Hi ChrisQuote:
Originally Posted by nat8808
It's called bovine excrement and there's a lot of it about. I of course only talk perfect sense! (hmmm)
david:lol::cool:
Hi ChrisQuote:
Originally Posted by nat8808
It's called bovine excrement and there's a lot of it about. I of course only talk perfect sense! (hmmm)
david:lol::cool:
Me too and for the same reason - live albums can be good of course but normally for the different versions of songs or improvisations.Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinT
I'm never quite sure about comparing certain instruments as a whole to judge my system by as I never know how things are recorded or using what or if a certain 'sound' has been engineered or close-mic'd instruments been eq'd to fit them in bette with each other (and the gear used to do that might be softening transients etc). It's interesting if you DO know, as you can try to hear that too.
Then if it's a simple two mic recording, I don't know how the piano, say, has been positioned in the room and has the bite of the piano been lost by the placement or by the room/hall acoustic etc etc?
In some ways, unnaturallly close mic'd instruments show off more of what your system is capable of but then the music itself needs to be minimalist so you can hear it. For me, the kind of sounds I enjoy are when you get the oportunity to stick your ear right near a live instrument, like your head in the lid of the piano or
really close to a cymbol or bagpipes (did that today - some chap playing outside a pub for a wedding reception - love the sound of close, live bagpipes and the crispness of the sound).
So a longer listen of everything should hopefully let you realise certain aspects of sound ARE being re-created at some point by your system, and if they are missing on some recordings, perhaps that's down to the recording then.
I guess I just listen generally with a wide-ish range of natural sounds, acoustic instruments, sythesised and electrified too and take a mental note of how often I'm impressed by things I hear and hope it's because they sound real. A very laid back process!
Me too! Perfect sense all the time...Quote:
Originally Posted by tannoyman
That pretty much describes my process also. When you get a lot of 'wow listen to that!' moments you know you are on the right track.Quote:
Originally Posted by nat8808
Annoying though when you hear one pair of speakers make you go wow at one thing, and another pair wow at another, but never the two things happen on the same speaker..
What do you do then? Spose have to keep trying more till you do, or constantly swap speakers...
I'm doing that with some AE AE2 Pros and JAS Oriors - the bite of the AE2s are adictive and actually a bit more natural, whist sounding a little dark. The Oriors nice and airy and open sounding .. which I miss.
For those striving to achieve the realistic sound of live rock music this may be of some help
http://www.davethebass.com/pa.htm
:lol::lol::lol:
From the Grave
OK, I'll stick my head above the parapet. I think we've backed ourselves into a corner with the "High Fidelity" tag. It should be renamed, audio would do, or as I call mine, a "stereo". We all seem to want different things, so define hifi in different ways. I actually prefer live recordings, as I want "the closest approach to the original MAGIC". If the original SOUND was crap, why would I want that? Some records are technically lousy but sound magic, frequently (but not exclusively) live recordings. And our ears are all different, our cultural and experiential (is that a word?) preferences are different, etc.
How can we agree on "fidelity" when we mean different things by the word? The measurists demand to be able to SEE how accurate the reproduction is (I've never understood that. Would you define a great wine that way, for example?), while the pure subjectivists consider measurements to be irrelevant.
At the moment I am using an old pair of Mordaunt Short Carnival 3s while I try to finish the big speakers. The tweeters are those cheap £5 (back in the day) plastic Audax things. A bit primitive and there is no bass to speak of, but I'm really enjoying my new CDs (Fink and Tinariwen). The midrange is pretty good, actually. I'm not expecting "high fidelity", but I have adjusted my expectations accordingly, and knowing they are temporary I'm just enjoying. When the big speakers are finished I will expect far more from them, and if they don't deliver, well then, you could say the Carnivals are better spesakers!
So, change the name, unless you are in the recording business (and even there pop is monitored on little "transistor radio" speakers), and stop obsessing over a misnomer.
Discuss. :lol:
It's not about getting hi-fidelity to the performance it is about getting high fidelity to the recording of the performance. A subtlety that many seem to miss.
Too many cuckoo's searching for something that aint there. Why not just buy a stereo stop farting about & just use it for what it was intended for. Some of the stereo's that people have, that i have heard i really feel sorry for them because if that is their idea of Audio nirvana they need a doctor immediately.
:D
Quite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
....and without the use of tone controls. Lol, Andre, soz, couldn't resist!! :D
;)
Marco.
In my case the answer to the second question in the thread title is; music reproduction which sounds good, to me. I arrived at this point recently, or at the very least have got incredibly close to it. Each of us has our own preferences however which is why I enjoy reading about other members experiences ;)
My beef with the Tone control less malarky is it is one of those things that Audio cracked pots have got in their heads that they must not have them 'Is is against all Audio purist stand for' it is no different from judging a piece of equipment by it's specifications imho. I am one of those that will always go against what is suppose to be De rigueur & ofc again ive had enough tone control less amps to safely say not a single one sounded any good to my lugholes.
tone controls or a graphic equaliser it doesn't matter, they are both perfectly valid in terms of reproducing to the highest fidelity because that means getting the frequency response balance right as well as a whole host of other things.
I've never found the 'purist' concept that they ruin the sound to be true.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Barbarian
And that, I think, is the problem. Chasing an impossibility. Not a subtlety! And what is the point of the recording anyway? Capturing the performance, otherwise it's just an exercise in sterility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
Soz, bro - gotta disagree, as my experience is somewhat contrary to that. 'Ruin' the sound, no, but to my lugholes they most certainly add large amounts of audible distortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
Quality rant, btw, Andre! :D
Marco.
Yeah, I have to say that analogue tone controls don't do it for me either. On those amps that allow the tone controls to be bypassed they have always sounded better to me when they are switched out of circuit. Even on those recordings that may benefit I find them too much of a blunt tool.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
I can well imagine it...Who started it anyway ?Quote:
If we market it just right & get everyone to believe they ruin the sound not only will that put punters off far eastern amps giving us more market but ours will be cheaper to produce = win/win :eyebrows:
What you have to be careful of, when making these sorts of assessments, is that you're comparing like with like.
Just because one amp (with tone controls) sounds better to you than another without, isn't necessarily because of the effectiveness (or otherwise) of the tone controls, but perhaps that, through design, despite the effect of the tone controls, overall it's simply a better amp! ;)
Marco.
The JVC AX-A3 I have here has a CD Direct function which bypasses everything bar the volume control. With it in circuit there is a marked improvement in clarity, consequently I only ever use the CD input. I've no time for extraneous controls at all and have always preferred amps with just a volume control and source selector, the exception being the Classé DR5 pre-amp I previously owned where the same controls could be defeated at the flick of a switch. Needless to say they were never in circuit.
+1. Not all tone control circuits are born equal, implementation is everything. In a well designed amp I would challenge anyone to tell the difference blind - Its astonishing how huge differences suddenly disappear. I have tried it myself with cables, dacs & tone controls and could detect exactly zero difference... Anyone that claims they can hear the difference yet have never put it to the test really ought to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
no harm in having them as long as they can be bypassed if you want to.....sometimes I used them when available, depending on what I was listening to...if it sounded better the so be it.
Yep but when every single Tone control less amp i ever owned all sounded cack to my earholes there has gotta be something wrong aint there?
However it is it not so hard to see why people turn into box swappers more often then they care to realise!
Is it your earholes? :eyebrows:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Barbarian
Certainly is not my hearholes they are golden as the golden of golden things
...aye, you've never heard a decent amp without tone controls yet! :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Barbarian
Marco.
I always see tone controls as ''worry knobs.'' I.e.: Does this track need more or less bass, mid, treble. Would drive me mad having tone controls as I would always be wondering where to set them. :eyebrows:
O i haveQuote:
Originally Posted by Marco
;)
So they exist, then? :eyebrows:
Here's one... Sondex 'S230'. Woo-hoo, look - no tone controls:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/102...538/osBaHL.jpg
...and I *know* you don't think that sounds cack! ;)
:ner:
Marco.
Well, it's the Carnival here this weekend and I've had the pleasure of listening to a proper brass band close-up, together with a samba band which stunned me in all honesty. I think I can fairly say that NO domestic Hifi comes close when playing compressed and 'mixed up' commercial material masquerading as 'music!' One or two of the biggest pro studio setups might come close though in terms of dynamic range if it's there in the master material, but these manufacturer forums with their bosses loudly stating how amazing and superior their little active boxes with 5 or 6" main drivers are, just completely miss the point IMO, even though modern houses have tiny rooms unable to accommodate proper big loudspeakers. I don't care how long these little drivers' travel is, or how low the midrange distortion can be, they just CAN'T move enough air IMO! And no, I don't call my old stereo's 'HiFi' by modern standards!
Simple answer, glasshoppa: don't live in modern houses with pish rooms in them for a hi-fi! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by DSJR
Too right, daddy-o! That, however, won't stop the 'Dodgy Duo' from lying about the capabilities of their ridiculous little speaker-ettes, in order to further their best commercial interests! :wanker:Quote:
I don't care how long these little drivers' travel is, or how low the midrange distortion can be, they just CAN'T move enough air IMO!
Marco.
I can appreciate people having to use small speakers due to space or WAF or even MAF (although I find MAF the hardest to comprehend) but don't insult me by trying to convince me they are somehow better than a good big 'un. 'Cause they're not.
Remind me again what 'MAF' is :)
For me, there's no excuse for WAF, provided that you've married someone who's on the same 'wavelength' as you... I mean, just WHY wouldn't that be so?? After all, I believe you get a choice! ;)
Marco.
Lol - you're on record, though, here as rating them. In any case, you give almost everything away eventually! ;)
Marco.
MAF - Metrosexual Appreciation Factor
I.e Blokes who are so concerned about what the interior of their homes look like that they are prepared to sacrifice SQ in order to keep it all looking 'nice'.
Don't get me wrong I like good interior design and if I had money to burn on it I would have it all looking pretty plush. But there would be no compromise on the system no matter how ugly or intrusive it is.
WAF is a different and more complex matter. Yes, ideally, as with the house, the wife should be chosen with the system in mind. But as with the house choice a lot of different boxes need to be ticked and her tolerance for having her living room looking like a downmarket recording studio may be a box too far in some cases. I can understand that. However no problem is without a solution so maybe a separate thread is in order...
Sure, but why is it automatically "her" living room, and not jointly his & hers? That's the relationship I enjoy with Del. Remind me of the definition of the word 'marriage' - and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that it involves the union of TWO people...? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
What you're referring to sounds more like a dictatorship than a marriage, unless you're a pussy and enjoy being under the thumb, or worse, simply want a replacement for your mother!! :doh:
Marco.
Not me, dude. I dislike tone controls because I can hear the distortion that they cause. I don't use 'em because I don't need 'em - simples! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Barbarian
Marco.
LOL... Do you think YOU would admit it, dude, if it were t'other way round? :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Barbarian
Answer: nar chance :nono:
:lolsign:
Marco.
Don't understand why you can't listen to your music now, Andre.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Barbarian
If it's just about enjoying music then the system, with or without tone controls, is just a means to an end and not a fetish.
Don't understand why you can't listen to your music now, Andre.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Barbarian
If it's just about enjoying music then the system, with or without tone controls, is just a means to an end and not a fetish.
& that is my last post on AOS
Seems a shame to quit posting over something so minor Andr'e ? Hopefully you'll come back after cooling off :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Barbarian
Agreed, I always find Andre's posts an interesting and entertaining read.Quote:
Originally Posted by istari_knight
Again! Come on Andre, We all like having you around. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Barbarian
Yes, don't abandon us Andr'e. We like your input and you're an important part of AOS! :)
I've never found tone controls to be of much use: the Baxandall design of tone controls is too crude to be effective, and the range of 'cut' and 'boost' far too large (as much as +/- 12dB). Most of the preamplifiers I have used have a tone control "defeat" switch, whereby the tone control circuit is bypassed, and these days the pramplifiers I use are devoid of such controls.
The only tone control circuit design I have found to be useful (on the rare occasion), is the "Tilt" feature of the Quad 44 (and later designs). With this control, the whole frequency spectrum can be tilted about 1KHz either up or down by +/- 1, 2 or 3dB. The latter is too much, but I have found tilting the response up by +1dB can help with rather "thick" - sounding recordings. Not a panacea by any means, but occasionally useful.
He will be back! Just give him time.Quote:
Originally Posted by walpurgis
True. I think his latest departure was about due anyway...Quote:
Originally Posted by REXTON
My Quad 34 has 'bass lift' and 'tilt' controls, but I always prefer them both to be set flat (that's with Avalon NP2.0 speakers).Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry