Jump to content
IGNORED

"Audiophile" - Compliment or Insult


Recommended Posts

I haven't crossed over to the dark side of choosing my music to suit my equipment's resolution (or my taste in recording) just yet. I REALLY dislike the current trend in mastering and I almost never buy re-masters of old material; I seek out the original transfers to CD instead. But while my system, for what it is, is pretty transparent (until you get to the HD580s, which are pretty forgiving), I'm usually ok to just turn the offenders down a bit, or engage the pre-set eq I made in iTunes, appropriately titled "anti-glare." But I really want to avoid getting any further into that space where good music becomes hard to listen to. Your example was a good one, Rick. I know that Abbey Road is no audiophile recording, even for it's time, but I still enjoy it a lot. If my system ever became revealing enough to make it as difficult to listen to as some modern masters and re-masters, I will have made a grave error. As I audition monitors for my nearfield system (if I ever get back to work full time and get on with that project), I'll be very careful not to go there. I believe I'm that close - one pair of speakers, one set of headphones from the edge. And as much as I appreciate good sound and great recordings, my standards are variable and sometimes so low...as I type this I'm listening to Brahms via internet radio. Low mid fi at best, but I'm thoroughly enjoying it.

 

I'll take a 128kbps stream over the brutality of a great system resolving the hideous glare and life-sucking compression and noise reduction of, for example, The Who's Ultimate boxed set any day.

 

Baxtus - did you ever go over to head-fi and snoop around? That could be such a dangerous place for you!

 

Tim

 

 

 

I confess. I\'m an audiophool.

Link to comment

The irony of it is that I was just listening to Abbey Road yesterday and it was great. Kind of like I have come full circle. There is a wholeness to it that wasn't evident on the system from many years ago. I think that wholeness is part of what I am trying to describe.

 

Off subject there is a great Beatles biography by a guy named Brian Spitz. Very in depth and perhaps long for the faint hearted. I highly recommend it. I have been enjoying reading the sections about the sessions for certain albums and songs while listening to the end result. Great fun.

 

As to iPods, I guess I should just pass. I do own one. It is in my car. The factory car system with it's CD changer sounds substantially better. My iPod is ripped lossless so I assume it is the DAC that is such a limiting factor.

 

Audio Research DAC8, Mac mini w/8g ram, SSD, Amarra full version, Audio Research REF 5SE Preamp, Sutherland Phd, Ayre V-5, Vandersteen 5A\'s, Audioquest Wild and Redwood cabling, VPI Classic 3 w/Dynavector XX2MkII

Link to comment

I have a first generation iPod Nano. I really only use it at the gym and when doing yardwork, with Etymotic ER6s plugged in directly. It benefits a good bit from a small portable headphone amp I have, but I just don't want the extra weight and bulk in my pocket. Yeah, it could be the DAC, I suppose, but I doubt the DAC in your car audio system is that much better. The difference is in the output stage, I suspect, but you would suspect from a greater base of knowledge than I.

 

Tim

 

I confess. I\'m an audiophool.

Link to comment

You may well be right about the cause on the iPod. I hadn't thought of it but that may be a sign of my own prejudice against not having a digital output.

 

You know, I have given some thought to the issue that MM raised about how musicians feel about reproduction quality. I am a guitar player wannabe, meaning I play but I wannabe a lot better than I am. I am a tone freak, which I think is a ego saving way of saying I'm not that good. My point is that I know a lot of musicians who will really sacrifice to get that acoustic guitar, piano, drum kit, great jazz guitar etc. It is not that these players don't want and recognize good sound. I just think that their main concern is the original event and after that they don't worry as much, or may not even realize, that the sound they are willing to sacrifice to achieve is something that can be heard and appreciated on a recording. Just a thought but there does seem to be something of a dichotomy there.

 

Totally off topic, but what the hell, it's my thread - I own two acoustics. One is a Huss & Dalton, which falls into the category of your old Gibson, a slightly dry kind of sound. I love it, and it may be the best playing acoustic I have ever picked up, but I also have a Breedlove Revival OM, which is more in the pre-war Martin category. I don't like 'Breedlove's other "modern" models nearly as much. This sounds a lot like a good Collings but not as pricey. Two entirely different sounds but I love them both. Stereos are kind of the same for me. If I were wealthy and completely decadent, I would have two systems, one excelling in intimacy and all that, the other being incredibly dynamic, ala TAD or something. Maybe even horns. That last one was for you, markr.

 

I always enjoy your posts, even when we are not coming from the same place. Although, after seeing so many of your posts I think I would expect you to look like a young Van.

 

Rick

 

 

Audio Research DAC8, Mac mini w/8g ram, SSD, Amarra full version, Audio Research REF 5SE Preamp, Sutherland Phd, Ayre V-5, Vandersteen 5A\'s, Audioquest Wild and Redwood cabling, VPI Classic 3 w/Dynavector XX2MkII

Link to comment

More like a contemporary Van, I'm afraid.

 

WARNING: EXTREME THREAD CREEP AHEAD

 

The sound in your Breedlove may be that particular guitar. Audio equipment, even speakers, should be highly consistent, I'd think. Solid wood guitars are highly variable, even when they are factory built (maybe PARTICULARLY when they are factory built. Two different instruments can come off of the same line, with exactly the same specs, sounding quite different.

 

When it comes to acoustic guitars, I believe in magic.

 

I have gone through many of them to find my two. I bought a bunch of them used and right over the course of a bit over a decade, played them for months (magic rarely reveals itself in a shop) and then turned them over when they failed, ultimately, to make the sounds that hold my soul. I have owned or auditioned (in-home usually, for a week or two at least) Gibson, Martin, Taylor, Larrivee, Thompson, Santa Cruz, Collings, Lowden, Greven, Bourgeois...I'm sure I'm overlooking something. Several of them were exceptional instruments. I hated to sell the Lowden because it was, by any objective measure, one of the most responsive instruments I've ever played, but it didn't suit the way I play. The Thompson (Ted. Alone somewhere in Canada...) was remarkably loud and clear, but in the end, too bright.

 

I finally settled on a rosewood/sitka Taylor GC - an 812c (no e) to be exact, built in '93, and and '03 Gibson custom shop Original Jumbo - Adirondack over mahogany. I will play those two guitars on my porch in my old age for no other reason than they are the ones for me. I've thoroughly tested the theory. I know they're my guitars.

 

Guitars are very different from stereo equipment. Aren't they? :)

 

Tim

 

I confess. I\'m an audiophool.

Link to comment

They absolutely are. But my point was that musicians do care about sound although perhaps at the source (the instrument) rather than the playback (production and reproduction).

 

Audio Research DAC8, Mac mini w/8g ram, SSD, Amarra full version, Audio Research REF 5SE Preamp, Sutherland Phd, Ayre V-5, Vandersteen 5A\'s, Audioquest Wild and Redwood cabling, VPI Classic 3 w/Dynavector XX2MkII

Link to comment

Actually, my little smiley face at the end was to indicate that on some level, they might not be all that different. That level being, of course, taste and preference. I've got a good buddy who swears by his big old vintage Altecs, and there's no doubt that there are some things they do exceedingly well. There's also no doubt that they have an attractive sound, particularly for some styles of music. But they aren't something I could personally take a steady diet of. It kind of the same thing you get when you put my Gibson in the hands of a lover of Martin or Martinesque guitars. It's not quiet, like so many of the Gibsons from the 60s and 70s. It's as loud and responsive as any D-18 or mahogany Collings I've heard. But it is different. And it just doesn't suit the Martin guys. And boy are you right about musicians. I've known a few musician audiophiles, but they are quite rare.

 

Tim

 

I confess. I\'m an audiophool.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...