Enough. Whatever draws you here, it's not an honest discussion of equipment interfacing. Enjoy.
Hi [name withheld],
Not sure what your point is here, but it seems you mix up nostalgia with realism.
jan didden
You lost me on that one. I'm agreeing with you on the superiority of the best of modern recordings. Now, when you even disagree with your own opinion on the basis of who agrees with them.....
A reasonable good system should be much better than a "forget electronics" system.
It wasn't meant as a 'serious' remark although I've learned that many good recordings sound stupid on a lesser system and recordings that may sound good on a 'poor' system can sometimes sound disappointing on a good system. Since I started modifying my CDP, I was surprised many times by new sounds on a known CD that I've never heard before. I got two of the same players, one still standard, the modified one make the the music 'come alive' like it is happening there in front of you, the other one sound like... hi-fi.
I don't think this is the right thread for that, start one with your views and experiences on the subject and I might just share my ideas.
A reasonable good system should be much better than a "forget electronics" system.
First I would say "that's ridiculous", but then "should be"? Maybe it "should be", but that's not always the case. I have proven to scores of listeners that if the speakers and the room are right, the electronics - cables included - need only be competent. Anything more is just a waste.
I would say that most are aware of this.But the use of word "even...." to me means that you also accept that the same good recording on a better system,will sound better than will on a "reasonably good" one.Besides how can a "reasonably good system" be enough in this world of "perfect"electronics
Problem still remains though.How many of these good recording's content is actually to our liking?We just can't have the luxury to ignore older recordings with superb content.Don't let 50-100 of good modern recordings turn you into an "audiophool" just because they sound good.As far as I'm concearned,I just can't live without great part of my 3000 LP's,old and new albums,mostly old actually.
Last edited:
interfacing inept equipment with defective interconnects.... maybe
I'll put my interface up against yours: floating balanced low impedance secondary. No ground loops, no multiple return paths, who knew a good tranny could work so well?
You lost me on that one. I'm agreeing with you on the superiority of the best of modern recordings. Now, when you even disagree with your own opinion on the basis of who agrees with them.....
Hi [name withheld],
As I said, not sure what your point is. If there is one.
But I keep looking
jd
I would say that most are aware of this.But the use of word "even...." to me means that you also accept that the same good recording on a better system,will sound better than will on a "reasonably good" one.Besides how can a "reasonably good system" be enough in this world of "perfect"electronics
Problem still remains though.How many of these good recording's content is actually to our liking?We just can't have the luxury to ignore older recordings with superb content.Don't let 50-100 of good modern recordings turn you into an "audiophool" just because they sound good.As far as I'm concearned,I just can't live without great part of my 3000 LP's,old and new albums,mostly old actually.
You're mixing up my point with I don't know what.
Point: with reasonbly good electronics (and that's not 'perfect electronics') it's the recording that makes the difference. CD, LP, you name it.
Logical conclusion: improving that reasonbly good system to perfect electronics doesn't nearly make such a difference as selecting a great recording.
Are you in for the electronics or for the music?
jd
I tried to see where I said anything different,and I think I didn't.I have also answered your question,certainly for the music,and in fact to the point where recording is not so important as the music itself anymore.
In my previous post,I have not said or mixed "reasonably good" system with "perfect" electronics,but I think you did.
As for music,music is music no matter how good the recording is.If good music is well recorded too,even better.
Last edited:
You're not aware that some of the most revered recordings of the past were made with rather sibilant models of ribbon mic? Sorry, I can sometimes overestimate the knowledge base here.
The odd thing is that whenever someone asks on a recording forum I'm on which mics produce the LEAST sibilance the answer is always "A ribbon mic, preferably vintage!".
Also gels with my own experience.
From Pro audio review of the Royer R 121: "Due to their design, ribbon microphones are the least sibilance-susceptible (say that 10 times fast into a condenser mic) microphone design. Since the band’s singer has a significant sibilance problem, the Royer ribbon was clearly the microphone of choice. When recording the vocals, I found myself adding more high-end than usual. This was of course due to the darker (as compared to condenser mics) sound of the Royer. Vocals are more susceptible to pops with a ribbon microphone than with a condenser or dynamic mic."
Royer R-121 - Pro Audio Review | recording hacks
Or you could try reading through this (btw the AEA R84 is a modern copy of the lovely RCA you linked to, both of which are the first port of call when faced with a sibilance-prone vocalist):
Ribbon Mics On Test
Royer R-121 - Pro Audio Review | recording hacks
Or you could try reading through this (btw the AEA R84 is a modern copy of the lovely RCA you linked to, both of which are the first port of call when faced with a sibilance-prone vocalist):
Ribbon Mics On Test
I do understand perfectly well, do you understand the difference between ribbon and other mics?
The clue is in the first sentence btw.
The second link, if you had read it, would have shown you that AEAs copy of the RCA 77 proved to be the one with the least treble response of all 14 mics tested. As such it is even less likely to produce sibilance than other ribbons even.
Vintage ribbons change hands for staggering amounts of money in this digital age BECAUSE they are so sibilant free.
If you hear sibilance on old records the RCA ribbon is certainly not the reason.
The clue is in the first sentence btw.
The second link, if you had read it, would have shown you that AEAs copy of the RCA 77 proved to be the one with the least treble response of all 14 mics tested. As such it is even less likely to produce sibilance than other ribbons even.
Vintage ribbons change hands for staggering amounts of money in this digital age BECAUSE they are so sibilant free.
If you hear sibilance on old records the RCA ribbon is certainly not the reason.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.