"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
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.



Fair enough, but I'm sure you're the first person to admit the possibility
of someone else noticing them. Were it not for the following I would put it
down to a quirk peculiar to me:

It's not subtle with me - it's glaringly obvious. The difference between SS
and Valve amps is profound - I notice instantly and always.

I chopped an SS amp into the equation (with valve pre's) to double check,
the other day, with the result that I have finally decided to get rid of an
amp that I'm very fond of. (5 possible combinations of amplification in just
the one system is getting a bit silly anyway...!)

SWMBO (clart and joanna player) notices and agrees as quickly as I do - and
no, it ain't an imaginary or 'diplomacy' thing!

Visitors here have heard it themselves and have, on a number of occasions,
proceeded to point out the differences to *me*!!! :-)


Even then, I still might think it's a uniquely personal thing if I didn't
keep seeing phrases like 'holographic imaging' and '3D' in the comix when
referring to valve amplification. (Yes, yes, I know.......!!)

Like I said before ( a number of times now) - it's no biggie, you either
*get* valves or you don't....

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
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.



Fair enough, but I'm sure you're the first person to admit the possibility
of someone else noticing them. Were it not for the following I would put it
down to a quirk peculiar to me:

It's not subtle with me - it's glaringly obvious. The difference between SS
and Valve amps is profound - I notice instantly and always.

I chopped an SS amp into the equation (with valve pre's) to double check,
the other day, with the result that I have finally decided to get rid of an
amp that I'm very fond of. (5 possible combinations of amplification in just
the one system is getting a bit silly anyway...!)

SWMBO (clart and joanna player) notices and agrees as quickly as I do - and
no, it ain't an imaginary or 'diplomacy' thing!

Visitors here have heard it themselves and have, on a number of occasions,
proceeded to point out the differences to *me*!!! :-)


Even then, I still might think it's a uniquely personal thing if I didn't
keep seeing phrases like 'holographic imaging' and '3D' in the comix when
referring to valve amplification. (Yes, yes, I know.......!!)

Like I said before ( a number of times now) - it's no biggie, you either
*get* valves or you don't....

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:12:01 +0000 (GMT)
Jim Lesurf wrote:


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

Thats another thing altogether (I tend to agree I think, btw.)

I was thinking more in terms that a bad old recording often becomes the
'preferred version' that everyone knows and loves - and it never sounds
right unless played the 'bad old way'.

;-)


Aha!

sound of clockwork toy being wound up

Yes, DSOTM never sounds right to me nowadays because my present copy (LP of
course) doesn't have a certain 'double click' in it, in a certain place.
:-)

But this raises an another interesting issue - I firmly believe that, for
instance, 50's Jazz just don't 'happen' if it isn't being played using
anything other than valves and vinyl and the same goes for other types of
music coming from different eras being played 'out of context'!! (Not too
mention the very good point raised elsewhere that you can't always get this
music on a more modern format anyhow...)

I think a fair number of people are going to discover this generally only
*after* they have burnt a lot of dosh on multichannel 'software' and
gadgetry - never mind the current hype in all the comix.....!!!

I'll throw another one in - best way to bugger up an album (never mind the
format) is to play it in a different order to the 'normal' Track 1 first and
so on!!

;-)

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:12:01 +0000 (GMT)
Jim Lesurf wrote:


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

Thats another thing altogether (I tend to agree I think, btw.)

I was thinking more in terms that a bad old recording often becomes the
'preferred version' that everyone knows and loves - and it never sounds
right unless played the 'bad old way'.

;-)


Aha!

sound of clockwork toy being wound up

Yes, DSOTM never sounds right to me nowadays because my present copy (LP of
course) doesn't have a certain 'double click' in it, in a certain place.
:-)

But this raises an another interesting issue - I firmly believe that, for
instance, 50's Jazz just don't 'happen' if it isn't being played using
anything other than valves and vinyl and the same goes for other types of
music coming from different eras being played 'out of context'!! (Not too
mention the very good point raised elsewhere that you can't always get this
music on a more modern format anyhow...)

I think a fair number of people are going to discover this generally only
*after* they have burnt a lot of dosh on multichannel 'software' and
gadgetry - never mind the current hype in all the comix.....!!!

I'll throw another one in - best way to bugger up an album (never mind the
format) is to play it in a different order to the 'normal' Track 1 first and
so on!!

;-)

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote


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'.



Oh yes, been there, done that - had some very strange noises coming from CDs
at times....!

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote


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'.



Oh yes, been there, done that - had some very strange noises coming from CDs
at times....!

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:47:28 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:


Consider these two entirely different forms of distortion - the
close-up,
cosy, 'muffled' tone of an old Bogart movie and the 'cavernous', tinny
sound
of a Bollywood movie (when they are dancing and singing those songs
where
every word ends in 'air'). In your opinion, is the sound ruined in
either
case?

TBH I like neither type of sound ;-)



OK.


tiny sound not unlike that of a clockwork toy running down.......

;-)

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:47:28 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:


Consider these two entirely different forms of distortion - the
close-up,
cosy, 'muffled' tone of an old Bogart movie and the 'cavernous', tinny
sound
of a Bollywood movie (when they are dancing and singing those songs
where
every word ends in 'air'). In your opinion, is the sound ruined in
either
case?

TBH I like neither type of sound ;-)



OK.


tiny sound not unlike that of a clockwork toy running down.......

;-)

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:04:01 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

Lack - I never said 'remove'.....

Actually you did.


Oh no I didn't....


unless 'killing the imaging' doesnt count as removing something...


Preventing something from happening or being created isn't the same as
removing something......

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:04:01 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

Lack - I never said 'remove'.....

Actually you did.


Oh no I didn't....


unless 'killing the imaging' doesnt count as removing something...


Preventing something from happening or being created isn't the same as
removing something......