Thread: The Audiophile Thread

  1. #2526
    Quote Originally Posted by hFx View Post
    I can't see how this in any way should be conscidered controversial. Classical and classical jazz recordings are intended to capture a live experience in a good room, while "popular music" often is a no-limits studio production that should sound bigger-than-life. Like 12 guitar tracks or more, fattened-up drums etc. Likewise, the dynamics is limited to meet the expectations of the consumers.

    Some labels like DG were heavily critisized for "mixing" their recordings to lift and emphasize the quieter passages. Natural dynamic live recordings of a rock band can likewise be a weird experience compared to "produced" studio recordings.

    I think the 'controversial' part I was referring to, is that the vast majority of people, who probably have never heard a decent classical recording (on a reasonable good system), most likely have no idea that their much vaunted rock recordings, are really not all that they are made out to be.

    Many people, who care about sound quality, believe Dark Side of the Moon or Aja (or other studio rock recording), is the pinnacle of the recording arts, from any genre.
    Last edited by simon moon; 08-24-2020 at 06:02 PM. Reason: I did not notice auto-correct picked the wrong word
    And if there were a god, I think it very unlikely that he would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence - Russell

  2. #2527
    Man of repute progmatist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Mesa, Arizona
    Posts
    1,895
    Quote Originally Posted by hFx View Post
    I can't see how this in any way should be conscidered controversial. Classical and classical jazz recordings are intended to capture a live experience in a good room, while "popular music" often is a no-limits studio production that should sound bigger-than-life. Like 12 guitar tracks or more, fattened-up drums etc. Likewise, the dynamics is limited to meet the expectations of the consumers.

    Some labels like DG were heavily critisized for "mixing" their recordings to lift and emphasize the quieter passages. Natural dynamic live recordings of a rock band can likewise be a weird experience compared to "produced" studio recordings.
    Even live recordings use at least per-track compression. Excessive dynamic range is a wild beast which must be tamed. The worst sounding recordings/DVDs like Dixie Dregs Live In Connecticut, and ELP at Montreux don't use nearly enough compression. The dynamic range is so all over the place, it's impossible to achieve an even mix.
    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"--Dalai Lama

  3. #2528
    Member Firth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    4,147
    Quote Originally Posted by progmatist View Post
    Even live recordings use at least per-track compression. Excessive dynamic range is a wild beast which must be tamed. The worst sounding recordings/DVDs like Dixie Dregs Live In Connecticut, and ELP at Montreux don't use nearly enough compression. The dynamic range is so all over the place, it's impossible to achieve an even mix.
    It doesn’t have to be that way:

    Studio and Field Acoustic Recording

    Recordings can be grouped into those that are studio originated, and those that are field acoustic recorded. Acoustic recordings (which consist almost entirely of classical music and jazz recorded in a performance space), contain the low level information of instrument detail, spaciousness, and dynamic range, that allow the listener to best judge music image reality. Also, that which greatly enhances our emotional involvement.

    It is however those natural acoustic recordings that are most subject to sound quality degradation from the multiple processes inherent in production recording. For this reason, NativeDSD chooses its recordings from the earliest production stage possible.

    All DSD acoustic recordings start as musicians in an acoustic space being picked up with multiple microphones. The analog signals from these mics are first amplified by mic preamps, and fed to DSD Analog to Digital converters. Some labels will perform a session analog mix and balance before A/D conversion, but most labels, perform that mix and balance digitally in post production. In any case, post production always includes editing to correct note or tempo phrasing, and playing errors. Musicians and producers strive to present the best interpretation and performance possible.

    Post Production

    The result of post production editing and mixing is a .dff DSD digital file called the DSD Edit Master, and which is the source of NativeDSD's downloads.

    From the Edit Master the DSD data is lossless compressed and encoded to produced a .dst ISO Cutting Master, which is then used by the SACD plant to produce an SACD for distribution. A similar process is used converting the DSD Edit Master for other optical media, like DVD-A and Blu-Ray, in their proprietary formats. There is however debate about whether the compression and encoding process for optical media production is in fact lossless from a sound quality standpoint.
    http://help.nativedsd.com/en/article...88-what-is-dsd
    On the verge of indecision
    I'll always take the roundabout way

  4. #2529
    Member Jerjo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    small town in ND
    Posts
    4,596
    Check the artwork above this system posted on the Hoffman forum

    https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threa...#post-24798431
    I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down.'- Bob Newhart

  5. #2530
    Member Zeuhlmate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    Posts
    4,957
    McIntosh doesn't own this (too) anymore.

    Audio Research Corporation Under New Ownership

    https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2020/...new-ownership/

  6. #2531
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeuhlmate View Post
    McIntosh doesn't own this (too) anymore.

    Audio Research Corporation Under New Ownership

    https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2020/...new-ownership/
    A friend of mine has Audio Research equipment,all tubes. I didn't even know they had a tube cd player.
    NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF STUPID PEOPLE IN LARGE GROUPS!

  7. #2532
    Member Zeuhlmate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    Posts
    4,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    A friend of mine has Audio Research equipment,all tubes. I didn't even know they had a tube cd player.
    They have made both solid state, all tubes, and mixed. Generally they have made wonderfull state-of-the-art amps, and amps that sounds awfull.
    Never understood why there are these big differences.

  8. #2533
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeuhlmate View Post
    Never understood why there are these big differences.
    Lincoln Continental- Ford Pinto
    NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF STUPID PEOPLE IN LARGE GROUPS!

  9. #2534
    Member Zeuhlmate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    Posts
    4,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    Lincoln Continental- Ford Pinto
    yes, but the price tag differed.

    What puzzles me with Audio Research is, that I have many times experienced that different preamps in the same price range, sounds so different, and some of them pretty harsh - and not necessarily because they were the cheapest (or because the tubes were old).

    That said, I have also heard fantastic AR amps. Like the VT-160.
    Last edited by Zeuhlmate; 08-28-2020 at 07:48 AM.

  10. #2535
    Man of repute progmatist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Mesa, Arizona
    Posts
    1,895
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    It doesn’t have to be that way:

    Studio and Field Acoustic Recording

    Recordings can be grouped into those that are studio originated, and those that are field acoustic recorded. Acoustic recordings (which consist almost entirely of classical music and jazz recorded in a performance space), contain the low level information of instrument detail, spaciousness, and dynamic range, that allow the listener to best judge music image reality. Also, that which greatly enhances our emotional involvement.

    It is however those natural acoustic recordings that are most subject to sound quality degradation from the multiple processes inherent in production recording. For this reason, NativeDSD chooses its recordings from the earliest production stage possible.

    All DSD acoustic recordings start as musicians in an acoustic space being picked up with multiple microphones. The analog signals from these mics are first amplified by mic preamps, and fed to DSD Analog to Digital converters. Some labels will perform a session analog mix and balance before A/D conversion, but most labels, perform that mix and balance digitally in post production. In any case, post production always includes editing to correct note or tempo phrasing, and playing errors. Musicians and producers strive to present the best interpretation and performance possible.

    Post Production

    The result of post production editing and mixing is a .dff DSD digital file called the DSD Edit Master, and which is the source of NativeDSD's downloads.

    From the Edit Master the DSD data is lossless compressed and encoded to produced a .dst ISO Cutting Master, which is then used by the SACD plant to produce an SACD for distribution. A similar process is used converting the DSD Edit Master for other optical media, like DVD-A and Blu-Ray, in their proprietary formats. There is however debate about whether the compression and encoding process for optical media production is in fact lossless from a sound quality standpoint.
    http://help.nativedsd.com/en/article...88-what-is-dsd
    True. But it's one thing to record an acoustic ensemble, or even an orchestra with every instrument properly placed relative to the mics. It's another thing entirely to record ELP at a large outdoor festival. To start with, there's Keith's 4 electronic keyboards, including his Mood Modular, all blasting through large amps. Add to that his Hammond C3 played through a pair of large, powerful Leslie speakers. Top that all off with every piece of Carl's drum kit individually mic'd. Under these conditions, per track compression becomes critical.
    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"--Dalai Lama

  11. #2536
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    NH, USA
    Posts
    156
    So guys, thinking of adding a subwoofer to my system. To give a bit of a background, the vast majority of my time is spent listening to two channel stereo-although I do have a healthy number of Steven Wilson and sundry other 5.1 releases. My favorite format is vinyl, but I also collect CDs and listen to some downloads as well. Do you think I'd benefit from a subwoofer? My main speakers go down to 30 hz. More and more, I'm seeing many say that adding subs isn't necessarily about adding *more* bass, but adding better bass. I'm told that it can help with things like soundstaging for instance or give heft to vocals. I'm intrigued by that. So what are the good, bad and ugly experiences you all have had with subwoofers? I want the hairs on my ass to stand on end when Geddy Lee and Mike Rutherford hit those bass pedals. Is such a thing possible?

  12. #2537
    Member Firth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    4,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Rael View Post
    So guys, thinking of adding a subwoofer to my system. To give a bit of a background, the vast majority of my time is spent listening to two channel stereo-although I do have a healthy number of Steven Wilson and sundry other 5.1 releases. My favorite format is vinyl, but I also collect CDs and listen to some downloads as well. Do you think I'd benefit from a subwoofer? My main speakers go down to 30 hz. More and more, I'm seeing many say that adding subs isn't necessarily about adding *more* bass, but adding better bass. I'm told that it can help with things like soundstaging for instance or give heft to vocals. I'm intrigued by that. So what are the good, bad and ugly experiences you all have had with subwoofers? I want the hairs on my ass to stand on end when Geddy Lee and Mike Rutherford hit those bass pedals. Is such a thing possible?
    Those Taurus pedals go down to 20Hz. However, the lower bass is determined by the speakers and the amplifier. Are your speakers 4 ohm? Any way the impedance can dip down and some amplifiers arenít really reaching 30Hz With much energy. I have 2 subwoofers built in to two heavy towers. The subwoofer amplifier take the load off of the main speakers.
    On the verge of indecision
    I'll always take the roundabout way

  13. #2538
    FYI, this is my local audio dealer, Ken Christianson, and his True Stereo techniques...

    http://truestereo.net/?p=aboutKen
    "Always ready with the ray of sunshine"

  14. #2539
    Member BobM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Ponte Vedra, FL
    Posts
    566
    Here's something for discussion. Do any of you buy into the demagnitizing thing on CD's or vinyl records?

    Logically and scientifically it makes no sense, since neither of these things can hold a magnetic charge. Yes, I bought a cheap bulk eraser off of ebay and tried it on both mediums with no discernible difference to my ears. I now have a rather ugly paperweight, but it only cost me like $15. However, some people think it makes sense and there are (of course) audiophile grade ones that cost audiophile grade money.

    Anyone actually had any positive experience with this? (please let's not get into a pissing contest on this being a truly stupid thing because there are somethings in audio that make no sense to an engineer but are audible to some people on some systems)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A gentleman is defined as someone who knows how to play the accordion, and doesn't.

  15. #2540
    Member LASERCD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Voorhees, NJ
    Posts
    360
    Quote Originally Posted by BobM View Post
    Here's something for discussion. Do any of you buy into the demagnitizing thing on CD's or vinyl records?

    Logically and scientifically it makes no sense, since neither of these things can hold a magnetic charge. Yes, I bought a cheap bulk eraser off of ebay and tried it on both mediums with no discernible difference to my ears. I now have a rather ugly paperweight, but it only cost me like $15. However, some people think it makes sense and there are (of course) audiophile grade ones that cost audiophile grade money.

    Anyone actually had any positive experience with this? (please let's not get into a pissing contest on this being a truly stupid thing because there are somethings in audio that make no sense to an engineer but are audible to some people on some systems)
    I believe Furutech makes a record demagnetizer. Supposed to have some effect on the carbon in black vinyl. I was at Michael Fremerís place. He has one and was part of his cleaning/playback regimen. We didnít do an A/B so I canít tell you if it actually did anything. Michael seemed to think so.

  16. #2541
    Member Zeuhlmate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    Posts
    4,957
    Iris Flow headphones

    Looks interesting !
    Anybody heard them?

    https://www.whathifi.com/features/li...low-headphones

  17. #2542

  18. #2543
    Man of repute progmatist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Mesa, Arizona
    Posts
    1,895
    I converted a pair of Tascam TH-200X into balanced headphones, to use with my Fiio X3 Mark III player. I replaced the standard 3 conductor cable with a 4 conductor. Then separated the wire from each driver, formerly connected to common ground. Those wires became L- and R-. The only issue is the impedance of the drivers is higher than typically found in balanced headphones. But that turns out to be a feature, not a bug. The higher impedance reduces output power, which alleviates the biggest drawback of balanced headphones in general: increased perceivable distortion. Overall, they sound fantastic, and at a tiny fraction of the cost of true balanced headphones.
    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"--Dalai Lama

  19. #2544
    Member moecurlythanu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The Planet Lovetron
    Posts
    7,796
    I skimmed through a large portion of this thread earlier today, looking for some discussion about record cleaning units, which I had recalled being discussed. I didn't find anything, which means it is likely in one of the myriad vinyl/analog/digital threads. Yep, needle in a haystack. One system was touted as better than the cleaning units that use the liquid/vacuum technique, and I recall Ken commenting on it, but I don't remember the name. (Long shot) Does anyone recall which thread that discussion was in, and/or what the name of that type of unit is? Recommendations for brands/models? Thanks if you can help.
    He did not know that the sword he'd hold, would turn his priceless empire into fool's gold...

    http://www.discogs.com/user/moecurlythanu/collection

  20. #2545
    Member Zeuhlmate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    Posts
    4,957
    Quote Originally Posted by moecurlythanu View Post
    I skimmed through a large portion of this thread earlier today, looking for some discussion about record cleaning units, which I had recalled being discussed. I didn't find anything, which means it is likely in one of the myriad vinyl/analog/digital threads. Yep, needle in a haystack. One system was touted as better than the cleaning units that use the liquid/vacuum technique, and I recall Ken commenting on it, but I don't remember the name. (Long shot) Does anyone recall which thread that discussion was in, and/or what the name of that type of unit is? Recommendations for brands/models? Thanks if you can help.
    I have earlier written what works fine, is doing it by hand with a fine but not too soft brush, in warm (not hot) soft water (no calcium, check your region, perhaps the tap water is fine) and with 1 drop of dishwasher soap in (lets say) 5 liters.
    I doesn't have to be more sofisticated than that.

  21. #2546
    Member Jerjo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    small town in ND
    Posts
    4,596
    I can just hear my wife saying "Oh, HELL NO".

    I remember someone on PE got a new record cleaner and Carlberg was casting his usual shade on it. They went back and forth, with RC ending up sending a couple discs. He was astonished at how much better it sounded. But damned if I remember if it was in this thread or a different one.
    I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down.'- Bob Newhart

  22. #2547
    Member LASERCD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Voorhees, NJ
    Posts
    360
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerjo View Post
    I can just hear my wife saying "Oh, HELL NO".

    I remember someone on PE got a new record cleaner and Carlberg was casting his usual shade on it. They went back and forth, with RC ending up sending a couple discs. He was astonished at how much better it sounded. But damned if I remember if it was in this thread or a different one.
    I think it was this thread. Mike Prete used his ultra-sonic record cleaner gratis.

  23. #2548
    Member LASERCD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Voorhees, NJ
    Posts
    360
    Quote Originally Posted by moecurlythanu View Post
    I skimmed through a large portion of this thread earlier today, looking for some discussion about record cleaning units, which I had recalled being discussed. I didn't find anything, which means it is likely in one of the myriad vinyl/analog/digital threads. Yep, needle in a haystack. One system was touted as better than the cleaning units that use the liquid/vacuum technique, and I recall Ken commenting on it, but I don't remember the name. (Long shot) Does anyone recall which thread that discussion was in, and/or what the name of that type of unit is? Recommendations for brands/models? Thanks if you can help.
    In general ultra-sonic record cleaners do a better job than the old fashioned (but still effective) liquid/vacuum cleaners. The better ultra-sonic cleaners on the market are made by Audio Desk (made in Germany) and Degritter (new kids on the block made in Estonia). There are other DIY versions that are inexpensive, very good, extremely time consuming.

  24. #2549
    Member moecurlythanu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The Planet Lovetron
    Posts
    7,796
    Quote Originally Posted by LASERCD View Post
    In general ultra-sonic record cleaners do a better job than the old fashioned (but still effective) liquid/vacuum cleaners. The better ultra-sonic cleaners on the market are made by Audio Desk (made in Germany) and Degritter (new kids on the block made in Estonia). There are other DIY versions that are inexpensive, very good, extremely time consuming.
    I'm pretty sure that's what I am looking for. Thanks, Ken, I'll do some research on those manufacturers. One question: I already have a VPI. In your opinion, does an ultra-sonic provide significantly better results than a VPI, or am I just as well waiting to upgrade until it craps out. I'm asking you because I trust your opinion, understanding that this is somewhat subjective.
    He did not know that the sword he'd hold, would turn his priceless empire into fool's gold...

    http://www.discogs.com/user/moecurlythanu/collection

  25. #2550
    Member LASERCD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Voorhees, NJ
    Posts
    360
    Quote Originally Posted by moecurlythanu View Post
    I'm pretty sure that's what I am looking for. Thanks, Ken, I'll do some research on those manufacturers. One question: I already have a VPI. In your opinion, does an ultra-sonic provide significantly better results than a VPI, or am I just as well waiting to upgrade until it craps out. I'm asking you because I trust your opinion, understanding that this is somewhat subjective.
    I had a VPI 16.5 for about 25 years. Eventually it shit the bed and I bought a 17 as a replacement. Both do a fine job of cleaning. Ultrasonic cleaning does provide significantly better results. The most obvious result is it lowers the noise floor. I still use the VPI 17 as a preclean for really dirty albums to remove the obvious visible schmutz. My preference is to use Audio Intelligent No. 15 enzymatic cleaner. I will then pop the album into the Audio Desk Pro for a deep ultrasonic clean.

    If you can afford it I recommend it. You will hear the difference right away.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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