|
Post by leonski on Feb 19, 2015 18:17:48 GMT -5
I had forgotten about that. PHASE, as Elliot talks about. Amps can have latency problems at different frequencies RELATIVE to one another. This leads to smearing and other audible artifacts. After several years owning a well regarded 'd' amp, I had to dump it and go 'conventional' A/B. Something about the HIGHS was driving me nuts. I finally came to the conclusion it was the output Zobel which was doing some nasties to the highs of my 4-ohm panels. For 'd' amps, lower impedance generally brings on more of this shift.
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Feb 20, 2015 8:28:17 GMT -5
These guys in the video are MISSING THE BOAT. They talk a LOT about impedance as a drive behind amp problems. But really, you CAN have 2 amps which BOTH measure the same into a resistor at 4 AND 8 ohms, and STILL sound different. The problem is with REAL speaker loads which are reactive. IOW, they look like a CAPACITOR or INDUCTOR to the amp in question. 2 amps which measure the same or within <1db into a resistor will seldom measure the same into a REAL speaker load. It is begging the question to just keep talking about impedance, sensitivity and listening level with NO mention at all of reactance. Standard loads DO exist which are 'simulated' speakers and have plenty of reactance to test most consumer amps. For the Hard Core, I'd recommend the Power Cube measurement system. Here is link: www.ap.com/kb/show/206Other info on this sytem exists and even other efforts to come up with a 'standard' load with real reactance. Good points and thanks for the link. Audioholics have been talking about using a reactive load for testing since 2010. I found this thread discussing that. forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/audioholics-amplifier-measurement-testing-methodology.68907/I'll have to double check but didn't stereophile started to do something similar with their amp measurements recently?
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Feb 20, 2015 15:08:43 GMT -5
don't know about stereophile using anything but a resistive load for amps, but they've been measuring SPEAKER reactance for a LONG time now. They will make comments about impedance minima coupled with a large reactance as requiring the amp to be a little more robust than usual. You know, something like 2.8ohms and 50 degrees at 60hz. That's an AWFUL combination and many amps will be MIA. Even some expensive stuff.
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Feb 23, 2015 8:48:01 GMT -5
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 23, 2015 10:04:55 GMT -5
The problem is that each and every speaker has a different and rather complex impedance. This means that, if you test an amplifier with a resistor load, and then with a load designed to simulate a "standard speaker", you will get results that tell you how it performs with each, and that tell you in general how much its performance is altered by using a non-resistor load, but you won't get specific information about how it will sound with a specific speaker load. (In other words, you will find out if that particular amplifier is relatively immune to changes in load, or whether you can expect it to sound different with every speaker you connect it to.) You can also infer this sort of information in certain cases. For example, by definition, any amplifier with a low damping factor WILL interact with the differences in load impedance common to typical speakers, so a tube amp with a damping factor of 5 is virtually guaranteed to sound different on every speaker you connect to it, while a solid state power amp with a damping factor of 500 is unlikely to be affected measurably (or audibly) by slight changes in the impedance of the load. These guys in the video are MISSING THE BOAT. They talk a LOT about impedance as a drive behind amp problems. But really, you CAN have 2 amps which BOTH measure the same into a resistor at 4 AND 8 ohms, and STILL sound different. The problem is with REAL speaker loads which are reactive. IOW, they look like a CAPACITOR or INDUCTOR to the amp in question. 2 amps which measure the same or within <1db into a resistor will seldom measure the same into a REAL speaker load. It is begging the question to just keep talking about impedance, sensitivity and listening level with NO mention at all of reactance. Standard loads DO exist which are 'simulated' speakers and have plenty of reactance to test most consumer amps. For the Hard Core, I'd recommend the Power Cube measurement system. Here is link: www.ap.com/kb/show/206Other info on this sytem exists and even other efforts to come up with a 'standard' load with real reactance. Good points and thanks for the link. Audioholics have been talking about using a reactive load for testing since 2010. I found this thread discussing that. forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/audioholics-amplifier-measurement-testing-methodology.68907/I'll have to double check but didn't stereophile started to do something similar with their amp measurements recently?
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 23, 2015 11:00:24 GMT -5
Yup... although I would phrase it a bit differently. "Distortion" really just means "anything different from the original" - which means that anything that makes your signal anything other than perfect is some sort of distortion (and that includes THD, noise, record clicks and pops, and I guess your kids playing in the next room qualify as "familial audio distortion".) So, if "transparent" means "doesn't change the source in any way" (which is sure what we mean when we say it about glass) then it means "no audible distortion". The only problem I have with terms like "transparency" is that they aren't very well defined - which means that we may not all mean the same thing when we describe a component as "lacking transparency". (If I said a window wasn't transparent, would I mean that the glass was distorted and warped the image, or that it was dirty, or that it was like grey sunglasses and darkened everything, or that it was tinted blue, or that there were too many reflections? There's only one way glass can be "truly transparent"; just look at the "museum glass" used in expensive picture frames - you literally can't see it's there; but there are lots of ways a piece of glass can be NOT transparent. Hy point, however, is that if I just had new windows installed in my house, and complained that they "weren't transparent", it's pretty obvious that the first question I would hear back would be "OK, but HOW are they 'not transparent'?" And, before considering replacing my new windows, the installer would expect me to give a detailed and specific description of what the windows weren't doing right. Audiophiles tend to like to use ambiguous and vague terms... and I find it tends to cause confusion. For example, what does "warm" mean (in the context of audio)? Audiophiles often describe certain components as sounding "warm", which I find virtually always involves changing the sound; and, just like a yellow glass filter makes a picture look "warmer", but equally obviously is not transparent, an amplifier that changes the audio signal so it sounds warmer must also not be transparent (and is probably adding second harmonic distortion, which is known to produce "warm sound"). But how about "analytical"? I've heard that term used (in the negative) as suggesting the opposite of warm.... but, to me, "analytical" simply means showing you exactly what's there, which sure sounds like the same thing as transparent, which is a good thing. However, some people seem to use that same term to suggest that flaws are being exaggerated? That's quite different than simply suggesting that the flaws are visible because that particular piece of equipment fails to hide them as some other piece of equipment does. Whenever I hear this, I immediately suspect that the person is hearing flaws they never noticed before, but doesn't really know if the flaws are being exaggerated (which would suggest a bad thing), or are simply no longer being hidden (which would suggest that something has changed for the better). Audiophiles seem to have a lot of confusion about the difference between a component that actually improves the sound, and one that merely hides flaws, and so seems to improve something when, in fact, it is obscuring both the good and the bad. In audio, there is science which allows us to quantify accuracy and distortion, just as you can describe the "optical clarity" of glass in several different ways; I would really like to see the majority of audiophiles progress past the equivalent of saying "view through the window looks funny" and move on to specifics; I think it not only benefits all of in terms of communication, but helps each of us individually to understand what's going on (and so become more able to adjust it to suit our preferences). Think about camera lenses..... is it distorted; is the color shifted; is there geometric distortion, if so, what kind, is there chromatic aberration? Knowing the possibilities helps us both quantify what's annoying us, and choose a lens that avoids the ones that we find particularly annoying. The "meta definition" is simple - transparency means "not being visible". When you translate this to audio, this means "not affecting the original in any way".... unfortunately, while the concept is simple, the reality (and measuring it) sometimes is not. (If you're testing a preamp, you divide the output down to the same level as the input and do an A/B test; if you can tell ANY difference, even when the levels are perfectly matched, then it ISN'T transparent. Unfortunately, with things like speakers, none of which are truly transparent, it always ends up being a comparison of which errors in perfect transparency are most annoying to which of us. (Remember the old "Is it real or is it Memorex?" commercial?) I guess lack of transparency would be distortion then.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 23, 2015 11:36:54 GMT -5
That is what you would expect - and sometimes it's true - but not always. It's also not quite as simple as MTBF being a single number. For example, while every 100 watt incandescent light bulb from a given manufacturer may last between 5000 and 6000 hours, a given transistor may last anywhere between 10 hours and 10,000 years... and, while both may average out to "an MTBF of 5500 hours", the reality is that NONE of those light bulbs will still be working in 10,000 hours, but half of the transistors probably still will be. The reality is that different components age differently; for some, specifying parts more conservatively may "buy" you a longer life expectancy while, for others, it's just luck and statistics. Also, particularly with "audiophile" products, this is sometimes simply not the case at all. There are some very expensive products out there that use plain commercial grade parts, and probably won't last any longer than their cheaper equivalents... the main difference being marketing. And poor design can also cause a part to fail far before it's "rated life". Bryston has an excellent warranty, but does the extra money you're paying in the price mean you're actually getting better parts, or does it simply ensure that they can fix that unit for twenty years and still not lose money? And where does sound quality fit into that equation? (I had a Bryston once; it was a very nice amp, but it did have to go in the shop once to have a repair redone that had already been done once for the previous owner. So, while it was nice that it had an excellent warranty, and that it was still covered, that still didn't ensure that it wouldn't have a problem.) A longer warranty certainly suggests that company expects their products to last, because it would get mighty expensive if everything they sold failed while it was still under warranty, but it only guarantees that it will get fixed if it breaks - it doesn't promise that it won't break. There are companies out there who will cheerfully sell you an amp that's an awful lot like an XPA-1, including the same (but not better) top grade commercial parts, for $4999. We could sell you an XPA-1 for $4999, throw in an entire spare amplifier just in case it breaks, and still make out like bandits....... I'm just sayin.... At least as far as electronics goes, one thing I'd expect for more money, even if 2 amps are built from the SAME schematic would be a higher MTBF for the more expensive amp. For example: Bryston Amps which ARE Uber Expensive also have a 20 year warranty. Believe me, you ARE paying for that. But before Bryston ships an amp, it goes thru an extensive factory burn-in procedure designed to weed out defective amps. Be that defective for parts or construction. Cables are a cool example of cost / benefit / perception.
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Feb 23, 2015 14:02:18 GMT -5
I should have beeen more clear. EACH individual part in an amp has a MTBF. Switch? Resistor? Capacitor? Integrated circuit or a 'discreet' transistor? ALL will have been lifetime tested. When we (company I worked for) were running the first silicon for a new device, samples were taken to F.A. (Failure Analysis) and put thru a 1000 hour burn in. Excess failures and the part was NOT put into production. And the parts which failed were extensively analyzed to determine WHY. Processing problem? Out of spec film thickness? Bad mask at a photo step? Contamination? And any of a BUNCH of other problems. So, while each PIECE of an amp has an MTBF, some pieces like switches SHOULD last nearly (nearly) forever. And While a transistor COULD fail in 10 or even 20 hours, if purchased from a GOOD manufacturer running to ISO standards, you shouldn't even have to do an incoming sample inspection on 'em. That'll save the manufacturer MONEY which should be passed on as savings TO the end user. Since an amp is, even 'simple' ones, a pretty complex device, predicting MTBF is also complex. And it gets into an area of math I know about but NOT how to use. And that would be Heavy Statistics. Trying to compute even something with 10 active components might be daunting. Conservative design helps, but stuff DOES break!
And as a final note from someone who worked microelectronic manufacturing for 30+ years. I loved quality. And can say this about my #1 passion. QUALITY. It is part of the process from the first time a guy puts his pen to paper for a new design. Manufacturing must be done with proper training of the workers, attention to detail, proper and clear build specifications and good 'stuff'. And for maximum productivity, the workplace must be clean, without clutter and have a PM program to fix stuff before it is broken and prevent out of spec production. That keeps costs down and ensures top quality.
Keith, if you need a manufacturing quality consultant, let me know.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 23, 2015 15:50:02 GMT -5
I don't disagree with you... although I don't agree that what you're presumably buying with "premium products" is a better MTBF. The last time I bought an expensive ($1000) camera lens, I paid $300 extra for a three year extended warranty. Since the warranty wasn't even sold by the maker of the lens, and the lens never passed through the hands of the third-party company that sold me the warranty, it's pretty obvious that it didn't affect either the quality of the lens itself, or the quality of the manufacturing process. I ended up with the same lens that someone else got for $300 less; except that, if mine falls apart in two years, I get it fixed or replaced for nothing. Likewise, while some manufacturers of "premium" equipment may indeed give you better parts, others simply use the extra money they charge up front to offset the cost of repairing or replacing more units because they offer a longer warranty. Unfortunately, in the audio industry, you can often spend a lot more money and not get a better warranty OR a better sounding piece of equipment. You may instead be simply paying the price of a lot of really attractive advertisements, or of the money spent by a company on PR to "build a brand reputation". Therefore, it is not quite reasonable to assume that a more expensive product will sound better or last longer, or that parts with better MTBF's will have been used to make it. I should have beeen more clear. EACH individual part in an amp has a MTBF. Switch? Resistor? Capacitor? Integrated circuit or a 'discreet' transistor? ALL will have been lifetime tested. When we (company I worked for) were running the first silicon for a new device, samples were taken to F.A. (Failure Analysis) and put thru a 1000 hour burn in. Excess failures and the part was NOT put into production. And the parts which failed were extensively analyzed to determine WHY. Processing problem? Out of spec film thickness? Bad mask at a photo step? Contamination? And any of a BUNCH of other problems. So, while each PIECE of an amp has an MTBF, some pieces like switches SHOULD last nearly (nearly) forever. And While a transistor COULD fail in 10 or even 20 hours, if purchased from a GOOD manufacturer running to ISO standards, you shouldn't even have to do an incoming sample inspection on 'em. That'll save the manufacturer MONEY which should be passed on as savings TO the end user. Since an amp is, even 'simple' ones, a pretty complex device, predicting MTBF is also complex. And it gets into an area of math I know about but NOT how to use. And that would be Heavy Statistics. Trying to compute even something with 10 active components might be daunting. Conservative design helps, but stuff DOES break! And as a final note from someone who worked microelectronic manufacturing for 30+ years. I loved quality. And can say this about my #1 passion. QUALITY. It is part of the process from the first time a guy puts his pen to paper for a new design. Manufacturing must be done with proper training of the workers, attention to detail, proper and clear build specifications and good 'stuff'. And for maximum productivity, the workplace must be clean, without clutter and have a PM program to fix stuff before it is broken and prevent out of spec production. That keeps costs down and ensures top quality. Keith, if you need a manufacturing quality consultant, let me know.
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Feb 23, 2015 16:58:58 GMT -5
Keith. I'll agree. But ADD that better, more consistant procedures during Manufacturing trumps 'premium' parts nearly every time. I just read about a company selling POWER CORDS. Premium Parts. Premium Price. MISASSEMBLES with a hot/neutral reverse on 1/2 the cords sampled. Guy from the company, rumor has it, seemed less than hugely concerned. Dangerous sh**.
You could give me a Bryston amp as a 'KIT'. I'd wreck it, not matter how good the design, parts selection and the rest.
A product which is REALLY premium will be a combination of many things, as WELL YOU know. Parts? Assembly? Design? And while many persons would add 'quality control' to the list, I KNOW for a fact that quality built in from the git-go is pretty much FREE. When you start to have to do Line Reworks is when the COSTS start to mount. Building quality from the start makes EVERYONES live easier.
100% agree on 'sounding better'. My example of Bryston has a dry sound, to me, even the latest revs. The EMO stuff I've heard was good. And used on either 7000$ /pair speakers or some original Magnepan 20 series as bass drivers.
Don't even get me STARTED on photography. I recently sold my Canon Professional stuff (1DmkII) and 5 'L' lenses to simplify my life, reduce carried weight and have it be FUN again. A selection of say……3 lenses. (examples:) like a 10-24 zoom, a 24-105 zoom and a 50mm f1.4 should last thru 2 camera bodies of pro level or 4 or 5 consumer / amateur bodies. Given good care, no 'dunkings' or dust storm use! My 100-400L lens saw SO LITTLE use that I sold it for pretty much what I paid for it, with CASE, original box and the rest of the goodies. I KEPT the circ polarizer. The Shutter on a pro camera was MTBF of 100,000 exposures but may have increased since last time I was in touch. 1000$ for glass? That's about right and you should expect terrific imaging. Make sure you have a UV/Haze filter in front and a Circular Polarizer.
Post a pic, if you have something you'd like to SHARE!
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 24, 2015 12:54:26 GMT -5
Where I think we disagree is that I consider the different stages of the reproduction chain as separate things - to be considered separately. I go to a live concert and hear people breathing, chairs scraping, and the occasional cough. To me, while the recording engineer may decide to remove them, or he may not, I still am not going to deliberately seek out a set of speakers that obscures those noises because they can't resolve details. (Although, personally, I would prefer things if the venue had been cleared of annoying humans for the recording.) So, to me, if the digital version is "too pristine sounding" because the recording engineer "dry cleaned" it, then I may take exception to that, but recording it onto vinyl, which will add some distortion and a few extra ticks, isn't going to "fix" that... my complaint is with the decisions made by the mastering engineer. Likewise, while I have no control over the microphone, or the mixing, and speakers will always be a sort of compromise, I prefer to avoid allowing changes to occur in places in the signal chain where our technology is up to the task of simply making an audibly perfect reproduction of the signal. (In other words, to me, I will never have any control over the microphones or the mastering, and speakers will always be a compromise of sorts, but I can ensure that no changes occur during the recording and playback process, and I can ensure that my preamp and my amplifier make no audible alterations to the music, because digital recording technology, and the technology involved in amplifying simple analog audio signals, have progressed to the point where this is practical to do.) To follow your analogy, a modern LED TV doesn't look "ridiculously clearer than what you would have seen if you were there in person" - because that footage was probably filmed using 100 kW worth of studio lighting, using a camera with a lens 100x better than the lens in your eye, and the backdrops, and even the skin of the actors and actresses, were almost certainly unnaturally "improved" using makeup and/or paint. In other words, ignoring any choices to the contrary, the reproduction of the original is probably incredibly good, and it probably would have looked exactly like that if you'd actually been there (not counting deliberate modifications to make "real original" into "original as the director envisioned it").... it's the original itself doesn't look natural. (Just like a drum set recorded using a microphone six inches above the cymbal is NOT going to sound like that same drum sounds from row 6 seat 11.) I simply can't imagine saying - with a straight face - "that sounds so much like what it actually sounded like in person that it's unnatural". In other words, as far as I'm concerned, the fact that you've adapted to not notice the occasional tick or pop, and don't hear the surface noise on vinyl as annoying, isn't a bad thing, but suggesting that a recording can sound "unnaturally pristine" without them is simply acknowledging a bad habit. Are you really, honestly, saying that if you had a perfect record with no surface noise and no ticks and pops, you would add a few scratches so it didn't sound so pristine? Isn't that a bit like saying that beer never tastes quite right if drunk from a clean glass? Likewise, are you suggesting that the surface noise and clicks and pops somehow compensate for the fact that the engineer made a "sterile sounding recording" with no room ambience or audience noises? I suspect that what you're "responding to" is the lack of harmonic content and room ambience in modern close-miked recordings, and that you're simply "accepting" the flaws and distortion introduced by the vinyl recording in return for the distortions it adds (which happen to sound something like what's missing). To me, this is a bit like using Photoshop to brighten up a picture that was underexposed... the result can be pleasant, but it is not exactly the same thing as doing it right to begin with. I'd be curious what you think of this - it's a free plugin that can add all the flaws normally associated with vinyl to any recording - with lots of control over which flaws and how much of each you add (note that you will need a host program to use it with - like Audition or ProTools): www.izotope.com/support/download/vinyl......and the simple answer is you can NOT measure transparency. because the quality of sound is subjective thing, the quantitative nature of measurements just simply can't perceived what our ears do. I agree. It's all based on preference. Maybe I just hear things differently, who knows. My opinion on vinyl is just the opposite. What's odd is I must have adapted over time, because I don't hear those pops or any groove noise anymore. I unknowingly have adjusted to hearing around them. Obviously, there are some used unlistenable albums I purchased that are in the garbage because of past abuse. This what I posted on another site with a similar debate: "I have gone to several concerts and listened to the same music when I got home. I don't even pretend to understand why, but vinyl sounds much more like the live experience to me. I equate it to watching an LED vs an LCD TV. An LED TV may have better brightness, better black level and far better edge enhancement. So, technically it is more precise. When I look at it though, "I think, damn that is so rediculousely clear. I don't see anywhere near that clear if I look at the same thing in person". That is precisely the experience I have with the digital version vs vinyl. It is so pristine it's unnatural. I still buy the CD if vinyl isn't available, and do enjoy it. However, I consider it a compromise to what I hear live. I can't tell you how many audiophiles take the path of wanting more and more detail. I went down that path and I ended up constantly grasping at some unobtainable end. However, when I started focusing on recreating what I hear in person, my enjoyment factor went way up. To me, vinyl playback gets closer to recreating that live experience." I don't really care why it sounds the way it does, additive distortion or whatever. I just know that to me, vinyl sounds more real to life, which is my personal goal for my system.
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Feb 24, 2015 13:29:17 GMT -5
Can we limit Keith's post to only two hundred words?....
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Feb 24, 2015 14:07:44 GMT -5
I find Keith's posts fairly interesting. If you don't like the length of 'em, get somebody to READ it to you!
And a point of disagreement. Keith considers each stage of the reproduction chain 'seperately'. I tend to think of the WHOLE THING as a SYSTEM. Thougt must be given to 'strong link' / 'weak link' ideas.
|
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs
"We made too many of the wrong mistakes." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,897
|
Post by cawgijoe on Feb 24, 2015 14:58:31 GMT -5
I think petrocols remark was "tongue in cheek". Funny.
|
|
|
Post by bub on Feb 24, 2015 15:44:08 GMT -5
I find Keith's posts fairly interesting. Good lord. Talk about backhanded compliments. Am I missing something ?
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Feb 24, 2015 15:48:50 GMT -5
I think petrocols remark was "tongue in cheek". Funny. Indeed. Keith is a walking Encyclopedia of Audio. You "get what you pay for" with him...no Cliff Notes.
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Feb 24, 2015 16:30:23 GMT -5
Actually Keith is even more awesome in person for his powerful knowledge. I always am learning so much Keith. Thank you Keith!
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 24, 2015 17:00:02 GMT -5
I don't disagree with you at all on principle. However, I do find that many people seem to take that entire premise - and its implications - too far. My Nikon camera and its lens are a system... yet I still evaluate each separately. What I mean in that context is that I can reasonably expect to get the best picture if I combine the best performing lens with the best performing camera body. For example, it seems very unlikely that I would find a blurry poor quality lens that would just happen to produce wonderfully sharp pictures when mated with one particular blurry and poor resolution camera body. I suppose it's possible, and may even happen from time to time, but it doesn't seem very likely. And, if I were to purchase a lens and find that it was fuzzy, with really nasty chromatic aberration, I wouldn't make a career of trying to find the one oddball camera that worked well with it; I would solve the problem in the most direct way possible - by replacing the bad quality lens. I don't want a lens that only works well with one camera, or a camera that only produces good results with one lens. Likewise, If my speakers were too bright, I wouldn't spend endless days hunting for an amp that was too dull sounding so they would cancel out; it seems like a much easier and more obvious solution to fix the speakers so they're right (or fix the room); at which point, instead of trying to find the one perfect amp whose flaws counterbalance theirs, I can just look for a flat amplifier. And, if I do it this way, I can choose my amp and speakers separately, rather than being forced to forever think of them as an inseparable set. (If you want an amp and speaker that work perfectly together, and you never want to change either, then consider our Stealth 8's - which are a speaker/amp combination that works very well together.) To take this back to the discussion on vinyl. I quite agree that many modern recordings sound "dry and sterile" and not a lot like being there. I'm also convinced that this is mostly due to how they were recorded (not enough room ambience; different characteristics of close miking; and several mastering practices I find objectionable, including too much compression, and an active desire to make recordings sound more "studio-ish"). However, recording them onto vinyl and playing them back isn't going to fix all those flaws.... rather , it's going to add a whole new set of flaws, in the hope that one or two of them will cancel out enough of the original flaws to constitute a net improvement. (To me, doing that feels like one of my favorite Three Stooges episodes, where the guys are trying to mix up a "tonic", by randomly pouring bottles from a pharmacy shelf into a rubber boot.... ) That just doesn't work for me. I would love for a lot of albums to sound "more lively"; however, if it's harmonic content that's missing, then it makes much more sense to buy an Aphex 206 (I think that's the model), or use a Dynamic Exciter plugin, to add second harmonics in quantities I can control precisely, and that don't come part and parcel with surface noise and ticks and pops, and perhaps a dynamics processor to attempt to recover some of the dynamic range that never made it out of the mixing console. And, yes, I also agree with your "weak link" mention.... although, in this context, ticks and pops, a maximum S/N of about 75 dB, and audible levels of harmonic distortion, are all absolutely fatal flaws in a weak link (vinyl)... and I see nothing anywhere else in the signal chain that is at all likely to eliminate them. (Obviously you don't find those particular flaws as objectionable as I do.) I find Keith's posts fairly interesting. If you don't like the length of 'em, get somebody to READ it to you! And a point of disagreement. Keith considers each stage of the reproduction chain 'seperately'. I tend to think of the WHOLE THING as a SYSTEM. Thougt must be given to 'strong link' / 'weak link' ideas.
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Feb 24, 2015 17:51:35 GMT -5
Keith, it is POSSIBLE you have me mixed up with someone. I went CD in '83 when I bought the 2nd player on regular sale in the States. The very fine Magnevox player which was a Philips FD-1000 in disguise. I need a LASER for mine, but otherwise it is OK. It is also a 14 bit machine! Full 16 bit was NEXT. My TurnTable? Gone soon after, as MORE of the 'right' CDs became available. When I started, the TOTAL was something like 3000 CDs available. That was IT. I teach photography. When someone comes to me and 'knows' they want a DSLR, I tell them to buy from the lower end of the BODY scale and the BEST glass they can afford. Consistent with Ergonomic considerations, which don't reallly play into stereo problems. However, what IS applicible is maybe the idea of Source First, which SOME in hi and higher end audio subscribe to. I'm not totally on board with that idea, but DO get the point. Either your lens is junk and putting it on a 7000$ EOS1 body or your CD player is junk and NO amount of amp / speaker is going to help or you strive for some balance or even perhaps (some would say) excess in the 'source' department. I'm not totally familiar with modern recording techniques. It would seem that close mic'ing and a totally dead room (close to anechoic) is BAD for what you end up hearing. Everything from a little reverb to 'ambiance' is ADDED 'in the mix'. phooey. I really and PERSONALLY prefer live recordings, sometimes 'warts' and all over major studio stuff. Engineering and the guy who does the 'final' really matter, though, so it's nearly impossible to generalize. As 'proof' I'd point to quite the number of albums which have been reissued and RUINED in the process. The variable quality of a classic album like 'Dark Side Of The Moon' when listening to the 4 or 5 or different takes / remixes and such will drive you nuts. I've lost track of what is supposed to be the 'best' of 'em. The English vinyl? Japanese CD? US CD? The version that was left on the MOON? Enjoy your NIKON. We need a place on the forum for 'member photos'. or you can find me on DeviantArt as 'MaxBeta'. as I typed it here.
|
|