I put out a 'critique' and I go bird calls in response. typical. '-)
Seriously, I do not usually listen in MONO, but my stereo imaging IS compromised. My audio listening is in the same room with my big screen TV, and the TV takes priority (I can't have my big speakers blocking the screen).
However, I would like to make a comparison with many here, when it comes to audio quality and myself (and people like me).
Of course you can be trained and exposed to sound quality challenges and grow with experience. But it will not give you 'perfect pitch' or perhaps something similar, which is audio quality differentiation.
I found this all my life, when I would sell a quality classical guitar to someone who would be happy with it the rest of his life, but I could not live with it comfortably.
Today, I see it with my close associate who I have known for 63 years. He is a VIDEO 'critic' where I am an audio quality 'critic'. He invests in his TV playback more than I do, on a regular basis, reads up on it, etc. He has a pretty good audio system, including my old K-horns, a lot of Parasound amps (for both his audio and video system) and even a Vendetta-CTC Blowtorch (a gift for his helping me finish the last 7) so he has the 'potential' to have a really good audio system, and it is better than most of his near friends, but he could care less about his turntable, digital sources, or other things that might make his hi fi playback better. He is happy, where I am always not, with my audio playback completely. I am always challenged to make the audio better, but I am reasonably happy with my Blue ray, hi def, video playback, projector with large screen, and he is always making comments about its problems. If I visited him more often, I would probably make comments about his hi fi set-up, equally.
The point is: He cares more about what he sees, and less about what he hears.
I care more about what I hear, and less about what I see.
I think it is innate in our individual abilities.
Seriously, I do not usually listen in MONO, but my stereo imaging IS compromised. My audio listening is in the same room with my big screen TV, and the TV takes priority (I can't have my big speakers blocking the screen).
However, I would like to make a comparison with many here, when it comes to audio quality and myself (and people like me).
Of course you can be trained and exposed to sound quality challenges and grow with experience. But it will not give you 'perfect pitch' or perhaps something similar, which is audio quality differentiation.
I found this all my life, when I would sell a quality classical guitar to someone who would be happy with it the rest of his life, but I could not live with it comfortably.
Today, I see it with my close associate who I have known for 63 years. He is a VIDEO 'critic' where I am an audio quality 'critic'. He invests in his TV playback more than I do, on a regular basis, reads up on it, etc. He has a pretty good audio system, including my old K-horns, a lot of Parasound amps (for both his audio and video system) and even a Vendetta-CTC Blowtorch (a gift for his helping me finish the last 7) so he has the 'potential' to have a really good audio system, and it is better than most of his near friends, but he could care less about his turntable, digital sources, or other things that might make his hi fi playback better. He is happy, where I am always not, with my audio playback completely. I am always challenged to make the audio better, but I am reasonably happy with my Blue ray, hi def, video playback, projector with large screen, and he is always making comments about its problems. If I visited him more often, I would probably make comments about his hi fi set-up, equally.
The point is: He cares more about what he sees, and less about what he hears.
I care more about what I hear, and less about what I see.
I think it is innate in our individual abilities.
Howie,
James Johnston is the guy behind perceptual coding. In developing the MP3 format he never considered it to be a lossless or high fidelity or quality format. He was one of the folks who actually wrote the spec. He was at Bell Labs at the time. Brandenburg did his post doc under him.
James Johnston is the guy behind perceptual coding. In developing the MP3 format he never considered it to be a lossless or high fidelity or quality format. He was one of the folks who actually wrote the spec. He was at Bell Labs at the time. Brandenburg did his post doc under him.
To be blunt, I call it 'music to take drugs to'. Recently, I have been collecting and listening to 90's and 00's electronic dance music. As a genre, some of it is very good, (I was there at the time!) but as is the way of all things, a lot of it is not very good at all. Too visceral, thereby leaving little if anything to the imagination. The very best is intensely cerebral cosmopolitan music you can dance all night to. It was an era when a lot of musicians had just one or two tracks released, and they then just disappeared. Where I live we have a very good charity shop full of thrown out weird stuff on CD. I just happen to like weird stuff.
ToS
I suspect that Ed is referring to sound quality, which usually follows losses in info. Of course, MP-3 has its place, and I am probably listening to it right now, or something similar on a Comcast 24hr blues channel. It is very acceptable through the Met-7's.
I have a brother-in-law who is like that, is fascinating to me, who will likely always be the way I have been, choosing audio first.
The last time I visited he says “you got a few minutes, I could use a hand?”
We drove to a local store and grunted yet another huge tv back to the house...
When I was 11 years old our black and white TV went kaput, I was given the choice of whether dad bought a new colour TV or a new stereo, I chose the stereo. It was a wise choice since a couple of months later he couldn't take it any more and bought a TV too 🙂
Try Paco Osuna, if you haven’t already, much of those recordings just on youtube are decent quality if not converted, just captured.
At least my kids are being exposed to enough low distortion acoustic music such that they should know the difference between good and bad sound/reproduction.
This reminds me of these CDs I got way back when (15+ years ago). The different mic sounds are interesting (I've used SM-57, SM-58 and the infamous AKG C-3000 for recording myself and friends), but the pre CD stumped me - I couldn't hear the difference between different preamps. The folks on rec.audio.pro often wrote about different preamp sounds, suggesting my ears aren't as refined as I'd like to think. I sometimes wonder if this isn't a blessing.
Each recording is a different performance of the same musician redoing the same passage into a different mic or pre, so it's possible to hear performance differences (and of course your question brought all this back to mind). If there's a big fault in these recordings, it must be the snare drum. The person struck the drum about once per second, about eight times, at the same volume each time for each mic or pre (I forget if the snare was used on just one or both CDs). This would have been much better with a pro (or even decent amateur) drummer playing a musical pattern for two or three bars, with varying intensities of drum strikes.
Here's a review page:
3D Audio: AD, Pre & Mic CDs |
Here's the 3D Audio "source" site where I ordered the CDs way back when, but I don't know what's up with it. It STILL has a 20th Century web design (!), the 'webstore' link doesn't work, and there's a forum with no posts since 2016:
3D Audio Inc-Homepage
When a hifi can give a decent facsimile of a skylark hovering 100m up in the sky I'll be impressed. It's a good example of, even after 100 years how rubbish it often is.
I have some field recordings made with my barrier spaced pair that are quite interesting. I got the setup from Rob Danielson who taught film sound at the University of WI, I think he has retired and I don't know if any of his stuff is still up on the web. John made fun of them at the time, so it goes.
Scott, I don't mind that you like to record birdcalls, but there is more to hi end hi fi than that! '-) Just like today.
Are-we not all and always feeling the same. I believe that, the day I will be totally satisfied with my audio system will be the next after my death. ;-)
The quest for the Grail, the pleasure is in the quest. Or, if you prefer, the adventures of Tintin: the pleasure is in the adventures ;-)
Last edited:
If you want to hear something really different, there is a cut recorded in Zuccarelli Holophonics on Psychic TV's "Dreams Less Sweet" of being buried alive in a coffin. Headphones in the dark are required.
If it's hi fidelity it should perfectly replay the birdsong, including elevation and distance information. If it doesn't its stuck 50 years ago with zero progress. Are we really just still polishing last centuries turds here?
Ah English, a language with color or a color?
"he never considered it to be a lossless or high fidelity or quality format."
"he never considered it to be a lossless or high fidelity or quality format."
You must be taking language lessons from the MQA folks. Lossless is not subjective to some of us, high fidelity and quality are totally subjective.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.