pablolie;329148 Wrote:
p.s.: i think whoever thinks bw are junk was dropped on their head as
a baby. repeatedly. :-D
Anyone that thinks BW are junk has a major problem - many recordings
are mastered on their monitors...
--
opaqueice
Nonreality, I suspect we merely state the same opinion expressed in a
different way. If some may think your BW are junk, well, never mind !
After all, they are not sitting in your listening room, do they ?
Thanks for your apologies, although, I assure you, I didn't interpret
your words as a
Themis;327671 Wrote:
Nonreality, I suspect we merely state the same opinion expressed in a
different way. If some may think your BW are junk, well, never mind !
After all, they are not sitting in your listening room, do they ?
Thanks for your apologies, although, I assure you, I didn't
Themis;325379 Wrote:
These phrases sum it all, as far as I'm concerned. I've associated
certain details of music reproduction with emotion, and, I'm trying to
find these details into the sound that I can hear through my speakers
and setup. If these details are there, then I consider the
Nonreality;326145 Wrote:
I'm sorry and don't take this wrong, but what a bunch of bull. Speakers
can make a huge difference but not in the way you're saying. It's the
way the album was mixed that creates the emotional impact not the
speaker. Yeah the speaker can have a bit to do with this
Phil Leigh;319007 Wrote:
Indeed. Studio monitors are a tool - like a microscope - to let you hear
things clearly. There are some notable exceptions (ATC for example) but
generally those speakers that are most useful as monitors are not ones
you want to have in your listening/living room.
honestguv;322582 Wrote:
Studio monitors are supposed to replay the recorded signal as
accurately as possible (setting aside questions of directivity) which
is different to reproducing music accurately.
Yeah, well, there's still a 'color' associated to each set of monitors.
I've been doing
GuyDebord;319663 Wrote:
Transmission of emotion is what one should look for in a speaker before
anything else. But be aware that emotions are ALWAYS colored, embrace
them.These phrases sum it all, as far as I'm concerned. I've associated
certain details of music reproduction with emotion,
opaqueice;323320 Wrote:
None that I'm aware of have a dispersion pattern remotely like a box
speaker
Except for electric/electronic instruments which typically use a box
speaker to make the sound!
--
Patrick Dixon
www.at-tunes.co.uk
GuyDebord;323212 Wrote:
So let me understand more clearly, please!
Just to be more brief and make a point, I will choose the piano guy you
experimented with: you are saying that you had the same piano player as
the recording, using the same piano from the recording, in the same
space of the
opaqueice;323256 Wrote:
One interesting experiment is to listen to your system from down the
hall a little way, and ask yourself whether the sound you are hearing
could be live.
I thought all speakers except MBL's, German Physiks and some other
exotics, were uni or duo directional... live
GuyDebord;323294 Wrote:
I thought all speakers (except MBL's, German Physiks and some other
exotics), were uni or duo directional...
No, not at all. Speakers have a complex angular dispersion which
varies strongly with frequency. Standard box speakers are beamed
tightly forward at high
GuyDebord;322941 Wrote:
Ohh! Opaqueice, How much I missed your dry scientific input in this
thread!
I'm touched.
how were your vacations?
Wonderful. I got a lot of work done.
So yes a trumpet is a trumpet but the infinite variations of the sounds
of the trumpet renders the use of the
opaqueice;323088 Wrote:
I'm touched.
Wonderful. I got a lot of work done.
Let me put it this way. Take any trumpet (within reason) and play it
for me, live. I'll be able to tell you it's a trumpet (not a trombone
or a french horn or a cornet). Now play some recordings of
opaqueice;323088 Wrote:
Let me put it this way. Take any trumpet (within reason) and play it
for me, live. I'll be able to tell you it's a trumpet (not a trombone
or a french horn or a cornet). Now play some recordings of trumpets,
and (at least if the recording isn't terrible and the
GuyDebord;323116 Wrote:
Ok, Opaqueice, I love your dry persistence!
How flattering!
Could you please explain me how accurate is your reproduction of Miles
Davis trumpet in the recording Sketches of Spain in the album A Kind of
Blue? or choose among the great majority of your recordings
I have had some classical guitar recording artists sit between my
speakers and we go back and forth between live and the cd.
There is no contest, I can't imagine anyone not instantly knowing the
difference blind.
But it is easy to tell it is a classical guitar either way :-)
--
tomjtx
Judging whether audio reproduction is accurate based on comparison with
a live instrument isn't really valid. The process of recording adds
some inaccuracy and the best the replay system can ever do is to
reproduce that faithfully.
Modern studio recordings are usually pretty far from being a
tomjtx;323155 Wrote:
I have had some classical guitar recording artists sit between my
speakers and we go back and forth between live and the cd.
There is no contest, I can't imagine anyone not instantly knowing the
difference blind.
But it is easy to tell it is a classical guitar
Patrick Dixon;323161 Wrote:
Judging whether audio reproduction is accurate based on comparison with
a live instrument isn't really valid. The process of recording adds
some inaccuracy and the best the replay system can ever do is to
reproduce that faithfully.
The recording is an integral
audioengr;323167 Wrote:
Studio monitors are generally designed to be near-field, so they are
not really optimum for home environments IMO. Good Audiophile quality
speakers usually crush them...
I wish that I had known this, before I auditioned so many studio
monitors in hope of eliminating
GuyDebord;320298 Wrote:
you wrote however there are a fair percentage here that know how an
instrument ought to sound and what a philharmonic or voice should sound
like
so you affirmatively know how an instrument should sound... wow, nice!
I actually dont...
Certainly two different
opaqueice wrote:
Certainly two different trumpets played by two different trumpeters in
two different rooms can sound very different. But they still sound
like -trumpets-, not like speaker cones in sealed boxes.
It doesn't take two trumpeters.
Most good trumpet players change from standard
opaqueice;322843 Wrote:
Certainly two different trumpets played by two different trumpeters in
two different rooms can sound very different. But they still sound
like -trumpets-, not like speaker cones in sealed boxes.
Really? In any halfway decent recording I can easily identify a
jonheal;318996 Wrote:
By definition, I would think the average audiophile would be looking
for equipment that reproduces music as accurately as possible.
Why? I would expect them to be looking for equipment that supplies what
luxury goods normally supply. This may have a functional element
honestguv;322582 Wrote:
Why? I would expect them to be looking for equipment that supplies what
luxury goods normally supply. This may have a functional element but it
is not usually the most important part.
Studio monitors are supposed to replay the recorded signal as
accurately as
GuyDebord;319663 Wrote:
I think you are missing a lot from this thread.
What exactly am I missing?
This is what I said in an earlier post in this thread!!
At any rate , there is no audiophile truth in music reproduction cos we
all have our personal tastes . Most components and rooms
Rodney_Gold;320297 Wrote:
What exactly am I missing?
This is what I said in an earlier post in this thread!!
At any rate , there is no audiophile truth in music reproduction cos we
all have our personal tastes . Most components and rooms colour music
reproduction so colouration to
Maybe one doesnt know how a recording ought to sound , however there are
a fair percentage here that know how an instrument ought to sound and
what a philharmonic or voice should sound like.
So there is a reference of sorts. If you average out your recordings
, you can get some semblence of
The only goal for me is to maximise my enjoyment of the music I already
have, and to make me want to explore new music.
--
Patrick Dixon
www.at-tunes.co.uk
Patrick Dixon's Profile:
Rodney_Gold;319650 Wrote:
Maybe one doesnt know how a recording ought to sound , however there are
a fair percentage here that know how an instrument ought to sound and
what a philharmonic or voice should sound like.
So there is a reference of sorts. If you average out your recordings
,
GuyDebord;319663 Wrote:
I think you are missing a lot from this thread. In an anechoic chamber a
guitar will sound way different than in your living room or a concert
hall or in a park, and even the guitar itself has its own distinct
sound signature that differs from other guitars.
Of
StigErik;319215 Wrote:
Spot on!
Thats the problem with most audiophiles - they want something that is
more exiting and with more vivid colors than whats actually there on
the source material.
Myself on the other hand wants to hear the source material, for good or
worse. In that respect,
Phil Leigh;319378 Wrote:
The problems is... you (indeed all of us) have no idea exactly how it is
supposed to sound 99% of the time... Therefore you can't say that your
system is more accurate in its reproduction than any other. The moment
you take speakers out of an anechoic chamber and
Phil Leigh;319378 Wrote:
The problems is... you (indeed all of us) have no idea exactly how it is
supposed to sound 99% of the time... Therefore you can't say that your
system is more accurate in its reproduction than any other. The moment
you take speakers out of an anechoic chamber and
StigErik;319412 Wrote:
Agree, and that's why I build myself a LEDE (Live End - Dead End) room!
Cool..
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...SB3+Stontronics PSU - Altmann
JISCO/UPCI - TACT RCS 2.2X with Good
GuyDebord;319407 Wrote:
Why is this a problem? what is there to solve?
Problematizing issues without solution in a hobby like ours, is
symptomatic of a psychiatric condition called consumerism! the endless
chain of short term satisfaction of imaginable needs.
I went yesterday to a
Phil Leigh wrote:
The problems is... you (indeed all of us) have no idea exactly how it
is supposed to sound 99% of the time...
Loosen this a tad, to 100% of us never know 100% of the time, 99% of us,
99% of the time, have no idea...but for a tiny percent in a tiny percent
of the albums we were
pfarrell;319500 Wrote:
Phil Leigh wrote:
The problems is... you (indeed all of us) have no idea exactly how
it
is supposed to sound 99% of the time...
Loosen this a tad, to 100% of us never know 100% of the time, 99% of
us,
99% of the time, have no idea...but for a tiny percent in a
I think it depends on the type of equipment.
IMO there is no excuse for sources or amps to be anything other than
accurate. To deviate from accuracy is to reduce the application of that
source or amp to systems which complement that deviation. I don't
understand why any designer would do that.
Their are certain colourations that cannot be introduced at the speaker
stage only , for example the sonics of a valve amp/pre or the
colouration of a cartridge/phono stage etc.
--
Rodney_Gold
Sb3/Z-sys RDP1/meridian DSP5500's
TP/X-cans v3/Senns 650's
TP/TACT 2.0/SCM 50a's
TP/Meridian
Rodney_Gold;319098 Wrote:
If you have ever listened to a completely flat setup in an anechoic
chamber you will not be impressed or be able to listen for long.
Spot on!
Thats the problem with most audiophiles - they want something that is
more exiting and with more vivid colors than whats
Rodney_Gold wrote:
If you have ever listened to a completely flat setup in an anechoic
chamber you will not be impressed or be able to listen for long.
More than this. Humans don't like anechoic chambers. You won't want to
stay in one very long with any kind of music. They are just too weird.
Don't know where you got your definition. Or pfareel, for that matter.
The world isn't quite so black and white and neither is music
reproduction.
The goal is music. What makes music enjoyable? Accuracy is too easy
a term to throw out. Does anyone want accuracy (or detail or extended
lows
JJZolx;319225 Wrote:
Don't know where you got your definition. Or pfareel, for that matter.
The world isn't quite so black and white and neither is music
reproduction.
The goal is music. What makes music enjoyable? Accuracy is too easy
a term to throw out. Does anyone want accuracy
What keeps this 'business' alive is the fact that music, and the
listening of it, is TOTALLY subjective by the user. We may both have
the same musical tastes and the exact CD copy yet hear it differently,
even on the same set of speakers/monitors.
The same holds true for the recording of
StigErik;319215 Wrote:
Spot on!
Thats the problem with most audiophiles - they want something that is
more exiting and with more vivid colors than whats actually there on
the source material.
Myself on the other hand wants to hear the source material, for good or
worse. In that respect,
Don't know if this has been discussed before, but I'll throw it against
the wall anyway and see if it sticks.
By definition, I would think the average audiophile would be looking
for equipment that reproduces music as accurately as possible.
Again, by definition, it would seem that good studio
jonheal wrote:
By definition, I would think the average audiophile would be looking
for equipment that reproduces music as accurately as possible.
I don't agree with this. On several levels.
I don't agree that there is much of an average audiophile as
audiophiles seem to divide into at least
Me too, ie musical first and then accuracy!
The average audiophile will still be looking for the same thing as
the extreme, or part-time audiophile, ie what he/she likes!
--
Nuuk
Nuuk's Profile:
Indeed. Studio monitors are a tool - like a microscope - to let you hear
things clearly. There are some notable exceptions (ATC for example) but
generally those speakers that are most useful as monitors are not ones
you want to have in your listening/living room. Most monitors have very
low WAF
Audiophiles are ppl obsessed with gear , many music lovers arent
audiophiles , but most audiophiles are music lovers.
If you have ever listened to a completely flat setup in an anechoic
chamber you will not be impressed or be able to listen for long.
At any rate , there is no audiophile truth
52 matches
Mail list logo
