What is Hi-Fi ?

[Vladimir]

Agreed. :cheers:

I also enjoyed that documentary 1959 - The Year That Changed Jazz.

Carry on.

Interesting that they include the Brubeck recording in their film.

I have always found the original release of the Time Out album to be quite poor, the recording is ok but I find the performance to be flat, uninvolving and maybe 'over' rehearsed.

To see what I mean, try the '50th Aniversary issue' on CD. It has some bonus tracks including the titles on the original album. Play the studio version of Take Five, then the bonus version, recorded a year or two later, with the same lineup, live at Newport.

The live recording is vibrant, involving and musically dynamic, nothing like the staid studio recording and remember, this is recorded live about 50 tears ago and sounds fantastic.

Edit. BigH, care to elaborate on the tape speed issue, could this be the issue I was commenting on above?

Interesting. I'll snatch it if chance occurs.

We are now practically discussing High Fidelity recordings! This has never happened on electrical appliance fetish forums.

Have you noticed that drums in jazz recordings from the 50s and 60s were poorly miked and recorded?

 

[BigH]

This trash would also include some of the best music ever made. Will howling hissy tapes stop me enjoying Miles Davis - Kind of Blue? Never.

..and this verification captcha is sooo annoying!

Some of the recent remasters are meant to be very good, try the Legacy Edition. For its time the recording was not that bad apart from the tape running too slow on part of it.

That would be the CK 52861?

No its the 2009 remaster. If you want to spend more money then the Japanese SACD or the HD K2 are meant to be about the best, you can hear samples of the HD K2 http://www.elusivedisc.com/MILES-DAVIS-KIND-OF-BLUE-K2-HD-IMPORT-CD/productinfo/SONHDI8327N/ which sounds pretty good and its $40, not sure how much the Jap SACD is. It seems its only £22 on Amazon but may not be a hybrid so you will need an SACD player.

 

[John Duncan]

if a recording is that bad, don't buy it, there is so much good music that is well (enough) recorded to listen to, why listen to trash?

Words fail me.

Perhaps an english course in the new year?

Or are you partial to 'trash'.......?

Being Scottish, my education is pretty good thanks. Your inability to express yourself without being a EDITED, however, is of more immediate concern to me.

 

[BigH]

Agreed. :cheers:

I also enjoyed that documentary 1959 - The Year That Changed Jazz.

Carry on.

Edit. BigH, care to elaborate on the tape speed issue, could this be the issue I was commenting on above?

The tape speed was the tape recording was running slow on the first 3 tracks, making the record then faster than actual speed and also sharp tone.

As for Brubeck think it was more about it being the first album that was in 5/4.

 

[davedotco]

if a recording is that bad, don't buy it, there is so much good music that is well (enough) recorded to listen to, why listen to trash?

Words fail me.

Perhaps an english course in the new year?

Or are you partial to 'trash'.......?

Being Scottish, my education is pretty good thanks. Your inability to express yourself without being a EDITED, however, is of more immediate concern to me.

I put my views in a forthright and straightforward manner and try, wherever possible to avoid personal insult.

I put forward the view that many modern recordings are 'trash' in terms of the quality of the recordings, do you disagree?

 

[John Duncan]

No, you put forward the view that one should avoid listening to music if it is poorly recorded, because there is plenty of well recorded music to listen to. *That* is trash.

Further, you may try to avoid personal insult, but on many occasions you fail, which upsets the house rule monitor in me.

 

[busb]

if a recording is that bad, don't buy it, there is so much good music that is well (enough) recorded to listen to, why listen to trash?

Words fail me.

Perhaps an english course in the new year?

Or are you partial to 'trash'.......?

Being Scottish, my education is pretty good thanks. Your inability to express yourself without being a EDITED, however, is of more immediate concern to me.

I put my views in a forthright and straightforward manner and try, wherever possible to avoid personal insult.

I put forward the view that many modern recordings are 'trash' in terms of the quality of the recordings, do you disagree?

I don't think anyone here will disagree that many modern recordings are trashy (WRT to SQ) but you do imply that such music is itself also trash. The connection maybe unintended on your part - many would take that personally though. I may myself think some posters taste in music is crap but I tend to keep those thoughts to myself.

 

[Vladimir]

No its the 2009 remaster. If you want to spend more money then the Japanese SACD or the HD K2 are meant to be about the best, you can hear samples of the HD K2 http://www.elusivedisc.com/MILES-DAVIS-KIND-OF-BLUE-K2-HD-IMPORT-CD/productinfo/SONHDI8327N/ which sounds pretty good and its $40, not sure how much the Jap SACD is. It seems its only £22 on Amazon but may not be a hybrid so you will need an SACD player.

Thanks BigH. I'll have this one in my fleabay sniper scope. Mine is a 1994 Columbia CD and I would really like a better one (few scratches here and there...). Those K2's are not cheap thought.

I put forward the view that many modern recordings are 'trash' in terms of the quality of the recordings, do you disagree?

I am deeply disturbed by this claim.

 

[the record spot]

This trash would also include some of the best music ever made. Will howling hissy tapes stop me enjoying Miles Davis - Kind of Blue? Never.

..and this verification captcha is sooo annoying!

Some of the recent remasters are meant to be very good, try the Legacy Edition. For its time the recording was not that bad apart from the tape running too slow on part of it.

That would be the CK 52861?

There's also the Japanese (made for the US market) version, with the matrix number on the inner ring of the CD, 35DP-62 11A5. This is on a CBS CD, CK08163 DIDP50062. Apparently excellent.

 

[the record spot]

As to the original question, for me, it's about letting me enjoy the entertainment I like, in very good audio quality and to the standard I want.

I've been lucky enough to be in this place for some time now, and it's never been about the equipment. I've been able to sit back and just enjoy whatever I'm listening to or watching and let the stereo do the job that it's supposed to do and not be the centrepiece. Hifi is just an enabler, not the end result.

 

[Native_bon]

Ok Snobbish Audiophile talk... Most records are trash.. Hum.. If its not some boring piano & classical recorded music then it is not well recorded..?

 

[mikeparker59]

There seem to be plenty of definitions of HiFi penned by better authorities on the subject than I. The thing that never really ceases to amaze me though is that a vibrating cone of material whether it be paper, bextrene or some other material can reproduce the sound made by numerous musical instruments being played at once and even the human voice reasonably convincingly, even if not totally accurately.

 

[JamesMellor]

I'm just saying last gig I want to , 5 seats back , excellent , untill you realise you are five seats back on the right in front of a stack on speakers that are trying to punch your lungs out through your kidneys . So even when you go to a live event thats not "Hi-Fi", so what sound are we trying to reporduce ?

James

 

[Jim-W]

This trash would also include some of the best music ever made. Will howling hissy tapes stop me enjoying Miles Davis - Kind of Blue? Never.

..and this verification captcha is sooo annoying!

Some of the recent remasters are meant to be very good, try the Legacy Edition. For its time the recording was not that bad apart from the tape running too slow on part of it.

That would be the CK 52861?

There's also the Japanese (made for the US market) version, with the matrix number on the inner ring of the CD, 35DP-62 11A5. This is on a CBS CD, CK08163 DIDP50062. Apparently excellent.

Interesting re Kind Of Blue. Mine is a 1960 original mono lp on Fontana. It's a thick slab of vinyl and it sounds terrific: meaty and Paul Chambers' bass is particularly intricate and powerful. A few clicks and pops but hey. Love it.

 

[mikeparker59]

I'm just saying last gig I want to , 5 seats back , excellent , untill you realise you are five seats back on the right in front of a stack on speakers that are trying to punch your lungs out through your kidneys . So even when you go to a live event thats not "Hi-Fi", so what sound are we trying to reporduce ?

James

Funnily enough I said a similar thing in another thread. I said I'd seen The Czech Phil in St davids Hall Cardiff and also Brit Floyd there, yes I've a diverse taste in music, I found the Czech Phil more engaging as I was listening to music that was being played live no electronic amplification there; whereas the Brit Floyd experience, brilliant as it was, was still in effect amplified music being pumped out by speakers. so you are not really listening to the instruments but to loudspeakers.

Maybe for me I'm trying to reproduce the Czech Phil or other orchestra playing in my lounge...doubt I'd get the woodwindsection in let alone the rest of the orchestra mind you!

 

[davedotco]

if a recording is that bad, don't buy it, there is so much good music that is well (enough) recorded to listen to, why listen to trash?

Words fail me.

Perhaps an english course in the new year?

Or are you partial to 'trash'.......?

Being Scottish, my education is pretty good thanks. Your inability to express yourself without being a EDITED, however, is of more immediate concern to me.

I put my views in a forthright and straightforward manner and try, wherever possible to avoid personal insult.

I put forward the view that many modern recordings are 'trash' in terms of the quality of the recordings, do you disagree?

I don't think anyone here will disagree that many modern recordings are trashy (WRT to SQ) but you do imply that such music is itself also trash. The connection maybe unintended on your part - many would take that personally though. I may myself think some posters taste in music is crap but I tend to keep those thoughts to myself.

Appologies to anyone who took that to mean that I was critiscising their musical taste.

That was not my intention and I will point out in my defence that I have often offered practical, effective advice to posters looking to get the best from types of music that I would not personally give houseroom.

The point of the thread is to say what is, and what is not hi-fi, ie accurate reproduction of whatever is recorded. Vinyl based systems, particularly inexpensive models are not accurate, this has been demonstrated time and time again by measurement or direct comparison such that it is no longer even debateable.

What is debatable and, to me quite interesting, is that some people prefer the inaccurate, which is of course their perogative.

What I find difficult is that these preferences are put forward as facts by the use of such terms as 'real', 'organic' or 'musical' and that if you do not agree then you are somehow 'not into the music' or some kind of 'hi-fi obsessive' when in fact the reality is the exact opposite.

 

[davedotco]

Ok Snobbish Audiophile talk... Most records are trash.. Hum.. If its not some boring piano & classical recorded music then it is not well recorded..?

If you a going to comment, at least do so by commenting on what people actually say.

Don't just make it up, it makes you look silly.

 

[davedotco]

I'm just saying last gig I want to , 5 seats back , excellent , untill you realise you are five seats back on the right in front of a stack on speakers that are trying to punch your lungs out through your kidneys . So even when you go to a live event thats not "Hi-Fi", so what sound are we trying to reporduce ?

James

Funnily enough I said a similar thing in another thread. I said I'd seen The Czech Phil in St davids Hall Cardiff and also Brit Floyd there, yes I've a diverse taste in music, I found the Czech Phil more engaging as I was listening to music that was being played live no electronic amplification there; whereas the Brit Floyd experience, brilliant as it was, was still in effect amplified music being pumped out by speakers. so you are not really listening to the instruments but to loudspeakers.

Maybe for me I'm trying to reproduce the Czech Phil or other orchestra playing in my lounge...doubt I'd get the woodwindsection in let alone the rest of the orchestra mind you!

Sorry, but once again this is complete nonsense.

All electric instruments are amplified and played through loudspeakers. In an indoor concert only a spall proportion of what you hear from the electric instruments comes through the PA (sound reinforcement) system, the vast bulk of the sound that you hear comes directly off of the stage, ie the guitar amps and the rest of the backline.

What of course would be more interesting is your reaction to the sound level generated by an orchestra playing loud which can often measure comparibly to that of a rock band, yet the perception is quite different.

You describe the orchestra as more engaging than the rock band, can you eleborate on that? What was it about the sound of the rock band that disengaged you? Genuine question, I find this sort of thing fascinating.

 

[PEAYEL]

The total enjoyment of music, which does not depend on how much you spent, hopefully the music was recorded in hi fidelity. It is up to you how much you want to spend to enjoy the music. Your version of HiFi is yours alone and if the changes and improvements bring you greater enjoyment then this your new HiFi. If your favourite music doesn't make you want to sing,dance, play air guitar or violin on your kit then it ain't your HiFi. It's as personal as that no matter what the marketing people say. All the gear in the world will not make an ounce of difference if you can't enjoy your fav music.

Today we enjoy what one might have termed HiFi in the 80s from the most modest of equipment at relatively cheap costs. The improvements over my Linn classic with the all in ones now are fantastic when you can achieve the same fidelity with more features at half, or less, the cost, of the original classik. Thus you can achieve HiFi reproduction, that will make you smile and the hair stand up on your neck, with just your ears and less than 1000 pounds. Until the definition changes, the law of diminishing returns starts earlier on the cost scale than ever previously.

 

[John Duncan]

In an indoor concert only a spall proportion of what you hear from the electric instruments comes through the PA (sound reinforcement) system, the vast bulk of the sound that you hear comes directly off of the stage, ie the guitar amps and the rest of the backline.

Absolute nonsense.

 

[davedotco]

In an indoor concert only a spall proportion of what you hear from the electric instruments comes through the PA (sound reinforcement) system, the vast bulk of the sound that you hear comes directly off of the stage, ie the guitar amps and the rest of the backline.

Absolute nonsense.

Another useless and deliberately provocative statement.

Perhaps you would like to explain where I have been going wrong for all those years I was a live sound engineer.

 

[John Duncan]

In an indoor concert only a spall proportion of what you hear from the electric instruments comes through the PA (sound reinforcement) system, the vast bulk of the sound that you hear comes directly off of the stage, ie the guitar amps and the rest of the backline.

Absolute nonsense.

Another useless and deliberately provocative statement.

Perhaps you would like to explain where I have been going wrong for all those years I was a live sound engineer.

How loud is a typical guitar rig? And how loud does it sound to the audience in the back row of Wembley?

What sort of SPL do you think Geddy Lee's backline pumps out?

 

[davedotco]

In an indoor concert only a spall proportion of what you hear from the electric instruments comes through the PA (sound reinforcement) system, the vast bulk of the sound that you hear comes directly off of the stage, ie the guitar amps and the rest of the backline.

Absolute nonsense.

Another useless and deliberately provocative statement.

Perhaps you would like to explain where I have been going wrong for all those years I was a live sound engineer.

How loud is a typical guitar rig? And how loud does it sound to the audience in the back row of Wembley? What sort of SPL do you think Geddy Lee's backline pumps out?

First of all I was refering to an indoor concert hall, St Davids Hall was mentioned which is known to have decent acoustics and most modern backline amplifiers will produce ample subjective volume in such a setting. In this case the PA will be used to balance their relative output, nothing more.

Of course electric instruments can be Di-ed directly into the mixing console but in most cases this is done to provide a degree of extra control for the FOH engineer, the balance mentioned above. Most musicians of my aquaintence do not like the use of DI-ed feeds, it removes the character of the backline amplifier, which is considered an essential part of that musicians sound. I am sure that there are some musicians who rely on DI-ed feeds but in my experience they are a small minority.

Backline amplifier/speaker combinations sound exceptionally loud, their high distortion content sees to that, so it is only in very large auditoria or of course out of doors where they need the help of the PA.

 

[Roundhead 5000]

For me the whole point of spending ever greater amounts of money on Hi Fi is to hear more of what the artist/s intended while still retaining the foot tapping side of music. You don't have to spend lots of money to enjoy music, full stop. But I want to hear as much information from a source as I can within my budget. If you can build a system which treads the line between analysis and musicality, then I think you've cracked it, at whatever level or price point. I may come across as naive, I'm certainly not as knowledgeable as some on here. But I use my 'Hi Fi' everyday and I get vast amounts of pleasure from doing so, which to my mind is money well spent. This is what Hi Fi means to me anyway. And also I would like to say a belated Merry Christmas, and an early Happy new year to all on here, thanks for the advice, and the laughs

 

[mikeparker59]

I'm just saying last gig I want to , 5 seats back , excellent , untill you realise you are five seats back on the right in front of a stack on speakers that are trying to punch your lungs out through your kidneys . So even when you go to a live event thats not "Hi-Fi", so what sound are we trying to reporduce ?

James

Funnily enough I said a similar thing in another thread. I said I'd seen The Czech Phil in St davids Hall Cardiff and also Brit Floyd there, yes I've a diverse taste in music, I found the Czech Phil more engaging as I was listening to music that was being played live no electronic amplification there; whereas the Brit Floyd experience, brilliant as it was, was still in effect amplified music being pumped out by speakers. so you are not really listening to the instruments but to loudspeakers.

Maybe for me I'm trying to reproduce the Czech Phil or other orchestra playing in my lounge...doubt I'd get the woodwindsection in let alone the rest of the orchestra mind you!

Sorry, but once again this is complete nonsense.

All electric instruments are amplified and played through loudspeakers. In an indoor concert only a spall proportion of what you hear from the electric instruments comes through the PA (sound reinforcement) system, the vast bulk of the sound that you hear comes directly off of the stage, ie the guitar amps and the rest of the backline.

What of course would be more interesting is your reaction to the sound level generated by an orchestra playing loud which can often measure comparibly to that of a rock band, yet the perception is quite different.

You describe the orchestra as more engaging than the rock band, can you eleborate on that? What was it about the sound of the rock band that disengaged you? Genuine question, I find this sort of thing fascinating.

As i said with the Orchestra no microphones no speakers you are listening to the sound produced by the musical instruments. With the rock band you are listening to amplified sound OK on a different level to your home system but it's stil amplified and put out by speakers as you yourself have said 'All electric instruments are amplified and played through loudspeakers.'

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that.

It's difficult to compare two obviously different genres of music being performed in the same venue, but in my opinion which may may of course be worth nothing, I felt that St David's was too small for the type of concert that Brit Floyd put on....it was a tad too loud for the hall. I also found that the mix was wrong. Initially the performance sounded very impressive and I had goosebumps so I was engaged initially but soon felt a certain amount of listening fatigue setting in, like listening too long on an overbright HiFi system. I also found on some of the numbers they played that vocals were difficult to distinguish, drowned out by the music, lessening my overall enjoyment of the performance.

I admit I've been to more Classical concerts in St Davids and find the acoustics there truly excellent for that type of music (as you yourself have alluded to). The Czech Phil concert Programme was Mendelssohn's violin concerto and excerpts from Smetana's Ma Vlast. The thing I particularly remember was being emotionally moved by the obvious pleasure and pride the orchestra took in playing music from their own Country. The Mendelssohn was good, but when they started on the Smetana, as a listener, I felt they were really enjoying what they were playing. It certainly came over in their performance, and of course not a loudspeaker in sight!