|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
173.68.56.244
This is what it has come to. $30K stereo, 16 years to build, and listening to streaming mp3 service, perfectly happy. Listening to "Hypocrisy - Abducted" album, fantastic!
I use SACD for high end, but it is too much of a gimmick with no content really. My hay day is mid 1990s for my music tastes.
Sometimes you have to go with what works, it is the music!
Follow Ups:
How did you manage that?
You are not alone. I am in almost the exact same boat.
I listen to MOG/SPOTIFY a LOT and enjoy it very much.
I listen to vinyl when I want a really immersive almost overwhelming experience.
I listen to digital (16/44 to 24/192) when I want to hear something that I already have loaded onto my PC.
though I get a lot of joy from used pop albums, too.
============================
Hey! I have a blog now: http://mancave-stereo.blogspot.com or "like" us at https://www.facebook.com/mancave.stereo
Far out dude!
Unbelievably rich....
Give me rhythm or give me death!
Hi,
in my humble experience the same bad recording sounds remarkably better on a better system.
And this is an important motivation to increase the rig quality
any recording will sound better
For instance even vintage recordings, you cannot improve their quality but you can listen to them at their top.
Kind regards,
bg
"in my humble experience the same bad recording sounds remarkably better on a better system.And this is an important motivation to increase the rig quality
any recording will sound better"
In my humble opinion too!
Every record in my collection sounds good or much better on my hifi systems regardless of recording quality. About half of these sound bad or worse to the point of not even being worth playing on my car stereo or my PC.
I've rejected far fewer recordings for bad sound as my systems have improved. But even more importantly I reject far fewer recordings for bad music, ie. more music makes sense as music as the system improves.
This is IMO why upgrading the system makes sense.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
The easiest way could be to listen to some low quality mp3 on different rigs
Or listen to something on youtube
In my case was not a matter of freq response but more of distortion both from cd and my system
On my friend system there was not added distortion, only the original one and i preferred without doubt the sound.
This is a strong motivation to improve the quality of the set up of course
I think that it could be done even with not big money.
Speakers for instance are very important.
There are some nice sounding and not very expensive
This is a good start i think
Thanks again
Kind regards,
bg
It may very well be that auto-tuned recordings sound worse on a good rig. I tend to stay away from most modern pop recordings so I'm willing to take Todd's word on that for now...This can be a subjective thing, but if part of what makes a recording "bad" is a harsh, overcooked treble balance then a highly resolving system might make the recording sound harsher or even "worse" than ever before. You might hear a bit more of everything on a good system, not always a good thing!
Poor systems often sound rolled off in the upper-frequencies and/or have boosted, muddy bass that mask over harsh recordings. Therefore, these systems can provide a more flattering sound (with "bad" recordings) than better systems do. I usually try to focus on the merits of the music but very bad recordings on a good system can make it slightly harder for me to accomplish this feat.
There may be other exceptions to your rule but the above exception is the one that stands out most in my mind...
Edits: 03/30/14 03/30/14 03/30/14
That when true resolution increases, via better speakers, etc, there's more life and depth to even terrible recordings. Yes, some gremlins may be unmasked, but if the music quality is there, you'll find you're getting a better feel for the recording overall.
Bass is supposed to sound big. 6.5" is not a woofer size.
Hi i have another story.
I had a cd at home of a cheap series of pop music
It sounded so so on my system
Then i went to an audio fair and they had the same cd playing on a high level system ... well there was no comparison.
At the fair was quite good indeed.
And this triggered my quest for a better system.
I agree that better systems expose more, but in a musical way.
Maybe it is not a rule
Kind regards,
bg
"This can be a subjective thing, but if part of what makes a recording "bad" is a harsh, overcooked treble balance then a highly resolving system might make the recording sound harsher or even "worse" than ever before. You might hear a bit more of everything on a good system, not always a good thing!"
The first question I would ask is the system deemed highly resolving because it has elevate regions in upper midrange or high frequency response?
Since we've already deemed this system as highly resolving isn't it fair to assume that it's the root cause of the harshness not the recordings themselves which supposedly sound better on different systems.
And BTW IMO getting a bit more of everything is not the point of a good system in book at least.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
... in-room frequency response is one of my primary goals when I assemble a system. "Musical Accuracy" is another important goal but I always like to think that my system might be capable of transmitting all (or most) of what is on a recording, so I try to strike a reasonable balance between these two goals. A good system balances truth with "listenability". If you cannot believe that your system is an accurate sounding one *while you listen to it*, how good is it?All I can really say is that, once I have my system optimized to sound as "accurate"/"musically accurate" as possible (in the overall sense - using the majority of my recordings), certain types of recordings will strike me as being "bad" ones. .
Edits: 03/30/14 03/30/14
Auto-Tune'd recordings..... Which unfortunately make up the vast majority of pop vocal recordings since 2005..... I find them more tolerable on a mainstream system than on a high-end system.
Hi,
i guess you are refferring to this SW here
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-Tune
In my case i have to check which cd was ... i must have it in the cellar.
I remember was one from Oasis. Extremely high distortion.
In my system sounded quite confused and almost unbearable.
On my friend system, a much better one, the sound was still distorted but i liked the overall sound much better.
It seemed like my system was adding more noise and distortion to the one already present in the original
Thanks a lot.
Kind regards,
bg
And some audiophiles expect mainstreamers to somehow embrace high-end audio.........
I guess the only unfortunate part is you ended up spending 30 grand.........
The failing here is the seeming inability of designers to produce a high-resolution digital audio source that is musically satisfying.....
it took many years to get the system to my likings, all worth it. however it wouldn't have been the same journey had I not just settled down and realized this is what it has come to.
I would be buying SACD rips on DSD or something or other of artists I don't care for just because it should sound good. that is not the reason I like hifi, I like to listen to music, not music quality. I take what I can get.
you are correct, good music is good music...great sound is just the bonus highlighting the Sonics of music...IMHO...
I always go back to SRV's Texas Flood, terrible recording, great music...
I have some live Springsteen bootlegs, that sound terrible, but they captured the energy of the live shows and the music is great...
So, yea I get it...
thanks
Mark
By that I mean 320 Kbps, with well-done conversion. Differences from WAV are clearly audible on resolving system, but these MP3 do not sound offensive.
Here's the album, swedish metal band.
I like the LAME encoder myself, VBR 192 is listenable, but CBR 320 is much better.
If the conversion to MP3 is done well, it is very difficult to distinguish from uncompressed CD-quality WAV playback.
Great test Mr. Krieger !
I do not perceive a big difference
I slightly prefer Test File B ... i bet is the compressed one
have you already disclose which is which ?
Thanks great test
Kind regards,
bg
"have you already disclose which is which ?"
Nope.... I only tabulate which was preferred (or deemed better).
I also swapped these files over the years. (So a preference of "A" now might not necessarily be the same as a preference of "A" several months or several years ago.) But your response is tabulated.
I will say that over 60 percent preferred the MP3-converted WAV over the uncompressed WAV. Your response will bump it a smidgen one way or the other. [-;
Hello Mr. Krieger,
well this is amazing already !
I have just listened through headphones and differences are not night and day but my system is low quality.
But i am sure a lot of Inmates have downloaded and listened to the tracks on very resolving systemsBy the way, I have to say that my feeling is that tracks where there is a great depth of soundstage could be more telling.
I was reading about a comparison between a very high quality LP and its recording made with a Korg dsd digital recorder. A really good one.
The digital copy sounded also good but depth of soundstage was reduced, not on a par with the original. A little collapsed.
I mean that bigger differences could show up more with a high end recording where space is captured very well ... maybe.
Not a recording gone through mix console, compression and so on
Maybe ...
Thanks a lot.
Kind regards,
bg
Edits: 03/30/14 03/30/14 03/30/14 03/30/14
I tried an ABX test with the two tracks, and failed it.... The only time I was able to notice a difference was burning the tracks to CD-R and listening to it on a good CD rig based system.
Thanks again and very interesting
Maybe it is a Auto-Tune recording ?
I mean, the original compression/manipulation during the recording can have already done the damage.
I was reading here about some Japanese recordings of extreme quality
Maybe in that case differences between original and MP3 could show up more ?
I think it is important to start with an excellent track.
With hihg dynamic and spatial informations.
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
"Maybe it is a Auto-Tune recording ?"
Not that particular track..... It was a primary reason why I selected it. (Although Aleks Syntek, the artist on the clip, did use Auto-Tune in later albums.)
I think running audio evaluations with an Auto-Tune'd track would be like running photo evaluations of skin tones using sodium lamps..........
Hi and thanks for the info.
I think that the bitrate ratio between original and 320K mp3 should be 4.4 to 1 ?
a good saving of space ...
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
Laughing...
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: