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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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