"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:25:17 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

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

its a BIG radio. like 50x35x40 sorta big. if it doesnt look good its not going to be in the living space here.

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....)

Lets just not assume I have c) ok?

people talk about the valve sound because it characterises the way most valve amps sounded. If we were to talk about decent gear, there would be no 'valve sound' because it'd soud the same as SS gear. (ie. linear)

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!)

So attenuate the treble a bit.

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

I go for 'tone' and 'warmth' -

But some music (all classical and a lot of other stuff) sounds better without the 'warmth' and stuff. I like to listen to that without the added distortion.

now for voice stuff or 70's rock, I'm with you all the way...

I can and very often do listen to my gear all day long!

As do I.

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!

yeah, in the same way that my system sounds flat as f*ck when I kick the tone controls out of circuit after a 'heavy rock' listening session. but I know its not 'rea' and my brain readjusts to a normal sound in a minute or so.

if you just swap a nonlinear amp for a linear one you are effectively doing the same thing.

Know where I'm coming from?

Yes.

--
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 02:25:17 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

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

its a BIG radio. like 50x35x40 sorta big. if it doesnt look good its not going to be in the living space here.

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....)

Lets just not assume I have c) ok?

people talk about the valve sound because it characterises the way most valve amps sounded. If we were to talk about decent gear, there would be no 'valve sound' because it'd soud the same as SS gear. (ie. linear)

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!)

So attenuate the treble a bit.

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

I go for 'tone' and 'warmth' -

But some music (all classical and a lot of other stuff) sounds better without the 'warmth' and stuff. I like to listen to that without the added distortion.

now for voice stuff or 70's rock, I'm with you all the way...

I can and very often do listen to my gear all day long!

As do I.

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!

yeah, in the same way that my system sounds flat as f*ck when I kick the tone controls out of circuit after a 'heavy rock' listening session. but I know its not 'rea' and my brain readjusts to a normal sound in a minute or so.

if you just swap a nonlinear amp for a linear one you are effectively doing the same thing.

Know where I'm coming from?

Yes.

--
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 02:49:35 +0000
Kurt Hamster wrote:

idiot.

So someone who spends money on a front end component when his speakers
are ****ed isn't one?

I guess cash-flow isnt a problem for you then? Never had to get
something at a good price because the deal wont be around later and you
dont have enough cash to spend on something else (that will be available
later) ?

I wanted a DAC and to get my speaker repaired. Now I have done one of
those things, and in a month or two I will be able to afford the other.

yes, getting a good recording to sound right is exclusive to getting
a bad recording to have its shortcommings covered up.

Ah, so you haven't yet learned the art of acceptability. Ahhh things
are becoming a little clearer now.

You can only play a good recording right on good gear, which means
the bad recordings flaws show up.

Why should I put up with inferior sound (*audibly inferior* that is)
when I can just get a better recording for free anyhow?

You seem to have this thing about "good gear" as you've used that
expression several times now. It isn't a "big dick" sorta thing is it?

Well, without wanting to get into that field, I sure *hope* my dick is a
lot bigger than my audio spending indicates (a whopping 185ukp to date)

You act like you do. You seem to relish equipment that hides flaws in
**** recordings.

No, I relish equipment that gives me acceptable and enjoyable music
from as many recordings as possible.

I like to get maximum pleasure from my music. if that means some of my
worse tracks dont sound good, they'll be replaced with versions that
sound BETTER.

That presupposes that there are better versions available...

Not been a problem so far...

Not got a large collection yet then?

Few thousand tracks, but all ones I like, not just tracks that happened to be on the same album. P2P rocks :)

--
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 02:49:35 +0000
Kurt Hamster wrote:

idiot.

So someone who spends money on a front end component when his speakers
are ****ed isn't one?

I guess cash-flow isnt a problem for you then? Never had to get
something at a good price because the deal wont be around later and you
dont have enough cash to spend on something else (that will be available
later) ?

I wanted a DAC and to get my speaker repaired. Now I have done one of
those things, and in a month or two I will be able to afford the other.

yes, getting a good recording to sound right is exclusive to getting
a bad recording to have its shortcommings covered up.

Ah, so you haven't yet learned the art of acceptability. Ahhh things
are becoming a little clearer now.

You can only play a good recording right on good gear, which means
the bad recordings flaws show up.

Why should I put up with inferior sound (*audibly inferior* that is)
when I can just get a better recording for free anyhow?

You seem to have this thing about "good gear" as you've used that
expression several times now. It isn't a "big dick" sorta thing is it?

Well, without wanting to get into that field, I sure *hope* my dick is a
lot bigger than my audio spending indicates (a whopping 185ukp to date)

You act like you do. You seem to relish equipment that hides flaws in
**** recordings.

No, I relish equipment that gives me acceptable and enjoyable music
from as many recordings as possible.

I like to get maximum pleasure from my music. if that means some of my
worse tracks dont sound good, they'll be replaced with versions that
sound BETTER.

That presupposes that there are better versions available...

Not been a problem so far...

Not got a large collection yet then?

Few thousand tracks, but all ones I like, not just tracks that happened to be on the same album. P2P rocks :)

--
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?
 

Hi,

In message , Ian Molton
writes

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)

No, they can't look identical, except in very particular circumstances,
because the gamuts are different. There are colours in the RGB colour
space that simply don't exist in the CMYK colour space, and vice versa.
Also, transmitted light gives an subjectively different appearance of
the same 'colours' from reflected light, due to the difference in
luminance transmission. If you want them to look the same, they have to
have different spectral power distributions. If they have the same SPD,
they won't look the same.

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.

No, gamma is vital. It's far from simple, as it is non-linear, and
differs across different colour spaces. Since graphics cards running in
true colour don't use look up tables, the values have to be calculated
on the fly. Then you need to take into account the non-linearity of a
CRT (or other display) and the reflectivity and colour of the individual
sheet of paper, and the whole thing is a bag of worms. This is what I do
for a living. If it was easy, I would be out of a job.


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.

Ok. Want a job? :-)


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

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

There is no 'real' shade of white, since colour is defined as being
perceptual (i.e. there is no 'colour' until light hits somebody's
retina, therefore it's totally personal). There are only colour
temperatures that are 'accepted' as being white in a particular colour
space, for a particular use. That's why TV systems, computers, and
printers all have to have white defined for them, e.g. 6500K, 9300K,
etc. and why entire industries have grown up to formulate standards for
what people mean by white. You're right though - Ford probably don't
make any real whites.


--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Hi,

In message , Ian Molton
writes

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)

No, they can't look identical, except in very particular circumstances,
because the gamuts are different. There are colours in the RGB colour
space that simply don't exist in the CMYK colour space, and vice versa.
Also, transmitted light gives an subjectively different appearance of
the same 'colours' from reflected light, due to the difference in
luminance transmission. If you want them to look the same, they have to
have different spectral power distributions. If they have the same SPD,
they won't look the same.

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.

No, gamma is vital. It's far from simple, as it is non-linear, and
differs across different colour spaces. Since graphics cards running in
true colour don't use look up tables, the values have to be calculated
on the fly. Then you need to take into account the non-linearity of a
CRT (or other display) and the reflectivity and colour of the individual
sheet of paper, and the whole thing is a bag of worms. This is what I do
for a living. If it was easy, I would be out of a job.


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.

Ok. Want a job? :-)


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

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

There is no 'real' shade of white, since colour is defined as being
perceptual (i.e. there is no 'colour' until light hits somebody's
retina, therefore it's totally personal). There are only colour
temperatures that are 'accepted' as being white in a particular colour
space, for a particular use. That's why TV systems, computers, and
printers all have to have white defined for them, e.g. 6500K, 9300K,
etc. and why entire industries have grown up to formulate standards for
what people mean by white. You're right though - Ford probably don't
make any real whites.


--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


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.....

Well, I listen using a varity of SS designs of amplifier, and have tried
various sorts over the years. I must admit I have not noticed any
correlation between using them and the 'effects' you describe.

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 , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


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.....

Well, I listen using a varity of SS designs of amplifier, and have tried
various sorts over the years. I must admit I have not noticed any
correlation between using them and the 'effects' you describe.

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 19:10:30 +0000 Kurt Hamster wrote:


The point has disappeared over your aging head once again. Why would
you *want* to hear the bad recordings?

No. the point is going over YOUR head.

*NO-ONE* wants to hear a bad recording.

Depends what you mean by 'want'. :-)

I certainly would prefer it if all the recordings and broadcasts I listened
to were superbly recorded. (Although what I might regard as 'superb' might
not suit someone else.)

However my experience is that - for example - when listening to 'poor'
recordings via something like the Quad speakers their clarity does two
things.

Firstly, it lays bare the problems with the recording.

Secondly, it makes it easier for me to mentally 'disentangle' the recording
limitations from the actual performance.

Hence when a recording *is* bad, but contains a performance I might enjoy,
I do prefer a system that shows the details of the imperfections of the
recording since it makes it easier for me to hear past those imperfections
to enjoy and hear the details of the actual performance.

In my case I am really thinking of 'historic' recordings like those made of
Barbirolli back before the 1950s and now on CD. However I used to find
something similar when listening a lot to old LPs. With those 'clicks and
pops' become more distracting to me when the speakers have colourations and
resonances that seem to 'tune' a wideband brief click into a longer 'ring'.
Similarly with wideband background noise like hiss. Speaker colourations
peak this up at some frequencies, and I find this harder to forget/ignore
than when using relatively uncoloured speakers.

I obviously can't speak for anyone else here. :-) However my experience
is that, yes, I prefer an audio system that can make it clear when a
recording has imperfections as this can also mean they become easier to
hear through and then notice details of the actual performance that may
otherwise be missed.

The above focusses on speakers as - again in my experience - these matter
much more in this area than the amplifier.

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 19:10:30 +0000 Kurt Hamster wrote:


The point has disappeared over your aging head once again. Why would
you *want* to hear the bad recordings?

No. the point is going over YOUR head.

*NO-ONE* wants to hear a bad recording.

Depends what you mean by 'want'. :-)

I certainly would prefer it if all the recordings and broadcasts I listened
to were superbly recorded. (Although what I might regard as 'superb' might
not suit someone else.)

However my experience is that - for example - when listening to 'poor'
recordings via something like the Quad speakers their clarity does two
things.

Firstly, it lays bare the problems with the recording.

Secondly, it makes it easier for me to mentally 'disentangle' the recording
limitations from the actual performance.

Hence when a recording *is* bad, but contains a performance I might enjoy,
I do prefer a system that shows the details of the imperfections of the
recording since it makes it easier for me to hear past those imperfections
to enjoy and hear the details of the actual performance.

In my case I am really thinking of 'historic' recordings like those made of
Barbirolli back before the 1950s and now on CD. However I used to find
something similar when listening a lot to old LPs. With those 'clicks and
pops' become more distracting to me when the speakers have colourations and
resonances that seem to 'tune' a wideband brief click into a longer 'ring'.
Similarly with wideband background noise like hiss. Speaker colourations
peak this up at some frequencies, and I find this harder to forget/ignore
than when using relatively uncoloured speakers.

I obviously can't speak for anyone else here. :-) However my experience
is that, yes, I prefer an audio system that can make it clear when a
recording has imperfections as this can also mean they become easier to
hear through and then notice details of the actual performance that may
otherwise be missed.

The above focusses on speakers as - again in my experience - these matter
much more in this area than the amplifier.

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