View Full Version : Are we seeking the first signs of a culture of un-greed in our industry?
Filterlab
12-01-2009, 14:39
That sums things up nicely, Rob. You should remember that I've only known you recently. The first time we met was at a hi-fi show and that was also when you appeared to make the near instantaneous decision to abandon CD, so you can perhaps appreciate how it looked ;)
I can indeed, I forgot to put that into my response. :lol:
I agree with you fully on "transport induced colouring", but the difference with me is that with having such a high quality CD transport in the first place, quite different from the norm, the improvement (or coloration induced) you refer to is tiny - the key with audiophile music streaming is really more in the quality of the DAC used. Since the DAS-R1 would be getting used for computer audio duties anyway, in all honesty, it's hard to be arsed going through the rigmarole of organising another set-up for a such a small gain in sonic performance, and there's only so much music you can listen to in a lifetime.
Factor that in with how I have no love affair with computers, and find the whole computer audio way of accessing one's music collection 'soulless', and also that I've got a superb T/T and decent vinyl collection, and you can see why I might not be so similarly motivated to change...
Whilst I've owned some mega disc spinners, I've not owned anything as tank-like as your Sony. I suspect that moving to a computer based source and using your DAS-R1 would be of little or no improvement, and I know you're not a fan of computers as well. ;) The word soulless hits the nail on the head when it comes to the tactile aspect of computer audio, but for organisation there's nothing like it. :) However I think if you had a Mac you may feel different about computers, they're a lot more 'lively' and friendly in use than others (in my opinion) and of course their stability makes it a pleasant experience.
Anyway, the bottom line is that you're happier now with your system than you've ever been - job done! :)
I am indeed and I think I've been very lucky in that. Whilst vinyl will make an entrance into my system at some point, it will be a secondary source. Watch this space though! :lol: Never say 'never'.
I suspect that moving to a computer based source and using your DAS-R1 would be of little or no improvement, and I know you're not a fan of computers as well. The word soulless hits the nail on the head when it comes to the tactile aspect of computer audio, but for organisation there's nothing like it. However I think if you had a Mac you may feel different about computers, they're a lot more 'lively' and friendly in use than others (in my opinion) and of course their stability makes it a pleasant experience.
Spot on, Rob, although with Del and I having an almost brand new top-of-the-range Sony Vaio laptop each I don't think I'll be investing in a Mac, on top of that, anytime soon ;)
The only way I'll get a decent improvement, sonically, with music streaming over my current CD playing is with the high-res files Tony C mentions. But with the rather limited music catalogue currently available, and that seemingly remaining the case for the time being, there is no motivation for me to go down that route simply to have the 'latest toy' - that just isn't me :)
When there are as many hi-res music files to choose from as there are CDs then I'll invest in the relevant hardware!
Marco.
purite audio
12-01-2009, 15:08
'When there are as many hi-res music files to choose from as there are CDs then I'll invest in the relevant hardware!'
Marco.
I think you will be investing well before then, once heard! Keith.
Keith, it won't matter how good it sounds if the music I want to listen to isn't available :)
Marco.
While we're firmly entrenched in subjectivist territory I'd like to say that in my humble opinion and to my ears, Rob's
cold cleanliness and inky black background
is not about hifi, but absolutely about music. Put in more conventional terms, cold cleanliness = transparency, resolution and detail, and inky black background = low (very low) noise floor. And while these, too, are hifi terms, not musical ones, to my ears they merely take some of the weaknesses and flaws of hifi out of the way to let the music through.
This is, of course, the objective of hifi, the reason why simple, elegant designs, short signal chains, and uber expensive components exist -- to get the hifi out of the way. Digital is a new way of achieving the low noise, transparency and resolution that the high end has chased, often pretty successfully, for decades. And, in my humble opinion/to my ears, when digital is properly implemented (which is, thankfully, easy and not expensive) it achieves these goals extremely well, giving me a very direct connection to my music and the ability to ignore my hifi.
Of course all paths are imperfect, and if you are more tolerant of, or even enjoy, the imperfections of your path more than mine, viva la difference.
Tim
is not about hifi, but absolutely about music. Put in more conventional terms, cold cleanliness = transparency, resolution and detail, and inky black background = low (very low) noise floor. And while these, too, are hifi terms, not musical ones, to my ears they merely take some of the weaknesses and flaws of hifi out of the way to let the music through.
I would agree, Tim, as would I'm sure Rob :)
However, I would argue that this is not where your head should be 'at' when listening to music.
If when listening to music your ears are more attuned to "inky black backgrounds", etc, than for instance to the emotion the music is conveying, or what someone is singing about, then quite simply you're listening to the 'hi-fi' more than to the music itself.
A good example of this is with vinyl:
When I'm playing my favourite records do any pops or crackles detract from my enjoyment of the music; moreover do I hear the pops and crackles first before I 'get' the emotional aspect of the music and its purpose, or do I simply relegate that superficial 'noise' to my subconscious and allow the music to wash over me and enjoy it regardless?
With me it's the latter every time, simply because I love music much more than I do 'sound'...
Marco.
I guess I don't spend much time thinking about such things, Marco, as my system has never been at the forefront of my mind when listening to music. Well, there are moments, when something new is in the chain...
My problem, after decades as a singer/guitarist, is something else altogether. I've had to re-train myself to stop listening for material, and re-arranging songs for guitar/voice in my head, when I should just be allowing myself to get carried away. I'm doing better...
Nice one, Tim :)
I guess I don't spend much time thinking about such things, Marco, as my system has never been at the forefront of my mind when listening to music. Well, there are moments, when something new is in the chain...
Indeed - and that's the only time my head enters 'analytical mode': when I need to know what's happening in a hi-fi sense then I analyse the sound as much as I do the music. Note that even then the music is still very much part of the equation, as in the end it's still the presentation of the music that matters most; merely that the 'sound' part of the system at that point receives greater attention than it does normally.
Excuse my rambling, but I'm just trying to give you a better insight into how my mind works with hi-fi, since you're quite big on this kind of thing.
As I've said before, Tim, it's the same with science and hi-fi: there's a time to switch on one one's 'scientific head' and be critically objective, and a time to put it on 'stand-by mode' and allow ones natural senses (ears) to take control and be the judge.
That's the beauty of being a human being in control of his mind (like me - although my wife would disagree, haha!), compared to a robot programmed on nothing but science and logic, and therefore also to behave in a specific way, unable to differentiate between the needs of both the above in appropriate situations, and as a result through no fault of its own making the wrong choice... ;)
Marco.
Filterlab
12-01-2009, 18:36
I don't actively listen out for inky black backgrounds or any other attributable element, and I don't listen with the sole intention of picking holes in what I'm hearing, but I do notice every aspect of sound reproduction intended or otherwise. Whether one should or shouldn't be in a certain frame of mind when listening doesn't alter what is heard or perceived (whichever way you want to look at it) and elements of annoyance are hard to ignore once heard. Hi-fi in a way almost goes against the grain of its intentions and in fact draws attention to what's missing or wrong rather than all the elements that are right - I guess one could call it an audiophile's folly.
Whatever, I know that I enjoy my hi-fi and the sound type that it outputs. Yes I could draw criticisms with it as I could with any system, but it does far more right than wrong. Is hi-fi just about getting as much right as possible and learning to live with the rest perhaps?
Good point, Rob :)
I'd like to know what some of our members think of this, so I'll take a back seat for a bit and offer my tuppenceworth later...
Marco.
That may be so, Hans, but it's not what I hear when I compare vinyl to CD (or any other digital medium). Vinyl done right to many people sounds more 'correct' in terms of how music 'behaves', as demonstrated by Anthony and Stan, and that's all that matters ;)
If we're going to properly understand the difference between music signals and sound in order to obtain equipment which ultimately sounds more musical we have to separate them properly and prioritise what the ear prefers, not the 'hi-fi bits' detected by measurement apparatus.
Think about it: if digital was superior in the way you consider then Stan wouldn't have to use vinyl as reference when designing his DACs, would he?
So something else is obviously going on which 'logic', measurements, or objective thinking isn't currently explaining, or certainly explaining fully...
Marco.
I was mainly objecting to the notion of " infinite " information in analogue which plainly it isn't. It may be more "palatable " information but ultimately ( beyond RB ) digital is more accurate and hopefully, one day, better
You're missing the point again, Hans, the "infinite" thing aside.
It's got nothing to do with what's more "palatable". This is not about tonality or any other sonic presentation preferencies. It's about what is ultimately more accurate in terms of preserving the integrity of 'sound' signals or MUSIC signals. The two are different. It is because of this that digital is often perceived (or even measured) as being the more 'accurate' music carrier, when in effect it simply may be more accurate at carrying 'sound' than music.
Can you appreciate the distinction?
I contend that analogue (vinyl) done right is more faithful in preserving or relaying a music signal than any digital method is, simply because of how our ears work (as explained earlier).
Marco.
Primalsea
12-01-2009, 20:13
Am I the only one who works here?? Do you all sit at work and send posts to the forum or something??
What I said was that analogue has an effectively unlimited sampling rate. I didn't say it recorded infinate information although done properly it would be a hell of a lot more info than a digital recording.
Analog will constantly record and constantly playack. there are downsides though. Digital does not constantly record or playback, it records snippets and then plays them back fast enough that in theory the gaps inbetween the snippets dont get noticed. There are benefits though.
What I know for sure is that I prefer GOOD analogue over GOOD digital. This is the key, you can't compare average analogue to good digital and make a decision based on this. However I can understand why some people prefer digital I just find it can be a little harsh to listen to sometimes.
What I know for sure is that I prefer GOOD analogue over GOOD digital.
I agree, Paul, particularly with the above and have said this before.
As for working and posting, well I'm self-employed and work from home so I can do what I like :lol:
Marco.
Analogue as in typical LP's has been screwed around to death, what you often here off the plastic a VERY pale reflection of the source recording. Been there, done that, both at Decca and at Linn.
The problem many CD's of analogue originals is that first, the third generation "bodged for LP" tape is often all there is and it takes a highly skilled mastering engineer to sort the sound out for CD. Quite often, this doesn't happen. I could go on for hours about those precious Decca black label SXL's from the fifties/early sixties, ALL of which were cut at half speed (possibly good) yet VERY heavily equalised from the original (sometimes into double figures). Just transcribing this to digital with the "vinyl" eq sounds hoorid I'm told, so the mastering engineer had to go with his heart when making CD masters of the old stuff, often leaving the original tape as the producer wanted it.
Wendy Carlos, when she obtained the rights to her material back, fortunately had the mix-down masters for each track at her studio and used these for the remastered CD's, rather than the mid-boosted and compressed third generation LP masters that were returned to her from CBS, any final tweaking done carefully in the digital domain. If you bother to trawl through her site, the article was in the box-set remastering/repairing section.
We're way off topic, but I wanted to attempt to share the above with you.
I'l crawl back under my stone now and sort our son out for bath and bed - far more entertaining than stereo systems, even expensive ones hehe!
Geoffrey Horn at Gramophone magazine used to say that people preferred analogue because the tape modulation noise gives the sound a "comfortable" feeling but which is not realistic. Personally I feel there is still one instrument where CD quality fails : that is the sound of the violin. But on many other things, choral, organ, piano, brass, I find the "solidity" that digital imparts refreshing.
Do you find this on all violin recordings? I only ask because I've heard some truly dire violins, such as the one played by Isaac Stern at a concert I attended seemingly centuries ago. A silly description, but his violin sounded as if it had a cold....... I'f I'd have heard a stereo playing this, I'd have blamed the speakers or something ;)
I think that a possible "problem" with red book CD is that there is less room for error when recording and mastering to this format. having a "wide open" hi-res system must make it easier to "get it right" in the audio frequency domain. let's face it, some of the early digital editors apparently messed up the lower bits somewhat. I reckon I heard this as "dirty" sounding tape hiss on some recordings, but I could be very wrong on all this.
Geoffrey Horn at Gramophone magazine used to say that people preferred analogue because the tape modulation noise gives the sound a "comfortable" feeling but which is not realistic.
Interesting, perhaps that's the case for him? I don't get "comfortable" feelings or anything else like that when I listen to vinyl - just a better overall 'connection' with the music :)
Marco.
Primalsea
12-01-2009, 23:03
I don't get it with the analogue source thing. Are we saying that digitally mastered albulms from the original analogue source is better than the analog albums? Surely both mediums would suffer from the poor master tapes?
I find that alot of modern CD's are dire (current music that is) while current (ish) CD's from artists who still use analogue equipment to record the album sound better. I would concede that any album being CD or vinyl sounds equally good when done properly. But again I think its (that phrase again) horses for courses. Some music just suits CD and some just suits vinyl.
I find that alot of modern CD's are dire (current music that is) while current (ish) CD's from artists who still use analogue equipment to record the album sound better.
I agree - in a revealing system the difference is blatantly obvious. I'm quite sure that I could easily identify this in a blind test using my system as a reference.
Who remembers when CDs were once marked 'AAD', 'ADD' and 'DDD', according to the recording process, and crucially, when 'AAD' CDs often sounded much better than their all-digital (DDD) counterparts? ;)
Do you remember this happening, Paul? I do!
Marco.
Primalsea
12-01-2009, 23:17
Who wants some useless science?
There are 65,536 descrete steps voltage output theoretically possible with CD. This equates to 96dB dynamic range.
On the average CDP output of 2.4 volts Peak to Peak this equates to 65,536 steps of 0.0366mV.
Each descrete step can happen every 0.0227 mSeconds (44.1 thousand times a second).
You would think that having so many tiny voltage steps changing that many times per second you wouldn't be able to tell the difference from digital to analogue.
Sorry, 2 whisky's and I just felt like sharing
Beechwoods
12-01-2009, 23:18
Who remembers when CDs were once marked 'AAD', 'ADD' and 'DDD', according to the recording process, and crucially, when 'AAD' CDs often sounded much better than their all-digital (DDD) counterparts? ;)
I was thinking along those lines recently. Often the early CD issues of classic stuff was taken from the pressing master - so 1st or 2nd gen from the original mixdown master. 'Remasters' claim to go back to the original tapes, and they may, but what with all the bloody compression they often sound worse than the originals :)
Primalsea
12-01-2009, 23:19
Yep I remember that!
By the way the last post was being typed while you posted your last one. The whisky hasn't got me completely.
But we all know it doesn't matter if its AAD ADD or DDD right???:scratch:
anthonyTD
12-01-2009, 23:20
I was thinking along those lines recently. Often the early CD issues of classic stuff was taken from the pressing master - so 1st or 2nd gen from the original mixdown master. 'Remasters' claim to go back to the original tapes, and they may, but what with all the bloody compression they often sound worse than the originals :)
good point...
A....
Filterlab
12-01-2009, 23:21
Yep I remember that!
By the way the last post was being typed while you posted your last one. The whisky hasn't got me completely.
But we all know it doesn't matter if its AAD ADD or DDD right???:scratch:
I used to think DDD was the best, but now I don't.
aquapiranha
12-01-2009, 23:25
good point...
A....
I try to avoid buying remastered CD's, often it just means that the modern habit of ramping up the levels has been applied to an otherwise perfectly good master- a total waste.
Filterlab
12-01-2009, 23:25
Am I the only one who works here?? Do you all sit at work and send posts to the forum or something??
LOL! I would love to say that's the case and no doubt it appears so, but it's far from it. Saying that my browser is open all day at work so I can easily drop in for moment to post then carry on with work.
Marco on the other hand spends his entire day clicking his refresh button every 15 seconds. ;)
Beechwoods
12-01-2009, 23:28
The little green dot next to my name is faked. I'm not really on here all the time ;)
Primalsea
12-01-2009, 23:28
I do wonder though if the whole argument about analogue and digital is clouded by the fact that more often than you would believe stuff sounds really bad because it's screwed up in the studio by sound engineers mentally masturbating. I really do think that cock ups happens far more than we are lead to beleive and this isn't just in recording. A guy who tested rock core samples for the oil industry said that more often than not an oil well gets screwed up often reducing its capacity by a long way. Also a guy who has designed speakers professionaly for many years said its the sad truth than many commercial speakers are not actually designed properly. I've found a fundamental flaw in a circuit design of a commercial amp myself. makes you wonder.......
I was thinking along those lines recently. Often the early CD issues of classic stuff was taken from the pressing master - so 1st or 2nd gen from the original mixdown master.
Which might explain why so many of the 'AAD' CDs I've got from the mid 80s are amongst the finest sounding that I own, much better than some more recent so-called 'audiophile' discs of an all-digital nature...
There's no doubt in my mind that in many respects recording quality on a any medium nowadays has gone backwards more than forwards - with CD, compared to its 'AAD heyday' in the 80s, to vinyl and it's similar 'heyday' in the 50s. It's simply what my music collection tells me on both vinyl and CD.
Regarding digital, I think it would be interesting to find three discs of the same music all recorded by either the process of 'AAD', 'ADD' or 'DDD' and compare the results. I'm sure that on any half-decent system the difference would be obvious :)
Marco.
Marco on the other hand spends his entire day clicking his refresh button every 15 seconds.
:eyebrows: I think if that were the case I'd have repetitive strain syndrome!
I've got that, but only with my wanking hand :lol:
Marco.
Primalsea
12-01-2009, 23:32
Yeah, what is Marco's day job? I thought it was upseting people on other forums. Thats probably the easiest job in the world.
Primalsea
12-01-2009, 23:35
Name and shame
U2 - How to dismantle an atomic bomb, my god thats a shit sounding album. Love the band, love the songs, hate the production unlistenable unless you have an ipod, with your iphones, idock, icock etc.
Spectral Morn
12-01-2009, 23:41
I agree - in a revealing system the difference is blatantly obvious. I'm quite sure that I could easily identify this in a blind test using my system as a reference.
Who remembers when CDs were once marked 'AAD', 'ADD' and 'DDD', according to the recording process, and crucially, when 'AAD' CDs often sounded much better than their all-digital (DDD) counterparts? ;)
Do you remember this happening, Paul? I do!
Marco.
I agree Marco, I much preferred the AAD discs to the DDD in the early days of CD. I must confess I hadn't noticed these logos being gone, but they are for the most part. Maybe now days they should have a logo that states whether a recording is done with compression and Loudness or not. This is why many modern CD's sound crap. Everything is dynamically leveled and ramped up so it distorts. Metallica's latest album being a good example of how bad it can get. I also though that the well reviewed Robert plant and Alison Kraus album also sounded crap(some reviews said it sounded good, I thought it was dung). The producer of the two albums mentioned is Rick Rubin (who did a lovely job on some Johnny Cash albums). You can't even go by who does what now, though IMHO Bob Sax and Bob Ludwig still do very good mastering work.
Regards D S D L---- Neil :)
Beechwoods
12-01-2009, 23:44
Regarding digital, I think it would be interesting to find three discs of the same music all recorded by either the process of 'AAD', 'ADD' or 'DDD' and compare the results. I'm sure that on any half-decent system the difference would be obvious :)
I don't think it's quite that simple - the nature of the recording itself shouldn't matter, but when thinking about old recordings there's not much can be done to change things -
AAD Analogue Recording, Analogue Mixing, Digital Master
ADD Analogue Recording, Digital Mixing, Digital Master
DDD Digital Recording, Digital Mixing, Digital Master
Unless old stuff is remixed from the original multi-tracks for digital release (like some of The Who's old stuff, or The Byrds old albums) all the old classic stuff is going to be AAD. Interesting story while I'm at it - The Byrds stuff was remixed because the original stereo mixdown masters were so rough. They'd been used loads of times as pressing masters or shipped to other territories for use and had basically worn out. McGuinn decided to remix the old albums rather than remaster them. TBH an original mint vinyl copy is likely to be the best source for a lot of their early albums, with the possible exception of the albums that got a 7 1/2ips reel to reel release :)
I'd say that crap sounding DDD recordings from the early days were down to the quality of the digital technology at the time. And the way it was used. The industry has had nigh on 25 years of experience since those early DDD recordings :)
New performances can be recorded in all sorts of ways. I'm sure that the best bands who care about how their stuff is produced will choose the best medium to record whatever it is they are performing. Analogue obviously has a characteristic that can be heard in the sound, and which can be used creatively as well - the way it distorts when recorded hot can be pleasing - you can either get that affect by using a DSP affect, or run it through a tape stage... Some artists like to Direct Inject their keyboards into the desk, other like to play through amplification and mic them. DI might suit digital recording, analogue may be preferable when mic'ing... there's just a lot of options. The whole AAD, ADD, DDD thing was a marketing ploy to get people buying CD's in the early days. I think you'll find a lot of 'proper' bands these days like to mix and match what they record and master on.
I also though that the well reviewed Robert plant and Alison Kraus album also sounded crap(some reviews said it sounded good.
Jeez, and I thought that I was the only one! 'Pants' is what it sounds like compared to how a well-recorded CD should sound.
Maybe now days they should have a logo that states whether a recording is done with compression and Loudness. This is why many modern CD's sound crap. Everything is dynamically leveled and ramped up so it distorts. Metallica's latest album being a good example of how bad it can get.
Indeed. I'd shoot whoever invented compression and whoever started these 'loudness wars', or at the very minimum give them life imprisonment for serious crimes against music, or more specifically, an audio enthusiast's appreciation of such! :steam:
Beechy,
I'm not disputing what you're saying but for me it's just too much of a coincidence why the vast majority of my mid 80s 'AAD'-marked CDs sound better than most of the rest of my collection... Was I just lucky in those days or perhaps the opposite nowadays with the music I've bought on CD? ;)
Incidentally, I'm talking predominantly 'pop' music here. Other less mainstream genres are a different kettle of fish.
Marco.
Spectral Morn
12-01-2009, 23:50
I understand that the recording and mastering process introduces variables, but I clearly remember and still do like AAD CD's better than DDD. Perhaps the better examples to day done DDD would change my mind but as we can't see what is what, its hard to know. " My people die from a lack of knowledge"
Regards D S D L---- Neil :)
Name and shame
Coldplay's X&Y album is the worst example of a recent CD exhibiting poor sound quality, and that from a group that can afford the best recording and mastering. It is beneath contempt and the engineer should have been taken outside and shot.
Viva Lavida is better - not great, but better.
Spectral Morn
12-01-2009, 23:53
Jeez, and I thought that I was the only one! 'Pants' is what it sounds like compared to how a well-recorded CD should sound.
Indeed. I'd shoot whoever invented compression and whoever started these 'loudness wars', or at the very minimum give them life imprisonment for serious crimes against music, or more specifically, an audio enthusiast's appreciation of such! :steam:
Marco.
Shooting would be to quick.
Regards D S D L---- Neil :)
Primalsea
12-01-2009, 23:54
The sad truth is that many people have very poor music systems with very poor speakers placed under tables and behinf sofas. Probably the case that albums ar emixed for tehm and not us.
Primalsea
12-01-2009, 23:56
Viva Lavida is better - not great, but better.
Funny you should say that. I listened to that this weekend and turned it off half way through the 1st song it was that bad.
However I'm not that keen on Coldplay anyway each album seems like 50 minutes of constant winge
Beechwoods
12-01-2009, 23:57
The sad truth is that many people have very poor music systems with very poor speakers placed under tables and behinf sofas. Probably the case that albums ar emixed for tehm and not us.
Absolutely! Mind you going back to the Byrds again :yawn: they mixed the early albums for radio play. Acetates would be cut and sent to the local radio station and the producer would drive around tuned into whatever station it was, listening to them in his car. He wanted it to sound right in it's 'home environment' - that sound is probably at the heart of the Byrds inherent jangliness :)
A lot of the kiddie pop these days is definitely mixed to sound best on really bad equipment, mobile phones etc.
Spectral Morn
12-01-2009, 23:59
The sad truth is that many people have very poor music systems with very poor speakers placed under tables and behinf sofas. Probably the case that albums ar emixed for tehm and not us.
That may be true Paul, but even with a poor system better recorded albums still sound better. The sad fact is car radio, and radio in general plays a major role in the use of loudness in current CD's,as well as downloads and I pod's. But why do it on music that will be liked by the more mature and discerning music lover/buyer( I am not saying that the young can't be discerning by the way). Why do it at all.
Regards D S D L---- Neil :)
The sad truth is that many people have very poor music systems with very poor speakers placed under tables and behinf sofas. Probably the case that albums ar emixed for tehm and not us.
True, but why not just mix them to sound 'good' (as in acceptable) on any system?
It can be done. I think it's just sheer bloody laziness. I've got umpteen ways of playing CDs at home from my 'uber-audiophile' Sony transport and DAC to the shitty portable CD player I use in my workshop. There are plenty of CDs I can play on anything and they sound 'good' (acceptable), but others sound bloody awful no matter what you play them on!!
Where's the parity?
Marco.
Spectral Morn
13-01-2009, 00:05
True, but why not just mix them to sound good (as in acceptable) on any system?
It can be done. I think it's just sheer bloody laziness. I've got umpteen ways of playing CDs at home from my 'uber-audiophile' Sony transport and DAC to the portable CD player I use in my workshop. There are plenty of CDs I can play on anything and they sound 'good' (acceptable), but others sound bloody awful no matter what you play them on!!
Where's the parity?
Marco.
Marco, there are not enough of us buying and complaining for the men/women behind this to care. They care not at all. If we audiophiles vote with our feet will/would they notice , hardly.:steam:
Regards D S DL--- Neil :(
Here's a thorny one to ponder:
Who thinks that computer music downloading, as an entity in itself, by treating music as a worthless (in monetary terms) disposable commodity, has contributed significantly to the reduction in today's digital audio recording quality, or indeed overall recording quality in general?
Marco.
Spectral Morn
13-01-2009, 00:18
Here's a thorny one to ponder:
Who thinks that computer music downloading, as an entity in itself, by treating music as a worthless (in monetary terms) disposable commodity, has contributed significantly to the reduction in today's digital audio recording quality, or indeed overall recording quality in general?
Marco.
No need to think about it, that factor has certainly lead to what is happening. Even in Computer Audio circles I would think that Audiophiles are in the minority?
I have been saying for quite a few years, that once you treat music as a lowest common denominator ,the art of music appreciation dies. I did music appreciation at school and my dad played all kinds of stuff to me when I was a young child( mostly classical, Vaughan Williams and the like). Does this happen now ? Do we teach/encourage that appreciating music/really listening to it, as an activity itself is not only worth while but food for the soul.
Regards D S D L--- Neil :)
If we audiophiles vote with our feet will/would they notice , hardly.
Beyond the bounds of the many forums, I know very few people who regularly listen to music in a critical fashion. We are a smaller minority than we sometimes realise.
Beechy,
A lot of the kiddie pop these days is definitely mixed to sound best on really bad equipment, mobile phones etc.
Indeed. Well, if we agree that at one time teenage pop music on CD was more often than not well-recorded (I've got the Donna Summer and Human League albums to prove it from my era ;)) then what has happened since for similar pop music nowadays to sound more often than not so shit?
Why has this lowering of standards been allowed to happen, and what does this say about how the music industry has changed and also it would appear the discerning nature (in terms of music recording quality) of our young people?
Or perhaps people just accept what they're given and have always done so… But then why are they in general being given an inferior product now to work with, in terms of recording quality to play on their systems, than they once were in the early days of CD or in the days of vinyl when they were the main music carriers?
Again I’m talking purely about pop music. If you go back to whatever decade you wish the pop music then was generally much better recorded than it is now.
Why?
What I'm getting at here is a slow but sure deterioration in standards over the years without even the majority of people (and perhaps even some audio enthusiasts) realising it!
Marco.
I have been saying for quite a few years, that once you treat music as a lowest common denominator ,the art of music appreciation dies.
I completely agree and I find it very sad... :(
Marco.
Spectral Morn
13-01-2009, 00:43
Beechy,
Indeed. Well, if we agree that at one time teenage pop music on CD was more often than not well-recorded (I've got the Donna Summer and Human League albums to prove it from my era ;)) then what has happened since for similar pop music nowadays to sound more often than not so shit?
Why has this lowering of standards been allowed to happen, and what does this say about how the music industry has changed and also it would appear the discerning nature (in terms of music recording quality) of our young people?
Or perhaps people just accept what they're given and have always done so… But then why are they in general being given an inferior product now to work with, in terms of recording quality to play on their systems, than they once were in the early days of CD or in the days of vinyl when they were the main music carriers?
Again I’m talking purely about pop music. If you go back to whatever decade you wish the pop music then was generally much better recorded than it is now.
Why?
What I'm getting at here is a slow but sure deterioration in standards over the years without even the majority of people (and perhaps even some audio enthusiasts) realising it!
Marco.
Do we teach/encourage that appreciating music/really listening to it, as an activity itself is not only worth while but food for the soul. This is if not dead then is withering in our culture today. Everything is at break neck speed, people don't have time( think they don't)to enjoy much. The appreciation of music as a goal is way down the list of things to do. It surrounds us so much now that finding time to sit and listen is by the many not reason enough to do it. We are the freaks who do, take time. Who know that music heard outside the home, on phones, radios in lifts is the equivalent of standing outside a good restaurant and smelling the food. If we don't go in and sit and eat, we only get about a third of what good food is about. Music is the same, overexposure has bread contempt, apathy and disinterest. There are so many forms of entertainment now, that when in the past there was only the radio and the Record player, many more focused on music. They treasured it and listened, both for intellectual stimulation and enjoyment. Today its just noise that lacks any meaning, for the majority.
It could be that quality sound in all areas went in tandem with improvements in sound recording and reproduction, with the way things are today in the mainstream market place this is not so. Convenience is the name of the game and this has lead to crap sound in most genres of music but more so in PoP.
Regards D S D L---- Neil :(
I'd say that crap sounding DDD recordings from the early days were down to the quality of the digital technology at the time. And the way it was used. The industry has had nigh on 25 years of experience since those early DDD recordings :)
.
Some of the best DDD recordings are from the early days. I forget the technical details but it has to do with the AD process used at the time.
My favourite example is the Denon recording of the Freiberg Silbermann Organ.
Primalsea
13-01-2009, 08:00
All interesting stuff but I get the impression that all this talk has aleady happened when Compact Cassette came out. If only we could find some people who were around in that era:scratch:
StanleyB
13-01-2009, 08:45
All interesting stuff but I get the impression that all this talk has aleady happened when Compact Cassette came out. If only we could find some people who were around in that era:scratch:
Aaaah.. those nice metal tapes from TDK in their metal housing. Never been bettered.
aquapiranha
13-01-2009, 09:07
TDK MAX-G, lovely, rare, expensive! I used to use SA-X's...
Wasn't Maxell better ? :)
I loved reading those reviews by Angus McKenzie in HiFi for Pleasure
Filterlab
13-01-2009, 10:13
Coldplay's X&Y album is the worst example of a recent CD exhibiting poor sound quality, and that from a group that can afford the best recording and mastering. It is beneath contempt and the engineer should have been taken outside and shot.
Viva Lavida is better - not great, but better.
I completely agree. Having studied the waveforms I can confirm that their aren't any, everything is flat to the roof with no dynamics whatsoever. Their best in terms of recording is definitely Parachutes, Rush Of Blood was ok but a little compressed and as you've said Viva La Vida is ok but not particularly good given their potential and industry clout.
I see that no-one has tackled the questions I asked earlier apart from Neil...
I would like some insight on this matter from people :)
Marco.
Alex Nikitin
13-01-2009, 10:31
I found that quality cassette tapes on a good deck give me a better sound for vinyl archiving than 24/96 recordings I can make on my RME sound card. Now I am mostly listening to cassettes I record from vinyl - much easier to use and it keeps my precious vinyl safer. Unfortunately not many decks can uncover full potential of a good tape. Fortunately you can get these best examples of cassette technology for very reasonable money nowadays :) .
Alex
Alex Nikitin
13-01-2009, 10:45
Why has this lowering of standards been allowed to happen, and what does this say about how the music industry has changed and also it would appear the discerning nature (in terms of music recording quality) of our young people?
Or perhaps people just accept what they're given and have always done so… But then why are they in general being given an inferior product now to work with, in terms of recording quality to play on their systems, than they once were in the early days of CD or in the days of vinyl when they were the main music carriers?
Again I’m talking purely about pop music. If you go back to whatever decade you wish the pop music then was generally much better recorded than it is now.
Why?
What I'm getting at here is a slow but sure deterioration in standards over the years without even the majority of people (and perhaps even some audio enthusiasts) realising it!
Marco.
Marco,
I think it is a part of a general trend. It has the same source as political correctness. People find it easier not to make an effort, not to appreciate the skill, the quality, the knowledge, the real food etc. including the quality audio. And when everybody is fed with an ersatz it appears OK, acceptable and sufficient.
Alex
StanleyB
13-01-2009, 10:46
Yeah, but a Nakamichi Dragon ain't cheap even today.
Sorry Marco, what was the question again? You asked soooo many...
Fortunately you can get these best examples of cassette technology for very reasonable money nowadays
Good point, Alex! I bought a near-mint example of the breed (a Technics RS-B565 tape deck) for £30 from Dave at Greenhomeelectronics last year, which I use to make tapes up for the car from my system at home.
The results of recording vinyl to high quality NOS tape (sealed 1987 TDK SA90) are exceptional, as is confirmed when also replaying the results through the CR-7 I use for reference and comparing them in my main system to the original vinyl with my modified SL-1210.
I know that cassette technology is almost completely redundant now (mores the pity), but I think it would open the ears of a few of the 'latest technology boys', who never experienced it properly the first time round, as to the magnificent results that can be obtained by making recordings in this way. It's an excellent indicator of how much genuine progress we've made in audio in recent years in terms of absolute fildelity.
Marco.
Sorry Marco, what was the question again? You asked soooo many...
Answer the ones you want, Stan, or simply tackle the points raised in general :)
I think my observations are very valid and as such shouldn't simply be swept under the carpet, but exposed and further debated...
I like to get people thinking long and hard about these types of things!
Marco.
P.S You don't necessarily need a Dragon to get excellent results from cassette tape.
Alex Nikitin
13-01-2009, 11:04
Yeah, but a Nakamichi Dragon ain't cheap even today.
There are other decks that at least as good if not better. I am planning to make for one of my decks (I own now more than 10 :) ) better electronics based upon my new phono stage circuitry. As I never use Dolby it can be very simple and best quality.
Alex
Originally Posted by Marco View Post
Why has this lowering of standards been allowed to happen, and what does this say about how the music industry has changed and also it would appear the discerning nature (in terms of music recording quality) of our young people?
I think you're being the musical equivalent of the grumpy old man sitting on his porch yelling "hey, you kids! Get offa my lawn!" :) And with that said I confess that I don't know that one will make the translation on its way across the pond, but...
What's wrong with contemporary cds, and contemporary cd re-masters of classic material is in the mastering. Digital compression, noise reduction, grotesque use of eq, sometimes to the point of audible distortion, to make it grab attention and to make the soft parts come through earbuds in noisy environments. But even though the tools and the earbuds are new, the concepts are not. The same thing was done, with analog tools, to classic rock on vinyl in the 50s and 60s to make it cut through the limitations of car radios in that even noisier environment. And it's not just contemporary pop music. Bruce Springsteen's last album is one of the worst examples out there, as is the Ultimate Who boxed set, the last Led Zep remasters, the Yes box...
Often, the best cds of older material were the ones transferred and pressed in the 80s or 90s, before "re-mastering" became such a marketing technique and brickwalled mastering become the trend dujour among the bean counters and mastering engineers at the major labels. They're not perfect, were often done rather quickly and casually from remastered copies of the original tapes that had been seriously compromised to account for the limitations of vinyl :smoking:, but still they're better than the crap that passes for "re-mastered" often today.
There are plenty of exceptions, of course, among artists who excersice strict control over their own recording and mastering. The Steely Dan re-mastered box set is excellent. And while the volume has creeped up on Van Morrison's recordings, they still have good dynamic range and tasteful eq...
Tim
Primalsea
13-01-2009, 11:21
Marco, sorry to answer a question with a question but ask yourself how much music made today is completely vacuumus and forgettable like the artists that make it.
Popular music is no longer an artform and for the most part is churned out soley to make money. Its quickly forgotten, dropped and replaced by somethig else Like the artists who make it.
It also has to compete with TV, that medium that people are happy to sit there and watch not taking any of it in for hours on end, watching any shit. My wife would rather watch a crap TV programme than listen to music that she likes. Most people just settle for music when they are doing things that require them to use their eyes to stop them bumping into things like driving and walking.
Alex,
I think it is a part of a general trend. It has the same source as political correctness. People find it easier not to make an effort, not to appreciate the skill, the quality, the knowledge, the real food etc. including the quality audio. And when everybody is fed with an ersatz it appears OK, acceptable and sufficient.
I think that's a very accurate synopsis of the situation. My view is that, as with most things in life now, hi-fi and music buying is driven by cost and convenience factors, 'uber-alles', to the detriment of what should matter most - absolute quality. And "absolute quality" in this respect has many meanings.
We seem to want everything instantaneously 'laid on a plate' these days: fast food, convenience-first hi-fi equipment, even with some 'hi-end' gear, fast accessibility to (often) endless free music... I sometimes wonder how many people with 10,000-odd, or more, downloaded music files in hard drives actually listen to every one of those recordings regularly, fully understanding, digesting, and appreciating the musical content in the process, as we did (and still do) with our records and CDs because we paid bloody good money for them, and thus treasure them accordingly...
Without spelling it out in complete black and white, can you see what I'm getting at?
Marco.
P.S It's good to see you contributing to discussions - you don't do it enough ;)
I like reading your views, so let's see more of them :)
I think you're being the musical equivalent of the grumpy old man sitting on his porch yelling "hey, you kids! Get offa my lawn!" And with that said I confess that I don't know that one will make the translation on its way across the pond, but...
LOL! That may be the case, Tim, but this is a forum which will always tackle the subjects that others may sweep under the carpet, so if I have something to say on such a subject I will do so regardless of any "grumpy old man" syndrome...
I'll contribute more to this discussion later; for a change I must do some work :eyebrows:
There's plenty to be discussed in the meantime, so I look forward to reading some deep and meaningful replies on my return ;)
Laters,
Marco.
Marco
On your first point about the lowering of standards in pop music recording, there are probably two factors at work: firstly, every engineer wants their CD to sound the loudest so they are compressed to within an inch of their lives. We already hear the effects of this from radio stations (ever heard dynamic range from Radio 1?). Even Classic FM compress their broadcasts, destroying them as a radio station for me. The second factor is that pop music is a 'manufactured' item these days, production line created by teams with little or no originality. I can live happily without ever listening to the pop charts, not what I did in the heyday of rock.
On your second point about cassette tape, I used to make up tapes all the time for the car and had a fairly high end Aiwa deck. I always thought cassette was an inferior medium, with a tendency to get damaged just by being left in the car, and never used it for serious listening at home. It had too many compromises even then and now I look back on it with no love whatsoever.
The car is a terrible place for music and needs to be recognised as such. High and variable noise floor, limited dynamic range and reflective surfaces. I have a USB socket and put all of my music onto a 16GB flash drive at 192-225kbps variable bitrate mp3. In the car, with my 10-speaker system, it sounds very good and the best I've yet achieved for sound quality. It also keeps my CDs at home where they belong.
anthonyTD
13-01-2009, 12:32
That may be true Paul, but even with a poor system better recorded albums still sound better. The sad fact is car radio, and radio in general plays a major role in the use of loudness in current CD's,as well as downloads and I pod's. But why do it on music that will be liked by the more mature and discerning music lover/buyer( I am not saying that the young can't be discerning by the way). Why do it at all.
Regards D S D L---- Neil :)
it is a very sad affair indeed,
i have a customer/friend who used to be a recording engineer, and has worked with some top names over the years, eg, david bowie to name one, he got out because he was so frustrated with the whole loudness thing and the one upmanship played out between diffrent recording engineers. he's now a reviewer for one of the top uk guitar magazines.
anthony...
Just to nip in briefly...
Martin, good post. However this:
On your first point about the lowering of standards in pop music recording, there are probably two factors at work: firstly, every engineer wants their CD to sound the loudest so they are compressed to within an inch of their lives. We already hear the effects of this from radio stations (ever heard dynamic range from Radio 1?). Even Classic FM compress their broadcasts, destroying them as a radio station for me. The second factor is that pop music is a 'manufactured' item these days, production line created by teams with little or no originality. I can live happily without ever listening to the pop charts, not what I did in the heyday of rock.
is simply the 'what' or 'how'. I'm looking more for the 'why'...
Why: "every engineer wants their CD to sound the loudest so they are compressed to within an inch of their lives"?
Why: is "pop music a 'manufactured' item these days, production line created by teams with little or no originality."? It wasn't the case at one time.
What exactly is the underlying driving force behind all these examples of lowered standards and why has it been allowed to happen to the detriment of so many things from a perceived 'position of excellence' point of view?
Alex, for me so far, is the closest to the truth.
Let's rewind way back to the beginning and ascertain why and at what point this 'malaise' started... I'd like people to stop for a minute and really think about this and the direction things are going, in both the fields of hi-fi and music!
Laters,
Marco.
P.S Your experience with cassette tape is the complete opposite of what I've enjoyed in the past with it and continue to enjoy now.
Steve Toy
13-01-2009, 13:58
Good post Marco. To answer you why/what questions:
We now live in a culture of promoting the lowest common denominator. Everyone wants it all and they want it now! When this happens élitist notions of excellence fall by the wayside.
Louder = better, don't you know that?
To get louder through lo-fi kit you have to compress the dynamic range. Modern digital recording technology enables recording engineers to apply compression with ease. The result is more loudness and clarity for a wider audience not just the audiophile.
Dynamics is élitist!
Long live the socialist revolution!
LOL! I completely agree with all of your post, Steve. However, I'd like to analyse this bit in more detail:
We now live in a culture of promoting the lowest common denominator. Everyone wants it all and they want it now! When this happens élitist notions of excellence fall by the wayside.
When was this "culture" born - what caused it and why is it being 'promoted'? It's the complete antithesis of how I think and was brought up. I'm looking for what the catalyst was/is here, in your opinion.
Let's get back to more 'elitist notions of excellence', I say!
Marco.
Steve Toy
13-01-2009, 14:17
OK, the combination of technology allowing compressed digital formats, the Apple generation :p and Nulabour socio-economic policy.
Oh and that Simon Scowl for trashing the pop industry with interactive mass participation television (X Factor, Pop Idol etc) in order to, er, make an honest living.
It goes back beyond new labour, to thatcherism, greed and the god of profit. Money drives it all, and art takes an ever-diminshing role. The music companies don't give a stuff about integrity, the only thing that counts is the bottom line. If it's louder it gets heard better. If it's heard better it generates more sales. Thank God that the current debacle is beginning to make some people think that it's just possible that there's more to life than cash, and that business isn't necessarily the be-all and end-all.
Steve Toy
13-01-2009, 15:00
Thatcherism wasn't about greed and the God of profit. It was about ridding the UK of the economic malaise that had reduced us from being an economic superpower to a basket case during the post war years. Through the power of the trade union leaders using their members as pawns in their revolutionary struggles, our workforce were paying themselves more than they were actually producing. Profit equals viability for any business. Loss equals no sustainable future for any business or service regardless of how it is owned or the dividends distributed.
An aspirational society is a healthy society. We start our lives hopefully with a blank sheet and equal opportunity. How we end should, to the largest extent possible, be of our own choosing. With such freedom comes responsibility. The reckless borrow and spend example has been set by this government not any before it. The population at large will not appreciate quality and excellence through patience and dilligence if it is encouraged to borrow its way to material plenty. Abundance (for a while at least until it all crashes) will come at the expense of sustainability and durable quality.
This is the cultural mindset underpinning the decline in quality as we strive for instant gratification and quantity.
Money drives it all, and art takes an ever-diminshing role. The music companies don't give a stuff about integrity, the only thing that counts is the bottom line. If it's louder it gets heard better. If it's heard better it generates more sales. Thank God that the current debacle is beginning to make some people think that it's just possible that there's more to life than cash, and that business isn't necessarily the be-all and end-all.
I agree wholeheartedly, Shane. However answer me this (Steve, too) if it's all about politics:
Why in the early to mid 70s did there exist some of the best truly hi-end hi-fi ever invented outside of valves, perhaps mostly not of British origin though (maybe that answers the question?), when Labour were in power, and yet when Labour are in power again now we've got some of the worst in terms of genuine 'hi-end' gear such as I've referred to earlier in this thread?
Which party was in power, mainly, from the 30s to the 60s when valve technology was in its heyday? I'm not much into politics so wouldn't know.
What influence did their policies have on the hi-fi and music buying scene then, if at all? And why is whatever influence they had no longer felt now in terms of people appreciating, and indeed, demanding genuine quality and excellence with many things in life, not just hi-fi?
Basically, I'm trying to get to the heart of and ascertain what exactly has caused this sea change of thinking in terms of how we view music and hi-fi now in 2009, and when it happened, crucially why we appear satisfied now with lower standards in many areas, and this "culture of promoting the lowest common denominator" Steve refers to....................................
Marco.
Bad remastering is more to do with the record companies than the engineers who record and master the stuff. If a mastering engineer is given a set of Coldplay sound files and told to screw the volume up too high when mastering, s/he has to do what's asked or lose the contract, and his/her future probably (I've heard the industry is even worse than "ours."
I've been very impressed with the mastering work of "The Audio Archiving Company;" an ex-Decca chap who knows his stuff and loves the "prog" era. He keeps levels sensible but doesn't peak too low, as happened twenty years ago quite often.
Ah, now I didn't say it's all about politics, what I said was that it's all about money and greed. In the fifties, sixties and seventies, politics weren't so relevant to this argument, but the awful culture that blossomed in the eighties at the behest of a party that espoused the cause of business and profit at the expense of all else created a generation of businessmen who were totally and completely fixated by the bottom line. As a result we now live in a world where everything is costed and nothing is valued.
Bad remastering is more to do with the record companies than the engineers who record and master the stuff. If a mastering engineer is given a set of Coldplay sound files and told to screw the volume up too high when mastering, s/he has to do what's asked or lose the contract, and his/her future probably (I've heard the industry is even worse than "ours."
Why do you think this situation exists and things have got to that stage, Dave?
Marco.
We're very similar in our way of thinking Shane but:
what I said was that it's all about money and greed. In the fifties, sixties and seventies, politics weren't so relevant to this argument
are you saying that there was no such greed then and a different attitude prevailed? And if so why? I'm thinking mainly here of the impact of whatever mentality you think existed then, politically or morally, on the hi-fi and music buying scene of the time.
Regarding the situation in existence today, I think this is spot on:
business and profit at the expense of all else created a generation of businessmen who were totally and completely fixated by the bottom line. As a result we now live in a world where everything is costed and nothing is valued
That is exactly why today's 'hi-end' hi-fi scene, the music industry, and the majority of people's preferred way of accessing music, is the way that it is, with inevitable consequencies.
How do we improve things and try somehow to get back (even slightly) to how things were before, if you agree that things are not universally better now?
Marco.
Beechy, you've gone very quiet. You usually have some interesting insights into things.
What's your view on all this?
Marco.
Steve Toy
13-01-2009, 15:51
Marco, because if your song isn't loud on the radio it won't get played and you won't get as many resulting sales.
That reminds me, the Performing Rights Society are a bunch of clueless tossers. They charge companies for playing radios in workplaces. The result is that companies don't buy the licences, the radio doesn't get played and record sales are thus lost. Talk about corruption and lining pockets! I've always wondered how the PRS divides its proceeds amongst artists anyway. I'm seeing a parasite...
Marco, because if your song isn't loud on the radio it won't get played and you won't get as many resulting sales.
Jeez I realise that, Steve! I'm trying to get 'right inside', into the nitty-gritty of the problem in a deeper sense.
Marco.
Spectral Morn
13-01-2009, 16:26
"the Yes box... "quote by Tim
Hi Tim, this was the first time I heard a truly awful remastering, that pushed the loudness levels up and the compression introduced. Yesteryears,it was done by Ocean View Digital in 1991 of west Los Angeles. Done by Joe Gastwirt and John Modell, frankly something went horribly wrong. This Box set brought out by Atco is pure piss. If another Yes box set is as bad, thats very :(:steam:
Yes albums are by and large very good with some being better, The Yes album being a good example as is Close to The Edge.
I am afraid that the issues in music and recording quality are part of a ever increasing spiral into total mediocrity. The world is going to hell in a hand cart. You can see the lack of care in everything, the increase in me first/and only in everything. Its the," that will do "attitude standards are slipping everywhere. People don't care. What used to be common place is now only seen when a disaster strikes and people are temporarily woken out of their Sheep like trances. It is the Death of what is called in Greek Agape Love. The care for others and community. The only type of love promoted now is EROS. This creeping death has its origins in the late 50's and has gathered speed. There is now no truth and all paths are equally valid. Standards are now so diluted that its a wonder things didn't implode earlier than this year. Everything that the Sheep believed in has crashed. It was all a Lie. The interest in culture(and music is culture, even pop music), is something only pursued by a few. The rest think X factor and Big Brother is culture. How wrong. We are reaping what we have sown. Can the slide be stopped or reversed. I don't think so. When Money dictates value/values its sadly only if money sees the Light that things will change. I can't see that happening. Only if commercial interests are threatened will anything change. How can this happen, when millions of people don't care or are happy to steal music, via the Net.
Everything was handed over to Market Forces, the Market knows best, the Market will sort its self out. Statistics offer the only path to truth. Western Governments based their policies on this as does big business. But when mindless Sheep, who lack any reason but what the media feed them are part of the market, those who can think are swept into the mire too. "MY PEOPLE DIE FROM LACK OF KNOWLEDGE". What about, vision and quality and passion, without these, what will we become as a species. Bar a few examples in the music industry these qualities are very scarce. Crap is what we have now got for the most part. Loudness is a by product of a mine is bigger than yours mentality, if mines louder then its better, NO !!!!!! But it will sell more if its LOUDER. Sadly YES.
What we are seeing is the death of Moral absolutes. Bit by Bit its chipped away, until we have nothing.
I will hold the line but its hard when the forces arrayed against you are massive.
Regards D S D L--- Neil :(
Somehow I missed this, flicking through things quickly while doing other things...
I vote for no-one, so take no sides of any political party, but I think this does rather neatly sum things up and largely reflects reality:
Thatcherism wasn't about greed and the God of profit. It was about ridding the UK of the economic malaise that had reduced us from being an economic superpower to a basket case during the post war years. Through the power of the trade union leaders using their members as pawns in their revolutionary struggles, our workforce were paying themselves more than they were actually producing. Profit equals viability for any business. Loss equals no sustainable future for any business or service regardless of how it is owned or the dividends distributed.
An aspirational society is a healthy society. We start our lives hopefully with a blank sheet and equal opportunity. How we end should, to the largest extent possible, be of our own choosing. With such freedom comes responsibility. The reckless borrow and spend example has been set by this government not any before it. The population at large will not appreciate quality and excellence through patience and dilligence if it is encouraged to borrow its way to material plenty. Abundance (for a while at least until it all crashes) will come at the expense of sustainability and durable quality.
This is the cultural mindset underpinning the decline in quality as we strive for instant gratification and quantity.
Very good, Steve! :clap:
Marco.
P.S Good post too, again, Neil! I'll comment more later.
"the Yes box... "quote by Tim
Hi Tim, this was the first time I heard a truly awful remastering, that pushed the loudness levels up and the compression introduced. Yesteryears,it was done by Ocean View Digital in 1991 of west Los Angeles. Done by Joe Gastwirt and John Modell, frankly something went horribly wrong. This Box set brought out by Atco is pure piss. If another Yes box set is as bad, thats very :(:steam:
Yes albums are by and large very good with some being better, The Yes album being a good example as is Close to The Edge.
I am afraid that the issues in music and recording quality are part of a ever increasing spiral into total mediocrity. The world is going to hell in a hand cart. You can see the lack of care in everything, the increase in me first/and only in everything. Its the," that will do "attitude standards are slipping everywhere. People don't care. What used to be common place is now only seen when a disaster strikes and people are temporarily woken out of their Sheep like trances. It is the Death of what is called in Greek Agape Love. The care for others and community. The only type of love promoted now is EROS. This creeping death has its origins in the late 50's and has gathered speed. There is now no truth and all paths are equally valid. Standards are now so diluted that its a wonder things didn't implode earlier than this year. Everything that the Sheep believed in has crashed. It was all a Lie. The interest in culture(and music is culture, even pop music), is something only pursued by a few. The rest think X factor and Big Brother is culture. How wrong. We are reaping what we have sown. Can the slide be stopped or reversed. I don't think so. When Money dictates value/values its sadly only if money sees the Light that things will change. I can't see that happening. Only if commercial interests are threatened will anything change. How can this happen, when millions of people don't care or are happy to steal music, via the Net.
Everything was handed over to Market Forces, the Market knows best, the Market will sort its self out. Statistics offer the only path to truth. Western Governments based their policies on this as does big business. But when mindless Sheep, who lack any reason but what the media feed them are part of the market, those who can think are swept into the mire too. "MY PEOPLE DIE FROM LACK OF KNOWLEDGE". What about, vision and quality and passion, without these, what will we become as a species. Bar a few examples in the music industry these qualities are very scarce. Crap is what we have now got for the most part. Loudness is a by product of a mine is bigger than yours mentality, if mines louder then its better, NO !!!!!! But it will sell more if its LOUDER. Sadly YES.
What we are seeing is the death of Moral absolutes. Bit by Bit its chipped away, until we have nothing.
I will hold the line but its hard when the forces arrayed against you are massive.
Regards D S D L--- Neil :(
It is the Yesyears box I was thinking of. Other than to say that Joe Gastwirt is evil, I won't delve into the politics or the crumbling society theories. I prefer to stir my controversies by poking my little sticks at audiophile relativists. :smoking:While that is dangerous enough in these parts, it pales next to politics ;)
Tim
Beechwoods
13-01-2009, 17:36
Beechy, you've gone very quiet. You usually have some interesting insights into things.
What's your view on all this?
Thanks Marco! I'm not sure about 'insights' but I promise my thoughts later :) This thread is so fast moving I'd lost track of where it was at :)
Edit: Blimey, it has got interesting. I'll need to put my thinking cap on :)
No worries, Beechy; I'll look forward to it. This is our thread of the year as far as I'm concerned - just the sort of 'meaty' topic I like to get my teeth into!!
Timmy baby,
I prefer to stir my controversies by poking my little sticks at audiophile relativists.
And such a courtesy is of course duly appreciated, and reciprocated ;)
:eyebrows:
On my return I will pose some more (hopefully) thought-provoking questions in a similar vein but taking the discussion into a slightly wider context.
Marco.
Spectral Morn
13-01-2009, 18:12
No worries, Beechy; I'll look forward to it. This is our thread of the year as far as I'm concerned - just the sort of 'meaty' topic I like to get my teeth into!!
Timmy baby,
And such a courtesy is of course duly appreciated, and reciprocated ;)
:eyebrows:
On my return I will pose some more (hopefully) thought-provoking questions in a similar vein but taking the discussion into a slightly wider context.
Marco.
Thats fine and welcome, but don't forget to comment on what has gone before too (as promised);)
Regards D S D L---- Neil :)
Spectral Morn
13-01-2009, 18:34
It is the Yesyears box I was thinking of. Other than to say that Joe Gastwirt is evil, I won't delve into the politics or the crumbling society theories. I prefer to stir my controversies by poking my little sticks at audiophile relativists. :smoking:While that is dangerous enough in these parts, it pales next to politics ;)
Tim
Hi Tim
Unfortunately I feel that what is happening in the Music Industry, is as a result of a wider problem (not recognized by many)in the rest of society (western and Western influenced). The once goals of society to aim towards quality and the bettering of the human condition, has been replaced by a type of cancer which robs us all, by something similar to the drip drip of water torture. I am not saying that this was ever in the vast majority of society, but enough people of good sense and influence made it better for the rest. They aimed high and helped society to rise above the mire. Dumbing down, lowest common denominator, the broad road are terms that in part explain the attitudes( being slipped upon us, in the slow conversion to SHEEP) in life today. Bit by Bit its all vanishing. Look at the general media and the way that text is being replaced by photos. It might be claimed that this is because people don't have time to read. I would sat this is because people can't be bothered/ can't read/or struggle to understand more complex vocabulary. Do US TV net works carry much in the way of quality programs that challenge and educate or show a balanced view: with both sides of a discussion represented, and given time to expand on a subject and offer more than a SOUND BITE ? In the UK the BBC used to be good at this, as were the commercial stations, but in the last 10 years broad sheet quality has been replaced with tabloid crap. News is one sided and shallow, everything is shallow and two dimensional. The same issues exist in the approach to music, its listening and treating it with serious intention, as ART. We have, and are being given Tabloid sound quality to suit a Tabloid mentality.
The high speed shallow, convenient society we now have has lead to convenient living (shallow), Convenient thinking (lack of it, very, very shallow), convenient word use (two dimensional and the death of what is/was a rich language English. So much swearing when it is not needed, or appropriate for the conversation. F this F that .....Poor , Solecism ! This mentality is in everything. It scares me when I see the difference between the generations. I loved reading, when I was young and when I look at similar young people today, especially among males, reading is dead. They would rather aspire to killing thousands via PC/Mac/ Play Station etc games, rather than using their imaginations and read say the Lord of the Rings etc. Many want to live in SECOND LIFE or WORLD OF WAR CRAFT. The hight of sophistication is what mobile phone you have---in fact do any think, of them as just phones. I don't even have a mobile. What chance does sound quality have among this mire ?
Regards D S D L---- Neil :)
Steve Toy
13-01-2009, 18:46
The Republican party in the US and the Labour party in the UK both seem to share a similar core vote base i.e. trailorpark trash and sink council estate chavscum.
We have and are being given Tabloid sound quality to suit a Tabloid mentality.
I like that! How true.
Marco.
Spectral Morn
13-01-2009, 18:59
Read on I have been adding to my thoughts above.
Regards D S D L----Neil :)
This thread has got out of control. it's impossible to follow it after a day's work :(
I wonder if the originator knows what monster he created :)
Neil McCauley
13-01-2009, 19:42
I wonder if the originator knows what monster he created :)
Yes, he does.
Spectral Morn
13-01-2009, 19:42
HI TOGIL
Yes its fast moving. Howard lit the match and retired ---- BANG
Is it out of control, a monster, I don't think so. It has wandered a bit (a lot perhaps), but in many ways I think it can be argued that much of what we are talking about again sort of relates to Howard's original topic.(Do you think this Howard ?) He was asking about Greed in the Audio Industry and the possible lack of it as presented in certain products etc. The subjects/opinions being expressed IMHO are pointing back to this, now. GREED is rampant everywhere in society and the underlying causes relate back to the world of Audio.
Regards D S D L---- Neil :)
Don't be so lazy, Hans! Simply scroll back to the page where you last stopped reading, pour yourself a nice glass of Riesling, and enjoy the ensuing 'reams' of intelligent insight and witty repartee up to this point :)
The forum's main threads are fast-moving now as we grow and are exposed more to the outside world... We're very pleased about that.
Way hey, Howard's still alive!!
Marco.
Thanks Neil, for the summary and Marco, for the encouragement !
Actually I'm having a really nice Sicilian red at the moment !! :)
Ah, I don't blame you ;)
Perhaps it's one I know?
Marco.
anthonyTD
13-01-2009, 19:58
Hi Tim
Unfortunately I feel that what is happening in the Music Industry, is as a result of a wider problem (not recognized by many)in the rest of society (western and Western influenced). The once goals of society to aim towards quality and the bettering of the human condition, has been replaced by a type of cancer which robs us all, by something similar to the drip drip of water torture. I am not saying that this was ever in the vast majority of society, but enough people of good sense and influence made it better for the rest. They aimed high and helped society to rise above the mire. Dumbing down, lowest common denominator, the broad road are terms that in part explain the attitudes( being slipped upon us, in the slow conversion to SHEEP) in life today. Bit by Bit its all vanishing. Look at the general media and the way that text is being replaced by photos. It might be claimed that this is because people don't have time to read. I would sat this is because people can't be bothered/ can't read/or struggle to understand more complex vocabulary. Do US TV net works carry much in the way of quality programs that challenge and educate or show a balanced view: with both sides of a discussion represented, and given time to expand on a subject and offer more than a SOUND BITE ? In the UK the BBC used to be good at this, as were the commercial stations, but in the last 10 years broad sheet quality has been replaced with tabloid crap. News is one sided and shallow, everything is shallow and two dimensional. The same issues exist in the approach to music, its listening and treating it with serious intention, as ART. We have, and are being given Tabloid sound quality to suit a Tabloid mentality.
The high speed shallow, convenient society we now have has lead to convenient living (shallow), Convenient thinking (lack of it, very, very shallow), convenient word use (two dimensional and the death of what is/was a rich language English. So much swearing when it is not needed, or appropriate for the conversation. F this F that .....Poor , Solecism ! This mentality is in everything. It scares me when I see the difference between the generations. I loved reading, when I was young and when I look at similar young people today, especially among males, reading is dead. They would rather aspire to killing thousands via PC/Mac/ Play Station etc games, rather than using their imaginations and read say the Lord of the Rings etc. Many want to live in SECOND LIFE or WORLD OF WAR CRAFT. The hight of sophistication is what mobile phone you have---in fact do any think, of them as just phones. I don't even have a mobile. What chance does sound quality have among this mire ?
Regards D S D L---- Neil :)
sad but very true.:(
Nero d'Avola , from M&S
I think it's one of their best wines , at any price, at the moment.
Nice; I know it.
If you like that style of wine, look out for Ripasso di Valpolicella. It's got the same smooth, rounded, earthy, quality of a Nero d'Avola that I think you'd like :)
Marco.
anthonyTD
13-01-2009, 20:10
Nice; I know it.
If you like that style of wine, look out for Ripasso di Valpolicella. It's got the same smooth, rounded, earthy, quality of a Nero d'Avola that I think you'd like :)
Marco.
ohh lardy daa dont you know.:lol:
:lolsign:
anthonyTD
13-01-2009, 20:32
sorry folks i seem to have brought this thread to a standstill:scratch:
come on "denon boy" you know i am only jesting.:eyebrows:
now get this thread back to somewhere near on track.:gig:
Spectral Morn
13-01-2009, 20:45
NEVER MIND THREAD DRIFT WE HAVE THREAD HALT/STALL.
Some one get out and push.....:lolsign:
Regards D S D L....NEIL :)
I am watching the final Star Gate Atlantis and the Earth is in peril will our Hero's win or die trying ? AND THEY WIN, No surprise there then !
Come on MARCO there are other posts to answer in this thread, you promised. This thread is in Peril can you save it ?
StanleyB
13-01-2009, 20:57
What thread? I thought we were spinning a rope to hand ourselves...
Stan
Spectral Morn
13-01-2009, 21:00
What thread? I thought we were spinning a rope to hand ourselves...
Stan
Sorry what ? :confused: :lolsign:
Regards D S D L---- NEIL :)
anthonyTD
13-01-2009, 21:02
he's probably stuffing his face with his good lady's fine cooking.:eyebrows:
anthony...
come on "denon boy" you know i am only jesting.:eyebrows:
now get this thread back to somewhere near on track.:gig:
I'm listening to music, daddy!
You know that funny thing we do now and then? :ner:
:surf:
Laters,
Marco.
Spectral Morn
13-01-2009, 21:08
I RECKON HES WATCHING BIG BROTHER, THE LISTENING TO MUSIC IS A RUSE....:lolsign:
Regards D S D L-----NEIL :)
StanleyB
13-01-2009, 21:15
Sorry what ? :confused: :lolsign:
Regards D S D L---- NEIL :)
I was thinking on how Mussolini met his end...
Beechwoods
13-01-2009, 22:04
If ever I would stop thinking about music and politics
I would tell you that music is the expression of emotion
And that politics is merely the decoy of perception.
There have been some very interesting points made about how politics might be influencing both the economics of hi-fi, people's attraction to it, and the way music production is being influenced by it...
Here are some thoughts.
Hi-fi as a status symbol.
The atomisation of societies into groups of individuals.
Convenience.
Time poverty.
Cost deflation.
Entertainment competition.
House price inflation.
The break up of the family.
Hi-fi was for many people a status symbol, in those 'golden decades' of the 50s through to the 70's. People would work to be able to afford a decent setup in their living room and it would be the centre-piece, a focal point when friends visited. This focal point has been replaced by the large screen TV. Sometimes it will be accompanied by a single box system of little boxes to provide discrete surround sound. And a big box making whoofing noises behind the sofa. The big demo tends to be the action sequence with the big bangs in it. I know this from experience. I've done it in the past myself :) How many of your friends now just do not get your interest in hi-fi. How many of your friends would consider it to be anything more than an eccentricity?
The 70's was the era of the dinner party. Fondue sets, Delia teaching everyone how to entertain. People would listen to music together on the hi-fi as a social activity. I just do not see this happening these days. Yes, people have parties, but the music is relegated to a background noise, pre-programmed on an iPod of on a couple of long play CD compilations like 'Disco Christmas' or 'Summer Daze'...
I think the rot set in the 80's. It probably started in the mid 70's actually with the arrival of cheap package holidays. Cheap package holidays are totemic of the increasing competition for people's money, and their time. Cars, holidays, eating out, computer games, films all compete for people's spare time and their money more now than almost anything else could have 'back then'.
Unemployment rose sharply during the 80's. Job security reduced. Job satisfaction reduced as manufacturing was decimated and replaced by more casual, seasonal, service industries. Working conditions have been eroded as the organisations protecting workers were smashed, or sold out by their careerist leaders and politician cohorts. In the UK we work some of the longest hours anywhere in Europe. It's no wonder we all feel so 'time poor'.
I think that this has led to a demand for convenience. Solutions on a plate. For most people this will mean single box solutions, easy to set up, does the job. And easy to find - no hunting round trying out lots of different setups. Go down Dixons and buy something off the shelf. Or something small that will hold a lifetimes worth of music on a walkman-sized machine. Time poverty is at the centre of a lot of the malaise I see in society these days. Too busy, to distracted to care, be courteous, or to think at any deep level about anything outside of ones own personal sphere.
Time poverty and the decimation of manufacturing industry has impacted the numbers of people who might have in the past built their own hi-fi - because they knew how to as a result of their vocation or training, and because they had the time to do it.
The reduction in the cost of music playing equipment has made it a commodity, and disposable. Why bother spending more than a couple of hundred on something when it makes a noise and sounds loud in the shop? Manufacturers found they could get away with poor performance, and that has become a standard. People mistake volume and daft phase tricks for hi-fi, and rapidly we are losing the benchmarks - like other people's shit hot systems - against which to compare.
People are living in smaller homes. I think that my generation might just be the last who will have a decent shot at owning their own home (though not sure what this recession will do to long-term house prices). People have less physical space to give to hi-fi. Divorce often results in both partners moving into 2 smaller properties, families are often extended to encompass two sets of parents - the natural parents and the step parents. All this costs money. Money that won't be spent on Hi-Fi.
I think that some great points have been made on why music is so damn loud these days so I won't go there. I'll leave the final word to Michael Franti, for the second time this post :)
If ever I would stop thinking about music and politics
I might be able to listen in silence to your concerns
rather than hearing everything as an accusation
or an indictment against me
Music and Politics, The Disposable Heroes Of Hiphoprisy - Hipocrisy Is The Greatest Luxury, 1992
Having a bit of a sesh at the moment, chaps, so I'll address the most recent posts in more detail tomorrow.
Beechy, great post :)
Before I address it later, along with the others, you'll agree then that in a hi-fi and music sense things aren't quite what they used to be, and you make some valid points in your post as to why that's the case.
In your opinion, what needs to be changed at ground roots level in our lives today, or in the hi-fi and music industry now, to get back some of the 'glory days' of the 70s and 80s (and beforehand for those who can remember it) when quality in both hi-end hi-fi equipment, music itself, and the recording quality thereof, was placed before quantity, convenience and greed for profit?
Oh, and most importantly, how do we become more 'time rich', and less 'time poor' like we used to be? The time factor thing is very significant, like you say. Are we overcomplicating our lives now, running around like headless chickens more than is necessary, and for what (ultimate) gain?
Marco.
Beechwoods
13-01-2009, 22:38
You want solutions as well? :doh: It's a helluva lot easier critiquing things than coming up with solutions ;) I'll see what I can do... :)
Spectral Morn
13-01-2009, 22:48
HI Nick
Hi-fi was for many people a status symbol, in those 'golden decades' of the 50s through to the 70's. People would work to be able to afford a decent setup in their living room and it would be the centre-piece, a focal point when friends visited. This focal point has been replaced by the large screen TV. Sometimes it will be accompanied by a single box system of little boxes to provide discrete surround sound. And a big box making whoofing noises behind the sofa. The big demo tends to be the action sequence with the big bangs in it. I know this from experience. I've done it in the past myself :) How many of your friends now just do not get your interest in hi-fi. How many of your friends would consider it to be anything more than an eccentricity?
Yes, listening to music, as/on/part of a recording has become for most a solitary experience, rather than a community event (except at hi-fi Shows and Forum gatherings.) This is sad :( Are we lonely sad people ? My wife listens with me sometimes but not often.
I think that this has led to a demand for convenience. Solutions on a plate. For most people this will mean single box solutions, easy to set up, does the job. And easy to find - no hunting round trying out lots of different setups. Go down Dixons and buy something off the shelf. Or something small that will hold a lifetimes worth of music on a walkman-sized machine. Time poverty is at the center of a lot of the malaise I see in society these days. To busy, to distracted to care, be courteous, or to think at any deep level about anything outside of ones own personal sphere.
I agree with this point, but if you really care you make time. I used to not get home until 6.30-7 o'clock but I still made the time. I think you will always find the time for what you care about.
Time poverty and the decimation of manufacturing industry has impacted the numbers of people who might have in the past built their own hi-fi - because they knew how to as a result of their vocation or training, and because they had the time to do it.
Possibly true ?
The reduction in the cost of music playing equipment has made it a commodity, and disposable. Why both spending more than a couple of hundred on something when it makes a noise and sounds loud in the shop? Manufacturers found they could get away with poor performance, and that has become a standard. People mistake volume and daft phase tricks for hi-fi, and rapidly we are losing the benchmarks - like other people's shit hot systems - against which to compare.
There have always been grades of product on which to play music.Cheap to dear, so I am not sure about this Nick. But you are right that the meaning of the term HI-Fi, has been lost. High Fidelity-Close to Original sound. This term has been hijacked to mean any old thing, but most members of the public don't know that.
People are living in smaller homes. I think that my generation might just be the last who will have a decent shot at owning their own home (though not sure what this recession will do to long-term house prices). People have less physical space to give to hi-fi. Divorce often results in both partners moving into 2 smaller properties, families are often extended to encompass two sets of parents - the natural parents and the step parents. All this costs money. Money that won't be spent on Hi-Fi.
For some this is an issue and an increasing one, but I don't have a lot of space and yet make space for what I love. It is possible have a great in a small room if you take time to do it right its about priorities.
I get a fabulous sound in this tiny room.
http://i549.photobucket.com/albums/ii364/davros124/SecondListeningRoom001.jpg
http://i549.photobucket.com/albums/ii364/davros124/SecondListeningRoom003.jpg
Sorry guys I couldn't resist putting these photos up, as an illustration of what can be done in a small space.
Regards D S D L----Neil :)
PS Thanks for the Quoting Lesson....
Neil,
I am afraid that the issues in music and recording quality are part of a ever increasing spiral into total mediocrity. The world is going to hell in a hand cart. You can see the lack of care in everything, the increase in me first/and only in everything. Its the," that will do "attitude standards are slipping everywhere.
I agree. There seems to be an overall lack of discernment amongst the general public (and some others) in many things, not just in hi-fi or music. I see the "that will do" attitude you refer to all over: no-one seems willing to go the extra mile to find the 'gems' or things of true quality and will seemingly happily settle for 'adequate' just to save time and effort, and it’s not necessarily always a money issue. It's that 'time' thing again that Beechy referred to earlier.
I think some people need to stop and examine their lifestyles and see just what direction they're going in, and whether it is healthy or not. Sometimes it takes a period of reflection to identify potential problems. Of particular concern is that people now are getting into far too much debt from living beyond their means; no wonder they're "time poor", running around like headless chickens trying to pay off all their debts! Quite simply, if people got back to basics and led simpler, less complicated, lives then they wouldn't be in so much debt - and therefore have more time for the things in life that really matter.
What used to be common place is now only seen when a disaster strikes and people are temporarily woken out of their Sheep like trances.
Indeed. I must admit that I've never understood, or indeed been a part of, the 'herd' mentality. I've always been a self-thinker and a 'doer' rather than a 'follower'. People are in general too easily influenced by their peers to the detriment of individuality. Perhaps that also reflects on today's hi-fi and music scene?
The interest in culture(and music is culture, even pop music), is something only pursued by a few. The rest think X factor and Big Brother is culture. How wrong. We are reaping what we have sown.
I completely agree. The public's insatiable appetite for cheap, car-crash reality TV and the desire to microscopically examine the banal lifestyles of 'celebrities' (an overused description these days if ever there was one), including the creation of 'text lingo' on mobile phones, destroying the use of proper language skills in the process, is part of the general 'dumbing down' of society in many areas and the 'lowest common denominator' thing Steve referred to earlier.
My wife is a lecturer in a large local college. She has quite a heavy workload so I often help her mark the English homework of her students, and quite frankly, it is nothing short of disgraceful. There are people leaving secondary education who can barely string two coherent sentences together, cannot spell correctly, and have virtually no real understanding of punctuation; and their basic arithmetic is no better!
What does it say about today's society that young people are leaving school without the most basic of skills which should in this day and age be taken for granted? I had learned those sorts of skills by the end of primary school!
So why is our current education system failing so catastrophically? Who's to blame?
Until we sort things out at ground roots level then I'm afraid the malaise we're currently witnessing will continue to pervade our lives and contribute to the reduction in standards of the really important things, not just in hi-fi and music.
Everything was handed over to Market Forces, the Market knows best, the Market will sort its self out. Statistics offer the only path to truth. Western Governments based their policies on this as does big business. But when mindless Sheep, who lack any reason but what the media feed them are part of the market, those who can think are swept into the mire too.
How very true.
"MY PEOPLE DIE FROM LACK OF KNOWLEDGE". What about, vision and quality and passion, without these, what will we become as a species. Bar a few examples in the music industry these qualities are very scarce. Crap is what we have now got for the most part. Loudness is a by product of a mine is bigger than yours mentality, if mines louder then its better, NO !!!!!! But it will sell more if its LOUDER. Sadly YES.
I agree, but I believe that there are still people around who possess the skills you mention, however their skills are being stifled because there are less and less people around who would appreciate the end product. It's back to the old thing of 'supply and demand' - at the moment what is being demanded will simply not induce the talented to 'supply', and this is certainly most relevant in today's popular music scene and the recording industry's treatment of it, not to mention 'hi-end' audio.
Marco.
P.S I'm glad to see you've finally got the hang of quoting - just stop covering it all in bloody bold text! ;)
aquapiranha
14-01-2009, 09:11
Dalek. I see your copy of "Welcome to the cruise" and you are now confirmed as a man with impeccable taste!!
Judie Tzuke is very underrated, I went to see her many years ago in a small theatre in Liverpool called the Neptune - she was fantastic!
Sorry for the thread hijack!
:)
aquapiranha
14-01-2009, 09:27
After reading the last couple of pages I find myself agreeing with the vast majority of the comments, especially those relating to the change in society with regard to "celebrity" and our obsession with it and all the associated rubbish that goes with it.
Looking around I see pathetic, shallow, weak people unable to think for themselves, or possible too lazy to make their own minds up (?) dressing and behaving like the sad empty headed "celebrities" they aspire to.
On the roads we see agressivly driven pretend off road vehicles with blacked out windows to suggest the person driving is some kind of "gangsta" where in fact they are as likely to be an office worker as a drug dealer...
Just when did we become so superficial? when did we trade pride for pretence?
I fear for the future.
Spectral Morn
14-01-2009, 09:30
Hi Steve we are all friends here so call me Neil (Mr Dalek is reserved for those begging for there lives, before I EXTERMINATE them ! ;)) Yes ( here on SKARO)we love Judie Tzuke(her Music and her new no record labels business model. She's doing it by herself now,http://www.tzuke.com/ ). This is a fave http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nDLfNkwLr1U (STAY WITH ME TILL DAWN) A lot of people think that Wonderland, was her last album,and she vanished. Wrong, she has made at least another 5 albums and her daughter Bailey has been making Dance music with the likes of the Freemasons and her own mini album. Judie supplied fresh/not sampled vocals on two tracks on Morcheeba's last album Dive Deep and one of her most recent albums is in the Dance genre as well.
I have never seen her live, except on DVD, fabulous. Steve,you are a blessed Man indeed.
Hi Marco
Thanks for the reply, its not that I am hanging on your ever word/thought, you understand,but it is good to get to know you better and see where there is common thinking.
Regards D S D L--- Neil :)
Neil McCauley
14-01-2009, 09:42
Meanwhile ....
I can't believe that it's so cold
And there ain't been no snow.
The sound of music it comes to me
From every place I go.
Sunday morning, there's no one in church,
But the clergy's chosen man
And he is fine I won't worry about him.
Got the book in his hand.
Oh, there's a bitter east wind, and the fields are swaying,
The crows are round their nests.
I wonder what he's in there a saying
To all those souls at rest.
I see the path which lead to the door,
And the clergy's chosen man.
Bushes and briars
You and I,
Where do we stand?
I wonder if he knows I'm here,
Watching the briars grow.
And all these people beneath my shoes,
I wonder if they know.
There was a time when every last one,
Knew a clergy's chosen man.
Where are they now?
Thistles and thorns,
Among the sand.
Sandy Denny 1972
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:gjfwxqt5ldhe
Spectral Morn
14-01-2009, 09:48
Very poignant :( However, there is some one, who can also write.
Regards D S D L---- Neil :)
As this thread seems to cover everything, including the quality of cd's I want to RANT. Was looking forward to the new Springsteen cd 'working on a dream' but my bet is that it will be recorded as shite as the last album ie all volume and no quality. 'magic' was such rubbish I took it back to HMV, told them the recording was too compressed and with a glazed expression on the assistants face, he gave me a refund. Spose I wont even go there this time.I am so pissed off with low quality discs with no dynamic range, I'm driven to classical instead (no problem there). end of rant.
You should have just said someone bought it for you as a gift and you don't like the music - end of story. That's what I do! Otherwise they look at you as if you're an alien ;)
Marco.
Oh, and most importantly, how do we become more 'time rich', and less 'time poor' like we used to be? The time factor thing is very significant, like you say. Are we overcomplicating our lives now, running around like headless chickens more than is necessary, and for what (ultimate) gain?
That's an easy one from my perspective Marco :)
I'm only a farmer.
If a man can be truly free,then I truly am. The day, the week, the month
They have been entrusted to me. They are mine to spend. They are mine to invest. They are mine to use wisely.
It is a solitary profession I have chosen; Or, perhaps, that I have been chosen for.
A profession where there are no certainties. Where no guarantees are granted,
No promises given, no excuses taken.
I have but one man to answer to, one man to depend on, one man to confide in;
And in the quiet of the years, I have come to know him well.
LOL, Barnie! You've got the right idea :)
Escape the 'rat-race' if you can!
Marco.
As much as I hate to interrupt this highly articulate and incessant flow of curmudgeonly rant with a small flash of light, here goes: While I see the reason in the hand-wringing, almost everything being said here, including the criticisms of the quality of music and mastering, could have been (probably was) said about the pop music, radio-ready production and bobby-soxers and Teddy Boys of the rock n roll era of the 50s and 60s. Skip the production/mastering discussion and the music/cultural commentary could have been made about the flappers of the 1920s. There's nothing new here. And the solution? Simple. We'll die off and stop complaining. And we'll be replaced by guys so out of touch with current music that they only hear the most high-profile, disposable pop of the two thousand twenties and worry over the cultural erosion, the loss of quality and the fact that nothing these days is up to the high artistic standards of Dave Matthews, The Decemberists and The White Stripes.
Some things never change.
There. That should start the thread back up :).
Tim
Tim,
While I see the reason in the hand-wringing, almost everything being said here, including the criticisms of the quality of music and mastering, could have been (probably was) said about the pop music, radio-ready production and bobby-soxers and Teddy Boys of the rock n roll era of the 50s and 60s.
So are you saying that people's overall values in life haven't changed, or how music was treated, recorded, and appreciated back then (there's a reason why all my 1950s vinyl albums sound markedly superior to any records I'm buying today, and no, it's nothing to do with nostalgia - I wasn't born then), compared to now, and that the innovative valve amplifier and loudspeaker designs of that era, for example, are still being produced now to the same standards?
Where is the genuine innovation in today's hi-fi technology outside of making things smaller, neater and more convenient?
We'll die off and stop complaining. And we'll be replaced by guys so out of touch with current music that they only hear the most high-profile, disposable pop of the two thousand twenties and worry over the cultural erosion, the loss of quality and the fact that nothing these days is up to the high artistic standards of Dave Matthews, The Decemberists and The White Stripes.
The future will bring what it brings, but we still have the ability to influence the present if enough people re-think the standards and values in their life, and perhaps that might have a knock-on effect on the future. The fact is every one of us can shape our own destiny if we have the intelligence and confidence to think for ourselves - we can all look in the mirror and make that change...
The thing is who's got the gumption to do it?
Marco.
Spectral Morn
14-01-2009, 15:02
with a small flash of light, here goes:
Don't want to be rude but WHERE ?
While I see the reason in the hand-wringing, almost everything being said here, including the criticisms of the quality of music and mastering, could have been (probably was) said about the pop music, radio-ready production and bobby-soxers and Teddy Boys of the rock n roll era of the 50s and 60s.
Yes the Classical enthusiasts and easy listening types ,hated the new loud/electric music. They could not see the innovations that came out of these new music forms/genres.
Skip the production/mastering discussion and the music/cultural commentary could have been made about the flappers of the 1920s.
Yes it was decadent, a shaking off of the Victorian/Edwardian social order, but out of this Jazz grew into all its various forms today GO FLAPPERS GO :mex:
There's nothing new here. ?
The difference this time is that the so called progress is nothing of the sort. Where are the huge jumps in sound and recording Quality, that happened in the previous decades ? Where is the new and innovative instruments and genres ?
And the solution? Simple. We'll die off and stop complaining. And we'll be replaced by guys so out of touch with current music that they only hear the most high-profile, disposable pop of the two thousand twenties and worry over the cultural erosion,
I will give you this one. But I and I am sure AOS will not go down with out a fight. Let each one of us have so much enthusiasm, that it will be a bright light shining into, every corner and expose mediocrity for what it is CRAP. NO LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR HERE.
the loss of quality and the fact that nothing these days is up to the high artistic standards The White Stripes.
Sorry, Tim, but not a chance. I will give you the first two but, like The Beatles and The Stones IMHO they are very over rated SORRY.;)
Some things never change.
Maybe not, but lets fight on.
There. That should start the thread back up :).
Perhaps ? ;)
Regards D S D L---- Neil :)
Where is the genuine innovation in today's hi-fi technology outside of making things smaller, neater and more convenient?
Speakers and digital technology have both come a long way in the last 20 years. Think Beryllium drivers, sandwich cones, composite materials, cabinet shape analysis, crossover design etc. for speakers alone.
Spectral Morn
14-01-2009, 15:14
Hi Martin T
Speakers and digital technology have both come a long way in the last 20 years.
Digital is getting better in playback, but not recording(or at least you would not think so, with what is put out to day. Mostly Crap and getting worse by the day.). It ironic but just as CDP's have now improved so much , we now mostly have crap to play on them:(:steam:
Think Beryllium drivers,
This was a late 70's YAMAHA discovery, NS 1000's and thus not recent, as Tim was saying sort of THERES NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN. ;)
In fact things have now got so complicated, because we can do a thing. That frankly the music signal is being throttled to within an inch of its life, in many audio systems and products. IMHO.
Regards D S D L--- Neil :)
This was a late 70's YAMAHA discovery
Yes, I know that, but beryllium is only recently developed to the level of sophistication seen on high end speakers because of how difficult it is to work with.
Speakers and digital technology have both come a long way in the last 20 years. Think Beryllium drivers, sandwich cones, composite materials, cabinet shape analysis, crossover design etc. for speakers alone.
That stuff only matters, Martin, if you consider the final designs of speakers employing that technology to be superior than, say, a big 1950s-designed Tannoy ;)
And at the smaller end of the scale, how many inferior modern copies have their been of the Spendor BC1 or the LS35a? - Again two genuinely innovative designs that have spawned numerous but largely inferior modern copies.
You and I may think differently perhaps but the fact is loudspeaker designs in those days were much more innovative than anything produced now quite simply because they continue to influence so much of what's made today. I'm talking tried and tested technology over decades.
Come back to me in 50 years (if we're still here) and we'll see how genuinely innovative Beryllium drivers and such like are then! :)
Marco.
Spectral Morn
14-01-2009, 15:36
Yes, I know that, but beryllium is only recently developed to the level of sophistication seen on high end speakers because of how difficult it is to work with.
THE Yamaha Ns 1000, are fabulous. I was very skeptical about them until I heard a set in a customers house on the end of a Musical Fidelity TRi Vista Amp and SACDP. The sound was stunning, he played the SACD of Dark Side of the moon. WOW :gig:
I have heard the Focal speakers with Beryllium and they are good especially the small 1009B (standmount). But I think the NS1000 are better IMHO.
The section I highlighted was the most important bit of what I was saying though, Oh well :doh:
In fact things have now got so complicated, because we can do a thing. That frankly the music signal is being throttled to within an inch of its life, in many audio systems and products. IMHO.
Hi Marco
And at the smaller end of the scale, how many inferior modern copies have their been of the Spendor BC1 or the LS35a? - Again two genuinely innovative designs that have spawned numerous but largely inferior modern copies.
You and I may think differently perhaps but the fact is loudspeaker designs in those days were much more innovative than anything produced now quite simply because they continue to influence so much of what's made today. I'm talking tried and tested technology over decades.
Come back to me in 50 years (if we're still here) and we'll see how genuinely innovative Beryllium drivers and such like are then!
Marco I agree totally with you on this. However there are some modern designs which are amazing such as the Anthony Galloo Ref 3.1 I had an ex customer round listening to my system yesterday and he said and I quote. "Neil you don't realize what you have here. The missing link between Electrostatics and Box speakers....They are amazing." I am biased but had perhaps not fully realized this. Thanks Neville
http://i549.photobucket.com/albums/ii364/davros124/LondonSept07Hi-FiShowandHomehi-f-1.jpg
Regards D S D L---- Neil :)
Digital is getting better in playback...
Not for me it isn't, Neil, apart from at the budget to mid-level where today's CDPs and DACs are unquestionably better than they've ever been. However, that said, every time I compare a properly implemented (and modified) TDA1541-based DAC (such as the Sony) to something current, hi-end or otherwise, integrated CDP or DAC, the latter loses, and loses royally! ;)
Progress? Not for me at my end of the market. The high-res music files for downloading will hopefully offer some glimmer of hope for the future...
Marco.
Spectral Morn
14-01-2009, 15:51
Not for me it isn't, Neil, apart from at the budget to mid-level where today's CDPs and DACs are unquestionably better than they've ever been. However, that said, every time I compare a properly implemented TDA1541-based DAC (such as the Sony) to something current, hi-end or otherwise, integrated CDP or DAC, the latter loses, and loses royally! ;)
Progress? Not for me at my end of the market. The high-res music files for downloading will hopefully offer some glimmer of hope for the future...
Marco.
I don't disagree with this. What I should have said was in terms of SACD and DVDA, both of which in my opinion offered a significant improvement on red Book.You know I am a Fan of the TDA1541 .:gig: Heck I have enough examples in the house to open a small shop/museum.
Regards D S D L---Neil :)
That stuff only matters, Martin, if you consider the final designs of speakers employing that technology to be superior than, say, a big 1950s-designed Tannoy
I truly do, Marco. Sorry, but the high end speakers made by Wilson Audio, Revel, Usher and B&W (to name four that I know) are a leap ahead of classic Tannoys, Spendors etc. The only speaker from that era that can hold its head high (within a very limited envelope of performance) is the Quad ELS.
I truly do, Marco. Sorry, but the high end speakers made by Wilson Audio, Revel, Usher and B&W (to name four that I know) are a leap ahead of classic Tannoys, Spendors etc.
In your opinion maybe, certainly not mine in the areas I consider important, so I think we should just agree to differ and leave it there ;)
Marco.
I think music quality apart for a few is not to important. When we look at production values on the whole its gone backwards with every band competing for the loudest sound so that they get noticed. Thankfully there are still a number of independent labels that produce with more care. I guess for me its the whole thing about us being seen as consumers rather loyal customers
Some of the changes has been brought on how most people listen to music which I guess for the majority of people is the radio IPod or even mobile phone. Quite often the amount of times I hear someone playing some tune loudly on a mobile amazes me.
I also think we have little influnce over this, to be honest for a big organisation someone like myself does not matter.
But there is also the side were (some) musicians generally care about there music and sound I see an interesting development, where artists have taken more control around the quality of the product they are making and found different mediums to allow people to hear this; as I have grown older I tend to appreciate the extra effort and care a musician puts in that care about there sound.
I know a few guitarist and all of them are obessed about there tone and remember for myself when I got the the tone right my playing would sound better to me.
The way people listen to music has changed and I think overall what people want has changed, for most people its not about a dedicated HIfi system but perhaps more about home cinema and if makes a reasonable effort around music then all the better but its not essential
The way people listen to music has changed and I think overall what people want has changed, for most people its not about a dedicated HIfi system but perhaps more about home cinema and if makes a reasonable effort around music then all the better but its not essential
Do you consider that a step forward in the general sonic standards of audio then, John, compared to what they once were?
Marco.
Nope think in production values on the whole we gone backwards because in truth for most people its not important
So are you saying that people's overall values in life haven't changed, or how music was treated, recorded, and appreciated back then (there's a reason why all my 1950s vinyl albums sound markedly superior to any records I'm buying today, and no, it's nothing to do with nostalgia - I wasn't born then), compared to now, and that the innovative valve amplifier and loudspeaker designs of that era, for example, are still being produced now to the same standards?
No, but I am saying that if you picked up a 45 of "My Boy Lollipop," you'd probably find that it is pretty severely compressed (though not digitally), and I hope you'd find that is is as shallow and disposable an example of mindless pop nonsense as "Oops, I Did It Again." And I'm saying that there were plenty of middle-aged music fans then, who probably heard those compressed 45s of those mindless teen tomes and predicted the fall of Western civilization, the demise of good taste and the end of music as an art form. And about 15 minutes later, along came John Coltrane.
History, and our myopic view of it as it unfolds, almost never fails to repeat itself. :)
Tim
And I'm saying that there were plenty of middle-aged music fans then, who probably heard those compressed 45s of those mindless teen tomes and predicted the fall of Western civilization, the demise of good taste and the end of music as an art form.
And it's happened!! ;)
And about 15 minutes later, along came John Coltrane.
Indeed. But there will always be talented musicians around of one kind and another; that's a separate issue. I'm talking more about how we treat the recording of music itself these days in terms of having ultimate fidelity (with music, not 'sound') as the goal, compared to, say, in the 1950s when vinyl was king. Like I've said before, there's a reason why my 1950s vinyl albums sound better in terms of production than the records I'm buying now and it ain't nostalgia!
I see that you neatly side-stepped this one:
Where is the genuine innovation in today's hi-fi technology outside of making things smaller, neater and more convenient?
Come on, Tim, let's hear it!
:eyebrows:
Marco.
Oh dear , this evening it's a bottle of Glen Elgin single malt to get through this thread :)
And it's happened!! ;)
Indeed. But there will always be talented musicians around of one kind and another; that's a separate issue. I'm talking more about how we treat the recording of music itself these days in terms of having ultimate fidelity (with music, not 'sound') as the goal, compared to, say, in the 1950s when vinyl was king. Like I've said before, there's a reason why my 1950s vinyl albums sound better in terms of production than the records I'm buying now and it ain't nostalgia!
I see that you neatly side-stepped this one:
Come on, Tim, let's hear it!
:eyebrows:
Marco.
I didn't side-step it, I just passed on the opportunity to open this one up one more time. You know the answer; we just disagree. The answer is digital. In my view, to my ears, even very common consumer-grade digital, through good transducers, cleans the clock of the best gear from the 50s.
Evidently you don't have to have lived through an era to have great nostalgia for it. :)
Oh and the loudness wars? It's a fad. It will pass. Perhaps like a kidney stone, but it will pass. Mark my words.
Tim
Oh and the loudness wars? It's a fad. It will pass. Perhaps like a kidney stone, but it will pass. Mark my words.
Lets hope! :)
Lets hope! :)
Call me an optimist.
Tim
You may just find that the original uncompressed sound files exist. If this is the case, then expect an "Audiophile" edition in the future.. Apparently, one of the Amy Winehouse CD's was available in four or so versions, each having different average levels..
Marco, I appreciate that SOME 1950's recordings are sublime, but the technology to faithfully transfer these recordings to vinyl was poor - those SXL Decca's for example. Decca couldn't understand it when they bought some new Neumann lathes in 1970 or so which made cuts far closer to the true sound of the master recordings and all the HiFi fogeys hated them because they lacked the (severely coloured) "Decca Sound." Most pop/R&R from the fifties sounded awful as well, except perhaps Elvis and Buddy Holly. Little Richard and Fats Domino made amazing music to my ears, but we don't discuss the recording quality or the current state of the fifty plus year old master tapes.
Spectral Morn
15-01-2009, 14:59
Hi Guys
I was reading the comments section in Feb issue of hi-fi Choice. Alvin Gold raised an interesting point. This may in part explain some of what we have been talking about. Alvin thinks and I must agree with his thoughts, that Woolworths helped kill the record retailing industry in the UK. Before Woolies there was only specialist record shops both independent and multiples. When the music industry looked like a profitable venture (theres that word again Profit), Woolworths got involved, both in retailing and wholesaling of music. They turned it into a commodity, removing the need to go into a specialist shop and making it cheaper. The Super Market chains saw what Woolies were up to and copied them and did a better/cheaper job of it. Suddenly you bought music with your food and bang ---the special qualities of going into a specialist music shop started to vanish. With loss in revenue the Record shops started to vanish too, as they had lost their bread and butter sales. The internet then delivered the coup de gras ---Death of specialist and general music retailing followed. This happened in tandem with the downloading cultures arrival. So perhaps it follows that the ground swell in opinion of music and its relative value was also eroded by this change in how the majority buy music and listen to it.
So as well as turning music into a commodity, we have also seen the death of specialist knowledge and advice that was given by the passionate staff in majors and independents. Bit Ironic then that Woolies going bust has also killed one of the early major shops VIRGIN now Zavvi.
You can read Alvin's article to see his original thoughts on this. However I will leave you with this quote from the item
" Right now,I don't see any easy solution to the structural problems of the prerecorded music industry.The imperative to make a quick and easy profit has overtaken the market and in the process, we the collectors have lost out" Alvin Gold Feb 2009 issue HI-FI Choice
"The imperative to make a quick and easy profit has overtaken the market and in the process, we the collectors have lost out" There you have it both in terms of recording quality and how we are able to buy it.
Regards D S D L---Neil :(
Hi Tim,
I didn't side-step it, I just passed on the opportunity to open this one up one more time. You know the answer; we just disagree.
Indeed. But the difference is you appear to have made up your mind conclusively that digital is (unquestionably) superior, whereas if someone allowed me to hear a digital-based system, computer audio based or otherwise, and to my ears it sounded more like real music than my turntable did (that's the key - which is not all to do with how accurately something reproduces 'sound') then I would re-evaluate my opinion. Similarly, with valves and solid-state amps, or active and passive speakers - nothing with me is ever set in stone. It's called being open-minded; you should perhaps try it sometime, it's quite liberating!
The problem is you think that because something measures better, it is better. I'm afraid that hi-fi is not quite so simple.
The answer is digital. In my view, to my ears, even very common consumer-grade digital, through good transducers, cleans the clock of the best gear from the 50s.
How about adding "Based on what I've heard so far" to the beginning of the above - unless you consider that you've heard all there is to hear, know it all, and have nothing further to discover or learn with hi-fi?
And I'm not talking about 1950's equipment - jeez most of it would be well past it; I'm talking about 1950's valve technology implemented into modern designs with the highest quality modern up-to-date, bespoke components, which is a whole different ball game. Answer me honestly, Tim, have you ever heard equipment like that?
Evidently you don't have to have lived through an era to have great nostalgia for it. :)
Nope, not in the slightest. I simply judge based on what my ears tell me, and they tell me that the 1950s Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra, Nat King Cole albums on the Capitol label, for example, I've got are much better produced than any records I buy today. If it were the other way round I would say so.
Like Dave (DSJR) says, not all 1950s recordings on vinyl are fantastic but the good ones to my ears are something quite special and possess a naturalness, clarity, and realism that is completely missing on most modern material. I would put this down to the high quality valve microphones and the recording techniques based on simple, purist principles used in those days, performed by recording engineers who were blessedly free from today's commercial restrictions of having to make everything sound 'loud', and who also genuinely cared about sound quality - a situation in the music recording industry which is by in large somewhat different today.
Oh and the loudness wars? It's a fad. It will pass. Perhaps like a kidney stone, but it will pass. Mark my words.
I'll mark them then, because most unfortunately I think you're wrong. Unless both the music industry and the end user alter their values and prioritise quality over convenience and profit, which I doubt even the most eternal optimist would predict, things will sadly only get worse. I hope I'm wrong! I don't mind being wrong, you see; it's a human thing and something if applicable we should all be willing to accept and embrace... ;)
Marco
When the music industry looked like a profitable venture (theres that word again Profit), Woolworths got involved, both in retailing and wholesaling of music. They turned it into a commodity, removing the need to go into a specialist shop and making it cheaper. The Super Market chains saw what Woolies were up to and copied them and did a better/cheaper job of it. Suddenly you bought music with your food and bang ---the special qualities of going into a specialist music shop started to vanish. With loss in revenue the Record shops started to vanish too, as they had lost their bread and butter sales. The internet then delivered the coup de gras ---Death of specialist and general music retailing followed. This happened in tandem with the downloading cultures arrival. So perhaps it follows that the ground swell in opinion of music and its relative value was also eroded by this change in how the majority buy music and listen to it.
I think that's a most succinct and accurate summary of the situation.
Can anyone honestly see things going back to how they were? If not, how on earth are things going to improve?
Marco.
Hi Tim,
Indeed. But the difference is you appear to have made up your mind conclusively that digital is (unquestionably) superior, whereas if someone allowed me to hear a digital-based system, computer audio based or otherwise, and to my ears it sounded more like real music than my turntable did (that's the key - which is not all to do with how accurately something reproduces 'sound') then I would re-evaluate my opinion. Similarly, with valves and solid-state amps, or active and passive speakers - nothing with me is ever set in stone. It's called being open-minded; you should perhaps try it sometime, it's quite liberating!
The problem is you think that because something measures better, it is better. I'm afraid that hi-fi is not quite so simple.
How about adding "Based on what I've heard so far" to the beginning of the above - unless you consider that you've heard all there is to hear, know it all, and have nothing further to discover or learn with hi-fi?
And I'm not talking about 1950's equipment - jeez most of it would be well past it; I'm talking about 1950's valve technology implemented into modern designs with the highest quality modern up-to-date, bespoke components, which is a whole different ball game. Answer me honestly, Tim, have you ever heard equipment like that?
Nope, not in the slightest. I simply judge based on what my ears tell me, and they tell me that the 1950s Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra, Nat King Cole albums on the Capitol label, for example, I've got are much better produced than any records I buy today. If it were the other way round I would say so.
Like Dave (DSJR) says, not all 1950s recordings on vinyl are fantastic but the good ones to my ears are something quite special and possess are naturalness, clarity, and realism that is completely missing on most modern material. I would put this down to the high quality valve microphones and the recording techniques based on simple, purist principles used in those days, performed by recording engineers who were blessedly free from today's commercial restrictions of having to make everything sound 'loud', and who also genuinely cared about sound quality - a situation in the music recording industry which is by in large somewhat different today.
I'll mark them then, because most unfortunately I think you're wrong. Unless both the music industry and the end user alter their values and prioritise quality over convenience and profit, which I doubt even the most eternal optimist would predict, things will sadly only get worse. I hope I'm wrong! I don't mind being wrong, you see; it's a human thing and something if applicable we should all be willing to accept and embrace... ;)
Marco
Goodness, Marco, you are assuming an awful lot from my disagreement with you, and much of it is pretty insulting. Point by point then:
-- I have made up my mind based on what I have heard to date. My mind is not closed, and if/when I heard a vinyl/valve rig that sounds more real to me, regardless of specifications, I will say so. The fact that we disagree on what we hear does not mean that either a) I have not heard enough, b) that my mind is closed and I am incapable of changing my mind, or c) I am an objectivist who reads specs and doesn't listen.
-- I do not assume that because something measures better it is better. In fact, I often prefer, with some music, components that measure less accurately and sound warmer, and I have considered investing in tubes and even had tube amps in for evaluation. But they sounded so similar to a vintage SS amp I already have that I didn't consider the investment worthwhile. That should answer your question -- yes, I've heard some modern tube hifi and it sounded very good.
-- I too have some excellent recordings from the late 50s/early 60s. Mine are jazz combos, not vocalists like Dean and Frank, but neither are the dominant pop music of that era and neither are relevant, in my view, to the discussion of the contemporary loudness craze and how it compares to the extreme analog compression of radio-ready pop music of the era. Perhaps we were simply talking about different things.
Marco, you and I have both listened, and we have come to different conclusions. It is as simple as that. The difference, if we must talk about such things, is that I believe you have heard a lot of hifi and come to your conclusions well-informed, and I can still engage in good-spirited disagreement. You, on the other hand, seem to need to put me in a very small box and justify my disagreement by believing I come to the party with very limited experience, a very nearsighted view and a perspective bordering on bigotry. That's not necessary. This is really quite simple. You asked what major technological steps forward had been made since the 50s and I gave you my opinion, qualifying it as my opinion when I stated that we simply disagree.
If that's not good enough for you, go ahead and believe I'm close-minded, if it helps. Here, have another: :)
Tim
Hi Tim,
I'll deal with the rest of your post later. In the meantime, perhaps you could suggest in what way I'm meant to interpret remarks such as this?
The answer is digital. In my view, to my ears, even very common consumer-grade digital, through good transducers, cleans the clock of the best gear from the 50s.
That sounds pretty definitive and conclusive to me, so I'm sorry if I misconstrued your meaning.
Perhaps you don't appreciate how you're often coming across? This happens all too often during discussions on forums. Simply by adding: "Based on what I've heard so far", or words to that effect, before the above, as I suggested, would have changed things considerably don't you think? :)
Anyway, I understand and appreciate where you're coming from much more clearly now.
Marco.
anthonyTD
15-01-2009, 17:49
Speakers and digital technology have both come a long way in the last 20 years. Think Beryllium drivers, sandwich cones, composite materials, cabinet shape analysis, crossover design etc. for speakers alone.
sandwich cones, remember the original leak sandwich, err,,, 1963 i think it was.;) over forty years ago, if you look deeply back into those days you will see there were a lot more of what people think of as innovative today, problem was back then a lot of the technology was either too expensive to do, or it was deemed to good for the genral public!!!
anthony...
anthonyTD
15-01-2009, 17:54
as for recordings,
well, some of the best recordings i have ever witnessed were on vinyl, recorded in early stereo, from around 1957, fact!!!
Anthony...
Neil McCauley
15-01-2009, 17:55
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!"
Pete Townshend
Or perhaps we did get fooled again?
anthonyTD
15-01-2009, 17:59
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!"
Pete Townshend
Or perhaps we did get fooled again?
couldnt think of a better set of lyrics to sum things up at this point.
great.;)
if you look deeply back into those days you will see there were a lot more of what people think of as innovative today
Indeed, Anthony. I think that the way the term "innovative" has been applied to this discussion is about as relevant as the term "celebrity" being applied to the vacuous non-entities who populate the Big Brother household ;)
as for recordings, well, some of the best recordings i have ever witnessed were on vinyl, recorded in early stereo, from around 1957, fact!!!
Hear, hear - try telling that to Timmy boy!
Marco.
anthonyTD
15-01-2009, 18:06
Indeed, Anthony. I think that the way the term "innovative" has been applied to this discussion is about as relevant as the term "celebrity" being applied to the vacuous non-entities who populate the Big Brother household ;)
Hear, hear - try telling that to Timmy boy!
Marco.
All too true...
the phrase "there's nothing new under the sun" is very apt, its the people that know how to implement technology who are the real innovators...:)
Anthony...
Did you mean 'pioneer' instead of "implement"? Implement to me suggests taking something which someone has pioneered and adapting into another design, than pioneering the innovative technology in the first place :)
Marco.
anthonyTD
15-01-2009, 18:41
Did you mean 'pioneer' instead of "implement"? Implement to me suggests taking something which someone has pioneered and adapting into another design, than pioneering the innovative technology in the first place :)
Marco.
i meant what i said, hence the title "theres nothing new under the sun"
the best we can do in the 21st century is be innovative in implementing and perfecting technology that has already been designed or thought of by the real pioneers in the 20th century.:)
Anthony...
In the meantime, perhaps you could suggest in what way I'm meant to interpret remarks such as this?
Sure, I'd suggest you interpret it through the lens of reading the part that says "in my view, to my ears."
Regarding the part you emphasized, "The answer is digital," I'd interpret it through the context of the question I was answering and the language that immediately preceded it, "you know the answer; we disagree." If it wasn't clear enough that I was expressing opinion, really, I'm at a loss regarding how to get that across to you.
Perhaps you don't appreciate how you're often coming across?
Perhaps. Perhaps you're familiar with the antiquated American expression, "that's the pot calling the kettle black?"
I'll deal with the rest of your post later.
I wouldn't waste the time if I were you. Clearly we have fundamentally different views. If we can just agree to disagree without suffering through another of your posts instructing us in how hearing what you hear is a simply matter of achieving your superior level of education, focus, understanding and experience, that would be a great relief to those of us over here in the deaf and ignorant section. Thanks.
Tim
PS: There will be no need to ban me. I wouldn't bother with that either. Have a nice life.
anthonyTD
15-01-2009, 18:51
Sure, I'd suggest you interpret it through the lens of reading the part that says "in my view, to my ears."
Regarding the part you emphasized, "The answer is digital," I'd interpret it through the context of the question I was answering and the language that immediately preceded it, "you know the answer; we disagree." If it wasn't clear enough that I was expressing opinion, really, I'm at a loss regarding how to get that across to you.
Perhaps. Perhaps you're familiar with the antiquated American expression, "that's the pot calling the kettle black?"
I wouldn't waste the time if I were you. Clearly we have fundamentally different views. If we can just agree to disagree without suffering through another of your posts instructing us in how hearing what you hear is a simply matter of achieving your superior level of education, focus, understanding and experience, that would be a great relief to those of us over here in the deaf and ignorant section. Thanks.
Tim
PS: There will be no need to ban me. I wouldn't bother with that either. Have a nice life.
Tim,
as far as i can see nothing you have said in this thread should give anyone cause to ban you, your both entitled to a healthy robust discusion, and at times when two strong minded people cross swords in this manner there is rarely a winner, i think its just a case of agreeing to disagree and move on.
lifes too short.:)
Anthony...
Spectral Morn
15-01-2009, 18:51
Hi Tim
Please don't Go. Marco and I don't always see eye to eye, but I respect his opinion about a lot of things. I think the problem with forums is that it is a very imperfect medium to communicate. For a start it is quicker to speak when we can see each other and miscommunication is less of a problem. I have found myself on the end of some really unpleasant crap on another forum , which makes yours and Marcos disagreement look tame (from my point of view of course.)
In my opinion this forum would be poorer if you go. This does not mean that I agree with some of what you say, but as a musician your comments are very interesting.
Please Stay.
Regards D S D L----Neil :)
Tim,
The fact is if I had interpreted your post correctly in the first place then I wouldn't have answered it the way I did. I think that I've been perfectly reasonable.
Take a chill pill and come back when you've calmed down and at least answer Anthony's post about 1950s recordings. We don't ban people for disagreeing with Admin.
Anthony,
the best we can do in the 21st century is be innovative in implementing and perfecting technology that has already been designed or thought of by the real pioneers in the 20th century.
Indeed, and so it is :)
Marco.
Tim,
as far as i can see nothing you have said in this thread should give anyone cause to ban you, your both entitled to a healthy robust discusion, and at times when two strong minded people cross swords in this manner there is rarely a winner, i think its just a case of agreeing to disagree and move on.
lifes too short.:)
Anthony...
Spot on, Anthony! As is this, Neil:
I think the problem with forums is that it is a very imperfect medium to communicate.
Not need to fall out about it though, Tim. I enjoy our little 'tête-à-têtes' :)
Marco.
Thing is, I find I'm a bit of a fish out of water here. It's not just Marco. I'm so fundamentally at odds with the dominant belief system here that he (Marco) is probably right about the way I come off sometimes). I can think of at least one excellent and recent example, in Howard's thread about power cords. My response, with reference to ABX testing, was meant to be funny, even self-deprecating. Upon re-reading, I can see that it was neither. Sorry about that, Howard.
But I'm still faced with the dilema. When you boys go on about the superiority of your valves, vinyl and vintage...well, frankly I find myself faced with the choice of saying nothing nice or nothing at all. Nothing at all is better, I suppose. I mean the bottom line is I believe that the same master on redbook cd is audibly superior to vinyl every time; I believe that the greatest attribute of the best valve gear is that it almost eliminates the distortion inherent in that technology, making it as good as solid state of similar quality (in the unlikely event, that is, that you have enough money to buy enough watts of the stuff to power the speakers properly); I believe that digital to analog conversion is a mature technology that is virtually transparent when implemented properly and that it is implemented properly in most consumer-grade kit; I believe that anything over $50 for a cable and $200 for a simple DAC is likely to be the purchase price of an illusion. And I have come to this set of beliefs from decades of experience and listening.
Really...what am I supposed to do with that in this crowd? I'll tell you what. Just assume that everything I say is preceded by "to my ears" and closed with "MHO. YMMV." I try to do that often, but it gets tedious after awhile.
Perhaps I'll just lurk for a bit.
Tim
anthonyTD
15-01-2009, 20:21
Thing is, I find I'm a bit of a fish out of water here. It's not just Marco. I'm so fundamentally at odds with the dominant belief system here that he (Marco) is probably right about the way I come off sometimes). I can think of at least one excellent and recent example, in Howard's thread about power cords. My response, with reference to ABX testing, was meant to be funny, even self-deprecating. Upon re-reading, I can see that it was neither. Sorry about that, Howard.
But I'm still faced with the dilema. When you boys go on about the superiority of your valves, vinyl and vintage...well, frankly I find myself faced with the choice of saying nothing nice or nothing at all. Nothing at all is better, I suppose. I mean the bottom line is I believe that the same master on redbook cd is audibly superior to vinyl every time; I believe that the greatest attribute of the best valve gear is that it almost eliminates the distortion inherent in that technology, making it as good as solid state of similar quality (in the unlikely event, that is, that you have enough money to buy enough watts of the stuff to power the speakers properly); I believe that digital to analog conversion is a mature technology that is virtually transparent when implemented properly and that it is implemented properly in most consumer-grade kit; I believe that anything over $50 for a cable and $200 for a simple DAC is likely to be the purchase price of an illusion. And I have come to this set of beliefs from decades of experience and listening.
Really...what am I supposed to do with that in this crowd? I'll tell you what. Just assume that everything I say is preceded by "to my ears" and closed with "MHO. YMMV." I try to do that often, but it gets tedious after awhile.
Perhaps I'll just lurk for a bit.
Tim
hi Tim,
as far as i can see without people who can hold their own AND STAND UP FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE in what sometimes ends in strong debate[ folks like you] then there is no forum.
anthony,TD...
[your still wrong though] just kidding,,,:lol::lolsign:
Indeed! Anthony, perhaps with all your years of experience and expertise as a valve equipment designer and technician (in fact with solid-state technology, too, as you design both), not to mention your experience with studios and musicians, repairing and redesigning their guitar amps, (over, what 30 years?) you can put forward what I'm trying to explain to Tim better than me?
Please try :)
Marco.
P.S I was thinking specifically that if some world famous musicians choose to use all-valve guitar amps then there must be an equally valid reason to replay their music using the same technology...
Spectral Morn
15-01-2009, 20:30
I do understand where you are coming from. There is a very passionate following for lots of kit I have no experience of and an equally passionate love for DIY, Denon Carts, Technics TT, Direct drive TT etc. I have zero experience of this and so feel out of my depth a bit too, in fact a lot of the time. However the core guys on this forum are among the kindest, decent and most generous I have found in one place on a Forum. Don't get me wrong there are nice people on other forums but the attitude here is one of passion, exploration and a love of music over kit. This is rare, many forums are full of kit worshipers or the cult of Naim gear etc. These Forums can be very cold places indeed. I have felt nothing but welcome here and while a few disagreements have happened, there so far has been nothing but humour about it and everything is okay again. This is not the case elsewhere I can vouch for that.
Anyway I am glad you are sticking around. If nothing else the love of music is what binds us all together. We just pick different roads to get there but we do all get their eventually.
Regards D S D L---Neil :)
Ps I don't think you ever posted pictures of your gear in the Gallery, that would be interesting. Also if I remember correctly you work in the audio trade in the states, thats a very interesting experience that you could share.
anthonyTD
15-01-2009, 20:39
hi marco,
the problem with this thread is that it has drifted so far off topic that none of us can keep up with whats been said, or debated, i for one have drifted in and out of this one when i have had the time, and therefore cant possibly comment on all of its content, if there is a part of it that relates formost to what both you and tim have mainly disagreed on, and you think i can give/offer the benefit of my experience, then i am all ears...
anthony...
Hi Anthony,
Well you could start by perhaps commenting on this:
P.S I was thinking specifically that if some world famous musicians choose to use all-valve guitar amps then there must be an equally valid reason to replay their music using the same technology...
and trying to explain to Tim that the reason we choose valve technology is not because of some cosy form of nostalgia, or the "warmth" (in sound) they give, or any of that bollocks, it is because there are genuine technical reasons why valves reproduce MUSIC, not necessarily sound, more accurately than most solid-state amps, and this is translated in the reproduced music we hear with our records and CDs. The message isn't getting through that I couldn't give a monkey's what I use, valves, solid-state, or sorry-state - I'm not wedded to or have any 'loyalties' towards any form of technology. It's not about the messenger, it's about the message!!
If anything, as far as music signals are concerned, it's the sand amps that are 'warm and cosy' (well, certainly compared to what we use) :lol:
Anyway, I'll leave it with you! :)
Marco.
anthonyTD
15-01-2009, 21:13
Hi Anthony,
Well you could start by perhaps commenting on this:
and trying to explain to Tim that the reason we choose valve technology is not because of some cosy form of nostalgia, or the "warmth" (in sound) they give, or any of that bollocks, it is because there are genuine technical reasons why valves reproduce MUSIC, not necessarily sound, more accurately than most solid-state amps, and this is translated in the music we hear with our records and CDs. The message isn't getting through that I couldn't give a monkey's what I use, valves, solid-state, or sorry-state - I'm not wedded to or have any 'loyalties' towards any form of technology. It's not about the messenger, it's about the message!!
If anything, as far as music signals are concerned, it's the sand amps that are 'warm and cosy' (well, certainly compared to what we use) :lol:
Anyway, I'll leave it with you! :)
Marco.
ok,
i will write about what i believe to be the most important reasons why valves are still very much in vogue with musicians, audio enthusiasts, and music lovers worldwide, including me.
later dudes...:)
anthony...
Nice one, matey - I'll look forward to it :smoking:
Marco.
Indeed! Anthony, perhaps with all your years of experience and expertise as a valve equipment designer and technician (in fact with solid-state technology, too, as you design both), not to mention your experience with studios and musicians, repairing and redesigning their guitar amps, (over, what 30 years?) you can put forward what I'm trying to explain to Tim better than me?
Please try :)
Marco.
P.S I was thinking specifically that if some world famous musicians choose to use all-valve guitar amps then there must be an equally valid reason to replay their music using the same technology...
I choose to play guitar through valve amps, Marco. The reason I, and everyone chooses them is the way they distort when they go into clipping. It's not a particularly good argument for hifi. And there's no need to have Anthony explain tubes to me. I've heard them. I've owned them. I understand the arguments in their favor. I simply disagree with your evaluation. Many people, even experienced people, do. That, of course, doesn't mean you're wrong. It just means that we disagree.
Tim
Well, at least hear Anthony out... I think you may find it interesting :)
Marco.
P.S You misunderstand my point about valve guitar amps - it's got nothing to do with distortion or clipping.
anthonyTD
15-01-2009, 21:47
I choose to play guitar through valve amps, Marco. The reason I, and everyone chooses them is the way they distort when they go into clipping. It's not a particularly good argument for hifi. And there's no need to have Anthony explain tubes to me. I've heard them. I've owned them. I understand the arguments in their favor. I simply disagree with your evaluation. Many people, even experienced people, do. That, of course, doesn't mean you're wrong. It just means that we disagree.
Tim
fair comment Tim,
and i have been aware for some time that you probably have plenty of experience with valve guitar gear, so would not even attempt to "teach your mother to suck eggs" as we say over here, [its just a phrase] the important thing i think is for me to explain the reasons i feel a lot of guitarists,and audiophiles find valves more natural and [real] than most [not all] solid state amps they have experienced.
and thats it, hopefully it might shed some light [may not] on the subject for some.:)
regards,anthony...
Beechwoods
15-01-2009, 21:59
ok,
i will write about what i believe to be the most important reasons why valves are still very much in vogue with musicians, audio enthusiasts, and music lovers worldwide, including me.
later dudes...:)
anthony...
I would like that, Anthony. When I saw my dad recently (a big hi-fi fan and home-builder from the 60s through to the 80's - he built all his own SS amps until very recently) he was very dismissive of valve technology. His views were all formed of valves being innacurate, which I know from others here is untrue. I couldn't really argue though having no direct experience of valve amps (yet). Is it true though that valves handle harmonics outside of hearing (but affecting our psycho-acoustic awareness) better than solid state gear?
Anyway, I'll be looking out for it. Make it a new thread if you like. That way people might spot it more easily ;) :)
Post it here first, though, and then we may make a new thread out of it :)
Marco.
Beechwoods
15-01-2009, 22:02
You're just trying to set a new record for longest thread. Admit it!!
It's got a long way to go yet......
anthonyTD
15-01-2009, 22:16
I would like that, Anthony. When I saw my dad recently (a big hi-fi fan and home-builder from the 60s through to the 80's - he built all his own SS amps until very recently) he was very dismissive of valve technology. His views were all formed of valves being innacurate, which I know from others here is untrue. I couldn't really argue though having no direct experience of valve amps (yet). Is it true though that valves handle harmonics outside of hearing (but affecting our psycho-acoustic awareness) better than solid state gear?
Anyway, I'll be looking out for it. Make it a new thread if you like. That way people might spot it more easily ;) :)
hi beechy,
i had a similar experience with my own father in the 1970's untill he re-discoverd what valves were capable of again after years of building, and using solid state amps.
rather than confuse this thread any further and take it even further away from its intended destination, i think it would be best if i start a new post under the heading that relates to what is asked of me, that way hopefully it will not be seen as intimidation or me pushing my views onto someone who is not interested, then anyone who is genuinely interested in my views on the subject can look in, and offer their opinions.
that i feel would be best all-round...:)
regards,anthony...
I'd love to see if any of you guys could live with a very humble system like a Cambridge 640A and C, a Rega P2 with AT110 or 120 cartridge and some simple B&W, KEF or Monitor Audio speakers.
On music I knew, I could easily live with such a system, as my brain makes up the missing details (not that there would be that much missing I reckon). Not sure about "new to me" music, but bearing in mind that some of the most influential and most loved music in my life was heard first on various 1950's/1960's portable record players, I'm not sure...
Beechwoods
15-01-2009, 22:35
The core of my system is very humble. I know my amp and speakers could do with improvement, but they only get played at low levels, so are fine for the moment. My best listening is on headphones and that's where I think I'm going to be upgrading this year...
His views were all formed of valves being innacurate
It's a common fallacy, Beechy, and your dad is far from being alone in that respect, as proficient at circuit design as he no doubt is. If nothing else is achieved with this thread I would like to try to dispel the above notion (hopefully) for good. I'm confident Anthony's insight into the matter will help in achieving that.
The fact is, and let's allow this to sink in fully for a minute - currently, not everything in hi-fi which needs to be measured can be measured as is proven by the countless things people can genuinely hear (with cables, etc) but yet don't show up on a scope or on any other device (and I'm afraid that the psychological factor only goes so far), therefore whatever 'accuracy' measurements reveal at the moment only shows what's happening up to a certain point. Therefore, how can anyone base their views conclusively on only a percentage of the whole story?
It's what valve amps do in the current 'grey areas' which can't be measured that is most significant to their accurate reproduction of music.
I've put this forward many times before to chaps like Tim (I really and truly don't mean any offence) but unless they see some form of 'proof' (how can genuine proof exist if what's happening is beyond the current capability of our measurement apparatus?) they simply refuse to consider it as relevant, and merely apply the same scientific rules to hi-fi as one would to traditional 'black & white' science, thus proceeding to miss the point completely.
Until diehard objectivists (and I'm not saying that I'd pidgeonhole Tim in that category as I know he also uses his ears a lot), some of them responsible for making our equipment today, start using their ears more and their oscilloscopes less, and dispensing with years of deeply ingrained prejudices, opening their minds to what can be heard but not measured, we'll not see any significant advances with hi-fi in terms of real innovation as we did in the 50s and 60s, and continue to wallow in the quagmire of sonic mediocrity, albeit it that whatever is reproducing it might fit inside our pocket with 20,000 forgettable tracks of mind-numbing muzak stored on it...
Marco.
rather than confuse this thread any further and take it even further away from its intended destination, i think it would be best if i start a new post under the heading that relates to what is asked of me, that way hopefully it will not be seen as intimidation or me pushing my views onto someone who is not interested, then anyone who is genuinely interested in my views on the subject can look in, and offer their opinions.
that i feel would be best all-round...:)
regards,anthony...
Ok, mate - the ball's in your court :)
Marco.
anthonyTD
15-01-2009, 23:02
I'd love to see if any of you guys could live with a very humble system like a Cambridge 640A and C, a Rega P2 with AT110 or 120 cartridge and some simple B&W, KEF or Monitor Audio speakers.
On music I knew, I could easily live with such a system, as my brain makes up the missing details (not that there would be that much missing I reckon). Not sure about "new to me" music, but bearing in mind that some of the most influential and most loved music in my life was heard first on various 1950's/1960's portable record players, I'm not sure...
hi dave,
one of the simplest, but most musical and involving music systems i have heard belonged to an elderly customer of mine who is now in his 80's, and no, it had nothing to do with my input in the begining, just thought i would clear that up.
anyway, the system comprised of the following,
LINN LP12 with origin live arm modifications and denon high output moving coil cart, not sure which one.
AUDIO INNOVATIONS pushpull 10 watt per chanel intergrated all-valve amplifier.
small mision floor stand speakers.
various in-expensive interconnects and speaker leads etc.
the guy who i will refer to as mr jones had no interest in digital as he had a vast collection of vinyl from many eras. he explained that in his brief exploration of CD's and players he had auditioned they sounded un-pleasing to him and somewhat non-musical,anyway, i took all this with a pinch of salt as looking at this quite meager set up i probably thought to myself ohh, bless him, that was untill he put on some vinyl and let me sit there while he went off to arange some tea for me. what i heard there has stayed with me, it left me nothing short of breathless!!! it was not one thing in this system that was creating this magic but the whole lot including the recording. it was then that it hit home what he had briefly explained to me about his perception of digital recorded music, there was in my opinion nothing he would gain by persuing that media after what i had experienced that day.
i later went on to fully [sympatheticaly] rebuild his little amp and he is still enjoying the same system to this day.
it comes back to the same old thing, you can throw money blindly at audio hoping to acheive audio nirvana, but never actualy acheive it, but sometimes you can put a system together out of individualy mediocre components and everything will gell and you hit the jackpot!:)
anthony,TD...
I've put this forward many times before to chaps like Tim (I really and truly don't mean any offence) but unless they see some form of 'proof' (how can genuine proof exist if what's happening is beyond the current capability of our measurement apparatus?)
I've offered up the answer many times, Marco, and it uses your measurement apparatus of choice (and mine): ears. It cannot tell you what is best. That of course, is subjective. But it can tell you what can be heard, regardless of whether or not it can be measured. I know, of course that you have a hundred reasons why blind listening tests cannot be valid, most of which have nothing to do with a valid ABX test. Of course there are probably a pretty limited number of valid tests on the subjects that would be of interest to our conversations here, but there are a few. I ran into one the other day that was quite well-conducted. The subjects were audiophiles, studio mixing and mastering engineers and recording students. All had their hearing tested prior to the study and all passed. They were listening to a variety of high-res recordings, 24/192 if I remember correctly, through a variety of high-resolution systems, both audiophile and professional, and comparing them to exactly the same recordings filtered down to 16/44.1. I'll look for it and post a link if you're interested. And I'd be happy to search for more, but I fear they would just be shouted down here.
By the way, I have no doubt that an ABX test would reveal audible differences between analog and digital. I certainly hear them.
Tim
sandwich cones, remember the original leak sandwich, err,,, 1963 i think it was
Yes I do. My point was, as with Beryllium, that the technology has matured and is now being put to good use. The materials that Focal use in their w-sandwich cones did not even exist in 1963. The Yamaha NS1000 was a damn fine speaker when it was released, but the Focal and Usher beryllium drivers of today still have it beaten for detail, extension and sweetness.
Tim,
Nothing would be shouted down - everything is always looked at and treated constructively here so post the link if you wish :)
I hear what you're saying, but the problem with blind testing is that when people are in an uncomfortable and unfamiliar environment under test they behave uncharacteristically and this impedes their ability to assess any sonic effects as accurately as they would in a familiar environment at home under no pressure, thus skewing the accuracy of results.
Also in these tests (I have been involved with some in the past) there are always differences heard, never no differences, so what isn't debated is if there are differences or not, but which differences are preferred by which pairs of ears. Therefore I don't see the point, as one can just as easily achieve this at home in comfort using changes to one's own system as the benchmark rather than sitting in a lab and realistically achieving nothing any more worthwhile, which is what I do.
It's worth pointing out as well that some of the differences I've heard which can't be measured, say, with cables and between NOS and current production valves of otherwise the same type, are so immediately and blatantly obvious that no further testing, blind or otherwise, is needed. That's not necessarily to say that the differences heard are 'night and day', but simply that they are significant enough to be judged conclusively (in terms of the ears of the listener) without the further need for any objective or scientific testing.
Marco.
Yes I do. My point was, as with Beryllium, that the technology has matured and is now being put to good use. The materials that Focal use in their w-sandwich cones did not even exist in 1963. The Yamaha NS1000 was a damn fine speaker when it was released, but the Focal and Usher beryllium drivers of today still have it beaten for detail, extension and sweetness.
Yes, Martin, that's all good and well, but it isn't genuine innovation, the distinction between which Anthony outlined earlier. "Matured" technology is not new technology, simply existing technology further refined :)
Marco.
I'd love to see if any of you guys could live with a very humble system like a Cambridge 640A and C, a Rega P2 with AT110 or 120 cartridge and some simple B&W, KEF or Monitor Audio speakers
In a word, no. And if such a system would suffice for me then I wouldn't have spent so much on hi-fi, I would have bought that 18' sports boat I have my eye on :)
The simple reason is that the above system would be completely out of its depth reproducing classical music. As a lover of both classical and rock music, my experience is that classical is *much* more demanding of a system's bandwidth, noise floor, dynamic range, depth, detail, tonal neutrality and soundstage.
Also in these tests (I have been involved with some in the past) there are always differences heard, never no differences, so what isn't debated is if there are differences or not, but which differences are preferred by which pairs of ears.
If this was the result, in fact if there was any debate and discussion among the listeners at all, what you were involved in was not a legitimate ABX test, but some kind of casual "blind" listening test. I have no response to the notion that the out-of-home environment invalidates the test beyond noting that thousands of variables have been successfully tested through various research methodologies over the course of many decades, and very few of them are conducted in people's homes. It is a bit of a Catch-22 you're using to disbelieve, Marco, and it makes little sense. It is rather convenient, though.
Perhaps shouted down was over the top. This is more like muttered down, but the end result is the same. It really doesn't matter what evidence is presented in these discussions, those who do not want to believe it will always find an excuse not to.
Tim
Tim,
If this was the result, in fact if there was any debate and discussion among the listeners at all, what you were involved in was not a legitimate ABX test, but some kind of casual "blind" listening test.
The debate and discussion occurred after the test was carried out. It was blind (no need for inverted commas) and actually out with of my own environment, too. People do talk after the test, you know - we're not robots, and the results were strangely unaffected ;)
I have no response to the notion that the out-of-home environment invalidates the test...
I didn't say that it invalidates the test - I said that it can skew the accuracy of results; that's a different thing entirely.
...beyond noting that thousands of variables have been successfully tested through various research methodologies over the course of many decades, and very few of them are conducted in people's homes.
Yes, Tim, but we're talking about hi-fi equipment, or cables, or stands or whatever, where the variables are rather different to what's likely been tested before that you're referring to. You're making the mistake, I feel, of treating effects in hi-fi in a 'black & white' way which doesn't suit the complexity of the model.
It is a bit of a Catch-22 you're using to disbelieve, Marco, and it makes little sense. It is rather convenient, though.
What exactly am I meant to be "disbelieving", Tim? At the end of the day I trust my own ears, when I'm in a relaxed frame of mind, using my own system, when assessing hi-fi equipment or ancillaries, not the ears of people I don't know in a room somewhere using equipment that I'm unfamiliar with. What would you suggest I do instead?
It really doesn't matter what evidence is presented in these discussions, those who do not want to believe it will always find an excuse not to.
I am not 'finding an excuse' not to believe in anything. What "evidence" have you presented that I should consider as more relevant or important to me than what my own discerning and experienced ears tell? At the end of the day, our ears are the only true arbiter because that's what our systems are designed to please. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' in that respect - music is heard and appreciated differently by everyone, and that's in a 'hi-fi' as well as a musical sense. Should we dismiss what we've all subjectively tested, heard and experienced, in some cases for many years, simply because it doesn't fit with the assessment methodology of blind ABX testing? We're not dealing in 'absolutes' here, Tim.
What I believe is what my ears and experience tell me with hi-fi because, as I've said already, science and what we can measure or objectively test currently doesn't have all the answers, and that includes blind ABX testing. It's fallible for the reasons outlined. I think you'll find that the human ear and brain, and their relationship with processing recorded music via hi-fi equipment, is rather more complex and less 'black & white' than you think :)
Marco.
What exactly am I meant to be "disbelieving", Tim? At the end of the day I trust my own ears, when I'm in a relaxed frame of mind, using my own system, when assessing hi-fi equipment or ancillaries, not the ears of people I don't know in a room somewhere using equipment that I'm unfamiliar with. What would you suggest I do instead?
I wouldn't suggest that you do anything differently, Marco, I would only suggest that posting DBX test results here, no matter how carefully and scientifically the data is gathered and the conclusions are reached, would be a waste of my time and yours.
Tim
Tim
I just been catching up on the thread I for one enjoy your thoughts, I might not always agree with them (I do not always agree with Marco either) but I feel you bring in a healthy counterpoint. What you write always makes me think a bit deeper and I believe it's healthy that another view point is brought in.
Like Neil I do not always feel like I belong here I do not have a 1210 and never heard one with the KAB mods so feel I have nothing to say a lot of the time.
Please keep posting Tim on this forum I always feel like I learn when I read your posts
Beechwoods
16-01-2009, 06:45
AOS is a forum for everyone with a love of music and the equipment to play it. The more those of us without 1210's discuss our passions the more fun and interesting place AOS will be. There is no 'house sound' or system. We all make AOS the place it is.
For the price, a Lenco with a decent vintage cart and a homemade plinth will beat any other TT out there! And with the right care and attention I know there are those that say that it can play with the 301 and 401's.
So there. It takes all sorts!
Yes agree
So many paths to take!!!
I wouldn't suggest that you do anything differently, Marco, I would only suggest that posting DBX test results here, no matter how carefully and scientifically the data is gathered and the conclusions are reached, would be a waste of my time and yours.
Tim,
You're probably right.
I think it's important to realise that what is relevant with the data that is carefully and scientifically gathered in the DBX tests above, and the conclusions reached, is not necessarily as relevant to what any other audio enthusiasts or I hear - or how we test what we hear when experimenting with our equipment or cables (or whatever) at home - and that both methods of testing and evaluating, and the results obtained, are equally as valid in their own right.
The mistake is to rigidly apply one universal method of testing and evaluating for everything and consider it as optimal or 'the one true path', as doing so would be to not sufficiently take into consideration the subtleties and varying complexities of the models that are submitted for testing and evaluating - with subsequently the risk of arriving at the wrong conclusions.
Quite simply with hi-fi, and I think this is the really important bit to remember: just as there isn't a 'one size fits all' system for everyone, neither is there a 'one size fits all' method of testing and evaluating one. Unlike other models for testing, understanding how the human ear and brain processes recorded music via hi-fi equipment is not a 'black & white' science. There are simply too many complex variables to consider for that to be the case.
Remember, man created the science we have today, and if man is imperfect and fallible, so is the science he created...
I might not always agree with them (I do not always agree with Marco either) but I feel you bring in a healthy counterpoint. What you write always makes me think a bit deeper and I believe it's healthy that another view point is brought in. Please keep posting Tim on this forum I always feel like I learn when I read your posts
I completely agree, John, and have said so before. A successful audio forum is made up of different personalities and opinions, and that's why we love our Timmy boy! I hope that what others and I write here might have a similar effect on him :)
Beechy, spot on :smoking:
Marco.
Neil McCauley
16-01-2009, 12:06
Meanwhile ...... I'm listening to an experimental recording of an acapella version of Smoke On The Water ‘sung’ by a massed 'choir' of 1930s I–speak-your-weight machines. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A306712
Frankly, PRaT is a little below what one might reasonably expect under the circumstances even though the somewhat primative on-board 3w amplification is tube in at least 90% of the 117 machines. And before you riducule, these machines were built before stereo was conceived and so, as you'd expect, depth, height and width of image is somewhat compromised. Getting all 117 to start and stop at the same time was, so I'm told, a serious technical challenge. So much so that the team are not contemplating going on tour.
Anyway, the next project for the team behind this is either a live invitation-only performance of (a) War Requiem or (b) Purple Haze. Tricky call I think.
Does anyone know the collective noun for such machines?
Neil McCauley
16-01-2009, 12:14
Yes, Martin, that's all good and well, but it isn't genuine innovation, the distinction between which Anthony outlined earlier. "Matured" technology is not new technology, simply existing technology further refined :)
Marco.
Curiously yet happily I find that the lyrics of Mr Pete Townshend entirely appropriate for the state of this thread as distinct from the contribution of any single member- again.
"I have to be careful not to preach
I can't pretend that I can teach,"
Covenant
16-01-2009, 12:23
Does anyone know the collective noun for such machines?
How about a Babbage?:)
Curiously yet happily I find that the lyrics of Mr Pete Townshend entirely appropriate for the state of this thread as distinct from the contribution of any single member- again.
"I have to be careful not to preach
I can't pretend that I can teach,"
Indeed, Howard, our resident music lyrics man; all we can offer is our opinions. However some opinions on audio forums, just as in real life, are more valid than others - it's simply a matter of one sifting the wheat from the chaff...
I think I might ask you to compile a list of 'Howard's favourite most poignant music lyrics' to include in a separate section on the forum so that others can interject on discussions and can apply these 'gems' as cunningly as you ;)
Marco.
Neil McCauley
16-01-2009, 12:26
Does anyone know the collective noun for such machines?
How about a Babbage?:)
I rather like that. Well done. Thank you.
Neil McCauley
16-01-2009, 12:31
Indeed, Howard, our resident music lyrics man - all we can offer are our opinions. However some opinions on audio forums, just as in real life, are more valid than others; it's simply a matter of one sifting the wheat from the chaff...
I think I might ask you to compile a list of 'Howard's favourite most poignant music lyrics' to include on a separate section of the forum so that others can interject on discussions and can apply these 'gems' as cunningly as you ;)
Marco.
Re your first paragraph, might I respectfully direct us all to the words of Mr George Orwell in Animal Farm?
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
It actually started out (and yes there is a parallel with this thread) as:
"All animals are equal"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Commandments
As for your 2nd paragraph, as mentioned elsewhere here, no more threads from me until Feb and even then, I'm far from certain.
Nothing personal. It's just that I'm trying to "get a life" and all the best ones (on eBay) either have too high a reserve or are snapped up before I can bid. Most lives, on closer investigation, seem well used and not that attractive. So as you can probably understand, a lot of my AOS time is now devoted to tracking down that elusive purchase. If I can't get a suitable one, and that does now seem an increasingly remote possibility, I might have to create one. Again, time consuming. Hence the reprioritisation.
Neil McCauley
16-01-2009, 12:57
........some opinions on audio forums, just as in real life, are more valid than others .....
Marco.
I see. And who validates the validator Marco?
A similar conundrum to the 'who censors the censor' – which in turn might suggest in both instances the question, what process is used to select the validator or indeed elsewhere, the censor?
Ali Tait
16-01-2009, 13:03
Tim,I'd be interested in reading that link.I for one would not shout it down.After all,as has been said here before,FM radio in the UK is broadcast using a 14-bit system,and all who have a quality tuner know how good it can sound.
Howard,
You just make up your own mind and be done with it - it's not difficult... Let me put it this way: everyone has a different and equally valid view of what "valid" is in that context ;)
I must say that you've been rather losing your 'nice, friendly, helpful Howard' image a little recently and are becoming, as we say in Scotland, a bit of a 'nippy sweety'.
Can we see more of the former and less of the latter now, please? :)
Nothing personal. It's just that I'm trying to "get a life" and all the best ones (on eBay) either have too high a reserve or are snapped up before I can bid. Most lives, on closer investigation, seem well used and not that attractive. So as you can probably understand, a lot of my AOS time is now devoted to tracking down that elusive purchase. If I can't get a suitable one, and that does now seem an increasingly remote possibility, I might have to create one. Again, time consuming. Hence the reprioritisation.
No problem at all. You decide when you feel that you have something worthwhile to contribute. Your constructive views here are always welcome :smoking:
Marco.
Tim,I'd be interested in reading that link.I for one would not shout it down.After all,as has been said here before,FM radio in the UK is broadcast using a 14-bit system,and all who have a quality tuner know how good it can sound.
This should be fun. http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/
Ali Tait
16-01-2009, 14:27
Interesting Tim.I've only skimmed it as I'm at work,but as I said earlier,after exhaustive testing,the BBC found that 14 bits were enough for high-fidelity reproduction on FM.
the BBC found that 14 bits were enough for high-fidelity reproduction on FM
At what sample rate? Bit-width and sample rate can be traded off against each other. Before CD was launched, Philips were favouring 14 bits at 44.1kHz and Sony 16. I'm glad Sony won the argument.
This should be fun. http://mixonline.com/recording/mixin..._new_sampling/
That's interesting, Tim - thanks for posting it. There's no doubt that the test has revealed something relevant and worthwhile, however it might not be quite what you imagine... :)
Having read the article, I would offer the following comments based on what we've been discussing:
1) Without the use of a well-known benchmark, i.e. their own familiar system, not to mention music, audiophiles/audio enthusiasts (choose whichever you prefer) would find it very difficult to make critical and accurate judgements of the model being tested as they would be required not only to separate the sonic differences of unfamiliar equipment and the room from what they're used to, but also somehow try and identify the changes that are being carried out in the test itself - an almost impossible task. Whatever conclusions were reached, in terms of determining the hearing acuity of the test subjects using the equipment mentioned, I would suggest therefore should be treated 'with a large pinch of salt'.
2) As I mentioned earlier, people behave uncharacteristically under test conditions in an alien environment - it is not a suitably 'comfortable' or relaxed atmosphere for the mind in which to critically analyse a specific phenomenon or phenomena, thus results are often understandably skewed. I certainly feel that this test is no exception.
3) To quote the article:
The test subjects used an “A/B/X” comparator to switch the signals, meaning that in some of the tests, when the subjects hit the Change button they didn't know if the signal actually changed.
I'm very familiar with these devices as a hi-fi dealership I used to work for once used them to demonstrate loudspeakers. In terms of maintaining fidelity, they are one of the most harmful and sonically intrusive devices one can place in the audio chain, and would have without question adversely affected the integrity of the audio signal, thus the accuracy of what was heard, and with it the correctness of the outcome.
4) And this I feel is extremely important:
In my experience with hi-fi, genuine sonic differences in reproduced music with systems sometimes only become apparent after extended listening over a period of time, or indeed quite often, over a number of separate listening sessions. I have encountered this phenomenon on numerous occasions, where what was originally considered as making no difference, or indeed an improvement, turned out to be in fact quite the opposite, or perhaps more (or less so) either way than was first thought. Quick-fire ABX tests often don't reveal the subtleties of change that occur in audio equipment or ancillaries which become fundamentally obvious and important with more extended listening. It also helps if the music used in any tests is known inside-out by the listener and therefore that way he or she is usually able to pinpoint any differences much more easily.
I'm afraid, Tim, as I've said before, understanding hi-fi is somewhat more multifarious than you might think. Also, people aren't robots and so don't respond particularly well to testing objectively: they are fallible creatures who behave in unpredictable ways, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their ability to evaluate effects of hi-fi equipment is liable always to be affected by psychological bias either - it happens, sure, but knowing when it's happening or not, and when something heard is genuine or imagined, is what makes the relationship between the ear and brain and their processing of recorded music via hi-fi systems much more complex than you or I, or any blind listening test could realistically fathom.
I conclude therefore that the test was fatally flawed for reasons specified. What it revealed was simply that the test subjects were unable to ascertain any differences from using the equipment specified, but not in fact that any differences didn't *actually* exist.
Marco.
Neil McCauley
16-01-2009, 15:42
I'm very familiar with these devices as a hi-fi dealership I used to work for once used them to demonstrate loudspeakers. In terms of maintaining fidelity, they are one of the most harmful and sonically intrusive devices one can place in the audio chain, and would have without question adversely affected the integrity of the audio signal, thus the accuracy of what was heard, and with it the correctness of the outcome.
http://www.manleylabs.com/containerpages/skipjack.html
http://6moons.com/audioreviews/interconnects/interconnects.html
http://www.manleylabs.com/reviews/hifinews_skipjack_112005.jpg
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/manley4/skipjack.html
Thanks for that, Howard. It doesn't mean though that sonically they are invisible!
In my experience anything added in-line with the signal path, no matter how well designed, is liable to degrade the signal, causing changes in what is heard, and thus skewing the results of any test. Cables do this, too, (heck, even the equipment itself does it!), thus this is why any effects under evaluation must always be tested in a system that's familiar to the listener and where the minimum amount of interfaces as possible have been placed in the signal path.
Marco.
Spectral Morn
16-01-2009, 18:00
Hi MartinT
The simple reason is that the above system would be completely out of its depth reproducing classical music. As a lover of both classical and rock music, my experience is that classical is *much* more demanding of a system's bandwidth, noise floor, dynamic range, depth, detail, tonal neutrality and soundstage.
While it is true that some Rock music might be less demanding than other types .I think all genres require good bandwidth and resolution, just as much as classical does(no argument there). However, Jazz, Folk, Dance etc all show distinct benefits (at least in my system), with better components. I could not go back to a simple cheaper system. As my kit has improved my musical enjoyment has done so too. I now feel that the balance is right, and it serves everything equally well. The sound is both open and detailed, but also musical and just the right side of sweet. All the insight needed and more but none of the in your face machine gun detail some set ups fire at you.
Happy :)
Regards D S D L----Neil :)
Spectral Morn
16-01-2009, 19:18
It doesn't mean though that sonically they are invisible!
In my experience anything added in-line with the signal path, no matter how well designed, is liable to degrade the signal, causing changes in what is heard, and thus skewing the results of any test. Cables do this, too, (heck, even the equipment itself does it!), thus this is why any effects under evaluation must always be tested in a system that's familiar to the listener and where the minimum amount of interfaces as possible have been placed in the signal path.
Hi Marco
I agree with you, but I have always been worried about using your system to make evaluations. Yes we are all familiar with the sound of our set ups, and can thus hear changes or perceived improvements. However do our systems or any system always allow a new comer to show its best. In my experience, no ideal circumstances can be found all of the time(I would also suggest that this happens more than we might imagine). It is for this very reason that group listening tests, are for the most part a waste of time. If system synergy is the thing which glues are sound together, why should we expect any new item to work well, just slotted in to our systems. This makes it hard to know when, where and why we get the results we do, sometimes. I would go so far as to say that every good component will shine, but not necessarily in your set up. It is this thought that complicates every home/shop or review set up. In some Mag's it is actually possible to predict the outcome of some group tests, as you just know that some items will do better than others in the reviewers set up (quite often follow up comments don't even mention this possibility for the poor showing, in the review system) This applies, particularly to speakers. I know that you know this but I felt that the above quote perhaps did not allow for this complication. Even the passage at the end of what you wrote doesn't really allow for this. In a way every system may need to be optimised for every new component to hear what it can really do fully?
Regards D S D L----Neil :)
anthonyTD
16-01-2009, 20:20
Hi Marco
I agree with you, but I have always been worried about using your system to make evaluations. Yes we are all familiar with the sound of our set ups, and can thus hear changes or perceived improvements. However do our systems or any system always allow a new comer to show its best. In my experience, no ideal circumstances can be found all of the time(I would also suggest that this happens more than we might imagine). It is for this very reason that group listening tests, are for the most part a waste of time. If system synergy is the thing which glues are sound together, why should we expect any new item to work well, just slotted in to our systems. This makes it hard to know when, where and why we get the results we do, sometimes. I would go so far as to say that every good component will shine, but not necessarily in your set up. It is this thought that complicates every home/shop or review set up. In some Mag's it is actually possible to predict the outcome of some group tests, as you just know that some items will do better than others in the reviewers set up (quite often follow up comments don't even mention this possibility for the poor showing, in the review system) This applies, particularly to speakers. I know that you know this but I felt that the above quote perhaps did not allow for this complication. Even the passage at the end of what you wrote doesn't really allow for this. In a way every system may need to be optimised for every new component to hear what it can really do fully?
Regards D S D L----Neil :)
definately something i agree with in your last sentences neil..
Ali Tait
17-01-2009, 00:51
Hi Martin,
I've no idea,and it's too late to google it as I've work in the morning.How long has FM been broadcasting in this country? Again I've no idea,but at a guess it would predate cd by quite a few years I would think! Still,it can sound amn good IMHO!
I conclude therefore that the test was fatally flawed for reasons specified.
And I'm shocked...I tell you shocked that you've come to that conclusion. :)
Tim
In a way every system may need to be optimised for every new component to hear what it can really do fully?
Amen to that. Synergy is everything in hi-fi.
And I'm shocked...I tell you shocked that you've come to that conclusion. :)
I just bet you are, daddy-o :lol:
I simply tell it as I see it, Tim. It's just not the right way to test hi-fi equipment (or listeners), in my opinion, other than for obtaining the most basic of information. It was an interesting article, though, as the reasons for conudcting these sorts of tests, and the methology used, always intrigues me.
I'll get to the other replies later, chaps!
Marco.
other than for obtaining the most basic of information.
Then it is spot-on! Is it audible or is it not is about as basic as it gets.
Many things can skew the results, Marco, and everything you mentioned is as capable of working the other way -- making people hear what isn't there as well as miss what is. That's why properly-conducted tests are repeated many times until the margin for error is reduced to an insignificant number and that's why "controls" are used before and during testing to see if the participants are still hearing well, still hearing very subtle and not so subtle differences that are known to be there.
One factor you brought up is well-known to have the opposite effect you predicted: Long listening times, while valuable for subjective evaluation of quality actually increase the inaccuracies in these tests. Less immediate reaction; more opportunity to talk ourselves into perceiving something we wish to perceive.
Double blind listening, seeing, smelling, tasting...perceiving tests have been used thousands of times to separate perception from reality, to do the very thing that you beg for -- measure with the ultimate scientific instruments -- human senses. The methodologies have been refined over decades of trials, and the results of the research have been used successfully in a thousand ways. Of course not everyone agrees they are valuable. Those groups or individuals whose perceptions are found to be psychological bias instead of reality almost invariably find them faulty.
Tim
Steve Toy
17-01-2009, 12:40
If they are that undiscerning they shouldn't be playing.
Steve Toy
17-01-2009, 12:43
Also, in blind tasting an apple tastes like an onion to some...
Tim,
Is it audible or is it not is about as basic as it gets.
Indeed, but audible effects with hi-fi equipment, and a listener's ability to discern them accurately, is sometimes a marriage that takes longer to happen than is revealed by any quick-fire ABX test!
Many things can skew the results, Marco, and everything you mentioned is as capable of working the other way -- making people hear what isn't there as well as miss what is.
I completely agree! No method is perfect such is the complex nature of hi-fi and the ability of a human being to accurately discern its effects. It is not the 'simple' creature or 'commodity' you think it is. That is the fatal mistake objectivists make (I'm not saying that you're necessarily one, although you may prefer the testing methodology attached to that mindset).
That's why I listen, and listen very thoroughly, with a well-known benchmark in an environment which for me is conducive to obtaining as accurate a result as possible in the areas I consider important, with music I know inside out, taking into consideration all manner of variables, and then going with what my gut feeling and ears tell me - what feels 'right' (superficially subjective, I know, but there you are) musically before arriving at any definitive conclusions. This process is undoubtedly fallible but I consider it eminently less fallible than the blind testing methods that you advocate which in my opinion simply do not suit hi-fi or fit the 'nature of the beast' as a model for testing.
Here's one to ponder (and you can do this rhetorically if you wish): how do you as a guitar player and musician choose which guitar to use? Do you take some away and measure their response and go with whatever measures more 'accurately' on a scope, or maybe audition a few models and blind test them, selecting the one you think sounds best that way - or do you judge the process by how right a particular guitar 'feels' musically to you (how it conveys the emotion in music, its tone, the way it plays notes, etc) based on the end result you want to create with your music? If it's the latter, which I would hope it is, choosing hi-fi equipment (or analysing its sonic effect) and building a genuinely musically rewarding system around the selected components is exactly the same.
What I'm trying to get across here is that choosing hi-fi equipment and analysing its sonic effects, out with of the basic known measurement parameters, is as subjective a decision making experience as choosing a guitar or any other musical instrument, the process of which should be performed when one is in a completely relaxed frame of mind.
Anyway, Tim, like you say, we just disagree as we both have fundamentally and diametrically opposed views, and therefore this debate will simply run and run and go round in endless circles. I think now is the time for us to pull out and simply agree to disagree. I know my method works and have absolute faith in my hearing acuity, and I'm sure that you're equally as confident with your methods.
Let's leave it at that, move on, and expand on other areas of the discussion :)
Marco.
Let's leave it at that, move on, and expand on other areas of the discussion :)
Now there's an idea! :)
Maybe you two could start a separate thread about ABX testing?
Then you could discuss it to your hearts content instead of it popping up in other threads all over the place! ;)
Just a thought. :lol:
Indeed, but I don't think it would achieve anything new or different, and I suspect neither will Tim :)
Marco.
HeHe... hasn't stopped either of you trying so far though. ;)
Anyway, Tim, like you say, we just disagree as we both have diametrically opposed views, and therefore this debate will simply run and run and go round in endless circles. I think now is the time for us to pull out and simply agree to disagree. I know my method works and have absolute faith in my hearing acuity, and I'm sure that you're equally as confident with your methods.
Let's leave it at that, move on, and expand on other areas of the discussion
Yes. I believe I've tried to get there a number of times. Of course you understand that the understanding that all is subjective would grind most audiophile forums, including this one, to a near-standstill. You say tomAto, I say tomAHto, and no evidence other than our personal experience and taste is valid in the discussion, leaves little to discuss. Even your attempt at a neutral close to the discussion is far from neutral:
I know my method works and have absolute faith in my hearing acuity, and I'm sure that you're equally as confident with your methods.
"my method works" and "hearing acuity" (antiquated though it may be) are ripe with an attitude of objective superiority. If you really want to have the last word and end the debate in the subjective camp, try something like "I know what I like and I like what I'm listening to. I hope you feel the same way."
And, of course, we could end nearly every discussion that way. The ultimate thread killer.
Not a bad idea, really. It might leave us to talk about music. How do you feel about Richard Thompson?
Tim
LOL, I like it Tim. I would say that your last point is simply a matter of semanics. I'm just about to go out for a nice lunch with my wife, so before I answer your last post in more detail can you appreciate the correlation I alluded to earlier between choosing, say, guitars and choosing hi-fi components, and analysing the sonic and musical effects of both? I see hi-fi equipment as being essentially 'musical instruments' and should be analysed as such.
Ok, must run!
Much later (if I'm sober :eyebrows:),
Marco.
Spectral Morn
17-01-2009, 14:45
I see hi-fi equipment as being essentially 'musical instruments' and should be analysed as such.
Hi Marco
This is a revelatory thought. I thought it was only me that had come to this conclusion, but let me take it a step further. Let me explain, when I lived in my parents house the room was a disaster.PLaster board walls on batons and ceiling and large square board floors instead of normal floor boards. the result boom, boom, boom, boom, boom,no decent bass out of any speaker. Over a period of years I tuned the system configuration to the room. The end result was that room and system worked in harmony, like a musical instrument. The room was the sound box and the system the strings. Everyone was amazed it worked and boy did it work. I used to bring customers round who had vastly more expensive kit and they used to leave with mouths open in shock. Don't get me wrong I had very good kit, but it worked in sync with the room. Everything was blended and linked, the sum of the parts making the whole. I only really fuly understood what I had achieved when I got married and came to live in my wifes house. A similar room did not work at all, quite simply this new room was a sound box of different design and materials. I had to start from scratch, but it was that realization that its a whole, like a musical instrument, that was the revelation I gained at the time. I shared this with many audio friends and customers but most didn't quite get it. This goes beyond just component synergy but into components +room synergy. Get it right and WOW.:gig: Get it wrong and :(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:steam::doh::confused::mental: :scratch::):( = FRUSTRATION and loads of component selling, which =a waste of time and money.
Regards D S D L----Neil :)
You might be surprised how far the guitar analogy goes. In the guitar community there are many debates that are very similar to the ones in the audiophile community, and there are a couple of distinct approaches to design and sound that are pretty similar to digital vs. analog. There are devotees on both sides of the fence who believe the other side must be wrong for them to be right. Of course this is silly. We're talking about guitars, and they generate tones, not a reproduction of a recording that has any opportunity to be right or wrong. But it is, in the end, nearly as silly in audio. Anyone who has spent much time playing or listening to live music, in a small room, knows that "accurate" reproduction of "performance" is still a long way off, downright impossible with studio recordings, even for the finest studio monitoring systems. It's all a series of compromises and we choose the ones that sound best to our ears, in our rooms, playing our music. It is really that simple. Measuring and testing, even if you believe in it as I do, can only tell you what elements of the system to concentrate on to get you there. Your ears must still be the final arbiter.
By the way, I spent nearly 10 years, buying, selling and living with many acoustic guitars to find the two that are keepers for me. There are (at least) two dominant camps in that world with very different sounds and philosophies. I won't describe them for fear of opening up even more debate over how they relate to audio, etc, but I will say that in the end, I ended up with one of each. :)
Tim
Isn't it best to try to get the room as near right as possible first, THEN get equipment to work at its best in it?
My setup's in a horrible room and there's not a lot I can do about it. I'm hoping to get the original trolley stands for the Spendors so I can move them out when listening and roll them back when not. I can't remember whether spiking the Spendor stands would really make it any better (it did on 'Briks and many other flat earth designs), but as the Spendor "classic" topology is deliberate but controlled resonant cabinets which should only be suported around the perifery of the base I'm really not so sure any more, so readily did I buy the hype back then.
I've heard carefully sorted rooms (not too dead and caertainly not too live) where ANY half decent speaker sounds unbelievably good. For some reason, it's the cheaper products which respond the most to a decent room, leaving the differences between budget and top end models much smaller than one would think I found. Not sure if it was just me, or anyone else has ever found this.....
Spectral Morn
17-01-2009, 16:53
sn't it best to try to get the room as near right as possible first, THEN get equipment to work at its best in it?
My setup's in a horrible room and there's not a lot I can do about it.
Hi Dave in an ideal world Yes, but none, or very few of us have that that luck. The ideal would be to have a room built on the basis of the Golden Ratio, with solid walls floor and well sorted mains supplies. Thats a fantasy, so we need to remember that every aspect must be worked with, in sympathy to get a whole. Some times we have no choice but to use a bad room. However nearly all rooms can be worked with if you know it inside and out. That must be the starting point. How many start with this when talking about or trying to sort a system out, especially in retail ?
Which is what I did in my parents house. The sum of the parts and that must include the room. I think understanding it first, will help/dictate what else goes into it. This doesn't just include the most obvious thing the speakers but what components will be partnered with them, but not just in terms of tonality but how the whole will energize the room. This energy must be tailored to work with the rooms good points but not to activate but minimise the negative ones as far as possible. The room must come first in our thinking as this is the largest component in the chain and will dictate everything else IMHO/E.
I like Marco's musical instrument thinking it matches my own thinking and as a musical instrument is a sum of its parts, so too is a HI-FI system.
Regards D S D L----Neil
However nearly all rooms can be worked with if you know it inside and out. That must be the starting point. How many start with this when talking about or trying to sort a system out, especially in retail ?
Well, I'm pretty new to audio retail, but I always start all customer conversations with questions about the room - size, ceiling height, surfaces, furniture and rugs, etc., along with questions about listening choices and levels. When I do that, though, what I'm driving at is pretty simple stuff -- the speakers' ability to fill the space, the amp's ability to drive the speakers. I might try to match a speaker's dispersion characteristics to the room/situation, but that is as far as I'd typically go. If someone told me they had a very hard, open, empty room, I might steer them away from speakers and amp that are excessively bright, but beyond that, I'd be thinking room treatment, followed by eq. I don't think I would attempt to solve a customer's room issues through component choices. Can you elaborate with some specific examples of what you might choose in which situation and what you would expect that choice to accomplish?
Tim
Tim,
There are devotees on both sides of the fence who believe the other side must be wrong for them to be right. Of course this is silly.
LOL! Was that intended to be ironic? If not, I think that we can draw some parallels with the situation here!! :lol:
We're talking about guitars, and they generate tones, not a reproduction of a recording that has any opportunity to be right or wrong.
I understand where you're coming from but I think it's rather simplistic thinking, Tim, as guitars generate much more than just "tones" [musical notes, actually], in the same way as hi-fi equipment generates much more than just "sound", i.e. music is the common denominator in both!
In order to help clarify things I think it would be best if you answered the point I raised earlier concentrating in particular on the bit in bold and why (if applicable) you don't think this is the case:
How do you as a guitar player and musician choose which guitar to use? Do you take some away and measure their response and go with whatever measures more 'accurately' on a scope, or maybe audition a few models and blind test them, selecting the one you think sounds best that way - or do you judge the process by how right a particular guitar 'feels' musically to you (how it conveys the emotion in music, its tone, the way it plays notes, etc) based on the end result you want to create with your music?
If it's the latter, which I would hope it is, choosing hi-fi equipment (or analysing its sonic effect) and building a genuinely musically rewarding system around the selected components is exactly the same.
When you get a chance, too, could you also offer your comments on Anthony's thread here:
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?p=30688#post30688
Oh, and this:
Well, I'm pretty new to audio retail, but I always start all customer conversations with questions about the room - size, ceiling height, surfaces, furniture and rugs, etc., along with questions about listening choices and levels.
I didn't know you were a dealer - why didn't you say? Or did I miss that? :scratch:
Cheers :)
Marco.
P.S Neil, with you and I is it a case of 'great minds think alike', or 'fools never differ'? ;)
Spectral Morn
17-01-2009, 22:56
Hi Marco
Tim has mentioned this a number of times in his previous posts. I knew. I even mentioned it a few posts back when I thought he might be leaving, as for me I am interested in how things are done in the states.
To your question, most likely the former and not the latter. But not perhaps in everything.;)
Well, I'm pretty new to audio retail, but I always start all customer conversations with questions about the room - size, ceiling height, surfaces, furniture and rugs, etc., along with questions about listening choices and levels. When I do that, though, what I'm driving at is pretty simple stuff -- the speakers' ability to fill the space, the amp's ability to drive the speakers. I might try to match a speaker's dispersion characteristics to the room/situation, but that is as far as I'd typically go. If someone told me they had a very hard, open, empty room, I might steer them away from speakers and amp that are excessively bright, but beyond that, I'd be thinking room treatment, followed by eq. I don't think I would attempt to solve a customer's room issues through component choices. Can you elaborate with some specific examples of what you might choose in which situation and what you would expect that choice to accomplish?
I am impressed that Tim does this, as a lot of dealers staff do not. Knowledge of the room must always come first...everything else follows. Tim the questions you are asking, put you on the right path, but to go further you would have to visit the customers room. In my experience there is no substitute for that, as customers in general don't understand room issues so may overlook vital information. If, say a room is small with poor floors etc , you would not want to put to much energy into the room or walls. You would suggest a stand mount speaker and good stands + some sort of under speaker support to negate as much vibration reaching the floor. To gain good soundstage, width, depth and make the walls vanish I would always suggest a valve amp. And depending on customers tastes you can pick a type which suits EL34, 300B etc. The reason for this is that valve amps excel at generating a big deep soundstage, whereas Solid state needs the speakers to be further out from the back wall to do the same thing. In my opinion even doing this you with SS you still will not have the same level of effect, even in a big room. The customer may not want the perceived hassle of valves, so pick a SS amp that has similar properties. This generally will be Class A mosfet designs. However the cables, tables and all other aspects that could go into the system can also alter how it works, so these must be thought about as well. If a customer is doing it in bits and pieces, because of lack of budget, if everything is known they can add it into the system when funds allow. Of course every room situation will lead to some similar solutions, and some very different ones but thats part of the Fun, if you like solving problems for people. You need to know and understand how component X+Y will help energize the speakers and the room. You must also know how cables will affect this too, and how to use them to the systems advantage. By knowing what the room will throw up as issues, you can pick components that work with it, rather than against it. This is all pretty time consuming, and is really only something that a specialist dealer will do. However the basics which you have, will mean your customers end up closer to the best result. But you really need to understand how different kit works together to have the knowledge and the insights to make this work. Have fun :)
Regards D S D L----Neil :)
Isn't it best to try to get the room as near right as possible first, THEN get equipment to work at its best in it?
I so agree with that statement. I've had my hi-fi system in compromised rooms for years and it's only recently that I managed to buy a house by identifying the room I wanted for the system. Of course, it helps to be divorced*. I then set up all the furniture, system positioning and room treatment first before setting up the components. The result is very good synergy between system and room and the best sound I've yet managed to achieve.
It's a pity that not all audiophiles take room treatment into consideration.
*my girlfriend, on the other hand, really appreciates the sound I have achieved and loves listening with me.
StanleyB
17-01-2009, 23:55
It's a pity that not all audiophiles take room treatment into consideration.
Well put me on that list. I read up a lot with regards to where and how the NS1000M should be positioned. Then I broke all those rules and just fitted them where I wanted. But I am quite good in breaking rules. That's the only way I tend to find alternative solutions to what at first sight seemed impossible attempts. So people should not be scared off from experimenting with odd combinations and room sizes.
Marco -- Of course I choose guitars by playing them and listening to them; that's the same way I choose hifi as well. But I'm also realistic about my ability, and the ability of others, to be swayed by psychological factors, and when people are claiming dramatic transformations from "recording" to "music" with a digital cable at the price of a good DAC (not a fiction), or promising clearly audible benefits from the reduction of artifacts that fall 20 db below a cd's noise floor (another real example), and when these solutions are being championed by shiny-eyed audiophiles with the most effusive poetry, a look at the numbers or a check for actual audibility is not a bad idea in my view. YMMV.
DSDL -- That was an enlightening discussion, thanks. My situation doesn't allow for in-home visits and my choices of kit are somewhat limited, but I ask questions and do my best. I wish I could go to their homes with rugs, large potted plants and wall hangings. I could do them a lot more good that way :).
Tim
Primalsea
18-01-2009, 08:54
My friend wanted to speand a god awful amount of money on something new. He didn't know what, he just wanted to upgrade for th esake of it by the sound of it.
I told him to by some pot plants, bass traps and make some acoustic panels. He thought I was mad. Unfortunately some people just want to part with their cash for nice shiny things. At some point pride of ownership seems to overtake listening. I try to make sure I spend a particular amount of music before I buy a new item. Don't aways manage to do it myself though:mental::mental::mental:
jandl100
18-01-2009, 09:21
Well, as has been mentioned before, some folks enjoy the pride of ownership with bright shiny things - it's not against the law, and I must confess to having similar thoughts as well! :)
My MF A370 power amp is a real sonic corker for me - but I also very much enjoy it's Borg spacehip-like presence in my listening room - you will be assimilated!!.
And my new ML CLS panels not only sound fab, they look great, too. It's all part of the fun of the hobby as far as I am concerned. :smoking:
... oddly, given the mess my room is generally in :doh: (Lad's Den, and all that) I have real problems with the aesthetics of room treatment stuff. I'm beginning to look into it though.
Tim,
Marco -- Of course I choose guitars by playing them and listening to them; that's the same way I choose hifi as well.
Excellent - thank goodness for that. I had visions of you strapping your oscilloscope to your guitar case at every gig or sesh, just to check the 'accuracy' of your playing! :eyebrows:
But I'm also realistic about my ability, and the ability of others, to be swayed by psychological factors...
Me too; we're all human and so susceptible to psychological bias in many things in life, not just in hi-fi, myself included. However, just as it's important to keep that in mind, it's equally important not to always blame it either for every effect we hear, and ultimately let our ears be the arbiter, not obsessing with the belief that somehow science or testing knows better in areas where currently it seems clearly that it doesn't. Moreover, we can test things up to a point, and that's fine, but ultimately we must learn to trust and have faith in our God-given senses which are more accurate than we often give them credit for.
I think what's important to remember, Tim, and I feel this is significant, is that the process we use for selecting hi-fi equipment and ancillaries in the first place (or you choosing a guitar, for example), listening and playing in a relaxed and familiar environment, using our ears to judge the emotive elements of the sound and be the final arbiter, is just as important and relevant later when assessing individual aspects of system or component performance such as carried out in that test you mentioned.
You can't all of a sudden abandon one set of carefully considered judgement criteria, which were deemed 'accurate enough' originally and then somehow consider later that another should apply. Do we employ the process of blind testing or measuring to choose our equipment in the first place and make snap judgements on what is revealed like in that test? I would hope not - so why should we do so later? We’re still listening for and assessing the very same things.
It's this 'use your ears to choose stuff initially, but later somehow then to abandon that philosophy and consider that they're not good enough' I don't get, where all of a sudden scientific 'proof' is required and to don our white coats and dick around in a science lab before anything genuine is heard.
Do you see my point? :)
...and when people are claiming dramatic transformations from "recording" to "music" with a digital cable at the price of a good DAC (not a fiction), or promising clearly audible benefits from the reduction of artifacts that fall 20 db below a cd's noise floor (another real example), and when these solutions are being championed by shiny-eyed audiophiles with the most effusive poetry, a look at the numbers or a check for actual audibility is not a bad idea in my view. YMMV.
Indeed - I completely agree. I hope that after our many exchanges we now know each other much better and you no longer see me (if you ever did) as the "shiny-eyed audiophile" you refer to above, as it is certainly not what I am, although indeed there are many of such in existence. You once referred to AOS as a "hi-end board"; it is, but I now hope you see it as 'hi-end' in terms of our pursuit of the (absolute) best sound in order to ultimately reveal more from our music, and our passion, willingness and commitment to go the extra mile to achieve this, but not necessarily with "shiny-eyed audiophile equipment" ;)
'Adequate' for us will never be enough...
Marco.
StanleyB
18-01-2009, 10:56
You once referred to AOS as a "hi-end board"; it is, but I now hope you see it as 'hi-end' in terms of our pursuit of the (absolute) best sound in order to ultimately reveal more from our music, and our passion, willingness and commitment to go the extra mile to achieve it, but not necessarily with "shiny-eyed audiophile equipment" ;)
Marco.
But it is a high-end board, but not as others would associate the term to mean. The cost factor is not the determining criteria. High-end results are what matters, be it from a DIY job, or the choice of one's listening position.
Indeed, Stan - that's exactly what I mean :)
Marco.
Sometimes I see a Audiophile as similiar to being a train spotter and then worry if I have become one!!! But then remember I see good Hifi as a means to end (creating good music within the home) The music always comes first and for me my passion comes from going to more gigs I care to remember (used to average a 100 a year) and the love of listening to music
Indeed, John. The trick I feel is to have a passion for good sound, but for the music's sake and not the sound's sake, if you see what I mean :)
Some will however always fall into the latter category, sometimes with perhaps not even knowing it! ;)
Marco.
The trick I feel is to have a passion for good sound, but for the music's sake and not the sound's sake, if you see what I mean
I have often enjoyed asking people "when you listen to a song (or choral music), do you listen to the words or the sound they make?" I get varying responses but I think it's important to realise that there is no correct answer, just preference.
Indeed, Martin. Everyone 'connects' with music differently and so has different listening priorities. It's healthy as long as enjoying music is the ultimate goal; this is of course ultimately reflected in the size and diversity of your music collection.
Marco.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.