+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 60 of 60

Thread: Most difficult musical instrument for Hi Fi Systems to reproduce ?

  1. #51
    Join Date: Mar 2017

    Location: Seaford UK

    Posts: 1,585
    I'm Dennis.

    Default

    The artist's intent is to express his feelings, emotions, and insights using the natural aspects of our musical tonal system, and words, often poetic.

    Surely the artist relys on the monitors in the studio to determine whether the results are expressing his intent, and this may be, but often is not, an accurate representation of alive event.

    We then attempt to reproduce this sound with our obsession with varying degrees of success.

    Often remasters are done by people who have not experienced the original era in which the music was created, and that is an important part of any creation, the context. They may be told to remaster it to make it cleaner, brighter, or louder on average in order to get the attention of potential listeners who are fans of the original, but often the ethos can be lost.

    There are certain bits of music which are created entirely to show off Hi-Fi systems, but I think this is declining in favour of the remaster process which of course results in re-buying and greater profits for the record companies.

  2. #52
    Join Date: Nov 2011

    Location: Seaton, Devon, UK

    Posts: 6,905
    I'm Adrian.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pharos View Post
    The artist's intent is to express his feelings, emotions, and insights using the natural aspects of our musical tonal system, and words, often poetic.

    Surely the artist relys on the monitors in the studio to determine whether the results are expressing his intent, and this may be, but often is not, an accurate representation of alive event.

    We then attempt to reproduce this sound with our obsession with varying degrees of success.

    Often remasters are done by people who have not experienced the original era in which the music was created, and that is an important part of any creation, the context. They may be told to remaster it to make it cleaner, brighter, or louder on average in order to get the attention of potential listeners who are fans of the original, but often the ethos can be lost.

    There are certain bits of music which are created entirely to show off Hi-Fi systems, but I think this is declining in favour of the remaster process which of course results in re-buying and greater profits for the record companies.
    All true, IMO


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Listening is the act of aural discrimination and dissemination of sound, and accepting you get it wrong sometimes.

    Analog Inputs:
    Pro-Ject Signature 10 TT & arm
    Benz Micro LP-S, Michel Cusis MC, Goldring 2500 and Ortofon Rondo Blue cartridges
    Hitachi FT5500 mk2 Tuner

    Digital:-
    Sony 3d blu-Ray for CDs to Caiman SEG
    RaspberryPi/HifiBerry Digi to Beresford Caiman SEG DAC
    Buffalo NAS Drive

    Amplification:-
    LFD MMC special phono stage & Rothwell MCX SUT
    ALLNIC T1500 MKII SET 300B amp
    Schiit MAGNI 3 Heresy amp

    Output:
    Wilson Benesch Vector speakers
    KLH Ultimate One Headphones

    Cables:
    Furutech AG-12-R4 High Performance Phono Cable
    Eccose Conductor CA1
    Belden 8402 with Switchcraft 3502A Audiophile High-End RCA
    Chord Epic speaker leads, & signature links


    I think I am nearing audio nirvana, but donít tell anyone.

  3. #53
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 29,213
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AJSki2fly View Post
    Yep, I have several versions of Led Zep II and I think the original sounds sonically better or shall we say more enjoyable, even though the later remix CD seems to have more clarity/detail. I do have a few others though where the re-master is an improvement in experience, to my ears anyway.
    Sonically the new one is clearly better. But I don't want that, I want to listen to the original album that they made, not some improved re-imagining even if it does sound better.

    The flaws are an intrinsic part of the original work of art that was submitted for public consumption. Correcting them devalues the whole experience for me.
    Current Lash Up:

    *Oppo BDT-101CI* Nelson Pass DCB1 / Krell KSA100 mkII * JM Lab Electra 926 *


    'You fool! To think that your ape-brain could contain the full knowledge of the Krell!'

  4. #54
    Join Date: May 2020

    Location: Suffolk

    Posts: 246
    I'm Ray.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    Anything the artist does is artistically valid. I just don't get the point you are making with this. It's like audiophiles banging on about recording quality. Would we really want every recording to be shiny and polished, to be as accurate as possible to real instruments in a real acoustic just so it 'sounds' better on our systems? Not me. The purpose of recorded music is not to make hi-fi systems sound good. Cart before the horse.
    Do we want everything compressed down to a few db just so it may sound ok in the car or on cheap earbuds? If you compress the sound down it won't be realistic at all.

  5. #55
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 29,213
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StingRay View Post
    Do we want everything compressed down to a few db just so it may sound ok in the car or on cheap earbuds? If you compress the sound down it won't be realistic at all.
    if the original release was compressed to death then yes, that's what I want as that's intrinsic to the art. I don't care about 'realism' in the slightest. I accept whatever the artist produces. maybe the saxophone (for example) sounds real, maybe it has had a million studio effects applied to it. Doesn't matter to me. My interest starts at playback, not recording.

    More often though you find it is the remaster that has more compression. Even if it is on SACD or some other so-called 'hi res format', which makes no sense.
    Current Lash Up:

    *Oppo BDT-101CI* Nelson Pass DCB1 / Krell KSA100 mkII * JM Lab Electra 926 *


    'You fool! To think that your ape-brain could contain the full knowledge of the Krell!'

  6. #56
    Join Date: Nov 2011

    Location: Seaton, Devon, UK

    Posts: 6,905
    I'm Adrian.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    if the original release was compressed to death then yes, that's what I want as that's intrinsic to the art. I don't care about 'realism' in the slightest. I accept whatever the artist produces. maybe the saxophone (for example) sounds real, maybe it has had a million studio effects applied to it. Doesn't matter to me. My interest starts at playback, not recording.

    More often though you find it is the remaster that has more compression. Even if it is on SACD or some other so-called 'hi res format', which makes no sense.
    Yep, hate it with compression!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Listening is the act of aural discrimination and dissemination of sound, and accepting you get it wrong sometimes.

    Analog Inputs:
    Pro-Ject Signature 10 TT & arm
    Benz Micro LP-S, Michel Cusis MC, Goldring 2500 and Ortofon Rondo Blue cartridges
    Hitachi FT5500 mk2 Tuner

    Digital:-
    Sony 3d blu-Ray for CDs to Caiman SEG
    RaspberryPi/HifiBerry Digi to Beresford Caiman SEG DAC
    Buffalo NAS Drive

    Amplification:-
    LFD MMC special phono stage & Rothwell MCX SUT
    ALLNIC T1500 MKII SET 300B amp
    Schiit MAGNI 3 Heresy amp

    Output:
    Wilson Benesch Vector speakers
    KLH Ultimate One Headphones

    Cables:
    Furutech AG-12-R4 High Performance Phono Cable
    Eccose Conductor CA1
    Belden 8402 with Switchcraft 3502A Audiophile High-End RCA
    Chord Epic speaker leads, & signature links


    I think I am nearing audio nirvana, but donít tell anyone.

  7. #57
    Join Date: Jan 2009

    Location: Essex

    Posts: 23,806
    I'm openingabottleofwine.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    Anything the artist does is artistically valid. I just don't get the point you are making with this. It's like audiophiles banging on about recording quality. Would we really want every recording to be shiny and polished, to be as accurate as possible to real instruments in a real acoustic just so it 'sounds' better on our systems? Not me. The purpose of recorded music is not to make hi-fi systems sound good. Cart before the horse.
    I simply find these 'splices' jarring and out of place, and that for me detracts from my enjoyment. It has nothing at all to do with recording quality.
    Barry

  8. #58
    Join Date: Jan 2009

    Location: Essex

    Posts: 23,806
    I'm openingabottleofwine.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post

    The flaws are an intrinsic part of the original work of art that was submitted for public consumption. Correcting them devalues the whole experience for me.
    I take it you enjoy the Kingsway Hall 'rumble', due to the London Underground Piccadilly line running underneath? I find the Decca recordings where it appears to be unlistenable.
    Barry

  9. #59
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 29,213
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    I take it you enjoy the Kingsway Hall 'rumble', due to the London Underground Piccadilly line running underneath? I find the Decca recordings where it appears to be unlistenable.
    I only know it by reputation, I never listen to any classical.

    There's the aeroplane at the start of 'Black Country Woman, but I quite like that.
    Current Lash Up:

    *Oppo BDT-101CI* Nelson Pass DCB1 / Krell KSA100 mkII * JM Lab Electra 926 *


    'You fool! To think that your ape-brain could contain the full knowledge of the Krell!'

  10. #60
    Join Date: Apr 2016

    Location: Gravesend and France

    Posts: 1,450
    I'm paul.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lawrence001 View Post
    I think this. Much of it must be about the behaviour of materials at vibration. Consider a reed in a saxophone combined with the effect of the brass horn, compared with the gut or metal violin string amplified by the wooden structure, or the sinew of the human voice box. Asking a plastic or paper cone to simulate this must involve considerable compromises. It's about finding the material that can get as close to possible to the instruments you listen to.

    I can see why some of the high end reviewers ignore rock and dance. How can you define how close the speakers get to the "real" sound when it can only exist amplified and played through speakers anyway. However, as much of what I listen to is that, then it's important to me that it's listenable!

    Sent from my HRY-LX1 using Tapatalk
    i was thinking along the same lines. Any instrument that is amplified can be replicated by a decent enough set up. Accoustic is a different thing and if it bothers you that much give up and take up cross stitching
    Bakoon 11R Denon DP80 Stax UA-70 Shure Ultra 500 in a Martin Bastin body with jico stylus, project ds2 digital Rullit silver lab 8 field coils in tqwt speakers

    Office system, DIY CSS fullrange speakers with aurum cantus G2 ribbons yulong dac Sony STR6055 receiver Jvc QL-A51 direct drive turntable, Leema sub. JVC Z4S cart is in the house

    Garage system another Sony receiver, cassette deck


    System components are subject to change without warning and at the discretion of the owner.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •