|
|
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:09:23 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote: So, to clarify, is the following OK with you: 'valves = nice sound but not very accurate', 'SS = accurate but not a very nice sound' and that either form of amplification chosen is likely to be an acceptable compromise/combination of both these characteristics, based on the user's personal preferences?? Close, but no cigar. SS=accurate, so if you have a great recording, you get great sound, but if you have a bad recording, you get bad sound. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:09:23 -0000
"Keith G" wrote: So, to clarify, is the following OK with you: 'valves = nice sound but not very accurate', 'SS = accurate but not a very nice sound' and that either form of amplification chosen is likely to be an acceptable compromise/combination of both these characteristics, based on the user's personal preferences?? I'd remove the valve/SS distinction altogether. just say some people prefer a system that modifies the sound, others dont. -- Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup. |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:09:23 -0000
"Keith G" wrote: So, to clarify, is the following OK with you: 'valves = nice sound but not very accurate', 'SS = accurate but not a very nice sound' and that either form of amplification chosen is likely to be an acceptable compromise/combination of both these characteristics, based on the user's personal preferences?? I'd remove the valve/SS distinction altogether. just say some people prefer a system that modifies the sound, others dont. -- Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup. |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:42:29 +0000
Kurt Hamster wrote: But seeing as you are bank employee who is probably paid too much, you can afford to go out and spend money on something that let's you hear how bad something is. Huh? I spent just over 130ukp on my DAC (Arcam Delta Black box 3) and nothing on my current amp (AIWA A25, borrowed since the passing of my Rotel) Listening with and without using the DAC are night and day different - with the DAC I can hear things that just werent there with the mushy piece of crap in my PC. certainly many recordings which sounded 'fine' before now sound crap. I can hear little clicks that were lost before, and other high frequency mp3 type artifacts in my lower bitrate tracks that just werent audible before. Am I going to bin my DAC because it made my mp3s sound worse? Hell no! because I can alsop hear FAR better treble on my good mp3s and wavs, giving a much better stereo image. The bass is 'cleaner' too (I dontl ike that term though I cant think of a better one). organ music and piano stuff come out with *astonishingly* good accuracy. And when I play rock (which is often) I dont really feel the need to touch the tone controls (although the ocasional blast from the 'loudness' button is quite fun). If your speakers showed up your amp, you'd replace the amp. Why does it not apply that if your amp and speakers (and source) show up your recordings you complain the amp / speakers suck? Now some of my recordings sound crap, true. So Im replacing them. -- Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup. |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:42:29 +0000
Kurt Hamster wrote: But seeing as you are bank employee who is probably paid too much, you can afford to go out and spend money on something that let's you hear how bad something is. Huh? I spent just over 130ukp on my DAC (Arcam Delta Black box 3) and nothing on my current amp (AIWA A25, borrowed since the passing of my Rotel) Listening with and without using the DAC are night and day different - with the DAC I can hear things that just werent there with the mushy piece of crap in my PC. certainly many recordings which sounded 'fine' before now sound crap. I can hear little clicks that were lost before, and other high frequency mp3 type artifacts in my lower bitrate tracks that just werent audible before. Am I going to bin my DAC because it made my mp3s sound worse? Hell no! because I can alsop hear FAR better treble on my good mp3s and wavs, giving a much better stereo image. The bass is 'cleaner' too (I dontl ike that term though I cant think of a better one). organ music and piano stuff come out with *astonishingly* good accuracy. And when I play rock (which is often) I dont really feel the need to touch the tone controls (although the ocasional blast from the 'loudness' button is quite fun). If your speakers showed up your amp, you'd replace the amp. Why does it not apply that if your amp and speakers (and source) show up your recordings you complain the amp / speakers suck? Now some of my recordings sound crap, true. So Im replacing them. -- Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup. |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 02:10:16 +0000
Kurt Hamster wrote: Huh? If you stack your messages via thread you will see that it wasn't your message I was replying to. I knew that at the time. whats your point? -- Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup. |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 02:10:16 +0000
Kurt Hamster wrote: Huh? If you stack your messages via thread you will see that it wasn't your message I was replying to. I knew that at the time. whats your point? -- Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup. |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:42:29 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote: On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:32:13 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used to say... SS=accurate, so if you have a great recording, you get great sound, but if you have a bad recording, you get bad sound. Yes that's a good idea for a home entertainment methodology. Why don't we all go out and spend a fortune so that we can see how bad a recording is? I think you miss the other point, which is that good SS amps don't cost much, but good valve amps cost a fortune, at least four times as much as an equivalently powerful SS amp. Meanwhile the less anal retentive of us make sure we have a systems that sounds how we want it to sound most (if not all) of the time. Sounds like this would be a good way of justifying the money spent. But seeing as you are bank employee who is probably paid too much, you can afford to go out and spend money on something that let's you hear how bad something is. MMdV (similar to YMMV). Shame that you're too dumb to realise that I spend *less* money to get accurate sound, than the vinyl, valves and freaky cable gang spend to get a rosy wash over *all* their music.................... BTW, last time I looked, banks didn't pay their techies above market average. :-( -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:42:29 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote: On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:32:13 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used to say... SS=accurate, so if you have a great recording, you get great sound, but if you have a bad recording, you get bad sound. Yes that's a good idea for a home entertainment methodology. Why don't we all go out and spend a fortune so that we can see how bad a recording is? I think you miss the other point, which is that good SS amps don't cost much, but good valve amps cost a fortune, at least four times as much as an equivalently powerful SS amp. Meanwhile the less anal retentive of us make sure we have a systems that sounds how we want it to sound most (if not all) of the time. Sounds like this would be a good way of justifying the money spent. But seeing as you are bank employee who is probably paid too much, you can afford to go out and spend money on something that let's you hear how bad something is. MMdV (similar to YMMV). Shame that you're too dumb to realise that I spend *less* money to get accurate sound, than the vinyl, valves and freaky cable gang spend to get a rosy wash over *all* their music.................... BTW, last time I looked, banks didn't pay their techies above market average. :-( -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:21:08 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:09:23 -0000 "Keith G" wrote: So, to clarify, is the following OK with you: 'valves = nice sound but not very accurate', 'SS = accurate but not a very nice sound' and that either form of amplification chosen is likely to be an acceptable compromise/combination of both these characteristics, based on the user's personal preferences?? I'd remove the valve/SS distinction altogether. just say some people prefer a system that modifies the sound, others dont. And as Jim noted, it's the end result that counts, not the active devices. There *are* wideband, powerful, low distortion valve amps out there, but they cost a *lot* of money and, surprise, they sound just like good SS amps............... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:21:08 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:09:23 -0000 "Keith G" wrote: So, to clarify, is the following OK with you: 'valves = nice sound but not very accurate', 'SS = accurate but not a very nice sound' and that either form of amplification chosen is likely to be an acceptable compromise/combination of both these characteristics, based on the user's personal preferences?? I'd remove the valve/SS distinction altogether. just say some people prefer a system that modifies the sound, others dont. And as Jim noted, it's the end result that counts, not the active devices. There *are* wideband, powerful, low distortion valve amps out there, but they cost a *lot* of money and, surprise, they sound just like good SS amps............... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:00:16 +0000 (UTC)
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: And as Jim noted, it's the end result that counts, not the active devices. Agreed. I just wish someone would come out with a preamp with a 'valve' preset and end this argument for ever... ;-) (and start the next one about whose 'valve button' distorts more or sounds milkier or whatever) There *are* wideband, powerful, low distortion valve amps out there, but they cost a *lot* of money and, surprise, they sound just like good SS amps............... Funny that ;-) -- Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup. |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:00:16 +0000 (UTC)
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: And as Jim noted, it's the end result that counts, not the active devices. Agreed. I just wish someone would come out with a preamp with a 'valve' preset and end this argument for ever... ;-) (and start the next one about whose 'valve button' distorts more or sounds milkier or whatever) There *are* wideband, powerful, low distortion valve amps out there, but they cost a *lot* of money and, surprise, they sound just like good SS amps............... Funny that ;-) -- Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup. |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
In article , Ian Molton
wrote: On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:00:16 +0000 (UTC) (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: And as Jim noted, it's the end result that counts, not the active devices. Agreed. I just wish someone would come out with a preamp with a 'valve' preset and end this argument for ever... ;-) Pay me enough, and I'll have a go. ;- One problem, though, is that one of the effects that most 'traditional' valve power amp designs produce is a result of their (relatively) high output impedance interacting with the speaker impedance. This varies from speaker to speaker, so is difficult to duplicate without inserting the required series impedance (often both frequency and level dependent) into the output of the power stage. Hence if you want a SS design that attempts to mimic traditional valve designs, it is probably better to do this at the power amp stage. I must confess I have been tempted to try this once or twice in the past. However in honesty I probably am not really up to this nowdays. My eyes and hands (and head!) aren't what they were. :-) Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
In article , Ian Molton
wrote: On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:00:16 +0000 (UTC) (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: And as Jim noted, it's the end result that counts, not the active devices. Agreed. I just wish someone would come out with a preamp with a 'valve' preset and end this argument for ever... ;-) Pay me enough, and I'll have a go. ;- One problem, though, is that one of the effects that most 'traditional' valve power amp designs produce is a result of their (relatively) high output impedance interacting with the speaker impedance. This varies from speaker to speaker, so is difficult to duplicate without inserting the required series impedance (often both frequency and level dependent) into the output of the power stage. Hence if you want a SS design that attempts to mimic traditional valve designs, it is probably better to do this at the power amp stage. I must confess I have been tempted to try this once or twice in the past. However in honesty I probably am not really up to this nowdays. My eyes and hands (and head!) aren't what they were. :-) Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:31:17 +0000
Kurt Hamster wrote: I'm not dumb enough to spend fortunes (and lots of man hours) attempting to find out which are bad recordings and which aren't. Its not hard. if it sounds crap, its bad. since upgrading to my DAC and replacing my old amp, I can *clearly* hear defects in recordings that were bad before. I can also hear that my good recordings all sound much better. I prefer to spend an appropriate amount and time on enjoying what I have. Me too. Methinks the point of enjoyment is lost on you mate. I'm still convinced you are more interested in the gear and what the specs are rather than what it does (as opposed to how it does it!). I cant speak fot Stuart but I certainly havent memorised the specs of all my gear. I dont even KNOW the specs of my amp (other than its class AB, 36W RMS max output into 8 ohms) I dont know the noise figure for my DAC either. Nor do I know the response curves for my speakers. I *do* know my DAC output is more linear than my PCs output was (the roll-off from 10-15kHz and up was very noticeable. I know my AMP is also more linear than the old one because the old ones output given a sine input was, um, interesting to say the least, and it had a terrible treble and deep bass response. My right speaker still has a bad pair of drivers though, sadly. I cant afford the repair just yet. fortunately they arent THAT bad yet and still intermittent. -- Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup. |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:31:17 +0000
Kurt Hamster wrote: I'm not dumb enough to spend fortunes (and lots of man hours) attempting to find out which are bad recordings and which aren't. Its not hard. if it sounds crap, its bad. since upgrading to my DAC and replacing my old amp, I can *clearly* hear defects in recordings that were bad before. I can also hear that my good recordings all sound much better. I prefer to spend an appropriate amount and time on enjoying what I have. Me too. Methinks the point of enjoyment is lost on you mate. I'm still convinced you are more interested in the gear and what the specs are rather than what it does (as opposed to how it does it!). I cant speak fot Stuart but I certainly havent memorised the specs of all my gear. I dont even KNOW the specs of my amp (other than its class AB, 36W RMS max output into 8 ohms) I dont know the noise figure for my DAC either. Nor do I know the response curves for my speakers. I *do* know my DAC output is more linear than my PCs output was (the roll-off from 10-15kHz and up was very noticeable. I know my AMP is also more linear than the old one because the old ones output given a sine input was, um, interesting to say the least, and it had a terrible treble and deep bass response. My right speaker still has a bad pair of drivers though, sadly. I cant afford the repair just yet. fortunately they arent THAT bad yet and still intermittent. -- Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup. |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:31:17 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote: On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:00:15 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used to say... On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:42:29 +0000, Kurt Hamster wrote: On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:32:13 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used to say... SS=accurate, so if you have a great recording, you get great sound, but if you have a bad recording, you get bad sound. Yes that's a good idea for a home entertainment methodology. Why don't we all go out and spend a fortune so that we can see how bad a recording is? I think you miss the other point, which is that good SS amps don't cost much, but good valve amps cost a fortune, at least four times as much as an equivalently powerful SS amp. So how much exactly was your Krell? Less than a grand. Please note that I've never recommended any Krell as a new purchase, unless you have a seriously tough speaker load (which I do). Also note that an equivalent valve amp (i.e. one which will output 400 watts into a 1 ohm load with minimal distortion), will cost you at least ten grand.......................... Meanwhile the less anal retentive of us make sure we have a systems that sounds how we want it to sound most (if not all) of the time. Sounds like this would be a good way of justifying the money spent. But seeing as you are bank employee who is probably paid too much, you can afford to go out and spend money on something that let's you hear how bad something is. MMdV (similar to YMMV). Shame that you're too dumb to realise that I spend *less* money to get accurate sound, than the vinyl, valves and freaky cable gang spend to get a rosy wash over *all* their music.................... I'm not dumb enough to spend fortunes (and lots of man hours) attempting to find out which are bad recordings and which aren't. I prefer to spend an appropriate amount and time on enjoying what I have. Actually, if you have an *accurate* system, it takes only a few minutes to discover which are bad recordings. My TV sound system, with basic 2nd generation DVD player, Audiolab 8000P and Tannoy 633s (less than a grand all in), is more than adequate for that purpose Methinks the point of enjoyment is lost on you mate. I'm still convinced you are more interested in the gear and what the specs are rather than what it does (as opposed to how it does it!). You really are dumb, aren't you? The whole point of DBTs are that they are *listening* tests. Of course, after a while, you get to know which gear is going to sound *bad* just by reading the specs.......... BTW, last time I looked, banks didn't pay their techies above market average. :-( Who said they did? You did - unless you are so ****ed up that you think 'market average' means that we get paid too much. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:31:17 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote: On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:00:15 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used to say... On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:42:29 +0000, Kurt Hamster wrote: On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:32:13 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used to say... SS=accurate, so if you have a great recording, you get great sound, but if you have a bad recording, you get bad sound. Yes that's a good idea for a home entertainment methodology. Why don't we all go out and spend a fortune so that we can see how bad a recording is? I think you miss the other point, which is that good SS amps don't cost much, but good valve amps cost a fortune, at least four times as much as an equivalently powerful SS amp. So how much exactly was your Krell? Less than a grand. Please note that I've never recommended any Krell as a new purchase, unless you have a seriously tough speaker load (which I do). Also note that an equivalent valve amp (i.e. one which will output 400 watts into a 1 ohm load with minimal distortion), will cost you at least ten grand.......................... Meanwhile the less anal retentive of us make sure we have a systems that sounds how we want it to sound most (if not all) of the time. Sounds like this would be a good way of justifying the money spent. But seeing as you are bank employee who is probably paid too much, you can afford to go out and spend money on something that let's you hear how bad something is. MMdV (similar to YMMV). Shame that you're too dumb to realise that I spend *less* money to get accurate sound, than the vinyl, valves and freaky cable gang spend to get a rosy wash over *all* their music.................... I'm not dumb enough to spend fortunes (and lots of man hours) attempting to find out which are bad recordings and which aren't. I prefer to spend an appropriate amount and time on enjoying what I have. Actually, if you have an *accurate* system, it takes only a few minutes to discover which are bad recordings. My TV sound system, with basic 2nd generation DVD player, Audiolab 8000P and Tannoy 633s (less than a grand all in), is more than adequate for that purpose Methinks the point of enjoyment is lost on you mate. I'm still convinced you are more interested in the gear and what the specs are rather than what it does (as opposed to how it does it!). You really are dumb, aren't you? The whole point of DBTs are that they are *listening* tests. Of course, after a while, you get to know which gear is going to sound *bad* just by reading the specs.......... BTW, last time I looked, banks didn't pay their techies above market average. :-( Who said they did? You did - unless you are so ****ed up that you think 'market average' means that we get paid too much. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:42:29 +0000, Kurt Hamster wrote: On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:32:13 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used to say... SS=accurate, so if you have a great recording, you get great sound, but if you have a bad recording, you get bad sound. Yes that's a good idea for a home entertainment methodology. Why don't we all go out and spend a fortune so that we can see how bad a recording is? I think you miss the other point, which is that good SS amps don't cost much, but good valve amps cost a fortune, at least four times as much as an equivalently powerful SS amp. Meanwhile the less anal retentive of us make sure we have a systems that sounds how we want it to sound most (if not all) of the time. Sounds like this would be a good way of justifying the money spent. But seeing as you are bank employee who is probably paid too much, you can afford to go out and spend money on something that let's you hear how bad something is. MMdV (similar to YMMV). Shame that you're too dumb to realise that I spend *less* money to get accurate sound, than the vinyl, valves and freaky cable gang spend to get a rosy wash over *all* their music.................... BTW, last time I looked, banks didn't pay their techies above market average. :-( Nice one Stewart. Ian |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:42:29 +0000, Kurt Hamster wrote: On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:32:13 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used to say... SS=accurate, so if you have a great recording, you get great sound, but if you have a bad recording, you get bad sound. Yes that's a good idea for a home entertainment methodology. Why don't we all go out and spend a fortune so that we can see how bad a recording is? I think you miss the other point, which is that good SS amps don't cost much, but good valve amps cost a fortune, at least four times as much as an equivalently powerful SS amp. Meanwhile the less anal retentive of us make sure we have a systems that sounds how we want it to sound most (if not all) of the time. Sounds like this would be a good way of justifying the money spent. But seeing as you are bank employee who is probably paid too much, you can afford to go out and spend money on something that let's you hear how bad something is. MMdV (similar to YMMV). Shame that you're too dumb to realise that I spend *less* money to get accurate sound, than the vinyl, valves and freaky cable gang spend to get a rosy wash over *all* their music.................... BTW, last time I looked, banks didn't pay their techies above market average. :-( Nice one Stewart. Ian |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
Kurt Hamster wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:55:20 +0000, Ian Molton used to say... On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:31:17 +0000 Kurt Hamster wrote: I'm not dumb enough to spend fortunes (and lots of man hours) attempting to find out which are bad recordings and which aren't. Its not hard. if it sounds crap, its bad. since upgrading to my DAC and replacing my old amp, I can *clearly* hear defects in recordings that were bad before. Well there ya go, concentrating on the recording rather than the music :( Don't suppose it occured to you that some of us actually know what a genuine performance actually sounds like and a poor recording is as much a distraction as a poor performance. Ian |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
Kurt Hamster wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:55:20 +0000, Ian Molton used to say... On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:31:17 +0000 Kurt Hamster wrote: I'm not dumb enough to spend fortunes (and lots of man hours) attempting to find out which are bad recordings and which aren't. Its not hard. if it sounds crap, its bad. since upgrading to my DAC and replacing my old amp, I can *clearly* hear defects in recordings that were bad before. Well there ya go, concentrating on the recording rather than the music :( Don't suppose it occured to you that some of us actually know what a genuine performance actually sounds like and a poor recording is as much a distraction as a poor performance. Ian |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
"Ian Bell" wrote Don't suppose it occured to you that some of us actually know what a genuine performance actually sounds like and a poor recording is as much a distraction as a poor performance. Hmmm, *as I type this* Swim is driving me nuts with her clart (and she ain't ****e - has played in Brenda's presence at the RCM and was a colleague of Tony Michaelson) - give me an LP any day! ('Accuracy' - don't make me fekkin' larf! If these ole boys think their SS/digital is 'accurate' it's time for a syringe is all I can say.) Her 'bell end' fell off a while back! - I'm sweating in case mine does now..... :-) Now she's got 'frozen finger' apparently - might get some vinyl on before we do a divvy now (with a bit of luck)..... |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
"Ian Bell" wrote Don't suppose it occured to you that some of us actually know what a genuine performance actually sounds like and a poor recording is as much a distraction as a poor performance. Hmmm, *as I type this* Swim is driving me nuts with her clart (and she ain't ****e - has played in Brenda's presence at the RCM and was a colleague of Tony Michaelson) - give me an LP any day! ('Accuracy' - don't make me fekkin' larf! If these ole boys think their SS/digital is 'accurate' it's time for a syringe is all I can say.) Her 'bell end' fell off a while back! - I'm sweating in case mine does now..... :-) Now she's got 'frozen finger' apparently - might get some vinyl on before we do a divvy now (with a bit of luck)..... |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: So, to clarify, is the following OK with you: 'valves = nice sound but not very accurate', 'SS = accurate but not a very nice sound' and that either form of amplification chosen is likely to be an acceptable compromise/combination of both these characteristics, based on the user's personal preferences?? OK, let's stir the pot a little... ;- How about a slightly different wording for the choices: 1) valve amps - May not be very accurate, but the changes tend to be such that some people like the effect they have upon the results. Yup, in *spades*...... 2) SS amps - May be more accurate, so the amp has relatively little 'sound' of its own, hence the 'sound' depends more on the input than the amp. Some people prefer this as it allows them to hear more clearly what was recorded or broadcast and avoids applying the same 'effect' to everything they hear. OK, but very often has other 'effects' like killing the imaging, timbre and detail as well as trapping the sound firmly in the same plane as the speakers..... |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: So, to clarify, is the following OK with you: 'valves = nice sound but not very accurate', 'SS = accurate but not a very nice sound' and that either form of amplification chosen is likely to be an acceptable compromise/combination of both these characteristics, based on the user's personal preferences?? OK, let's stir the pot a little... ;- How about a slightly different wording for the choices: 1) valve amps - May not be very accurate, but the changes tend to be such that some people like the effect they have upon the results. Yup, in *spades*...... 2) SS amps - May be more accurate, so the amp has relatively little 'sound' of its own, hence the 'sound' depends more on the input than the amp. Some people prefer this as it allows them to hear more clearly what was recorded or broadcast and avoids applying the same 'effect' to everything they hear. OK, but very often has other 'effects' like killing the imaging, timbre and detail as well as trapping the sound firmly in the same plane as the speakers..... |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:09:23 -0000, "Keith G" wrote: So, to clarify, is the following OK with you: 'valves = nice sound but not very accurate', 'SS = accurate but not a very nice sound' and that either form of amplification chosen is likely to be an acceptable compromise/combination of both these characteristics, based on the user's personal preferences?? Close, but no cigar. SS=accurate, so if you have a great recording, you get great sound, but if you have a bad recording, you get bad sound. Also close but no cigar - I have got (thankfully) a lot of great recordings that sound superb, but if I get a bad recording that I don't like (rare), I 'recycle' it....... Asithappens, I've also got a number of *lousy* recordings that sound quite superb - Django Reinhardt, Mahalia Jackson and Edith Piaf, to name but a few. (Know what I mean?) Accurate? - Oooh, I shouldn't think so....... ;-) |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:09:23 -0000, "Keith G" wrote: So, to clarify, is the following OK with you: 'valves = nice sound but not very accurate', 'SS = accurate but not a very nice sound' and that either form of amplification chosen is likely to be an acceptable compromise/combination of both these characteristics, based on the user's personal preferences?? Close, but no cigar. SS=accurate, so if you have a great recording, you get great sound, but if you have a bad recording, you get bad sound. Also close but no cigar - I have got (thankfully) a lot of great recordings that sound superb, but if I get a bad recording that I don't like (rare), I 'recycle' it....... Asithappens, I've also got a number of *lousy* recordings that sound quite superb - Django Reinhardt, Mahalia Jackson and Edith Piaf, to name but a few. (Know what I mean?) Accurate? - Oooh, I shouldn't think so....... ;-) |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
"Ian Molton" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:09:23 -0000 "Keith G" wrote: So, to clarify, is the following OK with you: 'valves = nice sound but not very accurate', 'SS = accurate but not a very nice sound' and that either form of amplification chosen is likely to be an acceptable compromise/combination of both these characteristics, based on the user's personal preferences?? I'd remove the valve/SS distinction altogether. Agreed. Actually I don't give a ******** what people think either way - I *know* what I prefer. Contrary to something mentioned a while back, I don't seek to convert anyone and, more often than not, advise people to be cautious when considering valves. (They ain't for everyone....) What I'm curious about is what valve amp have you got that you don't use? just say some people prefer a system that modifies the sound, others dont. All systems modify sound - if it ain't the amp, the speakers'll do it....... |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
"Ian Molton" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:09:23 -0000 "Keith G" wrote: So, to clarify, is the following OK with you: 'valves = nice sound but not very accurate', 'SS = accurate but not a very nice sound' and that either form of amplification chosen is likely to be an acceptable compromise/combination of both these characteristics, based on the user's personal preferences?? I'd remove the valve/SS distinction altogether. Agreed. Actually I don't give a ******** what people think either way - I *know* what I prefer. Contrary to something mentioned a while back, I don't seek to convert anyone and, more often than not, advise people to be cautious when considering valves. (They ain't for everyone....) What I'm curious about is what valve amp have you got that you don't use? just say some people prefer a system that modifies the sound, others dont. All systems modify sound - if it ain't the amp, the speakers'll do it....... |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:10:30 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote: On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:56:52 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used to say... On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:31:17 +0000, Kurt Hamster wrote: On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:00:15 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used to say... On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:42:29 +0000, Kurt Hamster wrote: On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:32:13 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used to say... SS=accurate, so if you have a great recording, you get great sound, but if you have a bad recording, you get bad sound. Yes that's a good idea for a home entertainment methodology. Why don't we all go out and spend a fortune so that we can see how bad a recording is? I think you miss the other point, which is that good SS amps don't cost much, but good valve amps cost a fortune, at least four times as much as an equivalently powerful SS amp. So how much exactly was your Krell? Less than a grand. Please note that I've never recommended any Krell as a new purchase, unless you have a seriously tough speaker load (which I do). Also note that an equivalent valve amp (i.e. one which will output 400 watts into a 1 ohm load with minimal distortion), will cost you at least ten grand.......................... And the price of those speakers that caused you to 'have' to buy an amp like a Krell? About 4 grand. I have *always* recommended spending most of the budget on speakers in a modern system, and then buying enough amplifier to drive them. Note that my source is a £250 Sony player................. Methinks your idea of a fortune is rather different to mine. Possibly, but you always were small-minded. Meanwhile the less anal retentive of us make sure we have a systems that sounds how we want it to sound most (if not all) of the time. Sounds like this would be a good way of justifying the money spent. But seeing as you are bank employee who is probably paid too much, you can afford to go out and spend money on something that let's you hear how bad something is. MMdV (similar to YMMV). Shame that you're too dumb to realise that I spend *less* money to get accurate sound, than the vinyl, valves and freaky cable gang spend to get a rosy wash over *all* their music.................... I'm not dumb enough to spend fortunes (and lots of man hours) attempting to find out which are bad recordings and which aren't. I prefer to spend an appropriate amount and time on enjoying what I have. Actually, if you have an *accurate* system, it takes only a few minutes to discover which are bad recordings. My TV sound system, with basic 2nd generation DVD player, Audiolab 8000P and Tannoy 633s (less than a grand all in), is more than adequate for that purpose The point has disappeared over your aging head once again. Why would you *want* to hear the bad recordings? It can only distract from what may be a good performance. I don't want to hear bad recordings per se, but sometimes you're stuck with the sods, because the *performance* is ace. That's also why I still have a turntable. You've probably forgotten that it's really all about the music. The difference of course is that on a *great* recording, a truly accurate system is *way* better than one of those rose-tinted 'easy listening' jobs that you seem to favour. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:10:30 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote: On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:56:52 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used to say... On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:31:17 +0000, Kurt Hamster wrote: On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:00:15 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used to say... On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:42:29 +0000, Kurt Hamster wrote: On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:32:13 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used to say... SS=accurate, so if you have a great recording, you get great sound, but if you have a bad recording, you get bad sound. Yes that's a good idea for a home entertainment methodology. Why don't we all go out and spend a fortune so that we can see how bad a recording is? I think you miss the other point, which is that good SS amps don't cost much, but good valve amps cost a fortune, at least four times as much as an equivalently powerful SS amp. So how much exactly was your Krell? Less than a grand. Please note that I've never recommended any Krell as a new purchase, unless you have a seriously tough speaker load (which I do). Also note that an equivalent valve amp (i.e. one which will output 400 watts into a 1 ohm load with minimal distortion), will cost you at least ten grand.......................... And the price of those speakers that caused you to 'have' to buy an amp like a Krell? About 4 grand. I have *always* recommended spending most of the budget on speakers in a modern system, and then buying enough amplifier to drive them. Note that my source is a £250 Sony player................. Methinks your idea of a fortune is rather different to mine. Possibly, but you always were small-minded. Meanwhile the less anal retentive of us make sure we have a systems that sounds how we want it to sound most (if not all) of the time. Sounds like this would be a good way of justifying the money spent. But seeing as you are bank employee who is probably paid too much, you can afford to go out and spend money on something that let's you hear how bad something is. MMdV (similar to YMMV). Shame that you're too dumb to realise that I spend *less* money to get accurate sound, than the vinyl, valves and freaky cable gang spend to get a rosy wash over *all* their music.................... I'm not dumb enough to spend fortunes (and lots of man hours) attempting to find out which are bad recordings and which aren't. I prefer to spend an appropriate amount and time on enjoying what I have. Actually, if you have an *accurate* system, it takes only a few minutes to discover which are bad recordings. My TV sound system, with basic 2nd generation DVD player, Audiolab 8000P and Tannoy 633s (less than a grand all in), is more than adequate for that purpose The point has disappeared over your aging head once again. Why would you *want* to hear the bad recordings? It can only distract from what may be a good performance. I don't want to hear bad recordings per se, but sometimes you're stuck with the sods, because the *performance* is ace. That's also why I still have a turntable. You've probably forgotten that it's really all about the music. The difference of course is that on a *great* recording, a truly accurate system is *way* better than one of those rose-tinted 'easy listening' jobs that you seem to favour. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
Keith G wrote:
... Contrary to something mentioned a while back, I don't seek to convert anyone and, more often than not, advise people to be cautious when considering valves. (They ain't for everyone....) Except for when you wrote... ------------------------------ Right, sounds like you've got the signal best part sorted. To cap it off now, go the next step and get it routed through a decent valve amp. Beg, borrow or steal summat that'll push out about 25-30W a side, switch it on and give it about 20 minutes to get the 'trons organised, put on something 'full bodied', crank it up about halfway and strap yerself in tight.......!! (Then come back here and tell me you *didn't* like it!!!) ------------------------------ :-) -- Wally www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk On webcam: Black Cat In Coal Cellar |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
Keith G wrote:
... Contrary to something mentioned a while back, I don't seek to convert anyone and, more often than not, advise people to be cautious when considering valves. (They ain't for everyone....) Except for when you wrote... ------------------------------ Right, sounds like you've got the signal best part sorted. To cap it off now, go the next step and get it routed through a decent valve amp. Beg, borrow or steal summat that'll push out about 25-30W a side, switch it on and give it about 20 minutes to get the 'trons organised, put on something 'full bodied', crank it up about halfway and strap yerself in tight.......!! (Then come back here and tell me you *didn't* like it!!!) ------------------------------ :-) -- Wally www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk On webcam: Black Cat In Coal Cellar |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:10:30 +0000, Kurt Hamster wrote: On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:56:52 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used to say... On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:31:17 +0000, Kurt Hamster wrote: On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:00:15 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used to say... On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:42:29 +0000, Kurt Hamster wrote: On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:32:13 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used to say... SS=accurate, so if you have a great recording, you get great sound, but if you have a bad recording, you get bad sound. Yes that's a good idea for a home entertainment methodology. Why don't we all go out and spend a fortune so that we can see how bad a recording is? I think you miss the other point, which is that good SS amps don't cost much, but good valve amps cost a fortune, at least four times as much as an equivalently powerful SS amp. So how much exactly was your Krell? Less than a grand. Please note that I've never recommended any Krell as a new purchase, unless you have a seriously tough speaker load (which I do). Also note that an equivalent valve amp (i.e. one which will output 400 watts into a 1 ohm load with minimal distortion), will cost you at least ten grand.......................... And the price of those speakers that caused you to 'have' to buy an amp like a Krell? About 4 grand. I have *always* recommended spending most of the budget on speakers in a modern system, and then buying enough amplifier to drive them. Note that my source is a £250 Sony player................. Methinks your idea of a fortune is rather different to mine. Possibly, but you always were small-minded. Meanwhile the less anal retentive of us make sure we have a systems that sounds how we want it to sound most (if not all) of the time. Sounds like this would be a good way of justifying the money spent. But seeing as you are bank employee who is probably paid too much, you can afford to go out and spend money on something that let's you hear how bad something is. MMdV (similar to YMMV). Shame that you're too dumb to realise that I spend *less* money to get accurate sound, than the vinyl, valves and freaky cable gang spend to get a rosy wash over *all* their music.................... I'm not dumb enough to spend fortunes (and lots of man hours) attempting to find out which are bad recordings and which aren't. I prefer to spend an appropriate amount and time on enjoying what I have. Actually, if you have an *accurate* system, it takes only a few minutes to discover which are bad recordings. My TV sound system, with basic 2nd generation DVD player, Audiolab 8000P and Tannoy 633s (less than a grand all in), is more than adequate for that purpose The point has disappeared over your aging head once again. Why would you *want* to hear the bad recordings? It can only distract from what may be a good performance. I don't want to hear bad recordings per se, but sometimes you're stuck with the sods, because the *performance* is ace. That's also why I still have a turntable. You've probably forgotten that it's really all about the music. The difference of course is that on a *great* recording, a truly accurate system is *way* better than one of those rose-tinted 'easy listening' jobs that you seem to favour. Am I reading this right???? (From the world's worst 'too posh/can't be arsed to snip' poster here????) (Bull**** again?) :-) |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:10:30 +0000, Kurt Hamster wrote: On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:56:52 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used to say... On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:31:17 +0000, Kurt Hamster wrote: On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:00:15 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used to say... On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:42:29 +0000, Kurt Hamster wrote: On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:32:13 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used to say... SS=accurate, so if you have a great recording, you get great sound, but if you have a bad recording, you get bad sound. Yes that's a good idea for a home entertainment methodology. Why don't we all go out and spend a fortune so that we can see how bad a recording is? I think you miss the other point, which is that good SS amps don't cost much, but good valve amps cost a fortune, at least four times as much as an equivalently powerful SS amp. So how much exactly was your Krell? Less than a grand. Please note that I've never recommended any Krell as a new purchase, unless you have a seriously tough speaker load (which I do). Also note that an equivalent valve amp (i.e. one which will output 400 watts into a 1 ohm load with minimal distortion), will cost you at least ten grand.......................... And the price of those speakers that caused you to 'have' to buy an amp like a Krell? About 4 grand. I have *always* recommended spending most of the budget on speakers in a modern system, and then buying enough amplifier to drive them. Note that my source is a £250 Sony player................. Methinks your idea of a fortune is rather different to mine. Possibly, but you always were small-minded. Meanwhile the less anal retentive of us make sure we have a systems that sounds how we want it to sound most (if not all) of the time. Sounds like this would be a good way of justifying the money spent. But seeing as you are bank employee who is probably paid too much, you can afford to go out and spend money on something that let's you hear how bad something is. MMdV (similar to YMMV). Shame that you're too dumb to realise that I spend *less* money to get accurate sound, than the vinyl, valves and freaky cable gang spend to get a rosy wash over *all* their music.................... I'm not dumb enough to spend fortunes (and lots of man hours) attempting to find out which are bad recordings and which aren't. I prefer to spend an appropriate amount and time on enjoying what I have. Actually, if you have an *accurate* system, it takes only a few minutes to discover which are bad recordings. My TV sound system, with basic 2nd generation DVD player, Audiolab 8000P and Tannoy 633s (less than a grand all in), is more than adequate for that purpose The point has disappeared over your aging head once again. Why would you *want* to hear the bad recordings? It can only distract from what may be a good performance. I don't want to hear bad recordings per se, but sometimes you're stuck with the sods, because the *performance* is ace. That's also why I still have a turntable. You've probably forgotten that it's really all about the music. The difference of course is that on a *great* recording, a truly accurate system is *way* better than one of those rose-tinted 'easy listening' jobs that you seem to favour. Am I reading this right???? (From the world's worst 'too posh/can't be arsed to snip' poster here????) (Bull**** again?) :-) |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 22:40:44 -0000
"Keith G" wrote: OK, but very often has other 'effects' like killing the imaging, given imaging is in the higher freqencies, and the 'rosy' sound has a rolled off treble I dont see how you can justify that -- Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup. |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 22:40:44 -0000
"Keith G" wrote: OK, but very often has other 'effects' like killing the imaging, given imaging is in the higher freqencies, and the 'rosy' sound has a rolled off treble I dont see how you can justify that -- Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup. |
"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
"Wally" wrote in message ... Keith G wrote: ... Contrary to something mentioned a while back, I don't seek to convert anyone and, more often than not, advise people to be cautious when considering valves. (They ain't for everyone....) Except for when you wrote... ------------------------------ Right, sounds like you've got the signal best part sorted. To cap it off now, go the next step and get it routed through a decent valve amp. Beg, borrow or steal summat that'll push out about 25-30W a side, switch it on and give it about 20 minutes to get the 'trons organised, put on something 'full bodied', crank it up about halfway and strap yerself in tight.......!! (Then come back here and tell me you *didn't* like it!!!) ------------------------------ :-) Ah, but I *knew* you were a 'suitable case for treatment' - the proof was that you *already* have got a valve amp! ;-) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk