not sure how you got from what I said to that. it doesnt sound relevant, not sure if you understood the process I was explaining about, it would never be used on anything with ambient HF background, its primarily a midi or post production technique. I was talking about my process, why I use it and why this technique is used in general.
You were describing some ways to add desired effects here
You may apply these effects only on your experiments.
I expanded on that, as others use such and other effects in commercial musical releases, no?
(the ambient HF background is the easiest to be tested for artificiality through a multiband spectrum meter).
George
You may apply these effects only on your experiments.
I expanded on that, as others use such and other effects in commercial musical releases, no?
(the ambient HF background is the easiest to be tested for artificiality through a multiband spectrum meter).
George
Let's talk about phono cartridges and headphones for a moment:
My associates and I normally use phono cartridges that cost between $1000 and $5000. Sometimes we get 'rebuilt' cartridges to save money.
Now, what does a 'quality' (meaning expensive) phono cartridge give you?
Well, first, I do believe that the vast majority of hi end phono cartridges are overpriced.
This started in the 1970's when importers started raising prices out of proportion to the factory cost, and today it is just as bad, or even worse.
However, it is NECESSARY to have a really good phono cartridge, as well as a quality tonearm and turntable, to get what a vinyl record can really resolve.
If you have settled for an inexpensive Grado or Shure cartridge, you will NOT get the resolution of an MC cartridge, that, unfortunately, is priced at $500 and up. That is WHY we invest in expensive phono cartridges. We know the difference.
Now, what about headphones?
They too, have a big difference between the 'landed' vs the ultimate consumer price, and somebody, somewhere, is making a lot of money importing them.
However, IF you do not invest at least $1000 into your headphones, you, once again, will be limited in resolvability, and different IC combinations may all sound basically the same. So how can you make any judgement at all, if you use components that lack in resolvability? Yet, many here seem to do so.
Now, how do I know that this is so?
I have listened to both phono cartridges and headphones for over 50 years, and to some of today's representative models fairly recently. You can do it too, but it will NOT be cheap. '-)
My associates and I normally use phono cartridges that cost between $1000 and $5000. Sometimes we get 'rebuilt' cartridges to save money.
Now, what does a 'quality' (meaning expensive) phono cartridge give you?
Well, first, I do believe that the vast majority of hi end phono cartridges are overpriced.
This started in the 1970's when importers started raising prices out of proportion to the factory cost, and today it is just as bad, or even worse.
However, it is NECESSARY to have a really good phono cartridge, as well as a quality tonearm and turntable, to get what a vinyl record can really resolve.
If you have settled for an inexpensive Grado or Shure cartridge, you will NOT get the resolution of an MC cartridge, that, unfortunately, is priced at $500 and up. That is WHY we invest in expensive phono cartridges. We know the difference.
Now, what about headphones?
They too, have a big difference between the 'landed' vs the ultimate consumer price, and somebody, somewhere, is making a lot of money importing them.
However, IF you do not invest at least $1000 into your headphones, you, once again, will be limited in resolvability, and different IC combinations may all sound basically the same. So how can you make any judgement at all, if you use components that lack in resolvability? Yet, many here seem to do so.
Now, how do I know that this is so?
I have listened to both phono cartridges and headphones for over 50 years, and to some of today's representative models fairly recently. You can do it too, but it will NOT be cheap. '-)
Jan, are you suggesting that we respond to musical sounds the same as we'd respond to nonmusical or aversive sounds? In fact the brain turns up the central auditory gain for some sounds we have a natural aversion ( or dislike ) to.
There is also more research providing evidence to support this fact:
Nasty noises: Why do we recoil at unpleasant sounds? - Press Office - Newcastle University
No, I don't imply that, actually I'd be surprised if we did.
This is fully in line with much other (earlier) research and again shows that there is a BIG difference between hearing (the vibrations that impinge on the tympany) and perception (what we confess to hear).
Sounds themselves cannot be pleasant or unpleasant - they're just air vibrations. Music itself cannot be pleasant or unpleasant - it's just vibrations. The pleasantness or otherwise is an attribute that is attached by the brain, and, in addition to some innate factors, a result of many external factors, experiences, cultural background, expectations, what have you.
I'm willing to bet that the findings in this paper are directly traceable to evolutionary advantages.
jan
Last edited:
Thank you for your detailed explanation. Now, that lowest price limit makes sense to all us amateurs.
George
ahh OK, it wouldnt usually be added to anything with ambient background, if it was used on a recording that had some, rather than a single solo instrument or sampled instrument track, you would probably gate the background sounds out first to avoid highlighting it. its a purely artistic technique, you wouldnt often use it on anything live.
Jan, the situation is this: I barely know any cartridge manufacturers, and I barely have gotten along, over the years, with any cartridge importers.
I don't like the 'mark-ups' either.
BUT experience has taught me that MC cartridges, like sports cars, give the best performance, even if it is slightly uncomfortable.
So when somebody who drives the equivalent of a 'family sedan' and can't easily tell the difference in tires, I would blame that on the automobile, and when Scott can't hear the difference between pure analog and the same analog + an AD-DA converter, then I will blame it FIRST on the phono cartridge.
You see, after the firestorm destroyed my hi fi, somebody gave me a good turntable and arm (SAE) but no cartridge. SO, I decided after decades, yes more than 20 years not listening to a MM cartridge, I elected to buy a GRADO cartridge for myself.
Now at first glance, and even with the specs, there seems to be little difference, but when I more closely inspected it, I found that the stylus seemed extra large, compared the the MC's that I was used to.
However, I wanted vinyl, so I used it for awhile. I got a few of my favorite records from a used vinyl store, and sat back and listened, being hungry for something more than the TV or a portable radio. At first, it was OK, more or less, but it 'nagged' me that I just did NOT get the resolution that I was used to get playing the same vinyl recordings, and no amount of 'fiddling' or cleaning made any significant difference.
As soon as it was possible, I traded some work for a 'USED' MC cartridge, borrowed an SCP-2 from a friend, and I was back in business, the clarity came back. This is MY experience with the Grado cartridge.
Ancient history:
For the first 2 years of owning a hi fi system, I owned a Shure cartridge, and my (now) business partner bought one too, on my recommendation.
However, when I went to work in a hi fi store in 1965 (doing mostly repair) I discovered the Ortofon MC cartridge. It was the most expensive cartridge that we could buy at the time, perhaps $75, but it was worth it. Like most things, I could get it at cost, rather than full retail, and that allowed me to buy it. Our little hi fi store, then called Berkeley Custom Electronics, became the major Ortofon dealer in the SF Bay Area, in fact, they were that good.
Now, did we sell Ortofon cartridges to everybody? NO! We sold Shure M91 and M93 cartridges to many of or less critical customers. Why not? Low price, smooth sound, easy stylus replacement, and I then lived for a solid year listening to a hi fi system with Khorns, Mac 22 preamp, Marantz power amp, and a Shure M91E cartridge, that we had sold to the customer. It was OK, but not hi end, very forgiving.
All we had for years, was Ortofon, because patent problems kept many other cartridges out of the USA. By 1973, however, people started importing Supex, Fidelity Research, Denon, etc, we had a choice, and most of us never went back to MM.
Why? Because the MC cartridges, with suitable electronics, sounded better, clearer, and more revealing. It has always been that way, although I must say that the final Shure V15 was one of the best MM cartridges ever engineered (in my opinion), kind of like the best 'push-rod' engine, which must be out there, somewhere. This is my experience, and I stand by it.
I don't like the 'mark-ups' either.
BUT experience has taught me that MC cartridges, like sports cars, give the best performance, even if it is slightly uncomfortable.
So when somebody who drives the equivalent of a 'family sedan' and can't easily tell the difference in tires, I would blame that on the automobile, and when Scott can't hear the difference between pure analog and the same analog + an AD-DA converter, then I will blame it FIRST on the phono cartridge.
You see, after the firestorm destroyed my hi fi, somebody gave me a good turntable and arm (SAE) but no cartridge. SO, I decided after decades, yes more than 20 years not listening to a MM cartridge, I elected to buy a GRADO cartridge for myself.
Now at first glance, and even with the specs, there seems to be little difference, but when I more closely inspected it, I found that the stylus seemed extra large, compared the the MC's that I was used to.
However, I wanted vinyl, so I used it for awhile. I got a few of my favorite records from a used vinyl store, and sat back and listened, being hungry for something more than the TV or a portable radio. At first, it was OK, more or less, but it 'nagged' me that I just did NOT get the resolution that I was used to get playing the same vinyl recordings, and no amount of 'fiddling' or cleaning made any significant difference.
As soon as it was possible, I traded some work for a 'USED' MC cartridge, borrowed an SCP-2 from a friend, and I was back in business, the clarity came back. This is MY experience with the Grado cartridge.
Ancient history:
For the first 2 years of owning a hi fi system, I owned a Shure cartridge, and my (now) business partner bought one too, on my recommendation.
However, when I went to work in a hi fi store in 1965 (doing mostly repair) I discovered the Ortofon MC cartridge. It was the most expensive cartridge that we could buy at the time, perhaps $75, but it was worth it. Like most things, I could get it at cost, rather than full retail, and that allowed me to buy it. Our little hi fi store, then called Berkeley Custom Electronics, became the major Ortofon dealer in the SF Bay Area, in fact, they were that good.
Now, did we sell Ortofon cartridges to everybody? NO! We sold Shure M91 and M93 cartridges to many of or less critical customers. Why not? Low price, smooth sound, easy stylus replacement, and I then lived for a solid year listening to a hi fi system with Khorns, Mac 22 preamp, Marantz power amp, and a Shure M91E cartridge, that we had sold to the customer. It was OK, but not hi end, very forgiving.
All we had for years, was Ortofon, because patent problems kept many other cartridges out of the USA. By 1973, however, people started importing Supex, Fidelity Research, Denon, etc, we had a choice, and most of us never went back to MM.
Why? Because the MC cartridges, with suitable electronics, sounded better, clearer, and more revealing. It has always been that way, although I must say that the final Shure V15 was one of the best MM cartridges ever engineered (in my opinion), kind of like the best 'push-rod' engine, which must be out there, somewhere. This is my experience, and I stand by it.
Although not that much of a cartridge connoisseur I would heartily agree.
When Toole, at NRC, did controlled testing using a technician to switch among turntables and cartridges, the listeners were all wholly convinced that they would prefer the MC selections over any MM. Tests did not support this, particularly when the frequency responses were compensated (it didn't require much of this). Among the cartridges was a V15 of some generation.
When the results were revealed of course the electronics were blamed.
You did imply it, by stating that "I'm pretty sceptic about our ability to actually hear subtle things," based on people inability to hear a sousa band at low level.
Some sounds are much more easily masked that others. Musical sounds like a band recorded at a low level would be easy to mask I think. Sounds we have aversion to are much harder to mask, and our brain turns up the gain for.
I agree, that could be part of it. But some sounds are also just more natural that others, occur in nature and are more familiar to us. People can also habituate to sounds that many would consider very unpleasant through exposure and cognitive behavior therapy - we learn sounds.
I find that CBT is sometimes helpful when listen to some CD's that sounds a bit bright, especially if it's music I like. On first listen if it sounds bright or irritating, I'll just say "no big deal, sounds really good."
Then the next time I listen to it can sound really good. Maybe, become my favorite in sometimes. Doesn't mean it's a good recording, just means I've changed how I respond to a sound I first had a "dislike" for. I habituated to it.
Audiophiles do the very opposite of habituation!
John
Well I only noted that when you imply that only expensive cartridges are the best, then you shouldn't be surprised by the markup. You practically invite them to it ....
jan
No I most certainly did not
Johnloudb said:
I only stated that the inability to hear a sousa band below -60 made me sceptic about hearing subtle differences. That's not what you would have me imply.
jan
Last edited:
My experiences in the early days of digital audio were generally the reverse of this. My initial reaction was positive, indeed I was wondering what so many of the complaints were about. However, I noticed that the system was now being used more and more as a demonstration rather than for music listening. And fatigue began to set in earlier and earlier. I was accused by one housemate who was ecstatic about the sound that I was prejudiced against it beforehand, despite my enthusiasm at the outset being expressed quite openly and honestly. Oddly, this same person couldn't stand listening to a Mackintosh MC240 in lieu of the solid state amp, after I'd repaired one for my brother and pressed it into service for a little while.
Another savant <jk> insisted that I simply needed a much higher-power amplifier, despite it being easy to show that I wasn't clipping the existing one. He contrasted this with vinyl playback, and was so often the case, was dead wrong.
Better players and software of course were forthcoming, and I can listen happily nowadays. But it took a while.
john curl said:
$1000?
I have some Senheiser HD600 and they were at one time considered one of the best - those couldn't resolve the differences you talk about? I mean if you really have to spend that much on headphones or huge amounts of money on a system to be able to discern differences in IC's or passive components, then these differences don't really matter most people as they can't afford it gear in that price range.
Headphone prices are insane now days, and I find some well regarded phones, like my dad's AKG K701's, unpleasant because of the lean tonal balance. Detailed for sure but wouldn't want to listen to music through them.
I don't know who much audible difference, different IC's or passive components make. But I have an open mind to these differences and hear a difference. And I use high quality components in my own gear. I don't dispute your experience with the IC used in your first Parasound amp submitted to stereophile.
John
johnloudb, I won't argue with you, BUT I tried the Sennheisers, along with Grado ($500) and several other headphones up to $1000. However, I had to enlist my STAX electrostatic phones to hear the difference between two IC line stages designed by the same company. Of course, I was 70 years old when I made this comparison, perhaps if I was 25, I could use even the less expensive headphones to tell the difference. It's my job, even still, to be able to resolve differences, and I take it seriously.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.