Hi Roger:
I prefer stereo for most classical music because I like to hear the details clearly. There are a few
mono recordings that capture the details and balance well, but it's very hard for complex music or
for all-in parts of the score. Then again, many-mic'd stereo often fails during the all-in parts
because the image folds into what I call "massive mono" and the details are often lost amid
conflicting arrival times. I didn't say "always" because there are exceptions. For instance, I was
very surprised to learn just how many mics were used to make the Decca Mehta/LA recording of "The
Planets," which I think sounds quite good.
Regarding Larry Miller's earlier comment, it's good to listen to new technologies and products, but
I'm not interested in upgrading unless something sounds radically better. It's definitely happened
along the way. It took many years of listening, learning and evolving taste to get to the present
system. I haven't heard anything in about 10 years to make me want to change anything, except
upgrading to a USB-enabled version of the Benchmark DAC/preamp and moving more toward listening off
a hard drive rather than spinning CDs. In the studio, I have tried several newer-vintage monitors
and always preferred what I've used for years.
There was a time when every few years, speakers would improve. First it was moving away from honky
and "warm" to greater clarity and bigger bass. Then there were efforts to shrink that sound down to
smaller boxes (which often but not always failed). I haven't heard anything radically better in
speakers for a number of years now. However, on the smaller scale -- reasonably-priced systems for
small rooms -- there has been much improvement in recent years. Also in DAC technology as far as
bringing jitter rejection, full-resolution USB compatibility and streaming capability down into very
low price points. On the lower-priced end of things, switching (class D and related) amplifiers seem
to be getting better and cheaper. VPI also seems to be raising the bar at the "budget" ($1000 range)
end of audiophile turntables. There are also neato gadgets out there like Bluetooth speakers.for
smartphones and iPads. Some of those things sound pretty darn good. Not to mention major
improvements in recent years in the area of computer-based storage and playback of music.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Kulp" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Upgrading Audio Systems
> Tom, I'm glad to see someone else agrees with me on the premise that a good system should
> replicate a live performance is just so much audiophoolishness.I never understood that anyway
> when I used to waste too much time reading TAS and Stereophool. Over half of my favorite classical
> recordings are mono.Espeially early LPs.You need to listen through a well restored classic
> tube/valve amp from the late 50s or early 60s.There is a reason these continue to go up in price.
> Roger> -----Original Message-----> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 5:49 PM> To:
> [log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] WSJ on "High end record collectors"> > Hi
> Larry:> > Wow, this one goes back a long way!> > In more recent times, I had the opportunity to
> listen to a house-priced LP playback system. It was pretty damn good, but still limited by the
> physical limits of LP cutting and pressing and the nature of produced recordings. My point is, it
> AIN'T LIVE and never will be. Live music and recorded music are two different things. Very few of
> my favorite music albums, the exception being some classical, are recorded and mixed in an
> excellent, realistic manner. I dig the music enough to listen through the recordings. And, being
> an audio guy, I like some of the quirks, intended or not. The house-priced LP system got me
> thinking that I'd better not do much more upgrading because then I'll only hear the quirks and
> flaws and not enjoy the music as much.> > Another update -- my friend who downsized recently went
> back to preferring at least CD resolution. > The change? He got a good pair of headphones and a
> reasonably-priced by high-quality DAC/headphone amp. That setup is a guaranteed ticket to hate
> lossy compression, because all the artifacts are loud and annoying. I ended up giving him back a
> big stack of CDs he gave me when he downsized. No harm done because nowadays I rip CDs to WAV or
> FLAC and mostly listen via the networked server.> > Totally agree with your point about too many
> "audiophile recordings" -- dull content and/or low talent level. Yuk. I also can't spend much time
> with an audiophile whose musical taste is limited by recording quality. Then again, I really don't
> enjoy most mono classical recordings, so I'm a little bit in that boat.> > For those who for
> various valid reasons just won't mess with the LP resurgence, I highly recommend HDTracks and
> others for greater-than-CD resolution downloads. These are mostly recent-vintage remastering, with
> some care taken in most cases, and often with less dynamics compression than the mass-mark et CD
> version. The higher quality is not universal, but it's more typical than not.> > -- Tom Fine>
> > ----- Original Message -----> From: "Miller, Larry S" <[log in to unmask]>> To:
> <[log in to unmask]>> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 5:32 PM> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] WSJ on
> "High end record collectors"> > > > Please forgive the extreme gap of time between these original
> posts and my response, but I was, of > > necessity, weeding my email and felt compelled to respond
> to some ideas raised here.> > In regard to Tom's friend who admits that his hearing isn't what it
> used to be, I used to > > occasionally face that objection when I sold audio equipment. My
> response was, "you use the same > > ears to listen to live music and recordings, don't you?" My
> point being, that, generally > > speaking, a system that sounds more like live music tends to be a
> better system. The highs may > > seem rolled off in both cases, but they will be rolled off the
> same amount whether live or > > recorded. My goal was to put together a system that made the
> customer want to listen to music.> > As to the guy who assembled an incredible systems to listen
> to Kenny G and Yanni, well, not my cup > > of tea, but if that's what he really likes, I see
> nothing wrong with that. I'm more contemptuous > > of those who buy incredible systems to listen
> to audiophile recordings which, while exceptionally > > well done, stir neither pass
>
>
|