But is it really any worse than esoteric agitation schemes for film, experimenting with film/developer combinations or discussing the colour or contrast renditions of different lenses?
That only costs about $5-$10
Audio folks as bad as us...
-
A
- Thread starter vpwphoto
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Sold Graflex 8X10 Focal Plane Shutter
- Started by 2Dogs
-
For Sale FS: Toyo Blue Lettering 4x5 Film Holders - 10 nos.
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Zeiss Super Ikonta IV (534/16), 6x6 Tessar, rangefinder folder $325
- Started by Dan Daniel
-
For Sale Fuji Fujica GM670 with 100mm f3.5 lens 6x7 Medium Format
- Started by Oldwino
Forum statistics
That only costs about $5-$10
Thanks for the suggestion about fixing the AR-2A's. But I made a deal with my wife and gave them away. We'd got rid of all the old stuff and made space for 52" Samsung LCD and PS3 Playstation with Blu-Ray and a 5.1 sound system. Although the speakers in the 5.1 aren't as good (Sony) as AR-2A's, it was too good a deal too pass up. Now I also have all my videos and photos loaded into the PS3 hard disk or on DVD disks for playing on the HDTV which is also pretty sweet. Hey, I got 40 years out of those AR's.
The downside of competing formats is that local shops have to duplicate inventory - which many of them didn't. Also, there was a quick turnover from vinyl to compact disc. There has been no such push to phase out regular cds in favor of any of the new formats (SACD or DVD-A).
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2010
- Messages
- 2,896
- Format
- Medium Format
That's just too sweeping a generalization, even for APUG. Ever hear the first CD re-issue of Miles Davis Kind of Blue? Guess not, since the re-re-mastered version is incomparably better.
I absolutely agree. My experience is that newer remasters sound better than digital has ever sounded. Just yesterday I listened to 'Steamin' with the Miles Davis Quintet', and it sounds truly 'organic', vivid, and full of dynamics that just aren't there even on the original vinyl. Digital noise levels are also extremely low, without a lot of the annoying high frequency white noise garbage that was so prevalent in 1980s and 1990s CDs.
Some still do a poor job, but most reissues are amazing today, to the point that I don't really feel them lacking much compared to vinyl anymore. It's amazing how far 16 bit / 44.1 kHz digital audio has come (the format that CDs are still produced in).
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2010
- Messages
- 2,896
- Format
- Medium Format
Huge improvements also in the latest issues of the CBS Miles/Gil Evans recordings(Sketches of Spain, Porgy and Bess, Miles Ahead). Earlier cd versions(and truly horrid "digitally re-mastered" LP re-issues)were overly-bright and bleached out.
Apparently I haven't heard any of the good remasters. Some of the recent ones I have/have heard are really annoying to listen to, I've lost a certain amount of high frequency hearing, but I don't like these.
I'm glad you have an opinion different than mine. We probably listen for different things, I gather.
My listening is very heavily focused on the content of the music. With newer remasters I can hear bass lines clearer, the kick drum is a lot better separated from the bass guitar, high pitch sounds like cymbals don't sound like frying eggs in butter and void (thankfully) of digital white noise, sound stage is better defined with greater depth and width, placement of musicians within the sound stage is clearer and voices (especially female) sound a lot more natural, almost natural like a high end Grado cartridge. To me all this gives me a much clearer picture of the music served up to me, and I can access all of the components of the music much easier, so that Miles' trumpet shines a little bit more, and Mulligan's sax is easier to follow in the melodies as I enjoy the brilliant rhythm sections they surrounded themselves with.
To me it goes on and on with remasters of The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Paul Simon, Pink Floyd, Peter Gabriel, The Police, Bob Dylan, etc.
Perhaps all of the extra detail and information available in modern remasters isn't a positive thing for you? I can certainly understand that viewpoint. Sometimes I wish I had a stereo that just smooths everything over so that bad recordings didn't sound so bad, as it would be a much more relaxed way of listening. I don't know. There are lots of differing opinions on what constitutes good, and I think our opinions can be different, and that will just make the discussion more exciting. I'm sure I can learn something from you here, and would appreciate to hear your account of what it is you find better/worse about new/old recordings/remasters.
I think we listen for most of the same things, I even share your opinion of the Grado cartridges. I like to hear the imaging and signature of the hall, bass notes to be tight and well controlled, midranges to be well balanced; apparent without being too forward - since most information is in the mids. The highs should be well articulated and clean along with the transients. The system I use will reproduce a good recording of a guitar, saxophone, trumpet, or violin well enough that from the other rooms it sounds as if that instrument is being played; bass is extremely accurate and well damped, transients are clean. So I think my equipment is doing an adequate job of showing me what is on the program source. I'm pretty sure it has more to do with the discs I'm listening to, others have described it well - a flat harsh "mechanical" sounding reproduction with a faint noise floor.
I can't really hear a difference between AAC at 320 kbps and the original WAV files. Maybe I could if I really really tried, but it's small enough that it doesn't bother me. I'm not saying the difference isn't there, but it's like Thomas said earlier about him and Leica lenses - the difference is small enough to him not to really matter. I probably will convert my music collection from AAC to WAV just because hard drives are so cheap now, and it'd be nice to have uncompressed backups of my CDs. I CAN most definitely hear lower bit rate rips and uncompressed.
I must say I enjoy my music collection a million times more now that those 11,000 songs are on my computer and not on CDs. I can listen to it on my phone while on the plane, or my PMCs while at my computer (headphones late at night), or streamed to my mediocre stereo while cleaning the apartment.
I always viewed the audiophile stuff like this (similar to photography). There's a certain, relatively low level of quality where 99% of people can't tell the difference between that and the real junk. That's fine - they get to enjoy their music (and photography) with a lot less expense and worrying than we do Above that, there's the area of 'diminishing returns'. The gear IS better, but it gets pretty expensive. That's the area which I inhabit, i.e. everyone else is crazy but me. Where the cutoff of what is worth it to an individual is personal. That $2000 lens (or speaker) is probably 'better' than the $400 one. Will it make a difference? Probably not much of one. But it IS better. You can always buy something that is technically better, but at some point the diminishing returns thing really kicks and starts making things crazy expensive. This is also the region where even if you have a technically better system, if the content sucks, the experience sucks. Me playing a kazoo on an 8 kHz digital file is going to suck hard on a $10k audio system, just like an 8x10 contact print shot with a Schneider XXL lens is going to suck if the content is of the inside of a lens cap. A brilliant album sounds brilliant on $10 speakers, just like a brilliant shot on a Holga is brilliant. The content and artistry shines through. I would however prefer to listen to that brilliant album on a pair of $300 headphones over my iPhone buds.
Then there's crazy land, outside the realm of science. I'm not sure what this is in photography. If it exists, it's not at the same level (or price) as it is in audio. Cable elevators, the ridiculously priced power cables, shit like that.
I must say I enjoy my music collection a million times more now that those 11,000 songs are on my computer and not on CDs. I can listen to it on my phone while on the plane, or my PMCs while at my computer (headphones late at night), or streamed to my mediocre stereo while cleaning the apartment.
I always viewed the audiophile stuff like this (similar to photography). There's a certain, relatively low level of quality where 99% of people can't tell the difference between that and the real junk. That's fine - they get to enjoy their music (and photography) with a lot less expense and worrying than we do
Above that, there's the area of 'diminishing returns'. The gear IS better, but it gets pretty expensive. That's the area which I inhabit, i.e. everyone else is crazy but me. Where the cutoff of what is worth it to an individual is personal. That $2000 lens (or speaker) is probably 'better' than the $400 one. Will it make a difference? Probably not much of one. But it IS better. You can always buy something that is technically better, but at some point the diminishing returns thing really kicks and starts making things crazy expensive. This is also the region where even if you have a technically better system, if the content sucks, the experience sucks. Me playing a kazoo on an 8 kHz digital file is going to suck hard on a $10k audio system, just like an 8x10 contact print shot with a Schneider XXL lens is going to suck if the content is of the inside of a lens cap. A brilliant album sounds brilliant on $10 speakers, just like a brilliant shot on a Holga is brilliant. The content and artistry shines through. I would however prefer to listen to that brilliant album on a pair of $300 headphones over my iPhone buds.Then there's crazy land, outside the realm of science. I'm not sure what this is in photography. If it exists, it's not at the same level (or price) as it is in audio. Cable elevators, the ridiculously priced power cables, shit like that.
You ever notice older people as they lose their hearing make up for it with larger ears?
Haha if only it were so!
So does excess nose hair have something to do with compensating for losing smell?
So does excess nose hair have something to do with compensating for losing smell?
Well, I think the expression is that you know you're getting old when you have more hair in your ears and nose than you have on your head.
You mean the electrons don't know the difference?
You know, there are a lot of times that I swear that they *DO* know the difference, and they're just laughing at us. I really wonder sometimes just who the hell is the observer in the equation.
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 123
- Format
- Large Format
http://www.cracked.com/article_19022_5-ways-hi-tech-retailers-are-secretly-screwing-you.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_17606_7-high-tech-products-their-cheap-ass-ingredients.html
On either, you'll need to scroll to the cables entry on the lists.
Enjoy your $700 USB cable.
I actually play piano and listen to music. While there isn't much difference beyoned price between the top of the line Yamaha and the top of the line Steinway, a lot of people go for the Steinway due to their advertising and higher cost. They convince themselves that Steinway is better, as they make fewer pianos so there must be more crafstmanship, which must OBVIOUSLY sound better. Both sound the same when tuned properly.
Steinway makes speakers for audio systems. At six figures for a set. While they have a very cool and modern look, if I wanted modern appearance, Bang&Olufsen could do that at a much better price.
In analog or digital, it's things like how many tubes or transistors are in the audio path. Consider a, say, 1950's 5 tube radio. Sounds acceptable. Now listen to the Zenith Stratosphere. Absolutely amazing sound. Again, listen to a cheap CD player with only a few transistors to process the audio. Now compare it to one with thousands to process the audio. Sounds much better.
It may be my limited understanding of electronics, but I'm pretty sure transistors are analog-meaning they don't output digital bits from an analog signal. They do the exact same thing tubes do-amplify or switch electrical signals. Of course, they have their own problems, and using transistors near their limits can cause a lot of problems that either fry them or just sound really unpleasant.
But IMHO, if I want really good sounding music to get lost in, I'll just cue up my old stereo. If I just want to enjoy some music, I have an iPod for that. And most of the time, I just want something nice playing, and I don't really care about the recording being perfectly true to life. I just want to hear my favorite song play while I do an unpleasant task.
I doubt they are worse, engineers design audio systems, and engineers design cameras. There are plenty of people in both camps who will see an ad for something that is claimed to greatly improve what they hear or see, and they may well jump on it. Photophiles do it with developing chemicals, computers,printers, paper, film, cameras, and lenses. Audiophiles do so with speakers, cables, amplifiers, and other such things.
Photographers making the majority of art, however, use only a few cameras. Professional audio recorders have their gear-yes, they need a lot more stuff, but last time I helped out a professional audio guy, his boxes of cables were all cheap basic cables. Nothing fancy, apart from the gear,and even that was getting on in age. He said "it works for me and does what I need. I'll repair or replace it when it breaks."
http://www.cracked.com/article_17606_7-high-tech-products-their-cheap-ass-ingredients.html
On either, you'll need to scroll to the cables entry on the lists.
Enjoy your $700 USB cable.
I actually play piano and listen to music. While there isn't much difference beyoned price between the top of the line Yamaha and the top of the line Steinway, a lot of people go for the Steinway due to their advertising and higher cost. They convince themselves that Steinway is better, as they make fewer pianos so there must be more crafstmanship, which must OBVIOUSLY sound better. Both sound the same when tuned properly.
Steinway makes speakers for audio systems. At six figures for a set. While they have a very cool and modern look, if I wanted modern appearance, Bang&Olufsen could do that at a much better price.
In analog or digital, it's things like how many tubes or transistors are in the audio path. Consider a, say, 1950's 5 tube radio. Sounds acceptable. Now listen to the Zenith Stratosphere. Absolutely amazing sound. Again, listen to a cheap CD player with only a few transistors to process the audio. Now compare it to one with thousands to process the audio. Sounds much better.
It may be my limited understanding of electronics, but I'm pretty sure transistors are analog-meaning they don't output digital bits from an analog signal. They do the exact same thing tubes do-amplify or switch electrical signals. Of course, they have their own problems, and using transistors near their limits can cause a lot of problems that either fry them or just sound really unpleasant.
But IMHO, if I want really good sounding music to get lost in, I'll just cue up my old stereo. If I just want to enjoy some music, I have an iPod for that. And most of the time, I just want something nice playing, and I don't really care about the recording being perfectly true to life. I just want to hear my favorite song play while I do an unpleasant task.
I doubt they are worse, engineers design audio systems, and engineers design cameras. There are plenty of people in both camps who will see an ad for something that is claimed to greatly improve what they hear or see, and they may well jump on it. Photophiles do it with developing chemicals, computers,printers, paper, film, cameras, and lenses. Audiophiles do so with speakers, cables, amplifiers, and other such things.
Photographers making the majority of art, however, use only a few cameras. Professional audio recorders have their gear-yes, they need a lot more stuff, but last time I helped out a professional audio guy, his boxes of cables were all cheap basic cables. Nothing fancy, apart from the gear,and even that was getting on in age. He said "it works for me and does what I need. I'll repair or replace it when it breaks."
I'll disagree. There was some research back in LA during the 80's that showed that the 'warm tone' produced in tubes were attributed to the currents in the tubes being modified by the electro-magnetic interference from the speakers. How do you emulate that?
/beers
/beers
I play music too, and listen a lot. A friend of mine is a slight audio nut, but he makes his own cables. I use drop cord. I have a pair of Klipsch La Scala speakers that sound amazing. I run them with a 1200 watt Peavey amp, and I couldn't be happier. It all was given to me, and it is the best sounding rig I have ever used. I don't need to spend a house worth of cash to get good sound.
I have a Scott 340-B tube amp/receiver (1964?) I bought from a friend in 1979. Alas, my speakers are ones I bought while in high school in 1970 or 71. They came with a non-tube Scott receiver/turntable combo...new at $300. Right in the middle of a Van Morrison song it self-destructed -- a very loud hum and smoke coming out the back...I guess something fried. That must have been 1978.
And even greater alas...I have never had much money for music -- all I have are a few CD's and a bunch of home-recorded cassettes that date back to the 70's (my 2002 VW Eurovan came with a cassette player). I usually listen to Radio Paradise on the computer, but occasionally fire up the Scott 340-B just to give it some exercise.
Just looked up the specs of the 340-B...hmmm 70W...no wonder I can turn it up louder than I want to hear. The on/off switch does not work -- I plug it in to turn it on. So it goes.
Vaughn
Vaughn, if you ever come into some spare cash for audio, there's a guy named Craig Ostby that does a very fine job at restoring old Scott and Heathkit amplifiers.
Also, check out what Pierre Sprey does to old Scott amplifiers at Mapleshade records and audio:
http://shop.mapleshadestore.com/Ultra-Modified-Vintage-Tube-Amps/products/178/
I'm going to have him upgrade my Scott amplifier when I have the cash to do so. They are amazing.
Also, check out what Pierre Sprey does to old Scott amplifiers at Mapleshade records and audio:
http://shop.mapleshadestore.com/Ultra-Modified-Vintage-Tube-Amps/products/178/
I'm going to have him upgrade my Scott amplifier when I have the cash to do so. They are amazing.
Have you played a Kawai piano? A few years ago Kawai sponsored a jazz festival near to me and brought in one of their concert grand models. I don't play piano (too many strings for me) but it was very impressive.
They were a bit nervous lending it out for a jazz festival as they had only done classical events up to then. After each act, one Kawai representative polished it and another one tuned it! (although I'm sure it didn't need it). I was the sound engineer for this event and it did sound very good - but then, so do their electronic pianos too.
Steve.
Unless the speakers were on top of the tubes, I don't believe the magnets would do a thing to the tubes. "Tube sound" is a bit like the Knights Templar, a lot of BS to go through to get to some reality.
Klainmeister said:
My two favorite tube amps don't sound 'warm' at all. They are extremely fast, dynamic, liquid, punchy, start and stop the speaker drivers extremely quickly, and will give you a very unveiled and clear presentation of what's actually on the source material. There is absolutely nothing euphonic, 'soft', or warm about it.
Some tube amps are this way, but so are some solid state amps.
I run a solid state power amp with an old Dynaco tube pre-amp. There is none of the tube "warmth" here, none at all - the setup is very neutral, clean, and fast. The "tube sound" that is raved about comes from the output stage only if it is there at all, the signal handling tubes don't "flavor" the sound a bit. As I said, a lot of BS to sort through.
I'd like to hear your setup!
It's kind of like with photography. Just because it's expensive doesn't mean it's better. It also takes intelligence in pairing audio components that sound well together.
For example it would be a huge mistake to put an OTL (output transformer-less) tube power amp on low impedance speakers. It just won't work very well. They work great with high efficiency and medium to high impedance speakers, like Von Schweikert, Snell, Vandersteen, or Heron Audio.
But then again, at this level it becomes more a thing of taste regarding what's good and what isn't, as I find the higher up in price range we go, the more individual philosophies of the people that build them come through in the design and their sound, contrary to for example budget CD players up to about 500 bucks, which have less difference in 'flavor'. So the discussion becomes even more lively, and component matching even more important.
Anyway, I've heard some solid state amps that sound phenomenal, and tube stuff that sounds like crap. It's more about how skilled the designer was in putting it together, and how well the individual components of the audio system were matched. That's how I see it.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |