16 bit files almost unlistenable now...

[gmgraves]

12 hours ago, Daverz said:

 

Click on your username in the upper right corner of the webpage.  Select "Ignored Users", then type in 

 

fas42

 

and hit Enter.

Thank You Daverz for your help. I've been on this forum for more than 10 years and I've never yet ignored a user. At least now I know how!

[gmgraves]

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

You didn't appreciate the slightly sarcastic tone, - for playback in the consumer's home, maximum resolution is required. As compared to what the recording engineer uses - I presume you haven't read the thoughts of some mastering people, who very deliberately also listen on "low grade" speakers, to make sure the mix 'works' on them ...

Sarcasm and other subtle types of inflection don't come across very well on internet discussion sites, that's likely why Emoji were invented. And they only help a little.

 

Also, record producers have to mix and EQ their recordings for the lowest common denominator. That's one reason why there are so many mediocre recordings made. 

[gmgraves]

27 minutes ago, mansr said:

Another is that a lot of "artists" are mediocre.

Yeah, but that almost goes without saying. For many decades, now, the pop music scene has been dominated with singers who can't sing a note (Dylan, Jagger, Steven Tyler, Roger Daltry, Willy Nelson, the list goes on forever.) and who believe that singing consists largely of screaming through a voice that sounds like it's owner has been gargling with hydrochloric acid! The females aren't much better. This breathless screaming that seems to pass for female vocalizing nowadays (I believe it's called "oversinging") is just as unpleasant in it's own way as are the guys. I think the last "pop" vocalists that actually had singing voices were probably Presley and perhaps (Ricky) Nelson and Elvis was the better of those two even though he didn't use his natural talent much. 

[gmgraves]

53 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Frank, are you Australian?

He Is. He's from the Blue Mountains of New South Wales .

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

George, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but you are so far out of touch with pop/rock music of the last several decades that your views should be afforded little if any weight.  One can draw up a list of singers of any genre who many will say cannot sing, although any such lists necessarily are based primarily on personal taste. Your abhorrence of the electrical guitar, a mainstay of pop/rock music, further disqualifies you as a credible arbiter. You should stick to what you know, and pop/rock music most certainly does not fit within that category.

Well, sure, I agree with that. But listen to a record of Sinatra or Crosby (Bing) or even Andre Boccelli and then listen to any of the screechers and acid garglers above and then tell me who can sing and who can't. I'm not arguing that those pop singers aren't (or weren't) popular and that their "voices" didn't have something about them that made their performances evergreen to those who found their style entertaining. Nor am I going to argue that their style of vocalizing didn't or doesn't fit the kind of "music" that they are performing. But whatever it was/is, it's not "singing" in the strict definition of the word. And remember, just because you like something doesn't make it good in any way shape of form and just because I dislike something doesn't make it bad in any way shape or form. Like they say; "There's no accounting for taste." In fact, I've heard that there are people in the world who like Brussels Sprouts and don't like Beluga Caviar, but that ain't me!

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

OK, where that analogy is wrong, 100% wrong, is that you say the "image is still slightly out of focus"  - it's not, it's razor sharp, in the areas that matter. The film may be in extremely poor condition, lots of grain, streaks and dirt, poor joining of where it broke - but because you can see so clearly what was actually filmed all the problems with that copy of it don't matter, anywhere near as much.

The point is that the playback equipment (in this case the projection equipment), no matter how good, cannot fix what isn't there. If you can't see that this was the point of the analogy then your viewpoint is as out of focus as that film! 

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

The singing styles have "evolved" - I

Let me fix that for you - "The singing styles have "devolved"...

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

Those are not the ones I had in mind. On the other hand, I'm surprised you admit to having heard (of) them.

How can one avoid it. Having "heard" and "listened to" are two different things though!

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

If one wants a show off album, this is probably as good as any - I knew someone who had this on constant repeat ...

 

 

The voice works for the feel, and that's what matters.

From my point of view, this speaks volumes about Frank. It basically shows FOR SURE that he has no idea what he's talking about! Thanks, Frank!

[gmgraves]

10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

It's so, so hard for people to escape the Adding Goodness syndrome - if the rest of your rig was "perfect", but the connection to the binding posts was below par - do I need to read a research paper to inform me that it might be useful to address that?

 

But there is no way that you can prove, either by direct testing or by corroborated measurement from a research paper that a soldered interconnect makes a better connection that a nice, tight RCA. Sure, RCAs are universal for a reason, they're cheap, but that's not the only reason. As an audio connection they only have one drawback. They make hot before return and they break return before hot. They've lasted because if kept clean they make a positive connection that can be better than solder because the connection surface area is greater.   

[gmgraves]

15 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

You've decided it isn't there - because the equipment you're using isn't showing it to you ... I have seen what's there so many times, because I've managed to get a setup to the point where it comes through - and every time it comes through, it's exactly the same. Now, what do you suppose that might indicate, hmmm ... ?

That your rich imagination is consistent as are your auditory hallucinations?

[gmgraves]

15 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Ummm, books have been written about the subject of how connections "go bad".  In the instrumentation field there is a concept of "contact noise" - now, I wonder what on earth they might be talking about, .

Cleanliness is the key to low resistance and low noise connections using RCAs. Clean 'em good, make a nice, tight connection and you'll have a corrosion free, noise free connection.

BTW, do you know the history of the RCA connector? I.E. where it originated? During the waning days of WWII, RCA Labs in Camden NJ, were working on their first post-war product, the RCA Victor model 1630 television. The 1 meant the first postwar TV, the 6 meant the year it was to come out, and the 30 meant it had 30 tubes. The TV consisted of two chassis: the large one with most of the circuitry, and the huge drum tuner chassis that had the big rotary channel selector and the RF amplifier and  mixer/oscillator tubes. They had to have someway to get the IF signal from the tuner chassis to IF strip on the main chassis, and somebody at RCA Labs came up with the RCA connector. It was perfect. It was cheap, it would only rarely ever have to be disconnected during the life of the set, but with the idea that the tuner might need to be serviced from time to time, RCA wanted the Tuner to be disconnect-able.  

[gmgraves]

9 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

It may not be singing according to your defined preference, but to state that pop/rock vocals are not "'singing' in the strict definition of the word" is complete nonsense.

Of course it's according to my preference, I would have thought that would be apparent. I find no pleasure in listening to the acid-scarred vocalizations of these rock "singers" and I must say that I really don't see the appeal that they could have for anybody!. There used to be a TV show that I liked to watch occasionally called "CSI Miami". The show's "theme song" was something called "I don't get fooled again" by a group called 'The Who' (I think. somebody told me that, so I'm not sure). At the beginning of each show was the hook, then the theme and then a commercial. I had to be ready with the mute control and anticipate when the hook ended and just before that first awful scream to kill the audio. To me that's just noise. 

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Do you claim that all with a THD+N below -120dB sounds the same ?

 

I think the answer there is that THD+N below -120 dB sounds like nothing because it's below the threshold of human hearing - and that's based on the ideal being -115 to -117 dB. If you've spent any time in a  proverbial "boiler factory" environment, or listening to very loud music your threshold of hearing may now be as high as -105 dB. It's somewhat different for different people. the point is, if the THD+N is so far down that you can't hear it, then for all practical considerations, it doesn't exist. 

[gmgraves]

1 minute ago, diecaster said:

 

I sure hope that is sarcasm.

You hope what is sarcasm? 

[gmgraves]

8 minutes ago, diecaster said:

 

No. Copper oxide is a high resistance conductor and is not a good conductor. If you are making a connection using copper that has oxidized, you want to remove that oxidation and get to clean non-oxidized copper. 

Amen to that brother. Corrosion on any interconnects can actually form a diode junction and partially rectify the AC signal passing through the connector. That diode junction result is a terrible sounding distortion. KEEP YOUR CONNECTIONS CLEAN!

[gmgraves]

1 minute ago, diecaster said:

 

The whole part about The Who and “Won’t Get Fooled Again”. 

OK, you're going to have explain that better. Are you saying that it wasn't The Who performing the theme to that TV show? I think I said that I wasn't sure about that and was going by what someone told me. Believe me, I wouldn't know The Who from The Grateful Dead. And I did mute the sound on the TV in anticipation of that awful noise!

[gmgraves]

7 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

Conveniently, rather than address your nonsensical statement that pop/rock vocals are "not singing' in the strict definition of the word", you resort once again to a rant about The Who. Elevating your subjective preference to an objective definition is, IMO, akin to citing "alternative facts". Are you taking distraction lessons from Donald Trump?

 

 

What do you expect me to say? To me, pop/rock vocals are not singing. It even has a name. It's called screaming. I use The Who as an example because my contact with that genre of music is so seldom, that I have to use what examples I have.  And if I am taking distraction lessons from somebody, would it not make sense to take them from the best? And who better than the current occupant of the White House! 

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

The version I heard was that it was first used at the back of a consumer item, for connecting some extra capability to the system - as a easy "fix". Never intended to be taken seriously, it was used almost as an afterthought to get two boxes of electronics to talk to each other, at the time.

Nope it was to connect the IF output of an early TV receiver. It subsequently showed up in a 1949 RCA Victor TV as you describe. My parents had one. There was a single RCA connector on the back of the console TV. You could connect an FM tuner to it (that's what my dad did) or a crystal phono cartridge from a phonograph . To operate the TV, you turned the on/off-volme control clockwise, just like any other TV or radio. to activate the RCA jack on the back, from off, you pulled the on/off-volume control toward you. This would activate the audio amplifier while leaving that receiver and video sections of the TV off. Our TV had a 12" inch and a two inch speaker in the bottom potion of the cabinet, but the back was open and the two speakers were just screwed to the inside front of the cabinet and the magnet on the 12" speaker was tiny. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the amp was single ended and only had couple of Watts. I would be surprised if it were more than that. Still, the ability to listen to FM through the TV was a great advantage in those days before real Hi-Fi. 

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

Yes. The trouble is, this behaviour still occurs to an audibly detectable level even if you practice nominally very good connection hygiene - to be blunt, you will have enormous difficulties achieving the SQ I focus on unless one takes this very, very seriously.

No, it doesn't.

 

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

Because sorting this out is one of the first things I do with a 'new' setup, I get far better feedback than most people would as to how effective this approach is - chalk and cheese, as they say ... .

An empty procedure at best, because it exists only in your head, Frank. Even a very sensitive distortion analyzer, capable of measuring Harmonic and IM distortion to less than 0.01% can't measure it. I ought to know, I used to own a Sound Technology 1700B. I sold it because I found it was little use setting up a pro tape recorder. 

[gmgraves]

9 hours ago, diecaster said:

“Who’s Next”, by The Who, is generally considered to be one of the best Rock albums of all time. “Won’t Get Fooled Again” is arguably the best track on the album.

If that's the best, I'd hate to hear the worst, my friend. I think I'd rather have a root canal than submit myself to listening to junk like that.

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

Throwing numbers around like  -120dB down is totally pointless, completely irrelevant - you can make anything seem to have fantastic capabilities, if you carefully choose to measure the "wrong thing" .

Not really. -120dB is below the threshold of human hearing. If you can't hear it, it doesn't matter. And as we get older, the sound level at which we can no longer hear something goes up, not down. At over 50, most people's hearing sensitivity's deteriorated to above -110 dB. And again, if you can't hear it, it doesn't matter. 

[gmgraves]

11 hours ago, diecaster said:

 

I suppose you think that Cat Stevens' "Tea for Tillerman" is not singing either.....

 

What is "singing" to you???

I don't know what a "Tea for the Tillerman" or a Cat Stevens is. But to answer your question, there have been many great singers. Start with Pavarotti (any of the "Three Tenors" for that matter), Andre Bocelli, Robert Merrill, William Warfield, to name a few great serious male singers. On the "pop" side, there's Bing Crosby, who had a marvelous singing voice, as did Elvis Presley when he wanted to use it (which was not often), the italian pop group "Il Volo" are all also very good; all three have great young male voices. Too bad Robert Goulet drank himself to death, he had a magnificent baritone singing voice. On the female side, there's Barbara Streisand (great voice, although I can't stand to look at her), Judy Garland, Anna Netrebko, Dinah Washington, Shirley Bassey (Goldfinger, Diamonds are forever, Moonraker), Julie Andrews and I'm not forgetting Joan Baez and Judy Collins either!

I don't necessarily listen to any of these, but I have heard them all, and I know a good singing voice when I hear it (and I also know a bad one!).There are literally hundreds more. Not only operatic voices but "pop" voices too.  I really don't like any vocals very much. I, by far, prefer instrumental jazz and full symphony orchestra. 

[gmgraves]

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Well, it was a key procedure in the first "competent rig"- and I've had to do it with every one since. You see, I can hear the distortion artifacts from not addressing this area, with ease - which is why I have little time for ambitious rigs that fail to have this sorted ...

 

How about this analogy? For me, it's like listening to the Who on a pretty screechy rig, for you ... .

 

 

believe me there is not a Fi high enough to make the Who (or at least what I've heard from them) sound acceptable to me. 

 

 

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, Richard Dale said:

I would say in general that there is little point in having discussions with people who think their opinions are facts, whether it be about music or about the reproduction of music. In the case of audiophile topics even the experts in the field often disagree with each other and so I think it is important to never be too dogmatic about other people being wrong, even if they don't share your own opinions.

I agree. Opinions stated as facts are simply annoying, but on the other hand, It's a natural human failing. Most of us are passionate about audio and sound, and music. so, it's only natural that we view the fruits of our journeys through these passionate subjects as facts. You can't change people's minds, no matter what you do. You may love The Grateful Dead, in fact I have a good friend who used to spend fortunes chasing them all over the country to hear their concerts. Now he does pretty much the same thing for what he calls "Tribute Bands". I'm not sure what that means, but I suspect they are bands who try to mimic the "Dead" by playing their "music" as close to the original as possible. I don't believe I've ever heard "The Grateful Dead" and wouldn't know them if I heard them (unless of course somebody told me that's what I was hearing), but my friend is quite a fan, apparently. Do I try to change his mind? No. That's his musical taste, and not mine.