I used to have a basic cassette player in my car, hooked up to a cheap amp and some dodgy speakers in the back shelf.
I used to play copied tapes (sometimes copy of a copy!) and enjoyed the music then as much as I do now, sometimes even more so.
It was always slightly dissappointing to buy the CD version of some ancient tape that had been played for years.
I think music is an extension of the emotions, hence all you have to do is listen and let the music move you! Fidelity is a distant second.
So yes, I think low fi is all good. Except when it claims to be hi-fi!
I used to play copied tapes (sometimes copy of a copy!) and enjoyed the music then as much as I do now, sometimes even more so.
It was always slightly dissappointing to buy the CD version of some ancient tape that had been played for years.
I think music is an extension of the emotions, hence all you have to do is listen and let the music move you! Fidelity is a distant second.
So yes, I think low fi is all good. Except when it claims to be hi-fi!
Frame of mind
I find it's down to my frame of mind at the time. When I sit down to listen my my "proper" system, I expect it to sound pretty good, and it usually does. Conversely, when I listen to my 1970s B&O tranny radio in the workshop, I relax my expectations.
Many years ago, when I was a student, I was temporarily in a particularly relaxed frame of mind (almost horizontal) and thought that the sound of a ghastly mono record player (with crystal cartridge) was better than my Garrard 301/Decca Gold. Normality was restored the next day, but it taught me that values are not absolute and that anything sounds great after a few spliffs. (Except car radios.)
However, as mentioned in a previous post, it's easier to listen to new music on a good system than a bad one.
I find it's down to my frame of mind at the time. When I sit down to listen my my "proper" system, I expect it to sound pretty good, and it usually does. Conversely, when I listen to my 1970s B&O tranny radio in the workshop, I relax my expectations.
Many years ago, when I was a student, I was temporarily in a particularly relaxed frame of mind (almost horizontal) and thought that the sound of a ghastly mono record player (with crystal cartridge) was better than my Garrard 301/Decca Gold. Normality was restored the next day, but it taught me that values are not absolute and that anything sounds great after a few spliffs. (Except car radios.)
However, as mentioned in a previous post, it's easier to listen to new music on a good system than a bad one.
Originally posted by e96mlo
"Anyone recognize that?"
==========================================
I do, I do. I would go one step further and rephrase the quote as:
"Anyone that does not recognize that?"
The sad thing is, that medical science can not heal us from the "ourownaudioequipmentperfectomania"
Regards
George
"Anyone recognize that?"
==========================================
I do, I do. I would go one step further and rephrase the quote as:
"Anyone that does not recognize that?"
The sad thing is, that medical science can not heal us from the "ourownaudioequipmentperfectomania"
Regards
George
Absolutely NOT
You can NOT enjoy music on anything but the most expensive system available. It MUST include some wood pucks scattered about the room, some heavy pieces of stone, a few bottles of magic gravel in specially made glass bottles, hospital grade cryogenically treated single crystal silver shielded power cords, solid silver 0 ga. speaker cables with 24 kt gold lugs and teflon dielectric, a special clamp-type rack for "resonance control", a generous number of vacuum tubes (NOS, from the right manufacturers, of course), power regenerators, green pens, blue LEDs, and lets not forget the most important contributor to the sound quality, tons and tons of very expensively polished metal work.
Don't worry, you can have EXACTLY what you want, exactly when you want it. All you have to do is open your wallet and your head.
MR
You can NOT enjoy music on anything but the most expensive system available. It MUST include some wood pucks scattered about the room, some heavy pieces of stone, a few bottles of magic gravel in specially made glass bottles, hospital grade cryogenically treated single crystal silver shielded power cords, solid silver 0 ga. speaker cables with 24 kt gold lugs and teflon dielectric, a special clamp-type rack for "resonance control", a generous number of vacuum tubes (NOS, from the right manufacturers, of course), power regenerators, green pens, blue LEDs, and lets not forget the most important contributor to the sound quality, tons and tons of very expensively polished metal work.
Don't worry, you can have EXACTLY what you want, exactly when you want it. All you have to do is open your wallet and your head.
MR
TubeOMatic??
Let's not forget some of those big earmuff thingies I read about years ago in Stereophile!
I still have an uncontrollable urge to laugh when those "magic" devices were purported to be the ultimate solution to audio nirvana.
Could you imagine a couple of clients visiting the showroom, sporting big reflectors on their heads?
Hehehehehe
Let's not forget some of those big earmuff thingies I read about years ago in Stereophile!
I still have an uncontrollable urge to laugh when those "magic" devices were purported to be the ultimate solution to audio nirvana.
Could you imagine a couple of clients visiting the showroom, sporting big reflectors on their heads?
Hehehehehe
hello old boy
Peter!
I agree with your thoughts about which system is currently operating. At the moment, I'm listening to a bit of ambient music (epitonic.com)...on crappy mass-market PC speakers...and the source is a humble mp3 stream.
The fidelity is better than an old 8-transistor AM radio, but the pleasant company of the music is what it's all about.
On the other side of this coin, if I would listen to the source CD of this recording on a proper system, the experience would be entirely different.
A similar comparison would be a digital camera snapshot of the view of the ocean here: yes, the image resembles reality, but if I take the time to shoot the same image with my trusty Hasselblad, the resulting image is far closer to the real thing. The process is more costly, and takes more time, just like the DIY process we all share.
At least the maker of these wee speakers isn't trying to convince me that the resulting sound is audio nirvana...nor are they offering convenient financing for their product...hehehehehe.
Bob
Peter!
I agree with your thoughts about which system is currently operating. At the moment, I'm listening to a bit of ambient music (epitonic.com)...on crappy mass-market PC speakers...and the source is a humble mp3 stream.
The fidelity is better than an old 8-transistor AM radio, but the pleasant company of the music is what it's all about.
On the other side of this coin, if I would listen to the source CD of this recording on a proper system, the experience would be entirely different.
A similar comparison would be a digital camera snapshot of the view of the ocean here: yes, the image resembles reality, but if I take the time to shoot the same image with my trusty Hasselblad, the resulting image is far closer to the real thing. The process is more costly, and takes more time, just like the DIY process we all share.
At least the maker of these wee speakers isn't trying to convince me that the resulting sound is audio nirvana...nor are they offering convenient financing for their product...hehehehehe.
Bob
d i g i t a l
Hey Frank,
All I have to say is:
01000110010100110011001110011010101101100110101010
01100111100101110110101100101011110010010100100100
01010010010010010011101000100101001101010100101001
Wow! Such color and resolution!
hehe
Here we are 25 years later...and disc photography (remember those little cameras with film cartridges like View Master discs?) has yet to be surpassed in terms of image quality...at least when it comes to digital. The baseline resolution is getting better, as more pixels appear (and memory requirements grow).
Though I must agree digital is quite useful for photojournalism.
Hey Frank,
All I have to say is:
01000110010100110011001110011010101101100110101010
01100111100101110110101100101011110010010100100100
01010010010010010011101000100101001101010100101001
Wow! Such color and resolution!
hehe
Here we are 25 years later...and disc photography (remember those little cameras with film cartridges like View Master discs?) has yet to be surpassed in terms of image quality...at least when it comes to digital. The baseline resolution is getting better, as more pixels appear (and memory requirements grow).
Though I must agree digital is quite useful for photojournalism.
Re: Re: Re: DIGITAL.
2 of them on the way to build the prototype camera for HD3D for making 3D films. The price for these is plumeting. $1M 2-3 years ago, you can buy the budget Panasonic for under $35k now. Prices will keep dropping. 4 or 5 years from now they will represent your basic consumer digicam.
This unit represents the high end, but the low-end is now less than $1k and we have kids with their iMacs & their parents digital camcorders producing serious movies.
dave
grataku said:
2 of them on the way to build the prototype camera for HD3D for making 3D films. The price for these is plumeting. $1M 2-3 years ago, you can buy the budget Panasonic for under $35k now. Prices will keep dropping. 4 or 5 years from now they will represent your basic consumer digicam.
This unit represents the high end, but the low-end is now less than $1k and we have kids with their iMacs & their parents digital camcorders producing serious movies.
dave
flat response?
what is flat response? flat to ears? flat to an oscillopscope?
most systems i hear today (being called upon to help various friends choose components I ge to do quit a bit of listening) are desgined to impress. This includes some brands that most would consider "audiophile".
Then in the interest in protecting the way these systems sound (usually what I wold consider an over extended HF response) the manufacturers claim that they are trying to attain a flat frequency response. It leads me to believe that we do not really need a flat frequency response, over a long term such response can be actually irritating to the ear, and that most ochestras and other forms of non amplified music (this includes pianos, triangles, piccolos, and musical instruments that are capable of some very high frequencies) do no need a ruler flat response to 20+ kHz to be enjoyed.
The only yardstick to judge a system I can find is live music played in a preferably non amplified enviroment.
what is flat response? flat to ears? flat to an oscillopscope?
most systems i hear today (being called upon to help various friends choose components I ge to do quit a bit of listening) are desgined to impress. This includes some brands that most would consider "audiophile".
Then in the interest in protecting the way these systems sound (usually what I wold consider an over extended HF response) the manufacturers claim that they are trying to attain a flat frequency response. It leads me to believe that we do not really need a flat frequency response, over a long term such response can be actually irritating to the ear, and that most ochestras and other forms of non amplified music (this includes pianos, triangles, piccolos, and musical instruments that are capable of some very high frequencies) do no need a ruler flat response to 20+ kHz to be enjoyed.
The only yardstick to judge a system I can find is live music played in a preferably non amplified enviroment.
Digits vs emulsion
I bought a digital camera recently, and I'm really glad I didn't trade in my real camera to help pay for it. Yes, it's convenient, and I get instant feedback as to whether the shot worked, but then, I need it because it's a whole lot less forgiving than film. Goodness only knows what my comments would be if I had a Hasselblad rather than a Nikon.
I bought a digital camera recently, and I'm really glad I didn't trade in my real camera to help pay for it. Yes, it's convenient, and I get instant feedback as to whether the shot worked, but then, I need it because it's a whole lot less forgiving than film. Goodness only knows what my comments would be if I had a Hasselblad rather than a Nikon.
Re: Digits vs emulsion
Consumer digital cameras are way behind their analog counterparts in quality terms (hmmm ... a parallel) and are good mostly for web resolution. They are real picky about the light, and not very good at motion capture.
Even the big buck digital cameras won't go head-to-head with the big-bucks analog cameras.
In movies the score is a little different (particularily in 3D). Things like digital compositing with digital effects, higher temporal resolution, and no wear on the prints are leading quality factors. Cost factors are major too, where the time to feedback can be a huge cost saver, and the cost of storage media (something like a 1000:1)
An original 70mm analog print will smoke any digital movie (except for 3D), but that is like having a collection of original master tapes for your hifi... it just aint gonna happen (very often).
dave
EC8010 said:
Consumer digital cameras are way behind their analog counterparts in quality terms (hmmm ... a parallel
) and are good mostly for web resolution. They are real picky about the light, and not very good at motion capture.Even the big buck digital cameras won't go head-to-head with the big-bucks analog cameras.
In movies the score is a little different (particularily in 3D). Things like digital compositing with digital effects, higher temporal resolution, and no wear on the prints are leading quality factors. Cost factors are major too, where the time to feedback can be a huge cost saver, and the cost of storage media (something like a 1000:1)
An original 70mm analog print will smoke any digital movie (except for 3D), but that is like having a collection of original master tapes for your hifi... it just aint gonna happen (very often).
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.