|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
100.33.132.82
This is a documentary about a British enthusiast "fair" that specializes in vintage audio.
lots of cool equipment to see. I think many people would get a kick out of it, it is about 15 minutes.
Follow Ups:
Wow! I always wanted to visit England. Now I am thinking I should time it with that show. I really don't get a chance to see much British gear (outside of my listening room!) and I think I would enjoy seeing the stuff that doesn't get across the pond. However, what struck me most about the the video was how laid back they were about the hobby. There was no dogma or arrogance, they were just telling you about an economical and practical way to enjoy you music with great sound quality. That is an attitude worth emulating!
Dave
I've been to England a number of times. Mainly for Fanderson conventions. Local version of a SciFi convention. The people are wonderful and the scenery is breathtaking. The people there REALLY get into their hobbies.
I once took a tour of Windsor Castle. In one display room there was a stereo that either it was King George the 6th or Edward the 8th had. The little placard described that the King was also an audiophile.
To quote a great American philosopher "It's good to be the King".
M.Brooks
Hey,Airtime. Never realized you were a sci-fi fan. I just found a really cool novel that the library has classified as a thiller. Written by John Sandford and Ctein, it's called Saturn Run, and is real science for almost all the book. The reviews on it are terrible; because the reviewers don't have the background.
My wife likes Sandford mystery novels; but gave it to me after she couldn't handle the science and engineering. I loved it, and understood everything! Been many years since I worked for NASA; but all the basic technology came back.
Jerry
My mother's maiden name was Buckingham, so there is some heritage there. I definitely want to visit.
Dave
Going to England is easier than going to Florida. You get off the plane and there is a cab "Q" right out side the door. At the Q there will be a person that will get the cab and set your price before you set foot inside the cab. Or you can just go to the "tube" and it will take you pretty much anywhere in London if your up for it after an all night flight.
I love going to London. We usually stay at the Royal Garden just behind Kensington Palace and Hyde Park. Yeag where William and Kate live.
I love going to Tower Castle. There is one tiny room in the tower that was the "Kings" toilet. Or a hole in the wall. You look at this rock and open air hole and all you can imagine is that Kings dating from 1066 sat their frozen arses on this rock and did their business. It's an amazing sensation to be standing in a building that was built a 1000 years ago. Also Westminster Abby is my favorite haunt as well. Another 1000 year old building where you can stand on the graves of Sir Issac Newton or Charles Darwin. Yeah not so smart now with my foot on your grave are ya!
In a 1000 years I will be lucky to be reduced to a few bytes on a database.
I've been to Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Turks and Caicos and the Dominican Republic. It can't be more difficult than that. I really enjoy museums and historic places, so I am sure that I would love it. I probably would try to go to Scotland too. My grandmother's maiden name is McPherson.
Dave
I was married in Turks and Caicos back in 1991 before it became developed. Now it looks like south Florida. We were married at the Club Med on 7 mile beach.
If you go to London save the British Museum for last. And take an entire day for Westminster Abby. And read as much as you can before going there. The history there is amazing!!!!!!!
Like I said the most surreal sensation I ever had was standing in the kings crapper !!!! Soooooo this is where William the Conqueror read the Ye Olde Daily Rag???
I think it was around 2002 when I was in Turks and Caicos. I went with my future wife to a wedding. The priest offered to marry us too. I proposed to my wife a week after we got back. It was still pretty undeveloped when I was there. I did not know it became developed. What a shame! It was charming.
Westminster Abby and the British Museum will definitely be on the itinerary. I will have to see the kings crapper now too!
Dave
The last time I was there they put some stupid wood bench across it to make it "presentable". But before they did that you could actually see the wear on the stone from "over use". It was hard to believe that Henry the 8th actually used this!!!!
Plan a full day for the Abby and a full day for the Tower of London. go off season like in October. The crowds thin out. The Tower is nice and you can take a walk by the Thames and then across Tower Bridge. One time when we went the room that held the Royal Jewels was empty. It was me and one or two other people in there. But I'm sure there were like 50 cameras on me watching. Those jewels are SO large they don't even look real. A diamond that is as big as a door knob.
That off season tip sounds like a good idea. Airfare will probably be cheaper.
Dave
Dave,
You have to go! My wife and I have been there several times, and I was there several times on business. If we had a long business trip with a weekend in the middle we'd arrange our itinerary to go to London for the weekend. We've been out to Bath and Stonehenge, and once took a tour that went by bus to Hampton Palace, and then further up the Thames by river boat to Windsor Castle. Lots of photo ops.
London has endless things to see. If you have the time, try Madam Tussaud's Wax Museum. Just be aware that the figures may not be accurate for height. Sylvester Stallone is a bigger man in London than he is in the USA by maybe 5". An awesome theater district. If you're into WWII history, there's the War Cabinet rooms, and a very nice museum on the south side of London dedicated to WW II.
McPherson? Sounds Scottish; but one of my ancestors was a Finley, also a Scots name; but they moved to Ireland in the 1600's, so it's really Scotch-Irish. We only found that out in the last few years.
With a Buckingham in the family, you need to visit the Buckingham Palace. You can go for a tour if the Family isn't home; but if they are, you can only go to the gift shop and stand outside the gates to watch the Changing of the Guard. Go while you can and are in good health.
Jerry
You guys are doing a great job of convincing me to go to London. Yes, Jerry, I am into WWII history. Now to convince the wife!
Dave
Thanks. What a healthy organization and range of gear. Not enough attention to speakers, but otherwise well worth about 15 minutes.
One of the persons interviewed made a very simple quick comment that really rings true.
"New gear has improved in technology but it's just not very musical."
Something that I've been finding to be all too true. Plugged in my new NAD C275BEE. Man that think is sharp clean and bouncy. What could be so wrong?? Put the Sherwood back in and it's music. Sweet soothing music.
The only new piece I find to try and keep the music still a priority is my Marantz PM8004. Still very musical.
Charles,
You comment on "sounding musical" made me remember something.
A good while back, I posted here about the Audiophile Checklist approach. Clarity? Check, Wide soundstage? Check, Solid low bass?, check. The point is we all have these characteristics we look for; but it diverts us from listening holistically. We should try to forget the checklist, and just sit back and listen to the overall sound - the music. Does it bring pleasure, or do you starting picking it apart - detail by detail.
I wish I could remember who I'm quoting; but years ago, a wise man said something to the effect: Since, with only two channels, it is impossible to recreate a live performance in the home; the best we can do is to create the aesthetic equivalent in the home. That's good advice! It also doesn't fit well with the Check List approach.
I think designers of the past were more interested in the aesthetic equivalence than they were the High End Checklist.
My test is whether I fall asleep after a while. I take it as a sign that the experience relaxes me.
Jerry
We should try to forget the checklist, and just sit back and listen to the overall sound - the music.
If you recall, we recently had a discussion where you indicated the engineer in you wanted to know exactly why two preamps delivered difference perceived bass response, yet measured similarly. That seems to me to be an example of an inquisitive "checklist" approach. Which factor is responsible? Was it truly frequency response? Phase linearity? Power supply stiffness?
In this case, however, you seem to take the opposite tack. Why spend time analyzing which factors in musical reproduction affect the "holistic" effect, right?
I guess my approach lies somewhere in the middle. :)
My test is whether I fall asleep after a while.
My test is a bit different. On many an occasion while listening to HP's systems, I found myself laughing out loud at how remarkably realistic the result was! I simply couldn't believe how the walls disappeared and how deeply I got lost into the music!
It's hard to separate the two approaches. I'd have to say though, that my inquiry into why the preamps sound different isn't a check list approach in my opinion. Instead, it's the engineer (or the physicist) doing his thing. A kind of reverse engineering in this case. But a similar process to what the designer does along the way to bring a product to fruition. Quite different than the kind of rhetoric you find in Stereophile reviewer's comments where they dissect the sound of a product. Stuff like: this product is not as liquidly transparent in the highs as my reference system, and the midrange is a bit too forward and lacks the micro dynamics of the XYZ system. That's the Audiophile Checklist.
Jerry
Perhaps we'll just agree to disagree.Quite different than the kind of rhetoric you find in Stereophile reviewer's comments...
I don't find that to be the case at all. Let's dissect your examples:
this product is not as liquidly transparent in the highs as my reference system,
Translation: Why does the high frequency reproduction of A not provide the same resolution and ability to recreate the recorded space as component B?
Seems to be exactly the same question you posed only at the opposite end of the spectrum. The same could be said for your other examples of midrange clarity and ability to handle micro dynamics.
We had another conversation about my current Crown amp here . I raised the same observations where the Crown is superior to the NAD in the midrange, but fails at the top. Similarly, what surprised me most when I got the Audio Research SP20 preamp was how well it delineated the lower end of the dynamic range scale. I'd never thought about that before until the difference was put in my face. Is that because it has a stiffer power supply than 100 watt amplifiers? Dunno. But it works.
Edits: 09/15/16
I think we may have to do that- agree to disagree.
I see my case as different from your example - it's the difference between objective and subjective.
Jerry
"As in: why do two preamps that measure the same for frequency response and output impedance have noticeably different low bass with the same power amp and speakers? No problem hearing the difference; but I'd like to know why."
I guess I just find your "hearing the difference" as an observation in conflict with the objective.
"I think designers of the past were more interested in the aesthetic equivalence than they were the High End Checklist."
I think that Henry Kloss was more interested in the aesthetic experience. That's why the KLH Six was one of my favorite speakers of all time.
I agree. The problem is that it takes a lot of listening to ascertain that a pice of equipment gives you the "aesthetic equivalence". As you have posted many times, it is really the system that gives it to you. One weak link and you are SOL. I agree that falling asleep is a good criteria, but not the only one. For me it is when I forget about the sound and concentrate on the music.
Dave
Dave,
Yes, that too. Also, there are aspects of system performance, such as the "perspective". If I close my eyes in a darkened room and listen to the performance, is it a case of "they are here", or "I am there"? In the latter, the end wall of my room falls away, and I am looking out into the performance space - as if in a theater box. That seems to work for all kinds of music. In the "they are here" situation, the musicians appear to be in the room, in or near the plane of the speakers. That works for somebody accompanying themselves on a guitar, or a string trio; but it's a big leap of imagination to believe the Chicago Symphony has crammed themselves into my room. My brain rejects that, and the illusion falls apart.
I guess what I'm getting at here is the believability of the illusion your system creates. That's a holistic experience, and very much a product of the overall system and room.
Jerry
I have a few new pieces. When I use them I can hear background instruments, spacial placements, dark silent background, dynamics both macro and micro, bla bla bla. All technically very good.
But when I use my Sherwood I simply "feel" music and that inner feeling of just how beautiful this piece of music IS. A tonal quality of the music.
Now both pieces SHOULD be replicating the source material with little distortion - buuuuut.
Like looking at a winters night star. Admiring the blackness and beauty or just considering its nuclear fusion phase and energy output
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: