How good is your hearing ? And how do you know ?

" One’s perception is one’s reality "

Amen to that! Nothing here to get insulted by.

Fact is, this is a very important thread that is way too often overlooked. No two people hear the same, no two recordings are the same, and, no two listening environments produce the same.

What do the more seasoned listeners say about products usually, "get what sounds good to you".

The last 15 or so years I’ve seen many audiophiles moving back to simple designs. As well I see many moving back to a sound that was created in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. It was for the most part a more relaxed top end with a fuller body mid and bottom, musical and round. Not lacking detail or dynamics mind you, but giving a fullness that many systems in the upper price range fail to deliver recently.

"why buy good stuff"?

Well that's the other question. Personally I don't see price tags as representing "good stuff" in playback.

Michael Green

Hi Jetter you said

"Michael, I believe I understand what you are writing, but maybe not. Several times I have been tempted to start a thread inquiring if anyone else has ever had or experienced systems, as I have, in the 60’s and 70’s, where the mid level components came together to produce a beautiful sound? A sound that was so special that anyone who came into the room commented on it. And the components were so mainstream that one would laugh today. The sound was so natural, and the room boundaries just melted away."

Yes, we are on the same page! There are more people moving back to that sound, or stayed in that sound, than all of high end audio. When HEA went discrete it also "squeezed" the sound. A lot of this is due to the new (in the 90’s) types of circuit boards, over built chassis, complicated drivers and dead speaker cabinets. HEA created a sound that left out a lot of warmth, natural dynamics, and spacious harmonics, in search of detail and black holes. The result, systems that can easily fatigue the ear and brain. Also systems that are limited with the range of recordings that can be played musically.

In the 60’s and 70’s playback was on the right path, and just needed a method of tuning plus the right tools to get things to that next level of performance. Systems, even un-tuned, could play large varieties of music with relatively simple adjustments. Some of the more basic receivers and matched speakers sounded amazing setup nicely, still do.

Remember when looking inside of the basic components you saw a tan colored circuit board, or one side green and the other tan? These gave a lot of that warm character. Same goes for those wood chassis and old transformers and cap designs. Those components breathed and gave huge soundstages with tons of easy to listen to music. And, you could sit anywhere in the room, or other rooms, and the sound carried in tone and balance.

Michael Green

"Michael, how can you advocate the old soulful ways when you use digital source as a reference ?"

I think you've mentioned that somewhere else as well. I kind of let it pass by without much comment. Digital is an audio language just like analog is. Once that language is put in motion it is all analog signal. TT's, Tape and CD's are all mechanical devices. I can't stand the sound of almost all CD Players, to me they sound like tin cans. However some players it's a different story. It's all in the way they are built and the parts used, and CDP's are much different than TT's or Decks and shouldn't be treated like they are the same.

here's an example

I don't like the sound of CDP's that use big transformers. The players I use have tiny transformers. I also don't like the sound of CDP's made out of metal. I don't like the sound of CDP's using certain types of materials on the circuit boards. Lastly, I don't like the sound of CDP's that are higher mass.

CD's themselves as a medium I love and prefer over any other mediums, with the exception of 2" tape on a very tricked out old Studer. However having that tricked out old Studer sitting in another room and needing adjusted per tape is no longer practical for me. Plus I'm no longer able to get my hands on 1st generation masters.

Michael Green

Inna

Can I also point out something else. Anyone who has spent a fair amount of time being a professional tape runner (the guy who does duplication) on whatever level becomes aware of outer to inner revolution distortion. Once you experience this to the point where it’s ingrained into your scull, it sticks with you forever. It shows up in tape speeds and vinyl pressings alike. The analog language is more susceptible to this than the digital language, before it gets to the analog signal stage.

Set up two systems, one using tape and one CD (don’t do this on the same system). Play the CD system and skip from the first track to the last (play 30 seconds of each). The sonic cue is the same. Now play the first song on your RtR then fast forward to the last track. The cue is different. On vinyl it’s more so.

Lastly, the reason I like CD’s more is the repeat button. I’m not so crazy about any recordings first pass through the system. I put the player on repeat and usually get interested on the 3rd or forth pass as the system settles into the signals vibratory structure. If I compared a tape, vinyl and CD on the first pass, I would more cases than not pick the tape or vinyl over the CD (recording dependent). However the tape nor the vinyl give me this option, and after about the 3rd or so pass the CDP usually walks away from the others.

Michael Green