Freedom Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 What's a comparative price point? A 'comparative' price between a 'vinyl' set-up and a 'digital' set-up. In other words, show me a 'vinyl' set-up that sounds as good as a 'digital' set-up for a similar price! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newman Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Sometimes I wonder if the digital fanbois jumping into analog threads are trying to convince others or convince themselves Just going where help is most needed.... :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Anderson Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 A 'comparative' price between a 'vinyl' set-up and a 'digital' set-up. In other words, show me a 'vinyl' set-up that sounds as good as a 'digital' set-up for a similar price! Not sure how to answer this as this is completely subjective. If I had a $3000 TT system and a $3000 digital system the sounds would be totally different but both very good in their own right. I'd probably prefer the TT and you the digital. I've had both systems close to that and I preferred the TT, more sound stage, more natural sound. Digital had more detail but lost out on musicality. I now have a more expensive TT system and cheaper digital system. I've also heard much much more expensive systems both with state of the art digital and TT and still prefer the TT. They just sound more natural. But again that's my opinion. My TT setup now new is about $5000, if your ever in Melbourne your welcome to come have a listen, but to compare it to my CD player would be a bit unfair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freedom Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 Not sure how to answer this as this is completely subjective. If I had a $3000 TT system and a $3000 digital system the sounds would be totally different but both very good in their own right. I'd probably prefer the TT and you the digital. I've had both systems close to that and I preferred the TT, more sound stage, more natural sound. Digital had more detail but lost out on musicality. I now have a more expensive TT system and cheaper digital system. I've also heard much much more expensive systems both with state of the art digital and TT and still prefer the TT. They just sound more natural. But again that's my opinion. My TT setup now new is about $5000, if your ever in Melbourne your welcome to come have a listen, but to compare it to my CD player would be a bit unfair Cheers, when I come to Melbourne next I might take you up on that offer! It's pretty hard comparing apples with oranges, if you know what I mean. It's just that my 'digital' system packs a decent sound for it's punch, but when I add my 'TT' there's NO comparison! All other things ARE equal (amplifier, speakers)! Some say that my TT isn't up to par, but in it's day it was a decent enough piece of gear. So my understanding is that I 'have' to spend much more to aquire a better TT and cartridge to even come close to my digital system! But I do believe you in that 'your' TT sounds better 'musically' over the digital (with more 'detail')! And that is what 'I' want to experience! So hopefully I can listen to a 'musical' TT set-up sometime. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newman Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Go and listen to two live bands. Then come back here and tell me which one was more musical, and which one had more detail. Then tell me why you even paid attention to those parameters. If you don't listen for it with live music, then don't listen for it with recordings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David.M Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Go and listen to two live bands. Then come back here and tell me which one was more musical, and which one had more detail. Then tell me why you even paid attention to those parameters. If you don't listen for it with live music, then don't listen for it with recordings. Not very scientific Attending a live concert your brain is processing both the audio & visual information, the later including not only the performers but what is happening around you in response to the performance. Most, if not all, information regarding soundstage would be drawn from what you see, likewise some of the audio information would be enhanced by seeing the instruments being played as you hear the sound. You can walk away from a concert extremely happy even though the sonics were not the best, it's about the experience as a whole. Of course you are going to listen to a recording differently, and you are going to want more information from the recording because aside from memory (of seeing/hearing performances) the music playing is the only information source. Not to forget that we all have at one/many times had great musical experiences so we all know those good feelings and want to experience them again, thus our expectations from hifi. I think the term 'musical' is simply a description for when the music & playback system combine to make you feel good (requirements for which are likely to be different for each of us). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newman Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Not very scientific Attending a live concert your brain is processing both the audio & visual information, the later including not only the performers but what is happening around you in response to the performance. Thank you, and when you go back home to music on the ol' hifi, guess what happens? Not very scientific Attending a playback at home your brain is processing both the audio & visual information (Olive has proven that when you can see the speakers, your opinion of it changes based on what you see -- the same applies to all the hifi i.e. if you can see a TT or a CD player or a tape player, your opinion of the sound bases purely on that vision), the later including not only the hiif but what is happening around you in response to the environment at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David.M Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Thank you, and when you go back home to music on the ol' hifi, guess what happens? Not very scientific Attending a playback at home your brain is processing both the audio & visual information (Olive has proven that when you can see the speakers, your opinion of it changes based on what you see -- the same applies to all the hifi i.e. if you can see a TT or a CD player or a tape player, your opinion of the sound bases purely on that vision), the later including not only the hiif but what is happening around you in response to the environment at home. I'm sure 99% of us here know & understand that (even without reading a scientific study). My point was that at the concert all the visual cues enhance the experience (well except for the drunken idiots) whereas all those things you mentioned at home actually impede the process of trying to visualise the recording being performed by musicians (which is the whole point about sitting down in front of a stereo isn't it?). I don't see the point of your above comment as it relates to the advice you gave in your previous post. I would have thought it obvious that without the visual cues of the live event we would want and need more information from the music when listening to a recording. You don't agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newman Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) At least your previous post effectively skittles the notion that we should treat live concert sound as a reference for hifi playback: you are saying that we aren't listing that hard in a concert because of non-audio factors, plus playback actually demands better-than-live sound. Both factors say the reference for home playback needs to be something other than live sound. At least we agree on that outcome, although for different reasons. I don't see the point of your above comment as it relates to the advice you gave in your previous post. That's because I was addressing your post, not my own. Edited April 7, 2014 by Newman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Anderson Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) Go and listen to two live bands. Then come back here and tell me which one was more musical, and which one had more detail. Then tell me why you even paid attention to those parameters. If you don't listen for it with live music, then don't listen for it with recordings. Sure I went to Norah Jones last concert, absolute brilliant concert both sound wise and visually. I also went and saw Gloria Estefan quite a few years ago and well quite a few walked out, visually brilliant, sounded like S%^T. So I guess it wasn't only me that go to live bands and pay attention to how it sounds. I go to live concerts to see how well artist really sound without all the tricks in studio. I rate musicians from live sound and performance. George Benson has always impressed. Being a bass player for over 30 years probably makes me different in what I listen to or for in music. So if I was to not listen to musicality in music it would sound like digital, but I prefer musicality in music. Edited April 7, 2014 by keitha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freedom Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 I go to live concerts to see how well artist really sound without all the tricks in studio. I rate musicians from live sound and performance. Really? There are so many factors that can affect a 'live' performance. Some of these factors are outside the artists control. And where you are actually 'positioned' at the concert has a HUGE bearing on the 'sound' quality! Saw 'Airbourne' at a small venue. I'll let your imagination ponder on what the 'quality' of the sound was! (suffice to say that Airbourne are a 'AC-DC' clone band who pride themselves on super-high-octane decibel sound! Listen to their 'CD', sounds a whole lot different! I never go to a concert expecting any great sound, just the 'live' experience! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Anderson Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 See I personally don't listen to that type of music, and the type of music I see is not about ear bleeding volume levels, It's about sound quality. I have seen a number of bands a number of times and in different venues and the best ones it matters little where you sit the sound is still very very good. And REALLY I do see live bands I like and do listen to everything. Maybe because of a musical upbringing that make me listen to things differently. A 'Live" experience to me is the whole thing, it's not just visual to me, the music comes first and if a band can't get that right to me the rest is a waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David.M Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 At least your previous post effectively skittles the notion that we should treat live concert sound as a reference for hifi playback: you are saying that we aren't listing that hard in a concert because of non-audio factors, plus playback actually demands better-than-live sound. Both factors say the reference for home playback needs to be something other than live sound. At least we agree on that outcome, although for different reasons. That's because I was addressing your post, not my own. You've taken a few liberties with interpreting my words. 1. Agree a great many amplified live events would not be a good reference for the audio aspect of hifi playback, un-amplified events in general are more relevant (IME orchestra, solo strings/piano, acoustic guitar). All live concerts however give us visual memories which would aid in visualising a soundstage at home (at least they do for me). 2. I didn't say "we aren't listening that hard in a concert" but the fact is we are processing both audio and visual information at the same time, I'm sure there are plenty of studies (not to mention life experiences) that tell us when doing both at once there is an affect on the processing of both as compared to either listening or watching alone. At a live gig we are listening as best we can in the circumstances, my point is that some failings in sonics may well be overcome by what we see. You haven't been to a live gig where the sound was wanting but you still very much enjoyed the event? 3. I didn't say "better than live sound", I said more information. The sound at a live gig rarely if ever provides you the information from which you perceive anything about the soundstage, it doesn't need to, and depending where you are in the venue and how feeds are set up there can be a marked affect on what you hear. I'm sure this is not news to you (or anyone else for that matter). Back to you original advice at post #205, it is wrong imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freedom Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 See I personally don't listen to that type of music, and the type of music I see is not about ear bleeding volume levels, It's about sound quality. I have seen a number of bands a number of times and in different venues and the best ones it matters little where you sit the sound is still very very good. And REALLY I do see live bands I like and do listen to everything. Maybe because of a musical upbringing that make me listen to things differently. A 'Live" experience to me is the whole thing, it's not just visual to me, the music comes first and if a band can't get that right to me the rest is a waste of time. Well any type of 'hard rock' or just high-energy music commands high volume levels that 'cloud' the 'quality' of sound! That is a big proportion of 'music' in general! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Anderson Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) Well any type of 'hard rock' or just high-energy music commands high volume levels that 'cloud' the 'quality' of sound! That is a big proportion of 'music' in general! Not going to argue but heres a little stat for you Led Zeppelins IV is the highest selling hard rock album of all time selling around 23 million copies and released in 1971, not a bad effort. But if you know the face of my avatar her first album released in 2005 has sold more than 26 million copies and has no high energy, or high volume levels so no clouding of the music in anyway sort of makes the LZ album pale in comparison. Or maybe that the top country album is over 22 million sales. But of course Led Zeppelin is a bigger proportion of music in general. And thats where you are right, general music is that way. But it's by no means the most popular or the most sold Edited April 7, 2014 by keitha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rondine Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Who is she? ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newman Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Who is she? Ron, see #210 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3G_ Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Can we now turn this into an Horns thread, we are talking about live music levels and dynamic right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newman Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) You've taken a few liberties with interpreting my words. 1. Agree a great many amplified live events would not be a good reference for the audio aspect of hifi playback, un-amplified events in general are more relevant (IME orchestra, solo strings/piano, acoustic guitar). All live concerts however give us visual memories which would aid in visualising a soundstage at home (at least they do for me). 2. I didn't say "we aren't listening that hard in a concert" but the fact is we are processing both audio and visual information at the same time, I'm sure there are plenty of studies (not to mention life experiences) that tell us when doing both at once there is an affect on the processing of both as compared to either listening or watching alone. At a live gig we are listening as best we can in the circumstances, my point is that some failings in sonics may well be overcome by what we see. You haven't been to a live gig where the sound was wanting but you still very much enjoyed the event? 3. I didn't say "better than live sound", I said more information. The sound at a live gig rarely if ever provides you the information from which you perceive anything about the soundstage, it doesn't need to, and depending where you are in the venue and how feeds are set up there can be a marked affect on what you hear. I'm sure this is not news to you (or anyone else for that matter). You seem to be violently agreeing with me, and I was agreeing with you anyway before that.... Back to you original advice at post #205, it is wrong imo Sure, fine. Except I didn't give any opinions. I asked keitha to report on two parameters of the sound of two live performances, relative to each other, and explain why it's worth doing. Nothing wrong with asking. What I think you want to take issue with, is my suggestion to not make one's most critical assessments of music playback sound quality, using parameters that are of no importance with live music. At least, not if 'sounds like live music' is one's chosen reference. That almost requires one to use the same assessment criteria for the two situations. But, you and I agree that 'sounds like live music' is not a good reference, anyway. Edited April 7, 2014 by Newman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LHC Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Sure I went to Norah Jones last concert, absolute brilliant concert both sound wise and visually. You are so so lucky. Norah Jones's concert at our Adelaide Festival theatre had terrible sound :mad: . The amplified sound of the instruments was loud and clearly distorted. Only when they played with acoustic instruments and the grand piano did we get beautiful music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Anderson Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Luck? I have seen her numerous times and never had the instruments loud or distorted, sat everywhere from 3/4, 1/2 way and second row. Go figure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David.M Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 What I think you want to take issue with, is my suggestion to not make one's most critical assessments of music playback sound quality, using parameters that are of no importance with live music. At least, not if 'sounds like live music' is one's chosen reference. That almost requires one to use the same assessment criteria for the two situations. I'll try to make this my last OT post My issue was your suggestion of using experiences of listening to 'live bands' as the reference for what you should/should not listen for in recordings (in this case detail, musicality). But, you and I agree that 'sounds like live music' is not a good reference, anyway. On the contrary I said "IME orchestra, solo strings/piano, acoustic guitar" are a good reference (& should have specified unamplified). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freedom Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 (edited) Not going to argue but heres a little stat for you Led Zeppelins IV is the highest selling hard rock album of all time selling around 23 million copies and released in 1971, not a bad effort. But if you know the face of my avatar her first album released in 2005 has sold more than 26 million copies and has no high energy, or high volume levels so no clouding of the music in anyway sort of makes the LZ album pale in comparison. Or maybe that the top country album is over 22 million sales. But of course Led Zeppelin is a bigger proportion of music in general. And thats where you are right, general music is that way. But it's by no means the most popular or the most sold I'm not sure what you're getting at here? I'm not saying anything about most popular music or whatever! But let's take you're example of Led Zeppelin! If you went to see Led Zeppelin 'live', they would be are shattering (obviously)! A LOT different sound to their 'recorded' music! Now take Norah Jones. She doesn't strive for 'volume; or super high energy, and consequently the sound is more 'controlled'. Through 'my' experience of seeing 'live' music for over 30 years, I have concluded that the sound 'quality' varies considerably depending on style of music, venue, mix,(including WHO is actually mixing), seating position etc etc. Too many variables to mention! And the 'louder' the music, generally means less 'quality' to an extent. I have seen Deep Purple, 'front row' (shite sound), farthest back row middle (OK sound), and 'everywhere' in between, and at a lot of different venues. I can honestly say that I don't rate the 'sound quality' I hear at a concert as a reliable guide as to how good that artist is! Edited April 8, 2014 by surfpurple 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts