Like

Archive through August 20, 2005

 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3435
Registered: Dec-03
All the best, MR!
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3437
Registered: Dec-03
Hi, Art!

I searched the entire BBC Proms schedule for the something by Bax, but there is nothing.

Listened to Vaughan Williams symphony No.2 on the radio tonight . Pretty good. I have tickets for his No. 1 "A Sea Symphony" for Saturday. I have four recordings of that, at the last count, but have never heard it live before.

Having extolled that on various threads it is probably time to quit. But the words reach me, and so does the music. Sorry if this is the wrong thread. Had a tough day at the office.

Jan, Possibly like Art, I now feel unsafe on "Do you listen". I pass on "Seamless". Seems to me it means "without seams".

There is still some serious stuff on "Do you listen" but it is in danger of descending into psychotherapy.

Words have no essential, inner meaning; they mean what we intend them to. Provided the receiver uses them in the same way; and, so, understands our intention.

If I go into a hif shop and say "what I want from a pair of speakers is the tangible and palpable presence of a star soprano, the glint in her eye, the sense of the fullness of her,,, and a whiff of her ..." then I am talking rubbish. - And about myself. They should phone for help, and get me thrown out.

The lady sings. The job of our hifi is to deliver the sound of her voice.

The rest comes from our imaginations. You can't expect loudspeakers to supply that.

If they did, you and I would be amongst the first to object!
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1218
Registered: Feb-05
MR - I'm sorry to hear about yesterday's misery followed yet more of the same. Time will heal. As for my back still the same. To repeat, "time will heal". I hope.

John A - Amen! I'm still laughing from a couple of those lines...
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 4531
Registered: May-04


John - I agree. If you went into a shop and said all that, they should look at you with a bit of suspicion in their eyes.

However, if you now have misgivings about another thread, wouldn't it make more sense to post those feelings on the other thread?


 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3441
Registered: Dec-03
Jan,

Yes. Done. Thanks!
 

Silver Member
Username: John_s

Columbus, Ohio US

Post Number: 365
Registered: Feb-04
My best to the injured dogs. Backs and teeth can be very troublesome things indeed.

And to KEGGER, the Ultimate Tinkerer!

Picked up a couple of CDs that might be interesting to the group:

WILLIAM WALTON (Naxos 8.553869) containing "Spitfire Prelude and Fugue", "Sinfonia Concertante" (1927 version), and "Hindemith Variations."

WILLIAM GRANT STILL (Naxos 8.559174) containing "Africa (Symphonic Poem)" and "Symphony No. 1."

Both are surprising, illuminating and enjoyable.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1220
Registered: Feb-05
I own both of those discs and just listened to the Still disc the other day. The Walton disc is especially fun. Can't sit long enough to elaborate at this time.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2525
Registered: Dec-03
How the dog's doin on this fine day? Hello to all!


To all who see my pile of audio gear, about 50% of it needs work but I'm learning
a lot and starting to get some of my old techniques and smarts back when
it comes to fixing a lot of this stuff. Just finished two marantz units, a nice 2270
receiver and a 1060 integrated amp that had 1 blown channel where it took 2 outputs,
6 resistors and 1 other transistor. Man it's scary firing something like that up for
the first time after you've done all that work and hope you got everything so
it doesn't fry everything all over again!
But it works like a charm with no sparks and all voltages are holding.

Well back to the grindstone as they say. Haven't been selling a lot but I've been
told summer around these parts is collection time "garage sales and whatnot" then
you sell in the winter, which is fine it gives me time to fix up some gear while I'm
collecting from uncle sam! So for right now not a bad gig.

Later!

P.S. larry it's starting to get mighty cramped around here! LOL!
 

Silver Member
Username: John_s

Columbus, Ohio US

Post Number: 367
Registered: Feb-04
Kegman, if you have a girlfriend please make sure she's not a neat freak. :-)
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

The Land Dow...

Post Number: 2165
Registered: Aug-04
John S

Kegger hasn't any room for a girlfriend :-)

And thanks for your thoughts.


Kegger,

We're kidding about the girlfriend - she'll need to have a blind eye and be thin. LOL!

 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1230
Registered: Feb-05
MR, it's good to see you posting again. I can sit for a few minutes at time so here I am. You should see me sneaking rest at work, it's hilarious. Then again I'm a State worker, some would argue that there is little difference between when we work and when we rest....it's not true but what the heck.
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

The Land Dow...

Post Number: 2166
Registered: Aug-04
Art,

I am pleased you can maintain your sense of humour with those back problems. Keep up the good wor - er I mean rest. I'm feeling a lot better today - a couple more and I'll be fine except for the fact that I'll look like some poor old homeless person for a while.
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1086
Registered: Oct-04
MR - Mer & I are still rooting for you - (oh, please forgive that pun!) And from the sounds of it, you're at least "on the mend." Sigh. I remember all too well when they took out my four wisdom teeth (and seemingly, all my wisdom!)
Very similar to what you describe.

If our "positive vibrations" mean anything, they let you know that we care. . .

Kegger: One of Mer's "missions" this week is to "minimalize clutter" in her studio. We're using your pictures as examples of possible "after" shots. (grin) That's how bad it is!

John A. - yes, sir, I'm sure I'd enjoy a LOT of what London has to offer. Really would. . .
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

The Land Dow...

Post Number: 2175
Registered: Aug-04
Larry & Mer,

Those were 'good, good, good - good vibrations'

(That's the Beach Boys Larry) Thanks guys. The X-rays revealed a couple of those wisdom teeth still lurking up there in the gums. Planning future havoc no doubt. Take care.

 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1087
Registered: Oct-04
MR - surprise! I actually knew about that Beach Boys song! (gasp!)

Still sending positive vibes your way - as we look out to our East, and see, way, way off in the distance - FRANKLIN! He's coming! But probably won't cross Florida to hit us - WE HOPE! This is a year to remember - or forget?

Take heart - you've got lots of "Dawgs" out here cheering you on. . .
 

Silver Member
Username: John_s

Columbus, Ohio US

Post Number: 369
Registered: Feb-04
The 'willie' sound on "Good Vibrations" was made by the Theremin. There's a documentary titled Theremin - An Electronic Odyssey
Fascinating.
 

Silver Member
Username: John_s

Columbus, Ohio US

Post Number: 370
Registered: Feb-04
Arnold Bax Symphony No. 3
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3458
Registered: Dec-03
Thanks, John. Count me in. I'll look out for both the Chandos and the Naxos.

Art - you know this one already, I guess?
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1251
Registered: Feb-05
I will listen this weekend. I have both versions but will listen to the Chandos. I'm not one for listening to the same piece over and over.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2528
Registered: Dec-03
Hey Johnny I am now a KEF fan too!

Just picked up a pair of KEF c40's and these babies are great! They may be slightly
on the bright side but mated with the Sansui 5000x receiver they sound fantastic!

Picked em up real cheap with some other stuff to put together some package deals
but now this pair of speakers and the Sansui receiver aint goin nowhere, EVER!
They are a little on the light side, but! I got a pair of stands with them also and these
babies just plain rock! Party on Garth!
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3469
Registered: Dec-03
Great stuff, Kegger!

I have heard "bright" before, but, if KEF is bright, give me bright.

Here's the link on that model:

http://www.kef.com/history/1980/c40.htm

Yes, they sold stands to go with them.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2529
Registered: Dec-03
Yah I've been to that link john I ecspecialy like the quote:

"The C40 is very reasonably priced for such a precisely engineered loudspeaker, considering the size of the cabinet. It goes exceedingly loud, handles plenty of power besides, and has generous bass delivery, so it will be particularly appealing to the cost-conscious rock listener."

That alone would peak my interest to hear them. I also don't believe just because the
c40 is a little bright that all the KEF speakers would sound this way it's just
this particular model is a little on the bright side, but not realy a bad thing in
my oppinion when mated with the right equipment that does not enhance this quality.

Overall an excelent sounding speaker for the type of music I listen to and the
equipment it is presently mated to. Very nice indeed!
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 4610
Registered: May-04


The C40's were among the first wave of KEF speakers modeled after the success B&W had enjoyed in the US after tailoring their sound to the American market. Both speaker lines began sounding more like JBL's than the polite BBC clones they had been for decades beforehand. John's KEF's (Coda's?) and my 3/5a's (with KEF drivers) would not even have DNA traceable to the C40.


 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2533
Registered: Dec-03
Well that might explain it Jan as these are not a laid back speaker by no means
and more of a "loud" in your face type, like you say more like a JBL. But I do like them.

Not a fan of the Bic venturi formula II'S are we?
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3476
Registered: Dec-03
My Coda IIs might be in the same ballpark; I use them as surrounds. But the Corellis...

http://www.kef.com/history/1970/corelli.htm

I must try them with my PrimaLuna amp, one day.

Here's a nice link on KEF.

http://www.kef.com/allhistory.asp

Here is a current thread on speakers that seems to be in the wrong category:-

What Defines a "Reference" Loudspeaker?
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2534
Registered: Dec-03
Interesting "What Defines a "Reference" Loudspeaker?" there John.

I see you still can't fathom the thought of using a speaker that sounds bad to make
a recording! As I said before I don't neccasarily condone it but I do understand it.

Anyway I agree it is a strange way to think.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3480
Registered: Dec-03
That's right Kegger - I cannot get my head round that. We had this sort of discussion on "Do you listen" when Jan said Mick Jagger used a car radio as a reference, or something. If you want the most accurate recorded sound of a car radio, you want to play it through a really good hi-fi; not through another car radio. Seems obvious to me! I know I am in a minority on this!
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3481
Registered: Dec-03
By the way, Kegger, I thought that guy's "Sound on Sound" link was good. It brought up the Yamaha "Near Field" monitors I so much enjoyed reading Jan's posts on...! Priceless; still chuckling about those. You are all right with KEF, Kegger. They are not saying "only for rock" - they are saying, sort of, if you like it loud with good bass extension as well general sound quality, look what good value these are. They'd probably do Mahler OK as well.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2535
Registered: Dec-03
OH I know John I know a little about speakers and understand that if there good
they will work well on many types of music. I just meant had I read that caption
when looking for speakers they would of peaked my interest to look at them as it
sounded like by there description that it may be a speaker that leans towards my
preferences "plus" would lend it's hand in the reproduction of music I enjoy.

Did not take it as "these are for rock" but more of if you listen to rock these
may be someting you'd like to check out as they do other things well to but for
the cost consious rocker you may want to give them a listen as there loud/effecient
with a good bass extension. Heck
that description sounds good to me, would probably peak MY rantz's interest also!
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3537
Registered: Dec-03
Some recent posts are missing. Last one visible is from Kegger Monday, July 25, 2005 - 03:20 pm. This is a test. I came here to reply to his post (e-mail notification) Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 04:50 pm. It is not here! Anyone else have this problem?
 

Moderator
Username: Admin

Post Number: 576
Registered: Dec-03
In our attempt to cleanup the offensive postings, it appears some valid posts were inadvertently removed from this thread. I apologize.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3540
Registered: Dec-03
Thank you, admin. I think it is a price worth paying, personally. Regulars here probably still have the e-mail notifications.
 

Unregistered guest

Thanks Admin


John you asked a question about a tripod on an unlevel surface. You were interested in the male/female approach to the problem, I think. I can't find the post. This thread has a chunk missing so I'll reply here.
A reason for the tripod configuration would be because you need stability and the ground isn't level. The classic example is for a camera. But your interest is in the different ways men and women approach the problem. Is that correct?
Men tend to be left brained and women tend to be right brained( very broad generalization ). Men collect the pertinent facts and make conclusions. Item A + B + C = ? A fast process. Women collect facts from the big picture and then eliminate what doesn't apply. Item A + F + M + C + G + B then process leaving A+B+C= ? A longer process but a very through one. No value judgement here just a difference. Equally valid. Yin/yang. :-)

 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 4748
Registered: May-04


Oh! Yin/yang. Very nice!!!
 

Silver Member
Username: Ojophile

Take the Eh Train

Post Number: 320
Registered: Jun-04
I thought I'd post this item for anyone who might be interested.

Just received an e-mail from AVguide.com saying that they now offer all their online content for free.

http://www.avguide.com/index.jsp
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2553
Registered: Dec-03
Well it is a little clearer on here! Man was that guy just an idiot with no care
for anyone else but his own sick humor! Looser!
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2554
Registered: Dec-03
Back to the girlfriend thing there that MY Rantz and John s. were saying.

"she'll need to have a blind eye and be thin"

Blind and thin, that's fine with me, sounds like she wouldn't get in the way of my work!
Now if she was mute to then we would really have something.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ok just kidding with the girlfriend thing I don't mean to deragde any women or offend
anyone, just poking a little fun and hope others can understand.




















 

Unregistered guest


Kegger Kegger Kegger

The woman you discribe...
has ears....that's good. She can hear the results of your work. But being mute she will have to write her responces...too much reading.
She can't see the beauty of your restorations...would have been nice feedback.
She is thin, the better to move around freely in the cramped space.. that's good.
You get to choose your ideal woman, of course, but it seems to me that a whole fully functional woman would be a better choice. :-)

 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2555
Registered: Dec-03
Margie good point, I didn't think of the reading thing, darn it!

Well back to the drawing board, maybe I'll have to watch wierd science to get some tips.

LOL!
 

Unregistered guest

Wierd Science......excellent!!

 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 4780
Registered: May-04


" ... it seems to me that a whole fully functional woman would be a better choice."



Didn't they use that exact phrase in Stepford County?





 

Unregistered guest

Scary....I didn't see Stepford.

Am I channeling a troubled spirit?

 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 4781
Registered: May-04


As they say in Stepford, Margie, we'll never tell.
 

Silver Member
Username: John_s

Columbus, Ohio US

Post Number: 397
Registered: Feb-04
By the way, this looks interersting:

http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2005/Apr05/Blake.htm
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3605
Registered: Dec-03
Yes, it does, John, Thank you. Those events dominated the 20th Century. It is impossible to understand many aspects of our culture and times, including the aims of composers of many kinds, without them. There are people still living who remember WWI, and who served in WWII. We have the recent 60th anniversary of the end of that. Many of the Old Dogs generation feared WWIII. It has not happened. Yet.

The original question that started this thread was Jan's

"As an aside, am I the only one who thinks music almost always sounds better when you listen just in stereo. How old I feel."

I think this question and related ones are now more actively discussed on other threads. Probably they will repeat some of the issues discussed here.

For example, Do you listen under "Speakers" and Which way to spend under "Receivers".

I shall be happy to continue, here, or to chime in on those threads, if I can.

WIth the hindsight of this thread, "Which way to spend" seems to me to confound many separate issues. For example, one does not have to reject networking of digital audio files if one enjoys and values tube/valve amplification.

The real issue, it seems to me, is telling the difference between what is really new and potentially useful from what is hype and already planned to be obsolete in a few years' time. As regards music, downloading files is here, now, and seems to be more and more what people want. It is a separate issue from resolution and from number of channels; you can copy and stream high-res audio files if you want, and have the bandwidth and storage space. Even the current iTunes will handle 5.1 DTS without loss if set up correctly. Couple this with "Podcasting" and we really are looking at a revolution in the capabilities we have for playing recorded music. Which of these will last is anyone's guess, and should up to us: the listeners; the customers.

The market is being led at the moment by a priority for number of "Songs" or files as against sound quality, but it does not have to be that way. One member of my family has just played a classic "Who" album from MP3 files made from the (legally purchased!) CD, through iTunes and a wireless network, to our Primaluna Prologue amp and Quad ESL speakers. It sounded pretty good. I'd prefer the CD and, even more, the LP. But with some hardware and software I am sure I could make a digital copy of the LP indistinguishable from the original, and beam it to the audio hardware without loss of quality. All the evidence I see is that this is what the recording industry is bent on preventing; and many of the recent "innovations" are mostly disguised attempts to prevent people sharing music.

Also, the stereo vs surround question will sort itself out in due course, I am sure.

I also value the separate discussions of music that have spun off from this thread. Re-creating musical performance is the real aim and purpose of hifi, at least for me. I continue to think that live broadcast is under-rated, compared with playback of recordings, both as regards sound quality and as regards the shared experience of the actual performance.

Somehow it seems the world is moving away from music, not closer to it; technology is becoming a barrier, not a bridge. This prompts me to write "How old I feel". But it could be me. I am never quite sure about that. Other people may have a different view. As I wrote earlier, who knows if the creative musicians of the 21st century are not now forming their dreams and inspirations from ripped, shared, MP3 files, played through headphones? Stranger things have happened.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3606
Registered: Dec-03
PS, Jan, before you ask (again!), I can certainly copy that to "Which way to spend", but I doubt it will be well received, there. I am still nursing bruises from my attempts to express the view that music is real, and the whole point, on "Do you listen". People agree with that, mostly, if asked. But many still seem reject - sometimes angrily - the notion that there is, or was, somewhere, once, a live performance, that speakers (like subwoofer cables) have nothing to do with it, and that the most our audio technology can ever hope to do is to make a credible copy of that real event.
 

Silver Member
Username: John_s

Columbus, Ohio US

Post Number: 404
Registered: Feb-04
Thanks John for your thoughtful and erudite (as always) post.

One of this book's angles is the gramophone's good and evil role as public morale booster on one hand, and as a propaganda delivery system on the other. I've never been a conspiracy theorist, so the thought seems foreign to me. After all wasn't the original reason for the thing the re-creation of sound? Maybe the book gives more due to the gramophone than it deserves. I'd like to read it, but it is not available on this side of the pond yet. Here are two paragraphs from different reviewers:

"Despite the descriptive title, I did not really know what to expect when I started to read this book. In fact I found it to be one of the most fascinating books I had come across for a long time. The gramophone record was born in 1898 at about the same time as the US went to war over Cuba. For the first time records were used for morale-boosting patriotic purposes to aid warfare."

"The book has a wide remit: to capture not only the spirit of the times discussed, place historical events in context, explore economic and political factors, but also to capture the domestic and propagandistic role of the gramophone in the heyday of the development of acoustic, cylinder, 78, 45 and up to early LP formats. You get a real sense of the gramophone at the very heart of things, held in high esteem by parties of all political and social persuasions to spread the message, boost morale, yet provide solid entertainment catering to public demand. Whilst each of these concerns is dealt with in turn, in addition a sense of the personalities both on and behind the recordings comes through. Extracts from diaries and memoirs aid Blake's task here, particularly with regard to Fred Gaisberg of HMV."


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

"The real issue, it seems to me, is telling the difference between what is really new and potentially useful from what is hype and already planned to be obsolete in a few years' time."

Well, time does have a habit of marching on and all things become obsolete eventually, planned or not. There's always going to be sizzle and hype, because it's all about the money. This may be naive, but I don't think anybody plans obsolescence for the future, mainly because it's all about the money right now. But you are right, the internet file sharing phenomena will render the traditional record label business model obsolete, thanks to the digital age we now live in.

The real problem is, and always has been, the relatively small number of people who actually listen to and love music. Most people use music as background mood setter or worse, as a social status enhancer. I cannot prove this bleak outlook with statistics, it's just my opinion. How've sales on high-resolution audio music been going lately?

"Also, the stereo vs surround question will sort itself out in due course, I am sure."

Yes, as was the case with the mono vs stereo question. I remember my father, an audiophile of limited means, grousing about stereo many years ago. "Next thing you know, they'll be putting speakers in all four corners." Not long after that, I watched as he soldered together his first stereo Dynakits. This was back when "soundstage" was two words and not a cliché. (For a while in those days, one paid $1 extra for the "Living Stereo" edition vs the mono disc. And of course it was nothing but a conspiracy to make more money.)

"Re-creating musical performance is the real aim and purpose of hifi, at least for me. I continue to think that live broadcast is under-rated, compared with playback of recordings, both as regards sound quality and as regards the shared experience of the actual performance."

Isn't accurate sound reproduction always been the holy grail of any audiophile? And isn't the live performance the model for that? I know this has been discussed in Jan's "Do You Listen" thread, but the issue seems just that simple and crystal clear to me. Yet how many audiophiles achieve that end? Does anyone have the means to recreate the sound of 90 musicians in their home?

Nevertheless, there's nothing wrong in the trying.

 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3627
Registered: Dec-03
Amen to that, John.

Many thanks.

Yes, few people actually listen. They want music "on" for the reasons you describe. Plus, in my view, marking out territory, at least in some cases. Walking to work yesterday I heard the loudest car system driving by. I tried to imagine whether turning it on took sufficient power to slow the car. The guy could not have heard a thing in there, except his subwoofer. I believe he was broadcasting his identity, like a songbird. And the genre was chosen as the signature of his tribe. I suppose we all do that, in various ways. And maybe that is one of the first things music is "for".

"Nevertheless, there's nothing wrong in the trying"

Quite right. All I can add is that many people seem to lose sight of what it is they are trying to do.

I have to resolved to get that book!
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5059
Registered: May-04


Re; "Isn't accurate sound reproduction always been the holy grail of any audiophile? And isn't the live performance the model for that?'

This, I think, becomes the next step from "Do you listen":

https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/computers/154032.html

https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-theater/154031.html

https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/154030.html

https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/154029.html




I'm not at all sure what to make of the number of resposnses in each posting of the thread "Which way to spend". It does not fit my preconcieved idea of what would happen with this question. I think it indicates the HT folk have never given this a thought. But, why then the lack of response under "Pre amps"? The indication on the "Computer" side that those folks are tied up in a diffferent technology fits what I expected. However, for the most part the question is another issue that gets lost on this forum amongst the requests to pick the "best" subwoofer cable.









 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Australia

Post Number: 2194
Registered: Aug-04
Jan,

I am responding to your answer to my question relating to the Denon 2900 here to prevent hijacking the 'My Ding A Ling' thread. I agree about your preference of browsing titles in a shop and being able to read the info etc, but even the cellophane wraps prevent reading the sleeve inserts. This is why I google titles and read as much info (and preview listen) as I can. I find this very successful and the service from Acoustic sounds and Amazon so far has been reliable and fast. More SACD's are now appearing among all the redbook titles in shops here as are a few DualDiscs (and hardly any DVD-A's) - unfortunately the 'cd' layer on the DD's do not work on the 2900's as well as many other universal players, though no problems are evident yet with the DVD-A layers.

Although extremely satisfied with our 2900 for the hi-res formats and CD, I have discovered, after listening this past week, redbook playback is slightly more preferable to my ears played through our recent acquisition, a Marantz CC-4300. Very similar to the 2900 but reproduces the bass notes a little better in my opinion.

SACD seems to be the lasting format at present with over 230 new releases since Brothers In Arms was released couple of months back and many more new ones are in the pipeline, including PF's Wish You Were Here and more Dire Straits. It seems classical and jazz genres are the most popular among new releases. Also DualDiscs are getting a good run if the reports are to be believed. So I remain confident hi-res will live on - at least long enough to suit my needs


 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2618
Registered: Dec-03
I'm kinda like Jan in the respect that I am disapointed in that the titles
for dvd-a and sacd seem to be dwindling in the stores around me and I like to
just hop in my car and go down to best buy and paruse the titles looking for
something new. But I hear yo Rantz I do need to get along like many others
and start looking online.

What made you get the new player?
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1514
Registered: Feb-05
That's kinda what I've talking about MR. I have the CC4300 for my second system. I think it is an excellent bargain. Still the NAD C542 out performs it by a distance.

Be aware that the DualDiscs are causing problems with some players.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3631
Registered: Dec-03
Archive through July 23, 2005 Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 07:43 am: I thought the "Old Dogs" was for our own 'whatever goes' shite.

Ah, that explains it.

This is not a comment on your post, Kegger. Or yours, Jan.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3632
Registered: Dec-03
Or yours, Art.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5068
Registered: May-04


I cannot find a copy of Brothers in Arms anywhere in Dallas. It has been out for how many months now? 9 out of 10 store employees I ask to direct me to the SACD stack look at me as though I have asked them how to get to Mars. They don't know what the discs are or what the letters stand for. I am more likely to be sent to the karaoke selections than the hi rez selections, assuming there are any hi rez to be had. Virgin Records mixes all SACD/DVD-A titles in with the Redbook product when they have a hi rez title. You could easily count all the hi rez discs available in Dallas shops in a short span of time.

I understand online shopping is becoming more popular by the passing nanosecond; but wouldn't it be better to have some selection available to the person who prefers to cruise the stacks? Last time I was in Tower Records, I couldn't find the hi rez classical or jazz discs. Since Tower also prefers to have as few employees available for assisting the customer as possible, I don't know if they still exist in that shop or not.




 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Australia

Post Number: 2196
Registered: Aug-04
BIA is still an import in the states I think. It was much cheaper for me (in Aus) to buy from Amazon UK than from Acoustic sounds but it is in the bigger muisc stores here now for the same price as a regular cd. The whole maketing thing with the hi-res formats is and has been useless: the audio component shops don't advertise them and most music store attendants are still naive about them.

If you like Dire Straits - get Knopfler's "Shangrila" in SACD or DVD-A - wonderful. I now prefer it to BIA and others.

Kegger

I bought the Marantz changer for those social times (sitting at bar with friends etc) so we can listen to hours of different titles without interrupting our drinking :-)

Art

I always considered the 2900 gave excellent cd playback, especially from what I have heard about universal players - and I still do. It's just that the cc4300 pips it on the low end for my taste. However, the 2900 has great bass adjustment for the hi-res formats - where it really excells.


Oh John, you hurt me :-(



 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Australia

Post Number: 2201
Registered: Aug-04
I couldn't find a hose long enough to reach from the tail pipe to window, had no pills of any consequence, all the rope is frayed and, to top it off, all the knives need sharpening, so I decided to put things off for a while. I mean some people really know where to stick it in where it really hurts!

Anyway, I bought a new amp - a 10watt Squire. We were walking through the local mall and saw it in a window for only $299.00. A real bargain seeing as how it came with an electric Fender Squire guitar (a Strat Bullet series) - made in China for Fender (as is the amp). The quality of this kit for the money is amazing. So Eric you might the 'One' now, but you'll need to look over your shoulder soon!




In about ten years.





If the arthritus doesn't play up.





See John - this where we put all the shyte!




 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2619
Registered: Dec-03
for a second there rantz I thought you bought a low powered tube stereo amp! LOL!

keep us apprized of the units work out for yu!

I'd love to see a pic of you playing it!
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2620
Registered: Dec-03
for a second there rantz I thought you bought a low powered tube stereo amp! LOL!

keep us apprized of how the units work out for yu!

I'd love to see a pic of you playing it!
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2621
Registered: Dec-03
I'm really really interested! LOL!
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3648
Registered: Dec-03
Welcome back, ecoustics forum!

That's what I thought, too. Kegger.

I was still thinking about JOHN's father grousing about stereo. "Next thing you know, they'll be putting speakers in all four corners."

I thought that was a classic. It was on topic. It was getting somewhere. It was inclusive. Anyone could respond, and take us further. But we've lost it.

The problem with this thread is we keep getting back very close to subwoofer cables, and which colour they should be.

Attempt to return to topic....

Jan,

Unlike Dallas, here in the centre of the known etc., the classical stacks, at least, are getting more and more SACDs, and DVD-A is not in the race.

Seriously. MR asked, too.

How is two-channel SACD?

The advertisements usually say "more like analogue".

That's rich, as we have discussed.

I would love to know your view.

JOHN,

I so much liked that post. I will not forget the book. Will report back. That's a promise.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5100
Registered: May-04


John - Of course you know what answer you'll get from me.

I can only assume two channel SACD is supposedly "more like analog"
in that there are only two channels.


If the comparison were against multi channel SACD, however, that is
like asking; how is bad Scotch?

Compared to drinking gasoline, bad Scotch is only slightly better.

The VPI table has made the move to the back listening room. It's not fully set up and tweaked, but the results are still favorable. There is no comparison to SACD that is valid. They are different formats. One designed to save the recording industry by getting the consumer to buy (once again) what they already have on the other. How convenient that idea is plays a large part in the existence of the format.

I see in Stereophile that SACD/DVD-A sales are strongest in reissue titles appealing to the aging boomers. Profits are higher on those titles since many of the royality agreements have long since expired. Fewer "new" music is being released on hi rez than the reissue titles from what this article states. What to make of that information?



Kegger - How goes your turntable experience?


 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Australia

Post Number: 2202
Registered: Aug-04
"If the comparison were against multi channel SACD, however, that is
like asking; how is bad Scotch?"

Maybe you should stop drinking bad scotch!

 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3651
Registered: Dec-03
Jan,

I could have guessed your response. On the one hand; on the other hand; it all depends on what you mean by...

Personally, I have never tried drinking gasoline, but, from its aroma, I suspect you are quite correct.

Yes, SACD kicked off in 1999 by telling us it was better than CD, was two-channel, would only be on dedicated discs, and would only play on dedicated players. I assume it did not set the world alight in the way originally planned. That still does not mean it is a bad scotch. Just that the label on the bottle keeps changing.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5104
Registered: May-04


Maybe they should improve SACD (two channel of course; we've been through my response to SACD multichannel) so it does sound more like analog. Or, at least stop telling us it does sound "more like analog". More analog than what?!



John, you've never tasted gasoline? How lucky you are to have never pulled just a bit too hard on a siphon tube while "borrowing" gasoline from a friend in high school.


BTW, I stopped drinking bad Scotch over twenty years ago. The neighborhood hang out I would stop at after work - that served horrible Scotch - finally burned down. The investigators said they thought it was a gasoline fire that started everything ablaze.




 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Australia

Post Number: 2203
Registered: Aug-04
They did improve SACD two channel - they created multichannel - thank goodness!

It's that VIBRANT THREE DIMENSIONAL sound!

And I agree, it doesn't sound like vinyl. That's good - who wants music to sound like a log anyway? Doesn'tn the term 'analog' originate from - analog on the fire? Where it produces crackles and pops? Darn LP's - always did make me think of breakfast!

 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5112
Registered: May-04


Obviously you need to wake up.
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Australia

Post Number: 2204
Registered: Aug-04
What all that wonderful surround music was just a pleasant dream? Damn!

No I woke up a while back. Viva hi-res surround!

You'll get it right one day.

 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5113
Registered: May-04


I have right, center and left. What's left beyond that just isn't right.
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Australia

Post Number: 2205
Registered: Aug-04
Okay congratulations, that sounds about right - thanks for your anatomy details.

But for music, right, center, left, right rear and left rear, and subwoofer (unless full range speakers are in use) speakers arranged equidistant from your listening position and set according to SACD recommendations create an optimum sound field where the music fills an area not in a circle, but in a wide semi-circular like soundtage. This resembles a real performance more so than a two channel set up imo, unless the performances in your area are held on a three metre wide stage. And in such instances, like as for a small jazz ensemble, the surround mixer usually uses his skills accordingly adding very little ambient sounds, if any, to the side/rears.

Much more vibrant and three dimensional than stuffy old stereo.



 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3652
Registered: Dec-03
Thank you for the reminder, Jan. I had quite forgotten that I had, indeed, tasted gasoline, in just the way you describe. I do not remember swallowing. So "never drank" is probably still true. This reminds me of the Clinton trial, again, for some reason. "Gas" was leaded in those days. Whether this makes a difference I do not care to investigate. It was said that a very rough pub in my home town was saved from a terrorist incident when someone threw a petrol bomb. Fortunately, before it could go off, one of the regulars caught it, and drank it.

WIth luck I should be in a position to wire up my older amp and use the KEF Corellis as surrounds, within a few weeks. It will not feel good giving them such a menial task to perform, after all these years. Still, I am sure they will be happy to be of service.

Some time after that, I hope to get the full 5.1 AV system back. I heard that very briefly in a lightning visit, in June, and it no longer sounded as nearly as good as I remember. My current stereo system is more "involving". I shall see whether it gets better, or worse, by adding those extra channels. I have enjoyed my seven months with stereo. So much else is different, though, that it is impossible to make a true comparison.

One of several things I have learned, since we began this thread, at which time I dug in for surround, is that there really is a "three-dimensionality" in stereo. Yes, ambience is there. Also the sound stage is much wider than the distance between the two speakers, and can extend around you. Also, there is depth, by which I mean things can seem to be different distances away from you.

I still think I can see the theory behind how all these can be done more accurately - effortlessly - in surround. The issue will probably be whether this is the objective of the recording engineers, too.

I would still like to know whether one can hear increased resolution of SACD/DVD-A in comparison with, say, CD, all else being equal. Especially number of channels.

The manufacturers claim it is so.

But they would, wouldn't they?

I notice that SACD has hopped adroitly from being hi-res to being surround. Ask Linn. Does this mean they do not believe it is hi-res themselves, or that they are trying to sell more speakers? Who knows. Why waste one's time. There is a brilliant quote from Ivor T. circa 1985 in the latest HFN. "I wish to make it clear that I have never been opposed to digital in principle". Linn's own history of why they were still making LPs at that time earns them dishonour; they should be bl_ody well ashamed of it; and no-one should buy from them, out of simple respect for the truth. So it is not just the multi-nationals who employ spin doctors. The nice Brit independent will look you straight in the eye and swear that black is white. I guess you guys already knew that.

Whom to trust?

Oneself, as always.

Anyway, when you, Jan, have played some SACDs through the Macs and LS3/5as, and I have added some surround channels to augment my stereo, let's agree to report back here.

I can't yet tell whether two-channel DVD-A is better than CD. My real gripe with DVD-A is that, in order to use it, I have to switch on the TV., go to "menu", and make sure I am listening to the right chapter, volume, etc etc. Then switch off the TV. And unplug it. It totally ruins the performance.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5118
Registered: May-04


SACD better than CD is still the question; eh? It should be, if you believe in numbers. If you believe in talent, it depends on the performer and the engineer.

Tiefenbrun's a Scotsman; isn't he? Shouldn't that be the answer to who can you trust?


The Clinton hearings, John. There was never a trial. He was impeached by Congress which is a legislative branch of Government. Legislators cannot conduct trials. Even if they do spend $70 million to get the evidence.






Now, what was I going to say? Oh, yes, ...

"But for music, right, center, left, right rear and left rear, and subwoofer (unless full range speakers are in use) speakers arranged equidistant from your listening position and yada yada ... This resembles a real performance more so than a two channel set up imo ... "


Gosh, I guess I've never been to a real performance that used right, center, left, right rear and left rear, and subwoofer (unless full range speakers are in use) speakers arranged equidistant from my listening position. But, you're right, it would be hard to squeeze all that into a room three meters wide. Or, twice that amount actually and make it sound like anything other than a large number of speakers in a tiny little space. No, as I think about it, the concerts I've been to - the ones that depend on speakers that is - have always had two big stacks of speakers in front of me. I can't recall a center or a subwoofer ever being included. Big drums. But, they don't count; do they? Besides they were way in the back where two speakers could easily manage to reproduce their sound. It must be that all the concerts you go to, Rantz, are held in football stadiums. That would certainly explain why you think surround sound is the right way to wire things up.




 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2622
Registered: Dec-03
Do we have to continus this: THE WAY I LISTEN TO MY SYSTEM IS BETTER THEN YOURS!

Jan likes his stereo and feals for him it's the propper setup and just sounds right.
Myrants likes his surround and feels it gives a great relaxing HI/DEF experience that
he enjoys more than stereo.

John kinda likes surround but with no center or sub and he's sceptical of the new formats.
With his new speakers and amp has begun to appreciate stereo even more.

I enjoy surround and feal that both sacd and dvd-a are a step above cd that I allready like
so it's definatly a bonus for me in both surround and stereo. A welcome upgrade!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------

I had a while ago gotten a nice turntable with a very good phono stage and some nice
cartridges. I have found with a good setup that vinyl can be an excelent source that at
most of the time is a great experience and sounds great without ever having the digital
harshness that can be had by bad or subpar digital. But It lacks the attack or quickness
and dynamics a good digital source brings to the table. So I have to say I prefer a good
digital setup over analog/turntable. But I do enjoy my turntable and for the most part how
it sounds, which is good because it gives me another quality source wirth plenty of cheap
media. Now it may be that I was broght up digital and got use to it that I just like the way
that it plays for me and feal that it's benefits outway the negatives of a turntable. I am not
knocking the turntable at all, actually I'm quite surprised I like it as much as I do! For me
now having both is a must as is the new sacd/dvd-a disks that I have that sound awsome.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3655
Registered: Dec-03
Jan,

"SACD better than CD is still the question; eh? It should be, if you believe in numbers."

Well, it is still a question. Don't dodge it. Two-channel. Same performer, performance, engineer, same mix, same everything. Except one feed is written to CD which is LPCM at 44.1 kHz, 16-bit; another to DVD-A which is LPCM at 192 kHz, 24 bit, and third to SACD which is DSD at some rate I forget.

Can one tell the difference?

If so, which of the three most closely resembles the original sound?

I have no answer to this. I read claims from various sources. The record companies themselves seem to go out of their way to make a true comparison impossible, putting different mixes in different formats, etc. It is reasonable to be sceptical, I think we agree.

"Tiefenbrun's a Scotsman; isn't he?" No idea. It is an unusual name for a Scot. His first name is distinctively Welsh. I don't care where he is from: I would not buy a used car from that guy.

"Hearings" Yes. Quite right. Thanks.

Surround vs two-channel is a completely separate question. The industry chooses to muddy the waters there, too. This may be naive, but I always think that if, say, SACD is clearly and demonstrably superior in resolution, and so in sound quality, then Sony and the rest would strive to allow customers make a fair comparison. They don't. They do the opposite.

Why is that?
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3656
Registered: Dec-03
Good point, Kegger. My post crossed yours.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2623
Registered: Dec-03
Thanks John! I see you are still trying to figure it out, good for you.
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Australia

Post Number: 2207
Registered: Aug-04
Okay Jan.

Do the concerts you attend have stereo imaging?



Left cymbal - left speaker, right cymbal - right speaker. Damn I hate it when I have to keep my speakers only four feet apart so the sound is more realistic.


Sheesh! What BS!

 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3659
Registered: Dec-03
A pleasure, Kegger. Yep, that's where I am.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3660
Registered: Dec-03
Everything else being equal, is anyone sure they hear a difference between any two of the following: CD; DVD-A; SACD .....?

Since all they have in common is two-channel, we'll have to stick with that, if we are going to get an answer.

When we have decided on a format for two-channel, we can maybe decide to use that as a basis for making a true comparison of two-channel vs surround. I can see some chance of sorting this out if we take one question at a time. None at all if we take an answer and treat it as a reply to a different question. Politicians, please go away.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5126
Registered: May-04

" ... I have to keep my speakers only four feet apart so the sound is more realistic."


Rantz, buy better seats in the stadium, guy! When you get up close it doesn't sound like everything is only four feet wide and twelve inches high. You must be buying lousy recordings if the cymbals are here and there in a stereo mix. But, isn't that what you said you liked about multi channel? That you were immersed in the sound of instruments surrounding you? That's not real from any seat I've been able to afford. So I'm missing the point as to why more speakers in the room makes the engineer's job sound any better or any worse.


Kegger - For someone who has just stressed the "I'm OK, you're OK" points of listening to a system, I'm startled, absolutely startled, I say, at this comment;

"But It lacks the attack or quickness
and dynamics a good digital source brings to the table. So I have to say I prefer a good
digital setup over analog/turntable. But I do enjoy my turntable and for the most part ... "


Shall we rewrite that to correspond to what you put in the preceding paragraph?

But It no, my turntable set up lacks the attack or quickness
and dynamics a good digital source brings to the table. So I have to say I prefer a good
digital setup over my analog/turntable. But I do enjoy my turntable ... "

This is not an issue of I own something better than you do. But, I have to disagree with the idea analog is not capable of the attack and dynamics of digital. Last night I opened a new copy of Elvis's Sun Session recordings and the first note on the first song whacked me upside the head and said, "you better be paying attention here". The sound was terrific! Silent backgrounds with nuance and shading that I haven't got on any digital recording of these same songs. The voice had an immediacy and a transparent purity that digital just can't achieve in my system. Of course, I only have that cheap @ss Denon thing for digital.

There are things all the various formats do well and better than another in that certain area. However, in my system analog does not lag behind in attack and dynamic range.




 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5128
Registered: May-04


Looking back, I forgot to mention the "new" Elvis recording is in mono. Cooooooool!
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3663
Registered: Dec-03
Kegger, I forgot to say, it is real pleasure to know you are getting something from vinyl LPs and turntables!

Slogans:- "CD: digital and perfect". Now "SACD: better than CD, because it is more like analogue". And these are from the same company.

Moral. We must all learn to trust our own judgment. That's what I think.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5137
Registered: May-04




We must all learn how to judge, not just be led like lambs.








That's what I think.




 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3668
Registered: Dec-03
Personally, I agree.

Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.

Or words to that effect.
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Australia

Post Number: 2209
Registered: Aug-04
"You must be buying lousy recordings if the cymbals are here and there in a stereo mix. But, isn't that what you said you liked about multi channel?"

Missed it again huh?

My original point was that it all depends on your listening position preference. Again - tell me where you attended a live stereo performance. Stereo isn't any more realistic than surround. Have you ever played an instrument with a group of others or sat in with them - that's surround. No less or more realistic than stereo. My comment about surround making music seem more real had nothing to do with the speaker setup on a stage and your comment about that made your argument totally absurd so I will trash it just like you did mine.

I don't believe my audio system is all that bad. Maybe it's not the best gear ever made like yours and John's but it does stereo very well - both redbook and hi-res - which I can enjoy very much. The good surround recordings put me in the centre of the music - it sounds much more dynamic and more realistic - IMHO

We will continue to be at loggerheads on this issue so I do not see the point in contributing anything more. My opinion is set.

And John A - your question on CD,SACD ETC has been asked and answered many times in the past. My answers have obviously meant about as much as dog p00p so I won't include myself in anyone. Instead of being suspicious about every new format try sitting back and enjoying what they deliver instead of being the eternal critic - especially of things you haven't tried. Just because the knowledgable Mr Vigne says something, it doesn't necessarilly make it so. "Whom to trust? Oneself, as always."

Kegger,

I wish you all the very best in your audio venture. It has been a real pleasure my friend.


While I have been part of this forum I have seen some very decent people disappear: Rick, Larry, Sem, Two Cents, Ghia and others. Maybe they just had enough of certain attitudes here, mine included, and felt their time was better spent elsewhere.


I agree with them.


 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3670
Registered: Dec-03
I am interested to know whether anyone hears a difference between CD, DVD-A, and SACD, when everything else, such as number of channels, is the same. I read conflicting opinions on this question, even from vested interests, such as manufacturers.

I am not in a position to comment from my own experience, which is why I ask. I once thought I could hear more detail in DVD-A and 24-bit PCM stereo than in CD. But then I discovered the difference was, in fact, in the receiver input circuits, not in the formats themselves.

Apologies if this question has already been answered to everyone's satisfaction.

If it has, I should greatly appreciate a link to the relevant thread.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2624
Registered: Dec-03
Jan I've said it before and actually thought you agreed with me, maybe I've described
it incorectly this time for you to get what I mean but the only thing that comes to mind
is that digital sounds faster to me which I interpret to be dynamic. I am not trying to
convince anyone of this it is just my way of describing what I hear and what I like.

That is just my point of few on the subject, no more no less.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------

I understand the frustration RANTZ and simpathise with you but lately I just been saying,
whatever and not letting someone elses shortcomings be my problem and just go about
my own buisiness and just let others do whatever they want.

So I say stay and just post where you want to and answer what you want, who cares what
others think and have to say. Give it a try! It's pretty easy if you don't really think about it.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5150
Registered: May-04


That's what I do. My opinion is my own and anyone else is free to have their opinion. Kegger, I don't think I indicated I percieved any shortcomings in your system. All I did was correct what you wrote to indicate you were referring to your own system. Then I went on to say I could not agree based on the observations I have of my turntable and digital player.

If any one cares to take offense at that, they are reading far too much into a situation that doesn't deserve another thought unless we want to begin at the beginning of this thread and discuss how many channels sound the best once again. I like my turntable and someone else likes their digital front end. I like no more than two channels (three at the very most) and others prefer more than that. If that raises the hair on some Old Dog's back, quite honestly, they should go lay down. There's nothing to be upset about.

Has anyone else noticed we seem to get to this point when there is a full moon? Is a little extra fur growing on some knuckles at this point in the moon's cycle? Maybe some wolfbane would help. Larry Talbot relied on it quite heavily. http://www.horrorseek.com/horror/tonyrivers/wolfman.html


G'night all. Don't look into the sky.




 

Gold Member
Username: Petergalbraith

Rimouski, Quebec Canada

Post Number: 1260
Registered: Feb-04
The moon was huge just over the horizon tonight! I got the family out to look at it...
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2625
Registered: Dec-03
I didn't take offese to anything you said Jan, Just mearly tried to clarify myself.

If anything I wrote sounded to anyone like I was dissing them then they
read something into my post that was not there.

I'm all good guy's!

I've heard many other turntable setups that are quite stout in there own right
and I allways seem to come to the same conclusion that they just lack the
speed of digital. I just think this is one place that digital has an edge.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3674
Registered: Dec-03
I think I remember Two Cents saying, yes, SACD two-channel has more detail than CD, is more "fluid", and gives more "space between the instruments" or words to that effect.

If I recall correctly, Rick was not convinced, and though CD was just as good, provided you had a good CD player. That is a view shared by some professionals.

Jan does not seem to know from his own experience, but is sceptical about the claims made for SACD.

My Rantz says he has already given his answer and I have ignored it. Without a thread and a time and date, I cannot be sure what that means. Probably "Yes"; SACD is better. This is a guess, MR - please do not take offence if it is wrong.

Kegger, you have got the Denon 2200 "universal".

Does two-channel SACD sound better than CD, to you?

I intend to purchase a hybrid disc from a reputable label, and take a demonstration, somewhere. When I have, I shall report back.

I cannot be the only person wondering of there is any real benefit; the SACD take-up may be slow, but it is happening.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3675
Registered: Dec-03
PS A couple of seeks ago, I got talking, briefly, to a guy at the DVD-A/SACD stack at a record store. He said he thought SACD was much better than CD. I said I had DVD-A, and the problem was it was difficult to separate improved sound quality from multichannel. He said he thinks music should be in stereo, and repeated that SACD was much better. He then said "Of course, the rest of your system has to be really good before you can appreciate the difference". I said "Yes, quite probably". I thanked him for his time and returned to browsing the stack.

I sort of felt bad about declining to ask the obvious question. But it seemed like it was heading in the direction of comparing systems. Maybe I could have learned something, I don't know. There was a sort of glint in the guy's eye which made me uncomfortable. I could have been wrong.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3678
Registered: Dec-03
This is what the London Symphony Orchestra's web site has to say about SACD:

When CDs were launched in the 1980s they provided a great leap forward in terms durability and convenience over vinyl LPs. They also offered a far superior audio experience than cassettes. However the processing of digital audio for CDs removes a lot of detail and depth from the sound. It's only when you listen to an SACD that you can really understand what has been missing from the CD.

It is difficult to see what vested interest they might have, but who knows. As you might imagine, they have chosen SACD for their own label "LSO Live". The also sell iTunes files. Also ring tones.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 5157
Registered: May-04


Ring tones should be in stereo only! Unless they are in mono, which is more than acceptable.

However, I will state categorically, ring tones have no business being in surround format!!!!!


IMHO, of course.


 

Gold Member
Username: Petergalbraith

Rimouski, Quebec Canada

Post Number: 1265
Registered: Feb-04
LOL!
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2626
Registered: Dec-03
"Kegger, you have got the Denon 2200 "universal".

Does two-channel SACD sound better than CD, to you?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------

Yes I most certainly believe so. While yes you are right it is difficult to do a
direct compairison, I have lived with sacd long enough and listend to it enough
to say that a good recording has more information in it that is easier to hear and
is also smoother at the same time then an equally quality recorded cd. And for
me I only have one sacd and one dvd-a that I feal were not quality recordings. So
for the most part I believe that sacd and dvd-a are superior to standard cd's which in
my book is a step in the right direction and a worthy source for both 2-channel and Surround!
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3684
Registered: Dec-03
OK, I've purchased one hydrid SACDisc. It has: CD; SACD 2-channel; SACD 5.1. I was going to get the CD, too, to be sure it was the same as the "CD layer" on the hybrid. Unfortunately, Mrs A rolled her eyes at the ceiling and almost made a scene at the payment counter. I could kind of see her point. Some people have no natural curiosity. So, if I hear a difference between CD and SACD layers, it will be inconclusive: given the ecstatic praise for SACD in the booklet, it would be surprising if they didn't put in a few tweaks to help prove their point.

However, I know what CDs sound like. I have a couple of good ones of the same music, but different performances. I'll take those along.

In an ideal world I'd pop round to try someone's SACD player. Guess that is not possible.

Any suggestions about which player or players to audition? Can I trust a combined CD and SACD player not to have a difference built in?

It occurs to me there has to be some trust by player manufacturers that the discs reveal the true difference in sound, and by the recording companies that players will do the same. If I find that either is playing their cards under the table, I shall conclude the whole thing is b******s and MR can rant at me all he likes.

How I long to get my turntable back.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3685
Registered: Dec-03
Kegger, I had not read that last post of yours.

That is a good, clear recommendation. No messing about.

Many thanks!
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2627
Registered: Dec-03
Any of the denon universal players should give you a pretty good test as there
redbook playback is darn good also. But john you really need to either get a unit
or borrow one and live with the unit for awhile to really appreciate it. I'm not
sure how much info you will gather from just listening to a few songs at a
dealership where you are not familuar with the setup like you are at home.

Just my 2 cents!
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 3686
Registered: Dec-03
That's really good, too, Kegger.

You are quite right about listening for a while. Also it is important to try something new when it is plugged into the system you are used to.

Anyway, I have got to start somewhere. I know of a dealer with a full range of Denons. I have not been there before, but now is maybe a good time. I will also visit the dealer where I got my PrimaLuna amp; they do not BS, those guys. Probably no-one can handle a full demo on a Saturday. I'll take my time with this.
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Facebook

Directory

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us