|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.133.225.106
In Reply to: Re: Excellent review posted by Don T on May 1, 2007 at 12:54:52:
"I've heard, on several occasions here on AA, audiophiles claim the qualities of pace and rhythm were nothing more than a marketing ploy. Can you believe that?"Even more laughable; some "inmates" - and here the term becomes more apropos than usual - claim that accurately preserving the music's rhythmic vigor, pacing energy, and timing precision; i.e., good PRaT, is actually a distortion! Meanwhile, these selfsame sound-lovers tout some of the most flaccid, rhythmically confused gear I've ever heard for its so-called "accuracy."
"I don't think as a whole we've recovered from that absolute sound / live reference knee jerk of a few years back. But AFAIK the Rega Planar 3 and the P3 have almost always garnered good press so all is not lost."
I think the Obsolete $ound and their ilk actually did a lot of damage. Who cares whether a system reproduces the sound of live music - a brass ring that's always juuuuust out of reach - when the performence elements that gave the music its soul, energy, and excitement are distorted, sometimes beyond recognition?
I'd happily live with a well-supported stock P3 over the best that Sota, Clearaudio, Basis, VPI, or Teres, etc. have to offer. Not because it's sonically superior - it isn't! - but because it simply plays music more convincingly and engagingly than most of those PRaT-deficient audiophile cupcakes.
BTW, if you run a VA search on the P3, you'll find that it receives quite a bit of negative "press" from those who fail to recognise that its light, rigid design implementation has nothing to do with a lack of "build quality," which the critics seem to feel ought to be measured by the pound, rather than the sound.
Follow Ups:
" Even more laughable; some "inmates" - and here the term becomes more apropos than usual - claim that accurately preserving the music's rhythmic vigor, pacing energy, and timing precision; i.e., good PRaT, is actually a distortion! Meanwhile, these selfsame sound-lovers tout some of the most flaccid, rhythmically confused gear I've ever heard for its so-called "accuracy." "A distortion? That's pretty damn funny. Probably the same bunch that thinks a hallmark of a good stereo it's ability to let you know how "bad" your recordings are by sounding bad itself!
"I think the Obsolete $ound and their ilk actually did a lot of damage. Who cares whether a system reproduces the sound of live music - a brass ring that's always juuuuust out of reach - when the performence elements that gave the music its soul, energy, and excitement are distorted, sometimes beyond recognition?"
How convenient for the industry - that brass ring will always be "just" out of reach. Until next year when we'll get just a little bit closer. (sarcsasm intended)
I agree with the damage. Can't believe how often I hear pop/rock music fans crying about how bad their recordings sound. What planet are these people from? But of course they'll accuse my systems of being to colored or distorted to sound as bad as it should.
Not much freaks me out more than some guy with a ClearAudio TT complaining about the excessive subilance in Robert Plants voice on Led Zeppelin II in post over on the Rocky Road. That's too freeking weird even for me.
Those kind of concepts are just to queer for general consumption - but lo and behold they took root in the audio world.
I'd happily live with a well-supported stock P3 over the best that Sota, Clearaudio, Basis, VPI, or Teres, etc. have to offer. Not because it's sonically superior - it isn't! - but because it simply plays music more convincingly and engagingly than most of those PRaT-deficient audiophile cupcakes.
Agree!BTW, if you run a VA search on the P3, you'll find that it receives quite a bit of negative "press" from those who fail to recognise that its light, rigid design implementation has nothing to do with a lack of "build quality," which the critics seem to feel ought to be measured by the pound, rather than the sound.
LOL! The P3 is a fully realized design for it's price point. Ones really got to wonder about these striped down designs others are selling, at close to the price of a P3, that can be upgraded simply by screwing and unscrewing different parts onto the chassis. What the heck! Par for the industry course, these half assed implementations should and do sell for a couple a hundred more than the Rega because they are upgradeable(more sarcasm)! Go figure!
What do you mean by all of this, Don T? If it weren't for how crappy many, many rock (and some classical) CDs sounded over a pair of brand new B&W Matrix speakers, I never would have discovered the joy of records, via the Planar 3.Why is someone "from another planet" for thinking their recordings suck, or for not liking Led Sibilance? No entiendo.
You wrote:
Can't believe how often I hear pop/rock music fans crying about how bad their recordings sound. What planet are these people from? But of course they'll accuse my systems of being to colored or distorted to sound as bad as it should.
Not much freaks me out more than some guy with a ClearAudio TT complaining about the excessive subilance in Robert Plants voice on Led Zeppelin II in post over on the Rocky Road. That's too freeking weird even for me.
Those kind of concepts are just to queer for general consumption - but lo and behold they took root in the audio world.
What do you mean by all of this, Don T? If it weren't for how crappy many, many rock (and some classical) CDs sounded over a pair of brand new B&W Matrix speakers, I never would have discovered the joy of records, via the Planar 3.I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make with this comment. But if you are talking about most CD reissues of older pre CD era releases, or even CD release up until the early 90s, I suspect bad CD mastering is why the CDs sound so bad.
As far as new release vinyl goes I still like grundgy, garage or noisy rock that way. Otherwise newer music on CDs sound pretty good to me and more often than not I think they are better produced and mastered than the vinyl. And even my favorite TTs can't overcome CDs that are more well produced than their vinyl counterparts.
Why is someone "from another planet" for thinking their recordings suck, or for not liking Led Sibilance? No entiendo.
All recordings "suck". I'm not into the that special production stuff as the musical selection doesn't interest me. In general most audiophile reissues don't even sound as good as the orignal, ie. they suck worse than the originals. Though often I sense they are manufactured to sound better on bad stereos.
Why in the heck would someone own a TT or a system for that matter that makes Led Zeppelin sound like Led Sibilance if they are interested in listening to Led Zeppelin records. It's just stupid and there's no sane reason or justification for it whatsoever. But sure a heck there's reasons and justifications given all the time here in the asylum.
I've listen to several Led Zeppelin records in the past month on both my systems. Need I apologize that the records sound freeking awesome?
IMO a good stereo will let you know a whole lot about the recordings you are listening to. However why do you and others assume a correlation between "bad sound" and recording quality. I don't buy that at all. The correlation is between bad sound and system quality. It's just too easy to blame the record industry (most surely at some audio dealers insistance) for bad sound, ie. bad component match, bad gear, poor setup or something really not subjectively in line with the listeners interests. IME bad sound is much more a function of a bad system than it is of recording quality.
If someone does an upgrade and not every recording of interest sounds better they've made a mistake. It's just that simple - they bought an upgrade meant for someone else.
So yea - someone is living on another planet than me if they don't realize that it's the stereo that makes a recording sound bad AND that most recordings are bad not just the one's that sound bad on his/her system.
What do you mean by all of this, Don T? If it weren't for how crappy many, many rock (and some classical) CDs sounded over a pair of brand new B&W Matrix speakers, I never would have discovered the joy of records, via the Planar 3.I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make with this comment. But if you are talking about most CD reissues of older pre CD era releases, or even CD release up until the early 90s, I suspect bad CD mastering is why the CDs sound so bad.
As far as new release vinyl goes I still like grundgy, garage or noisy rock that way. Otherwise newer music on CDs sound pretty good to me and more often than not I think they are better produced and mastered than the vinyl. And even my favorite TTs can't overcome CDs that are more well produced than their vinyl counterparts.
Why is someone "from another planet" for thinking their recordings suck, or for not liking Led Sibilance? No entiendo.
All recordings "suck". I'm not into the that special production stuff as the musical selection doesn't interest me. In general most audiophile reissues don't even sound as good as the orignal, ie. they suck worse than the originals. Though often I sense they are manufactured to sound better on bad stereos.
Why in the heck would someone own a TT or a system for that matter that makes Led Zeppelin sound like Led Sibilance if they are interested in listening to Led Zeppelin records. It's just stupid and there's no sane reason or justification for it whatsoever. But sure a heck there's reasons and justifications given all the time here in the asylum.
I've listen to several Led Zeppelin records in the past month on both my systems. Need I apologize that the records sound freeking awesome?
IMO a good stereo will let you know a whole lot about the recordings you are listening to. However why do you and others assume a correlation between "bad sound" and recording quality. I don't buy that at all. The correlation is between bad sound and system quality. It's just too easy to blame the record industry (most surely at some audio dealers insistance) for bad sound, ie. bad component match, bad gear, poor setup or something really not subjectively in line with the listeners interests. IME bad sound is much more a function of a bad system than it is of recording quality.
If someone does an upgrade and not every recording of interest sounds better they've made a mistake. It's just that simple - they bought an upgrade meant for someone else.
So yea - someone is living on another planet than me if they don't realize that it's the stereo that makes a recording sound bad AND that most recordings are bad not just the one's that sound bad on his/her system.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: