| Author |
Thread: Archive through August 02, 2004 |
    
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1473
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 04:15 am: |
|
Jan,
Do not post those files. You can't even read the page numbers. They are obviously in MP3 format.
I will see if I can find CD or DVD-A versions. I assume the originals were ink-on-paper, the now-obsolete analogue format. Not many people can read that, now, they don't have the right computer. |
|
Relevant Product Info
|
|
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1475
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 05:00 am: |
|
Jan,
I forgot to reply re the Yamaha NS10M. My point is you don't need to know anything about the speakers to spot the flaw in the argument "bad speakers are good for testing the quality of the rest of your system". I wonder if anyone went out and auditioned some, after reading that, but settled for Bose because the Yamahas failed to live up to the promise, by sounding quite good. |
Silver Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 486
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 12:32 pm: |
|
JOHN
i didn't want to post this on the definitions
thread as to not get off the track.
but it is killing me to understand what you meant
by.
"Help, Kegger! This is supposed to be definitions, and people are
starting to quote Hamlet...."
i don't know hamlet and for the life of me can't
figure out what you mean and it's eating at me.
so please explain for me sir!
thanks!
|
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1488
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 02:42 pm: |
|
Kegger, everyone,
Sorry, it is "Macbeth", not "Hamlet". (Shakespeare, which is why I thought of our original discussion, way back) "Tomorrow, and tomorrow and tomorrow..." I can recite it. They drummed it it into me at school. I just get the plays mixed up. it happens to "old dogs", I expect.
peach's quote on that thread is from the end of that speech. It is about how life is not much different from a play, and just as pointless if people don't understand each other. He says it better than that, of course.... |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1672
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 10:21 am: |
|
On another thread, goldenarrow provides a link to this excellent "FAQ" on surround sound, formats, bass management, and much else.
Frequently Asked Questions About Surround Sound.
Old Dogs may get a buzz of adrenaline from the introduction (BTW "Quad" is a manufacturer; they probably mean "quadraphonic"):-
1.1 Why is surround sound better than stereo?
Surround Sound is almost universally acclaimed to be a more realistic experience than stereo. This applies to just about any type of program, from music to motion pictures to television. People that can't tell the difference between mono and stereo can immediately hear and appreciate the difference between surround and stereo.
1.2 Are there a lot of consumers with surround systems?
More and more. It is projected that there will be in excess of 55 million homes with home theater systems in the United States alone, which represents a penetration of nearly 35%.
1.3 How does the surround sound of today differ from Quad?
The Quad systems of the 70's were flawed in two ways. First of all, there was a format war that confused consumers and discouraged them from buying into Quad.
Secondly, if the placement of the speakers wasn't exactly right then the listener had phantom images drifting around the room which resulted in a less that satisfying experience. The surround sound of today is built upon the premise of three speakers across the front, with the center speaker providing an anchor for the sound, which eliminates any moving phantom images and improves the imaging.
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 03:11 pm: |
|
PSHAW!!! Bullballs! Format wars? Speaker placement? He must not remember the Shibatta stylus. |
Silver Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 746
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 03:53 pm: |
|
well it all sounds good to me!
exspecially the part about the center speaker! lol |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1680
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 04:31 pm: |
|
Jan,
Can I join your club, please? I have phantom images. They come from the center channel. Or from phantoms. A "less than satifying experience".
I definitely want a tube 5.1 system. Better, 4.0.
Do not believe the hype. Surround has something to offer, despite those guys' attempts to discredit it.
Please, what was the Shibatta stylus?
It's just great when old dogs rattle their cages... |
Silver Member Username: Rick_b
New york
Usa
Post Number: 325
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 04:45 pm: |
|
Jan,
Your PSHAW was much too kind. Please feel free to bark louder. |
|
|
J. vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 06:05 pm: |
|
Before we start, a quotation I found while looking for some information:
"Audiophilia
One of the things that bugs me the most in this world are people classified as "audiophiles" in the worst sense of the word (reviewers for some snooty audio magazines, for example). Equipment-crazed lunatics who don't know a second thing nor care the least bit about music they play, willing to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to eke the last bit of sound from a recording while never caring for the music in the first place. They talk night and day about soundstage and breaking in their new equipment and how their wires cost them over $5,000. It is true that the next level up might be achievable with another couple thousand, but in this world of severely diminishing returns, it all stops mattering when you're happy to just sit down and listen to your music. When you've got enough money to buy that next step up and it'll make music that much more enjoyable, go for it, but if every time you're sitting down to listen and you just hear the flaws in the electronics, perhaps consider a different hobby. Not that I don't appreciate quality equipment, but music should be what it's all about."
A Shibatta stylus was used to decode CD4 records. CD4 was the discrete version of quadraphonic sound in the 70's. It was available on four track open reel tape, eight track tape that was, instead of four sets of two channels, two four channel tracks, or CD4 records which required a specific stylus type to decode. The LP was recorded with four tracks, two in each side of the groove and layered on top of each other. Along with the music a 30kHz carrier signal was recorded and this is what "turned on" the internal electronics of the processors to decode or separate the tracks. The Shibatta stylus was similar to an eliptical stylus in that it was asymetrical. On the edges that road in the record groove the sides of the cartridge had been extended with a slight flare that meant smaller contact area over the groove surface.
The smaller the contact area in the groove, the higher the frequency response the stylus could trace.
As the stylus had a very small footprint when new it would track the 30kHz carrier signal for most of the record. A slight warp or off center record or simple mistracking of the stylus would loose the carrier and there would go the turn on signal to the demodulator. This was also the day of replacable styli so any misalignment of the cartridge or stylus assembly would not contact the groove properly over the entire record. Turn on, turn off, turn on ... could get bothersome over the course of a symphony.
The larger problem with the Shibatta stylus was that two things wear when you play a record. The stylus and the record. It didn't take long and you had not only worn the stylus down to where it could no longer trace the 30kHz signal but you had worn the 30kHz signal completely off the record.
Planned obsolescence!
Format wars my Aunt Lucia! God rest her soul. |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1686
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 05:01 am: |
|
Jan. I think we need to discuss tactics in the forthcoming battle. I can maybe provide some cover while you go in, or vice versa. We can take it in turns.
These systems were all what we now call "matrixed", I think - you write of the demodulator. A straight 4.0 (or 5.1) DVD-A is genuine four (or six) track. I stick to my guns on this, despite what those clowns say. One stupid piece of nonsense further down their web page is:
In a studio that services mostly Pop and Rock clients, all five speakers are usually matched direct radiators with a second system utilizing dipoles as a consumer reference.
In a studio that services mostly Classical and Jazz clients, the front speakers will be identical direct radiators but the rear channels may be dipoles. This is because these genres of music utilize the rear speakers mostly for ambient information and dipoles tend to work better in this application.
Totally the reverse of the truth, in my opinion. "Ambient information" means "no-one is listening".
Loved your quote. Yes, it is the music.
Re planned obsolescence, I see in HFN (Barry Fox) there is a plan to bring out light-sensitive, biodegradable, paper-based discs which play only n times and then you throw them away.
"The environment" is a new religeon, in my view (though there are some real issues, of course). The best thing for the biosphere would be to produced only stuff that lasts for ever. People would be happy with it. Leave it to their chiildren. Would spend their time listening to music, instead. Even playing it.
I salute you, and the memory of your Aunt Lucia. She saw the light. If you had an Aunt Cecelia, too, your pedigree would be complete! |
J. Vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 11:30 am: |
|
Sorry, Aunt Dorothy, Helen, Mary and Irene. Some say my grandfather married wrong. |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1695
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 08:46 am: |
|
IMHO He did OK for grandsons, nuns notwithstanding. |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1696
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 09:31 am: |
|
Diagram of what Jan gets with stereo, not showing reflections from the room he, and the speakers, are in. |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1697
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 09:35 am: |
|
Diagram of what Jan could get from holophony (4.0 "surround sound"). |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1698
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 10:10 am: |
|
Diagram of what John gets from stereo. |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1699
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 10:19 am: |
|
Diagram of what John gets from DVD-A of "The Sixteen" Spem in Alium CORDVD1, and would have heard in All Saints', Tooting, if he had been there. |
Bronze Member Username: Goldenarrow
Post Number: 46
Registered: Jun-04
|
| Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 01:07 am: |
|
Everyone,
I have not kept up on this on-going discussion but it seems to me that there is a bigger issue going on with the promise of multichannel. It seems that all of us have an analog point of view. What we need is a Digital World View.
John A. mentioned to me on another thread that this discussion is something I should read. I will try to read it this weekend but something hit me as I skimmed the comments. No one that I could tell has brought up the issue of ultimate control of the virtual soundspace. Computer technology will change the way sound is reproduced, in fact it is already doing that. Just the fact that there is so much discussion about the truth of being pure to the original sound vs. what a sound engineer would do to it shows how much control we are trying to assert to our music experience.
Imagine the home sound room 50 years from now. A super computer with A/V receiver functions will call up a digitized recording of your favorite band. This is not just a recording, however. It is a complete, square inch by square inch, representation of the sound space when the band recorded the music. That is because it was not recorded with point-source microphones. It was recorded with membrane-like material that covered the entire inside of the recording studio. All of this info is fed, in real-time, to a recording engineer's super computer which has calculated every waveform in every square inch of the building. The WHOLE soundspace is measured and known creating a virtual soundspace that can be manipulated at will.
So, back to your couch at home. You decide you want to sit in the virtual soundspace in the middle of an auditorium of your choice. That is a nice standard way to listen. As you listen, your spouse comes in and wants to hear a different perspective, so she presses a few buttons and voila, you are now sitting or even standing in the first row at an outdoor arena. The same kind of membrane-like panels that recorded your music are reproducing the music from an infinite number of points in the room.
This is what I believe it means to have a Digital World View. Computers exist because we want complete control over our environment. This is how you use computers (or TRY to as in the case of Microsoft). The whole stereo vs. multichannel perception thing will fall into place once you can have a virtual 1000.x system as opposed to little incremental increases in point source radiation. In other words, every single square inch of a recording room or a listening room becomes a listening or a radiating point source. The "ambiance" and math tricks used to recreate surround sound today will give way to a much more straight-forward and more comprehensive way to control ALL of the sound in ALL of the soundspace.
This vision of the future depends upon our assumption that computers exist to control as much of our environment for us as possible, with the touch of a button.
This sort of echoes Kegger's comments of May 23 where he describes knowing about computer technology and trying to keep up with it. It occured to me that he needed to take the idea further to the nth degree and see how to consumerize that kind of control. It is my contention that computers are taking us where we don't want to go but once we get there, it will seem like a no-brainer.
I don't know if I will be able to keep up with this discussion but I just wanted to put my thoughts out here for all you good people to contemplate. 
goldenarrow
|
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1701
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 07:02 am: |
|
goldenarrow,
Writing as the co-starter of this thread, along with Jan Vigne, let me say you are very welcome here. Your point is a very good one, in my opinion. No-one could read the whole if this thread, not and stay sane (...!). One of the pleasures of this discussion has been trying to take a long view. I can certainly remember when music-lovers were saying about stereo what they are saying, today, about "Surround sound". On June 19, I posted the words of a nice 1959 patter and song expressing scepticism about stereo...
The basic starting-point of this thread was Jan's remark that he thought music almost always sound better in stereo. Always having delighted in stereo, myself, I can see the point, and think the problem is the hype, what the recording engineers do with multichannel, and the proliferating number of channels. The last point alone indicates to me that people have not thought about what they want the medium to do. My absolute, definitive surround recording is that one linked just above, after the fourth diagram. It is in 4.0. It had to be. It is fairly esoteric (but still wonderful music), recreating a sound that was really written (in the 16th C) to be performed all around the listener, and has probably never been heard that way, from a recording, until that disc. However, I also maintain that surround, properly done, offers a whole new experience of music, even when the performers themselves are just in front of you, simply because so much of what we hear at a performance is reflections and reverberation. The there are folk like Kegger who aren't so bothered with re-creating a real performance, and I know he speaks for many. That's OK, but I feel it may get more important to have reality as a reference as time goes on. That's one area where "the industry" cannot alter our perceptions.
Digital changes, many things, you are correct. One thing that is new is that copying is 100% faithful to the original files: there is no difference between the copy and the original. With analogue there was always some degradation of sound quality each time something was re-recorded. Also, copying is easy, you don't have to play the recording in real time, and cheap. Then there is networking, including the internet. What the recording industry is seeking, desperately, is a way of charging for content, not for the physical thing that carries it. When CD came in, no-one except manufacturers could burn CDs; copying was not a problem for them, then.
This brings in the Orwellian aspect, which is what I personally fear: encryption. As someone who depends on satellite reception of broadcasting, the "switch to digital" really made no different to sound and picture quality, but it has certainly decreased the range of "free-to-air" broadcasts, and "rights issues" mean, at least in Europe, that trans-national reception has been severely curtained. I am told it is actually illegal for me to receive certain simple public service channels, and I cannot legally purchase even the de-ecryption keys without a particular residential address. The "rights issues" means that broadcasters dare not simply "broadcast"; they have to guarantee that reception is restricted in some way, otherwise the content providers will not have multiple customers. The political implications of having unidentified and unaccountable people deciding what we may listen to or watch are one thing. If you put this kind of control in the hands of the great dictators of the 20th C the consequences would have been serious. Analogue AM broadcasts brought "nation unto nation" for many decades; you could tell the bad guys right throughout the cold war, they jammed incoming signals, so their population could not hear what the rest of the world had to say. For the last few years, good old analogue, AM, 1500 meters domestic BBC is jammed in continental Europe by what I think is a commercial, Czech disco channel. They should show some gratitude, historical awareness, and find another wavelength...!
As regards music, it is commercial interests that are shaping digital recording and broadcasting to determien what may or may not be listened to, by whom, and where. I am not sure that is any better. DVD "regionalisation" is mostly a commercial con, I think.
I have no idea where sound (and vision) reproduction in the home will be in 50 years. Your scenario reminds me of "Minority Report", interesting and fun, but a completely daft movie in many respects, with some very simple, and large, blunders about what is possible.
Probably you are correct about the digital data itself, especially with WiFi networks (this message starts its journey from a simple one, in my home). It all still needs amplifiers and transducers (speakers), of course, to get real, analogue sound. These are never going to be so cheap that you can just buy as many as you feel like, not unless some currently imaginable new technology come along.
End of ramble. Thanks again for joining the Old Dogs. Jan is about the oldest and wisest, here, imho. I am waiting for his hackles to rise, again, with eager anticipation.... |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1703
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 08:45 am: |
|
There is some fascinating stuff on "which way will the industry go?" from the point of view of EMI, a big player, on 1 July 2004: Digital music investor day, London. |
Silver Member Username: Rick_b
New york
Usa
Post Number: 329
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 09:37 am: |
|
JohnA.,
I will second that opinion about Jan. I'm not so sure about the oldest part. No debate on part two.
I like old dogs. Glad I'm one. I find them great company.
Cheers to you my friend, and all old dogs....... |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1704
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 10:14 am: |
|
Rick,
Thank you. I am glad you agree. Let us resist the temptation to delve into such trivial matters as date of birth...
I have learned so much here, from so many, and particularly on this thread.
Cheers. |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1705
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 10:38 am: |
|
Rick,
Thinking about making a diagram such as the ones above, but with "Rick listening to Don Giovanni", it occurs to me that listening in two-channel stereo must give the effect of being in an opera box (do you have those over there?), namely, you miss all first-order reflections from behind you, hearing only reflections of those reflections (i.e. second-order reflections) as a cue to the size etc. of the opera house.
I have only once been in an opera box, for a performance of Boris Godounov (sp?). I remember chiefly that it had an awful lot of bass-baritones, and was in Russian. Also, a chorus whose tune I recognised from one of the Beethoven "Rasumovsky" quartets.
When it is your turn to host the Old Dogs' convention, you really must take us all to the Met. I promise not to bring an SPL meter. |
Silver Member Username: Rick_b
New york
Usa
Post Number: 330
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 01:39 pm: |
|
JohnA.,
I have had the pleasure of being in an opera box several times. Don Giovanni is one of my favorites. You would honor me with your diagram.
As far as hosting in New York City, it would indeed be my honor and pleasure. Nothing would please me more, than for all to get together one day. Now that would be an event to treasure forever. Cheers! |
Silver Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 767
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 02:02 pm: |
|
hey john i could go for one of those diagrams as well.
listening to the front three speakers center back a
little farther than the fronts.
and the four rears, with surrounds being just slightly
behind you and out to the side same distance from
listening position as fronts and rears. with the
2 rears being behind the listening position and
spread apart about 9 feet.
and me in the center listening to some steely dan
with a cold beverage.
you da man.
what are you using to create those? |
J. Vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 02:08 pm: |
|
Thank you all for your kind words, I'll try to live up to the latter and not feel like the former.
I haven't had time to read all of John's post from EMI. They are a label I have respected for years but the marketplace has changed dramatically over the past two decades as computers are influencing our lives more and more.
Of course the entire world is aware of our upcoming election this November and the constant polling results given by our twenty four hour news cycle. He's ahead by three, he's down by five, but on this issue he's pulling ahead and he's losing ground on this issue. And it is all driven by the ability to pull numbers out of a computer and say he needs to focus more on this issue when he's in this part of that state.
I'm fearing that the entire world is going to be "managed" in the same manner. And so, when I read the projections of companies such as EMI, I can't help but feel we are being manipulated by every computerized so and so on the palnet. I'm not trying to be anymore cynical than I am about most things (the nuns come in the night when they get wind of that) but I have trouble finding consolation in companies such as EMI, that once seemed a stalwart of integrity, as they project where the world will take us in the ensuing years. There seems to have been that paradigm shift that says, "Trust us, we know what is best for you". And the sheep go, "Baaaaa".
Well, we here in the U.S. did trust them eighteen months ago and now 80% feel we made a mistake. (Nobody listened when some said we shouldn't rush to judgement.) Not to get political on this forum, but, I feel the group think method is upon us. And it is not limited to going to war (against any people or ideology).
So, thinking digitally with my decidedly analogue brain cells (1 + 1 = 1 + 1 until I'm convinced otherwise) I am not convinced that Goldenarrow's predictions will be any more a reality than the flying cars and stress free lives we were promised in the 60's. (What is the Raymond Massey film, something like "Things to Come" that was made in the 30's and predicted wild things that were interesting but not (mostly) a reality. Though if I remember correctly there was a war time persident in that flick. For my money, "Metropolis" is still the future that we will see. And certainly Chaplin's "Modern Times" was as prophetic as any film.)
There is a dumming down of the masses that is represented in the future of audio as much as in the politics of the elite. (I hate that word. That is one the forum shouldn't allow [sorry, realelitefan].)
The question is on the forum now about how to record for the "best" quality without using too much space on MP3 format. Duh! That is an oxymoron that makes someone who still has a Revox 10 1/2" open reel recorder flinch. (Of course it's STEREO, you need to ask?)
Sympathetic membranes may be interesting to discuss but I doubt they stand a chance against the music (and information) that will be implanted in our brains. Why waste the time developing a technology where you and the misses can still argue about what seating position you wish to position your posteriors into when with a very simple procedure the two of you can be listening to completely different source material from different perspectives. (Oh, that word "perspectives". When it comes to information ... it will make Kegger's simplified choice of whether he likes it or not seem moot. Accuracy, once again ... PSHAW!)
So as the rest of the world slips toward how many files they can store in the least amount of space, I will sit here in my dark little space and wonder if, when I pull the Revox and the tapes out of their closeted space, will the tape shed its oxide and I will no longer have the information I remember from years gone past. |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1706
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 02:17 pm: |
|
I've just done a Rick diagram. Will come back to later posts, Kegger and Jan, much appreciated. All the best.
 |
J. Vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 02:28 pm: |
|
Has anyone taken the time to read:
http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/5/62252.html
from the main page of this forum? |
Silver Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 768
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 02:46 pm: |
|
jan that is a good read.
and this:
By way of explanation: Studios are, for the most part, usually tightly controlled environments, designed specifically to record instruments in close proximity to each other. Studio acoustics have changed drastically since the advent of multi-track recording. Studios were originally designed to compliment and acoustically enhance musical ensembles (groups, bands or orchestras et cetera) playing live with their performance being documented on either mono or, later, stereo tape. Today, studios are more like workshops, were musical performances are no longer documented with all the musicians playing together in the same room as a norm, but created instrument by instrument, track by track. Rather they are recorded piecemeal. More common is that instruments are recorded just for tracking purposes - getting the structure of the song down - and replaced later, with more concentration being paid to the performance. The caveat to this is that, in order to have control over the instruments and record them on separate tracks with as many musical options as possible, the studio acoustics must be controlled and can be quite dead, sterile and lacking in kinetic energy (i.e: excitement). It is not hard to imagine the sound of one or two 100 watt guitar amplifiers, a bass amplifier and a full drum set all in the same room. If that room was live, that is, without any acoustic treatment, the sound would most probably be uncontrollable, albeit exciting, depending on your point of view. To counter this, many studios have what are called Iso (Isolation) Rooms or individual smaller soundproof rooms within the studio area in which to put instruments to ensure that they can be recorded with a high degree of acoustic isolation from other instruments. In mixing, the separate instruments are recombined to make them sound like they were playing live in a huge room without acoustic damping.
pretty much explains what i was telling john on
the definitions thread.
|
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1709
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 03:02 pm: |
|
Jan,
Really must go. But don't worry! You, me, Kegger, goldenarrow, Rick, My Rantz, JOHN S...and the rest. International subversion. We'll keep 'em in their place.
Ministry of Truth: "Eurasia is at war with Eastasia; they have WMDs"
Us: "No it ain't, sunshine".
Winston Smith: "Wish I'd met you guys before".
Will think about the Kegger diagram, a tough call.
Cheers.
PS Go listen to some Shostakovich. That survives, therefore anything is possible. |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1801
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:38 am: |
|
There is a review of the KEF "Instant Theater" system in August Hi-fi News. It is not as bad as we feared, but not for serious listeners to music in "surround sound", more HT people who want minimum fuss and cables. Though it ought to sound good for stereo.
It is really an "Old Dogs" issue. The KEF "KIT" has great stereo imaging, and NO CENTER CHANNEL - the processor distributes its signal to the two Uni-Q mains. I think this is good if you believe "Stereo rules".
The bad news, of you like "holophony", is that the surround channels are projected out into the room and rely of reflections, on the assumption that rear channel sound is ambient and can be diffuse. Apparently it does this well, too, but that are obvious, inherent limitations if you want good imaging from all around.
The reviewer concludes the KEF "KIT" is too up-market for its target audience, and stereotypes them as readers of certain tabloid newspapers etc. It seems like snobbery, to me. Each to his own. I know not to buy it, but I respect other people's right to have priorities which differ from my own. |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1802
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:41 am: |
|
There is a review of the KEF "Instant Theater" system in August Hi-fi News. It is not as bad as we feared, but not for serious listeners to music in "surround sound", more HT people who want minimum fuss and cables. Though it ought to sound good for stereo.
It is really an "Old Dogs" issue. The KEF "KIT" has great stereo imaging, and NO CENTER CHANNEL - the processor distributes its signal to the two Uni-Q mains. I think this is good if you believe "Stereo rules".
The bad news, of you like "holophony", is that the surround channels are projected out into the room and rely of reflections, on the assumption that rear channel sound is ambient and can be diffuse. Apparently it does this well, too, but that are obvious, inherent limitations if you want good imaging from all around.
The reviewer concludes the KEF "KIT" is too up-market for its target audience, and stereotypes them as readers of certain tabloid newspapers etc. It seems like snobbery, to me. Each to his own. I know not to buy it, but I respect other people's right to have priorities which differ from my own. |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1805
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 01:46 am: |
|
The forum software has definitely gone flakey. The double post was nothing to do with me - I even checked to see if the first one had arrived, and it hadn't.
Furthermore, I have e-mail notification of a post here from Jan, but it is not yet actually posted. Probably will be by the time this one gets through. If it ever does.
As regards old dogs and new tricks, we are now attempting to navigate the world of audio by means of the Political Compass. I forget my precise coordinate values, when I first did it. However, my location on the map coincided almost exactly with that of Mahatma Ghandi. My wife and older children were completely incredulous, even suggesting I might have cheated; a notion never entertained this household, before, or since. From numerous dinner time converstations, they had me confidently assigned to somewhere slightly to the right of Attilla the Hun. This illustrates the perils of subjective assessment unsupported by hard data (Gregory...?). That was a gratuitous wind-up ploy, which could be the reason for the discrepancy.
Anyway, in expectation of Jan's post, here is the definitve guide to classical music, all in one graph. Source: Political Compass.
A key libertatian/authoritarian question here might be "Anyone should be allowed to post and download music files for free: by any means, at any time, and anywhere.
Personally, I would tick "strongly agree".
They have got Elgar totally wrong. He would have strongly agreed, too.
I am also amazed at where they put Mahler. I would make Mahler and Elgar swap positions. Two Cents....? I would also move Britten up and to the right, both by quite a lot; and Beethoven down, with a lower authoritarian value than any.
 |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1806
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 02:18 am: |
|
BTW I have just come back from deep immersion in work and caught Jan's and Kegger's wonderful posts of July 11. Scroll back; recommended. So much to comment on, there....
Kegger's quote about the industry's fondness for isolating musicians, so that it has "control", is chilling, and seems to me to be a perfect example of the approaching dystopia, which I view in the same way as Jan.
Strike a blow for freedom and dignity; learn a musical instrument. Play it with friends.
Never wear headphones, they are the tools of solipcists and authoritarians.
Jan, your open-reel tapes should be OK. Humidity is the main problem softening thin layers of iron oxide, as I recall. A Revox, eh? Awesome. In 1979, having held out for years, I eventually caved in and bought an audio cassette player. What a stupid invention. Dolby noise reduction, huh.
Just say 'No' to comprexxion..... |
Silver Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 891
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 12:47 am: |
|
to get back to the recording thing john.
that might explain my position on the, whether we
are hear or their thing.
i listen to mainly studio recorded rock which in
most cases if not all is recording each indivdual
piece of the band seperatly then the mixing engineer
along with the producer usually, put the final
product together.
so in my oppinnion their is nothing to recreate.
you have no live event to recreate.
so when i am listening to studio rock albums i am
enjoying how it sounds mostly by equalization and
what they are actually playing not by how it makes
me feel that i am at an event or an event is at my
place. and by how good the actual recording is. "clean and clear"
so surround to me is more of a new dimension to
music listening because i now get a larger sound
area than i am use to listening to.
now i'm not saying that how studio rock albums are
recorded is better or the right way to do it. it's
just that is what i'm use to hearing. and maybe
why i generally don't like live recorded events
but prefer the studio version.
|
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1821
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 03:46 am: |
|
You make this case very clearly, Kegger. I seems to me it all depends on what people want from the recording. I don't think it depends on genre, not at all. I have seen clips of Bernstein conducting at a recording where every member of the orchestra is wearing enclosing headphones, peering at their music. It is as if the recording people would prefer each person to be playing in a different rooms/locations, following the conductor on a video link, and they are only all in one room just for conveninece, to save someone money.
To me that is exactly what music is NOT all about.
Then you have got great rock concerts, recorded live. That DVD "The Last Walz" captures the excitement of the event, shows you that the "electricity" comes from the interactions between the performers.
To me that is what music IS all about.
Plus the interaction with the audience, though you can't have that with the listener to a recording, so the communication between the performers is enough. And it is often enough for them. Just being witness to that is enough for me; I do not want the illusion of being part of an audience, it is just that it usually sounds better, and more convincing, that way.
Watch any real musicians, performing together. They are looking, listening, giving out signals, maybe just facial expressions, taking them in, maybe talking to each other, as you see and hear most clearly in jazz and other sorts of improvised music. But all music, right at the basis of everything, is communication. That is what musical instruments are for, and as, I said, it doesn't matter whether it is a Gibson, or a Steinway; a Fender or a Stradivarius. Take those all apart, isolate them, and, yes, you can more easily exert the control of a conductor or a recording engineer.
This is where the political compass comes in. I see and hear big orchestras, such as playing Mahler or Count Basie, and I admire the skill and discipline, but it is too reminiscent of the stupid things people do in large groups, expecially classical, where the strings seem like the infantry, the wind like the cavalry, and so on. And I always want to poke fun at the control freak at the front, whether he has a big stick or is directing operations from the piano.
In the modern, techno-recording, I see something just as scary, a soulless sort of world where people are just robots, each doing no more and no less than he is she is allowed to, all under constant surveillance of some engineer or someone who always knows best how everything should sound, in the end, and wants the sort of top-down control that never comes from honestly-earned respect.
I guess when a small band works together with an director and engineer they all know and respect, it all gels. The Beatles and George Martin are a good case; he actually fills in parts on a lot of their recordings. If Sem's talented friend Alan Parsons was the technician, at Abbey Road, I can see it all fitting together, as it obviously did. I'll still bet they all were looking, joking, LISTENING to each other in those sessions.
As we all agree, in the end, there is no right and wrong in this business, it is just what we each prefer. We probably approach music with different expectations, you and I.
Then, of course, whether the recording itself is "clean and clear" is a completely separate issue. I think we see eye to eye on that one, OK. Except I would maybe add that hi-res recording more effectively captures real sound and real music. Midi systems and synthesizers can make nice pure tones with very little storage, bandwidth, sampling frequency, and resolution. But, yes, getting clear signal of real sound is essential, whatever it is. The job of audio gear is to give us that, not try to get in on the act. Though some people seem to want that, too, from reading ads for hi-fi stuff, and from what you can read on this forum. That's their choice, too. I guess it would help if the "consumer electronics" industry was clear about what its products are designed to do. That's about all I can say on that. I think we probably agree there, too.
I keep thinking we need that Old Dogs Workshop. We could each make a short presentation, play some examples of recordings on wonderful gear to make the point, sponsored by the top makers, of course, then all have plenty of discussion and beer. Or Shiraz, or whatever, or special refreshments, for those inclined. Maybe take a visit to one live concert representing each genre. Or just go down the pub. Mind, you might not escape performance, even there. I knew a great jazz pub once. Wonder if it is still there.
All the best. |
Silver Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 893
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 04:15 am: |
|
john i think we are starting to understand each other better lately.
but i do believe what and how we listen to music.
is very much influenced by what we were brought
up listening to.
my dad only listens to rock so that is what i grew
up listening to.
i try new music as much as i can and have enjoyed
a much wider range of music than i use to.
but i still come back to my roots so to speak of
rock. i love listening to well performed and well
recorded rock groups. it just gets me going like
no other music does.
i understand your passion for what you like and
understand the recreation you crave.
but you see from what i listen too that a well recorded
studio rock and roll album for me doesn't really
create anything.
and that also may be were we differ on our thoughts
on the center channel.
like you said neither one of us is right or wrong
it's just what works best for what we are trying
to achieve.
chears buddy. |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1822
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 06:53 am: |
|
Kegger,
Yes, I agree. Cheers. I've been listening to new things, too. But I don't have any roots that I know of, not musical ones. Just what my happened to be on the radio at home. My parents never listened to anything. The idea of them playing music, or singing or anything, is absurd, they just were not that sort. My older brother was into jazz, but only listening, and he left his record player and LPs around. I learned trumpet and played all sorts of music on that, from about age 11 to 16. Then soon after, guitar (sort of folk-blues stuff), but I was never any good, and don't so much care for that sort of music now. All my musical interest started from there, I think, though it is difficult to know. That's about it. And it is a long time ago. I tried to give our children some sort of musical start I felt I never got myself, compared with guys, here, like Gregory, but I don't think it has worked. Our children know a bit, but it does not look like music will be important to them, as it was to me. I also think mothers have more influence than fathers, probably. The piano I got for the kids to have around (I never did) had an even lower WAF than speakers, it took up too much space. I made many friends though music, as a teenager, but that was rebellion, not doing what was done at home. I've dabbled in practically everything. Except C&W, of course; there are limits. I was also very late into audio, compared with most of my friends; never had any sort of record player in my teens and most of my twenties. So I guess I was a "musician" (though never much good) long before I began listening to recordings, and playing was always social, not solitary. That could be the difference between us.
I've always tried to move on, too. I know guys my age who still play the sort of blues band stuff they played in their teens. I hear loud, bass-guitar 12-bar riffs coming from fifty-somethings and kind of envy the stability in their lives, but think there is much more to music than going on doing the same thing. I don't think there is any special sort of music listened to by "people like me". "Original instruments" was a craze I had and still go for, that was a "my generation" thing, but you need to be rich to do that properly, and the whole "early music" scene has about the same share of freaks and odd-balls as anything else, I think.
It is great to compare notes with people here. Thanks for taking the time. |
J. Vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 02:06 pm: |
|
John - Do you know of Steeleye Span? |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1833
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 04:51 pm: |
|
Jan - I know the name. Probably I would recognise some songs. Have no records. Late 60s/early 70s Brit folk/rock, I think, probably some link with Jethro Tull. I was more into Pentangle and its members, a bit earlier. Before that came Euan Mcgregor, Martin Carthy (as big and influence on Dylan as Woody Guthrie), Ralph McTell, The Watersons. Went to "Cousins" folk club just once, to hear John Martyn before he was p | |
