Jump to content

Teresa

Members
  • Content Count

    1866
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Teresa

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

Recent Profile Visitors

7905 profile views
  1. In that case either post the names of the offending artists, titles and recording companies or post nothing. IMHO current classical SACDs and high resolution downloads from PentaTone, Reference Recordings, Channel Classics, BIS, SFS Media, Chandos, etc. are among the best I have ever heard. That is the problem with your generalizations is it turns your posts into false statements. Either give specifics or don't post. Your condemnation of the music I love is unwelcome by me. For my specifics listen to preview tracks as NativeDSD.com.
  2. It's quite simple don't discuss the sonics of music where you can't name the artist, title and recording company. Without this information your posts mean absolutely nothing whatsoever!!
  3. Thanks a bunch! My Music Collector program says NO under 64 bit and I don't pay to subscribe to the upgrades so I guess I 'll stick with Mojave OS. It also says NO under XLD but that is a free application so it likely will be upgraded to 64 bit.
  4. I no longer read any audio magazines (print or digital). I recently tried dirt cheap introductory print subscriptions to both Stereophile and TAS. It was had to say no at less than $1 per issue. However, I mostly read the music reviews, new music technologies and the advertisements. I've never been interested in audio equipment except for the fact it is needed to play my music. TAS reviews more recordings that Stereophile, but neither one reviews many of the audiophile recordings I like so I let both subscriptions expire for lack of interest. I read TV Guide print and on online to know what to watch on over-the-air TV. Also the magazine and newspaper AARP sends each month. I also read a lot at Audiophile Style.
  5. First that is a Delos recording not a Telarc. Of course Delos is also an audiophile label. I've not heard it myself as I don't care for solo piano music. You seem to be an outer on this one. Critic’s Choice, Gramophone All Time Great Recording, Billboard Best Classical Compact Disc, Stereo Review “defines the state of the art in piano recordings.”CD Review “Rosenberger provides the cascading musical flow that effectively brings the music flooding into your listening area.”American Record Guide See Water Music of the Impressionists / Rosenberger
  6. The 'natural' capture is from the audiophile record companies you say you don't like and that you can't wait until the music ends because it is so uncomfortable to you. The processed variant are the recordings you like which you foolishly believe are realistic. IMHO they are not. So, if you can enjoy both as a performance, why do you hate naturally realistic sounding audiophile recordings? You make no sense whatsoever! My advise is to get out a listen to live acoustic music in a good performance space. When you do you will discover reality is just the opposite of what you spew.
  7. There you go again. Is it so hard to look on your computer screen or on the case of the physical disc to tell which audiophile recording you are talking about? Just give us the artist, title and recording company so we can check for ourselves if what you are saying is true!!! Most audiophile companies do not use "effects", it is the major label which use them. With audiophile companies you pretty much get what was recorded at the location (concert hall, auditorium, church, etc.) with its natural ambiance. It is major labels who use reverb and artificial ambiance. For example, audiophile label Chesky Records philosophy is to create the illusion of live musicians in a real three-dimensional space. If you don't like sonic realism that is fine with me. Just quit your BS please!!!
  8. I also want music that engages me, is exciting, realistic and a pleasure to listen to and that is why I have an audio system and why I greatly prefer audiophile recordings. What are audiophile recordings too obvious about to you? For me an audiophile recording usually is obviously a great joy to listen to. Lots of audiophile recordings are classical, jazz, folk and other acoustic music, perhaps you find such music boring? Personally I find most commercial major label music boring. Oh, well. The way you describe audiophile recordings is how I describe most major label recordings. You said: "manipulated is the word to use ... I can 'hear' the engineer thinking that he's after some quality; the interest is in that, rather than the adventure of capturing a musical 'happening'." In reality it is the other way around, audiophile labels create a musical happening, it is major label recordings that are manipulated to sound the way the artists or engineer artificially creates. Yes, audiophile labels serve a need, to transport the listening to the original event as accurately and naturally as possible using the finest state-of-the-art equipment. Also there are thousands of audiophile recordings so you don't have to select ones you don't like to listen to, that makes no sense. I agree completely with this!
  9. Did you notice I also asked which recordings? IMHO the majority of pre-2009 Telarc recordings and Sheffield Lab Direct-to-disc LPs sound very much like the real thing. The Telarc Pure DSD SACDs are the most realist sounding recordings in my entire collection. However, both companies don't hit a home run every time. And pre-2009 Telarcs have among the widest, deepest soundstage in my collection. There must be something horrible wrong with your system if poorly engineered recordings sound like the real thing and audiophile recordings that are engineered to sound like the real thing sound like cardboard to you. If you system cannot reproduce Telarc and Sheffield Lab recordings correctly you have a very long ways to go in having an accurate audio system. You sorted out the wrong things and will never get anywhere close the absolute sound IMHO. The producers and engineers of the audiophile labels you just trashed are not obsessed with some aspect of production their way as you stated but obsessed with making the most realistic recordings possible. Also you just contradicted yourself, over and over you have said that If you get your rig properly sorted any recording no matter how poorly engineered will sound like the and real thing and you can fully connect with the essence of the music. So what is you excuse for not being able to do this with Telarc and Sheffield Lab recordings? I agree @fas42's Sharp boombox speakers either cannot reproduce high frequencies very well, or he likes exaggerated highs. Then why can't your supposedly competent audio system handle accurate well engineered recordings yet can make poor recordings sound real? P.S. An audio system is not a rig IMHO.
  10. I am curious, which audiophile labels were those? And which recordings?
  11. With digital recordings I don't notice any noise even listening with my Sennheiser headphones. All of my power cables are the ones supplied "in the box" with the components. Some people say they hear great improvement in sonics using expensive aftermarket power cables, personally I'm too cheap thrifty to give it a try. I enjoy music very much through my carefully selected mid-fi audio system, and I think the sonic qualities when playing well made recordings are very close to what I hear live. So @marce I am never offended by anyone's snobbish attitude, such as how @4est responded to @Ralf11 . P.S. I do use a Monster Power HDP1800 line conditioner though as I was picking up what sounded like a faint radio station playing on all inputs, which it filtered out. I purchased it from a local pawn shop, the best $60 I've ever spent.
  12. I never knew there was such a thing as a digital waveform. My DAC (digital to analog converter) converts binary digital to an analog waveform my speakers can reproduce. I thought binary digital has just two states and that digital has to be converted to analog before it can be heard as sound.
  13. Yes. In my experience my eyes direct where the sound is coming from, overriding information from my ears. The only way I know to override my eyes is to close my eyes and then the sound will appear to come from where it actually comes from. Open my eyes and once again the sound appears to come from the guitar not the amp. I never discovered a way to override this. Also, when I experience music live, electric or acoustic, whichever instrument I look directly at is brought to the forefront and is louder than the others especially when I can see the players hands playing their instrument. And likewise if I look directly at the singer he/she is brought to the forefront and is louder.
×
×
  • Create New...