I would sooner purchase quantum cables made by the Legendary Stardust Cowboy based on technology he acquired while abducted on a Gemini spaceship than lend credence to the Roswell incident being the recovery of an extraterrestrial craft.
YouTube
Actually, come to think about it I’d feel much better purchasing a quantum device from The Legendary Stardust Cowboy than Bybee, et al.
Emery Blagdon being a notable exception that comes to mind.
Emery Blagdon and His Healing Machine | netnebraska.org
Both alternatives would have about the same level of proven utility as any other option previously presented here, with about twice as much entertainment value. Also likely a better long term investment / better resale value.
Last edited:
One of my favourite books!
When I was a kid my dad worked on aircraft in the Royal Canadian Navy by day, but was a self-taught jeweller after work. Large diameter silver wire was a lot cheaper than the fine stuff, and you can draw it to whatever diameter you want. So dad got a drawplate, and in the basement of our bungalow there was a hallway about 30 feet long, with a doorway at one end. I would hold the drawplate braced against the door jamb while he pulled the wire through a series of smaller holes. The hallway wasn't long enough.
This is confusing.
First pressing of classical albums = garbage usually.
First pressings of rock = the best usually.
Where you totally lost me is claiming that the MOFI trash sounds good... Analog Productions maybe, but MOFI? While I certainly think many people here are missing out on how some things sound, driven by ego's for numbers... this makes it pretty much impossible to really try and think your subjective claims have merit. IMO anyone that thinks MOFI sounds good has a beginner, less mature system. Sadly that's countless audiophiles... but whatever, they're having fun.
Not all tastes are on the decline. Food options are aggressively going away from the trash the baby-boomers want us to eat (I was born in 80's as well). But certainly a lot of them are in decline. We have moved passed the post-modern era.... people just can't understand that yet.
Mobile Fidelity used to make a number of quality vinyl albums that were usually better than the commercial pressings, at least when I was still working with them. In fact, I made two 30ips/2tr/1/2" for them, one for recording or making quality copies of master tapes from other studios, the other was playback only with a special lead pickup that could eliminate any digital time delay from being added. They did their best in the late 70's into the early '80's before digital came on the scene. I can't speak for them in more recent years, when the principal people had died or went away, and others took over.
Name a good album by MOFI. I haven't come across one yet.
Maybe it's somewhat fair to say they could recover an album from the brink of unlistenable, but in general they sound flat, really flat. I would describe them as compensating for equipment problems. They tend to make fatiguing systems more tolerable and extra "airniess". But they don't sound like real music at all.
An album I recently listened to that is still shocking to be a contemporary album because it actually sounds good and is pop... Ryan Adams - Heartbreaker (CD, dunno if vinyl is good). Even in my car it goes from quiet to loud with real dynamics, and the instruments resemble the character of something real. I cannot recommend any of his other albums, yet. Also the album has some obvious liberties taken that make it so you know it's a studio, not live, album. Yet it's still a good measure for how nice a post 70's album can sound. It just makes you wonder, if it's good in the car or stereo, wtf is everyone doing to screw sound up so bad?
Maybe it's somewhat fair to say they could recover an album from the brink of unlistenable, but in general they sound flat, really flat. I would describe them as compensating for equipment problems. They tend to make fatiguing systems more tolerable and extra "airniess". But they don't sound like real music at all.
An album I recently listened to that is still shocking to be a contemporary album because it actually sounds good and is pop... Ryan Adams - Heartbreaker (CD, dunno if vinyl is good). Even in my car it goes from quiet to loud with real dynamics, and the instruments resemble the character of something real. I cannot recommend any of his other albums, yet. Also the album has some obvious liberties taken that make it so you know it's a studio, not live, album. Yet it's still a good measure for how nice a post 70's album can sound. It just makes you wonder, if it's good in the car or stereo, wtf is everyone doing to screw sound up so bad?
Yes, "Il pendolo di Foucault", one of few books I forced myself to read in Italian.
I like 'collins, cray, copeland : Showdown' re-issue, but I do not have the original to compare. I certainly would not have paid list for a gold version of a std cd. I only have a couple of the original master recordings which both sound very good. One is deliciously pointless (Jean michelle Jarre Oxygene) and another is contentious (supertramp) as they did not use the same EQ settings as the original mastering so it is neither 'original master' nor the mix the band signed off.
However neither sound contrived to impress audiophiles, unlike the sheffield track record.
Music in the Round #91: Parasound Halo A 52+ | Stereophile.com
Just to remind people that JCs real world designs with no flooby in review exceeding well.
Just to remind people that JCs real world designs with no flooby in review exceeding well.
What's with the first Watt THD? Is that an artifact of the measurement?
Parasound Halo A 52+ Amplifier Review | Sound & Vision
I ask because I saw some data elsewhere on doing THD (no noise) down to sub milli-Watts with some interesting data.
Last edited:
Any reproduction approach that does not use the exact same environmental conditions as the production facility would in that sense imo count as being not "reproduction", wouldn´t it? (*)
If a listener insists a "reproduction" with your "10% H1" is by his perception more like "the real thing" it´s hard to dispute, i think.....
(*) we even can dispute if using the exact same environment would be sufficient if the other listener´s hearing/brain tag team doesn´t work exactly like the recording/mix engineer`s one does.
As stated the last time, i´m often more interested in records that follow the "real thing" similarity concept, but i have to accept that there are a lot of people that don´t agree to that.
In our last discussion, i´ve cited at least two other viewpoints and as those are maintained by people that are actually producing the recorded content it obviously doesn´t work (always) the way i´d like.
Afair i cited that already within the first public demonstration in the 1930s the conductor Stokowski was attracted by the possibility to "enhance" the "real thing" during broadcasting to make it "better than life" .
Later, as for example pointed it out in lectures by Jeckling, other composers and conductors advocated for articial enhancement during recording/production to compensate for the missing visual effect.
As a listener you often don´t know about the specific approach used for the record.
I wouldn´t dispute that, but i´m often puzzled by the assertion that a specific reproduction choice _has_ to be marked as "nonreproduction" (insisting at least implicitely that only one correct way of reproduction for every listener exists) .
In our lossy reproducted version of reality we strongly rely on the abilities of the listener´s brain to fill anything that in reality is missing in attempting to create a perception that is consistent with our learned experience.
This process (and the cues needed to trigger it in a sufficinet way) is imo most likely different for different individuals, although certain features are commonly shared.
Now we're not even talking two channels. I've heard 100% acoustic recordings (whole orchestra huddled around huge horns). No sound of capacitors there.
For a minute I thought you were saying that it was like one of Nelson's designs. I see what you mean. Odd.
I know it's unusual to plot power on a linear scale, but the numbers still don't add up for (I assume from their comment about class A-A/B) class A operation at low power. It's possible they ran the test "cold" without even a warm-up, maybe JC can comment.
Apart those involved in "classical music" (and even for those, it is less and less obvious since they use multitracks recordings) near all sound engineers will disagree with this, since "Pet sounds" of the beach Boys, and "Sergent Pepper" from the beatles.
Studio work is a part of the creation, the "real thing" does not exist any more, and most of the time, what is on the tape after mixing is totally different from anything "acoustic". and most of the time, hundred times better ;-)
Even live performances, nowadays, use many of the studio techniques to *produce* music. Compression (sometime used to *increase* micro dynamic) Flanges, Delays and artificial reverbs, Harmonizers, synthesizers, High Q equalizers, noise gates etc... Even guitarists use lot of them in the pedals and amplifiers accessories to produce their "original" live sound. The distortion, sustain and larsen of the guitar amp being the base of everything.
That's R&R, man.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.