darrenyeats wrote:
I have started doing exactly that. I can confirm Portishead New York
Roseland concert has way better audio ripped off the DVD.
Darren
I have uploaded this to DR Database.
http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/
Darren
if you want the best SQ...
treat your room. absolutely NOTHING else comes close in terms of
results, improvements.
far too many audiophiles ignore this MOST CRUCIAL factor, and spend
money on stupid things.
Bit if you're only aften better, rather than best/optimal, sound quality
(which most in reality are no matter what they claim), and you assign a
certain room design/layout a monetary value (which many do) it can make
sense to improve by spending on the gear side of things ;)
TheOctavist wrote:
if you want the best SQ...
treat your room. absolutely NOTHING else comes close in terms of
results, improvements.
far too many audiophiles ignore this MOST CRUCIAL factor, and spend
money on stupid things.
This is good advice. But digital room correction in the
All, I have posted some screenshots you may find interesting:
http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=128831
Live albums and dynamic compression: CD versus DVD
Regards, Darren
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk 2
darrenyeats wrote:
http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_big_squeeze/
Yes, thanks. One thing I think it shows, is that in the end its a matter
of the artistic content and how it interacts with its surroundings. The
discussion reminds me of digital photography. Hipstamatic and instagram
sort of being
http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_big_squeeze/
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=97105
darrenyeats wrote:
http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_big_squeeze/
Thanks for the link. A worthwhile read.
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread:
darrenyeats wrote:
http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_big_squeeze/
Thanks for the link I missed this one, a good article .
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread:
bhaagensen wrote:
Assuming you are right and they actually have this ability, audiophile
sound quality is far from their core product - nor have they so claimed.
They are a commercial tech company whose main concerns rightfully
include maximizing profits.
For sure Apple's commercial goals
cliveb wrote:
For sure Apple's commercial goals drive their product development. But
the resulting sub-optimal performance of the devices may well be one of
the core reasons why excessive compression is now commonplace
1. People are doing more and more of their listening on portable
cliveb wrote:
For sure Apple's commercial goals drive their product development. But
the resulting sub-optimal performance of the devices may well be one of
the core reasons why excessive compression is now commonplace
1. People are doing more and more of their listening on portable
Mnyb wrote:
The most annoying thing is that they are doing it for nothing as radio
stations compress and levels out things at their end...*cut*...
Take a quick peak out of the window. Not difficult to spot folks with
white thingies hanging of heads. You can´t argue that some compression
bhaagensen wrote:
Take a quick peak out of the window. Not difficult to spot folks with
white thingies hanging of heads. You can´t argue that some compression
serves its purpose there :)
There is certainly no doubt that lots of dynamic range compression is
required when listening to music on
cliveb wrote:
Once again the iPod lags behind. (For example, how many years did it
take Apple to understand gapless playback?)
Perhaps in a few more years they'll figure out compression.
And a few more decades after that for Apple to recognize flac.
cliveb wrote:
The correct place to apply this level of compression is *in the playback
device*, and have it switchable/adjustable.
Indeed, mastering should be done at runtime on as unprocessed files as
possible, and using player-dependent parameters. But thats not reality,
nor is it for the
bhaagensen wrote:
Lets not discuss Apples priorities in their products. They are one among
a gazillion manufacturers of portable players with different design and
features - its a different matter.
partly true and partly misguided:
True - Apple is only one of many manufacturers of portable
ralphpnj wrote:
Apple IS the dominant force in the marketplace and therefore has the
ability to influence the market much more than any other manufacturer.
In other words, as goes Apple so goes (almost) everyone else.
Assuming you are right and they actually have this ability, audiophile
bhaagensen wrote:
Assuming you are right and they actually have this ability, audiophile
sound quality is far from their core product - nor have they so claimed.
They are a commercial tech company whose main concerns rightfully
include maximizing profits. Their customers brought then into
bhaagensen wrote:
Yes dynamics is part of most music, though there are mainstream genres
where its less pronounced such as some noise, shoegaze, or ambient.
But its this apparent obsession, c.f. loudness-debate, among audiophiles
that puzzles me. On one hand its portraied as having ruined
darrenyeats wrote:
It's like everyone's given up. One chink of light is THX certification
which has definitely helped better mastering of soundtracks and filmed
concerts. The difference between these and the equivalent CDs is
sometimes striking.
Darren
I guess the answer would be to buy
ralphpnj wrote:
I guess the answer would be to buy the concert DVD when available and
rip the audio from the DVD.
I do exactly that. I can confirm Portishead New York Roseland concert
has way better audio ripped off the DVD.
Darren
darrenyeats wrote:
You can hear modern levels of compression easily on a portable radio.
It's that bad. And it's not talked about widely enough - if it was
perhaps we'd have less of it.
A great many playback systems have a significant dip in the mid-range
(don't get me wrong, no system is
This is a difficult matter. 99% of modern music has the vocal recorded
with close-mic and compressors, probably in a vocal booth with effects
added. It's incredible if you think about it.
I can certainly understand people getting frustrated with accurate
equipment because how can this be
darrenyeats wrote:
This is a difficult matter. 99% of modern music has the vocal recorded
with close-mic and compressors, probably in a vocal booth with effects
added. It's incredible if you think about it.
I can certainly understand people getting frustrated with accurate
equipment
Also close-mic vocals surely isn't a new feature of the pop and rock
genre. I agree that processed sound is common, but I think its a
feature/trend and I don't see unaturalness being a huge problem in terms
of audiophile enjoyment (unless its in direct conflict with an intended
goal of
bhaagensen wrote:
Also close-mic vocals surely isn't a new feature of the pop and rock
genre. I agree that processed sound is common, but I think its a
feature/trend and I don't see unaturalness being a huge problem in terms
of audiophile enjoyment (unless its in direct conflict with an
I've been a serious jazz fan for almost 40 years and while I do listen
to plenty of popular and classical music, jazz is what I listen to the
most. When I first started listening to jazz the differences between a
popular/rock recording and a jazz recording were, at best, slight but
now I can
Well I dont mind the processing and close-mic stuff per se. Like Johnny
Cashs much praised work with Rick Rubin on American Recordings. Sounds
fab to me, but it doesnt sound particularily supernatural and the voice
tracks are recorded close-mic and compressed. Its a bit theatrical
sounding, but
bhaagensen wrote:
Well I dont mind the processing and close-mic stuff per se. Like Johnny
Cashs much praised work with Rick Rubin on American Recordings. Sounds
fab to me, but it doesnt sound particularily supernatural and the voice
tracks are recorded close-mic and compressed. Its a bit
The point is that presumably the modern records sounds the way they do
because they are meant to sound that way. If one does not like that dont
just blame the recording qualities and priorities, but perhaps accept
that one simply does not like that specific *music*. I get the
impression that
If you read my comments they are about voice SQ in terms of realism.
Yes, I realise artists go for that sound. It may even sound good. I
stand by comments though.
Can I add, it seems many artists are trying to stand out from the crowd
by having a stylistic sound. Ironically, quiet, natural
Then define realism. To me its as infinite as the world itself. Add
that audiophile sound to an extent is a subjektive quality in so far as
no system can 100% and verifiably reproduce reality, and it becomes hard
to judge recordings bad, on the basis of simplistic parameters.
Anyway I'm
bhaagensen wrote:
Then define realism. To me its as infinite as the world itself. Add
that audiophile sound to an extent is a subjektive quality in so far as
no system can 100% and verifiably reproduce reality, and it becomes hard
to judge recordings bad, on the basis of simplistic
bhaagensen wrote:
Then define realism. To me its as infinite as the world itself. Add
that audiophile sound to an extent is a subjektive quality in so far as
no system can 100% and verifiably reproduce reality, and it becomes hard
to judge recordings bad, on the basis of simplistic
Recordings of classical music are, thankfully, largely immune to the
'loudness wars', indeed I've heard some people complain of too great a
dynamic range for a domestic environment (not me though).
However, I did come across one classical CD that was engineered so that
there were numerous
Yes dynamics is part of most music, though there are mainstream genres
where its less pronounced such as some noise, shoegaze, or ambient.
But its this apparent obsession, c.f. loudness-debate, among audiophiles
that puzzles me. On one hand its portraied as having ruined all recorded
music
Mnyb wrote:
many new rock songs you may hear on radio have a generic sound like
any music void of identity
This void of identity, on the other hand, could well be due to the (lack
of) actual musical content :)
bhaagensen wrote:
Yes dynamics is part of most music, though there are mainstream genres
where its less pronounced such as some noise, shoegaze, or ambient.
But its this apparent obsession, c.f. loudness-debate, among audiophiles
that puzzles me. On one hand its portraied as having ruined
wuffles wrote:
Forgive me if this has been discussed - I didn't find a similar thread.
This never topic never expires because there is no definite resolution.
wuffles wrote:
Some tracks have absolutely amazed me - these are typically vocal with a
couple of instruments.
This kind
Excellent comments - very helpful. Interestingly, it seems we're nearly
split between theories 1 and 2.
Guidof, you're right, I will need to listen more and to different
recordings and bit rates. It might be instructive to listen to the same
tracks without compression, and with MP3 at 320, say,
Mnyb wrote:
listen .
some music is only possible in the car :-/ I would develop problems if
heard them on my hifi *sob*
The throwaway remark about car stereos interests me since I have often
heard a recording that is new to me in the car, thought 'that sounds
really great', bought it and
JohnB wrote:
Forgive me if I've got hold of the wrong end of the stick but from what
I can glean on Google your NAD is in the £500-£600 price bracket whereas
the BW 804s are in a different league. New BW Nautilus 804D speakers
seem to be around £5,500.
I don't know the NAD but I wouldn't
wuffles wrote:
Interestingly, it seems we're nearly split between theories 1 and 2.
Yes. But it does not have to be an either or proposition. It may be a
bit of both.
For me, enjoyment of recorded music starts with a good performance that
is well recorded. If either is poor, enjoyment is
Its more a problem of mid-range clarity and transparency. It sounds
like a stereo instead of music.
My take? The issue may not be speaker placement as much as the room
itself. Are there any strong reflection primary points between the
speakers and the listening position? Toe-in can sometimes
mlsstl wrote:
Sometimes the reference points people use really leave me scratching my
head in puzzlement, but that's the nice thing about this hobby. All you
need to do is figure out how to make yourself happy, though there are
always some who seem to prefer a state of perpetual frustration.
ralphpnj wrote:
one of the all time best remarks about the often and much abused audio
hobby. Thanks!
+1!
G. F.
guidof's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40448
View this thread:
Forgive me if this has been discussed - I didn't find a similar thread.
I've just replaced the speakers in my mid-fi system:
SBT w/TT3.0n analog outputs
NAD C720BEE receiver
BW DM602 -- replaced with BW Nautilus 804
Polk PSW505 sub -- disconnected
interconnects cables - decent but nothing too
Hard to tell from the information provided.
However, my gut feeling is that your equipment is just fine. Start
listening to well-recorded FLACs of at least 16/44.1 resolution. I
suspect that would make you happier than throwing money at better
equipment. But I may be wrong . . .
Regards,
Guido
wuffles wrote:
SBT w/TT3.0n analog outputs
NAD C720BEE receiver
BW DM602 -- replaced with BW Nautilus 804
Polk PSW505 sub -- disconnected
interconnects cables - decent but nothing too fancy
Forgive me if I've got hold of the wrong end of the stick but from what
I can glean on Google
Yes sadly many recording are not good goolge loudness war many modern
rock/pop records are very in your face hard brittle over compressed etc
etc .
we have had long treads on this forum on the topic . one example Rush
albums from the 70's sound infinetly betterthan the never ones
1. The
51 matches
Mail list logo
