Jump to content

Jud

Premium
  • Content Count

    19254
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jud

  • Rank
    Señor Member

Recent Profile Visitors

24255 profile views
  1. I completely agree. And yet I read many descriptions of remarkably subtle perceptions under these conditions, whereas I, like you, felt the opportunity for such subtle perceptions was rather minimal.
  2. Of the two of us, I think I'm the only one who pointed out a plain scientific error on Synergistic's website, which resulted in them changing their website copy. Of course it would be better if they stopped taking gullible folks' money altogether, but there's only so much a person has time to do along those lines.
  3. The bolded part is what's most important to me. I don't have much confidence at all in blind testing without good training. Add in some actual technical chops to be able to competently and prominently evaluate manufacturer claims, and you'd have a publication that could well be worth reading.
  4. I did very much enjoy TAS when critical but entertaining reviews appeared there. I hadn't seen any such thing in a long time back when I stopped reading TAS and Stereophile consistently. I read the first couple of parts of TAS' review of the most recent RMAF and noted praise for an expensive system in which both I and my neighbor (who owns equipment from one of the manufacturers represented in the room and was looking forward to hearing it) were quite disappointed, and no mention at all of a room I thought was easily one of the couple best sounding at the show. In general I felt more well known brands were given most of the (quite uncritical) press, while my interests lie more with the up-and-comers.
  5. It wasn't what I would consider a bad review, merely straightforward, as reviews ought to be.
  6. Well - out with it, man! Names of artists/albums?
  7. I’ve had great emotional experiences without high quality sound. A cassette recording of a bootleg LP of a Springsteen concert was something I treasured until my cassette player gave up the ghost. But I’ve also had wonderful experiences hearing old familiar performances more clearly (particularly Beatles and John Lennon). So I think it’s not either/or, but both.
  8. Wow, don't know how I got so far off. Thanks for the correction.
  9. While absolutely wanting to have Qobuz for the sound quality, I would like Amazon to succeed in this. I imagine other companies are watching Amazon closely to see whether streaming in CD and higher quality is commercially viable. If so, we can look forward to greater availability for streaming and perhaps downloads. If not....
  10. Though the numbers of LPs being sold are on a steep upward trend, the proportion of the business they make up is tiny. Something like 77,000 LPs sold in 2018, I believe? Most musicians make their money these days by playing live, so go see people.
  11. You posted (I think in the MQA thread) that one always sees artists selling CDs at concerts. No accident. Concerts especially, and CDs, are far more remunerative than streams, except for a tiny handful of the most popular artists.
  12. You know @The Computer Audiophile probably raised his daughter on this album, right? 😉
  13. I trialed Tidal for a month near the beginning of its MQA offerings. I liked MQA slightly less than non-MQA where masterings were equivalent. Overall the sound quality was nice but not extraordinary. The very first track I listened to on Qobuz (Redbook) was just jaw-dropping. (Cassandra Wilson, don't recall the specific track.) I've had a terrific experience since. I don't notice a SQ difference between Qobuz and local files. I had no problem dropping Tidal when the trial was up (in fact I think I dropped it well prior to the end of the trial). No way I'm dropping Qobuz. Of course this is all completely subjective. I have no idea whether there is any reason at all why Tidal files would sound different than Qobuz files. I just have had a subjectively better experience with Qobuz.
×
×
  • Create New...