|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.7.107.85
It seems to me that Diana Krall CD recordings on the Impulse! and GRP Records labels are in polarity but inverted on the Verve label which includes "Diana Karall Live in Paris."
George S. Louis
Follow Ups:
Patricia Barber, as well, thanks.
IMO, Amanda McBroom is one of the most under-appreciated singers of our time. She sings with an expressiveness and dynamic range that to me is once-in-a-lifetime.
One need not be an audiophile to appreciate the McBroom/Mayorga "Growing Up in Hollywood Town" (Sheffield)..... The music is downright haunting on this album.
...I actually saw her perform live in the late 1980s in a small club in SF at a concert sponsored by Monster Cable.Other than her version of "The Rose", her music is mostly forgettable IMO.
I much prefer Diana Krall.
Hey, I was there that nite too, Mike, sorry I missed you.
Paul Stubblebine of Rocket Labs did a live recording of Amanda on that occasion, but the tapes were unusuable due to noise and distortion in the recording chain.
Ms McBroom was graciously signing autographs for some time after the show.
I got one!
seems a damn shame to me.
mikel
really.
"It seems to me that Diana Krall CD recordings on the Impulse! and GRP Records labels are in polarity but inverted on the Verve label which includes "Diana Karall Live in Paris."
I am curious whether you actually measured the Lissajous to determine whether the polarity was inverted. Trying to do this "by ear" is very suspect. I know others will disagree, but the audibility of this difference is very slight (if it exists at all).
Was this measured?
Looking at Lissajous figures only gives me a peep at the relative phase between the two channels, nothing absolute about it. What am I missing?
Rick
Rip the same track from each CD to a separate computer file. Then open each file with an audio editor. You will be able to look at the actual waveform and after zooming in on the waveform down at the level of individual samples it will be immediately obvious whether the polarity is the same or reversed.
Tony Lauck
"Perception, inference and authority are the valid sources of knowledge" - P.R. Sarkar
Didn't think of that. I just figured that it would be fairly easy to find a visually distinctive transient looking at the waveform. Actually telling if two otherwise identical instances are inverted from one another seems rather trivial.
It's not clear to me if the OP is referring to multiple instances of the same recordings or just different performances by the same artist. Since I have no interest in his opinions on the matter I seldom read his posts but the mention of using a Lissajous figure to measure it caught my eye.
Rick
While it's easy to compare two versions of the same recording, it would be much more interesting to be able to tell from looking at a waveform whether the music would sound better one way or the other. Unfortunately, there are conflicting clues in waveforms: initial transients, positive/negative peaks, periodic asymmetric waveforms all provide clues, but they are not consistent, and I have found no simple way to tell which polarity is going to sound best except by listening (and even then it is not always reliable). I didn't try to write any DSP software. Perhaps it could be done.
There has been some work on automatic recognition of speech polarity. This is an easier problem than a typical music recording which has lots of reverberation and multiple instrument types, some of which have no preferred orientation. (For example, bipolar radiators such as kick drums will have different polarity according to their orientation to the microphone.)
There are devices used by radio stations to flip polarity automatically so that signal peaks are maximized in the positive direction. This enables AM stations to transmit at higher power without overmodulation. There are devices that rotate polarity 90 degrees at all frequencies and these completely eliminate any audible polarity. I believe these can improve the "punch" of FM stations. These 90 degree rotators are called "Hilbert Transformers" and are used in some single sideband radio transmitters.
Tony Lauck
"Perception, inference and authority are the valid sources of knowledge" - P.R. Sarkar
Oh, are you ever dating yourself (and me too) as it's been many a decade since SSB was done with baseband phase-shift networks. I'm thinking about your AM comment, it would at least give you a higher average power simply due to the asymmetrical modulation. But back to audio...
I suspect that there isn't a singular answer to the polarity question. It may be a combination of the recording techniques interacting with the user's speakers and the user's brain. You well know the positions:
-It's hogwash.
-It should be a systematically controlled parameter.
-Just give me a button and shut up.
And their vocal advocates. I fall somewhere in the latter two.
Having not seriously looked into it I don't really know just how much variations in loudspeakers affect our perception of polarity but I think quite a lot. If there was enough consistency among loudspeakers and in recording techniques it would seem a tractable issue. Lacking that the button becomes best and a bright button that remembers our druthers, brilliant.
Must be bedtime, alliteration is settling in...
Rick
The claim is that CD "A" is inverted in polarity re: CD "B". So of course you would not be setting up a trace between the left and right channels of the same CD.
Rather you be setting up the trace between left channel on "A" vs left channel on "B". Yes this would require synch'ing them or perhaps to copy them digitally to adobe audition or something similar. Inverted polarity (180 deg out of phase) is rather easy to see.
I am questioning whether some claiming that something is inverted in polarity is actually measuring theis physically or trying to do it "by ear". The later method is very suspect, especially in this instance.
I agree.
The point that I was attempting to make is that Lissajous figures are useless unless you have both the output and input signals available and are running a single frequency tone. Real phase, as opposed to "absolute phase" AKA polarity is only defined for a single frequency.
I've not had occasion to do so but I think you are correct that polarity would be easy to see by comparing two files with an editor. I simply made a CD-R with an asymmetrical squarewave on it and use it to check for player inversions. So far all the computers and players, at least in this room are the same but that's a rather small sample.
Ear-wise, I frequently find that the polarity can make the difference between enjoying and tolerating many recordings. In this case, "correct" is clearly the one I like the best since I listen for pleasure.
Rick
".....
The point that I was attempting to make is that Lissajous figures are useless unless you have both the output and input signals available and are running a single frequency tone. Real phase, as opposed to "absolute phase" AKA polarity is only defined for a single frequency.
...."
Rick, I don't have time to go through this right now, but you have made at least 3 incorrect statements. I don't have time to go through this right now, but I did not want others to get confused by what you said.
Anyhow Lissajous traces can be quite useful, and I really do not think the original poster was making a statement based on a physical measure.
All the huffing and puffing on this subject has produced nothing but three bickering camps: Those who hear it, those who don’t, and those who don’t care. Whether you hear it or not, absolute phase/polarity (AP) is a real acoustic phenomenon that can be observed/measured. Just look at the groove modulations on an LP and the AP is easy to see. The AP of a CD is even easier to observe; computationally, of course, not visually.
If georgelouis can make a CD duplicator that realigns the overtones of the recorded sound without changing a single bit, he can easily make one that corrects the AP of each track, also without changing a single bit. All he has to do is change the name of his RealityCheck CD duplicator to PolarityCheck. I’m sure ClarkJohnson will hype this product just like he did the last one.
After that, georgelouis can market the exact same CD duplicator under the name PitchCheck. As the name implies, PitchCheck undoes the damage done by pitch correction, also without changing a single bit. Thus, by merely changing the name of the product, the same CD duplicator can cure every real or imagined aberration in the audio world.
Please, get out an but some new release music. Not piece of shit jazz cover artists and never ending re-issues.
Band's like Arcade Fire, Burial, MGMT, Portishead, Radiohead, Beck, Air and so many more band's it is not funny.
you would fare better there. her live in paris and later music is just fine thank you.
previous to that, everything was too polished. girl in the other room, temptation in particular, is quite competent jazz singing/playing. her playing is right up there.
bash away, she will be there when the smoke clears, just like leno!
now if you wanna get bored, try jane monheit.
...regards...tr
John Clayton was masterful on "Temptation".
john had a radio show on kkjz.org and was a joy to hear speak. i would love to meet him. a possibility here in LA.
...regards...tr
of listening to all of From This Moment On in a system featuring Wilson MAXX II. Early Saturday morning at a retail shop and I was left alone to enjoy it.There are some excellent big band arrangements on that CD, powerful stuff. I'm also very partial to the arrangement of "How Insensitive" on that CD, very nice. The whole thing is a knock out IMHO.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
The two SACDs I tried of hers were only fair sonically, I could name 100's of recordings that could be used as demo material, "The Girl In the Other Room" or "When I Look In Your Eyes" would not come even close.
Who are these people using Diana Krall as demo material so I won't waste my time reading their equipment reviews?
Just my experiences and opinions, yours may be different,
Teresa
recording quality is secondary always. the production of live from paris by al schmitt is unparalleled. the music is divine. anthony wilson was a superior choice of guitarist here as on all her other recordings with him. temptation on girl in the other room is likewise well done and performed and therefore great demo material.
for demo material to gel for me is to first have me like the music being played. the sound of the instruments and voice will elucidate the sound of the equipment.
if i never hear another note by amanda mc broom, i will be happy!
...regards...tr
I don't recall customers bringing Diana Krall recordings into a store for demo material, but I do recall on quite a few occasions salespeople selecting Diana Krall to demo audio products for customers who didn't bring their own demo material.......
I get your point Shane but if some folks like Diana Krall so be it. Personally her music bores me to tears and I can't listen to more than one or two tracks before I shut it down. I think I own one Diana Krall CD and it's lost somewhere in the basement. No loss.
I just love it when some "audiophool" brings some simple female vocal tracks for a system audition. Just about any HiFi will sound wonderful with female vocals and a couple basic instruments playing softly in the background. Heck, my transistor radio from the 1970's can even sound pretty decent with this "audiophool approved" audition music. ;-)
In my book, the real test is how well the system holds up playing Joe Satriani whaling loud on his electric guitar WITHOUT sounding congested. Diana Krall my crotch! A little SET flea amp or my transistor radio sounds fine with this polite girly music. ;-)
...does here on "I've Got You Under My Skin" from her CD, "When I Look In Your Eyes".
It's she and her piano, with her combo, backed by an orchestra - one of my favorite audition cuts.
Can your system create the soundstage depth, width, separation, air, overtones and sparkle on this cut?
Massed strings sound edgy or smooth?
How about her voice - is it focused and nuanced?
And how does that piano sound? Tinkly or coherent like a live instrument?
Your Thiels and Manleys shouldn't have a problem...
I'm poking a little fun to get a rise from the peanut gallery. ;-)
But my main point is that it makes me chuckle when someone brings a simple female vocal with a couple backup instruments for a system audition. This isn't very taxing on the system so even a flea power amp or a boombox will sound OK with this "polite girly music".
I'm not familiar with "I've Got You Under My Skin" or "When I Look In Your Eyes" but if it's complex and taxing on the electronics, that should make for good system audition material.
...as you too will probably recall, in the 1980s, that female vocal was a good demo to hear brightness/sibilance in the upper midrange, and all too common failing of loudspeakers.
Today perhaps not so much.
Hmmm... while pondering what else to say I realized that says it all!
LOL
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
.
I don't really mind her THAT much. (I guess I just don't like her image and her music puts me to sleep).
What I get frustrated with is the "top 50 audiophile CDs" that every travelling audiophile has in their magic disc pouch.
Gets a little boring.
Then again, if all you use music for is testing equipment then I guess the familiarity is a good thing. I think it has to do with "Hey, look, I use the right equipment, and I play the right music too."
The music seems to be as much of a status symbol as a lot of the equipment is.
Cheers,
Presto
...people who feel superior and are condescending about other's tastes in music - and equipment - is what's wrong with audio today.
It doesn't matter what someone's tastes in music are - could be country or even (shudder) hip-hop - as long as they are passionate about it and buy equipment that allows them to heighten their enjoyment of it.
As far as Diana Krall goes, she is an excellent painist, is beautiful, and uses unique phrasing that makes every one of her song interpretations unique. Like her or not, she is a very popular artist.
Add to that the excellent recording quality of most of her discs and it's no surprise they are so often found in audio circles.
Personally, I appreciate her music but prefer it for auditioning equipment and for background music during dinner, in the bedroom, etc.
The bands you named are new and mostly cutting edge, but will anyone even remember most of their names in 10 years? Glad you like them.
I suspect Diana Krall will still be around then. Different strokes...
There's far too much condescension on this board. I own a Diana Krall: Girl in the Other Room SACD which IMO is a very well conceived, recorded and performed album.
Len
and many of their fans are perfectly happy with this. DK strikes me as one who liked the style of music she sings a lot and learned how to imitate it very well, but cannot get to the level where it seems to come from the heart like Billy, Ella, Eva, etc. The greats each have a style all their own and their songs seem to come from their hearts.
The assumption your own listening preferences are somehow inherently superior is simply appalling. While I agree that the number of covers, rather than new music, can be discouraging, you obviously have never heard Krall's " The Girl in the Other Room " , a highly personal tale of her mother's death and her home in British Columbia. IMO ( see, I didn't say the *right opinion*) excellent in every way including sound quality.
I've tried Arcade Fire's latest- very, IMO, indie artist meets strange frontier but if this is your standard I can't imagine you liking the vast majority of modern releases in any genre - which is quite alright you but leaves you way short as a music critic for the rest of us.
Where did I say my listening preferences were superior.
That is crap and you know it.
All I said was get out of your comfort zone and but some new music, not re-issues.
Bizzare, It is fine for gents here to crap on equipment saying how bad or good it is, but mention Diana Krall in a negative way and you are personally attacking the listener. Ohh please get over yourselves.
You said: "Where did I say my listening preferences were superior."
In the original post your direct statement was "piece of shit jazz cover artists..."
I'd suggest that strongly conveys a certain sense of superiority on your part when it comes to your preference in music.
Krall has her following as well as her detractors. Every artist, alive or dead, has listeners who don't care for them. Read a bit of history and you'll find critics who said "Vivaldi didn't write 450 concertos, he wrote one concerto 450 times." Rossini said "Berlioz is a regular freak without a vestige of talent." Or Tchaikovsky about Richard Strauss: "Such an astounding lack of talent was never before united to such pretentiousness." Tchaikovsky also did not like Brahms whom he called "... a giftless bastard! It irritates me that this self-conscious mediocrity should be recognized as a genius."
You can repeat the above sentiments about any performer, including the ones you worship.
Time will tell what the world thinks of your guys 50 or 100 years from now. ;-)
I'm a jazz fan and I haven't heard every jazz album in existence, so if I buy a reissue it's actually new music as far as I'm concerned. Yes it wasn't recorded yesterday but that doesn't make it any better or worse musically, it just makes it enjoyable or not. I don't understand why reissues are to be frowned upon. Obviously I also buy a lot of new jazz as well, mainly from Scandinavian or European bands these days but again, if the music is new to me and of great quality then I don't care if it's 3 months old or 50 years old.
Cheers,
Craig.
heh Craig, how you doing
nothing wrong with re-issues and jazz if you don't have the album in the first place. It is buying the same re-issue of albums you all ready have and not venturing out to buy other albums. I have bought some nice Nina Simone re-issues lately.
My whole point is that we should all (me included) buy some new music that is out of our general comfort zone and not necessarily audiophile approved.
that a persons tastes are inviolate.........
Rodney Gold
But she is still a decent singer and decent piano player.And she's far from the only white singer into one SSSSLLLLLOOOOWWWW ballad after another.
The first Diana Krall song I heard was a medium-speed swinging vocal included on a swing jazz CD compilation before she was well known.
Maybe from her first or second CD.I've never heard another Krall song since that one, with that kind of energy ... or any energy!
I have the Krall Live in Paris CD. which is livelier than the studio CDs I've heard, but still not something I listen to more than once a year.
My favorite singer in the early 1990's, k. d. lang, who can sing rings around Diana Krapp, also moved toward the one slow ballad after another genre.
One slow ballad from k. d. may be great ... but a whole album of them, or a whole live concert of them that I suffered through, is just plain boring ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
I could say the same about Patricia Barber, who I also saw in concert, although her jazz combo sounded very good when she wasn't singing.
Unfortunately, the alternative to one slow ballad after another may be the Whitney Houston /Mariah Carey "braying diva" vocal histrionics that are even worse than Diana Krapp
Krapp, however, has great legs, at least what I saw of them on the cover of one of her most (otherwise) boring albums.
That counts for something in my book.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
"The Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
nt
A perfect example of why mothers shouldn't use crack while pregnant.
.
...after a potentially libelous statement like that, the onus is on you to prove Diana Krall's mother took crack while pregnant.
First of all, what specifically is wrong about audiophiles? And how does this "wrong" manifest itself in listening to Diana Krall?? (Maybe I'll learn something.)
Never heard of MGMT before..... So we should dump Krall for this stuff......
Nothing, I am an audiophile, however a music lover first.
there are many great band's out there. They don't all sound nice like Dianna, but that is part of the luv of music, not equipment which is what this seems to be a discussion more about.
cheers
Maybe - if music is just another extreme sport.
Some of us have more refined tastes. And we're not INTO the thrash-band du-jour. Now I'm not saying that DK is any great hell - they play her music in mental institutions because then they don't have to dumb everyone down with as much Thorazine. She's the jazz equivalent of Enya who I also like - for curing panic attacks and putting children to sleep. I like music that is engaging - not necessarily sedative. If I want sedative I'll just go back to drinking.
But this idea that you love music and everyone else does not because they like Krall and not your garage-band stuff is just silly bordering on narcissistic.
Get over yourself dude.
Cheers,
Presto
"They don't all sound nice like Dianna, but that is part of the luv of music, not equipment which is what this seems to be a discussion more about."So you're implying that people listen to Diana because of their equipment rather than the music?
I personally do not recall one instance of someone into audio for the equipment rather than the music.
People take offense to someone grandstanding about his "love of music" while citing that others somehow lack such quality. Especially if musical preferences are involved in such citation. To me, this is worse than telling someone "your favorite music sucks" (as what someone else here pointed out), in questioning their musical tastes ("everything wrong about audiophiles" because they like Diana Krall's music) as well.
Love the MGMTs, Santogold, Adele AND Diana Krall, Patricia Barber and Portico Quartet, Anthony and the Johnsons and Zeppelin.
Can't we all just love ALL music and forget about equipment.
Call me a w....ker if you want.
cheers
and it is Ok. But I know too many audiophiles who have a whole collection of Krall, Barber and alike but nothing else.
I agree we shou,d start to listen to all types of music.
Shane you really shouldn't be disrespecting somebody else's choices in music! Everyone has the right to like any style music, played on any type of audio equipment they enjoy listening to.
Some people prefer tubes to solid state, triodes to ultralinear, analog to digital, digital to analog or even convenience over obtaining the last bit musicality from their system. Some people like Jazz, some don't consider Smooth Jazz to be Jazz. Another person love's Smooth Jazz and doesn't like traditional Jazz and so on. Are any of those choices ultimately right or wrong?
***Remember*** Shane if YOUR system allows YOU to enjoy listening to Miles Davis, Kenny G, Bach, Yanni, Johnny Cash, Marvin Gaye or Snoop Dog, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks or says. In the end we're all striving for the same thing, which is to end up with a audio system that gets out of the way of the music and allows us to enjoy listening the music we so dearly love!
Thetubeguy1954
Rational Subjectivism. It's An ACquired Taste.
"everything"? Really? C'mon, lots of people like what she does. She's no Billie Holiday or Diana Reeves, but neither is she the worst offender out there. I don't see how it helps to suggest that people who like female jazz vocalists should listen to Radiohead. Your comment reminds me of my favorite t-shirt from The Onion:
Most audiophiles like Diana more for the so called great sound quality first than any musical or songwriting ability.
This has nothing to do with you band is better than my band crap.
My only point is to get out an buy some different music, rather than every 3rd post from an audiophile is crapping on about Dianna krall.
She sounds like a modern Jazz singer to me. I had a few of her SACDs, nothing special musically or sonically. Maybe you are thinking of Patricia Barber's SACDs on Mobile Fidelity. I do like her recordings and they sound very nice as well.
But I don't like Dianna Krall musically or sonically. So I am extremely confused by your statement that audiophiles listen to her for the sound quality as the sound quality is only fair at best.
Real audiophiles listen to great jazz and classical on 180 Gram LPs and SACDs. It cannot be audiophiles listening to her for the sound quality. Based on the recordings of Dianna Krall I've heard you would actually have to like her singing to be able to listen to her.
Also I do not believe that audiophiles exist that listen only to sound quality and not to the music, I believe this is a false assumption. Audiophiles foremost love music but they want the best sound available. So in short you owe audiophiles an apology buy grouping them with Dianna Krall lovers, these are entirely two different groups of people!
Just my experiences and opinions, yours may be different,
Teresa
I needed a hearty "guffaw" this morning! My God, up until a few minutes ago I thought you were actually serious (as well as self-righteous and delusional), but now I realize that a certain percentage of your posts are quite tongue-in-cheek, this being one of them, and for that I applaud your rather dry sense of humor!
You're funny!
Jim
> Real audiophiles listen to great jazz and classical on 180 Gram LPs and SACDs. It cannot be audiophiles listening to her for the sound quality.>
Yes, it can be audiophiles listening to her for sound quality.
> Real audiophiles listen to great jazz and classical on 180 Gram LPs and SACDs.>
...guess I don't qualify.
LOL!
I am currently working on a list of 100 recommended SACDs with mini reviews for PFO. I also have a list of recommended audiophile LPs and labels if you want to try some realistic sounding recordings correctly made.
And you will not find Diana Krall on either one of these lists, as I have said her recordings do not sound good enough and are NOT audiophile recordings.
Just my experiences and opinions, yours may be different,
Teresa
> Also I do not believe that audiophiles exist that listen only to sound quality and not to the music, I believe this is a false assumption. <
Huh?!?!?!
As usual, you have your head up your a*&.
Oz
I have heard rumors but I have never met such a odd person. I think people listen to music they like and if they are audiophiles they try to get the best sound possible.So I believe 100% of the people who listen to Diana Krall do so because they like her. You do know she performs live as well? Are the people in the audience also listening to sound not music? My thoughts are they actually paid their money to hear one of their favorite singers. Wound you pay good money to see someone you do not like?
Sometimes when someone does not like the music another person is playing they often accuse it of being "audiophile" music and somehow not real music, especially if that music is easy listening. This is totally childish and false IMHO! It's just another way people belittle the style of music another person likes.
Another false assumption is that music has to sound poor in order to be a great performance, and great sounding music has to be either a poor and mediocre performance. While both of these can be true, music can be both great sounding and a great performance.
The honest thing to do is what I have done if you don't like a performer just come right out and say you don't like a performer. Don't claim people listen to the performer just for the sound. This is just outright silly. As much as I dislike Diana Krall, people that like her, like her because of her music.
Just my experiences and opinions, yours may be different,
Teresa
You really are getting worse Teresa.
A real 'music enthusiast' as opposed to an 'audiophile' will listen to music on a crackling, bedraggled cassette tape and enjoy it if he can't get it on a better format.
If you'd stated that you were replacing all your CDs with equivalent SACDs because you believed SACD to be superior then I'm sure hardly anyone would view this as anything strange, but when when someone who professes to be a massive lover of music makes a blanket statement that ALL CDs are being scrapped regardless of whether replacements are available on SACD it doesn't make sense.
Cassette tapes are usually pretty crappy, as are MP3s and many poorly mastered CDs, but I have many old, battered and abused cassettes of music I don't have on CD and they mostly ROCK!
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
And it's not even an audiophile one, I find cassettes to be a very listenable format at least on my Nakamichi cassette deck in which playback head alignment has been adjusted. I find nearly any analog format comfortable to listen to even when it is not high resolution.My recent venture in redbook CD land was only started because the Yamaha Universal S-1700 I bought two years ago actually took away the pain and stridency in all but the worst sounding CDs. Massed strings and female singers were not longer an attack on the brain but actually resemble somewhat string instruments and the female voice.
But as I said now that I no longer have painful CD playback, it's more or less not really musical as everything on CD just sounds boring and devoid of life. Some people say I need to spend more and more on CD playback but I am not rich and when I can get comfortable realistic sound on my system from everything that is not CD what is the use in trying to make the 40 or so CDs I bought listenable? SACD, DVD-Audio, LP, Cassette and Reel to Reel I find easy to listen to and very musical even on cheap equipment! There is just something that still assaults my ears with CD playback and causes listener fatigue. CD was a mistake IMHO.
You may need to adjust the playback head alignment on your cassette deck, your pre-recorded cassettes should blow away your CDs especially Rock ones in the goose-bump factor alone, and unlike CD you should be able to listen to cassettes for hours and hours on end. Good luck!
With SACD, DVD-Audio, LP, Cassette and Reel to Reel at my beck and call I feel no need to mess around with boring CDs.
BTW I didn't throw away my CDs, I sold them on eBay and Amazon.com, which is where I bought most of them so I didn't loose much money.
Just my experiences and opinions, yours may be different,
Teresa
"You may need to adjust the playback head alignment on your cassette deck, your pre-recorded cassettes should blow away your CDs especially Rock ones in the goose-bump factor alone, and unlike CD you should be able to listen to cassettes for hours and hours on end. Good luck!"
Sometimes I think you're a computer generated programme designed to wind up anyone with a CD player........... :0)
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Care to list the "Diana Krall SACDs" that you had?
;-)
To my knowledge, Diana Krall got started among the audio cognoscenti when some of the Stereophile guys started using one of her recordings -- "Love Scenes" -- to audition equipment and mentioned it in the reviews they wrote.
Whatever one thinks of Diana Krall as a musician (vocal or instrumental), the recording was well done in a technical sense.
AFAIK, by the way, it was released only as a CD.
;-) ;-)
"the audio cognoscenti"????? Stereophile???? not helping the Diana Krall case here.... I think you're proving Teresa's point!
about the SACDs. I just have some of the earlier stuff in RBCD, and then I got tired of it.
my comment about "audiophile cognoscenti" was not about Diana Krall (I happen to enjoy her music, but that's beside the point here). It was concerning Teresa's blanket statement that "Real audiophiles listen to great jazz and classical on 180 Gram LPs and SACDs." (which she amended to include Reel to Reel).
rlindsa - new vinyl freakThere are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats. (Albert Schweitzer)
She has 4 SACDs, none on audiophile labels. All four are on Verve, which I will admit made great recordings in the past, but I've not been to impressed with newer Verve recordings.
The other two SACDs are "The Look of Love" and "Love Scenes". Love Scenes was indeed released on SACD, I almost bought it once at Borders but didn't, I went home and relistened to "When I Look In Your Eyes" and "The Girl in the Other Room" and decided to sell them and listed them on eBay that very day. Good Bye Diana you brought me no joy, and as far as sonics are concerned I could list several 100 SACDs that sound better, for that matter I could list 1,000 LPs that sound better. I don't care what Stereophile says, these are NOT audiophile recordings, not even close!
It's just modern Jazz and I prefer more traditional Jazz.
Just my experiences and opinions, yours may be different,
Teresa
.
Some people think you are a delusional, self proclaimed 'expert' . And others even believe you have become somewhat of a 'joke entity' in AA. But, they are just opinions right?
Sanctimonious.
"So in short you owe [SANCTIMONIOUS] audiophiles an apology buy grouping them with Dianna Krall lovers, these are entirely two different groups of people!"
"But I don't like Dianna Krall musically or sonically. So I am extremely confused by your statement that audiophiles listen to her for the sound quality as the sound quality is only fair at best."
The fact that you don't like someone musically or sonically does not invalidate someone else's likings.
rlindsa - new vinyl freakThere are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats. (Albert Schweitzer)
Sonically her SACDs are so bad they could turn someone completely away from the format! I have no idea how anyone can say any of her 4 SACDs sound decent and keep a straight face?
As far as her singing and piano playing I will just say I do not like it but other people do and to enjoy her music I am sure they overlook the poor sonics. There are artists I like that I have to overlook poor sonics.
Just my experiences and opinions, yours may be different,
Teresa
as for a number of years I have been listening to a lot of music that is on neither 180 gram LPs nor on SACD (I don't even have an SACD player). And all this time I thought I was enjoying the music (and the sound) on these "non-audiophile" media. Guess I was wrong.
Fortunately, we have you to set us all straight on what "real audiophiles" do.
rlindsa - new vinyl freakThere are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats. (Albert Schweitzer)
I don't listen to audiophile labels only, I also listen to other labels. I even have some Deutsche Grammaphon recordings I listen to because of the music not the sonics.
I can overlook poor sonics if the music is good enough. All I am saying is people who love Diana Krall, love her IN SPITE OF the mediocre sonics. With Diana Krall it has to be all about the music and her performances. One either likes them or they don't. I don't!
I still think the original poster has her confused with Patricia Barber whose recordings actually have good to excellent sonics.
Just my experiences and opinions, yours may be different,
Teresa
You said:
"Real audiophiles listen to great jazz and classical on 180 Gram LPs and SACDs."
That means if one never listens to great jazz and classical on 180 Gram LPs and SACDs, one is not a real audiophile.
Is that what you contend? There are two possible answers to that question - "yes" or "no".
rlindsa - new vinyl freakThere are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats. (Albert Schweitzer)
So to rephrase "Real audiophiles listen to great jazz and classical on 180 Gram LPs, SACDs, and/or Analog Reel to Reel tapes" So the answer is yes.
But what does this have to do with Diana Krall's SACDs being just Jazz music and not good sounding recordings? You are going off on a tangent.
I don't listen to audiophile labels only, I also listen to other labels. I even have some Deutsche Grammaphon recordings I listen to because of the music not the sonics.
As I stated I can overlook poor sonics if the music is good enough. All I am saying is people who love Diana Krall, love her IN SPITE OF the mediocre sonics. With Diana Krall it has to be all about the music and her performances. One either likes them or they don't. I don't!
Just my experiences and opinions, yours may be different,
Teresa
and if yours is a representative position, I don't wish to be one.
I'm not going off on a tangent. You made an absolutist statement, I asked you about it, you confirmed it (with a minor expansion to include Reel-to-Reel). Seems like we've covered the topic fully.
rlindsa - new vinyl freakThere are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats. (Albert Schweitzer)
I'm not sure why you are excusing yourself from seeking the best sound you can? What else is there besides audiophile LPs, SACDs and Reel to Reels? Well If you can afford them there are high resolution downloads and there is the promise of high resolution audio only music discs on BluRay.
So if you are rejecting all of this that really only leaves Cassettes which you know I listen to and enjoy and CDs which I don't listen to because I do not enjoy them. I didn't include cassettes, even audiophile cassettes as they have been surpassed by the formats I mentioned.
So what gives?
And still no comment from you on what this sub-thread is really about. Diana Krall's followers have to actually love the music she performs IN SPITE OF the mediocre sonics. Given an example of what audiophiles would listen to was an example not what the thread is about. In short I can't imagine any audiophile would saying a Diana Krall SACD sounds realistic much less be of reference quality. This whole thread is a total joke! PEOPLE LIKE DIANA KRALL BECAUSE THEY LIKE HER MUSIC!!!!!!!!! And that is all I am trying to say!
Just my experiences and opinions, yours may be different,
Teresa
I AM saying that there are also recordings OTHER than 180g LPs, SACDs and Reel-to-Reel that have nice sound, too. Many of my best sounding LPs are not 180g "audiophile" recordings - heck they're not even "audiophile" labels (whatever that means). In fact, of my 1500 or so LPs, I'd guess that fewer than 50 are 180G LPs.
Remember it was you who made the blanket statement "Real audiophiles listen to great jazz and classical on 180 Gram LPs and SACDs." When asked, you added Reel to Reel to the list, and then confirmed that you did in fact mean people who do not listen to 180 Gram LPs, SACDs or Reel to Reel are not "real audiophiles".
Now, re: Diana Krall. I happen to enjoy many of her recordings. Are they my absolute favorites? No. Do I listen to them frequently? No. Is she the only jazz artist I enjoy? Not by a long shot (I have about 300 Jazz LPs from the 50s/60s to current).
Re: the sound quality of Diana Krall recordings. Yes, I actually enjoy the sound on some of them. Are they the best I've ever heard? No. Are they just "mediocre"? Not in my opinion.
Oh, and here are some !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!s for emphasis.
rlindsa - new vinyl freakThere are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats. (Albert Schweitzer)
they like her singing and piano playing NOT because of any perceived sound quality her recordings may or may not have!I still consider it an insult to call her recordings audiophile recordings.
And if some time in the future Diana Krall makes a realistic sounding recording on an audiophile label I will never know as I wouldn't purchase it because I don't like Diana Krall's singing voice. As strange as the concept sounds to some I prefer great sounding music from performers I love!
So you do own audiophile recordings. Well as noted I also own non-audiophile recordings, but I would never confuse the two.
FYI here is a list of some of my favorite audiophile labels:
2L
Analogue Productions
AudioQuest Music
AudioSource
BIS
Café Records
Cardas Records
Century Records
Chesky Records
Cisco Music
Classic Records
Crystal Clear Records
DCC Compact Classics
Delos
East Wind
Groove Note
Klavier Records
Linn Records
Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab
Naim
Opus 3
Reference Recordings
Sheffield Lab
Speakers Corner
Super Analogue Disc
Tacet
Telarc
Wilson Audiophile
Just my experiences and opinions, yours may be different,
Teresa
Yes, I own some of the labels in your list. Of the ones I do own, some of them make my "top 30" sonically, but most do not.Of my collection of 1500 or so LPs, here is what to my ears are the best sonically (by which I mean the most realistic sounding to me, without artificial emphasis or bombast). SOME ARE EVEN MONO - OH THE HORRORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Make that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Rampal, Jean Pierre Rampal Plays Bach RCA CRL3-5820
Starker, Janos Suites for Unaccompanied Cello Mercury (Speakers Corner) SR3-9016
Bernstein, Leonard Rhapsody in Blue and An American In Paris Columbia MS6091
Richter, Sviatoslav Liszt Concerto No. 1, Concerto No. 2 Philips 6880 046
Columbia Symphony Orchestra (Walter) Mahler Symphony No. 1, "Titan" CBS 37235
Moscow Philharmonic (Kondrashin) Mahler Symphony No. 1, "Titan" Melodiya/Quintessence PMC-7144
Amadeus Quartet Mozart The Great String Quartets Deutsche Grammophon 2720 055
Moscow Philharmonic Orchestra Mozart Symphony No. 41 in C major, K. 551 ("Jupiter") and No. 39 in E-flat major, K. 543 Melodiya 33 C 01515-16
Janis, Byron and Moscow Philharmonic Orchestra (Kondrashin) Prokofieff/Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto No. 3/Piano Concerto No. 1 Mercury SR90300
Minneapolis Symphony (Dorati) Rimsky-Korsakov Scheherazade Mercury SR90195
Moscow Philharmonic (Kondrashin) Shostakovich Symphony No. 5 Melodiya R 40004
Rozhdestvensky/USSR Bolshoi Theatre Orchestra Tchaikovsky Nutcracker Melodiya 33CO169
Wiener Philharmoniker (Abbado)) Tchaikovsky Symphonie Nr. 4 Deutsche Grammophon 2530 651
Concentus Musicus Wien (Harnoncourt) Telemann Darmstadt Overtures Musical Heritage 827515W Quite possibly my best sounding LP
Goossens, Sir Eugene (LSO) Various Respighi, Feste Romane; Rachmaninov, Symphonic Dances Op. 45 Everest LPBR-6004
Kubelik, Rafael (Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra) An Evening with the Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra Deutsche Grammophon 2721033
Baez, Joan Diamonds and Rust A&M SP4527
Lightfoot, Gordon If You Could Read My Mind Reprise 6392
Mitchell, Joni Miles of Aisles Asylum AB202
Taylor, James Sweet Baby James Warner Bros. WB1843
Brubeck, Dave Time Further Out Columbia CS 8490
Cole, Nat King Love Capitol T2195 MONO!!
Cole, Nat King After Midnight Pure Pleasure PPAN W782
Davis, Miles Relaxin' Prestige (re-issue) 7129
Dimeola, McLaughlin, DeLuca Friday Night in San Francisco CBS HC47152
Edison, Harry "Sweets" and Eddie "Lockjaw" Davis Jawbreakers Fantasy OJC487
Gillespie, Dizzy The Sonny Rollings/Sonny Stitt Sessions Verve VE2-2505 MONO!!!
Parker, Charlie Norman Granz Jam Session Verve VE2-205 MONO!!!!
Cowboy Junkies The Trinity Session (45 rpm) Classic/RCA RTH-8568-45
Lynne, Shelby Just a Little Lovin' Lost Highway B0009789-01
Orbison, Roy The All Time Greatest Hits of Roy Orbison Monument 67290
Ronstadt, Linda Lush Life Asylum 60387-1
Stevens, Cat Teaser and the Fire Cat A&M SP4313
rlindsa - new vinyl freakThere are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats. (Albert Schweitzer)
"Most audiophiles like Diana more for the so called great sound quality first than any musical or songwriting ability."
A lot of jazz artists perform music written by others, and just about all classical artists.
So by such criteria, music lovers would only listen to Portishead, but never an orchestral performance of a Beethoven symphony or Ella Fitzgerald singing a Cole Porter classic........
Not to mention greats like Elvis, who performed mostly music written by others as well......
It is 2008 dude, singer songwriters were not common back in the 20's, 30's, 40's & 50's for many reasons. Mowtown was just one big Idol money making factory.
I luv Elvis and have over 120 of his albums. He is one of the world's great interpreter's of other people's songs and the first of his genre. Bryan Ferry is another who does great covers, but he also has the skill to write his own songs..
Lets face it, if Elvis was in his 20's today - he would just be another American idol and fade as fast as he arrived. His popular muisc genre would have been around for 50+ years before him doing similar stuff, so it would have not been ground breaking.
And why do so many audiophiles buy so many copies of the same Beethoven Symphony when they could be buying new music written by new artists. Surely there is new classical music being written??
Yes I admit I do have 4 copies of Led Zep 4 searching for that perfect pressing :-)
And we sit wondering why high end stereo is dying. Because all the typical audiophiles are buying Dianna Krall and alike and not opening their arms to new music and in a new generation of music lovers than might just appreciate equipment as well when they can aford it.
off my podium
"..... singer songwriters were not common back in the 20's, 30's, 40's & 50's for many reasons. Mowtown was just one big Idol money making factory."
You seem to suggest Motown had no singer/songwriters. LOL. You must be forgetting Smokey Robinson, Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Ashford and Simpson etc. etc. etc...
J, all the singers you mention below started at Mowtown singing other people's songs within the Mowtown song writing machines.
Stevie and Marvin Gaye had to figt big time with the mowtown big wigs to sing there own songs. thankfully they succeeded.
While Wonder and Gaye started out that way that can hardly be said of Robinson. Yes he may have sung other people's songs, but he penned his own as well. Ashford and Simpson wrote for others long before heading out to do their own thing.
Yes Gaye and Wonder had to fight with Gordy, but that was over what they where writing and not whether or not they could pen their own tunes. Hell, Wonder was a part of that machine as he wrote quite often for others in the Motown stable. A much over looked gem of his is the album he did for his then wife S. Wright.
Anyway, we've highjacked this thread long enough!
Take care
"And we sit wondering why high end stereo is dying. Because all the typical audiophiles are buying Dianna Krall and alike and not opening their arms to new music and in a new generation of music lovers than might just appreciate equipment as well when they can aford it."
I hate to say this, but most new music does not do it for me, musically speaking. Too much processing, pitch correction, poor songwriting, lack of decent compositions, lack of musicianship, etc., to really crow about.
I think most new music, in fact, has so much processing, people don't think it's worth producing with utmost fidelity. And I'm inclined to agree. This is why people opt for MP3 rather than CD. There is a resurgence of vinyl, which brings forth some hope.
I accept quite a bit of it on a relative scale, but although I think for example Death Cab for Cutie and Arcade Fire are two of the better mainstream acts out there, it is not the type of stuff that will make me shelve the great bands of the 1960s and 70s in favor of it, if you get the drift. (I think there is only one recent band that does perform at that level- Aleks Syntek.)
eek, she can't be all bad isn't elvis costello with her, his stuff was cool in the early 80's. but yeah i lost interest after all for you. i def. prefer portishead - roseland nyc live. the rest of your suggestions aren't bad either. oh and don't forget penderecki's threnody to the victims of hiroshima (1959-61)and canticum canticorum salomonis (1970). also henryk gorecki's symphony no. 3. steve reich and philip glass are cool too.
I have the DVD of this, not the cd. But to my ears it is not out of polarity. The cd may be different.
I think the root of the frustration here is you provide a lot of random information on absolute polarity, yet nobody seems to have any real use for that information.Since it does take up space on this forum (or the forum transferred to), and nobody seems able to do anything constructive with it, the resultant response is in most part ridicule. Every time.
But I think there is a solution to the problem......
Instead of posting here and getting pelted to death, why not just start a blog page, and post your findings there? There might be a couple people on AA who find your posts valuable (but would be afraid to admit so publicly), and at least those who are interested would visit the blog.
Just a suggestion.
I believe that polarity discussions about individual records are close to useless. Someone who cares about playing music with correct polarity can ascertain the correct polarity in an instant and fix it as quickly as tweaking the volume control. Or perhaps we should have people post what SPLs they play individual recordings at?
There is a value to more general discussions about polarity, such as how to recognize it, identifying recordings that make it particularly obvious, identifying speakers and/or other system components that are more or less revealing as to polarity, components that support easy polarity reversal, etc. It is also useful in the appropriate forums to have technical discussions on how polarity can be automatically recognized, technical standards for measurement devices and recording components, etc.
Tony Lauck
"Perception, inference and authority are the valid sources of knowledge" - P.R. Sarkar
*
I've received a lot of thanks for making people aware of pitch correction. To the point where I don't care if I end up going down in flames on this.
Especially from one who now blames pitch correction for problems he had with getting the midrange sounding right in his audio system. Prior to the realization, he was unknowingly using some pitch-corrected vocal recordings (including the latest Norah Jones release), and mistook the effects for what he thought were midrange/crossover flaws in his speakers.
nt
.
The trouble with doing nothing, is that you can't tell when you are finished.
.
Regards,
Mike
You identify yourself as some kind of an industry insider by your "M" designation. Could you please identify your specific affiliation(s)? I want to be sure that I never unwittingly buy anything, audio-related or not, that you might have the slightest thing to do with.
You, sir, are most annoying.
Thank you.
You must be (haven't checked) relatively new hear. georgelouis brought us the late, and unlamented, RealityCheck CD duplicator, much appreciated by the late, and unlamented, clarkejohnsen. Turns out that the duplicator was nothing more than an inexpensive and generic CD copier that georgelouis unwisely had drop shipped to hissuckerscustomers, thus letting the 'cat out of the bag', so to speak. Check the archives for the heated arguments that ensued during the rein of the RealityCheck, and the cricket-filled silence from the RealityCheck supporters after it was learned that georgelouis was a fraud. All very interesting, in a human nature sort of way.Hope this helps....
Edit: when I say "suckers", I mean well-meaning folks taken in by his con. Didn't mean any disrespect to those who lost money because of g.l.
"Dammit..."
Clark's initial review.
-Wendell
UltraBit Platinum
George S. Louis
... GSL's repetitive pronouncements on inverted polarity seem to beg for a technical discourse-and not subjective conjecture-why aren't his repetitive postings moved into a forum area where it might do him, (and us), some good? Why not let the Prop head folks, or the DIY's have a crack at GSL. Or maybe this subject could be broached as well in the ISO forum? If I was truly interested in solutions (rather than mere declarations of discovery) on this polarity plague, the general forum is the last place I'd go first. And does it matter who the artist is, whose polarity is inverted? GSL could just tell us what cd's aren't inverted, and be done with it. Or has this tiresome subject been batted back and forth elsewhere?
There's a fungus among us, and it's name is GSL!
and when are you going to start selling your cure for this horrible affliction?
Quite right.
are more involved with keeping the Jazz tradition alive and well instead of pushing the envelop but is that so terrible? Doesn't that describe a lot of what Jazz at Lincoln Center is all about as well?
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
Jeff Hamilton, Peter Erskin? You betcha.
an awesome person and musician.
...regards...tr
And I recall the legendary Ray Brown on tour with her once as well. I saw 'The LA 4' (Ray Brown, Jeff Hamilton, Laurindo Almeida, and Bud Shank) at Gilleys (in Dayton, OH) back in '79, or was it '80, I can't remember, anyway, was the first time I saw Jeff Hamilton, I was blown away. Bud Shank was awesome too but he kept doing the 'cocaine grin'. lol (not that I know what that is from personal experience).
i wont try to infuence yours, please do the same.
...regards...tr
Just watch her live - that's enough to put anyone off her. Snooze-ville.
In recent time, I'd say 95 percent of the material being put out is even worse......
And with all the singers today who use pitch correction, at least Krall has (to my knowledge) avoided such production.
:)
-Wendell
I personally think that George's pounding on inverted polarity is way overdone...... But then again, he still has the right to say it. Who are we to judge??
But on the other hand, I think pitch correction is a **grave** problem, in regard to the future of both music and audio. I think it is at the very core of why the younger generation by and large doesn't have much interest in quality reproduction of music. Because the processing associated with it doesn't really gain anything with quality reproduction.
I personally find reproducing overprocessed music with utmost fidelity to be no more satisfying than listening to it via highly-compressed MP3.
Most recordings are and always have been a studio creation. It either works or it doesn't. Even the great jazz recordings of the 50s had some manipulation such as echo that didn't exist during the session. I don't question that many of today's artist get alot of help in the studio because there voices are simply too thin. I either like it or I don't.
I believe that many can hear the audible effects of polarity. Again, I don't care. If I like a recording's sound that is all that matters to me. You seem, to me, to post about pitch correction so often, as if it is some big discovery. It isn't.
-Wendell
"You seem, to me, to post about pitch correction so often, as if it is some big discovery. It isn't."
It's not a discovery, but until Clark Johnsen posted on the subject about a year and a half ago, even I wasn't aware of its existence. And that's the problem: You and I might be aware if its existence, but I'm sure over 95 percent of the population isn't.
This is why just about everybody goes zonkers over the newest "child singing sensation" on American Idol. Who sound just like Christina Aguilera. And why hacks like Amy Winehouse and Kanye West are winning Grammy Awards. Had this been widespread knowledge, I'm certain that such hysteria would never happen.
Figures. Again, I either like it or I don't. When I listen to a recording I'm getting a facsimile and it is either good or bad. Or, I might be getting something that doesn't exist in the real world. Same response.
-Wendell
One of my biggest pet peeves is "disqualification by perceived reputation"...... (And I stress the word "perceived".) Each message should be taken at face value, regardless of who it may come from.
.
-Wendell
You in essence stated that the citation of pitch correction in recordings ought to stop. Since I think this is a big problem, I will challenge anyone who uses the "tired of" mantra in the **convenient** attempt to suppress further discussion.
As if the problem is trivial or might go away on its own in due time.
Maybe you think this is a trivial matter. In that case, I'll accept disagreement. But I personally take Richard Bass Nut Green's comment on pitch correction with less offense. For at least he tried to defend it in a substantive manner.
often. I don't have the desire or power to censor anything on this forum. Keeping beating that horse and let us know when you cross the finish line by convincing the recording companies to stop the practice. Good luck with that.
-Wendell
I was citing Diana Krall's avoiding the use of pitch correction..... The main point was defending her productions...... I do think some of the bashing of her is more an attempt to garner acceptance amongst fellow AA'ers than anything else.
I think pitch correction is a serious enough issue to bring forth, regardless of how often such discussion takes place. Especially if it deals with recent singers who in most part *avoid* its use. And such distinction ought be made known, in my humble opinion.
PS: I like Krall and her husband. I don't give a rat's ass what anyone else thinks of the music I enjoy. I love the Cramps and I also enjoy the Carpenters. I don't know if either used pitch correction. I doubt the Cramps do but I bet all the Carpenters recordings were sweetened in the studio. I just read a review of the young country singer, Taylor Swift, following a concert here. The reviewer said her voice was thin and lacking in range and she sounded nothing like her album. Shocking! Works for me.PPS: I think it is a trivial issue and not worth the chest beating, hair pulling and rending of flesh that you do. I don't even know how I would tell if a recording used pitch correction. No, don't tell me. As I said, I don't care.
-Wendell
"I think it is a trivial issue and not worth the chest beating, hair pulling and rending of flesh that you do. I don't even know how I would tell if a recording used pitch correction. No, don't tell me. As I said, I don't care."I've been posting on AA for eight years. And I've read tens of thousands of posts. But when it comes to most-disappointing posts I've come across, this one might make my top ten.
I just hope this attitude isn't widespread.
I like to win.:) I feel the same about polarity. Perhaps I'll make the top 10 list again. You've led a sheltered life if this trivial topic causes you disappointment.
-Wendell
music is subjective and there are some people in this world who enjoy listening to Diana Krall. YMMV
Strongly seconded.
a
I think it's called a switch.
A polarity inversion capability is common is PC audio, typically a feature of player software. Two of the players that I use have this capability: foobar2000 and cPlay. Unlike when this function is done at line level in a preamp, there are no extra gain stages and no audible effect on sound quality that I have been able to detect, other than inverting polarity. On my system this makes some recordings sound better and others worse, and on some it doesn't seem to make much difference.
Tony Lauck
"Perception, inference and authority are the valid sources of knowledge" - P.R. Sarkar
I hope it is nothing that you have to choose before ripping.
...how do you do achieve polarity inversion in Foobar2000? Does it require a plug-in, or is there a setting somewhere in the preferences?
Btw, should I now only mention that I like Diana Krall whenever a "Guilty Pleasures" thread appears on the forum :-), Or is there a DKA (Diana Krallaholics Anonymous)..."Hi, My Name is Welly and I'm a Krallaholic"
Cheerswelly
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig.
The link will get you the Simple Polarity Inverter for foobar2000. It is a plug-in for Foobar2000 and you enable it by making it an active DSP, in which case both stereo channels are inverted.
I believe there is a newer version on the web site that allows selective inversion of individual channels as well, but I haven't tried it.
Tony Lauck
"Perception, inference and authority are the valid sources of knowledge" - P.R. Sarkar
I was going to ask you the same question but didn't need to. Tried it last night and managed for the first time to actually get some acceptable sound from Foobar. I suppose it just takes convolution with -1 but somehow I'd never gotten around to trying to figure out how to do it and hadn't been able to find a done one.
I'm rather surprised that SW players don't incorporate polarity control as a feature. It would be practical for them to automatically apply the user's preference on a track basis and so should satisfy folks who are fussy about such things far better than a HW player.
Rick
It would be logical to add polarity as a file attribute, just like replay gain can be added to a file. That way, the default could be automatically applied by player software when this feature is enabled. One would only have to ascertain the correct polarity once. Like replay gain, this parameter could be easily changed without rewriting the entire file and without loss of any original information.
Of course, if one doesn't mind changing one's files, one can actually reverse the polarity of samples using an audio editor without adding any additional parameters or using special player software. One can use any audio editor with this capability, for example Sony SoundForge. However, there are two problems with this: (1) flipping polarity is not a light weight operation as it involves altering every sample in the file, and (2) it is not completely lossless if the file happens to have a sample that is exactly at the negative limit. (The negative limit of RBCD is -32768, while the positive limit is +32767.) One version of one player had a bug in its polarity reversal software related to this exception which was fixed after I reported it.
Tony Lauck
"Perception, inference and authority are the valid sources of knowledge" - P.R. Sarkar
Thanks
Cheerswelly
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig.
Now your pigs can sing with proper polarity. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Perception, inference and authority are the valid sources of knowledge" - P.R. Sarkar
My Aesthetix preamp can do that, from the remote, no less.
"nostalgia systematically cheats the past"
I don't have such a line stage. Also many have an extra stage to accomplish this. The old Millennium preamp from Siltech did. Not inverted sounded better on all discs.
Ditto from the remote on my BAT pre-amp.
Regards,
Geoff
That's a "Phase" button. Isn't phase be a different thing altogether than "polarity"? I confuse the two always.
you get your definition. In general, phase alignment has to do with a shift of time interval, say of a starting point, whereas polarity is the determination of the direction or vector of that change (usually expressed as positive or negative). That being said, usage is rather sloppy for the most part and even in the Ballou Handbook of Sound Engineers, polarity and phase are often used interchangeably.
Stu
On of phase speakers are quite noticeable and almost always is user error in connecting the speakers.
Polarity is less well defined but quite audible in some recordings for at least most people. Presumably it replicates the on rush of the sound on the microphone with the speakers excurding with the unrush of sound on the microphone.
"Out of polarity" is more correct than "out of phase" when a single speaker is wired wrong.
The speaker that is flipped will not have undergone any 'phase changes' itself because all phase will be inverted the same amount, yet it will be 180 degrees out of phase with the speaker that is not flipped.
It's like familiy reunion. It's all relative! ;)
Cheers,
Presto
....how did you make it all the way through without falling asleep......
Oz
My thoughts exactly...but I'm talking about georgelouis' posts!
Instead of coming in here everyday, telling us the 'sky is falling', how about offering a resolution. Thus ending your Odyssey and freeing up your precious time for something else more constructive. ?
I wasn't commenting on the artistic or aesthetic value of Diana Krall's music but because a number of audiophiles use her CDs for testing they should know their polarity. The Diana Krall CD's were only examples, as I extended my thesis to cover all inverted media, so focusing on Diana Krall's music really misses the point. Even if one has trouble discerning polarity it's my contention that long term listening to inverted polarity music is on a phase coherent system that's preferably minimum phase will be fatiguing versus long term listening to polarity correct music that energizing (once the tweaking and component tests are finished but what self-respecting music-loving audiophile ever truly finishes that in the long term?) because inverted music doesn't occur naturally in nature. Listening to music over non-phase coherent speaker systems, well that's just plain bad and makes absolute polarity irrelevant and any testing of components or tweaks will be especially system dependent as if they weren't enough already. Nothing except the "Phil Spector wall of of sound" even begins to approach that playing with the natural sound of instruments and voices.
For anyone who's interested there's a paper about polarity I wrote atEnjoytheMusic.com> and search under polarity.
George S. Louis
I don't recall any audiophile testing a system's absolute polarity with an arbitrarily-selected CD....... If anything, it's a pool of a lot of CDs, at least 100, that determine system polarity.
So far in my opinion, my random testing of various CD labels has yielded 111 made in polarity and 20 made in inverted polarity. I'll eventually publish a more comprehensive list of the labels. But a few of the labels seem to have both polarities especially the major ones such as CBS, e.g. Bob Dylan CDs. That works out to approximately 15% of CD labels being inverted. My list of label polarities doesn't agree with actual polarity and many of the relative polarities of the labels of the list by Lars Fredell published on page 20 of the Summer 2000 issue Volume 4 No. 2 of UltimateAudio. I wish he was still alive for lots of reasons and I'm sure we'd have very lively and enlightening discussions about polarity. One thing for sure it's not 50-50 as some would have you believe. With over 5,000 CDs I'm sure that I'll eventually be able to publish a fairly comprehensive list of label polarities. And except for test CDs, I have yet to find a commercial CD that doesn't have all tracks in the same relative polarity, i.e. all in polarity or all inverted polarity.George S. Louis
As long as the cones of both speakers move in the same polarity ...???
The Chesky Jazz Sampler and Audio Test Compact Disc Volume 1, CD37 has two polarity test tracks that seem to me to be in correct polarity. I always say "seem" or "seems" because that's protected free speech because it's only my opinion and I can't be sued for libel or defamation for expressing my opinion(s) even if my is(are) wrong, and after all I may sometimes be the Imperfect Polarity Pundit.
George S. Louis
and you'll find the second to be inverted. I haven't heard all Chesky's, but did have all up to catalog number 110 or so. After JD 63 they become inverted.
I haven't heard all Mercury Living Presence discs, but the ones produced by Dennis Drake are correct in polarity and after he leaves the project the discs become inverted. Early Sony dual discs had the SACD layer correct in polarity and the CD layer inverted.
Identifying certain discs as being one polarity or another is not the answer however. It is imperative that the issue be identified by the reviewers and designers. Particularly with speaker designers, great liberties are made with mixing polarities and shifting of phase between drivers. Such designs would be sneered at if implemented with electronics but the vast number of reviewers simply ignore such issues, even when they are very apparent in the test reports. After nearly three decades of attending CES, I am certain that many can not hear the issue at all. What is apparent to me in the first few seconds, is simply glossed over by too many listeners and I am no golden ear.
Most electronic manufacturers do adhere to the AES conventions, but recording engineers do not and it is the effects, which can be changed, which are the cause of many inversions. For an interesting view of that see the Director's cut of The Commitments and listen to the director's comments.
Still I would say your statement that most CD's are correct is wrong, as in my collection, nearly all the DDG, Columbia, and Philips discs are inverted. In fact nearly all my European labels are inverted.
But the distribution can vary with the the music you purchase, and thus YMMV.
Stu
This is pretty much Don quixotic ....you tilt at windmills that no one is bothered about..
Rodney Gold
So why did you bother to respond? In my opinion, if you unknowingly test equipment or tweaks that are inverting or inadvertently use inverted media with a non-nverting system, the test results will effectively be invalidated.
George S. Louis
All you give are "impressions" and you even those get reversed here and there.
The only problem with the Don Quixote comparison is that you aren't even too sure of your windmills.
Do you listen to music or just test tweaks and polarity - sad if all your audiophile efforts are put into testing for "faults"
At any rate , your assertion is also wrong , even if a scale doesnt accurately reflect your exact weight , it will tell you if you have gained or lost , same with tweaks
Rodney Gold
z
.
All you guys have serious issues that need to be taken care of.
Diana Krall's music is nice but almost any stero can sound good with this music, it barely goes below mid bass and there ar lik three insturuments that play, not to mention they mix the instruments to sound a lot quieter than the vocals, and I have heard better recordings than diana kralls stuff.
She's Hot and all but I prefer KT Tunstall and John Mayers music.
or even better some nonpoint, now thats a serious F@cking speaker test
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: