or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Sound system advice
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sound system advice - Page 3

post #31 of 46
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Quote: I'll put it this way. I am a musician studying at a very high level. We are THE audiophiles, except I don't get so hung up about speaker cones, canary wires, gold plated whatevers... bespoken: [I would disagree with that statement, being THE audiophiles. Musician's are not. That is to imply, that they have some inherently, highly trained aural acuity. I am a musician as well. I came to train what little acuity I have thru following years of reading TAS and buying and pursuing "better sound", being hung up with tube/transistor controversies, wires and the like. Hearing what a 100K system sounds like, appreciating it and knowing what a Sony system sounds like. (Generally bad in comparison to a larger rig.) I agree with not being hung up on cone material, wires, etc. If you are listening to mp3's and that is satisfactory?....my point above holds true. To each his own.] Quote: I have met and work with many prominent musicians, a lot of them have a simple Sony system that cost like $1500... Bespoken: [Your point?....it has been said that, being so close to the live musical experience, replicating the sound, is a major frustration, no matter how much one would spend. The dynamic swings, etc. is so lacking thru compressed sound. Many seem to reason, why bother. Just spend money to hear a noise...hence, $1500 Sony system. I have had the experience as well. But, there are musicians, music producers, jazz and classical folks, who feel high end audio is worth pursuing. Some have high dollar, complex systems. I guess, it shows they may have a higher appreciation for the sound??? Disposable income???] Quote: It's not how important music is to me, because it is my life, but the equipment that I listen to it with is not that important really. I'm just going to get one of those air zapper things that puts it through to my stereo that Im going to buy and listen to it that way. Bespoken: [Music is your life? Beautiful. If the equipment wasn't so important, why the asking of advice? I am not familiar with the air zapper thing. If that is your preference, that is fine, too. There are so many nuances missed, by just settling for...just to hear music. Subtle cues, that are missed on lesser systems. It seemed that from some of your earlier posts, you were more concerned with the computer being the medium of choice for music listening. You can certainly hear music, but the nuances, thru speakers that are built to a price point...and if music is really important to you, I fail to see how that would be satisfactory. That's just me.?] Quote: I listen to music all the time when I'm at home. By the way, I'm probably just going to get a little Bose stereo and plug in the B&O speakers. I'm sure it will sound just fine. Bespoken: [That'll work. Sure it'll work. It'll make a noise. Whether it is a joyful noise, is another matter.] Regards, bespoken2
Pff, honestly get a hold of yourself. Audiophiles often take it way too far. I can hear the difference between MP3 and my father's high end B&O system... but the whole crap about nuances is really a bunch of tripe. Listen to many of the old Heifitz or Menuhin recordings... the sound quality is crap. The nuances can be heard in the mastery of the players, of course the recording sound isn't ideal, but honestly I'm more interested in music than minute details. I have the ears to be an audiophile, and the money if that's what I chose to spend it on. What I don't have is the patience and large void in my life to fill by acquiring mounds of equipment... I spend that time on making music, not worshiping the things that play it.
post #32 of 46
it's not tripe. it's just something you don't want to pay attention to. two totally different things. just deal with the fact that you don't care about having the best quality of music reproduction. that's all bespoken2 is saying. audiophiles are by definition concerned with sound reproduction quality. what you have described yourself as being, is a music-lover. two totally different animals. hey i used 'totally' twice (no, three times) in this post. i am at the vanguard of valley-speak revival. /andrew
post #33 of 46
Thread Starter 
Quote:
it's not tripe. it's just something you don't want to pay attention to. two totally different things. just deal with the fact that you don't care about having the best quality of music reproduction. that's all bespoken2 is saying. audiophiles are by definition concerned with sound reproduction quality. what you have described yourself as being, is a music-lover. two totally different animals. hey i used 'totally' twice (no, three times) in this post. i am at the vanguard of valley-speak revival. /andrew
Yes, I will definately agree with that. I certainly think that a top of the line system would be awesome, and that I would definately hear the difference. However I do not have the time, nor do I wish to spend that kind of money on it. I'd prefer season subscriptions to the MSO and the Met and things like that, there's nothing like live music. I also despise the arrogance of many of those who call themselves audiophiles, so that often gets my blood pressure up. The main thing is that I find CDs lack the organizational ability of MP3s. I buy CDs then put them onto my computer. For classical music this isn't as true, as i always listen to the CDs, but for rock and other genres where there's far less complete works, I much prefer being able to customize play lists.
post #34 of 46
Lighten up, PHV. Get hold of myself...where? B&O is NOT high end. It is VERY good, for the looks and sound. If I were a dyed in wool audiophile (use to be) I would tear into you, like you wouldn't believe. I am not that anymore. I find it bothersome when musicians put on the "music is way more important than the means to play it. Music is my life. My colleagues don't think that gear is that important, blah, blah ad nauseum."  "Audiophiles, golden eared characters are arrogant, waste vasts sums of money on stupid equip, wires, while folks are starving, blah, blah." I feel the hairs on my neck go up.  Some folks don't get it. Nuances....nuances... try the hearing the difference between a Stad vs. an Amati (?) [Sorry, I have forgotten more audiophiledom musicspeak than I can recall at the moment] those aren't important? Bosendorfer vs Steinway? Strat vs. Les Paul or Gretsch vs. Sonor? Please, give me a break. A microphone being able to tell the differences of a recording venue, the composition of the venue is NOT important to a recorded performance? Think again. As an audiophile (fool? ) I have collected the likes of Heifetz, Fritz Reiner, Previn....RCA, Mercury, London, EMI, etc recordings from the late '50's-'80's. I have heard the "bad", tape hiss, variable recording techniques on recordings. The hearing mechanism can hear around that 'distortion' to the real beauty of the music/playing. If your system and ear are acute enough, the differences, yes, the nuances can be heard.  I can't speak of what type of gear you heard the recordings you mentioned on, but...if you didn't take the time to align the cartridge, arm, turntable, cables, use really transparent amp/preamp, speaker combination, in a 'dedicated' room, you will most likely NOT appreciate the music buried beneath the trek of the recording technology. 'The Nuances'.. The minute details is what differientiates the music, one player's technique from another, violin, cello, orchestra, cymbal, guitar, what have you from another make/model. Recording venue from another. Those are the details that MAKE music what it is.. Everyone has the capacity of being able to hear the nuances and assign an importance to them. You have to want to. Then teach yourself that they are important to your enjoyment and appreciation. It is NOT a prerequisite. I never questioned whether you have the resources to want to spend a mound of money. I never 'really' questioned whether you could hear the difference of an mp3 vs. some other medium. Basically, I can appreciate music coming thru a car radio, thru cheap speakers and groove to it. One could also argue that through the right gear, one can almost be transported back to the same event. For instance, i.e. my feeble attempts of recording band rehearsals on a minidisc recorder. It is not quite studio quality, but I can recall vividly the events that transpired, when it is played back, as oppose to listening to my trusty back up mico cassette recorder. (mono) I find it hard to believe that you would prefer, IF I understand your argument and premise, for the sake of the music you'd prefer the mono micro recorder to the minidisc.? (Using panasonic binaural in ear mics vs. the 'thing' mic in the recorder?) Be truthful, now. If I came across as being arrogant, that was NOT my intention. If you read that into my statements, I have no control of that. I was just trying to be helpful, in fact, trying not suggest pursuing the audiophile ideal. If you know thru research that one can get reasonable sound for alot less money than most audiophiles will admit to. was my focus. IN conclusion, whatever you do I hope it brings you the happiness that we all seek. Kind Regards, bespoken2
post #35 of 46
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Lighten up, PHV. Get hold of myself...where? B&O is NOT high end. It is VERY good, for the looks and sound. If I were a dyed in wool audiophile (use to be) I would tear into you, like you wouldn't believe. I am not that anymore. I find it bothersome when musicians put on the "music is way more important than the means to play it. Music is my life. My colleagues don't think that gear is that important, blah, blah ad nauseum."  "Audiophiles, golden eared characters are arrogant, waste vasts sums of money on stupid equip, wires, while folks are starving, blah, blah." I feel the hairs on my neck go up.  Some folks don't get it. Nuances....nuances... try the hearing the difference between a Stad vs. an Amati (?) [Sorry, I have forgotten more audiophiledom musicspeak than I can recall at the moment] those aren't important? Bosendorfer vs Steinway? Strat vs. Les Paul or Gretsch vs. Sonor? Please, give me a break. A microphone being able to tell the differences of a recording venue, the composition of the venue is NOT important to a recorded performance? Think again. As an audiophile (fool? ) I have collected the likes of Heifetz, Fritz Reiner, Previn....RCA, Mercury, London, EMI, etc recordings from the late '50's-'80's. I have heard the "bad", tape hiss, variable recording techniques on recordings. The hearing mechanism can hear around that 'distortion' to the real beauty of the music/playing. If your system and ear are acute enough, the differences, yes, the nuances can be heard.  I can't speak of what type of gear you heard the recordings you mentioned on, but...if you didn't take the time to align the cartridge, arm, turntable, cables, use really transparent amp/preamp, speaker combination, in a 'dedicated' room, you will most likely NOT appreciate the music buried beneath the trek of the recording technology. 'The Nuances'.. The minute details is what differientiates the music, one player's technique from another, violin, cello, orchestra, cymbal, guitar, what have you from another make/model. Recording venue from another. Those are the details that MAKE music what it is.. Everyone has the capacity of being able to hear the nuances and assign an importance to them. You have to want to. Then teach yourself that they are important to your enjoyment and appreciation. It is NOT a prerequisite. I never questioned whether you have the resources to want to spend a mound of money. I never 'really' questioned whether you could hear the difference of an mp3 vs. some other medium. Basically, I can appreciate music coming thru a car radio, thru cheap speakers and groove to it. One could also argue that through the right gear, one can almost be transported back to the same event. For instance, i.e. my feeble attempts of recording band rehearsals on a minidisc recorder. It is not quite studio quality, but I can recall vividly the events that transpired, when it is played back, as oppose to listening to my trusty back up mico cassette recorder. (mono) I find it hard to believe that you would prefer, IF I understand your argument and premise, for the sake of the music you'd prefer the mono micro recorder to the minidisc.? (Using panasonic binaural in ear mics vs. the 'thing' mic in the recorder?) Be truthful, now. If I came across as being arrogant, that was NOT my intention. If you read that into my statements, I have no control of that. I was just trying to be helpful, in fact, trying not suggest pursuing the audiophile ideal. If you know thru research that one can get reasonable sound for alot less money than most audiophiles will admit to. was my focus. IN conclusion, whatever you do I hope it brings you the happiness that we all seek. Kind Regards, bespoken2
Like I said, I'm sure that I'd love having a top end system. I simply do not have the time nor the patience to deal with it. I do not get along well with technology. I do not like struggling with machines, and I do not have the understanding to meddle with them successfully. What I do know is that I can "settle" for a B&O or a Linn and not feel as if my world is crashing down because I cannot make out someone's chronic flatulence in the back row of the woodwind section during Fliedermaus. Let's start again, maybe I can learn something from an audiophile. I have a "dedicated" room. It is where I will be listening to my music. It is about 250-300 sq ft, sharp angles, well insulated (sound proofed from other apartments), and is carpeted. I listen to Classical (mostly late classical, and the bulk of the music is of the romantic period, both opera, instrumental - mainly violin, and of course symphonic), Rock, some Hip Hop. Like I said, I like MP3s for their organizational traits. While CDs lend themselves to superior quality, sometimes I only want to hear one track off of a CD, and changing them out or going to another CD is not part of my listening pleasure. Another note: I despise wires. Are there wireless speaker options? Ie. Subwoofer, receiver and front speakers facing my sofa or "listening area", with two rear speakers behind me? I'd loathe having to have wires run across or under my beautiful persian rug...
post #36 of 46
PHV's posts have all been about convenience. Except for that one slip-up where he may have misused the term 'audiophile', he has never claimed to care about sound quality all that much. Ya'll are putting words into his mouth. PHV: for the best organization, you really can't beat a computer. Minidiscs or stand-alone CD recorders could make playlists for you, but it'd be more cumbersome than just clicking on a file and immediately hearing it. If that's the way you want to go, then just buy a $100 stereo and speaker set from walmart and hook it up to the line-outs on the back of your computer. Sound quality doesn't mean all that much when you're listening to mp3's, and it doesn't sound like you care too much about it anyways. Now for my pigheadedness and unwanted advice: With a room that big, don't get anything w/more than two channels (anything more than stereo is overkill for a music system, anyways). There ARE wireless speakers, but they suck (unless done yourself w/wireless transmiters and dedicated amps, in which case they're actually better, but that's a whole nother rant). Run the wires on the bottom of the walls instead of under the rug. With only two speakers it shouldn't be that much of a problem. You don't need a subwoofer for music.
post #37 of 46
Bespoken, I believe the largest part of making good music is being able to aspire towards a particular type of sound and then being able to achieve it. Often enough I hear from other people that they are dissatisfied with the production values of albums that are purposefully recorded on certain lower fidelity equipment, and that raises the hairs on my neck. I am having trouble seeing what you are advocating - are you claiming that music should be recorded pristinely in every case so that the end product is a sound that is identical to how the instrument sounds acoustically? Or are you pointing out the fact that paying attention to every nuance of the sound is necessary to enable one to make the sound that they wish to create? Or you can just give me a write-in. I am curious. I go with the latter.
post #38 of 46
guys the whole 'audiophile' thing is really a religious issue, like PC vs. Mac, or tubes vs. transistors. so it's good to step back and not take things personally (including myself here), especially since this is not an audio forum. there are a couple approaches audiophiles take, that i am aware of. one approach focuses on 'enjoying the music'. to make a sweeping generalization, this approach tends to ignore equipment transparency in favor of 'musicality', which usually translates into equipment that adds some minor bit of harmonic distortion - tube amps are good at this. (in fact tube amps inevitably have higher distortion than transistors are able to produce.) the other camp focuses on accuracy and faithfulness of the reproduced sound to the intent of the recording. i.e. no distortion or noise...allow the recording to be what it is, warts and all. the tube amp crowd tends to denigrate the 'transistor' sound as being too harsh. the issue of the actual *recording* of the music is almost a different one. some recordings stand up to close listening better than others. everyone has their own criteria for what makes a good recording, but like any field that is allegedly subjective, there are some standards that are more or less accepted by which to judge the quality of a recording. (and when i say recording, i mean the source material you play in your listening room - an LP, CD, tape, digital file, whatever.) some of these standards include dynamics vs. compression and depth of sound stage. there are many others but that's all i can think of right now. a compressed recording is one that has a narrow dynamic range. many, many contemporary pop recordings are compressed in this way. the market sortof demands it - the noise floor of most listening venues (especially the car) is just too high to warrant a wide dynamic range. this doesn't mean the music is not enjoyable - just that it might not stand up to close listening. the integrity of the original voices and instruments has been too compromised by the process of compression. however, the only way one can have a reasonable confidence when judging source material is to make sure one's listening equipment is not the weak link. this is actually not that hard to do, as much of the equipment used in many recording studios is not 'ideal'. it really depends on what kind of music one tends to listen to, and what labels one tends to buy. the better the quality of recording, the better your equipment needs to be to fully reproduce the sound contained within. now having said all this, it is my belief that the best system for a given space and listener is not necessarily the most expensive. this is especially true for the DIY'er, but it also applies to those willing to do a little research on the components one is purchasing. do not listen to marketing hype...the HIFI industry is the *worst* for this. (and as an aside, Bose is one of the more egregious offenders, as much as it pains me to badmouth an MIT guy.) snake oil products are rampant and the cause of many heated debates in the audiophile community. and where you reach the upper stratosphere in terms of cost, while you may get some increase in quality as the price goes up, it's definitely a case of diminishing returns. ... here's a suggestion for your speaker cable solution. for each speaker use one pair of wires taken from a cat5 cable. the wires are so small, they could be easily concealed under a rug or behind a baseboard. if you have the opportunity you could even tape and mud them into the drywall, and paint over them. ....you don't need any connectors on the ends, as long as you have some way of tightening them down at the speaker and equipment ends. hope this helps... /andrew
post #39 of 46
Thread Starter 
Quote:
guys the whole 'audiophile' thing is really a religious issue, like PC vs. Mac, or tubes vs. transistors. so it's good to step back and not take things personally (including myself here), especially since this is not an audio forum. there are a couple approaches audiophiles take, that i am aware of. one approach focuses on 'enjoying the music'. to make a sweeping generalization, this approach tends to ignore equipment transparency in favor of 'musicality', which usually translates into equipment that adds some minor bit of harmonic distortion - tube amps are good at this. (in fact tube amps inevitably have higher distortion than transistors are able to produce.) the other camp focuses on accuracy and faithfulness of the reproduced sound to the intent of the recording. i.e. no distortion or noise...allow the recording to be what it is, warts and all. the tube amp crowd tends to denigrate the 'transistor' sound as being too harsh. the issue of the actual *recording* of the music is almost a different one. some recordings stand up to close listening better than others. everyone has their own criteria for what makes a good recording, but like any field that is allegedly subjective, there are some standards that are more or less accepted by which to judge the quality of a recording. (and when i say recording, i mean the source material you play in your listening room - an LP, CD, tape, digital file, whatever.) some of these standards include dynamics vs. compression and depth of sound stage. there are many others but that's all i can think of right now. a compressed recording is one that has a narrow dynamic range. many, many contemporary pop recordings are compressed in this way. the market sortof demands it - the noise floor of most listening venues (especially the car) is just too high to warrant a wide dynamic range. this doesn't mean the music is not enjoyable - just that it might not stand up to close listening. the integrity of the original voices and instruments has been too compromised by the process of compression. however, the only way one can have a reasonable confidence when judging source material is to make sure one's listening equipment is not the weak link. this is actually not that hard to do, as much of the equipment used in many recording studios is not 'ideal'. it really depends on what kind of music one tends to listen to, and what labels one tends to buy. the better the quality of recording, the better your equipment needs to be to fully reproduce the sound contained within. now having said all this, it is my belief that the best system for a given space and listener is not necessarily the most expensive. this is especially true for the DIY'er, but it also applies to those willing to do a little research on the components one is purchasing. do not listen to marketing hype...the HIFI industry is the *worst* for this. (and as an aside, Bose is one of the more egregious offenders, as much as it pains me to badmouth an MIT guy.) snake oil products are rampant and the cause of many heated debates in the audiophile community. and where you reach the upper stratosphere in terms of cost, while you may get some increase in quality as the price goes up, it's definitely a case of diminishing returns. ... here's a suggestion for your speaker cable solution. for each speaker use one pair of wires taken from a cat5 cable. the wires are so small, they could be easily concealed under a rug or behind a baseboard. if you have the opportunity you could even tape and mud them into the drywall, and paint over them. ....you don't need any connectors on the ends, as long as you have some way of tightening them down at the speaker and equipment ends. hope this helps... /andrew
Just a little note, I am quite picky with my musical equipment (instruments). There's hardly a guitarist I've ever met that will even consider playing with a transister amplifier... the concensus is basically that Tubes are the way to go. I agree.
post #40 of 46
Quote:
Just a little note, I am quite picky with my musical equipment (instruments). There's hardly a guitarist I've ever met that will even consider playing with a transister amplifier... the concensus is basically that Tubes are the way to go. I agree.
Well (since you hijacked your own thread) that's simply not the case.
Quote:
however, the only way one can have a reasonable confidence when judging source material is to make sure one's listening equipment is not the weak link. this is actually not that hard to do
I agree. The mastering process should actually make it even easier, as the masterer is assuming listeners will be listening to the recording on anything from headphones to a 10,000 watt system in a bar. That's why the mastering process is so important, maybe even more so than mixing.
Quote:
the integrity of the original voices and instruments has been too compromised by the process of compression.
Once again, spot on. It's so refreshing to listen to a record and actually see your level indicators move up and down instead of peak and remain peaked for the whole damn song. Especially after listening to the radio, which squashes things like bugs and makes about as big of a mess.
post #41 of 46
Quote:
Quote:
Just a little note, I am quite picky with my musical equipment (instruments). There's hardly a guitarist I've ever met that will even consider playing with a transister amplifier... the concensus is basically that Tubes are the way to go. I agree.
... that's simply not the case. ....
i'm guessing he was referring to the use of tube guitar amps, not hi-fi amps. my limited contact with guitar players tells me he might be right - most electric guitar amps i've seen are tube-driven. i don't know if this is true for 'acoustic' guitars as well. but i'm entirely unsure about this issue. my ignorance notwithstanding, tube guitar amps are definitely used for the way they affect the sound. it's a different philosophy when you're using an amp for music production, from when you're using one for music REproduction. /andrew
post #42 of 46
Quote:
Quote:
(ken @ 22 Oct. 2004, 9:15) Quote Just a little note, I am quite picky with my musical equipment (instruments). There's hardly a guitarist I've ever met that will even consider playing with a transister amplifier... the concensus is basically that Tubes are the way to go. I agree.
... that's simply not the case. ....
i'm guessing he was referring to the use of tube guitar amps, not hi-fi amps. my limited contact with guitar players tells me he might be right - most electric guitar amps i've seen are tube-driven. i don't know if this is true for 'acoustic' guitars as well. but i'm entirely unsure about this issue. my ignorance notwithstanding, tube guitar amps are definitely used for the way they affect the sound. it's a different philosophy when you're using an amp for music production, from when you're using one for music REproduction. /andrew[/quote] I know that's what he was talking about. But go ahead and tell dimebag darrell or even stevie ray vaughn that he's got to use tube amps exclusively. They'll both probably spit beer in your face. "Tubes are best" is just another one of those dogmatic guitar sayings that make lay people sound like they know what they're talking about. It's kind of like the old "analog is best" saying that you don't hear too much anymore because of 24-bit processing and cheapness of digital gear. Let your ears decide. P.S. No matter what the cost, analog is still best.
post #43 of 46
Thread Starter 
Ken, when it comes to guitar equipment, I am no lay person. The basis of SRV's sound came from pre-CMI Fender amps, a Dumble, and a Marshall Guv 'nor. Those are all tube amps. In his effects loop he had a tube screamer, which is solid state distortion, which just about everyone uses. But, there are very few top guitarists who use solid state amps. Personally, I find Dimebag's playing as well as tone revolting, so I really can't comment on him. BB King is one of the only others I know who uses solid state for his amplifier... just about everyone else is using tubes. Hell, even The Edge who heavily uses sound modulation uses tube amps... yes... those are Vox AC-30s my friend.
post #44 of 46
Trying to say SRV has a basis for his tone is like saying bush or kerry have bases for their agendas. The only footage I've seen of him show him using tiny, newer fender combos or even PA heads. I don't like dimebag darrell, but his tone is instantly recognizable. It's actually surprising, because he's a pretentious rocker, and most pretentious rockers use tube amps. I guess maybe your definition of 'top' and my defintion of 'pretentious' intermingle a little.
post #45 of 46
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Trying to say SRV has a basis for his tone is like saying bush or kerry have bases for their agendas. The only footage I've seen of him show him using tiny, newer fender combos or even PA heads. I don't like dimebag darrell, but his tone is instantly recognizable. It's actually surprising, because he's a pretentious rocker, and most pretentious rockers use tube amps. I guess maybe your definition of 'top' and my defintion of 'pretentious' intermingle a little.
Uhhh.... I don't know what SRV footage you saw, but he was quite known for using Marshalls and his famous ODS Dumble... And yes, guitarists do have a basis for their tone. For Slash his signature tone comes from his Les Pauls through Silver Jubilee Marshalls... for Brian May it's his Red Special through the Vox AC30... those things provide the basis for their signature sound. "PA heads"? What's a PA head? How is Dimebag pretensious? Radiohead is pretensious... Dimebag is just a metal player...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Sound system advice