Thanks John.Quote:
Originally Posted by John
Regards D S D L
Printable View
Thanks John.Quote:
Originally Posted by John
Regards D S D L
Both of my systems have a similar tonal balance and each share a lot of qualities with each other, but there is a difference in listening via small mini monitor types and larger full range speakers and this is where the main differences are. Weight and scale are different, but I love both set ups at the minute.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
I could not do what Jerry does on many levels, but I too think its an interesting and informative approach, however with no fixed reference point making comparisons becomes harder I would have thought...over the long term.
Regards D S D L
Hi Neil,
I know exactly what you mean and agree, having experienced this myself. However large (vintage) Tannoy dual-concentrics, upgraded with modern high quality crossovers, are the first speakers I've heard that do genuine scale and impact as well as provide the 'intimate' presentation you're referring to available with small mini-monitor loudspeakers.Quote:
Both of my systems have a similar tonal balance and each share a lot of qualities with each other, but there is a difference in listening via small mini monitor types and larger full range speakers and this is where the main differences are.
I often sit gob-smacked at the amount of low-level detail retrieval, subtlety and 'presence' on offer from the Lockwoods when listening to music in the wee small hours at not much louder than a whisper. In effect, they 'behave' like the best small speakers when the need arises. However, a quick tweak of the volume knob also 'unleashes the beast' in a rather un-gentlemanly way... :eyebrows:
It's nice to have both!
Marco.
There are many different approaches we can take and what works for Jerry is great for him and what works for me is great for me. In the end most important thing is to do what's best for one's self realising what it is you are doing. Where the thread started (I think) was endless box swapping in pursuit of the perfect sound. Maybe this also works for someone but I believe done on that basis such box swapping will only lead to longer term dissatisfaction. This is not at all what Jerry is doing.
As suggested by Neil there is more than one form of "laid-back". There's laid-back serious listening to music with scale and presence and there's laid-back more like background music. Anyway this starts to get into nit-picking details, we're all saying much the same thing.
Watch your hearing Marco- with the decibels it seems you are generating. I have suffered it is said because playing my Sony walkman with earplugs in TOO LOUD- said to be a dangerous tool- the ear phones.
Orchestral players are well known to suffer hearing loss- as they are sitting in the middle of very loud noise.
Hi Varun,
Oh don't worry, I do. To be honest, the vast majority of my listening is done at medium to low levels, especially when on my own. It's not very relaxing being 'pummelled to death' when lying back reading a book or magazine! :eyebrows:Quote:
Watch your hearing Marco- with the decibels it seems you are generating.
However, much like driving a large car with a big engine, it's nice to be able to experience the thrill of 'putting your foot down' when the need arises and knowing that it can handle it with ease... ;)
Marco.
But when the foot goes down on the accelerator- the paint flakes off the wall and tiles slide off the roof EH! Marco.
That is a teenager's lust Marco-we must all return to it, especially after a few beers.
CD system is good for playing music while you are doing something else. As for me cartridge wear is a prime consideration-not to forget that the blooming Class A things take 20-30 mts to warm up.
Therefore I only listen when I am ready to pay attention- meaning serious listening- so that I work through the music-bit by bit- until I know it better. What that means that unless it is challenging enough- it does not get past the intial phase. Therefore I rarely venture into music I do not know now adays-unless I hear on the radio.
Good tunes are simply not good enough now-I am sure Jerry would agree.
LOL. Nope... Not if a system can handle it in its stride with ease. It's like doing 90 MPH on the motorway in a mini, and the same in a 3-litre BMW - the respective experiences are rather different! ;)Quote:
But when the foot goes down on the accelerator- the paint flakes off the wall and tiles slide off the roof EH! Marco.
Marco.
He's talking about blowing your house to bits, not yer system ya big eejit! :eyebrows:
Aye, I know, but ma hoose is made from girders, so there's no chance... It's old and thick, just like me! :lol:
Marco.
What the bloody hell has this got ta dee wit ya hoose???
:D... <dons Geordie accent> Hawa hinny, divvint crack shite! :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
LOL - you've missed my point, ya wee Geordie jobby :ner:
Let's drop it before we go round in circles! :eyebrows:
Marco.
Let's not! :ner:
There is a saying among tradesmen when speaking of someone who is not the quickest. " I gave him a loan of my hammer and when I got it back I was working more slowly"
I bought a box from Jerry and for the first month although happy with it I had an overwhelming desire to sell it:lolsign:
Cheers Jerry still singing that lil box is ;)
This thread has moved on considerably since my posting.
First of all I ought to explain that in my post the phrase ‘I think I’m there’ was in response to Chris’s (TGW) comment about members ‘being at peace with their systems’, I did not mean to sound smug, suggesting that I have indeed found audio nirvana.
The term nirvana used by Dave is apposite, as it does suggest a goal, though not one of perfection. As Varun has stated nirvana is Sanskrit for ‘extinction’, or liberation through extinction, on which I’ll briefly expand.
In Buddhist doctrine Nirvana is the result of the achievement of enlightenment, allowing one to achieve ‘extinction’ and escape the endless cycle of birth and re-birth. By extension it therefore implies the extinction of all desires, freedom from passion and delusion; since Buddhists believe that pursuit of desires lead to suffering. The term nirvana is thus often misused, as the only attainment of perfection is some sort of perfect beatitude.
To apply this to the Vain Pursuit of Excellence (in audio), would suggest that audio nirvana is to escape the, seemingly endless, cycle of:
Dissatisfaction, Expenditure, Upgrade, Euphoria, Acceptance, Resignation, Doubt, Dissatisfaction,..
A sort of modus circulorum in perpetuum, to which the only solution or escape is to find contentment with your system, and be ‘at peace’ with it.
So do we strive to set up systems we like the sound of, or do we strive for realism? How do we know what is real in studio produced recordings? The only comparison is with live unamplified acoustic instruments or the human voice. Those that never attend concerts will never know, so they may as well build a system whose sound they like and spend time box swapping in pursuit of this goal.
The ‘magic moments’ obtained by listening to music on the radio or an MP3 player is more to do with the listeners’ choice of music rather than the means of reproduction.
I’m not suggesting that one should not follow technical advances in the craft, or refuse to listen to new equipment; however there has to be a considerable, repeatable and consistent improvement noted before a change is made. And if one cannot afford these changes, then remain content with the system as it stands. Definite faults that appear after extended listening ought not to occur if the various items have been carefully auditioned before purchase.
As for the ‘one system fits all’, well I would go along with that. If I want to change from ‘relaxing’ to ‘edge of the seat’ presentation, I will use a different cartridge.
But ultimately, if box swapping is part of the fun and enjoyment of owning a good music reproduction system for some - then why not? Just don’t let it become an obsession.
Regards
Good Morning Barry,
I for one would like to thank you for your elucidation on Nirvana - as usual with such posts of your's I found it very interesting. This true story may bring a wry smile to your face. When we first moved into our bungalow many years ago it was new and we were only the second people on our part of the estate, the first were our next door neighbours. They had named their property 'Nirvana' as they were both close to retirement and this was to be there place of enjoyment of their final years I assume. I then thought what a nice and appropriate name. Had they then known that the true meaning of Nirvana was 'Extinction' they (and I) might have had second thoughts.
As time passed and they eventually achieved Nirvana, one of their children moved back into the property with their family and the Nirvana nameplate disappeared, never to be seen again. All of them have been wonderful neighbours and we've been very fortunate to have them as such, and they're still there.
Regarding the rest of your post, I agree with you 100% - it's how I would have expressed it, had I the ability - nice one!
Regarding the LP sleeves, I've upped my order to include your requirements but it's all gone quiet - as and when I hear back from him I'll update you further.
Cheers,
Well done Barry, your extremely perceptive description is exactly what I was trying to convey in my distinctly non-erudite manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by barry.d.hunt
Me too, on both counts - thanks Barry, and for your bungalow anecdote Dave, tee hee!Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveK
Great exposition Barry,
I shall leave the meaning of the words from which 'vaan.a' has originated. My main hobby is Rgveda- the most ancient Sanskrit text.
Now in Sanskrit literature- there never is "One meaning for One word". The meaning is always context dependent- so that it will change depending on how it is used.
SO the meaning of all these terms; as per Monnier-Williams' Sanskrit-English dictionary is also:
TO BE ALLAYED; REFRESHED OR EXHILERATED:
OR TO PUT OUT (PAIN OR FIRE); EXTINGUISH (SUFFERING-Fire); THEREBY COOL>REFRESH> DELIGHT:
The Buddhish belief is of LIBERATION; RELEASE; FREEDOM from Bondage- an idea which goes back to Rgveda.
So nothing wrong with what Jerry does- if it helps him allay his day to day rigors and travails. Depends on how you look at it. By the way Barry- using a second cartridge equates with "TWO SYSTEMS" - so TUT TUT
I would have to disagree with you big time.Quote:
Originally Posted by barry.d.hunt
What you hear at a concert often bears no resemblance to what you hear in a recording studio. Very few times do the artists hurdle together as they do on stage, are the mics in the same position as on stage, and is the nearest wall as far away as on stage.
On top of that, the recordings in a studio are of a different nature than that experienced by one's ears from a stage performance. The recording engineer in the studio has to battle with signal overload on one end of his VU meter scale, and too low an output for some sounds to be heard at the other end. So he keeps having to adjust the signal levels from the various audio inputs as the music keeps rolling. That doesn't happen on stage.
Trying to recreate a stage performance in one's audio set up from a studio recording performance has nothing to do with Nirvana of the first( and I am not even addressing the complete miss-selling of the written word versus the contextual meaning). They are completely different products, and should be treated as such.
The nearest analogy I can think of is eating home made food, supermarket pre-cooked food, or food from the nearest take away. The ingredients might be the same, but the preparation methods are all different. So the end results look and taste different.
The same goes for life versus recorded music, and no amount of table dressing and dress codes is going to make them sound and taste the same.
Stan
May have misunderstood you here Stan, but at a live performance the sound engineer will be adjusting levels all the way through - e.g for a song that commences with just vocal and strummed electric guitar (before drums, bass etc kick in) level will be increased for the guitar when playing alone and then dropped back as it becomes rythem accompaniment again.Quote:
Originally Posted by StanleyB
Agree that live and studio performances are totally different animals, though
Martin
Hi Martin,
the sound and lighting engineer on stage is part of the performance set up. The sound engineer in the studio sometimes doesn't even have the artists in front of him, but just snippets of audio bits (that might have been recorded in different parts of the world) that he has to string together. It's amazing many of us buy that junk and pass it through some very expensive gear...
Stan
Yes- remember that Sinatra 'Duets' album where the guest artists 'phoned through' their performances? (allegedly, anyway). Don't get me started on studio engineers! I have also noticed that the musicians do not tend to help during mixing and mastering - they will all have different ideas as to how it should all sound - mostly because they have no idea of what quality playback sounds like because they only ever listen to music through a DAB portable or Dixon's sourced midi system - my theory is all that time spent in pokey practice rooms with everything cranked up to 11 has made them mutton!
Martin
Give this man a beer for hitting the nail on the head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
Some artists have good stereo's - the Pink Floyd guys, Tina Turner, the Dankworths, Siouxsie and Kate Bush to name a very few from "my" days. Dave Greenslade and the keyboard player from Visage (Dave "Formula") were both clients of the dealers I worked for.
I think that when you work with the original instruments, acoustic or electronic, hearing the compressed and mixed up results that we buy must be a bit of a let down. I doubt that many want to have a studio monitoring setup at home, as it's a bit like watching Corrie on a huge cinema screen :mental:
I agree with Macca,
For the big orchestra conductors who of course listen to new recordings and remind themsleves of the music - the quality of reproduction is of NO IMPORTANCE. I used to buy my records from Thomas Heinitz who was based in Moscow Road SW London. His shop was frequented by musicians of all sorts for advice. He had no time for the Hi Fi stuff- and most people whose calender is full have no time either.
There is such a huge difference in the recorded sound- no matter where and how recorded and live sound- that the two can not be compared.
For classical music one has to have an idea of what music is all about- and I as have said before- the perspective can not be changed.
I remember listening to Naim 250 driving Linn Saras once. The unwinding of the sound of the spring of a timer- crrrrrr- sound so often used in POP/ROCK records- in this instance in Dire Straits 'six blade knife' hit me in the face- literally lept out of the enclosure. If I dismissed other systems as inferior subsequently as they did not do what that systen did- I was horrendously wrong.
I will come back on the issue of Electronic Music as used in POP/ROCK- some time later- but in essence I agree with what Barry is saying-that you get an idea by listening to Live Music.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSJR
Took me a minute to work out what you were getting at but agree 100%!
Closest approach in the home would therefore be 24/192 replay of the master through exactly the kit they used for studio replay - means having a different set up of kit for each album you play of course...:)
Production has to be horses for courses - you would not produce a Ska album the same way you would produce a rock power trio - although I have heard this done recently and the production just did not suit the Ska sound at all - both recordings very professional and polished, though.
Compare the production on, say, Guns and Roses 'use your illusion' to the latest - 'chinese democracy' - the first is rich, sweet, open, dynamic - the second compressed, stodgy, false sounding - terrible, in a nutshell - yet these are both digital recordings done 19 years apart. We should be hearing a lot better - we are actually getting a lot worse!
In the 'eighties I never understood productions of the likes of Martin Hammet - joy Division etc. - they all sounded so thin and weedy through radios and TVs. Now, through decent kit, they sound like a breath of fresh air.
Martin
The reason the digital recordings in the last 6 years are so bad, is very simple RECORD COMPANIES nothing more, the artists (on the whole sign away the production rights) so the R/C's dictate the amount of compression on the recording, who sounds loudest on Radio one.
A couple of weeks ago, a client brought some newer recordings along, they sounded, to be frank, truly bloody appalling when examined they was close to 12db compression and a tiny amount of dynamic range.
The are engineered for I-pods/boom boxes in the bed room and car stereo's verbaitum.
Any reasonable hifi system capable of showing dynamic range and transparency will immediately reproduce the recording from the true a-bort it really is a compressed, rolled off, bass lite and an utter mess that bares no resemblance to the original recording the artist made.
The pursuit of sound perfection and its equipment purveyors leads to the biggest 'con' perpetuated to and by mankind. Its all an illusion. I realised this years ago when as a speaker cabinet maker I used to meet those selling the stuff and laughing when a customer left the premises after buying the latest equipment upgrade. The intriguing aspect for me is the number of continually repeated adjectives found and used by Journalists to write about the latest gear. Speaker cable is a good illustration. Mains cable is equal to the multi pound alternatives sold out there but enthusiasts wont accept that whilst they are 'informed' of the best available within magazines
But not all of us are conmen like you, or would laugh at our customers for buying one's latest effort.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter H
Stan
Interesting, especially after reading THIS. Almost went and bought the cd on the strength of that, good job I managed to resist the temptation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
Cheers
wow! Either I'm right and Bob Ludwig is wrong or...
Anyone else got both albums and care to comment?
Further to last have just done experiment-
Put on 'Use your Illusion 2' reasonable volume listened to first 4 tracks.
Then played 'Chinese Democracy' - at same volume level on amp
Result- They are pretty much exactly the same level. Then played 'EC was here' as a blind - same level again - maybe a touch lower than the other 2 but nothing in it.
Hence - please disregard my comments re 'compression' on Chinese Dmocracy and carry on with thread.:)
Ralph -if you now want to buy a record with no good tunes or hooks and that sounds like 'U2 plays G n R' (but is not compressed) please go ahead...
Martin
Hi Stan,Quote:
Originally Posted by StanleyB
I think you might have misunderstood what I meant by ‘attending concerts’. I did in fact mean un-amplified acoustic performances, such as orchestral, chamber, choral or folk. I regard these as the only reference one can have to use to set up a ‘bench mark’ when building a system.
I agree that pop and rock concerts have the singers miked up as well as the guitar amplifiers and keyboards, and so the presentation is largely down to the skill of the sound engineer at the venue. This also applies to jazz concerts where there is often amplified support of the acoustic instruments.
And of course any studio recording of a performance comes to us ‘courtesy’ of the recording engineers who miked up the artist, made the original multi tracked tapes, which are then mixed down to the master tape. We have no idea what it sounded like to them – we just rely on them to do a good job. Some of Dave’s (DSJR) anecdotes from his friend who worked for Decca (?) are revealing, suggesting that the final ‘sound’ is subject to fashion and not at all absolute.
So for those who do not, or choose not to, attend live un-amplified concerts, there is no reference, although they may however play an instrument themselves or have friends or family that do. Without this reference no doubt they would put together a system that sounds ‘right’ or ‘good’ to them.
In this case the term high fidelity means having a high degree of faithfulness to the ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’ of the music, without necessarily being the last word in realism, since the conveyance of emotion is just as important as tonal accuracy, dynamics, frequency response and all the other things we worry about.
Regards
A good acoustic jazz session is my point of datum for reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by barry.d.hunt
Hi Varun,
I wouldn’t dream of challenging your knowledge of Sanskrit. My knowledge of the etymology of nirvana comes from the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1978):
Nirvāna : a blowing out > substantive of noun and past participle of nirvā : blow > nis : out + vā : blow, as in wind.
Thus to blow out, as the wind might blow out or extinguish a (candle) flame.
Two cartridges = two systems? Oh dear that means I have up to 11 systems! And I thought I just had the one, plus a separate ‘schonky’ system (to use Chris’s term) used with the TV.
Regards
Hello Barry,
You and I and Chris are taking the same theme. That is why I gave the example of the 1st Quad ELS 63 demo. The man refused to play amplified or electronically generated sound-on the premise that such sound had no 'reference point'.
And that is where I cited the second example of the Dire Straits reproduction by Linn+Naimsound. If an audiophile only listens to such a music and as most people do (there are exceptions)- and if all reviews of Hi-Fi equipment involves such music as a test bench, then that test bench, one would say has no caliberation. Some Stereophile magazine reviewers do use classical music but not all.
That is the main reason-I believe I have a different take on the CD sound vs analogue as opposed to some-although there seems to be a general agreement that Analogue is better on this forum.
Barry again,
'Ni' is never out. It is conditional prefix- and adds the negative to the meaning-that is NOT or WITHOUT. That is where the context come in, what I mean is without knowing what comes before and after the 'word' no sense can be made. That was the reason I listed all those different meanings.
In Buddhism- it means FINAL release from a life of bonds-ties and shackles. So it is far from extinction-but is achieved when the last breath is extinguished-not when one is living. Happens only once.
I do not for a moment believe that Buddha had time for all this cycle of rebirth-it was introduced much later-after his death. Mention this to Dalai Lama and I am sure he will get annoyed.
Yup, I think that is a major reason for the increase in use of music-destroying compression. That is what sounds best on a dynamically-limited iPod. To be fair to the R/Cs, that's just the current commercial reality - if you are after major market share, that is where your target audience lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. C
How does an opinion based on experience and research make me a conman Mr Stan ? It was the dealers I found to be the conmen.
Hear, hear! I couldn't agree more, Barry - especially with the bits I've highlighted :)Quote:
Originally Posted by barry.d.hunt
Live un-amplified music is where it's at in terms of the true benchmark for any hi-fi system. Stan is also 100% correct with what he has written, by looking at the subject from another very valid angle.
Marco.
I think I'll still resist the temptation but thank you anyway, Martin.:lolsign:Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
I'd like to expand a little on what I've already said & also re-address some of the points in Dave's original post.
I think the general consensus is with Dave on this one.Quote:
As posted by Dave: I'll open the discussion by stating that audio Nirvana does not exist. I have reached this conclusion, after reading many many postings on the subject on this forum.
I'd agree that in many cases, upgrades result in a change of flavour rather than a wholesale improvement and there is almost always some trade-off involved (whether you notice it at first or not).Quote:
My premise is that the constant drive to upgrade is satiated temporarily by change rather than improvement.
Decisions that are made as to whether the change is a success or otherwise are so often influence by both what you are told will happen and the (understandable) need to mentally justify a purchase.
You should, if possible, go back to what you had before to check, but only after you have become fully acclimatised to the change – that way, you'll find out if it was a true improvement or not. The trouble is that more often than not, this is not done (often it's not possible), so you set off down another parallel track, thinking you have learnt something about system building when in fact, all you may have done is to close a door behind you on a path that was just as good or actually better than your new one.
In my experience, this year's model usually incorporates changes made in order to make the same, or a very similar circuit cheaper to produce than last year's version. Cost cutting is rarely a route to higher quality results.Quote:
Why haven't we yet reached Nirvana? - how many upgrades does it take? And in that time equipment manufacturers keep assuring us that this year's model is a significant improvement on anything available last year.
You should always pursue the latter.Quote:
My recommendation, based on all of three or four months study, is to ignore the pursuit of excellence in the reproduction of recorded music and instead pursue the enjoyment in the reproduction of recorded music - not always the same thing.
Don't ignore the pursuit of excellence because that is attainable.
You have (I suspect) rightly reasoned that Nirvana is only in the mind.
I wasn't making the announcement that my gear is better than anyone else's or that I have found audio Nirvana, but I have reached the point of excellence for my purposes, with my taste in music, its presentation and in the environment it is used in. I have recognised Nirvana is not attainable and that I'm getting what I need from my gear. This doesn't mean I'll never make changes, but when I do they will be very measured and carefully considered choices – there is no rush for me any more. Neither does it mean that I consider others pursuit of Nirvana is somehow a waste of their time or money. As long as they enjoy the chase & stay away from debt, that's great – if they find Nirvana, I'm sure they'll tell us!! ………..but I'll be asking them a few months later if they still feel the same!Quote:
As originally posted by Me:
I've touched on this before when I asked if anyone agreed with my theory that those of us who spend as much or more time in the 'Musical' sections of AoS than the 'Gear' sections are those who are somehow more 'at peace' with their hi-fi.
Of course, none of the above has any bearing on the fact that it's fun to play with new and different audio gear. I think most of us would love to be in Jerry's shoes (though, in my case, I'd have trouble doing what he does without the constancy of my main system – it would have to be an addition to, rather than a replacement for that). My activities playing with other gear happen in other rooms and I get a great deal of fun out of it.
The equally unattainable Nirvana that I'm currently more interested in seeking (and has been a lifelong obsession) is more related to finding and owning recordings of great music – and in my opinion this is a far more noble quest!!
Hi Chris,
As usual, bang on the money and eloquently stated, to boot.
Cheers,
Audio Nirvana does not exist for two reasons:
1) Human beings are never satisfied for long and strive constantly for improvement; we are never happy with our lot. Contentment is always having something to aim for.
2) No hi-fi system can 100% faithfully reproduce live acoustic music. Some get closer than others but none actually achieve total perfection.
Pursuit of excellence is achieving the best possible results within a given environment, working to certain constraints* and a given budget. Over time the budget is open-ended which is why those with what can be regarded as the very best systems have usually been at it for years or even decades. Over time we acquire both the knowledge and the resources to build a mind-blowingly satisfying system.
*Such constraints need to be reasonable impositions. The room layout often needs to work around the system, not the other way round.
Also, when building and improving a system you should never lose sight of the basics - the musical message should always come first with any other hi-fi artifacts being mere icing on the cake thereafter.
Two great posts there that sum it all up perfectly IMO, thanks Chris & Steve, and to DaveK for starting it all off in the first place!
Excellent post, Chris (and Steve). I'd just like to expand on this bit because I think it's crucial and deserves to be looked at in more detail:
That is so utterly true. We need to get away from the conditioning of automatically believing that the 'newest or the latest is always best' because, quite frankly, in many cases it isn't! Key components in my own system are testament to that. I still maintain that the ultimate way to build a hi-fi system is to combine the best of old and new technologies.Quote:
In my experience, this year's model usually incorporates changes made in order to make the same, or a very similar circuit cheaper to produce than last year's version. Cost cutting is rarely a route to higher quality results.
With hi-fi, it's often the case of what you describe above, or quite superb (key) components (by this I mean internal electrical 'bits' such as DAC chips, etc) being discontinued by large international manufacturers (such as Philips or Pacific Microsonics, etc) due to cost-cutting or streamlining of their product ranges. These companies supply smaller hi-fi manufacturers with their 'core essentials', and so when these essential 'bits' are no longer available it forces hi-fi manufacturers to rethink their designs and either make changes or build something new.
The fact is these changes or new products are not always better than what preceded them simply because the new parts they've had to accommodate are often inferior to the 'bits' that were used before!
Now think about this..... Do you honestly believe that any manufacturer is going to come out and say 'sorry folks, but our new 'Wankfest Willy-Waver Special Edition Signature MK VII' CD player is no where near as good as the MK VI version, because we can't get the necessary parts anymore, but buy the MK VII anyway, which has got some spanking new but sadly inferior parts inside as that's all we could get'?
NO CHANCE!! So what do they do?
They spin a yarn, of course, and market their latest products as the best they've ever made, fooling the impressionable and gullible public in the process, and in turn flooding the market with so-so equipment, driving standards down, and ultimately creating a merry-go-round of dissatisfaction amongst those who buy these products because they fail to deliver what was promised. This in turn gets people on a never-ending upgrade spiral because instead of buying a product that's 'sorted' in the first place, they end up with a pale imitation of such, born from whatever parts are available and cheap, and then chasing the so-called 'nirvana' which when following this particular path of system building is completely unattainable...
Manufacturers also often use terms such as 'obsolete' or 'redundant' (Ashley James of AVI continually adopts this mantra) when referring to technology previously implemented in older products to infer some form of inferiority compared to their 'latest and greatest'. It's often only 'obsolete' or 'redundant' because key parts have been discontinued for a variety of commercial reasons, such as I've mentioned above, not because it's actually inferior in terms of audio performance. It's a vicious circle and an absolute minefield to the uninitiated!! It's not always like that, and some new products *are* genuinely very good, but this is becoming increasingly rare, in my experience, due to most equipment these days being built strictly to a price, and sold to an ever-shrinking target market, which was less the case in the heyday of hi-fi in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s.
The best way not to end up in the sorry state of continual box-swapping (unless you're a 'Jerry') is to think laterally and buy products which offer the highest sound-per-pound value from specialist, often smaller manufacturers, and forget about badge snobbery or 'prestige value'. Also, look to the classic arena and judiciously select the best vintage gear, whose core design and parts quality is often better than anything made today, modifying any ageing components therein (caps, resistors, etc) with the latest and best that are available; thereby getting the best of both worlds.
This is one of the few areas in audio where new technology 99% of the time outperforms old technology. I've learnt all this the hard way and so would like others with less experience not to succumb to the same pitfalls. Therefore, I would urge people to read this and let it sink in.
If I can help even just one person from making the sorts of mistakes I referred to earlier then rants such as this will have been well worthwhile :)
Marco.
Marco,
I was about to expand on this myself, but you have done so for me!
The only thing I would add for now, is this:
To compound things further, the new part is shoe-horned into the old circuit that (perhaps) was optimised for the old set of parts. A complete redesign, taking into account the necessary changes is never on the cards due to the manufacturer's own set of cost restraints – square pegs & round holes.Quote:
The fact is these changes or new products are not always better than what preceded them simply because the new parts they've had to accommodate are often inferior to the 'bits' that were used before!
I still think Chinese Democracy sounds compressed. But I'm willing to accept that's in-head compression. Something to do with my built in taste filter refusing to accept such utter widdly-wee 14 guitarists recorded over 12 years to play a single riff nonsense and closing down my hearing mechanism to protect me from such dreck.
The only parallel I can draw is when I had to review Good Cop Bad Cop starring Pamela Anderson. Despite the fact she gets them out a lot, despite the fact she gets mock-rogered at several times during the DVD, it was so unutterably bad that I couldn't just turn the thing off, I had to storm out of the house in disgust.
I've tried using Chinese Democracy as a coaster, but even wine glasses won't touch it. Charity Shops refuse it. Even the bin men won't take it.
If I had to sum the record up in one word it would have to be 'unflushable'.
Rant over.
Harsh... I really like the album... I think track-for-track it's better than the use your illusion albums.... I really think that there is a lot of filler on them, and they could easily have been cut down to a single albumQuote:
Originally Posted by Macca
I don't think there is too much compression on Chinese Democracy, I think it sounds pretty dynamic for a newish album. I think that a lot of people criticised the album purely because it had been in the making for 15 years, and it had been so overhyped that it could never be anything but a disappointment. I listened to it with an open mind, (admitted having heard quite a few of the songs live, and others at an incomplete state before the release) and I think it is a GOOD GNR album, and I would recommend it to anyone. Axl is in the best voice of his life, and sometimes is simply astonishing.