Dyn certainly have a reputation for big bass and difficult amplifier loads in terms of current demands. This can result in boom if the amp isn't very powerful.
chebby
Well-known member
Eddie Pound:In general an active system is more controlled so what you're hearing is probably correct.
Sunday lunch in a Michelin starred restaurant is more 'correct' and cooked by qualified chefs from scrupulously selected ingredients - and is 'scientifically' repeatable on every dish on any day - but nothing is more satisfying than the Sunday lunch your mother/wife/gran cooks! It touches your soul as well as your stomach. Granny's roast beef and spuds and Yorkshires and gravy may not be 'correct' if a panel of Michelin chefs were to pick it apart and critique/analyse it but would you care?
Do these ADM9.1s touch the music lover or the 'scientist/engineer' in you?
Unless the listener was present at the recording then what is 'correct'?
I have not yet seen anyone express if they were moved by music from the ADM9.1's. There has been high praise for neutrality, lack of distortion, compactness, finish and the technical measurements but whenever any minor criticism is expressed by users for the apparent lack of bass, people jump in and tell them it is their ears not the ADMs. "You have been listening to everything wrongly all your life so when you hear perfection what do you expect?" ...seems to be the 'party line'. Just like the Michelin chef might exclaim...
"you have been eating Sunday roast cooked by untutored amateurs all your life so what do you expect".
This is just for discussion.
Sunday lunch in a Michelin starred restaurant is more 'correct' and cooked by qualified chefs from scrupulously selected ingredients - and is 'scientifically' repeatable on every dish on any day - but nothing is more satisfying than the Sunday lunch your mother/wife/gran cooks! It touches your soul as well as your stomach. Granny's roast beef and spuds and Yorkshires and gravy may not be 'correct' if a panel of Michelin chefs were to pick it apart and critique/analyse it but would you care?
Do these ADM9.1s touch the music lover or the 'scientist/engineer' in you?
Unless the listener was present at the recording then what is 'correct'?
I have not yet seen anyone express if they were moved by music from the ADM9.1's. There has been high praise for neutrality, lack of distortion, compactness, finish and the technical measurements but whenever any minor criticism is expressed by users for the apparent lack of bass, people jump in and tell them it is their ears not the ADMs. "You have been listening to everything wrongly all your life so when you hear perfection what do you expect?" ...seems to be the 'party line'. Just like the Michelin chef might exclaim...
"you have been eating Sunday roast cooked by untutored amateurs all your life so what do you expect".
This is just for discussion.
Chebby,
You're reminding me of those hippies from Salisbury.
At the Bristol Show one of the disciples said, when adding a power supply, that the audience would now be able to empathise more with the vocalist. To me that is not electronic engineering.
You should try an active system. It's another world.
You're reminding me of those hippies from Salisbury.
At the Bristol Show one of the disciples said, when adding a power supply, that the audience would now be able to empathise more with the vocalist. To me that is not electronic engineering.
You should try an active system. It's another world.
chebby
Well-known member
Eddie a question.
Could you be touched by a photograph without knowing if it was taken digitally or not?
Would you only admire it if a certain technology had been utilised?
(Not sure where 'Salisbury hippies' came from back there. I never mentioned Naim once and was not even particularly thinking about them. I have been moved by many other systems - including an occasional kitchen radio - and did not even particularly like the 'Naim sound' myself until I heard it in my home a couple of weeks ago, so I think we can leave your Naim problems out of this.)
Could you be touched by a photograph without knowing if it was taken digitally or not?
Would you only admire it if a certain technology had been utilised?
(Not sure where 'Salisbury hippies' came from back there. I never mentioned Naim once and was not even particularly thinking about them. I have been moved by many other systems - including an occasional kitchen radio - and did not even particularly like the 'Naim sound' myself until I heard it in my home a couple of weeks ago, so I think we can leave your Naim problems out of this.)
Cheb,
The "musical" and "emotional" arguments are always put forward by those with equipment that is technically inferior.
Of course I appreciate a nice photograph, and I like taking pictures, but that is not, not electrical engineering.
The "musical" and "emotional" arguments are always put forward by those with equipment that is technically inferior.
Of course I appreciate a nice photograph, and I like taking pictures, but that is not, not electrical engineering.
chebby
Well-known member
Eddie Pound:
Cheb,
The "musical" and "emotional" arguments are always put forward by those with equipment that is technically inferior.
Of course I appreciate a nice photograph, and I like taking pictures, but that is not, not electrical engineering.
Photography is either digital/electronic or chemical in it's execution so are you the person who makes appreciation of a photograph contingent upon the technology or not?
You are making appreciation of music contingent upon the technology. (Active & digital vs passive & 'traditional' seperates)
Cheb,
The "musical" and "emotional" arguments are always put forward by those with equipment that is technically inferior.
Of course I appreciate a nice photograph, and I like taking pictures, but that is not, not electrical engineering.
Photography is either digital/electronic or chemical in it's execution so are you the person who makes appreciation of a photograph contingent upon the technology or not?
You are making appreciation of music contingent upon the technology. (Active & digital vs passive & 'traditional' seperates)
A hifi system can still be excellent engineering if it creates a coloured sound. How many valve systems are neutral? There's a reason why domestic hifi is voiced with a little colour (often in the bass) as compared to the studio equivalents; it can make the music more enjoyable. Anthony Michaelson's arsenal of products merely supports that some people like neutrality (KW systems) and some like a little colour (A1).
I heard a Unision Research SET valve amp on some Sonus Fabers not so long ago. It sounded soft and coloured but it also had me transfixed. It was stunning. The more accurate Unico P sounded dull in comparison.
I heard a Unision Research SET valve amp on some Sonus Fabers not so long ago. It sounded soft and coloured but it also had me transfixed. It was stunning. The more accurate Unico P sounded dull in comparison.
Cheb,
Your music is files on a computer.
The HiFi equipment is required to play those bits back as accurately as possible: flat frequency response and minimal distortion.
The artistic part is the musician who wrote and recorded the music. I want to hear that; not a sonic signature imposed by poor electronic design - for example, limited bandwidth, high distortion, high levels of crosstalk, etc.
Your music is files on a computer.
The HiFi equipment is required to play those bits back as accurately as possible: flat frequency response and minimal distortion.
The artistic part is the musician who wrote and recorded the music. I want to hear that; not a sonic signature imposed by poor electronic design - for example, limited bandwidth, high distortion, high levels of crosstalk, etc.
chebby
Well-known member
Okay but there are many ways to skin the hifi cat.
Why can you only allow that one manufacturer of one active loudspeaker system used with only one brand of computer has achieved what almost a century of very innovative companies have 'failed'* to do?
* Personally I think there have been, and still are, many, many admirable solutions executed by a plethora of companies - pre and post ADM9 - otherwise we have to say that hifi (past and present) in it's entirety is just 'a debate with AVI' and that would be totally absurd, no matter how great their product is.
Why can you only allow that one manufacturer of one active loudspeaker system used with only one brand of computer has achieved what almost a century of very innovative companies have 'failed'* to do?
* Personally I think there have been, and still are, many, many admirable solutions executed by a plethora of companies - pre and post ADM9 - otherwise we have to say that hifi (past and present) in it's entirety is just 'a debate with AVI' and that would be totally absurd, no matter how great their product is.
Assuming that the computer is now the source of choice the best HiFi system has to be a DAC/PRE and an active loudspeaker, from any manufacturer that specialises in these products.
A DAC/pre from a pro audio company will generally be engineered to a much higher standard and will be much better value for money. If the same product was in a Chord Electronics bling case and sold in small quantities through boutique dealers than you'd be getting the same sound for lots more money.
In regards to the speakers passive crossovers have no advantages whatsoever! And matching the speakers and amplifier yourself is slightly arrogant.
So for one to use a computer as their main source, only to plug it through several expensive legacy boxes and then add lots more distortion in the crossover, is to put it politely, counterproductive.
A DAC/pre from a pro audio company will generally be engineered to a much higher standard and will be much better value for money. If the same product was in a Chord Electronics bling case and sold in small quantities through boutique dealers than you'd be getting the same sound for lots more money.
In regards to the speakers passive crossovers have no advantages whatsoever! And matching the speakers and amplifier yourself is slightly arrogant.
So for one to use a computer as their main source, only to plug it through several expensive legacy boxes and then add lots more distortion in the crossover, is to put it politely, counterproductive.
I am not an accuracy fetishist, and am thrilled by the music i enjoy now all over my flat, including by the ADMs above my work station. The system is just fine. The living room combo is more fun indeed (CA 840A and 840C + Sonos through 840C DAC + Clearaudio Emotion + Dynaudio X32), just because, well, it is more fun (nice user interface, nicely finished objects, nice remote, great oooomph in bass heavy music - but NOT boomy). The ADMs give me excellent hi-fi in the small den for (relatively) little cost and very little volume, so am an extatic camper.
Having said that, when the musician (and his team of producers, agents and other stakeholders) records the music, I am quite sure the process is managed with at least some assumptions regarding the audio equipment used by the audiences that are supposed to purchase the recording. Surely we do not record music with same criteria in 2009 as in 1956. Surely at least some recordings are done with the MP3 users in mind. And others are done with mainstream "hi fi" users in mind. The "artist" and his team know that what will be heard by the end users will be substantially different from what is heard from the studio earphones/monitors, and tweak accordingly. The whole effort will be tweaked as well if there is to be a SACD or 24 bit high res outlet for the production...
The whole remastering trend is linked to that as well: make the old music sound better on the equipment most of the targeted listeners will be using in 2009.
All this comforts me in the mindset that "ultimate accuracy" is not my Graal. But listening to the music I love in best possible conditions (tone, volume, dynamics, comfort of use, depth of soundstage, etc) certainly is my Graal.
Having said that, when the musician (and his team of producers, agents and other stakeholders) records the music, I am quite sure the process is managed with at least some assumptions regarding the audio equipment used by the audiences that are supposed to purchase the recording. Surely we do not record music with same criteria in 2009 as in 1956. Surely at least some recordings are done with the MP3 users in mind. And others are done with mainstream "hi fi" users in mind. The "artist" and his team know that what will be heard by the end users will be substantially different from what is heard from the studio earphones/monitors, and tweak accordingly. The whole effort will be tweaked as well if there is to be a SACD or 24 bit high res outlet for the production...
The whole remastering trend is linked to that as well: make the old music sound better on the equipment most of the targeted listeners will be using in 2009.
All this comforts me in the mindset that "ultimate accuracy" is not my Graal. But listening to the music I love in best possible conditions (tone, volume, dynamics, comfort of use, depth of soundstage, etc) certainly is my Graal.
John Duncan
Well-known member
Eddie Pound:The "musical" and "emotional" arguments are always put forward by those with equipment that is technically inferior.
Oh I'm not so sure Eddie; I think you just need to be open minded enough to take criticism from people who know how they like their music and why AVI's kit isn't necessarily the only way to go.
Oh I'm not so sure Eddie; I think you just need to be open minded enough to take criticism from people who know how they like their music and why AVI's kit isn't necessarily the only way to go.
JohnDuncan:Can we all agree that "high fidelity" is not alays as much fun as "hopelessly coloured"?
Agreed. Two different objectives.
Agreed. Two different objectives.
chebby
Well-known member
Aristide Atlass:Surely we do not record music with same criteria in 2009 as in 1956.
Indeed. Nowadays the tendency is for engineers to ramp up the volumes of all the instruments as high as each other. Thankfully this practice is not yet universal but it is growing in favour. Even some re-masters of older material are now following the same practice.
Indeed. Nowadays the tendency is for engineers to ramp up the volumes of all the instruments as high as each other. Thankfully this practice is not yet universal but it is growing in favour. Even some re-masters of older material are now following the same practice.
When ive been to shows im always struck by how different kit sounds.Listen to the highest of high end brands and they all sound different to each other.To be told avi speakers are correct and everything else is coloured is having a laugh.If you think only a active speaker can be accurate then why do avi pmc and atc to name but three all sound different.The sound of the active avi improves and alters when the sub is added for instance.Just adding the sub shows they are not accurate and are bandwidth limited.For the price of the avi actives for instance you can buy floorstanders which will extend down in the bass another 20 hrz or more.Which is more accurate the little active that has limited extension but less distortion in its xover or the floorstander which will let you hear 25% more music information.Buy what you like the sound of guys and never believe what any sales man tells you.They will all say what they make is best and more accurate.Trust your own ears.
JohnDuncan:Can we all agree that "high fidelity" is not alays as much fun as "hopelessly coloured"?
I agree, just like going out is more fun with beer goggles.
I agree, just like going out is more fun with beer goggles.
chebby
Well-known member
Eddie Pound:
Assuming that the computer is now the source of choice the best HiFi system has to be a DAC/PRE and an active loudspeaker, from any manufacturer that specialises in these products.
A DAC/pre from a pro audio company will generally be engineered to a much higher standard and will be much better value for money. If the same product was in a Chord Electronics bling case and sold in small quantities through boutique dealers than you'd be getting the same sound for lots more money.
In regards to the speakers passive crossovers have no advantages whatsoever! And matching the speakers and amplifier yourself is slightly arrogant.
So for one to use a computer as their main source, only to plug it through several expensive legacy boxes and then add lots more distortion in the crossover, is to put it politely, counterproductive.
Eddie, you accuse all those who match their own choice of speakers and amplifiers as 'arrogant'.
"And matching the speakers and amplifier yourself is slightly arrogant."
Ever so humbly (never arrogantly of course) you tell people...
"the best HiFi system has to be a DAC/PRE and an active loudspeaker". (My bold emphasis.)
You categorise the 99 percent of hifi most commonly in use - from budget to high-end - as "legacy boxes" and describe their use with computers and DACs (presumably the popular DacMagic included) as "counterproductive" and label the products of a respected company like Chord Electronics as "bling".
You implied earlier that - by association - I am a Salisbury hippy or some kind of blinkered disciple because I am enjoying some Naim gear (including the very same CD player you praised in another thread as being one of the best you had heard for the price) despite never once in this thread making any mention of it until now.
"Chebby, You're reminding me of those hippies from Salisbury."
You cast scorn upon any who defend their choice of system on grounds of personal taste with dogmatic and somewhat offensive statements like...
"The "musical" and "emotional" arguments are always put forward by those with equipment that is technically inferior."
The last person to repeatedly make such claims could at least be partly defended on the grounds that he had his company and his livelehood to maintain. It went some way towards excusing the dogmatism and arrogance given that commercial survival was at stake. (Not a marketing approach I respond well to, but it had some justification behind the zealotry.)
Please could you explain why you are being so seemingly acerbic (and occasionally personal) about what are essentially just individual choices of home entertainment equipment?
Thanks.
Apologies to the OP. 'mikeinbrum' I actually admire what you have done.
I have seen enough personal testimony from people - who's opinions I respect - who have bought the ADM9.1's, to know that they must be pretty impressive. The problem - as ever - is the manner in which a very few choose to promote the same product by bludgeoning others over-and-over with what amounts to propaganda rather than effective persuasion. Comments that border on insult (if not against the individual then against their choices of hifi and the manner in which they choose to enjoy music).
Such a shame. If I had only ever read the positive and constructive stuff from satisifed owners, I may have even bought a pair myself by now!
Assuming that the computer is now the source of choice the best HiFi system has to be a DAC/PRE and an active loudspeaker, from any manufacturer that specialises in these products.
A DAC/pre from a pro audio company will generally be engineered to a much higher standard and will be much better value for money. If the same product was in a Chord Electronics bling case and sold in small quantities through boutique dealers than you'd be getting the same sound for lots more money.
In regards to the speakers passive crossovers have no advantages whatsoever! And matching the speakers and amplifier yourself is slightly arrogant.
So for one to use a computer as their main source, only to plug it through several expensive legacy boxes and then add lots more distortion in the crossover, is to put it politely, counterproductive.
Eddie, you accuse all those who match their own choice of speakers and amplifiers as 'arrogant'.
"And matching the speakers and amplifier yourself is slightly arrogant."
Ever so humbly (never arrogantly of course) you tell people...
"the best HiFi system has to be a DAC/PRE and an active loudspeaker". (My bold emphasis.)
You categorise the 99 percent of hifi most commonly in use - from budget to high-end - as "legacy boxes" and describe their use with computers and DACs (presumably the popular DacMagic included) as "counterproductive" and label the products of a respected company like Chord Electronics as "bling".
You implied earlier that - by association - I am a Salisbury hippy or some kind of blinkered disciple because I am enjoying some Naim gear (including the very same CD player you praised in another thread as being one of the best you had heard for the price) despite never once in this thread making any mention of it until now.
"Chebby, You're reminding me of those hippies from Salisbury."
You cast scorn upon any who defend their choice of system on grounds of personal taste with dogmatic and somewhat offensive statements like...
"The "musical" and "emotional" arguments are always put forward by those with equipment that is technically inferior."
The last person to repeatedly make such claims could at least be partly defended on the grounds that he had his company and his livelehood to maintain. It went some way towards excusing the dogmatism and arrogance given that commercial survival was at stake. (Not a marketing approach I respond well to, but it had some justification behind the zealotry.)
Please could you explain why you are being so seemingly acerbic (and occasionally personal) about what are essentially just individual choices of home entertainment equipment?
Thanks.
Apologies to the OP. 'mikeinbrum' I actually admire what you have done.
I have seen enough personal testimony from people - who's opinions I respect - who have bought the ADM9.1's, to know that they must be pretty impressive. The problem - as ever - is the manner in which a very few choose to promote the same product by bludgeoning others over-and-over with what amounts to propaganda rather than effective persuasion. Comments that border on insult (if not against the individual then against their choices of hifi and the manner in which they choose to enjoy music).
Such a shame. If I had only ever read the positive and constructive stuff from satisifed owners, I may have even bought a pair myself by now!
chebby:Eddie Pound:
Assuming that the computer is now the source of choice the best HiFi system has to be a DAC/PRE and an active loudspeaker, from any manufacturer that specialises in these products.
A DAC/pre from a pro audio company will generally be engineered to a much higher standard and will be much better value for money. If the same product was in a Chord Electronics bling case and sold in small quantities through boutique dealers than you'd be getting the same sound for lots more money.
In regards to the speakers passive crossovers have no advantages whatsoever! And matching the speakers and amplifier yourself is slightly arrogant.
So for one to use a computer as their main source, only to plug it through several expensive legacy boxes and then add lots more distortion in the crossover, is to put it politely, counterproductive.
Eddie, you accuse all those who match their own choice of speakers and amplifiers as 'arrogant'.
"And matching the speakers and amplifier yourself is slightly arrogant."
Ever so humbly (never arrogantly of course) you tell people...
"the best HiFi system has to be a DAC/PRE and an active loudspeaker". (My bold emphasis.)
You categorise the 99 percent of hifi most commonly in use - from budget to high-end - as "legacy boxes" and describe their use with computers and DACs (presumably the popular DacMagic included) as "counterproductive" and label the products of a respected company like Chord Electronics as "bling".
You implied earlier that - by association - I am a Salisbury hippy or some kind of blinkered disciple because I am enjoying some Naim gear (including the very same CD player you praised in another thread as being one of the best you had heard for the price) despite never once in this thread making any mention of it until now.
"Chebby, You're reminding me of those hippies from Salisbury."
You cast scorn upon any who defend their choice of system on grounds of personal taste with dogmatic and somewhat offensive statements like...
"The "musical" and "emotional" arguments are always put forward by those with equipment that is technically inferior."
The last person to repeatedly make such claims could at least be partly defended on the grounds that he had his company and his livelehood to maintain. It went some way towards excusing the dogmatism and arrogance given that commercial survival was at stake. (Not a marketing approach I respond well to, but it had some justification behind the zealotry.)
Please could you explain why you are being so seemingly acerbic (and occasionally personal) about what are essentially just individual choices of home entertainment equipment?
Thanks.
Apologies to the OP. 'mikeinbrum' I actually admire what you have done.
I have seen enough personal testimony from people - who's opinions I respect - who have bought the ADM9.1's, to know that they must be pretty impressive. The problem - as ever - is the manner in which a very few choose to promote the same product by bludgeoning others over-and-over with what amounts to propaganda rather than effective persuasion. Comments that border on insult (if not against the individual then against their choices of hifi and the manner in which they choose to enjoy music).
Such a shame. If I had only ever read the positive and constructive stuff from satisifed owners, I may have even bought a pair myself by now!
Well said that man!
Assuming that the computer is now the source of choice the best HiFi system has to be a DAC/PRE and an active loudspeaker, from any manufacturer that specialises in these products.
A DAC/pre from a pro audio company will generally be engineered to a much higher standard and will be much better value for money. If the same product was in a Chord Electronics bling case and sold in small quantities through boutique dealers than you'd be getting the same sound for lots more money.
In regards to the speakers passive crossovers have no advantages whatsoever! And matching the speakers and amplifier yourself is slightly arrogant.
So for one to use a computer as their main source, only to plug it through several expensive legacy boxes and then add lots more distortion in the crossover, is to put it politely, counterproductive.
Eddie, you accuse all those who match their own choice of speakers and amplifiers as 'arrogant'.
"And matching the speakers and amplifier yourself is slightly arrogant."
Ever so humbly (never arrogantly of course) you tell people...
"the best HiFi system has to be a DAC/PRE and an active loudspeaker". (My bold emphasis.)
You categorise the 99 percent of hifi most commonly in use - from budget to high-end - as "legacy boxes" and describe their use with computers and DACs (presumably the popular DacMagic included) as "counterproductive" and label the products of a respected company like Chord Electronics as "bling".
You implied earlier that - by association - I am a Salisbury hippy or some kind of blinkered disciple because I am enjoying some Naim gear (including the very same CD player you praised in another thread as being one of the best you had heard for the price) despite never once in this thread making any mention of it until now.
"Chebby, You're reminding me of those hippies from Salisbury."
You cast scorn upon any who defend their choice of system on grounds of personal taste with dogmatic and somewhat offensive statements like...
"The "musical" and "emotional" arguments are always put forward by those with equipment that is technically inferior."
The last person to repeatedly make such claims could at least be partly defended on the grounds that he had his company and his livelehood to maintain. It went some way towards excusing the dogmatism and arrogance given that commercial survival was at stake. (Not a marketing approach I respond well to, but it had some justification behind the zealotry.)
Please could you explain why you are being so seemingly acerbic (and occasionally personal) about what are essentially just individual choices of home entertainment equipment?
Thanks.
Apologies to the OP. 'mikeinbrum' I actually admire what you have done.
I have seen enough personal testimony from people - who's opinions I respect - who have bought the ADM9.1's, to know that they must be pretty impressive. The problem - as ever - is the manner in which a very few choose to promote the same product by bludgeoning others over-and-over with what amounts to propaganda rather than effective persuasion. Comments that border on insult (if not against the individual then against their choices of hifi and the manner in which they choose to enjoy music).
Such a shame. If I had only ever read the positive and constructive stuff from satisifed owners, I may have even bought a pair myself by now!
Well said that man!
Alec
Well-known member
chebby:The last person to repeatedly make such claims could at least be partly defended on the grounds that he had his company and his livelehood to maintain. It went some way towards excusing the dogmatism and arrogance given that commercial survival was at stake. (Not a marketing approach I respond well to, but it had some justification behind the zealotry.)
You are far too kind here, but the rest is right.
Just so you know.
A -
You are far too kind here, but the rest is right.
Just so you know.
A -
matthewpiano
Well-known member
Eddie Pound:
Cheb,
Your music is files on a computer.
The HiFi equipment is required to play those bits back as accurately as possible: flat frequency response and minimal distortion.
The artistic part is the musician who wrote and recorded the music. I want to hear that; not a sonic signature imposed by poor electronic design - for example, limited bandwidth, high distortion, high levels of crosstalk, etc.
What about the sonic signature imposed by the recording process?
No recording process is scientifically perfect in its capture of the live sound of real acoustic instruments, so whichever way you look at it, a certain amount of sonic signature has already been imposed before the music gets even close to a domestic replay system. This is without taking into account that those engineering recordings often have their own preferences as to how the sound of the performance should be represented on the recording.
Also, what about older recordings, where the recording process was just down right inferior? Do you honestly think that the poor recorded sound of Dave Swarbrick's violin on 'Liege & Lief' by Fairport Convention (for example) successfully represents the full extent of his artistry?
Musical ENJOYMENT for the listener is FAR more important than technical perfection, flat frequency response and adhering to a white paper on electrical engineering.
Cheb,
Your music is files on a computer.
The HiFi equipment is required to play those bits back as accurately as possible: flat frequency response and minimal distortion.
The artistic part is the musician who wrote and recorded the music. I want to hear that; not a sonic signature imposed by poor electronic design - for example, limited bandwidth, high distortion, high levels of crosstalk, etc.
What about the sonic signature imposed by the recording process?
No recording process is scientifically perfect in its capture of the live sound of real acoustic instruments, so whichever way you look at it, a certain amount of sonic signature has already been imposed before the music gets even close to a domestic replay system. This is without taking into account that those engineering recordings often have their own preferences as to how the sound of the performance should be represented on the recording.
Also, what about older recordings, where the recording process was just down right inferior? Do you honestly think that the poor recorded sound of Dave Swarbrick's violin on 'Liege & Lief' by Fairport Convention (for example) successfully represents the full extent of his artistry?
Musical ENJOYMENT for the listener is FAR more important than technical perfection, flat frequency response and adhering to a white paper on electrical engineering.
matthewpiano
Well-known member
Eddie Pound:
Assuming that the computer is now the source of choice the ......
An incorrect assumption. For SOME people it is now the source of choice, but many of us (despite dipping our toes into computer based music) still prefer to use CDs and vinyl and actively prefer the experience of using and listening to them.
I love the way you deride companies like Naim and Chord who make some spectacularly good equipment. Furthermore I am absolutely astonished that, seeing as you clearly know more than the engineers and designers working for these companies, you have not launched your own 'model of electrical engineering perfection' so that we can all enjoy music the way Dr Pound prescribes.
There are other ways, Eddie, and just because they don't meet with your approval, it doesn't mean they are inferior or wrong.
Assuming that the computer is now the source of choice the ......
An incorrect assumption. For SOME people it is now the source of choice, but many of us (despite dipping our toes into computer based music) still prefer to use CDs and vinyl and actively prefer the experience of using and listening to them.
I love the way you deride companies like Naim and Chord who make some spectacularly good equipment. Furthermore I am absolutely astonished that, seeing as you clearly know more than the engineers and designers working for these companies, you have not launched your own 'model of electrical engineering perfection' so that we can all enjoy music the way Dr Pound prescribes.
There are other ways, Eddie, and just because they don't meet with your approval, it doesn't mean they are inferior or wrong.
chebby:
Photography is either digital/electronic or chemical in it's execution so are you the person who makes appreciation of a photograph contingent upon the technology or not?
)
While I can appreciate any photograph you will have to admit that there is a massive difference between digital and chemical in the quality of the final print. I am talking chemically printed here specifically. To me nearly always much easier to quantify than the differences between different hifi components of similar spec / price. You can see it....it's tangable and allows study or investigation.....not a fleeting split second of sound which I think a lot of us have difficulty in describing accurately. Imagine a Bob Carlos Clarke image printed on one of the new fangled dot matrix printers.........yuk. OK the image is there but it wont have the impact of one printed on one of Bob's favoutite (now defunct) Agfa papers. RIP Bob
Photography is either digital/electronic or chemical in it's execution so are you the person who makes appreciation of a photograph contingent upon the technology or not?
)
While I can appreciate any photograph you will have to admit that there is a massive difference between digital and chemical in the quality of the final print. I am talking chemically printed here specifically. To me nearly always much easier to quantify than the differences between different hifi components of similar spec / price. You can see it....it's tangable and allows study or investigation.....not a fleeting split second of sound which I think a lot of us have difficulty in describing accurately. Imagine a Bob Carlos Clarke image printed on one of the new fangled dot matrix printers.........yuk. OK the image is there but it wont have the impact of one printed on one of Bob's favoutite (now defunct) Agfa papers. RIP Bob
chebby
Well-known member
raym87:While I can appreciate any photograph you will have to admit that there is a massive difference between digital and chemical in the quality of the final print. I am talking chemically printed here specifically. To me nearly always much easier to quantify than the differences between different hifi components of similar spec / price. You can see it....it's tangable and allows study or investigation.....not a fleeting split second of sound which I think a lot of us have difficulty in describing accurately. Imagine a Bob Carlos Clarke image printed on one of the new fangled dot matrix printers.........yuk. OK the image is there but it wont have the impact of one printed on one of Bob's favoutite (now defunct) Agfa papers. RIP Bob
I know what you mean Ray.
I have been to a number of exhibitions of my photographic heroes and influences (Bill Brandt, Fay Godwin, Lee Miller, James Ravilious..etc) and seeing original hand printed B&W prints is a visceral thing that digital has not afforded me yet. Yes it was emotional standing in front of Bill Brandt's own prints of subjects like 'Barbary Castle' and 'The Snicket' or Lee Miller's wonderful portraits.
I have a hand made 16"x20" print (from the original neg) of 'The Rick' by Edward Chambre Hardman on our living room wall. (Bought for £85 from the original ECH trust before the National Trust took over and shipped the collection to Bradford.) It is wonderful.
I may be persuaded otherwise if I ever get to a Martin Parr exhibition (now he is exclusively digital at least in prints) but most of his work that I admire is in books and was from the time he worked with a medium format Plaubel rangefinder exclusively with the old Agfa Ultra 50 colur film. (VERY colour!)
However I am happy to work in both digital and film (I get my B&W processed and printed on 6x4 by Ilford in Crewe and scan the negs myself for display on the web).
I still use an old Minolta manual focus SLR and a Ricoh GR1V compact and even my first Olympus Trip 35 (now over 30 years old)....
How sad is THAT
(Just noticed my old Fatman valve amp lurking in the background. What will Eddie say?)
I know what you mean Ray.
I have been to a number of exhibitions of my photographic heroes and influences (Bill Brandt, Fay Godwin, Lee Miller, James Ravilious..etc) and seeing original hand printed B&W prints is a visceral thing that digital has not afforded me yet. Yes it was emotional standing in front of Bill Brandt's own prints of subjects like 'Barbary Castle' and 'The Snicket' or Lee Miller's wonderful portraits.
I have a hand made 16"x20" print (from the original neg) of 'The Rick' by Edward Chambre Hardman on our living room wall. (Bought for £85 from the original ECH trust before the National Trust took over and shipped the collection to Bradford.) It is wonderful.
I may be persuaded otherwise if I ever get to a Martin Parr exhibition (now he is exclusively digital at least in prints) but most of his work that I admire is in books and was from the time he worked with a medium format Plaubel rangefinder exclusively with the old Agfa Ultra 50 colur film. (VERY colour!)
However I am happy to work in both digital and film (I get my B&W processed and printed on 6x4 by Ilford in Crewe and scan the negs myself for display on the web).
I still use an old Minolta manual focus SLR and a Ricoh GR1V compact and even my first Olympus Trip 35 (now over 30 years old)....
How sad is THAT
(Just noticed my old Fatman valve amp lurking in the background. What will Eddie say?)
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram