isn't it funny

smargo · « **on:** 20 Apr 2010, 02:50 pm »

how no matter what you try - power cord - interconnect - cable - amp - preamp -etc

that if to begin with - the recording sucks - then no matter what you do - it doesn't sound good

Hence - the need to buy and sell equipment - especially in a cd based system

the recording makes the whole difference!

rollo · « **Reply #1 on:** 20 Apr 2010, 02:54 pm »

BRILLIANT !!!!!!!!!

Ah tone controls or EQ helps But garbage IN garbage OUT.

charles

cujobob · « **Reply #2 on:** 20 Apr 2010, 03:02 pm »

Really good speakers will still make a bad recording fun. A good tube-preamp can create better three dimensionality...as for the rest, I'd pretty much agree. On my high-end system, I play everything from Youtube audio to lossless and Hi-Rez. A big difference to be had, but still much better than playing Youtube material on a lower quality system.

BobM · « **Reply #3 on:** 20 Apr 2010, 04:12 pm »

What we need is a 24/196 YouTube.

Anyone want to start a new business? All it takes is tons of digital storage space and a website.

nonoise · « **Reply #4 on:** 20 Apr 2010, 04:35 pm »

Quote from: smargo on 20 Apr 2010, 02:50 pm

how no matter what you try - power cord - interconnect - cable - amp - preamp -etc

that if to begin with - the recording sucks - then no matter what you do - it doesn't sound good

Hence - the need to buy and sell equipment - especially in a cd based system

the recording makes the whole difference!

So true. You can only get so much out of a bad CD. To chase the dream of extracting more from one is folly.

Russell Dawkins · « **Reply #5 on:** 20 Apr 2010, 04:43 pm »

Quote from: cujobob on 20 Apr 2010, 03:02 pm

Really good speakers will still make a bad recording fun. A good tube-preamp can create better three dimensionality...as for the rest, I'd pretty much agree. On my high-end system, I play everything from Youtube audio to lossless and Hi-Rez. A big difference to be had, but still much better than playing Youtube material on a lower quality system.

I agree absolutely with this.

Get really good speakers (and good music) and don't worry about the minutiae.

Imperial · « **Reply #6 on:** 20 Apr 2010, 10:41 pm »

I beg to differ...
Use tubes, and you got that fighting chance, recording regardless!

Imp.

knut_the_viking · « **Reply #7 on:** 21 Apr 2010, 05:36 pm »

Quote from: BobM on 20 Apr 2010, 04:12 pm

What we need is a 24/196 YouTube. Anyone want to start a new business? All it takes is tons of digital storage space and a website.

If anybody starts said company and needs an experienced storage administrator (experience with most major systems), let me know...
</shameless>

rollo · « **Reply #8 on:** 21 Apr 2010, 06:39 pm »

One can have the best speakers and ancilary gear but a BAD recording is a bad recording. The better the speaker [ neutral] the worse the sound. Why ? That speaker will expose ALL the nasties. The only solution is an Equalizer and NOT a digital one. I have not met an equalizer yet that could not tame bad recordings.
Gimme tone controls that can be switched out of the circuit when not required. Now were talking. The only problem I see is the cost of a VG analog equalizer. FM Acoustics anyone ?

charles

Russell Dawkins · « **Reply #9 on:** 21 Apr 2010, 06:57 pm »

Quote from: rollo on 21 Apr 2010, 06:39 pm

One can have the best speakers and ancilary gear but a BAD recording is a bad recording. The better the speaker [ neutral] the worse the sound. Why ? That speaker will expose ALL the nasties. The only solution is an Equalizer and NOT a digital one. I have not met an equalizer yet that could not tame bad recordings.
Gimme tone controls that can be switched out of the circuit when not required. Now were talking. The only problem I see is the cost of a VG analog equalizer. FM Acoustics anyone ?
charles

rollo, I believe your logic is fundamentally flawed - but take comfort, in this you are in the company of most in the audiophile community.

A good (neutral and effortlessly dynamic) speaker will not make the sound worse. It is exactly as cujobob says, IMO, and until you and everyone else gets it, a lot of time, effort and money is going to be wasted.

rollo · « **Reply #10 on:** 21 Apr 2010, 08:10 pm »

Again I must respectfully disagree. Or clarify my statement. What I meant by worse is that a fine speaker will not deviate from the source. So if the source is flawed the result is flawed. Unless the speaker is colored to improve the bad recording it will be presented as is. No ? How can a neutral and dynamic presentation improve a bad recording ? Please explain.
Now in your opinion the speaker is the fix all. I say it is not. I believe the garbage in garbage out theory. I use Pipedreams speakers BTW. Now a great speaker is a great speaker period. The speakers job is to recreate the program material good or bad. Correct ? That is why it is puzzling to me why you take that stance.
I am not trying to start a arguement just would like a clear explanation as to why we all are fundamentaly wrong.

charles

pjg66 · « **Reply #11 on:** 23 Apr 2010, 12:15 am »

When you have a technically poor recording of music you love, you just have to suspend your critical judgement about the bad sound and focus on the music. It's surprising then how listenable a bad recording can sound on a good system.

Happy listening.

Paul G.

Russell Dawkins · « **Reply #12 on:** 23 Apr 2010, 01:46 am »

I responded to this yesterday in a post that took some time to put together, but I see it's not showing, so I will paraphrase as best I can. My comments inserted in blue.

Quote from: rollo on 21 Apr 2010, 08:10 pm

Again I must respectfully disagree. Or clarify my statement. What I meant by worse is that a fine speaker will not deviate from the source. So if the source is flawed the result is flawed. Unless the speaker is colored to improve the bad recording it will be presented as is. No ? How can a neutral and dynamic presentation improve a bad recording ? Please explain.
I would never rely on a speaker to improve a recording - only to do least damage, and a neutral and dynamically accurate speaker will do the least damage.
Now in your opinion the speaker is the fix all. I say it is not. I don't believe a speaker is the fix all - just the most important component by far in the replay chain. In my opinion, of course.
I believe the garbage in garbage out theory. I use Pipedreams speakers BTW. Now a great speaker is a great speaker period. The speakers job is to recreate the program material good or bad. Correct ? That is why it is puzzling to me why you take that stance.
Would you prefer, if it were practicable, to have a second, lower grade system for those times when you want to play an inferior recording? Do you not yet see the folly of this "logic"?
I am not trying to start a arguement just would like a clear explanation as to why we all are fundamentaly wrong.
charles

I think this is all I can muster on this topic. I find it quite mind-bending. I say again, I think this is very wrong headed, but apparently not an unusual perspective on how to improve the listening experience.

Nuance · « **Reply #13 on:** 23 Apr 2010, 04:13 am »

I agree with all your comments in blue, Russell. Its not the fault of the speaker that the recording is bad; its the fault of the recording. I do, however, think rollo agrees with most of what you said. I also think Russell said many peoples logic is fundamentally flawed because they try to make the flawed recording sound better by purchasing flawed speakers, or by using tone controls/EQ above the Schroeder Frequency. Two flaws don't make a right, but I guess if you think it sounds better then that's all that matters.

It actually sounds like you both agree with each other more often than not.

IMO, the speakers and recording are the most important pieces of audio reproduction. Get those, the room and the source player right, and the rest is easy. YMMV.

Tyson · « **Reply #14 on:** 23 Apr 2010, 04:16 am »

Quote from: Russell Dawkins on 23 Apr 2010, 01:46 am

I responded to this yesterday in a post that took some time to put together, but I see it's not showing, so I will paraphrase as best I can. My comments inserted in blue.
I think this is all I can muster on this topic. I find it quite mind-bending. I say again, I think this is very wrong headed, but apparently not an unusual perspective on how to improve the listening experience.

Agreed, this is the road to equipment fetishism.

Nuance · « **Reply #15 on:** 23 Apr 2010, 04:23 am »

Quote from: Tyson on 23 Apr 2010, 04:16 am

Agreed, this is the road to equipment fetishism.

There are a lot of people on this forum that fall into that category. Some probably don't even realize it.

Tyson · « **Reply #16 on:** 23 Apr 2010, 05:13 am »

I couldn't agree with you more.

JLM · « **Reply #17 on:** 23 Apr 2010, 11:41 am »

Having a half way decent room you can listen in however/whenever you want is the biggest factor to audio satisfaction.

Recordings provide the biggest sound quality factor in the audio chain, but they're a given.

As the primary/only transducer in the reproduction end of the chain, speakers are the 2nd biggest factor. Some of the good ones emphasize detail (those will get the poorer recordings into the biggest trouble), so I lean towards higher tonal resolution.

Tubes can do some things (like soundstaging), but the voicing changes throughout the life of the tubes or based on what tubes are used, and I can't stand not having (relative) absolutes in my system.

Don't sweat the rest.

rollo · « **Reply #18 on:** 23 Apr 2010, 04:16 pm »

Thank you for your response. What I cannot get is the fact that a poor recording will still be a poor recording no matter what you play it through. The speaker as you well know is one of the most important piece in the system. Granted. No arguement there. Especially your line of product.
Next show I see you at I will bring some inferior recordings. It should be fun.

charles

K Shep · « **Reply #19 on:** 23 Apr 2010, 04:38 pm »

I've recently started down loading 24/96 music files. While the result sounds great to my ear, my attention has focused again on how well the recording was engineered or should I say how well the recording engineer matched my preferences.