|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:23 am Post subject: Fess Up: Audiophiles! |
 |
|
| Time for a roll call: Who out there avoids striving for inner perfection and prefers, instead, to insist on it from recording aristists and studios? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tweeterdj
Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Location: Gwangju
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
what about those of us musicians and studios who strive to provide such inner perfection?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Endesu
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Location: Bucheon
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Having worked at a high-end Hi-fi store for 4 years of my life, it never ceased to amaze me what you could make customers believe. "These $2000 cables will make the sound airier, and free up the lower frequency of the bass, making your system complete". Yeah right. But its a good disease to have I guess, even though I got pretty much vaccinated.
When it comes to Pro Audio however, Im a sucker. Always looking for the latest mixer and newest tech.
But I will never, ever buy speaker for over a grand. Well.... I might. If I get rich. Whatever...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eamo
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Due to lack of money I was only ever able to go as far as upper mid-range with my system. Roughly about 2000 USD worth at it's peak.
Mostly Marantz electronics. NAD turntable. B&W 603 speakers. Good stands.
It gave me a lot of pleasure but also a lot of trouble. The temptation, when drunk, to turn it up was too much.
I've got a Korean buddy who has promised to bring me to the house of his audiophile friend. Total cost of system estimated at 100,000 USD!!! Woohoo!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| what about those of us musicians and studios who strive to provide such inner perfection? Wink |
Here's what I figure: the artist who is creating the art should take as much care as he/she should need.
story:
Coldplay (I have heard) actually took the time to edit (by HAND) all of the breaths that Chris Martin takes before he sings a lyrics. To me: that's crazy.
To me, that seems over the top, but if that's the SOUND you want, that's one thing.
But the people who are reproducing the art (or, I should say, enjoying reproductions of the art) shouldn't have to spend half a mil just to be able to enjoy it.
What I mean to say is people who enjoy music look to enjoy it on their level. The people who were listening to phonographs back in the 1960s probably enjoy listening to music as much as people enjoy listening to 64bit mp3s. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rocklee
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Endesu wrote: |
Having worked at a high-end Hi-fi store for 4 years of my life, it never ceased to amaze me what you could make customers believe. "These $2000 cables will make the sound airier, and free up the lower frequency of the bass, making your system complete". Yeah right. But its a good disease to have I guess, even though I got pretty much vaccinated.
When it comes to Pro Audio however, Im a sucker. Always looking for the latest mixer and newest tech.
But I will never, ever buy speaker for over a grand. Well.... I might. If I get rich. Whatever... |
That's strange.
So what are $1000 cables good for? I'm curious to know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Lemon
Joined: 11 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I appreciate a good sounding system, and will marvel at a top-of-the-line one. But I will also enjoy good music from a modest one, provided it has good response and is semi-flat, with slightly boosted highs and lows.
An MP3 encoded with Lame @ 192k-256k is good enough for my ears. Can I tell a difference between that and the 44.1/16bit CD? Yes, barely. It's still MILES ahead of what open reel decks sounded like in the 1970s and what "metal tape" cassettes delivered in the 1980s, and those were what satisfied the audiophiles of the time.
The snobbery in pro audio as well as audiophile circles makes me not trust their judgment. Take the lowly Sound Blaster Live, circa 1998. The quality of that is always labeled by the pro audio-types as the "Sound Mangler". ("It resamples to 48k!!") Maybe so, but it sounds fine to me, and still sounds far better my old Roland S-330 sampler I had in the early 90s that was praised to the heavens every time i took it into a professional studio.
I'm a big fan of "double blind" tests - which many audiophile magazines won't go near - as a way of filtering out the BS ("That compressor sounds silky and warm....").
Check back in the old archives and you'll find a thread where a guy insisted that a certain type/color of CD-Rs sounded better than another. I called him on it only to be roundly attacked by a gang who insisted it was true. He'd be an audiophile salesman's dream. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hyeon Een
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rocklee wrote: |
| So what are $1000 cables good for? I'm curious to know. |
commission =) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tweeterdj
Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Location: Gwangju
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khyber wrote: |
| Quote: |
| what about those of us musicians and studios who strive to provide such inner perfection? |
Here's what I figure: the artist who is creating the art should take as much care as he/she should need.
story:
Coldplay (I have heard) actually took the time to edit (by HAND) all of the breaths that Chris Martin takes before he sings a lyrics. To me: that's crazy. |
all in a day's work for a serious engineer my friend. one of the things i dislike about some music nowadays is how perfect it sounds. too perfect, with no breathing, fret noises from guitars, no misplaced kicks. but often after recording drum tracks, a producer will ask the engineer to move any hits that aren't EXACTLY on the beat, even imperceptably off. takes a little time, but it makes it perfect. not sure if someone from Coldplay would've done that work, but their engineer for the day definitely would have.
[quote="lemon"]
| Quote: |
The snobbery in pro audio as well as audiophile circles makes me not trust their judgment. Take the lowly Sound Blaster Live, circa 1998. The quality of that is always labeled by the pro audio-types as the "Sound Mangler". ("It resamples to 48k!!") Maybe so, but it sounds fine to me, and still sounds far better my old Roland S-330 sampler I had in the early 90s that was praised to the heavens every time i took it into a professional studio. |
well, see the problem with resampling to 48k isn't so much how it sounds, but what you do with the sound after it comes out. a lot of soundcards sample at 48k, but for anything practical, you need to have it in 44.1k, which means sampling back down anyway. this can cause problems, as it is not an easy procedure. going UP to 48k is a lot easier than going DOWN to 44.1. and the Roland, well, it was the early 90's, that sampler was only a few years old, and produced some very recognizable sounds. just out of curiosity, what kind of music did you use it for? and what parts?
as far as the audiophile snobbery, i'm an engineer, but i don't consider myself an audiophile exactly. usually the word 'audiophile' has a connotation that i don't see in myself, as my ears aren't tuned towards the quality of the sound necessarily, as the quality of the music or whatever i'm recording. i mean, i have to know what is going to work and what isn't as far as sound quality goes, and i know when something is wrong, but i don't, for example, insist that all my music be kept at 320kbps for mp3. when i rip a cd i usually leave it at 128k (the lowest i will go, admitedly however, if i hear something out of tune on a recording, or live for that matter, that's a different story... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SirFink
Joined: 05 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A friend of mine has an old tube-powered RCA record player. It's a big wooden piece of furniture. One big speaker. Very old. Mono, of course. When I played an old Hank Willians 78 on it I was blown away by the sound. Warm and comfy like an old blanket. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rocklee
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
So what are $1000 cables good for? I'm curious to know.
commission =) |
I see, like with any other product I believe.
While I won't spend megabucks on cables and equipments just to match a pro-setting, I do understand there is a world of difference between the cables used by the more expensive speakers and cheap computer speakers, a world of difference.
For the people here who are knowledgeable, I would expect you to already know what a difference better cables, better processors, better materials used make to a product to produce an accurate and unveiled sound. I won't go on explaining, however :
| Quote: |
| It's still MILES ahead of what open reel decks sounded like in the 1970s and what "metal tape" cassettes delivered in the 1980s, and those were what satisfied the audiophiles of the time. |
At the time, they did not have the best media to produce live-quality music. Radios and TVs during the days were certainly subpar as compared to today, of course no one would complain. Forget not that owning these things were a luxury that only the rich could afford. Going into the 80s and early 90s, some of the equipments used still outshine many of the made-in-china-engineered-by-homemade-uni-dropout stuff that you see on ebay. Like classic cars I suppose, they did what they were suppose to do, and beautifully.
Also to note, Radio isn't all that bad. Many people listen to the radio, at home and in the car. It is after all music on the go, one wouldn't really cared so much about the quality, moreso on the convenience. So if you're happy with radio quality then you can be happy with anything else.
Here's something that I posted quite some time ago about the differences between FM, MP3 and CD :
Cassette tapes with Dolby - 60dB
FM - 70dB
CDs - 96dB
iRiver/Creative/etc - 98dB-110dB
Now some of those MP3 players were designed to playback the highest quality music, if they were available so 98-110db is an overkill (except for the rare cases when an audiophile needs to listen to the broadest of sounds).
The iPod by the way resides at 86dB which is not bad, but that really explains their subpar performances, audio wise.
| Quote: |
| The snobbery in pro audio as well as audiophile circles makes me not trust their judgment. Take the lowly Sound Blaster Live, circa 1998. The quality of that is always labeled by the pro audio-types as the "Sound Mangler". |
Actually, they were right. The first creative soundcard was rubbish compared to what they produced afterwards, but they were definitely fresh air compared to the lowly ad-lib at the time. They were not designed for professional use (for example recording), but mainly for consumer use when playing games. Creative has come a long way now and is respected among audiophilists, but you can get professional level soundcards that handles more channels and better frequencies. Those cost a lot more and is only for the sound pros.
| Quote: |
| all in a day's work for a serious engineer my friend. one of the things i dislike about some music nowadays is how perfect it sounds. too perfect, with no breathing, fret noises from guitars, no misplaced kicks. but often after recording drum tracks, a producer will ask the engineer to move any hits that aren't EXACTLY on the beat, even imperceptably off. |
I cannot disagree with that. In fact, most if not all audiophiles that I have talked to and met prefers unplugged/live versions. They love to hear everything from someone coughing in the background to guitarists sliding up and down on their guitars. Add in soundstage and you're definitely moving away from the left-right settings that so many people are accustomed to. Must be fun to be a sound engineer! But I digress, I do find that a lot of music sounds fake and plasticky (try stock/aiken/waterman stuff). Too perfect sounding. Perhaps I'm also moving towards live/uncut/natural type music.
I cannot claim myself to be a true audiophile, i don't have the space or the money, but I do love the fact that when equipped with great speakers or headphones, I can hear stuff I would never hear with a cheap earbud or player.
I don't necessarily call "being an audiophile" a disease. It is a newfound hobby that indulges one of our near-forgotten senses, our ears. I see movie theatres improving immensely, whether music has made the same sort of progress remains to be seen but there has been some great things heard about super audio CD and DVD-audio. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Lemon
Joined: 11 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tweeterdj wrote: |
| lemon wrote: |
The snobbery in pro audio as well as audiophile circles makes me not trust their judgment. Take the lowly Sound Blaster Live, circa 1998. The quality of that is always labeled by the pro audio-types as the "Sound Mangler". ("It resamples to 48k!!") Maybe so, but it sounds fine to me, and still sounds far better my old Roland S-330 sampler I had in the early 90s that was praised to the heavens every time i took it into a professional studio. |
well, see the problem with resampling to 48k isn't so much how it sounds, but what you do with the sound after it comes out. a lot of soundcards sample at 48k, but for anything practical, you need to have it in 44.1k, which means sampling back down anyway. this can cause problems, as it is not an easy procedure. going UP to 48k is a lot easier than going DOWN to 44.1. |
I understand the argument, which in the case of the SB live is that it resamples badly, allegedly. But I can't be made to care about this when I can't hear the difference between what I'm sending into it and what comes out of it. In particular, its ASIO performance with KX drivers sounds like heaven, and far better than a much better-regarded Egosys card that's also in the same computer. It also treats well my Kurzweil PC2R's SPDIF signal. There again, it's resampling that too - it even resamples stuff sent into it at 48k already, it resamples *everything* - but so what? Double blind tests! If I can't hear the difference - and I'm being honest with myself about it - I don't care about it. I don't want to spend hundreds of dollars on a theororetical improvement.
| Quote: |
| and the Roland, well, it was the early 90's, that sampler was only a few years old, and produced some very recognizable sounds. just out of curiosity, what kind of music did you use it for? and what parts? |
Actually, it didn't matter! I carried that thing in and it made me look more serious than other pieces of kit I had that (in my opinion) sounded better but were less regarded. I had the whole sample library - several hundred floppies worth - but rarely used them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| A friend of mine has an old tube-powered RCA record player. It's a big wooden piece of furniture. One big speaker. Very old. Mono, of course. When I played an old Hank Willians 78 on it I was blown away by the sound. Warm and comfy like an old blanket. |
I tend to agree with this. Making music that is technically perfect is such a sterilization and such an unnatural thing (not that reproducing music IS natural). I prefer old tiny sheet just because it feels more REAL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tweeterdj
Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Location: Gwangju
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Lemon wrote: |
| tweeterdj wrote: |
| lemon wrote: |
The snobbery in pro audio as well as audiophile circles makes me not trust their judgment. Take the lowly Sound Blaster Live, circa 1998. The quality of that is always labeled by the pro audio-types as the "Sound Mangler". ("It resamples to 48k!!") Maybe so, but it sounds fine to me, and still sounds far better my old Roland S-330 sampler I had in the early 90s that was praised to the heavens every time i took it into a professional studio. |
well, see the problem with resampling to 48k isn't so much how it sounds, but what you do with the sound after it comes out. a lot of soundcards sample at 48k, but for anything practical, you need to have it in 44.1k, which means sampling back down anyway. this can cause problems, as it is not an easy procedure. going UP to 48k is a lot easier than going DOWN to 44.1. |
I understand the argument, which in the case of the SB live is that it resamples badly, allegedly. But I can't be made to care about this when I can't hear the difference between what I'm sending into it and what comes out of it. In particular, its ASIO performance with KX drivers sounds like heaven, and far better than a much better-regarded Egosys card that's also in the same computer. It also treats well my Kurzweil PC2R's SPDIF signal. There again, it's resampling that too - it even resamples stuff sent into it at 48k already, it resamples *everything* - but so what? Double blind tests! If I can't hear the difference - and I'm being honest with myself about it - I don't care about it. I don't want to spend hundreds of dollars on a theororetical improvement. |
too true man, use what works. if it works go with it, and if it doesn't work get something else. it's the same thing with Behringer stuff. i've heard so many people bash Behringer stuff because it's less pricey than other stuff. stuff like the nicer Eurorack mixers are a really good deal, as long as you are using a nicer preamp for the important stuff, like vocals and snares and the like. i have a behringer tube pre that i really like, it's fairly transparent, and what it does colour i find adds to the sound rather than subtracting from it. and it wasn't very expensive! but yeah, i think a lot of people think they can hear differences in certain equipment that may or may not be there, and everybody's ears hear different things, too. sometimes it's tough to tell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Lemon
Joined: 11 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tweeterdj wrote: |
| i have a behringer tube pre that i really like, it's fairly transparent, and what it does colour i find adds to the sound rather than subtracting from it. and it wasn't very expensive! |
That's like the people who prefer to hear music played back from an LP or some form of analog magnetic tape. They use adjectives like "warm" and "smooth" to describe what is in essence an effect. Would they have described the sound of the pre-tape signal in the studio "warm" and "smooth"? There's nothing wrong with their prefering that effect (caused by tape compression, transistors and tubes, tape hiss, or other inherent characteristics of the medium), but it crosses a threshold when people claim that it's closer to the original signal that was recorded. Of course, it's not.
| Quote: |
| but yeah, i think a lot of people think they can hear differences in certain equipment that may or may not be there, and everybody's ears hear different things, too. sometimes it's tough to tell. |
This is especially the case when purchases with high pricetags are involved. Internet forums are full of people who own old analog synths insisting that their old Prophet 5 with half-broken VCOs sounds better than Native Instruments' soft synth rendition of the same machine. "The original is warmer!" Well, they would say that, huh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
