Jump to content

Teresa

  • Content Count

    2091
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United States

1 Follower

About Teresa

  • Rank
    Believe your ears with honest long-term listening.

Recent Profile Visitors

9616 profile views
  1. Thanks for the article. 😊 For me, that further explains why I greatly prefer authentic audiophile recordings over audiophile remastered and non-audiophile recordings. From the article: It's true that the majority of recordings which are audiophile from the microphones to the finished album are mostly Classical and Jazz. Back in 2012 on my blog (pre dementia) I explained What are Audiophile recordings? A quote: Dave McNair explains his experiments using purist recording techniques on popular music: This ma
  2. Thanks, that makes a lot of sense to me. 😊
  3. I believe everyone agrees with this, but we differ on what we believe is and isn't on the recording. Actually, it is true and accurate, a revealing system will more accurately present what is on the recording because the greater accuracy reveals more sonic details that inaccurate systems will not reproduce. This can be both good and bad. I agree. I have never owned any NAD equipment. The equipment I listed was Adcom, AMC and Infinity, Were you perhaps referring to one of those brands? I agree. GIGO (garbage
  4. No one I know insists that audio equipment should have a sound or character, but to reproduce what is on their recordings as accurately as possible within one's budget. Did you miss the price? It's way out of our price range at $4,433. Do you really think it would be right for your audio system with $400 EDIFIER S2000 Pro Active Monitor Speakers, a cheap DVD player and the internal DAC in your computer? I do think an external DAC might be an improvement for you over the one built in your computer, perhaps you should consider one priced around $500 or so.
  5. If I’m not mistaken this is what every audiophile wants, accuracy to the original recording, both the good and bad. We just disagree on what is on the music recording, I say it is what was captured by the recording engineers at the original venue. Which explains why well engineered recordings sound realistic and poorly engineered recordings sound poor. You don't understand that for must of us how a recording is engineered and/or remastered is as important as how it is reproduced.
  6. How about an artist named Weed? Joe Weed playing surf music bluegrass style. One of my favorite SACDs.
  7. No, they call it a more accurate presentation of what is on the recording. Most audio equipment doesn't add anything, it is more about what they subtract in order to meet a price point. Your posts prove that you have never heard 100% convincing sound quality. I wish you could hear correctly recorded music played on my audio system.
  8. Speaker placement and the listening room are important for accurate sound quality. An audio system is only as accurate as its weakest link! Those links include speakers, speaker placement, audio components, the listening room, etc. All of this is important if you want to hear what is actually on your sound recordings. The labels I like don't produce a certain sound, they strive to produce the most accurate recordings possible. Many historic recordings from the golden age are very accurate especially Jazz and Classical recordings from the mid-1950s to the mid-
  9. Everyone I know or have ever communicated with knows that an audio system is only as accurate as its weakest link. Thus, no one refuses to accept that, so you statement is false. As far as I know he is the only one to believe such nonsense. Frank's claim of making poor recordings sound as realistic as correctly engineered recordings by tweaking super cheap audio equipment is false. To extract the resolution from audio recordings one needs an audio system that is as accurate as possible in their price range. No matter the equipment, correctly engineered record
  10. This is one of many areas where we strongly disagree. In my over six decades of buying music recordings, I find that how a recording is engineered and/or remastered is as important as how it is reproduced. Inaccurate and poorly engineered recordings cannot be saved by audio equipment including tweaks IMHO. Some of my favorite recording engineers include Jack Renner, Michael Bishop, Prof. Keith O. Johnson, Marc Aubort, Tony Faulkner, Kenneth Wilkinson, C. Robert Fine, Lewis Layton, Richard Mohr, etc. There are many others I didn't mention, I didn't want to spend the time to go thro
  11. I completely agree with Dr. Toole's statement above. The solution is easy, purchase the most accurate audio equipment in one's price range that sounds realistic in one's listening room when playing accurately made recordings. This is what I did decades ago and I'm extremely happy with the sonic realism of my audio system, instead of stressing about sound I just enjoy playing the best music collection I have ever had. I recommend not succumbing to audiophilia nervosa as I believe Frank has. Audiophilia nervosa is defined as the anxiety resulting from the never-ending quest to obtain
  12. For me, any audio component over $500 USD would be open to a very concerned discussion. Or any interconnects over $30. I possibly could be talked into an audio component up to $1,000 USD but it must have great sonics that can't be had for less money. Otherwise no way! Also, whatever it is, has to be offered at a good discount, as my father taught me, never pay retail. I guess @GUTB is right, I'm not an audiophile. I do love audiophile recordings though. 😊
  13. I don't understand your problem with static. The only time I’ve heard static in my system was from an LP, I applied Gruv Glide, problem solved. Never have heard static from analog tapes, CDs, SACDs, PCM or DSD downloads. Leaving LPs behind was my solution to static. What causes static in your system?
  14. Thanks. 😊 Philips no longer exists as a company, their recordings have been reissued on the Decca label on CD and the Quadraphonic ones by PentaTone on SACD. My understanding is that it was early CD players that were responsible for the lackluster and often shrill sound, not the CDs themselves. Although many early Pop and Rock CDs used masters that were prepared for LP pressings instead of the original master tapes. I don't believe this happened with Classical and Jazz releases but I could be wrong.
  15. Although I prefer audiophile recordings, of the major labels Philips is one of my favorites. If this is a DDD Philips recording from 1979 chances are it is from a 50kHz Soundstream master. The LP likely sounds superior, however in my experience Philips CDs from 50kHz Soundstream masters still sound excellent even when converted to 44.1kHz. So why do you think this would be a horror for some listeners? Many digital recordings made as early as 1978 sound excellent in my audio system especially those from Telarc, Delos, Reference Recordings, etc. which began being released on CDs in 1
×
×
  • Create New...