Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums
Sign in to follow this  
stein

The official AUDIOPHILE thread.

Recommended Posts

I was going to post this in another thread, but got to thinking it's time we all had in.

 

By "Audiophile", I don't mean snobbery, or even needing a "good" system to participate. Rather, we all listen to SOMETHING, all in different ways.

 

In that spirit, we all have something to share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna start, cause I might could use some advice.

 

I am upstairs here, in a fairly empty house. I don't want to fill it, as I want to work on the floors. Problem is, it's hard to get motivated. And kinda boring.

 

So, I spend too much time on the computer.

 

Solution: set up something, then I can listen, which fills the brain and leaves the hands/feet free.

 

I have my mother's system, which is big, has speakers with spikes, etc. Don't really want a large rack and large speakers to have to move around. But, might have to resort.

 

By contrast, the little boom box is a pain to tune, doesn't work all that well.

 

I got these little Mission speakers I scored for 10 bones American, and they fit on the mantle. Got a little NAD 3020, and a tuner (Yamaha tu-800) that doesn't sound all that great, but has good reception. And easy to use.

 

OR... I have a very old SS Nikko reciever which actually sounds fairly nice (sounds a lot like Rotel stuff, and may even been made by them?), but the tuner needs alignment bad. Got a couple of smallish floor standers that don't sound all that bad with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Maybe it's just me, but I'm confused. Are you telling us something, or asking us something? :-k

Well, it ain't for me to tell you.

 

Rather, not a specific question, maybe some ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I have one question.

 

Why some record pressings are described to be audiophile quality and indeed they seem to sound better?

I can think of 3 reasons.

 

One, at times, records are "compressed" by varying degrees, and a new pressing might have no compression at all.

 

Thicker vinyl, which CAN impart a different/better sound.

 

Made on a different cutter, which may or may not be a better cutter.

 

There may be more reasons, and not always do all 3 of these things occur. Certain nuts (like me) would collect various pressings of the same favorite record, and in some cases a certain pressing might gain a rep and become desirable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some direct-to-disk analog recordings were really amazing!

Yes, very true and I've got some.

Possibly top of my small heap is "Sugarloaf Express" by Lee Ritenour with the late Eric Gale, Harvey Mason, Patrice Rushen, Abe Laboriel and Steve Forman.

I know Lee can be very MOR but on this one Eric Gale pushed him into some tremendous playing.

 

My system includes AudioTechnica, SME, Garrard, Arcam, Sony, Quad, Yamaha and Sennheiser

Speakers are Gales 302 cabs completely upgraded with 2 x 8" drivers and tweeters in each.

 

And in Audiophile terms this is still an old, low-budget system which needs upgrading. However I am very happy with it.

 

There are one or two forum members who have really high-end systems I can only dream about!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love to hear as much detail as possible, and also get intrigued by the differences in presentation of music off 12" LP vs CD. Fascinating.

 

Recently heard the Doors album CD remasters (think they're the latest/current ones). Much better and closer to what they must have heard in the studio - "L.A. Woman" in particular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I have one question.

 

Why some record pressings are described to be audiophile quality and indeed they seem to sound better?

 

 

People go for first pressings as that was really the only time the record company cared about the sound quality. After that, it was old news so they were just more crap to stamp out.

 

A real good example is Pink Floyd's Meddle - I have a first pressing (bought new) and then the same songs are on one of their compilation box sets. There is NO comparison - the first pressing makes the reissue sound two dimensional and lifeless.

 

The 180 and 200 gram remasters are just that - remastered and they usually sound better than the first pressings.

 

Of course, you need a good enough set up for it to make any difference.

 

 

What IS this thread supposed to be about?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over the years with concerts and working in high noise areas NY hearing is not shot but not good. High fidelity does not matter to much.

I've always been fanatical about hearing protection for that very reason. Also about eye protection, that on account of being smacked fair- square in the left eye by a golfball driven from 40 yards away by some ******** who didn't follow golf protocol. Screwed that eye up real good for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, my return to Audiophilia was short lived, and on hold for a bit.

 

I hooked up the NAD integrated amp, the tuner, and the tiny Mission bookshelf speakers up together, and the sound was amazing, one of the cases where it sounded better than I thought it should.

 

But alas, I have what sounds like a ground loop issue. could be a disconnected ground.

 

As it was, I had to really work the switches just to get sound to come out of it. Had to even wiggle and work the cables. After about a half hour of fiddling, viola! it all came together and was sounding great. But next day, that's when the "ground loop?" started in, and fiddling could alter things, but not make it go away.

 

Such is life for the "Audiophile".

 

To be realistic, they REALLY need a good cleaning, and I have at this time nothing to do it with. Not a drop of contact cleaner in the house. No "Audiophile" grade solder to fix a bad connection should I find one.

 

A trip soon to see my buddies at the local Stereo shop is in order. It's been years since I seen them. Perhaps they have a CD player or a transport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My system includes AudioTechnica, SME, Garrard, Arcam, Sony, Quad, Yamaha and Sennheiser

Speakers are Gales 302 cabs completely upgraded with 2 x 8" drivers and tweeters in each.

 

And in Audiophile terms this is still an old, low-budget system which needs upgrading. However I am very happy with it.

 

There are one or two forum members who have really high-end systems I can only dream about!

I don't think old matters. Some of that older stuff is very, very good. In a LOT of cases, better than what you could get now, especially regarding price.

 

And besides, how it is set up, how the stuff actually sounds together, is as important as anything. Just because it is a well known, and/or expensive component doesn't mean it will sound good or better.

 

Either way, it's how much YOU enjoy it that counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over the years with concerts and working in high noise areas my hearing is not shot but not good. High fidelity does not matter to much.

I've heard a lot of people say that, but I don't buy it.

 

YOUR particular hearing is your reference. Even folks that "test" as having hearing loss, the human brain has an amazing ability to heal and adjust.

 

You don't need to hear to 20 khz to appreciate a good treble. Likewise, you don't need to have perfect ears to enjoy what you are hearing, either.

 

Ears (and eyes) are important and worth protecting, but a person should also enjoy what they have, too.

 

Just an example: I'm a complete idiot, dumber than hell. But still, I enjoy thinking about stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard a lot of people say that, but I don't buy it.

 

YOUR particular hearing is your reference. Even folks that "test" as having hearing loss, the human brain has an amazing ability to heal and adjust.

 

You don't need to hear to 20 khz to appreciate a good treble. Likewise, you don't need to have perfect ears to enjoy what you are hearing, either.

 

Ears (and eyes) are important and worth protecting, but a person should also enjoy what they have, too.

 

 

 

I agree,

 

3 years ago I had a minor cold, woke up the next day with rining in my right ear and permanent damage, can't hear anything above 8KHZ. My ear however has become more sensitive to volume and certain frequencies and how I listen to music. I find digital music harsh, that rarely happens when listening to vinyl, unless the LP sounds shrill or has too much noise.

 

Then 3 months ago, I had a very, very strong upper respiratory infection and the infection traveled to my left hear, I still do not have my full hearing back, while there is no ringing on the left side (there was during the infection) my hearing seems muffled.

 

This is a perfect example of how we all hear things differently, Iprobably a lot of people out there do not realize their ears have been damaged by ear infections or other.

 

My damaged hearing has made me realize I need to treat my ears better, whether protecting them or listening to music in the best possible way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has turned into a pretty good discussion. I recently got hearing aids. I was hoping that they would return my hearing to normal, but far from it. Even though the hearing specialist can make adjustments to accentuate the high areas that I've lost, he cannot fill in the missing gaps between the frequency ranges he can access. The sound is artificial... plastic, and I actually prefer hearing without them, even though I hear much less. It doesn't help that I also have tinnitus.

 

Unfortunately, hi-fidelity is wasted on me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had back to back ear infections this past couple of months and I'd swear my ears haven't cleared up to full normality. Still feel a bit deaf and like I have slight tinnitus. Annoying and slightly concerning. I listen to a fair bt of music each day on headphones, and play guitar through headphones, and swim 1000m - not sure any of that is helpful either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what is the highest studio digital resolution currently? Is it 24 bit 96khz? How long has this been around?

 

I remember Neil Young was pushing DVD Audio in the mid-90s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what is the highest studio digital resolution currently? Is it 24 bit 96khz? How long has this been around?

 

I remember Neil Young was pushing DVD Audio in the mid-90s

Hmm, I think its the new DSD format (well newish) which they have up to 512....

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, probably from the music reproduction side. I've had an SACD player for a long time but ever since we moved into our house almost 9 years ago I have never set it up as a 5.1. I still have all my JBL speakers in the closet.

 

Dark Side of the Moon sounds incredible, to the point that the 5.1 set up sounds trippy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what is the highest studio digital resolution currently? Is it 24 bit 96khz? How long has this been around?

 

I remember Neil Young was pushing DVD Audio in the mid-90s

I would like to know too.

 

Last I knew...maybe 1998?...the first 24/96 studio recorder was set up and used at one of those famous studios, can't remember the name. But it was compared to the analog set-up they had, and was said to be almost as good- I remember as good in some areas, not as good in others. I think the bass was what was lacking. That's what I read about it.

 

Mr. Young is a guy who believes strongly in fidelity, as in NOT having the same thing done as was when we were told the CD was the way to go (16 bit format). Reason he was backing the DVD audio, there was a "war" as to what the "new" format was going to be to replace the 16 bit CD. SACD vs DVD audio.

 

The SACD was again a Sony thing, and was basically the 16 bit format with extra bits somehow for the better resolution. The other format was higher resolution from the start, and more potential down the road. Sony won the battle, but lost the war because no one really wanted to switch over from the standard 16 bit system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, probably from the music reproduction side. I've had an SACD player for a long time but ever since we moved into our house almost 9 years ago I have never set it up as a 5.1. I still have all my JBL speakers in the closet.

 

Dark Side of the Moon sounds incredible, to the point that the 5.1 set up sounds trippy.

It't be perfect for 5.1 as it was recorded in Quadraphonic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...