This was a disc done by MA recordings and it is stunning, even on my simple digital playback source. I still have it (somewhere). Ever hear of Dropbox?
then it was probably recorded on a Korg unit
CD Quality Is Not High-Res Audio
- Thread starter NorthStar
- Start date
then it was probably recorded on a Korg unit
Yes, thank you for this very clarification.
When I finally heard this CD thru my system, I took an abrupt about face. It literally minimized the vast majority of commercial digital I've heard - regardless of format (then again, my own LP-CDRs do much the same thing). The music was lively, transients were very quick, un-phased from top freq. to bottom leading to a very impact-full, dimensionally broad sound ... you know ... the exact same characteristics hi-rez formats promise ... but don't always deliver.
I use dropbox to transfer pictures from my mobile but I do now have a copy (of my orig.copy).
tb1
I play it about once a week and usually on a quiet Sunday morning. I sit on my couch with a coffee by my side and the newspaper in front of me. I never finish reading as I'm always taken in with the music. Glad to hear you have a copy at least!
Your prescience preceeds itself. I'm amazed how you can tell by looking at all rooms, how they sounds how. Sort of like Art Lintgen being able to read record grooves.
And pray tell how buying lots of expensive gear and having a certified acoustician come in blesses the room. For the record, I've heard more 150K rooms sound like cow dung than the opposite. Not to mention all those expensive systems. Guess it depends on which side of the coin you're looking at.
This was a disc done by MA recordings and it is stunning, even on my simple digital playback source. I still have it (somewhere). Ever hear of Dropbox?
With Todd's permission, I put a high-rez copy of this disc up for download, but there were so few downloads that I took it down at his request. You can buy his master files (the newest ones were recorded on a highly modified Korg, older ones were on Tascam, Sony, etc.) as DVD-ROMs from his website at http://www.marecordings.com/
As someone who makes a full time living about electronics, and more than likely, soon in another hobby, I agree with much of what you say.
However, hacks who you characterize as "looters" are in the great, great, minority.
Reviewers come in all colors. There are a bunch who are independently wealthy and don't have to work day jobs, so accommodations are not
really a big incentive. There are those who have a true passion. There are those who are experienced writers and have an interest in audio.
And...also in reverse. Not a single Stereophile writer has a journalism degree. That may be because "reviewing" of any kind is not really journalism.
Any way, there are reviewers who REALLY do care, and want to serve the reader. They really do. There ARE, ego driven reviewer centric writers
whose only agenda is to convert people to their way of thinking and blather on.
For the record, I had what I think was a decent Naim/ARC/Harbeth/Transparent system I bought at FULL retail before writing my first professional review, for which I got paid. I also spent my own money, with no break, on getting my room treated, and soundproofed. Mind you, it is not perfect by any stretch, but it is better than before. My second system, is in an untreated room, but sounds very good to me.
As far as what I agree with..sure there are reviewers whose rooms are a joke, who are in it for the access to dealer pricing, and because they are sycophants of the industry. But not all. Not even close.
Most established and widely read reviewers have significant resources invested. Of course there are two very big exceptions which is of public record.
I think you misunderstand what I am saying and its my fault. I am not saying these reviewers intend to write misinformed reviews. I don't care what their intentions are. The bottom line is building a top quality listening space is hard and expensive. If the reviewer doesn't have the space, they can't do a competent review, no matter how honest their intentions may be. I think those folks may not be looters. There are a few reviewers that know how to use a mic and post decent frequency response measurements. This is not expensive or difficult to do. Below 100hz or so, the measurement from the listening position WILL BE a very accurate representation of the room's bass at these frequencies. The only reviews Ive ever seen where this is done would be Kal Rubinson, Fremer, Atkinson and of course Bruce Brown has done this as well. These aren't the looters I am referring to. I give these folks credit for that. It's like a basic qualifier for me. If I see it, then I can at start to put things into context. So called reviewers that think the price tag for the gear matters before the room; I don't pay attention to them.
No, it's because the switch degrades the audio quality of the power cord.
Tim
It saves the wait for the gear to warm up and sound its best. It must be true, right? Many reviewers remark on how much better the equipment sounds after it's been on for a while...
Thanks for clarification. Here is thing. The guys you just mentioned play in the stratosphere. They review the most expensive gear produced. They SHOULD have a great room. Kal maybe the exception in that he does enjoy reviewing affordable gear. Plus he measure a lot since those tools are built into much of the multi channel gear he gets.
What about the rest of the fold who review products costing in the hundreds to the mid 5 figures? Does it really make sense to build a room and spend a ton treating it?
Will customers of a $2000 DAC or a $1500 speaker do that? I say not. How about the fact, and it is a fact, that great measuring rooms can also sound NOTHING like real music? Obviously room measurements are a non factor for most as there are reviewers who have been in the business for decades, are trusted by readers and manufacturers alike who have never published a measurement.
Oh I think your post was perfectly clear.
So tell me how many of your so favored ne plus ultra high-end manufacturers evaluate their equipment in acoustician approved rooms? Hint. Next to none (TA, Harman and Silent Running Audio are the exception rather than the rule). So I guess they're all hacks too according to your definition and should immediately drummed out of the industry.
Oh yes, predicting room acoustics, as Art Noxon once told me, is impossible. Rooms that shouldn't work do and ones that should don't.
Oh and in my 25 years as a reviewer, I've never traded a positive review for equipment, etc nor do I know anyone who has since it would be grounds for immediate termination as a reviewer. So put your money where your mouth is and name names rather than the proverbial unnamed source rather than casting aspersions.
Should we take it Myles , then, that a good room is not a requisite to judge equipment of the highest quality?
Having been in several dozen factories...of brands we have ALL heard of..I never seen a treated room. So you are correct.
While I have nothing to add to the argument, I will speak for those in the budget department. I can't speak for $1500 speakers as they appeal to the masses, but to drop some decent coin on something like a DAC, it takes someone vested in the hobby. I didn't spend a hefty amount treating my room, but I did do extensive research and did quite a bit myself. Even the couch was swapped from leather to microfiber to help with the acoustics of the room. This area is one I do stress for many, regardless of how deep they are in the game.
Thanks for the input. Appreciated.
My premise is simply that someone with a $7500 or $10,000 system is not going to spend $5000 on the room. There may be exceptions, but not too many.
+1.
Pity, that same someone could and would probably get a better bang for their buck IF they put the larger part of their budget into the room acoustics.
I was talking to a dealer friend a couple of days ago...we got to talking about room acoustics and why his room was NOT treated. While my friend agreed that room acoustic treatments were HIGHLY
important and desirable, he mentioned something that was a bit of an eye opener. He told me that people do NOT want to put anything on their walls except pictures...plus, since most people will NOT entertain the idea
of acoustic treatments, he feels that his display room should be as natural as possible and therefore be a typical indicator of what the average a'phile's room will sound like with the gear that he demo's. Therefore, NO room acoustic treatments of ANY kind.
Now who's creating a strawman argument? And I've heard lousy systems in "great rooms" and great systems in less than optimal rooms. So what does that mean? Maybe it comes down to the ear of the person setting up the system?
I am simply pointing out fallacious reasoning.
I've recently moved to a much different environment, don't have the dedicated room per say anymore ... and acoustic treatments are something I'm currently dealing with.
Well, I know my speakers were "voiced" in the nations best acoustic lab for monitoring work at the CBC, and few considered these speakers "ultra" high end, even in the early 90's, even tho they retailed for just over 2K. Still plenty good enough that UHF mag currently use their old "reference" pair for HT review purposes. That said, even Gerald would admit that my pair are significantly more refined, while still keeping with original intent of the pro 22.
Kinda makes me wonder what a speaker requires to be "ultra high end" these days ... proprietary drivers, a smart xover, superb bracing, great amps, even better sources ... perhaps all the above ... ?
tb1
Well, I know my speakers were "voiced" in the nations best acoustic lab for monitoring work at the CBC, and few considered these speakers "ultra" high end, even in the early 90's, even tho they retailed for just over 2K. Still plenty good enough that UHF mag currently use their old "reference" pair for HT review purposes. That said, even Gerald would admit that my pair are significantly more refined, while still keeping with original intent of the pro 22.
Kinda makes me wonder what a speaker requires to be "ultra high end" these days ... proprietary drivers, a smart xover, superb bracing, great amps, even better sources ... perhaps all the above ... ?
tb1
Similar threads
Members online
- Duke LeJeune
- adamaley
- keithc
- Antmou
- jnovak
- 3rdRock
- rrobz
- Geardaddie
- Klonk
- the sound of Tao
- mtakeda
- jazdoc
- tonytsui
- Kris
- Mike Lavigne
- Kippyy
- pdxaudio
- Young Skywalker
- agisthos
- Wavetouch
- Massimo66
- thekong
- onur
- Robh3606
- RickS
- MarkusBarkus
- Pichler
- davros
- AudioLibertarian
- Ovenmitt
- Folsom
- TheAudioAssociation
- Mabutu
- rspyder
- Gregadd
- Inline Six
- joeling
- Cesar Miranda
- Thundersnow
- Aries Cerat
- transience
- Tlay
- bonzo75
- 7ryder
- TLi
- Ron Resnick
- Juko
- Ampman
- JayT
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |