[Chuckdog2005]

After reading some recent threads concerning 800 lb gorillas I'm curious about another.

When delivered good source material my 1.7's are very rewarding, but.... for me quality wise too much of my digital music library simply sucks. Like any more revealing speakers Maggies are devastatingly unforgiving to poor media.

There are several original analog recordings that were never meant to be heard with so much detail, several new recordings that were mastered by the tin eared "loud and proud crowd." Many of the albums I like will likely never be available in any other form, so it is what it is.

I can listen to albums in the car/truck without being to disappointed. Those same albums are mostly skipped over at home.   

What's some of your practical and affordable "Plan B's?"

Thanks in advance for any insight, CD.   

[SteveFord]

I'm not quite sure what you're asking; are you looking for advice on less revealing speakers? 

[rooze]

What's some of your practical and affordable "Plan B's?"

Thanks in advance for any insight, CD.   

You can go a long way to resolve this for around $100, or perhaps a little more.

If your preamp has a HT bypass, pick up an older used preamp or even a receiver and pipe it into the HT bypass. If you find something with tone controls you can really warm up the sound of those old CD's and make them very enjoyable through your Maggies.

I found an older Bob Carver CT7 for $130, it also has 'Sonic Holography' along with tone controls. The sonic holography feature is fantastic fun. I use my Carver into the HT on a Supratek tube preamp, which doesn't need to be powered on for the bypass to work. I find myself using the Carver far more often than the Supratek, since it's such a good preamp and a lot of the recordings I have benefit from being warmed up and 'spread out' via the SH feature.

rooze

[Chuckdog2005]

Long way about asking what others do when trying to enjoy some favored artist on less than favorable recordings. I'm truly impressed with our modern hardware's abilities to reproduce a recording. It appears to be far ahead of the mainstream fodder I have to feed it.

Given enough room B speakers maybe? Adding some tubes, also a maybe?

This question is mostly driven by frustration. Better this, better that, all to reproduce all the warts of today's media/recordings.

[rockadanny]

I don't have Maggies but faced a similar situation as you.

I recognized the magic in my speakers of choice but had similar disappointment with many less than stellar recordings (rock, pop, blues). I ended up selecting gear to compliment my speakers (CD player, preamp, amp, wires), and each piece got me closer to the sound I was after. It was a process. I auditioned each piece in my system carefully, one at a time, living with it for a while to verify intended improvement. In the end (today) except for a few of the most gawd-awful recordings, not only are the well recorded CDs still magical in my system, but I can also enojoy lesser quality recorded music in my system as well.

(note: I ended up with an all-tube system, which, IMO, unless you have gobs of money to spend on very expensive SS gear, you might also wish to consider.)

[Chuckdog2005]

RAD, I believe your experience and advice are applicable to my situation.

I've already been browsing Mr. Van Alstine's tube products. Like many today I don't have the money to throw into it that I'd like, but I ain't married to anything I now own.

I'm all solid state and digitized. By most standards a Medium Fi system. NAD, Peachtree Audio, Maggies, etc.

Thanks Rock, seems to be "sound" advice.  I simply couldn't resist! CD   

[DTB300]

Long way about asking what others do when trying to enjoy some favored artist on less than favorable recordings. I'm truly impressed with our modern hardware's abilities to reproduce a recording. It appears to be far ahead of the mainstream fodder I have to feed it.

Bad recordings are part of the game.   

Changing your system to help smooth over the sound of bad recordings could make your good recordings sound worse.   

Just enjoy the music (maybe a little lower volume for those poor ones).   

If you just cannot get by the poor sound then relegate it for car duty playback.

[Chuckdog2005]

Bad recordings are part of the game.   

Changing your system to help smooth over the sound of bad recordings could make your good recordings sound worse.   

Just enjoy the music (maybe a little lower volume for those poor ones).   

If you just cannot get by the poor sound then relegate it for car duty playback.

I agree, they've been with us forever. It seems they're more common and severe than they were in the golden age of vinyl. 35+ years ago, they didn't scream their poor characteristics as many do today.

We have to be careful of what we wish. Are we sure that we really want to squeeze every ounce of information contained in a track?   

[*Scotty*]

Even the best loudspeakers can only faithfully reproduce what they are they fed. Before you blame the recording quality for what you hear from your Maggie's you might want to examine rest of the chain upstream from your speakers. There are undoubtly components out there that will do a better job with both good recordings and those that are of lesser quality.
Scotty

[Chuckdog2005]

Even the best loudspeakers can only faithfully reproduce what they are they fed. Before you blame the recording quality for what you hear from your Maggie's you might want to examine rest of the chain upstream from your speakers. There are undoubtly components out there that will do a better job with both good recordings and those that are of lesser quality.
Scotty

While I appreciate all input and knew this subject would be brought up, something like a T Bone Burnett produced recording is tough to blame the hardware for.

[Tyson]

You need tubes, or a warm SS amp, like Modwright, Odyssey, or First Watt.

[*Scotty*]

You might try buying a microphone and downloading REW software.
The room itself may show some specific frequency response anomolies that are exactly right to make some instruments really annoying. Which T-Bone Burnett produced album shows up the problem.
Scotty

[Chuckdog2005]

The last T Boned album I tried to endure was Gregg Allman's "Low Country Blues."

It's the loudness wars, compression, sizzling cymbals and other abhorrent repackaging remastering practices that ruin what were great performances when I owned many of the original LP's several years ago. Sad to say I gave them all away about 20 years ago.

I hadn't planned on going back to vinyl, but may have to. I admit to enjoying the convenience of the digital formats, but they can be a sure source of listener fatigue. I've quickly learned the value of an external dac. Many's internal dacs voices are a bit thin and sizzly even with good material

Today's digital ain't all bad. I have a few old and newer recordings that actually put smiles that couldn't be chiseled off on my face. I'm pleasantly surprised when I pick one (cd) up that sounds virtually identical to the original lp. Some of the high resolution downloads have far bettered my old lp's. CD   

[SteveFord]

If you're going to stick with digital throw some tubes in there to take the edge off.
There's an awful lot to be said for vinyl and tube tuners if you have any decent stations near where you live.

[*Scotty*]

If the "Low Country Blues" album actually has the whole "bad practices" enchilada going on then there is nothing High Fidelity reproduction of the source material is going do that will be of any benefit sound wise. You may have the GIGO problem. I think that maybe the artist intends you to listen to his album through a pair of vintage 6x9 inch speakers that would have graced the rear deck of a 1965 Chevelle. Good times,but bad sound.
Scotty

[Tyson]

You could also invest in hirez recordings - most have been remastered well.

[jarcher]

Have suffered the same problem, particularly with a fairly analytical maggie 1.7 + krell amp system.  I'm rapidly heading towards tubes - for both preamp + amp.  And no - good tube gear doesn't rob the detail or dynamics or become overly dark / obscure (which I hate).  It just gives the music some more "humanity" and "musicality". 

I'm starting with an older Conrad Johnson PV10A (about $750 used w/ some tasty tube choices) w/ the Krell and soon will add an older CJ MV75A1 amp to the mix.  I think CJ really does understand something fundamental about how things should sound - specs be damned.

I found also cable choices can also dial in the sound somewhat - though have to admit at least on the tone part a good digital equalizer properly used might be able to achieve a lot of the same for less.  On the digital front I tend towards Wireworld Starlight (coax digital + USB) to add a touch of warmth and meat to the sound.  And on the speaker cabling I use a decent Ohno-Crystal-Cast copper to also add a bit of the same.  The IC's I leave all neutral / open (Wireworld Oasis) so as to not mask in anyway the original signal.  In sum careful cable choices can help to tone the sound - and doesn't have to cost a fortune. 

[Chuckdog2005]

Thanks guys, this is exactly what I'm looking for. This is my second venture into "better" 2 channel arena, the first being in the mid 70's to early 80's.

I remember feedback (howling) and big booming bass drivers requiring critical placement, but the vinyl source material was seldom if ever an issue.

The variances in production, mastering quality, etc simply weren't as painfully glaring as they are today.

When judiciously applied technology is a wonderful thing, over the top application of some technologies are simply disastrous for the listener.

I've been quite impressed with today's hardware. We have tiny transducers in tiny cabinets producing what would have been impossible sound from most many times their size in 1980.

We didn't have the interwebs to seek out other's advice and experiences during the so called "golden age" of hifi, maybe we didn't need it then? Today's a new day, I appreciate having all of your experiences as close as my keyboard now.

Thanks again, CD

 

 

[MGbert]

I agree, they've been with us forever. It seems they're more common and severe than they were in the golden age of vinyl. 35+ years ago, they didn't scream their poor characteristics as many do today.

We have to be careful of what we wish. Are we sure that we really want to squeeze every ounce of information contained in a track?

Along with my other "Gorilla" postings, I also started this thread:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=118426.0

Admittedly buried in it, since I did not provide a playlist for the session, is the fact that the positive reaction jarcher and pansixt experienced was not from a preponderance of audiophile quality recordings, but from a broad spectrum of what I'll call "real world" recordings, all played in digital format, but many from late '60's-70's.  Here's a partial playlist:

Rolling Stones' "Paint it Black",
Who's "Pinball Wizard",
Joe Cocker's "Feelin' Alright",
Van der Graff Generator's "Pioneers over C",
Dan Hick's "Jukie's Ball",
It's a Beautiful Day's "Bulgaria",

and to show how a victim of the current loudness wars fares,

Sugarland's "Stand Up"

None of these would usually come to mind as "audiophile demonstration pieces", but I have found that, if the system is tuned to "play the room" adequately, most recordings except the most dreadful have at least one instrument/voice in the mix which comes through with realism and authority.  That, in turn, helps me to "ground" the proceedings in some semblance of reality.  Closing your eyes helps.   

Ironically, I really think that the strategy I used in tuning my system to play the room using digital EQ to get a semblance of a "flat" frequency response helps, not hinders, the enjoyment of less than perfect recordings.  Even a really revealing transducer like a Magnepan 1.7 won't deliver everything to your ears if there are massive frequency suckouts and resonant peaks in your room - and all rooms have them.    

Here's another 800 pound gorilla to add to the zoo: there is no standard for mastering recordings, and older disks were made to sound as "good" on a crappy AM radio as on better home based systems.     That means they were all processed with echo, EQ, and what have you.  If your system can't reveal the full frequency range of the recording IN YOUR ROOM, then you're only getting a partial representation of an imperfect recording.  By being able to hear the whole spectrum without room modes obscuring chunks of it, you have the best shot of hearing those "grounding" bits I discussed above.  And since the recording has already been "tainted" with EQ, the purist objection to using EQ kinda goes away.     Of course, judiciousness there is amply rewarded.

Another thought: if your listening room is fairly large, and you're set up for far field listening, perhaps you could use some of my previously posted guidance to set up a nearfield experience?  You may find that that will help some recordings that simply don't work far field.

MGbert

[MaggiesAndCats]

If you're going to stick with digital throw some tubes in there to take the edge off.
There's an awful lot to be said for vinyl and tube tuners if you have any decent stations near where you live.

I have an SS preamp and SS power amps (biamping), but my CD player is tube.  I found that using tubes at the source gets me very close to the sound I would like to have.  Jorma Kaukonen's last 2 CD's sound phenomenal - and great music too!!

Regards,

Steve