Naim = bright?

[dave]

That's a personal choice I won't make. I've heard equipment I actually like the sound of, but I know it's lying to me, so won't use it.

Valve equipment is a case in point, can be very attractive sound, all that lovely 2nd harmonic, but not for me.

S.

Serge,

If I believed in such things I'd swear you were my old buddy Julian Hirsch come back to haunt me. Even though I disagree with him now on many things audio, I still appreciate and admire his unwavering commitment to the prime directive - fidelity to the original signal.

Btw, I do mean this as compliment.


regards,

dave

Julian Hirsch (1922 -2003)

 

[MVV]

Serge,

If I believed in such things I'd swear you were my old buddy Julian Hirsch come back to haunt me. Even though I disagree with him now on many things audio, I still appreciate and admire his unwavering commitment to the prime directive - fidelity to the original signal.

Btw, I do mean this as compliment.


regards,

dave

Julian Hirsch (1922 -2003)

Good man Dave! We all (daft as we are) are on the same side.

 

[dave]

Thanks - I really do wish we were all on the same side of the pond as I think a few nights at the pub and in front of a hifi would sort the differences all rather quickly. I also believe we'd find more in common than we suspect.

best,

dave

 

[Dinovector]

Good man Dave! We all (daft as we are) are on the same side.

Yes, fidelity to the original is the goal, just some haven't had the opportunity to hear the original but as long as they're happy should we give a monkey's?

 

[Dinovector]

I also believe we'd find more in common than we suspect.

Of course this is right but heaven forbid we should admit that

 

[dave]

Yes, fidelity to the original is the goal, just some haven't had the opportunity to hear the original but as long as they're happy should we give a monkey's?

..and my point since the beginning of these arguments.

Some of us hope the handful of electrical parameters we know about reveal whether a piece of equipment or system faithfully reproduces what's heard in the studio. It doesn't IME and I don't believe what's missing is just a matter of loudspeaker losses.

I've got no facts to back this up of course but from what I've experienced as a listener we must be a trillion miles away with the best loudspeaker technology instead of a million miles if that were the case as no system out there appears to be even close.

regards,

dave

 

[dave]

Of course this is right but heaven forbid we should admit that

No need to shatter the illusion - I'd still insist we hit a pub that serves cold beer;-)

 

[Elephantears]

I can objectively state that you have to be in the North to get a good pint.

(more relevant than this old amps debate, surely)

 

[Errol]

I don't think that's fair, Serge has repeatedly stated his preferences are based on fidelity i.e. faithfulness to the original - not how much he enjoys what comes out the other end.

Yes he does have that preference, but his "faithfulness to the original" is only as good as his equipment can reproduce, which has the same issues with colouration as everyone else does no matter how technically perfect/expensive it is.
The elephant in his room is that he cannot prove with absolute conviction, no matter how many measurements he makes, that what his equipment reproduces is exactly (in ALL aspects of replay quality) what is on the "CD"
Errol.

 

[MVV]

And the winner is.... Errol, because he wants it more. Sorry Serge.

 

[dave]

Yes he does have that preference, but his "faithfulness to the original" is only as good as his equipment can reproduce, which has the same issues with colouration as everyone else does no matter how technically perfect/expensive it is.
The elephant in his room is that he cannot prove with absolute conviction, no matter how many measurements he makes, that what his equipment reproduces is exactly (in ALL aspects of replay quality) what is on the "CD"
Errol.

Years ago I posted here about getting the opportunity to hear several second-generation CD copies made from a mastertape from a well-known engineer and given to a mutual friend (no other details will be provided as the material may still be pending release.)

I wasn't at the actual recording session but I will say I have never heard sound reproduced with this level of realism and dynamics...ever. After this experience I had no doubt that 16/44 is capable of capturing fidelity beyond our wildest dreams but we're likely never to hear it with production CDs and on most systems because the industry as a whole doesn't care. They're only interested in what can be pushed as New and Improved (with higher sampling rates and more bits) because New sells -fidelity doesn't.

regards,

dave

 

[Yank]

I don't think that's fair, Serge has repeatedly stated his preferences are based on fidelity i.e. faithfulness to the original - not how much he enjoys what comes out the other end.

I'm not convinced that his path necessarily leads to fidelity.

 

[Yank]

Years ago I posted here about getting the opportunity to hear several second-generation CD copies made from a mastertape from a well-known engineer and given to a mutual friend (no other details will be provided as the material may still be pending release.)

I wasn't at the actual recording session but I will say I have never heard sound reproduced with this level of realism and dynamics...ever. After this experience I had no doubt that 16/44 is capable of capturing fidelity beyond our wildest dreams but we're likely never to hear it with production CDs and on most systems because the industry as a whole doesn't care. They're only interested in what can be pushed as New and Improved (with higher sampling rates and more bits) because New sells -fidelity doesn't.

Seems to me that in the CD age, the prime responsibility of mastering engineers has been to remove fidelity from recordings. The degree of fiddling done to recordings after they've been mixed down to 2-track is disgusting. And after about 1993 or so it started getting much, much worse.

 

[dave]

I've got good and bad examples of both pre and post 93 recordings but limited to classical, jazz, folk and with little in the way of pop so this could be the case especially after hearing many complaining about the compression and loudness wars.

After the experience I mentioned above I know the problem isn't inherent in the digital process or the 16/44 format as far as our current sound quality limitations are concerned. I have no doubt about that.

Again, I think we'll continue to receive small improvements in SQ purely based on accident with what the latest technology rushed out to sell can offer. In other words, any large improvement that's clearly possible will be non-existent as no one is inspired to get the potential out of whatever technology is current. (Marketing depts will not allow the engineers long enough to stand still to define the problems and eliminate them getting the best out of a format)

 

[Steven Toy]

Yes he does have that preference, but his "faithfulness to the original" is only as good as his equipment can reproduce, which has the same issues with colouration as everyone else does no matter how technically perfect/expensive it is.
The elephant in his room is that he cannot prove with absolute conviction, no matter how many measurements he makes, that what his equipment reproduces is exactly (in ALL aspects of replay quality) what is on the "CD"
Errol.

Brilliant!

No system will reproduce ALL aspects of replay quality on the CD but I'll wager (subjectively at least) that my approach will reveal more.

 

[DLF]

Yes he does have that preference, but his "faithfulness to the original" is only as good as his equipment can reproduce, which has the same issues with colouration as everyone else does no matter how technically perfect/expensive it is.
The elephant in his room is that he cannot prove with absolute conviction, no matter how many measurements he makes, that what his equipment reproduces is exactly (in ALL aspects of replay quality) what is on the "CD"
Errol.

I confess I don't know what 'all aspects of replay quality are' but how could he go about proving that? If a suite of tests shows more distortion in amplifier A than amplifier B then B is more faithful to the original - by definition. We can't prove this will always be true but it's the best we can do for now. This is the nature of science and engineering. We will never be able to prove we know everything we will ever know - and I can't prove that either!

 

[Steven Toy]

So we live with the uncertainty or we don't.

I choose to live with it.

 

[Dinovector]

No need to shatter the illusion - I'd still insist we hit a pub that serves cold beer;-)

I can objectively state that you have to be in the North to get a good pint.

(more relevant than this old amps debate, surely)

Well that's three of us up for a pint and a song

 

[Brian]

And you'd lose. I don't say that something is better when I mean I prefer it. I say I prefer it. "Better" to me implies a degree of objectivity that isn't there for things like two versions of a film, or two wines or two fruit. Better to me means that one item or process gets closer to a specification than another, such as the example above of a people-carrier or a Porsche. One could be better than the other in how it fulfils a specification or stated requirement.

S.

Use of the word better by the rest of the population implies no such thing and they'd be correct.

 

[Mr Pig]

No system will reproduce ALL aspects of replay quality on the CD but I'll wager that my approach will reveal more.

Would that be the sofa in front of the speakers in a small room approach? ;0)

Sorry Steven, but different types of system are usually good at different aspects of reproduction. I've never heard a system that was good in every way. This whole Hi-Fi game is pretty f***** straight out of the blocks because of the limitations of what a Hi-Fi system can possibly do. 'Just what's on the disk' sounds nice but it's dreamy dream land with basis chance in reality.