Like

Archive through January 26, 2005

 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2126
Registered: Dec-03
RANTZ any injuries from the near fatal volume excursion?

Hope not for your sake!
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2127
Registered: Dec-03
How about all those 1 hit wonder bands?

I've got several compalation cd's with those great tunes on them
some of my more cherrished disks.

Anyone Remember "mountains" mississippi queen ? , man great song!
Well I found there greatest hits cd used one day, now I know why I found it.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 760
Registered: Dec-03
Kegger,

I remember them well. I wonder what ever happened to Leslie West? Doesn't really matter does it? He played a mean guitar though. A Les Paul gold top, if memory serves me correctly. How old I feel...............................
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

My comments regarding Kegger's preferenece for solid state electronics prior to hearing tubed equipment was not meant as a challenge to anyone. I thought this was a stated fact made by Kegger. My comment was meant to only point out that people's taste will change as they are exposed to different and (what they feel is) better equipment. Most salespeople know the best way to convince a client of the quality of a purchase is to ask the client to listen to their old equipment after about two weeks with something new. If the improvement has actually been positive, the client should find it hard to believe they ever thought the old gear was that good for so long. If the client goes back and still feels the old gear is better, then there probably wasn't an improvement made that was relevant to the client. That's the point of improving your system, that's all that was meant. I don't know how anyone should feel belittled by anything there.

I do like a lot of movies that were done in Black and White. Lugosi is still the best Dracula, Karloff the best Frankenstein monster and Chaney will forever be the Phantom of the Opera. "Grand Hotel" is a movie I can watch dozens of times. The closest to it today is "Oceans Eleven". They are not in the same league, but, they are not meant to be in the same league. One is smart and intriguing with a touch of social commentary; while the other is slick and entertaining. What does that make someone who likes one and not the other? I don't know. Maybe just someone who hasn't seen them both because they dislike B&W movies. "The Best Years of Our Lives" is one of my favorites also. 1946, Black and White anti war movie. But, I've seen "The Deerhunter" and "Apocalypse Now" and they filmed "Born on the Fourth of July" literally in my backyard. They are all different films. "The Ruling Class" is in color but doesn't need surround to make it a great film. I surely don't think that every movie that was made in B&W is a classic, but, I do think there are a lot of films that should be seen for their artistic value whether they're in B&W, color or 3-D. If you don't like something after you've tried it, fine with me. I'm certainly not alone in feeling the ability to tell a story has been lost in the last few decades. My preference is for a movie where the surround system is used to benefit the film; not where the surround effects are the reason for the film. Some people prefer the other way around. OK.
As to the center channel, it is John who thinks all center channel speakers should be buried in a very deep and wide hole. I use a center channel but tend to keep the level lower than most people. That's a personal preference and sometimes I'll raise the level quite a bit for intelligibility, depending on the mix. As far as music goes, there is more music written before 1990 in my collection than music written after that date. That would be true of several of the contributors to this forum, I believe.
Kegger, your history of Elvis is a bit misguided. There were people who thought rock and roll was horrible music; even some that thought it came from the Devil Himself! There are probably still people who feel that way. But, the idea that people thought Elvis was crap is just not correct. Some thought he was dangerous. They were outnumbered by those who thought he was "The Greatest"! The idea that, "Things come around and what many don't like now will become classics in the future!", doesn't hold its weight in the context of history. Crap is crap and tends to stay that way. If MOST people think it's crap today; well, probably MOST people will think its crap in fifty years. There are exceptions, but not many. And whether the assessment of crapiness is accurate is always worthy of debate.
I don't think there are many new performers like Elvis, Patsy Cline, Chet Baker, Count Basie, Van Cliburn, Gary Cooper, Greta Garbo, Charlie Chaplin, Martha Graham and on and on. These are, mostly, people who changed the way other people thought. Once more I'm not alone in the idea that there is a mendacity about performers like Brittney Spears. Maybe that is just old phartism on my part. Every generation gets that disease and every generation that follows thinks them fools. I'm not trying to stop anyone from listening to anything they wish to spend their money on. Most of what's new just isn't to my taste. What's wrong with saying that? Listen to anything you want; I wasn't trying to change anyone's opinion. I was just responding to a question Ghia had asked. Sorry you didn't care for my description of my dogs.
When you write, "Just giving up on the whole technology because one believes the other format
is better is just selling out to the old technology.
The same would be true of the opposite. If one just wants to simplify and relagate
to stereo because they find it satisfying to them that is fine also. But to
shun a format because one believes the other is better is the wrong approach.", I really get lost in that logic. If I honestly find A better than B; I would be a fool to use B. To avoid B because I'm convinced B isn't as good as A is only logical. If I'm convinced Budweiser is better than Milwaukee's Best; which one should I choose? Which would you choose? This isn't a matter of selling out to anything or any technology. I think two channel reproduction of music is superior to multi channel. It is as plain as that; I can't state it any more simply. Why should I continue to listen to something I consider inferior? If somebody else wants to spend their time and money on multi channel, what's it to me? I DON'T CARE!!! Show me where I said I did and I'll apologize for something. I'd like to know why you folks feel I shouldn't be allowed to like stereo. You like this and I like that. What's the big deal?
This has nothing to do with my not wanting to bother to set up a surround system. I have one set up for my HT and it is set up properly. Do you think I just stuck stuff in corners and said the heck with it? As to the quality of the HT components, they are of sufficient quality to do a proper job with audio and video sources and are not going to be embarrassed by anything anyone else on this forum owns. That system just isn't what I prefer to listen to music on. Now why that bothers anyone, I don't know.


Larry - Peter Noone (Herman) still performs at oldies festivals. He was imprisoned for a few years in the '80's for embezzling funds from the band's bank acount. He performs alone today with a back up band that has nothing to do with the original Hermits. Too bad you didn't care for Mr. Garcia and his friends.








 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

Mr. West and Mountain travel to about 100 dates a year. West is a diabetic and has cut back the touring dates considerably over the past decade. I have a good friend who follows them around the Midwest during the summer and has designed a logo for the cyc to be used behind the band. Mountain will play Fort Worth, Texas in February. Tickets begin at $25.


 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1295
Registered: Aug-04
Kegger,

I think we escaped injuries - no sign of damage so far. Thanks for asking.

______________________________

"Generation X-ers were raised by parents who grew up listening to Rock'n'Roll and, in many cases, didn't get that exposure to jazz and classical of the previous generations.

I wish my parents had grown up with rock or jazz etc. Apart from the kidz stuff we sang at school my first musical recollections were like: "There is nothing like a dame . . . " or "When the wind comes sweeping down the plain . . . " This was the music I learnt from those rare occassions of being taken (dragged) to a musical or some relative's birthday party. We had no music player at home back then except for an old Astor bakerlite mantle radio - which was primarily for news until television arrived to make it a dust collector.

The closest I ever got to the classics was listening to a few my granfather's lp's on his old "radiogramme". He also had a fine tenor voice and he was not embarrassed to perform for us on the spur of the moment or any occassion. That is a fond memory.

So by the time I had progressed to "I don't wanna be your tiger . . ." or "I wanna hold your hand . . . " other kids my age were moaning "I see your red dress and I want it to be black . . . "

It was from around then when I began to see the light. When I was about fourteen and my parents had finally succumbed to my pleadings for a portable record player, I sent away for a few carefully chosen LP's (from those cheap record club intro offers) - Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, BB King. When they arrived my father hit the roof. He made me pack them up and send them back. He added a note saying that because I was a minor, the order was not legally binding. He was not a religious man but we weren't about to have any of that devil's music in our house. Doris Day would certainly have been acceptable - Elvis or the Beatles may have taken some doing but were a possibilty, but my record buying days were over before they began. Until . . .

At seventeen, on a day when I received the order not to come home without a haircut (the revolution was well under way by then) - I didn't - until much later and even then, it was for visits only. I may not have been born in a crossfire hurricane nor schooled with a strap across my back (around the legs and backside once in a while maybe) but life had, all of a sudden, truly become a gas, gas, gas! This of course was when I should have been thinking about higher education and the future (if there was to be one).

The reasons for people preferring certain genres of music I think may have had a little to do with understanding, a benefit from a better education, but more so maybe, because of mere circumstance.

I don't mean to be portraying my parents in a bad light. In many ways, few would have had better. Though while I think they lived in the dark for quite a while, they did eventually find their way out to become more accepting of things different to their funny ways.

But don't all parents have their funny ways?

At least now I enjoy a wide variety of blues, jazz, earlier rock, can appreciate some of the classics and heck, even enjoy the fine voice of Doris if I really have to :-)





 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2128
Registered: Dec-03
Jan!

"Lugosi is
still the best Dracula, Karloff the best Frankenstein monster and
Chaney will forever be the Phantom of the Opera. "Grand Hotel" is a
movie I can watch dozens of times. The closest to it today is "Oceans
Eleven". They are not in the same league"

Those are your opinions and not fact but you state them as they are.
And may have many that agree with you but that still does not make it so.
___________________________________________

"But, the idea that people thought Elvis was crap is
just not correct"

So you believe no one thinks or thought elvis's music wasn't that great?

__________________________________________________

"Things
come around and what many don't like now will become classics in the
future!", doesn't hold its weight in the context of history. Crap is
crap and tends to stay that way. If MOST people think it's crap today;
well, probably MOST people will think its crap in fifty years. There
are exceptions, but not many. And whether the assessment of crapiness
is accurate is always worthy of debate."

I never said most I said many meaning that if a certain generation "maybe older"
thought that the music was crap but the younger generation liked it then it might
be a classic when the younger generation gets older. Isn't that how classics become
classics for different generations? I certainly don't have all the same classics as you.

_______________________________________________

"I don't think there are many new performers like Elvis, Patsy Cline,
Chet Baker, Count Basie, Van Cliburn, Gary Cooper, Greta Garbo,
Charlie Chaplin, Martha Graham and on and on"

Again that is your oppinion and more than likely based on the era you grew
up in while a younger generation may think different.

_________________________________________________

"When you write, "Just giving up on the whole technology because one
believes the other format
is better is just selling out to the old technology.
The same would be true of the opposite. If one just wants to simplify
and relagate
to stereo because they find it satisfying to them that is fine also.
But to
shun a format because one believes the other is better is the wrong
approach.", I really get lost in that logic. If I honestly find A
better than B; I would be a fool to use B. To avoid B because I'm
convinced B isn't as good as A is only logical. If I'm convinced
Budweiser is better than Milwaukee's Best; which one should I choose?
Which would you choose? This isn't a matter of selling out to anything
or any technology. I think two channel reproduction of music is
superior to multi channel. It is as plain as that; I can't state it
any more simply. Why should I continue to listen to something I
consider inferior? If somebody else wants to spend their time and
money on multi channel, what's it to me"

" If I'm convinced
Budweiser is better than Milwaukee's Best; which one should I choose?"

Well if Milwaukee's Best came out with a new recipe I'd have to try it
first to decide but I'd also have to give it a chance. If my bud was in a
chiled glass and the beer was cold to start with but my Milwaukee's Best
was warm and in a can then I'm not giving it a fair shake.

Again you miss the point. The point was not to say listen to something you
don't like and find to be crap. But to ask yourself is there something I could
try to give this format as much a chance as my stereo. If you had something in
your stereo that didn't sound right you'd check it out and try and find the culprit.
Maybe the amp for surround is inferior comparred to my stereo setup or my
preamp or the cables or the my speakers aren't quite what is needed.

___________________________________________

"I'd like to know why
you folks feel I shouldn't be allowed to like stereo"

Who said that? certainly not me! I like both and if I didn't I wouldn't knock what
someone else felt was good. But you seem to do the oppposite!


_______________________________________________

"This has nothing to do with my not wanting to bother to set up a
surround system. I have one set up for my HT and it is set up
properly. Do you think I just stuck stuff in corners and said the heck
with it?"

Of course not and the comment wasn't meant to be anything like that.
But the question was did you "or anyone" spend as much time/energy/money
on each amp channel and speaker/preamp/cable that you have on each channel
of the beloved stereo setup you have.
____________________________________________
And you accuse me of accusing you of attacking me I did no such thing just
responded to your post and you seem to of taken my post as an attack on you.
I'm fine with your post as far as coming after me. I just happen to disagree with
some of what you wrote and you dissagree with some of mine. But when you
post as to your preferences in the surround/stereo debate you make surround
sound like a kids toy while complaining that people knock your stereo when I
don't think I've ever heard anyone have anything negative towards stereo. The
people here who like surround still like stereo also they may like surround more.
So I'm not sure where you are coming from.
__________________________________
Just so everyone knows this post was not written or meant with any ill fealings or
attack on anyone for what they listen to or prefer. Everyone should know by now
how flexable I am as to ones oppinion and respect there space. Just as I would
hope others would to anyones oppinion or thought. Remember no one knows
all and many things in this world are still being developed and figured out. So
what you think one day may change the next based on some new eveidence.
Some may have hard core preferences/likes/dislikes but "try" to keep an open mind!

That's it the Keg out, peace all including you Jan!
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1296
Registered: Aug-04
Guys,

We go around and around on this issue. Jan, imho you do have a way of saying we should enjoy our preferences without getting upset with each others opinions while, between the lines, you keep putting down hi-res surround as inferior sound which is a suggestion that we prefer inferior reproduction of music. You call it inferior yet you have not heard it on every system - nor have I/we heard stereo on every system. Why can't the formats just be labelled as 'different' in way that doesn't appeal to you in the same way stereo does. It may be nitpicking, but it would be a less than upsetting way to describe what others have a passion for.

After all, we keep saying - it's about the music.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2129
Registered: Dec-03
Nice recolection story there rantz. I have no story like that nor do I have
the greatest memory for the finer details of my music upbringing.

What I can remember where the trips in our dodge van "be it up north or african
lion safaris in ohio!" lol. Well the van had an 8track player and my dad would
be jammin some deep purple/pink ployd/led zepelin/iron butterfly/alice cooper
or the stones/the who as his tastes progressed to newer artists
eddie money/ramones/talking heads so did mine then onto
the ac/dc's and scorpions/matalica my dad and myself listend and listen to the same
stuff. Now that I've gotten older I try and broaden my horizons by listening
to different things but I allways come back to my roots. maybe some black sabboth
or rush or van halen. Then sprinkle in some slower rock like peter gabriel or
joe jackson/steely dan. Then I gotta throw in something like tracy chappman.

So my main music is mainstream rock from yesterday and today.
From fleetwood mac to the police to bands like porupine tree and beck among others.
(listening to some classic clash right now on my almost completed new center channel)
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1297
Registered: Aug-04
Kegger,

That's pretty good taste imho but I must admit, I'm more of a 'yesterday' rock fan but not saying there's no talent out there today - just not as much as there should be - that could be my age showing too, I guess . Your dad sounds cool - my son has one like that too :-)

Cheers
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2759
Registered: Dec-03
Phew.

I am with Ghia: can't keep up. But have read all. Have a dose of flu, so am at home. If I can post here I can do work, too, so it would be dingenuous to claim I have extra forum time. Being ill is no excuse in the 24/7/365 world.

Seems like we all agree. Though I am definitely of the opinion, now, that my next surround system will be 4.0. that is, two stereos. Many DVD-A discs are in that format. Also, my DVD-A player will distribute the ".1" and the "centre" of 5.1 to the Left and Right main channels. If I eventually incorporate a sub, it will be a good one, small, and connected at speaker level, in order to complement and extent the range of the main speakers. But at the moment we have a smallish listening room and a sub will just make everything more complicated. I am fairly well decided that the centre speaker causes more problems than it solves. But Jan is right about the Mercury 3-channel stereo; that was their original intention. I look forward to reading any views from Jan or from Kegger, whom I know is a center-channel advocate.

As regards music, I agree with all. Having a slimmed-down system for a while, I resisted the temptation to buy a Norah Jones last Saturday on the grounds that it was avaiable on LP, and I do not have my turntable here. Ditto for two DVD-As of baroque stuff; I no longer have surround.

I bought "The Wall" on LP last Sept. but have had time to play only one side. At that time I also bought a Chris Barber double LP and have played one side, and liked it immensely. That's the stuff. I was into jazz in my teens, but never got back by the time I had my own hifi. I heard Ray Charles "Making Whoopee" on the radio a few weeks ago and though it was outstanding and I mean to get some Ray Charles.

My teens must have been at about the same time as MR's, and driven by similar forces. I remember all those bands, MR, and the test of time, to me, reveals that a lot of them had no talent whatever. Many just aped The Beatles, even affecting Liverpool accents, despite coming from Surrey or somewhere. I try not to be judgemental and "high minded", but Mrs A and I bought two boxes of four compilation CDs for the last long car journey. "Hits of the 60s" (for me) and "...of the 70s" (for her). They really are not so good. It was good to hear "whiter shade of pale" again, but it is the bass line, written by J.S. Bach. The words still seem like nonsense. Probably the good stuff from that time does not get into compilation CDs, surviving on its own merits. Herman's Hermits does not qualify, imho. Ditto Gerry and the Pacemakers. One HiFi News regular I quite enjoy is dicussing in Feb 2005 how well such a system reproduces the "Whack" (what's this about "whack", SM...?) of Dave Clark's drums. Remember "Bits and Pieces", MR? What a waste of time and technology. IMHO...! It may score marks for nostalgia, but, as music...?!

On the long drive back across Denmark last week, my 17-yr-old son and I played: Tchiakovskly 1812 overture (Mercury - ripped - thanks, you-know who!) which skipped on the rented cars CD player; Beatles Sgt Pepper; Beatles No. 1 complication CD. The Beatles beat Tchaikovsky hands down, for both of us. REAlly enjoyed that. Son wants to play bass guitar and I am gong to get him one when he next comes to the cotkw; he has a band of friends back over there waiting for a bassist. [WE checked out basses in Denmark Street; one shop sells nothing else. It seems to be like hifi; the real value-for money, at the "beginner" end, is instruments made in China, using components also sold to US names e.g. Fender and then sold in guitars many times the price.] To me, the main thing about music is to play it; get involved. I listened with new interest to all the McCartney bass lines. They are good: inventive; clever; interesting. There is something there to engage with; something to listen to. Not all pop is like that. Not all "classical" either. There can be music that reaches you, and music that doesn't, in any genre. I suppose the question is how much you have to wade through to get to the good stuff. Don, Kegger and I seem to agree on C&W, but I'll bet there is something there if you know. Most people can't be bothered with classical for the same reason, I expect; it seems like it will not be worth the effort.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2760
Registered: Dec-03
"Beatles No. 1 complication CD"

should be

"Beatles No. 1 compilation CD"

By the way, none of the A family can stop whistling/singing the theme to "Bob the Builder". Great bass line: in c; CCFG;CFGC repeated over and over.

Bob the Builder (CC - statement)
Can we fix it? (FG - rising cadence; a question?)
Bob the Builder (CF repeat statement)
Yes, we can! (GC Perfect cadence; the answer!)

Brilliant!

Must go.
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1298
Registered: Aug-04
"By the way, none of the A family can stop whistling/singing the theme to "Bob the Builder". "

I think the A family should get counselling - soon.

Don't forget the hot toddies. Get well!

:-)
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 488
Registered: Oct-04
Jan V. - Wow! thanks for the Noone posting, thought he must be dead by now!

Oh, yes - very important - do you mean that some real music HAS been written since 1990? (grin)

John A. - what a pity. You've obviously gone "round the bend." Bob the Builder?!?!

My Rantz - you are quite right - the A family needs liquid help.

BTW - a very interesting story you tell - and we thank you for it. Sounds like your "final chapter," is, however, mostly sun and roses!

To all: It would "appear" that I "may" have purchased a pair of light cherry B&W 705s from a chap on Audiogon. Still working out details, and will let all know. Also awaiting word from another chap as to whether he'll buy my Polks. Good grief - too much up in the air! Sigh.

More anon. . .
 

Bronze Member
Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 22
Registered: Jan-05
JohnA,

Don't take this grief from the non-believers. However, if you really want a catchy tune, watch the "Chicka Chicka Boom Boom" children's video. At the very least, it will take your mind off Bob the Builder. :-)
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

"Why can't the formats just be labelled as 'different' in way that doesn't appeal to you in the same way stereo does."

Taking the suggestion made by Rantz, here goes.

The surround format is, uh ... different!

(Even though I see it as no more than the same old stuff that has been recycled since the '70's. I've heard enough of it over the last twenty five years to be able to have that opinion. Those of you who are coming to surround as a "new" technology may have an opinion that varies from mine.)

That took almost 3500 posts to figure out?

Oh, yes, it doesn't appeal to me.

Is everybody happy with that or did I state something that's my opinion that you read as fact?




 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 489
Registered: Oct-04
SiMac - how about "Chickaree chick, cha-la cha-la, chekalahroma in a bananaca, poly-ca woly-ca can't you see - chickaree chick is me!"

Now THAT'S a "song!" (double grin)
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

And Lugosi IS (always will be) the best Dracula!


 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 490
Registered: Oct-04
Jan V. - actually, well perhaps, uh, oh, I guess I'll accept that as opinion, sir.

Gee, ev-body - dare's too many "faks" floating around hear! Just my opinion, of course!

Perhaps there ought to be an electronic "stamp" that we all could just insert at the beginning of every post - thus. . .

IMHO ONLY - blah blah blah.

IMHO ONLY - well, perhaps not. blah blah.

You get the pitchur - that way anybody who got upset could have little recourse. After all, Jan's, Lar's, MS's, SiMac's, Two Cents', Don RX-1's, Kegger's, Rick's, John A's - all of us were just expressing our opinions! It would be right there - IMHO ONLY - the term for the "New Beginnings" on "Old Dogs."

Of course - that's only my humble opinion. . .
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 491
Registered: Oct-04
Jan et al: IMHO ONLY - Lugosi WAS and ever SHALL BE the best Dracula ever!
 

Bronze Member
Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 23
Registered: Jan-05
Jan

Oh, yes, it doesn't appeal to me.

That seems to be stated in a matter-of-fact tone. Be careful. :-)

Ok, let's get into symantecs. Kegger, in your post,

"I don't think there are many new performers like Elvis, Patsy Cline,
Chet Baker, Count Basie, Van Cliburn, Gary Cooper, Greta Garbo,
Charlie Chaplin, Martha Graham and on and on"

Again that is your oppinion and more than likely based on the era you grew
up in while a younger generation may think different.


Since Jan started out with "I don't think" he's not really stating it as a fact. Also, I may have poisoned him into thinking that with some of the comments I made about Patsy Cline ("they don't make 'em like that anymore" - is what I said). In recent days, I've heard people say

"they don't make them like that anymore..."
"we'll never see another..."
"everyone else is a pretender..."

in reference to Johnny Carson. I think there are certain people who embody a charisma that goes beyond the ordinary and it is ok to acknowledge that. This is just an opinion but, the generation that preceeded ours does often appear to have more grace, class and timelessness in many regards. For instance,

- I don't see Letterman or Leno having the cultural impact that Carson had in his day nor do I see them being as timeless as Carson. Watching some of the old Carson clips, it is amazing how effortless and funny he was without the need to be as crass or profane as many of today's comedians.

- Which anchormen or journalist will have the timelessnes of a Murrow or a Cronkite? Certainly not Dan Rather or Peter Jennings.

- Patsy Cline has been dead since 1963 yet her music is still relevant today and is often used in movies or commercials and her voice can give goosebumps in its purity and delivery (as a was reminded of recently). What female singer today will still be relevant 42 years from now? Britney, Ashlee? Aimee?

That's not to say our generation is totally lost or irrelevant. Certainly we have many technological contributions for which to be proud. But, for me, there's this general feeling that much of what passes for "entertainment" is shallow and crass and disposable (Super Bowl, halftime performance, anyone?) and the vast majority of it will be forgotten. I can see someone in their 30's forty years from now "discovering" jazz from the 1950's and 1960's but I don't see them discovering "Hey Ya".

Of course, this viewpoint comes from someone who was probably born "too late" - in her opinion - so feel free to dismiss it. lol
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2130
Registered: Dec-03
SimplyMcIntosh some well laid out points there but I do believe we will
have clasics from our time just like every other generation.

I just think there are more artists out there now comparred to before with
more exposure even for the bad ones so we see more of it. Where I believe in
the past more of the crap was weeded out and we didn't see it.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2131
Registered: Dec-03
There are so many record labels now and movie companies fighting for a
piece of the pie that it's tougher to find the good among the bad!
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 761
Registered: Dec-03
......YEP........

3500 posts to come back to the same conclusion. We are different, and like what we like, and it really doesn't matter what others think.

On the subject of Lugosi as Dracula, there is no debate................period.

So after all of the above, all 3500 posts. Let's call this thread a draw, and move on to a new thread we can call home. Let's call it The Dog House.

What say ye, Old Dogs?
 

Bronze Member
Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 24
Registered: Jan-05
Kegger,

The problem with our generation (and the current Gen Y-ers) is that the "bad ones" are the ones who get all the exposure. And, evidently, this is what people "want" and "like".

And, you're right, there are "more artists", "many record labels (although most are subsidiaries of big conglomerates) and "many movie companies" fighting for a piece of the pie. Which is another reason why it will be harder for "classics" to come out of this era. But, the real reason, IMHO, is that there's very little of substance to what passes as "culture' these days. Maybe I'll be proven wrong.

In this, the "information age", a lesson is needed: Information is not Knowledge.

Don't look now, I think the old dogs thread is getting off-topic. :-)
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2132
Registered: Dec-03
Rick I meant to come back to this (mountain)

"Kegger,

I remember them well. I wonder what ever happened to Leslie West? Doesn't really matter does it? He played a mean guitar though. A Les Paul gold top, if memory serves me correctly. How old I feel..............................."

You sure seem to know your gutairs , I've seen you mention others in the past.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 25
Registered: Jan-05
I remember the old "Mississippi Queen" song too. How about another old guitar-driven song "Flirtin' with Disaster"?

 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2133
Registered: Dec-03
Yah A little molly hatchet!

I've got 2 of there albums!
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

Gee, somebody gets it. If someone writes Lugosi is the best Dracula or Honda makes the best cars; that can only be an opinion. It is based on subjective evaluation. There is no possibility that statement, on its face value, could be seen as a fact. It can be a fact that I hold that opinion and even that I hold that opinion to be true. Those are facts about me. The statement about Lugosi, Elvis and so forth is an opinion.
If I write Denver is at a higher elevation from sea level than Dallas, that can be taken as a fact since it is easily verifiable. There's not much that can be read between the lines of that statement. You can open up an encyclopedia and find that fact repeated. You're unlikely to find Honda makes the best cars in that same book.
You can blame it on the nuns, that's certainly who I blame most things on, I was taught it is redundant and unnecessary to constantly make the statement that something is an opinion when it is obviously an unverifiable statement. Therefore, I find it a silly exercise in typing to place IMHO at the beginning of every sentence or even at the front of each post. Maybe Larry has more rules about this than the nuns got around to, but, it seems simple to discern when facts are being stated and when opinions are being given. I was also taught that is why they separate the editorial opinion pages from the news pages. You should be able to make that distinction when you read something. There are responsibilites of the writer and responsibilites of the reader. Many of those responsibilites are mutual; such as assuming the reader can undersand certain concepts which allow someone to write at more than an elementary level. In my opinion, we have had this discussion a while ago.
I suppose someone might take this as another one of my arrogant posts where I'm preaching about something that makes someone else uncomfortable. Sorry if that's the case; I'm really just trying to clear things up a bit. I assumed we were having a discussion; and I believe a discussion is a presentation of opinions which may be backed up by facts. 5.1 is a fact. That I don't care for 5.1 is an opinion. There's no need to get feelings hurt or to "get going" over my opinion. Take my word for it, no one else gives a rat's hiney about my opinion.
It seems ridiculous to constantly be going over the same territory of whether I'm a dickhead or not. Your opinion on this matter is your own and I see no need to belabor the issue.
Here are some facts. I have heard enough surround systems to make what I think is an informed decision about the value of the format. I have heard enough stereo systems to do likewise with that format. I have a surround system in my house which has decent quality. I have several stereo systems in my house of various quality. I listen to mono systems and mono recordings. I do own a Brian Eno disc recorded in quadrophonic sound.
Here are some of my opinions. I have not found sufficient value in any surround system to satisfy what I feel is important to reproducing music in my home beyond that which a simple stereo system can provide. I would prefer more film makers think about how to tell the story without surround effects before they begin adding them to the film. I would prefer to listen to music on any of my mono systems over the excesses of most surround systems I have sold, set up or heard. I would prefer the musicians and producers think about how to make good music before they begin adding surround effects. I prefer most music that was written and performed before the current surround format was released. I prefer most films that were written and produced before the current surround format was released.
Two more facts. I don't care whether anyone agrees with me or not. If someone wants to listen to something I don't care for, that doesn't bother me.
If anyone feels attacked or offended by this post, I guess I'll have to leave it to someone else to sort things out. The division between facts and opinions seem fairly clear to me, and, the idea that a discussion can take place if there are no opinions expressed seems obvious. It cannot.
With that, I shall thank Larry for his corrrection to my grammar. It's good to have a nun around sometimes. I do disagree since I am not Lugosi and the reference was made in the third person. Is "shall" correct for anything other than the first person? And finally, Lon Chaney will always be the best Phantom and the 1921 silent film is the absolute best film of the story ever made. That's a fact!


 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 762
Registered: Dec-03
It's rat's patooty, Jan.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2134
Registered: Dec-03
Well that certainly clears it up there jan!

But will there ever be a surround format that might meet your approval?

 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2135
Registered: Dec-03
By the way jan I thought we were just having a discussion.

Nothing to get all worked up about it's only audio and video!
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2761
Registered: Dec-03
Actually I had a story a bit like MR's but it concerned the Dave Clark Five's first No 1 "I'm feeling Glad all over" and is therefore not suitable for a family forum. No further musicological analysis of "Bob the Builder"; I see that few appreciate this great song.

I am trying to understand the quotes in Larry's It would "appear" that I "may" have purchased a pair of light cherry B&W 705s..

There are fine speakers, Larry. You will "hear" all sorts of cars driving off with those! Also you will "need" some stands!
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 492
Registered: Oct-04
SiMac: - (STAMP!) IMHO only - wow! A great, if short quote to remember: "Information is not knowledge."

Thanks! Made my word-day!

John A. - sigh - here's what's going on, and the reason for my qualifiers.
Found - on audiogon - a pair of my beloved B&W 705s - but they were not on the open forum. The ad-time had expired, and I sorta found them in the "morgue." But I e-mailed the chap, and he said he was still selling them. OK, I said, and we started negotiating.
Last night, we were still debating payment type and shipping cost, and he said he'd get everything ready to send to me today. Well, here it is nearly 4 p.m. EST and - no response yet.

IF he responds, I have purchased some 4-month old speakers - in the light cherry that Mer and I really like best. For a decent, if not great, price. I'll post when/if the deal solidifies.

The other end of the deal - a chap e-mailed me, wanting to buy my Polk speakers. Price agreed on, and then he said he'd "have to get back" to me, as he was also bidding on some eBay speakers. He said he'd respond by - about now. But - nothing so far.

Sooooo - I'm in the middle and wondering how it will all come off - IF it works out at all.

The quotes, John, were merely for emphasis. Nothing more.

Jan V. - my response to your Lugosi posting was just a liddle bit of word-play by an aging and pretty useless ole journalist who really, really misses newsrooms and teletypes and "copy!" and, heck, my life. Sigh. I'm trying to substitute the world of HiFi - but it doesn't quite work.
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1299
Registered: Aug-04
"Take my word for it, no one else gives a rat's hiney about my opinion."

At least not when it comes to surround :-)

But, the FACT is Jan, you're quite wrong. Many people, at least on this forum, do value your opinions immensely as they/we do your explanations, advice and knowledge about audio. And we even acknowledge your witty humor (US).

Because you wish to regard highly most things born of a certain era doesn't bother me nor should it anyone else - but I don't believe any of us here are so moronic that we can't tell the difference between your opinions and what is fact, I think it is just that we take exception on those occassions when it appears as if you regard yours as gospel. You rebuke those of us who take exception to your words yet it's very easy for you to take someone else's words, like 'very nice' for example and then re-use them in a way that appears very demeaning when it is obvious those words were just pulled from nowhere to descibe something very pleasureable.

I thought by my comment - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 02:57 am: - was trying to help put an end to this nonsense but you even had to take a stab at my intent there and give it a twist because you so obviously thought it foolish.

But enough, I think you do care what others think of your opinions, otherwise why offer them? I think we all care what others here think of our opinions and comments and it is okay to misinterpret someones meaning and get upset - as long as we work it out. We are all different and sometimes we write things in the heat of the moment. All dogs take a snap at each other on occassion. Why not see if we can shake paws like good kind gentledogs without trying to mark our territories at the same time.


 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 493
Registered: Oct-04
Jan V. - (STAMP!) IMHO - oh, the heck with it.

In re-reading your longish posting above - please, sir, I was NOT trying to correct your grammar with my Lugosi word-play. Really not. Here's another (good?) example of a posting that was sent across, and not made plain enough to avoid misunderstanding.

Sorry, Jan - nun-ruler response was not what I had in mind.
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 494
Registered: Oct-04
Rick: Is "patooty" anything like "male cattle manure?" (grin)
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1300
Registered: Aug-04
"So after all of the above, all 3500 posts. Let's call this thread a draw, and move on to a new thread we can call home. Let's call it The Dog House."

Rick, I agree - but I tried that with "Old Dogs barking about anything" and it didn't seem to take take. I wonder why?

Are you still "Snowbound" there?

 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 763
Registered: Dec-03
Larry,

It's the same, only different. LOL!
 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 413
Registered: Feb-04
Jan,

I don't think you're a dickhead, even if you like Brian Eno.

I like surround sound for movies.

I like the smell and feel of the air after a thunderstorm.

I like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

In my humble opinion.
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 495
Registered: Oct-04
Jan V. - et al - sigh - since Jan brought up the future tense and first vs. second or third-person use of "shall," I "will" add a few thoughts.

First, for us journalists, the "commandments" are all presented in a book that I carried around with me for decades - and a book that I heartily recommend to any writer. It is "The Elements of Style" by Strunk and White. I think I wore out a half-dozen copies. It's small. It's precise. It's a gem.

Anyway - to the point. "The little book," as most journalists call it, specifically states that "shall" is used in first-person, and "will" in second and third-person. BUT. Not always.

Seems there is one of those "fine lines" involved here. "Shall" hints at a belief that something will happen to the person, either directly or indirectly. "Will," on the other hand, expresses a determination to reach some goal.

So - we have, in the Spiritual, "We SHALL overcome." And in Handel's 'Messiah' we have "...and He SHALL reign for ever."

The Little Book gives slack - a lot of it - in INformal writing, which most of us do on a daily basis.

Now I shall break away from grammar to inform one and all that I have just now finalized the deal for the B&W 705 cherrywood speakers. I'll send a cashier's check, he'll send the speakers, and by this time next week I might have a whole new sound in the house! Hope so. . .

No word from the guy who might buy my speakers, however - so I'm still fidgeting. . .
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 496
Registered: Oct-04
Two Cents - sure, fella, it's easy to sit around and enjoy everything when you live out there in God's Great Country! Hah! But whaddabout those of us who live in a swamp! Eh?

You know how the air smells here after a storm? Like rot.

You know what Florida humidity does to peanut butter and jelly? (You don't wanna know)

Surround sound for movies is OK, though - 'cause it's inside, where only the air conditioning smells putrid.

And have a nice day!

(please note - the previous words were written with tongue in cheek, and only in the spirit of good old fun-poking, OK?)
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2136
Registered: Dec-03
larry:

"Now I shall break away from grammar to inform one and all that I have
just now finalized the deal for the B&W 705 cherrywood speakers."

Allright , I hope and pray and wish they do it for you. and I think they will!
 

Bronze Member
Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 26
Registered: Jan-05
LR,

"The Elements of Style" by Strunk and White.

I have that book. I shall read it someday.

The "information is not knowledge" is not my creation. I read it somewhere. I shall try to remember where.
 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 414
Registered: Feb-04
Larry R.,

I'm not sure what you're expecting living in bush country, except a lot of hot air, a sense of rot, and general putrefaction.

Have a nice day!

 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 415
Registered: Feb-04
Larry R.

BTW congrats on your new speakers. I hope to be not too far behind in my own speaker purchase. It's exciting, no?
 

Bronze Member
Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 27
Registered: Jan-05
Ok, before this turns into a political forum again, let me distract everyone by letting you know about the feature video of Potty Trained Elephants at
http:\www.usatoday.com

 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 416
Registered: Feb-04
S-M-A-to-the-C,

Did you know that you live in tube country? Two of the best tube equipment manufacturers are located in NC: Cary Audio and Audio Electronic Supply. I think they might be affiliated. You should check them out seeing you're into things tubular.
 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 417
Registered: Feb-04
S-M-A-to-the-C,

Did you notice it was a lower-case "b" :-)
 

Bronze Member
Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 28
Registered: Jan-05
D'oh - I have tunnel vision with the word bush. :-)

I'm trying to avoid the whole tube temptation....actually, I'll be near the village of Cary this weekend visiting friends. A little NC lesson. Cary, which appears to be a nice little, trendy village is actually a public service project of the state of NC. The town's name is actually an acronym: Containment Area for Relocated Yankees. D'oh! Who have I made mad now? ;-)


 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 418
Registered: Feb-04
People who don't like acronyms?
 

Bronze Member
Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 29
Registered: Jan-05
Maybe anyone who doesn't want to see elephants potty?
 

Bronze Member
Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 30
Registered: Jan-05
What speakers are you getting 2C? I have Spendor S5e on the way. Should get 'em next week.
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1302
Registered: Aug-04
I notice they didn't have a pachyderm standing at a urinal - maybe they can't train them to undo zippers yet :-)
 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 419
Registered: Feb-04
You must tell us about the Spendors! I wanted to audition them but fate, destiny, or what have you, prevented our rendezvous. I'm now under the captive spell of Audio Physic speakers. They speak to me or rather sing to me like sirens in the bubbling turmoil of the audio sea.

Did I mention I like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches?
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1303
Registered: Aug-04
"like sirens in the bubbling turmoil of the audio sea"

2C - Such imaginative prose :-)

 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 420
Registered: Feb-04
M.R., you'll have to excuse my purplish prose. I'm delerious from the cough medicine (cough, cough). But who's the one having visions of "a pachyderm standing at a urinal"? I may be delerious, but you're out of your Aussie mind. (Is that considered redundant by the way?)
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1304
Registered: Aug-04
2C

Yep - Many Aussies are out of their minds - especially the ones who spent considerable time out of their trees.

And I wasn't disparaging your prose, I thought I was being quite complimentary - adding a smile of approval and all.

In fact, you should sell that line to Audio Physic - or should they be called Audio Psychic :-)

Remember, many a brilliant writer had their best ideas under the influence of . . . well, I'm not sure about cough mixture.
 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 421
Registered: Feb-04
Larry R. has his fine Scotch and I have my colorful cough medicine. Now Larry will be relaxing in his fine Scandinavian chaise lounge with his single-malt listening to his NAD/B&W sound system. What a classic picture! Larry, buddy, I suggest you get an ascot! (grin, a very big grin)
 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 422
Registered: Feb-04
M.R., you weren't disparaging my prose (I think). I was disparaging my prose. Just messing around you see.

Sometime, I'll give you all my impressions of listening to Mercury Living Presence recordings on CD, SACD 3-channel, and LP. But right now I need to finish this bottle of cough medicine and make some phone calls at work.
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

"Seems there is one of those "fine lines" involved here. "Shall" hints at a belief that something will happen to the person, either directly or indirectly. "Will," on the other hand, expresses a determination to reach some goal."

Seems that will only muddy the waters of shall. Will it not? Elements of Style, I remember the book well. I think it was examples such as will/shall that led me to burn it when the nuns were done with me.

****************

Very nice on the Zippers, Rantz. But, that doesn't explain why the pachyderms don't wear hats. re: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 02:57 am; not foolish, just repetitive on my part. Let's move on.

**********************

I can't explain the Eno disc. I recall having tried more than once to find what was interesting about his music. I failed each time. I seem to remember being directed to him by a coworker who noticed I had a record by an artist Eno had recorded with; though I can't recall who that artist was. Electronic music and syntesizers were popular demonstration material at one time due to the dynamics and deep bass response the genre could put on a LP. When Walter became Wendy there seemed to be a step back from the sound. The quadrophonic aspect was due to that being the only format in which the recommended disc was available. Mostly due to the format wars of quadrophonic sound, and the impossible explanation of a CD-4 recording played with a Shibata stylus, I avoided even early transgressions into multichannel systems. I did own a cartridge with a Shibata-like stylus at one time.

*********************

"will there ever be a surround format that might meet your approval?"

From what I've read there are probably a few in existence right now that might prove to me surround formats are viable if the goal is to bring the listener and the performance closer together. The they are here/you are there thing is apparently coming close to a reality with the work Thomlison Holman is doing at Skywalker Ranch. Unfortunately his experiments are with 10 channel systems with mulitple subwoofers and recordings done specifically for that format. I hesitate to think this will ever become anything more than a laboratory experiment any time in the near future. First, the computational power of the processors in the electronics on both ends of the record/playback chain will have to increase many times before a system of this magnitude can even be incorporated into the most expensive systems. In a domestic setting the size of the playback system will have to shrink considerably before the equipment can be considered anything more than the province of the very well off. Most importantly, Holman can control the recording process to get the information he wants on tape. With the lack of standards that are apparent in the present day 5.1 systems, I don't see the addition of more channels being a solution to the problems I hear with 5.1. Anecdotally, there are reports of some very high end (basically) 5.2/5.3 systems being demonstrated that are convincing in the here/there argument. I find it hard to make much of these reports since the idea of live/recorded has been a standby of audio for the last 70 years. Every such demonstration was heralded as indistinguishable between the two sources. If two Klipschorns, and a Cornwall in the center, convinced reviewers in 1955, I find no reason to believe the powers of perception in today's reviewers have improved substantially. All reports I've read indicate a selection of recordings did well in the present format and some faired not as well. After a brief dalliance with multi channel, in the end, the reviewers all went back to the arms of their current lovers, a two channel system. Mr. Pohlmann excluded. I never doubt the concept of "if you throw enough money at a problem", there will be a solution.

***************

"It's rat's patooty, Jan."

Surely, Mr. Barnes, you cannot, in the name of all that is celluloid, and ignoring the glory of silence, be referring to Claude Rianes? The Mexican Dracula (Carlos Villarias) I might have expected an argument about; but, I am astonished that the last ten minutes of the 1921 film can be considered anything but a masterpiece. Say it ain't so, Joe!





 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1305
Registered: Aug-04
Yes I congratulate Larry for his choice and I hope the sale works out with a hitch.

Larry, are you going to consider using Mer for the ultimate Nad sound test as seen in 'The Italian Job'? If so, will you take photos?

(Double grin)

Kidding aside Larry - if you are selling the Polks, what are you using for rear surrounds?
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1306
Registered: Aug-04
Jan

Thanks and agreed. Will read more later. Australia Day holiday here and after a lazy morning I'm being drug (not drugged) out by the missus for a while.

2C - you're on.
 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 423
Registered: Feb-04
There's one good Brian Eno album out there: "My Life in the Bush of Ghosts" with David Byrne.

In my humble opinion (grin, smiley face, wheez).

Brief tidbits about surround sound:

The liner notes to Flaming Lips' "Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots" mentions Michael Jackson experimented recording a cow surrounded by 100 microphones.

I've experienced Audium, a surround-sound exhibit in SF involving listening to music (a lot of computer music) and sounds (trains, running children, etc.) in a domed space covered by 130 or so speakers. It was one of the most emotionally cold experiences of my life. I didn't think it worked as intended. It just seemed so artificial. One major problem is phasing 130 speakers to re-create a realistic sound field.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 764
Registered: Dec-03
Rantz,

Sorry I missed your post the first time around. I guess old dogs get too comfy and don't like to be moved.

We New Yorkers have now had ten days of below freezing temps, many in the single digits. Night time temps with the wind chill factor, have been down to 15 below zero. We had a blizzard of a storm Sunday with 14 inches of snow. They are predicting another 3-6 inches tonight. I think it's time this old jungle fighter moved south.

Jan,

You made a comment about not giving a rats hiney. I was trying to point out, when it comes to rats, it's a patooty. A rat's patooty!

Lugosi IS the man. I will stand by you on that for all eternity.
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 498
Registered: Oct-04
Good grief! Leave the forum for some dinner and a coup-lah glasses of Black Swan (Shiraz) and I get left in the mud!

Two Cents - brush up on your purple prose. You're pretty good - but consider "It was a dark and stormy night" as your guide-line. (grin)

My Rantz - am using a pair of (gasp!) Radio Shack "Minimus" speakers for surround - they're a bit tinny, but pretty good for movie surround stuff. I listen basically to 2-channel music.

Jan V. - if you burned "the little book" I heartily agree with any who would lay the cat-o-nine-tails to you, sir! Whap! Whap! Whap! Might as well burn both the flag and the Bible, sir! To hades wid yew!!! (double grin)

2C - I hope you finally get your "real" speakers - the ones you thought you were getting in the first place! Good hunting - and luck, my friend.

Ah, yes - an ascot! What a marvey idea! With my Welsh name and my Poirot physique I could easily pass for a British gentlemen of means - even if I haven't the means! What say you, then, my good man? Perhaps a lightly shaded silk piece with a hint of Highlands sage in the whipping?

To the hounds! And the infidels be damned! Or something like that. The single-malt Scotch maintains dignity, and its place, calmly, in the Waterford glass - neat, please, sir!

BTW all - sigh - my hoped-for sale of the Polks hath fallen through - and I'll be placing them on audiogon within the next couple of days. $230 including shipping to any of the "lower 48" states. Cashiers check or money order. If anyone knows of a potential buyer - e-mail is in order.

With that - back to the Scotch. Ahhhhhh. . .

 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2137
Registered: Dec-03
Jan much appreciated and great answer to my question!

I've also read about some of the alternative formats and agree the truly
awe inspiring ones will more than likely never come into fuition in the home
setting. I think all we can hope for is that a little of that tech triccles down
to us and it's not to wattered down to still do us justice.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2138
Registered: Dec-03
Since we are on that subject do you believe that any of those that seem like
they have something to offer would have to work only with a special source.
Or could there be decoders involved that could use a source like a 5.1 from
today and display it corectly on there system?
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1307
Registered: Aug-04
Larry,

Re: selling the Polks. Money is a problem for most us, I think, but I really believe, that on the occassions you either listen to movies or (especially) sacd's in surround, then you would be doing yourself and Mer a great musical injustice by keeping those 'tinny' rears and not replacing them with those Polks. It's just a suggestion though I'm sure some others would agree.

But consider this. Keep the Polks until you receive and set up the 705's as mains and replace those "tinnies' with the Polks - optimise the speaker settings again and see if what I am saying makes any sense. If not, then sell them then throw some abuse my way for wasting your time.

 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2139
Registered: Dec-03
...................Y E P...................


But I don't want to step on any of your financial bounderies lar!
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1308
Registered: Aug-04
"The they are here/you are there thing"

Okay Jan et al

In my experiences of attending live music concerts, I still find the surround formats bring me closer to either of the above sensations - more so than stereo does. At a live concert, there is no concentrated center (so to speak) and no left and right imaging which is accentuated with stereo. I don't know if I am explaining this well, but I'll try: with some (I'll definitely concede not all) hi-rez surround recordings, I feel I am sitting somewhere on a stage or in studio surrounded by the musicians. Or they could be imagined to be playing in our living room.

The way I will/shall try to relate this is using vision to replace hearing music in the following formats:

Mono - looking at a photograph

Stereo - looking through a viewmaster and experiencing the 3d image

Surround - same as above though without the limitations of the image being within a frame.

Normal resolution - Looking at the stars on a clear moonless night.

High resolution - same as above but from an isolated area away from city lights.

I know some of you have more detailed and technical explanations of why your ideas that stereo can do a better job of representing the event better than surround and that's fine, I just don't see it that way. I will, however look out for those "Living Prescence" recordings and let you know what I think once I hear them. But even with the 3 mikes making the event sound more realistic, the live performance is not seperated as such and sound levels, rather than imaging are what keep things coherent for the audience. Am I wrong?

This might interest some of you - Ray Kimber's Isomike(tm) recordings:

http://www.highfidelityreview.com/news/news.asp?newsnumber=13071860

 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2763
Registered: Dec-03
Jan,

Back to base: Please consider 4.0, recorded in multichannel (not "matrixed"), with competent speakers arranged in a square, and the listener sitting in the middle, with correct channel delays. A definitive illustrative disc is Tallis's Spem in Alium on CORO. Admittedly it is a far cry from both W. Carlos and Bob the Builder. If you cannot stand choral polyphony, there are many other recordings to prove the point. The Naxos "Leningrad" is one. I have only heard DVD-A versions of these, but they work, and the multi-channel playback most certainly produces a more realistic sense of being at the performance than two-channel stereo. I do think this is more than mere opinion. It is a subjective judgement, of course, but I would be very surprised if it does not "work for you", too.

There are quite inexpensive DVD-A players now. One could also take such discs to a dealer for a demonstration. If I recall, you have SACD but not DVD-A. I have no SACD discs, and one cannot burn copies. However, both those named example discs are available in both formats. If I had SACDs I would loan them to you. DVD-V DTS should also help make the point, but there is no two-channel DTS for comparison.

Please just try this, and listen. As we discussed at the beginning of this thread, I agree that "the industry" fails totally to describe what surround can realistically be expected to do, and it is easy to dismiss the whole question of surround sound for music. I also agree that good stereo is better than bad surround, but, as Ghia indicated, consider good surround: compare like with like.

If there is a massively complicated and expensive "ideal" surround system to which 4.0 does not compare, never mind: the issue is whether simple surround takes one beyond two-channel. I am quite sure it can.

The "bottom line" for most people is probably whether to spend the same amount of money on a stereo or a multi-channel system, I expect, and here it is obviously a personal choice, a free world, etc., and good thing, too.

However, I would always advocate, most especially to Old Dogs, trying the addition of two extra channels to one's prefered stereo system, to see if anything is gained. I really do believe that you will find that something is. Often people already have a useful spare stereo amp and extra pair of speakers. All that is needed then is a multi-channel player. Which will also play two-channel, for true comparison.

Before it disappears: "Shall" or "will". It was said (by my English teacher; wonderful man) that a coroner was once considering a verdict, and the question of the cause of death turned on which of two witnesses had recalled the dying man's last words correctly. According to one witness, these were "I shall drown". According to the other, they were "I will drown". In the latter case, suicide would have been the appropriate verdict. Assuming the deceased did not forget his grammar in moments of stress, presumably.

Larry,

I agree completely with My Rantz. Keep the Polk speakers and use them as surrounds. For reasons given by MR, and as stated above, in my suggestion to Jan. The NAD receiver will do a good job: you won't need two stereo amps. Opera is an especially suitable genre for surround sound, I think.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2764
Registered: Dec-03
I agree with My Rantz, and he puts it well. Both of us are addressing Jan particularly. Our posts crossed, MR. Apologies.

I am back in a stereo for a while and it is not the end of the world; I still enjoy the music. But I am even more decided that good surround does a better job than stereo of taking one to the performance. I will certainly get my surround system back, or a new one, when the opportunity arises.
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

"Since we are on that subject do you believe that any of those that seem like
they have something to offer would have to work only with a special source.
Or could there be decoders involved that could use a source like a 5.1 from
today and display it corectly on there system?"

I can only assume the results Thomlison achieves are the result of being able to control every aspect of the reproduction chain. Initially that would aid to some extent in the computations needed in both recording and playback. That could change in the future, but, my reading indicates that time is not even discussed right now. I would think only a discrete system can produce the time and phase relationships correctly. Those relationships become all the more difficult to maintain when additional speakers are added in a confined space. Treatment of the space becomes more critical as would the placement of the listener. This is one area where I feel stereo reproduction still has an edge over the current surround systems. Several top quality stereo systems I've heard allow a very wide latitude for the listener before any noticeable changes in the soundstage become apparent. Performers and the space they occupy remain fixed as the listening position changes related to these stereo systems. I have yet to hear the surround system that doesn't change the perspective the listener has on the performance if the listening position changes somewhat. I'm not talking about the discs where the placement of sounds is somewhat abitrary such as DSOTM, but, rather discs like Telarc where the here/there perspective is an important part of the effort. But, I have to admit, I've never heard the Telarc discs played back on a top flight system according to the speaker set up they require. That is largely what leads me to believe the standards of a 10.2 system would impose too much upon the preference for both producers and consumers.
It seems apparent the current 5.1 systems owe their existence to HT and the already existing products in the home. What the HT boom has done is move the stereo system out of the back room and into the front room. That front room is dominated by things not related to audio reproduction. To start adding more speakers to that environment and have even less control over the room itself would seem to be a fool's journey. There are some people that would gladly give up their living space for the promise of real surround sound, but, I feel those people would be in the minority. How then does the recording industry react to the concept of additonal channels that will appeal to an ever decreasing audience. And, how does that audience respond to two or more additonal versions of DSOTM as we work our way to a 10.2 system. Particularly when the way of the mass market audio system is easy access that doesn't require a large amount of attention. Here I agree with Pohlmann, the public is not interested in siting down to listen to music which they would rather have made available to them on the run. Overall I see more disincentives to the 10.2 system than the other way around.

Rick - Well, thank you. I'm glad to know the Phantom's last laugh is still intact.

2c - Yes, indeed, David Byrne. I used to listen to the Talking Heads and saw them in concert several times. "Psycho Killer" was well done live. An interesting group till they all went in different directions. Byrne's music for "The Catherine Wheel" for Twyla Tharp's dance troupe is my favorite of his pieces. The "My Life in ... " is one of the Eno albums I have. I'll take Lou Reed over Eno any day.


 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 424
Registered: Feb-04
J.V.

Yeah, I used to have "The Catherine Wheel" and "My Life in the Bush of Ghosts" on vinyl, but no longer. Would've loved to have seen a live Talking Heads show. Had to settle for "Stop Making Sense"--one of the best concert movies I've seen. As a matter of fact, I'm going to add it to the Netflix queue right now.

Sorry, not gonna get in the surround sound debate. I think we all have made up our minds. No sense in arguing.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2140
Registered: Dec-03
Jan your answer reminds me of another point that you alude to.

And that is people making dedicated rooms for propper audio and or video.
That's one of the things I mean by a surround system being setup right.
I believe it takes a much larger and clearer area for surround to breath
correctly as comparred to stereo, so many will either not set it up or design
a large enough room to accomadate it so they try and sqeeze 8 speakers into a room
that is just to small for them or to cluttered.

So as you say if the channels go up so does the room problem and like you
said I dought there will be many like myself who love the extra channels and
make accomadations accordingly so another lost multi setup! I guess I just
have to hope the industry wants it and pushes it on peopole so I can get it.
Because I for one would love to have more and make provisions for them!

As is right now I run 7.1 with 2 sets of subs. I figure my existing room can
take 2 more channels just in front of the listening position and out to
the sides. No idea how many height channels I could accomadate.
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

From the link provided by Rantz to the Kimber recordings:
"Listening to the Purity album's Stereo SACD layer, it does deliver the goods. The vocals on the album are very natural and immediate. It definitely brings a "you are there" sense to the listening room ..."

"According to the album liner notes 'Each song was captured with a new technology called IsoMike and all equipment was insanely fine tuned. You get music that is free from emotion-robbing processes, such as mixing, limiting, compression and artifical sonic additives'."

What I read here is the Purity disc is only in stereo and was recorded before Kimber began four channel recordings. I wish the article had gone into more detail about the improvement the four channel discs displayed over the stereo recordings. It seems, however, if the two channel versions can already definitely bring a "you are there" sense to the listening room; what is left for the four channel version to achieve? I'm afraid this writer has fallen into the improved upon perfection hyperbole. This is a swipe at the writer not the recordings. I've spoken to Ray Kimber several times (he graciously sent me his Teflon insulated wire free of charge to use as the internal wiring on my Macs when he was sorting out the construction of that cable), I've sold his products with great conviction, I've used his other products in many of my own systems; and, he has been known as one of the most honest people in audio from the day his first products arrived on the market. He has never, to my knowledge, turned out a product that didn't do what was claimed for it. I would be interested to know more about his recordings.


I don't think I understand the following statement, "the live performance is not seperated as such and sound levels, rather than imaging are what keep things coherent for the audience." If you are referring to the relative volume level differences between performers in an amplified setting, I would say you are mostly correct since there is seldom anything that replicates the actual soundstage once amplification is involved. All that changes when the amplification is removed and the position of the performers on stage is revealed by the natural acoustics of the space. Imaging is, of course, a hifi artifact that doesn't exist in a live performance. What is available to the listener in a natural acoustic is the soundstage and the position of the performers on that stage, within that space. In this setting the relative position of one performer to the next is quite easy to determine. Some instruments more than others stand apart and certainly the hall itself plays a large part in determining how well the sonic clues arrive at the listener's ears. How important this is to any one listener is relative to what that person listens for. Many people are hearing this soundstage develop before them without ever being aware of the concept or the word used to describe it. Audio buyers seem more likely to pay attention to this quality than the average concert goer. The soundstage available in a natural acoustic is why John and I feel there should be some realistic model used as a reference for a sound system.
One thing suround channels can do effectively, that stereo can never achieve, is the sense of placing the listener on stage with the musicians. I remember hearing that quality as what struck me about my first exposure to CD-4 discrete quad back in 1973 when Bruce Ecker played his Pioneer receiver for me with four JBL L100's, one in each corner of the room. It seemed foreign to me then and it still remains that way to me now. Bruce thought it was wonderful for quite a while; and, if that is the effect someone desires, there is no doubt surround sound is the only way to achieve that goal. I think that is definitely a matter of what any one individual likes. It is not my cup of tea. With the few exceptions of DSOTM and its like, or John's Spem in Alium, I don't expect to become the piccolo player or to have guitars and a drum set distributed about the room. That is not my preference. The drum set proposes particular challenges for this type of mix as the bass drum can then be mixed as if it is in the center of the room and my head is inside the drum. That just isn't what I expect when I attend a live performance.
My preference is for a system to present to me a soundstage that is recognizable as the same soundstage I would hear if I attended the performance as an audience member, not a performer. In that setting I have the stage laid out in front of me and the hall's acoustic surrounds me. Any good stereo system can provide the performers in front of me with width and depth. Some to a quite remarkable degree. I feel a truly fine recording can give me a good sense for the hall with only two channels. I seldom find any desire for the addition of rear channels if the recording is well done to begin with. Most often I find the extra speakers to be a distraction. This is the result of an engineer who now has two, or more, additional channels that have to be filled with some information. What the engineers choose to fill those channels is seldom of any musical interest to me, and, often pulls my attention away from the front of the room where the performance is taking place. More often than not, when the rear levels and content are not bothersome to me, I feel there is a hole in the middle of my room where there is now front/mid front and then mid rear/rear. I've heard this effect on several systems other than my own and tend to think this is where the 10.2 system would be beneficial. Unless I configure my system to suit the needs of Telarc and Chesky discs, I still gain no height information than what is present on a stereo recording (which is minimal; a true fault of stereo). As I've said before, just having audience members clapping behind me doesn't make the system, or the format, worthwhile to me.
None of this is to say I haven't heard surround systems and recordings that deliver, more or less, what 5.1 promises. My problem is the promise is more often than not met by recordings that are, as with Kimber's stereo recordings, tweaked to the max to use the writer's description. If that tweaking results in a recording using two channels that gives me a "you are there" impression; what more can I ask? What the Kimber recordings seem to be about is capturing the detail, dynamics and simply the musical content of the performance. It appears the format can do that quite well in two channel. I'll keep my eye on the Kimber recordings.




 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 499
Registered: Oct-04
My Rantz, Kegger, John A. - et al - Good Morning all! I don't stay up late enough to catch all of your mid-night postings - so have to play "catch up" in the morning hours.

OK - I see your collective point about keeping the Polks. I don't "have" to sell them - but here's my reasoning for NOT using them as surround speakers: they are simply too large. Anywhere I put them in a surround position they get in the way of chairs, tables, people, etc. And they fill up a large amount of space that otherwise is "free air," and nice to have.

I know what y'all are saying, though - my liddle Minimus speakers are "not too bad" for surround sounds in movies, but I'm sure I'd hear a lot more - and better - sound with the Polks. SO, I shall to as you all suggest, and keep the Polks, at least for awhile.

Once I get the B&Ws fired up and set properly I'll watch/listen to a number of surround discs. Mer and I will also get used to the "cubes" being sorta in our way. I'll let you know how it all turns out, of course!

I thank you all again - where else could I possibly get consistently solid information? Probably nowhere. . .

Oh, yes - John A. - verrrry interesting your reference to the drowning man and "shall" and "will." In the "Little Book" the authors state: "A swimmer in distress cries, 'I shall drown; no one will save me!' A suicide puts it the other way: 'I will drown; no one shall save me!'" Very interesting - your reference and the book's comments. I doubt that the book is old enough to have been used by your teacher, so I assume that the authors somehow got their example from your teacher? Stranger things have happened.

Speaking of strange things - time for my breakfast. (sliced tomatoes sauteed in olive oil, then covered with eggs and herbs, covered and cooked until fluffed) More anon. . .
 

Bronze Member
Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 31
Registered: Jan-05
IsoMike Recording:

http://www.frystreetquartet.com/2005_cd.php

 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 500
Registered: Oct-04
After-breakfast ruminations: the thought occurred to me (a rare thing, indeed) that perhaps you all are wondering what I'm doing ordering some B7W 705s when in recent days I've whined about my low status on the economic ladder? Well - it's a strange, and short, tale.

Several days ago I was looking for some papers that I needed for the yearly income tax preparation process. Straight away to the briefcase, where I found them. I also found quite a paper-tangle, and decided to clean out the case after years of accumulating "stuff."

I got all of the main compartment sorted, then went for the file slots in the lid. After getting all of the visible papers out, I just picked up the case, turned it upside down, and shook it. To my surprise, out fell a $1,000 US Savings Bond!

Mer didn't remember buying it. I didn't remember buying it. But it was there, mature, and waiting. Mer said that this was an "omen" - and that I should use the money for the speakers I "really" wanted. Well - she didn't have to convince me!

So - that's how I came upon the money needed for my B&W 705s. And it's the only way I could afford the speakers at present. End of story.

More anon. . .
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 765
Registered: Dec-03
"covered and cooked until fluffed."

It would appear you have that simple elegance
down to perfection. (depending on how the eggs turn out-of course) LOL!

Larry, I like your style, sir.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2141
Registered: Dec-03
I thought you might of been selling teeth lar!

Allright good news most I've ever found I misplaced was about $100!
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 501
Registered: Oct-04
LOL! Yeah, Kegger, with all the gold that's in my mouth - heck, I could afford a Great stereo system just by selling those teeth off, one by one. Of course, then I'd have to spend Big Bucks to get some dentures! Hmmm. . . Nope.

Rick: thanks - "simple elegance" - your phrase falls trippingly off the tongue, and describes perfectly the lifestyle that Mer and I adhere to, or try to, anyway! And yes sir, the eggs do sometimes stray, thus requiring some over-use of a spatula to separate them from the pan. That, as you can well imagine, ruins the "image" that I try so hard to create. Sigh.

Wow - now I've got TWO phrases to ponder: "simple elegance" by you, Rick - and "information is not knowledge" by my good friend and NAD-mother, Ghia. Both require attention.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall, the late writer, Truman Capote, was once asked about the prolific writings of a competing novelist. Capote, in referring to the speed of book-completion by said author, replied: "that's not writing - that's typing!" Information is not knowledge. Follows, doesn't it? I love it.

More anon. . .
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 502
Registered: Oct-04
A Quick "PS" to Rick:

Hey! Old jungle fighters (like old reporters) have NO business living in places where the temps dip below that awful "zero" mark! COME ON DOWN!!!!!!!!!
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 767
Registered: Dec-03
Thank you Larry. The Mrs. and I have decided this is our last winter in the northeast. We will be in Florida in 2005. We don't know where yet, but will begin serious planning in the spring. I will keep you updated.

Cheers!
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

" ... capturing perhaps the most accurate concert hall sound recorded to date."

Once again nothing against Kimber, but I'd like to have a notion of the sound quality from someone other than the group propmoting their own product.


 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1309
Registered: Aug-04
I don't think I understand the following statement, "the live performance is not seperated as such and sound levels, rather than imaging are what keep things coherent for the audience." If you are referring to the relative volume level differences between performers in an amplified setting, I would say you are mostly correct since there is seldom anything that replicates the actual soundstage once amplification is involved.

Yes. I was referring to amplified performances and really, I think this is where we differ in what we want from a recording. I believe if I had been a professional musician or an afficionado of the classics, I might have had a different view on this matter of a recording being true to the event. I'll admit to favouring amplified music over acoustic, although I can appreciate and find enjoyment in most types of music and formats if the performance is well executed and the melody is agreeable.

The other meaning in my statement refers to when the performer/s alter positions during the performance, For example: Jagger jogging across huge catwalks as he sings (or in his case vocalises) during a performance. The mind makes you think his voice emanates from his position when, naturally, it doesn't. Where in an acoustic performance it would and that's what I mean by imaging - or lack thereof.

So when I relax to listen to our music I don't relate to the event - whether live or studio recorded - it is simply the rhythm, the arrangement, the mix and the quality of musicianship and/or vocals, that will either make the music or won't.

The drum set proposes particular challenges for this type of mix as the bass drum can then be mixed as if it is in the center of the room and my head is inside the drum.

I have not experienced this with any of my surround titles as yet and if I had, I would have returned the disc poste haste if bought locally. I do have some surround titles that I prefer played in stereo - it is plainly because the surround mix has not been handled to my liking, but they are few. I guess with these titles it is akin to your statement of the extra speakers being a distraction: a fault I lay squarely on the mixer. I have also purchased a few stereo only sacd's which sound excellent though still don't quite do for me what an agreeable, well mixed surround title does.

Jan, I am pleased to read your comments about Ray Kimber. It sort of vindicates my revised position on cables having recently tried his braided speaker wire based on advise from one of my audio dealers.

Another thing I have noticed is the sound quality of the CD layer on SACD's. Are they better than the original redbook versions as a result of the re-engineering process in producing the hi-res formats? It certainly seems so.


Larry,

Please to read you are going along with our recommendation to try out your Polks on the back line - we will be interested in your assessment. That is some breakfast dish Larry - I'm interested in the 'fluffing up' process - do you mean scranbled?


 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1310
Registered: Aug-04
Rick,

Have seen snippets of the weather you have been experiencing recently on the news - I can't imagine living under those conditions, so Florida I can understand. Think of those biceps after all that shovelling :-)
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1311
Registered: Aug-04
Larry,

Here's a couple of more new words for your collection:

scranbled - a new high tech method of bleeding eggs

propmoting - well that's obvious, it moting the prop

:-)

 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 503
Registered: Oct-04
My Rantz: As to duh dish. Take two eggs, put in bowl, add about a tablespoon (I often use a bit more than that) of water or milk. Use fork to beat them until yolk and white are all blended. Add herbs de Provence or your choice of herbs, and some salt. (I like a lot of salt, but that's just me!) Beat the eggs/herbs with fork until just a bit of froth covers the top.

Meanwhile, in frypan. Put in olive oil. Let heat a bit. Put in tomato slices. Sautee (fry) on medium-high heat until slices bubble and steam.

Gently pour eggs over tomato slices and stir just a bit to keep slices from "bunching up."

Turn heat down to medium low. Cover frypan and cook until the mixture "fluffs up" - about eight minutes or so (on my stove). Remove from frypan onto plate. Enjoy! (don't burn your mouth!)

Note: covering the frypan is the key here - the eggs will not "fluff" unless that lid is on!

I know this is not the traditional omelette - just a dish I happen to love. And simple. Good for breakfast, lunch or dinner.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 768
Registered: Dec-03
Rantz,

It's my poor old back I'm thinking of. LOL!

I've always had the biceps..........

Cheers!
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2143
Registered: Dec-03
Hey michigan is no slouch here either with our snow and crappy weather!

Bearly got my car out the other day. Darn plow just about compacted me in.
I'm with rick I'm sick of this stuff and am ready to move also.
But then I think of our place up north and how nice it is and I wonder. SIGH!
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1312
Registered: Aug-04
Larry,

Thanks, it's 3.20 am and have to go back to bed for some sleep. Hope I can now with thinking about your breakfast recipe. My mouth is watering already.

Okay, okay Rambo - get the tape out. You call those biceps?

Before I show off mine I always have to go outside first :-)

 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1313
Registered: Aug-04
Kegger

You have all those tubes to keep you warm :-)


Until the morrow folks - zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 504
Registered: Oct-04
G-nite, MR!
 

Bronze Member
Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 32
Registered: Jan-05
Denon's new 2 channel SACD player:

http://www.highfidelityreview.com/news/news.asp?newsnumber=16665403
 

Bronze Member
Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 33
Registered: Jan-05
What does this mean if Denon is coming out with a 2-channel player? Hmmmm....
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2144
Registered: Dec-03
That there just carrying suit with everyone else who now has both versions of players!
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

Rantz - I can't tell from experience with SACD's whether the CD layer is obviously better on the hi rez disc. Most of my SACD's are either not duplicated in Redbook CD or have already been well mixed on the original CD release. Additionally my mid priced Philips CD player sounds better to me on Redbook discs and CD layer than my less expensive Sony SACD player on the same disc. From the reviews I read it would appear some artists/engineers take a bit of time to remix the original recording for the CD layer. I can only guess this is so those playing the CD layer in their Jaguar's six disc changer with THX surround by Levinson aren't going to feel cheated.


 

Bronze Member
Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 34
Registered: Jan-05
I would have thought most 2 channel SACD players would be first generation players and that current/new models would always be multichannel? So, if that's not the case, you could in theory have in your system:

- a redbook CD player
- a 2 channel SACD player
- a MC SACD player
- a 2 channel DVD-A player
- a MC DVD-A player

...if you truly wanted a dedicated player built for each specific mode....
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Facebook

Directory

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us