advertisement


I was lied to...

Minio said:
I have no need to move on as I am happily stuck in the 70s and 80s.
Click to expand...
My TV has nothing at all to do with my hi-fi. Oh but I repeat myself.
And my computer has nothing to do with my hi-fi either.
I guess I'm a little long in the tooth.
Even with my lo-fi by the way, speakers do come first. Or headphones for that matter.
I don't consider headphones - however good they are and how much I love them - to be real hi-fi: you will never get that 3D picture I crave and that I place way above all else. The simple impression of being there no headphones can render.
 
chartz said:
I don't consider headphones - however good they are and how much I love them - to be real hi-fi: you will never get that 3D picture I crave and that I place way above all else. The simple impression of being there no headphones can render.
Click to expand...

Not sure about 'being there', but I've been turning to my cans much more over the last year or so, so cannot agree with you there. Stuff going on all over the inside of my head; obv. more immediate than my speakers but highly impressive, even on R3. Good cans coupled with a competent and synergistic can-amp can offer another, and equally involving, dimension.
 
I guess I'm still mulling over all those expensive speakers that I hated.
Things like isobarik designs, that unless fed by massive rackfuls of current dumping mono blocks, just sounded like boom and slop devoid of any rhythm.
On the other hand give me an old fashioned sealed box with an eight incher made of proper wood for a couple of ton of squids, in Blighty, back in the day -
And I'm happy as Larry!
 
chartz said:
My TV has nothing at all to do with my hi-fi. Oh but I repeat myself.
And my computer has nothing to do with my hi-fi either.
I guess I'm a little long in the tooth.
Even with my lo-fi by the way, speakers do come first. Or headphones for that matter.
I don't consider headphones - however good they are and how much I love them - to be real hi-fi: you will never get that 3D picture I crave and that I place way above all else. The simple impression of being there no headphones can render.
Click to expand...

Same here. I think it's partly that it's in/on your head and a big part of it that there isn't "power/energy" going into a room, creating vibrations which you can feel etc etc as well as the lack of that 3D picture you mention.
 
Mike Reed said:
Ah, those rose-tinted spec's! The older I get, the further back I go. Those halcyon days which seemed quite normal at the time.
Click to expand...

Ah yes:) And also the unfortunately unrepeatable thrill of those first time things which now seem "normal".... your first gig, first festival, first time you drove a car/rode a motorbike etc
 
tvheadhunter said:
What I found with most of the pro audio music speakers was they were really made for near or mid-field listening, were very accurate, but also very analytical. Still closer than regular hifi speakers. I would recommend a listen, especially the big Geithein, Barefoot, and Lipenski. The pro audio guys are a completely different bunch, especially in terms of what’s important to them.
Click to expand...

Chasing the “live” experience in recorded music is never going to happen. Getting a window into the recording is the best you can do. A decent horn loaded speaker with high efficiency comes closer to reproducing that “live” feel.

Does the source matter? Yes but definitely not as much as Linn had people believe. The interaction of the room and speakers is the most critical for really good sound.
 
Not lies, scams here.

The idea that a rough cartridge on a Linn compared favourably to a nice cartridge on, say, a Thorens was a marketing ploy and a lie alright.
Probably Linn themselves believed it!
The old Linn was nothing special and still is: a very good deck with a lot of noise and hype around it, nothing more.
Today it still looks the same but it appears to be an entirely different proposition.
Anyone fancy an £ 8,000 subchassis?
 
chartz said:
The idea that a rough cartridge on a Linn compared favourably to a nice cartridge on, say, a Thorens was a marketing ploy and a lie alright.
Click to expand...

That's very specific. But it's true that a poor turntable won't sound good whatever arm and cartridge you fit. (I am not saying Thorens made poor turntables though you don't specify a model).

Tim
 
I'm curious what people mean when they say they want their hi-fi to sound like a 'live' performance. Is it dynamic range? Volume? Frequency extension? Hairs on the back of the neck?

I'm quite happy to accept that most recordings are an idealised version of the performance - I really don't want a 120db snare drum in my living room!
 
I was specific: I want 3D stereo. Only this gives me the impression of being there.

The rest is much less important to me (as a musician I consider PRaT in hi-fi a myth).
Sound pressure is not important either.
I do have a snare drum in my listening room. Not sure it's 120 dB though :D
 
tenpercenter said:
Chasing the “live” experience in recorded music is never going to happen. Getting a window into the recording is the best you can do. A decent horn loaded speaker with high efficiency comes closer to reproducing that “live” feel.
Click to expand...

Actually you can get very close to the live experience , what is more difficult is to get the live sound.

To get a live experience obviously needs the correct equipment but it also takes more than the equipment. It takes a well thought out room and treatment. An untreated room will stamp its signature on whatever is being played, not allowing the true sound to be heard.

My listening room was designed and built for that purpose of getting the live experience and i believe i have achieved that.

A live outdoor concert , Woodstock - Back to the Garden.
A live theatre concert , Mary Black - Live.
A studio recording , Jimi Hendrix - Electric Ladyland.

Just three examples that all give their respective individual sound and from which i get believable experiences.
 
paulfromcamden said:
I'm curious what people mean when they say they want their hi-fi to sound like a 'live' performance. Is it dynamic range? Volume? Frequency extension? Hairs on the back of the neck?

I'm quite happy to accept that most recordings are an idealised version of the performance - I really don't want a 120db snare drum in my living room!
Click to expand...

I think the idea is that you shut your eyes and can easily imagine the performers being present in the room.

Replicating a rock concert is pretty easy, just turn the volume to max, never mind any distortion, and also have the radio on with some phone-in chat show ;-)

A lot of it is down to the recording. Kind of Blue is exceptional for this, for example. Whereas mixes where the instruments move all over the place are always going to sound artificial.

Tim
 
KOB is rough. The recording is hopelessly dated.
Reverb is totally artificial.
But I love it!
By the way, the CD version I have is awful. I always listen to the LP.
 
onlyconnect said:
Replicating a rock concert is pretty easy, just turn the volume to max, never mind any distortion, and also have the radio on with some phone-in chat show ;-)
Click to expand...
Well, therein lies the rub. It'll take a very healthy amplifier and a brace of large JBLs at home to duplicate the clean but loud ambience of a rock concert.
 
James said:
Well, therein lies the rub. It'll take a very healthy amplifier and a brace of large JBLs at home to duplicate the clean but loud ambience of a rock concert.
Click to expand...

It's a challenge and beyond most of our kit. On the other hand, most of us play music too quietly, for good reasons, one being domestic harmony, the other being the neighbours.

Tim
 
James said:
Well, therein lies the rub. It'll take a very healthy amplifier and a brace of large JBLs at home to duplicate the clean but loud ambience of a rock concert.
Click to expand...
Yes clean and loud. In a listening room, dream on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top