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

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

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

"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).....

"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).....

"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.....

"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.....

"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.......

;-)

"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.......

;-)

"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.......