Was reminded of a "boring", 2 channel recording, that I've mentioned before: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/music/6958-now-playing-what-you-listening-486.html#post3982004.
Big band sound, powering with big drums, huge reverb - massive soundscape thrown up; this should be played at 11, and the sound bounces around the listening area, again and again - an amazing immersive experience, with totally clean, transparent resolution ... this is not twiddly, jazz meanderings,
.2 channel can easily generate immersive sound, but the quality has to be there in the reproduction - if not, then it's just loud, PA style sound ... and it doesn't work ...
Hmmm.... you're missing the point here Frank these are sonic "art" installations, a different tape of found sounds/noises on each of many speakers in a constructed space.
After all you crafty Aussies got Jackson Pollock's No. 11 for a steal so you must understand art.
An ongoing issue in pro and commercial sound is that even among loudspeaker controllers there are difference in filter shapes and Q’s making them “not interchangeable”. If only it were as simple as saying “Bessel 24 HP @500Hz or 500Hz, peq, +6dB Q=4 .
Well it can be that simple but if you need an exact magnitude and phase, you will need to measure the output and tweak it to get there and then save the file.
At work, we have to go through and measure / fine tune to get the desired transfer function each time there is a new processor and we have not done all of them.
Best,
Tom
That's fine ... I was just focusing on the term "immersive experience", which to me is what the real joy of good sound is about - whether it's "chaotic" sounds, or a very highly structured musical composition, the buzz for the ears is having the sounds surrounding you, filling the auditory universe in very fascinating ways.
Yep, Blue Poles was a goody - huge controversy down here at the time, but when it arrived there were huge queues to see it, and to see it in the flesh was to fully appreciate the power of visual complexity to satisfy the mind,
.
Fair enough, but I was talking about gain and Q as defined by the complex poles, purely a mathematical exercise. They have standard definitions, so I don't quite get your point. Your placing the sophistication of what you do in practice, which I certainly appreciate, sort of in the way of the common ground of the basics. If I ask for PI on my calculator I don't want 22/7.
Yep, Blue Poles was a goody - huge controversy down here at the time, but when it arrived there were huge queues to see it, and to see it in the flesh was to fully appreciate the power of visual complexity to satisfy the mind,
The movie is great BTW.
Depends what you mean by "hifi" ... it is not an audiophile recording, which to me usually equals trite, laborious, twaddling sound which I play once, and never bother playing again. However, the CCS recordings are very clean, with a tremendous depth captured, with myriad layers of sound elements to explore - the sort of thing that makes music worth listening to ...
.
Just on that CCS track, this is probably one of the better examples out there, at 720p, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HN0ayqlvaA. Now, just imagine playing this playing, peaking at 120dB in your room, with all the big sounds absolutely clean as a whistle, not a whisper of distortion ... that's what you're chasing ...
Frankie goes to hollywood also used this effect on their album in the 80's. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFLBIamw7SE and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrnvPCSP6Q8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDhiYdFjFVU an overview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrnvPCSP6Q8
Last edited:
Ah yes, Relax, Frankie Goes To Hollywood! Spent quite a bit of time recently chasing down various versions of this, to play on the PC speakers, ...
This was played on one of the systems at the recent audio show, on a setup that had been sounding quite reasonable, up to that point - oh dear ... the less said about the result the better,.
Trying a recording with "big" sound frequently severely embarrasses "audiophile" style systems - they just don't have the intrinsic clarity to resolve the detail properly.
...This was played on one of the systems at the recent audio show, on a setup that had been sounding quite reasonable, up to that point - oh dear ... the less said about the result the better,
.Trying a recording with "big" sound frequently severely embarrasses "audiophile" style systems - they just don't have the intrinsic clarity to resolve the detail properly.
'Relax' was a 64-track fairlight CMI munge. 'boogie' in spades but you are talking 8-bit log DACs on the CMI. Can you really tell one of the sounds was the band jumping into a swimming pool?
Hi fidelity that track is not. Still enjoy spinning the 12" tho as links to a particular time in my teenage years.
Hi fidelity that track is not. Still enjoy spinning the 12" tho as links to a particular time in my teenage years.
I am interested in hi fidelity. Not all the time, but when it is possible and practical to get it. Convenience is fine, so long as it does not become the only thing that sonic decisions are made. I live and work in a completely different environment than is typically discussed here, these days. My colleagues and I discuss how we can make the audio experience even better, even though we have already tried most of the really good stuff. My colleagues only use my designs when it suits them, sonically. So, Parasound is usually a real compromise for their systems, and they usually don't use any Parasound designs. Not that they don't TRY my designs, they do, but they usually find them 'wanting' compared to something else. Where I am successful with these colleagues is with Vendetta Research phono stage and the CTC Blowtorch preamp. These designs successfully match anything else out there, for the most part, so they are acceptable. Digitally, these colleagues of mine are way ahead of me, and they have the best digital equipment that they can find, yet when I listen to their digital playback, I am usually 'unmoved' just like my own digital playback. Since they can and have invested 100's of thousands of dollars into their systems, I cannot compete financially, so I find digital good enough generally, but not really as good as a very high quality phono playback system. I doubt that a further investment of $5000-10,000 would give me much more than I already have, so I think that getting better software, like 24-192K might be a good solution. Anything less, I already have, to some reasonable degree.
Now, what can I do to make audio quality the best possible? Well, careful control of what the manufacturers want to produce, (if I possibly can) making sure that no engineering 'shortcut' has potentially compromised the sound.
For example, we have gone through the $126 dollar Chinese made JC-2 line amp, and found all kinds of upgrades. Too bad it would cost $1000 in time and parts to improve it to that level. Right now, I am updating an 25 year old Vendetta Research SCP-2B phono preamp with better power supply diodes and a more linear second gain block. Cost? $1000, and that is close to a bargain. Thank goodness I have the parts available. This will raise the price of the used Vendetta phono from $2600 to $3600. Not cheap, but a lot cheaper than a Constellation phono preamp, of similar design for $27,500, which would sound about the same, since they both use the same EQ and bypass caps, jfets and mosfets, etc.
This is where I live and work. This is the environment that the CTC Blowtorch was designed, and the original premise of this thread.
Now, what can I do to make audio quality the best possible? Well, careful control of what the manufacturers want to produce, (if I possibly can) making sure that no engineering 'shortcut' has potentially compromised the sound.
For example, we have gone through the $126 dollar Chinese made JC-2 line amp, and found all kinds of upgrades. Too bad it would cost $1000 in time and parts to improve it to that level. Right now, I am updating an 25 year old Vendetta Research SCP-2B phono preamp with better power supply diodes and a more linear second gain block. Cost? $1000, and that is close to a bargain. Thank goodness I have the parts available. This will raise the price of the used Vendetta phono from $2600 to $3600. Not cheap, but a lot cheaper than a Constellation phono preamp, of similar design for $27,500, which would sound about the same, since they both use the same EQ and bypass caps, jfets and mosfets, etc.
This is where I live and work. This is the environment that the CTC Blowtorch was designed, and the original premise of this thread.
Beware the dreaded square cropping by Facebook!
The COMPLETE headline on this graphic for an article about Brian Eno's thoughts on digital and analog was "ENO ON ANALOG."
se
The COMPLETE headline on this graphic for an article about Brian Eno's thoughts on digital and analog was "ENO ON ANALOG."
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
se
Last edited:
I pooh-poohed the album when it came out because I was a classic rocker.
Now, just over a few years, it's one of my favourites that I kept out of the ... cloying hands of storage!
Last edited:
It made Harry Pearson's super disk list. A friend saw him " 'boogie' in spades" he said it was quite a sight.
An Hong Kong Snob, Vinyl Collector and Analogue Music Activist: TAS List of LP
As I suspected, if he had 'relax' 'IOU' by Freez would be there as well. Another track from teenage discos...
As I suspected, if he had 'relax' 'IOU' by Freez would be there as well. Another track from teenage discos...
Beware the dreaded square cropping by Facebook!
The COMPLETE headline on this graphic for an article about Brian Eno's thoughts on digital and analog was "ENO ON ANALOG."
se
Actually the Brit spelling, analogue.
He seemed more concerned with digital's ability to "fake" things like being off key or out of step. Nothing here about bits and downloads.
Oh my, he switched the version of "Autobahn" to Parlophone, it took me years to track down the original early Vertigo stampers.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.