Great sounding system - $2K all in

[sphinxsix]

 

[sphinxsix]

21 hours ago, Rexp said:

 

 

Much more stable sounstaging than in case of La Scalas.. 

 

 

[sphinxsix]

36 minutes ago, Rexp said:

The majority of high end digital systems fall into the unpleasant catagory as per this channel:

 

Or maybe the majority of low end microphones fall into the unpleasant category.?

Which BTW shouldn't be surprising.

 

[sphinxsix]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Which shows that people are focusing on the 'wrong' things, when they assess the competence of a rig - the La Scala setup is projecting an enormous sense of space, especially around the instruments, and voice; everything is completely individual, and is pin sharp on the particular stage it's on. Which is exactly how it was recorded; that's the true nature of the track - anything that "smallifys", clumps it together, and blurs the clarity of elements in the picture is getting it wrong ... if you want your own favourite staging of the recording, that's fine - but it's not what was created in the mix ... 🙂.

 

 

I was joking, the camera and mic are moving during the recording hence the soundstage is moving too.. 

 

[sphinxsix]

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

MQA is a fudge that makes it more pleasant on many lacklustre setups; that's why it wasn't instantly rejected.

 

Maybe the reason why MQA wasn't 'instantly rejected' is that it sounds a little bit like Youtube mp3 - the same lossy genes after all..

As for Youtube - first it became the masses' source of choice for video clips, then for movies, next for music (sounding particularly good when played through a phone speaker of course!)..

Will it now become the main source of knowledge of how audio gear sounds for audiophiles.? (different rooms with different acoustics, low quality mics, often just randomly changing position, mp3 sound.. c'mon, guys..)

I would call the whole thing a YOUTUBISATION of culture..

I'm sorry, I personally say - NO!

 

 

 

[sphinxsix]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

at the beginning of the curve - low cost, non-ambitious gear can easily be made to always sound pleasant: MP3, MQA, etc all help in this goal.

 

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

Finally, where only a few people get to, is the right side, the end of the curve, where the system is now fully competent - and virtually every recording is a pleasure to listen to, no matter how it's recorded ... here, you win everything.

 

1. I do not get in 100% what's according to you the difference between the two then..

 

 

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

Finally, where only a few people get to, is the right side, the end of the curve, where the system is now fully competent - and virtually every recording is a pleasure to listen to, no matter how it's recorded ... here, you win everything.

 

2. I'm sorry I do not agree - IMO a really good hi end system will always show clearly the difference between well recorded and poorly recorded material and the better, the more revealing the system is, the bigger the difference will be. Also eg good speakers will show more clearly SQ differences between other components.

 

Of course some may prefer eg some euphonic, sweet sounding systems which will make more recordings sound pleasant but IMO systems like that don't tell the truth - they in a way tell a fairy tale and they will never be as revealing or realistic as the former ones. Not that I mind someone else choosing the later option 

[sphinxsix]

Wait a minute, are we talking judging hi end gear by listening to it through laptop speakers here.?

The end of the world is near.. believe me..

 

 

 

[sphinxsix]

37 minutes ago, fas42 said:

At the other end you get everything, but the absolute bare minimum distortion of what was recorded is added to the mix. In the middle, all the detail is coming through, but a disturbing level of anomalies is added, from shortcomings in the playback chain.

 

Didn't you say (about 'the other end'):

 

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

Finally, where only a few people get to, is the right side, the end of the curve, where the system is now fully competent - and virtually every recording is a pleasure to listen to

 

 

37 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Euphonic means that that all recordings are flavoured the same - the better the playback, the more every recording sounds different from the previous one - but they never sound "bad"

 

Believe me, there are lots of bad recordings out there, possibly more of them than of good ones.. and if one can't hear that, something isn't quite right.

 

Ps. @fas42 Why don't you use your active speakers with your laptop if I may ask.?

 

[sphinxsix]

22 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Tell me, if you talk to someone you know over that ultra, ultra primitive, lo-res phone system - do you have any trouble picking up that they are not in a good mood; that they are a bit off-colour; that they are not "their usual self"?

 

Yes I can also hear eg if a song is sad or jolly but I don't want to hear none of them through a phone anyway (I get nervous when I'm forced to)..

 

[sphinxsix]

16 minutes ago, fas42 said:

provided that the playback chain doesn't mess it up even further!!

 

And you think that playing stuff from Youtube through built-in laptop speakers doesn't 'mess it up further', right.? 

 

19 minutes ago, fas42 said:

human hearing can compensate for poor recordings

 

Not mine, I'm probably atypical - when recording is bad I usually hear a bad recording..

 

[sphinxsix]

19 hours ago, Rexp said:

Our friends at Suncoast just uploaded this, sounds great. 

 

 

 

38 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Yes, back OT ... somewhat "boxy"; and the piano is not quite right in the tonality - but otherwise lots of good qualities.

 

A multi kilo $$$ system should sound better than a youtube clip, does it.?  

 

 

Wishing everybody a fantastic evening! 

 

[sphinxsix]

1 hour ago, sphinxsix said:

A multi kilo $$$ system should sound better than a youtube clip, does it.?  

 

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

If it's working impeccably, then it should show no symptoms of anything less than such, on a mere YT video ...

 

Did you listen to both clips, what do you think, eg in which case you can hear more detail.?

 

[sphinxsix]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Doesn't work that way ... if the distortion is clear in the YT version, then the extra detail that will be picked up by playing it on a more accurate setup can't compensate for the shortcomings

 

I'm pretty sure the music played on the Kharma system was at least lossless 16bit, possibly hi-res. I'm not asking about any theory, just asking what you hear.

 

 

[sphinxsix]

@fas42 I've been trying for the last 3 hours to make you answer a very simple question and I didn't succeed..

 

3 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

A multi kilo $$$ system should sound better than a youtube clip, does it.? 

 

1 hour ago, sphinxsix said:

Did you listen to both clips, what do you think, eg in which case you can hear more detail.?

 

I give up.. 

 

 

[sphinxsix]

 

I apologize guys but I've just reminded myself that I left the iron on in my other home which is unfortunately in another country, so I may be away for a while..

 

Please continue your exciting exchange without me. 

 

Maybe a good idea would be to keep it enjoyable..(?) 

 

[sphinxsix]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Another titbit to throw in 🤪 ... lots of audio people are obsessed with "signatures" - the distinctiveness of how a particular rig sounds. Well, as soon as you've identified a system's 'signature' - you've lost. Huhh?? ... well, you're now listening to the system, not the recording - game over!

 

The "perfect" system has zero signature - it's 100% chameleon; not one, tiny trace of any 'personality' - no matter how hard you try and grab onto any minuscule trace of character ... it's never there, 😜.

 

Just my last two cents before I leave:

What if the 'signature sound' is enjoyable.? 

 

[sphinxsix]