Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

RE: John Atkinson...

Posted by the old school on June 6, 2012 at 07:02:35:
Don't be so defensive about being in the "sounds good" camp. Many reviewers agree (AD being the main one). I, and several others, HP and JV and JGH being the chief ones, think truth to live acoustic music should be the goal of the high end. First, progress in ever higher audio quality demands that we keep our ears on the goal. Look at the progress in digital sound. Early digital
was pure crap, and fell far short of analogue sound. Those who favored analogue (anyone with ears, IMO) refused to be seduced by the convenience of digital. The "measurements above all" camp finally were forced to admit that digital was inaccurate in ways that analogue was not (jitter and sampling rate limitations being two). Digital sound improved slowly, and recent breakthroughs have made high res digital much more accurate (true to live sound). Measurements have played a role in that improvement of digital. Second, with poor recordings (unfortunately many analogue records fall into this group; all but recent digital also belong in the poor recording group), audio equipment that makes these poor recordings pleasant sounding fail to sound as good with great recordings. When I am comparing audio systems, I use several of my best sounding vinyl records. Speakers with tipped up bass and rolled off treble may make crap CDs tolerable, but they DON"T sound best (OR most realistic) with the best recordings. I suspect that JA uses the 3/5 precisely because they make his digital sound pleasant. Accurate speakers reveal 99% of digital to be audio dreck. Most tube units perform a similar function. The best tube manufactures (Audio Research being the leader here) have tried to narrow the gape between the accuracy of ss in the very low and the very high end. I DO admit that SET amps sound more pleasant AND more realistic to my ears. However, more scientific research will reveal why SETs sound more true to live music. I suspect the absence of feedback and a simpler approach are two of the chief reasons why SETs sound more accurate.