terry j said:
SUCCESS!!
the eldest came home from a concert with a cd she purchased cause she liked the artist, and wanted to hear it 'done right' on my stereo!!
Maybe, just maybe, when the stimulus is right they will go for good sound over poorer?
enjoyed it, thanks.
Boy, old MF has reaaally got it in for digital hasn't he.
Trouble is, most of the stuff I listen to is only on digital, no way will I listen to rubbish simply because it's well recorded. And that especially applies to the oh so cool jazz rubbish you hear at 'audiophile' meetings. uugggghhh
whatcha gonna do?
I guess I listen to "audiophile pap" - 1950s bebop, swing, chamber music, latin. Heck, I'll even listen to Bartok, Stravinsky, Ravel or Debussy. Pure crap! A true Philistine.
Having spent enough years in front of the mixing console listening to bad rock, I know know pap when I hear it. Thank God for it!
But seriously. There are many types of music that I do not, or did not like until I heard them live. A great sound system can do that for me. Let me discover and enjoy music that just doesn't move me thru bad reproduction. Never as much a live, but still.
One man's pap is another man's pleasure....
Having spent enough years in front of the mixing console listening to bad rock, I know know pap when I hear it. Thank God for it!
But seriously. There are many types of music that I do not, or did not like until I heard them live. A great sound system can do that for me. Let me discover and enjoy music that just doesn't move me thru bad reproduction. Never as much a live, but still.
One man's pap is another man's pleasure....
audio-kraut said:
I'd be interested to know if these musicians are also just as happy with cheap instruments as they are with better, more expensive instruments.
With the more expensive instruments what you are paying for is the quality of sound they produce (ok, not in absolutely every case, but in general), so if sound quality is of no concern to you there is little to be gained from buying good instruments
I suppose my previous statement was worded a bit harsh bad recordings of good material are more interesting than good recordings of boring music. However there are examples where terrible recordings have made it difficult for me to get into a band others raved about. The RHCP Californication CD is so bad I stopped listening to it after a week even though I love the songs. The new Metallica is so flat, it is just noise.
As for guys like robert johnson you have to give them a pass since technology and funds were a severely limiting factor in those days and the music was quite advanced for its time.
Today's artists have no reason or excuse for crappy recordings.
Music without dynamics fails to grab me emotionally. So a bad recording of good material could go right by me.
As for guys like robert johnson you have to give them a pass since technology and funds were a severely limiting factor in those days and the music was quite advanced for its time.
Today's artists have no reason or excuse for crappy recordings.
Music without dynamics fails to grab me emotionally. So a bad recording of good material could go right by me.
I have gone through most of this and I haven't had my full attention on it - busy doing things, but I find it interesting that they don't seem to have musicians on the panel. They have people who make money in the music production industry and a couple audiophiles. How can they answer if quality is important if they don't have "Joe six pack" weighing in? I should have listened more intently and taken notes before offering an opinion, but all in all I am kind of disappointed in this. 15 minutes of content in 2.5 hours of yammering.
I'm glad to hear that there are mastering engineers that are not happy with the volume wars situation, but they don't talk much about it because they make their living in the industry and that is what their customers want. I like the fish tank waves analogy for volume compression, very effective.
They seem to claim that redbook is crap and SACD was the most wonderful thing ever to surface (it is the Sony guy, predictably, who says that) . They claim that CD chops off the high frequencies, but few vinyl albums when played back on a system have much over 22kHz either, as far as I understand. They claim the high frequencies (and square waves) are "distorted" on a CD and they aren't. They at one point talk about SACD as if it were 24/96 and it isn't. They sort of belittle people who try to rip their albums to their hard drives but only barely hint at how to do it right.
I'm glad to hear that there are mastering engineers that are not happy with the volume wars situation, but they don't talk much about it because they make their living in the industry and that is what their customers want. I like the fish tank waves analogy for volume compression, very effective.
They seem to claim that redbook is crap and SACD was the most wonderful thing ever to surface (it is the Sony guy, predictably, who says that) . They claim that CD chops off the high frequencies, but few vinyl albums when played back on a system have much over 22kHz either, as far as I understand. They claim the high frequencies (and square waves) are "distorted" on a CD and they aren't. They at one point talk about SACD as if it were 24/96 and it isn't. They sort of belittle people who try to rip their albums to their hard drives but only barely hint at how to do it right.
As a "child of the 80s" I really don't know much about jazz. Some classical music from hotel lounges/elevators but that's it. Only when I started building my amp, then loudspeakers I noticed those 80s song become less enjoyable than that 60s jazz stuff of unknown artist I picked up at the library. I also started to "select" which albums I like to play over-and over and not just about the songs. e.g. Metallica black album and justice for all is much better than masters of puppets. I love coldplay songs but they just don't sound good too. Can't win all I guess. Until then some guy playing trumpets on a pair of OB is pure magic although I don't know the song
Ron E said:
This is probably a valid point. But, I think they are concentrating more on the end result. That is, what is the quality of what finally gets released the public, and to what extent does the public listen to that at its best.
The answer is the public currently gets crappola and listens to it on crappy music systems. For many young consumers, they let short term pyscho-acoustic aspects override their better judgment. For example, what sounds louder is initially presumed to sound better, but long term listening doesn't bare that out. Yet, how many teenagers have an attention span long enough to even consider how something sounds 'long term'?
There is valid point to be made for listening past the equipment, and I think that is what many musicians do, the ignore the general quality of the equipment and listen to the underlying music. But, listening 'past the equipment' becomes so much easier when the equipment is not so glaringly in your way.
I think you are misunderstanding slightly. With reference to 'redbook' CD's, several member of the discussion claimed to have and have heard superbly mastered 'redbooks' CDs. And I think that was part of their point, if you do it right, even medium fidelity can still sound good.
As to the comment about triangle and square waves, again, I took that as the exact opposite of what you did. I took it as him saying the triangle and square waves were rich in harmonics, which they are, and that digital consumer music compromises those harmonics.
Now to SACDs, again, they seem to have acknowledge that SACD is a better medium for music, but that doesn't mean those who use that medium are using it right.
The quality of what you put on the medium, always overrides the medium itself. Properly mastered, standard CD, for all their faults, can still sound good. Yet, SACD's, for all their advantages, can still sound like crappola if you put crappola onto them.
The quality of what is on the medium, always overrides the medium itself (within limits). And when I say this, I'm not necessarily referring to the musicians themselves, but to the various techniques and effects that are added to the sound. Things like sampling rates, compression, etc....
Just a few thoughts.
Steve/bluewizard
rdf said:
Most of those cylinders are pretty awful quality. But man, the Edison disks were amazing. How were the cylinders you heard?
Ron E said:
Yes, great analogy. Thanks for reminding us!
The SACD thing was odd. No mention at all of DVD-A. In deference to the Sony Guy? But they all seemed to agree that Rebook just didn't sound like the master tape. SACD comes very, very close - at least so they all claim. Kind of like seeing a film print struck of the master negative. Wow! What a difference. The prints in the mulitplex are junk compared to that. (different thing, I know).
audio-kraut said:
A-K. Please see Rhetorical Question. There will be a test later...
gainphile said:
Now that is great! Thank you.
I think that the difference in quality between a modern high-end system and an average modern playback system is greater now than it has ever been.
Give me a turntable, fm tuner, big japanese silver and wood amp and 8" two-way stand-mounts over an ipod dock, digital radio and plastic 1" 'fullrange' driver any day.
Ok ok - cheap audio kit is cheaper than it has ever been, but the 'high-street standard' has (IMHO) got worse over the last 20 years.
While this looks bleak to those of us who care about such things, remember that there has never been a better time to demonstrate how good we all are at building audio kit ;-)
Give me a turntable, fm tuner, big japanese silver and wood amp and 8" two-way stand-mounts over an ipod dock, digital radio and plastic 1" 'fullrange' driver any day.
Ok ok - cheap audio kit is cheaper than it has ever been, but the 'high-street standard' has (IMHO) got worse over the last 20 years.
While this looks bleak to those of us who care about such things, remember that there has never been a better time to demonstrate how good we all are at building audio kit ;-)
Because the way certain statements are made here almost demand a rude response.
I just heard on CBC radio a song by Caruso reproduced from wax cylinder. The quality of the voice shone through a utterly flawed medium, and I - not a lover of operatic music or classical art song at all, could clearly hear the quality of the voice and enjoyed this
recording to the utmost.
The equipment is not important - it is the quality of the music.
This I think every real music, and not equipment lover, can agree upon.
My sweeping statement of the day.
audio-kraut said:
I'm with you all the way. I love music, all music and it doesn't matter if it's being played on a cheap clock radio or the finest system, I can still be fulfilled. I respond to the performance, the emotion, the passion and it will still be there no matter how clearly it can be heard.
That said, I do strive for audio excellence, but it's only a means to an end.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.