Archive through November 21, 2004
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 630 Registered: Dec-03 | Rantz, Thank you my friend, my rewards keep rolling in...................................... Cheers! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2452 Registered: Dec-03 | Rick, Thanks. No "cow watching train" reading that: I forgot to reply. I got the look only whilst explaining why my chair was 4" shorter. I am too "Western" I think, to adopt all these wise precepts. Always wondering how to change things; wondering how things could have been changed. Wish it were not so. Larry, Great. Good luck. My Rantz, Thanks. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 631 Registered: Dec-03 | Thank you, John............................ |
|
Silver Member Username: Larry_rNaples, FL Post Number: 154 Registered: Oct-04 | Yo to all - thoughts re the Yamaha. Beautiful finish on the front - adds a classy note to the rack. Very, very hard to program. You have to have a TV set on to change anything in the sound or video selection boxes. I wish there were more of a display on the unit - all I get is timing and whether its playing in SACD, DVD-A or Progressive scan TV. Sigh. I just have it in stereo mode - so can't address the SACD sound quality - BUT - in either analog or digital mode, the sound quality is so much better than the JVC I can't believe my ears. Warmer, fuller, much more bass that is true, not just boomy, and the highs have lost that distorted, tinny quality. In other words - the unit sounds absolutely terrific. Now, we'll see what it does with cones, etc. as "tweaks." Later this week. As to the upsampling - well, after you finally figger out how to get to it (again, a TV screen is mandatory) it only works with analog stereo, not any surround modes. I tried it with a couple of older CDs, and on one it came out rather thin, on the other not much change. I think it may be overrated - unless I'm doing something wrong (probably). DVD videos play with super-clarity, and sound that is again fuller and deeper than before. In the past, I had to turn down treble 6 db and boost bass 2 to 4 db to get even a semblance of "flat" response. With the Yamaha, the settings are either flat or a slight bass boost for some CDs - mostly older ones. All in all - very frustrating to program, and I'm not happy that I have to use a TV screen when changing from one setting to another. If you have basic seettings programmed, the player will auto-change from SACD to CD to DVD-video - but I'm not that far along yet. Tomorrow I'll dig deeper - but we have house guests coming in at midnight tonight, so I may not get much intensive-time. Will report later. See Discoveries for the Mahler 2 - really fine! More anon. . . |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2454 Registered: Dec-03 | My pleasure, Rick. Mrs A came home today with a DVD of "A Fish Called Wanda", one of our favourite movies of old, released just before we left UK, with much Anglo-US misunderstanding as the source of fun. I remember Kevin Kline as "Otto", practising the meditation that he thought Buddhist warriors used before going into battle, and learning, with disappointment, from Jamie Lee Curtis ("Wanda") that the fundamental tenet of that way of life is not "Every man for himself". Along with Aristotle not being Belgian etc. The punch line is when she says, earnestly "I know these things; I looked them up". We have to console ourselves from time to time, unfair as it may seem. Hope you understand! |
|
Silver Member Username: Larry_rNaples, FL Post Number: 158 Registered: Oct-04 | John A. et al - thought y'all would be interested in reading this . . . http://www.stereophile.com/news/110104aeshirez/ I'm about half-way through with hooking up all those damned SACD cables - and right now wondering if the "sonic improvements" will be worth all this fuss. No wonder SACD and DVD-A aren't "taking off." It takes patience, several glasses of scotch, and eyesight that a hawk would envy to get everything "right." Sigh. More anon. . . |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Guys - I'm going to take a survey; yes or no. Who out there remembers single speaker demo rooms? Should I tell Larry that for years Linn has preached that any other speakers in the room (read TV) that are not being used to reproduce music will degrade the sound. It was the simplest tweak of all. Remove any speaker that isn't used in the music making system and the sound will immediately improve. Should I tell him or not? |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 632 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, Go ahead, why not. Yes I do remember single listening rooms. It seems like 3 lifetimes ago. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2455 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan. Yes. Vividly. I was unconvinced. I always wondered if the explanation was that the speakers would sulk. Of all the arguments I have heard againt multichannel, I have not heard anyone claiming the main speakers sound worse for having silent surround speakers in the room. Larry, Thanks. I am printing that article. Will report back. |
|
Silver Member Username: Two_centsPost Number: 326 Registered: Feb-04 | What are you guys talking about? Do you mean isolated listening rooms set up with a single audio system? Larry, What happened to simplicity and elegance? Life was so much simpler when all you had to do was hook up the turntable to the amp and wire for two speakers. The turntable had two settings, 33&1/3 and 45. The amp had three switches for power, volume, and input. The speakers had no switches. Listening to music was simple and satisfying until the records developed those maddening clicks and pops. Now, we're on the never-ending digital path where the technology seems to overwhelm the humanity of the experience. |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1818 Registered: Dec-03 | YAH!! |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 1076 Registered: Aug-04 | Larry Honestly, I cannot see what fuss there is in hooking up cables - push one connector in then the other X 5. It's not like a gym workout :-) In fact I think it would take more time to make the glass of scotch! LOL! |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 1079 Registered: Aug-04 | Okay, okay that should have been x6! 5.1 = 6 5.1 = 6 5.1 = 6 5.1 = 6 5.1 = 6 5.1 = 6 Duh! Larry, I see your problem - try it without the scotch :-) |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 1080 Registered: Aug-04 | Larry Hope this helps :-)  You know I'm kidding right? Right Larry? Larry? Lar? Okay - bad joke :-( |
|
Silver Member Username: SemNew York USA Post Number: 331 Registered: Mar-04 | My Rantz, No, it was a good joke. It may not have reached poor Larry in time however. I just have this mental picture of him with his gear half cabled and his scotch half gone. Seriously, I think he said they were entertaining company for a cuple days(?). Although your picture helped me immensely, I had my HT setup all wrong!!! (kidding of course).  |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 633 Registered: Dec-03 | Rantz, What ARE all those RCA's for? (LOL!) |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 1081 Registered: Aug-04 | AUDIO NEWS - WORLD SCOOP OLD DOG TRIBUNE 17th November 2004 It has been reported that fossils of stereo audio equipment dating back to the prehistoric era are being discovered during recent archeology digs around the world. The Smithsonian Institute is apparently showing great interest in exhitibing some of the most intact fossil examples of the primitive music listening devices to demonstrate that humans did indeed coexist with the dinosaurs. In our world of the natural reproduction of music by way of hi-res multi-channel formats, many scientists are shaking their heads in bewilderment while inspecting these ancient, simple forms. After reproducing working models designed with the aid of the fossils, the general concensus is that early humans must have had one ear situated in the center of their foreheads to come up with a device that relied mainly on a phantom center channel created by stereo imaging. "It is not beyond the realms of possability," said one scientist, "that fossils of these prehistoric humans will soon be unearthed also. In fact there is speculation that some have been located in Texas, South Carolina and New York areas. We are looking into it - apparantly there have been reports of a strange blue light emanating from the earth around these locations - and no, were are not discounting that these early human life forms might be alien. In fact we believe that could explain quite a lot." ____________________________________ |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 1082 Registered: Aug-04 | Sem, I had a similar image :-) Rick, Answer: for pathways to excellence in music :-) |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1823 Registered: Dec-03 | Freddie Mac Raises Awareness About Home Buying Misconceptions. In an effort to enable more African Americans/latinos/italian/french to become surroundowners Freddie Mac is helping launch an awareness and outreach campaign called "surroundownership. Let the TRUTH Move You." The campaign debunks common misconceptions about surroundownership that are stopping financially able families from even considering buying a surround system. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Doesn't sound like a good program to me. Surroun'- downer - ship. I agree with it but it's not likely to sell many houses. Even to a dumb Wop or a redneck. John - The tweak was suggested when stereo was the norm. Speakers were demonstrated with only a single pair in the room. Speakers were moved in and out of the room for comparison. All Linn dealers had to agree to this form of demonstration or face the wrath of Ivor. Mr. T. was cursed mightily as salespeople wrestled Isobarick's in and out of the room. As surround came to Linn, the acceptable number of speakers allowed increased but only those that are needed for the reproduction of the surround signal. They are hooked to the amplifier and are live at any time. Please read the post one more time and you will see how it is worded: " ... Linn has preached that any other speakers in the room (read TV) that are not being used to reproduce music will degrade the sound. It was the simplest tweak of all. Remove any speaker that isn't used in the music making system and the sound will immediately improve." Now calm down. This isn't another conspiracy theory we're working with. Kegger/Rantz - I looked at my amplifiers and they don't have any of those inputs. I just have L, R, and Mono. What gives, are you guys playing a joke again? Har, Har! From the looks of that diagram people in the future must have 5.1, or more, ears. I looked in the mirror and I still only have two ears. Placed where I see everyone else's placed. However, I looked in the cupboard and I am almost out of Scotch. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 1086 Registered: Aug-04 | "I looked in the mirror and I still only have two ears. Placed where I see everyone else's placed." Jan, Yes, but it seems yours only hear a straight line somewhere in front of you - so be careful crossing the street on your way to buy a new bottle :-) |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Rantz - Thanks, I'll have it delivered. |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1825 Registered: Dec-03 | JAN I got the z-man tube enhancer from my buddy yesterday. USING IT THE WAY IT'S INTENDED "BETWEEN CD AND PREAMP" Well last night I had hooked it up to the denon, thought it made a positive difference but nothing earth shattering. Today I opened it up changed the tube "12ax7" and put the unit on my pioneer player. whoo hoo pretty darn nice!! Don''t know if it was the tube or just likes the pioneer better. But I like, no rolloff that I notice , just clearer more defined but at the same time sounds more natural. USED ONE OF MY EI YUGO TUBES! My friend said if I wanted it $100, well it's sold! I wonder what he'll think with the new tube and on my system! Anyway's seems to work really nice. I'd still like to have some kind of passive tube based switchbox for preamps so I don't have to switch cables though! Oh well for now have to switch 1 pair of patchcords to listen to the tube preamp. Not a major deal. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 1087 Registered: Aug-04 | Jan - always better to be safe than sorry. Actually, I only recently returned home with a 2 channel DVD-A 174/24 reproduction of Neill Young's 1974 recording of "On The Beach" - a self challenge to purchase a non surround hi-res recording :-) Excellent resolution considering - in fact not too shabby at all for 2 channel audio, quite enjoyable, but imho lacking a tad of the sense of space from a good surround mix. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 634 Registered: Dec-03 | Rantz, Thank you for clearing that up for me. Teredactyl's from Texas? Fossil remains in New York? No, I think I'll help John with an alien conspiracy. Hold on, I have to go, I have the Museum of Natural History on the phone for me. Damn, I could barely hear it with that one old ear of mine...................................... |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2456 Registered: Dec-03 | Larry's stereophile link is good, and I agree. Larry; I would savour the anticipation of the Scotch. Connecting cable is a breeze compared with understanding even a well-written average owners manual. As you will see from MR's diagram, you will also need twelve little arrows. There is much discussion about where these and/or the cables really need to be red in colour. Kegger, Like it. It reminds me of an argument yesterday that allowing smoking in drinks-only pubs was discriminating against working people. Jan, Yes. It was not just Linn. Many dealers said the same. There was some sense in it. The "Pile 'em high" places often had up to thirty pairs of speakers, wired up so you could audition them as they stood, next to each other, on shelves. But the idea of a speaker not working properly when ANY other sound tranducer is in the room....? How does that work, then....? And the sound is not degraded if the other speaker is on? "On" meaning connected? Or transducing a signal? Should I expect an improvement in my stereo if I switch the TV on? Will "mute" still count as "on"? Remove any speaker that isn't used in the music making system and the sound will immediately improve." You asked if anyone remembered. Not believed. Do you believe? If so, how does it work? My Rantz, "AUDIO NEWS - WORLD SCOOP" is ace. Thanks. I suggest the archaeologists take a look for micro systems in Flores and other locations in Indonesia. It is also interesting to ask what future archaeologists will make of all the stuff we leave behind. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 1088 Registered: Aug-04 | "It is also interesting to ask what future archaeologists will make of all the stuff we leave behind. " John A Your comment made me think what future historians would think if they find a time capsule with the "Old Dogs" thread on a disc inside. Now that would have them scratching their heads. As for "Audio News" I wonder when the penny will drop. I think Rick is on to it - maybe :-} Yet to have critical listen to Rattle/Mahler but I listened again to the stereo DVD-A of N Y's "On The Beach" with Mrs Rantz last night and again noted the resolution was sensational. I felt like helping Neil push his tired fingers down harder on the fretboard - :-) Levon Helm's drum kit could have been in our room. Now if we could have surround up to 192KHz sampling . . . |
|
Silver Member Username: Larry_rNaples, FL Post Number: 159 Registered: Oct-04 | To all: actually liked the jokes and all the comments at my expense - am still grinning about it all. (grin) see? Still haven't got the plugs in - yah see, this equipment is in a shaky old cabeinet, and I can't move the thing out from the wall without taking out all the stereo gear and all the DVD movies, and the rest of the crud. So - I have to lean over the top of the cabinet, reach down, and try to plug in all the SACD wires - after "tweaking" each connector on the amp with the SST silver crud. One plug at a time. To even see the plugs I have a mirror propped up 45-degrees against the wall - then I refer to the amp manual to make sure which plug is which - then I glop one plug, plug in the wire, and go on to the second. As the cabinet is sticking out from the wall just six inches, you can see my frustration here! fortunately, the cabinet is only 30 inches high, so at least I can lean down on it. Have a hard time working on it, because we have house guests all week - and they don't understand my insanity with all this stereo stuff. The guy has a true "tin ear", and can't tell good sound from junk - so I have a difficult time explaining to him why all the fuss. Triple sigh.. The computer I'm using is all hooked up in the guest room - which, when nobody's here, I use as a den. Sooooo - I can only get in here when the guests are out doing their thing elsewhere. OK - they're out shopping, so I'm quick-answering, then I'll get back to the cable project. A tad early in the day for scotch, but I may have to break my "4 p.m." rule and get a head start on the evening! Rick - you are SO right! I'm beginning to think all this hookup will not only drive me mad, but also frustrate me to the point where the music won't sound any better at all! Of course, my setup won't be "true SACD," because I have no center speaker (and never intend to hook one up) - and no woofer, though someday I'll get one of those. So, in essence - I have a 4-point system, and we'll see what the SACD-sound is like on it. Merri says I'm beginning to go "over the top," and wants me to calm down and try to enjoy the project. She, of course, merely joins me for the "glass-uh" after I'm through for the day, so what the heck does she know?? (grin) More anon (if I live) . . . |
|
Silver Member Username: Larry_rNaples, FL Post Number: 160 Registered: Oct-04 | PS - John A. the cables are bright blue - with color-coded jackets on the Canare connectors. Tried to find arrows - none. Maybe THAT'S my problem! Hmmm. . . |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2459 Registered: Dec-03 | MR, I believe I understood the Audio News World Scoop, but you can never be sure with pennies.... When the magazine "Classic CD" started, they did a solemn article about having discovered and restored an original recording of Chopin playing his "Minute Watz". They had all the details. There was a bit about it being originally on smoked glass, which had been discovered in a box buried in someone's garden. The track was on the cover CD. It was great. I was completely taken in. Only in the next issue did they admit it was an April 1st hoax, and was made from a modern recording with guys hissing and clapping their hands in the foreground. I have burned two identical and insanely multi-genre CDs for the "Vivid" experiment, from Danny Kaye to Red Hot Chilli Peppers, calling off at Mahler, Mozart, Pink Floyd and Scott Joplin, amongst others. Watch this space. But do not hold your breath. It will take some transatlantic postage and several bottle of Chivas etc. before these beautiful test discs can be made available, and I have to work out how not to get sued. But, anyone interested, please have some CD-R discs ready. It will have to be done before Dec 31, after which I am moving planets. Again. Larry, Surely you know better than to connect BLUE cables? What about the molecular structure of the dye, and the wavelength of light? Really, I thought we were all experts on this thread. Tut, tut.... |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Audio magazine, actually an informative over the counter publication that lasted for alomst fifty years, always ran an April 1st issue and each year featured a new product by Lirpa. Always got letters from new readers about the product and where to buy it. The concept of single speaker rooms works on the simple principle of air waves and air pressure. The speaker making music is moving air, thus creating air pressure within the room. The compliant system of an undriven speaker will respond to the changes in pressure by movement of its radiating surface. Any radiating surface will be both out of phase with the signal and will have its own voice which will include its distortion component. Obviously a 12" woofer is likely to have a distortion product of up to 20% at low frequencies. So here you have an out of phase signal with several resonant points and distortion adding to the enjoyment of your new high end speakers and that can't be good. How far you wanted to take the idea of eliminating all speakers from the room was, interestingly, tied to how many red vs. blue cables you were using. Dealers eventually began shorting the input conectors on undriven speakers to allow an easier transistion, on everyone, between speakers when comparing different models. Do I believe the idea? Yes, with reservations. Anyone who didn't hear the difference in a high quality system when the undriven speakers were removed from the room wasn't listening very closely. With the fashion of listening you employ, John, this difference should be immedialtely evident to you. Will removing TV's and telephones make a difference? It can, depending on the system and the proximity to the listener. A bell on a telelphone can have a high pitched signal that is added. The TV, as just a large box, can add a dullness to the system, even when it is not between the speakers. Of course, between the speakers you have the additional problem of reflective edges and surfaces which diffract and diffuse the sound. No this audio system set up is quite the tricky matter and should not be left to amateurs or those drinking Scotch. Though a good double shot of Expresso can be of great help. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2461 Registered: Dec-03 | Thank you, Jan. That is another experiment for the weekend, then. My family members are beginning to despair. They regard my attempts to identify differencesin sound quality as mostly harmless. Until now. I am sure MR, Larry and Rick understand. Moving some more speakers in, and not plugging them in, will arouse even more suspicion that I have flown off with the birds. I would be pleased to see the TV go. It is a large resonant plastic box that also produces pictures that get in the way of listening to music. The insulating tape on the turntable had my son looking worried, and asking Mrs A earnestly about my health. Funny thing is, it made the biggest difference since opening the lid. I think MR is correct about "hi-res". Even allowing for the fact that one is probably using different inputs. I plugged the "CD" out into the 5.1 L and R inputs and it was like taking a veil away. How to persuade the others that one has not flipped, that is the problem. Still, they like the results: I am regarded as benign until I start suggesting spending sums of money. Will report back. Probably at the weekend. |
|
Silver Member Username: Larry_rNaples, FL Post Number: 161 Registered: Oct-04 | Scotch in hand, I proudly state that I'M DONE! Got all hooked up - but it was very dusty behind the cabinet - and I lied, I only had FIVE inches of working room. Never, never sneeze whilst trying to paint a bit of silver on a plug. I managed to cover three plugs, part of the cabinet and my right hand in one swell foop! Alcohol, q-tips and paper towels to the rescue - and the mess was finally cleaned up. (whew!) As to the sound - well, it took me about a half-hour scurrying around in the manuals to figger it all out - but now it's set, and I must say that I'm a very large fan of SACD! The sound quality is not just a little bit better, it's a LOT better! More natural, first. Warmer, with an impression that you hear actual instruments, not just a "group." Hard to explain, but after sitting down in my "spot," I found that the so-called "surround" - at least on Mahler 2 - is very subtle. Not at all like being "in the midst" of the orchestra. No, the "sound" from the back speakers is presence more than straight-ahead sound. Quite nice, really - but must listen to much more before I can be more specific. Give the player very high marks so far - but now that I have that I do notice the weaknesses in my speakers. Sigh. So - the li'l piggy bank comes out, and way, way down the road I see a new pair of B & W 705s in my future. Mer says yeah, sure, just keep saving those quarters! Sigh. OK - blue cables, John A., have a smoother, silkier quality than do the red cables. You hear in most obviously in small groups, where the individual instruments are in the foreground. Yep, blue cables for a soothing sound - no doubt about it!! You may quote me. . . More anon - must away to my guests. . . |
|
Silver Member Username: Larry_rNaples, FL Post Number: 162 Registered: Oct-04 | Wellllll, gang: Sigh. Got my nice, brass cones from duh machinist today. Very good job - and all for nine bucks, too! Got them nicely set in under the CD player, and played and played and played. Rearranged them, and played again - two in front, one in the back. OK - played and played. Noticed nothing. Took out the cones. Played and played same things. Noticed nothing. Put in cones in slightly different places, and played and played. Noticed nothing. Took out cones, played and played. Noticed nothing. OK -HEY, RICK - YOO-HOO! What the heck am I supposed to be hearing? I can't seem to get any difference at all on string quartet, light jazz piano, orchestra and even Diana Krall DVD. Sigh. I know that youze guyz hear something "better" with use of the cones. Are mine just "jinxed?" They're very pretty, and heavy, too! But do nothing that I can hear. Put on my little "soft feet" which are silicone rubber and cork layers. And played and played. Sound "appeared" to be a bit smoother. But probably just subjective listening. . . I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but so far I get the feeling that either my ears aren't good enough - or my player is good enough so that the "jitter" doesn't show up - or that the differences Rick and Jan talk about are just too subtle for me? Will post more later - but my house-guests are returning home, and I must away to some shrimp and scotch preparations. Tough life, I know!! More anon. . . (sigh) |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 635 Registered: Dec-03 | Larry, I really don't know what to say because I can't hear what you are hearing. It could be all of the above, none of the above, or some of the above. What is the surface material of the base the cones are on? The only thing I know for sure is it will sound fantastic after mass quantities of shrimp and scotch.......................................................................... ............ Cheers! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2464 Registered: Dec-03 | I have wired up my NAD AV receiver so that the L and R of the "Ext 5.1" receives the tape 1 monitor out from a circa 1990 NAD 1000 stereo pre-amp. This by-passes all tone controls and several stages of circuitry in the receiver. It improves LP, Cd, and anything going through the old pre-amp inputs. I conclude the pre-pro stage of an NAD T760 degrades sound quality compared with the much older stereo pre-amp, and am wondering how much of the improved resolution of DVD-A etc can be attributed to the direct analogue connections used there. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 1089 Registered: Aug-04 | Rick, You forgot to tell Larry what it is you put in the cones - something you learned in S.E. Asia perhaps :-) |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 1090 Registered: Aug-04 | John A Can't speak for the NAD T760 but IMO with the analogue in connections on the SR-7300 which is unaffected by tone controls etc the difference between cd and dvd-a is still chalk and cheese. In my opinion it is not the connections but the DVD-A recording and decoding process which makes the overall improvement. Playing cd's through these analogue connections offers little or no value compared to using digital connnections and switching to digital direct which also bypasses all influences. All, Changing the subject, I solved the problem of having our center speaker on a stool behind the display panel. I'm not what you call a real handyman but after finding out the best method, I bought the gear and finally completed the little project yesterday without the aid of scotch (or in my case, bourbon) and I'm pleased to say, with no stress also. I covered all a/v gear with a sheet to protect from dust, marked the wall using the faceplate as template, drilled the holes with a tungsten bit in my handy cordless drill, affixed the faceplate and arm with dynabolts, assembled the carrytray and pivot to arm, tested strength and finally set the speaker in place to find it all perfectly level, tilted the speaker to listening position, tightened the pivot, cleaned up and tested. Perfect! I'll re-post a picture below in case anyone is interest in same application. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 1091 Registered: Aug-04 | Wall bracket for center speaker.  |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Rantz - Not that you wouldn't, but, no, I'm sure you did. But, if you didn't ... if you failed to ... Oh, my! No, no, no. Certainly you did! Didn't you? You did put some PlastiTak or something under the speaker to keep it from vibrating off the shelf. Didn't you? Rantz? |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 1093 Registered: Aug-04 | John A Re my last post. I think I may have misunderstood. In fact I'm not sure I understand even now: Are you saying DVD-A gets it's better resolution or part thereof because of the analogue inputs - if so and you just realised your inputs aren't up to scratch because of the degrading property of the pre-pro in your T760 (if I'm reading you correctly) then where did that fabulous improvement come from in the first place? Not disputing - just not quite getting it, but then that seems to happen more and more these days :-) Jan, How could the very thought that I could neglect to do something so very elementary yet important cross your mind? Ha ha hee hee! I used 4 little self adhesive rubber pads about one half inch in diameter and about 3/16th of an inch in height with non-slip corrugated surfaces between the speaker and the support tray. It seems as solid as a rock. The speaker is a little higher than it's optimum placement (in line with the mains) but not enough to degrade the result - thank goodness! I appreciate the just-in-case warning all the same. |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1828 Registered: Dec-03 | RANTS JOHN POSTED THIS AWHILE BACK! "Returning to audio, I have discovered my receiver's "Ext 5.1" input gives better sound than any of the others, even if I give the L and R just a two-channel anologue input from say, CD. So I have been inconsciously stacking the odds in favour of DVD-A's "hi-res". It is still there, though, even allowing for that. I think the newer NAD receivers' "stereo direct" probably does the same, missing out an input board that cuts some of the fast transient response. This also explains the great sound of CD on my two-channel system with direct feed from CD/DVD (NAD T532) player to power amp (Sony, by the way)." What he's saying is true for most people a direct connection to the amps in your reciever "should" sound better than going through the processing of the preamp. many high quality preamps cutoff all tone controls/processing in an attempt to "preserve" the original signal as much as it can. Also some recievers have horrable preamp sections in them. I was fairly lucky with the hk as it's preamp section was very nice "not as good as the b&k" and when I ran my sacd/dvd-a through the 7.1 analog inputs if I wanted could also do some altering of bass and etc "using the preamp section in with my sacd/dvd-a" and noticed no degration of quality. But what I think john is saying is that it helps his cd's sound better then they have and the gap between dvd-a and cd "quality" isn't as large in his system as it once was. DvD-A is still better but he feels his reciever was handicapping the sound of cd in his setup so he wasn't making a fair comparison. THAT IS WHAT I BELIEVE JOHN WAS SAYING! |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1829 Registered: Dec-03 | LARRY: Just reread your post about classical1. And it does sound to me you have a legitamte complaint about how he treated you. If that is the case then it's sad to see that. And I feal for you buddy! _________________________________ It also makes me think: All the talking and help from jan getting me started in tubes and making a deal with him to get the preamps and dynaco amps! MAKES ME WANT TO MAKE SURE I'VE THANKED JAN PROPERLY! JAN: THANK YOU VERY VERY MUCH!! "I believe I have thanked you but felt the need to do so with the whole clan" AND SORRY IF THIS IS A LITTLE LATE! |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1830 Registered: Dec-03 | RANTZ: also love the wall bracket, looks professional! |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 1094 Registered: Aug-04 | Kegger, See, this is what happens when I should be wearing glasses. I can see the words but obviously some must be appearing backwards. Yes, after your explanation I can see what John is on about. Many thanks for going to the trouble to get me to see it. And John A, sorry old chap - in future I'll read things thrice especially if the glasses aren't handy. I understand now. Does this mean you're going to apologise to Sony/Philips now?  |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 1095 Registered: Aug-04 | Oh and Larry, I agree with Kegger about Classical 1 also. If he makes it through his voyage and returns here to rub it in - we'll keel-haul him :-) |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2465 Registered: Dec-03 | My Rantz, Kegger sums up what I was trying to say exactly. Thanks, Kegger! Yes, I still think DVD-A is better than CD. But I now know that some of that original "Wow!" factor came from using the 5.1 inputs for the first time. They make everything better, for me, with the possible exception of a Nokia digital satellite receiver (where I get all my radio). I think the Nokia's own DACs and processing are no better than those in the pre-pro stage of the NAD receiver. No surprise. Seriously, if you have not tried it, just play a CD in your Denon 2900 and compare the sound you get from the Marantz receiver through the Ext 5.1 with that through the CD input, and then with that with the direct digital connection. The Ext 5.1 wins every time on my system. You can hear the words. By the way this applies just as much to LP. Strange that NAD put the CD input into a sound-degrading processor board. No, Jan, I do not think there is a conspiracy to "dumb down" CD and give the 5.1 media a head start. Probably the designers thought most people would wish to keep open the option of surround sound processing on CD, so the signal goes into that board. By the way I find that if I do use surround processing with CD then it is much better to use the digital input to the receiver. But I am completely with Jan on surround processing. It really does only harm to music. There, stereo rules. DVD-A is different, since it has true multichannel recording in the first place, in most cases. Kegger, I also completely agree about things learned here, and a little "thanks" now again does some good. You write for me, too! I have learned so much from all you guys, but especially Jan. I am currently tweaking my turntable, about which Jan seems to know more than anyone, on another thread, even though he does not have that model himself. Rega Planar 3 - Turntable running slow. This forum, and especially this thread, has also made me listen more carefully and critically. This means I hear things in the music more and more. I thank you all for that. So, thanks, guys. Let us all just take a little time to say that, now and again. Of all of us, Rick is the most unfailingly courteous, I think. I salute you, sir! My Rantz is an old friend, adversary, and debating partner, and I am even beginning to be able to allow for his irrational faith in the goodness of Sony-Philips. Wow there are some angry and foul tempered Sonyphobes on that linked thread. They must make me seem almost reasonable. I am sure MR will agree.... Nice piece of D-I-Y, MR! And nice photo, too. You can't beat brick. I suppose, where I now live, people did not have the story of the "Three Little Pigs", as children. Everything is "little boxes...made of ticky-tacky". Anyone remember Pete Seeger? I had my surrounds on wall brackets, until two months ago, but the wall is just plasterboard, and they were sagging, so I put them back on stands. For me, there is not much point in doing installations at the moment. Now, which parts of my system to take in usable form (not packed for storage) when we move. You know you are moving when you start wondering where you will put the speakers, and if there will be a good location for the sources. Mrs A thinks about more practical things. We are a perfect team. All the best. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 636 Registered: Dec-03 | Rantz, Great job on the bracket. John, Than you for the kind words. My sincere admiration and respects to all the "OLD DOGS." There is an old Chinese proverb: If a mans' character is unclear to you, look at his friends........................................... Cheers! PS Almost forgot John, Pete Seeger was a neighbor of mine for a number of years. |
|
Silver Member Username: Larry_rNaples, FL Post Number: 163 Registered: Oct-04 | MR and Kegger: (trying to play catch-up!) Thanks for your "support" in my comments re Classical 1. I felt rather "singed" by John A. - so backed way off. No matter now - he's gone and my life goes on. Just hate to feel "taken advantage of," if you know what I mean. RICK: Well, sir - I don't know what I'm listening for! It gets very frustrating. Here's my setup. The new (and very, very nice) Yamaha resting on three of the four cones - two in the front, one in mid-back, about an inch in from the "edge" of the player. The cones sit into the little brass discs that have indents in the middle, into which the cone-points go. The discs, in turn, sit on 5/8-inch wood shelves that are attached to the main cabinet with little plastic support-thangs, on which are itty-bitty circles of cork. I've tried the cones two in front, one in back, reversed - and moved around under the player. I've tried the cones with, and without the bottom discs. I've even tried the cones upside down, though I knew it would be useless to do that. Nothing I've done has had ANY discernable effects on the music. As y'all know, I had made up some "soft-feet" to go under the JVC player - basically a layer of cork, then a half-inch of soft silicone rubber, then another thin cork-layer. With those in place I "THOUGHT" I heard a slight smoothing-out of the music. But by that time I'd pretty much "had it" with listening, after going round for round for two hours. I'm going to try again - this time with leaving the cones in place for several hours. Then removing them and using the Yamaha's basic "feet" to see if there is any difference. Sigh. Sigh. OK - the house-guests are away doing major shopping - and so I get to come back to the computer. They'll be here another three days, and actually it is no problem, as we like and respect each other a lot. This next week will be hectic, as Mer has both extra classes to teach, plus a personal contract to finish - and I have another of those damned Master's theses to edit and format. Of all the useless things in the universe, Master's theses come in right at the top. Never did see one that would do much of anything other than massage the major professor's ego - perhaps some of you know of similar documents that have actually made "a difference" somewhere? Hmmm. . . OK - away to some yard work, then on with the CD testing. I tried to get Mer into it, but she's just too busy at the moment. I think that she believes the cone idea to be idiotic, but she's too polite to say so directly! (grin) And while I'm at it - thank you to all of you, for more than you may ever know! More anon. . . |
|
Silver Member Username: Larry_rNaples, FL Post Number: 164 Registered: Oct-04 | Oh, no! As in OUCH! No sooner did I "hang up on the above posting than I got a phone call from my doctor-friend's wife. Seems that she was trying to rearrange a picture on the wall above the stereo rack. Well, she put down her coffee (with double cream and sugar) ON THE SUNFIRE RECEIVER. Uh-oh! Her foot slipped on the stool, and over went the coffee, into and all around the Sunfire, which was playing merry tunes. WHAPPPPP! She said there was this "terrible sound, then a burning smell." Double uh-oh. I told her to unplug everything NOW - and that I'd be over soonish. I don't want to even think about what I'm going to find. That Sunfire costs $4,000! More when my "rescue mission" is finished. . . |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2468 Registered: Dec-03 | Rick, You are most welcome. Your affected courtesy can be seen in every post. You must have had some interesting political discussion with Mr Seeger! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2469 Registered: Dec-03 | Sorry, "unaffected"!!! Definitely. That was quite unintended! I must learn to type. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 1096 Registered: Aug-04 | "his irrational faith in the goodness of Sony-Philips." John A, Now you know the above is not true: my faith is not irrational :-) Seriously, I am not a defender of Sony/Philips at all, it's just that I don't accept your irrational obsessive conspiracy theory that there is an underlying evil plan behind all their R&D. "Of all of us, Rick is the most unfailingly courteous, I think." Huh? You mean Rick Barnes? Our Ricky? The Rick who resides in N.Y and puts everything on brass cones? That Rick? Pete's old neighbour? John, are we talking about the same Rick? All right then. Rick, Note the hesitation in John's flattery - I think? Okay, I'll have to agree there :-} And I too wish to convey a big THANYOU to all you guys - and gal - for truly helping me to make our audio world a better place to listen in. Your friendship and support is second to none. Where a doggone tissue when you need one? |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 1097 Registered: Aug-04 | Now, if all of you could improve a little then maybe I'll add the K for a real thankyou :-} |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 1098 Registered: Aug-04 | Oh and John - your incognito anti Sony tirade on the MiniDisc Decks thread was a bit over the top - don't you think? |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 637 Registered: Dec-03 | Rantz, John had ME looking around for this Rick guy.......................(LOL!) John, Sincerely, thanks again my friend. Despite our obvious political differences, Mr. Seeger and I worked together many years ago on the Hudson River clean up project. Yes, Jan the river Senore Columbus, sailed up. It still is IMHO one of the most majestic rivers in America. Larry, It sounds like the Sunfire is toast. Thank goodness it wasn't a McIntosh..............you would have to get out the smelling salts for me. (LOL!) |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2470 Registered: Dec-03 | MR, What other "Rick" is there??? Thank you for the pointer. I admit that I do not normally worry obsessively about minidisk. Guys and gal (where gal? - Ed.):- The latest poster, "Friday, November 19, 2004 - 07:30 am", on SONY... is not I. But I agree, broadly, and admire such forthright style. Direct and to the point. He can spell, too. And type. Possibly. I liked the bit about "ALL WHO OPPOSE THE NEW GREED MACHINE WILL BE DESTROYED". Larry, all I can suggest about the Sunfire receiver is take it apart, mop up any internal puddles of coffee, and leave it apart with a fan blowing, to evaporate any residual liquid. But "terrible sound, then a burning smell." does not bode well, I agree. Ask your friend about his house contents insurance. It does not sound good |
|
Silver Member Username: Larry_rNaples, FL Post Number: 165 Registered: Oct-04 | To all: "toast" is a good description of the Sunfire. Got over there to find this marvelous piece of gear with liddle trails of smoke coming up from under the circuit board. Dead, fer shore! Doc wasn't there - but when he came home he, uh, "had a fit." I got outta there, and left them to their, uh, whatever. Later, he called to say that he's putting in a claim under his homeowner's insurance - and had called the Sundire people. They said it was probably "not repairable," but if he wanted to send it to Idaho, or somewhere out there, they would try. For Big Bucks. He said nope, and I guess will give it over to the insurance mopes for their inspection. Sad, sad day! Well, house guests are a-coming in - and Mer and I have horse doovers and booze for them - so will try to post again tomorrow. Never did get back to the cones, which are sorta on "the back burner" for the time being. More anon . . . |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 1099 Registered: Aug-04 | John A "ALL WHO OPPOSE THE NEW GREED MACHINE WILL BE DESTROYED". I think it was the infamous Gordon Gecko who put it succinctly: "Greed is good!" I'll leave it up to you where I stand on that point. Larry - now we understand why they don't have a coffee maker option with these new hi-tech components. Rick John came very close - calling a Green Beret "affected" I bet you were leaning into the closet for the old M16. LVL! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2473 Registered: Dec-03 | A search reveals that Gordon Gecko is a character in Wall Street (1987). Looks interesting. Thank, MR! From about the same time, just in case anyone hasn't seen Fish Called Wanda, A (1988)... Apologies for my digression, yet again. Now, about that brown spotted ornich, found in the sub tropics of Queensland... |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Kegger- I'm treading tenderly, not trying to stir up certain characters who seem to be off in the distance for now, but ... there is no need to thank the Ranger. I do hope you found the silver bullet I packed with the Dynas. It was definitely my pleasure to have someone enjoy music as much as it appears you have once you started experimenting with thermionic valves. They should give you many years of listening and modifying to do still. And you never get used to the looks you receive when you tell someone the amplifiers you listen to are over forty years old. Rick - It would seem common ground between philosophies is slipping away. When you worked with Mr. S. it was for a purpose that benefitted many. Now it seems the benefit has to be for a small, narrow group. I would think you should have some good stories to tell about your experience. Larry - When I suggested a double Expresso would aid in hooking up a system I didn't mean in the amplifier. As your friend is going to find out, if he hasn't already, when liquid hits a printed circuit board it becomes unrepairable under almost all circumstances. When I was working in one store with a repair shop we had a client whose dog relieved itself on the top of his Yamaha CR-2020. He struggled for about six months with problems that kept reappearing. He finally replaced the unit with a Tandberg 2075. He thought it a major improvement in his system. However, his dog once again found a repository for its needs. His next purchase was a receiver and a new cabinet with doors. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2478 Registered: Dec-03 | Trying to get back to "Am I alone in thinking stereo is always best for music...?", and with apologies to brown, spotted ornich-fanciers (and those of any colour and complexion); Larry posted a really nice link. Is There a Future for High-Rez? By Barry Willis & Jon Iverson Quotes: Digital rights management (DRM), the technological implementation of copyright concerns, is crippling high-resolution audio in the consumer market. .... the real benefits, in the form of DRM schemes, actually accrue to the record companies. This has led to the lack of "portability" with the formats, a primary benefit that consumers demand. "Record companies are digging their own graves with DRM," said Atkinson. "Why are they treating their best customers, like me, as potential thieves?" ...high-rez discs in both formats sold only about 600,000 copies combined in the US in the first half of 2004. Without consumer demand, both of them are likely to fade away....To prevent that, Atkinson asserted, music lovers have to perceive that features (such as multichannel) are also benefits. Jan...? Regarding SACD vs DVD-A, Hawkford stated that SACD could be better in lower-priced equipment, but that "cost-no-object gear may favor DVD-A." In either case, "bass management is a major pain," he stated to sporadic applause. Hawksford also left little doubt as to his feelings about SACD releases sourced from PCM recordings: "They should be banned!" File under the heading "Weapons of Music Destruction." Meanwhile, EMI profits are up and they think digital downloading has been good for business, as I read it. The EMI Group - News. I still wish they had not put copy protection on that Mahler 5 DVD-A. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Sorry, I almost forgot. Just for those who care: On Nov. 19, 1863, President Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address as he dedicated a national cemetery at the site of the Civil War battlefield in Pennsylvania. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | John - I am left wondering, after reading the short, out of context quotation you provided, what feature/benefit the music industry is trying to sell and the speaker is asking to receive. It occurs to me the music/audio industry survived for decades offering the listener little more than the promise of better sound, if not, "perfect sound". In other words, what we looked towards was an improved sound quality. We wanted more detail, more accuracy, more dynamic range. We wanted less distortion and less noise. What we were after was a better recording of the artist's intent and talent. Nothing more than that was what most listeners required from either industry. If the record industry would have then produced a higher resolution disc format with just two channels (the original format for SACD) and presented it as just that, wouldn't that have been not only sufficient but actually desired? As I understand the course of events, SACD became a multi channel format only in response to the threat of DVD-A. Why? Why was a high resolution format that suited the direction audio had taken for decades all but scrapped for a format that played to the strengths of home theater systems? The decision seems to have benefitted neither format and neither the music industry nor the listener. Asking and researching how to properly implement the current formats into a two channel system is an exercise in frustration. And the answers only seem to get more confusing as more channels are added. Unless the buyer is willing to spend $1500 or more, which puts these formats out of the reach of the average buyer. Height channels from the center and subwoofer outputs are just one example of the frustration that I see facing a prospective buyer. As Ghia put it, if you're after the "WOW" factor the formats work fine; but, for the listener who just wants better sound they can be a nightmare. The other problem I see is the indecision over the direction either format will take. There are those who argue the benefits of both as high end audio's future while shuffling the other format off as "it will become something it is not today". I remember arguing about which format is superior and which will be forced to go away under pressure when the choice was QS or CD4, mono or stereo, VHS or Beta. The choices presented at those times seemed to suggest there would be a clear winner. (Chosen, unfortunately, by the bean counters not the buying public.) The philosophers of today seem to suggest that one format will morph into something while the other will progress to even greater glory. But they can't decide which one will do what. This type of bickering seems to do no one any favors and appears to be as much a reason for the indecision the buying public has about investing in either format in the near future. To my way of thinking a two channel hi rez format that simply plugged into an existing system and offered better sound quality vs. a multi channel format that appealled to the home theater crowd and had all the attendant problems and confusion that Bass Management and other issues pose to many of us would be a much more decisive fight. If Sony, for example, allowed a SACD player to simply slide into an existing system no questions asked I am guessing they would have a ready market that is holding back right now in confusion. Those listeners that want surround sound from a disc format probably have at least a few different surround modes on their receiver and would be perfectly happy with using them to get 5.1, 6.1, 7.1 or more. At a later date the issues of compatibility could be easily worked out by looking at what DVD-A did wrong and introducing a true high resolution, multi channel format based on SACD. Let the competition destroy themself and then move the existing format into take its place. Sounds like a much more (at least cost) effective way to do business to me. What I see out there are two competing formats that have all but killed off the interest they both need to survive. |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1834 Registered: Dec-03 | Well Jan the only problem I see with your thinking is that most if not all multichannel hi rez disks have 2 channel hi rez also! So we allready have what you prupose, I use it all the time! Just that containing multichannel also, gives us another option. I really like having the 2 channel on my hi rez and enjoy it quite often! But I also like the fact of multichannel too. |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1835 Registered: Dec-03 | I still don't see why it has to be one or the other. Can't we have both hi rez 2 channnel and multi? That's what I want and have! |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1836 Registered: Dec-03 | If someone wants to buy a hi rez player and use it strictly for 2 channel they can! But also if they decide to expand they can do that also. I don't see the problem! |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1837 Registered: Dec-03 | Larry was the doc's sunfire a prepro or reciever? If it was a prepro he may have a blessing in disguise. The reason I say that is there's 4 versions to the sunfire prepro. The first 2 have quite a few little quirks/problems (I almost bought one of those) model 3 has more of the kinks worked out and 4 even better yet! I could not afford model 3 or 4 "1 or 2 I found used in my price range" So I settled on the B&K "and am very happy" So if his insurance covers it maybe he'll end up with a better unit. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2480 Registered: Dec-03 | I think your are mostly correct, Jan, and I think "What I see out there are two competing formats that have all but killed off the interest they both need to survive." is probably just what some of those guys are thinking, too. Whe I read "To prevent that, Atkinson asserted, music lovers have to perceive that features (such as multichannel) are also benefits. " I thought of your quote (November 11) from the Dallas business section "...You have to create a perception in the buyer that there really is a difference, even if there isn't one." Must go. Will be back. BTW "Otto" in "A Fish called Wanda" belived the Gettysburg address was where Abraham Lincoln lived. Sorry, I am not paying attention - what were Rick and Pete S engaged in together...? All the best. BTW My reading of it is that SACD was a response to DVD, not the other way around, and also to declining CD sales. DVD discs just have more information on them than CD discs. That extra can be used fro all sorts of purposes. As Kegger says, correctly, you can have two-channel DVD. Multichannel is a separate issue. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 638 Registered: Dec-03 | Rantz, Was that affected or afflicted? (LOL!) Jan, I will always be around to defend the common ground. We should never lose sight of the fact that at the end of the day, we are all Americans. The Hudson River/Clearwater Sloop project was a very good thing. I grew up on the Hudson, and some of my fondest memories, are of me and my dad fishing in the river, as a boy. As you say, "how old I feel." |
|
Silver Member Username: GhiacabrioletNC Post Number: 501 Registered: Apr-04 | Greetings, All! I'm happy to report that I'm back in the US (funny, Nov 3rd I wanted to leave). This a.m. woke up to an overcast day but looked outside and saw the maple in the front yard has leaves in brilliant yellow and the dogwoods have leaves in brilliant red and the camellias are in full white and pink bloom. Inside, a comforting green is emanating from the Mac and a rainbow of sound is arching between the MA's. Life is good. |
|
Silver Member Username: GhiacabrioletNC Post Number: 502 Registered: Apr-04 | T.Rex, can you bring me a Coke, please? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2481 Registered: Dec-03 | Also, If the record industry would have then produced a higher resolution disc format with just two channels (the original format for SACD) and presented it as just that, wouldn't that have been not only sufficient but actually desired? As I understand the course of events, SACD became a multi channel format only in response to the threat of DVD-A. Why? Why was a high resolution format that suited the direction audio had taken for decades all but scrapped for a format that played to the strengths of home theater systems? Jan's perception could be more accurate than my own; I don't know. It is from the US, which leads most of Europe in consumer trends; people on average have hugely more disposable income there than in the rest of the world, and have more freedom to experiment. And the viewpoint is that of a very informed and intelligent "audiophile" who has taken a close interest in audio and music for many years. In contrast, where I am coming from: 1979-80 First half-decent stereo system. (It seemed to impress the future Mrs A....) 1982 Enthused by CD in theory; house family, mortgage prevent further experiments. But buy second pair of speakers to play LP and FM radio in the other room. 1987 Buy first CD. 1988 Finally buy CD player (Marantz 475 LE). 1988-92 Buy CDs only. 1990 Buy new speakers for totally difference reasons (to be small enough to take overseas in car). 1992 Subs to go with small speakers. This blows old amp. Get new amp. New amp ("Ion Obelisk", btw...?) clips. Replace it for pre-amp (first NAD purchase) and get separate power amp (Sony). More or less stop listening to music. More or less stop buying discs. 1999 Read about SACD and snort the incredulous snort of one taken for a complete fool. "Much better stereo sound quality than CD" (have THEY forgotten their promise of perfect sound, which I spend six years agonising about? - of course not!). Look at SACD catalogue and realise, best joke of all; they are releasing re-mixes of ANALOGUE masters! Meanwhile....family loves movies; I tolerate a VHS player and work it into my system. Mono first, then stereo player (Sony). 2002 Have wall-full of VHS tapes. Family wants DVD. I read up, decide to try it. Get 5.1 receiver. 2003 Get centre and sub; bring old "second room speakers" out for surrounds. Realise there are things called DVD-A discs. Get one. Sounds great, at least in DTS. Get about six. 2004 Get DVD-A player. Take whole new interest in music. Buy some DVD-As and even CDs, again. Realize that LP was just at least as good as CD, in the first place (shout, here, "We have been duped!") and buy some more LPs. Listen and learn and enjoy music again. Also spend more on recording than I had for years. That's about where I am. So my perception of SACD is not that of a "pure" hi-res medium, but of a possible marketing scam: I am still wary. My perception of DVD-A is that it is using a better (double-layer) digital storage medium developed for video content, but for sound quality, instead. I have no problem with that. I use DVD discs also for data storage, since I am allowed to write to DVD just as I was to CD. I now realise "the industry" (or someone) does not wish me to write SACDs, and will sue me if I so much as try. The industry can take a long running jump in the lake. I have little disposal income; music continues to fascinate and interest me; that is what they promise, but mostly fail, to deliver; and I am an honest guy who like to share what he thinks he has learned. The quote "Why are they treating their best customers, like me, as potential thieves?" really resonates for me. The b•stards have already taken more of my cash than I can afford, and offer beautiful music, recorded respectfully, only sporadically, and only if I am continually vigilant. Just go to your nearest supermarket or record store, and see what the mass market wants, or, at least, gets (which is, of course, not the same thing). Now I know MR, Kegger, and others, who have points of view I respect, think my view of SACD is prejudiced, and they may be correct, which is why I write all this: I am trying to convey my point of view. And it is interesting that Jan, whose opinions I so much value, perceives stereo SACD as the medium that, as it were "sold out" to bean-counters and market control-freaks. I see it the other way round. Has Jan been duped? Or have I? And, at the end, I do think multichannel recording has real things to offer to music. In some cases. So, apart from all the rest of it, one could see SACD going multichannel in 2000 as "those guys" opportunistically nicking a good idea that came from DVD-A. So it is mostly a matter of perception. But I still think "perfect sound that last forever" should never be forgotten. It should be branded on their foreheads; etched, painfully, on their private parts. Not many industries treat their customers with total contempt. We'll see how it all maps out. Final conclusion: never throw anything away. Amnesia is the marketing t*rd's greatest friend and ally. We should have a survey here on how many Old Dogs chucked away irreplacable Lps collections. Remember the one you always loved to listen to with your spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend/whatever? With the one before? With the one before that? Remember the one you gave your first child when you thought he/she was old enough? The one he/she first gave you? The one where you first heard how great was the artistry of Frank Zappa/Jaqueline Du Prez/Joan Sutherland/Eric Clapton/Leonard Bernstein/[insert as applicable]? There are gone, and gone because you believed what you were told. And you were told it in order for someone "to create a perception in the buyer that there really is a difference, even if there isn't one.". End of rant. Caveat emptor!, as they say. Or, used to. Now it is Credat emptor! if I remember correctly my miniscule bit of Latin. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 639 Registered: Dec-03 | Ghia, Nice to have you "home". Yes, life IS good......................enjoy! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2482 Registered: Dec-03 | Welcome, Ghia; I was beginning to think I had offended somehow. Again! Rick, We should never lose sight of the fact that at the end of the day, we are all Americans. Ouch! But Cheers, anyway. While we're at it, here's to the rest of the World. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 640 Registered: Dec-03 | John, I was directing that statement to the esteemed gentleman from Texas, who is a fellow American. If anyone on this international forum misread it, or took offense, I offer a sincere apology. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 1102 Registered: Aug-04 | "I am trying to convey my point of view." John, I think all you are conveying is your state of mind! Keep it up and you'll soon be bouncing off padded walls. Ghia, Must good to be back in the cave. Watch those teeth don't punture the can. and Jan, Lock the doors and windows the multi channel virus is spreading and people everywhere are suffering from extreme musical pleasure. Remember, if find yourself saying "WOW" seek urgent audio assistance. Kegger, The sacd and multi-channel antagonists have found allies in that - yes, you guessed it - Stereophile magazine. So I guess they must be right after all. Chuck out all the hi-res crap compadre, we have been duped - we are listening to shite because we are told it sounds good and we don't have the brains to know the difference. The Ranger and his ever faithful follower, the injun, know all and they will save us. Too bad they weren't around to prevent us from parting with our money. Don't you feel foolish for being so darn gullible? |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1838 Registered: Dec-03 | The only problem I see with someone thinking that hi rez should of been or should be strictly 2 channel! Is that even if it started out that way it would have eventually had to migrate to multichannel. (because more people own it these days) The only peopole who are going to buy hi rez 2 channel would be audiofiles for the most part and the industry would missout on all the people who have surround setups in there homes nowadays verse strictly 2 channel. As many of us have said when you go to a store to look at audio you find very little stereo it's all suround! That's what most people have in there homes. So my feeling is that if sacd/dvd-a was a stereo only format it would have even less support than it allready does. In fact anyone liking the use of hi rez for stereo or wanting a better media for stereo should be thankful it's in surround so it has a chance to survive! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2483 Registered: Dec-03 | Rick, Thank you so much. I can be quick to take offence from time to time - I predict a chorus of "YEP"s, here. And so I apologise for that. I am not familiar with "The Hudson River/Clearwater Sloop project", and perhaps misunderstood your reference to "the common ground". As an aside, and, if I catch the drift of your comments with Jan, it is an unsolved paradox to me that environmental concern and activism, which must be global if it is going to work, attracts people who are anything but international in outlook. This is particularly apparent to me where I live where "nature reserve" really means "foreigners keep out". There is nothing like arguing, in a langauage you do not know well, with some red-faced guy who says you are not allowed in the "nature reserve", which is obviously not that, but pasture, full of cow pats and the stumps of long-felled trees. You can point to them and he still doesn't get it. I tend to think he regards himself as part of nature, while I am not. I never encoutered this sort of thing even once in the U.S., I have to say! |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1839 Registered: Dec-03 | John this whole theory of yours about being duped to me is absord! (I agree with mr. rantz) Anyone who can't tell for themselves (BEFORE) they buy into the media that it is or isn't (BETTER FOR THEM) deserves whatever they get! I did not buy into sacd/dvd-a because I was (TOLD) it was better! I bought into it because of what I heard with my ears, the music sounded great! I did not buy into cd because I was told (PERFECT SOUND FOREVER) I bought into cd because it's much better then the cassette tapes I was using! Can't people make up there own minds and not just follow blindly to what someone tells them? I CAN! JOHN I THINK YOU GIVE PEOPLE LESS CREDIT THEN THEY DESERVE! |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1840 Registered: Dec-03 | GHIA: Good morning glad to see you survived. |
|
Silver Member Username: GhiacabrioletNC Post Number: 503 Registered: Apr-04 | Thanks, Rick! John, no it's been awhile since you have offended me. :-) The last two weeks have been spent in Canada, sharing a corporate apartment (and internet connection and car) with a bossy broad who kept calling me "sweetie" (suspect that's her code for b*tch) and working longer than usual hours so it's been difficult to keep up with the Old Dogs. You wrote: The quote "Why are they treating their best customers, like me, as potential thieves?" really resonates for me. " That quote in the article stood out for me, too, for much the same reasons. Also, I was struck by a couple of other themes/points: - The Norah Jones SACD "had been made from the 16-bit/44.1kHz-sampled PCM master rather than from the original analog tape." Wow, I wonder how often that happens? Maybe there should be a law requiring that every SACD backcover has a notation of the master source? - A common theme was that the "inexpensive" universal players are not truly revealing hi-res capabilities and, in fact, may not be any better than CD? Makes me wonder, "why bother"? Most of the hi-res recordings I have don't duplicate what I have on CD so a true comparison hasn't been made in my living room. But, I perceive a sonic superiority with the hi-res recordings I do have. Yet, if the opinions of those quoted in the article are close to reality, must I wonder if I'm just imagining things? It would seem so. It would also seem the only way to truly get the hi-res capabilities would be to have separate, hi-end players for each format. Or is that just elitist audiophile propaganda? |
|
Silver Member Username: GhiacabrioletNC Post Number: 504 Registered: Apr-04 | MR, By preference, I drink my Coke from green glass bottles but, if necessary, will partake from those new-fangled canny things or, if desperation is the word of the day, will even drink Coke from plastic bottles. But, for the "real thing" you must have green glass bottles as the drinking vessel. This is conceptually similar to having your sound system powered by a black glass, green lighted amp. |
|
Silver Member Username: Larry_rNaples, FL Post Number: 166 Registered: Oct-04 | Ghia: Welcome back to the Land of Calm! Hope your experience with the "broad" has not left you in a blue funk! Remember - you've got lots of support here on the "Dawgs" gang-page! Good to have you back! Kegger: - sigh - the doc's Sunfire was what they call "the ultimate receiver." It's amazing that I haven't shorted out the darned thing long ago - I tend to drool whenever I turn it on! (grin) He says it's "toast," and the insurance mopes say they agree. Not sure what he'll replace it with - but he's making noises about perhaps replacing "more than one thing around this house!" Hmmm. . .guess maybe the wife is in jeopardy, too? Nah - he'll get over it. (I think) Tried out the cones again - and am just leaving them in place for awhile, then will remove them and see if longer use makes any difference. Sorry, Rick and Jan, but so far neither I nor Mer hears any differences in sound. More anon . . . |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 641 Registered: Dec-03 | Ghia, I'll drink to that, but make mine Pepsi please. Mrs Barnes is a Pepsi corporate exec, so I can't have Coke products in the house. Cheers! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2484 Registered: Dec-03 | Ghia, It would also seem the only way to truly get the hi-res capabilities would be to have separate, hi-end players for each format. That seems to be what they are saying. My Rantz, I think all you are conveying is your state of mind! Thanks for the warning. I must apologise for all the autobiography. The point was, and is, how come Jan sees DVD as the "bad influence" and I see it as SACD. I am trying to correct for my own prejudices, that's all. To do that, I have to work out what they are. It is not so entertaining, I agree. Even for me. I think the "bottom line" (lapsing back immediately) is I have never, ever, had remotely near enough money. I actually have no time for people who want money for itself, but of all the things it buys I wish I had more of, it is the freedom to make mistakes. Kegger, Thanks, too. Can't people make up there own minds and not just follow blindly to what someone tells them? I CAN! I know, Kegger. I trust most people's judgement on this thread, and it is good to know what they think, you included. And that is just what I am trying to do. But you've got to decide what is even worth trying in the first place. For example, I was half-persuaded here, last week, mostly by you, that a "high-end" Cd player would make all the difference. Anyway, go and look at some of the other threads! Half of them seem to begin with something like "tell me what to buy"! I did not buy into cd because I was told (PERFECT SOUND FOREVER) I did. It took me about fifteen years to discover it was nonsense. Better late than never, I suppose! I am not inclined, now, to spend, say, $3000 equiv on a CD player, just on the off-chance I am not hearing CD at its best. There is no end to that way of looking at it. As I said, before, if one really wants to know which gives the better sound, LP or CD, how much dooes one have to spend before one it entitled to think one is in a position to judge? So, I seek other people's opinions, and try to decide whether they are good ones. Offering my own opinions, if anyone wants them. That's what this whole forum is doing, for different people, all the time, as far as I can see. Anything is better than accepting what advertisements tell you, that is for sure. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Welcome back to Ghia, though we seem to be missing a few old dog wannabes. Haven't heard from a few folks lately but I gather we disturbed them and they went away. Well, I think it's just grand that we can distrub one another and we still keep coming back for more. Be careful, Ghia, you will be called a thought police Stegosaurus if you keep up with this "green/black glass" thing. Rick - I understood your salutation but it would seem the response John had was one that is not creeping but flooding across the rest of the world. Not being a flag waver for the current bunch, I hestitate to think Ms. Rice will do much to sway opinion back toward our side. Kegger - I do agree that if SACD/DVD-A were strictly two channel they might have less than the support they currently, uh, ... er, ...let's see ... oh, yes, of course! ...than they currently enjoy. Maybe I am missing something since I don't buy discs over the internet; but, the hi rez formats don't seem to be setting the world on fire with sales numbers. And it would appear to be a matter of support from the industries that need it to grow which is lacking. An example is Pioneer producing a player that most think sounds quite good, if not astoudingly good for the money, and then replacing it with a player that most think doesn't sound as good. Not new in audio but not a desired trend either. As far as John giving people credit to think for themself my response would be you've never had a marketing course. Marketing (and sales) is about convincing the public they need something that many of them could easily live without. It is the perception of need that is stoked from the embers of desire. And the desire to need what? Nothing more than Mr. Carlin's famous "STUFF"!!! But I refer to the problems I have encountered in dealing with hi rez as it applies to both two and multi channel systems. If you have glanced at the links that were provided on the Pioneer 578/thin bass thread you will see the many technical problems that seem to have been ignored by the creators of the hi rez formats in their rush to get the product to market. Some of which are being addressed (mostly in the higher priced products) and some which seem to be wished away if no consumer discovers them. The likelyhood that what you will be listening to with your hi rez player, and more expensive disc, that may not actually be discharging the hi rez format you thought you paid for is bewildering to me. Players that downsample to little more than CD numbers, discs that are made from CD masters and the best sounding discs often coming from analog masters quite literally stupifies me. The lack of standards is depressing to me. Forward movement is one thing. Forward movement that can hopefully fold back to some former technology is great. Hi rez sems to have little of that concept really built in. The indications I have received in trying to adapt hi rez player to a 20 year old system have been that there is no desire for any real backwards engineering. My questions to Toshiba about the 4960 have now been one month in getting answers. One question they could not answer and had to "kick it overseas" for help was, "what comes out of the jacks marked mixed audio?" No one has an answer for that at Toshiba. When I inquired about the Pioneer player the (frightfully) young customer service rep (I knew when I said I was using a McIntosh system he thought I meant a computer) suggested I just step up to a good surround sound receiver. When I demured that I was not interested in a good surround sound receiver he directed me to someone who could "convince" me. The next lady took my question and put me on hold where I disappeared into an infinite hole of bad music. The return call I made connected me to a gent who apologized for the probelem but had no idea what I was asking. Now those are obviously problems in customer service which are endemic in the system that has become customer service; but, there should be a way for a client who has given the company money (of any amount) to get assistance that is knowledgeable and helpful. You deal with the problems everyday and I'm sure you see it in your industry also. An attitude of "I don't know" and "buy and return it if it doesn't work" has replaced the ability to get an answer. I finally got some answers when I called Mac about an email I got from another member of the forum. But I felt bad asking the Mac rep about a product that I don't intend to spend more than a few hundred dollars to buy. It isn't Mac's job to educate the consumer about someone else's product. And while we were discussing SACD/DVD-A we got to the discussion of how the 32 track masters are being treated on the hi rez formats. 32 TRACKS! I don't have the time or blood pressure to go into that. John - I don't think SACD has sold out to the bean counters. I think both formats have sold out to the bean counters. I truly wish all who own and listen to SACD/DVD-a the best. I'm really not tring to convince you to stop listening to however many channels you have hooked up to your system. Have a drink of whatever you prefer from any color bottle you wish (the addition of ice seems to be pushing the limits of social acceptance in most instances) and CRANK IT UP. I am merely stating the problems I see with a format(s) that has once more been hailed as an advancement when, if viewed with a jaundiced eye (eh, John) could be seen as a step to the rear. Format wars, Blue Ray, et all, considered. J. Vigne |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1842 Registered: Dec-03 | The only thing I have to say about your post jan is! That sacd/dvd-a sound better then cd "on at least 90%" So for me it's a step in the right direction! Yes even in 2 channel it sounds better then cd. So should we not have it because they don't have all the bells and whistles worked out? I am very glad I have a format that sounds better then what I was using! That is the bottom line for me! |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1843 Registered: Dec-03 | john: "I was half-persuaded here, last week, mostly by you, that a "high-end" Cd player would make all the difference" "I am not inclined, now, to spend, say, $3000 equiv on a CD player, just on the off-chance I am not hearing CD at its best." My post wasn't for any of us to go buy something rediculously expensive to see if cd sounded better then what we were use to. The question was: (IF) we spent the cash and the player deliverd, what does that say about the medium? (HYPATHETICLY SPEAKING) And my thinking was that what it takes to make digital sound good is too expensive for the average person to afford but hopefully in the near future some of that tech would tricle down to the affordable players. And if that was the case would it change ones perception of cd as a flawed medium. And the reason why this came about is I believe players in the affordable range are "starting" to get much better right now! One example may be larry's yamaha or my pioneer! Very good players at very little cost "respectably" |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 642 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, Sadly, what you say is true. All I can do is think back to the days of the Roman Empire, when a Roman citizen could go anywhere in the world without fear, of being harmed because they were Romans. So I quess we Americans are at the crossroads. Personally I vote for a good long period of isolationism. If the world has a problem, call on someone else to deal with it. We're out of business in the save the world department. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Rick - If only that were true. If we are not in the save the world business where we currently find our troops, then we went there because somebody had to show Daddy how it was done. I'm a little suprised to find you favor isolationism. I would have concluded you had seen the need for the involvement of all people and all nations to work together for the common ggod of all on this planet. Maybe it's more complicated than the Hudson River project, but no less a matter of how can we all benefit. I am no advocate of military intervention; but, I don't think the world can do well if every nation should take a go it alone, save your own butt attitude. Kegger - "So should we not have it because they don't have all the bells and whistles worked out?" As I said before, you might want to ask Mr. Gates that question. He appears willing to make the corrections to his systems after they have been in the field. At least he allows free upgrades to his serious miscalculations. Sometimes late, but free. I find the technical faults of both formats to be severe enough that I would say we should not have them in their current format unless they work as advertised. Maybe someone can correct an error I have made; but, one of the problems with SACD is when speaker delays are applied the signal has to be taken out of the hi rez sampling rate and downsampled to PCM levels to accomodate the software in today's receivers and processors. That would appear to remove an advantage of the DSD processing. That allows multi channel operation but not in a true hi rez format for all channels. And there are other examples that show up where the format you get is not the format you were promised. I foresee a possibility that the DVD-A and SACD we end up with in a few years will not be the same formats we now use. Or else, like CD where processing power was outdated by the time it hit the market, the formats will become locked into a less than ideal layout merely because the manufacturers wanted the format out in time for X-mas season or whatever. So my answer is we shouldn't have these formats if they are not technically ready to be introduced. And I suggest that a true hi rez, two channel format is what was called for until the multi channel formats could be made ready for release. But then I'm also getting tried of reading about Dolby Digital EX/THX and DTS II being added to for one more channel or effect. I saw a receiver's front panel yesterday that would take quite a while and quite a bit of knowledge to comprehend all the formats contained within the circuitry. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 1103 Registered: Aug-04 | PERFECT SOUND FOREVER Why do you all believe this slogan was meant to insinuate perfection in sound quality and not the intended perfect sound - that is without the hisses, pops and scratching of lp's on turntables or tape hiss from reel to reels or tape decks - forever? How do you know what what the advertising slogan makers were thinking - are you psychic or just all knowing? I have my ideas on that! Some of you act as if you are being forced into this nu fangled teknology. Why so paranoid? Just sit on your rockers, fill yer corn-cob, light up and gently rock yourselves to sleep to the hissing, crackling sounds of diamond pins scraping through plastic grooves. How could anything surpass such wonder? |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 1104 Registered: Aug-04 | The dsd can be downsampled to pcm to allow those in situations where having the ideal multi speaker locations is not available to them. Otherwise the tru wonder of DSD can fulfill the real audio afficiando's needs. It's not rocket science! |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1846 Registered: Dec-03 | Also "one of the problems with SACD is when speaker delays are applied the signal has to be taken out of the hi rez sampling rate and downsampled to PCM levels to accomodate the software in today's receivers and processors." I don't believe all players have to do this! And I don't use bass management so it does not degrade my signal anyway! Well you have your oppinion that maybe we should not have this format with it's limitations that are not upto your standards. But I believe in the format and like what I hear! So as far as I'm concerned it's an improvement from what I had! And if it's an improvement over what I had then I say bring it on! And over time I suspect it will get even better! But right now it's good enough to keep me listening! When was the last time we had something that improves over what most of use on a daily basis? even if it only improves sometimes for some of us. It shows to me a trend towards giving us something better then what we had. And that to me is something good to see. (whether it actually improves or not at least it's someone trying) To me that is technology "trying to improve on what we had" I'd rather have that then stand pat with what we have! But again I think it is an improvement and is working! If multi channel has to many issues for you then you can still listen to high rez in 2 channel. So I'm not sure what your complaining about. You prefer 2 channel over surround anyways. You can have 2 channel hi rez with sacd/dvd-a. So you have what you prupose hi rez to be. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | WELL, EX CUUUUUUUUUZZZZZZZZZZZZZE ME! |
|
Silver Member Username: OjophileON Post Number: 119 Registered: Jun-04 | I've been reading with amusement and mild interest the repartees, ripostes, and rejoinders by the members of this forum in the last several weeks that I was afraid to jump in as I felt I had nothing important or even witty to say. But as the discussions have progressed from liquid enhancers to corks, cones, and ricocheted back to stereo vs. multi-channel, I thought I'd post my thoughts. A few nights ago, I was listening to the "amazing" Bud Powell CD. For those who are not deep into jazz, Powell (1924-1966) was an outstanding bebop pianist, the keyboard counterpart of alto sax great, Charlie Parker (1920-1955). As you can already guess, Powell's recordings date back to a time when the technology did not do justice to any revered artist's musical performance. However, to an amateur musician* like myself and a true blue jazz fan, I can dispense with the limitations of the Powell recordings, and any other definitive jazz recordings of the day, because in the end, to me, it's still the music that matters. As I sat by my piano trying to figure out the notes to Powell's "Bouncing with Bud," it was clear to me that as long as I can hear the chord structure, the nuances of Powell's phrasing and the feeling that he was trying to convey to me, the listener, the quality of the sound was forgiveable. If I can hear the music clearly enough to help me learn it, then I'm happy. I think to a musician, amateur or professional, the fine sonic detail of a drummer's brushwork or the clarity of a horn player's solos is no more important than the actual music being played. I agree with Ghia's point (Most of the hi-res recordings I have don't duplicate what I have on CD). Yes, there are CD's out there that have been finely remastered using this so-called 20-bit technology of which I have no clue. I've been buying them to replace earlier CD reissues (the AAD's and 'ADD's). Do I prefer them over the original LP versions? Certainly. Most of them, that is. A few of the remastered CD's that I treasure: Getz/Gilberto - Stan Getz, Joao Gilberto, Antonio Carlos Jobim Explorations - Bill Evans Trio Miles Ahead - Miles Davis with the Gil Evans Orchestra Abraxas - Santana Santana - self-titled album The Rudy van Gelder remastered Blue Note recordings of Herbie Hancock, Dexter Gordon, etc. Chicago I, II, and V - (Rhino label) - I think most remastered CD's issued by Rhino are good. Any comments? etc., etc. John, re: your disappointment with and disdain (is that too strong a word?) for the CD: IMO, I think it deserves its own place in the history of hi-fi milestones. You bought your first CD in 1987; I bought mine in 1986, a Teldec recording of Chopin Nocturnes. You will recall that the first batch of CD's consisted of new and reissued classical recordings because the industry initially targeted the "mature" buyers (read: those who had disposable income). I played my first few CD acquisitions on a black, nondescript Philips CD player with spartan features, no more than five buttons, if I recall correctly. I was thrilled at the sound. Finally, I could hear the pianissimo passages clearly without the pop and crackle of LP's or the hiss of cassettes. I was single then and had no obligation other than to myself, so I spent my money as fast as the industry was producing the CD's. I realized soon enough that the CD had unmasked the limitations of earlier recordings. As hard as they tried, the remastering engineers could only minimize, not eliminate, the hiss from the original master tapes. Where no master tapes could be found, they used original vinyl pressings and thus, the pop and crackle eventually made their way on the CD's. Another thing that I missed was the cover art that was in itself a reason to buy LP's. It had now been reduced to less than a quarter of the size of the original. The CD is only as good as the music it contains. Speaking only for jazz, I am quite content with the clarity that I hear on today's recordings. And, no, I don't want to go back to the LP or cassette to listen to the old recordings. For example, the galloping first 2 bars of Chick Corea's Quartet No. 1 on his album, Three Quartets, do sound better on CD than on LP. The CD does justice to the full-bodied, lusty sound of that Bosendorfer piano. Billy Holiday's Lady in Autumn on CD is good enough for me. Insofar as the SACD is concerned, I don't think there's any machination or evil intent on Sony's part. I simply look at it as the continuing desire to improve on something that one has already begun. Of course, it doesn't always come out right; just look at Microsoft's constantly hasty, disastrous efforts to "improve" Windows. Don't worry about Sony's political motives and the industry's futile efforts to introduce technology to protect recorded material. For every technological innovation, there's always an opportunity waiting to thwart it. You can now copy DVD's and DVD-A's, can you not? Just sit back while some smartazz codes the software to copy SACD's. It will happen, so as MyRantz said, just enjoy the music in the medium that you have. What I do lament, though, is how Sony has taken over a big chunk of catalogue of precious recordings from the Columbia (CBS) label , but that's another topic, another thread, perhaps. Anyway, as always, I enjoy reading discussions on this thread. My apologies for the long post. It's been a while. *amateur, in this context, one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession. I have a day job to help support my amateur pastime. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | J.F.T.W.C.: ON THIS DAY On Nov. 20, 1945, 24 Naz* leaders went on trial before an international war crimes tribunal in Nuremberg, Germany. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 1106 Registered: Aug-04 | Don, Nice post but musos are more easy - they know what they listen for and quality isn't a priority. At least not for the few I know. Kegger - HEAR! HEAR! |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 1107 Registered: Aug-04 | Also Don, What a shame Carlos Santana finds he needs to team up with the rappers, hiphoppers, and others to keep his name out there. Apart from one or two tracks here and there, his music imho is suffering all the more for it. Give me the Abraxas and Caravanserai days! |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 1108 Registered: Aug-04 | Rick, "We're out of business in the save the world department." I hope not my friend! |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics