstrating was only using acoustic recordings- of either individual instruments; some jazz pieces and some orchestral.

The contention was that electronic -meaning electric guitars and the keyboards have no known points of reference. My son is a good guitar player and says that all the elctric guitar players have used distortion in their playing to some extent.

Then the bigger issue for the modern audiophiles is -the way sound reproduction was seen in the early 80s and the standards of reviewing set up.
All the differences appreciated in equipments are in essence personal choices- and relate to so many variables that to have a standard was not possible- never has been. To top it all reviewers have certain biases of their own-Human nature- nothing wrong with it- but then the listeners are led along that path-more often than not wrongly.

What is good about this forum is that Big is not always great known for a long time-has been promoted- rather like expensive wine by name such as Chablis-can be utterly awful and yet attract high praise.

Joe
29-08-2009, 09:02
I think it`s a good topic. Far to sensible for a an Audio Forum. Are you trying to kill the fun?:lolsign:

What interests me is how people make judgements on all the criteria of the usual "improvements". Ok maybe someone has to comment and why not.

But..........what are you comparing to? EG. " Breathy" vocals on highly produced pop albums .........these sounded more this or that. Does it matter? You weren`t there at the final cut or posess a copy of Mastertape so how do you know it is an improvement ? .

An excellent point, particularly given the various artifices introduced during the production/mixing process.

To me the only criterion that matters is, does this equipment enable me to enjoy music, in whatever genre? If it is excellent with voice/guitar, but crap with anything more complex, then it's of no use to me, however expensive or 'well-regarded'. I'm slightly baffled when people buy a piece of equipment that renders a large part of their music collection unlistenable; surely that's defeating the object of the exercise?

On the original question, I don't think audio Nirvana is obtainable, and I'm at the point where my system is good enough to stop me lusting after upgrades. Personally I'm neither a perfectionist nor an obsessive, but if other people get enjoyment out of trying to reach audio Nirvana, and if that enjoyment isn't at the cost of insolvency, then I see no problem.

jandl100
29-08-2009, 09:04
Going back to the original title of the thread .....

As a Box Swapper I am not after some sort of audio Holy Grail or unattainable (or unaffordable!) pinnacle of excellence.

I fully appreciate that no piece of equipment or system is perfect, and so I just like to try different things. :)

Music can be equally satisfying, if differently presented, on a valve driven ribbon hybrid speaker as on a big mutha solid state driven full range electrostatic. I love it all! :smoking:

Varun
29-08-2009, 09:23
Jerry,

The differences between Hobbyists and tweekers and listeners will remain as they do in so many other areas- so Hi Fi is not an exception. Photohgraphy, motor sport, toy model collecting, antique furniture and paintings and so on.

As Neil says some basics are essential like a sound equipment support- but hobby-ists will enjoy their hobby as so many do in so many other fields and the same applies to tweekers. I do not believe that Dave was asking any of those to stop doing what they do!

But does the pleasure of collecting and tweeking always result in better sound- the answer has to be SOLID NO.

Best to stay with what you are comfortable with. And then there other issues- often a desire to upgrade or go on upgrading may have more to do with a restlessness- resulting from an unsettled state of mind and body.. alcohol not being the best solution for either.

DaveK
29-08-2009, 09:31
Hi Guys,
I'm very gratified by the response this posting got but now it's confession time. I dropped an awfull gooly in the original posting and would like to correct it now. My excuse is that, having mulled over the whole subject in my mind for quite a while I dashed it off too quickly in posting it. My excuse? - old age and being awake too long - no afternoon nap :) .
To put it briefly, the pusuit of excellence is to be applauded, (whatever 'excellence' might mean to each of us), but the pursuit of Nirvana, that way lies frustration and madness. :mental: :mental: :mental:
Cheers,

jandl100
29-08-2009, 09:36
Jerry,

As Neil says some basics are essential like a sound equipment support



I don't think that anything is essential. Why should it be? OK, a loudspeaker of some sort is 'essential'! Anyway, for me, a hifi support is just that, it has a supporting (i.e. subsidiary) role in hifi - it's just a tweak - the real meat is in the electonics and speakers, in my view, and how they interact and make music.




Best to stay with what you are comfortable with.

Ah, well, that's where we seriously part company, Varun! :) Being too "comfortable" is not what I like to be. I prefer to be constantly challenged - for me hifi/music isn't something I come home to and relax with after a hard day at work .... I'm lucky enough to be 'early-retired' so music and hifi for me is an active and exciting thing for me to do and be involved with.

jandl100
29-08-2009, 09:39
Hi Guys,
I'm very gratified by the response this posting got but now it's confession time. I dropped an awfull gooly in the original posting and would like to correct it now. ....... the pursuit of Nirvana, that way lies frustration and madness. :mental:
Cheers,

Yeah - we all knew that, Dave - we were just making allowances for a daft old fuddy-duddy! :lolsign:

The Grand Wazoo
29-08-2009, 09:41
Hi Guys,
I'm very gratified by the response this posting got but now it's confession time. I dropped an awfull gooly in the original posting and would like to correct it now. My excuse is that, having mulled over the whole subject in my mind for quite a while I dashed it off too quickly in posting it. My excuse? - old age and being awake too long - no afternoon nap :) .
To put it briefly, the pusuit of excellence is to be applauded, (whatever 'excellence' might mean to each of us), but the pursuit of Nirvana, that way lies frustration and madness. :mental: :mental: :mental:
Cheers,

I completely agree, Dave!
Excellence is attainable.
Nirvana only exists in the mind of the deluded hopeful.

But then some folks enjoy chasing Nirvana & there's nothing wrong with that. I did it myself for a while until I spent a couple of hours in the company of Neil Young with Pearl Jam as his backing band. That was the moment I realised I was wasting my time - you can't recreate that type of sound (& this would be a 'good thing' for some folks!)

DaveK
29-08-2009, 10:09
Yeah - we all knew that, Dave - we were just making allowances for a daft old fuddy-duddy! :lolsign:

Thanks Jerry, I feel a lot better for knowing that!! :lol: :lol: .

Varun
29-08-2009, 10:27
Hi Jerry,

You are nit picking my friend- yes I agree with what you say though- I was only talking in general terms. When it comes to challenging and questioning- I have been doing it in academic circles for a long time and in meetings-question almost everything- hence my views on the reviewer's etc.

You might remember the very first write up praising the LP12. Apparently a solo piano piece was being used as demonstration and the LP12 compared with either a Thorens or Ariston. The demonstrator pointed out that with the LP12 you could hear the L hand playing of the pianist, while with the other you could not. This was commented by the recording engineer at Abbey Road- whose views were that 'does it matter if you do not'. If I remember correctly it was the chap who recorded 'Dark side of the Moon'. What a thing to say! and what ignorance- both hands play a crucial role in Piano playing.

Varun
29-08-2009, 10:30
both are Sanskrit terms-
NirvaaNa- liberation (N is retroflex as the n in my name, a sound that only exists in India)
Avataar-re-incarnation

Macca
29-08-2009, 10:54
I spent two blissfull years content with my system (CD wise - I had put off a 'final' TT upgrade due to the expense (and the amount of travelling required to demo anything)

This blissful period ended with the demise of my old Sony CDP (many thousands of hours use) that whilst cheap (£250 new) was a great synergistic match with the rest of the kit - anyone who heard this sound (even playing quietly in the background) would remark (totally unprompted) on how good it sounded - always a good indicator that one is not deluding oneself!

This forced me out of Nirvana:eyebrows:and into a CDP upgrade - and then consequently into speaker cable upgrade, mains block upgrade...etc and now I am back on the upgrade road (sigh).

I was remarking to a friend who does some recording and mastering on a semi-pro level that I was thinking of selling my Linn amps if he knew anyone who might be interested - 'No', he said, 'but I am selling some active professional monitors. If you are interested I'll bring them around for a demo.' That will be this week, hopefully. Trying out new kit may not be Nirvana, but it is fun!

Martin

DSJR
29-08-2009, 11:29
One thing I CAN thank my Linn/Naim period in retail for is the way we can best judge a good audio system AT ANY PRICE LEVEL!!!!!

My wife wore her old personal CD player out (gets used more than my stereo ......) and I bought a cheap modern Sony on fleabay for her as a replacement (£10 can't be bad). using the uncomfortable little ear-plug headphones, I was surprised how easy it was to hear the different skins of a drum-kit and the reverb behind them. The overall balance (with a little X-bass boost) was most acceptable and I could easily live with it...

Linn taught us the "tune and rhythm" dem. In my case, the ability of a well matched setup to encourage you to hum or sing along with the basic "melody" of a piece - taken further, to listen to the instruments playing behind - what they're playing and how they relate to the piece as a whole. As for rhythm, I never really "got" this aspect, as systems with the most "pr@t" usually didn't have any real bass to speak of, although many bigger speakers had boom, rather than bass (including un-modified Spendor BC1's...)

I appreciate that most Linn/Naim dealers of the eighties and nineties took the above to extreme excess, but pared down to the nub, it's always stood me in good stead and I've been thrilled with hearing client's simple systems that communicate the basics so well you don't realise what they're not doing...

Going back to the original post, I'd definitely agree that it's possible to get an excellent sound, but not total perfection, as few audio types know what the original recording should sound like and tailor their setups around what they imagin it could be.....

Mike Reed
29-08-2009, 14:54
Welcome back, CHRIS. Guess you must be sorting yourself out/settling in at last after your move.

To put myself out on a limb and be branded a heretic (accurately, as it happens), I'd like to make three points.

I have no interest in attending concerts of any kind, and have never equated hifi sound to live sound. Apart from it being impossible to identically reproduce, I think I'd prefer the canned variety anyway, let alone the convenience. I've never being knocked out by any concert sound in the past, it being either distorted, too loud or diffuse. Non classical concerts surely still depend upon the amplification of the group and outside performances were very variable, understandably.

Upgrading within certain parameters DOES bring an improvement, every time, i.m.e.

After a time one's ears get used to ANY upgrade; I often wonder how some of my earlier systems I used to think were the bees' knees would stack up now. Not too well, methinks!

One of these days I shall have to attend a decent classical concert just to see if my jaded memories are justified.

Jason P
29-08-2009, 17:35
This is an interesting topic!

For me I thought I'd reached a pinnacle (for my buying power) with my setup, but it was never quite 'there'; certainly after I'd put an Origin Live DC motor and OL arm on the Linn (a combination that I was assured would work - more fool me) it was never as enjoyable (please note careful use of word) as the LP12/Ittok combo. I was forever tweaking, worried about setup, placement, isolation etc.etc... and it just wasn't as enjoyable as my old, cheaper setups of the past.

So I thought 'sod it' and went back to basics. Got shot of the Linn, got a 1200 (the thing I like about this deck is that you can plonk it down, set it up and forget it, and you'll get good tunes out of it), went back to an old NAD 3020 (what a cracking amp) and am MUCH happier, even if 'on paper' it's a poorer system.

Discovering the delights of older kit has been great too; my CDP cost me £50, the tuner £18, I'm about to get a valve amp for less than a couple of hundred quid, and I know with any of these bits I can shift them on later without losing anything like the amounts I'd've lost with new kit. So the persuit of excellence, or at least the persuit of enjoyable sounds, needn't cost a fortune.

I remember many moons ago, when we used to hang out round a hi-fi shop near us, a chap who was a regular spent maybe £50k on a system. He'd play stuff that sounded good (not necessarily what he liked) and obsess over microdetails in the recordings - but I often wondered if music moved him at all. It was almost forensic, as a collector might obsess over the brush technique in a painting without ever 'getting' what the image was about.

For me 'audio nirvana' can be reached anywhere, it's not about the quality - some of my most magical music moments have been playing tapes on a boom box around a camp fire, or in a cruddy car stereo; when a song gels with the mood and the moment, it don't matter to me one jot about the fidelity or lack of.

My 2 cents; but an excellent topic!!

Jason

lexi
29-08-2009, 18:01
Good interesting points guys. Yes Jason the wonders of the 3020. I still listen to mine and marvel on what it can do rather than what it can`t...............maybe that`s Audio Nirvana :)

NRG
29-08-2009, 19:24
If we don't try to achieve audio nirvana we may as well give up and stick with an 80's midi system......or an iPOD........ Striving to achieve the best pushes the boundaries and increases ones learning and knowledge. I've been very happy with my system for a few years now but it does not stop me from trying things and learning and as of today I've just made another step forward. :ner:

DaveK
29-08-2009, 20:01
If we don't try to achieve audio nirvana we may as well give up and stick with an 80's midi system......or an iPOD........ Striving to achieve the best pushes the boundaries and increases ones learning and knowledge. I've been very happy with my system for a few years now but it does not stop me from trying things and learning and as of today I've just made another step forward. :ner:
Hi Neal,
Don't think anyone would disagree with anything you said, other than the first sentence - Nirvana don't exist (at least not in a reproduction of music context - don't want to offend anyone's religious sensitiities). By all means keep going after excellence, but stop when you've got it, after that the law of false returns applies - you begin to confuse different with better, IMHO.:ner::ner::ner:
Cheers,

Barry
29-08-2009, 20:09
Dave, before I expand on my reply to you question (and the parallels with the Buddhist concept of Nirvana are in some ways aposite), can you explain how and why your user name appears to have changed from 'DaveC' to 'DaveK'?

Regards

jandl100
30-08-2009, 07:51
By all means keep going after excellence, but stop when you've got it, after that the law of false returns applies - you begin to confuse different with better, IMHO.:ner:
Cheers,

Nope, I don't agree with that. :)

For me, different can be just as much fun as better. And if you are swapping on the used market it needn't cost you very much at all.

I work on the principle that nothing is perfect, and decent but different components at a given price level have different pro's and con's. Changing to 'different' can give you just as much more musical insight as going to something better (whatever better means!).

I feel no need to get trapped on the upgrading escalator, with ever-increasing cost. I have a tremendous amount of fun swapping around at my chosen cost level. There is just so much kit out there with different perspectives on the music that you needn't mortgage your soul or sell both kidneys to explore it.

Varun
30-08-2009, 08:41
While Still waiting for the Erudite exposition from Barry D. Hunt on Buddhist something!

Tannoy Non-Fan Boy:- that is the point. If swapping boxes gives you the pleasure then that is great- the thread was about enjoying music-Music for Music's sake and not for Box's sake and not for Old Vs New's sake.

The other question was will you ever stop swappig boxes? I buy my records from an antiquarian book shop in Liverpool called Henry Bohn books. This man has an obsession with collecting books and records and goodness he knows a great deal about both. For instance I bought Schubert's 9th symphony yesterday- EMI 1972 for one pound. Very good and still not as good as the Krips on Decca. He knew that too.

I sense you are talking of an obsession- then that is also great.

jandl100
30-08-2009, 09:03
No, I'm not obsessed. I just like trying different things. :) No, I'd hate to have to stop swapping boxes. A different perspective on the music every time! - that's what it's about.

Actually, Varun, I think the thread was originally about swapping boxes and where/when to stop! :) Whatever ....

I agree about the Schubert 9 - was the EMI with Adrian Boult conducting? If so, it's good, but no-one is quite as good as Krips!

Marco
30-08-2009, 09:11
Actually, Varun, I think the thread was originally about swapping boxes and where/when to stop! :)


Of course the really smart people keep the boxes and swap the components inside... ;)

Marco.

jandl100
30-08-2009, 09:17
Of course the really smart people keep the boxes and swap the components inside... ;)

Marco.

Ah, that explains it! I thought everything was sounding the same as before the last box swap .... so it's the equipment that I should be changing? :doh:

Marco
30-08-2009, 09:20
Hehehehe... :eyebrows:

Obtain high quality kit you like the sound of, and then 'race-tune' its ass until you've got something that's pretty much unbeatable. That's what I do :cool:

Marco.

Varun
30-08-2009, 09:34
Hi Marco,

Can I please ask-how long do you think your Sony CD system is going to last-can it be modded endlessly?

DaveK
30-08-2009, 09:41
Nope, I don't agree with that. :)

For me, different can be just as much fun as better.

I work on the principle that nothing is perfect,
I feel no need to get trapped on the upgrading escalator, with ever-increasing cost. I have a tremendous amount of fun swapping around at my chosen cost level.
Hi Jerry,
I'm going to be really obtuse here - I think that we are disagreeing whilst actually agreeing with each other, if you can follow that.
My original premise, although badly/wrongly stated, was that the pursuit of audio Nirvana was futile 'cos it don't exist, and you are in fact agreeing with that, not getting trapped on the upgrading escalator. As I understand your position, you enjoy box swapping for it's own sake, for the differing musical experiences that it offers, and not in the constant and futile pursuit of something perfect, just the 'to be enjoyed' experience of something different. Put another way, swapping your boxes ultimately rewards you by broadening your experience of the music reproduction scene, whereas swapping boxes in the pursuit of audio Nirvana ultimately disappoints by never achieving it.
Cheers,

StanleyB
30-08-2009, 09:55
In defense of Jerry, I would like to point out that he is the Egon Ronay of the HIFI world. He has the time and enjoys listening and commenting on various pieces of equipment from first hand experience, which saves the rest of us a lot of money. And he funds it all out of his own pocket. These are not freebies as the ones that the likes of me have to part with when sending samples to magazines for review.

Of course that can easily develop a fair bit of unexpressed jealousy in certain circles, and a total lack of understanding in others.

Stan

Marco
30-08-2009, 09:58
Hi Varun,

Well, I've got a spare transport mechanism should the original one fail in the X-777ES (although I get the impression that it'll outlast me! :eyebrows:)

As far as the DAS-R1 DAC (and the X-777ES) are concerned, in terms of modification, there are numerous further component upgrades I can have carried out by Audiocom before things are completely maxed out, and indeed these will be implemented in due course. Then it'll be job done in that area for the foreseeable future.

Therefore, I honestly cannot see me ever changing the Sony. It's quite simply the best CDP I've heard. The only item I intend to add to my digital replay is some form of computer streaming set-up (used in conjunction with the DAS-R1), but as yet I'm not sure what that will be.

The Techy is 'finished', but will eventually be swapped for one of Dave Cawley's refurbished SP10s. The Croft is almost done (I just need to upgrade the coupling caps), the Copper amp is going nowhere, nor does it need anything upgraded in it (short of perhaps a brand new set of GEC KT88 valves, which Anthony TD has put aside for me), and the Lockwoods are finished, short of having them re-veneered in a nice real wood finish. My cable loom and mains set-up is also 'done and dusted', although I may consider some new equipment supports to house the much larger SP10 (with new 12" arm).

Therefore, I envisage that by around this time next year I'll have 'ticked all the remaining boxes', as it were, and will simply be adding to my ever-growing music collection :cool:

Marco.

Clive
30-08-2009, 10:14
Hehehehe... :eyebrows:

Obtain high quality kit you like the sound of, and then 'race-tune' its ass until you've got something that's pretty much unbeatable. That's what I do :cool:

Marco.
I'm in total agreement on this Marco. Box swapping may fix a perceived issue (eg bass control or whatever) but so often the new box introduces all sorts of other issues which are noticed later....

Also I would suggest that a single system will never 100% anyone due to mood changes. Sometime I want edge-of-seat raw listening, other times I want mellow because that's how I feel. Sure the type of music I play partially works in line with my mood but not totally. You could say a transparent system should just play what's recorded faithfully but sometimes I want a laid back sound and other times I don't.

So....either live with the fact you'll never have exactly the sound you want ALL the time and be content or have multiple systems.

Marco
30-08-2009, 10:19
I'm in total agreement on this Marco. Box swapping may fix a perceived issue (eg bass control or whatever) but so often the new box introduces all sorts of other issues which are noticed later....


I completely agree, Clive. How true!

However, I also understand and appreciate why Jerry does what he does :)

Marco.

Clive
30-08-2009, 10:47
I completely agree, Clive. How true!

However, I also understand and appreciate why Jerry does what he does :)

Marco.
I also understand Jerry's PoV, especially as I'm a part time reviewer and have been since the early 80's. If people are interested in the technology to produce musical pleasure then work as a reviewer or retailer rather than spend a fortune on making manufacturers rich. Just my opinion!

Marco
30-08-2009, 11:45
Yup. He buys second-hand, though I understand, mainly from private sellers :)

Marco.

Spectral Morn
30-08-2009, 12:13
I also understand Jerry's PoV, especially as I'm a part time reviewer and have been since the early 80's. If people are interested in the technology to produce musical pleasure then work as a reviewer or retailer rather than spend a fortune on making manufacturers rich. Just my opinion!

Chance would be a fine thing...done the later (made redundant) only done the former within the context of AOS and not in print.

Who do you write for?


Regards D S D L

Spectral Morn
30-08-2009, 12:17
I'm in total agreement on this Marco. Box swapping may fix a perceived issue (eg bass control or whatever) but so often the new box introduces all sorts of other issues which are noticed later....

Also I would suggest that a single system will never 100% anyone due to mood changes. Sometime I want edge-of-seat raw listening, other times I want mellow because that's how I feel. Sure the type of music I play partially works in line with my mood but not totally. You could say a transparent system should just play what's recorded faithfully but sometimes I want a laid back sound and other times I don't.

So....either live with the fact you'll never have exactly the sound you want ALL the time and be content or have multiple systems.

Exactly why I have two systems, one downstairs and one upstairs...though this was not my original intention but happened by accident in part, but also being a collector who does not sell on kit but holds onto it, has meant I have acquired enough kit to have a number of systems. I envy Jerry's ability to change, and sell and not, or so it seems regret doing that, but this is what makes Jerry unique and me who I am.


Regards D S D L

John
30-08-2009, 13:26
Chance would be a fine thing...done the later (made redundant) only done the former within the context of AOS and not in print.

Who do you write for?


Regards D S D L

Clive writes for Enjoy the music
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/reviewers/meakins.htm

Marco
30-08-2009, 13:52
I agree that having more than one system can have its benefits. I'd love to own a genuine top-notch all-vintage system housed in a separate room, as well as my current system - purely because I love the look and 'feel' of vintage gear, regardless of any aspects relating to sound quality.

However, I would not run more than one system simply to provide me with different types of musical and/or sonic presentation, as suggested by Clive. Each to his or her own of course, but as my current system does both 'edge-of-the-seat' and 'laid-back', depending on the type of music played, and also how loud I choose to listen, I have no need to seek either type of effect.

I understand what Clive means, of course, but if I'm listening to, say, some throbbing rock or thrash metal then I have the system (and particularly speakers) to create very serious SPLs and the most 'physical', visceral, 'edge-of-the-seat' sound you could possibly imagine outside of a live gig, when of course it is played at the appropriate volume.

The problem is, most systems can’t play seriously loud (thereby creating the desired 'edge-of-the-seat' excitement) and also sound fantastic at the same time by staying controlled and not losing the plot. I am fortunate that my system does this with relative ease. Similarly, it has the subtlety, finesse, delicacy and overall resolution to present more 'delicate' types of music in a highly relaxing and informative matter, again when played at the appropriate volume; thereby achieving the best of both worlds :)

Returning to Jerry's method, I think it's important to remember that he's not box-swapping to 'fix' problems or chase some unattainable goal, but rather to hear his favourite music reproduced in a different way and in turn unlock hitherto unheard information which provides him with greater insight into recordings that he's intimately familiar with.

If one is unperturbed by the 'hassle' this involves on a number of levels, I find his a laudable approach - and one that can potentially be highly rewarding :cool:

Marco.

Spectral Morn
30-08-2009, 13:58
Clive writes for Enjoy the music
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/reviewers/meakins.htm

Thanks John.


Regards D S D L

Spectral Morn
30-08-2009, 14:02
I agree that having more than one system can have its benefits. I'd love to own a genuine top-notch all-vintage system housed in a separate room, as well as my current system - purely because I love the look and 'feel' of vintage gear, regardless of any aspects relating to sound quality.

However, I would not run more than one system simply to provide me with different types of musical and/or sonic presentation, as suggested by Clive. Each to his or her own of course, but as my current system does both 'edge-of-the-seat' and 'laid-back', depending on the type of music played, and also how loud I choose to listen, I have no need to seek either type of effect.

I understand what Clive means, of course, but if I'm listening to, say, some throbbing rock or thrash metal then I have the system (and particularly speakers) to create very serious SPLs and the most 'physical', visceral, 'edge-of-the-seat' sound you could possibly imagine outside of a live gig, when of course it is played at the appropriate volume.

The problem is, most systems can’t play seriously loud (thereby creating the desired 'edge-of-the-seat' excitement) and also sound fantastic at the same time by staying controlled and not losing the plot. I am fortunate that my system does this with relative ease. Similarly, it has the subtlety, finesse, delicacy and overall resolution to present more 'delicate' types of music in a highly relaxing and informative matter, again when played at the appropriate volume; thereby achieving the best of both worlds :)

Returning to Jerry's method, I think it's important to remember that he's not box-swapping to 'fix' problems or chase some unattainable goal, but rather to hear his favourite music reproduced in a different way and in turn unlock hitherto unheard information which provides him with greater insight into recordings that he's intimately familiar with.

If one is unperturbed by the 'hassle' this involves on a number of levels, I find his a laudable approach - and one that can potentially be highly rewarding :cool:

Both of my systems have a similar tonal balance and each share a lot of qualities with each other, but there is a difference in listening via small mini monitor types and larger full range speakers and this is where the main differences are. Weight and scale are different, but I love both set ups at the minute.

I could not do what Jerry does on many levels, but I too think its an interesting and informative approach, however with no fixed reference point making comparisons becomes harder I would have thought...over the long term.


Regards D S D L

Marco
30-08-2009, 14:28
Hi Neil,


Both of my systems have a similar tonal balance and each share a lot of qualities with each other, but there is a difference in listening via small mini monitor types and larger full range speakers and this is where the main differences are.


I know exactly what you mean and agree, having experienced this myself. However large (vintage) Tannoy dual-concentrics, upgraded with modern high quality crossovers, are the first speakers I've heard that do genuine scale and impact as well as provide the 'intimate' presentation you're referring to available with small mini-monitor loudspeakers.

I often sit gob-smacked at the amount of low-level detail retrieval, subtlety and 'presence' on offer from the Lockwoods when listening to music in the wee small hours at not much louder than a whisper. In effect, they 'behave' like the best small speakers when the need arises. However, a quick tweak of the volume knob also 'unleashes the beast' in a rather un-gentlemanly way... :eyebrows:

It's nice to have both!

Marco.

Clive
30-08-2009, 14:32
There are many different approaches we can take and what works for Jerry is great for him and what works for me is great for me. In the end most important thing is to do what's best for one's self realising what it is you are doing. Where the thread started (I think) was endless box swapping in pursuit of the perfect sound. Maybe this also works for someone but I believe done on that basis such box swapping will only lead to longer term dissatisfaction. This is not at all what Jerry is doing.

As suggested by Neil there is more than one form of "laid-back". There's laid-back serious listening to music with scale and presence and there's laid-back more like background music. Anyway this starts to get into nit-picking details, we're all saying much the same thing.

Varun
30-08-2009, 14:37
Watch your hearing Marco- with the decibels it seems you are generating. I have suffered it is said because playing my Sony walkman with earplugs in TOO LOUD- said to be a dangerous tool- the ear phones.

Orchestral players are well known to suffer hearing loss- as they are sitting in the middle of very loud noise.

Marco
30-08-2009, 14:51
Hi Varun,


Watch your hearing Marco- with the decibels it seems you are generating.


Oh don't worry, I do. To be honest, the vast majority of my listening is done at medium to low levels, especially when on my own. It's not very relaxing being 'pummelled to death' when lying back reading a book or magazine! :eyebrows:

However, much like driving a large car with a big engine, it's nice to be able to experience the thrill of 'putting your foot down' when the need arises and knowing that it can handle it with ease... ;)

Marco.

Varun
30-08-2009, 18:53
But when the foot goes down on the accelerator- the paint flakes off the wall and tiles slide off the roof EH! Marco.

That is a teenager's lust Marco-we must all return to it, especially after a few beers.

CD system is good for playing music while you are doing something else. As for me cartridge wear is a prime consideration-not to forget that the blooming Class A things take 20-30 mts to warm up.

Therefore I only listen when I am ready to pay attention- meaning serious listening- so that I work through the music-bit by bit- until I know it better. What that means that unless it is challenging enough- it does not get past the intial phase. Therefore I rarely venture into music I do not know now adays-unless I hear on the radio.

Good tunes are simply not good enough now-I am sure Jerry would agree.

Marco
30-08-2009, 20:05
But when the foot goes down on the accelerator- the paint flakes off the wall and tiles slide off the roof EH! Marco.


LOL. Nope... Not if a system can handle it in its stride with ease. It's like doing 90 MPH on the motorway in a mini, and the same in a 3-litre BMW - the respective experiences are rather different! ;)

Marco.

Mike
30-08-2009, 20:16
He's talking about blowing your house to bits, not yer system ya big eejit! :eyebrows:

Marco
30-08-2009, 20:33
Aye, I know, but ma hoose is made from girders, so there's no chance... It's old and thick, just like me! :lol:

Marco.

Mike
30-08-2009, 20:43
What the bloody hell has this got ta dee wit ya hoose???


LOL. Nope... Not if a system can handle it in its stride with ease. It's like doing 90 MPH on the motorway in a mini, and the same in a 3-litre BMW - the respective experiences are rather different! ;)

:D... <dons Geordie accent> Hawa hinny, divvint crack shite! :lol:

Marco
30-08-2009, 20:55
LOL - you've missed my point, ya wee Geordie jobby :ner:

Let's drop it before we go round in circles! :eyebrows:

Marco.

Mike
30-08-2009, 20:56
Let's not! :ner:

lexi
30-08-2009, 21:19
There is a saying among tradesmen when speaking of someone who is not the quickest. " I gave him a loan of my hammer and when I got it back I was working more slowly"

I bought a box from Jerry and for the first month although happy with it I had an overwhelming desire to sell it:lolsign:

Cheers Jerry still singing that lil box is ;)

Barry
31-08-2009, 01:51
This thread has moved on considerably since my posting.

First of all I ought to explain that in my post the phrase ‘I think I’m there’ was in response to Chris’s (TGW) comment about members ‘being at peace with their systems’, I did not mean to sound smug, suggesting that I have indeed found audio nirvana.

The term nirvana used by Dave is apposite, as it does suggest a goal, though not one of perfection. As Varun has stated nirvana is Sanskrit for ‘extinction’, or liberation through extinction, on which I’ll briefly expand.

In Buddhist doctrine Nirvana is the result of the achievement of enlightenment, allowing one to achieve ‘extinction’ and escape the endless cycle of birth and re-birth. By extension it therefore implies the extinction of all desires, freedom from passion and delusion; since Buddhists believe that pursuit of desires lead to suffering. The term nirvana is thus often misused, as the only attainment of perfection is some sort of perfect beatitude.

To apply this to the Vain Pursuit of Excellence (in audio), would suggest that audio nirvana is to escape the, seemingly endless, cycle of:

Dissatisfaction, Expenditure, Upgrade, Euphoria, Acceptance, Resignation, Doubt, Dissatisfaction,..

A sort of modus circulorum in perpetuum, to which the only solution or escape is to find contentment with your system, and be ‘at peace’ with it.

So do we strive to set up systems we like the sound of, or do we strive for realism? How do we know what is real in studio produced recordings? The only comparison is with live unamplified acoustic instruments or the human voice. Those that never attend concerts will never know, so they may as well build a system whose sound they like and spend time box swapping in pursuit of this goal.

The ‘magic moments’ obtained by listening to music on the radio or an MP3 player is more to do with the listeners’ choice of music rather than the means of reproduction.

I’m not suggesting that one should not follow technical advances in the craft, or refuse to listen to new equipment; however there has to be a considerable, repeatable and consistent improvement noted before a change is made. And if one cannot afford these changes, then remain content with the system as it stands. Definite faults that appear after extended listening ought not to occur if the various items have been carefully auditioned before purchase.

As for the ‘one system fits all’, well I would go along with that. If I want to change from ‘relaxing’ to ‘edge of the seat’ presentation, I will use a different cartridge.

But ultimately, if box swapping is part of the fun and enjoyment of owning a good music reproduction system for some - then why not? Just don’t let it become an obsession.

Regards

DaveK
31-08-2009, 08:22
Good Morning Barry,
I for one would like to thank you for your elucidation on Nirvana - as usual with such posts of your's I found it very interesting. This true story may bring a wry smile to your face. When we first moved into our bungalow many years ago it was new and we were only the second people on our part of the estate, the first were our next door neighbours. They had named their property 'Nirvana' as they were both close to retirement and this was to be there place of enjoyment of their final years I assume. I then thought what a nice and appropriate name. Had they then known that the true meaning of Nirvana was 'Extinction' they (and I) might have had second thoughts.
As time passed and they eventually achieved Nirvana, one of their children moved back into the property with their family and the Nirvana nameplate disappeared, never to be seen again. All of them have been wonderful neighbours and we've been very fortunate to have them as such, and they're still there.
Regarding the rest of your post, I agree with you 100% - it's how I would have expressed it, had I the ability - nice one!
Regarding the LP sleeves, I've upped my order to include your requirements but it's all gone quiet - as and when I hear back from him I'll update you further.
Cheers,

The Grand Wazoo
31-08-2009, 09:55
First of all I ought to explain that in my post the phrase ‘I think I’m there’ was in response to Chris’s (TGW) comment about members ‘being at peace with their systems’, I did not mean to sound smug, suggesting that I have indeed found audio nirvana.

................A sort of modus circulorum in perpetuum, to which the only solution or escape is to find contentment with your system, and be ‘at peace’ with it.

So do we strive to set up systems we like the sound of, or do we strive for realism? How do we know what is real in studio produced recordings? The only comparison is with live unamplified acoustic instruments or the human voice. Those that never attend concerts will never know, so they may as well build a system whose sound they like and spend time box swapping in pursuit of this goal.

The ‘magic moments’ obtained by listening to music on the radio or an MP3 player is more to do with the listeners’ choice of music rather than the means of reproduction.

I’m not suggesting that one should not follow technical advances in the craft, or refuse to listen to new equipment; however there has to be a considerable, repeatable and consistent improvement noted before a change is made. And if one cannot afford these changes, then remain content with the system as it stands. Definite faults that appear after extended listening ought not to occur if the various items have been carefully auditioned before purchase.

As for the ‘one system fits all’, well I would go along with that. If I want to change from ‘relaxing’ to ‘edge of the seat’ presentation, I will use a different cartridge.

But ultimately, if box swapping is part of the fun and enjoyment of owning a good music reproduction system for some - then why not? Just don’t let it become an obsession.

Regards

Well done Barry, your extremely perceptive description is exactly what I was trying to convey in my distinctly non-erudite manner.

Alex_UK
31-08-2009, 10:08
Good Morning Barry,
I for one would like to thank you for your elucidation on Nirvana - as usual with such posts of your's I found it very interesting.

Me too, on both counts - thanks Barry, and for your bungalow anecdote Dave, tee hee!

Varun
31-08-2009, 10:10
Great exposition Barry,

I shall leave the meaning of the words from which 'vaan.a' has originated. My main hobby is Rgveda- the most ancient Sanskrit text.

Now in Sanskrit literature- there never is "One meaning for One word". The meaning is always context dependent- so that it will change depending on how it is used.

SO the meaning of all these terms; as per Monnier-Williams' Sanskrit-English dictionary is also:

TO BE ALLAYED; REFRESHED OR EXHILERATED:

OR TO PUT OUT (PAIN OR FIRE); EXTINGUISH (SUFFERING-Fire); THEREBY COOL>REFRESH> DELIGHT:

The Buddhish belief is of LIBERATION; RELEASE; FREEDOM from Bondage- an idea which goes back to Rgveda.

So nothing wrong with what Jerry does- if it helps him allay his day to day rigors and travails. Depends on how you look at it. By the way Barry- using a second cartridge equates with "TWO SYSTEMS" - so TUT TUT

StanleyB
31-08-2009, 10:38
So do we strive to set up systems we like the sound of, or do we strive for realism? How do we know what is real in studio produced recordings? The only comparison is with live unamplified acoustic instruments or the human voice. Those that never attend concerts will never know, so they may as well build a system whose sound they like and spend time box swapping in pursuit of this goal.

I would have to disagree with you big time.

What you hear at a concert often bears no resemblance to what you hear in a recording studio. Very few times do the artists hurdle together as they do on stage, are the mics in the same position as on stage, and is the nearest wall as far away as on stage.
On top of that, the recordings in a studio are of a different nature than that experienced by one's ears from a stage performance. The recording engineer in the studio has to battle with signal overload on one end of his VU meter scale, and too low an output for some sounds to be heard at the other end. So he keeps having to adjust the signal levels from the various audio inputs as the music keeps rolling. That doesn't happen on stage.

Trying to recreate a stage performance in one's audio set up from a studio recording performance has nothing to do with Nirvana of the first( and I am not even addressing the complete miss-selling of the written word versus the contextual meaning). They are completely different products, and should be treated as such.

The nearest analogy I can think of is eating home made food, supermarket pre-cooked food, or food from the nearest take away. The ingredients might be the same, but the preparation methods are all different. So the end results look and taste different.
The same goes for life versus recorded music, and no amount of table dressing and dress codes is going to make them sound and taste the same.

Stan

Macca
31-08-2009, 11:04
I would have to disagree with you big time.

What you hear at a concert often bears no resemblance to what you hear in a recording studio. Very few times do the artists hurdle together as they do on stage, are the mics in the same position as on stage, and is the nearest wall as far away as on stage.
On top of that, the recordings in a studio are of a different nature than that experienced by one's ears from a stage performance. The recording engineer in the studio has to battle with signal overload on one end of his VU meter scale, and too low an output for some sounds to be heard at the other end. So he keeps having to adjust the signal levels from the various audio inputs as the music keeps rolling. That doesn't happen on stage.


Stan

May have misunderstood you here Stan, but at a live performance the sound engineer will be adjusting levels all the way through - e.g for a song that commences with just vocal and strummed electric guitar (before drums, bass etc kick in) level will be increased for the guitar when playing alone and then dropped back as it becomes rythem accompaniment again.

Agree that live and studio performances are totally different animals, though

Martin

StanleyB
31-08-2009, 11:11
Hi Martin,

the sound and lighting engineer on stage is part of the performance set up. The sound engineer in the studio sometimes doesn't even have the artists in front of him, but just snippets of audio bits (that might have been recorded in different parts of the world) that he has to string together. It's amazing many of us buy that junk and pass it through some very expensive gear...

Stan

Macca
31-08-2009, 11:26
Yes- remember that Sinatra 'Duets' album where the guest artists 'phoned through' their performances? (allegedly, anyway). Don't get me started on studio engineers! I have also noticed that the musicians do not tend to help during mixing and mastering - they will all have different ideas as to how it should all sound - mostly because they have no idea of what quality playback sounds like because they only ever listen to music through a DAB portable or Dixon's sourced midi system - my theory is all that time spent in pokey practice rooms with everything cranked up to 11 has made them mutton!

Martin

StanleyB
31-08-2009, 11:29
Yes- remember that Sinatra 'Duets' album where the guest artists 'phoned through' their performances? (allegedly, anyway). Don't get me started on studio engineers! I have also noticed that the musicians do not tend to help during mixing and mastering - they will all have different ideas as to how it should all sound - mostly because they have no idea of what quality playback sounds like because they only ever listen to music through a DAB portable or Dixon's sourced midi system - my theory is all that time spent in pokey practice rooms with everything cranked up to 11 has made them mutton!

Give this man a beer for hitting the nail on the head.

DSJR
31-08-2009, 11:36
Some artists have good stereo's - the Pink Floyd guys, Tina Turner, the Dankworths, Siouxsie and Kate Bush to name a very few from "my" days. Dave Greenslade and the keyboard player from Visage (Dave "Formula") were both clients of the dealers I worked for.

I think that when you work with the original instruments, acoustic or electronic, hearing the compressed and mixed up results that we buy must be a bit of a let down. I doubt that many want to have a studio monitoring setup at home, as it's a bit like watching Corrie on a huge cinema screen :mental:

Varun
31-08-2009, 12:12
I agree with Macca,

For the big orchestra conductors who of course listen to new recordings and remind themsleves of the music - the quality of reproduction is of NO IMPORTANCE. I used to buy my records from Thomas Heinitz who was based in Moscow Road SW London. His shop was frequented by musicians of all sorts for advice. He had no time for the Hi Fi stuff- and most people whose calender is full have no time either.

There is such a huge difference in the recorded sound- no matter where and how recorded and live sound- that the two can not be compared.

For classical music one has to have an idea of what music is all about- and I as have said before- the perspective can not be changed.

I remember listening to Naim 250 driving Linn Saras once. The unwinding of the sound of the spring of a timer- crrrrrr- sound so often used in POP/ROCK records- in this instance in Dire Straits 'six blade knife' hit me in the face- literally lept out of the enclosure. If I dismissed other systems as inferior subsequently as they did not do what that systen did- I was horrendously wrong.

I will come back on the issue of Electronic Music as used in POP/ROCK- some time later- but in essence I agree with what Barry is saying-that you get an idea by listening to Live Music.

Macca
31-08-2009, 12:39
I think that when you work with the original instruments, acoustic or electronic, hearing the compressed and mixed up results that we buy must be a bit of a let down. I doubt that many want to have a studio monitoring setup at home, as it's a bit like watching Corrie on a huge cinema screen :mental:


Took me a minute to work out what you were getting at but agree 100%!

Closest approach in the home would therefore be 24/192 replay of the master through exactly the kit they used for studio replay - means having a different set up of kit for each album you play of course...:)

Production has to be horses for courses - you would not produce a Ska album the same way you would produce a rock power trio - although I have heard this done recently and the production just did not suit the Ska sound at all - both recordings very professional and polished, though.

Compare the production on, say, Guns and Roses 'use your illusion' to the latest - 'chinese democracy' - the first is rich, sweet, open, dynamic - the second compressed, stodgy, false sounding - terrible, in a nutshell - yet these are both digital recordings done 19 years apart. We should be hearing a lot better - we are actually getting a lot worse!

In the 'eighties I never understood productions of the likes of Martin Hammet - joy Division etc. - they all sounded so thin and weedy through radios and TVs. Now, through decent kit, they sound like a breath of fresh air.

Martin

Mr. C
31-08-2009, 13:14
The reason the digital recordings in the last 6 years are so bad, is very simple RECORD COMPANIES nothing more, the artists (on the whole sign away the production rights) so the R/C's dictate the amount of compression on the recording, who sounds loudest on Radio one.
A couple of weeks ago, a client brought some newer recordings along, they sounded, to be frank, truly bloody appalling when examined they was close to 12db compression and a tiny amount of dynamic range.
The are engineered for I-pods/boom boxes in the bed room and car stereo's verbaitum.
Any reasonable hifi system capable of showing dynamic range and transparency will immediately reproduce the recording from the true a-bort it really is a compressed, rolled off, bass lite and an utter mess that bares no resemblance to the original recording the artist made.

Peter H
31-08-2009, 14:10
The pursuit of sound perfection and its equipment purveyors leads to the biggest 'con' perpetuated to and by mankind. Its all an illusion. I realised this years ago when as a speaker cabinet maker I used to meet those selling the stuff and laughing when a customer left the premises after buying the latest equipment upgrade. The intriguing aspect for me is the number of continually repeated adjectives found and used by Journalists to write about the latest gear. Speaker cable is a good illustration. Mains cable is equal to the multi pound alternatives sold out there but enthusiasts wont accept that whilst they are 'informed' of the best available within magazines

StanleyB
31-08-2009, 14:40
The pursuit of sound perfection and its equipment purveyors leads to the biggest 'con' perpetuated to and by mankind. Its all an illusion. I realised this years ago when as a speaker cabinet maker I used to meet those selling the stuff and laughing when a customer left the premises after buying the latest equipment upgrade.
But not all of us are conmen like you, or would laugh at our customers for buying one's latest effort.

Stan

REM
31-08-2009, 14:43
....

Compare the production on, say, Guns and Roses 'use your illusion' to the latest - 'chinese democracy' - the first is rich, sweet, open, dynamic - the second compressed, stodgy, false sounding - terrible, in a nutshell - yet these are both digital recordings done 19 years apart. We should be hearing a lot better - we are actually getting a lot worse!....



Martin

Interesting, especially after reading THIS (http://www.gatewaymastering.com/gateway_LoudnessWars.asp). Almost went and bought the cd on the strength of that, good job I managed to resist the temptation.

Cheers

Macca
31-08-2009, 18:05
wow! Either I'm right and Bob Ludwig is wrong or...

Anyone else got both albums and care to comment?

Macca
31-08-2009, 19:16
Further to last have just done experiment-

Put on 'Use your Illusion 2' reasonable volume listened to first 4 tracks.

Then played 'Chinese Democracy' - at same volume level on amp

Result- They are pretty much exactly the same level. Then played 'EC was here' as a blind - same level again - maybe a touch lower than the other 2 but nothing in it.

Hence - please disregard my comments re 'compression' on Chinese Dmocracy and carry on with thread.:)

Ralph -if you now want to buy a record with no good tunes or hooks and that sounds like 'U2 plays G n R' (but is not compressed) please go ahead...

Martin

Barry
31-08-2009, 22:22
I would have to disagree with you big time.

What you hear at a concert often bears no resemblance to what you hear in a recording studio. Very few times do the artists hurdle together as they do on stage, are the mics in the same position as on stage, and is the nearest wall as far away as on stage.
On top of that, the recordings in a studio are of a different nature than that experienced by one's ears from a stage performance. The recording engineer in the studio has to battle with signal overload on one end of his VU meter scale, and too low an output for some sounds to be heard at the other end. So he keeps having to adjust the signal levels from the various audio inputs as the music keeps rolling. That doesn't happen on stage.

Trying to recreate a stage performance in one's audio set up from a studio recording performance has nothing to do with Nirvana of the first (and I am not even addressing the complete miss-selling of the written word versus the contextual meaning). They are completely different products, and should be treated as such.

The nearest analogy I can think of is eating home made food, supermarket pre-cooked food, or food from the nearest take away. The ingredients might be the same, but the preparation methods are all different. So the end results look and taste different.
The same goes for life versus recorded music, and no amount of table dressing and dress codes is going to make them sound and taste the same.

Stan

Hi Stan,

I think you might have misunderstood what I meant by ‘attending concerts’. I did in fact mean un-amplified acoustic performances, such as orchestral, chamber, choral or folk. I regard these as the only reference one can have to use to set up a ‘bench mark’ when building a system.

I agree that pop and rock concerts have the singers miked up as well as the guitar amplifiers and keyboards, and so the presentation is largely down to the skill of the sound engineer at the venue. This also applies to jazz concerts where there is often amplified support of the acoustic instruments.

And of course any studio recording of a performance comes to us ‘courtesy’ of the recording engineers who miked up the artist, made the original multi tracked tapes, which are then mixed down to the master tape. We have no idea what it sounded like to them – we just rely on them to do a good job. Some of Dave’s (DSJR) anecdotes from his friend who worked for Decca (?) are revealing, suggesting that the final ‘sound’ is subject to fashion and not at all absolute.

So for those who do not, or choose not to, attend live un-amplified concerts, there is no reference, although they may however play an instrument themselves or have friends or family that do. Without this reference no doubt they would put together a system that sounds ‘right’ or ‘good’ to them.

In this case the term high fidelity means having a high degree of faithfulness to the ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’ of the music, without necessarily being the last word in realism, since the conveyance of emotion is just as important as tonal accuracy, dynamics, frequency response and all the other things we worry about.

Regards

The Grand Wazoo
31-08-2009, 22:36
Hi Stan,

I think you might have misunderstood what I meant by ‘attending concerts’. I did in fact mean un-amplified acoustic performances, such as orchestral, chamber, choral or folk. I regard these as the only reference one can have to use to set up a ‘bench mark’ when building a system.



A good acoustic jazz session is my point of datum for reality.

Barry
31-08-2009, 22:42
Hi Varun,

I wouldn’t dream of challenging your knowledge of Sanskrit. My knowledge of the etymology of nirvana comes from the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1978):

Nirvāna : a blowing out > substantive of noun and past participle of nirvā : blow > nis : out + vā : blow, as in wind.

Thus to blow out, as the wind might blow out or extinguish a (candle) flame.


Two cartridges = two systems? Oh dear that means I have up to 11 systems! And I thought I just had the one, plus a separate ‘schonky’ system (to use Chris’s term) used with the TV.

Regards

Varun
01-09-2009, 06:04
Hello Barry,

You and I and Chris are taking the same theme. That is why I gave the example of the 1st Quad ELS 63 demo. The man refused to play amplified or electronically generated sound-on the premise that such sound had no 'reference point'.

And that is where I cited the second example of the Dire Straits reproduction by Linn+Naimsound. If an audiophile only listens to such a music and as most people do (there are exceptions)- and if all reviews of Hi-Fi equipment involves such music as a test bench, then that test bench, one would say has no caliberation. Some Stereophile magazine reviewers do use classical music but not all.

That is the main reason-I believe I have a different take on the CD sound vs analogue as opposed to some-although there seems to be a general agreement that Analogue is better on this forum.

Varun
01-09-2009, 06:13
Barry again,

'Ni' is never out. It is conditional prefix- and adds the negative to the meaning-that is NOT or WITHOUT. That is where the context come in, what I mean is without knowing what comes before and after the 'word' no sense can be made. That was the reason I listed all those different meanings.

In Buddhism- it means FINAL release from a life of bonds-ties and shackles. So it is far from extinction-but is achieved when the last breath is extinguished-not when one is living. Happens only once.

I do not for a moment believe that Buddha had time for all this cycle of rebirth-it was introduced much later-after his death. Mention this to Dalai Lama and I am sure he will get annoyed.

jandl100
01-09-2009, 06:23
The reason the digital recordings in the last 6 years are so bad, is very simple RECORD COMPANIES .... dictate the amount of compression on the recording, who sounds loudest on Radio one.


Yup, I think that is a major reason for the increase in use of music-destroying compression. That is what sounds best on a dynamically-limited iPod. To be fair to the R/Cs, that's just the current commercial reality - if you are after major market share, that is where your target audience lives.

Peter H
01-09-2009, 09:24
How does an opinion based on experience and research make me a conman Mr Stan ? It was the dealers I found to be the conmen.

Marco
01-09-2009, 09:34
Hi Stan,

I think you might have misunderstood what I meant by ‘attending concerts’. I did in fact mean un-amplified acoustic performances, such as orchestral, chamber, choral or folk. I regard these as the only reference one can have to use to set up a ‘bench mark’ when building a system.

I agree that pop and rock concerts have the singers miked up as well as the guitar amplifiers and keyboards, and so the presentation is largely down to the skill of the sound engineer at the venue. This also applies to jazz concerts where there is often amplified support of the acoustic instruments.

And of course any studio recording of a performance comes to us ‘courtesy’ of the recording engineers who miked up the artist, made the original multi tracked tapes, which are then mixed down to the master tape. We have no idea what it sounded like to them – we just rely on them to do a good job. Some of Dave’s (DSJR) anecdotes from his friend who worked for Decca (?) are revealing, suggesting that the final ‘sound’ is subject to fashion and not at all absolute.

So for those who do not, or choose not to, attend live un-amplified concerts, there is no reference, although they may however play an instrument themselves or have friends or family that do. Without this reference no doubt they would put together a system that sounds ‘right’ or ‘good’ to them.

In this case the term high fidelity means having a high degree of faithfulness to the ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’ of the music, without necessarily being the last word in realism, since the conveyance of emotion is just as important as tonal accuracy, dynamics, frequency response and all the other things we worry about.

Hear, hear! I couldn't agree more, Barry - especially with the bits I've highlighted :)

Live un-amplified music is where it's at in terms of the true benchmark for any hi-fi system. Stan is also 100% correct with what he has written, by looking at the subject from another very valid angle.

Marco.

REM
01-09-2009, 10:26
Hence - please disregard my comments re 'compression' on Chinese Dmocracy and carry on with thread.:)

Ralph -if you now want to buy a record with no good tunes or hooks and that sounds like 'U2 plays G n R' (but is not compressed) please go ahead...

Martin

I think I'll still resist the temptation but thank you anyway, Martin.:lolsign:

The Grand Wazoo
01-09-2009, 11:06
I'd like to expand a little on what I've already said & also re-address some of the points in Dave's original post.


As posted by Dave: I'll open the discussion by stating that audio Nirvana does not exist. I have reached this conclusion, after reading many many postings on the subject on this forum.

I think the general consensus is with Dave on this one.


My premise is that the constant drive to upgrade is satiated temporarily by change rather than improvement.

I'd agree that in many cases, upgrades result in a change of flavour rather than a wholesale improvement and there is almost always some trade-off involved (whether you notice it at first or not).
Decisions that are made as to whether the change is a success or otherwise are so often influence by both what you are told will happen and the (understandable) need to mentally justify a purchase.
You should, if possible, go back to what you had before to check, but only after you have become fully acclimatised to the change – that way, you'll find out if it was a true improvement or not. The trouble is that more often than not, this is not done (often it's not possible), so you set off down another parallel track, thinking you have learnt something about system building when in fact, all you may have done is to close a door behind you on a path that was just as good or actually better than your new one.



Why haven't we yet reached Nirvana? - how many upgrades does it take? And in that time equipment manufacturers keep assuring us that this year's model is a significant improvement on anything available last year.
In my experience, this year's model usually incorporates changes made in order to make the same, or a very similar circuit cheaper to produce than last year's version. Cost cutting is rarely a route to higher quality results.


My recommendation, based on all of three or four months study, is to ignore the pursuit of excellence in the reproduction of recorded music and instead pursue the enjoyment in the reproduction of recorded music - not always the same thing.

You should always pursue the latter.
Don't ignore the pursuit of excellence because that is attainable.
You have (I suspect) rightly reasoned that Nirvana is only in the mind.


As originally posted by Me:
I've touched on this before when I asked if anyone agreed with my theory that those of us who spend as much or more time in the 'Musical' sections of AoS than the 'Gear' sections are those who are somehow more 'at peace' with their hi-fi.

I wasn't making the announcement that my gear is better than anyone else's or that I have found audio Nirvana, but I have reached the point of excellence for my purposes, with my taste in music, its presentation and in the environment it is used in. I have recognised Nirvana is not attainable and that I'm getting what I need from my gear. This doesn't mean I'll never make changes, but when I do they will be very measured and carefully considered choices – there is no rush for me any more. Neither does it mean that I consider others pursuit of Nirvana is somehow a waste of their time or money. As long as they enjoy the chase & stay away from debt, that's great – if they find Nirvana, I'm sure they'll tell us!! ………..but I'll be asking them a few months later if they still feel the same!

Of course, none of the above has any bearing on the fact that it's fun to play with new and different audio gear. I think most of us would love to be in Jerry's shoes (though, in my case, I'd have trouble doing what he does without the constancy of my main system – it would have to be an addition to, rather than a replacement for that). My activities playing with other gear happen in other rooms and I get a great deal of fun out of it.

The equally unattainable Nirvana that I'm currently more interested in seeking (and has been a lifelong obsession) is more related to finding and owning recordings of great music – and in my opinion this is a far more noble quest!!

DaveK
01-09-2009, 11:28
Hi Chris,
As usual, bang on the money and eloquently stated, to boot.
Cheers,

Steve Toy
01-09-2009, 11:55
Audio Nirvana does not exist for two reasons:

1) Human beings are never satisfied for long and strive constantly for improvement; we are never happy with our lot. Contentment is always having something to aim for.

2) No hi-fi system can 100% faithfully reproduce live acoustic music. Some get closer than others but none actually achieve total perfection.

Pursuit of excellence is achieving the best possible results within a given environment, working to certain constraints* and a given budget. Over time the budget is open-ended which is why those with what can be regarded as the very best systems have usually been at it for years or even decades. Over time we acquire both the knowledge and the resources to build a mind-blowingly satisfying system.

*Such constraints need to be reasonable impositions. The room layout often needs to work around the system, not the other way round.

Also, when building and improving a system you should never lose sight of the basics - the musical message should always come first with any other hi-fi artifacts being mere icing on the cake thereafter.

Alex_UK
01-09-2009, 12:21
Two great posts there that sum it all up perfectly IMO, thanks Chris & Steve, and to DaveK for starting it all off in the first place!

Marco
01-09-2009, 12:26
Excellent post, Chris (and Steve). I'd just like to expand on this bit because I think it's crucial and deserves to be looked at in more detail:


In my experience, this year's model usually incorporates changes made in order to make the same, or a very similar circuit cheaper to produce than last year's version. Cost cutting is rarely a route to higher quality results.


That is so utterly true. We need to get away from the conditioning of automatically believing that the 'newest or the latest is always best' because, quite frankly, in many cases it isn't! Key components in my own system are testament to that. I still maintain that the ultimate way to build a hi-fi system is to combine the best of old and new technologies.

With hi-fi, it's often the case of what you describe above, or quite superb (key) components (by this I mean internal electrical 'bits' such as DAC chips, etc) being discontinued by large international manufacturers (such as Philips or Pacific Microsonics, etc) due to cost-cutting or streamlining of their product ranges. These companies supply smaller hi-fi manufacturers with their 'core essentials', and so when these essential 'bits' are no longer available it forces hi-fi manufacturers to rethink their designs and either make changes or build something new.

The fact is these changes or new products are not always better than what preceded them simply because the new parts they've had to accommodate are often inferior to the 'bits' that were used before!

Now think about this..... Do you honestly believe that any manufacturer is going to come out and say 'sorry folks, but our new 'Wankfest Willy-Waver Special Edition Signature MK VII' CD player is no where near as good as the MK VI version, because we can't get the necessary parts anymore, but buy the MK VII anyway, which has got some spanking new but sadly inferior parts inside as that's all we could get'?

NO CHANCE!! So what do they do?

They spin a yarn, of course, and market their latest products as the best they've ever made, fooling the impressionable and gullible public in the process, and in turn flooding the market with so-so equipment, driving standards down, and ultimately creating a merry-go-round of dissatisfaction amongst those who buy these products because they fail to deliver what was promised. This in turn gets people on a never-ending upgrade spiral because instead of buying a product that's 'sorted' in the first place, they end up with a pale imitation of such, born from whatever parts are available and cheap, and then chasing the so-called 'nirvana' which when following this particular path of system building is completely unattainable...

Manufacturers also often use terms such as 'obsolete' or 'redundant' (Ashley James of AVI continually adopts this mantra) when referring to technology previously implemented in older products to infer some form of inferiority compared to their 'latest and greatest'. It's often only 'obsolete' or 'redundant' because key parts have been discontinued for a variety of commercial reasons, such as I've mentioned above, not because it's actually inferior in terms of audio performance. It's a vicious circle and an absolute minefield to the uninitiated!! It's not always like that, and some new products *are* genuinely very good, but this is becoming increasingly rare, in my experience, due to most equipment these days being built strictly to a price, and sold to an ever-shrinking target market, which was less the case in the heyday of hi-fi in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s.

The best way not to end up in the sorry state of continual box-swapping (unless you're a 'Jerry') is to think laterally and buy products which offer the highest sound-per-pound value from specialist, often smaller manufacturers, and forget about badge snobbery or 'prestige value'. Also, look to the classic arena and judiciously select the best vintage gear, whose core design and parts quality is often better than anything made today, modifying any ageing components therein (caps, resistors, etc) with the latest and best that are available; thereby getting the best of both worlds.

This is one of the few areas in audio where new technology 99% of the time outperforms old technology. I've learnt all this the hard way and so would like others with less experience not to succumb to the same pitfalls. Therefore, I would urge people to read this and let it sink in.

If I can help even just one person from making the sorts of mistakes I referred to earlier then rants such as this will have been well worthwhile :)

Marco.

The Grand Wazoo
01-09-2009, 12:43
Marco,
I was about to expand on this myself, but you have done so for me!

The only thing I would add for now, is this:


The fact is these changes or new products are not always better than what preceded them simply because the new parts they've had to accommodate are often inferior to the 'bits' that were used before!

To compound things further, the new part is shoe-horned into the old circuit that (perhaps) was optimised for the old set of parts. A complete redesign, taking into account the necessary changes is never on the cards due to the manufacturer's own set of cost restraints – square pegs & round holes.

Alan Sircom
01-09-2009, 12:56
I still think Chinese Democracy sounds compressed. But I'm willing to accept that's in-head compression. Something to do with my built in taste filter refusing to accept such utter widdly-wee 14 guitarists recorded over 12 years to play a single riff nonsense and closing down my hearing mechanism to protect me from such dreck.

The only parallel I can draw is when I had to review Good Cop Bad Cop starring Pamela Anderson. Despite the fact she gets them out a lot, despite the fact she gets mock-rogered at several times during the DVD, it was so unutterably bad that I couldn't just turn the thing off, I had to storm out of the house in disgust.

I've tried using Chinese Democracy as a coaster, but even wine glasses won't touch it. Charity Shops refuse it. Even the bin men won't take it.

If I had to sum the record up in one word it would have to be 'unflushable'.

Rant over.

DanJennings
01-09-2009, 14:49
<snip> 'Chinese Democracy' <snip>

Ralph -if you now want to buy a record with no good tunes or hooks and that sounds like 'U2 plays G n R' (but is not compressed) please go ahead...

Martin

Harsh... I really like the album... I think track-for-track it's better than the use your illusion albums.... I really think that there is a lot of filler on them, and they could easily have been cut down to a single album

I don't think there is too much compression on Chinese Democracy, I think it sounds pretty dynamic for a newish album. I think that a lot of people criticised the album purely because it had been in the making for 15 years, and it had been so overhyped that it could never be anything but a disappointment. I listened to it with an open mind, (admitted having heard quite a few of the songs live, and others at an incomplete state before the release) and I think it is a GOOD GNR album, and I would recommend it to anyone. Axl is in the best voice of his life, and sometimes is simply astonishing.

John
01-09-2009, 15:00
The equally unattainable Nirvana that I'm currently more interested in seeking (and has been a lifelong obsession) is more related to finding and owning recordings of great music – and in my opinion this is a far more noble quest!!

Yes agree fully I love that feeling when you discover a new album and each listen it takes you deeper and deeper into the music till almost the music becomes part of you

I also experience music to be transpersonal and the place I have felt this most is being at a great gig

The Grand Wazoo
01-09-2009, 16:02
Axl is in the best voice of his life, and sometimes is simply astonishing.


Does that mean he can squeak louder, or longer than before?

Barry
01-09-2009, 16:34
I think these latest posts by Chris, Steve and Marco, with whom I all agree, have basically answered Dave's original question.

As for me, I'm off the hear some unamplified live music, courtesy of the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra for tonights Proms: Haydn Symphony No.100 and Shostakovich Symphony No. 10. Yummy!

Varun
01-09-2009, 19:19
Hi Barry,

You would no doubt tell us if the Albert Hall experience was close to 'Nirvana'. The etymology and the Buddhist side of things and your "Avataar" perhaps may have something in common. Of course you need not say anything in case sensibilities of others are excoriated.

Anyway-another word Marco threw in "Mantra" also comes from Sanskrit. Talking of heading towards perceived perfection-Marco has headed towards 15" Winchesters in a Lockwood cabinet, while I would have been very happy with LS35As and may return to them when I downsize-that is if they still can be GOT.

Alex_UK
01-09-2009, 19:43
I would have been very happy with LS35As and may return to them when I downsize-that is if they still can be GOT.

Indeed they can Varun, to a degree: I won't promote any particular dealer, but this came from a dealer's site, easy enough to find with Google:


THE BBC REFERENCE MONITOR TYPE LS3/5a LOUDSPEAKER IS BACK!

The V2 LS3/5a from Stirling Broadcast is awarded Best Loudspeaker under £1000 in the Hi Fi News 2005 Awards, beating both the Sonus Faber Concertino Domus and Ruark Sabre III.

Once an LS3/5a License had been obtained from the BBC, Stirling Broadcast commissioned the manufacture of new T27 and B110 drive units from KEF and reintroduced the LS3/5a to the market, to enthusiastic reception. Shortly afterwards Stirling Broadcast began its path of innovation in the LS3/5a world by introducing higher quality crossovers, referred to as 'SuperSpec', and thin-walled, screw-back cabinets modelled after the prototype LS3/5a cabinets.

Following problems and uncertainties with the continuing supply of T27 and B110 drive units Stirling Broadcast have introduced an updated version of the LS3/5a, unofficially known as the V2. The designer, a luminary in the audio industry, has utilised specially prepared SEAS and ScanSpeak drive units with high grade crossovers that accurately mimic the response characteristics of the original versions. Stirling Broadcast has successfully managed to capture the best aspects of both versions of the LS3/5a, combining the faster and more modern sound of the 11 ohm version with the seductive vocal abilities of the 15 ohm version, and adding an improved and extended bass response and greater power handling for good measure.

Universally accepted as the reference for miniature systems, the LS3/5a grade two monitor delivers a wholly exceptional degree of tonal accuracy. Specifically designed for broadcasting environments where space is at a premium, each speaker is matched to within 1dB of a BBC standard. Within the domestic environment, the LS3/5a delivers a performance of unparalleled purity.

Complete with 5 years warranty Expect around £870 for walnut cherry or ash finishes, £950 for "limited edition" finishes

Marco
01-09-2009, 20:07
Marco has headed towards 15" Winchesters in a Lockwood cabinet...


Winchesters? You've been watching too many westerns, my man! :lol:

They're 15" Tannoy Monitor Golds.

I too love LS35As, but they don't do scale! If I swapped to them from the Lockwoods, it'd be like listening to a transistor radio - albeit a very good one ;)

Marco.

Varun
01-09-2009, 20:29
Well well well- Many thanks Alex,

that is truly good news and I shall bear that in mind. I suppose one could always plug in a subwoofer? If I remember correctly they had a sensitivity of 88db so will be no good for a single ended amp??

Marco- all these things like Tannoy Golds are from before my time-I mean by the time I started taking an interest it was all B&W and KEF monitors and so on. The chap I bought my EARs from in Balham was selling Decca speakers- painted white-small with horn loading. He had managed to get hold of a warehouse clear out stock from somewhere.

And the man demonstrating the ESL 63s was using a Pink Triangle mounted with a Panasonic MC cartridge.

I am reminiscing-back in my days!

DanJennings
02-09-2009, 08:18
Does that mean he can squeak louder, or longer than before?

longer, and higher ;)

but seriously, he really does some amazing stuff with his voice on this record

Ali Tait
02-09-2009, 19:41
I would say a transmitter SE valve amp would drive them just fine.Something like an 845 or 211 would be around 20 w/p/ch,or the Chinese Audioromy I have,utilising 813's at I would guess around 30 to 35.I don't believe the claimed 45! Not sure what the impedance curve on the speakers is like,but I remember the old version came in a 15-ohm variety,which I guess would be very easy to drive,even with say a 300b SE at around 9 w/ch.It's surprising how far valve watts can go-valve amps tend to drive nasty loads better than sand amps.I guess it depends on the size of your room and how loud you like to listen.

Varun
02-09-2009, 20:48
Thanks Ali,

True connoisseur of valves. Just out of interest, all the single ended amps I have heard in shops or shows-appeared to have a forward sound-quite unlike the usual types (forgive me for not knowing what to call them-push-pull perhaps).

Perhaps you can enlighten me and others who might be interested. I have heard the LS3/5As fill good sized rooms-but yes they will be used in a small room-if I downsize when I retire. The lack of nth bass extension is not a worry as the brain would fill in the gaps.

I realized after bi-wiring how effective the addition of Belden as a LF conductor was-opened up another dimension in sound. I shall return to it- the subject of how far the improvement cart can be driven-even after the horse has bolted??

Ali Tait
03-09-2009, 12:04
Do you remember the particular SE amps you have heard? I certainly wouldn't characterise a good SE amp as sounding forward,quite the reverse in fact,certainly in comparison to a lot of sand amps.To my ears,a good SE amp has a liquid,organic mid and top that engage you on an emotional level in a way I've never heard a solid state amp equal.Not that I'm a valve luddite you understand,I just find valves sound better than anything else I've heard so far.I have heard PP amps sound forward in the way you describe,quite a few in fact,but good ones can be very nice indeed.In fact the direct coupled amp driving my stats is PP,though strangely it sounds like an SE amp,and is the best sounding amp I've ever heard by quite a margin.There's something to be said for getting rid of output trannies!

Varun
03-09-2009, 17:07
Thanks Again Ali,

No I do not recall the names of the SE amps I have heard-I think it was the Heathrow show in 2002 and Bristol Show in 2004 or 2005. I have not taken any interest in any new products as I have had no reason to change. however, I am glad to hear that you have found them to sound as good as any, if not better.

A number people have said to me that SE is the way forward. Do you agree?

Ali Tait
03-09-2009, 20:25
Most definately.SE does things no other type of amp can match IMO,bar the direct-coupled amp I have in prototype form,but that is a specialised amp,and not many people would be comfortable with speaker cables carrying 2kV trailing along the floor! Don't know whereabouts you are,but you would be most welcome to come and have a listen anytime.I have both SE and PP valves,and also the direct-coupled jobbie,when I get round to repairing the panel in the Acorns,and even a high-power sand amp (Musical Fidelity A370) though that will be up for sale soon I think.Great amp,but I have now moved out of my place in Leeds and now am with my partner in Dunfermline,so now have far too much hi-fi.Some will have to go!

Varun
03-09-2009, 20:36
Thanks Ali,

I am in Merseyside, so quite a fair distance away. Thanks for the offer.

Ali Tait
03-09-2009, 20:44
You're welcome.You could attend the forthcoming Owston do,which would give you an excellent idea of what valves are all about.

The Grand Wazoo
10-12-2012, 00:20
From The Grave