http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_vVecWymrkfeature=youtu.be
i have the nano meco. all in with shipping, under 240 bucks. the deal
of the century. if you need a RCM , look no further.
also, paulo is so good to deal with.
ignore the avant garde ish movie leanings and overall terrible ness
Zombie wrote:
Every recording has its own natural playback level where it sounds
best...
Or you could just use loudness or tone controls.
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this
Julf wrote:
Or you could just use loudness or tone controls.
Yes the loudness contour is avery good idea .
.. On relatively naturally recorded stuff when the instruments makes
sense .
..And if people actually understood what it was , not thinking it was an
instant disco button hence why we
Marsupial wrote:
I am happy about the resurgence of LPs. Not because it supposedly have
better quality - that is BS, the support itself induce audible issues
- but because there is a way better contact with the music when you have
something physical, visible, that you know translates to
garym wrote:
My preferred method of listening to music is to see the artist live!
I don't go to concerts any more. Just can't stand the lack of spatial
resolution, and the digital roughness caused by the DSP employed in the
modern digital concert mixers, and I am pretty their sound systems
Julf wrote:
I don't go to concerts any more. Just can't stand the lack of spatial
resolution, and the digital roughness caused by the DSP employed in the
modern digital concert mixers, and I am pretty their sound systems don't
reproduce anything beyond 22 kHz.
Touche.
garym wrote:
Maybe I got all this contact with the physical item out of my system
with the thousands of records I purchased, handled, and listened to
between 1964 and the mid 1980s. And I still have (and can play on my
turntable) those vinyl albums. And I don't download mp3s. I buy the CD.
Annoyingly for some modern recordings the vinyl release is less
dynamically compressed than the CD. Certainly not most of the time, but
some of the time ... and I've not noticed it going the other way.
Now, I am not advocating buying a turntable! On this, I definitely call
conspiracy and I
darrenyeats wrote:
Annoyingly for some modern recordings the vinyl release is less
dynamically compressed than the CD. Certainly not most of the time, but
some of the time ... and I've not noticed it going the other way.
Now, I am not advocating buying a turntable! On this, I definitely
SuperQ wrote:
And this is where you're missing the actual point. You're comparing two
different tracks of different content. Sure, they might be the same
song, and even come from the same source multi-track, but the mastering
is different. You seem to prefer the higher dynamic range
Julf wrote:
I don't go to concerts any more. Just can't stand the lack of spatial
resolution, and the digital roughness caused by the DSP employed in the
modern digital concert mixers, and I am pretty their sound systems don't
reproduce anything beyond 22 kHz.
And it's so hard to ABX a live
Marsupial wrote:
I wasn't referring that listening to music is more enjoyable with
records than anything else. But I was pointing out in answer to that
some people buy vinyls. why do they buy vinyls. its not a good music
support comment - there IS something interesting with handling vinyls.
Lo,
At 00:30 19/04/2013, you wrote:
I find it rather odd to find a number of vinyl related threads popping
up on a Squeezebox forum.
I am listening to vinyl right now, as it happens, but I think that the
current crop of vinyl threads should have been made elsewhere, as in on
a different forum
trott3r wrote:
Is there any active vinyl forums?
I cant seem to find them.
Martin N
Running MorphOS v3.1 (July 2012) on a PowerPC Powerbook, Moderator of
MiniDisc,amithlonopen,bwfc Yahoogroups
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/forums/music-corner.2/
heisenberg wrote:
In my experience, vinyl sound can be superior to digital
I agree ... and I am arguing the reason is the crippled CD releases put
out in some cases!
Darren
darrenyeats's Profile:
Hello,
At 12:49 19/04/2013, you wrote:
Maybe I got all this contact with the physical item out of my system
with the thousands of records I purchased, handled, and listened to
between 1964 and the mid 1980s. And I still have (and can play on my
turntable) those vinyl albums. And I don't
Hello,
At 17:44 19/04/2013, you wrote:
Annoyingly for some modern recordings the vinyl release is less
dynamically compressed than the CD. Certainly not most of the time, but
some of the time ... and I've not noticed it going the other way.
Yes the loudness wars has put me off buying new
trott3r wrote:
Yes the loudness wars has put me off buying new music.
dr.loudness.info is a good website with a database of music analysed for
dynamic compression.
Agreed!
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
TimT wrote:
One of the tracks (Edgar the Barber, 32 seconds) is, according to the
Audiogon description, intended to be listened to with headphones.
Perhaps there are others?
You're not confusing earphones with earplugs are you? ;)
darrenyeats wrote:
I agree ... and I am arguing the reason is the crippled CD releases put
out in some cases!
Darren
True. But even the best digital master can be outdone by the best analog
master. For that to happen, you'd need to get lucky and nail a really
good pressing. Which is like
Stratmangler wrote:
The Chesky stuff may well be beautifully recorded, it's just a shame
that it's devoid of anything worth listening to.
Ah well!
I've always been mystified by the claims that Chesky is beautifully
recorded. Maybe it's a good product to be used to test one's system, but
I've
heisenberg wrote:
True. But even the best digital master can be outdone by the best analog
master. For that to happen, you'd need to get lucky and nail a really
good pressing. Which is like searching for a needle in a haystack.
We'll just have to disagree on the issue of the best analog
mlsstl wrote:
We'll just have to disagree on the issue of the best analog being
superior to the best digital.
I've been lucky enough to have been in some studios over the years and
heard direct mike feeds and the analog open reel playback. There is
always a loss. Tape has its own issues
heisenberg wrote:
True. But even the best digital master can be outdone by the best analog
master.
You do realize that most pickups have distortion 1%, very limited
frequency range, and wow flutter that makes any jitter measurements of
digital gear look rather petty...
heisenberg wrote:
I am more concerned about listening to tracks where everything sounds at
the same or similar level of loudness. In other words, there are many
CDs where the music does not seem to 'breathe', and a flute that's
playing in the background is as loud as the bass guitar etc. I
Hello dear audiophiles, my friend Keaton decreed that he contribute to
my blog with a recent coaxial SPDIF cable review.
As it is Friday afternoon, I wish every one a good (hopefully relaxing)
weekend!
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/04/guest-review-measurements-dr-franks.html
Enjoy :-)
It _is_ the reason, though, why all that dynamic compression is being
done. It comparatively increases the volume of the track.
It's less conclusive than the effect for identical tracks, though
pippin's Profile:
mlsstl wrote:
We'll just have to disagree on the issue of the best analog being
superior to the best digital.
I've been lucky enough to have been in some studios over the years and
heard direct mike feeds and the analog open reel playback. There is
always a loss. Tape has its own issues
Archimago wrote:
As it is Friday afternoon, I wish every one a good (hopefully relaxing)
weekend!
Very enjoyable. I just have to point out on error - there is no way
anyone could get a laboratory space in Akihabara
these days.
Anyway, I warmly recommend a subscription of 'The Chap Magazine'
garym wrote:
You must be one of those rabid naysayers without a really good front
end as well;-)
I guess so. I guess I challenge the rabid yeasayers to find me a pickup
with less than 1% distortion... :)
Julf's
He-he!
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98620
Julf wrote:
You do realize that most pickups have distortion 1%, very limited
frequency range, and wow flutter that makes any jitter measurements of
digital gear look rather petty...
I don't listen to music with measuring instruments, I use my ears
instead. Some people think that's silly,
mlsstl wrote:
We'll just have to disagree on the issue of the best analog being
superior to the best digital.
I've been lucky enough to have been in some studios over the years and
heard direct mike feeds and the analog open reel playback. There is
always a loss. Tape has its own issues
Lo,
At 20:27 19/04/2013, you wrote:
trott3r wrote:
Is there any active vinyl forums?
I cant seem to find them.
Martin N
Running MorphOS v3.1 (July 2012) on a PowerPC Powerbook, Moderator of
MiniDisc,amithlonopen,bwfc Yahoogroups
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/forums/music-corner.2/
mlsstl wrote:
This is NOT what was being discussed just a few posts back.
Rather it was about taking the same recording and playing it back at two
ever so slightly different playback levels. Most people prefer the one
that is slightly louder even if they can't perceive the volume
darrenyeats wrote:
Hmm, the slightly louder 24 bit is heard as slightly better if compared
A/B, yet the difference might not be enough to be consciously noticed.
Yes, you've sold the conspiracy theory to me now!
Darren
Is the trick to winning to make them only slightly louder, or to make
heisenberg wrote:
All that notwithstanding, I still fondly recall some of my (admittedly
rare) experiences with vinyl that put any, even the highest audiophile
grade digital transfers to shame. I think it is devilishly hard to
achieve decent sounding digital reproduction. It can be done, but
heisenberg wrote:
Is the trick to winning to make them only slightly louder, or to make
them noticeably louder?
only slightlysee other thread on myth of louder being better in
listening comparisons for why.
garym's
heisenberg wrote:
I think it is devilishly hard to achieve decent sounding digital
reproduction. It can be done, but requires a lot of knowledge
I respectfully disagree with the above statement. It is actually quite
easy to achieve decent digital sound reproduction. I agree it may be
hard to
garym wrote:
I respectfully disagree with the above statement. It is actually quite
easy to achieve decent digital sound reproduction. I agree it may be
hard to achieve decent analog vinyl reproduction. But somehow, I feel
like I've entered a time machine and it has taken me back to 1986
Julf wrote:
Very enjoyable. I just have to point out on error - there is no way
anyone could get a laboratory space in Akihabara
these days.
Anyway, I warmly recommend a subscription of 'The Chap Magazine'
(http://thechapmagazine.co.uk/).
I hear he inherited it :-)
Will ask Keaton to
mlsstl wrote:
This is NOT what was being discussed just a few posts back.
Rather it was about taking the same recording and playing it back at two
ever so slightly different playback levels. Most people prefer the one
that is slightly louder even if they can't perceive the volume
Please can some AA ( anynomous audiophiles ) member donate a silly
expensive digital coax cable to Archimago :)
Or an super expensive USB .
When I was riddled by this disorder , I never really subscribed to super
expensive digital cables , so the ones I had was not that spectacular
just
43 matches
Mail list logo
