I find this extremely strange to hear and would like to understand better.
I do not understand why one would adopt audio as a hobby if it were not to facilitate the primary goal of music appreciation?
Like I said I am fairly uninformed, but my journey to these kinds of places came from the research of RIAA curves, pre riaa curves, 78 playback, phono preamplification, etc. for my own personal needs and then somehow I got the dumb idea in my head to build my own with all of the archival features I needed built in and easily accessible. I dare not post it here. It's certainly not a looker.
I don't see how it could occur some other way, then perhaps by professional happenstance as an EE.
That would be really depressing and nihilistic if everyone were building all these amps and just stuffing them in a closet afterwards.
Either way, I appreciate the kind words.
Fully agree. People routinely use 'good' or 'best' while they really mean 'my preference'.
Jan
Space: you may have slightly misread me. I meant that in general people here are music lovers and there are very few who will pass over good music if the recording is less than good. Even those chasing 1ppm performance from their poweramps still enjoy listening at the end of the day.
Where the arguments come is people who build non-defeatable tone controls. Trying to get what you want by swapping expensive boutique components over putting in a couple of db of tilt that you can take out again is a red rag to a bull 🙂. I am firmly in the heretic camp!
Where the arguments come is people who build non-defeatable tone controls. Trying to get what you want by swapping expensive boutique components over putting in a couple of db of tilt that you can take out again is a red rag to a bull 🙂. I am firmly in the heretic camp!
Ah. Add me to the list as well. One more field in which I'm tagged as a heretic surely won't be tipping the scales.
Tilt is a better example than your average bass/treble knobs, which frequently miss the mark.
I'm sure without one is measurably more transparent. However I also want to consider what will result in measurably less headache for me personally.
I have an Agilent Headache Spectrum Analyzer specifically for this purpose.
I think perhaps it's part of the "anti-knob" and "more boxes" general culture of hifi as a whole.
However, now I'm really getting into red rag territory so I'll stop there 🙂
Tilt is good, and can be done passively in a record loop to make it fully defeatable.
At the risk of adding to my heresy, I think the work that Wayne Kirkwood has done on his ' Phono Transfer System' Should be raised again (sure I've done it before here).
Pro Audio Design Forum • View topic - Flat Phono Preamp Based on John's P10 and 2SK389.
Heresy one: Phono amplifier is flat and RIAA can be remoted
Heresy two: Loads of Pro-audio chips from THAT corp used.
What it gives you is the ability to send a flat feed through whatever processing you want and switch between a standard and processed feed, all from your listening chair. It was done with a DAW in the loop, but you could imagine using a DEQ2496 to do RIAA and other eq and switch that in or out as needed. All adjustable, all defeatable. With the (ISTR) 99 memories in the DEQ you could get most of the settings you need preset ready to roll. No audiophile angst as one switch takes it out the system.
In my book this is the sort of thing that can enhance the enjoyment of vinyl if you have a large and varied collection as some of us do (and then there is Scott who has very ecelctic tastes).
At the risk of adding to my heresy, I think the work that Wayne Kirkwood has done on his ' Phono Transfer System' Should be raised again (sure I've done it before here).
Pro Audio Design Forum • View topic - Flat Phono Preamp Based on John's P10 and 2SK389.
Heresy one: Phono amplifier is flat and RIAA can be remoted
Heresy two: Loads of Pro-audio chips from THAT corp used.
What it gives you is the ability to send a flat feed through whatever processing you want and switch between a standard and processed feed, all from your listening chair. It was done with a DAW in the loop, but you could imagine using a DEQ2496 to do RIAA and other eq and switch that in or out as needed. All adjustable, all defeatable. With the (ISTR) 99 memories in the DEQ you could get most of the settings you need preset ready to roll. No audiophile angst as one switch takes it out the system.
In my book this is the sort of thing that can enhance the enjoyment of vinyl if you have a large and varied collection as some of us do (and then there is Scott who has very ecelctic tastes).
space--pursuits in DiyAudio can be multifaceted: some like to tinker for intellectual reasons (I.e. it's enjoyable to develop understanding, ownership, mastery of the audio chain), others pursue audible improvements to a spectrum of ends (misguided to great productivity). Sometimes these groups overlap.
You'll find a group of folk that will flog their developments as the greatest thing since sliced bread (what? Me? Exaggerate?), and, especially when their rationales have large holes, you'll find technically-centric members tend to be *rather* critical.
In short: if you like your thing and don't sell it too hard, you probably won't run afoul. 🙂
You'll find a group of folk that will flog their developments as the greatest thing since sliced bread (what? Me? Exaggerate?), and, especially when their rationales have large holes, you'll find technically-centric members tend to be *rather* critical.
In short: if you like your thing and don't sell it too hard, you probably won't run afoul. 🙂
Certainly. One requires a lot more knowledge and experience than my own to be both staunchly opinionated as well as generally respected and admired.
I was just posting what I thought was a very interesting example of an earlier JC design, and looking for some information on its history of design changes.
Then, I got sucked into the activity and discussion of thread- which is really quite interesting, but more often than not beyond my comprehension. Practically speaking I probably belong over at the DIYA "kids table", wherever that might be.
However over the years I've gleaned a tremendous amount of useful information from the thread, particularly with respect to basic component selection and switches, chassis layout and wiring and other rudimentary but nonetheless important aspects of design.
So, thank you all for providing such an interesting and valuable resource.
The Celestial Harmonies 17 CD history of Islamic music for instance was in general a huge disappointment. There is no excuse for the amateurish quality of many of the disks. To my taste David Lewiston improved his ethnic recordings over the years and when mastered by Bob Ludwig you almost can't make them sound bad.
BTW big respects for the interest in ethnographic music.
I love the same heresies, like the all in one RIAA with no feedback. As for eclectic tonight's contribution, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LstLpd_iVWA
click here for insight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Act_of_Creation
click here for a good time ! 🙂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Act_of_Creation
I don't quite get your point but of course that IS your point. Hard core instrumentation and mathematical analysis, science at it's best, as time goes on the chatter from the peanut gallery gets more and more distant and irrelevant.
I generally avoid misogynists for personal reasons, YMMV. Getting back to the issue at hand there was a theory proposed 100 yr. ago and there are apparently black holes collapsing into each other making gravity waves as predicted, what is the philosophical conflict that this presents? To me folks risked 30yr. of their carriers on doing this one experiment, an experiment that you could pose in totally real physical measurable terms. To me this is apple falling off the tree stuff at this point.
Last edited:
We are on the same wavelength. All you had to say was Henry Flynt.
I haven't heard that box set, but am all too familiar with being let down by historic reissues so I steer clear of pricey box sets unless I know what I'm getting myself into. I am really fond of some of the offerings from the French label Ocora.
For more contemporary releases, have you listened to any of the sublime frequencies offerings?
Some great stuff there as well, however the quality varies greatly throughout the catalog.
I don't fully understand your RIAA comment... whether it was directed toward my attempt or some other comment.
My original aspiration was something functionally along the lines of the Wavestream Kinetics Archival Stage, but for less than the cost of a Hyundai. I thought maybe the DIY community had already created something along these lines.
It might be wishful thinking though. It's hard enough to find a good phono stage that can adjust for loading and input level for the full range of modern cartridges for the standard RIAA curve.
I'm not much more evolved from the "monkey see, monkey do" level. I can copy things and follow directions and practice general safety and troubleshooting, but ask much of me in addition to that and I'd just blow stuff up.
Last edited:
Demian,
SOUND
These are interesting concepts. There are other factors to consider other than just the speaker change. It's the fact that the whole paradigm has changed.
I think we used to go to concerts for the real experience.
Records were something to listen to, in anticipation of the real thing
or
in substitution to the the real thing.
Then with LP stereo vinyl records....the experiences could
be close to being equal, I still think the live performance
had it beat.
by the late 60s early 70s they were pretty closer to being
equal.
By the 80s and beyound the real thing caught up and
digital was there while analog faded, but still the real
thing was it.
Recording and technology caught them and by 2000
and later the live concert didn't sound as good at the
produced recordings.
Now I think it depends on the venue.
IMAGING
As for 35mm film vs 1080P. That is interesting.
It all depends on the camera's, lenses, production values, etc.
Where are you viewing it?
What are you viewing?
A sourced print at a movie theater?
A great print from a high end source into something
like a Rank-Cintel Flying Spot Scanner, perhaps a MKIII?
or a cheapo chained video capture of multi-copied movie print?
Are we also blowing up the 1080P to a theater sized image?
Or
are we just staying in our home theaters?
Do we want realistic imaging or
sameness video plastic look?
As long as were are doing 35mm, why don't we double the
through put to 60 frames per second or 70 frames per second.
I'm a film guy.
I'm an analog guy.
What can I say.
Let's not scare the animals please.
Soft Professional Voice (SPV):
...Quiet please...
...and...
...action....
REFERENCE:
Loud Professional Voice (LPV):
Cut! Okay who's the wise guy
who dropped the clapper?
Sound: giggling.
SPV: No fooling around please.
Sound: more giggling.
Camera: We need a new reel.
SPV: Okay, put your clothes on and keep warm.
Sound: giggling now out of control.
LPV: (Sigh) Break and Take 10.
Sound: Giggling and Applause and giggling.
SOUND
These are interesting concepts. There are other factors to consider other than just the speaker change. It's the fact that the whole paradigm has changed.
I think we used to go to concerts for the real experience.
Records were something to listen to, in anticipation of the real thing
or
in substitution to the the real thing.
Then with LP stereo vinyl records....the experiences could
be close to being equal, I still think the live performance
had it beat.
by the late 60s early 70s they were pretty closer to being
equal.
By the 80s and beyound the real thing caught up and
digital was there while analog faded, but still the real
thing was it.
Recording and technology caught them and by 2000
and later the live concert didn't sound as good at the
produced recordings.
Now I think it depends on the venue.
IMAGING
As for 35mm film vs 1080P. That is interesting.
It all depends on the camera's, lenses, production values, etc.
Where are you viewing it?
What are you viewing?
A sourced print at a movie theater?
A great print from a high end source into something
like a Rank-Cintel Flying Spot Scanner, perhaps a MKIII?
or a cheapo chained video capture of multi-copied movie print?
Are we also blowing up the 1080P to a theater sized image?
Or
are we just staying in our home theaters?
Do we want realistic imaging or
sameness video plastic look?
As long as were are doing 35mm, why don't we double the
through put to 60 frames per second or 70 frames per second.
I'm a film guy.
I'm an analog guy.
What can I say.
Let's not scare the animals please.
Soft Professional Voice (SPV):
...Quiet please...
...and...
...action....
REFERENCE:
Loud Professional Voice (LPV):
Cut! Okay who's the wise guy
who dropped the clapper?
Sound: giggling.
SPV: No fooling around please.
Sound: more giggling.
Camera: We need a new reel.
SPV: Okay, put your clothes on and keep warm.
Sound: giggling now out of control.
LPV: (Sigh) Break and Take 10.
Sound: Giggling and Applause and giggling.
Last edited:
I like that, and want to keep the subtle things in the mix.
For example, anyone have an original vinyl of Dave Brubeck Quartet?
Listen to the bass and drum solos, when it gets very quiet, you have to
really crank up the volume...hear him counting time.
Or in Chris Rea, Texas, calling for the lead, then going into a sizzling
solo.
I love that hearing that stuff. why?
Because as a musician you are taking control of the your part
when it needs to happen and how it will happen.
On recordings, we can't see the eye contact giving it to someone,
or turning and raising your guitar neck, etc...
a recording captures the essence of "something."
and what ever helps capture "it" is good.
In playback, we want "it".
We love to hear "somethings" essence.
Which captures our attention,
raises the hair of our necks,
shares the soul the moment.
Helps us all be a little more human.
I watched a copy of The Master shot in and played back on 70mm and it was truly stunning and obvious on a large cinema screen, even to someone without a background in film or cinema technology.
I'm not sure what the normal cinema playback system is and how they compare, and was only aware of the 70mm AFTER I made some commentary with my friend about the clarity and realism of the picture.
Does it look more like real life? You know, I've been looking around in this world and to the best of my knowledge a part of "real life" for a while now and I have to say I can't accurately answer that question.
For me the "real" experience by its nature is not possibly static and is dependent on too many variables and perspectives to have a universal truth, doubly so for "amplified" music. Then you have to think about the playback chain, the technician at the mixing board, the venue acoustics, and on and on and on.
The "real" question to ask is "real to whom?" The musician(s), the technician at the soundboard, the audience, the Marshall amp the guitarist borrowed because his Vox broke, or what wound up on the tape by a combination of these influences or even the guy who designed your preamp or speakers?
If you only listen in famous concert halls to the Boston Symphony then maybe you have a different opinion.
Seems like classical listeners are the original Freemasons of Hifi. Their needs for the reproduction of classical (read: unamplified) music informed a lot of these discussion points on what is considered audiophile and real and on and on. That Telarc cannon blast comes to mind when I think of that.
There's also an easier baseline of accuracy due to lack of variables.
Also, classical music lends itself to a certain class distinction, perhaps the most frequent buyers of high fidelity equipment in earlier times. It would make sense to cater to their sensibilities. Makes sense that their perspectives became operating procedures in hifi through this route.
Either way, words like real don't belong in a technical discussion. Technical discussions require measurable, tangible attributes that can be compared and analyzed. "Real" cannot be measured.
Then, you can adjust what is technically as close to perfection as you can muster to bring it closer in line to your individual needs and expectations if you so desire.
So, I agree with these sentiments but feel that they are not hitting the mark in a discussion toward a certain technical end, which should be, in a perfect universe, given infinitely good measuring equipment, an objective end as well. Then comes the second question of adaptations to musical tastes, room acoustics, and so forth- because after all you've got to like to listen to the thing at the end of the day.
I'm not sure what the normal cinema playback system is and how they compare, and was only aware of the 70mm AFTER I made some commentary with my friend about the clarity and realism of the picture.
Does it look more like real life? You know, I've been looking around in this world and to the best of my knowledge a part of "real life" for a while now and I have to say I can't accurately answer that question.
For me the "real" experience by its nature is not possibly static and is dependent on too many variables and perspectives to have a universal truth, doubly so for "amplified" music. Then you have to think about the playback chain, the technician at the mixing board, the venue acoustics, and on and on and on.
The "real" question to ask is "real to whom?" The musician(s), the technician at the soundboard, the audience, the Marshall amp the guitarist borrowed because his Vox broke, or what wound up on the tape by a combination of these influences or even the guy who designed your preamp or speakers?
If you only listen in famous concert halls to the Boston Symphony then maybe you have a different opinion.
Seems like classical listeners are the original Freemasons of Hifi. Their needs for the reproduction of classical (read: unamplified) music informed a lot of these discussion points on what is considered audiophile and real and on and on. That Telarc cannon blast comes to mind when I think of that.
There's also an easier baseline of accuracy due to lack of variables.
Also, classical music lends itself to a certain class distinction, perhaps the most frequent buyers of high fidelity equipment in earlier times. It would make sense to cater to their sensibilities. Makes sense that their perspectives became operating procedures in hifi through this route.
Either way, words like real don't belong in a technical discussion. Technical discussions require measurable, tangible attributes that can be compared and analyzed. "Real" cannot be measured.
Then, you can adjust what is technically as close to perfection as you can muster to bring it closer in line to your individual needs and expectations if you so desire.
So, I agree with these sentiments but feel that they are not hitting the mark in a discussion toward a certain technical end, which should be, in a perfect universe, given infinitely good measuring equipment, an objective end as well. Then comes the second question of adaptations to musical tastes, room acoustics, and so forth- because after all you've got to like to listen to the thing at the end of the day.
What I guess I mean to say is that these are both great questions, but cannot functionally be asked at the same time because one necessarily precedes the other. They belong separated in both time and space, otherwise you have created a philosophical conundrum.
The technician by his nature must try to make a thing of quality.
The consumer by their nature must use this thing for their enjoyment.
If you are both you've probably already considered these issues ad nauseum.
The technician by his nature must try to make a thing of quality.
The consumer by their nature must use this thing for their enjoyment.
If you are both you've probably already considered these issues ad nauseum.
Indeed.
For me it is not obvious that those of us who are, are necessary aware of this duality. Maybe that is why confusion often reigns supreme here?
Jan
- Status
- Not open for further replies.