|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.239.122.162
In Reply to: RE: Transferring my Mercury Living Presence CD's to iTunes posted by Chris from Lafayette on September 18, 2014 at 21:42:50
Are you still using your iMac as your playback source for these files? And in your opinion, the result sounds better played back from your computer than it does playing the original CDs with your CD players?
So, how do you explain that? You cannot improve on the original CD audio unless you are re-processing the audio, which you don't mention. And the audio circuitry built into the iMac is certainly not up to the same specs as your CD players.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
Follow Ups:
My set-up is as follows: I have a RAID drive connected to my iMac in another room. This RAID drive however is shared with the Mac Mini in my actual listening room via wired ethernet. Yes, I do feel that the result sounds better played back from the computer (even directly from iTunes) than from my $2,000+ Marantz universal player. Yes - it is mysterious. All the more so, because my Marantz pre-pro is acting as my DAC in both cases. (Both the Mac Mini and the Universal player are connected to the pre-pro via HDMI.) I've also heard all the horror stories about internal computer noise that might get picked up, thereby muddying the signal - if its there, I'm happy to say that I don't notice it at all!
So. . . I would just be guessing as to why the computer playback sounds better to me. But I do have my guesses - mainly, that the memory of the computer can hold larger blocks of data than the buffer of a CD player can, and therefore is somehow more stable. But that's just a guess.
Well, of course, it might sound better to you just because you want it to. Which is fine. Whatever contributes to one's enjoyment of music is a positive.
For one guy, it is unplugging the connector cables between his amp to his CD player, then reversing them before plugging them back in, because the signal travels one direction better than the other.
For another, it always sounds better when he's drinking a 20 year old cab - he swears it improves his acuity for nuances in the music that he doesn't get with other quaffs.
Me, I swear by the tried and true "smell the vinyl" approach -- the music always sounds better on vinyl than on CD, and I'm convinced it is the smell of the vinyl that does it.
Because, in the end, all the technology for recording and replaying sound is just foreplay. The music is the magic that happens between your ears. Whatever improves that experience makes life better. And you can quote me on that.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
The first guy seems to have the most practical approach. Nothing out of pocket, no empties to trash the next morning and no hangover.
As to smelling the vinyl, I hope your collection didn't get caught in a flood as some of mind did. Sound OK after cleaning, but the vinyl smelled a bit moldy. :-(
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
Hey Chris, Nice post on the Mercuries. They are many of my favorites also. I also agree Dorati was way under rated. I think if he had been the conductor of Chicago, Boston, or New York he would have been highly recognized. Also at the time Mercury was a small guy compared to RCA, Columbia and Decca. I would like to know when you say your computer played back copies sound better to you in what ways do they sound better. This certainly has to be a difference in the quality of the playback gear and not a difference in the quality of the actual source material.. Also bit perfect seldom is. There is still induced jitter, reclocking problems and noise problems. Things are much more complicated in ripping copies than just bits are bits.
Alan
Another question is why Audirvana SW seems to make such a difference too. The improvements have to do with bass extension, clarity, and image stability. I honestly don't know why that should be the case, other than some of those other factors you mention are somehow in play.
was apparently a tempermental, difficult guy who didn't really calm down until old age. He might have had a hard time in Chicago, Boston or New York.
I have friends from the National Symphony (now retired) who were there from Howard Mitchell, to Dorati, to Rostropovich, to Slatkin, and they look at the Dorati years as the best ones of their career. He may have mellowed a bit in his relationships with the players, but he still had trouble with management. Dorati pretty much got himself fired. I can't recall the details right now, but they were negotiating a contract and Dorati basically drew a line in the sand, calling their bluff, and they told him to hit the bricks. They hired Rostropovich figuring that it would raise the reputation of the orchestra. Well, what happened was that Rostropovich got more famous for being the conductor of the NSO, but the NSO's reputation didn't come along for the ride.
"a tempermental, difficult guy" That defines most conductors.Toscanini, Reiner and Karajan are good examples.
Alan
Tempremental, maybe, but you pick three tempraments that are so radically different from each other that I'm not sure that says much.
Yes, and those three all had problems with their orchestras, didn't they? Especially Toscanini, though his players were devoted to him despite his outbursts of temper. Too bad he didn't get his own orchestra sooner.
Yes - I read that many LSO members didn't like working with him. And apparently, the more excited he would get during the rehearsals, the higher up in pitch his voice would go - and it was the high pitch that some of the players couldn't stand! ;-)
But what great results he obtained!
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: