[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
75.18.224.216
In Reply to: RE: well ... posted by TBone on April 16, 2008 at 11:15:53
****got the impression from your post, you claimed that the inherited
"skewed" vinyl deviations (related to tonality) shall remain a constant
that will appease a vinyl luvers bias, regardless of the level of
execution.****
First, I try to stay away from making "claims", because I have no proof. My words are strictly opinions.
I’m not entirely sure what you have said (about what I wrote), but I will attempt to respond. First, “tonality” is another word that is not part of my regular vocabulary so I was not referring to that, per se. But if I understand you correctly changing/altering sound qualities of a specific vinyl rig, in a clearly audible way, is fairly easy to do. One can change cartridge loading from 100 ohms to 1000 ohms, for example. Or change the phono line stage, or switch out the step up transformer, or add a step up transformer, or replace a Chinese tube type, with a different Russian tube type, switch from a Denon DL103 to a Koetsu Black, etc. The combination of changes to any specific rig is almost endless and quite fluid. I (personally) would not use the word “constant” to describe this scenario.
***perhaps I was "skewed" when I read
your post?***
I’m not sure. By “skewed” I mean “distorted” as compared to the true value or in this case the original sound. It has been my experience that vinyl/rigs (I own one), due in large part to the undeniably skewing process of the RIAA procedure (the most sever in audio?), but also due to the almost endless input choices available to vinyl devotee in shaping the sound that he or she wants for their specific rigs. This makes, in my opinion, vinyl an a extremely poor reference standard except to the format itself.
****live music is rarely without its own issues.****
I agree completely. Using live music as the reference is fraught with its own problems. But while some audiophiles use a particular component such as vinyl, years ago I chose (not necessarily conscientious decision) to use live music as my reference, perhaps to a fault. You do the best you can.
For one thing, for me, using "live" as my reference is far more accessible than comparing components. I would wager that I have the opportunity to attend more live concerts than most audiophiles have the opportunity to compare components. So, it is simply easier (for me) using “live” as a reference and a concept I can more readily grasp. Over the years I have learned (still learning a tremendous amount) to parse many of the differences and variables that differentiate live music from recorded music and which make those comparisons difficult.
One conclusion, though, is almost unmistakable, in my opinion. That is, that multi-channel SACD has a far greater potential in bridging the huge gap between recorded and live music when compared to vinyl (or most any two-channel I have heard) even factoring in the live music issues you accurately describe.
Robert C. Lang
Follow Ups:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]