Alright, after much thinking i've decided to dip into a sound system upgrade. Most of my music listening is done on my computer through mp3s, and i also have a very low end sound system attached to my TV which i sometime use when my roommate is not around.
I never been fussy about sound quality (probably because i never had the cash for a good system so i subconsciously resigned myself to low end crap ;D), but after damaging my hearing it's like a constant struggle between me and my sound system. The problem is that i have a bit of an hard time getting a "full" sensation from sound, a bit like when you are trying to listen tp something over background noise. You can hear it perfectly fine, but it feels like you can't make it out completely. Bumping the volume doesn't do anything to make the sound more "clear", at least up to a point where my hyperacusis kicks in and it starts getting uncomfortable.
Now, since i'm still relatively out of cash, i just need a pair of decent speakers for my PC + sound. Nothing too expensive but still better then the "standard" stuff you can buy on places like newegg.com.
However, once and if i manage to save up (particularly since i'm close for finishing my car payments) i'm planning of getting a real system, with cd player and everything.
Any suggestions so i can get started?
Go to a shop and use your ears, that way you get what you want. :)
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 18, 2008, 12:45:13 PM
Alright, after much thinking i've decided to dip into a sound system upgrade. Most of my music listening is done on my computer through mp3s, and i also have a very low end sound system attached to my TV which i sometime use when my roommate is not around.
I never been fussy about sound quality (probably because i never had the cash for a good system so i subconsciously resigned myself to low end crap ;D), but after damaging my hearing it's like a constant struggle between me and my sound system. The problem is that i have a bit of an hard time getting a "full" sensation from sound, a bit like when you are trying to listen tp something over background noise. You can hear it perfectly fine, but it feels like you can't make it out completely. Bumping the volume doesn't do anything to make the sound more "clear", at least up to a point where my hyperacusis kicks in and it starts getting uncomfortable.
Now, since i'm still relatively out of cash, i just need a pair of decent speakers for my PC + sound. Nothing too expensive but still better then the "standard" stuff you can buy on places like newegg.com.
However, once and if i manage to save up (particularly since i'm close for finishing my car payments) i'm planning of getting a real system, with cd player and everything.
Any suggestions so i can get started?
Google for Logitech speakers.
These penguin desktop speakers are awesome, about as high-end and audiophile as it gets. The secret lies in the real penguin feathers. Penguins are engineered by nature to be fast underwater and make very little noise on land because otherwise, the polar bears will come and eat them. So penguin feathers have very special acoustical dampening features which when used as a speaker enclosure padding will suppress unwanted harmonic resonances (and their even more unwanted feedbacks on the cone surfaces) and give you a free clean, freely vibrating sound that will surprise you with its richness and naturalness.
(http://blogofwishes.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/plush-penguin-speakers.jpg)
My experience is that distorted sound is the most irritating to the ear, and that pure sound is tolerated at higher volume levels. You will get better sound from a pair of headphones than from a comparably priced set of speakers. I'd recommend high quality over-ear headphones (as opposed to the ear "buds" which seem to be the most popular now). I particularly like AKG reference headphones, which have a little spacing between the transducer and the ear for a more natural sound and feel. A nice set like this probably deserves a dedicated headphone amp. Beyerdynamic also makes some great phones. Sennheiser are supposed to be the best, but I don't like them.
http://www.headphone.com/products/headphones/full-size/akg-k-601.php
http://www.headphone.com/products/headphones/full-size/beyerdynamic-dt-880.php
The best pc speakers I've heard in the store were the Klipsch Promedia 2.1 (http://www.amazon.com/Klipsch-ProMedia-Certified-Computer-Speaker/dp/B000062VUO)'s. They're pretty cheap these days.
The M-Audio desktop monitors (http://www.amazon.com/M-Audio-StudioPro-Desktop-Audio-Monitors/dp/B000BN7CRU/ref=cm_pdp_review_teaser_product) are fairly reasonable and affordable either. I don't think it makes too much sense to spend too much money on desktop speakers anyway.
And no, M-Audio has nothing to do with the M as such.
Quote from: M forever on January 18, 2008, 02:34:24 PM
(http://blogofwishes.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/plush-penguin-speakers.jpg)
I think I saw those at the local Toys R Us.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on January 18, 2008, 04:33:44 PM
I think I saw those at the local Toys R Us.
I already know that's where you are shopping for your audio equipment.
Quote from: M forever on January 18, 2008, 04:53:07 PM
I already know that's where you are shopping for your audio equipment.
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of Walmart.
Quote from: M forever on January 18, 2008, 03:46:23 PM
The M-Audio desktop monitors (http://www.amazon.com/M-Audio-StudioPro-Desktop-Audio-Monitors/dp/B000BN7CRU/ref=cm_pdp_review_teaser_product) are fairly reasonable and affordable either. I don't think it makes too much sense to spend too much money on desktop speakers anyway.
And no, M-Audio has nothing to do with the M as such.
M,
Are you recommending those? I mean, have you heard them? Or are you reading the specs and making an inference? I would like to perk up my desktop system a bit, and those do seem to be a good choice.
8)
----------------
Now playing:
Mozart - L'Archibudelli - K 487 #10 Duo for Winds in Eb
My first recommendation is of course the penguin speakers. If you don't like these, I would go for the M-Audio. No, I didn't just make up what I said about them. A friend of mine has them. They are OK, but again, they are only meant to be desktop speakers, they are not a replacement for "real" speakers. I will probably get them myself when I get to MA. "More speaker" wouldn't make sense to me on the desktop. I haven't heard the Klipsch, but as good as Klipsch speakers can be, they are just too small and then you have subwoofer to deal with. I may be wrong, but from experience, speakers which are that small just have too many problems, however much they tweak them to sound OK. Especially for "classical" material I don't think that is an option.
Quote from: M forever on January 18, 2008, 05:23:55 PM
My first recommendation is of course the penguin speakers. If you don't like these, I would go for the M-Audio. No, I didn't just make up what I said about them. A friend of mine has them. They are OK, but again, they are only meant to be desktop speakers, they are not a replacement for "real" speakers. I will probably get them myself when I get to MA. "More speaker" wouldn't make sense to me on the desktop. I haven't heard the Klipsch, but as good as Klipsch speakers can be, they are just too small and then you have subwoofer to deal with. I may be wrong, but from experience, speakers which are that small just have too many problems, however much they tweak them to sound OK. Especially for "classical" material I don't think that is an option.
OK, well, I looked hard at the penguins and decided to give them a miss. But the M's seem like a reasonable choice. I wasn't implying, BTW, that you were making it up, but I know that you know enough about audio to read the specs and draw some conclusions from that which are likely to be valid. I can't. :)
8)
----------------
Now playing:
Schubert D 956 - L'Archibudelli - Schubert Quintet in C for 2 Violins, Viola & 2 Cellos D 956 1st mvmt - Allegro ma non troppo
Quote from: M forever on January 18, 2008, 04:53:07 PM
I already know that's where you are shopping for your audio equipment.
Then he's a genius, right?
When you switch to a decent CD player with good headphones, you will definitely hear a great improvement in sound quality. Not only will the instruments sound richer, fuller, you will be able to hear a whole new level of detail that your computer / mp3 system is not able to resolve. Look at Stereophile's recommended components on their website. They have a budget category which you may find very useful. Listen before you buy. Take a few CDs that you are very familiar with when you go shopping. Listen to them on different CD Player / Headphone combinations and buy the one YOU like that YOU can afford--not what the salesman tells you you should like. Some (many) high-end salesmen are very snooty, obnoxious, and will imply (if not tell you outright) that you are going to get crap sound quality unless you do (BUY) exactly what they say. If salespeople are not willing to work with your budget, shop elsewhere.
Speakers are better of course, but they need to be properly set up in an appropriate room for them to be worth your investment. Otherwise, headphones will probably be your best bet, and you will be able to save money by not having to buy an amplifier.
Oh yes, and you'll want a turntable too!
Here's what I use:
(http://www.oracle-audio.com/images/Mk5Delphi.jpg)
I forgot to mention, i cannot use headphones, even at low volume. It's just too uncomfortable for me, not sure why. Too close to my ears i guess.
Josquin des Prez says:
"i just need a pair of decent speakers for my PC (http://audioengineusa.com/store/product_info.php?cPath=20&products_id=79&osCsid=a8230319b30467e6298b04c4dc8716bf) + sound"
Do you mean "sound card?" What do you use now? You can go to an M-audio card, but even a pretty cheap soundblaster live ain't half bad. And Newegg rocks!
You don't have to spend a fortune. I bought (Danish) DALI speakers ( in combination with Arcam CD player and NAD tuner).Works fine for me.
http://www.dali.dk/int/
Peter
( do try to find some info/price/names before you go to a shop. Far too much is on offer and it is very difficult to choose. Take a CD with you, with music you know well - go for a certain price range and compare. )
Quote from: drogulus on January 18, 2008, 03:24:11 PM
The best pc speakers I've heard in the store were the Klipsch Promedia 2.1 (http://www.amazon.com/Klipsch-ProMedia-Certified-Computer-Speaker/dp/B000062VUO)'s. They're pretty cheap these days.
I second this suggestion. My roommate had a pair of these and they are definitely the best computer speaker I've heard, so long as you don't crank up the subwoofer to max like most people.
Also, it would really help to know you budget. If you want truly high end, you're going to have to spend a lot... but a really nice sounding system can be had for around $1,000, but sounds like you don't want to spend that much. Upgrading from mp3s to a CD player would help quite a bit too, the old adage 'garbage in, garbage out' is valid in the audio world.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 18, 2008, 08:15:27 PM
I forgot to mention, i cannot use headphones, even at low volume. It's just too uncomfortable for me, not sure why. Too close to my ears i guess.
That's a pity, because there are a lot of good and
affordable headphones out there with quality sound. The sound that you would pay much much more from speakers.
In the long run, a good investment in speakers rather than headphones will prove most beneficial to one's hearing and that, to quote a series of irrelevant commercials, is priceless.
Quote from: Gustav on January 19, 2008, 08:56:51 AM
That's a pity, because there are a lot of good and affordable headphones out there with quality sound. The sound that you would pay much much more from speakers.
AKG K518DJs are one of those headphones. Costed me 89CND, and the sound is very good if you know how to blu-tak mod it to tame the excessive bass.
Interesting thing about Klipsch--many high end snobs absolutely piss all over these speakers, but one of the best systems I've ever heard was that of a recording engineer acquaintance who had a pair of very large Klipsch speakers driven by a VTL tube amp in pure triode mode. His source was a DAT recorder that he had modified the hell out of; it had a sampling rate of 96 Khz or something like that.
Anyway, it is a shame about the headphones, but there are good, small, inexpensive speakers on the market. You will just have to do a bit of research and listening. Years ago there was a company that made a pair of bookshelf speakers for around $250, that some of the high end gurus (e.g. The Absolute Sound's Harry Pearson) went absolutely ape over. If you go with something like this, do invest in appropriate stands, and try to learn a bit about correct placement, even if you have to put them away and reposition them every time you listen (This is easy with small speakers and will take you less than a minute).
If you have the room and the money, you might want to give the Vandersteen 1b a try. I've owned a pair of 2Ce's for years and have been very happy with their performance. BUT good speakers will reveal inadequacies upstream in your system. Some people will tell you to spend a lot on speakers and skimp on the other components, but this is lousy advice. In any audio system, the sound will only be as good as the weakest link in your chain!
Quote from: M forever on January 18, 2008, 04:53:07 PM
I already know that's where you are shopping for your audio equipment.
:o :o :o
(http://web.iwebcenters.com/eggshop/images/FP-495.jpg)
Quote from: XB-70 Valkyrie on January 19, 2008, 12:29:03 PM
Interesting thing about Klipsch--many high end snobs absolutely piss all over these speakers, but one of the best systems I've ever heard was that of a recording engineer acquaintance who had a pair of very large Klipsch speakers driven by a VTL tube amp in pure triode mode. His source was a DAT recorder that he had modified the hell out of; it had a sampling rate of 96 Khz or something like that.
Klipschorns? These are on sale at One Call, this week only $13,000!! Act now.....
(http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/5836/khorn60thlargeoy4.jpg)
These were designed at a time when almost all amps were low powered tube designs.
Quote from: drogulus on January 20, 2008, 07:33:52 AM
Klipschorns? These are on sale at One Call, this week only $13,000!! Act now.....
(http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/5836/khorn60thlargeoy4.jpg)
These were designed at a time when almost all amps were low powered tube designs.
Beautiful speakers, I will try to get a pair of these, somewhat closer at home..put some quad tubes on it......
Quote from: XB-70 Valkyrie on January 18, 2008, 06:29:55 PM
Oh yes, and you'll want a turntable too!
Here's what I use:
(http://www.oracle-audio.com/images/Mk5Delphi.jpg)
I'm in love! Who makes that one?
Quote from: Shrunk on January 20, 2008, 12:59:50 PM
I'm in love! Who makes that one?
Sure you wouldn't rather have this?
(http://www.musicalsurroundings.com/illos/CAmastref-wood.jpg)
I don't know. If I wanted wood in my turntable, I think I might just go all the way:
(http://www.teresaudio.com/images/t-265-med.jpg)
All the way it is!
(http://www.teresaudio.com/certus/certus_460.jpg)
Now we're talking! Love has just given way to out-and-out, drooling-on-my-shoes lust.
I own a pair of those Klipschhorns --purchased in 1975.
Total cost was $2500 for the PAIR at the time.
Sounded magnificent then, and still sound magnificent today.
I don't need (or want) surround sound or 5.1 digital playback. When I play a well engineered cd or DVD through those speakers, the sound is absolutely THRILLING.Using original McIntosh preamp and amp to feed them the signal. The amp is model 2275 (I think), delivering 270 watts per channel. The pre-amp is the model C28. I bought them at the same time as the speakers and have not had one scintilla of expense in repairing them. Simply because they NEVER have needed repairs. I recently purchased a Denon 3930CI . Plays cds, SACD, DVD-Audio and DVDs. Also upconverts DVDs to 720P, 1080i or 1080p. TV is a 52" HDTV DLP by Mitsubishi.
Favorite DVD is the "European Concert from Palermo", featuring Claudio Abbado conducting the BPO, in the most "sizzling" performance of the Dvorak "New World" that you will ever hear. Bettered only (almost 60 years) ago by Toscanini leading the NBC Symphony on RCA.
Screw mp-3s or Ipods.
Quote from: Iago on January 20, 2008, 08:59:00 PM
I own a pair of those Klipschhorns --purchased in 1975.
Total cost was $2500 for the PAIR at the time.
Sounded magnificent then, and still sound magnificent today.
I don't need (or want) surround sound or 5.1 digital playback. When I play a well engineered cd or DVD through those speakers, the sound is absolutely THRILLING.Using original McIntosh preamp and amp to feed them the signal. The amp is model 2275 (I think), delivering 270 watts per channel.
:o This with speakers having an efficiency of 105 dB!! You must get some
serious SPL's.
I haven't heard the Klipschorns (though I'd love to one day) but I agree, a high-efficiency speaker has a certain magical presence that is rare in other speakers. You might want to try low-powered SET amplification with your speakers sometime. Or not; you're obviously quite happy with what you have.
Quote from: Shrunk on January 21, 2008, 01:55:14 AMI agree, a high-efficiency speaker has a certain magical presence that is rare in other speakers.
High-efficiency speakers tend to have less-damped resonances (less flat fequency response). Furthermore, the bass response doesn't go that low. I prefer low-efficiency speakers because nowadays amplifier power is not an issue. My loudspeakers give "only" 81 dB/W/m but the frequency response is very flat and resonance-free.
Quote from: 71 dB on January 21, 2008, 02:20:45 AM
High-efficiency speakers tend to have less-damped resonances (less flat fequency response). Furthermore, the bass response doesn't go that low. I prefer low-efficiency speakers because nowadays amplifier power is not an issue. My loudspeakers give "only" 81 dB/W/m but the frequency response is very flat and resonance-free.
Whereas I like Lowthers, about as close to the diametric opposite of your speakers as you can get (>100dB efficiency, nothing below 40Hz, a frequency response graph that looks like the Swiss Alps). Like everything else, there is no free lunch in audio. It all comes down to which set of compromises you prefer to live with.
Quote from: Shrunk on January 21, 2008, 02:38:50 AM
It all comes down to which set of compromises you prefer to live with.
Low efficiency is not a compromise for me because I don't need sound pressure levels above 100 dB.
Quote from: 71 dB on January 21, 2008, 03:15:56 AM
Low efficiency is not a compromise for me because I don't need sound pressure levels above 100 dB.
All I can say, that there is a lot of pressure in my listening hall..... ;D
Quote from: 71 dB on January 21, 2008, 03:15:56 AM
Low efficiency is not a compromise for me because I don't need sound pressure levels above 100 dB.
I don't either. I just happen to like the combination of hi-eff speakers and low-powered SET amplifiers. Purely subjective, I freely admit.
Quote from: Iago on January 20, 2008, 08:59:00 PM
Favorite DVD is the "European Concert from Palermo", featuring Claudio Abbado conducting the BPO, in the most "sizzling" performance of the Dvorak "New World" that you will ever hear.
Nah. I have heard the BP sizzle more than that live in the "New World" symphony under Christoph von D. But I also heard Abbado live (I also watched the DVD, that performance I heard was very similar to it, not surprisingly, IIRC, it was right before or after the one in Palermo) and I liked the lyrical detail he brought out.
Quote from: Shrunk on January 20, 2008, 12:59:50 PM
I'm in love! Who makes that one?
It's a work of art IMO. It is made by Oracle. http://www.oracle-audio.com/
The model shown is the Delphi Mk. IV. I have a very similar Mk. III that I bought used, but in absolutely mint condition about 15 years ago for about $850. I then picked up the SME V arm (also shown in the photo) for a song from an estate sale a few months later. It is still working beautifully to this day and I have no intention of buying another turntable .
From a point of view of electro-mechanical craftsmanship, these are nice pieces of work, but what's the point if what they are designed for is to play back a massively flawed and outdated signal storage medium?
Quote from: M forever on January 22, 2008, 01:32:04 AM
From a point of view of electro-mechanical craftsmanship, these are nice pieces of work, but what's the point if what they are designed for is to play back a massively flawed and outdated signal storage medium?
Exactly my thoughts. ;)
Quote from: M forever on January 22, 2008, 01:32:04 AM
From a point of view of electro-mechanical craftsmanship, these are nice pieces of work, but what's the point if what they are designed for is to play back a massively flawed and outdated signal storage medium?
Because
1. A lot of great (or at least interesting) recordings are still only available on the outdated medium. Why not get the best sound of them that you can?
2 LPs and their playback equipment are fun.
Quote from: Daverz on January 22, 2008, 02:27:40 AM
Because
1. A lot of great (or at least interesting) recordings are still only available on the outdated medium. Why not get the best sound of them that you can?
2 LPs and their playback equipment are fun.
Plus some people think they sound better. To my ears, SACD matches or even exceeds analog (haven't heard DVD-A), but it's almost irrelevent since only a negligible amount of recordings will ever be issued in the format.
I suspect that, if we check back in ten years, we will find the the LP will be the only "physical" storage medium still being manufactured, and will have survived the CD just as it has the cassette and the 8-track.
Quote from: Shrunk on January 22, 2008, 02:35:37 AM
Plus some people think they sound better.
Unfortunately, I'm still not one of them, despite having sunk over $4k into analog equipment. And I'm definitely not a "digital" baby, having starting my collecting career in the mid 70s.
Quote from: Daverz on January 22, 2008, 02:27:40 AM
Because
1. A lot of great (or at least interesting) recordings are still only available on the outdated medium. Why not get the best sound of them that you can?
2 LPs and their playback equipment are fun.
1. True! I have been forced to buy vinyls because of this. Really annoying! I borrow my father's turntable, record the vinyl on my harddrive, remove the clicks and burn CD-R.
2. Yes, fun but also clumsy.
Quote from: Shrunk on January 22, 2008, 02:35:37 AM
Plus some people think they sound better. To my ears, SACD matches or even exceeds analog (haven't heard DVD-A), but it's almost irrelevent since only a negligible amount of recordings will ever be issued in the format.
I suspect that, if we check back in ten years, we will find the the LP will be the only "physical" storage medium still being manufactured, and will have survived the CD just as it has the cassette and the 8-track.
Well, they sound nicer, not better. Techically the signal on a vinyl resembles the real recorded signal much less than CD. People like vinyl because it's a constant distortion added to all recordings. All your vinyls have the same kind of familiar sound while every CD sounds "different" because there are so little distortion/colourisation. Vinyl is like a sound effect. You can add it to your recording and than put it on CD or SACD. Do you want your Mahler with sound effects or not?
Quote from: 71 dB on January 22, 2008, 03:17:11 AM
Vinyl is like a sound effect. You can add it to your recording and than put it on CD or SACD.
My hardware production tool (Roland MC-909) has a vinyl effect that you can add to the overall sound. I sometimes play around with it by using a piano sound to which I purposely add some faux vibrato so that it sounds out of tune and with the vinyl effect added what I play comes out like a 30's piano recording ;D
I wouldn't buy a hugely expensive turntable because I find it highly implausible that you'd need it to capture the sound of an LP, which was designed to be played back with a device that costs far less. It's the same with $10,000 CD players. There's nothing for such a machine to do that can't be done just as well for far less. These are art objects to be admired for their own sake.
Quote from: Shrunk on January 22, 2008, 02:35:37 AM
Plus some people think they sound better. To my ears, SACD matches or even exceeds analog (haven't heard DVD-A), but it's almost irrelevent since only a negligible amount of recordings will ever be issued in the format.
You seem to be saying that SACDs have a sound which can somehow be matched. I don't think that's true. SACDs don't sound like anything to me. Like CDs they are capable of transparently rendering what is recorded on them. Technically they are superior to CDs, an irrelevant distinction IMO. The line between hearable differences and unhearable ones lies below both CDs and SACDs.
Tests show that you can copy an LP to CD-R with no audible difference btween them. They also show you can copy an SACD to CD-R with the same result. If SACDs sound different it's because what's on them is different, and CDs made directly from the SACD will have exactly the same difference.
Very true. Blind testing shows that most of these differences are imagined because people expect to hear something better.
Quote from: 71 dB on January 22, 2008, 03:17:11 AM
Well, they sound nicer, not better. Techically the signal on a vinyl resembles the real recorded signal much less than CD. People like vinyl because it's a constant distortion added to all recordings. All your vinyls have the same kind of familiar sound while every CD sounds "different" because there are so little distortion/colourisation. Vinyl is like a sound effect. You can add it to your recording and than put it on CD or SACD. Do you want your Mahler with sound effects or not?
Very true, too. Plus CDs simply reveal the shortcomings of a recording more brutally than LPs.
If I had a large library of LPs which hadn't been rereleased on CD (or only in inferior versions) I'd make copies to CD-R (or just copy to my music archive on the computer). I don't think you would need a very expensive turntable to do justice to the LPs.
Something like this would probably do nicely:
Rega - P1 Turntable w/Ortofon OM5e Cartridge
(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/6916/rep1mlargeqq5.jpg)
You should be able to find this for $350. I wouldn't pay more.
Go to a high end audio shop. Ask to hear the same recording, one on CD and one on vinyl, played back over high quality source components and through the same amps and speakers. Everything else is just hot air.
So question:
Do LP's sound 'better' than cds? I don't mean better as in "Cd's don't have that crackle, hiss, pop... so of course cds sound better." But I mean in actual recorded audio.
Quote from: 12tone. on January 22, 2008, 05:22:37 PM
So question:
Do LP's sound 'better' than cds? I don't mean better as in "Cd's don't have that crackle, hiss, pop... so of course cds sound better." But I mean in actual recorded audio.
There are too many factors involved for this to be an overriding concern. Quality engineering is what audiophiles should really be focusing on. Get it and ANY recording sounds astonishing.
This constant LP vs. CD argument is wearisome. With quality engineering you get first-rate sound no matter what the era.
LPs suck, but since I am such a great guy, I will be happy to take a few select examples off your hands for very little money. Send me a PM with a detailed list of what you have.
Quote from: 12tone. on January 22, 2008, 05:22:37 PM
So question:
Do LP's sound 'better' than cds? I don't mean better as in "Cd's don't have that crackle, hiss, pop... so of course cds sound better." But I mean in actual recorded audio.
Look at it this way: there is no music on a CD or LP or any recording medium. There is no "audio" on them either. They contain information which can be used to recreate an audio signal which can be converted into sound waves. The only relevant quality criterion for any recording/playback medium is how close the recreated signal is to the original, with as little distortion and noise added as possible. In that respect, CDs are vastly superior to LPs.
When it comes to the act of listening to the playback and deciding what "sounds better", a lot of other factors come into play which have nothing to do with those media. I think 71dB put that very well a few posts above, so you should go back and read that. There is no point in arguing about personal preferences. If someone thinks LPs sound "nicer", then that's OK if it makes him happy. The endless discussion that has been going on for over a quarter of a century, whether or not LPs sound "better" or "more musical" is pretty much total nonsense. CDs reproduce the original recording much more faithful, period. Everything else has to do with factors other than the medium.
Quote from: M forever on January 22, 2008, 09:11:53 PM
Look at it this way: there is no music on a CD or LP or any recording medium. There is no "audio" on them either. They contain information which can be used to recreate an audio signal which can be converted into sound waves. The only relevant quality criterion for any recording/playback medium is how close the recreated signal is to the original, with as little distortion and noise added as possible. In that respect, CDs are vastly superior to LPs.
When it comes to the act of listening to the playback and deciding what "sounds better", a lot of other factors come into play which have nothing to do with those media. I think 71dB put that very well a few posts above, so you should go back and read that. There is no point in arguing about personal preferences. If someone thinks LPs sound "nicer", then that's OK if it makes him happy. The endless discussion that has been going on for over a quarter of a century, whether or not LPs sound "better" or "more musical" is pretty much total nonsense. CDs reproduce the original recording much more faithful, period. Everything else has to do with factors other than the medium.
I think the sticking point is how you define "the original signal". If you define it as what is on the master tape, then all you need do is reproduce that signal with as much fidelity as possible i.e. the proverbial "wire with gain."
However, my ideal audio system would not reproduce the sound of a
recording. It would reproduce the sound of a
performance. I think we would all agree that even under the optimal conditions a recording still does not sound anything close to a live performance. In a blindfold test you would almost always be able to tell a live piano performance from a recording. So I think we must assume that the greatest degradation in the sound "signal" occurs between the actual live instrument and the microphone.
Let's use an analogy with video. Suppose that for some reason it was impossible for a TV camera to record the colour blue. Would the ideal TV monitor be one that accurately reproduced that signal from the camera, including the absence of blue? I think it's obvious that the ideal monitor would "distort" the signal by replacing the blue hues that had been lost in the broadcast process.
Suppose, further, that for some reason it was also impossible for the video monitor to reproduce blue. The video image might still be improved by reducing orange, (the complementary colour to blue, IIRC) and thereby achieving a more pleasant looking colour balance, even if not one that accurately reproduces the original image. In other words, even though the signal might be distorted by the monitor, the resulting image might more closely resemble what one would expect to see in real life. Or, it might just be more pleasant to look at, by choosing the "correct" combination of distortions.
I understand the reasoning behind the "objectivist" philosophy of evaluating sound equipment in terms of it's neutrality and fidelity to the original signal, and I have no argument with it. It's a perfectly valid goal. However, I think it is equally valid to judge audio equipment based on purely subjective impressions of how much you enjoy listening to the music it produces. And for me, personally, that goal is most consistently achieved by playing LP's thru tube amplification and high-efficiency speakers.
I don't find you analogy to be very fitting. More like, if your TV has no blue, then you look at it through dirty, smudged, scratched sunglasses and don't really notice that blue is missing anymore.
Quote from: Shrunk on January 23, 2008, 06:21:28 AM
I think the sticking point is how you define "the original signal". If you define it as what is on the master tape, then all you need do is reproduce that signal with as much fidelity as possible i.e. the proverbial "wire with gain."
However, my ideal audio system would not reproduce the sound of a recording. It would reproduce the sound of a performance. I think we would all agree that even under the optimal conditions a recording still does not sound anything close to a live performance. In a blindfold test you would almost always be able to tell a live piano performance from a recording. So I think we must assume that the greatest degradation in the sound "signal" occurs between the actual live instrument and the microphone.
Let's use an analogy with video. Suppose that for some reason it was impossible for a TV camera to record the colour blue. Would the ideal TV monitor be one that accurately reproduced that signal from the camera, including the absence of blue? I think it's obvious that the ideal monitor would "distort" the signal by replacing the blue hues that had been lost in the broadcast process.
Suppose, further, that for some reason it was also impossible for the video monitor to reproduce blue. The video image might still be improved by reducing orange, (the complementary colour to blue, IIRC) and thereby achieving a more pleasant looking colour balance, even if not one that accurately reproduces the original image. In other words, even though the signal might be distorted by the monitor, the resulting image might more closely resemble what one would expect to see in real life. Or, it might just be more pleasant to look at, by choosing the "correct" combination of distortions.
I understand the reasoning behind the "objectivist" philosophy of evaluating sound equipment in terms of it's neutrality and fidelity to the original signal, and I have no argument with it. It's a perfectly valid goal. However, I think it is equally valid to judge audio equipment based on purely subjective impressions of how much you enjoy listening to the music it produces. And for me, personally, that goal is most consistently achieved by playing LP's thru tube amplification and high-efficiency speakers.
Not very fitting is very nicley put. It's a bunch of half-reflected...well, let's stay nice here for once. ;D Sure, anyone can listen to whatever media and equipment he/she likes, that goes without saying. 71dB explained very well why some people cling on to the distorted, hazy, smudged sound of LPs.
As a former professional musician, it always amuses me when people start talking about the "sound of a performance" as opposed to the "sound of a recording" as if they were particularly "musical" listeners while people who look at technical details more soberly are just technocrats who don't see the complete picture.
The blue stuff is all confused and only half thought through, but to pick it up, if the blue was lost during recording, the idea of an "ideal monitor" which would "distort" the signal to "replace" the blue hues to bring back what was lost during the "broadcast" is silly. No playback device can intelligently fill in elements which aren't there. Neither LPs nor CDs nor any other medium are "musically intelligent", nor is there a visually intelligent monitor which could do that. Even a highly trained and artistic person could only speculate what is missing and replace it - and not in real time during playback either.
There is no "musical" element which gets lost during recordings. Recordings don't record music. They record sound waves. The music is only in our heads. In order to get the played back music as close as possible to the live music, the #1 goal is to get as close as possible to the original waveform. How the recording engineer captures that wave form is an artistic and musical decision since it is indeed not possible to exactly reproduce a live sound experience, so, just like things always look different in pictures from real life and the photographer has to decide how to use the technical limitations of his medium to get his vision of the captured object across in a way which is not just technical, but interesting to look at, in the same way the recording engineer has to make a lot of artistic decisions.
The role of recording and playback medium is simply to store what the recording engineer has captured with his equipment and reporduce it as faithfully as possible.
So, the argument is completely the wrong way around. *Especially* when we don't want to talk about naked technical facts, but the end product, the enjoyment of recorded music, then it is essential that the playback medium adds or changes as little as possible because it is not an artistically competent being. It is just a cold dead storage and playback medium. The less we notice it and its contribution, the better. The closer it gets us to the work of the people who made the recording, the better.
The idea that there is something missing from a digital recordings on CD which is there in analog recordings on LP is also completely wrong. That is the product of people reading something they don't technically understand and forming a wrong idea about it. First of all, we can't hear the frequencies which get filtered off at half the sampling rate on a digital recording (22,050Hz on a CD quality recording) anyway, and even if we could, they aren't on the LP to begin with. There is little above 10-12kHz on even the best LP which has anything remotely to do with the original signal, and it has nothing to do with "music" either. It is just random noise - the exact opposite of music in our heads.
Second, the breaking up of the waveform into samples and the resultant "craggy line" shape of the signal is not what gets played back. That gets smoothed out by filters and to a certain degree reconstructed by oversampling. It is still not quite the original, but it is much closer to what any LP could approximate.
Another problem is that people always confuse media with technical principles. Analog and digital are the latter. A *very high quality analog tape* has the potential to store and play back an audio signal (or "the music") more faithfully than a CD, but that doesn't mean any analog medium can do hat. LPs certainly can't. They are basically an outdated, cheap, low quality playback medium. And even in that scenario, the quality difference between a very good analog tape and the CD is much smaller than the step down from the CD to the LP.
Besides, in the "blue" analogy, the LP wouldn't be the monitor. The monitor would be *the speakers*. The place of LP and CD in that analogy could be taken by VHS and DVD or other video formats/media. But that would stretch it a lot and not really contribute much.
It is a shame that the best technical solution often doesn't have commercial success. There is a technique for sound recording called "binaural" which works much better than stereo. Stereo tries to use speakers in your room to reproduce the sound produced by the original source, which is basically impossible. How can two discrete speakers approximate the sound field produced by many instruments in a fine concert hall? A binaural recording is made with a mock-up of a human head in microphones have been positioned where the ears should be. This way to two microphones record the sound waves that would reach your ears if you were there. When you listen to the recording on headphones, the sound field that hits your ears is exactly what it would have been if you had been in the hall. The trouble with such a recording is that it must be listened to with headphones. Played back on speakers it sounds awful.
Binaural is a very interesting technology in theory, but I haven't heard a binaural recoding yet that really "outruns" a good conventional stereo recording in "naturalness" of sound and precise localization. The theory only goes that far, and since there are no microphones which accurately match the characteristics of our hearing, it doesn't really go that far either. A lot of the dummies or separation discs used in binaural recordings don't really reflect all parameters, like the shape of the outer ear, and some binaural recording techniques attempt to make up for that by processing the signal according to psychoacoustical models. But that's really the same as using other processing techniques on a recording made with more "conventional" techniques. The main problem however is that every person's head and ears have a slightly different shape and our hearing is tuned to that. Binaural recordings feed us sonic information directly into the ear processed with parameters modeled on someone else's head. That's a little simplified, but that's what it comes down to, and it only works in theory. It doesn't really work that well in practice. If we could get crossfeed processing based on actual measurements of individual persons' heads, that would get us one step further. That has actually been done, but the measurement process is pretty complicated and expensive. Without that step, the whole binaural thing is more a nice theory than a really effective practical solution.
Have you ever actually heard a binaural recording? Can you give us a few examples of binaural recordings that demonstrate the "superiority" of the technique?
(1) A properly miked stereo recording does a fine job of replicating the sound of a musical performance when played back through reasonably good equipment set up correctly in a decent room. Don't take my word for it, listen to a good system and you will hear for yourself.
(2) Analog recordings, capturing the entire sound wave, are inherently superior in some respects to digital recordings, which capture only samples of the sound wave--just as high bit-rate digital recordings are inherently superior to low bit-rate recordings. Still there are people who claim that 128kbps downloads are "CD quality" and that anyone who claims to hear a difference is lying. Again, don't take my word for it. Compare directly on a quality system to see what you can hear.
(3) Hearing, like seeing, is partly a matter of training and experience. There are also differences in people's natural abilities. Some people are color blind, for instance. As a man at my age, the frequency response of my ear-to-brain-to-consciousness system drops off like the face of Half Dome at about 16,000Hz. YMMV.
Question for the technical audio experts:
I have a 3 disk CD that just came in earlier this week.
I found it a bit odd that the total time for one of the disks is over 80 minutes, about 80 minutes 20 seconds. My first listen to it, 3 of the tracks have static on them, in 1 of them almost the entire track has static. Would the reason for the static be because of the disk has too long of music recorded on it?
Quote from: ChamberNut on January 24, 2008, 06:36:41 AM
I have a 3 disk CD that just came in earlier this week.
I found it a bit odd that the total time for one of the disks is over 80 minutes, about 80 minutes 20 seconds. My first listen to it, 3 of the tracks have static on them, in 1 of them almost the entire track has static. Would the reason for the static be because of the disk has too long of music recorded on it?
I think that overburning beyond 80 minutes increases the chance of failed discs, but these should easily be picked out and discarded during the manufacturing process - is your playback equipment particularly old? 80 min+ CDs seem to be a relatively recent phenomonon,* I think, so it could be to do with that.
*A recent Simon Rattle one was 83 mins IIRC.
Even in the very beginning with cd's there were discs with more than 80 minutes music. My then Hitachi player did cope with that without problems. I remember it was a Denon cd, with music from Ravel, if I am correct.
Quote from: Lethe on January 24, 2008, 07:09:45 AM
I think that overburning beyond 80 minutes increases the chance of failed discs, but these should easily be picked out and discarded during the manufacturing process - is your playback equipment particularly old? 80 min+ CDs seem to be a relatively recent phenomonon,* I think, so it could be to do with that.
*A recent Simon Rattle one was 83 mins IIRC.
I was playing the CD through Windows Media Player V10.
Quote from: ChamberNut on January 24, 2008, 08:42:49 AM
I was playing the CD through Windows Media Player V10.
As Harry corrected me about how long overburning has been happening, it probably won't be the playback that is the problem (although PCs can sometimes have problems with playing CDs if the processor is under heavy load). Sounds like the disc is faulty :(
Manufactured CDs aren't burnt, they are pressed from a master. What drive is it that has problems with that long CD? Did you try it on a different drive/player? I can't really picture any recent CD drive that could have a problem with that. You should try to extract the tracks with Exact Audio Copy. There is a chance that the drive tries to read ahead faster than it can, and if there is a problem with the CD that results in insecure tracking, it usually slows down the drive.
Thanks for all your suggestions and replies. I did try the CD on 2 other players. It is definitely a faulty disk.
I'll notify Amazon. :)
Quote from: ChamberNut on January 24, 2008, 06:36:41 AM
Question for the technical audio experts:
I have a 3 disk CD that just came in earlier this week.
I found it a bit odd that the total time for one of the disks is over 80 minutes, about 80 minutes 20 seconds. My first listen to it, 3 of the tracks have static on them, in 1 of them almost the entire track has static. Would the reason for the static be because of the disk has too long of music recorded on it?
Well, I got the a new 3 disk CD set to replace the defective set I originally had. That exact same thing occurred on the 2nd disc. 3 of the tracks have static on them, and they are in the same spots as well! I know it's not the CD player, because it occurs on all the CD players I've tried. I'll have to contact Amazon once again. Very frustrating. >:(
ChamberNut, I've had the same problem with certain CDs in the past, on regular CD players as well as computers-- no scratches or anything. Its rare, but I've had it happen on at least five or six discs over the past 15 years. What's even weirder is I've had that happen on CDs that one minute worked just fine, and then I got this awful crackly sounds-- sometimes on the whole disc, sometimes just on certain tracks. Its weird and semmingly random.
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 13, 2008, 07:11:44 AM
ChamberNut, I've had the same problem with certain CDs in the past, on regular CD players as well as computers-- no scratches or anything. Its rare, but I've had it happen on at least five or six discs over the past 15 years. What's even weirder is I've had that happen on CDs that one minute worked just fine, and then I got this awful crackly sounds-- sometimes on the whole disc, sometimes just on certain tracks. Its weird and semmingly random.
Yes this is a valid and true phenomenon. I've had these same things happen to me as well.
Now i guess since I know its true, you want me to explian how , why this ocurrs. ??? ::)
Can't really, but do have a hunch.
here's even something strange.
I have a cd i bought in 1980, has hundreds of scratches, hundreds, yet plays perfectly.
Miracle? ???
the cd is the recording of the Rachmaninov vespers /1965/Svechnikov. Could the cd have been made witha different surface material back then ::), doubt it.
I dropped the cd the other day and chip broke off the edge, last track (cds play inside to out edge) plays fine. :-X
Quote from: paulb on February 13, 2008, 07:38:17 AM
Yes this is a valid and true phenomenon. I've had these same things happen to me as well.
Now i guess since I know its true, you want me to explian how , why this ocurrs. ??? ::)
Can't really, but do have a hunch.
here's even something strange.
I have a cd i bought in 1980, has hundreds of scratches, hundreds, yet plays perfectly.
Miracle? ???
the cd is the recording of the Rachmaninov vespers /1965/Svechnikov. Could the cd have been made witha different surface material back then ::), doubt it.
I dropped the cd the other day and chip broke off the edge, last track (cds play inside to out edge) plays fine. :-X
I'd like to know how you bought a CD in 1980.
Quote from: head-case on February 13, 2008, 07:41:55 AM
I'd like to know how you bought a CD in 1980.
Indeed, according to Wikipedia:
The first Compact Disc for commercial release rolled off the assembly line on August 17, 1982, at a Philips factory in Langenhagen, near Hanover, Germany.
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 13, 2008, 07:11:44 AM
ChamberNut, I've had the same problem with certain CDs in the past, on regular CD players as well as computers-- no scratches or anything. Its rare, but I've had it happen on at least five or six discs over the past 15 years. What's even weirder is I've had that happen on CDs that one minute worked just fine, and then I got this awful crackly sounds-- sometimes on the whole disc, sometimes just on certain tracks. Its weird and semmingly random.
I just find it odd that it happens on the exact replacement disc, the same tracks and same timepoints. I wonder if a specific lot# in the manufacturing process when loopy. I might have to contact Calliope Records if I keep getting the same thing happening.
Quote from: ChamberNut on February 13, 2008, 09:29:03 AM
I just find it odd that it happens on the exact replacement disc, the same tracks and same timepoints. I wonder if a specific lot# in the manufacturing process when loopy. I might have to contact Calliope Records if I keep getting the same thing happening.
Yeah, now that's EXTRA weird. That has got to be a manufacturing error. Any other complaints in the reviews for that on Amazon?
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 13, 2008, 09:40:26 AM
Yeah, now that's EXTRA weird. That has got to be a manufacturing error. Any other complaints in the reviews for that on Amazon?
Not that I'm aware of, but I'll check again for any recent reviews, if any. Thanks!
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 13, 2008, 09:40:26 AM
Yeah, now that's EXTRA weird. That has got to be a manufacturing error. Any other complaints in the reviews for that on Amazon?
Sure enough, there is a review posted on January 20th, experiencing scratchy noises on the discs.
Quote from: ChamberNut on February 13, 2008, 09:54:51 AM
Sure enough, there is a review posted on January 20th, experiencing scratchy noises on the discs.
Not sure if Amazon offers the option for this album you've got (or trying to get, as the case may be) but I've noticed they are offering a lot of stuff for download-- maybe you could get it that way?
Hey, I noticed that I can answer many of those difficult questions on Classical Music composers (at least they seemed ridiculously difficult before :D) in Trivial Pursuit, Jeopardy or other trivia games. :) As compared to NEVER before I got into classical.
Quote from: sarabande on February 13, 2008, 10:53:35 AM
Not sure if Amazon offers the option for this album you've got (or trying to get, as the case may be) but I've noticed they are offering a lot of stuff for download-- maybe you could get it that way?
I got my first bad download the other day, a 2-CD set of
Ravel's orchestral music with Martinon/Orch.de Paris. Only one track was damaged, and I downloaded that track again, and it was the same, dropouts in exactly the same spot. They offered me a credit for the track so that's OK.
I wouldn't have been all that upset anyway: The track was (That's right!)
Bolero.
;D
Quote from: drogulus on April 01, 2008, 04:53:35 AM
I got my first bad download the other day, a 2-CD set of Ravel's orchestral music with Martinon/Orch.de Paris. Only one track was damaged, and I downloded that track again, and it was the same, dropouts in exactly the same spot. They offered me a credit for the track so that's OK.
I wouldn't have been all that upset anyway: The track was (That's right!) Bolero. ;D
I always ask for the full amount back in that situation--because I purchased a whole album, not part of an album. So far, iTunes has been good about reimbursing me for the full amount.
Quote from: MN Dave on April 01, 2008, 06:08:11 AM
I always ask for the full amount back in that situation--because I purchased a whole album, not part of an album. So far, iTunes has been good about reimbursing me for the full amount.
This is a special case.
:)