I just purchased an Esoteric DV-50s. The unit is fantastic in the sense that you can hear every detail very clearly in most recordings. Here is the thing, does it make for an enjoyable musical expereince? With this type of equipment, you can actually tell who can actually sing and who can really play. Some artist who I have really enjoyed in the past come across as, how shall I put it, not as talented. This causes almost a loss of enjoyment in the music. Which comes to my Vinyl curiousity. I dont own a single record, but I have been curious why so many have kept the LP's (and tubes for that matter) alive for so long after the digital revolution and now I am thinking it is probably has to do with LP's being more laid back and maybe even more musical. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Would someone recommend going back to Analog. I was thinking of getting a entry level player like a Scout Master.
every time you play a song, it puts wear on the record which affects the sound quality
True in theory I guess, but I have LPs that have been played thousands of times and they sound as good as ever - zero indication of any wear whatsoever. I have also never worn out a needle - a few had been broken by an ex with careless dusting.
I would say the advice that guy gave can be classified as an Eddie-ism.
Analogue is a lot more bother than digital. You need to consider that it will take a lot more actions to listen to music than digital requires.
Dear D I don't think there is a "live" system to be bought:); and a music lover can be happy listening to music on a little radio... Guidocorona aptly notes in a recent posting that reproduction is "hyper"-realistic rather than "real". I would subscribe to this way of putting things! As a reference, however, live music does allow us to know what certain instruments sound like -- a violin, for example, or tympani being struck, etc
Equip: AS you are an audio professional, you obviously know that your equip is first rate... shortcomings, if any, are probably the result of external, rather than internal, factors. One of these factors is the record/recording -- but we have to live with that.
Further ideas related to points you raise in yr post:
Dynamics limitations: I believe that it's necessary for a system to have dynamic capabilities exceeding the medium's rated limits. Now, the sound comes from yr spkrs. Your spkrs should allow ~1-100dB spl swings without major audible problems in a critical range b/ween 80-12kHz. Anything that constrains that would be either upstream, or extraneous.
One of these "externals" is noise that we get through the mains and is fed into the system and of course exits through the spkrs. Measure the system inherent noise (i.e. no music) coming fm yr spkrs at a reasonable position at reasonable volume (you may be picking up EMI). This will include ambient noise you can do nothing about, so try this at a quiet moment.
For example, I had ~35-40db (!!). Given the same, say, 100dB capability, my sound would only reach 60 -- and that, at high spl in order to go beyond the noise level. High spl means my spkrs would be close to, or reach compression. Even before that happens, my wife & neighbours will have charged in the room.
If this measurement is significant in yr case too, try out an inexpensive 20amp filter/surge protector (tripplite, for example, makes some). I had one made by a friend. Leave the magical audiophile filters aside for now. Measure the noise floor again: it could be lower by ~20dB. Basically, you have gained AUDIBILITY of ~20dB "headroom" that yr system has anyway but was buried under the noise. This is randomly called "loss of fine detail" etc, in audio-speak.
An additional trick is to use very sensitive spkrs -- horns for example. While this is a personal choice and yr ATCs are excellent IMO, I mention it as a way of introducing artefact to *simulate* the dynamics of a live event... somewhat. It can work in a small room but for a limited FR (mid & bass requires room and horns are huge).
Further helpful is a source signal amplifier with very high dynamic range -- in yr case, the phono equaliser for example. Further upstream is the phono cartridge; excepting latecomers, these have not always been very good at dynamic levels. Fortunately for them, many recordings have been equally limited, so the problem was less acute. Please note, however, that just as many recordings of the 50's & '60s already had a quite wide dynamic range!
{Note: I'm not concerned here with linearity of the equalisation curve, etc -- just dynamic contrast in the sound and perceptible in a medium-sized (~350) room.}
The ability of each source component to correctly "drive" the load is important for minimal energy loss -- but you've already addressed that amply with yr system.
Of course, active spkrs are an *extremely* good idea... indispensable in many ways.
Finally, as we all know for having toiled endless hours, (L+R) speaker placement is primordial -- we fiddle for hours and suddenly, finally, low frequency energy appears out of nowhere... The stereophonic coupling/image is an important base for the multichannel setup too.
Finally, if you wish to use dsp, you gain control over delay and phase issues, at the expense of some resolution unfortunately. These two aspects of control are far more important than FR equalising (i.e., the act of re-equalising & re-crossing yr spkrs) IMO. But there is that as well.
Gregm, Just a thought in addition to your comments on 'dynamic range'. I've come to believe that the real importance of getting a system to sound like 'live' instruments, is not so much the difference between minimum SPL and maximum SPL, but whether or not the rise time and, more importantly, the decay time is appropriate to reproduce the sound of a real instrument. (This would apply to the recording process as well as the playback process, can't get blood out of a stone). Just a thought.
"I don't think there is a "live" system to be bought:);"
A little advice....DUCK! and cover , if that advice came too late...stop drop and roll
Of course you are dangerously close to my side and I will tell you that it can be no fun over here if the skin is thin.
"a music lover can be happy listening to music on a little radio" agreed I'm not sure everyone else understands that and yes Guido's point were very insightful.
As you know Greg (or maybe you don't) I have drawn the Ire of the cogniscenti here because I claim that surround is better for digital.
What I am trying to establish is why is this so offensive a concept that people would be motivated to belittle me to the degree above and yet seem to ignore that atleast by your standards I should have a grasp on two channel pretty well and live sound. What is it exactly about surround that makes audiophiles cringe, for me it has given me the freedom to dial in my system to perfection for all types of music. My solution is well tested and my surround system outperforms my two channel system...without spending more money to play old records, I don't see a way to make it better and I've got $9K wrapped up in analog, have I spent enough? :)
I appreciate the extensive thorough input and I agree with and or accept all of what you said, to me your effort is noble and I appreciate it.
To kind of add to this thread, moving on from the Analog or digital, surround or stereo divides, I suggest that it is hard to create reality from a few squiggles (Analog or digital, mono, stereo or 7.1). There are a couple of areas that can be improved though...
IMHO, the most obvious difference between live sound and playback is dynamics. Music loses impact without dynamics and detail is less audible too. A very good system in a good room can usually produce timbre so well that it hard to tell the difference tonality (at least not without a direct A/B comparison; instrument versus speaker). Unfortunately most recordings (even some of the best) are compressed ...so even on a good system they often won't sound anything near life-like.
There may be good reasons for mild compression; it is more comfortable to listen to and it limits distortion/speaker damage from nasty high SPL transients. Some soft sounding instruments and some vocals may fair quite ok with compression, but most music/instruments are played to be heard at a distance, such as the piano forte, and in real life these instruments have huge dynamics and one can easily sense the lack of convincing dynamics on a stereo playback.
A good system test for dynamics is Yim-Hok Man "Poems of Thunder" CD (Naxos).....plenty of transients and dynamic range on this one. This recording is one of the more convincing life-like ones; Yim-Hok appears to be playing live, in front of you. The drumming is alternately soft and then loud and the transients will make your heart jump. Totally exhilarating, somewhat deafening and a litle tiring to listen too for anything but brief periods ....just as it would be with Yim Hok and a real drum set brought into your living room, six feet in front of you. This drum recoding comes across without the slightest hint of boominess...nearly all transients.
The second big difference, IMHO, between live sound and playback is the room itself....more often than not our ears are well aware of the room size from the reverberant sound field and this tells us that the orchestra playing from the stereo does not fit or else there is some reverberant sound in the mix that cues us that the real venue was indeed much larger than our living room or, in most cases, we get some combination of the two reverberant fields (confusing/conflicting information).This may explain why we close our eyes when we want to listen critically and why a great mix can make us feel that we are there in a larger room. Surround sound, I suspect, can help to counteract this reverberation problem, but it won't completely eliminate the room. Anyone who is skeptical of our ability to detect spatial clues, needs only walk through a church door to immediately recognize that our hearing is capable of sensing the dimensions and space from the reverberant field. Blind people use this everyday to get around; they sense their surroundings by using a stick tapped on the pavement as well as the reverberation of natural sounds. This phenomenon also allows us to sense when someone has quietly crept up from behind because they alter the reverberant sound from behind us.
BTW: An anechoic chamber makes most people feel nauseous, due to the complete lack of spatial clues to match what is seen with the eyes...the brain struggles to reconcile the conflicting information.
as we have already discussed my two-channel system is at least equal to your system.
Sure Eddie. Pray tell the good folks on the board just what system do I have that your two channel can match? Of course you know what system I have, as you wouldnt blatantly make such a statement without knowing the facts would you? I mean, you only make statement like these when you know the facts, right?
I have owned great LP playback systems and still do, so I know what LP's can do
ATC Anniverary 50 ATC Concept 4 subwoofer Lake Contour crossover ATC SCA2 or Motif MC7 with black gate ps upgrade and modified input impedance circuit EAR834P resistors trimmed to match tubes .1% Roksan Xerxes X, with Benz Micro M2 Custom made cables Cartridge aligned with oscill[a]scope
Sorry Eddie, from what you describe you have little to no idea of what analogue is capable of, but at least I now understand the source of your confusion.
...the rise time and, more importantly, the decay time is appropriate to reproduce the sound of a real instrument
As you say, the decay is extremely important. This is related to how well the electronics perform reproducing the medium and, in particular, to the "audible dynamic range": the sound of decay may be there -- but imperceptible due to noise, etc. Strangely, some systems sound pleasantly "fast" and crispy (both) when there is minimum sound of decay that is reproduced. OTOH systems I've heard with considerable rendition of decay are much more involving -- and "dynamic" in the audiophile sense: the "sudden clash" is VERY sudden.
D_edwards sez
...I claim that surround is better for digital
Actually, I like the effect of well executed surround sound. Also with an image attached to it:)! I have a 2-channel system, myself. I like the sound -- and I'd better like it: I can't afford multichannel, and the paucity available music is irksome -- although one can create a livable "surround" artefact even with two channel stuff... But as I said, I can in no way afford such a venture.
I think that as long as we all enjoy some music, there is little reason to pontificate one way or another. I even have friends who listen in mono!
Shadorne, I note your point on anechoic chambers. I have beeen in one once and it was wonderful, but the person I was with couldn't handle it for more than two minutes. My point was not that they are comfortable environments without appropriate references, simply that... in order for a M-Ch system which produces spatial cues to be perfectly accurate, room interactions still need to be dealt with. One way is extreme nearfield listening in a room with no delayed reflections. This goes with your point that room effects are a huge factor.
The thing which noone has mentioned, but which I find to be a crucial part of live music, and a fundamental difference between live music and music at home, is the listener's visual interaction with the performer and vice versa. Is the performer interacting with the audience, the stage space (wandering around a big stage or only inhabiting a small space, controlling it or not, comfortable or not, familiar or not), his/her own performance (smiling at his/her mistakes or frowning, improvising slightly or faithful to the music that everyone knows)?; do the band members grin like little kids when they really nail something well together? Do they joke with each other and the audience? Does the solo cellist hold on to a vibrato in a certain way precisely because he can, precisely because he knows it will thrill the particular audience he is playing for tonight? All of these are, for me, a sine qua non of live performance. Hell, not all live venues have as good sound as my living room, but I daresay watching Hiromi Uehara jump up and down on her piano stool as she's playing, or watching a great cellist subtly change the decay of the coda of a sonata from piano to pianissimo because the venue is small enough and well-enough-designed to handle it, or watching Bill Frisell play with reverb tools while in mid-song just because it'll have an effect he hasn't tried before - all these are the things which make for the most interesting live music. To those who have said that live music is their reference... I'd ask them to think about that. It's a wonderful ideal but I know of no stereo system which will improvise because the audience would welcome it, or where one will be visually surprised because the pianist stuck out her tongue to reach the high notes.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
