No need you've already done that, you can't tell the difference between mono and stereo anyway from what I've heard. 😉🙂 I'm only joking....but..it does raise interesting questions about focusing during critical listening sessions don't you think?
It just adds another bit of data to consider when reading when people talk about listener training.
I was doing tests with mono on my poor visitors intentionally and regularly, in the past. This time, it was a necessity, as the instrument had very different gain in both channels 😉.
What I learned here, at DIYaudio, is that it makes not much sense to argue too much. Reading and making opinion is just fine. It is much better when the discussion does not get much conflicted, for all participants.
What I learned here, at DIYaudio, is that it makes not much sense to argue too much. Reading and making opinion is just fine. It is much better when the discussion does not get much conflicted, for all participants.
That Claire Martin is still fine. I have just bought this
Cycles of Life | Linn Records
and this is a disappointment, DR oscillates between 6 and 8. So, even Linn Records cannot be trusted for issuing a non-compressed or minimally compressed music. Seems that only classical music and some niche jazz remains listenable.
It’s been surprising to me that the mono recordings I have tested lately (knowingly,or not!) sound so good......and I plan to do some digging on the conversion of stereo to mono.
It might just be a useless parlor trick! Gonna stay with two speakers though!
Two speaker mono is valuable and informative, it will tell much about your system.
Two speaker mono depth information is very much dependent on LR coherence.....a LR FR and timing scattered amp will not do depth information properly, a good stereo amp driven in two speaker mono tells you that the channels are matched and this allows good depth portrayal with good centre stability in terms of LR placement and centre depth positioning, ie a lousy amp will fail this listening test, a good amp excels.
Dan.
Last edited:
Like MA recordings? Not sure if the guy still operates it, I liked it. Would you have some suggestions, Bill? I would appreciate it greatly.
Welcome to MA Recordings Online
Welcome to MA Recordings Online
Last edited:
I'll have to check back on the CD rack but a few to look at
Hyperion Records - independent British classical music record label - CDs, MP3 and Lossless downloads
Chandos Records Classical Music CDs and MP3 Downloads OnLine
Dacapo Records – the Danish national label for classical and new music
https://www.channelclassics.com/
Erased Tapes
Some of these are a little eclectic in their output.
I've also always found great quality in ECM recordings although they are known for slightly overblowing the accoustic.
Hyperion Records - independent British classical music record label - CDs, MP3 and Lossless downloads
Chandos Records Classical Music CDs and MP3 Downloads OnLine
Dacapo Records – the Danish national label for classical and new music
https://www.channelclassics.com/
Erased Tapes
Some of these are a little eclectic in their output.
I've also always found great quality in ECM recordings although they are known for slightly overblowing the accoustic.
I think the only ECM recording I have is Dave Holland Quintet Prime Directive, tis a good recording but that goodness for tone controls 🙂
For classical music, I would recommend having a look at the small German label MDG:
MDG-Musikproduktion Dabringhaus und Grimm
The website is spartan, their recordings too - in the sense that they claim not to be using any compression, equalization, etc. in the production.
The usual disclaimer: I'm not connected with the label in any way; I just like their recordings very much.
Regards,
Braca
MDG-Musikproduktion Dabringhaus und Grimm
The website is spartan, their recordings too - in the sense that they claim not to be using any compression, equalization, etc. in the production.
The usual disclaimer: I'm not connected with the label in any way; I just like their recordings very much.
Regards,
Braca
Due to the press of other things, I just now have had the opportunity to listen a second time to the Claire samples. I hope any thoughts I have to share at this time will be of use.
Similar to Bill, I went into my second hearings knowing what the differences were. As I did on my initial listening, I could hear differences between Claire1 as compared to 2 and 3 which I could not tell apart. My experience is similar to Bill's: "1 does sound different."
Initially listening to the two WS samples, I felt WS2 is better. On listening and relistening to the Claire samples, I definitely preferred 2 and 3 over 1.
Also I support DNi's recommendation on MDG recordings for recording quality, I have several of MDG's recordings of chamber, piano, and orchestral music and often go back to them with pleasure.
Similar to Bill, I went into my second hearings knowing what the differences were. As I did on my initial listening, I could hear differences between Claire1 as compared to 2 and 3 which I could not tell apart. My experience is similar to Bill's: "1 does sound different."
Initially listening to the two WS samples, I felt WS2 is better. On listening and relistening to the Claire samples, I definitely preferred 2 and 3 over 1.
Also I support DNi's recommendation on MDG recordings for recording quality, I have several of MDG's recordings of chamber, piano, and orchestral music and often go back to them with pleasure.
It seems to be an attempt to try a more qualitative approach instead of the usual quantitative test method.
As matching/synchronizaion of the vocabulary is missing, the results (or meaning of the descriptions) are a bit vague, but are interesting nevertheless.
I think one of the interesting questions is, if one can dismiss any kind of published sighted reviewing process while appreciating the same kind of process in a forum.
Isn't that another argument than before?
Usually - at least that was my impression - the argument was about the delusion of reviewers/writers and readers to believe in audible differences that were not based on soundfield differences.
Therefore it seemed to be kind of paradigma change, similar to the recent discussion in the blowtorch thread about (allegedly) existing audible differences when comparing old and new opamps in (nonpathologic behaving) circuits.
When's the last time you heard/saw a bad review?
"This thing is a load of crap, you don't need it and you shouldn't want it" would totally kill a reviewer's career. So we get nice glowing reviews for some of the most mediocre stuff imaginable.
Isn't it about time we realized that paid reviews are nothing more than a sales pitch for a new product?