More audiophoolery

[Eeyore]

If you didn't spend the 500 bucks on a
cable, you'd probably just blow it on something frivolous, like a
decent pair of speakers,

500 bucks WILL NOT buy you a decent pair of speakers. NO WAY. It's the
transducer we haven't yet really tamed. But we're working on it.

$5000 would get something fairly good.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Ok. So if they sell these, will somebody design a nuance filter?
It says they will "bring out the nuances in digital audio
reproduction". Audiophools want _audio_ NOT *nuances*.
Or at least so I am told. Maybe they like oldances better,
I duuno.

Must be a marketing opportunity there.

Digital nuances you mean ? These marketing guys are in la-la land.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

What amuses me is people who want to hear the 'pure sound' of a
performance. After its been processed to **** in the studio then crammed
on a CD.

The studio 'cut' is likely very good.

Then the damn 'mastering houses' get their hands on it and quash every dB of
dynamic range they can out of it - so it sounds 'loud'. Good for the car and
stuff. Jeez. See rec.audio.pro

Graham

 

[Adrian Jansen]

There is one thing that I don't understand: with so many audiophiles,
why there are no videophiles? There should be much more applications for
magic in video compared to the audio.


Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

My take would be that there is much more possibility of objective
measurement of display quality on a video signal, you can *see* it,
after all. Therefore much less scope for argument and subjective
judgement. Maybe I would not want to push this too far, just thinking
about color balance and suchlike stuff.

--
Regards,

Adrian Jansen adrianjansen at internode dot on dot net
Design Engineer J & K Micro Systems
Microcomputer solutions for industrial control
Note reply address is invalid, convert address above to machine form.

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

My take would be that there is much more possibility of objective
measurement of display quality on a video signal, you can *see* it,
after all. Therefore much less scope for argument and subjective
judgement. Maybe I would not want to push this too far, just thinking
about color balance and suchlike stuff.

It also takes a lot more money and technical knowledge to be a
videophile. Check the prices of professional colour corrected monitors
and projectors (high def). Then we have compression formats etc.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

The studio 'cut' is likely very good.

Then the damn 'mastering houses' get their hands on it and quash every dB of
dynamic range they can out of it - so it sounds 'loud'. Good for the car and
stuff. Jeez. See rec.audio.pro

Thing is, if you heard in your room exactly what you heard in the
audience of a live performance it would not sound very good.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

 

[mpm]

500 bucks WILL NOT buy you a decent pair of speakers. NO WAY. It's the
transducer we haven't yet really tamed. But we're working on it.

$5000 would get something fairly good.

Graham

FWIW, I own a pair of Rowland unamplified studio monitors that I'm
pretty sure were under $500, or very close to it when I purchased them
5 or 6 years ago. AWESOME sound! They are ported with about a 6.5"
mid/bass and a seperate tweeter. (Bookshelf type format).

If anybody wants a model number, I'll look it up on Monday.
They are in my recording studio.

I've owned a lot of speakers over the years, even some real Trip-
sevens from back in the day (plus lots of JBL, etc..) These are
right up there, and for the price - I don't know if they can be beat?
I'm sure they're still in production.

 

[mpm]

The studio 'cut' is likely very good.

Then the damn 'mastering houses' get their hands on it and quash every dBof
dynamic range they can out of it - so it sounds 'loud'. Good for the car and
stuff. Jeez. See rec.audio.pro

Graham

I wonder how long it will be before some record company execs (or
performers?) figure out there might be a market for the individual
channel track recordings?

My brother recently turned me on to a Beatles re-make album. It was
the original musicians, but had been remastered in a completely
different way. Some of the tracks were brought into much more
prominance, and other reduced. The result was actually pretty damn
good.

-mpm

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

I wonder how long it will be before some record company execs (or
performers?) figure out there might be a market for the individual
channel track recordings?

My brother recently turned me on to a Beatles re-make album. It was
the original musicians, but had been remastered in a completely
different way. Some of the tracks were brought into much more
prominance, and other reduced. The result was actually pretty damn
good.

-mpm

I've wondered about that as well, but I suspect the idea was dismissed
because the record companies could not make money from the thousands of
amateur bootlegs that would result.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

 

[Eeyore]

Thing is, if you heard in your room exactly what you heard in the
audience of a live performance it would not sound very good.

That's a different matter though.

Graham

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

That's a different matter though.

Not at all.
What is "real music" that the listener supposedly wants?

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

 

[Wim Lewis]

"Attention to detail when building this cable was used by employing high
quality insulation and woven jacketing to reduce vibration and to add
durability."

Just what I need, cables that "don't vibrate". Is this a problem?

Also,

"Additionally, signal directional markings are provided for optimum
signal transfer."

The arrow on the pictured cable is a *two-headed* arrow!

I guess that's accurate, though. I mean, you wouldn't want someone to
accidentally try to transfer a signal sideways across the cable ... ?

 

[Wim Lewis]

I wonder how long it will be before some record company execs (or
performers?) figure out there might be a market for the individual
channel track recordings?

Some group precently released such, and encouraged fans to do their
own remixing --- ahh, it was Radiohead ("Nude"), but Trent Reznor
has done the same with some Nine Inch Nails tracks, back in 2005.

I don't think this was done out of audiophile considerations, but
because fans were already messing around with remixing many groups'
songs. Might as well give them better starting material.

 

[Eeyore]

FWIW, I own a pair of Rowland unamplified studio monitors that I'm
pretty sure were under $500, or very close to it when I purchased them
5 or 6 years ago. AWESOME sound! They are ported with about a 6.5"
mid/bass and a seperate tweeter. (Bookshelf type format).

If anybody wants a model number, I'll look it up on Monday.
They are in my recording studio.

I've owned a lot of speakers over the years, even some real Trip-
sevens from back in the day (plus lots of JBL, etc..) These are
right up there, and for the price - I don't know if they can be beat?
I'm sure they're still in production.

That's very good value for $500. I liked many of the early Missions but even
they weren't that cheap and that was in the 80s !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Not at all.
What is "real music" that the listener supposedly wants?

Mastering tequnique and the acoustics of a live hall are TOTALLY different matters.
Sorry to have to disagree.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

I wonder how long it will be before some record company execs (or
performers?) figure out there might be a market for the individual
channel track recordings?

My brother recently turned me on to a Beatles re-make album. It was
the original musicians, but had been remastered in a completely
different way. Some of the tracks were brought into much more
prominance, and other reduced. The result was actually pretty damn
good.

The mix is everything. The mastering engineeer's influence however is limited
pretty much to level, EQ and dynamics.

Graham

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Mastering tequnique and the acoustics of a live hall are TOTALLY different matters.
Sorry to have to disagree.

So what is "real music"?
My argument is that such a thing does not exist.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

 

[krw]

There is one thing that I don't understand: with so many audiophiles,
why there are no videophiles? There should be much more applications for
magic in video compared to the audio.

There are. Ever hear of LaserDisks? The Vidophools *hate* DVDs.

 

[JosephKK]

So what is "real music"?
My argument is that such a thing does not exist.

Silly twit, music is in the ear of the listener.

Personally, i prefer live performance on non-electronic instruments.
And i don't get enough.