"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 01:26:01 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

God knows. its in an old valve radio that I would have on display as a
talking piece that works too, except the front glass got smashed :-(

That's fixable.

How? it had all the markings and gradations for the tuner printed on it somehow. Are you saying I can get a new glass complete with markings?

Tell me - is this the only bit of valve kit you have heard??

(Just arsking like.....)

Not at all.

it does sound nice though,

for voice stuff.

I like the way voices sound mellow and bassy on it. I find higer pitched voices hard to listen to.

for music though I like the clarity I get from a more linear system.


--
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?
 

Ian Molton wrote:

How? it had all the markings and gradations for the tuner printed on
it somehow. Are you saying I can get a new glass complete with
markings?

Might have to make something, but it must be doable. Stencil and paint?
Artists' shops sell specialist glass paint which is meant to have very good
adhesion.


I like the way voices sound mellow and bassy on it. I find higer
pitched voices hard to listen to.

Can't beat Radio 4 on long wave for *that* (olde worlde) tone...


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
On webcam: Black Cat In Coal Cellar

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Ian Molton wrote:

How? it had all the markings and gradations for the tuner printed on
it somehow. Are you saying I can get a new glass complete with
markings?

Might have to make something, but it must be doable. Stencil and paint?
Artists' shops sell specialist glass paint which is meant to have very good
adhesion.


I like the way voices sound mellow and bassy on it. I find higer
pitched voices hard to listen to.

Can't beat Radio 4 on long wave for *that* (olde worlde) tone...


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
On webcam: Black Cat In Coal Cellar

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 01:26:01 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

God knows. its in an old valve radio that I would have on display as a
talking piece that works too, except the front glass got smashed :-(

That's fixable.

How? it had all the markings and gradations for the tuner printed on it
somehow. Are you saying I can get a new glass complete with markings?


Why worry about the markings - do you really need to know where Hilversum or
Luxembourg is on the dial? ;-)


Tell me - is this the only bit of valve kit you have heard??

(Just arsking like.....)

Not at all.


What then? (I'm just trying to get an idea of what makes you think valve
amps suffer from 'rosy glow' - it's a popular misconception perpetrated by
people who a) never heard a decent valve amp, b) never heard a valve amp in
their lives, c) got such a bug up their arse about valves that they get all
bent out of shape about it....)



it does sound nice though,

for voice stuff.

I like the way voices sound mellow and bassy on it.


Wiv you on this one!


I find higer pitched voices hard to listen to.


Yup, but I'm afraid it extends all the way into the whole SS/digital thing
for me. Too stark and grating - knackers me out very quickly! (Which is a
bitch because it don't make life any easier!)



for music though I like the clarity I get from a more linear system.


I go for 'tone' and 'warmth' - I can and very often do listen to my gear all
day long! I can get bass like someone's bumped into the chair I'm sitting in
and tinkly bits that make me wince. (High pitched squeaks on Track 5,
Vangelis' The City anyone?) Bells, xylophones, vibes and triangles are like
velvet, peoples voices are like they are in the room - put all that through
any number of the SS amps I've tried (all the way up to a Parasound HCA1205
pumping out up to 45 AMPS per channel, biamping a stereo pair of speakers)
and it goes flat as f*ck!

(Like a lifesize cardboard cutout of Carlie Dimmock I saw in a garden centre
once - scared me half to death!)

Know where I'm coming from?

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 01:26:01 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

God knows. its in an old valve radio that I would have on display as a
talking piece that works too, except the front glass got smashed :-(

That's fixable.

How? it had all the markings and gradations for the tuner printed on it
somehow. Are you saying I can get a new glass complete with markings?


Why worry about the markings - do you really need to know where Hilversum or
Luxembourg is on the dial? ;-)


Tell me - is this the only bit of valve kit you have heard??

(Just arsking like.....)

Not at all.


What then? (I'm just trying to get an idea of what makes you think valve
amps suffer from 'rosy glow' - it's a popular misconception perpetrated by
people who a) never heard a decent valve amp, b) never heard a valve amp in
their lives, c) got such a bug up their arse about valves that they get all
bent out of shape about it....)



it does sound nice though,

for voice stuff.

I like the way voices sound mellow and bassy on it.


Wiv you on this one!


I find higer pitched voices hard to listen to.


Yup, but I'm afraid it extends all the way into the whole SS/digital thing
for me. Too stark and grating - knackers me out very quickly! (Which is a
bitch because it don't make life any easier!)



for music though I like the clarity I get from a more linear system.


I go for 'tone' and 'warmth' - I can and very often do listen to my gear all
day long! I can get bass like someone's bumped into the chair I'm sitting in
and tinkly bits that make me wince. (High pitched squeaks on Track 5,
Vangelis' The City anyone?) Bells, xylophones, vibes and triangles are like
velvet, peoples voices are like they are in the room - put all that through
any number of the SS amps I've tried (all the way up to a Parasound HCA1205
pumping out up to 45 AMPS per channel, biamping a stereo pair of speakers)
and it goes flat as f*ck!

(Like a lifesize cardboard cutout of Carlie Dimmock I saw in a garden centre
once - scared me half to death!)

Know where I'm coming from?

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Ian Molton wrote:

How? it had all the markings and gradations for the tuner printed on
it somehow. Are you saying I can get a new glass complete with
markings?

Might have to make something, but it must be doable. Stencil and paint?
Artists' shops sell specialist glass paint which is meant to have very
good
adhesion.


I like the way voices sound mellow and bassy on it. I find higer
pitched voices hard to listen to.

Can't beat Radio 4 on long wave for *that* (olde worlde) tone...



How's that happen - you reading my posts before I send 'em?

:-)

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Ian Molton wrote:

How? it had all the markings and gradations for the tuner printed on
it somehow. Are you saying I can get a new glass complete with
markings?

Might have to make something, but it must be doable. Stencil and paint?
Artists' shops sell specialist glass paint which is meant to have very
good
adhesion.


I like the way voices sound mellow and bassy on it. I find higer
pitched voices hard to listen to.

Can't beat Radio 4 on long wave for *that* (olde worlde) tone...



How's that happen - you reading my posts before I send 'em?

:-)

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Keith G wrote:

Can't beat Radio 4 on long wave for *that* (olde worlde) tone...

How's that happen - you reading my posts before I send 'em?

The olde worlde long wave tone sounds just like the valve radiograms that
were around when I was a kid. It's unmistakable, even on my reissue Bush
tranny (which probably does everything with a single IC).


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
On webcam: Black Cat In Coal Cellar

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:45:47 +0000
Kurt Hamster wrote:

Only deluded audiophiles insist they are listening to music when they
are actually trying to listen to the equipment.

I do my best to ensure my equipment is sonically 'transparent' actually,
which is the exact opposite.

I havent MEASURED the old amps performance on my scope, only noted
that sine waves on it look more like super distorted triangle waves.
no measurements of any kind.

The last half of your that first sentence is diametrically opposed to
the first half. If you hadn't put them on your scope then how could
you see that they look like

I did put them on my scope. I didnt use the scope to take measurements
beyond looking at the shape of the wave. I didnt measure anything like
the amplitude of the distorted bit or try to match a curve to the damn
thing.

In the same way a graphic artist knows what he draws on his PC will
look(nominally) the same when its printed. They spend thousands
(silly

Ah, there's your get out clause "nominally".

I put that in there because if I didnt you'd be here now telling me 100%
perfect reproduction is impossible instead. I guess I shouldnt have
bothered...

Most graphic artists (and I am one) know that what they see on their
screen (even calibrated ones) don't always come close to what's on the
page. That's the difference between transmitted and reflected light
for you.

Yeah, probably a bad example. that would be more like for example, using
the same amp on different speakers.

If you were to take two *monitors* and calibrate them the same way tyoud
get the same image out of them though (assuming the screens were both
capable of the same dynamic ranges).

They only come close, they don't match primarily due to the way it all
works. Computers = RGB, transmitted, Paper = CMYK, reflected.

Actually, a K wont be reflected at all. its black, duh.

and there you're dealing with imperfections in the materials. CMY
reflected *should* look identical to RGB transmitted, in theory (given
equal energy input)

Then add to the mix the difference between gammas

Gamma is irrelevant. all gamma is is a simple way of setting up look up
tables with a curve that can be expressed using one number. any lookup
table can be programmed with (or to compensate for) any gamma value.

etc on different
platforms and you end up with a subject that is nowhere near as
accurate as you are trying to make out.

Actally a lot simpler than you let on too.

Also, as is true of most Usenet borne analogies, the artist is there
at the inception so has a benchmark to compare with. You as an
audiophile have no such benchmark.

If my system is accurate then ALL music will sound like the creator
intended (given properly made recordings.

In the same way, if I know my gear conforms to a standard, ie. its
linear, I can expect competantly made recordings to sound right on
it.

How do you know, and what "standard"?

I dont. I can just hope to aim for a system that does as little as
possible to affect the sound.

********. Ford produce over 24 different shades of white

No they dont. there is only one share of white. they probably dont
produce ANY whites ;-)

So no, reds aren't always the same thing to
everyone.

Feel free to continue missing the point.

Some of us here have actually been to concerts.

My my, have you really. If that is the case then you would know that
there is absolutely no way you can reproduce that sound accurately in
your living room. Not even close. So where's this accuracy you keep
referring to?

I never SAID you could do it 100% accurately you twonk. The closer the
better though.

Perhaps poor choice of words given who I am 'talking' to. perhaps I
should just have said 'I confess' or 'I surrender'.

Your words, and you aren't the first to use them, you won't be the
last. It's endemic in the audio community that it is somehow sinful to
actually change the sound into something one likes.

I notice you put your comment just *above* my next sentence which read:

I just meant to say that sometimes I like to kick the bass up a few
notches and blast the earwax out...

Oh well.

Most 'philes start off like you though. Just because you don't care
what others fall for does not mean you aren't immune to it yourself.

I havent changed my opinion in 15 years. I dont see why its going to
change in the next 15 years either. My speakers are older than I am
anyway.

yeah, but its not every day some **** doesnt bid five times the
realistic value whan the auction has 9 days to go...

So you had to have it right now did you? My you have got that upgrade
bug bad haven't you? ;)

I grabbed a bargain when it came along. I had been wanting a DAC for
ages but not buying due to the cost.

It shows. about 10% of the time, and even then not very much.

So let me see. You are willing to put up with an obviously dodgy
speaker for 10% of the time, but you have to go out and replace the
occasional bad recording because it doesn't come up to your self
inflicted audio standards. That does not compute Will Robinson.

no, Im not willing to put up with a dodgy speaker 10% of the time. Thats why Im getting it repaired. I just had to prioritise my spending a bit lately.

and as to bad recordings, most of mine are from P2P so about 30% are now looking dodgy, and perhaps a further 10% 'could be better'.

Still seems a strange way to go about things for someone who is
supposedly fastidious about how he wants his system to perform.

Perhaps not as 'anal' about things as you might have thought I was.

--
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 Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:45:47 +0000
Kurt Hamster wrote:

Only deluded audiophiles insist they are listening to music when they
are actually trying to listen to the equipment.

I do my best to ensure my equipment is sonically 'transparent' actually,
which is the exact opposite.

I havent MEASURED the old amps performance on my scope, only noted
that sine waves on it look more like super distorted triangle waves.
no measurements of any kind.

The last half of your that first sentence is diametrically opposed to
the first half. If you hadn't put them on your scope then how could
you see that they look like

I did put them on my scope. I didnt use the scope to take measurements
beyond looking at the shape of the wave. I didnt measure anything like
the amplitude of the distorted bit or try to match a curve to the damn
thing.

In the same way a graphic artist knows what he draws on his PC will
look(nominally) the same when its printed. They spend thousands
(silly

Ah, there's your get out clause "nominally".

I put that in there because if I didnt you'd be here now telling me 100%
perfect reproduction is impossible instead. I guess I shouldnt have
bothered...

Most graphic artists (and I am one) know that what they see on their
screen (even calibrated ones) don't always come close to what's on the
page. That's the difference between transmitted and reflected light
for you.

Yeah, probably a bad example. that would be more like for example, using
the same amp on different speakers.

If you were to take two *monitors* and calibrate them the same way tyoud
get the same image out of them though (assuming the screens were both
capable of the same dynamic ranges).

They only come close, they don't match primarily due to the way it all
works. Computers = RGB, transmitted, Paper = CMYK, reflected.

Actually, a K wont be reflected at all. its black, duh.

and there you're dealing with imperfections in the materials. CMY
reflected *should* look identical to RGB transmitted, in theory (given
equal energy input)

Then add to the mix the difference between gammas

Gamma is irrelevant. all gamma is is a simple way of setting up look up
tables with a curve that can be expressed using one number. any lookup
table can be programmed with (or to compensate for) any gamma value.

etc on different
platforms and you end up with a subject that is nowhere near as
accurate as you are trying to make out.

Actally a lot simpler than you let on too.

Also, as is true of most Usenet borne analogies, the artist is there
at the inception so has a benchmark to compare with. You as an
audiophile have no such benchmark.

If my system is accurate then ALL music will sound like the creator
intended (given properly made recordings.

In the same way, if I know my gear conforms to a standard, ie. its
linear, I can expect competantly made recordings to sound right on
it.

How do you know, and what "standard"?

I dont. I can just hope to aim for a system that does as little as
possible to affect the sound.

********. Ford produce over 24 different shades of white

No they dont. there is only one share of white. they probably dont
produce ANY whites ;-)

So no, reds aren't always the same thing to
everyone.

Feel free to continue missing the point.

Some of us here have actually been to concerts.

My my, have you really. If that is the case then you would know that
there is absolutely no way you can reproduce that sound accurately in
your living room. Not even close. So where's this accuracy you keep
referring to?

I never SAID you could do it 100% accurately you twonk. The closer the
better though.

Perhaps poor choice of words given who I am 'talking' to. perhaps I
should just have said 'I confess' or 'I surrender'.

Your words, and you aren't the first to use them, you won't be the
last. It's endemic in the audio community that it is somehow sinful to
actually change the sound into something one likes.

I notice you put your comment just *above* my next sentence which read:

I just meant to say that sometimes I like to kick the bass up a few
notches and blast the earwax out...

Oh well.

Most 'philes start off like you though. Just because you don't care
what others fall for does not mean you aren't immune to it yourself.

I havent changed my opinion in 15 years. I dont see why its going to
change in the next 15 years either. My speakers are older than I am
anyway.

yeah, but its not every day some **** doesnt bid five times the
realistic value whan the auction has 9 days to go...

So you had to have it right now did you? My you have got that upgrade
bug bad haven't you? ;)

I grabbed a bargain when it came along. I had been wanting a DAC for
ages but not buying due to the cost.

It shows. about 10% of the time, and even then not very much.

So let me see. You are willing to put up with an obviously dodgy
speaker for 10% of the time, but you have to go out and replace the
occasional bad recording because it doesn't come up to your self
inflicted audio standards. That does not compute Will Robinson.

no, Im not willing to put up with a dodgy speaker 10% of the time. Thats why Im getting it repaired. I just had to prioritise my spending a bit lately.

and as to bad recordings, most of mine are from P2P so about 30% are now looking dodgy, and perhaps a further 10% 'could be better'.

Still seems a strange way to go about things for someone who is
supposedly fastidious about how he wants his system to perform.

Perhaps not as 'anal' about things as you might have thought I was.

--
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.