Jump to content

Bill Brown

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Bill Brown

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I read this thread at the beginning then stopped for a bit, catching up on the last 3 pages or so today. I began thinking of some historical context. In the very old days, mid-late 50's to the 60's as "Hi-Fi" blossomed, measurements came to rule supreme. Some realized there wasn't full correlation of the measurements with sound quality and shifted towards a more subjective approach (JGH, who did do some basic measurements), HP, purely subjective, and the reviewers they published. Then was then the phase of Stereo Review and Audio magazines. In these measurements were dominant and we were told that products that measured well couldn't be differentiated in listening (and note the measuring systems were comparatively crude compared to what can be done today). I do have to note the loudspeaker measurer at Audio who developed the TEF measurement system that advanced the art significantly, Richard C. Heyser. This dedicated piece of test equipment could perform the array of time-energy-frequency (TEF) measurements based on his pioneering work on time delay spectrometry (TDS) for audio, perhaps the next major advance after the development of the Thiele-Small parameters. This is the era that I entered the hobby, first with subscriptions to the above two, poring over the measurements and dreaming and buying equipment based on their data. Then I was exposed to Stereophile and TAS and my evolution took off. Before anyone decries these, please remember that they were the only sources available to us (aside from coming and going fringe sources). Was this a normal/natural progression? I think it was for me. Surely it wasn't for all. That is probably ok. I suspect those folks are analogous to the current ASR types. When JA became the editor at Stereophile it was very important to him to institute a measurement program with the stated intention of attempting to develop a body of measurements that would correlate with listening impressions. He has expressed disappointment that this hasn't been as fruitful as he would like. Certainly there remain massive questions/gaps in understanding, but there have been some good things. The hypothesis of, then measurement of jitter (unknown as an issue in early digital products) would be one, further advances in loudspeaker measurement another. I do think at this point that I am able to interpret to at least some degree correlation of subjective impressions with measurements. It is certainly worthwhile to see measurements of products that seem poorly engineered in very basic aspects. I drifted away from TAS at that point as I wished for measurements, believing that there would likely be measurements that correlated with the reviewers' subjective impressions, perhaps producing euphony (emphases in certain speaker frequencies, 2nd harmonic distortion, etc. as examples). I am neither a radical subjectivist or objectivist. I want to read both, and do. Engineering advances guided by measurements are important. Listening is important as I don't think measurements fully correlate with listening. Too strong an emphasis on either isn't as interesting to me. I occasionally skim through ASR just to see the measurements, but avoid the commentary, have no interest in the attitude, and don't have the site bookmarked by any stretch. It is just a hobby. There will always be all types, some that evolve in different directions, some that don't, oh well. No need to fight about it. I suppose in this respect, I disagree with your fundamental hypothesis, @The Computer Audiophile, just let them have their fun. Bill
  2. v. the same shot with the UI would like to see. Re. Roon, I agree- too much info, find it a distraction. Bill
  3. My latest. Maybe just have to reconcile myself with scrolling to the right to see more.
  4. Amen! And can't be re-sized as far as I can tell. Bill
  5. Have been wondering if that was it.....This is me. I need smaller font, the "Tracks" column smaller, etc.
  6. Very interesting @RunHomeSlow. I would be very satisfied with that view. I like track name, time, artist, album, genre, rating. I have tried shrinking the left playlist column and re-sizing the track info columns, but don't seem to get nearly that much info/text on my screen. Certainly I could get it as wide as as I want it but it is off the screen to the right and requires scrolling over, which them seems to cause problems with scrolling up and down. The small bar at the bottom that indicates the need to scroll left and right seems that most of it is on the display without scrolling. And it seems like your text is smaller than mine. I will have to go in and play with it some more. Thank you! Bill
  7. I have been struggling to find a player as well. I had easily adapted to all the changes as iTunes evolved and used it as my database manager, but the change to "Music" pushed me away. I run a "full" library on a separate HD and a smaller library on my laptop. Used to be seamless, now ridiculous. I was nervous about losing music, etc. Have been with Audirvana throughout as my player, but the UI frustrates me. I want to see more of each track's info while on the "tracks" display. Why is the space on the left of each track (play, heart, and options) so wide? I would love to be able to re-claim more of the space for music, have some options for text size, etc. And why can my BW-limited network stream high-def. video but can't load my library onto the remote app and keep up with scrolling, etc? I checked out Swinsian. Would be perfect in appearance for me. Clean, not trying to be hip (or whatever it is). If it could otherwise do what Audirvana does under the surface I would be all over it. Bill
  8. Oh, and yes, the entrance to several genres (especially jazz) is made easier through experiencing it live. It makes sense much more quickly. Bill
  9. I have really enjoyed this thread. Lots of interesting ideas exchanged, to be considered, etc. I caught up this morning and thought of several things: - I have been searching hard for the Leinsdorf Ravel. I don't stream (in the boonies, contrary to @The Computer Audiophile's impressions of our country's bandwidth mine sucks ), just download when able, so I looked through the ~ 50 albums of his on Qobuz, clicking through the pages in eager anticipation. Not there :(. Will keep looking. - @SJK demonstrated one of the the things I have found. Many times I have loved a piece of music so much that I have wanted to share it ("check this out, you won't believe it"). It is so tempting, and shows how important music is to us. Most of the time, though, they don't get it. I have had to accept that it is ok. So many differences in taste and interest. On a side note, with an apology in advance to the females that may be present, I have found that the women in my life have expressed much more interest early in relationships than later..... Many times I have read rave reviews of a piece by people I admire and sought out the musical recommendations, only to find that I admire and respect it but don't love it (as an example with Kiko, aside from a couple of tracks). I have a French brother-in-law on my wife's side who is a brilliant musician, picks up an instrument and learns it, a skill I certainly don't have. I share something with him and he doesn't get it; he shares a technically stunning artist who I don't think has anything to say and express polite admiration, never to listen again. I can't stand sentimentality for sentimentality's state or technical wizardry with nothing to say either. - I believe strongly that almost all of the music that is most important to me, speaks the most deeply, was the hardest to penetrate, perhaps even off-putting initially (lots of Trane). Inevitably I hear a snippet, then return, then return again, and finally "get it," "hear it." I think in art that that which initially impresses, that doesn't require depth of study, is eventually found to be fairly superficial. - One of the things I realized with bebop is that yes, the originators were initially trying to do things technically that others wouldn't be able to, and changing the harmonic approach. With Charlie Parker, though, what I realized eventually is that he is actually playing an intoxicating array of amazing, very melodic elements. There is a recording where he references Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. Dude was a genius. I'll stop my long-windedness and apologize that I wandered away from the original topic. Bill
  10. I am very much in the minority with you. For the old music that I referenced prior I definitely think it sounds better on a better system. Part of this, I feel, is that the music is easier to engage as the artifacts are laid bare and thus easier to ignore. The good parts certainly sound better. The only possible exception is on overly-compressed modern crap, maybe...; curses on Rick Rubin. I am glad to hear that @gmgravesfeels similarly to me re. Chandos recordings. They get rave reviews, but they consistently disappoint. I thought I was nuts. I was so excited to hear their recording of Ravel's "Daphnis et Chloe." Great performance but less engaging to me with the murkiness. Bill
  11. Oh my, if I could hear Parker that way I would be in heaven. And the Hot Fives and Sevens. And early Lester Young, and, and... I have a theory that because it is hard to access the musical content/have to "listen through" to get it and it can be so off-putting, that there are those who don't get exposed to the genius because they can't get past the sound. I almost mentioned the field recordings yesterday but held back. There are certainly tracks that are plagued with hossible wow, other artifacts that George could explain better than me. But when it is right, the directness can be startling- I like the Irish recordings as I explore my heritage . One mic, one track- again, simplicity Bill
  12. Totally understand. I am pretty selective with it as well, though have my guilty pleasures. I also have genres that I avoid at all costs.
  13. Uh-oh :). No Duane Allman Les Paul? I couldn't live without it. Certainly ok if you can, though. Best, Bill
  • Create New...