Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bachish

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You don't spend much time on college campuses do you? True, the traditional far left were pro-worker and socialist or communist. Those types of leftists are largely gone. But don't confuse that with a lack of 'leftists'. The far left has morphed into something different. Note: I say *far* left. They have become postmodern, neo-Marxist, intolerant, thought and speech controlling social justice warriors that call any one who disagrees a fascist or white supremacist. Their latest target in academia is Rachel Fulton Brown, a well respected Prof of Medieval History at the Univ of Chicago, who has been accused of being racist and a white supremacist by Dorthy Kim, Assistant Prof of English at Vassar College. Their base of action is in humanities departments at colleges and universities. Their influence isn't equal. The more prestigious the school the more it tends toward this bias. All I can say is thank goodness music departments have been laregly spared but I am starting to see influences, albeit delayed. Any freedom living person on the left or right needs to be aware of what is going on.
  2. Yes, continuing Sokal's tradition admirably! Bravo to them! Great video!
  3. This author's thesis is nothing new really. The book even points out how Tocqueville noted a glorification of common sense over expert opinion. Historically, the 'common person' in the US has tended to hold a deep suspicion of the egg head who can't chop down trees, swing an ax, and build a log cabin on the frontier. Don't forget, pragmatism is a philosophy that has its roots right here in the U S of A. We (Americans of the US) all have John Dewey as our father and his ideas run through our veins. And before people take a swing at the conservatives for being anti-science and anti-intellectual, lest you forget it is postmodernism, a movement on the left, that questions all "meta-narratives", including those made by science, as being oppressive. Perhaps you've heard of the famed physicist Alan Sokal in 1994 submitting a bogus paper to a postmodernist journal, Social Text, claiming that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct. It was full of ridiculous claims but made use of all the postmodernist stock phrases and cliches. Hilarious. They published it, to their embarrassment. Yeah, only conservatives are anti-science. It's part of our postmodern world. Time to face reality.
  4. That is definitely the preferable way to go, to get as much correct as possible in the analog domain so you don't have to do any processing in post. I totally agree with this method. Processing is a last resort and only if it helps. Decca, back in the day, used to spend a great deal of time tuning the hall through various treatments. There are definitely things you can do to help acoustical problems in a concert hall but in the end, having read a little about concert hall acoustics and all that is involved in that, my sense is a glorious sounding acoustic probably isn't going to be gotten from these fixes, though improvements are certainly likely. I do admit I'm a big fan of gorgeous reverb in concert halls on recordings (not overdone, of course!). Just my taste.
  5. I disagree. I think the recording process can be distinguished from the playback because an audiophile has no control over the recording process unless they are the same person. I wouldn't want to define for everyone else what it means to be an audiophile. Some don't care about accuracy and go for a more colored or euphonic sound through the use of tubes, tape, transformers, and other ways to color the sound. Accuracy is about neutrality and not imposing color on the recording. Not all audiophiles like that and it's totally fine.
  6. "Can we please, pretty please stop chasing the fantasy of accuracy?" In certain contexts, you can never stop chasing accuracy, such as in a mastering studio. In other contexts, accuracy may not be as crucial, as in an audiophile set up. There is also the distinction between accuracy in recording and accuracy in play back, which are two related but separate questions.
  7. Absolutely, if you like it, I think that's great. The performance is wonderful no doubt, which is the most important thing to me. But we also differ on the appropriateness of processing. I don't follow a dogmatic almost religious view of some audiophiles that processing is always bad. I think some processing to compensate for defects, especially with the quite amazing quality of the hardware and software today, often helps recordings. And just FYI, the acoustics in Symphony Hall was widely known to have serious issues prior to 2013 when they installed a new $500,000 shell on stage. To me, it's obvious in the recording that was recorded in the early 2000s but hey, Viva la difference! And maybe there is a re-release, who knows. Now hear this! New $500,000 acoustical shell improves long-lamented sound in Symphony Hall But the all-important change is in the sound. Musicians have long complained that it is difficult to hear one another on the stage, and the hall’s acoustics have left much to be desired. “The sound is more immediate; there is more bloom,” Murphy says. “Personally, I find it easier to make a quality sound, especially in quiet dynamics. I am hearing other sections of the orchestra much more easily, especially the woodwinds and the double basses.” BTW, I didn't say I didn't like Telarc. Quite the opposite.
  8. Thanks for the info. To save time I called Grace Design directly and they said all my settings are good and with the driver I installed from their website it should be bit perfect playback, assuming the player I am using isn't doing any DSD behind the scenes, which it shouldn't be doing. But I suppose it might be a good insurance for peace of mind to get a better player to be sure there is no funny business going on. I was advised to keep the levels all the way up on the computer and do all level changes with the DAC or I am throwing away bits. Other than that, they said I am good to go. One thing that would be far more convienient is to get a better player, like you mention. Right now, with the plug in I'm using, I have to set the sample rate and bit depth manually. It can be a pain. A better player would do that automatically. But I'll look into it further. Thanks again for the info.
  9. Windows 10. I'm not streaming if that is what you are asking. The music is stored on my hard drive.
  10. Yep, that's it. This is one recording where some processing would have helped to compensate for the acoustic.
  11. I have a few ways to listen. I have a regular stereo system - Paradigm Monitor 11s tower speakers (about 17 years old. Work great), Older Harmon Kardon Amp bi amping the paradigms, Marantz CD player with digital outs to a Grace Design M900 DAC/Pre amp. Used to have a SACD player. or Playing the wav file 4416 on my computer using the M900 onto some JBL near field monitors or Blue Mo Fi Headphones. No fancy player. Sounds the same in my DAW as in the regular players on my computer. I am using the xmos Stereo USB Audio Class 2 driver so I can play DSD and very high sample rates. or Listening on my MO FI headphones through my Rolland R44 portable recorder's digital outs to the M900. It's not the set up. I don't think the acoustic of the concert hall is particularly beautiful, flatters, helps, or enhances the sound. The bass drum sounds dead as a door nail. This Gramophone Recording is by far superior, https://www.deutschegrammophon.com/us/cat/4797445
  12. Deutsche Grammphone tends towards a particular German approach to recording (understandably) that is the opposite from the minimalism of many of the 'audiophile' labels, but I think every bit as valid. The German 'Tonmeister' way tends towards many more microphones and spot mics. The advantage? A more detailed capture for sure with an added excitement. You can hear at times the rattling of the string against the fingerboards in Beethoven. With minimalist recording techniques, the mics have to be further back to get a good balance and blend. And since air absorbs high frequencies, the further back you go the more you lose the softer and higher overtones that I don't think can be fully regained by a high-frequency lift in the mics - a technique often used with minimalist micing. The closer mics allow for a full capture of the complexities of the timbre of the expensive string instruments. Is there a sacrifice in the Tonmeister approach? Of course. You lose the some of the natural stereo imaging and soundstage present in more minimalist techniques. But you gain detail, excitement, and tonal complexity. Recording, like most things in life, has its trade-offs and pros and cons. What you like is dependent on your priorities. Yes, the clients have their taste as well and you have to do what they like. I personally don't think very gentle processing done with excellent software or hardware is ever out of the questions. Minimalism only fully works in an ideal setting (acoustics, for example). In a less than ideal setting, the recording engineer has to grapple with all sorts of annoying problems that can be improved with some processing. If you like the sound of a label, by all means, enjoy! I'm definitely not trying to convince you to like something - just trying to open your mind a tad If it's the same recording, we definitely have different ideas of a good orchestral recording! Way to dry for my taste! Maybe it's a different release. Not sure
  13. Even if so, the overtones were present at the time of the recording and were exerting their influence on the lower frequencies and those effects would already be captured by the microphones in the recording.
  14. Nope not a professional recordist. Anyway, talking to Barry Diament or Cookie Marenco won't convince me either way. I need to see a repeatable double blind study showing trained listeners were able to hear the difference. The closest study to date I know of that shows trained listeners may be able hear the difference between 4424 and 8824 is an Audio Engineering Society Convention Paper, Sampling rate discrimination: 44.1 vs. 88.2 from May 2010. They had three versions to compare: 2 versions recorded at 88.2 and 44.1 simultaneously. 1 version down sampled from 88.2 to 44.1 Here is a quote, "Listeners were free to adjust the sound level and their position if needed. The duration of the experiment ranged between two and four hours per participant [plenty of time to become familiar with the files]...three expert listeners out of 16 listeners obtained significant results p<.05, 2 tailed. However, they significantly selected the wrong answer, suggesting they could hear the difference between A and B but picked the wrong one [in other words, they choose the 4424 file thinking it was the 8824]...The remaining 13 participants did not perform above chance level, either at the individual or group level...On a scale of 0 to 10, expert listeners reported that the difficultly level of the task was 9 on average...They commented that the task was very demanding in terms of concentration and that it was hard to stop doubting about what they heard..." In summary, it was primarily the down sampled version that was discernible from the original 88.2, not files recorded at 44.1 and 88.2 simultaneously. In other words, Files recorded at 88.2 and down sampled to 44.1 were distinguishable to a few but they chose the wrong answers. Files recorded at 88.2 and 44.1 were mostly indistinguishable to everyone. A couple of points... It's not exactly an endorsement of the benefits of high sample rates when the 3 that had significant results picked the wrong answers. The ADCs were RME Mictasys, not considered high end converters. As has been pointed out by those who know much more than me, recording w ADCs at different sample rates simultaneously introduces possible artifacts. All said it was quite difficult. The study may only show that the down sampling of Pyramix at the time was somewhat audible. This paper was presented in May 2010. The study was likely done prior to the year 2010, which puts the technology at approximately a decade old. Not only is the study a decade old but the converters were meh...I'd be curious to see if these results are repeatable today with top converters and the best modern SRC. Personally, I seriously doubt it would be. But I'm willing to change my mind if double blind tests show otherwise. And besides people, they weren't even picking the 88.2 files when they detected differences! They chose the 44.1 files!
  15. So just to clarify...I'm not saying you should or shouldn't like 4416 or 9624 or DSD recordings. I actually prefer high res versions too when I can get them for my own reasons. I'm only saying my belief that I see no reason why a properly downsampled and dithered 4416 recording played through a high end system with a great DAC should sound different than the original 9624 version. It's what I think and I have several reasons for that. You probably do hear a difference but there are several explanations for it and I listed some of them. My point in the previous post was addressing the common idea floating around audiophile circles that the major label recordings are inferior to the audiophile labels. The problem with that view is that many independent recording studios and engineers who are well recognized in the industry have recorded for both audiophile labels and the major labels. Just trying to expand your horizons a bit! What audiophile labels do have is perhaps more consistency. Some recordings on Naxos and Chandos, for example, are truely not good while others are recorded by places like Soundmirror or Norbert Kraft, etc. You just have to do some reasearch to sift the chaff from the wheat. BTW, under the discography for Soundmirror they list recordings done for Reference Recordings and Pentatone.
  • Create New...